...So, the so-called "Liberal Media" -- which, according to our resident right-wing commentators, is supposed to buoy a Democratic President under ANY circumstances -- is calling Obama's response to Egypt a "failure." (This, despite the fact that 18 days of popular, largely peaceful protest on the part of ordinary Egyptians brought about the downfall of President Mubarak.)
All of this regime change has occurred in the ABSENCE of American intervention (with its concomitant loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the expenditure of trillions of dollars) and has now spread to other parts of the Arab world. Nonetheless, this episode is being deemed by the "Liberal Media" as a "visionless" loss of opportunity by the Obama administration.
So how, I ask you, does our peaceful non-intervention, which has so far seen the abdication of long-standing dictatorships in Algiers, Egypt -- and soon, maybe, Libya -- constitute a "failure" of leadership on out part? This is far more democratic a revolt on the "Arab Street" than happened during the eight years of the Bush administration (with all its bellicose intervention, nation-building, and inflammation of Muslim extremists) and with no commitment of troops or loss of lives on our part.
In other words, what we are witnessing is TRUE revolutionary behavior on the part of the PEOPLE. So why is the "Liberal Media" decrying Obama's failure?
I'm especially curious to hear from right-wingers on this -- though, of course, all responses are welcome.
All of this regime change has occurred in the ABSENCE of American intervention (with its concomitant loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the expenditure of trillions of dollars) and has now spread to other parts of the Arab world. Nonetheless, this episode is being deemed by the "Liberal Media" as a "visionless" loss of opportunity by the Obama administration.
So how, I ask you, does our peaceful non-intervention, which has so far seen the abdication of long-standing dictatorships in Algiers, Egypt -- and soon, maybe, Libya -- constitute a "failure" of leadership on out part? This is far more democratic a revolt on the "Arab Street" than happened during the eight years of the Bush administration (with all its bellicose intervention, nation-building, and inflammation of Muslim extremists) and with no commitment of troops or loss of lives on our part.
In other words, what we are witnessing is TRUE revolutionary behavior on the part of the PEOPLE. So why is the "Liberal Media" decrying Obama's failure?
I'm especially curious to hear from right-wingers on this -- though, of course, all responses are welcome.
