In the context of my other post on Sullivan I wanted to highlight something else he penned recently:
“This is why we elected Obama. To bring America back. To defend this country without betraying its core principles.”
I’m not sure what bothers me more–that Sullivan doesn’t seem to think the wanton incidental killing of civilians abroad goes against our country’s core principles, or that “bringing America back,” by which he means “an end to torture,” is an event worthy of celebration rather than one of the lowest tests of moral credibility that any national government should have to pass.
Then again, Sullivan also jumped over himself to praise the President for simply not starting another war in the Middle East (Shhhhhh, don’t tell him about Libya).
Here’s the minimum moral threshold: No torture. Ever.
Why was this ever a question?Report
The bombs! They’re ticking! If you don’t give us legal cover for anything we might do, well, then we certainly won’t be willing to do what is necessary!
Look how courageous we are! We’ll sacrifice our moral high ground to save innocents! But only if you give us preemptive legal cover!Report
Because it’s conceptually infirm, a pleasing fiction, wishful thinking, or, in short, a lie.Report
I dunno, I think rolling back torture, even if imperfectly and incrimentally is worth applauding. I’d also say that Libya so far is striking me as a pretty bright light in the pantheon of American international interventions. If I was president I’d be pretty content to have a Libya (Bengazi and all) under my best. Also I would not get involved with Syria for the record.
But you are technically correct; Libya was definitly a new war in the middle east. A relatively cheap, short and successful one but a war nonetheless.Report
Erm, you were saying?Report
No linky.Report
Your link doesn’t workReport
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/world/africa/french-embassy-in-libya-is-attacked.html?pagewanted=allReport
But Ethan, Libya wasn’t a war, because of reasons.
I think the failure of Obama to “bring America back” in any meaningful sense highlights one of the problems with Obama – so much of the “national security” expansion post 9-11 is now part of the bipartisan consensus.Report
Yes, and he’s been an astonishingly cautious* President both politically and in term of policy.
*His admirers say bipartisan and prudent, his detractors say either cowardly or duplicitous.Report
Not even. Not cautious, nor prudent, nor bipartisan.
Strategic.Report
I think he’d have to have pulled off some coups by now, policy or political wise, for his choices to be called anything but cautious (or it’s less complimentary compatriots).Report
He has. Obamacare.
But it’s only bold and daring on a strategic level.Report
Late to the party, but amen Ethan.Report