The Hypocrisy Of The Left Blooms Full Flower Over Gaddafi Execution (Remember How Evil It Was Just To Waterboard These Guys?)

Do you remember the holy righteous outrage of the left over the waterboarding of the terrorist slimebag who masterminded the 9/11 attacks?  Remember that?

Republicans were just so damned EVIL.  The rule of law had been discarded like a bag of dog crap, etc. etc.

Well, consider the following from the Obama administration.

Muammar Ghadaffi – the man whose last name remains forever unspellable because we killed him and now he won’t ever be able to correct the LA Times – died a painful and bloody end.  From the Daily Mail:

The final bloody moments of Muammar Gaddafi’s life were still shrouded in confusion today as conflicting reports emerged about who fired the shot that actually killed him.

Libya’s deposed leader was pulled out alive from a drain under a motorway in Sirte, the city of his birthplace, where he had been hiding with a small group of bodyguards.

A clutch of videos have emerged on the internet in which he is seen begging his captors for mercy. His condition varies dramatically, with later footage showing him rambling and drenched in blood.

Wounded and terrified, Gaddafi appeared deluded to the end, asking his captors: ‘What did I do to you?’ His last words were ‘Do you know right from wrong?’

Scroll down for video of Gaddafi’s last minutes…

Was this the moment the dictator died? A handgun points at the head of Gaddafi who is facing the ground with his hands behind his back

 

 

Fear on his face after being captured in his home town of Sirte, this is Gaddafi in the moments leading up to his death

 

 

Final moments: A dazed Gaddafi gesticulates as rebels parade him through Sirte shortly before he was shot

 

 

Grimacing in pain: A still from a video taken from the mobile phone of a rebel fighter shows Gaddafi, his face covered in blood, being dragged around by freedom fighters

 

Losing blood: Gaddafi lifts a hand to his face to see the blood pouring from his wounds. The mobile phone footage shows the dictator slumped against a jeep but still alive

Moments after the last grainy video was shot, it is believed he was killed. Initial reports suggested he had been executed by revolutionary forces in front of a baying mob.

But there have been claims by rebels who witnessed the killing that Gaddafi was actually shot by one of his own bodyguards to spare him further humiliation.

It has also been suggested he was shot during a fight inside an ambulance conveying him to hospital or that he was actually caught in crossfire.

 

Grisly end: New pictures released today show Gaddafi’s scarred corpse on the floor of a freezer where it is being kept before burial

 

A day Libyans fought for: Gaddafi’s eyes are closed and mouth firmly shut as preparations are made for his burial

One rebel claimed that he had been killed as he put up a desperate last fight for freedom. He carried his golden revolver on him at all times, and may have pulled it from his clothes.

‘He might have been resisting. He might have struggled, tried to escape,’ a Libyan revolutionary said.

Pictures of Gaddafi’s body show a bullet hole in the temple, which supports claims he was shot at close range.

‘They captured him alive and while he was being taken away, they beat him and then they killed him,’ a freedom fighter said.

Gaddafi’s battered body was paraded through the streets of Sirte to the sound of celebratory gunfire and jubilant shouts.

Another video captured the corpse of the 69-year-old being dragged through the streets of Sirte, to be paraded later before celebrating crowds in the nearby port town of Misrata.

 

Pleading: Muammar Gaddafi begged with his captors for his life after he was found cowering in a storm drain

 

 

Paraded: Gaddafi struggled with his captors in video footage taken by rebel fighters after he was found

 

 

Chaotic: Gaddafi was pushed around by rebel fighters, one of whom filmed the incident on a mobile phone

 

Fear: Becoming increasingly desperate, Gaddafi asked a rebel fighter ‘What did I ever do to you’

 

 

Terrified: Moments after he begged for his life, Gaddafi was shot dead by rebel fighters

The circumstances leading up to Gaddafi’s death are more clear.

RAF Tornados helped launch the final airstrike by flying surveillance missions which cleared the way for French fighter jets to bomb a Gaddafi convoy.

The astonishing end for the tyrant came after he and loyalist fighters tried to flee Sirte as it was overrun by forces of the National Transitional Council.

Gaddafi was in a convoy of up to 100 vehicles which tried to break out of Sirte – the last centre of resistance after eight months of civil war – early yesterday.

The escape was spotted by Nato which launched two devastating strikes. At least 50 loyalist fighters were killed.

Injured in both legs, Gaddafi made his way with bodyguards through trees. The group hid in two concrete sewers but were spotted by rebels.

A Libyan named Salem Bakeer said that he and his comrades gave chase to Gaddafi and his small retinue of bodyguards after they fled their convoy following the airstrike.

‘At first we fired at them with anti-aircraft guns, but it was no use,’ said Bakeer.

‘Then we went in on foot. One of Gaddafi’s men came out waving his rifle in the air and shouting surrender, but as soon as he saw my face he started shooting at me.

Struggle: Video footage shows Gaddafi being hauled off a rebel fighter truck minutes after his capture

 

 

Manhandled: The former Libyan leader is propped up against the side of a truck during the melee

 

Arguing: Gaddafi pictured in chaotic video footage minutes before he was killed

Watch the footage of Gaddafi’s last minutes in this video:

‘Then I think Gaddafi must have told them to stop. ”My master is here, my master is here”, he said, ”Muammar Gaddafi is here and he is wounded.”

‘We went in and brought Gaddafi out. He was saying ”What’s wrong? What’s wrong? What’s going on?”. Then we took him and put him in the car.’

Freelance photojournalist Holly Pickett was embedded with an ambulance. She said that she saw another ambulance carrying Gaddafi.

So close was she to the action, that she was able to pick out the bloodied body of Gaddafi. She says that he was wearing gold pants.

She tweeted: ‘From the side door, I could see a bare chest with bullet wound and a bloody hand. He was wearing gold-coloured pants.

‘At every checkpoint between Sirte and Misrata, crowds had gathered and wanted to know if we were the ambulance with Gaddafi’s body in it.

‘Upon hearing the truth, that Gaddafi was truly dead, revolutionaries at the checkpoints were beside themselves, shouting with joy.’

 

 

Celebration: Mohammed al-Bibi, seen here in a Yankees hat, points to a comrade holding Gaddafi’s golden gun. Al-Bibi is the one who found the despot in his final hiding place and duly claimed the war souvenir

Adel Samir said that Gaddafi was shot in the stomach with a a 9mm pistol. But Imad Moustaf told Global Post that Gaddafi was shot in the head and the heart.

Doctor Ibrahim Tika added: ‘Gaddafi was arrested while he was alive but he was killed later. There was a bullet and that was the primary reason for his death, it penetrated his gut. Then there was another bullet in the head that went in and out of his head.’

The claims that Gaddafi was executed in the back of an ambulance may be celebrated in Libya. But some within the new government, which is trying to establish itself on the western stage, would have preferred for Gaddafi to have been captured alive and put on trial.

It could be for this reason that Libya’s interim prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, said that Gaddafi was killed from a bullet to the head during crossfire between government fighters and his loyalists.

Jibril told a news conference in the capital, Tripoli, today: ‘I am going to read to you a report by the forensic doctor who examined Gaddafi.

‘It said: ”Gaddafi was taken out of a sewage pipe … he didn’t show any resistance. When we started moving him he was hit by a bullet in his right arm and when they put him in a truck he did not have any other injuries. When the car was moving it was caught in crossfire between the revolutionaries and Gaddafi forces in which he was hit by a bullet in the head”.’

 

 

Dead: The body of Gaddafi is covered with a blue plastic sheet at a house in Misrata. He is due to be buried at a secret funeral within the next 24 hours

Brutal end for tyrant who exported terror: Gaddafi’s body is displayed, clearly showing a bullet hole in his head

The exact circumstances around this theory are unclear. It is unlikely that bullets would have penetrated the ambulance and hit Gaddafi, who was pictured slumped against a rebel’s leg, in the head.

It is also unlikely he was shot in the head before he entered the ambulance as bullets to the head almost always knock somebody off their feet killing them instantly.

This points again to the theory that Gaddafi and a bodyguard launched a fightback inside the ambulance.

CBS News correspondent David Martin claims that Gaddafi’s own bodyguard shot him, in order to spare him the indignity of being captured.

Confirmation of the death sparked wild scenes of celebration across Libya with tens of thousands taking to the streets.

Celebratory gunfire rang out across the capital, Tripoli. Cars honked their horns and people embraced each other.

In Sirte, ecstatic rebels celebrated the city’s fall after weeks of bloody siege by firing endless rounds into the sky.

Gaddafi’s death closes a chapter in the Nato-led military campaign to help rebel forces remove him from power. Ever since the fall of Tripoli, the hunt for Gaddafi had prevented rebels from claiming outright victory.

France’s defence minister announced today that the multi-million-pound bombing campaign of Libya by airforces including the RAF is now over.

‘The military operation is complete,’ said Alain Juppe, in Paris. ‘All Libyan territory is under the control of the National Transitional Council, and subject to some transitional technicalities, the Nato operation has come to an end.

‘The objective of helping the National Transitional Council to liberate their territory is now achieved,’ Mr Juppe added.

‘They will enter a phase of reconstruction, or of construction. It is about establishing the rule of law, which never existed. ‘

A meeting later today will decide the technicalities of winding up the operation which has cost British taxpayers an estimated £300 million.

Admiral Jim Stavridis made said today before a meeting of the alliance’s North Atlantic Council.that it was ‘a good day for Nato, a great day for the people of Libya’.

US president Barack Obama last night announced that the mission would ‘soon come to an end’, although Foreign Secretary William Hague struck a more cautious note.

Procession: Libyans have been flocking to the morgue, where Gaddafi’s body was taken, and have been taking photographs of him

 

Dead: Gaddafi’s son Mutassim was also killed in a firefight in Sirte

 

Last moments of his life: Gaddafi’s son Mutassim lies on a sofa in pain and soaked with blood after his capture but before his death in Sirte

‘We will want to be sure that there are no remaining pockets of pro-Gaddafi fighters who can again become a threat to the civilian population,’ he said.

Last night it emerged that RAF Tornados helped launch the final airstrike by flying surveillance missions which cleared the way for French fighter jets to bomb a Gaddafi convoy.

There were also claims that RAF jets carried out another raid which led to the wounding of Gaddafi’s favourite son, Saif al-Islam.

The conflict has already cost British taxpayers more than £1billion and today Nato chiefs will decide whether to end the aerial campaign.

Mutassim Gaddafi: He was also killed by Libyan rebels

David Cameron, who had driven much of Nato’s intervention, hailed it as a moment to remember Gaddafi’s many victims, including those who died when Pan-Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in 1988, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, and those killed by the IRA using Libyan Semtex.

In a statement notably free of any hint of triumphalism, the Prime Minister said he was ‘proud’ of the role Britain played in helping the Libyan people liberate their country.

Outside 10 Downing Street, Mr Cameron said: ‘People in Libya today have an even greater chance of building themselves a strong and democratic future.

‘I’m proud of the role that Britain has played in helping them to bring that about and I pay tribute to the bravery of the Libyans who have helped to liberate their country.’

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who with Mr Cameron had kept up pressure for Nato’s continued role, said Gaddafi’s death was a ‘major step on the country’s path to democracy.’

U.S. President Barack Obama said: ‘This marks the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya.’

Nato leaders will be watching anxiously over the next few days, however, in case Gaddafi loyalists plunder stockpiled weapons to wreak bloody revenge on the rebels.

Five bodyguards were killed but one tried to save Gaddafi, telling rebels: ‘My master is here, my master is here. Muammar Gaddafi is here and he is wounded.’

Bundled: An ambulance carries Gaddafi’s body from Sirte to Misrata

 

Transporting: An ambulance, containing happy rebel fighters, carries Gaddafi’s body after he was executed

But there was to be no mercy for the man dubbed ‘The King of Kings of Africa’.

He is the first leader to be killed in the ‘Arab Spring’ wave of popular uprisings that have swept the Middle East, demanding the end of autocratic rulers and the establishment of greater democracy.

His death decisively ends a regime that had turned Libya into an international pariah.
The oil-rich nation now enters a new era, but its turmoil may not be over.

The former rebels who now rule are disorganised, face rebuilding a country stripped of institutions, and have already shown signs of infighting with divisions between geographical areas and Islamist and more secular ideologies.

Brutal: There had been fierce fighting around the drain before Gaddafi was finally killed. The body of a fighter can be seen in the dust at the centre of the screen

 

Already a monument: As celebrations continued, more and more graffiti appeared at the entrance to the drain where the leader was eventually found

 

Battleground: Bodies of suspected Gaddafi loyalists lie outside the storm drains their leader was captured

The death of Gaddafi and his son, Mutassim, who commanded loyalists in Sirte, as well as the capture of the British-educated Saif al-Islam, who was seen as the heir apparent, effectively removed any rallying point for an insurgency.

Both Gaddafi and Saif had faced international war crimes warrants and there was concern last night that unlike Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was similarly pulled from a hole where he was hiding – he eventually was hanged in Baghdad – the Libyan leader was effectively executed by the troops of a fledgling democracy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051361/GADDAFI-DEAD-VIDEO-Dictator-begs-life-summary-execution.html#ixzz1bTwsp4ME

Pretty rough way to go – especially when the man who so thoroughly DEMONIZED George Bush for waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – is taking credit for Gaddafi’s end.

KSM’s only crime had been murdering 3,000 innocent American citizens in a day that changed history.  George W. Bush was facing exigent circumstances; was there another massive attack planned that would murder even more innocent Americans?  Bush’s waterboarding not only extracted the information we needed not only to ensure that the terrorists rat bastards didn’t have yet another huge plot in the works, but it also ultimately lead U.S. intelligence to Osama bin Laden. 

For which Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party demonized him up one end and down the other as being evil and anti-democrtic.

It doesn’t matter that Obama ordered Osama bin Laden assassinated without trial.  That’s clearly nothing compared to how bad it would have been if we’d done something extreme, like waterboard him.

And then there was Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen whom Obama ordered assassinated by a Predator drone attack without trial.  Remember how Democrats put on sackcloth and poured ashes over their heads over the destruction of constitutional protections to waterboarded terrorists who weren’t even citizens?  What’s the deal with that?  Where has the outrage been from Democrats?

