How Exactly Is Killing Gaddafi In America’s Best Interest?

October 24, 2011 1 Comment

Gaddafi is dead, apparently we’re supposed to rejoice. There’s no doubt that Gaddafi was a bad guy in the world. He’s responsible for terrorism in the 80′s and he led a generally repressive regime. But he did become a minor ally of the United States after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Gaddafi provided the US information about a Qaeda, both Bush and Obama acknowledge this. Obama went so far as to meet Gaffafi. Now we have a dead former ally that we inexplicably turned on and his former country now being run by radical Muslims. How is this a victory for Obama or the United States?

Obama met with this guy in 2009. Gaffafi didn’t suddenly change between 2009 and April 2011. He didn’t suddenly take a pro-terrorist position, he didn’t become an al Qaeda member and he did nothing to hurt US interests in the middle east. The only thing that changed in the world is that the Muslim Brotherhood was starting uprisings in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. Obama supports the Brotherhood because of their socialist leanings and because he has Brotherhood sympathizers within his administration.

This appears to be the sole reason for turning on Gaddafi. Obama’s talk about the Pan Am bombing over Scotland in the 80′s is disingenuous. If Obama is so outraged over the bombing why did he meet with Gaddafi and say pleasant things about him in 2009? It simply makes no sense. Obama’s reason for turning on Gaddafi have nothing to do with his former terrorist ties and everything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Long term Obama has seriously hurt America’s position in the world. He’s more or less told regimes throughout the world to not trust us. Don’t become our allies because we’ll come after you anyway. Every tin pot dictator in Africa, the Middle East and Asia is now less likely to become our ally and share information that helps us, whether it’s concerning the War on Terror or any other subject. Why would any nation want to become our ally when we so quickly turn, without justification, against Gaddafi? Obama has seriously hurt our position in the world.

Now that Gaddafi is gone, who is he going to be replaced with? The current leader, Mustafa Abdel Ja­lil, has declared Sharia law in Libya. So we’ve helped replace one repressive violent regime with a regime that, if it strictly follows Sharia law, will be stoning raped women, supporting honor killings and cutting the heads off of infidels. Keep in mind of course that the proponents of Sharia law are the people who took down the World Trade Center. Why exactly are we favoring these people? Worse, al Qaeda is part of the group that revolted against Gaddafi. Again, why is the US supporting these people?

There’s no doubt that Gaddafi was an awful leader. He was brutal, arbitrary and had a terrorist past. But he was a known entity. He became a minor ally, he helped us fight al Qaeda. That doesn’t forgive what he did in the 80′s but it goes a long way. We’ve now helped replace him with radical Muslims who are bringing Sharia law to Libya. We’ve helped the Libyans trade one brutal dictatorship for another. How exactly was this in our best interest?

Obama has yet to adequately explain why getting rid of Gaddafi was in our best interest. Gaddafi’s terrorist past isn’t a valid excuse when he’s been an ally of Bush and Obama’s since 2004. Obama can’t meet with Gaddafi in 2009 and praise him then expect to get taken seriously when he calls him a terrorist in 2011. There was absolutely no justification for aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in getting rid of Gaddafi. We’ve now lost an ally, we’ve lost someone who provided us with intelligence on al Qaeda. We’ve helped replace him with a regime that supports terrorism, against us and Israel. Worse, that regime will keep Libyan’s in bondage just as much, if not more, than Gaddafi. How was this a victory for Obama and the United States?

Filed under Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , ,

Obama’s War in Libya Now Illegal

June 20, 2011 Leave a comment

The unmitigated arrogance and lawlessness of President Obama has been on full display during the last week. Congress has demanded an explanation of the war in Libya. Under the War Powers Act the President must explain to Congress within 90 days why the military is being used in a particular operation. He must also ask for approval from Congress for continued military operations. The President’s response to Congressional demands for explanation in Libya is nothing short of outrageous.

