Reply #56: No, I did not mean to suggest that you ought provide anything, sir

[al bupp]

Rather, I meant that Kucinich would do well to show that he made an attempt to solicit a range of opinions from more than just the Gaddafi regime, whose answers would seem to have been a forgone conclusion.

I disagree w/ you about the US stance regarding the war, which I think, on the whole the Obama administration would have been happy to avoid altogether, as it offered little prospect for wide-spread support among a population preoccupied w/ economic concerns who largely don't care about events in the middle east. Taking the risk to get involved, despite the apparent success of the strategy employed, has not proven to have helped Obama in the polls.

Sure Kucinich was against our involvement in Libya. I think for him it was mostly a knee-jerk reaction shared by many here. I do not fault him for that particularly. Given recent history in Iraq, am even sympathetic to it. However, in this case, I think it fails to note the distinct differences in circumstances present in Libya, the most important of which is that this revolution is clearly home-grown.

The comment about the principal critique of US involvement boiling down to a cynical sentiment about oil was not directed at you personally, though I can understand why you might have thought so. No, I cannot recall you ever posting such a sentiment, and it was unfair to tar you wish that brush, my apologies, sir.

I suppose that my intention was to point out that it seems hypocritical to say on the one hand that the US has over the years supported a lot of nefarious regimes (yes, under both Republican and Democratic administrations), and then dismissing it in a instance where (finally) that's not the case.