Very Hottest Photos

I skipped over Barack Obama's actual speech because I had a hamburger with my name on it waiting in the dining room, but I have since read the text. One safely assumes I have the substance down, but if I have missed anything by not watching Obam-uh live, blame the hamburger. It was tasty.

The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.

There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.

Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?

The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.

Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.

The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.