Obama’s War Reeks Of Hypocrisy

Loading

I’m betting Obama, France and England thought this Libyan shell game was going to be a piece of cake. Not so much:

There, hundreds of supporters offered themselves up as human shields, cheering to newly minted dance songs about their adoration for their leader. “House by house, alley by alley,” the catchiest song went, quoting a Qaddafi speech. “Disinfect the germs from each house and each room.”

The crowd included many women and children, and some said they had family in Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. They said they had come to protect Colonel Qaddafi’s compound from bombing by volunteering to be shields. “If they want to hit Muammar Qaddafi, they must hit us because we are all Muammar Qaddafi,” said Ghazad Muftah, a 52-year-old widow of a soldier from the Warfalla tribe, who said she was there with her six grown children.

And how did this happen? Obama and pals thought they had a perfect evil enemy that they could use to quickly dispatch from the scene and then Obama’s image could be uplifted a bit. His image economically is in shreds after trying to spend his way out of a recession sending us into a ever spiraling amount of debt. Gas prices are skyrocketing and all he does is make us MORE dependent on foreign oil, instead of less. His Socialist ideas are not gaining in popularity. His approval ratings are going down.

So against this backdrop he starts this new shell game. Hey everybody, look over there, I’m gonna knock out the evil Libyan leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, but doing it wasn’t going to be that easy without looking like a “warmonger”

When Muammar el-Qaddafi first struck back against protesters, Obama hoped that tough sanctions and material support to the opposition would be enough to force the dictator from power. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned him that a “no fly zone” would be ineffective and essentially commit the country to war. By Monday night, it was clear to Obama that this policy wasn’t working. Countries like Iran were getting the wrong message. The Libyan military was selectively testing the patience of the world by striking opposition strongholds. The opposition was pinned down in the port city of Benghazi, swelled by tens of thousands of refugees. Qaddafi kept using a phrase that stuck in Obama’s head: “no mercy.” And France, smarting from seeming to abandon Egyptians during their time of trouble, along with the U.K., were champing at the bit to use force.

Gates wanted to game out scenarios, knowing that any effective no-fly zone would necessitate a cascade of other military actions that would look a heck of a lot like an invasion, no matter how carefully it was done.

To sell this they had to bring out some phrases that should once again give you a case of deja vu:

Asked if American officials feared whether Colonel Qaddafi could open a new terrorism front, Mr. Brennan said: “Qaddafi has the penchant to do things of a very concerning nature. We have to anticipate and be prepared for things he might try to do to flout the will of the international community.”

Among the threats the United States is focusing on is Libya’s stockpile of deadly mustard gas, he said.

Support terrorism
WMD’s

Hmmmm, seems I heard these reasons before and they were not well taken by the liberal left if I recall right.

My, how the thinking has changed:

The negative comments about this operation are shocking really. My friend is a Red Cross doctor in Algeria and she told me Gaddafi’s forces wiped out a hospital treating rebels. The hospital had more than 29 sick children.

Why should the world stand back and allow a mad man murder his own people?

Murder his own people you say? Like dumping them in vats of acid? Throwing them off of buildings? Rape rooms?

Oh, that was Iraq…..my mistake.

Read the whole thread and its comments from the Kosidiots. Funny how they are now a-ok with this kind of action since they got their man in the Oval Office now.

Hypocrites one and all.

An evil Arab dictator has been in power for decades. He personally controls his country’s vast oil wealth. A sponsor of terrorism, he has provoked the West to take military action against him in the past. Islamic fundamentalists despise him as much as the West does. When his people rise up against him, he murders them ruthlessly. The United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions condemning him. An American president, intent on promoting democracy in the Middle East, demands that the dictator abdicate. When the dictator fails to leave, the American president authorizes the use of military force. Our “allies,” including Great Britain, are asked to help. The endgame for the use of force is unclear.

Sound familiar? No, we’re not talking about Moammar Qaddafi and Barack Obama. We’re talking about Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. The difference is this: in almost the exact same set of circumstances, Bush was called “Hitler” by the Left. Leftists wrote plays and stories and movies about killing him. Democratic Party politicians, like Sen. Dick Durbin, likened our troops to “Nazis.” Democratic Senators like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, who voted for the military action, accused the president of lying. Mass demonstrations and protests, sponsored by the communist and socialist Left, broke out in the U.S. and Great Britain. Antiwar groups like Code Pink staged demonstrations at military recruiting stations, and had to be dragged shrieking from the halls of Congress. Opponents of the war shouted that Saddam’s Iraq never attacked us, and that our military action was a violation of international law. The Left cried for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

President Obama has just committed American forces to engage in acts of war against Moammar Qaddafi. Where are the protesters? Where are the accusations that Obama is a liar and a Nazi? Where are the groups of “artists” wishing death upon the “warmonger” Obama? Where are the cries for Obama’s impeachment? There aren’t any, and there won’t be any, either. Obama – who made a fetish out of his opposition to the “surge” in Iraq, yet ordered a “surge” of his own in Afghanistan – has just committed American forces to combat action against a third Muslim country. No matter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize a priori. The Left regards him as a man of peace in its own mind; the facts are irrelevant.

The Left’s hypocrisy on matters of war and peace is sickening. When the Democratic Party is in power, it routinely commits America to war. When Republicans are in power, Democrats engage in shameless demagoguery and paint the Republicans as bloodthirsty warmongers.

Complete and utter hypocrisy.

Remember when the left cried “Why don’t you go to war with North Korea? They have WMD’s too….you are just taking the easy way out”

Do we hear the cries now? Obama decides to go after a “easy” target in Libya while he completely ignored the student uprising in Iran. And even then, backing the rebels in Libya may very well make this region more dangerous, instead of less. When the OIC backs Obama’s war you have to wonder if we’re backing the right side.

H Y P O C R I T E S

Exit quote given to this excellent summation of Obama’s folly by David Warren:

….the Bush administration tried to meet all the criteria of a just war, when invading Afghanistan, then Iraq. They tried to meet the Powell maxims, too. They went to elaborate and exhausting lengths to leave “democratic” and constitutional regimes, in a most unfavourable region. For this, especially, they endured the contempt of the world’s most aggressively self-righteous people.

Who, in turn, seem to be rallying behind the Security Council resolution of Thursday night, which “authorizes” the enforcement not only of no-fly zones over Libya, but any other uses to which military forces may be put, short of a decisive ground invasion.

The very fact that Russia and China failed to veto this resolution, speaks against it. That it fails not on one, but on every single criterion of a just war, should be noted. That it fails the Powell test is a matter of course.

…Sarkozy’s France has, without consulting her European allies, already recognized the rebels in apparent control of Benghazi as an alternative government. No one else knows whom they are supporting, and in point of fact, the most promising internal opponents of Gadhafi’s regime are thuggish tribal chiefs and Islamist ideologues we have no reason to prefer to the monster with whom we are overfamiliar.

And as we have already seen, both the strength and ruthlessness of Gadhafi’s Libyan regime, after more than four decades in power, have been underestimated. We cannot foresee, even to the degree we could over Serbia in 1999, the likely results of our “experimental bombing.”

We don’t know what we are doing. We only know that we have moral support for it on paper, from an international organization that is utterly corrupt, wherein members who do not wish us well are pleased to grant us permission to blunder.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am going to keep this post brief, due me typing on my iPhone.

I read this article last night about how the tide has turned in the battle against the rebels.

The Libyans are going to side with who they think is going to win. During the protests and the rebel offensive, they chose the “winning” side. Now that the tide has turned, they are choosing to stay loyal. They choose this out of survival.

By President Obama waiting until others took the lead, has given Qaddafi an opportunity to respond and change the momentum. Had the US taken decisive action right away, I feel te worst could be behind us. Instead, we are being dragged I to a conflict with loyalties that shift like quicksand.

