Obama. I hate to say it (though I've said it over and over again), is the worst excuse for a U.S. President in living memory-- not even Carter was this bad. Yet in spite of this, almost everyone on the Left is touting his foreign policy successes... but what successes? Apologizing to the world, with every official visit to every rogue or friendly nation he arrogantly sets foot in, for being the object of their hatred and despisement. These nations, according to Obama, some run by dictators, are better in his eyes than the nation he purports to lead. He leads from behind! we've heard it said, but what kind of victory did he win in Libya, beside a cowardly one?
In short, what Obama has achieved in 'leading from behind' in Libya is the advancement of Sharia law on the world stage. Thank you, Mr. President.Welcome, women of Libya, to the 9th century.
Our president has publicly snubbed, humiliated, and thrown under the bus, our greatest ally in the middle east; namely, Israel. Yet he has coddled, befriended, and apologized to the Arab nations, Israel's enemies. And this new turn of events in Libya? the implementation of Sharia? This makes the middle east less safe. Especially Israel. Where have all the shoulder fired missiles gone to? Some have made their way to Gaza. How? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Libya borders Egypt, Egypt borders Gaza, Gaza fires missiles into Israel on a daily basis.
Tunis has fallen... revolution... who knows what form of government will eventually be installed.
Egypt has fallen... revolution... we know, at least, that the Muslim Brotherhood is more sympathetic to Sharia, than to anything else. The Muslim Brotherhood has already made menacing overtures toward Israel, and is supplying Gaza.
Libya has fallen... Civil War... we don't even know who the rebels are, but we do know they're implementing elements of Sharia.
All of this makes the middle east less safe (despite these players being African nations). Syria is experiencing unrest. As is Jordan. Yemen. Iraq. Algeria. While there is nothing to say these nations would not have seen turmoil, revolution, and civil war had Obama been a stronger leader, but neither is there any evidence to suggest his weakness didn't embolden these nations... Obama's speech in Cairo was a fine example of appeasement, abasement, acquiescence... and incitement. He said to Mubarak: you must leave! To Gaddafi: you must go! Yet nothing to Syria's Hafez al-Assad. He had the nerve to chastise Israel, but hadn't the stones to give Syria the same.
He's a coward. And the poorest excuse for a president in American history. November 6, 2012 can't come soon enough.
Another steaming pile of horse manure, Ella. Hope you didn't spend your entire weekend thinking up this drivel.
ReplyDeletethe new provisionary government is implementing Sharia Law.
It's an Arab/Muslim state. What were you expecting? The US Constitution? The Magna Carta? And are you saying this is somehow worse than whatever law they had for 42 years under Gaddafi? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't our biggest ally in the Middle East after Israel governed by Sharia law? Sure enough it is, and my or my, we sell them jet aircraft, train their pilots and buy their oil.
But Gaddafi wasn't even accorded the show trial.
Let us weep for Gaddafi. It was Obama's fault.
what successes? Apologizing to the world.
Nobody has been able to provide an example of President Obama apologizing to anybody. Would you please do us the honor, Ella?
every official visit to every rogue or friendly nation he arrogantly sets foot in
Arrogantly? Doesn't sound very apologetic, does it?
These nations, according to Obama, some run by dictators, are better in his eyes, than the nation he purports to lead.
According to Obama where and when, exactly?
the advancement of Sharia law on the world stage.
Oh yes, Sharia law in Libya will be a beacon to the "world stage". I shining light that will eventually shine in America and the rest of the West.
Our president has publicly snubbed, humiliated, and thrown under the bus, our greatest ally in the middleast; namely, Israel.
Pure lie. Israel has been humiliated by Obama? Gee, I thought it was supposedly the other way around. Make up your mind.
Obama has demonstrated by word and deed that Israel has no greater ally than the United States and this administration.
But he has coddled, befriended, and apologized to the Arab nations, Israel's enemies.
Examples?
Tunis...Egypt...Libya
Gee I thought the whole idea of invading Iraq was to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.
neither is there any evidence to suggest his weakness didn't embolden these nations.
Embolden them to do what? Throw out dictators and oppressors?
Where are your American values, man?
hadn't the stones to give Syria the same.
In due time, Ella.
He' a coward.
