From Red State:
Regime Change for Sissies
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Monday, March 28th at 8:36PM EDT
16 Comments
UPDATE: The Associated Press, of all organizations, is fact checking Barack Obama and he isn’t exactly coming up smelling like roses. It’ time to go back to Pinocchiobama.
By the way, what’s the difference between Pinocchio and Obama? Pinocchio had no strings attached.
———————-
Now let me be clear?—?I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . .
Barack Obama in 2002.
This was perhaps the most vapid and shallow Presidential speech on a military engagement since . . . well . . . I don’t know when.
The President said we were against regime change in Libya, but made clear that regime change is the goal. He wants to be engaged without being engaged. He says we are passing the whole operation off to NATO as if we’ll suddenly become only involved in an ancillary capacity. This left Ambassador John Bolton to exclaim on Fox News that Barack Obama may be the only man in the whole world who does not know that we, the United States, run NATO.
The President failed in any way, shape, or form to show how our national interests are at stake. Likewise, in his explanation of why we are in LIbya, the explanation fits Yemen, Syria, and Iran.
As Joe Scarborough asked on twitter, are Libyan lives more valuable than those of Syria, Yemen, or Iran?
The only significant explanation he gave was a refugee and humanitarian criss with refugees streaming over the Libyan border. Since December of 2010, 100,000 refugees from Darfur have streamed over the border.
Why are we not there?
This speech was an embrace of George W. Bush without conviction. Apparently, the metrics for the Libyan operation will be, I guess, on LIbyans saved or created. Or something like that. The speech had Bill Kristol praising Obama who, by the way, met with Bill Kristol in advance. I wonder how the left likes their Messiah morphing into a neocon warmonger?!
On Twitter, we’d say #fail
Regime Change for Sissies
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Monday, March 28th at 8:36PM EDT
16 Comments
UPDATE: The Associated Press, of all organizations, is fact checking Barack Obama and he isn’t exactly coming up smelling like roses. It’ time to go back to Pinocchiobama.
By the way, what’s the difference between Pinocchio and Obama? Pinocchio had no strings attached.
———————-
Now let me be clear?—?I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . .
Barack Obama in 2002.
This was perhaps the most vapid and shallow Presidential speech on a military engagement since . . . well . . . I don’t know when.
The President said we were against regime change in Libya, but made clear that regime change is the goal. He wants to be engaged without being engaged. He says we are passing the whole operation off to NATO as if we’ll suddenly become only involved in an ancillary capacity. This left Ambassador John Bolton to exclaim on Fox News that Barack Obama may be the only man in the whole world who does not know that we, the United States, run NATO.
The President failed in any way, shape, or form to show how our national interests are at stake. Likewise, in his explanation of why we are in LIbya, the explanation fits Yemen, Syria, and Iran.
As Joe Scarborough asked on twitter, are Libyan lives more valuable than those of Syria, Yemen, or Iran?
The only significant explanation he gave was a refugee and humanitarian criss with refugees streaming over the Libyan border. Since December of 2010, 100,000 refugees from Darfur have streamed over the border.
Why are we not there?
This speech was an embrace of George W. Bush without conviction. Apparently, the metrics for the Libyan operation will be, I guess, on LIbyans saved or created. Or something like that. The speech had Bill Kristol praising Obama who, by the way, met with Bill Kristol in advance. I wonder how the left likes their Messiah morphing into a neocon warmonger?!
On Twitter, we’d say #fail
No comments:
Post a Comment