Monthly Archives: March 2011

The wave function of this event has yet to collapse. When it does, however, Libya will be a footnote to what it becomes. It’s not meant to be understood in terms of “bourgeois principles.” And that includes the theories of … Continue reading →

With the news that Obama signed an intelligence finding to support the rebels in Libya weeks ago, two pretty serious questions emerge: 1. Did intelligence on the rebels already reveal their Islamist elements? Or if, as Hillary Clinton tried to … Continue reading →

Someone made this comment over at McQ’s place: “He’s just a lying demagogue and he doesn’t care who knows it.” I thought that he was talking about Obama (he was actually talking about another lying demagogue), and I went on … Continue reading →

This editorial turns on the notion that now that we’ve disturbed Qaddafi we must see things through until his ouster (and perhaps beyond!), lest he come at us in revenge. (If that’s not good enough, the editorial seems to say, … Continue reading →

The obvious problem with Samantha Power’s theory that the U.S. should act to prevent genocides, which now, apparently, includes culminating battles in civil wars, is that U.S. military power, as great as it is, is a scarce commodity. It is not the … Continue reading →

Goldberg neglected to mention that Obama’s entire campaign for the presidency was a “help is on the way” shout out to the car bombers in Iraq. Obama could care less about Libyans, Iraqis, or Congolese. That goes for Hillary too. Look … Continue reading →

“Two years later, what is striking is how much Obama’s policies have come to reflect Bush’s…” His own ideas were too immediately inconvenient, politically, but you have to see the difference between moving forward from Bush’s policies (problematic as they … Continue reading →

Major mistake to think that Obama is “evolving” in any direction other than the direction dictated by his ideology. What you’re really seeing is that he has no principles recognizable in terms of “bourgeois ideology.” He will embrace or not … Continue reading →

…on Stanley Kurtz’s eye-opening comment on Obama’s Libya speech last night: “Trust Rush [Limbaugh]: the purpose of Dawn Odyssey is to protect European oil interests.” That’s an effect, not the purpose. An effect that was perhaps implicit leverage in the … Continue reading →

New American foreign policy, announced tonight by POTUS: We’ll do everything we can, if convenient, when there’s a threat that the “world’s conscience” will be “stained.” We’ll do it for just so long, with our wonderful allies, if they are … Continue reading →

The “get Qaddafi” meme in this Libya affair has never made sense, to me at least. When he was seriously active in terrorism back in the 1970s and 80s, Qaddafi was a Soviet client. If the Soviets did not outsource … Continue reading →

I’ve been commenting, elsewhere. My apologies for neglecting NPJ. But sometimes a change of venue can help me get going. So here’s a “mega-post” that compiles things said in other places… From the very beginning this has been a bad … Continue reading →