madness, can anyone say jimmy carter. that is insane talk. i mean, the two wars she s talking about, one and two, were started by george w., she supported that, john, down the line, and in every instance, there she is mocking president obama for getting involved in a war indirectly from behind. look, chris, you correctly pointed out that those are not two of the most impressive of the republican candidates, but there is an argument and there was an argument at the time, not just on the crazy right, but in a lot of other places that you can make this case that this was a dangerous mission to have undertaken, that the costs might have been proven to be great. we can t argue backwards that it was a good idea in the first place. there are people who will say that american has overstretched its we should be fighting fewer words. there s a principle position on nonintervention grounds, on financial grounds, on a lot of grounds. you can make that argument. why didn t they begin to mak
nonintervention grounds, on financial grounds, on a lot of grounds. you can make that argument. why didn t they begin to make the argument when it s an obama campaign? of course. of course there are many republicans who are inconsistent on this point and supported previous wars by republican presidents and now want to attack barack obama. i mean, i think the more interesting criticism is the one that you saw around this time when this intervention started, when an obama administration official in the new yorker made the comment about obama leading from behind. and so many republicans jumped on that and claimed and it was absurd, the notion that you could lead from behind. well, we have seen now that obama s leadership from behind, meaning putting together alliances, putting together coalitions, not doing stuff in a unilateral way, that there are advantages to that. and if the goal of this was to accomplish stopping the slaughter in benghazi and getting gadhafi out, it was suc
there s a principle position on nonintervention grounds, on financial grounds, on a lot of grounds. you can make that argument. why didn t they begin to make the argument when it s an obama campaign? of course. of course there are many republicans who are inconsistent on this point and supported previous wars by republican presidents and now want to attack barack obama. i mean, i think the more interesting criticism is the one that you saw around this time when this intervention started, when an obama administration official in the new yorker made the comment about obama leading from behind. and so many republicans jumped on that and claimed and it was absurd, the notion that you could lead from behind. well, we have seen now that obama s leadership from behind, meaning putting together alliances, putting together coalitions, not doing stuff in a unilateral way, that there are advantages to that. and if the goal of this was to accomplish stopping the slaughter in benghazi and