And you're full of crap. I can't wait until November 6, 2012 to usher in another term for someone with a demonstrably positive and successful foreign policy.
And let's just pretend that Osama bin Laden is still hiding in his mansion in Pakistan, and New START never happened, and improved relations with China, Great Britain, France, Germany and Japan haven't been to the US's benefit.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Jim for yet another steaming pile of hypocrisy. All you assholes on the left railed constantly about how evil Bush was for throwing out dictators-- invading places we had no business going --and yet here you are now, supporting your feckless, puerile 'never-held-a-real-job' president's come from behind slap shot on Ghaddafi. If it were Bush who supported these rebels, bombing Ghaddafi forces to help the rebel advance, ultimately resulting in the murder (without even the mockery of a show trial) every last man of you would be calling Bush a murderer. Ghaddafi's blood on his hands. What a bunch of black-damned hypocrites you all are! Further, it would be one thing if democracy was actually being "spread", as you so glibly suggest, but THIS complete fool of a president is spreading Sharia! Can't you get that through your thick baked-shite skull of yours? You're a hypocrite and a lying fool.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's just pretend, BenT, that America actually enjoys improved relations with China, GB, France, Germany, and Japan. What benefit? That they mock the president for the fool that he is? That China continues to mount cyber-attacks against the US? That our president rubs salt in Japan's wounds by vainly attempting an apology? Japan doesn't want an apology from us; what nation would? France? Germany? Great Britain? What improved relations? Because Barry gave the queen an iPod loaded with all his best speeches, relations are mystically improved?
Wake up, both of you! You're embarrassing yourselves!
Does it mean nothing to either of you that our president is directly responsible for allowing Sharia into Libya? That a woman in Libya must now have 4 male witnesses before she can claim that another man raped her? That women will be subject to genital mutilation, stoning, nose-cutting? That a justice system is now in place that calls for amputations and beheadings as punishment for certain crimes? What great liberal mind can shout and demand equality for everyone while consigning a nation's entire female population to the brutality of Sharia?
ReplyDeleteHow is it you can decry the anti-abortion movement with such mantras as "it's a woman's right to choose! It's her body!" while denying that right to a whole nation of women who are now subject to the cruel, barbaric whims of misogynistic ninth-century reprobates?
What a bunch of hypocrites you all are! You should be ashamed of yourself!
You've just given up on the whole rational thought idea, eh?
ReplyDeleteLiberals, Pres. Obama, America no one is purposefully "denying that right to a whole nation of women" America plus a whole bunch of other countries supported internal rebels against a dictator. That's reality.
We didn't invade alone. We aren't setting up the new government. It is the Libyan people.
I suppose we could threaten the new representative government with bombardment unless they institute a pro-America, western faux-rocracy. Because that's what it would be --a foreign government non-representative of the people of the country.
Democracy is better than dictatorship, and the arc of history bends towards justice. Those are part of my foundational political beliefs. A democracy in Libya represents a chance for change over time towards social equality and justice for all Libyans, but they must do it themselves.
That's the difference between Libya and Iraq.
It is illogical to think that any of the middle-east countries now experiencing upheaval would implement a new government not rooted in the theological teachings of their populace. But look at Turkey, a majority Muslim country, with separation between church and state. A country that is sometimes, ally and sometimes opponent of US and western policies. A democracy.
Turkey? a democratic nation eroding more and more into an Islamic state.
ReplyDeleteBut back to Libya, how conveniently you lie back, washing Ghaddafi's blood from your hands declaring, "we're not the ones instituting Sharia law..." Would that this nation had more of a 'lady Macbeth complex' over the murder of Ghaddafi. Instead we are like to witness as great a tragedy of an American presidency, in terms of poor decision making, as Macbeth himself. And our nation will suffer for it.
You play the devil's hand every time you resort to such logic. The middleast will be less safe because of what our Organizer-in-Chief, 'lead-from-behind' president has done. You decry the 'evils' of Guantanamo Bay, without batting an eye at the less-than-Ceausescu-esque treatment of Muammar Ghaddafi. You don't care about justice and rule of law, you care only about white-washing the bumbling missteps of a failing fool of a president.
The difference between Libya and Iraq is: in Iraq we guided them toward democracy. We conquered, occupied, subdued, and lead toward provisional government, and in the end demanded a constitution and democratic-styled government. We broke it, we owned it, we fixed it. In Libya, however, we led from behind, put no boots on the ground, and therefore had no say in how the new government would be formed.
ReplyDeleteIn Iraq, we took responsibility for our actions. In Libya, we merely murdered a thug in the streets of Sirte, and let the mob choose to extend that same barbarism to the women of Libya.
There is nothing noble in what America's done in Libya, Bent. If anything, it was cowardly. And even more so to say our hands are clean of whatever happens next.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry Jim, but nobody accuses me of having any kind of .... for a dead guy.
ReplyDeleteDelete.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletehow conveniently you lie back, washing Ghaddafi's blood from your hands
ReplyDeleteOK, how's this.
You must have really admired Gaddafi to be so concerned that people outside the control of the US government murdered the tyrant that they had just overthrown.
Admired? No. But how about respect for human dignity, whether Ghaddafi himself respected human dignity or not. We supported the ones who killed him. We facilitated their act of murder.
ReplyDeleteAnd now, because we supported an entity we did not know, Al Qaeda flags are now flying over the courthouse of one Libyan city, Benghazi. That's right, we facilitated al Qaeda in over-throwing one dictator so they could supplant themselves in his stead.
Way to go, president Obama! Way to fight that terrorism!
Ben wants us to pretend new START never happened. I'd rather it never happened period. It was a totally bad deal for us and we lost superiority as a result because it does not guarantee compliance, while the Idiot in Chief pushes our own disarmament. It doesn't count all weapons the same way and the result is there is no parity. He doesn't even think parity is necessary anymore.
ReplyDeleteWORST. PRESIDENT. EVER.
the Idiot in Chief pushes our own disarmament
ReplyDeleteAlong with George HW Bush, six Republican Secretaries of State and a host of other conservative defense and foreign policy experts.
Oh. I thought Barry was the smartest guy in the room! I would ask you to compare how the previous administrations were going about disarming, what their goals were, how they went about achieving them, and what results remained afterwards, if you are truly going to defend Barry by pointing to them.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that much of the disarming that has gone on recently has had similar results as what Barry's treaty has produced, but possibly not nearly as bad. Which weapons are counted as part of the deal is important and there is no parity in that aspect of the treaty. The result is that there is no parity in the disarming. We will be, if not already, in "2nd place", to put it in simple terms, as far as superiority. This is rank stupidity. Especially since it is debatable that we are equal in nuclear strength as it is.
Barry seeks to establish an image, not to protect our country. That is, the image takes precedence. He wishes to be seen as the guy who drew down our weaponry in a move to show what great guys Americans are. He thinks he will establish an example all the world will follow. This shows his incredible incompetence as a leader of the greatest nation on earth. It assumes that other world leaders have the same goals of universal brotherhood, as opposed to domination. Keep in mind who is still running Russia.
Jim listed the people who endorsed the NEW START Treaty.
ReplyDelete"Mr. Bush joins a long list of former Republican national security officials who have backed the New Start treaty, including former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added her endorsement in a Wall Street Journal column this week,..."
NY Times
Can somebody please show me the emoticon for rolling one's eyes? What a load!
ReplyDeleteHow nice of you Ben to leave off an important clarification regarding Rice's support. The entire sentence is as follows:
ReplyDelete"Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added her endorsement in a Wall Street Journal column this week, although she added that Republicans should insist on certain assurances and did not say the vote had to happen this month as Mr. Obama and others have insisted."
The emboldened section is an important clarification. Her support is conditional and in a very good way. However, NYT does not favor us with even THAT level of meager detail in describing the support of the others listed. Perhaps they're looking at the wording of the treaty which might not tell the tale, and thus, they support an incomplete description of the terms to which both sides are agreeing. Perhaps they're exposure to the exact wording is not any more detailed than what is commonly revealed to the press who isn't anxious to vet anything this administration says. Remember, these are "former" members of administrations.
Remember also that numbers of people in agreement do not equate to a good idea. New START is not one of them. Where these people may be in agreement is the mistaken notion that New START might be better than nothing. It isn't if it puts us second. It does, so it's not.