Skip to comments.7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War
Posted on 03/22/2011 3:27:38 AM PDT by Scanian
It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change" instead. It's funny how that worked out, isn't it? We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush's footsteps.
So, the obvious question is, Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office? If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.
1) Isn't this is a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a "rush to war." Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?
2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? Liberals claimed George Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father. Using that same line of thinking, could the notoriously thin-skinned Obama be bombing Libya because he's still angry that Gaddafi once said this about him?
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I suspect the European collation was going to act without the US....and this worried the administration about their “leadership” role in the world. If they weren’t involved...they were sitting on the sidelines and be listening to talk-show hosts mention it forty times an hour.
Crazy old Col. Qaddafi was right about that wasn't he?
hilda beast bitch slapped zer0. No vote in Congress, No UN resolution, not a threat to the U.S. of A. No weapons of mass destruction, No AQ,
Something curious here is that qadaffi is a big buddy of farakahn and rev wright, obama’s preacher of 20 years. And now obama is turning on qadaffi and minister farakahn is some kind of p o’d.
What happened to rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies?
Do you mean to say people are hypocrites? Perish the thought. (Can’t wait for a Republican President, when profligate spending won’t be a problem anymore.)
Some lib congress creeps aren’t happy about the eay he failed to consult them. And Ralph Nader is yelling “impeachable offense.”
This is a media war.
Crazy like a fox, that one.
You don’t survive 42 years in the Mideast by being as deranged as everyone seems to think he is.
He sure was. The only reason Barry does anything is if it threatens his personal self image. If Qaddafi had said that Barry was finally the perfect President Barry would be visiting him, praising him, and shipping him all the latest weapons.
Poor widdle Barry, the evil Colonel hurt his feelers. The bad man said something hurtful and uncivil about Barry. Now Barry has to get the adults involved because Colonel Q is a bully, and Michelle said to call an adult when a bully picks on you.
If we listen to what Obama says rather than watching what he does, we’ll all end up goofy.
Nothing he says is consistent in the least.
If you want to see the liberal take on all this, read the comments at the end of the article. A couple of liberals actually show up to defend obambam and deny liberal hypocrisy... and boy do they hate their boy being compared to W!!!
The French and the Arab League suckered Barry more than Qaddafi did. Qaddafi, in his own nutcake way, was trying to tell him to buck up and man up. I’m sure he was hoping he could manipulate 0bambi but he was also giving him some advice from an old hand at world politics. But a malignant narcissist can’t take advice much better than he can take an insult.
this is what happens you know, when you are un-educated and stuck in Libya.
Wait until the dead Afghans story gets more legs.
Let’s see how the lefties go after him on that like they did Bush and his administration on Abu Ghraib.
Questions for liberals?
Sorry, I’ve found it to be a complete waste of time trying to reason with liberals.
They need deprogramming similar to followers of religious cults.
42 years is quite a while to head a nation. Little Barry0 was 7 when Qaddafi began his rule.
I have tried to give Mr. John Hawkins wide latitude but his columns (usually comprised of lists) are, unfortunately, rehashes of other material and all too frequently statements of the bleeding obvious.
IMHO, Gaddafi is exactly the kind of “leader” that Obozo would like to be, only on a much bigger scale.
Which is why Farrakhan is so nonplussed-—he sees them both as heroes and it kills him to watch Obozo send the military after Gaddafi.
The question is, when so many were opposed Bush over Afghanistan and Iraq, using all their logic, why doesn't this also apply to Obama?
The word for the day is: Hypocrisy.
But Muammar ..... didn't the old sheikh warn you, about dissing guys who own aircraft carriers?
They deserve each other, and Louis and Quanell and the other FOI's deserve watching them fight it out, when they adore them both so much.
Isn’t he on Al Bore’s mini TV network? Maybe no one saw it.
That was indeed one of the 14 or so reasons (quoted from the resolution): "Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;"
Unlike every single American president before him, Obama didn’t even have the decency to speak directly to the American people to tell them why he was committing American blood and treasure on foreign soil!
I cannot think of any other president in history that did not do this. Nope, Obama was too busy sipping cocktails on a beach in Rio checking his brackets.
Actually, he is what is called a Mongrel...
Obamba is still and as usual supporting the islazmization of the western world and islamism in the “arab world” and the Middle East..
Don’t waste your time asking for some sanity and consistancy among liberals....
About Obabama he obviously doesn’t know where he is heading.
He relays on the fake UN resolution but says that “Gaddafi has to go”....God’s word (err the pathetic UN parrot and poodle i mean)
“What happened to rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies?”
Many Freepers here have been saying that king obuma is a psychotic megalomaniac. These people don’t have friends and enemies; they have tools they use to feed their ego. Obuma is entering the metaphorical bunker. Look for even more nutty actions and statements.
That analysis will be 25¢ please.
This article is fun to throw in Democrats face. I was making this same point yesterday.
Actually I am no fan of Bush and I am not enthused about Obama’s third war either. I like that Republicans keep calling him to clarify his objectives, that can only cause him headaches.
#4) asks where are the protests, actually left wing (communist) groups like ANSWER are protesting Libya bombing in different cities but it is not being reported. The protests are relatively small compared to the Bush era ones because Obama is president. It's like Republicans not protesting Bush over spending. It's called the ‘lesser of two evils’ strategy. The president says to his base :”I know you dont like what I did but that other party would do even worse”. It's also called ‘good cop-bad cop’. The key is to believe that your guy had good motives, and was tricked by the other side. now Democrats will feel compelled to play that game.
Still it's fun to watch the liberals now try to defend going to war without congressional approval and defending Bush regime change doctrine that that they all claimed was illegal under Bush, now great under Obama. Will Sweden indict Obama for war crimes now?? :)
Obama thought because he was President he could shift global power from the US/European alliance to some UN, everyone is equal with equal power crap. Instead, like in life, the cream is rising to the top. Sorry Barry, no affirmative action in the realm of global power.
And Islam. This is a war for Islam.
DU must be in civil war over this.
Bush will be blamed for this, I assure you.
OK you made me do it:)
Here's a liberal that didnt get the memo that ‘Bombs are back in” for liberals 'liberation'. It seems like yesterday they all claimed the mass murder in Iraq was none of our business, even after our invasion
My, how DU has changed. Yay War!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.