Obama Orders Spec Ops To Go Barefoot Into Libya (No Boots On The Ground)

Associated Press, March 18: Obama has declared that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in Libya or use force beyond protecting people.

New York Times, March 31: “President Obama’s top two national security officials signaled on Thursday that the United States was unlikely to arm the Libyan rebels

Reuters, March 30:

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “I will reiterate what the president said yesterday — no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”

A couple of things. 

1) Obama said “the US will not … use force beyond protecting people.”  He said that on March 18.  Less than two weeks later, Obama signs a “secret order” (note to self, see if the meaning of “secret” includes having four White House sources blabbing about it to the press) “seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.”

Conclusion #1: Obama is a gigantic liar.  But anyone who’s been following this weasel’s career has known that since he began his run for the presidency by breaking his personal promise to fill his entire six-year Senate term.

Conclusion #2: Obama is also a rather awful secret-keeper.

2) “President Obama’s top two national security officials signaled on Thursday that the United States was unlikely to arm the Libyan rebels.”  Compared with, “no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”

Conclusion #1: Wtf?!?!

Conclusion #2: Eventually somebody over there is going to get some kind of clue as to what is going on in the “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride” of Obama’s brain.

3)  “Obama has declared that the U.S. will not deploy ground troops in Libya” compared to the “presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency

Conclusion #1: Does anybody not realize that a lot of military guys are military one day and “CIA” the next?  It’s called “TDY,” temporary duty.  And even the CIA guys who will be performing these “secret operations” are going to almost certainly be Special Activities Division guys.  And the SAD doesn’t get its applicants from clown school: they get them from the baddest Delta, SEAL, Special Forces, Force Recon and sniper guys.  And these guys tend to wear boots.

There might be a few tweed-jacketed agent-man types going in.  But most of them will be special operations guys.  France and Britain have openly acknowledged that they’ve got their military spec ops guys.  Contrary to our Liar-in-Chief, our guys are in there, too.

That’s in addition to the 2200 Marines who were ordered to float around off the Libyan Coast, btw.

It’s also in addition to the boots that were already on the ground rescuing the pilots who bailed out of a U.S. Navy fighter.

Conclusion #2: Maybe we can get Obama to sing us the rap song “Boots on the Ground” to a tune with a similar name and beat:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Obama Orders Spec Ops To Go Barefoot Into Libya (No Boots On The Ground)”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    “Liar-in-chief?” Really? I suppose no other President has attempted to protect our military resources IF they were on an operation. You guys make a person ill.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Okay, smart ass,

    I’m sure you gave George Bush the same degree of credit. Oops, I forgot. You people don’t believe in being fair to Bush in any way, shape or form.

    Let’s run down a quick roster here:

    1) When Barack Obama demonized George Bush over Gitmo, and swore over and over again that he would close this unnecessary terrorist detention facility down within ONE YEAR of taking office, how is he NOT the “Liar-in-Chief” three years later? Obama DEMONIZED Bush over Gitmo, and he is EVERYTHING he demagogued Bush for being. That and a fool for saying all that garbage in the first place.

    2) Similarly, Obama DEMONIZED Bush for the Patriot Act, domestic eavesdropping, rendition of terrorists to countries that will use means and methods that will get answers and all kinds of other national security issues. It’s not that Obama is just as bad as Bush was; in actual fact – according even to liberals – OBAMA IS WORSE. Please explain exactly how I’m wrong to point out the documented FACT that Obama is “the Liar-in-Chief”???

    3) When Obama demonized George Bush for his surge strategy (you know, that strategy that WORKED), claiming it would lead to more sectarian violence only to do the same thing himself in Afghanistan, how precisely am I not justified in calling Obama “Liar-in-Chief”?

    4) When Obama demonized George Bush for “air-raiding villages and killing civilians,” how precisely does the fact that Obama has air-raided FAR more villages and killed FAR more civilians than Bush did not make Obama “the Liar-in-Chief”?

    5) When Obama demonized George Bush over both Iraq and Afghanistan, and then demanded that Americans unite behind him rather than send “mixed messages” for his war in Libya, how is Obama not the “Liar-in-Chief”?

    6) How about when Barack Obama demonized George Bush – who ACTUALLY GOT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR BOTH OF HIS WARS – demonized George Bush by saying

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

    OBAMA DID EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY/RIGHT TO DO. How is he not the “Liar-in-Chief”?

    7) Oh, I can go on and on. How about Obama demonizing George Bush for his “failure in leadership” for raising the debt ceiling when Obama raised it to the highest levels in human history TWICE. How is Obama NOT the “Liar-in-Chief”?

    8) What about Obama demonizing George Bush as unpatriotic for increasing our debt by $4 trillion over EIGHT YEARS when Obama just increased our debt by $4 TRILLION in TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS? How is he not the “Liar-in-Chief”?

    9) How about when Obama was finally forced to admit that he hadn’t created any “shovel-ready jobs” after promising them for three years as a result of his wildly failed $862 billion stimulus boondoggle? How does that not qualify Obama for the title “Liar-in-Chief”?

    10) How about when Obama told La Raza that the Constittuion specifically forbade him from granting blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants before doing the very thing that he had just said the Constitution kept him from doing? Doesn’t that kind of equate to the “Liar-in-Chief”?

    You tell me who should make who ill, Anonymous. Because you make me want to puke my guts out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: