And I'm not alone. The entire nation is asking: What the hell are we risking lives to achieve? A quality no-fly zone? Are you kidding me?
Well, as if you haven't seen it all, get a load of the latest:
Backing the rebels, no questions askedFor the love of God, we are led by ignoramuses.
By Roger Simon, Politico
We are currently doing everything we can to bomb, strafe and use missiles to carry the rebels into power in Libya. We want them to win. We just don’t know who they are.
This is not merely my opinion. It is the statement of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, our point person in meeting with the rebels.
he was in London Tuesday to meet with diplomats from 30 countries, most of whom showed up to get in the group picture. There are certainly not 30 countries aiding us in the war in Libya.
Most of the media headlined Clinton’s statement about possibly arming the rebels. Many stories left out what I consider her more important statement: that she really had no idea who the rebels are and that, in fact, they might actually include members of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001.
Got that? We are killing people — Muammar Qadhafi’s troops and possibly civilians through “collateral damage” — in order to put the rebels in power.
But “we do not have any specific information about specific individuals from any organization who are part of this,” according to our secretary of state. [link]
- - -
Victor Davis Hanson:
The president spoke Monday night to clarify our intervention in Libya. Instead he made things worse, and could not explain the mission (are we/are we not after Qaddafi?), the methodology to achieve it (are we in a no-fly-zone or are we bombing ground targets essential to save the rebels?), and the desired outcome (who are the “rebels,” what do we wish from them, and are they better than Qaddafi?). Indeed, after almost two weeks, these questions still have not been asked much less answered.Can it get any worse than that?
So the omissions pose the question: how did Obama, the archetype war critic, find himself bombing—in optional and preemptive fashion, and without congressional authority — an Arab Muslim oil-exporting country, and one that posed no immediate threat to American national security, despite being governed by a monster who, nevertheless, had been recently courted by Western intellectuals, academics, universities, and diplomats?
Unfortunately, Obama has no principled or strategically logical foreign policy. So it is mostly loud declarations that he is not George Bush and making things up ad hoc as he goes along.
6 comments:
Slick Willie was a somewhat amusing criminal. Obama-ayers is downright evil as he strives to destroy the U.S.A. Egad, one almost longs for the days of Jimmah Cahtuh.
How can you people condemn Obama when Bush waged and idiotic war for years and years costing 10 billion per month for nothing. I was opposed to such foolishness with Bush into Iraq and now oppose the Obama administration's actions in Libya. It seems to me that you are for any war waged by a REpublican and against any war waged by a Democrat. At least try to be intellectually honest and recognize that neither Iraq, Afgan or Libya pose any threat to the US.
I won't dignify your rant anon. It would be a waste of time to give you a detailed answer although I might gently point out that Afghanistan was a "good war" approved by the Democrat Party of Death. And then, there was the weapons of mass destruction rationale in Iraq approved by the same party until like Traitor Kerry, they voted against it after they voted for it. What I really wanted to talk about here is Mark Steyn's Orange County Register article yesterday entitled: "If There's No Mission, When's It Accomplished?" Too true and hilariously funny--sorta. Among other things, he wonders if our planes are attacking Kaddafi's forces to stop killing of innocent civilians and our planes are attacking the rebels for doing the same thing, should they shoot at each other.
So we are in a war where you cannot tell friend from foe. Sounds like Vietnam.
...Al...
Surely you will at least acknowledge that the false claim of S Hussain having weapons of mass destruction was Bush's most significant lie of his deceitful administration. The fake veterans group that fabricated a series of stories about the true war hero Kerrey when the deserter and idiot Bush destroyed our country will go down as one of the most colossal ironies in American Political History.
Oh, hogwash anon. You know very well that the Democrat Party of Death voted to attack Saddam during Willie, the Raper's admin. I'm not talking about Kerrey I'm talking about the traitor from Taxachusetts "Frenchy" Kerry who visited VN for 4 months, awarded himself medals and went home to commit treason.
Post a Comment