michael moore MAY HAVE FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT: HE HAS CRITIZED OBAMA ON HIS HIT AND RUN STRIKE ON LIBYA: ARE WE FOR OR AGAINST IT? YES!

Michael Moore, Louis Farrakhan and number of Democrats have found fault with Obama’s Libyan policy, whatever it might be, for different reasons, and with clearly different solutions. The Liberal leftists voted for Obama because of his position, favoring a socialized form of health care, his anti-war policy, his vague offer on entitlements, his determination to close Guantanamo, whatever change and hope means, and most importantly, his being a member of a minority. Dennis Kucinich from Ohio and a varied assortment of white and black members of Congress have called for Obama’s impeachment for his apparent unilateral decision making in the bombing of Libya. Farrakhan, an admitted friend of Gaddafi attacked Obama verbally, because a “brother had assaulted an other brother”, asking what right had Obama to interfere or attempt to oust Gaddafi. On the other hand, some Republicans might consider impeachment because of his inept handling of domestic as well as foreign policy. Most of their complaint lies with the inability of Obama to make a decision regarding taking a position regarding Gaddafi other than stating that the dictator must go, while hundreds, perhaps thousands of Libyans were being slaughtered by a much more efficient group of mercenaries that the Libyan dictator had paid for and brought in from beyond the borders of Libya. The hue and cry against George Bush’s invasion of Iraq was loud and clear on the part of pacifists, despite CIA information regarding WMD’s that were never found having most likely cached in Syria. Now we have Gaddafi with a supply of deadly mustard gas, whose hidden site is supposedly known by our government.

To use a John Kerryism, “he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it”, and most of the Right and the Left who have voiced any opinion at all are both FOR AND AGAINST IT NOW! This would seem to be the line of non-commitment Obama has espoused. Obama, who appears to need to make nice to Muslims at any cost, waited until France, England, Italy and the Arab League took a position regarding Libya. This is more a symptom of his inability to act lest he disturb his Saudi friends, than having a well thought out plan of action. Obama’s only thought of action is tp turn the US into a socialist state. Now he may have more of a problem with his base which is very angry with this new,almost position ,he has taken.

Who are the rebels in Libya and is their only agenda freedom, with no interest in support from the Muslim brotherhood, Al Qaeda and any of the other radical factions? Since the UN and the allies have acted to attack Gaddafi, what could be the ultimate outcome? There are a group in government who would like to make nice to both the dictator and the rebels, leaving him in power. This is a man who ruthlessly was involved in Lockerbie, and an attack on a German disco, after he called a cease-fire, went back on the attack with planes and tanks against rebels in Benghazi.

At least 114 Tomahawk missals were launched from U.S. ships positioned near the Libyan coast, as well the group of Stealth bombers, that originated and returned to their base in Missouri after destroying parts of Libyan airfields. Hopefully the cost of this (millions of dollars) was included in the 2009 or 2010 budget, either borrowed or paid for, albeit part of the current obscene deficit. So, who could be the winner in all this? Probably no one, and definitely not the U.S. Perhaps it would be best to allow France and England, since they have business interest with Libya to continue to take the lead. The U.N. should be able to advise the rebels, provide the needed leadership without any American heads under those blue caps. Hopefully, the U.N. might do a better job than they did in Darfur or Rwanda. In any event, someone should be in charge of determining to whom any moneys are to be allocated, and how it is to spent in Libya from the United Nations(our pockets are empty). Let’s not give that job to Joe Biden since he is too busy overseeing the stimulus money. YEAH SURE!

In the heading I used the term “HIT and RUN”, referencing Obama’s quick exit to Rio with the wife, the kids and Mrs.Robinson after ordering the strike on Libya. He is probably more concerned that one of his picks, Pittsburgh, has been eliminated, than the ongoing situation in Japan and Libya, not to mention our current fiscal crisis, unemployment and gasoline prices. Libya produces 2% of the world’s oil, of which represents 10% of our imports and the rest goes to Europe. If our government had any brains, it would order immediate drilling in our vast reserves, which could eliminate the need for at least what we get from Libya, currently on hold.

LAST WORD/THOUGHT:IS OBAMA OUR TROJAN HORSE? LOOK UP TROJAN HORSE. THE ANSWER MIGHT BE REVEALING.

Advertisements

One Response to michael moore MAY HAVE FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT: HE HAS CRITIZED OBAMA ON HIS HIT AND RUN STRIKE ON LIBYA: ARE WE FOR OR AGAINST IT? YES!

  1. You’r completely correct with this piece!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: