7 Questions For Liberals About Obama’s Libyan War

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

7 Questions For Liberals About Obama’s Libyan War

Written By : John Hawkins

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 inbetween 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?

Anonymous

In this case I think it is a war for oil, that’s the only reason the French are interested. I think the US is going along merely because this provides the first example where the US can “help” our allies, without being the lead force in the conflict much as our allies came along with us when they didn’t have interests or much of a stake in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Personally I don’t think either reason is sufficient. Libya is in the French sphere, they’ve been taking Kaddaffi’s money for decades. Libya is there problem and if the French want to recolonize the place so be it. I don’t even really mind the US involved in air operations, I think its unwise, but Kaddaffi’s provided more than enough reason to want him dead. I just fear who will take over afterwards and that US troops might be seen as required to prevent that happening, in which case Libya becomes the next battlefield in the War on Terror just when we seemed to be wrapping things up a bit.
Anonymous

1) Yes, it was a rush to war… even though it took him a month to decide.
2) Nah, I seriously doubt that that had anything to do with his decision.
3) Hell yes its a war for oil. Anyone who’d deny that is delusional.
4) Sorry, but that just ain’t gonna happen.
5) As much as Barry and Hillary both love the spotlight, you’d think that one or both of them would’ve at least suggested a summit or something. Heck, that might’ve netted Obama another Peace Prize.
6) We’re creating “millions of new terrorists”. LOL, remember that old liberal meme? but seriously, this will be a big recruiting tool for militant Islam, regardless of the Arab League’s initial approval.
7) F*ck yes he’s a chickenhawk!
StanW

I would guess we will have very little Liberal participation on this thread, IF ANY!

Anonymous

I imagine that if they were to answer any of these questions all those answers would be along the line of: because he’s the president and you’re a racist for questioning him.

StanW

If any of the are arrogant and stupid enough to post here, it will be to explain to all us rubes how the actions taken by Obama are COMPLETELY different that what Bush did, and that Obama doesn’t need to ask us or Congress for anything.

But you are correct that they WILL throw in RACIST for good measure!

D-Vega

a) Yup. They are completely different.

b) Obama doesn’t need to ask Congress for anything.

StanW

Because Obama is King and the separation of powers means NOTHING to him.
D-Vega

You should read the law and Constitution sometime, instead of parroting what your masters tell you.
StanW

Perhaps is YOU were better versed in what the law ACTUALLY says and not what you want it to say, you’d not be so STUPID.

Time for you to run away and let your latest sock-puppet come on and defend you, Vega!
StanW

This is pathetic, Vega. You used to run back to days-old threads to get in the last word. Now you edit old comments in your pathetic attempt to get the last word in. You are a real piece of work there, princess.
StanW

Still editing your posts to get in the last word.

Just when I think you are as pathetic as you can ever get, you prove me wrong, nancy-boy!
Anonymous

I’m pretty sure the war powers act gives the President 30 days (possibly even more) to do what he wants before he presents to Congress for approval.
StanW

You’re PRETTY SURE? Then maybe you shoudl actually read the war powers act and the limitations before you embarrass yourself further.

Anonymous

Nah, they’ll show up eventually, my friend. I fully expect to see soldout hurling personal attacks, m@rth@ spouting its usual insanity and joebritton trying to blame Reagan.

StanW

Liberaal MO in cases like this is to ignore the thread, and then return the next day pretending it never existed.

http://twitter.com/MClarissa MClarissa

nope. jst RT this on twitter. it’s a really good piece of peace. please speak 2 more liberals (no one allowed to name call or condemn). we have more in common w/ you than you might think. we work 2gther we bring this whole thing down. always ask WHY. ask the liberal. ask conservative. ask tcot, your politicians, ask your courts, ASK YOUR PRESIDENT, your unions, your businesses, your agencies, schools, neighbors. just keep asking WHY. when you get an answer, there is always another why and ask even more why’s. keep asking. keep listening. keep talking.
this married no kids (10yrs+) city dweller is a registered republican, pro-child, pro-choice, pro-life, pro-green, vegetarian (but cook a mean steak), pro human, pro equality, pro hard work, goes 2 the gun range, best friends w/ christian republican w kids. read bible, koran, old testament, mormon bible, & many more, been a boss, had businesses, paid 2 many taxes, been a teacher in a public school, had 2 go on public assistance after husband was hit by a drunk driver on job & lost job, & health coverage, lost all our $ bcz of it. now off assistance because neighbors, gov assistance, family, friends, (hub got an even better job & no more gov assistance). I vote for whomever shows (he/she) has voted for things that stop suffering promote sustained growth & real capitalism. we are not all that different, not in the ways that matter. i want YOU to live in the way you choose, thrive, succeed, be happy. i offer to share with YOU any of my resources. he who is w/o sin, may cast the 1st stone. Love thy neighbor as thyself (leviticus 19) .

D-Vega

I’ll have what he’s having.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You scored one already!!!
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You scored one already!!!

Anonymous

1)yes – by necessity
2)no
3)yes
4)doing better things
5)no
6)no
7)no

StanW

So you think Obama is not a Chickenhawk, but Bush was?

That’s all we need to know about you, RealPolitik.

Anonymous

But stan-lee – you know so little about everything as it is.

StanW

Piss off and die, RealPolitik!
StanW

Piss off and die, RealPolitik!
StanW

Piss off and die, RealPolitik!

D-Vega

1) Isn’t this a rush to war?

- No, because the time necessary was taken, and this is not a total invasion, destructiona AND rebuilding of Libya.

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him?

- No, and it’s absurd to suggest so.

3) Is this a war for oil?

- Yes. Just like Iraq was.

4) Where are the massive protests?

- The massive protests have been going on non-stop since 2003. And this is NOT the same as Iraq, no matter how much it’s compared to Iraq.

5) Shouldn’t we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead?

- We did. It didn’t work.

6) Aren’t we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya?

- No, we are continuing the same cycle of violence we have for decades.

7) Isn’t Barack Obama a chickenhawk?

- If you are admitting that both George W. and Dick Cheney were chickenhawks, then yes Obama would fit the same description.

StanW

1) Bush works for a year, Obama goes in weeks, and yet you can’t admit he rushed?
5) It didn’t work? WOW!
7) Barak never served, yet is using the military. I guess Chickenhawk is only for Republican that did serve.

Pathetic, Vega. But I will say I am impressed you responded. Who’s spine did you borrow?

D-Vega

1) Bush works for a year, Obama goes in weeks, and yet you can’t admit he rushed?

Bush worked for a year, for a full-scale INVASION.

5) It didn’t work? WOW!

Nope, that’s why war is the last resort, not the first option.

7) Barak never served, yet is using the military. I guess Chickenhawk is only for Republican that did serve.

You should read my answer again, so you don’t look foolish.

StanW

I read you answer, asshole. You tried to claim that Bush was a Chickenhawk, like Obama.

Bush worked for a year to get Saddam to comply, to prove to him that we had the resolve to back up what we said, and to enforce the American policy of regime change in Iraq, as well as all the UN Resolutions.

Kadaffy makes some noice, fires at his own people, and in a matter of weeks, Obama has committed American lives to doing the UN’s bidding on this.

He NEVER tried diplomacy, he rushed into this war without Congressional approval, and he is a chickenhawk, UNLIKE Bush.

Not that I ever expects a POS like you to pull your head out of Obama’s ass long enough to see the truth or your own hypocrisy!

D-Vega

I read you answer, asshole. You tried to claim that Bush was a Chickenhawk, like Obama.

If Obama is a chickenhawk, then so are Bush and Cheney yes, child.

Bush worked for a year to get Saddam to comply, to prove to him that we had the resolve to back up what we said, and to enforce the American policy of regime change in Iraq, as well as all the UN Resolutions.

So? He worked for a year in order to invade Iraq. We haven’t invaded Libya. Do you know the difference?

Kadaffy makes some noice, fires at his own people, and in a matter of weeks, Obama has committed American lives to doing the UN’s bidding on this.

The UN isn’t leading this operation.

And Kaddaffi was crushing the rebellion because he could order airstrikes.

I don’t think we should have committed airstrikes, but not because of some imaginary reason like yourself.

He NEVER tried diplomacy, he rushed into this war without Congressional approval, and he is a chickenhawk, UNLIKE Bush.

Of course he tried diplomacy.

He didn’t rush into this. There was no reason to wait, unless he wasn’t going to do it at all. If we were going to do this, then this is the time. Before the rebels are all killed.

Not that I ever expects a POS like you to pull your head out of Obama’s ass long enough to see the truth or your own hypocrisy!

The only people here being hypocritical is the right. You all must absolutely find a way to criticize the President, so this is the angle. And you feel somehow this vindicates you for rushing to invade Iraq. When it doesn’t.
StanW

Bush served, Obama did not. Obama is a chickenhawk, by Liberals definition of the term, and Bush is NOT!

You keep trying to make this different, Vega. But your stupidity is too obvious. Obama rushed into this and Bush did not.

Interesting how you claim to be against this military action, yet you are trying yourself in KNOTS trying to defend Obama and make us all think he was right here.

So he “didn’t rush into this”, but “THERE WAS NO REASON TO WAIT“????? If hypocrisy were painful, you would EXPLODE! Maybe we shoudl have waited on Iraq until all the men were dead, all the women had had at least one visit to the rape rooms, all the children had been thrown into prison, and Saddam had nuclear weapons.

Interesting how we can use Liberals words on Iraq, change only the name of the country and the President, and we are HYPOCRITES????

So years of diplomacy and 17 UN Resolutions = RUSH to invade
Three weeks of watching CNN and making a decision before running off on vacation = careful and deliberate.

Thanks Vega. You are proven yet again to be nothing byut a pathetic partisan hack, and AGAIN you own words prove it!
D-Vega

Bush served, Obama did not. Obama is a chickenhawk, by Liberals definition of the term, and Bush is NOT!

Bush did not serve in combat, Cheney didn’t serve at all.

By the definition you are using, all three are chickenhawks.

You keep trying to make this different, Vega. But your stupidity is too obvious. Obama rushed into this and Bush did not.

Nope. You continually asserting it means nothing.

Interesting how you claim to be against this military action, yet you are trying yourself in KNOTS trying to defend Obama and make us all think he was right here.

If we are to take action, this is the best course of action. No troops on the ground, a limited engagement.

So he “didn’t rush into this”, but “THERE WAS NO REASON TO WAIT”????? If hypocrisy were painful, you would EXPLODE!

Just because you don’t understand simple reasoning, that isn’t my fault. I am sure there are a great many things you don’t understand.

Maybe we shoudl have waited on Iraq until all the men were dead, all the women had had at least one visit to the rape rooms, all the children had been thrown into prison, and Saddam had nuclear weapons.

Sadam wasn’t building any nukes.

And there are people being killed and raped all over the world. Do you support invading the Congo?

Interesting how we can use Liberals words on Iraq, change only the name of the country and the President, and we are HYPOCRITES????

YES. You are the hypocrits. And we aren’t invading Libya. It’s amazing to see the right fall over themselve in order to hope the President, and thererfore our country, fails.

Why do you hate America?

So years of diplomacy and 17 UN Resolutions = RUSH to invade. Three weeks of watching CNN and making a decision before running off on vacation = careful and deliberate.

We aren’t invading, doofus.

Thanks Vega. You are proven yet again to be nothing byut a pathetic partisan hack, and AGAIN you own words prove it!

And you are proven to be an ignorant hack, oblivious to facts and reasoning, for the sake of partisanship and hate.
StanW

Bush did serve, Vega. Now you are adding ‘combat’ to the definition when you are trapped by your own words.

You do not knwo this is a limited engagement, Vega. We don’t know ANYTHING becasue Obama hasen’t said what this is or isn’t. Oh, and i saw a story today that we are firing on tanks. How does that equate to a no-fly zone.

And your pathetic assertions that Bush (YEARS) rushed but Obama (HOURS) did not cannot even pass the smell-test!

Saddam was starting is nuclear program back up, Vega.

Again, you are back to INvading and your BULLSHIT that this is all about wanting Obama to fail. Clue for you, you pissy little BITCH, Obama HAS failed, and he did it all on his own. He is doing in Libya EVERYTHING you and yiour pathetic ilk lied about Bush doing in Iraq and your are killing yourself to defend Obama and convince us that things are different. And you can’t even convince YOURSELF of that, Vega!

And that last sentence can be your secondary tag-line, after the one you used yesterday.

Time to change names and defend your lies Vega. Don’t worry. No one knows who your new sock-puppet is, just like we didn;t know that you were Mahatma!
StanW

Bush did serve, Vega. Now you are adding ‘combat’ to the definition when you are trapped by your own words.

You do not knwo this is a limited engagement, Vega. We don’t know ANYTHING becasue Obama hasen’t said what this is or isn’t. Oh, and i saw a story today that we are firing on tanks. How does that equate to a no-fly zone.

And your pathetic assertions that Bush (YEARS) rushed but Obama (HOURS) did not cannot even pass the smell-test!

Saddam was starting is nuclear program back up, Vega.

Again, you are back to INvading and your BULLSHIT that this is all about wanting Obama to fail. Clue for you, you pissy little BITCH, Obama HAS failed, and he did it all on his own. He is doing in Libya EVERYTHING you and yiour pathetic ilk lied about Bush doing in Iraq and your are killing yourself to defend Obama and convince us that things are different. And you can’t even convince YOURSELF of that, Vega!

And that last sentence can be your secondary tag-line, after the one you used yesterday.

Time to change names and defend your lies Vega. Don’t worry. No one knows who your new sock-puppet is, just like we didn;t know that you were Mahatma!

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Vega, your attempts to spin anti-Iraq protests as somehow related to this are as pathetic as anything I’ve ever seen you attempt.

And we spent a couple weeks trying to talk to Gaddafi, vs over a decade with Hussein, but you guys swore it was a rush to war and we never tried diplomacy in Iraq.

D-Vega

It wasn’t a rush to war with Iraq, it was a rush for invasion.

We had been technicaly at war with Sadam since he invaded Kuwait.

The difference is we DID NOT invade. Invasion means we take all responsibility.

There is/was a stark difference.

This military action is more a kin to Kosovo & Panama than to Iraq.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Again, your sophistry is pathetic. President Bush took months to get the coalition together, convince the American people, get congressional approval, and set up the forces. President Obama took a couple hours over a phone call from South America, ignoring the voters, throwing a statement at congress, and then going on with his tour.

Your attempts to find a way to spin this as anything but what it really is are incredibly pathetic and transparent. Obama rushed into conflict, Bush took a long time. You guys declared Bush’s actions a rush, and are trying to say Obama was deliberate? Please. You are losing IQ with every line you type.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Again, your sophistry is pathetic. President Bush took months to get the coalition together, convince the American people, get congressional approval, and set up the forces. President Obama took a couple hours over a phone call from South America, ignoring the voters, throwing a statement at congress, and then going on with his tour.

Your attempts to find a way to spin this as anything but what it really is are incredibly pathetic and transparent. Obama rushed into conflict, Bush took a long time. You guys declared Bush’s actions a rush, and are trying to say Obama was deliberate? Please. You are losing IQ with every line you type.

D-Vega

I replied to this, but it disappeared.

D-Vega

It wasn’t a rush to war with Iraq, it was a rush for invasion.

We had been technicaly at war with Sadam since he invaded Kuwait.

The difference is we DID NOT invade. Invasion means we take all responsibility.

There is/was a stark difference.

This military action is more a kin to Kosovo & Panama than to Iraq.

http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

1) Yes. It is a rush to war and it is unconstitutional in the absence of a declaration of war by Congress, just like Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) No. It’s unlikely this is a result of a personal insult, and neither was Iraq.
3) Yes, it is no doubt related to the fact that Libya has lots of oil, although so does Bahrain and we aren’t attacking them even though things are just as bad there. The main problem is that Qaddafi doesn’t obey US policy.
4) There are massive protests here in the US against the neo-liberal economic policies that are at the root of all the uprisings in the Middle East.
5) We should have tried to use diplomacy to resolve this, but ultimately it’s not our problem. Nobody appointed us the world’s policeman.
6) Starting a cycle of violence? Haven’t you noticed we’ve been at war for almost a decade already?
7) I don’t really care what names you call Obama. As a liberal, I find him to be a worthless tool of the Wall Street interests and a dupe of the military-industrial-congressional complex.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

1) Congress authorized use force in both Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not required to make a full of declaration of war. for further info on why look what the FF meant by Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

3) No it has more to do with Qaddaffi’s support of terrorism and WMDs which Bahrain isn’t known for.

7) Well he might be if those things actually existed in the cabal sense you use to describe them.

http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charles D

If Obama had authorized a US merchant ship to fire on Libyan vessels or port facilities, I might agree with you on point 1, but that’s hardly the case here. If we’re going to be strict constructionists on some parts of the Constitution, let’s do so on all. As for terrorism and WMD’s, the US takes a very unusual attitude toward both. If those possessing WMD’s are our friends, that’s OK regardless of international treaties and if those using violence against civilians are our allies we ignore their terrorism too. There doesn’t need to be a cabal or a conspiracy for people who have common interests to support common political goals.

Anonymous

Question Obama? Ha. Look how the left rushes to his defense. Vega admitted yesterday that some on the left were upset about this new war, but here he is today shoveling the partisan BS faster than anybody. Emperor Obama can do no wrong, and nobody may speak ill of Him.

The left simply has no credibility any more. All that’s left to do is tally up the body count of Obama’s latest effort to ingratiate himself with the European elite. This action is about nothing more than maintaining the flow of Libyan oil to France, and how quickly Obama can kiss Sarkozy’s butt.

D-Vega

I said right off the back that we should not have gotten involved at all. That is finding fault with the President on the fundamental choice.

StanW

OK, Vega, if you still belive that Obama didn’t rush into this Libya situation and this is not an invasion, tell me how you square that with THIS little news…

Today Barack Obama told Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey that the US intends to impose a democracy in Libya.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/white-house-aims-install-democracy-libya##ixzz1HLjcwKQK

How is he going to impose democracy in Libya, Vega? And why was Obama AGAINST imposing democracy in Iraq?

Hmmmmmmmm?

D-Vega

“The President spoke yesterday evening with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to continue the two leaders’ consultations on the situation in Libya. The President expressed appreciation for Turkey’s ongoing humanitarian efforts in Libya, including its assistance in facilitating the release and safe passage to Tunisia of four New York Times journalists who had been detained in Libyan custody. The President and the Prime Minister reaffirmed their support for the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, in order to protect the Libyan people. The leaders agreed that this will require a broad-based international effort, including Arab states, to implement and enforce the UN resolutions, based on national contributions and enabled by NATO’s unique multinational command and control capabilities to ensure maximum effectiveness. They underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”

The Libyan people would be installing the democracy, not the US.

And NO ONE said “impose”

That’s what you get for listening to your masters, rather than learning about the situation and making an informed decision.

Stan = FAIL.

As usual.

StanW

Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke late Monday and “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will,” according to a White House report on the phone call.

So they went from a no-fly zone to firing on tanks to “installing” a democratic system, all in the space of a few hours. And you still think this was not a RUSH????

Keep dancing nancy-boy.

D-Vega

They are providing the Libyan people with the opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system.

The Libyan people are installing the system, not us you twit. We are providing them the opportunity to do so.

English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?

StanW

That is NOT what the statement from the White House said, Vega. It said that WE are installing the system.

Dance, Dance, Dance, nancy-boy.
D-Vega

It did not say that.

I posted the exact statement from the White House.

You are lying once again because you got caught citing something off of one of your masters’ websites, rather than looking at the actual facts of the matter.

Welcome to the town of Failure. Population – You.
StanW

“Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke late Monday and “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will,” according to a White House report on the phone call”

Reading is fundamental, Vega.

WE (America) are going to help the Libyan people transform their country. And WE (America)are going to do that by installing a Democratic system.

That is what is quoted in the article, that is what was said from the White House. It does not say the Libyan people woudl do it, it says that WE will do it.

So no-fly, to no-tanks, to democracy.

What a RUSH!

Anonymous

John, Sounds like the potential regime change in Libya will make the Iraq invasion look like even a worse waste of human, economic and political capital. I understand why you (and your fellow contributors) are so increasingly desperate in your posts.

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN