Finally.
Barack Obama finally got around to taking a position. Now that the dust is settling in Libya, Barack Obama is taking a position. This is exactly the same as he’s done for his entire career.
And the position he’s finally gotten around to taking is Sarah Palin’s. She got there on February 23.
Now, as Gaddafi is mopping up, Barack the Bold appears on the horizon.
In the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama voted present 128 times. He would often use it to duck the tough issues.
Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.
Not every state allows the “present” vote, but then hardly any other state can compete with Illinois for pure corruption.
If there was any doubt about voting present being Obama’s mother’s skirt, it was dispelled by on the debt his vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Back then Obama said this:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
He voted against it, knowing that he could vote against it. When pressed to explain the vote, Robert Gibbs mumbled
Gibbs said Obama’s vote was not necessary at the time to secure passage of the bill, which squeaked by 52-48, and that he was using the occasion to call for fiscal discipline.
Thus Obama could stake out the noble position without any political risk and without having to be point man.
Just like now.
The assertions that Obama was being “deliberate” and/or “thoughtful” with regard to Libya are ridiculous. They are the pathetic efforts of liberals to cover for this complete absence of leadership.
The need for a no-fly zone is past. It’s too late. Way too late.
But only then does Air Obama take to the skies.
The world called the US at 3 AM and there was no one to answer. The world was looking for a leader and none was to be found.
France took the lead in the concern over Libya. France’s Sarkozy and England’s Cameron have left Obama biting at their heels.
France is to host talks on Saturday with senior politicians to discuss what course of action to follow in Libya. The UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron says Britain will send fighter jets “in the coming hours” to enforce the no-fly zone.
Only then in the shade of political safety did “Brackets” Obama make an appearance.
On March 12 the Arab League voted to support a no-fly zone and asked the UN to impose it.
March 12.
On March 16 Hillary Clinton called vote that a “sea change.” And still nothing happened.
So there it is.
The Arab League opened the door for Obama on March 12. They all but begged him to go to the UN and stir action.
Sarkozy and Cameron probably threw their arms into the air waiting for President Godot and decided to go without him.
Only when Gaddafi was closing in on the Benghazi finale does Barack Obama get off the recliner.
Game over, man.
If you appreciate that unique and ideal combination of ineffectiveness, meaninglessness and tardy symbolism in a President, Barack Obama is your guy.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Here’s the question.Who’s for kicking Gaddafi’s ass and who’s for kissing it? Dr. J, Ms. Bees?
@rich wheeler: As I stated previously, now that we have gotten militarily involved the end state needs to be Qaddafi gone. Anything less, and he will look victorious and WE will lose. Just out of curiosity with regards to this statement you made: “Anybody rooting for Gaddafi simply to give BHO a black eye is one sick f—er”, do hold the same view on those who were rooting for Bush to fail with Hussein?
A.V.#104 I DO.
The Europeans and the Arab League took the lead in this operation.
Obama rubber stamped their goals.
Neither group has as a goal the killing or removing of Col. Gaddafi.
All they demand is that the civilians be safe.
They are neither for nor against the rebels.
And Obama is having the US military work under their goals.
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 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.
@rich wheeler: Are we on a similar page for a change? BTW, I don’t believe DR J or Ms Bees are rooting for Qaddafi.
rich wheeler, you want to know who is kissing ass, in here well obviously it’s you kissing OBAMA ass,
and I explain to you as plain as I could but It’s still too much for you to understand, go eat more fish, good for the brain, more for twisted brain like your’s
Bees You said you supported Gaddafi over rebels as a “lesser of two evils” I read you loud and clear and strongly disagree.
rich wheeler go back to my comment and finish the sentence, not thake a part of it alone, this the side you honour that used those ways to disrupt a comment, If I tell you that I killed
many flyes today, you will just take the two words I kill and make it into your sentences,
but I can tell you that you are a flye to my opinion,
Bees Word games,talking about fish and flys, gets very tiresome.Who do you support in Libya?
@Tom #82:
Did Bush Jr. act unilaterally and not build a coalition of willing nations and partners? Really?!
@Wordsmith:
That’s what I was thinking, too.
Bush sr.
Not Bush jr.
Um, probably the wrong place to bring this up, but I can no longer log in.
I know there were some voting irregularities on the ”Like/Dislike today (or yesterday, but somehow I was logged out and now my password doesn’t work and even my attempt to get a reminder or new password doesn’t work, either!
Weird.
I’m having the same problem nanG
@Zac:
I’m going to be patient.
Usually these thing are worked out by those who understand computers far better than I ever will.
I just didn’t know if anybody here knew about the log in problem.
I am also a two finger typist. I was wondering if anyone else had a problem to. Great minds think alike!
@Wordsmith:
That is true. Forgive my lack of precision. They were both, technically speaking, coalitions. There are large and important differences between the two that goes to my point though. The Iraq War coalition was, in terms for manpower, esentionally two nations, the US and Great Britain, with negligible Arab involvement or support. As for the cost in lives, it was similarly skewed toward one member of the coalition, with approximately 4400 out of 4700 dead, Americans. Perhaps I should have said the costs were unilateral. The Gulf War saw a much different level of involvement, particularly in terms of Arab nations, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt both contributing tens of thousands of men to the effort, not to mention most of the tab being picked up by Persian Gulf States. So I would content that while both wars were undertaken under the banner of collations, the collations themselves were vastly different, as was the resulting price bore by the US in each instance.
@Tom: Good comment. Thanks for clarifying.
@Nan G:
Wish I could help you but I have no idea what the problem is. Hopefully Curt or someone else can solve your issue.
@Wordsmith:
For me the problem has disappeared.
Thanks (to whoever fixed it) for that.
Sorry about that Nan…it was a conflict with a plugin.
In a twisted way this latest news is funny:
Reuters is reporting that the Arab League is complaining about the bombardment over the no-fly zone. Arab League: You’re too effective!
rich wheeler it’s a game for you, but I don’t play, I support the less dangerous man to hurt our AMERICA,
now If you want to ask if I like him, that is another question, I hear of what is written and it doesn’t look good for him, but I don’t mix in other COUNTRYS business, or LEADER’S profile as long as they don’t hurt my COUNTRY, NOW, do I care about people being abuse, yes I do, but It’s not my business to interfere,
if what I’d like to do could bring worse leader, as we see around those COUNTRYS, there is a push by radicalist to oust the POWERED GOVERNMENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND THEY ARE NOT FOR GOOD CHANGE BUT EVEN WORSE MUCH WORSE, AND THE UN IS FAVORABLE TO A WORLD GOVERNMENT AND SYMPATHISE UNDER THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS, BUT FOR A REAL PURPOSE TO RULE OVER THE WORLD AND DISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH WHERE THEY INTEND TO PROFIT,
SO THIS IS BIGGER THAN YOU AND ME AND GADDAFI, WHAT EVER MONSTER HE CAN BE.
@Greg:
I cannot believe you are serious in quoting an ancient text on fighting and war, and trying to link Obama to it.
Barack Obama, 2002:
Sounds eerily like Ghaddafi, no? He was against war in Iraq. He felt economic sanctions and a No-fly zone would be sufficient to contain Saddam. Fine. Although I disagreed, I could see his point. And yet, after weeks of his dithering around, amidst pressure from the European nations to enjoin them in action against Ghaddafi, you wish to attribute his indecisiveness to following advice from an ancient text? Please! He took weeks to get around to the same point he was at with Iraq. Why?
@rich wheeler:
RW, that is an asinine thing to say. Show me one comment on here by anyone who wishes for failure by us against Ghaddafi, simply to show Obama as being inept.
BTW, I seem to remember quite a few liberals wishing for failure, even to the point to cozying up with Saddam prior to us going into Iraq, and hoping for a “black eye” for Bush. Not saying that two wrongs make a right. I just haven’t seen anyone here, or anywhere, hoping Ghaddafi wins because they are against Obama.
I don’t believe it was word games, RW, but rather, it was her trying at an analogy of what your comments were in relation to hers. Whether or not it gets tiresome for you is of little consequence. If you don’t understand what she has posted, fine, then don’t comment on it. Just don’t disparage someone because of it.
@rich wheeler: This isn’t nearly as much about Gaddafi as it is about that blindingly hypocritical a-hole in the White House.
We can’t use military power to solve humanitarian problems?
Remember that, Rich? How about this?
And it says nothing but the very worst for anyone who would dare defend this action and this scum sucking Alinskyite after his incessant blathering about how evil everything Bush did was.
Why Gaddafi? Because he’s a cheap political score. He’s low lying fruit. It IS about oil.
DR. J . I’m sure you’ve noted most of the F.A. readers are in support of this action.
It’s been apparant for some time your personal hatred of BHO has absolutely been the driving force behind most all your vitriolic commentary here and imho has severely weakened your ability to reason.
You’ve taken presidential bashing to a level beyond the Bush bashers.Not an easy task.
@rich wheeler:
I believe you are misinterpreting what you read on here. Many of us conservatives are consistent in regards to taking action in Libya, and what we have done in Iraq. What we are doing isn’t in dispute.
