Obama’s Self-Serving Hypocrisy on Protecting Civilians

FrontPageMag.com ^ | May 6, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

[Perseverando]

On March 28, 2011, Obama informed the American people that he had gone to war in Libya (without calling it a war) to protect the poor people of Benghazi.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi — a city nearly the size of Charlotte — could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen

I think we all know how that worked out. But Obama’s justification for war was sheer nonsense considering that he had claimed that military intervention to protect civilians was not legitimate.

As he campaigned in New Hampshire, in 2007, Obama said that he would not leave troops in Iraq even to stop genocide. “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which

[Thank You Rush]

Why don’t we just send “Who’s On First” to the WH for their enjoyment? They might even recognize themselves in it.

[Movemout]

let the chaos continue.the rest of the world is laughing at the death spiral we elected ourselves into.can’t say i think they are wrong.