Obama Wags the Dog

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
Email Ben Shapiro | Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up What is this really about?

As the price of oil skyrockets, as our debt levels rise to new highs and our housing market drops to new lows, President Obama decides that it is a fantastic time to start dropping bombs on Libya. Nobody, including Obama, seems to know what our objective is in Libya. First, it was deposing terroristic thug Muammar Qaddafi; then it was standing up for the United Nations; then it was protecting civilians; now it is some combination of all of them. This is the same man who once explained with regard to Middle East policy, "I can tell you this -- when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand." Now, finding where Obama stands is tougher than finding a cane-less Waldo in a crowd of Christmas elves.

Meanwhile, the international community floats aimlessly through Obama's sea of foreign policy vagary. For a community organizer, Obama sure has trouble organizing the international community. Perhaps that's because even he doesn't know why we're in Libya.

One matter is crystal clear, however: we're certainly not in Libya for the reasons Obama has articulated.

Let's not deceive ourselves into believing that Obama has become an ardent advocate of Muslim freedom -- only a few short years ago, he was badmouthing President Bush's campaign in Iraq, ignoring Iranian pleas for freedom from the mullahs, and sending ambassadors to parlay with Hamas.

Let's not pretend, either, that America has serious interests at stake in Libya -- we don't. The rebels are backed by al-Qaida, the same people we're supposed to be fighting. Obama criticized the Iraq War for taking our eye off the ball with regard to al-Qaida; now, he's not merely taking our eye off the ball, but he's throwing the game to al-Qaida. Muammar Qaddafi deserves to lose his head, but America doesn't deserve a Libya run by an even worse foe. As for the U.N., we had more allies and more U.N. support for the war in Iraq, which Obama opposed.

As for Obama's contention that he wants to protect Libyan civilians, that also rings false. After all, the best way to protect Libyan civilians is to put highly trained allied troops on the ground in Libya -- as Obama himself has acknowledged. Back in 2007, Obama criticized President Bush's Afghanistan military policy for lack of boots, stating that the U.S. needed to "get the job done ... [which] requires us to have enough troops that we're not just air raiding villages and killing civilians."

So what's this really about? President Obama's war of choice in Libya is, very simply, a wag the dog scenario.

read it all here.
Obama Wags the Dog - Ben Shapiro - Townhall Conservative

 

[strollingbones]

before he was being called ball less ...too scared to take action....

damned if you do..damned if you dont

 

[Bfgrn]

before he was being called ball less ...too scared to take action....

damned if you do..damned if you dont

I seem to recall being called a 'traitor' when I criticized Bush during the War in Iraq. But this is different. Obama isn't really the President of the United States.

 

[Intense]

What is different here is the Left supporting what it criticized 8 years ago. No Plan, no Consent, no exit strategy. Nobody ever talks about the State Department's role in all this, then or now. It would seem that Obama is more concerned about what the UN thinks, rather than the USA. Who are his people again??? Just checking.

 

[bodecea]

before he was being called ball less ...too scared to take action....

damned if you do..damned if you dont

Exactly. And the last time we heard "Wag the Dog" was Clinton and then later they bitched about him NOT taking out Osama bin Laden.


But then again, we are talking about Stephanie who determines her support of the military STRICTLY based on politics.

 

[bodecea]

What is different here is the Left supporting what it criticized 8 years ago. No Plan, no Consent, no exit strategy. Nobody ever talks about the State Department's role in all this, then or now. It would seem that Obama is more concerned about what the UN thinks, rather than the USA. Who are his people again??? Just checking.

Really? I'm a Leftie and I don't support this attack....but then again, I also roll my eyes up at partisan (I will only support the military if they are righties) hacks like Stephanie.

 

[R.D.]

before he was being called ball less ...too scared to take action....

damned if you do..damned if you dont

He still is

 

[Emma]

What is different here is the Left supporting what it criticized 8 years ago. No Plan, no Consent, no exit strategy. Nobody ever talks about the State Department's role in all this, then or now. It would seem that Obama is more concerned about what the UN thinks, rather than the USA. Who are his people again??? Just checking.

And the right is criticizing what it supported 8 years ago

For the record, I think Obama was wrong to do this, just as Bush was back then. I'm consistent

 

[dilloduck]

What is different here is the Left supporting what it criticized 8 years ago. No Plan, no Consent, no exit strategy. Nobody ever talks about the State Department's role in all this, then or now. It would seem that Obama is more concerned about what the UN thinks, rather than the USA. Who are his people again??? Just checking.

And the right is criticizing what it supported 8 years ago

For the record, I think Obama was wrong to do this, just as Bush was back then. I'm consistent

yet both polical factions are powerless to do anything but criticize. That outta tell us something. A guy runs for president and promises to change everything but does the same thing. Who or what really running the show ? Tell me again why voting is important ?

 

[westwall]

What is different here is the Left supporting what it criticized 8 years ago. No Plan, no Consent, no exit strategy. Nobody ever talks about the State Department's role in all this, then or now. It would seem that Obama is more concerned about what the UN thinks, rather than the USA. Who are his people again??? Just checking.

And the right is criticizing what it supported 8 years ago

For the record, I think Obama was wrong to do this, just as Bush was back then. I'm consistent

No, they seem to merely be calling out the hypocrisy of the Dems.

 

[editec]

I JOIN you in wondering if this insinuation into Libyan affiars is well thought out.

I suspect that the unfolding of events didn't give the USA or the rest of the world much time to think the mission through to the end, and THAT I find very troubling.

