The Party of National Defense

Michele Bachmann dug a little deeper into the Republican rabbit hole of self-contradiction. Qaddafi, she said, would still be alive if she were president.

WALLACE: If President Bachmann had been in charged, wouldn’t Muammar Qaddafi still be in power?

BACHMANN: Well he may be but I stand by that decision I think it was wrong for the United States to go into Libya. Look where we’re at today, remember again, Barack Obama said we were going into Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t humanitarian purposes it was regime change and what’s the result? We don’t know who the next leaders will be…it could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that regime will be. But worse we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and those shoulder fired rockets that are very dangerous that could fit in the trunk of a car. … This is a very bad decision and it’s created more instability in the region, not less.

WALLACE: Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Qaddafi’s dictatorship still in effect?

BACHMANN: The world certainly is better off without Qaddafi. … But consider what the cost will be. … We knew who the devil was that was running, we don’t know the next one.

Considering the rah-rah Republican policy of "Praise God and Pass the Ammunition" this all sounds utterly ridiculous. These guys thrive on blowing shit up. Now suddenly they're opposed to such things?

Does anyone have any idea what they really stand for?

  • D_C_Wilson

    Obama didn’t act soon enough.

    Then he shouldn’t have intervened at all.

    Then he wasn’t leading in the fight to take Qhadafi down.

    Now it was wrong for him to help overthrow him.

    Just like it was wrong for him to follow Bush’s agreement to withdraw from Iraq by the end of the year.

    The GOP has only one consistent position: Whatever Obama does is wrong.

  • muselet

    We don’t know who the next leaders will be…it could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that regime will be. But worse we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and those shoulder fired rockets that are very dangerous that could fit in the trunk of a car.

    Shorter Michele Bachmann: Be afraid, be very afraid. And I’ve learned a new acronym, that makes me presidential, right?



    • dildenusa

      I know. I had to look up on wikipedia what a MANPADS is. Bottom line is, the older type with infrared sensors are fire and forget. But they can be easily defended against with flares. With the newer types the shooter must stay on the target until the missile makes contact. The newer types are more useful against helicopters. Should we fear these things. Maybe. The only time they are useful for terrorists is in takeoffs and landings. Good airport security at the end of the runway is a credible deterrent.

      • IrishGrrrl

        We can’t get good security in the friggin airports (at least that’s what the average American thinks anyway) so I don’t see how a promise of good security at the end of the runway will assuage anyone’s fears.

        Bachmann is just playing the “ooga booga” game.

  • dildenusa

    Please, give me a break from this inane nonsense. If this woman had half a brain she would be dangerous. As it is, everyone knows damn well that if the European nations of NATO had decided to intervene in Lybia we would have been involved in a support role. Which was exactly what happened.

    So what are the code words here? What do we read between the lines? Is she saying we should withdraw from NATO? Should we leave the UN? This woman is nothing but another sleazy, pandering, politician. In this case she seems to be trying to siphon off votes from the whackos who would vote for Ron Paul. What is she blind? She doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination.

  • cousinavi

    I think Rory Gallagher summed it up: Brute Force and Ignorance.

    • nicole


  • ThoseNerds

    The only thing they care about it trying to prove Obama wrong. They aren’t adults. They aren’t honest actors in this political world. They are trolls. The whole lot of them. If McCain would have done the exact same thing they would be cheering him as a hero (ticker tape parade and all). Why anyone would vote for these guys is beyond me.

    Obama 2012!

    • holyreality

      If, a big IF; Michele meant that the devil you know versus the devil you don’t lesson, I’d give her the due kudos. Except her reptilian brain likely wouldn’t be capable of such an abstract idea, so yes even a stuck clock is right a couple times a day.

      The devil we knew was Saddam, and what was the cost of “help” from the Cheney-Halliburton death machine?

      Obama led from behind, and assisted the rebels, the way the Afghans shook off the Taliban in 2001. It was the victory in Afghanistan abandoned for the Iraq “victory” that leaves Obama holding the Afghan bag.

      The endgame must lead to no devil, Libya hopefully will prove more civilized than Egyptians, and take a sane path. The President is proving his foreign policy brilliance, and there is nothing the GOP can do about it.

      Bill Maher is crediting President Obama with killing the dictator, I’m sure it is tongue in cheek, because it sounds like GOP adulation for the Gipper for ending the cold war.

      Maybe Dems should be doing something similar, a cold blooded killer protecting us from evil? Jsut asking.

  • Myhero

    They stand for whatever will get them elected. period

    • GrafZeppelin127

      Exactly. They stand for winning elections and for categorical, reflexive opposition to, and hatred of, Democrats and anyone who might vote for Democrats.

  • Brutlyhonest

    The ridiculous expenses & loss of life used to create regime change in Iraq = good; the relatively small cost* of supporting Libyans to create regime change in Libya (without US loss of life) = bad. These asshats have no shame – and never will as long as the corporate media is complicit.

    (*As far as I can tell, the $billion estimates of Libya cost the right was getting the vapors over last week include the cost of US forces already operating in the theater. i.e., they would be there anyway and the $700 billion cost of the crap in Iraq only includes specific Iraq war supplemental spending bills. Talk about cooking the books.)

    Also, Too. Speaking of faux-military prowess, wtf is up with bachmann’s jacket that looks like a village people knock-off of Navy choker whites? Can you imagine the outrage if a Democrat – especially a female Democrat – wore something like that?

  • Zen Diesel

    The Republicans are salty that they can no longer run on the BS premise, that Obama is weak on foreign policy or not keeping America strong on Defense.

  • missliberties

    Republicans stand for Predatory Lending.

    The neocons are very upset that Libya might start an economic system that does not charge interest.

    Just for historical background, wars have been fought over predatory lending, or charging interest, which when it was first interested with the discovery of fractions, allowed the Israelites to loan money at interest. The Christians were aghast at the thought.

    Now the world economic system has so twisted itself into knots of interest, betting on credit, raising interest on debt buying bonds. What a mess.

  • burbank_burt

    Whatever Obama or the Dems are for… they’re the opposite, regardless of previous stances. Nothing to see here… move along.