Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: 7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War
Source:
Town Hall
URL Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/john ... t_obamas_libyan_war/page/full/
Published: Mar 22, 2011
Author: John Hopking
Post Date: 2011-03-22 08:39:57 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 1616
Comments: 3
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? We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past. Obama doesn't have much use for anyone who criticizes him. Even his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright learned all about what the underside of a bus looks like after he dared to criticize Obama. Is that Obama's real motivation? Hmmmmmmm, liberals? 3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was "No blood for oil!" What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there's no compelling reason for America to invade....except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting "No blood for oil?" 4) Where are the massive protests? Can't you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn't that be fun? I mean personally, I've been waiting for years to wear a "No Blood For Oil" sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let's do this thing! 5) Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? I thought that the Muslim world loves and respects America since Barack Obama became President? So, why not try to talk it out with Gaddaffi? Perhaps Obama should have been humble, realized he didn't have all the answers, and then he could have had a conversation with Gaddafi instead of threatening him? Maybe he should have considered the possibility that Libya's culture is a little different than ours. Had he perhaps met with Gaddafi and bowed to him to show his respect, this could have probably been worked out without violence. Oh, why, why must we be so arrogant and so ignorant of other nations’ rich cultural traditions, which in Libya apparently consist of murdering everyone who opposes you? 6) Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? You know what they say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!” We drop bombs on them, they get angry, and next thing you know, they turn into terrorists to get us back! That was what we heard from the Left over and over during the Bush years, wasn't it? That we were creating terrorists? That's why liberals like Richard Gere suggested brilliant strategies like this to deal with Al-Qaeda: In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better. Maybe instead of bombing Libya, Obama needs to engage in a little more love and compassion by hugging Gaddafi into submission! 7) Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Barack Obama has never served in the military; yet he just decided to engage in a "war of choice" in Libya. Even if you chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama cleaning up after Bush, this one is all on him. If American soliders die, it's because Obama chose to put them in harm's way. If Libyan civilians are killed by American weapons, it's because Barack Obama gave the order to attack. So, can we all agree that Barack Obama is a squawking, yellow bellied chickenhawk?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
There are no liberals. There is no left. Just as last night when the USSA MSM was stating that Obama was catching flak from 'members' on not being In Country for 'consultation.'... And I asked, "Who are they talking about. Republicans, Democrats?" The answer given, "Congress. They're talkin' about Congress." The guys with an 11% approval rating. Re: Economic ramifications of Japan's crises for the US ? Post Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:48 am by mcgowanjm Here's the 'Chernobyl' timeline: 1986. Meltdown 1989. Last soldier leaves the Afghans. 1991. Attempted Coup in Moscow 1993 Yeltsin's Troops Rout Rebels, Reclaim Parliament Building - The Tech Oct 5, 1993 ... Fires in the Parliament building continued to burn into the night. ... The attack on the White House was Yeltsin's first decisive use of the ... tech.mit.edu/V113/N47/yeltsin.47w.html Japan has maybe months. The US a little more. the G Washington leaving Yokosuka yesterday was the Reverse Commander Robert Perry Moment.
Cindy Sheehan has penned a scathing attack on hObama (D) and lockstep partisanship, in this case the D's. ....[snip] In Obama I trust. What a relief! Having a conscience is very isolating. Let’s Party with a capital D because if I can CHANGE, then there is HOPE for everyone and anyone else who are still lost wandering nearly alone in that wilderness of integrity. Come home! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength. 2 + 2=5
I recall a re-run of MASH I saw where this uber right winger named Colonel Flagg...
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
4) Where are the massive protests? Can't you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink,
Barack-a-lujah! I Have Seen the Light! 
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Godwinson posted on 2011-02-23 11:47:32 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18011&Disp=46#C46
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]