….
“Did you say Iran, sorry I didn’t hear you, what was that, we can’t dictate the terms of change for others, except when we do, and did, but only with a coalition, My Fellow Americans, Bush bad in Iraq, me good in Libya, because I did not declare war in that country, Libya.”
——————————————–
Related Posts:
SOTU Speech In One Sentence
Obama’s Post-Election Press Conference In One Sentence
Obama’s Gulf Speech In One Sentence
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Obama's Libya Speech In One Sentence: "You're welcome."
I heard lots of "I, me, my" but not a single word about those crazy dames who, having lost patience with Obama's endless "sitzkrieg" (I believe Paterico coined that one), stormed into his office and bitch-slapped him into "deciding" to order the military to head out to Libya. He did, however, say something about "under my command" or something. Maybe he said it too fast and I missed the Hillary part.
I jeard justification of Bush's invasion of Iraq.
even cnn asked the tough question: why aren't we doing the same in any other middle east sh!thole where people are being massacred?
It was so touching when he assured the surviving family members of Neda, slain in the streets of Iran in 2009, about his unwavering commitment to humanitarian interventions of all oppressors who……..oh wait.
And they called Clinton the teflon President!
The hard question, (why not others?), is not a "hard question" at all – it's a nudge, and the point of all this. What's good for the goose…
The easiest way to redistrubute American wealth worldwide tis to initiate war. The countries we attack get American Tax Dollars in the end. The Obama Doctrine. He will continue this type of intervention in other countries as it suits his agenda. And again, and again….
One more word was needed to grammatically complete that paragraph, "historic". Praise be to teh one.
I happen to be one person who believed that there was a necessity for a no-fly zone. What angers me is that Ødumbo dithered for so long. He never came out with a strong statement and when he did he was not in the slightest bit convincing. It was kind of like "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf".
Ødumbo turned his back on the Iranians even when hundreds were massacred in the streets of Iran, and even more were dragged off to prison and simply disappeared.
Prior to the start of the no-fly zone there was something like 8000 who had died. The "rebels" are a rag tag bunch, and very likely includes some who are Islamists and some who fought with Al Qaeda in Iraq (at least they have combat experience). These men are very likely a minority.
I am motivated by my own dislike of Daffy Duck because I see him as a sponsor of terrorism in the world. It is not just about the Lockerbie bombing, it is the sniper attack at the Libyan embassy where a British policewoman was gunned down and killed. Just like in Iraq there are too many people who have disappeared.
What is more, there is a lot of history that leads back to the period of the 1990s when the 1000 political prisoners were killed. The protests began when a man, associated with families of those who were killed was arrested. On top of that Zintan which has come under heavy shelling was the hometown of many of the officers involved in an attempted coup against Daffy in the 1990s. It all ties together somehow.
I do not know what percentage of those fighting are Islamsists, but what I have seen is that the rebels are treating their prisoners in a humane way compared to the actions of Daffy goons.
Where Neda became the face of the Iranian revolt, Enam al-Obaidi has become the face of the Libyan revolt. That young woman's action has managed to shine a light on a regime that is strong arming the people, as well as strong arming the foreign journalists.
The truth about Enam al-Obaidi is that she is a lawyer or a law student, who had joined in the protest, and who was raped by regime goons. She got out her story to the world. The journalists tried to protect her but were tackled by Daffy goons. They could do nothing to stop her being taken away. The regime even tried to claim that she was a prostitute, in order to cover up what took place.
You nailed it, Professor!
Just follow the crude………………….
Shorter Obama: Please ignore my grandstanding during the Bush administration when I said that reports of genocide did not justify liberating Iraq, nor did I much care that the international intelligence community had a good faith belief that Saddam had WMD.
Obama's administration can try and weasel around the word all they want, I can guarantee you, Gaddafi knows the US is at war with him.
"He who strikes at a king must kill him." Mark this, Gaddafi will set retribution in motion.
I know you think that you understand what you thought I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Capice?
The distilled Obama:
L'etat, c'est moi!
"Obama's endless "sitzkrieg" (I believe Paterico coined that one)"
You give him entirely too much credit. The "sitzkrieg" or "Phoney War" was the period between the Nazis declaring war on France and their actual invasion. It stretched long enough to cause political problems in England.
The Wizard of O: Pay no attention to that man behind the teleprompter!!
Mark Halperin: But he's a genius !!!
Maggie, I particularly wanted to address your comments. It seems you are being swayed by a false premise that Gdaffy needed to be taken down at this particular time.
You mention the Lockerbie bombing and the sniper incident as an excuse for a dictator that, outside of his own borders, was pretty well neutralized. We have allowed Gdaffy to reign for years, in spite of his terrorist activities of the past. So I have to ask; why now?
You mentioned 8,000 killed. But from all the news reports I have seen, and read, there were only about 100 rebels killed by Qdaffy's troops as of Sunday, week ago. And approx. 200 injured. Yet, in spite of the fact that it has now come to light that the administration KNEW that the rebels were probably the same tribal Islamists that had sent jihadists to kill American soldiers in Iraq, we are supporting them, preventing Qdaffy from taking out those radicals on his own. Why? They will only turn on the U.S., and the western world, in the end.
This is like Egypt, where Obama supported the rebels, only for us to now watch the Muslim Brotherhood, the only really organized policital group in Egypt, position themselves to take over political control of Egypt. Have you not noticed that Egypt is no longer a news item in the MSM? Why would that be? I can tell you; Egypt is not working out the way the administration thought it would. It will become Iran on The Nile is short order, and that will not be good for the U.S., and will definately be a problem for Israel.
You know the name of Enam el-Obaidi, but do you know the name of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet? Do you know about The Black Spring of Cuba, a nation much closer to us? Castro has ruled as long as Qdaffy, yet I see no action on the part of this president to halt the humanitarian disaster that is Cuba. Where is the NAACP while black Cubans are thrown in prisons never to be seen again for the crime of being black? Where is LaRaza and LULAC, as they organize protest marches for illegal immigrants while Hispanics in Cuba are being put to death for daring to speak out against the proverty and cruelty that is the Cuban regime?
So again I ask you, why Libya now? And why did the U.N. violate its own charter to agree to let France initiate a military action against Qdaffy? The Libyan situation is basically a civil war. Yet, in 1981 the U.N. chartered the "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States" which said:
"No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affiars of other States."
I am not willing to have my nation's military controlled by a Samatha Powers policy of R2P (look it up). Secretary Gates honestly pointed out that we have no strategic interest in Libya, so we are sending American forces to protect the interst of France, who never met an enemy they were not willing to surrender to. We are now in a "war for oil", oil that is sold to France and Great Britain, not us.
There is no game plan. In Iraq, our mission was clear; take out Saddam. In Afghanistan, our mission was clear: destroy the Taliban. What is our mission in Libya, if not to kill Qdaffy? And yet, our president says that the assassination of Qdaffy is not a goal. Does he really think that he is so charismatic that he can convince Qdaffy to step down just because Obama wants him to?
Libya, like Egypt, will not end well. A POTUS, who could not even made good and logical decisions on tiny Honduras, has expanded the Middle East war, and it will be Americans who bear the cost and shed the blood. Not France, not Great Britain, not the Arab League nations. Us.
If you support Obama re: Libya and humanitarian relief, I have but one word for you: Darfur.
@retire05
I suggest you do some research on Libya and what has taken place.
I was startled during the Egyptian "revolution" by something that caught my eye regarding Libya. I knew before the outbreak of violence that something was up.
I have my own questions about the timing of the Libyan protests. Are they tied to Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Morocco and all of the other M.E. countries where there have been protests? My own answer is probably yes, and that bothers me a lot.
What also bothers me is the picture of Che Guevera that I saw inside a vehicle driven by one of the "rebels". That gives me the chills.
However, your figures are definitely wrong with regard to how many have been killed. In Misrata alone in one week more than 100 have been killed by the Daffy goons. More than 1000 have been injured as well.
I have not heard an update on the numbers of the fighters that have been killed. There have been many deaths on both sides.
The issue that was addressed by the U.N. was the threat made by Daffy Duck that there would be "NO MERCY" in Benghazi.
Another thing that bothers me is that Daffy arranged for the mercenaries to come into Libya prior to any uprising. Those mercenaries are from other African countries such as Malia. In other words Daffy was anticipating an uprising.
What you overlook is that Daffy was emboldened because of the weakness of Ødumbo. We might have thought that he was neutralized but recently, just prior to the outbreak of the protests Daffy was making new noises.
Daffy was a sponsor of terrorism in the M.E. and how do you know that he has not been a sponsor of trouble in several African nations?
Also, consider this: Daffy promised to get rid of his WMDs, but he did not get rid of all of them. In other words he did not keep his word on the subject. He cannot be trusted.
The history of uprisings in Libya prior to the present one helps put the whole into perspective. Like I said, it goes back to the 1990s when there was an attempted coup, but in reality it goes back before then, because Daffy was in the habit of hunting down dissidents and killing them. The people in places like Benghazi have not forgotten.
The death of the policewoman, a crime that was never solved by the way, came to the surface again in the past few weeks because Sidoni, who had worked for Daffy by spying on the students in London, was captured.
I do not support Øbama on Libya, but I do support Sarkozy and David Cameron, as well as my own government.
Other than that I agree the inconsistency speaks volumes.