Obama claims there is no war in Libya! Apparently dropping bombs and having CIA operatives on the ground does not constitute war in the mind of President Obama. Keep in mind, as a Senator Mr. Obama insisted the war in Iraq was “illegal.” Never mind of course that President Bush asked for and received Congressional authorization in Iraq under the War Powers Act prior to dropping the first bomb. Obama isn’t just a lawless socialist, he’s America’s first postmodern President.

President Obama has such a thirst for war in Libya that he overruled Justice Department lawyers who told him that he was violating the War Powers Act. This is an almost unheard of event. President’s almost always go along with the opinions presented by the Justice Department, especially so on matters such as the War Powers Act. But not President Obama, law doesn’t matter to this man. Not only does law not matter to Obama, neither does language. When language doesn’t work to his advantage, he simply denies language exists. It isn’t a war, it’s a kinetic military operation! Now apparently action in Libya isn’t kinetic, military or an opperation.

Congress is threatening to cut off funding for Obama’s illegal Libyan war. Congress should not only cut off funding but impeachment hearings should be held if Obama continues to drop bombs on Libya. This isn’t a matter of disagreement with the war we’re fighting against Libya. This is a matter of law. We cannot have a President that disregards both the Constitution and the War Powers Act. Only Congress may declare war and under the War Powers Act (passed in 1973 on an override of a Nixon veto) the President must seek Congressional approval for any conflict lasting more than 90 days. For the President to ignore the War Powers Act and continue fighting a war in Libya based on little more than a redefinition of war is an impeachable offense regardless of whether Libyan action is in America’s best interests or not.

What Obama really needs to explain is why we’re trying to assassinate Gaddafi and why this is important for American interests in the middle east. Furthermore, Obama has yet to explain who the rebels are that we’re fighting for. There is ample evidence that the rebels include members of al Qaeda. These are people who are fresh off of fighting our soldiers in Iraq. They have our soldiers blood stained on their hands, yet Obama is supporting them in Libya. Obama is indeed the first postmodern President. We’re at war with al Qaeda, no, we’ve always been friends with al Qaeda. It’s all very 1984.

Obama must be forced to follow the law in this matter. The War Powers Act is clear as to Obama’s duties under the law. Mr. Obama is not living up to his duties and no amount of redefining the word ‘war’ will change what is going on in Libya. Congress must defund the military operation in Libya. If they don’t, then the War Powers Act is irrelevant and will forever be ignored by this President and future Presidents.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Will Congress Have The Guts to Cut Libyan War Funding?

June 15, 2011 Leave a comment

Speaker John Boehner has given the President until Friday to explain himself concerning the war in Libya. Nearly three quarters of the House, including half of the Democrats, supported resolutions demanding answers about the Libyan war from the administration. The non-binding resolution gave the President 14 days, which expires on Friday. The President has done nothing to advice Congress about the war in Libya. If Obama refuses to inform Congress about Libya, then it will be up to Congress to defund the operation.

Libya was a mistake from the beginning. It lacked a clear focus and clear objective. Obama’s refusal to take the lead in Libya, letting France of all nations lead the effort, meant that victory was never going to be possible in Libya. Whatever victory may have been, that still hasn’t been explained.

Obama apparently stands against Col. Gaddafi, even though he’s the first President to meet with him and even though the Colonel has been an arms length ally since the first Bush administration. Obama apparently supports the rebels, whoever they are. We know the President supports the radical anti-Isarael, anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, he supported them in Egypt. The Brotherhood has been on record wanting to kill Gaddafi for years. But guess who else is fighting with the rebels against Gaddafi? Al Qaeda of course. Al Qaeda hates Gaddafi because he provided the US with information about them. So to be clear, we killed al Qaeda’s leader but we’re supporting their effort to overthrow Gaddafi. Such is ridiculous and clearly not well thought out.