This is no way to challenge the status quo. The decision window was missed and only when the fate has been decided did The One make a decision.

I also saw a of a person railing against President Obama for his attack on Qaddafi. Of course, this is a friend of Qaddafi by the name of Farrakhan. He was preaching on a radio interview. I think I almost hear him say, “chickens coming home to roost.”

There’s a leadership vacuum in this country but it is being filled with chaff. When are the true leaders going to step up?

If Gadaffi survives and remains in power, then Obama has placed our National Security at great risk.
Gadaffi is a proven terrorist and I have no doubt he will retaliate with multiple attempts at some especially brutal attacks. I would include an assassination attempt against our President.

In my opinion, Obama needs to locate Gadaffi and send a Tomahawk into his back window. (I think somebody else tried that once and was castigated for doing it).

Watch Obama go into hiding now. I think a lot of people are looking for good hiding places.

Obama has more then security problems, the head of the Black Muslims “Farrakhan” isn’t to happy with him. That bunch is just as bad as the terrorist. But not to worry, if the going gets tough Obama will claim he inherited the problem from G W Bush.

Curt,
There is a difference between Bush’s war and Obama’s war. I don’t understand the difference yet, but I am sure the MSM will explain it to me. Let’s wait until they come up with a good explanation of the difference before we judge them. Who knows, they actually might come up with a sound difference between the two.

Anybody else hear about the mixed signals from the ”Arab League?”
First the Arab League voted to support the ”No-Fly Zone.”
Then Operations what-ever-its-called started and missiles supported the jets by taking out land-based anti-aircraft missiles.
The Arab League was not counting on that.
Video: Arab League chief condemns Libya airstrikes ITN NEWS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcaEj4IYYcg&feature=player_embedded
OOPS!
Muslims getting killed by infidels…..that was NOT part of their plan.

Then something happened and now the same Arab League refuses to even discuss their earlier condemnation of the action.

______________
Then there’s Gaddafi and his hudnas.
(A hudna is a Muslim’s version of a ceasefire. It is NOT permanent, but only designed to get a pause to improve winning chances.)
Gaddafi threatened a plague of illegal immigrants on Europe IF they did a no-fly zone action.
But in the very hour the UN sanctioned it, Gaddafi called a ceasefire!
Then, evidence on the ground proved Gaddafi was lying.
He threatened a Long War.
The no-fly zone is being enforced so he opened his armories and (he says) he gave 1 million people armaments to fight with.
Only a few minutes ago, however, Gaddafi claimed he would ceasefire.
___________________
No.
Either he is really insane or he lies so often to a captive populace he doesn’t realize much of the world can fact check him with satellite and drone cameras.
Either way, this will not stop until his people are safe.
Europe only cares about that.
Europe doesn’t care whether Gaddafi stays or goes.
As long as the illegal immigrant floodgates do not open.

What would Jes Chris Matthews say?

It does make you wonder why we haven’t already read in Lancet about the 600,000 Libyan civilians killed by these attacks.

#2 Nostradamus

If Gadaffi survives and remains in power, then Obama has placed our National Security at great risk.

True. Yet, if Gadaffi falls, and an amalgam of al-Qaida and M.B. takes over, then Obama has, again, done the same.

It seems to me that he is proving the words he wrote one of his books true, that he would stand with Islam if the winds shifted into an ugly direction. M.B. is taking over Egypt, and now presides over a genocide of Christians in Egypt. Obama was on their side. Now the Ummah is wanting full control over Libya, so who does Obama support? Why, those rascals, “The Rebel Forces”, of course. Who happen to be mostly, if not all, al-Qaida and other Wahabbiist Muslims. Just “Freedom Fighters”. Just fighting for the freedom to practice Islam fully, which includes all the slaughter, rape, enslavement, and persecution of the Dhimmi Infidels that they are religiously required to perform.

Nevermind that it’s not “Freedom Fighters” that is the operative and informative phrase here. The Democrats don’t have a record of just aiding the “underdog”, and the “rebels”. After all, if they did, why would they ignore the Freedom Fighters and Democracy protestors being slaughtered in Iran? Why would they ignore the same group in Venezuela? There is a simple reason that only makes sense when you realize and acknowledge just how evilly-aligned Obama and the Democrats are: he didn’t stand up for Iranian protestors because Iran already IS controlled by a dictatorial Islamic theocracy, and he ignored the Venezuelan freedom protesters because Venezuela is already in the grip of a socialist/communist dictator.

He will stand up for “democracy protestors” only when their desired outcome is either Islamic dictatorship or socialist/communist dictatorship. All you others who REALLY want freedom better look elsewhere for support. Obama just isn’t all that into you.

I’m ashamed of my nation.

Curt, great post, by the way. Passing it on.

Curt You’ve said many times “W” is your guy.Great.We understand.Enough.
Question of the moment.Who’s side you on in Libya?

,

Many times in the past, I’ve mentioned in one way or the other one must look at someones words, actions and associations before making what is hoped to be a learned decision (in this case voting for a President). As such, I have been taken to task more than once in other forums mostly for citing one’s words as reasons to oppose them I’m not sure how many times I have cited the quote but one only had to read his book as it was there in his own words! (Quote from Obama’s book: Audacity of Hope: ‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’). Every action this man has taken seems to be in concert with that quote! One can always be judged by their own words and actions. Muslim sympathizer? Guilty by his own words! Communist or Socialist? Guilty by his associations, actions and words! Racist? Guilty by his associations and his Racist Attorney General who he allows to ignore blatant biased crimes perpetrated by Blacks as opposed to Whites.

Words and actions are facts. The fact that the MSM and the public in general chose TO NOT DO THEIR HOMEWORK and in fact look at what was in front of their faces now has our country on a precipice!

Great comment!!!

Curt If we can remove a genocidal maniac and keep American casualties negligable you’re damn right I’ m backing it.

@Curt:
Curt, by waiting so long, Obama allowed the goals of the operation to be set by the Europeans, the Arab League, NATO and the UN.
Obama simply rubber stamped their goal.
And what was their goal?
Europe wanted to be safe from a gigantic influx of illegals from Africa.
That coalition neither sided with removing Gaddafi nor implanting a rebel in charge.
All the coalition wants is a civilian population that feels safe enough to STAY PUT in Africa.
And Obama is helping with that goal.

Skook’s Ode To The Failing Obama

Poor Obama, he doesn’t try so hard.
Why can’t we just adore and love him
Worldly matters are ugly like old lard
Poses and speeches, a life without sin
Hire another for the work, be but a Bard

Tis lonely work, this office of president
Notice the proud, dare say arrogant chin
Forget that the money has been spent
He is but a man who operates on whim
Nay, forget the negatives of Socialist intent

Due to strength of character, America still stands
Such vacuous and insipid leadership so pathetic
Yet still our enemies light the fires of their brands
We count months till November of 12 to hide our panic

That other poet, William Shakespeare, thinks of Obama to guide his muse; Corolanus V:3

Like a dull actor now
I have forgot my part and I am out
Even to a full disgrace

Curt Loss of American lives should ALWAYS be considered before entering any conflict.

Hindsight 4200 dead and 30,00)+ wounded a heavy price for Iraq.

@Taqiyyotomist:

I gave you a “Like” on that one!
You are Soooooooo correct.

Curt #19 NO

I also posted the below on drjohn’s “3am post”. Personally, I feel POTUS doesn’t even understand the definition of hypocrisy as he’s to locked into his ideology along with the fact he’s told so many lies he’s lost track. Having said that and as I mentioned above, I pose the following. I’m disappearing until tomorrow folks. Grandkids time. The last few have seen some great back and forth and while I get a bit sick and tired of the B.S. from the other side, I still welcome their thoughts as even nonsense can be used to help form a learned decision. And if someone can provide any insight as to the question below, I’d appreciate it.

