I find I enjoy sparring with Outside The Beltway’s Doug Mataconis. I don’t often agree with him — he’s an Establishment GOP type who calls himself a libertarian — but I do respect him and occasionally agree.
His commenters, though… there’s a strong strain of the crazy hard left there. They flock to him because he tends to kick around the traditional conservatives. But boy do they turn on him when he doesn’t toe their line.
Now, this is Lefty Legal Logic: the war in Iraq was illegal, while the UnWar in Libya was legal.
The Iraq War was a continuation of the first Gulf War, after Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of surrender. President Bush enlisted an international coalition and obtained a new Congressional authorization for the war before he attacked, and that declaration listed over a dozen grounds.
On the other hand, President Obama committed the US military to attacking K-Daffy’s forces without consulting or notifying Congress, didn’t report until well after the commencement of hostilities, and never asked for Congress to explicitly authorize the military campaign. Instead, Obama said it wasn’t a “war” or any kind of combat, but merely a “kinetic military action” and the War Powers Resolution that Senator Obama had so strongly championed simply didn’t apply because… well, he said so.
And his supporters say that it doesn’t apply because no US servicemen were killed, wounded or captured; we were “assisting” NATO (which means “letting them say they’re in charge while we do most of the work”), Congress kinda sorta did give its approval because it didn’t say no, K-Daffy was a really, really bad man, and Bush was a really stupid, bad doodyhead. (In their defense, though, they use that argument for everything. It seems that it applies everywhere.)
Oh, and Obama’s black, while Bush is white. Which means that pointing all this out is racist.
That’s the argument, it seems, for how the UnWar in Libya was good, while Iraq was bad.
Yeah, I got a headache, too.