Obama and Libya: Liar-in-Chief

The problem with President Obama, and it really is sad for this country, is that he is incapable of either telling the truth or really getting out front on an issue--in other words, really incapable of LEADING. His main talent is reading WORDS off of a teleprompter--words that change from day to day, and never seem to represent a coherent POLICY that will nott be contradicted by differenct words tomorrow. You only have to remember how many times Obama has said--"eloquently" and passionately--that the Federal Government HAS to learn to "live within its means", just like the ordinary family. Often, Obama contradicts that one within the same speech, and alwys contradicts it within a day or two. In fact, his entire Presidency makes a mockery of that statement--his OWN statement made time and again as if he means it (which he does not). Words. Mere words, wihout real meaning (especially to Obama himself).

Libya is a classic case study of Obama as Liar-in-Chief. First, when it might have done some good, Obama refused to condemn Gadhafi (or Khadafi, or one of some 17 other spellings). In fact, when Obama BELATEDLY (see my article about Wolf Blitzer and CNN LIES on that speech) condemned the Libyan government, he NEVER mentioned Gadhafi by name. We have both a coward and a liar for a Presaident. He simply will never get out front, without "cover" (so he can blame a bad result on somebody else). On both his "signature" health care bill and the budget, Oama has left it up to Pelosi and Reid to fight the actual Democratic battles, while Obama sits back and basically watches. Do you realize that Obama is merely continuing his successful tactic in Illinois, and in the U.S. Senate? How can Obama say he "inherited" the Bush "mess", and did not realize what he faced in Washington, when Obama was PART OF THE MESS. He acts like he was not even elected to the Senate in 2004, but he was. Where is the evidence he did anything to LEAD--especially when Democrats took control of the Congress in January of 2007? That evidence does not exist. Obama let others take the point, while he laid back in the wees--making speeches, writing books, and running for President.

Obama obviously hoped that he would not have to DO anything in Lilbya. He let Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates make all of the "policy" statements" (contradictory as they were, making Gates look like a total fool talking about how "tough" it was to impos a "no-fly zone" in Libya). The rebels in Libya advanced, and it looked like Gadhafi would be forced ut. President Obama (what COURAGE--not) finally said "Gadhafi must go", as Gadhafi "fired on his own people" as he looked to be on his way out. Obama had done the same thing in Egypt--BELATEDLY saying that: "Mubaraq must go". However, in Egypt, Obama waited until he was sure we had signals from the Egyptian military (withou whom people in our military had contact and influence) that Mubaraq would be forced out, if necessary. Again, what COURAGE--not. We just, by the way, had an admission from the Obama Administration that we do not even have a contingency plan for YEMEN.

Obama had waited until he thought he was safe to demand that Gadhafi go (undre pressure). FRANCE had taken the lead pushing for a "no-fly zone" in Libya, as Gadhafi began to bomb his own people from the air. But it was NOt the "air" that was the worst problem (although it was a problem). Gadhafi's forces began to rally on the ground, with superiror MILITARY organization, tanks, artillery, and owther weapons. Obama had a window when he could have assured a rebel vicotry (admittedly without knowing what kind of "government" would result), but he missed that window. When the rebels were "approaching" Tripoli, and Gadhafi was still trying to control Tripoli, Obama could probably have brought about a rebel victory merely with a few WORDS. If Obama had merely talked as tough as French President Sarkozy, It would probably have been enough. All Obama had to do was THREATGEN Gadhafi. If that had failed, all Obama had to do was launch a FEW Tomahawk missles at Gadhafi's compound, and at Gadhafi forces, and it almost surely would have been enough to topple Gadhafi (or scare him into a "deal" for a "graceful" exit). Gadhafi, after all, is an ENEMY and killer of Americans. Why so timid? We have a President who is a coward.