If one can get away from the inane arguments for a second, just who is going to take over there if Qadafi is tossed out? I haven’t seen much yet other than one blurb somewhere than that the main resistance is a hard core Radical Islamic Sect. Again I repeat, I haven’t seen much more than that, so at this time one cannot make an informed decision. With the history of the guy in D.C. and his leanings (One only had to read his book as it was there in his own words! (Quote from Obama’s book: Audacity of Hope: ‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’), one has to assume the worse could happen in this case. (BTW: As I’ve said more than once. One’s words and actions equal guilt by association, etc.

Seriously, I really have not seen anyone ask this question! In theory, this guy dithered while Iran, and other countries shot their own people, yet he’s acting here (after having to be pushed into it I might add). Something just doesn’t add up in my mind here. As I stated earlier, thousands of people have already died there BEFORE the U.N. and POTUS decided to act. After sitting on their hands for 4 weeks, I’m supposed to be impressed? Like I said, something isn’t right here and I sure as hell don’t want some diplomatic B.S. answer. What are the facts and who is it this President is really backing in Libya? Like I said, I have my feelings, but that’s not enough.

Curt I see the removal of K with negligable casualties,which I HOPE we can all agree is a good thing.

Gadaffi may be wondering about his recurring problems with democratic presidents. Clinton ordered missile launches in his direction also.

The Bush administration assisted with the Lockerbie lawsuit settlements. Very helpful, the republicans. The democrats, not so much.

Obama is voting present on this issue, just like he did as a State Senator and a US Senator.

The hypocrisy definitely reeks BIG time. Based on the comments here and on Dr John’s earlier thread, it appears as though the formula is: Dem prez+military action=good. Rep prez+military action=very bad. Hussein was 10 times worse than Qaddafi in every aspect. To support this and not support getting rid of Saddam is utter hypocrisy. I used to think the “Moral Majority” were hypocrites. They can’t hold a candle to the left. I’ve been all for getting rid of Q since Lockerbie so if he goes down, it’s been a long time coming. Now that military action has been initiated, agree with it or not, American military forces have been committed and they deserve 100% of our support (unlike the “support” given to the troops by the left during the Bush years) so WE need to prevail and that means Qaddafi needs to go. Anything less and this will be a failure. We’ll then have to deal with whoever takes his place for better or worse. The question is whether the Administration has the stomach to follow this through because it may very well require boots on the ground. If they are not prepared to finish what they started, then they should have never started it to begin with. Cruise missiles have never led to regime change. They also didn’t work in 2000 against Al Qaeda. That’s not to say it will fail this time, but the odds are against it.

@rich wheeler #17:

Hindsight 4200 dead and 30,00)+ wounded a heavy price for Iraq.

What might hindsight a generation or two down the road look like? Still a heavy price? Maybe, maybe not…

What would the “heavy price” had been had the status quo of Saddam and his murderous sons remained in power? We’ll never know, thanks to a president who made big decisions and put his influential mark on the course of history.

Not to diminish a single death in any war, as each and every death is “a heavy price” to some family out there, but how can you know with certitude whether or not 4200 deaths is “a heavy price” when you compare it to previous military conflicts of this scope and magnitude (assuming post-major combat operations/insurgency and OIF being one on-going war)? In the annals of history, 4200 deaths on one side of the conflict might seem like a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the heavy losses experienced in other wars.

@Greg,

Not so much. First, the Lockerbie bomber gets released.. and now Obama is asking that he be sent back to prison..

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/obama_administration_now_askin.html

Hmm..

@Wordsmith: As you said, one American life is too many. To further put your point in perspective, here are some interesting numbers. The second column is the number of total U.S. deaths in Iraq including hostile fire, accidents, fratricide, suicides etc. The first column is the number of murders in Chicago during the same period of time. Keep in mind that the actual number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq by hostile fire is 3,501.

