http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-libya-government-civilians-idUSTRE72N5SV20110324 In November of 2007, Obama said that the President does not have the right to go to war unless the country is being directly threatened by a foreign enemy. Yet a week ago he took us into war in Libya, and now almost 100 civilians are dead. Where is the outrage? And is Obama going to give back the Nobel Peace Prize?
I'd say we're fighting on the side of the UN, and that whoever's speaking for Libya to Reuters is a bit biased. On the other hand, do you think Qaddafi's the straw that will break our commitment to the UN? I don't. So the rhetoric against Obama isn't justified, imo. Unless you're talking about him running an operation from vacation in Rio...
Barack Obama War Monger! :MARIS61: well maybe not that far, he's just following the lead of other countries.
Good work Shooter. Taking what Gaddafi says as the truth simply because you think it might make the US president look bad is a sign you are regaining your championship form. barfo
the President won the Peace Prize for winning the Presidency. On those terms, I don't think he's done anything that would require giving it back. I mean, being nominated a month into a presidency for: is still happening...it's just that that "new climate" is dangerous to dictators, and the "Muslim world" being reached out to is made up of protesters decrying lack of basic human rights.
While it's a bit humorous to use the same line against Obama as was used against Bush, each time it seemed a bit trite. Presidents have to make difficult decisions that sometimes affect many peoples lives. It's part of the job.
It'll be pretty interesting to see how Obama is viewed 30 years from now. I can see a lot of people crediting him for the "fall of the petro-dictators," much as Reagan gets all the credit for the fall of the Soviet empire among many now. Both are vast, vast overstatements, of course. But there is the kernel of truth that Reagan's massive defense spending sunk the final nail in the coffin. Similarly, I do think that having a president like Obama has made a symbolic difference in the middle east. It's been a lot harder for dictators to point at him (and we the voters who elected him) like they have in the past and say, "It's all the Western devils' fault." His very name flies in the face of everything they've said for decades. That alone may be worth a peace prize. (Those on the right might rightly criticize it as the ultimate affirmative action award--winning because of his race and heritage, not what he's actually done. And they're probably right. But whatever. It's an award for impact, not effort.) Anyway, I'd say it's a little early to make grand pronouncements about Obama's efforts in Libya. Especially after things went so surprisingly well in Egypt and Tunisia so recently, despite so much critical hand wringing by Obama detractors. I'm dubious about this, but I reserved judgement on Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan for the first year or so. I figure I should give Obama a few months at least.
I, too, wonder how revisionist historians will view Obama. Of course, his Presidency isn't over yet. But the union bailouts, attempt for a National Healthcare plan and eliminating health insurance companies, firm dealings with middle east countries, unmatched eloquence... It's a shame I won't live long enough to read about it.
The strikes, in and of themselves, aren't war to me (even in a marriage). But it's a war to those caught up in it in the country. Just a matter of eprsepctive.
and a matter of perspective for the political right too. Whereas the bumper sticker that said "Bush lied, people died" actually WAS about a real war, this one is about a military strike. Albeit, a stupid decision.
My, my, my, how quickly we forget. Or are you simply oblivious to irony, barfo? The Left jumped all over the civilian casualty figures coming out of Iraq to prove that Bush was a warmonger and a murderer. I'm just turning the tables, and showing that the same can be said of Obama. I find it remarkable that Obama has taken us into war, without even discussing it with Congress, whereas Bush actually got a Congressoinal Resolution to go to war in Iraq. And yet Bush was the "criminal."
But you see, my post was in the same vein - I was channeling you, back when you supported "the American President" in anything he did. It goes both ways. barfo
Guys, guys, we're getting carried away here. Bottom line is that war or no war, we taking military action and people are going to die. One can always state how in their opinion a President may have mislead people, but it's a fool's argument.
