Barack Obama surprised the world (and probably himself) by authorizing a full-out military assault on Libya while heading out the door for his trip to Brazil. According to inside sources, the critical moment occurred when the Joint Chiefs asked the alleged president if we were in "Go mode for Operation Odyssey Dawn," and he said "whatever..." while trying to decide which Speedos to pack.
Libyan facilities have already been on the receiving end of 112 Tomahawk missiles, which is part of our military's contribution to the "international coalition" which is finally standing up to Gadhafi.
And since Hope n' Change really doesn't like genocidal, terrorist despots, you'd think we'd finally applaud something that Barack Obama has done. And you'd be dead wrong!
Our military assault on Libya isn't a show of strength...it's a show of having America's bluff called after two years of Obama showing no discernible strength to the world. Meaning that for all of our military strength, America had lost the all-important tool of deterrence, which previously allowed us to suppress violence by making credible threats.
But Mr. Obama's threats weren't credible. Or even discernible. Which is why Gadhafi felt confident about slaughtering his own people. And it was only when Gadhafi prepared the "final cleansing" that Obama was forced to take last-minute action...a large, violent, and potentially long-lasting action...because any smaller measures had already been taken off the table by the president's previous dithering and failure to show real interest in the earliest days of the conflict.
Libya's Colonel Gadhafi is now said to be arming one million of his people for ground operations. Which seems fairly stupid at first glance. After all, how can one million poorly trained, poorly armed Libyans stand up against American soldiers? Well, it turns out they won't have to, because our alleged Commander in Chief has already announced that we won't put any "boots on the ground," which surely came as a relief...and highly valuable military intelligence... to Muammar Gadhafi.
Additionally, Navy Admiral Mullen told NBC news that Gadhafi may remain in power, and our military action "isn't about seeing him go." Meaning that the primary purpose of this action is to protect Barack Obama's political ass after he's pushed his doctrine of weakness - and the world - into the danger zone.
-
16 comments:
PresiDEBT Zero would rather fiddle in Rio while the middle east burns and Japan is devastated than do the real work of the office. Note that I didn't write "his" office, though he thinks it is his. In other words, he's all about enjoying the perks of the office while sloughing off the tough work it demands.
Japan, our former enemy but for many years best friend, needs our help. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) has some 40 ships berthed here in the San Francisco Bay Area ready to sail on 48 hours notice with others scattered up and down the West Coast. These ships are equipped to handle disasters such as what hit Japan. Some can generate power and transmit it ashore. Some can distill sea water into potable water and pump it ashore. Others are fitted out to land heavy equipment such as earthmovers and cranes. When the tsunami hit Indonesia, GWB immediately sent the MARAD ships to help. While PresiDEBT Zero fiddles in Rio, tells jokes at the Gridiron Dinner and annouces his March Madness picks, the MARAD ships that COULD be helping Japan are swaying at anchor...
Cartoonist Lisa Benson summed Zero up in a cartoon worthy of Michael Ramirez.
I am of the belief that Obama doesn't take any action because it's the duty of the President, he does so only because it's about the optics for a candidate and he is the constant candidate. The fact that he is currently the President imposes a burden to look presidential when nothing else will work. Otherwise, it's bad for his candidacy. He decided that this action against Libya looks like leadership so, against his natural inclination to do nothing but talk, he chose the Jean Waigne option (sounds like John Wayne but isn't really). BTW, Louis, that was a terrific cartoon. If you hadn't told us otherwise, I would have thought it was Ramirez.
I told a liberal friend that Obama can no longer point fingers at Bush for starting a war. He claimed that at least Obama has international support instead of going off on his own. I said the reason Bush did not have international support was because the other countries did not have planes flying into high rise buildings. And eventually we did get the support of Britain. He said there was support for Afghanistan but not Iraq, and he also said at least Obama is not making "claims" of WMD.
Its funny how jaded these liberals are. Obama could probably fly a plane into the White House and the liberals would figure out a good reason why he did it. *sigh*
What the Democrats and Liberals mean is that when a Democratic president finally decides to maybe take out a dictator it a glorious moment for liberty; even if many of the liberty seekers had to get killed while the dithering was going on, before dallying came to the fore, and finally mild action was required, away from the pursuits of pleasure.
And when a Republican president acts it's an unnecessary and malicious use of force by a trigger happy warmonger against peaceful dictators.
Other than that, you still got to remove a dictator whom is bombing his own cities. I think that should be the criteria -- once you start bombing your own cities it's time for us to step in and remove the dictator and his military. Libya doesn't need a military, who will invade them? Chad?
@Louis La Vache- Fascinating information about the MARAD ships; I hadn't heard that anywhere else, and it certainly does raise troubling questions about why those ships are still in port. And the cartoon you linked to is great. Readers, go click on the link NOW!
@Angry Hoosier Dad- Great summary, and it certainly echoes my own feelings. Barack Obama simply doesn't have what it takes to be president, but he enthusiastically (and cluelessly) tries to act the part because it bolsters his permanent candidate status.
@Suzy- So Liberals have finally found a war they can love, huh? And frankly, it's sort of telling that neither your liberal friend nor the alleged president is mentioning WMDs...because Gadhafi has large stores of mustard gas, and is clearly the sort of guy to use it.
@Jim Hlavac- The hypocrisy from the Left is stunning. And I like your simple standard for taking out bad guys: if they're bombing their own cities, it's time for them to go. Unfortunately, I don't think that Obama is applying that standard. Rather, I believe that he had hoped that Gadhafi could finish off the opposition before an "international coalition" could agree on doing anything. But with dithering time no longer available, the coalition called Obama's bluff.
An article in the NYT (of all things) headlined it as "Obama Follows the Women to War", about Hillary, Susan Rice and Samantha Power working for the UN vote on the no-fly zone to pass, so we could finally do something! I think it should rightfully be called "Hillary's War. Link here:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=1&hpw
Note that the headline has been changed, but Google is you friend.
Further proof that he does not want to BE the President, he just wants to play one on TV...
I believe that the basic principle Stilt layed out is the main crux of the issue. That being that all these third world tin pot dictators know king hussein will not act. Aggressively, at least.
I remember during the campaign he said he would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. I can't really imagine why, nor would I hope that anybody would need to use them. However, for God's sake, you don't say that out loud!
At that point you pretty much have nothing left.
You have shown your hole card, so to speak.
What a moron.
@leelu- This probably is "Hillary's War," and the fact that she essentially "gave notice" that she was going to leave her position as Secretary of State (owing to Obama's indecisiveness, according to insiders) forced his hand. I have no love for Hillary, but at least she realizes the danger Obama has created by projecting a weakened America.
@robert- "What a moron." Brevity is the soul of accuracy.
Here is another perspective of our leader http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/03/president-barack-obama-naive-inept-and.html. Naive, Inept, and Dangerous aptly describe this alleged president.
Re: "Hillary's War" and "Øbama Follows the Women":
Jets Over Libya As H.Cinton Assumes Presidency.
Stilton, get ol' «Louis'» e-mail from his profile and send him a message. He'll send you photos of the MARAD ships at anchor in Alameda, CA at the former Naval Air Station there. «Louis» will post one of them on his blog on Thursday.
Garsh, what would Dubya do?
Oh, I know: http://bit.ly/hSlwJO
@Anonymous (above)- Your link is to a typical piece of idiocy/propaganda from Daily Kos, though it is at least illuminating about how Liberals Like You Don't Get It And Never Will.
It's a short video clip in which they claim that Bush was weaker than Obama on Gaddaffi (did you know there's no wrong/right way to spell that bastard's name? It's true!) because Bush didn't use any military force on Libya during his Presidency, while Obama has. OOh!!!!
Except it was the strength of George W. Bush that kept Gadhaffi in line (thereby avoiding the need for military intervention), and it's been Barack Obama's WEAKNESS which has caused Mideast instability, and a growing sense of confidence in our enemies that America is afraid to act anymore.
So Obama, hiding behind France, has okayed military force ("for a few days! And no boots on the ground") to help cope with a crisis his weakness created, while we enjoyed 8 years of relative peace with Libya under Bush because Gaddafi knew that a real President would kick his ass if he farted in the wrong key.
Stilt - let's not forget that when we went into Iraq, The Col. immediately ponied up (all?) his WMD research and materiel, including the nuke stuff...
good comics :)
Post a Comment