Why Obama Really Started the Libyan War

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

Anyone seeking to know why Barack Obama really committed U.S. troops to Libya’s civil war can begin by dismissing virtually everything he said in his speech Monday night out of hand. For instance, Obama claimed he initiated this military action for humanitarian reasons. Failing “our responsibilities to our fellow human beings…would have been a betrayal of who we are,” he said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

However, in July 2007 the Associated Press reported, “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.”

Consider: in July 2007, Obama was discussing a war already in progress, one Osama bin Laden called “the most important and serious issue for the whole world today.” America’s most wanted terrorist called Baghdad “the capital of the caliphate” and said the Iraq war will result in, “either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.” Yet just as the surge and a series of agreements with northern tribal leaders began pacifying the country, Barack Obama said the Helpless Giant should turn the country over to the jihadists and stand by as they systematically exterminated our allies. (As president, he has conspicuously failed to take his own advice.) Today, he claims our vital national security interests demand that we take sides in an internecine feud between factions of pro-terrorist Muslims.

Why does the president really support the action in Libya?

1. It serves no U.S. interests.

For most Americans, the fact that a war in no way promotes U.S. interests would be a prima facie argument against initiating it. For left-wingers, the less our nation has to gain from a war, the more apt they are to support it. Liberals are afflicted with irrational guilt over privileges they believe Americans enjoy due to exploitation and militarism. These impulses can only be quieted through irrational acts of self-sacrifice on behalf of those who disregard, dislike, or actively hate us. Thus, liberals view “humanitarian” wars as a means of righting the wrongs their ancestors perpetrated over scores of generations – consider it a form of “redistribution of bloodshed.”

Consider Barack Obama’s statement that “as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” That eerily echoed a section of George W. Bush’s opening salvo against Iraq in his 2002 State of the Union Address….

Read more.

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >

Comments

  1. its disappointing that the americans and their western friends can do such kind of stupid things. Their interest in libya is oil and every one knows that. we know that france has invested in libya. americans and their friend are not true friend. you should know that you are very poor countries and very soon you will suffer. Leave libya alone and let it deal with its own internal affairs. Shame on you and stupid and foolish you.

  2. Funny how Senator Obama didn't think it was a "humanitarian issue" when Saddam Hussein was gassing hundreds of thousands of civilians and made Gadhafi look like a boy scout.

  3. knowsit says:

    I believe Obama is at least an Islam sympathizer, if not a Muslim terrorist of the new kind, not gun wielding, but operating just outside of American laws, protected by the MSM that shields him from the consequences a conservative president would have suffered a long time ago.
    But if you view his action from the angle of what will promote the Muslim World Umma or Caliphate, then all of Obama's actions make sense. Obama is practicing Taquiyya, the Islamic word for deception, mandated in the Quor-an, when open aggression is not possible.
    Remember he wrote in his book Dreams from my Father, "If things get ugly, I will side with Islam".
    Clearly Iran’s President Ahmadinejad is an Islamic radical, trying to provoke the coming of the 12th Imam through apocalyptic world events (destroying Israel with a nuclear bomb surely will qualify for that, he already said that any counter attack by Israel will destroy no more than 2/3rd of Iran). Hence no challenges to Iran’s regime during the student riots in Iran, especially no support to the protesters opposing his re-election, the continuation of Ahmadinejad's dictatorship.
    Contrast this with Egypt, where the old Mubarak regime, and the new one supposedly supported by the military, was clearly not guaranteed to be Islamic in nature. Here Obama's call for inclusion of all civic organizations, of which he only called the Muslim Brotherhood by name. His handpicked "National Security Advisor" Clapper tried to describe the Muslim Brotherhood, an unindicted Co-Conspirator during the Holy Land Foundation Investigation, as a secular, civic minded organization.
    The same holds true for Libya, where Quaddafi could not be relied on to modify his regime to an Islamic fundamentalist society, but the insurgents have known ties to the Taliban, so Obama calls for the ouster of Qaddafi and his sons, and the useful idiots, the EU and USA, are assisting their enemies and Al Quaeda assisted rebels to expand the Caliphate and assure their own demise.
    So it is not Obama who is confused, it is Western Society, western governments and the MSM, who out of "humanitarian interests" are assisting their own executioners in their own extermination.
    We truly have become the useful idiots Khrushchev was bragging about we would be for communism.

Speak Your Mind

*