Say what you will about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the purpose and goals of those wars were always explained to the Congress and American people. Who we were fighting and why was never at issue because Bush always explained himself. Sometimes intelligence wasn’t very good, other times the Bush administration made mistakes or didn’t do a very good job. But even if we disagreed with what Bush was doing, we at least knew why we were there because Bush explained himself. Why then can’t Obama explain himself in Libya?

The Constitution is very clear, only the Congress may declare war. Congress, for better or worse, has delegated to the President the ability to go to war for 90 days without Congressional approval. At the end of those 90 days, it is up to Congress to declare war or pass some sort of resolution endorsing the war. Congress appears unwilling to support further action in Libya, certainly so if the President is secretive and won’t explain himself. Honestly, who does Obama think he is that he can start a war and not have to explain himself to Congress?

I hope that if the President refuses to meet Boehner’s deadline that Congress will defund the Libyan campaign. The war is pointless and riddled with contradictions. It does nothing for the United States in the middle east and it arguably hurts our position because we seem to be supporting the most radical elements of Islam. Congress needs to do its job and defund this war and prevent Obama from continuing action in Libya. It will be fascinating to see if the GOP has the guts to stand up to the President.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Seeks Unlimited War Power

May 21, 2011 Leave a comment

The War Powers Act allows the President 60 days to bomb the daylights out of a country before he needs Congressional authorization. President Bush received such authorization, which is essentially a declaration of war, before going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. We are approaching 60 days in Libya and President Obama has now declared that he doesn’t even have to ask for Congressional authorization because the US role in Libya is “limited.” So let’s be clear about this, President Obama believes that he can continue bombing any nation he wants for as long as he wants so long as the action is “limited.” Doesn’t that give the President complete and total dictatorial power over the military and war?

The so-called anti-war President is attempting to create a very dangerous precedent by continuing bombing past the 60 day War Powers authorization. What Obama is arguing for is unlimited war powers for the President, which is dangerous whether we’re talking about Obama or any other President. The War Powers Act already gives the President more power over war than he should have under the Constitution, Obama wants even more power. The question right now is what is Congress going to do about this? My guess is not much. And in not doing anything Congress is telling Obama, and all future Presidents, that they can bomb nations and use language such as “limited” in order to bypass the War Powers Act. Next thing you know we’ll be in a “limited” full scale war with a President arguing the War Powers Act doesn’t apply.

Beyond that issue, what are we to make of our “limited” role in Libya? If our role in Libya is so limited that we are basically a supporting bystander, why are we even bothering? Since when does the United States go to war and then sit on the sidelines while France does the bulk of the work? So far the war in Libya has been a complete failure. Gaddafi is still alive, the rebels aren’t any stronger than they were before the bombing and it’s clear that at best this is a stalemate. Worse, the rebels that we’re supporting include al Qaeda, whose leader we just killed. Doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that we’re supporting al Qaeda at the same time we’re killing its leader?

The war in Libya was an ill-conceived war that should be abandoned. There is no clear purpose for American involvement, the reasons given by Obama such as the Pan-Am bombing in the 80′s are moot in light of the fact that Gaddafi made peace with the US during the first Bush administration and actually met with Obama when he was President. We have no reason to be there, other than to support Obama’s allies in the Muslim Brotherhood. The same Muslim Brotherhood who wants Egypt to go to war with Israel, who supports Hamas, who has ties to Iran and historic ties to Hitler. Obama has allied himself with radical Islamic socialists, who are essentially an Islamic version of National socialism. Apparently his allies in the Brotherhood trump the Constitution, not to mention common sense.

Congress needs to control war power in accordance with the Constitution. Obama needs Congressional authorization, which is equivalent to a declaration of war, in order to continue forward in Libya. The President should not have unlimited power to bomb the nation of his choosing for an unlimited duration without receiving authorization from Congress, no matter how limited the President may believe his campaign is.