2003: 598 486
2004: 448 849
2005: 449 846
2006: 467 822
2007: 442 904
2008: 510 314
2009: 458 149
2010: 435 60
2011 ? 10
Total 3807- 4440

The difference in the number of combat deaths between Afghanistan, since we invaded there, and the number of murders in Chicago would be even greater. More Americans have been killed in Chicago than the bad guys killed in Iraq. Remember, Chicago is an anti-war, democratic party stronghold. Such irony.

@chipset, #28:

Obama was in no way responsible for al-Megrahi’s release. The Obama administration opposed it. Has that bit of history been revised in the conservative imagination? So much has been that I often have trouble keeping up with the changes.

Maybe O-BUM should abdicate then move to Tripoli, at which point in time our US NAVY can finally deal with that pesky “birth certificate” issue. Let God sort out the rest, we’ll do our best, as men of faith we will pass the test. The Christ Jesus is KING.

Once again Europe has suckered us into one of their wars, namely ‘OIL”. For the euro[eans, it’s atrictly about oil, Gaddhafi supplies most of their oil.
I would not surprised if France, and England buck out when the going get tough, and let Obummer hold the bad.
Also, what worries me is whether the UN uses this ‘princioles issue’ against israel in the future.

@Greg:

It wasn’t so cut and dried and I believe you know that and wiki? You know better than that too.

Downing Street has hit back at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.

President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.

British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211495/No-10-turns-Obama-Clinton-criticising-decision-release-Lockerbie-bomber.html#ixzz1HEOXwRNb

Barack Obama is under growing pressure to release a letter that reveals the US grudgingly supported freeing the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds.

The letter was sent to Scottish ministers by a senior diplomat at the US embassy in London last August, eight days before Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison because he was dying from inoperable prostate cancer.

Obama’s administration has refused to allow publication of the letter, in which the US says allowing Megrahi to live at home in Scotland would be “far preferable” to sending him back to Libya under the prisoner transfer deal brokered by former prime minister Tony Blair in 2007.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/25/barack-obama-megrahi-release-lockerbie

@ Greg

Very helpful, the republicans. The democrats, not so much.

Odd, I seem to remember a mission I was on that involved bombing the living pig snot out of Libya, not just cruise missle, but heavy aerial bombing. Who was my Commander in Chief back then. Oh yeah, it was Reagan. Pretty sure he wasn’t a democrat Greg, because I enjoyed my time in the military under him. During Carter’s years I enjoyed bumper stickers that read, “Keep Biloxi Beautiful, Kill an Airman.”

The Bush administration assisted with the Lockerbie lawsuit settlements.

Your boy Joe Biden was one of the co-sponsors of the bill Bush signed. It was hailed by democraps as a great achievement on their part. Why are you upset about that? Megrahi was freed on Obama’s watch. Whether or not he was complicit or not remains to be seen.

JC,

I never said anything about President Obama protesting the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Of course, President Obama protested. Very ineffectually, if I recall.

It does seem stupid to request that action after a year, now doesn’t it? And why now? He was better off letting people forget about it.

What are your thoughts on him asking for it?

Lob one right here please

BUFFALOBOB, IS THAT THE ONE WHO HAS A TINGLING IN HIS LEG?
I BET HE HAS ANOTHER TINGLING ON THE LEFT LEG
BYE

Taqiyyotomist, you need come here more often,
we like to eat the cakes and drink you bring with you,
bye

you know something striking is that, the MUSLIM COUNTRYS have a HISTORY OF SPARKLING REVOLTS JUST TO DIMINISH THEIR OVER POPULATED COUNTRY AS TOO MANY CRAM IN THEIR LAND POSE A PROBLEM DANGEROUSLY FOR CHALLENGING THE LEADER’S AUTHORITY,
AND YET AFTER SO MANY MILLENIUM, ALL THEY HAD TO LEARNED TO DO IS LEAVE IT IN THEIR SHORTS