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. Tootie,

    You have a written record of hateful attacks, You’ve called liberals evil, which is a hateful attack itself and bigotry which is defaming a group of humans across the board. Yet you whine when you are attacked in kind and imply there is unfairness to the attacks, when it merely shows you to be a hypocrite unable to take what you dish out.

    As for your once being a hippie and/or liberal that may have been true in your mind, but not so much in reality. Many people back then thought they were hippies because they dressed a certain way, or smoked pot. The were really superficial copycats who didn’t understand what was going on. Many people too adopted liberal poses withot the heart and/or commitment to what they espoused.
    The proof is in how quickly they found themselves lost in a sea of their own misunderstanding.

    You also allude to being promiscuous and beeing ruled by your sexuality. If so you totally missed the point of what was going on and so naturally felt like you had screwed up, because you had. Perhaps you did one too
    many experiments with psychedelics and those left you lost and afraid. More than a few back then, with their superficial understanding of what was going on, in their fear latched onto a belief system that gave them strength and faith again.

    If that what they/you needed it is understandable. However, to then claim disillusionment and disdain for your own failings in living a philosophy and/or way of life that you merely copied out of fad and misunderstanding, is really your failure to act intelligently and morally. Most of us in that lifestyle and holding strong beliefs never lost our moral and ethical conscience as you have. It was your own damn fault, which you couldn’t accept and so you accepted a belief that could control your misguided attempts at personal freedom because you couldn’t trust your own moral compass.

    I sincerely hope that it is working for you and has abated your pain, confusion and guilt. However, from my perspective that which you choose to follow lacks morals, ethics and is a fraudulent shadow of the Gospels,
    that are unfaithful to Jesus’ teachings. The trouble is that you are congenitally unable to understand that.

  2. Taliban Tootie,

    “Stamford Samir Shabazz (aka Stazi Stamford)”

    You have absolutely no fucking idea … Another glaring clue that you are … clueless. I will give you kudos – cluelessness is the only area where you excel. Congrats, bigot.

    Well, at any rate – I echo BIL’s posts to you. I will properly file your take on politics, the Constitution, religion and liberals where they belong … under “G” for garbage because that’s where you and your ignorant notions belong.

  3. Stamford Shabazz (Malek)

    You are right that they think they can usher it in peacefully. But in truth, what they have ushered in of collectivism thus far has been done at gunpoint.

  4. Tootie:

    Yes there are many people on this blog who promote collectivism and think it can be ushered in peacefully. It is a vain hope. Although a couple on here know it has to be by force and you can see it in there writings all the time.

    I wont mention any names as I am sure you know of whom I write.

  5. No, I don’t need to lie about you, Tootles.

    You’re a demonstrable hateful, bigoted, racist zealot.

    As to the statement about “if there weren’t any Christians”?

    You make a mistake. And like most of your mistakes? It is on purpose, but I’ll leave it to the readers to decide what your purpose might be.

    Let’s be clear here:

    I don’t hate Christians as a whole. What part of “Jesus was a wise teacher. Most Christians are just fine. Mostly decent people trying to be even better people,” didn’t you understand? Besides all of it.

    Aside from the very small number of people who have managed to make it on to my permanent shit list (and they are all actual evil people), what I hate are purposely chosen human behaviors. I hate the willfully ignorant, the bigoted, the innately and irrationally divisive and the hypocritical. The universe already makes your, er, those kinds of idiots in many more flavors than simply Christian.

  6. Buhhda:

    I didn’t say you needed me. I said you needed to lie about me so YOU could be hateful.

    And any Christian would do. It doesn’t have to be me personally.

    Of course, you are probably more truthful than you realize. If there weren’t any Christians, there would have to be someone for you to hate.

    It appears to be your nature to hate.

  7. Stamford Shabazz (Malek)

    I’m not a newbie Christian. Many at this blog pretty much get the main thrust of Christianity wrong. And I think I’ve proven that they have, and have done so enough to say I’m not wet behind the ears regarding any depth of study or understanding in the word of God. I know scripture backwards and forwards.

    But you can entertain any opinion you like of me. And I welcome any challenge you may wish to test me on about the meaning of scripture.

    I agree with you that I do come on strong. That is inpart because time is fleeting–my time on earth, and the near collapse of our civilization. There is no time to mince words. It has gotten so bad that our government has even authorized the sexual molestation of innocent people at our airports because of the very people the government invites into the country for the expressed purposes of justifying the molestation and the rise of the police state!

    Time for mincing has ended.

    And all the nice patient pleas have fallen on deaf ears for decades.

    This makes sense because Christ was kind, and he was gentle, yet they murdered him anyway. This is the way people are. People do not, in general, like the truth. They don’t want you to be nice so they can listen to what you have to say; they want you to be nice just to shut you up. Because to them, being nice means that you should stop talking about their sin or error.

    People often say that if I do a song and dance and please them kindly, they might consider my side or my points. This is a bogus argument and I’ll tell you why.

    I used to be very bad before I became a Christian. I was even a hippie. And before I became a Christian (in my mid twenties), like many here, I knew about Christians who were hypocrites. But when I got to be SO bad, to the point I couldn’t live with it, I turned to Christ even knowing that there were hypocritical Christians. But what they were didn’t prevent me from finding the truth.

    The point is that no one can stop anyone from finding the truth if one really wants it. I find that people don’t really want the truth. They are not looking for it even when it is handed to them.

    If you want the truth you would see it even if I say it badly. You either want it or you don’t and no one will prevent it. Asking me to sugar coat it will not make a difference.

    And yes, liberals are bad. I’m sorry, some groups of people are really very bad. They are not born that way, but they have embraced a worldview that makes them that way even if they don’t intend on it. And I don’t say this out of hate. I say it from the cool atmosphere of conclusions drawn by their conduct.

    One cannot be in favor of thievery, snuffing out the lives of 50 million or so unborn humans, be war-mongering monsters, and still be considered “good”.

    It is just not possible.

    And yes I do admire many of Mr. Turley’s positions: freedom of speech, opposition to torture, and a few other very important ideas. And I am well aware of the things in which we differ. I must say that I don’t know what political party Mr. Turley belongs to and I don’t care. I admire him for being on the correct side of some very crucial issues.

    You mentioned his differing economic philosophy. And it is a good point. Friedrich Hayek explains my viewpoint of that best. Hayek keenly understood that many decent people who advocate collectivism and central control of economic activities will not like the brutal totalitarian force required to achieve it. But they cannot see how one makes the other impossible. You cannot achieve liberty if you enforce equality (of material prosperity). To maintain the equilibrium requires a gun and stomping on liberty. Freedom dies.

    And I believe Mr. Turley is the kind of person Hayek was describing. Turley wants more economic equality (so do I), but doesn’t realize it cannot be achieved by government control except by violating these treasured notions of freedom and liberty we may both cherish. It is simply impossible.

    Yes, it will be difficult for he and I to work together on the issues that may bind us together but it will be mainly because of the one idea he possesses (the quest for greater material equality via government) that will force us apart automatically.

    I hope he sees this before it is too late even for him (and me). More importantly for his children and grandchildren. They will pay the price of collectivism. That price is lost liberty.

    I’m sure he doesn’t want that. Most intellectuals didn’t want the loss of liberty when they were supporting collectivism in Europe as socialism took over last century. And they paid dearly for that mistake once the push for collectivism (equality of material standing) destabilized Europe and led to the rise of dictators.

    Strangely enough, Obama understands completely how this works and it is his goal to intentionally destabilize the USA through the promotion of collectivism. On the other hand, I do not believe it is intentional on the part of Mr. Turley.

    I hope he can come to see this soon.

    And I can only hope he comes to his senses about the Constitution, in particular, the 10th Amendment. 🙂

    Many of our more serious conflicts as a people would evaporate if we followed the Federalist system established by our founders and kept the federal government powers severely and strictly limited to only that which is listed in the Constitution.

    I’m not saying the feds should be weak. They must and should be strong, but only in the powers they are authorized to execute.

  8. Tootles,

    That’s pretty funny.

    Being lectured by a homophobic racist zealot about love.

    As to moral superiority? I don’t think in terms of morals, only ethics, so your assertion is a non-sequitur. I think in terms of ethics – the grownups version of morals that rests in logic instead of blind faith.

    Do I think I’m ethically superior to all Christians? No. Just some. Possibly many. But especially the Fundies and others like them so ignorant in the history of their own book and traditions that they 1) take the Bible as literal, 2) spread hate and division under the name of Jesus (thus totally missing the point of His teachings) and 3) feel like it’s their job to insert their religion into our government against the express aegis of the Constitution. To those hypocritical “Christians”? You bet I’m ethically superior.

    And I don’t need people like you to hate me. I don’t need you to do anything. There are some things I’d like you to do though.

    Mainly, I’d like you to keep your retrograde idiotic misapplication of a religion that you use to disguise your own bigotry, hatred and intolerance to yourself. Stop spreading the hatred and social division your lot embraces disguised as “the Good Word” and poisoning impressionable minds. Keep it out of government as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and out of other people’s bedrooms and lives as required to respect other’s rights to self-determination free from your coercion.

    You have the right to choose your own religion. Even one that’s ethically challenged as demonstrated by its divisiveness and spreading of bigotry and hatred under the guise of “it’s what Jesus wants”. Even if it’s one that is factually incorrect about the history of their own books and traditions. But when it comes to proselytizing? Others have the right to tell you to STFU, ridicule you and/or ignore you. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech isn’t a guarantee that people will believe your hokum nor tolerate your hypocritical bullshit gladly.

    And that’s mainly what I’d like you to do: keep your idiocy to yourself.

    Not everyone is willing to join your twisted Apocalypse-worshiping hateful death cult version of Christianity. Grow up and accept that it is a choice others have from their own free will and move on instead of trying to force feed others the distortions of Christ’s teachings you use to rationalize your own hatred, bigotry, selfish lack of charity, basic intellectual laziness (i.e. stupidity) and underlying mental illnesses.

    Jesus was a wise teacher. Most Christians are just fine. Mostly decent people trying to be even better people. Even most of the Catholics fall into this category despite the organization of their church being corrupt pedophile protecting criminals. I have nothing in particular against Christians. Just some Christians.

    You Fundies, however, are a batshit insane death cult of St. John who are just as willing to use coercion to get others to believe as you do as any Muslim Fundamentalist.

    Morally superior? I wouldn’t know. Morals and morality stories are for children who are ruled by threat, fear and edicts from others – usually father figures – so they can act bereft of independent critical thought.

    Ethically superior?

    Of course I’m ethically superior to you.

    Being that I’m both sane and rational, I don’t suffer the impediments to reason and logic that crazy people do.

    Need you to hate me though? Need??? I need Fundies (of any stripe) just about as much as a fish needs a particle accelerator. Which is to say, I don’t need you at all.

  9. Buddha:

    By your standard, then, you accuse me of hate only to revel in your own.

    Christians are taught to love their enemies. And I think this enrages you more than anything because you clearly think you are morally superior to Christians. Yet their loving you proves that cannot be true. It proves that your moral code is inferior. This must enrage you as well and explain your behavior to me.

    If the people you despise with unmitigated hatred don’t hate you then your moral framework falls apart. So you lie about them. You need them to hate you in order to give yourself license to hate them because you so dearly wish to.

    And it can only lead to tragedy.

  10. Tootie

    “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).”

    Oh, I see now. You are still in the initial phase of your transformation. I see it all the time, especially in Christians who do not quite yet believe or in people just newly accepting a philosophy but haven’t figured it all out or haven’t yet figured where they belong or exactly what are their views.

    You must admit, you do come across rather forcefully. Just because liberal views are thought to be wrong doesn’t make these people “bad” people. It only makes them misguided as you say you where once. Wouldn’t it be better to try and change their minds with good arguments rather than “guys suck”?

    You had a change of mind for some reason, what was it and how did it come about? I have seen you agree with Prof. Turley on certain occasions and he is not exactly a classical liberal on economics. I would imagine you have more in common with these people than you might think.

  12. Stamford Samir Shabazz (aka Stazi Stamford)

    You are free to ignore me (but you never do!) Ha ha!

    And reasonable person who does make it through my horribly written posts is going to see that you are the one with problem, not me. So it would do you good to see how rational people see you. And I don’t mean your buddies here. They are just as morally bankrupt as you.

    You really should worry about why you are such a vicious person because most evil people on earth never think they are. And I would hate to see you go in that direction much longer.

  13. Gyges:

    You write:

    “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. ”

    My response:
    They are contradictions only if you don’t understand the full meaning of scripture because you have taken passages out of context.

    Matthew 7:5 clarifies it more

    “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    There it is. Judging is allowed. But only after you have judged yourself (and found yourself not wanting). I oppose promiscuity, but I admit I was once was. It would be another thing to oppose it and pretend I hadn’t been. This what that passage is teaching against.

    The passage I quoted is from the NASB version which is considered one of the most accurate translations loyal to the underlying Greek text. And it clearly shows that judging is not forbidden but that hypocritical judging is.

    You present the story about the woman caught in adultery. What do you think Jesus was scribbling on the ground? Since Jesus’ point there, again, is hypocrisy, might he be scribbling about instances (times, dates, and names) of adulterous conduct on the part of the woman’s accusers? It could be.

    Again, he is not condemning judging people–he is condemning hypocritically judging people. Because, by the standards Christ adhered to, it was righteous to stone adulterers to death. He was a devout Jew who taught the Hebrew scriptures in the Temple and he was aware of the Law of Moses and upheld it.

    You seem to be confusing the several meanings of condemnation. I would be wrong about that impression. First of all, I have no power to condemn an adulteress or homosexual to death. I may condemn them in the sense of disapproval, but I have no legal power to punish them. I hope by your using the term and alternating it with the word judgment, you are not using some slight of hand to imply that they are the same thing and that if I make a judgnment it implies I am condemning things in such a way as to be a legal power unto myself.

    To condemn, in the non-legal sense is merely to register complete disapproval. Leftists do this all the time and never seem to worry about it. That is because many things should be condemned (disapproved of). After making a judgment, we may or may not condemn something. But I have no power to personally put someone in jail for anything and any condemning I do is exactly like any condemning you or any opponent of mine would do regarding any number of issues.

    In the story of the adulterous woman, Christ doesn’t just challenged the hypocrites, he tells the woman to go and sin no more. He tells her to stop sinning. And you should tell that part of the story too.

    And finally you write/quote:

    ““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?”

    My response:

    You present this passage (the 4th chapter, verse 11) as if to say that it represents how Christians should conduct themselves with non-believers. Your suggestion is the liberal theologian viewpoint because that passage is CLEARLY not about what you imply. The proof is key word is brother. The entire chapter of James 4 (and you cannot understand the verse you quoted unless you read the entire chapter) is spoken to church members only about mostly their interpersonal relationships WITH BELIEVERS.

    James tells us exactly who he is addressing. In the first first verse of chapter one he states “James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.”

    Not only is he addressing believers, he is addressing former Jews who know exactly which of the twelve Hebrew tribes they belong to. In the next chapter he tells us that these are not only members of the twelve tribes, but Christians. He writes:

    “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.” James 2:1

    These are part of the disbursed twelve tribes who had become Christians and James is advising them on how to conduct themselves now that they no longer have a Temple or the law of Moses.

    And he talks about the law (the law of Moses) because he knows they are familiar with it and now they must understand the law and judges as it should be viewed from the new perspective of Christianity. That is why he brings it up.

    He is telling the new believers that they no longer have legal authority like they did as Jews. This is especially important because he was also addressing members of the tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe). The Levites had legal authority over the children of Israel (they were judges). Moses was a Levite and we know him for the “Law of Moses”. James is telling them they don’t have that legal authority anymore now that they are Christians. It now resides with God. They are not to run courts, execute legal punishments, and so forth. That is the what the passage you quote refers to.

    I’m not claiming any legal authority either. But I am saying, because the Bible teaches it, that homosexuality and adultery are wrong. As are many other things.

    I have made this judgment. And I condemn these things only in the sense of registering strong disapproval. But I hate no one who has committed any sin common to mankind as I would have to hate myself. And I do not.

    Leftists act like we devout Christians do not have family members and loved ones who have committed these sins and that we cannot at the same time love these people though we view them as in open sin. If we are capable of loving our family members who live in sin we are surely capable of this with strangers. Our opponents make us out to be incapable of it.

    A good example is how the left treated Sarah Palin when her unmarried daughter got pregnant. They denigrated her and Christianity. They mocked Sarah unmercifully. They pretended you couldn’t be opposed to premarital sex, have an unwed daughter, and not be a hypocrite. And they enjoyed defaming her.

    This is only because of the left’s utter contempt for those who disagree with them combined with their failure to understand the teachings of Christ.

  14. Taliban Tootie,

    I didn’t bother reading any of your posts because I know what they already say:

    1. Liberals are hateful, not me;
    2. Liberals are the bigots, not me;
    3. Progressive programs are unconstitutional;
    4. I’m being attacked;
    5. I’m being stalked;
    6. I’m the victim here … WAAAAAAA; and my personal favorite,
    7. Jesus says … blah, blah, blah.

    I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who cares.

    Psych 101, Taliban – you are everything you accuse others of except you’re far too cowardly to recognize it. I don’t assume – I know. How do I know? The evidence is crystal clear with every post you make.

    Stick it where the sun don’t shine, theocrat.

  17. Rafflaw,

    You’ll note I never said that Jesus didn’t say judging was o.k. I just said Jesus also said judging wasn’t o.k.

  19. Cass Sunstein just happens to be Samantha Powers.
    S/B
    Cass Sunstein just happens to be Samantha Powers husband

Comments are closed.