 

[Emma]

What is different here is the Left supporting what it criticized 8 years ago. No Plan, no Consent, no exit strategy. Nobody ever talks about the State Department's role in all this, then or now. It would seem that Obama is more concerned about what the UN thinks, rather than the USA. Who are his people again??? Just checking.

And the right is criticizing what it supported 8 years ago

For the record, I think Obama was wrong to do this, just as Bush was back then. I'm consistent

No, they seem to merely be calling out the hypocrisy of the Dems.

Who called out the hypocrisy of the right, who called out the hypocrisy of the left ...

It's a never-ending cycle. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Londoner]

This would make sense if there was any reason to believe a war would help Obama with his anti-war base or the Right, who is salivating to force an analogy with Iraq: 4,000+ deaths and 3 Trillion dollar price tag.

Bush's congressional base was asked to sacrifice their political careers to the Iraq War. They supported Bush without question. They were not allowed to criticize the war - even when they knew they would lose their jobs for supporting it. Obama knows he doesn't have this luxury of his base supporting anything. Dennis Kucinich called for impeachment (rightly IMO), and Left pundits have been castigating him. The Left lacks a unified political machine which controls the message every morning, and punishes dissent. Obama is toast, and he knows it. If he lets Gaddafi slaughter thousands, he must contend with Gingrich saying nobody is afraid of Obama. "Without a strong leader in Washington, the dictators of the world are free to spill as much blood as they like". Obama had to know that this was just bait.

 

[drsmith1072]

before he was being called ball less ...too scared to take action....

damned if you do..damned if you dont

Yeah and it's funny how unpatriotic and un-American all of these righties are becoming.

Imagine, criticizing a stitting president during a time of war?? How dare they, the bunch of surrender monkeys. LOL

 

[Douger]

 

[Truthmatters]

Bomb Bomb Bomb , bomb bomb Iran.


The right has no moral code, all they have is hate for anyone with a D after their names.

 

[Truthmatters]

ThinkProgress » Gingrich Criticized Obama For Not Intervening In Libya, But Now Criticizes Him For Intervening In Libya


This is how you keep reacting to everything that Obama does or doesnt do.

You are like yo yos with no self control or respect.

 

[drsmith1072]

What is different here is the Left supporting what it criticized 8 years ago. No Plan, no Consent, no exit strategy. Nobody ever talks about the State Department's role in all this, then or now. It would seem that Obama is more concerned about what the UN thinks, rather than the USA. Who are his people again??? Just checking.

Actually IF you had taken the time to do some research there are those on the left are critical of obama on this. The daily show had examples of at least three dems who were critical of obama's choice to go to the UN and nato to institute a no fly zone. BTW have we launched a full scale invasion yet?? If not then there really is NO comparison to what W did with iraq.

Oh and thanks for going with the foxnews talking point of the day. LOL

 

[BlindBoo]

As for the U.N., we had more allies and more U.N. support for the war in Iraq, which Obama opposed.
Except the one body that has the authority to justify unified military action(in leu of a direct military threat, which btw Iraq did not pose to the USA) the Security Councel opted for further inspections to find the alleged new stockpile and new production facilities the Bush administration was claiming. They did not authorize military action.

Con men are wagging you.

 

[sealybobo]

SNIP:
Email Ben Shapiro | Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up What is this really about?

As the price of oil skyrockets, as our debt levels rise to new highs and our housing market drops to new lows, President Obama decides that it is a fantastic time to start dropping bombs on Libya. Nobody, including Obama, seems to know what our objective is in Libya. First, it was deposing terroristic thug Muammar Qaddafi; then it was standing up for the United Nations; then it was protecting civilians; now it is some combination of all of them. This is the same man who once explained with regard to Middle East policy, "I can tell you this -- when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand." Now, finding where Obama stands is tougher than finding a cane-less Waldo in a crowd of Christmas elves.

Meanwhile, the international community floats aimlessly through Obama's sea of foreign policy vagary. For a community organizer, Obama sure has trouble organizing the international community. Perhaps that's because even he doesn't know why we're in Libya.

One matter is crystal clear, however: we're certainly not in Libya for the reasons Obama has articulated.

Let's not deceive ourselves into believing that Obama has become an ardent advocate of Muslim freedom -- only a few short years ago, he was badmouthing President Bush's campaign in Iraq, ignoring Iranian pleas for freedom from the mullahs, and sending ambassadors to parlay with Hamas.

Let's not pretend, either, that America has serious interests at stake in Libya -- we don't. The rebels are backed by al-Qaida, the same people we're supposed to be fighting. Obama criticized the Iraq War for taking our eye off the ball with regard to al-Qaida; now, he's not merely taking our eye off the ball, but he's throwing the game to al-Qaida. Muammar Qaddafi deserves to lose his head, but America doesn't deserve a Libya run by an even worse foe. As for the U.N., we had more allies and more U.N. support for the war in Iraq, which Obama opposed.

As for Obama's contention that he wants to protect Libyan civilians, that also rings false. After all, the best way to protect Libyan civilians is to put highly trained allied troops on the ground in Libya -- as Obama himself has acknowledged. Back in 2007, Obama criticized President Bush's Afghanistan military policy for lack of boots, stating that the U.S. needed to "get the job done ... [which] requires us to have enough troops that we're not just air raiding villages and killing civilians."

So what's this really about? President Obama's war of choice in Libya is, very simply, a wag the dog scenario.

read it all here.
Obama Wags the Dog - Ben Shapiro - Townhall Conservative

and trump chooses Syria. Maybe north korea next and without congressional approval