Broad sweeping generalizations by Scarborough. Not surprised at all. The rhetoric these days is to demonize an entire group by the actions, or inaction of some members of that group. I know I fall into this trap at times, generally in a reaction to the generalizations from the extremist on the right. So I plead guilty to that, and will take more time and effort to stay in a more detached position. Taking a detached position, it is clear that Scarborough is making a fallacious argument if he is casting his net over the entire left. Having read the blogs at HuffPo when Obama joined the Libya "Weekend at Bernie's No Fly Zone" I saw that anger and hatred of the extreme left at Obama. It is a fallacy to conclude that all who are not right wing, are necessarily left wing. Issue by issue, a decision has to be made. Was Obama right to do what he is doing in Libya? My opinion, no. Why not? Because I believe our entire foreign policy in the middle east is driven by the need for oil, and the crazy blind support of Israel. So, Afghanistan was initially the right thing if it were only about bringing the terrorists to justice. When Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape, then focused on Iraq...well then everything changed. The escalation in Afghanistan is like the escalation in Vietnam. A waste of life and money. Iraq was a fuckup from day 1. Obama did the right thing to stay out of Egypt...but then they don't export much oil. The hard left is anti war, and they are pissed off about Obama's excursion to Libya. If ground forces are employed there, then you will see the protests by the hard left. To compare Libya to on the ground troops dying...is again, a fallacious argument by Scarborough.
Reagan once said something to the effect of, "you can't make decisions like this unless you have all the information available to a President". Unless we completely toss out the meaing of humanitarian then there was a mandate to go in and prevent genocide lest it be allowed to occur right under the noses of the entire world and its coming to be demonstrated with a minimal cost to American lives and involvement. A stroke of statesmanship and likely a good pr move in an Arab world that needs maintaining. Sounds like a bargain to me.
I don't know if or how often Wright ranted the way he did when Obama took exception. But I saw with my own eyes the coverage and the photos of the Tea Party and their commentary. One can arguably be given the benefit of the doubt. The other, not so much.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vdJB-qkfUHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Leave it to Lucrum to characteristically miss the point. Read my post again, for the first time. The implication being "beforehand." Everyone knew about his lunatic ravings when it got out, by which time Obama had distanced himself. The question is, was he this way all along, or did his become this way over time, at which point he went over the top?
No. I believe that I arguably do not operate in the manner which has become the gold standard of Right Wingers. You just read the words you chose to read for a self-serving interpretation.
Grasping at straws -- an illustration: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy