Last night, the Teleprompter Totalitarian summoned all of the courage available to someone with a spine composed of yellow Jell-O.. He was “addressing the nation” about his war.. Or his “process” as Rodham called it.. Or was it his “action”.. We don’t know what to call it and he doesn’t either and he is supposedly “leading” it.. Or is he?
According to Bloomberg, “Obama offered a rationale for committing U.S. armed forces in the North African country based on humanitarian and national interests..” (“Obama Says Libya Massacre Would Have ‘Stained’ World Conscience” Bloomberg dot com 03/28/2011) Obama as always reflexively responded with puerile pettifoggerie when a MAN would have said, “this is war and if we really commit to it, it won’t take long”..
Obama thinks that he can slip this one by the liberal base of collectivist cowards by calling this a “humanitarian” effort. He thinks that he can snow the rest of America by claiming that “national interests” are at stake.. Where are the alcohol and marijuana stained chants of the liberals, “No blood for oil”? How about “Obama lied, Libyans died”?
Obama, in full deflection mode said that the U.S. and its allies (all of them unnamed of course..) had to take military action in Libya to avert a massacre of civilians that would have ‘stained the conscience of the world’”.. As long as the whole WORLD is involved, as long as their collective conscience is “stained”, well Obama feels the need to stand BEHIND Canada and France and now NATO in order to get the job done. If the world’s “conscience” were at all an actual concern for Obama as opposed to just a dodge, he would be in FRONT of this “action” with his pink helmet, his battery operated light saber and his GI Joe lunchbox.. Then again, based on Obama’s stellar two-year destruction of America, it’s better that Canada, France or NATO take control of all of this if succeeding is the actual goal..
“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries, the United States of America is different..” What about the “atrocities” in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Syria and coming soon to a theatre near you, Saudi Arabia.. In between jump shots and chip shots it only took Obama nine days to even begin “discussing” whatever it is that he is doing in Libya.. Obama “transparency” at its finest..
“He (Obama) stuck with his insistence that Qaddafi must relinquish power..” Obama certainly makes a lot of demands for someone who has cast himself as the waterboy for Canada, France and NATO. How does Obama hope to accomplish this lofty goal? Question: Would Saddam Hussein have “relinquished power” had he not been permanently “neutralized”? Obama “declared that expanding the allied military action to overthrow the Libyan regime would be a ‘mistake’”.. No one alive knows the definition of the word “mistake” better than Obama, but just what will “change” if Qaddafi is still in charge?
“He said the U.S. role in Libya would be limited, without giving a timetable for the military campaign..” WHAT!! Wait just a minute, “timetables” are what the liberals demanded of everyone else, not to mention “exit plans” that have to be followed to their red letters.. “Limited” within the flexible liberal lexicon, could literally mean anything. Remember, the American involvement at the beginning of the Vietnam was initiated by Kennedy was as an “advisor”.. That certainly sounded “limited” at the time, didn’t it?
Falling back into the “kinder gentler war” that needs to be fought by the left, Obama “argued that the U.S. was compelled to respond to crises that ‘threaten our common humanity’”.. How can our “common humanity” be preserved when Obama is having bombs dropped within areas inhabited by humans, Libyan humans? Stumbling upon this liberal dichotomy, Obama followed with, “as long as the country can assemble an international coalition to share the burden..” He really means, “share the blame”..
Don’t get me wrong, ANY opportunity to explosively dismember any Mooselims in ANY of the terrorist teapots of the Middle East is fine by me. I just have a problem with the liberal “rules of engagement” that they constantly screamed about since 2003 that have now become so murky to them.. One has to look at the ONLY stance that Obama had taken prior to becoming the president, literally the only topic that he stood behind with any consistency: his opposition to the Iraq war and his belief that President Bush violated the Constitution. Even his Vice President shared those beliefs at the time.. What happened?
“Obama hasn’t explained the misson’s objectives or the full scope of the nation’s commitment..” The “Transparent Totalitarian” hasn’t been forthright even after nine days of American involvement? Both Clinton and Bush spoke to the nation immediately as their operations began and both consulted Congress. Please keep in mind that this is the same man who “didn’t know” about a gun smuggling operation going INTO Mexico just a short time ago..
In “Obama strongly defends US military action in Libya”, (Yahoo dot com 03/28/2011) we read that Obama “gave no details on its cost” and he “offered no estimate on when the conflict might end..” Have no fear though, Obama assured everyone that “the U.S. was out of the lead..” The article, after pointing out these glaring deficiencies when it comes to actually “informing” the public, then claimed that Obama “offered an expansive case for why he believed it was in the national interest of the United States and allies to act..” “No details”, “no estimates”, yet Obama “offered an expansive case”..
“Obama said the response had stopped Qaddafi’s advances and halted a slaughter that could have shaken the stability of an entire region..” I’m trying to remember the last time that anyone considered the Middle East to be “stable”.. One would have to go even farther back to find anyone in that cesspool that you would consider “stable”..
“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader would have been a betrayal of who we are..” “Leader”? NATO is now allegedly the “leader” but before that Obama allowed Canada and France to be the “leader” while he skulked in the shadows.. THAT is a “betrayal of who we are”.. No scratch that, that is a “betrayal” of who we WERE before the liberal virus infected the political body..
Democratic stRATegist Ted Devine said, “a focus on Libya dilutes the impact of presidential messages on the economy..” What “messages”? The ones where he fabricates “jobs saved or created”? The ones where he just throws abstract numbers about without a shred of proof talking about how the economy has “turned the corner”? Obama’s genuine “impact” on the economy has been a socialist tsunami, a totalitarian tornado.. If Obama can’t manage to “dilute” a “message”, he more than capably distracts and diverts attention AWAY from the message..
Even before the Obama Othello act, “administration officials” said that, “no sense of precedent guided the decision to intervene in Libya..” (The Hill dot com 03/28/2011) Finally, someone tells the truth relative to Obama. Based upon the ridiculous results of this administration in two years time, let alone their “actions” of late in Libya, “no sense” has had everything to do with the unfortunate results that we will be saddled with for generations to come.. Maybe none of this would have happened if we would have had a “sensible president”..