Once again a Democratic President appears to be poised to get us involved in a politically correct war.\u00a0 Obama has never hinted that our national security is at risk with regard to Libya.\u00a0 Everyone agrees that Gadhafi is a bad actor and no one will miss him, but is he really a threat to us?\u00a0 George Bush at least made the argument that Iraq under Saddam Hussein represented a significant threat to our national security.\u00a0 Obama has not made that argument, just like Clinton failed to make that argument with regard to the military action in the Balkans.<\/p>\n
This is a typical UN action.\u00a0 No one is suggesting that Libya is a threat to anyone other than the people unfortunate enough to live there.\u00a0 If the UN is going to respond whenever people are getting killed, they apparently have been asleep with regard to other garden spots like the Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia and Darfur.\u00a0 This clearly isn’t just about preventing people from getting killed; the UN has seldom shown a backbone with regard to that topic.\u00a0 It also isn\u2019t just about getting rid of Gadhafi, although there is a certain appeal there.\u00a0 The real question is:\u00a0 Why?\u00a0\u00a0 Why Libya, Why now?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The answer, at least with regard to Obama, is that he is far more concerned over how the international community views this than about the impact on our national security.\u00a0 The real pressure is coming from Britain and France who are determined to deal with Gadhafi.\u00a0 There is little political pressure coming from the U.S. for us to get involved.\u00a0 That is one reason Obama was so slow to act.\u00a0 He didn\u2019t feel the urge.<\/p>\n
What changed”\u00a0 Did Gadhafi change?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 Is this the first we realized that he was killing people?\u00a0 Please!\u00a0 The only thing that has changed is that it looks like Gadhafi is going to win, and more importantly for Obama, the UN is upset.\u00a0 If Obama\u00a0had taken action immediately, like sending a carrier to the Mediterranean, things might never have gotten this far.\u00a0 Now it sure looks like we are going in a day late, a dollar short and with no particular strategy other than to limit our losses and look good in the eyes of the international community.<\/p>\n
Obama may even have trouble getting congressional authorization.\u00a0 Senator Richard Lugar is far from impressed and he appears to be organizing the opposition.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
http:\/\/dailycaller.com\/2011\/03\/18\/lugar-heads-to-white-house-for-meeting-on-potential-libya-attack\/<\/a><\/p>\n To a large extent Lugar has a point.\u00a0 If this is such an emergency, why did it take Obama over a month to make a decision?\u00a0 It appears that Obama\u2019s primary standard for sending in U.S. troops is the\u00a0blessing by the UN.\u00a0 That, unfortunately, is all too consistent with the way Obama approaches everything.\u00a0 Just recently someone pointed out current slogan on the \u201cnew\u201d Department of Justice website:<\/p>\n \u00a0http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/<\/a><\/p>\n THE COMMON LAW IS THE WILL OF MANKIND<\/em> ISSUING FROM THE LIFE OF THE PEOPLE<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n I have been unable to verify the source of this quote, but it sure isn\u2019t from the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 \u00a0But it is exactly the kind of verbiage one associates with the UN.\u00a0<\/p>\n To put this in perspective, I will provide the following quote from Ronald Reagan:<\/p>\n America is a shining city upon a hill<\/span><\/em> whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Now compare that with some comments by Barack Obama:<\/p>\n “The fact that I am very proud of my country \u2014 and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world \u2014 does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise, and that includes us,”<\/span><\/em><\/strong> \u00a0<\/p>\n This is a long way from the shining city upon a hill.\u00a0<\/p>\n When asked how he would decide whether or not to use military force, Obama gave the following answer:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Note that there is zero mention of a threat to our own national security.\u00a0 The only issue for Obama is whether or not the international community thinks\u00a0it’s a good idea.<\/p>\n His stated goal for our country is as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cless global leader than global facilitator, less savior than responsible partner.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Some of this information was taken from the following Time article, but there were numerous other sources saying the same thing.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.time.com\/time\/nation\/article\/0,8599,1910057,00.html#ixzz1H0EDMySu<\/a><\/p>\n That is the real problem with Libya.\u00a0 It is the real problem with Obama.\u00a0 We have become nothing more than a subservient tool of the all powerful UN.\u00a0 The most pathetic thing of all is that none of this should have been a surprise.\u00a0 This is exactly what he promised when he campaigned.\u00a0 Perhaps, as others have pointed out before, the real problem is not Barack Obama, but rather the country that was stupid enough to elect him in the first place.\u00a0<\/p>\n TDM<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Once again a Democratic President appears to be poised to get us involved in a politically correct war.\u00a0 Obama has never hinted that our national security is at risk with regard to Libya.\u00a0 Everyone agrees that Gadhafi is a bad … Continue reading