Bush Sr., Clinton, Obama, and Libya

[Jack Fate]

Like I said...

Get the support of your allies, have good intel, and achievable goals.

Clinton won the war in the Balkans without losing a single American soldier.

Bush Sr. got the support of almost all the industrialized nations for the Gulf War, even the Japanese.

It's called diplomacy. It works really well when you use it.

Looks like cowardice to me. Looks like the USA is not going to be a leader until we have one again.

I love it. Gaining the support of our allies is cowardice.

That's the funniest thing I ever read.

No, gaining the support of our allies is called leadership.

Bush Sr. did it.

Bill Clinton did it.

Now Obama is doing it.

Congress never voted for this attack. The UN doesn't dictate our foreign policy.

Obama is creating terrorists. His policy of Gitmo and attacking a nation that has not attacked the USA is exactly the same thing Obama said was a failure of policy for Bush.

 

[Chris]

Looks like cowardice to me. Looks like the USA is not going to be a leader until we have one again.

I love it. Gaining the support of our allies is cowardice.

That's the funniest thing I ever read.

No, gaining the support of our allies is called leadership.

Bush Sr. did it.

Bill Clinton did it.

Now Obama is doing it.

Congress never voted for this attack. The UN doesn't dictate our foreign policy.

Obama is creating terrorists. His policy of Gitmo and attacking a nation that has not attacked the USA is exactly the same thing Obama said was a failure of policy for Bush.

Except we aren't taking over their country.

We are only aiding a homegrown revolution.

Big difference.

 

[Agit8r]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Sounds great........................but....we don't know who we're backing or the end game, is ghadafi to be taken into custody?, who controls Libya?, who gets the spoils?, OIL. And a whole encylopedia of unknowns. Major mistakes again.

The same is true of Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Japan, Germany, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and every other situation in human history.

Republicans supporting Kadaffy is fun to see though.

yes, it takes a socialist sponsor of terror to win their sympathies

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love it. Gaining the support of our allies is cowardice.

That's the funniest thing I ever read.

No, gaining the support of our allies is called leadership.

Bush Sr. did it.

Bill Clinton did it.

Now Obama is doing it.

Congress never voted for this attack. The UN doesn't dictate our foreign policy.

Obama is creating terrorists. His policy of Gitmo and attacking a nation that has not attacked the USA is exactly the same thing Obama said was a failure of policy for Bush.

Except we aren't taking over their country.

We are only aiding a homegrown revolution.

Big difference.

What, pray tell, is the difference between "taking over a country," which Bush did not do, and helping a group of terrorists to overthrow the legitimate government of a sovereign nation, and an ally? Did you notice that it took Obama longer to speak up and call for the ouster of Qaddafi than it did Mubarak?

 

[Charles_Main]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Yeah, to bad it may have taken so damn long to get all that ready it was to late. We missed a great opportunity, this could have gone much smoother had action been taken when the Rebels held Most of the country.

 

[8537]

Fucking jackpot.

Watching liberals defend this move is goddamn hilarious. Everything, and I repeat EVERYTHING, you hated Bush for, Obama is repeating.

So I presume you have your Obama pom-poms out, cheering him endlessly for this?

 

[Charles_Main]

Congress never voted for this attack. The UN doesn't dictate our foreign policy.

Obama is creating terrorists. His policy of Gitmo and attacking a nation that has not attacked the USA is exactly the same thing Obama said was a failure of policy for Bush.

Except we aren't taking over their country.

We are only aiding a homegrown revolution.

Big difference.

What, pray tell, is the difference between "taking over a country," which Bush did not do, and helping a group of terrorists to overthrow the legitimate government of a sovereign nation, and an ally? Did you notice that it took Obama longer to speak up and call for the ouster of Qaddafi than it did Mubarak?

It is inevitable that acting in Libya is going to expose our Double standard. Certain countries whos oil, or Cooperation we need get a pass, and can smash up risings in their country. While Qaddafi gets hammered.

Whats happens if there is a major Up rising in Saudi and the world starts screaming for UN action there. Are we going to turn against the Saudi Royal Family and risk our access to the tit?

lol

 

[8537]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Yeah, to bad it may have taken so damn long to get all that ready it was to late. We missed a great opportunity, this could have gone much smoother had action been taken when the Rebels held Most of the country.

When the rebels held most of the country it appeared they didn't need our help.

 

[Charles_Main]

I for one am a "right winger" and I commend Obama and the World for this Action. I do think Obama was very slow, and managed to project weakness even as he announced the attacks, but I have to give him credit for acting, finally. Even if it does expose him once again as a huge Hippocrate. Willing to authorize the Armed forces of the US to commit acts of war with out Congressional Approval on his order. Something he hammered Bush for while he was a senator.

 

[Charles_Main]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Yeah, to bad it may have taken so damn long to get all that ready it was to late. We missed a great opportunity, this could have gone much smoother had action been taken when the Rebels held Most of the country.

When the rebels held most of the country it appeared they didn't need our help.

Only to the un informed. Military minds should have known that they Rebels had no air force and no heavy armor. We should have been able to predict they would not be able to withstand Qaddafis counter attack assuming Qaddafi could hold on to control of his Military.

No sorry, Ill credit Obama for taking action, but I do feel it was about a week to late.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Difference is GWB had backbone and America was attacked on his watch. Obama is a joke.