The rebels began to LOSE. Gadhafi began to WIN. This was AFTER Obama had said: Gadhafi must go." "Sanctioins" (lol--as if they ever had a chance) were not going to stop Gadhafi. Obama was about to be made to look like a cowardly FOOL (unless he were willing to face the consequences of his supposed "principles"). But Gadhafi made the mistake of being so blunt about what he intended to do that it gave Obama, under prodding for people who were not willing to see Gadhafi win and murder tens of thousands of people, an opportunity to obtain a BELATED resolutioin from the United Nations (since no one really wanted to let Gadhafi WIN, if anyone were willing to try to stop him, and the French and British were).

Yes, even as Gadhafi was WINNING, Obama was STILL unwilling to take the lead. He left that to the French President, and the British. Even though American weapons were going to provide lthe major firepower for the initial strikes, and the initial military comand and control, Obama obtained a promise from the French and the British that THEY would take responsibility for the whole operation as soon as possilbe. What COURAGE--not. Even as this is written, the Obama Administration is desperately trying to transfer command to the French and/or British.

That is partly because this WAR is based on an obvious LIE. Obama "justified" the military actioin as a "humanitarian" action, to save civilians. Oh, in the short run it may save quite a few people from Gadhafi reprisals, but we are KILOLING people (and will have to continue killing people). Further, Gadhafi AND the rebels are now going to continue fighting, and killing people. Who knows whether more or less people will ultimately die? And we are KILLING people (Libyan military personnel, and surely some peole who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time) who have never--unlike Gadhafi--done anything to us. They may be no more our enemies than a lot of the rebels--maybe less our enemies than a lot of the rebels.

We only got in this position because Obama is a COWARD. When the rebels were advancing, before Obama failed to make it plain to Gadhafi that we would not accept massive attacks on the rebels, Obama could probably have stopped Gadhafi with WORDS. He surely could have stopped Gadhafi with a FEW planes and missles. Instead, Gadhafi was allowed to kill all kinds of people. You can argue that OBAMA is responsible for the death of THOUSANDS, or tens of thousands, of people (although, again, we don't know the long-term result). "Humanitarian"? How many people do we let die by the acts of a madman before we act? Do we have a "trigger"? 100,000? 200,000? 3000,000? As a "policy", his is absurd, and Obama and our military know it. At best, this is a POLITICAL "standard": We intervene when the pressure of public opinion (in some form, whether a majority or not) can't stand letting the killing go on. But, in any even, tis is NOT the real reason we intervened.

Yes, Obama LIED to the U.N. worse than George W. Bush ever lied to the U.N. The "no-fly zone" is itself a lie, as the really effective attacks have been on the Gadhafi GROUND FORCES from the air (taking out tnaks, artillery, etc.). In fact, now that the "no-fly zone" is fully in effect, witho no air opposition, the news today is that attacks are concentrating SOLELY on Gadhafi ground forces (obviusly, except for any suppression of anti-aricraft fire that may be indicated). .The U.N. resolution itself was worded in such a way as to "authorize" ANY military action we, or the British land French, wanted to take. Yet, Obama continued to say that we are merely "protecting" civilians, even after Gadhafi's compound was hit in an obvious attempt to kill him. Obama even had the nerve to say that it is the SANCTIONS (lol) that are supposed to back up his words of "Gadhafi must go", while the military action is only to protect civilians. Geor W. Bush would have been crucified for LIES this obviuos. Yes, you might say it is acceptaqble military propaganda, except the lies are so obvious and more intended for the American people than anything else.

Bottom line: The purpose of the military action is Libya--and EVERYONE knos it--was to KEEP GADHAFI FROM WINNING. And if Gadhafi "goes", it will be because of military action. Yes, the mlitary actiino IS intended to force Gadhafi out. We could have done this easily several weeks ago. But that is still the obviious GOAL of this BELATED military action. Any other conclusion is absurd. The "killing of civilians", and soldiers, is going to continue until Gadhafi is gone (and maybe after that). .

Do I suuprt removing Gadhafi? Yes, I do. But I do NOT support Obama's ridiculous, cowardly POLICY toward Libya over this sequence of events. IF we were going to do something, we should have done it when it would obviously have WORKED--at little cost. IF we knew we were unwilling to let Gadhafi win, and slaughter hs people, then we needed to make sure he LOST at the time we could have made sure that happened. Instead, we let thousands of people die, and Gadhafi get in a position where he again controlled most of the country--on the verge of winning back the entire country. This is not hindsight. I said as much in this blog. No, I would NOT have waited on the U.N.--pretty much a FICTION in any event. We simply got U.N. "permissioni" for what we wanted to do, and everyone knows it (even if it is shamefully obvious that the FRENCH PRESIDENT has more courage to lead than our own President on this).

Why do I think we should have made sure Gadhafi was forced out when we had the chance? Easy. It is the same reason I favored forcing out Saddam Hussein. Gadhhafi is a MADMAN, and ENEMY of AMERICANS> He has KILLED AMERICNAS (including the Lockerbie bombing, where Obama made no real effort to stop Scotland from releasing the actual bomber to return to Libya). We need a world in which "leaders" like Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi do not exist, and we need to take any opporunity to make that happen--including military action. The first President Bush made that mistake in Iraq in the Gulf War--the Obama mistake of puttting "authorization" ahead of doing what needed to be done. Yes, the first President Bush is MORE reponsible for our travails in Iraq than the second.

But do I favor the present military action, realizing that we did it WRONG, but not being able to go back and do it right? Mildly. The reasons for getting rid of Gadhafi remain. But I am unable to stongly support the present military action when it is so obviously based on a LIE, and on a "policy" doctrie so vague and stupid as to be criminal. Wehn do we take military action on "humanitarian" grounds and when do we not? There is a lot of killing in the world, and a lot more coming. It makes no sense to go to WAR every time people are being killed. Sure, we can try to help stop the killing. But make no mistake about it: This is a WAR in Libya in which we have intervened. It would be sort of like the British or the French intervening in the American Civil War (which could have happened). We are now AT WAR in Libya. No ground troops, but still war. It is absurd to do that every time "civilians" are getting killed. Iran? North Korea? Yemen? Sudan? Somalia (where we SHOULD wipe out the Somali pirates)? Bahrain? Saudi Arabia (potentially, in the future)?

It seems obvious that we simply cannot form a coherent policy based on FEELIKNG--based on some sort of threshold of "humanitarian" "concern". Maye there are extreme cases. I go back and forth on Kosovo--another palce I MILDLY suuported the President. But there is simply no way to form a coherent policy based on "humanitarian" concerns If that were the test, then Bush 43 was not only right about Iraq, but we should have done it EARLIER (which, as stated above, is actually correct, but for other reasons).

No, it seems to me that we need to base policy on who are our ENEMIES (along with what we can do). Saddam Hussein was our ENEMY, and a threat to Americans (weapons of mass destrucdtion or no weapons of mass destruction). And, as a "bonus", he was a brutal killer (genocide, even). Gadhafi is our ENEMY, and again a brutal killer of his own people. We had an opportunity to get rid of him, and we should have taken it--should still probably take it, but we have done it wrong and totally confused the message. The message SHOULD BE that is a dangerous thing to be an enemy of the United States, and kill (or advocate the killing of) Americans. We administered that lesson with the Barbary pirates, and Reagan administered the same lesson so many times he ended the Cold War. Yes, we should promote democracy--as George W. Bush advocated, to ridiclue from the hypocrites in the mainstream media and in the rest of the left. But the key, overriding principle should be to PUNISH our ENEMIES.

President Obama is weak--a liar and a coward. Our enemies now know that, and that is a bad thing. Even Gadhafi knew it, and would probably have won his gamble--except for the FRENCH (lol). On his own, Obama would never have intervened in time in Libya (if you call this much too late intervention "in time").