You tell me which is worse: being waterboarded or being beaten and shot to death?  Because I’ll tell you what, you Democrat cockroach, let’s make a deal: you waterboard me and then I’ll beat the crap out of you and then put a bullet in your head.  And, since on your depraved view being waterboarded is worse than being beaten and murdered, I get to go first and then you can waterboard me to your heart’s content.

Now, having demonized Bush for waterboarding the terrorist murderer who personally had the blood of 3,000 innocent Americans on his hands, here’s the Obama administration on the torture and murder of Muammar Gaddafi:

October 20, 2011 4:01
Clinton on Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died”
By Corbett B. Daly

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.

“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews.

Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC).

The reporter asked if Qaddafi’s death had anything to do with her surprise visit to show support for the Libyan people.

“No,” she replied, before rolling her eyes and saying “I’m sure it did” with a chuckle.

Where’s the outrage over the violation of poor Gaddafi’s sacred rights?  Oh, yeah, that’s right.  Silly me, I almost forgot:

Let me simply put it this way: Democrats aren’t just vile by Republican standards; Democrats are utterly vile by Democrat standards.

This actually gets even worse than the mere demonstration of abject Democrat hypocrisy on a fundamental level.

Barack Hussein Obama appeared on television today and took all the credit in the world for Muammar Gaddafi’s end as a backdrop to announcing that all American troops were going to be pulled out of Iraq. What he didn’t bother to tell the American people was that this end to the Iraq troop committment was a total disaster and a total disgrace for American policy. U.S. military commanders wanted to keep upwards of 25,000 troops in Iraq (the way we kept troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea) as a guarantee that Iran would not win in Iraq by destabilizing the Shiite majority in that country. Obama had THREE FULL YEARS to negotiate the troop level in Iraq with the assistance of an Iraqi congress that WANTED us to remain. But he did NOTHING until the last minute by which it was too late. And now we’re out of Iraq in failure with all that sacrifice being for nothing and Iran is laughing at us.

And Obama gives this asinine press briefing (taking no questions) in which he refuses to even MENTION Iran but made sure that everybody knew what a hero he was for getting Gaddafi. And Obama walked out of that press room with every single reporter shouting in unison, “Mr. President, what about Iran?”

Now that Obama is the president responsible for the torture and murder of a dictator, what is going to happen next in Libya?  Are his heroic allies who overthrew Gaddafi going to embrace democracy and freedom now that they showed how sacred human rights are with their former leader (after all, they didn’t waterboard the sonofabitch, did they?)?

Obama has taken credit on multiple occasions for bringing about the Arab Spring that has resulted in so much “democracy.”  But he has never told you why he is REALLY responsible for the “Arab Spring”, has he?

If Obama Takes Credit For Ouster Of Libya’s Gaddafi, He Also Accepts Blame For Whatever Happens As A Result

The news of the day (Sunday) is that the rebels have finally prevailed in their struggle to overthrow Libyan strongman dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Obama has not yet interrupted his vacation to speak about the development, clearly waiting until more information comes in.

I don’t doubt that Obama’s first impulse will be to crow about Gaddafi’s ouster in a “This justifies my actions over the last several months” victory speech.

But don’t forget that it took 155 days –here’s an article detailing the chaos and embarrassment of the mission at day 100 – for a clearly nearly useless US-backed NATO to do something that Obama promised the American people would take, “days, not weeks.”

Also don’t forget that Obama ran roughshod over Congress – and over even his own previous demagogic anti-Bush rhetoric – when he undertook this action without ever bothering to get congressional approval for this action.

But let’s put all that aside, as truly bad as it all is, just for the sake of argument.

If Muammar Gaddafi is truly overthrown from Libya, who or what is going to take his place?  A worse regime?  A French-Revolution-style bloodbath of mob-rule and executions galore?  Terrorist Islamist groups like al Qaeda? A pro-Iranian puppet state like Lebanon?

It shouldn’t surprise anybody if the factions that fought alongside one another to depose Gaddafi begin to fight against each other for control over the oil fields and political control.  There are the Berbers versus the Arabs, and a whole bunch of tribes versus a whole bunch of other tribes.

Just remember that if Barack Obama assumes the credit for the wonderful day that Gaddafi is overthrown, then he should assume every single particle of blame for Libya turning ugly.

Colin Powell famously told Bush regarding Iraq, “If you break it, you buy it.”  And liberals threw that in Bush’s face – even though Bush got Saddam Hussein and won the Iraq War.  If a crisis develops – which I think it will – shouldn’t Obama be held accountable for his substantial role in buying Libya???

I imagine his advisers are probably informing Obama of that as further information comes in.  It will be interesting to see what Obama says.  Frankly, the less Obama crows, the more concerned we should be that Libya might become a chaotic bloodbath.

The Dow had been predicted to open down in the triple digits due to bad economic news prior to the developments in Libya being announced, and the futures are currently moderately down some eight hours before the market opens.  It will also be interesting to see how the market reacts to what they are seeing from Libya.  But also remember that the Dow – like Obama – could surge on seemingly good news, only to plummet miserably later if anarchy begins to take hold.

Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama’s Sixty Days To Get Congress To Approve Of Libya Adventure Now Past

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “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.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before both his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

Do you remember how the left unrelentingly mocked and attacked Bush for “looking into Putin’s eyes” and thinking he saw someone he could work with?  I don’t know about you, but I see an awful lot of eye contact going on between Obama and Gaddafi.  But the mainstream media would never DREAM hold Obama accountable to the same unrelentingly negative standard they attacked George Bush with.

I always laugh how nobody is more blatantly unfair than the same left that constantly self-righteously lectures the right about “fairness.”

And the Obama administration is advancing the same meandering gibberish throughout the rest of the Middle East (and the world) as well, of course.  Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called brutal Syrian thug Bashar al-Assad a “reformer” because these liberals are naive clueless idiots.  John Kerry – who thought he was just so much smarter than George Bush – was unsurprisingly every iota as stupid as Obama and Clinton.  But at least after watching Assad murder at least 850 of his own people, even Kerry could “discover” that Assad was certainly “no reformer.”

So what about the president who said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack” until he himself unilaterally authorized a military attack without even bothering to talk to Congress about said unilateral military attack?

Well, we find that our Fascist-in-Chief is basically above the law:

Congress Presses Obama On Libya, As 60-Day War Powers Deadline Arrives
by Eyder Peralta

Today marks the 60th day since President Barack Obama formally told Congress about the U.S. intervention in Libya. It matters, because Congress hasn’t authorized the action and the 1973 War Powers Act states that if a president doesn’t attain that authorization 60 days after the start of military action, the president must halt it within 30 days.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told Fox News that the House was working on a resolution for Monday that “would either get Congress to sign off on intervention in Libya or cut off the operation.”

And on Wednesday, Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Cornyn (Texas) sent a letter to Obama asking whether he intended to comply with Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

“As recently as last week your Administration indicated use of the United States Armed Forces will continue indefinitely,” they wrote in the letter. “Therefore, we are writing to ask whether you intend to comply with the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. We await your response.”

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was committed to complying with the War Powers Act, but that it was also looking for ways to lawfully continue the military intervention without asking Congress to authorize it:

One concept being discussed is for the United States to halt the use of its Predator drones in attacking targets in Libya, and restrict them solely to a role gathering surveillance over targets.

Over recent weeks, the Predators have been the only American weapon actually firing on ground targets, although many aircraft are assisting in refueling, intelligence gathering and electronic jamming.

By ending all strike missions for American forces, the argument then could be made that the United States was no longer directly engaged in hostilities in Libya, but only providing support to NATO allies.

Another option, reports the Times, is to order a complete stop to military efforts and restart them shortly, which lawyers say would buy them 60 more days.

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, professors of law and political science at Yale, argue that Obama is charting new territory here:

Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.

In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations

Do you see how fundamentally and profoundly fascist our Führer is?  Do you not see how this creep is constantly trying to wiggle out of constitutional responsibilities and wriggle out of his responsibilities to Congress after  he personally, repeatedly and  hypocritically demonized George Bush for doing far, far LESS?

I think of Obama demonizing Bush over the debt ceiling only to now say, “Please say ‘Ja wohl, mein Führer!’  After all, am I not your Messiah?” Because, after all –

Can I get a Ja wohl I mean an Amen, from you liberals???

Libya is a mess.  But don’t expect the mainstream media to put their beloved Führer to the task and hold him accountable to the questions they should have held him accountable to months ago.  Becuse the only thing worse than having a führer for a president is having a führer for a president along with a bunch of little Reich Ministers of Propaganda for “journalists.”

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:

Obama And Libya: Liberals Show The Hypocrisy That Defines Them

Liberals are hypocrites.  Obama is a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essence of liberalism.

Don’t like that claim?  Tough.  It’s the truth.

Where’s all the criticism for Obama that Democrats, liberals and the unhinged leftwing media constantly threw at George Bush???

Here’s a good brief collection of ways the left demonized Bush over Iraq that are very conveniently being forgotten by the left and by the press which are the left’s useful idiots:

John Hawkins
7 Questions For Liberals About Obama’s Libyan War

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 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 Gaddafi? 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?

I had a slightly different project last week in an article I titled, “Obama Adds Stupid And Hypocritical To Weak In His Libya No-Fly Policy.”  In that, I added factoids, such as how Obama went from demonizing the war in Iraq to claiming credit for it; how Obama’s people claimed his wonderful Cairo speech was responsible for the desire for freedom, when really it was his terrible economic policies that have undermined economies throughout the world; how Obama attacked Bush for not having enough troops in Afghanistan and subsequently “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” to refusing to have any troops at all while we do nothing BUT air-raiding villages in Libya.  That sort of thing.

But it turns out there is so much hypocrisy oozing out of Obama like toxic contaminents that it is hard to contain them all in any one article.  There’s what Obama said when he claimed Bush didn’t have the right to go to war in Iraq –

“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.

– with what the hypocrite is doing RIGHT NOW.

Obama literally ought to be impeached by his own standard.

Then there’s the fact that Obama is an abject LIAR about what he is saying about Bush:

[T]he President declared: “In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

First of all, there’s this:

On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a nine-month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a “rush to war.” Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.

Then there is this fact:

As the folks at Fox quickly pointed out, Bush actually had twice as many international allies for the invasion of Iraq as Obama has put together for his adventure in Libya.  They even put together a list.

Then add to that insult the fact that Obama never bothered to get any kind of approval from Congress, whereas Bush had Congress’ approval for both Afghanistan AND Iraq.  In Iraq, the war liberals always demonize him over, Congress granted Bush the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq” in October 2002.

Not only did Obama not have any such authority, but he literally started his unlateral war in Libya while he was on vacation in Brazil!!!

Dennis Kucinich is about the only Democrat who actually has the integrity to demand Obama answer for his impeachable offense which his fellow Democrats deceitfully and falsely tried to claim that Bush had committed.

Where are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in demanding that chicken hawk war criminal Obama be impeached for abandoning the Constitution?

Iraq was – and damn, IT CONTINUES TO BE – depicted by the left as some kind of massive failure (except when it benefits them to falsely take credit for it).  But Saddam Hussein’s head is hanging on Bush’s wall.  And what about Muammar Gaddafi’s head?

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has admitted that a stalemate could allow Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to remain in power despite facing intenational military action gainst his forces.He said that the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that the US did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power, The Telegraph reports.

If Gaddafi stays in Libya, it will be a massive failure.  And Gaddafi is going to stay in power.

Even the New York Times acknowledges that this will be a massive failure:

If Colonel Qaddafi manages to remain in power, that will leave the United States and the United Nations-backed mission looking like a failure, foreign policy experts from all sides of the political spectrum said. “Barack Obama told Qaddafi to go; if Qaddafi doesn’t go, America will look diminished in the eyes of the world,” said Steven Clemons, senior fellow at the New American Foundation.

Stephen J. Hadley, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush and an architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion, said at a forum in San Francisco on Saturday that he feared the limited approach “could set us up for failure.”

“I don’t quite see what is behind the strategy in Libya,” Mr. Hadley said, speaking while a small clutch of protesters — mostly yelling chants about Iraq — were on the streets below. “We are now in a situation where we have a mismatch of what the president said we want to do as a nation, what the U.N. Security Council authorizes, and what we are actually ready to commit in resources.”

As an example of still more failure, Obama’s coalition is falling apart in front of the world while Obama continues to party in South America.

The fact of the matter is that I pointed out two weeks ago that Libyans were missing George Bush.  Why?  Because Obama is a failure, and Bush was a guy who got things done, that’s why.

I also pointed out nearly a week ago what the people who knew what they were talking about were saying DAYS before Obama finally bothered to do too little and too late to change the situation:

Obama pontificated, made some bold statements, and then did nothing.  Now a no-fly zone would probably come to late.

Liberals and Democrats are hypocrites.  They have been hypocrites for my entire lifetime.

But this display of sheer, galling incompetence and stupidity is new, even for them.

Mainstream Media Tyranny-Helpers: Reuters, CNN Allow Themselves To Be Human Shields To Protect Libyan Command/Control Center

Here’s one: Gaddafi is a tyrant, and mainstream media “journalists” apparently don’t mind helping him stay in power as they pursue their own tyrannous agenda:

EXCLUSIVE: Libyans Use Journalists as Human Shields
By Jennifer Griffin & Justin Fishel
Published March 21, 2011
| FoxNews.com

 EXCLUSIVE:  An attack on the compound of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby, Fox News has learned.

British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya’s Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields.

The curtailment of this mission led to a great deal of consternation by coalition commanders, sources told Fox News, but they opted to call off the mission to avoid civilian casualties.

During a Pentagon briefing on Monday, coalition commanders said the huge compound was targeted due to its air defense systems on the perimeter and a military command and control center. It was not targeted to kill Qaddafi, commanders said.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials said on Monday that Qatar is sending six planes to Libya to participate in support missions, becoming the third Arab nation to send aircraft to the African nation. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also announced on Monday that its role in Libya is “strictly confined” to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Libya.

In coordination with Turkey, the United Arab Emirates has sent a ship loaded with medical and humanitarian aid to Libya — in addition to two UAE planes sent to the country last week.

The U.N.-approved no-fly zone over Libya is working and will soon be expanded to Tripoli as aircraft from additional coalition countries arrive in the region, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham told a Pentagon briefing that coalition air forces were continuing missions to sustain the no-fly zone and that Libyan ground forces were moving south from rebel-held Benghazi showing “little will or capability” to operate.

Ham said U.S. and U.K. forces launched another 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles over the past 24 hours at sites controlled by Qaddafi. The targets included regime command and control facilities, a surface-to-surface missile site and an air defense station, according to Ham, the operation commander who added that there was no direct coordination among allies and anti-Qaddafi rebels.

Once again, Fox News demonstrated it’s “right wing bias” by refusing to send a reporter to a location at the invititation of Libyan officals.  The senior Fox News reporter on the ground (Rick Leventhal) suspected the Libyans were trying to use him for propaganda, if not as a human shield.  This behavior by Fox News is quite unfortunate.  They really need to listen to icon of progressive journalism Walter Lippman (according to liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky):

The intelligent [elite liberal] minorities have long understood this to be their function. Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

As journalist great Walter Lippmann saw it:

Adherents of democracy, he wrote back in 1925, “encourage the people to attempt the impossible”—that is, to exercise sovereignty, and this can only result in their “interfering outrageously with the productive activities of the individual.” This must at all costs be avoided “so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.” Even earlier, in his Public Opinion, Lippmann seized on the behaviorism of J. B. Watson (his book, Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist appeared in 1919) to bulwark his attack on democracy. For the mechanical behaviorist view of thinking as pure stimulus and response of the human brain as a mere switchboard—was the source for Lippmann’s invention of the concept of mental “stereotypes.” With this, Lippmann reduced the “reality” of democracy to the manipulation of the “herd’s” mind by the propagandistic conditioning conducted by the elite. Similarly, psychoanalysis and pragmatism appealed to Lippmann—as did eugenics for a time—as scientific demonstrations of the irrational and amoral nature of man, as clinchers that the masses, in Mencken’s phrase, were the “booboisie.”

Then, of course, there are the great words of another fellow who has profoundly shaped American progressive journalism, Edward Bernays:

In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, “When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans … using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations”.

And Fox News, of course, just isn’t living up to this tradition of wise and benevolent propaganda at all.  Unlike the heroic journalists who placed themselves in harms way to get the story and to prevent the hated West (because until they are fully socialized they remain the greatest enemy) from undermining the wise and benevolent leadership of Jeremiah Wright’s and Louis Farrakhan’s esteemed friend Muammar Gaddafi.

Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for about 23 years, so he’s clearly a profoundly spiritual and wise man.  And Louis Farrakhan is black, and therefore the virtuous victim of white bigotry.

But Wright’s relationship with the controversial Farrakhan extended far beyond an award.  In 1984, Wright personally accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet with Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli. In 2008, Wright even predicted his association with Farrakhan and Gaddafi may cause political headaches for Obama’s presidential aspirations: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell,” he said.

And, of course, it almost certainly would have.  Except the “intelligent minorities” understood that revealing the truth would have outraged the ignorant “bewilderned herd.”  Fortunatey, the tremendous journalists from Reuters and CNN were on hand to prevent that from happening.

Just as they were fortunately on hand to prevent the evil American and British pilots from taking out Gaddafi’s primary command and control facility.

Of course, if you are a true believer in mainstream media journalism, you are an atheist.  But even though you obviously can’t thank God for the presence of the media, you should thank somebody (Big Brother Obama, perhaps?) that mainstream media outlets like CNN and Reuters were on the scene to keep manipulating the bewildered herd’s mind through the construction of propagandistic condition.

Obama Adds Stupid And Hypocritical To Weak In His Libya No-Fly Policy

A quick refresher course for the last couple of months.

First of all there is the fact that Obama – basically in his own words – has been doing nothing more than following Bush’s pro-democracy policy in the Middle East.  He’s just been doing so in an incredibly incompetent and contradictory manner.

We actually heard the same sort of mind-boggling chutzpah from the Obama administration that led them to conclude that George Bush’s victory in Iraq – which Obama did everything possible to undermine every step of the way as both Senator and presidential candidate – was “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  Because these moral idiots in the White House actually took credit for the massive unrest in the Middle East, claiming that the yearning for freedom all somehow came from Obama’s Cairo speech.

Now, interestingly, it is actually TRUE that Obama is responsible for the massive unrest in the Middle East.  But hardly in a way that Obama would want to have attributed to him:

FEBRUARY 23, 2011
The Federal Reserve Is Causing Turmoil Abroad
Few protesters in the Middle East connect rising food prices to U.S. monetary policy. But central bankers do.
By GEORGE MELLOAN

In accounts of the political unrest sweeping through the Middle East, one factor, inflation, deserves more attention. Nothing can be more demoralizing to people at the low end of the income scale—where great masses in that region reside—than increases in the cost of basic necessities like food and fuel. It brings them out into the streets to protest government policies, especially in places where mass protests are the only means available to shake the existing power structure.

[…]

Probably few of the protesters in the streets connect their economic travail to Washington. But central bankers do. They complain, most recently at last week’s G-20 meeting in Paris, that the U.S. is exporting inflation.

China and India blame the U.S. Federal Reserve for their difficulties in maintaining stable prices. The International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, always responsive to the complaints of developing nations, are suggesting alternatives to the dollar as the pre-eminent international currency.

And, mind you, the destabilization created by Obama is hitting us right here in “God Damn America,” too.  Just as I told you so.

Obama’s reckless and immoral spending policies DID create the conditions for unrest, as hungry people whose economies have been destabilized by Obama begin to riot and protest all over the place.  Obama-appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has been doing nothing more than trying to finance Obama’s never-seen-in-the-history-of-the-human-race-spending by printing money and undermining the US dollar.  And our once mighty dollar is now like a cancer for all the countries whose currencies depend on it.

Obama’s Cairo speech was a laugher of empty liberal rhetoric.  And another little factoid to contemplate is how Obama and vile, despicable liberals blamed the hostility of the Islamic world on Bush, when the world had never SEEN the Middle East go up in flames until Weakling-in-Chief Obama had been in office for two miserable years.  And, given that Iran will have its nukes thanks very much to Democrat weakness and demagoguery, you aint seen nothing yet.  Do you remember your liberal friends assuring you that Bush had made the world violent, and that Obama would magically make the problems go away, because empty talk was what was really important, rather than the strength and courage to actually stand for something?

But let’s say just for the sake of argument that Obama’s Cairo speech awakened the desire for freedom in every breast.  Let me then cite the words of a DEMOCRAT:

“It seems to me that it is a dangerous proposition to urge people to seek democracy and revolt and then basically not to help them.”

Which is exactly – and I mean EXACTLY – what this weak, appeasing, cowardly empty-suit has done.

You want proof?  Just click here and see how the leaders of the Egyptian revolution told Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to go to hell because Obama hadn’t done a damn thing to help them.

Or click here to see how that same Hillary Clinton so disgusted with Obama as “a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up.”  And then you tell me how Obama is anything other than a pathetic, weak, appeasing little weasel.  Hillary Clinton is sick and tired of trying to explain away a failed president to foreign leaders who say things like, “Frankly we are just completely puzzled.  We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”  And just what the hell is the woman supposed to say to them, given that her boss is an incompetent fool on his best days?

