Griping ad nauseam

I've pretty much shared my views on Libya and the Three Stooges-level commentary about it. Now it's mainly a gritty chess match to see if Mr. Obama's audacious gambit proves brilliant or foolish. But, mon Dieu, the pundit griping (on the blogs, in print and TV) is reaching truly absurd levels. Evidently, Mother Jones writer Kevin Drum agrees.

Having had enough, Drum drolly shreds the arguments, one by one:

The "not consulting Congress" complaint: This one Drum can accept. But adds, "It's not as if this is some kind of unprecedented break with past practice or anything."

The "why did he change his mind?" complaint: "Answer: because when events on the ground are moving fast, presidents change their minds. How? Usually by first holding a meeting and getting lots of input. Obama changed his mind last Tuesday in exactly the same way that every president since George Washington has changed his mind."

The "dithering" complaint: "Give me a break. When did it suddenly become a personality defect to decline to intervene in a foreign rebellion the instant it broke out?"

The "following, not leading" complaint: "Look: if the only thing you actually care about is showing just how manly the United States can be, this makes sense. But that's a pretty stupid justification."

The "why Libya but not Bahrain or the Congo or Yemen" complaint: "Please. Qaddafi is a terrorist and thug who's been on practically everyone's shit list around the world for decades." Yes, Drum admits, leaving dictators in place just because they're allies is a pathetic reason. "But it's a reason followed by pretty much every national leader since the first nomad planted a wheat field in Ur and settled down. We shouldn't act quite so wide-eyed and shocked that the U.S. does too."

Can you imagine the president reading or listening this crap? It must be driving him insane. No, strike that. Let hope Obama is not reading or listening this crap. We and the world need him to remain decidedly sane, now more than ever.