Printable View
Rome is burning, where's our leadership? This dude's right on the money.
Quote:
Libya is being torn apart as the world watches. Ghadaffi is killing Libyans with air strikes and attacking the oil refineries as the people trying to throw his dictatorship off call for help from the world--including the US--begging us to save them and their country.
But Obama's too busy to take that call. He's got a basketball-watching party to host.
Read more: Lagniappe's Lair: Leadership, and the lack thereof.
He has a point.
As I understand, Sarkozy, the President of France has made a more decisive stance than our fearless leader.
Thats because Obama is a pussy. Nothing else to be said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgg
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/k...Obamapussy.jpg
He can't attack the Brotherhood. Let an infidal do it.
I would expect nothing more from him. The headline I just read stated "...it's a test of his power and policy." Whatever! Why wouldn't the media make everything [I]his[I] issue. It's not about him, his abilities, and better yet - lack thereof. What confidence can be instilled by a guy failing to place his hand over his heart during the our Anthem, salute a Marine during a ceremony, or apologize for bashing a cop and the entire force over an incident with "a friend." Libya, Japan, Afghanistan, New Orleans, Baltimore... I doubt he is much concerned with any. Why don't we make a front page story over Michelle's dress, and follow with the budget issues somewhere by the classifieds? If you wanted to be in Hollywood, go there! Charlie Sheen needs a bunk buddy.
Shenanigans.
The President was kind enough to drop a few congressmen a line and tell them that he had already authorized military force against Libyan National forces in keeping with UN resolution 1973 some two days after he did it:
International alliance divided over Libya command - Yahoo! News
The President has committed US military forces in a UN-sanctioned mission, without even a nod from congress. He's branded it - humanitarian. Tell me when it is humanitarian to launch 117 cruise missles in a single day, into a country the size of Alaska?
Then, taking the precise course that he was so critical of G.W. Bush for during the political banter of the elections, Obama has placed the U.S. in a lead role in the military action against Libyan National forces, obviously before even having a clear exit, protectorate, or command strategy. In fact, although Mr. Obama has clearly stated that (in keeping with the UN's intentions under 1973), Gaddafi is not targeted to be deposed, captured, or killed; the country, once suppressed militarily, is to be overseen by an as-yet identified multinational coalition. This is doublespeak. Gaddafi is supposed to remain in power, but the country won't be run by him? This sounds like buying out control of GM and Chrysler, but this time we aren't using hot money fresh off the printer, we are potentially using the blood of our military and certainly the Libyan people instead.
Like it or not, this is yet another incursion into the Middle East which promises further destabilization of the region, and now we are right in the middle of it. No one likes Gadaffi. Those of us who remember the past certainly wish that years ago (when we had damn good cause), the guy would have been turned into fish food. But, we have to admit that under Bush doctrine, Gadaffi had found ways to mainstream and fly under the radar. Touting economic and social reforms, reaching out to arabic-jews, and the Westernization of some aspects of Libyan culture alarmed more radical Islamic extremists more than our interests, and many would say could very well have led to that which has spurred much of the uprising in that country. ... and yes, I must admit the bodyguards were pretty hot, too. Still wondering what all this "uprising" stuff means? Consider PJ's Media's find on the similarities between the Egyptian uprising and Libya's current movement:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/democra...ibyan-edition/
We've seen "the muslim brotherhood" using the term "democracy" as a means by which to elicit a positive perception of the recent series of rebellions against sitting governments in the middle east, with Obama and his staff cowtowing to them for it and calling for sitting leadership to vacate their positions immediately. Given the current climate in the Mid East, if I were in Israel, I'd be loading magazines. Mr. Obama is rapidly putting an end to our relationship with Israel, and if they are left to their own devices, I don't think they'll wait around for a UN resolution to tell them to defend themselves.
I can hear the discussion now, "Hell, we have lost control of the House, and our masterplan to socialize healthcare is currently on the critical list, maybe we would be better off jumping into a little 'shock and awe' to distract the people? It worked pretty good for Billy when he got his furniture polished, didn't it?" then after the chuckles, "Well, we'd better make it snappy before someone tongueslips and the people realize that Hamas and Hezbollah are involved up to their elbows in this 'democracy', eh?"
Problem is, we feel it, Mr. Obama. When forty bucks only gives my pickup a quarter of a tank, you are going to have one devil of a time distracting me from it. We don't need another crisis, my fearless leader, we need you to quit buying out, handing out (to those who don't need it), and printing more when we start running out. Shoot the damn Pirates, but when you commit our people to supporting the UN after you poked your tongue out at your predecessor for doing the exact same thing, we get a little dissillusioned about it. At least we had some cassus belli before, here we just have Ban Ki-Moon telling us "go get'em"...
Obama has zero credibility in the eyes of the world. Jimmy Carter was feared more than him!