So Obama finally decides – basically two weeks after it was probably too late – to erect a no-fly zone over Libya.  Fine.  But the fool has to show us what a fool he is by stating categorically that he will absolutely not put any American troops on the ground.  That guarantees that Gaddafi will remain in power; and worse yet, it guarantees that Gaddafi knows that Obama is too weak to do anything serious.

“As I said yesterday, we will not – I repeat – we will not deploy any US troops on the ground,” Obama said.

We bombed Iraq far more than we will ever end up bombing Libya under Obama.  But remember that in Iraq we still had to go in and dig that cockroach Saddam Hussein out of his hole in the ground with TROOPS.  Gaddafi aint going anywhere now other than his temporary rat hole, thanks to Obama’s stupid announcement.  Thanks to Obama, Gaddafi knows he can play possum and pretend to follow the rules until we’re gone, and then it’s right back to the murdering.

Obama is like an imbecile who can’t help but show everyone at the table his hand every time he plays poker.  And then can’t understand why he keeps losing.  I can understand why Obama wouldn’t want to put troops on the ground (the man is a weakling; of course he wouldn’t want to do something strong!); but I can’t understand why he had to let everybody know that all Gaddafi has to do is hunker down and he can stay in power without getting scared into making some kind of deal to save his snake skin.

Another way to put it is this: Remember when Obama was running for president by demonizing and demagoguing Bush?  Obama said:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

But I guess it was just Afghani civilians that Obama was queasy about air-rading and killing; he’s FINE doing nothing more than air-raiding villages and killing civilians when they’re LIBYAN.  That by his own despicable and frankly treasonous rhetoric.  If Bush was wrong not to have troops, Obama is wrong not to have troops.  Liberals are going to say, “That was totally different!” because they ALWAYS say that when they do the same damn thing that they had just got through demonizing.  It’s their nature as the quintessential hypocrites they truly are.

Bush was rightly resistant to putting too many troops into Afghanistan because he knew enough about history to understand that Afghanistan is a hell-hole.  Bush understood that while Iraq – with its flat, mostly open terrain – was perfect for American equipment and tactics, and that mountainous and cave-ridden Afghanistan was most certainly NOT well-suited for American equipment and tactics.  Bush knew that the fairly well-educated Iraqi people were capable of some semblance of democracy; and Bush knew that the ignorant, basically stone-age Afghani people were NOT capable of anything resembling self-governance.

Because Bush – however stupid the left wants to say he is – wasn’t 1/20th as massively moronic as Barack Obama is.

But I’m still not done dumping on our Moron-in-Chief.  Because we’ve got to consider something else: Obama insists that what he’s doing in Libya is right because it’s purpose is “the protection of Libyan civilians.”

Let me ask you a question: is Obama truly so personally ignorant that he didn’t know about the hundreds of thousands of civilians that Saddam Hussein murdered in Iraq while he was opposing our doing anything to help them?

From USAID:

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.”We’ve already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves,” said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein’s regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

THAT was back in 2004.  The ugly fact of the matter is that they have continued to dig up more and more mass graves since.  We’ve got no idea how many bodies are buried in the endless sands of the Iraqi desert.

How was it right to ignore the murdered Iraqi people, but to champion a tiny fraction as many murdered Libyan people?

Then there is the hypocrisy of how Obama entered the war given the left’s incessant demonization of George Bush:

On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a 9 month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a “rush to war.” Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.

Obama is quite right to care about the atrocities being committed by Muammar Gaddafi now.  But it also just goes to prove what a vile little weasel he has been his entire life prior to lying his way to the presidency.

Let us also remember that Barack Obama went to an evil, demonic church for 23 years and personally chose as his pastor and spiritual mentor wicked a man named Jeremiah Wright who sung the praises of a vile, murdering dictator named Muammar Gaddafi:

But Wright’s relationship with the controversial Farrakhan extended far beyond an award.  In 1984, Wright personally accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet with Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli. In 2008, Wright even predicted his association with Farrakhan and Gaddafi may cause political headaches for Obama’s presidential aspirations: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell,” he said.

It should have.  It should have destroyed the Obama candidacy and spared us from the most despicable president in our nation’s history.  But amazingly, and thanks primarily to the worst media propaganda campaign since Goebbels, it didn’t.

We were both foolish and wicked to vote for this evil man.  Barack Obama was a cheerful congregant in Jeremiah Wright’s wicked and racist church when Wright pronounced that the United States was “God damn America.”  And now – under Obama – it truly IS God damn America.

Barack Obama is now our Chicken-in-Chief.  And, yes, in Jeremiah Wright’s words, our chickens truly have now come home to roost.

Egyptian Leaders Snub Hillary Clinton And Point Out Obama Did NOTHING To Help Them

Next up, of course, is Libya, on the extremely unlikely scenario (now) that they can topple Gaddafi in the face of his jets and tanks.

Like anyone who gives a damn about freedom, those who want to escape from Gaddafi’s tyranny are missing George Bush as a useless failure named Obama pisses America away.

Obama said, “We’re tightening the noose on Gaddafi,” and made other similarly useless statements given the fact that he had no inclination at all to do a damn thing to help the Libyan people.

One Libyan resistance leaders said on Fox News:

“We are angry about the Americans.  If the Americans want to support us, then do it now, not tomorrow!”

Obama pontificated, made some bold statements, and then did nothing.  Now a no-fly zone would probably come to late.

It was hardly any different in Egypt.  The only difference was that Mubarak was a pro-American leader who wasn’t prepared to murder his own people; and Gaddafi is an anti-American thug (and therefore embraced by Obama’s pastor for 20 years Jeremiah Wright) who was more than prepared to kill the Libyan people by the tens of thousands:

Young Leaders of Egypt’s Revolt Snub Clinton in Cairo
March 15, 2011 1:17 PM

ABC News’ Kirit Radia and Alex Marquardt report:

A coalition of six youth groups that emerged from Egypt’s revolution last month has refused to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived in Cairo earlier today, in protest of the United States’ strong support for former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who was ousted by the uprising.

“There was an invitation for members of the coalition to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton but based on her negative position from the beginning of the revolution and the position of the US administration in the Middle East, we reject this invitation,” the January 25 Revolution Youth Coalition said in a statement posted on its Facebook page.

A spokesman for Clinton had no immediate response to the snub. Another State Department official, who would not speak for attribution, confirmed such a meeting had been slated for Tuesday and noted that she still plans to meet with members of civil society and transitional government officials during her visit, during which she will urge Egyptians to continue on the path towards democracy.

Mubarak was one of the United States’ strongest allies in the Middle East over successive American administrations. He enjoyed a cozy relationship with top US leaders, which courted Egypt with massive military aid packages as thanks in large part for its support for Israel.

“I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States,” Secretary Clinton told the Arab language satellite channel al Arabiya during a 2009 interview.

As the revolt strengthened in the streets of Cairo, Clinton was perceived as slow to recognize the strength of the protest movement.

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Clinton told reporters when first asked about the unrest on January 25.

In a separate statement provided to an Egyptian newspaper the youth group said “the US administration took Egypt’s revolution lightly and supported the old regime while Egyptian blood was being spilled.”

Don’t forget Vice President Biden saying Mubarak wasn’t a dictator:

When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

Scratch one former powerful ally in the Middle East.

And as we watch Bahrain begin to topple – and Bahrain is the home of the US 5th Fleet – maybe watch another one, too.

The message is basically that if you hate America, you can retain power by murdering your people.  If you are pro-American, Obama will turn his back on you and you are fair game.

The total repudiation by the Egyptians who won their own freedom in spite of Obama, of course, doesn’t stop Obama’s ideologues for claiming that the entire Islamic world in Cairo and everywhere else owe their freedom to Obama because he gave a stupid speech once in Cairo, of course.  They have long-since immunized themselves from reality.

Even Democrats are acknowledging that Obama is a total Zero in his foreign policy as this disaster spreads across the Middle East:

Senate Democrats were less pointed in their comments, but expressed similar concerns about the Obama administrations handling of the crisis. At one point, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. lamented all that the international community said but didnt do about the Qaddafi regimes military assault, and wondered aloud whether the presidents national security team was ever serious about trying to shape the outcome of the Libyan conflict.

I read the statements [from administration officials] and I almost get a sense it’s like a Texas two-step, Menendez said. I’m still not sure what we are supporting. It seems to me that it is a dangerous proposition to urge people to seek democracy and revolt and then basically not to help them. And so, you know, I am concerned as I listen to your answers, including what happens if Qaddafi prevailsI think we’re going to miss an opportunity to promote democracy with a small ‘d’ throughout the region, and to be seen on the side of those who have aspirations of that.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio accurately pointed out the fact that:

The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor, said Rubio. It looks unwilling, and maybe even unable, to act in this capacity.What are we going to do if theres a bloodbath after this? The president of the United States has specifically said Qaddafi must go, but has done nothing since saying that, except have internal debates about it for a week-and-a half or two.

[…]

So our message to the dissidents, Rubio said, the people with the bravery to stand up to Muammar Qaddafi, and then the people maybe thinking to stand up to the Iranian regime, and in other places, our message is: You guys go ahead and do this stuff, and if we can ever get the Russians or the Chinese to ever come around, we may or may not join you?

Obama is a liar, a fool and a wicked man.  He takes the credit for anything positive whether he deserves it or not.  And anything bad that happens, even entering into his third year as president, is all Bush’s fault.  Meanwhile, he is detached and disaccociated from anything resembling real leadership.  And his golf game and his NCAA brackets are far more important than human lives be they in Libya, Japan or anywhere else.

Libyans Facing Down Dictator Gaddafi Are Seriously Missing George Bush

As to the question of this sign:

The answer of the Libyans who are trying to free themselves from a murderous dictator thug named Muammar Gaddafi is, “Hell yes we do!”

In this case, one Bush is as good as another.  Both men were far more morally courageous than our current Coward-in-Chief who is casually putting his feet up on the Oval Office furniture.

George Herbert Walker Bush famously said, “This will not stand.  This will not stand, this aggressiona against Kuwait,” when informed that Saddam Hussein had just brutally invaded that tiny country.  And it didn’t.  Saddam Hussein had the fourth largest military in the world at the time; but it sure didn’t after we cut them down to size.  Barack Obama, in contrast, didn’t say a word criticizing Muammar Gaddafi for over a week while he sent first a boat too small, then a ferry that couldn’t handle rough water, while hundreds of Americans literally thought they would be killed.  Because the commander in chief of the most powerful navy in the history of the world did not want to risk provoking Gaddafi – even though several other nations had sent their own warships to save their people.  And after a lengthy period in which Obama refused to directly criticize Gaddafi for his murder of his own people, Obama has since looked at the polls and started making all manner of provocative threats that he has no intention of backing up with action.

Even the most evenhanded accounts are affirming that Obama is undermining American leadership.

BREGA, Libya (Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi’s forces struck at rebel control of oil export hubs in Libya’s east for a second day on Thursday as Arab states weighed a plan to end turmoil Washington said could make the nation “a giant Somalia.”

A leader of the uprising against Gaddafi’s 41-year-old rule said he would reject any proposal for talks with Gaddafi to end the conflict in the world’s 12th largest oil exporting nation.

In The Hague, International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Gaddafi and members of his inner circle could be investigated for alleged crimes committed against civilians by security forces since the uprising broke out in mid-February.

Italy said it was preparing for a potential mass exodus of migrants escaping turmoil in North Africa after a rise in flows of illegal immigrants from Tunisia, the initial destination for tens of thousands who have fled violence in Libya.

Save The Children and Medecins Sans Frontieres said they were struggling to get medicines and care to Libya’s needy, with gunmen blocking roads and civilians too scared to seek help.

Witnesses said a warplane bombed the eastern oil terminal town of Brega, a day after troops loyal to Gaddafi launched a ground and air attack on the town that was repulsed by rebels spearheading a popular revolt against his four-decade-old rule.

The rebels, armed with rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns and tanks, called on Wednesday for U.N.-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries it said were fighting for Gaddafi.

Opposition activists called for a no-fly zone, echoing a demand by Libya’s deputy U.N. envoy, who now opposes Gaddafi.

“Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes,” shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.

But perhaps mindful of a warning by Gaddafi that foreign intervention could cause “another Vietnam,” Western officials expressed caution about any sort of military involvement including the imposition of a no-fly zone.

I began with a question.  Might as well throw in another one:

Libya: Just how pathetic is Barack Obama?
**Posted by Phineas

The British have dispatched the Royal Navy and their SAS –their elite Special Air Service– to evacuate their citizens from Libya:

The SAS was ordered into Libya on Thursday to oversee the evacuation of hundreds of British nationals after the Government’s response to the crisis came in for widespread criticism.

Nearly 500 Britons were successfully repatriated throughout the day after three RAF Hercules transport aircraft and a Royal Navy frigate were pressed into action.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that special forces were on the ground in Tripoli to ensure the evacuation of all British nationals went smoothly.

SAS officers offered support and advice to private security firms drafted in to rescue more than 170 oil workers stranded in remote desert compounds.

Last night the frigate HMS Cumberland set sail from Benghazi with 200 passengers on board, many of them British.

Rescue efforts were still under way last night but the Government insisted that it was close to getting everybody out.

That is how the government of a world power is supposed to take care of its people!

So, what did President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama, Commander in Chief of the mightiest military the world has ever seen, do? Dispatch a carrier battle group with Marines to rescue our people? Drop in Special Forces to secure an evacuation zone? Declare a no-fly zone and crack a few sonic booms over Tripoli as a warning to Qaddafi?

Nope. The 45th President of the United States, successor in office to Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, Reagan, and all the rest… rented a ferry:

Right now, in Libya, there are hundreds of Americans waiting for evacuation … by ferry.

Seriously. The State Department has chartered a ferry to take the hundreds of waiting Americans to Malta. But rough seas have delayed the ferry’s departure until Friday.

A ferry. We have the biggest navy in the world and all that wimp can do is rent a ferry, as if this were some excursion in the bay instead of an evacuation in the middle of a civil war.

Others offered earlier the reasonable argument that Obama wasn’t doing more because he didn’t want to do something that might set Qaddafi off to take revenge on Americans. But that obviously isn’t a concern if the Brits feel they can send in the SAS…

Yet we rent a ferry.

Unbelievable.

Mr. President… Barry… Stop it. Just stop. You’re embarrassing us.

UPDATE: After three days, the ferry has finally left the dock in Tripoli and the Americans are out. Maybe next time we should ask London to do it for us.

This doesn’t adequately deal with Obama’s incompetence.  Before sending the stupid ferry, Obama had actually initially sent a boat that was much too small.  It would actually be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

The Americans were waiting for the ferry because – unlike the British warships – it couldn’t handle heavy seas.  The hope of America rested in a ferry that could sink with a big wave because appeasing coward Hussein didn’t want to appear threatening.  And rather than demanding that if a single American were killed Libya would be bombed until the stone ages looked like Futurama, Obama actually pleaded for permission to evacuate threatened American citizens.

And WHY has Obama acted this pathetically and this weakly?

Read this for the answer to that question.  Basically, Obama actually has more in common with Gaddafi ideologically than practically anyone else.

In a story by CBS titled, “Libya rebels beg for no-fly as bombings persist,” we have these words:

In a firsthand look at why Libya’s rebels are begging for a no-fly zone, CBS News was first on the scene after a bombing. People ignored the danger and raced to show the damage.”He’s hitting his own people with bombs,” one man said through a translator. “Young children. He’s killing them.”

CBS News was en route to the front line when a government warplane dropped two bombs on a road leading there. The shrapnel from those bombs was still warm when CBS News arrived at the blast site.

Near the craters was the wreckage of a pickup truck. A family with three children was in it when Qaddafi’s air force struck. Two of the children died. 

The survivors were slashed by shrapnel. The circling warplanes made for a very jumpy day on the front line.

The rebels have had trouble on the ground as well, their advance slowed by better-armed government forces counterattacking to defend Qaddafi’s home turf in the west.

Well, whether it’s the Sunni world fearing the Shiite Iranian nuclear bomb, or whether it’s Muslims across the Middle East yearning from freedom from tyrants, go knock on another door. 

The Muslim world wanted a weak American president, and now it’s got one.

This same Muammar Gaddafi watched George W. Bush take Saddam Hussein out, and he gave America the keys to his nuclear arsenal because he didn’t want to be the next dictator to be deposed.  Now he sneers at us while sending his jets to obliterate unarmed civilians from the air.

According to liberals – the quintessential moral idiots – that is actually proof that the U.S.  has regained the prestige it lost: because we are weaker and less feared in the world than we’ve ever been since Jimmy Carter.

I miss Bush, yes.  I miss a guy who did what he said and said what he did.  Verus Obama.  For example, just today, the weakling is abandoning yet another key campaign pledge.

The smell of weakness really stinks.  And whether we look at Russia, or at Iran, or at Egypt, or at Libya, or at China,  or at North Korea, or at the Sudan, it really reeks of stink at the White House these days.

Just In Case You DIDN’T Know Why Obama Has Refused To Denounce Gaddafi By Name

Question: why has Obama’s response to the genocidal conduct in Libya by dictator Gaddafi been so extraordinarily weak?

July 17, 2010
O what a web
Camie Davis

Remember as a kid drawing connect-the-dots pictures?  Simply follow the dots and a clear picture emerges.  As an adult, connecting the dots of Obama’s actions leads to an oxymoronic picture.  A clear picture of a murky web.  Obama’s actions continually link him to people and causes that the majority of Americans do not support. The recent event of another aid ship sailing to Gaza is an example of to whom and what the strands of Obama’s web link him, and unfortunately America.

Last year, right around the time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi called Obama “our son,” Obama earmarked $400,000 for two Libyan charities. The money was divided between two foundations run by Gaddafi’s children; Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and Wa Attassimou, run by his daughter Aicha.  What noble causes did our tax dollars potentially help support thanks to Obama’s generosity?

Funding of the ship Amalthea:  The Amalthea sailed to Israel with the intent of breaking the Israeli blockade on Hamas.  It carried aid for a pseudo humanitarian crisis and supporters who were said to be “keen on expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in the plight amidst the siege imposed on Gaza.”  The ship was funded by Saif Gaddafi’s charity, Gaddafi International Charity and Development Association.  Obama’s friend, Bill Ayers, joined attempt #1 against Israel’s blockade on Hamas.  Saif joined attempt #2.  One has to wonder which of Obama’s friends will step up to the plate at attempt #3. 

The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi:  Saif Gaddafi was involved in negotiating the convicted bomber’s release, and accompanied him back to Libya, where al-Megrahi was praised and welcomed.  For those who have forgotten the extent of the carnage of the Lockerbie bombing, 270 people, including 189 Americans, were killed.

Honoring Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi:  Al-Zaidi is the journalist who threw his shoe at President George W. Bush.  He was given a bravery award by Aicha Gaddafi’s charity, Wa Attassimou.  The charity stated that al-Zaidi’s actions “represented a victory for human rights across the world.”

As long as we are connecting the dots between Obama and Libya, now seems a good time to remember that the state department issued an official apology to Libya after spokesman P.J. Crowley made disparaging comments about Gaddafi’s call for jihad against Switzerland.  Apparently Crowley spoke on instinct instead of running his reaction by Libya’s “son” first.  As an Obamian spinmeister, Crowley learned that one doesn’t speak ill of “family.”

What a web Obama continues to spin.  One can only hope he falls into it soon, before all of American is smothered by it.

You’d actually think that would be complete, given how much damning association is there.  But you’d be wrong:

Obama’s Mystery Links to Qaddafi Uncovered

By Aaron Klein

As pressure mounts on the White House to intervene to stop Moammar Gadhafi’s bloody crackdown in Libya, many commentators have been wondering why Barack Obama has been cautious in his criticism of the dictator after the U.S. president so fervently supported the removal from office of U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.

But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s spiritual adviser for more than 23 years.

The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group. Read more at wnd.com.

Qaddafi: Barack Obama Is Friend

By Roee Nahmias

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi considers the US president a blessing to the Muslim world. In a speech published in London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, called him a “friend” and said there is no longer any dispute between his country and the US.

…

He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.” Read more at ynetnews.com.

And even THAT doesn’t tell the whole story, given the exchange Obama had with Tim Russert in 2008:

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.”

RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

And, of course, Israelis know a lot better now:

Only four percent of Jewish Israelis believe President Obama’s policies are pro-Israel while half oppose a temporary freeze of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a poll released on Friday found.

The survey, conducted by the Jerusalem Post, found that more than half, 51 percent, considered Obama’s administration to be more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, up slightly from 50 percent in June.

The percentage of Jewish Israelis who consider Obama to be pro-Israel was down from six percent in a much-cited June 19 poll. By comparison, 88 percent of those interviewed in the June survey thought former President George W. Bush was pro-Israel.

And there is frankly more than that. 

All I know is Obama is carrying so much baggage he should be working as Gaddafi’s porter.

Obama was late criticizing Egypt’s Mubarak.  He had his vice president go out and say, “Mubarak isn’t a dictator.”  And only began to criticize Mubarak when it was obvious that that was where the wind was blowing.  And then he said Mubarak’s name over and over and over again.

Obama has yet to specifically mention Muammar Gaddafi by name.  Even as the man massacres his people by the thousands.