Libyan Rebels Call Out For Help -- "Bush! Bush!"

A commenter asked the other day why no one was attributing the spate of revolutions to Iraq. Given that the goal of the Iraq mission was to create a sort of Plymouth Rock in the Middle-East, a model of democracy that would "tip the dominoes" in favor of freedom -- given that that was the intent, why was no one at all speculating that that had something to do with it?

Well, obviously, the media doesn't speculate that way because they are kneepadded fellatists for liberals and would never even suggest there might be some upside to the Iraq War.

But conservative commentators did not exactly rush to make this speculation, either. I can only explain my own thinking: I had seen none of these revolutionaries credit Bush or Obama, so absent evidence for any US presidential urging spurring this on, I didn't want to make that case.

See, unlike the media, which is supposedly professional, most conservative commentators make modest observations and only when supported by actual evidence. Sure, I could have followed the media's evidence-free, partisan-cheerleading lead and just offered an equal and opposite bit of puffery for my favorite recent president; but, to me, the media is childish and unprofessional and rather stupid, and I don't wish to be any of those things.

I did allow that the Plymouth, Iraq theory was plausible -- but there was no actual evidence to support it.

Isn't that strange? The so-called unbiased and professional and objective and reality-based media rushed to claim that Obama's Cairo speech (which did not in fact call for any reforms in Cairo) was responsible for the Cairo uprising, based on no evidence at all, when the supposedly hyperpartisan, make-up-facts-as-you go, unprofessional alternative media generally refrained from such immodest claims?

At any rate, this is all by way of preamble to note that there now is in fact evidence on the record that Bush the Liberator, and not Obama the Procrastinator, is at least being thought of during the Libyan uprising.

"Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.

Does this prove that Bush's Liberation Doctrine is a major driver in these uprisings? No, not at all; I'm a smart, ethical commentator, not Wolf Blitzer, so I refrain from making evidence-free claims at the drop of a hat.

But we now have some evidence that the revolutionaries look to Bush, and none so far they look to the dithering, jerky jackass Obama.

We also have at least one revolutionary's testimony as to whether he believes soft power alone can evict tyrants, or whether he believes some hard power is advisable in some circumstances.

Note this guy did not call for President Asshole to "issue another firmly-worded statement."

Oh: Gee, I missed that these media spinners attempted to "clarify" that the Libyan rebels were calling out to Bush the Elder. They note Bush the Elder established the no-fly zone in Iraq.

Um, I suppose that is a possibility, but Bush the Younger maintained the no-fly zone for two years, too, before he ended the Hussein regime.

Somehow I think they're calling out for the last Bush, the one more strongly associated with toppling dictators and who served two terms ending two years ago, and not the one who served a single term more than twenty years ago.

&bodytext=A commenter asked the other day why no one was attributing the spate of revolutions to Iraq. Given that the goal of the Iraq mission was to create a sort of Plymouth Rock in the Middle-East, a model of democracy...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 01:21 PM

| Access Comments