What is in dispute is Obama saying one thing, against a Republican, and then committing similar action himself. What is in dispute is Obama taking weeks to commit to any action, instead of being decisive about it. What is in dispute is Obama, in those weeks of inaction, allowing the people rebelling against Ghaddafi to lose much of the ground they had gained, even to the point where the actions now may be too late to accomplish Obama’s stated goals for U.S. involvement.
Now, if Obama had led from the fore, and stated what they have weeks ago, I wouldn’t have had much to say about it, other than the comparison of Obama on Iraq and his turnaround to Libya.
He is inconsistent, hypocritical, and generally untrustworthy to lead the U.S., either economically or in world affairs.
@rich wheeler: Fine, Rich. Duck the issue. It could not possibly be more obvious. If they kill Gaddafi all the bad buys in the Middle East are going to know that Obama could kill them at any time. Let’s wait and watch how this plays out in the Middle East as the civilian toll rises.
John Galt Your points re a reasonable debate over time taken to initiate action are valid and understood. DR. J is simply against taking this madman out.Hope he doesn’t start touting Gaddafi’s bogus “civilian casualty claims”soon to appear.
Who were the liberals “cozying up to Saddam” pre Iraq invasion.If true I say shame on them.
Re Ms Bees A simple ? “for or against Gaddafi”.No response.
@johngalt:
Great answers, JohnGalt.
I think a bit of budgetary history is also relevant.
The Northern ans Southern No-Fly Zones in Iraq each required 3 dozen sorties PER DAY by our air forces.
Each sortie cost taxpayers $500,000.
Yes, 1/2 million dollars EACH.
So every day ”containing Saddam” cost us $18 million.
And we had kept that up for 12 years when we finally took other action (shock and awe) against Saddam.
365 days for 12 years is 4,380 days.
4380 times $18 million is $78,840,000,000.
78 Billion with no end in sight.
And the then breaking stories about how Saddam was playing the ”oil for food” scandal to enrich himself while his people starved were only going to be getting worse.
Saddam was not really contained.
He just looked contained if you didn’t look closely.
@blast:
Well ain’t that a head in the sand reaction to be given facts versus your opinions.
From the cushy sweet source of information for most Leftists:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42191519/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
“A drag on energy costs” translates to higher costs in business speak and could rise or linger at uncomfortably high rates longer than consummers, (Business, Individual, Government Entities) would want to pay at.
Oh and:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oil_prices
Enjoys.
And yes, I’ve seen your LNG comments, but my own articles cover its overall costs as well as it’s part of the Gasoil markets due to how LNG is collected or refined from other sources. Burning sulfur gas will ruin a natural gas (which you’re confusing with petrol) turbines, and even natural gas deposits have sulfur in them making them caustic to engines. It costs time, energy and money to refine the products, bub. And Japan has to import far more than you realize, and that supply they have to import means a decline in supply to other Nations making a competetive bid towards that same fuel purchase.
In other words, a war for oil… won’t that be inconvenient talking points for the left? LOL But it’s the only explanation for rationalizing intervention in Libya, and ignoring Iran, Yemen, Tunesia, Somalia, and (from historical perspective) Rwanda, etal. Then again, doesn’t explain Egypt and Honduras, does it?
@rich wheeler: Here’s how I feel, Rich. Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Gaddafi. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Gaddafi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
@Nan G:
Thank you for the numbers Nan. Too many liberals decry the cost of the military action in Iraq, yet forget that we were already spending billions there while Saddam was comfortably sitting in one of his palaces, having his people commit atrocities against other Iraqi citizens and taking the aid meant for them, for himself.
@rich wheeler:
Where does he state that? Anywhere? Show me the quote.
What I have gotten from Dr. J’s article, and his posts on this topic, is that Obama is hypocritical, and the liberals and MSM are enabling him to act just as he has. The closest I can see Dr.J state anything akin to what you claim is when he states that it’s “too late”, and that is in regards to Obama taking so long to act that Ghaddafi has all but re-taken the entire country back.
@MataHarley:
Or Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or Bharain, or……………………..
Johngalt, I think he’s refering to post 63 I believe with John pointing out the whole bulllarcky of the UN and how Gaddafi will stay either alive or back into power as a, “paper tiger” by UN meddling in Nations.
J.G. In #133 Dr J talks of containment.Sound familiar?
@Mr. Irons:
That is still a far cry from RW’s assertion that “DR. J is simply against taking this madman out.”
It is simply an opinion that the result of our action there won’t make one bit of difference in who is leading what country over there.
@rich wheeler: Rich
You can’t solve humanitarian problems with US military power. Genocide is not good enough a reason for the US to be involved militarily.
@rich wheeler:
You mean this?
Kinda similar to this, right?
That last is from BHO in 2002. Is it how Dr. J really feels? Or is it sarcasm pointing out BHO’s hypocrisy?
Not to mention the fact that you just noted a comment by Dr. J AFTER you made your comment about him being against taking him out, and using that to support your assertion from before. Very, very weak argument for your case, RW.
@johngalt:
Actually, given History as a sort of measuring stick (cough)Iran(cough) our actions now may only encourage a temporary ally in the Rebel forces that may ultimately mutate into a hostile Nation against the EU and USA. The whole Middle East is gripped with social disorder and weakened borders, we could be seeing the onstart of a whole new series of Nations being created if certain factions achive their interests (aka Iran’s power growth desires.)
@rich wheeler: Hey Rich- Any guesses about 139?
@Mr. Irons: Indeed. The devil you know. The Saudi Royals are the plug on the very worst of explosive situations.
@rich wheeler: Rich
I have been feeding you Barack Obama’s own words and you just ate them up. That’s really got to burn. I hope that none of this burns with more painful intensity than in the gut of one stinking lying current US President.
You CANNOT support this action and have voted for Obama unless you are a total imbecile.
uh… has something happened overnight in the beltway I’m not familiar with?
Is is not Hillary Clinton who was begging for the no fly zone? Is is not Obama, as the current CiC, who agreed to participate in the no fly zone? Was it not the Bush holdover Defense Sec’y Gates who actually cautioned against this no fly zone?
What’s this “conservative” crap line of BS, kemosabi? The war mongering, war for oil, is now in your party’s court.
@MataHarley: Gates said that an NFZ was an “act of war” and even proposing it was “loose talk.”
Today we also learn that Democrats think tanks fly and that the Gaddafi compound flies as well.
LOL, drj! Yup… thought the same about tanks and palace/compounds. Supposedly the no fly zone was to prevent the Gadfly from killing his own people, and not taking sides. So much for that theory….
INRE the tanks, it’s possible they were equipped with anti-aircraft capabilities, in which case were fair game for safety of the coalition aircraft. But the compound??
Libya is no Iraq, where Saddam was invading neighbors (Kuwait), then turned his subterfuge on the US by allying with terrorist groups and having a hand in 1993 Somalia. Then there’s his long relationship with Zawahiri. Gaddafi is a thug, but if we are to take out all despot thugs, where do we draw the line?
Much doubletalk going on. BHO says “Gadaffi must go”
RW supports this action to remove a genocidal maniac.
Dr J does not support this action for a variety of reasons given.
Pretty simple really.
Would agree Saudi Royals are an important ally but the treatment of their people(at least the males) is a hell of alot better than Gadaffi or Mubarek’s treatment of their populace.
@rich wheeler:
“RW supports this action to remove a genocidal maniac.”
How can you explain your support of a guy who said doing so was wrong? You voted for the guy who said he would NOT do this and now you’re giving me crap?
Really?
How long will our involvement go on? What’s the end game?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Dr. J. I will repeat. I support this action and you do not.Simple.Wouldn’t matter to me if BHO,W,or RR was POTUS.
Length of action? Don’t know but would suspect chicken shit Gadaffi gone inside of 60 days.
End game That’s in God’s hands but it will be better than what’s been happening in Libya the majority of the last 42 years.
@rich wheeler:
Then why did you vote for the guy who specifically said he would not do this?
@rich wheeler:
So let me get this straight. You support ousting Ghaddafi from Libya. That must mean you supported ousting Saddam from Iraq. And if you did that, it must mean you disagree with Obama back when he was a candidate. And even then, you supported Obama in the election. And since then, when Obama has done a complete 180 from what he said back in 2002, and shown himself a hypocrite in the process, you still support him.
In short, you support someone who does not have principles, doesn’t stand by what he says, and is a liar. Gotcha.
Dr. J. The quick answer is I voted for BHO over Mac because he is a social liberal and more protective of the environment.As CIC one is called on to make some difficult decisions.He made the right one here though I agree with those who say he should have moved sooner.
J.G. GOTCHA?? childish at best.
My suggestion is find someone in your sorry lot who can beat him.Inside 20 months now.
@mata: The conservatives I am speaking of are here on FA who wanted Obama to attack in the first place. Now I guess the rule is the USA has to intervene in civil wars everywhere and the Presidents don’t need the proper declaration of war (which both Democrat and Republican presidents have been guilty of doing).