International, Politics, Society

Obama Aide: “We Don’t Make Decisions . . . Based on Consistency or Precedent”

For those of us who are incredulous at the changing rationales for our intervention in the Libyan civil war, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough has come to the rescue. He told reporters that “we don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region.” Thus, inconsistency is the consistent policy that we are trying to advance?

The White House has sent out legions of allies to defend his decision to intervene in a civil war. We were originally told that we simply wanted to maintain a no-fly zone. We are now actively assisting the rebels in their campaign and taking out government forces. What is most striking are the liberals who are defending the President and acknowledging that the distinction between Libya and Syria is probably oil (which we refer obliquely to as “our interests”). The key is that we no longer offer a pretense of principle or consistency. We appear now to simply be saying that we are the United States and can intervene whenever it suits our purposes.

Source: USA Today

506 thoughts on “Obama Aide: “We Don’t Make Decisions . . . Based on Consistency or Precedent””

  1. Buddha,

    ‘A’ is more important than ‘B’ which is why I’m not responding to Bob anymore.

    As for ‘C’, it is my fervent belief that no human being should eat rhubarb (I’m not evangelical about it, but I am devout in regards to myself) and in the service of that belief I cannot answer the question on religious grounds…

    For ‘D’ I suggest using Hamiltonian Dynamics, but the numerical answer I leave as an exercise for you…

    The #2 pencil I told this to did not react in any apparent way.

  3. I’ve got a question.
    It’s multiple choice.
    Only one answer is correct.
    There is a time limit, but I’m not telling anyone what it is, what units of measurement are appropriate, or when it started.
    Please respond with or to a #2 pencil.

    Question: Which is more important?

    A) That both major political parties are skull humping the Constitution?

    B) Personality conflicts between people ostensibly on the same side of the importance of fixing the manifest corruption and consequent malfunctions of the Federal government?

    C) That if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does?

    D) The angular momentum problem as it applies to the Sheen Method of Sleeping with Multiple “Goddesses” whilst drinking unpasteurized tiger blood?

  4. Blouise you may want to wait a bit until the sun comes back out. We have been inundated with heavy heavy rains the last two days. 🙂

  5. Once again Mike you’ve distorted the facts to suit your outrageous conduct.

    Let’s review:

    Mike; You are being disingenuous when you say you didn’t cast the first stone and as I’ve said it was gratuitously done.

    The fact that Slarti came in six guns a blazing because of a comment I made to Buddha about him does not mean I attacked him; period. Further, how do I attack a man by restating the gist of his argument?

    Mike: I would have been more a part of the discussion had I not, as I’ve twice explained had computer problems.

    Again you mis-characterize my comment. I meant that the conversation that night was a comfortable and civil one with Buddha, Blouise and others. To say that I would attack Slarti, so as to incite and welcome one of his rabid dog like rants and disrupt a pleasant evening conversation is preposterous.

    Mike: As to my motivation and attacks on you”

    As to the question, “did I attack you?” the answer would be no.

    In lieu of tempering one’s self in an argument, you apparently take pride in your personal attacks; attempting to justify them here.

    Mike: “I was merely responding in kind to your attack and to your characterization of Kevin’s morality.”

    And AGAIN you base your argument on an intentional misrepresentation of my position. My arguments are restricted to Kevin’s position with regards to Obama and the methods by which he takes that position. By resorting to special pleading and appeal to consequences, Kevin systematically attempts to excuse Obama from the rule of law. His position is categorically indefensible; for if the entire legal system adopted Kevin’s position there would no longer be a legal system. In fact, morally speaking, I’ve compared Slarti’s position to Scalia’s position in Bush v. Gore (specifically the concurring opinion on the issuance of the stay).

    While I probably wouldn’t say the same of Scalia, simply because Kevin has proposed an immoral argument, it does not follow that Kevin is an immoral person per se. Truth be known, I consider Kevin to fall into the ‘nothing is good save the will itself’ category–in regards to his over-active optimism. Regardless, only a simpleton like you would jump the gun like you did.

    Mike: “How dare you!”

    How dare I what? I didn’t judge Kevin for anything more than the argument. How dare you, you self righteous-pompous ass- ‘logic whiz’, assume otherwise and then project it on me and attack me for it.

    Mike: “My judgment of Kevin from his writing is that he also has worked morally and with integrity. It is so smug of you to imply otherwise, based on your lack of understanding of the nuances of his thought.”

    There you go again; letting your ever so active imagination get the best of you.

    And if I enjoy attacking for its own sake, why have I held back in attacking you back? Why aren’t I attacking your character like you’re attacking mine? Like I said before, you should ask yourself what happened to your objectivity.

    And once again, instead of addressing any of the arguments at the root of this ‘discussion’ looks like you ‘fed your ego’ by attempting to justify your outrageous behavior.

    Take a breath and get a grip.

  7. ‘You and Slarti are the only ones making personal attacks here; unsolicited at that.

    Was Blouise lying when she said”

    Bob,

    Integrity and morality are not about playing to any audience, but doing what is right given ones’ own lights.
    You are being disingenuous when you say you didn’t cast the first stone and as I’ve said it was gratuitously done. I would have been more a part of the discussion had I not, as I’ve twice explained had computer problems. You might also note that in the original thread on the Libya attack I was one of the first to write condemning it, which I still do.

    As to my motivation and attacks on you I was merely responding in kind to your attack and to your characterization of Kevin’s morality. How dare you! I responded not because of your position on Libya, but your mischaracterization of some you presume disagree with your point of view. I’ve written extensively enough for me to not only decry this Administration, but to explain in detail why I still will probably vote for Obama next year. Unfortunately, you only seem to take in that which agrees with your pre-judgments and in that respect you assume that those who disagree with you are somehow flawed morally and ethically. How dare you I state again.

    I know nothing of your career except that you are a lawyer. You may well have drenched yourself in pro-bono work for good causes. You may in fact be a perfectly fine individual, with a superb moral history. Guess what Bob, I’ll see your whole career and raise with mine, when it comes to acting with integrity and morality. That’s because I know how much of my life I’ve dedicated to doing the right thing, often careerwise to my disadvantage.

    My judgment of Kevin from his writing is that he also has worked morally and with integrity. It is so smug of you to imply otherwise, based on your lack of understanding of the nuances of his thought. As was
    explained by Gyges my position on Obama has been clearly stated on many occasions here, but I also showed understanding of those who feel differently. You not much.

    In the end when you ask why I commented my explanations
    were made. If you are implying though that this is a residue of past arguments between us, dont go there. That
    argument began with you attacking me out of the blue and
    only ended when cej called me at home and pleaded with me
    to desist. You did then, what you accuse me of now, the
    difference is I responded now out of what I see as your
    enjoyment of attack for its own sake and because you keep
    playing this pointless game in pursuit of your ego.

    Now, I quit. Typing without the full keyboard is hard and in your case is a waste.

  8. Bdaman
    1, March 31, 2011 at 9:55 am
    bdaman. Guess they like her because she didn’t win or maybe because of her war. lol

    LOL x 2 Swathmore Mom, dats a good one and your probably right.
    What was the joke? If Obama needed balls he could barrow them from Hillary 🙂 Ya’ll are right about the women in this country and year after year ya’ll are gaining more control. Just look at the three who are reported as pushing Obama towards the Libiyan conflict. Hill, Samantha Powers, who happens to be married to Cass Sunstein and Susan Rice. A woman president for 2012 ? Ya’ll already got us going into war. Before you know it ya’ll will want to be on the front lines. 🙂

    =======================================================

    Your next … we’re comin’ to get ya, buddy.

    Nothin’ scarier than a pissed-off woman holding a gun … nothin’ scarier than a pissed-off woman, period

  9. Mike,

    You and Slarti are the only ones making personal attacks here; unsolicited at that.

    Was Blouise lying when she said:

    Blouise: “I took your initial words to Buddha about Slarti in the way that you described them above (March 30, 2011 at 4:48 pm) and hoped you would intuit my support for you on that matter when I quipped about frogs to Mike S.”

    Because unlike you Mike, she was part of the conversation.

    So why did you chime in and attack me Mike? Did I attack you? Why is it that you feel compelled to ignore all the arguments on the table and simply put forth derogatory claims, sans reasons, about me instead? I mean, hypothetically speaking, if you observed someone else do what you did, wouldn’t you question his objectivity; in that he appeared to be overreacting to comments having nothing to do with him? And if this person made psychological pronouncements while lashing out, would you say that he was falsely presupposing his own objectivity in his alleged analysis? Or might that get in the way of a quick retreat to special pleading?

    Just curious.

  10. “Oh look, it’s Mike obsessing over how much of a devious bastard I am.

    And according to claims, unsupported by reasons, made by Scalarti and Mike, I’m the most vile human being here.”

    So typically Bob. Attack someone gratuitously and when answered cry harm and play to the crowd hyperbolicly. Your ego needs it so
    I quit. :=)

  14. Bob,

    I don’t have to guess. My beloved Royals. I can’t wait to see how their owner, David “Wal-Mart” Glass, will screw it up for them.

  15. Hey Buddha,

    Guess what team had the best record in spring training this year.

  17. Oh look, it’s Mike obsessing over how much of a devious bastard I am.

    And according to claims, unsupported by reasons, made by Scalarti and Mike, I’m the most vile human being here.

    Whatever.

  19. Bob,

    I have multiples for her.

    I awaiting a response as to which one she wants me to send.

  20. Choosing to vote for someone who openly violates the Constitution will do precisely this: Encourage the next President of any party to do exactly more of the same.

    And Congress? Letting such violations occur without repercussion is having an effect there as well. The TeaPublicans have included language in the Government Shutdown Prevention Act coming up for a vote this Friday that allows that “House of Representatives can declare something to be the ‘law of the land’ without any input or action from either the Senate or President Obama.” (A href=”http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/house-republicans-constit_b_842838.html”>House Republicans’ Constitutional Ignorance) However, this fraying of the Constitution can be traced directly to Congressional incompetence in taking impeachment off the table for Bush’s manifest crimes and Obama’s subsequent neutering of the DOJ on the matter of criminal investigations into Bush compounded by his own illegalities.

    However, the choices are indeed dumb and dumber, unconstitutional and unconstitutional-er.

    The choices are vote along party lines for party that is openly violating the Constitution or vote along party lines for party that is openly violating the Constitution but just not in a way that’s as manifestly offensive. Or there is a third option of keeping the blood of the Constitution off your hands by abstention.

    Moral high ground?

    If you choose to vote the lesser of two evils, that is your choice and your reasons are not unreasonable, however, might I suggest you get off your high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

    A choice to vote for him isn’t a sterling ethical option either.

Comments are closed.