Bozell Column: Obama's Libyan War
Think of all the militant anti-war types who were thrilled at the removal of the Bush “war machine” in 2008, only to see President Obama’s strained endorsement of military action in Libya. Oh, how the political wave of the hard left has crashed ashore. It seems like only yesterday when they were celebrating Cindy Sheehan as she flagrantly called President Bush “the biggest terrorist in the world.”
Then they elected Obama and it all went to Hell.
Over the last two years, these chagrined radicals have watched in stunned disbelief while their hero Obama continued the Iraq war wrap-up on the generals’ timeline and then added more troops in Afghanistan. They listened in shock as Team Obama announced it was reversing itself on indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.
And now he’s started his very own kinetic military action.
Where are our friends in the press? They must be wondering. The media’s said nothing about Iraq for them, nothing about Afghanistan. Virtually nothing about the Gitmo flip-flop.
And now they’re pro-war in Libya.
Were these journalists ever “anti-war”? Or was all that coverage of George W. Bush as a Constitution-shredding global embarrassment just a convenient partisan campaign? If the No War for Oil crowd thought the run-up to war in Iraq featured a docile media, how on Earth must they feel about the docility of the press as Obama started dropping bombs on Libya? Someone pass the smelling salts.
It’s pure and simple: The re-election of Barack Obama trumps all. The news media will bury anything negative that threatens his return in 2013.
The media know full well that Obama’s refusal to obtain congressional approval is a flat-out betrayal, and a documentation of a lie. The media have the footage of Candidate Obama in 2007: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” The media also know (then-) presidential candidate Joe Biden said he’d personally lead the impeachment if Bush went to war with Iran without a congressional vote.
Some in the print press found this, like Washington Post “fact checker” Glenn Kessler. But had this been Bush exercising such brazen dishonesty, it would have been the lead story on every TV network news program – for days. But it was Obama and Biden who lied through their teeth and nothing will interfere with Obama-Biden in 2012.
Like their Democrat friends, Harry “The War is Lost” Reid and Nancy “Iraq Was a Grotesque Mistake” Pelosi, our media were the loyal opposition in the Bush years. It is astonishing to see them so shamefully switch their talking points so quickly and robotically – perhaps as quickly and robotically as General Obama.
Exhibit A is former Washington Post defense reporter Thomas Ricks. Five years ago, he wrote an Iraq book with the title “Fiasco.” That tome was touted as “a searing judgment on the strategic blindness” of Bush’s war. In his book, Ricks even trashed Democrats. They were not doves but "lambs" for their failure to oversee the excesses of the executive branch.
So who is this lobotomized Tom Ricks who showed up on “Meet the Press” on March 27? This man put on rose-colored glasses and magically transformed himself into Mr. Best-Case Scenario.
NBC’s David Gregory asked: If Gaddafi stays, can we really say “Mission accomplished”? Ricks didn’t hesitate. “Yes. I think what they'll say is we gave it a chance. All Obama is saying is give war a chance,” Ricks proclaimed. “Not our war. All we did was kick the door down, let the Brits and the French and the others do it. And I think his notion is we're going to be out of there long before this is resolved. That's the hope. That's the best-case scenario.”
As one of Obama’s media “lambs,” Ricks also insisted that if there are Islamic extremists among the Libyan rebels, that’s okay, since they seem to like us right now. “I don't think that all Islamic extremists are necessarily our enemy. What we're at war with is violent Islamic extremists who want to attack the United States. I think what you're seeing now is something very different, which is some of those Islamic extremists are cheering the United States.”
The economy is in shambles – who cares. The country is broke – who cares. We’re in a third war now, and we don’t know why or to what end – and who cares. All that matters is that whatever helps Obama is the top “news.” Whatever hurts Obama is destined to be left on the back-burner in a rusting pot.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well said Brent.Ricks is the
Submitted by contrary on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:22pm.
Well said Brent.
Ricks is the epidomy of hypocrisy. A couple of other things to ponder...
When Libya doesn't turn out to be the precision-based and flawless campaign, and erupts into a civil war, will the Press relunctantly bring out their pens to tar the One with "Fiasco" and "Quagmire"? Or will they continue to play along and give him platitudes of nobility and concern for the American soldier while tens of thousands of Libyans die. Will there be chants of America degrading the value of human life by the Anti-War press for Obama's missteps?
Pres. Bush
Submitted by grammajane on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:24pm.
Being the patriot Pres. Bush is, he, would never respond to all this media bias reporting that goes on daily. He is a true gentleman and truly respects the position of a commander-in-chief. What in the world will the media do, when 2012 comes and obama is long gone? We will probably still hear about his basketball, golf, eating and smoking habits, and the great crease in his pants stated by David Brooks. Pres Bush is such a decent past President and it appears more and more American's are realizing that.
Dont forget the European
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:45am.
Dont forget the European style side vented suit coats he's wearing now.
intentions vs results
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:34pm.
So in the case of the Chairman, intentions are far more important than results.
God almighty, there are times that liberals absolutely disgust me. This is definitely one of them.
-Jon
This is a slam dunk for 2012.
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:26am.
Replay Obama the Candidate.
Replay Obama the CIC.
Even so.. The Republicans will screw it up. If they do, I will never vote again.
It's every man for himself.
BTW, does anyone believe the Tea Party freshmen are not being consumed by the Washington Machine? Washington lobbyists are like locusts who devour even the bravest of hearts. We are doomed! DOOMED I tell you! GOD help us!
Dammit, why me?
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:34am.
Cannot someone else be the one with the sour news? Why the hell me?
Oh well...
Look, MM, allowing for a fair 2012 election ( and with this crew ostensibly running things (into the ground) nothing is certain) if the GOP DOES 'screw it up' by not ousting BHO , then NO ONE will be able to vote again!
What is left of the country will be subjected to a Marxist feudalism (pardon the redundancy) so abject and tyrannical as to make 1984 look like Dr. Seuss.
NVCon
"Must I fall to my knees to worship a maniac who is making of my country a concentration camp, my people slaves? Must I kiss the hand that beats me, lick the boot that kicks me?
No!
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin, Qadaffi, Castro, Hitler... these and countless other tyrants in the depths of time are the cause for which God created hell. I am absolutely sure now that we here now have a new member for such a despicable roster."
LOL...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:52am.
Couldn't you guys at least have kicked Dingy Harry to the curb? I mean for God's sake, his reason for existance is clown cowboys or some such sh*t.
Actually, It Was A Dose Of Reality...
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:19am.
I've told you before that President Obama was going to piss off liberals more than he would piss off conservatives. That was because the presidency is probably the clearest reality check you will ever get. Obama may have said these things about closing down Guantanamo Bay and withdrawing our troops from Iraq, but reality always deals a different set of cards for a president, just as it did with President Bush. That is what gives a near-great president his greatness: his ability to absorb the bitter taste of reality with a grain of salt and doing the right thing based on that dose of reality. For that, I say, "Bravo, Presidents Bush and Obama."
Why should anyone pay attention to you?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:24am.
Although I have to say, this version of you is a tad bit saner than the last.
But you're still a potted plant.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, did you burn some of
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:50am.
Blonde, did you burn some of his sticks? Just wondering..he seems to be a few shy of a bundle.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
The only difference is...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:33am.
That Bush actually has a heart. Obama is cut from the same cloth as Clinton..PURE POLITICS!
Take a hike!
Experience
Submitted by ArcherB on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:39am.
This is why you elect someone with actual leadership experience. Instead we have someone whose experience consists of nothing more than a few years sitting in glorified committees and voting "present".
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
I'm still waiting for all the
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:25am.
I'm still waiting for all the misfits to go out and protest....
Is anyone surprised? Jetting
Submitted by gvii on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:30am.
Is anyone surprised? Jetting off to Brazil to praise the offshore drilling industry and promising to be the first customer, immediately after completely demonizing any attempts to drill our own deposits. Commenting about the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law, while flat out stating the health care bill he crammed down our throats will be enacted regardless of the injunction placed on it. He and his wife admonishing us for not eating healthy and beginning to legislate what we and our children eat, while throwing super bowl parties with pure junk food and dining on massive calorie rib dinners. Telling the entire nation that we all need to tighten our belts and give up vacations while the economy is in the toilet, as he plays golf and his wife and children take over a resort in a foreign country on the taxpayer's dime. And on, and on, and on the examples go. It's fairly obvious that the hypocrisy of this administration has no limit. Any one else would start to feel shame at this kind of behavior, but his arrogance, complimented by a media that will go to no end to protect him, shields him from any realization that the majority of the people in this country are beginning to truly see him for the fool he is.
Uh, G7...
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:48am.
"his arrogance, complimented by a media that will go to no end to protect him, shields him from any realization that the majority of the people in this country are beginning to truly see him for the fool he is."
Every thing BHO has done is deliberate, if not planned. BP was a disaster he exploited ala Rahm Emanuel. there are other events in this past two years no plan could have possibly forseen.
But have not one doubt, when there is a chance to choose between being 'favorable' or 'unfavorable' about the US, BHO will default 'unfavorable' every time. He wants the US wrecked, as a weakened people are a easier people to rule and enslave.
Yes, the endless doubletalk and doublespeak and "do as I say not as I do" examples are manifest and legion. Regrettably, he is well aware a working majority is against him. Even more regrettably, he has command of a military with weapons of mass destruction, and not one scruple against using them against US citizens if it guarantees his power.
NVCon
"Must I fall to my knees to worship a maniac who is making of my country a concentration camp, my people slaves? Must I kiss the hand that beats me, lick the boot that kicks me?
No!
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin, Qadaffi, Castro, Hitler... these and countless other tyrants in the depths of time are the cause for which God created hell. I am absolutely sure now that we here now have a new member for such a despicable roster."
I have had a hard time figuring out
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:38am.
whether Obama is just plain stupid and incompetent, while at the same time being arrogant. Or a stumble bum bumbling through his presidency or a clever and cunning strategist with a master plan for the socialist takeover of this country. It is then that I realized that being stupid, nuts and incompetent doesn't necessarily bar one from being a tin pot dictator (not with the enablers and fellow travellers in the media and elsewhere paving the way). Current examples of stumblebum, idiots who have seized power being Chavez, Mugabe and maybe even quaddafi. In the past Idi Amin comes to mind but usually such takeovers can only be done in 3rd world comic opera countries.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Nope, not surprised at all.
Submitted by celator on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:02am.
Nope, not surprised at all.
Obama is using the "strategic chaos" form of governance in his short term as POTUS. It's a lesson he learned well under his radical friends, mentors and other radical subversives who have shaped his character his entire life, starting with his parents. It's really all he knows.
So we see him delay important decisions, dither, lie, cover up, perpetuate a completely false persona, pay off the MSM with attention and favoritism, attack basic American institutions, associate with the lowest form of characters, and insult American allies.
These days, he's "hands off" every country where the Muslim Brotherhood is embedded in the government structure-- Iran, Syria, Sudan etc. and attacking countries where the Muslim Brotherhood wants power--Egypt and Libya. (That's how he selects which dictators he likes and which he doesn't--no mystery there at all).The list of his bizarre behavior is endless.
Obama
Submitted by tvhall on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:41am.
Weak minded, hen pecked, empty suit.
Brent......As usual you are right on the money. How quickly the
Submitted by Rush Fan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:42am.
leftist Democrat-controlled media has changed their anti-war stance now that one of their own is in The Oval Office. Thank goodness we now have the Web and websites such as the Media Research Center and NewsBusters to remind us and reaffirm the real agenda of most of the main stream media.
What This Really Means...
Submitted by Tenebrous on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:45am.
...is that no-one has any reason to trust a liberal EVER again. I agree with the GOP campaign in 2012. Just replay Obama the candidate and then play Obama the president. This will be his "read my lips" moment.
Visions and Principles blog
Bush was critical of Bosnian bombing by Clinton admin.
Submitted by slegnaz on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:58am.
Mr. Bozell says: "But had this been Bush exercising such brazen dishonesty, it would have been the lead story on every TV network news program – for days."
Governor Bush campaigned on a 'stay out of foreign entanglements' theme and did reverse himself by jumping on the first helicopter to Club UN to beg for war resolutions to invade Iraq.
With those UN war papers he essentially declared himself King George and sent troops to Iraq and, gee, they are still there waiting for "clarity!" and all the other lousy GOP establishment cliches.
"Are there WMD's here?" Bush joked at a fancy Washington dinner party while pretending to look under the table. Yea, Bush was a real CiC allright. A real macho,macho man but was the joke of the town and a man who probably never heard of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison who said that war powers are found in Congress not under the bed in the Lincoln room.
slegnaz---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:33am.
another liberal troll, with Bush Derangement Syndrome, who has fallen from the rafters here at NB's.
Better a "King" George than an "Emperor" Obama, putz.
Bush begged for nothing.
He did accept responsibility.
Do you have a list handy, there, slegnaz, the better to regale us with all of your Messiah's accomplishments?
And by accomplishments, I refer to positive outcomes.
What's that? No list of anything positive?
What a surprise.
If you plan on Bush bashing on these threads, bring something other than your liberal ass opinion.
MD
Slugnoze
Submitted by kilrod on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:52am.
Are you trying out for the idiot czar post in the plpossob administration are what.~!~
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Earth To Libs -- Bush is NO LONGER PRESIDENT!
Submitted by gruyere cheese on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:47am.
This is a typical liberal excuse for the empty suit they have as their messiah -- whatever BO does, right or wrong blame me it on Bush.I truly do not understand tha facisnation you Liberals have with this man. Obama is only a man, he is not a miracle worker; though, he thinks he is. He will make mistakes, just like any other President. The problem with his hypnotized followers is that OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG IN THEIR EYES. It is rather creepy.
Actually, I seem to recall there was some sort of incident...
Submitted by Prester John on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:54am.
...on September 11, 2001, which some people might say changed the whole dynamic regarding this "foreign entanglements" thing and the focus of the Bush administration.
One thing the moron Bush did was to actually take the time to go to the United States Congress for its approval. Such reactionary warmongers as Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Rockefeller et al couldn't wait to vote YES in October 2002 to go to war with Iraq. They also couldn't wait to turn tail when things went bad--real profiles in courage they were.
Yous remember the US Congress? That's the place BHO DIDN'T go to for approval of his little Libyan adventure.
Nice try
Herman Cain 2012
www.hermancain.com
Bush went to Congress...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:32am.
but he didn't "take his time" in doing so. The administration wanted to force a vote prior to the midterm elections to put the political squeeze on the Congressional Democrats. Those involved in tightly contested races would be hesitant to vote "no" and thereby invite campaign charges of being soft on national security in the wake of 9/11.
Democratic leaders who requested the vote be postponed until after the elections so that the issue could be debated and deliberated without being unduly influenced by electoral implications--after all, there were no exigent circumstances which demanded speedy Congressional authorization--were rebuffed by the Bush White House. It was a blatant political power play.
That's not to say Obama didn't screw up by not having serious consultations with Congress prior to the Libyan intervention. He did, royally.
Jer
The Dems...
Submitted by Prester John on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:45am.
...were in control of the Senate in the Fall of 2002 and if they didn't want to have a vote they could've tabled it (but not knowing how this sort of thing is handled in the Senate I may be wrong on that).
In any event it's not like Iraq had sprung up overnight.
Everyone had their position on Iraq well before October 2002. Heck, they had their positions even before 9/11--why not state publicly what it was so the voters could decide?
If nothing else the vote showed what frauds Hillary, Kerry, Edwards et al were and still are--vote for the resolution before the election because your have no spine to vote 'NO' and/or thinking it will help your chances in November, and then turn tail as soon as it went bad.
Yes they were Prester, but...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:03pm.
Daschle had already indicated that if Bush insisted on a vote prior to the midterms he would defer to the President's wishes, although he hoped the matter would not be pushed beforehand. In fact, he later expressly requested that the administration wait until after the elections, but the White House rejected the request. And Daschle felt--after having favored the seeking of Congressional approval--that it would be inappropriate to then dictate the date the President could present the case to Congress.
I don't think it would have gone over too well if President Bush had said "we're ready to seek Congressional authorization for potential military intervention in Iraq" and for the Dem leaders to reply "we're busy right now renaming some post offices...we'll let you know when we can fit you on our calendar."
Jer
So then....
Submitted by Prester John on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:17pm.
....the Dem leadership caved to, in your words, a "blatant political power play".
Politics trumps principle?
Imagine that.
Well, when General Rove is
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:10pm.
Well, when General Rove is calling the shots, what do you think? "Blatant political power play" may not have been the best way for me to word it. Let's just say the administration recognized an opportunity and took advantage of it, and it would have been rather unseemly for the Dems to protest too loudly--particularly when Dascle had already stated he would defer to the President as far as timing.
Jer
Kinda like....
Submitted by Prester John on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:56pm.
....."Never let a good crisis go to waste".
There you go again Jer. The
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:51am.
There you go again Jer. The vote to invade Iraq was in Oct of 2002. Mid term elections were Nov of 2003. President Bush took office in January of 2001. And for a Democrat from a conservative district to vote "no", when the people were against such a vote, is that representing the people he was sent to serve? NO! It is representing the interest of the Democratic party. In other words, it is a betrayal of trust.
Your becoming tiring with your democratic mantra here Jer. Check your facts.
Edit:
Above link is Senate, here is the House. Of course, the vote is not really important here, but the date. It proves your post is a false statement.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
You have your dates on the
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:29pm.
You have your dates on the congressional elections wrong.
From Wikipedia when doing a search on "US elections, 2002":
"The 2002 United States general elections were held on November 5, two years after Republican President George W. Bush won the 2000 Presidential election. Unusual in midterm elections, the incumbent president's party gained seats in both chambers of the United States Congress. The Republicans picked up net gains of 2 Senate seats and 8 House seats.
These elections were held just a little under fourteen months after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Thus the elections were heavily overshadowed by the war on terror, the impending war with Iraq, and the sudden death of Democratic Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone about one week before the election."
The vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133.
i was just about to advise bass to get some rest and
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:30pm.
come back tomorrow.
Jer
I think
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:32pm.
I think the confusion was Bush was elected in 2000 but seated in 2001. So midterms are 2002 not 2003.
Easy mistake to make.
Maybe I do need a little sleep.
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:35pm.
.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Wasn't it his predecessor, Democrat President Bill Clinton, who
Submitted by Rush Fan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:58am.
signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, calling for regime change in Iraq?
Yes.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:58pm.
Jer
Situation Ethics
Submitted by GeneralAl on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:45am.
What we have here is a flagrant example of situation ethics. The anti war movement of the sixties developed this idea to a point that all your liberals in the press are infected with the virus. Quite naturally, since obama [small b diliberately] is one of them, they adjust their thought process to protect him. They are the lying testimonials to the deceitful snake oil salesman. Sure do miss Dubya! Hek, I sure do miss Slick Willie!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Hey, liberal kooks-
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:53am.
this is what we sane people mean when we refer to "reality". There's a whole big world out there. Life is messy. Sometimes, strong people must go forth and do violence. Better that they do it there than here. Unicorns don't exist. Most of you little turds have never lived in another country or seen how other societies treat each other. You have no clue. You sit in your safe little haven, coddled by your parents, college professors and employers and mindlessly spew vitriol at your own country while someone else's son or daughter risks their life for you. Ungrateful little brats.
Another Obama turnaround that
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:10am.
Another Obama turnaround that the media are ignoring is his thinking on establishing democracies in other countries.
Obama 2009:
We can't simply impose democracies on other countries with a different culture.
Obama 2011:
White House aims to "install" democracy in Libya
I guess it's that "nuance" thing and the difference between "impose" and "install"
Either that, or he now thinks Libya's culture isn't all that different from ours.
It's Who Obama Is..
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:37am.
The inability to act decisively is Obama's trademark. His confused leap to poorly contemplated action is no surprise to me. He is a grand campaigner but a poor excuse for a leader.
For the first weeks of the uprising Obama voted present and made some fund raising calls.
I think
Submitted by bsny on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:05am.
Brent looks better without the beard.
What's your beard's name again? I forget.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:34pm.
Agnes?
No
Submitted by bsny on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:43pm.
It's your mother.
I still don't see the strategic purpose here
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:51am.
in military intervention in Libya. Does anyone know why the U.S. is aiding the "rebels". Are these "rebels" actually folks we consider terrorists. Why does Obama think this is important? I mean the left can point their fingers at Bush but he stated why he was going into Iraq (at the cost of his political suicide). Has any substantive reasoning been given for military intervention or is this a Clinton moment (see bombing of Serbia). Gee I have to look PRESIDENTIAL, you know pose as the COMMANDER IN CHIEF my re-election campaign is starting makes me look like a centrist yeah that's the ticket. I can only think this is only a political move on his part otherwise it makes no sense.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
I think your on the right
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:01am.
I think your on the right track ahusser. In Obamas' world, conservatives are war mongers. This is his life outlook. And to install himself into the conservative mix, to make him look more centrist, he goes to war. In his view, we conservatives are always in favor of war with someone.
That is life through those liberal rose colored glasses. That's part of it.
The other part is he is so vested in Che's legacy, he just has to help those poor Al Qaeda freedom fighters we have so persecuted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I am Old School in this
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:48pm.
It is only OK to invade Libya if we are planning on stealing their oil (Do they have oil?). Plundering was a noble endeavor once upon a time. I am tired of trying to instill democracy to medieval people who have no concept of what democracy is. Unless there is a true strategic and/or national interest in this it isn't worth the cost in lives or treasure and now incrementally he is expanding the intervention. I know he is the pres and of course is privy to things I could only guess at but he really isn't explaining what he is doing in Libya and to what purpose. I smell agenda.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
The only thing I would add to this is plagerized but all I've
Submitted by gailannr on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:59am.
got right now!...........................................Obama, "self praise stinks!" Quit with it already!
America............Apologize to no one!!!!!!
Remind those of our sacrifice and don't
Confuse arrogance with leadership.
The count is 104,366 buried on foreign soils performing a "humanitarian effort."
THAT'S RIGHT!!!..............Dead, brave Americans during World War II.
And we have to watch an
American elected leader who
Apologizes to Europe and the
Middle East that our country is "arrogant"!
HOW MANY FRENCH, DUTCH, ITALIANS,
BELGIANS AND BRITS ARE BURIED ON
OUR SOIL... AFTER DEFENDING US
AGAINST OUR ENEMIES?
WE DON'T ASK FOR PRAISE...
BUT WE HAVE ABSOULUTELY NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE!