Posted on 03/11/2016 5:35:03 PM PST by Kaslin
The British press is going ballistic over a statement made by President Obama. The president told a magazine that he places the onus for the disaster in Libya on Prime Minister David Cameron.
The British press on Friday accused President Barack Obama of launching an unprecedented verbal attack on British Prime Minister David Cameron in a magazine interview.
In a lengthy interview with The Atlantic, Obama faults Cameron and other European allies for shortcomings in dealing with Libya after the 2011 ouster of longtime dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
The Times newspaper said Obama's criticism was "extraordinary" and said Obama was blaming Cameron for the "Libya mess."
The Independent front page headline says "Obama savages Cameron over Libya."
In the magazine interview, Obama said Cameron had been "distracted" by other issues after Gadhafi's fall.
Britain and other European nations had joined the U.S. in military action there to prevent a massacre of civilians. Obama told the magazine he had expected European nations to take a more active role in helping Libya during its reconstruction.
"When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong there's room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya's proximity, being invested in the follow-up," he said.
Obama also criticized former French President Nicolas Sarkozy for taking too much credit for France's military role.
Libya has since descended into chaos and emerged as a potential safe haven for Islamic State extremists.
U.S. officials have tried to squelch the controversy by telling British media that the United States places a high priority on Britain's support.
"Prime Minister Cameron has been as close a partner as the president has had, and we deeply value the UK's contributions on our shared national security and foreign policy objectives which reflect our special and essential relationship," spokesman Edward Price told ITV News.
What are the Europeans so surprised about? This is America "leading from behind" -- exactly what they have been demanding for 50 years or more. Along comes a president who actually takes them at their word, and they whine like 2 year olds.
We wouldn't have been in Libya if the president and UN Ambassador Samantha Power hadn't heavily lobbied our NATO allies to get rid of Gaddafi. Then, when the hard part came – creating a government – Obama had the U.S. step back, expecting the Europeans to do all the scut work. In essence, Obama wanted the credit for taking down Gaddafi without having to perform the long, slogging diplomatic work of getting the Libyans to create a stable government.
Obama's refusal to take responsibility for problems he created is no surprise to Americans. But it must have come as a shock to our European allies that he would so casually throw them under the bus.
The Limbaugh Theorum in full bloom.
President NotMyFault has been dissing the Brits since he moved into the White House.
...as his “legacy” swirls in the drain.
Chickens are coming home to roost.
Eenie Meenie Miney Moe, catch a honky by the toe.
Pick one, any will do.
MY FRIENDS: I have to agree with the Great One on this. Where were the Europeans when Thomas Jefferson took it to the Barbary pirates? They thanked us big time but we did the heavy lifting setting free a bunch of Christian slaves-mostly European. Bush 41 put together a good coalition. The Brits were there for us then. So O takes it out on them even though it’s all of Europe that’s affected. The response to their appreciation? President Trump. Gag me with a spoon.
Obama, as we know, is never responsible for anything. The buck stops somewhere else.
Hey Brits, still think Obama is wonderful?
I'd think you Brits would have had enough of him by now.
I didn’t support Romney in the primaries but at the end he was he nominee and there was no choice. The nation and the world is in real trouble because people stayed home or went third party. We all knew this was coming. Stupid asses.
I wound up voting for him. I’m not convinced we would have done more than 25-40% better.
He would have solidified nationalized health care. We would never have gone back to private.
He would have allowed the military to languish.
He would have spent like there was no tomorrow.
We would probably have granted amnesty to the illegal aliens by now.
There would be no closed border.
We wouldn’t have a guy running now that wants to do about 90% of what we want him to.
I might add, the GOPe would not be challenged now.
We wouldn’t have drawn all the Leftists out of their hiding places.
We wouldn’t be about to demolish to GOPe.
What a doofus.
Funny, didn’t hear any libs screaming “no blood for oil” over this, either.
Libya is 100% Obama/Hillary’s disaster
Just more of the Obama/Clinton blame game.
In the world of the feckless fool on the hill, he is perfect, a perfect evil fool.
From: Retain Mike
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 9:06 AM
To: WSJ Letters (wsj.ltrs@wsj.com)
Subject: Obama’s Libyan Actions Required Congressional Debate
Concerning national security Alexander Hamilton said, "Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies;.no constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. Since Libya poses no national exigency (emergency), Obama cannot espouse that statement for war.
Next as criteria for war come natural rights where Thomas Jefferson writes, "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Eleanor Roosevelt defines our U.N. commitment to collective security by writing that equal and inalienable rights for the human family encompass rights to life, liberty and security of person. John Kennedy reinforced this commitment saying, "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Finally, Ronald Reagan said we cannot escape destiny as the last best hope of afflicted mankind.
However, Barack Obama cannot claim natural rights as criteria for Libyan action, because he considered preventing genocide inconsistent reasoning for maintaining troops in Iraq; pointing out our un-involvement in the Congo and Darfur.
This leaves John Kerry's international test making the U.S. subservient to worldwide conscience. Under that criteria Libya becomes more equal than the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda. Uninterrupted European access to natural resources seems the paramount reasoning, with humanitarian protection purely random.
Such reasoning required that Congressional debate accompany Obama's leisurely deliberations.
White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn't Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html
Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/
From: Retain Mike
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:39 AM
To: WSJ Letters (wsj.ltrs@wsj.com)
Obama’s Middle East Fantasy
Obama said the protesters have accomplished more in six months in the Middle East than terrorists have accomplished in years. Truly terrorist agendas benefited from events in Egypt and Tunisia, and can flourish as Middle East unrest spreads to Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. The Obama Administration encourages, and applauds the demise of these oligarchies, but underestimates the brittle economic, social, and political environments created.
In the Middle East, violent Islamic and secular totalitarian aspirants should exploit these strains for traditional roads to power energized with lethal political intrigues and religious heresies. The tradition began about 1100 AD when Hassan bin Sabah, who inherited the Assassin's Guild, enlightened Islamist societies to terrorism as foundational statecraft for political prosperity. Concurrently, successors to leaders like Saladin and extraordinary achievements in mathematics, philosophy, science, and medicine disappeared within authoritarian and feral societies.
Next came centuries of bloody electioneering among aspiring totalitarians grasping power through alliances of human cunning and animal brutality. For them dazzling spectacle and mercurial oratory belied principled commitment to a continuum where politics is war without bloodshed and war is politics with bloodshed.
Why would the Muslim Brotherhood or any organizations like Ai Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their successors ever abandon strategies proven for 900 years? The natural result establishes The Democratic (or) Islamic Peoples Republic of Whatever.
Expect Oriental opponents to manage Obama's ingratiating gestures to dictators, and disparagement of this country into concessions without reciprocity. Expect his befuddlement by the intricacies and chicanery of this unorthodox diplomacy.
To Captain Choom all white guys look alike and are equally guilty.
The GOP is doing its best to ensure a repeat performance.
Obama is laying the groundwork to protect Hillary during the general election.
If she faces Trump or Cruz she is certain to be charged with the blame for the Libyan disaster from Arab Spring to the Benghazi slaughter.
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.