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””

  5. Tootie,

    I’m just saying that at first blush it seems that your “I get to judge who I want” and “Judge not lest ye be judged” are contradictions. Especially since the original Greek is much more closely translated as “Condemn not, or you shall be condemned.” Of course, if we follow your logic, we might be forced to ask, at what point are you so flawless that you can begin to address others’ flaws?

    Which seems to be the point of this little fable, “But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

    But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.”

    Look at that, it’s even about judging somebody who committed some sexual sin. Seems mildly relevant in the context of condemning homosexuality doesn’t it?

    We can also go to the Epistles:

    “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”

    “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”

    I guess the nice part about having a holy text full of contradictions is that you get to pick a side depending on your mood.

  8. So now I’m bigoted because I’m bigoted against bigots. Hmmmm. Most people of conscience wouldn’t consider that a flaw, you homophobic racist.

    Oh, I understand bigotry plenty, bigot. And hypocrisy. And small mindedness. And zealotry. And hatred. I’ve seen it here lots of times.

    Its name is Tootie.

    So again, sell your bullshit to someone who hasn’t be subjected to your hateful nonsense for years now, honey.

    Every regular here knows your stripes and the vast majority of them think you suck as a person.

  9. GYGES:

    You said you were just sayin’. Sayin’ what?

    The verses you posted do NOT forbid judging. They forbid hypocritical judging.

    Look:

    “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”

    That says says if you don’t want to be judged, don’t judge. I am open to being judged. I welcome it. So I judge. If I don’t judge my neighbor (who might be a bank robber) and have close knit ties with him, you can be sure I’m going to be judged very poorly by the local police and likely to wind up in jail.

    Then you posted:

    “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

    It is not saying not to notice the beam in the brother’s eye, it is saying notice your own first.

    Again, you repeat the same concept with the next quote

    “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

    The teaching is about hypocrisy, not about judging. Judging is essential. Hypocrisy evil.

    The idea that these verses teach against making judgments is the result of liberal theologians who, not only do not understand the word of God, but do not believe it.

    The Lord Jesus Christ said “Judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). And Christ said to a fellow: “Thou hast rightly judged” (Luke 7:43). The reminds us that: “Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?” (Luke 12:57).

    The Apostle Paul said: “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say” (1 Corinthians 10:15). And: “He that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Corinthians 2:15).

    Liberal theologians have corrupted the meaning of the text and led generations of Christians astray.

  10. Buddha:

    You wrote:

    “There’s a huge difference with disagreeing with homosexuality and being a proponent of discrimination based on sexual orientation…”

    Tootie says:

    Everyone (includes you) discriminates. Older men are not allowed to marry three year olds and we make laws about that. Blind people are not allowed to get airline pilot licenses and we have laws for that too. Your quarrel, then, is not with discrimination, but where to draw the line. So you pretense that I’m evil to discriminate and you do not is absurd.

    Buddha said:

    “Like that time you were overjoyed when a little girl was discriminated against because her parents – not her – were homosexuals.”

    Tootie says:

    You would have discriminated against the Christians right right to associate with whom they choose. Of course in your mind YOUR discrimination is permitted and mine is not. In your view the child has the right to associate with whom she is able, but the Christians have no such right. That is irrational.

    And I wasn’t “overjoyed” that a child was discriminated against. You just choose to mis-characterize my feeling or lie about them in order to nurture your own prejudices against me. I was grateful that the Constitution was upheld and that the freedom of association preserved. The child was not any more injured than a child who could not attend (for whatever reason) the private school Obama’s children attend. Children are denied access to all sorts of schools for all sorts of reasons and just because one reason is something you do not like does not make it any worse for the child.

    Buhhha said:

    “If you disagree with homosexuality, don’t be a homosexual.”

    Tootie says:

    I disagree with theft and so won’t be a thief either. But we still discriminate against against those who commit crimes by putting them in jail. I think I have just been discriminated against from posting videos at this blog. So be it. But everyone discriminates. And NO I am not saying we should throw homosexuals in jail. What I am saying is that even though we might not approve of a certain conduct and refuse to participate in it, there are still ramifications that may occur which people want to occur.

    And I reserve the right to say that homosexuality is immoral. Just as I reserve the right to say that heterosexual promiscuity and adultery are. And whatever the law or social customs will bear against any of these matters are the legitimate purview and interest of a self-governing and free people and civilization. And by free I don’t mean anything goes. I mean a freedom that includes curbing our passions. I have believed (long before homosexuality ever became a big issue) that the change in the divorce laws in the 1970s destabilized our whole civilization. And I openly disapproved of those changes. And my criticism has nothing to do with bigotry or hatred. It has to do with what I believe is better for children when their parents have strong motivation (i.e. penalties) to stay together. Crime, dropping out, drugs use, and promiscuity have became rampant as a result of the weakened family. So I am being consistent regarding these issues. You prefer to get hysterical and act like I’m being phobic and particularly hostile to the homosexual. This merely allows you license to be vicious while it ignores the truth.

    Buddha says:

    “But being for discrimination against those who are does in indeed make you a bigot, Tootles.

    bigot \ˈbi-gət\, n.,

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance ”

    Tootie says:

    You are obstinately and I would say rabidly and militantly devoted to your viewpoint that I am a bad person because I disapprove of homosexuality. Apparently, only you are permitted to oppose something and not be a bigot. I on the other hand, am considered evil for having the same level (and I would say a lower level) of intensity which you have for homosexuality. You are utterly intolerant of me because I oppose homosexuality and have been exceedingly abusive because of it and by your own standard of what hate is, you have been exceedingly hateful.

    And thus you are everything you claim I am. And it should have been obvious that you were when you read, copied, and posted the definition of bigotry. Especially since you consider yourself intellectually superior to me. If you were you would have recognized yourself in the description you posted.

    Who is the bigot?

    Me because I, without malice, oppose homosexuality? Or you, with malice and hatred attack me for it?

    You see Buhhdha, you simply don’t understand what bigotry is. And you clearly don’t understand how to discern if discrimination is good or bad. To discern that we have to understand its context. But liberals like to corrupt the meaning of words so that they can use them to make criminals of the people they hate.

    Liberals pretend intolerance is evil so they can accuse anyone of anything less than their viewpoint as being intolerant and worthy of stamping out. Yet, and I would think any intelligent person would agree, if Germans had been intolerant of Hitler, things would have been much better for the world.

    We do not know whether intolerance or discrimination is good or bad until we look at the context of the situation. Liberals don’t want us to look at the context because they prefer to criminalize other peoples’ thinking. And to do that they don’t want you to look a context. That is intellectual dishonesty.

    You pretend that discrimination is evil yet if we didn’t discriminate against blind people who want to be pilots for United Airlines, we’d be insane. Discrimination can be good or bad only when understood in the light of the context.

    Liberals have gotten the greatest headway in criminalizing thoughts through hate crime legislation. First they made sure to promote the myth that hate is evil. Eventually they got it criminalized in certain instances. It will get worse too. It’s hard to believe this because they are so hateful themselves. But nothing liberals do makes sense.

    Again, they take the meaning of word out of context. It would have been very good if Germans had hated every bloody thing Hitler stood for. Hate would be the only appropriate response. But liberals have gutted the word of its meaning by taking it out of context and automatically categorizing it as evil. It’s only one step from saying particular thoughts are indeed hate. Then liberty dies.

    This is how dishonest people destroy the truth. It is customary of Marxists and liberals are Marxists. And liberals do it well. Friedrich Hayek has a whole chapter in one of his books on the habit of Marxists to corrupt the language. It leads to death and destruction, tyranny and enslavement. And that punishes more children than upholding the right to freely associate would.

    So stop punishing children and subjecting hundreds of millions of them to tyranny.

  11. “You might say to me that they are authorized to do it and so they don’t have to hate, and that is true. But I’m allowed, it is my right, to decide what good and evil acts are. If I couldn’t do that, I might hang out with a bank robber and get in trouble myself. I have the natural right to decide what is wrong or right. We all do. And by deciding it, I am not exercising misplaced authority. I’m just giving my opinion based on my assessment of reality. You grant yourself that right too. Clearly. But it appears you wish to deny me it.”

    “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

    “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
    give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. And he spake a parable unto them; Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”

    One of these things is not like the others… one of these things does not belong…

    It doesn’t really matter to me, since I happen to actually agree with the first one. However, if one were to claim to follow the person who supposedly said the second two quotes, they may have a problem reconciling the differences with the first.

    Just saying.

  12. “I don’t hate anyone. Not one soul.”

    Unless they’re gay. Or not white. Or not a fundie Christian.

    Sell that bullshit to someone who hasn’t read years of your hateful nonsense postings here.

  13. Stazi Stamford:

    I don’t hate anyone. Not one soul.

    And it is you who should be examining the issue of hate yourself in the light of your personal attacks on me (Taliban Tootie, Klan, etc). If you spent more time examining your own hatefulness perhaps you wouldn’t have to invent any supposed hatred on my part.

    Strangely, you ask me why I would hate liberals AFTER you have spent weeks and weeks of personal attack on me by calling me Taliban Tootie and a member of the Klan. The better question, the wiser one, would be why I don’t hate you because of your unrelenting inhumane conduct.

    Unfortunately for you, I don’t hate liberals or you even after your hateful attacks against me. And it is unfortunate because it gives you no excuse for your vicious treatment of me except that you are far more evil than every evil thing you accuse me of. And so I’m sorry for you because your hatred probably has no bounds.

    You pretend I hate others or liberals ONLY so you can let your unbounded hate loose on me. Now that I’ve told you I don’t hate you (or liberals) you have only one reason for your conduct: your own depravity. I wonder if this means anything to you? And why should it?

    I’m not making headway in discussing the issues with you, but I do not stalk you around the blog, and continually bully and harass you like you do me. You don’t see how bad this reflects on you and leftists in general. Your leftist friends here are not going to criticize you for it because they are as corrupt as you.

    Since I don’t make headway with you and you don’t make headway with me the way we treat each other in the end demonstrates who we really are. You viciously attack me and harass me as a result of not making headway, and I don’t do the same. That is where the rubber meets the road. Then, after your lengthy and persistent vicious attacks you call me the hater! LOL

    It really is funny.

    Most everyone here is sure I’m an imbecile and/or off my rocker yet these same geniuses don’t notice or mention the hypocrisy in one of the most hateful persons here (you) accusing me of hatred? I can only guess that it is because most here are as depraved as you. Sadly, you might think their condoning, winking at, or encouraging your conduct proves you are on the right side of things. But history is replete with evil doers who had widespread approval. And you would very fooling not to recall it.

    Look at this way. Do the people who send a criminal to jail for life hate the criminal? Or can they determine the fault and punishment without hatred? Of course they can! It happens all the time.

    And that is how I view liberals. I have determined by their conduct, by the multitude of evidence from the past century and up to today, that they are quite evil. This is just a dispassionate conclusion. And you know what? I was once a liberal so I know this from the inside too. But I don’t hate liberals because of it. You only assume I do (because this is how you operate).

    Most lawyers and judges do not hate the people they make judgments about.

    You might say to me that they are authorized to do it and so they don’t have to hate, and that is true. But I’m allowed, it is my right, to decide what good and evil acts are. If I couldn’t do that, I might hang out with a bank robber and get in trouble myself. I have the natural right to decide what is wrong or right. We all do. And by deciding it, I am not exercising misplaced authority. I’m just giving my opinion based on my assessment of reality. You grant yourself that right too. Clearly. But it appears you wish to deny me it.

    Thus, I’ve come to the conclusion that it impossible to be a liberal and be virtuous. This is just a common sense conclusion based on the raw data without emotion or animus. But you take it personally. I cannot help that. Your response to my conclusion about liberals is to assume hate where there is none.

    Your assumption is wrong.

    Your problem is that you hate the people you disagree with and so you assume I do to. That is very unsophisticated and superstitious thinking.

    And you have no means to love your enemy.

    I do and his name is Jesus.

    You can pretend I hate until the day you die in order to give your self over to uncontrolled hate of, but it will not change the fact that you will be the only one guilty of it.

  15. There’s some pretty sound evidence that we humans learn develop a taste for whatever food happens to be available. Including rancid and off flavors. This explains much of the American diet. We trick ourselves into believing this is what “good” food tastes like, because that’s what we(admittedly in a lot of cases currently, that’s through our own neglect) have available. This also explains regional acquired tastes.

    Like Cannibalism 🙂

  16. Slart, Buddha, Et al.

    There’s some pretty sound evidence that we humans learn develop a taste for whatever food happens to be available. Including rancid and off flavors. This explains much of the American diet. We trick ourselves into believing this is what “good” food tastes like, because that’s what we(admittedly in a lot of cases currently, that’s through our own neglect) have available. This also explains regional acquired tastes.

    Personally, I’m a big fan of things we’ve all been taught to think of as “bad.” I like sour, I LOVE bitter, I’ve been known to enjoy horse blanket (think really funky French Cheese or Belgian beer), and have written ballads in honor of that really bright, acidic smoke you get from some fruit trees. However, I also know that sweet isn’t the only thing that can be cloying. Broccoli however is just icky.

    Fun fact: Ketchup is a direct descendant of a fermented fish sauce enjoyed by the ancient Romans.

  17. Stamford:

    I gave you the pet name Stamford Samir Shabazz. Why are you offended?

  20. Bda,

    85?!

    Okay, it’s official … mine will be the shot heard round the world

Comments are closed.