Posted on 08/27/2011 10:33:22 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
The White House is spinning the US role in Nato's support for Libyan rebels a foreign policy triumph. That hardly stacks up
In case you weren't paying attention, the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi has been claimed by the White House as a vindication of President Barack Obama's decision to "lead from behind". Almost as soon as the rebels reached Tripoli, the administration's deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, Ben Rhodes, began spinning the media that Obama's light footprint approach to regime change was infinitely superior to the Bush approach. Administration officials fell over themselves to point out that the entire operation had not cost a single American casualty. One official even crowed that "Reagan targeted Gaddafi; George W Bush targeted Bin Laden; Obama has done both."
American commentators were not far behind the administration in declaring this operation as a victory for President Obama. Some wondered whether the Libya operation would aid President Obama's chances at re-election. Others declared it a "nuanced victory" for a reluctant wartime president. Still others complained that President Obama was not getting enough credit from Republicans for his strategy of "limited engagement" in Libya. Even the normally sensible Fareed Zakaria heralded the Libya operation as ushering in a "new era in US foreign policy".
Such fulsome praise put the Republicans in a particularly difficult bind. Most of the current Republican leadership were cheerleaders for President Bush in his bloody experiment with regime change in Iraq, but are now tying themselves in knots trying not to credit Obama for his own regime change intervention in the Middle East. Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham even released a statement that congratulated the British and French but expressed "regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
1. Yeah, expect a fully western democratic republic style democracy based on english common law, soon.
2.Libya: NATO Takes Lead, Americans Do 65% of Work.
The “leading from behind” mantra ? Epic Big Lie Fail.
http://reason.com/assets/mc/tcavanaugh/libyanatobreakdown.jpg
>>>>Such fulsome praise put the Republicans in a particularly difficult bind. Most of the current Republican leadership were cheerleaders for President Bush in his bloody experiment with regime change in Iraq, but are now tying themselves in knots trying not to credit Obama for his own regime change intervention in the Middle East.
PS:
Forgot the most obvious,
3. Illegal war of aggression by Obama. Direct violation of War Powers Act.
Will be be Impeached or Indicted soon? / sarc off
Excuse me all to HE*L, but there is that little difference of: Bush got both sanction from the UN and UNAMIMOUS CONSENT from Congress to go into Iraq.
Bummer got NEITHER.
ALL he got from the UN was permission for a 'no fly.' He did NOT get permission to go to full scale war. And he never ask Congress.
Where our congress is negligent is in not having stopped it.
“Reagan targeted Gaddafi; George W Bush targeted Bin Laden; Obama has done both.”
LOL someone leaning the bottle a tad to much,it’s spin at 85,0000 rpm.
He likes bringing up the rear.
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.