Filed under foreign policy, Obama Tagged with , , , , ,

Why Must Obama Insult The Jews at Passover?

April 19, 2011 Leave a comment

A few thoughts on various Obama stories:

The President apparently delivered a Passover message yesterday. I have always found it odd when President’s deliver messages about holidays other religions celebrate. As though the Jews need official approval and statement before they can start their Seder. Worse the article points out that Obama and many other Christians are partaking in Passover Seder’s. I find this absurd in light of the fact that Christ is our Passover lamb. In any event, Obama’s statement was insulting as it connected the Passover with recent protests by Islamic socialists in Muslim countries. This guy has a way of attacking the Jews and Israel on Passover without any backlash from anyone in the media. I can’t think of anything more insulting than what Obama had to say. I wonder if for Easter the President will connect Christ to atheists or pharisees. After all, he connected Passover to a direct enemy of the current State of Israel.

The EU is apparently waiting on UN approval to send ground forces into Libya. War by democratic vote, what a way to not prosecute a war effectively. NATO has had trouble obtaining bombs and ammunition, they’ve spent more time bombing the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood backed rebels than they have bombing Gaddafi’s troops. After more than a month of bombing the rebels are no closer to victory than they were before. Obama’s war has been a complete failure. What’s pathetic is that he isn’t even running the war, he passed off to NATO as soon as he could. NATO is incompetent, the EU looks like a bunch of fools groveling at the feet of the UN and Samantha Power’s duty to protect doctrine hasn’t protected anyone. This is what’s known as a failed mission. Failed not because our military is incapable but failed because the administration didn’t think out the war, didn’t plan it properly and engaged for all the wrong reasons.

Speaking of the duty to protect doctrine I wonder what the Obama administration is going to do in Nigeria. In that troubled country it appears as though a Christian is going to be elected President. As a result Muslims have gone on a rampage torching churches and houses and killing people. Sounds a lot like the Ivory Coast when Muslims supporting the newly elected President slaughtered 1,000 Christians. In the Ivory Coast the UN invoked the duty to protect doctrine and sided with the Muslim killer who was elected President. I’ll put good money on the UN not rushing to the defense of Christians in Nigeria. The duty to protect doctrine doesn’t extend to groups Samantha Power, George Soros and other elite leftists don’t like. Christians will not be protected, Muslims always will be even if they are the aggressor. Why? Because the socialist left, Obama included, in the west views the Islamic socialists in the Muslim world as socialist allies.

In 2008 President Obama said he opposed Presidential signing statements. Signing statements have been used by Presidents for many years to instruct agencies how to interpret a new law. President Bush often used them to interpret laws to mean the opposite of what was actually contained in the bill. Bush’s use of signing statements were often outrageous, which is why Obama opposed them. Now that he’s President Obama isn’t against signing statements. The recent 2011 budget included a ban on spending money on various Obama administration czars. Obama issued a signing statement which simply eliminated the ban, almost as though he was issuing a line item veto. This use of a signing statement, which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, is just as outrageous as anything Bush ever did. It also shows Obama to be the hypocrite that he is. I hope the Republicans file suit against the White House for this flagrant violation of law.

Filed under islamic socialism, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ivory Coast Genocide Proves Responsibility to Protect Doctrine a Fraud

April 4, 2011 7 Comments

A battle is being waged in the Ivory Coast for control of the nation. Alassane Ouattara, a Muslim, apparently defeated Lawrence Gbagbo, a Christian, for the Presidency of the small African nation. Ouattara is supported largely by the Muslim north of the country while Gbagbo is supported by the Christian south. According to President Obama, Ouattara won the election freely and fairly. That may be up for debate. Gbagbo is refusing to give up power and the two sides are currently fighting for control of the nation.

We have discovered that over the weekend Ouattara’s troops massacred 1,000 Christians. This despite the presence of the UN, which apparently did nothing to protect these people. Perhaps because the UN supports Ouattara. This isn’t the first nation where Muslims have massacred Christians, it has happened in Sudan and elsewhere. Christians have been persecuted throughout the Arab world, even in Iraq after Saddam was removed.

The situation in the Ivory Coast creates an interesting dilemma for the Obama administration. Obama’s top advisor Samantha Power created the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine with George Soros. The doctrine has been largely adopted by the UN and the Obama administration. This doctrine is what Obama used to justify American air attacks in Libya. After all, we had a responsibility to protect Libyans from their brutal dictator Gaddafi. According to Power and her doctrine, the US had no choice but to bomb Libya.

I’m left wondering whether the United States has a duty to bomb the Ivory Coast. We have a very clear example of a brutal attack carried out by the forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara. We have a very clear group of people who are threatened by the newly elected, if not installed, leader of the Ivory Coast. If Ouattara is put into power, it seems very likely that thousands of Christians will face attack and certain death. Samantha Power’s “Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine dictates that the US and in fact the world has a moral duty to intervene to protect Christians in the Ivory Coast from certain genocide.

What do you want to bet that Samantha Power and President Obama will not even consider doing anything in the Ivory Coast? In fact, would it surprise anyone if the Obama administration backed Alassane Ouattara even though his forces have massacred over 1,000 people in one town alone? Opposing Ouattara would mean backing down from the glowing statement of support issued by Obama just last week. The administration doesn’t seem to have a problem supporting brutal Muslim killers so long as it suits their current interests.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine is and always has been a fraud. Samantha Power and President Obama have no intention of applying the doctrine across the board. If they did, they would be getting the bombs ready for the Ivory Coast. The fact is, Power and Obama are selective in the enforcement of this doctrine, thus rendering the arguments they’ve made favoring it irrelevant and arguably a fraud when it comes to Libya. Either the US and the world have a responsibility to protect all people from brutal dictators and/or genocide or they do not. We cannot have a responsibility to protect those living in Libya but not those living in the Ivory Coast.

The situation in the Ivory Coast shows us all what a fraud Obama’s Libyan argument is. It shows us what a fraud Samantha Power’s “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine really is. What’s amazing is that Power is rumored to be the next Secretary of State or National Security advisor if Obama is re-elected. Obama’s lack of action in the Ivory Coast is proof that he has ulterior motives in Libya. It proves that he is in bed with radical Islamic socialists, all of whom hate Gaddafi. Obama is doing their bidding and hiding behind the Responsibility to Protect doctrine created by Power. When the Muslim Brotherhood has no interest, or where their interest is in favor of genocide, Obama is silent and so is Samantha Power.

Filed under foreign policy, islamic socialism, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

State Senator Obama Believes Libyan War Is Dumb and Rash

March 31, 2011 Leave a comment

In 2002 then Illinois State Senator Obama claimed that using force to remove a brutal dictator was a “dumb war.” Obama was of course speaking of Bush’s plan to remove Saddam Hussein which was being debated back in 2002. Obama said the following:

Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him….

I don’t oppose all wars.  … What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

The speech is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it’s clear that Obama didn’t start speaking in a condescending way when he ran for President. He’s been talking like that his whole life. ‘Now let me be clear’ is one of Obama’s trademark condescending terms.  But beyond that then State Senator Obama makes several arguments against President Obama’s actions in Libya. Libya is a rash war, it isn’t well thought out. It doesn’t have clear goals or purpose. Rather than Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz playing weekend warrior (which is insulting and untrue in the extreme) we have Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power stamping their feet for war. Not to mention George Soros.

Libya is a grossly rash war. Al Qaeda has swooped into Libya and is now infiltrating the rebels. The very rebels the administration debates arming. The fact that al Qaeda is heading to Libya to fight against Gaddafi should come as no surprise to anyone with a little knowledge about the history of Gaddafi. In 2003 Gaddafi made peace with the United States by providing the Bush administration with information about al Qaeda. That information has turned out to be very useful. Gaddafi hates al Qaeda and they certainly hate him. So it should be no surprise that al Qaeda is fighting with the rebels against Gaddafi.

The fact that al Qaeda is willing to fight Gaddafi calls into question why we’re aiding the rebels. Do we really want a nation such as Libya to fall into the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda? I understand that Gaddafi is a brutal dictator and himself a terrorist. But if Obama thinks he’s such a bad guy, why did he become the first American President to meet with him in 2009? Gaddafi didn’t suddenly become a bad guy since 2009.

Libya is a rash war with no real American purpose. It is not our duty to save every nation from brutal dictators. If it is, Libya surely should not be the only nation we bomb. We ought to start bombing North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela and maybe we should go bomb China as well. The argument that it is our duty or the world’s duty to fight brutal dictators is absurd and impossible. Especially so when we likely cannot even agree on who the brutal dictators are in the world.

The Obama administration is supporting Libyan rebels, some of which have al Qaeda ties. Others have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that the Obama administration has supported in Egypt and elsewhere. All of the revolutions taking place in the middle east, largely supported by the administration except oddly in Iran, are aiding al Qaeda. We already know they’re aiding the terrorists who want to destroy Israel in the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Americans we have to ask ourselves why Obama is supporting these people? Why is he making conditions for Muslim terrorists easier? Is this the sort of foreign policy we want our nation to have? We’re talking about people who believe it is ok to murder women who have been raped. We’re talking about people who believe in murdering people who leave the Muslim faith. We’re talking about people who believe in oppressing women and who rejoice when their children die as human suicide bombs. Are these the people we want to support in the middle east? Because that’s who Obama appears to be supporting. The President has bragged about passing off leadership in the Libyan war to NATO, yet in Turkey, a NATO member, the Photo of the Year was of a bloodied Israeli soldier. Do we really want NATO running our wars?

The war in Libya was not well thought out. President Obama rushed to war at the behest of Samantha Power who believes in a Soros doctrine that demands the world protect everyone from dictators he doesn’t like and Hillary Clinton who was tired of being badgered by the British and French. The President hasn’t clearly laid out for us who we’re actually supporting. I dare say if the American people knew we might start arming al Qaeda support for the war and this President would drop substantially.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Libyan Arguments Simply Don’t Add Up

March 29, 2011 Leave a comment

President Obama finally got around to explaining to the American people why he’s bombing Libya. His speech didn’t quite add up. The first half of the speech Obama praised American involvement in leading the UN/NATO/World coalition that is currently against Gaddafi. However, the second half of the speech Obama is quick to point out that the United States will not lead and that removing Gaddafi and/or regime change isn’t really the goal. Obama insists it’s in America’s best interest to intervene in Libya, insisting that the no fly zone will prevent a ‘massacre.’ He provided no evidence that a massacre was imminent.

The President claims that the US led the effort to put a coalition together against Gaddafi. That is revisionist history at its worse. It wasn’t Obama who put together the coalition against Gaddafi, it was France. It was France that recognized the Libyan rebels two weeks before Obama decided to support a no fly zone. It was European leaders who put the coalition together, begging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to talk Obama into joining. President Obama didn’t lead this effort against Gaddafi, he was at best a passive participant.

So while Obama claims that the US led the effort to put together the coalition he is quick to declare that the US will not lead this effort. It makes no sense. Why would we put together this coalition only to back off immediately? It doesn’t make any sense if the goal is actually to remove Gaddafi or prevent some sort of massacre. The two halves of Obama’s speech just didn’t fit, it just makes no sense.

President Obama spoke of American exceptionalism in suggesting that it is the duty of the United States to step in and protect citizens against a wicked oppressive dictator. There are two problems with the anti-war President’s sudden belief in American exceptionalism in this area. First, Obama sounds a lot like President Bush when he went into Iraq. In fact, the arguments are almost identical. You’ll recall Obama ran in 2008 against the Iraq war and the Bush Doctrine. Suddenly Obama is embracing the Bush Doctrine and applying it to Libya. Second, if it is the moral duty of the United States to step in and protect citizens in the world against their oppressive, murderous dictators, why then doesn’t the President support bombing Syria? After all, there are supposedly freedom loving citizens protesting in the street and getting shot by their government. Why not bomb Syria?

President Obama should have given this speech 10 days ago from the Oval Office. Instead he waited and waited and waited and then gave a speech at the National Defense University. It is absurd to give this speech anywhere but the Oval Office. The power that the Oval Office represents is immense and it seems that Obama is either uncomfortable with that or doesn’t care to portray that power. So much for American exceptionalism. To give the speech in front of military, where they will have no choice but to clap afterward is exploitative of the military and the American people. At this point, nothing surprises me with this President.

President Obama’s speech was too little too late. It exaggerated the administration’s work on putting the coalition together to the point where it borders on a lie. The willingness of the President to not lead to the point that Gaddafi is removed destroys all of his arguments in favor of bombing. Especially so when it comes to American exceptionalism. If it is our duty to protect the citizens of the world against their wicked dictators, why are we quitting so quickly in Libya? Obama’s position simply doesn’t make any sense.

If you’re going to take Vienna by God take Vienna. If Gaddafi is such an awful dude and if we have such a moral duty to protect the Libyans from this man, why isn’t it the goal of this mission to kill Gaddafi and/or remove him from power? Why wasn’t it the goal of the United States in 2009 when Obama met with Gaddafi and consider him an ally? These are the questions I’m left with after Obama’s speech. I suspect we will never get the answers from this administration.

Filed under Libya, Obama Tagged with , , ,

Israel Under Attack; Left-Wing Media Largely Ignores

March 25, 2011 1 Comment

A lot has been happening in Israel the past couple weeks which has been largely ignored by the left-wing US media. Last week the Fogal family was murdered by Palestinian terrorists while they slept. Apparently the Fogal’s live in a new Israeli settlement. As a result of the murders Palestinians rejoiced in the street and passed out candy and cookies. Meanwhile in the past several days Hamas has launched dozens of rockets into Israel. On Wednesday Palestinian terrorists bombed a bus in Jerusalem.

These stories have been largely ignored by the left-wing media. I’m not willing to say that is intentional on their part, after all our President is busy bombing Libya for no stated reason. What the media is guilty of in ignoring this story is not connecting the dots. In connecting the dots it appears that there is more going on in Israel and the middle east than the media is willing to tell us about.

Our President openly supported the Egyptian rebels against Mubarak back in late January and early February. The rebel protesters were organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, with aid from Hamas as well as Code Pink and other leftist outfits in the US. What is the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood? The elimination of Israel. One of their biggest beefs with Mubarak is that he remained at peace with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood wants war with Israel, hence their support for Hamas, which we know Code Pink has aided in the past.

In Libya who wants Gaddafi dead? None other than the Muslim Brotherhood who called for protests against him and ultimately his execution. It’s interesting that once against Obama is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that seeks the destruction of Israel. There any number of reasons why folks not associated with the Muslim Brotherhood might want to see Gaddafi dead, not the least of which are the families of those killed in the Pan-Am terrorist attack in Scotland. But we would be foolish to ignore the connection between the uprisings in Egypt and Libya.

There is a deep rooted hatred of Israel among the extreme left. It seems to be a goal of theirs to eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth. The extreme left, such as the George Soros funded Code Pink and a number of other Soros funded organizations, are allied with radical Islamic socialists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. What I can’t figure out about the extreme leftists is whether their opposition to Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism or if it is an opposition of convenience. By that I mean, Isreal happens to be the biggest US ally in the middle east and desiring the fall of the US requires the fall of its closest allies.

Either way, the media is missing the boat in Israel right now. I believe the increase in terrorist attacks in Israel is directly related to what has happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the middle east. Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood are organizing revolutions, all of which focus on Israel as the enemy. Those revolutions have been successful in important countries such as Egypt, a one time ally of Israel.

Hamas, a group closely linked to the Brotherhood, is now suddenly firing rockets into Israel, bombing buses and murdering families while they sleep. Could it be that they expect Egyptian backing when Israel attacks them? Could this not signal a wide scale war in the middle east between Israel and any number of its neighbors? Why is the media not talking about this? Are they sp stupid that they cannot connect the dots? Or perhaps are there sinister motives behind the media’s actions?

Israel isn’t a perfect nation and I by no means seek to pretend that everything they do is sunshine and flowers. But it is clear they are under attack right now from Hamas. When the dots are connected it seems to suggest that something more is happening against Israel than Hamas stamping its feet about nothing. It seems to suggest that plans are being made for a wide scale war against Israel, under direction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The media will act shocked when this happens. If only they had paid attention…

Filed under foreign policy, islamic socialism, Libya Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Claims War in Libya is a ‘Kinetic Military Action’

March 24, 2011 1 Comment

The Obama administration has declared that the US is not at war with Libya. No sir, we’re engaged in a ‘kinetic military action.’ And when I rob the 7-11 later today I’ll be engaging in ‘product redistribution’ rather than robbery. Press Secretary Jay Carney called the mission “a time-limited, scope-limited military action.” It would be nice if the action and time were defined, which they have not been by the administration.

What is the deal with liberals constantly changing the language to deflect attention away from what they’re actually doing? Why can’t the Obama administration be truthful about what they’re doing in Libya? There is no need to put a fancy name on what’s going on in Libya, it’s a war and nothing else.

There is no way around calling the action in Libya a war. This is more than just a no fly zone, we’re bombing Gaddafi’s military infrastructure, tanks, anti-aircraft installations and yes we have bombed some civilians. This is in no uncertain terms a war. It isn’t some fancy name that liberals have decided to use in order to not call it a war. We’re killing people and breaking things, it’s a war.

It’s a war that the President authorized a week ago and still hasn’t explained to the American people. We still don’t know why the President decided to go to war with Libya, other than the UN signed off on it. We still don’t know what the mission actually is. Are we trying to get rid of Gaddafi or are we going to allow him to stay in power? We don’t know the answer to that yet. After a week, President Obama still hasn’t held a primetime speech to explain the war to us. That is shocking to me.

Interestingly al Qaeda supports the UN/Allies/American action in Libya. While al Qaeda doesn’t have a presence there now, they hate Gaddafi. You’ll recall that when Gaddafi made peace with Bush back in 2003 he began feeding our government information about al Qaeda. Apparently some of this information was good. So there’s no doubt that al Qaeda hates Gaddafi and wants to rid Libya of him. We already know the Muslim Brotherhood hates him and wants him dead, they so much as said so when they won in Egypt. It begs the question why Obama is on the same side as al Qaeda in this matter.

This war would be much easier to stomach if Obama spoke to the American people and gave us concrete reasons for war with Libya. Instead, we have no reason and the allies are all over the place in terms of what is going on there. Obama says we’ll be out in days, France says weeks. If Obama is telling the truth, what exactly is the mission? Surely Gaddafi isn’t going to be removed in a matter of days. If removing him isn’t the point, what exactly is? We’re not aiding the rebels by imposing a no fly zone for two weeks.

What Obama is doing in changing the language of war is nothing short of a lie. Don’t buy the lie that this isn’t a war with Libya. We still don’t know why we’re in Libya and terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood support the allied effort against Gaddafi. The allies have no idea what they’re doing and aren’t on the same page at all. This is a mess, all thanks to our anti-war President who started a war and is now going to lie about not starting one.

Filed under islamic socialism, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers