It's a story we've heard all too often. A swaggering young man who wants to impress his homies...a seemingly "easy" target and a promise to "pull out before things go too far"..."boom! boom! boom! boom!"...and then the finger-pointing when things start to grow out of control.
Which is why Barack Obama is learning that even if you're "careful" and use "protection," there's no guarantee that you won't end up with the pitter-patter of little "boots on the ground" when you start screwing around.
It's far too late to abort. And it seems unlikely that his "little problem" will be adopted by someone else (is the alleged NATO agreement fooling anyone?!)
In these situations, a man - a real man - would take personal responsibility for his actions.
But a boy in a man's body would simply say it's not his fault, declare that he's not sticking around, say he didn't know what he was getting into, then try to hide from the ongoing costs and consequences of what he brought into the world.
And the first chance he gets...he'll happily do it all over again.
"Might not be mine. There were lots of guys at that party."
-
-
20 comments:
"Unplanned Presidency"
Awesome!
Just think what a cheap ol condom could have saved us from!
@Pete(Detroit) -- Condoms aren't "cheap" at a gay bar, they're free. Free for the taking; no questions asked. And we aint' makin' no expensive and inconvenient babies either. And if you, the Liberty minded people, had come to the most liberty minded people on earth [Don't Tread On Us Either" gay folks] and said: "Oh, who cares, join us!" Then we would have joined you, as a condom against Big Government, for almost all else is irrelevant to us, but our freedom from condemnation, and then our few votes, less than 20,000,000, would have tipped the balance, and Obama would never have been president. Just saying.
@Stilt, you know in which spirit I say this; but your allusions made me thoughtful; for now we all suffer; thanks. 2012 is coming; apocalypse or sissy smooching --that's almost the question.
Yup. Things are most certainly fooked up - and so are we - courtesy of PresiDEBT Zero...
I heard this morning that NATO has agreed to “take charge” of the war in Libya. Now there is a real stretch of their charter. There was an admission that it isn’t just the no-fly zone, it is also keeping the Libyan ground forces from attacking Libyan civilians. Can anyone explain to me how this is not a civil war that we have injected ourselves into? And, is there any possibility of any kind of positive outcome resulting from our involvement?
A sudden stunning clarity dawns after reading the blog today! I think I'm going to have to sit down...
NATO is doing their best to provide cover for him, but the fluffers in the media will still have one helluva time keeping Duh Won's fingerprints off this mess. But you know they will try. Oh, how they will try.
@Chuck & Angry Hoosier Dad- As I understand it, NATO has reluctantly agreed to handle the "no fly" zone...which is fairly useless because Libya doesn't really have a credible air force anyway. But the United States is still responsible for everything else: ground attacks, missiles, and getting rid of Gadhafi. And presumably, after completely destabilizing the country, the United States will get stuck with the bill and the ongoing military commitment for a little something called "nation building" that Democrats like the president previously claimed was none of our business.
One of the huge problems with this whole mess is that Obama A) didn't want to act and B) wanted the cover of other nations to hide behind if he was forced to act. That turned into a month of dithering in which Gadhafi largely wiped out the rebel forces. Had Obama acted earlier, a "no fly" zone would have protected the rebels, and they could have potentially defeated Gadhafi.
By waiting until the rebels were all but defeated to come in with his "humanitarian" mission - and announced "policy" that "Gadhafi must go," Obama set things up so that the United States can't just offer support, we now have to fight the damn war because the rebels barely exist anymore.
I've read a lot of liberal opinions that don't grasp the whole timetable, and can't understand why conservatives (and others) who wanted action early on are now criticizing the president. And the reason is that conditions change over time, and they tend to change damn fast in a war zone.
Which is why the window to provide "support" passed, and why America is now in an honest-to-gosh new war. Obama's war.
Anyone else notice that our "intervention" occurred 8 years to the day after Bush invaded Iraq, or at the exact same moment in both presidencies?
At least Bush had the buy-in of both houses of Congress and had made the case to the American people. Obama just stumbled in. No wonder Hillary wants to quit.
As for being the one standing when the music stopped, all I can say is that this is what happens when you only vote "present", instead of at least pretending to be a leader.
Stilton:
I believe the facts are always secondary to the narrative that the MSM will spoon-feed the masses. Still waiting to see when the taste of that pablum begins to sour in the mouths of the sheeple.
Well, so I guess we go to war. And you know what they say, you don't go to war with the president you want, you go to war with the president you have.
And on top of everything else, how will the Muslim world view us if Mortimer Gadfly manages to remain in power through all of this. He will have bragging rights that he defeated the evil Satans of the USA, NATO, the UN, France, England and Germany, not to mention others.
And, on top of the "on top of" stuff, who exactly are we siding with in Libya? Who ARE the rebels? I have a sinking feeling we have just taken sides against Gadfly with people that are far, far worse than he is.
Yep, BO has one gonad the size of a mustard seed, and the other is just a little bitty thing. How the hell he got the First Wookie pregnant twice, I will never know.
@Colby_Muenster - It really does seem like since America has gone to war, the president should set a little time aside to tell us why, what the goals are, what "success" will be, and why it's in our national interest.
As far as Mr. Obama's ability to father children goes, I'll simply note that there are some species in nature which can change sexes long enough to self-fertilize if there is no true male available. Although I can't remember if I learned this watching "The Discovery Channel" or MSNBC.
Who's to say those are his kids? Neither one looks anything like him.
It seems that this administration "intervenes" only when the country isn’t vehemently anti-Israel.
Egypt and Libya were “ok” with Israel, and Obama jumped in.
Iran, Yemen, Syria are rabid anti-Israel, yet we “stay-put”
It was said...
It really does seem like since America has gone to war, the president should set a little time aside to tell us why, what the goals are, what "success" will be, and why it's in our national interest.
Think about it, do you really want the aggravation of Obooboo standing up there smugly telling us what his goals are and all that? Keep the dude away, in my opinion, he is totally IRRELEVANT at this point. The US is in another pickle, and dang if I can tell why we got involved after a month!(Although I do have my suspicions). Youre right, we mighta done some good a month or so back! This guy is killing us!!!
During the 2008 presidential campaign the democrats swore that if we voted for McCain America would soon be embroiled in another MidEast war.
By golly, they were right...
Who's pitching and who's catching? I've been wondering if Obama did order the No-fly-zone based on Hillary's orders.
Oh, and this seems like it SHOULD be a cartoon!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukaIZ7pmabo
Heck, it almost is before you touch it.
Stilt, good one today (as always) – the analogy is bang-on.
Good thing we have a competent, experienced commander-in-chief for our three front war.
Of course, the USA is being "punished" with this "baby" (the military incursion in Libya)....
Post a Comment