...You can only see Obama's face because he's actually standing on Qaddafi's head...
...nothing to see here, folks...just a quick war with no clear objectives...just in and then out...eventually...
SOCIO-POLITICAL NEWS, COMMENTARY, HUMOR, CURRENT EVENTS, and OTHER VARIOUS TIDBITS
Excellent ! Strong bold lines~ clearly confused expression. Have you submitted any Political toons to papers ? This may be your calling !
ReplyDeleteThanks!
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent idea.
If President Obama had not wanted war with Libya, he could have done as Senator Obama, a candidate for the US Presidency, had claimed that the President must do — in all matters not involving an imminent military threat to the United States, take the matter before Congress. Had Congress been asked for approval in this case, they would have dithered until such time as the Libyan rebellion had been quashed (or, perhaps, France had just invaded Libya). So the question, then, is of why the President wanted this war.
ReplyDeleteWell, even though he was an early opponent of the invasion of Iraq, he is still going to be held somewhat responsible for failure there. And, in order to seem strong and forceful, as a candidate he had attempted to balance the effect of his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq by declaring that the United States must win the war in Afghanistan, a war which the United States is not going to win in his first term and may well have clearly lost during that term. So a military victory somewhere else would be very helpful to the President.
(I further suspect that this President, like most Presidents, would in any case rather have liked to have proved himself an able War Leader, even if his reputation weren't goign to be wounded by inheritted wars.)
Meanwhile, important European leaders and his Secretary of State were urging him to support military action. The latter, Hillary sometimes-Rodhamn sometimes-Clinton, is a potential challenger for the 2012 nomination of the President's party, and might damage him much as Edward Kennedy damaged Presdient Carter in 1980.
And, well, as his immediate predecessor had with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq, this President failed to appreciate the actual challenge that he would be accepting. Hence we heard “days, not weeks,” and then “weeks, not months”.
A large number of people mistook Barack Obama's posturing and pomposity for outstanding intellect. He's just not all that clever. *shrug*
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteObama's not all that clever? Agreed. His picks for March Madness illustrated that boldly. Oh, snap!
But seriously, Obama emerged from my home state of Illinois, where we continually churn out corrupt and weaselly politicians the way Iowa produces corn or Idaho does potatoes. I watched with increasing consternation his ascendency from a lazy do-nothing Senator to a double-talking do-nothing candidate to a terrible do-nothing President.
I feel he is a one-trick pony of sorts, his 'trick' being an adept and capable speaker who can articulate with superiority in a field where currently as well as recently this has not necessarily been the case. Indeed, when as a fledgling Senatorial candidate (I repeat, a mere candidate) who had distinguished himself in no way whatsoever was for some reason given the opportunity to deliver the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, the Democratic party commenced to drool all over itself in fawning adulation at this light skinned African-American who was able to project himself as thoughtful, articulate, and authoritative in a manner that was lacking in the party previously. They then took this unknown and untested candidate and thrust him forward as America's savior, where much of America (and the world) embraced him as a stark contrast to the tongue-tripping oil-allied dynastic false-flag manipulator who was Bush II.
I sense that Obama's main negative attribute (he has several) is his apparent belief in his own advertising hype as some sort of savior-god who is now entitled to lead us all by the hand into the realms of his vision for an Obaman society. Clearly he has alluded to the notion that most Americans who disagree with his vision are obviously too stupid to understand how wonderful his intentions are, and therefore he will not budge one iota from his predetermined goals, no matter how often the voters or constantly disparaged groups such as the Tea Party rightfully voice their opinions to the absolute contrary.
In his extremely abbreviated term as Senator he mostly abstained from making any decisions on the issues by voting "present", and as President he has followed this pattern, weighing his words and actions with such a meticulous fine-toothed comb so as to not offend any potential voter or ally to the point where he doesn't make any decision at all, and when he absolutely has to he does it with a pandering ethereal vagueness so as to obfuscate any detrimental perceptions.
I would rather have a leader who leads, who takes actions swiftly when needed and expresses themselves honestly to the people, than this arrogant and self-absorbed swaggering megalomaniac. While it can be argued that some of his intentions may be noble, the fact is that the path he is leading America down is not the road to prosperity but rather a dark and dead-end alley where vultures hover overhead and wait to feast upon our blind and lost carcasses.
I disagree with his vision (or at least the path he chooses to inaugurate said vision) so vehemently, I would instantly cast my vote for a faith-based constitutionalist idealist such as Sarah Palin, despite her lack of political and global gravitas and in spite of her media defining "deer in the headlights" faux pas in her Couric interview; or perhaps I would even vote for a power-mongering capitalist elitist such as Donald Trump, whose thinly veiled intentions are clearly business motivated and whose experiences are clearly out of touch with 98% of the voting public, and whose gruff and condescending attitude make LBJ look like a Care-Bear. At least they speak plainly and are what they appear to be, and they are not the calculating and pompous two-faced fence-sitter we currently have in office.
Shortly after he began this latest adventure, in response to a surprised Congress, the President said “days, not weeks”. As things went into their second week, the French Foreign Minister said “weeks, not months”. As things go into their third month, I wonder who will say “months, not years”.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect Qaddafi to last years. But neither did Saddam Hussein once the invasion were launched; still, who would now say that we were no longer at war in Iraq when Saddam was captured, or even when he was executed? Will there be peace in Libya once Qaddafi is gone?
Well, the French Foreign Minister has revised his estimate to “weeks or months, not years”.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't expect Qaddafi to last years, but I don't expect his demise or departure to end the troubles of Libya.