 

[8537]

Yeah, to bad it may have taken so damn long to get all that ready it was to late. We missed a great opportunity, this could have gone much smoother had action been taken when the Rebels held Most of the country.

When the rebels held most of the country it appeared they didn't need our help.

Only to the un informed.

I'm sure Secretary Gates etal were simply uninformed. That makes sense.

M

ilitary minds should have known that they Rebels had no air force and no heavy armor.

The belief wasn't that the rebels could win an all-out war. It was that an all-out war wouldn't come about.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Sounds great........................but....we don't know who we're backing or the end game, is ghadafi to be taken into custody?, who controls Libya?, who gets the spoils?, OIL. And a whole encylopedia of unknowns. Major mistakes again.

The same is true of Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Japan, Germany, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and every other situation in human history.

Republicans supporting Kadaffy is fun to see though.

Lets not forget that vietnam was the dimwits disaster.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Obama was very clear during his campaign for President that the Iraq war and Gitmo were responsible for creating terrorists. A main point was that Iraq never attacked us.

Well, Gitmo is still open and Libya never attacked us, and Obama is blowing the crap out of them. Meanwhile...........The left is eerily silent.

Like I said...

Get the support of your allies, have good intel, and achievable goals.

Clinton won the war in the Balkans without losing a single American soldier.

Bush Sr. got the support of almost all the industrialized nations for the Gulf War, even the Japanese.

It's called diplomacy. It works really well when you use it.

Obama and good intel are like oil and water, doesn't mix well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Yeah, to bad it may have taken so damn long to get all that ready it was to late. We missed a great opportunity, this could have gone much smoother had action been taken when the Rebels held Most of the country.

When the rebels held most of the country it appeared they didn't need our help.

It did not appear that way to anyone who had any understanding of military tactics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the rebels held most of the country it appeared they didn't need our help.

Only to the un informed.

I'm sure Secretary Gates etal were simply uninformed. That makes sense.

M

ilitary minds should have known that they Rebels had no air force and no heavy armor.

The belief wasn't that the rebels could win an all-out war. It was that an all-out war wouldn't come about.

Gates never said that the rebels would be able to hold the territory they took. What he said was that a No Fly Zone would be ineffective because it would do nothing to stop the tanks or the helicopters that Qaddafi was using. He hoped, like I did, that the rebels would win peacefully, but once the shooting started I knew they would loose. I am pretty sure he did too, which might explain why Obama took so long to comment on the situation.

 

[Agit8r]

Like George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Obama has done things the correct way.

Have the correct intel, get the support of our allies, set achievable goals, and be on the right side.

Yeah, to bad it may have taken so damn long to get all that ready it was to late. We missed a great opportunity, this could have gone much smoother had action been taken when the Rebels held Most of the country.

finally a conservative that doesn't support the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah

 

[Jon]

Fucking jackpot.

Watching liberals defend this move is goddamn hilarious. Everything, and I repeat EVERYTHING, you hated Bush for, Obama is repeating.

So I presume you have your Obama pom-poms out, cheering him endlessly for this?

Nope, just as I didn't cheer Bush for his invasion of Iraq. I just find the irony hilarious. Democrats claim to be the cure for the Republicans, but they just look like more disease to me.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Straight out of their asses. What is our exit strategy ? ----quick !

No need for an exit strategy when you do it right.

Did we need an exit strategy for the Balkans?

Did we need one for Kuwait?

Will we need one for Libya?

No.

That's the point. When you do it right, it works.

When you don't, you need an exit strategy.

Yet that's all the press and Liberals asked Bush. Which one of you is man enough to ask Obama?

None of you.

While I'm not a liberal, I didn't like what Bush did in Iraq (Afghanistan was 1000% a-ok with me), and I don't like what Obama's doing in Libya.

We need to stop being the world's police!

We should only go to war when:

1)we're attacked

2)an ally of ours is attacked

And that's IT.

 

[hortysir]

No American troops are going into Libya by the way.

Oh really? From March 3rd:
U.S. troops arrive in Greece in Libya buildup - USATODAY.com

Some 400 US Marines arrived at an American naval base in Greece in a buildup of U.S. forces around revolt-torn Libya, even as European governments shied away Thursday from possible military action.

You know what Marines do right?

But hey, Obama wouldn't send them in right? From March 7th:
White House: U.S. troops are one option for Libya - Washington Times

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday said deploying ground troops is not at the “top of the list” when it comes to potential responses to the ongoing violence in Libya, but he said it’s one of many options being considered.“No option has been removed from the table, but … ground troops is not sort of top of the list at this point,” Mr. Carney told reporters.

Oh, it's not on top of the list, that's much better. They couldn't be lying, or the troops couldn't already be in there blowing shit up in advance as they were in Gulf War I and Gulf War II.

Either way I'm sure the President has the American people on his side on this one right? It's not just those crazy conservatard/birthers that are against him right? Right?

From Rasmussen. March 8th:
Rasmussen Poll: 63 Percent Want U.S. to Stay Out of Libya Crisis

More than 60 percent of U.S. voters want the United States to maintain a hands-off approach to the Libyan crisis, even as government officials discuss possible military intervention in the Mediterranean country ripped asunder in a rebellion against longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Well, then I'm sure Obama would get authorization from Congress wouldn't he? I mean, he wouldn't do like Bush did and skirt the War Powers Act would he? What do John Stewart and HuffPo say about that?

​

This is, undoubtedly, the Post of the Day