Tuesday, March 22, 2011

When the President Has a (D) Next to His Name - Bombs Away!

The New York Times editorial page has chimed in on the Libyan War. They support it, but are having a difficult time distinguishing it from the Iraq War (they never mention Iraq, but it hangs over the piece). Clearly, they've yet to figure out a way to differentiate the two. Here is their closing paragraph:
There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly — not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world. 
That argument could be applied to the Iraq War, couldn't it?

I'm still waiting for a supporter of the Libyan War to explain his continuing opposition to Iraq. I have yet to find an adequate way of differentiating the two - aside from the political party of the president in office at the start of each conflict. After all these years, is opposition to the Iraq War grounded in partisan politics?

No comments:

Post a Comment