Did last night's address remind anyone else of Clinton's definition of sex. Apparently if you send cruise missles at and use warplanes in a foreign country but do not "put troops on the ground" it is not "war." Not once last night did I hear the reason why our administration did not ask Congress for authorization to get involved. He went to great pains to somehow distinguish this incursion and the war in Iraq. Both were countries ruled by a "strongman." Both dictators were brutal to their people. Both sponsored terrorism in other parts of the world. In both cases were were part of a "coalition." Here's the difference. In Iraq our first goal was to depose the dictator. Here we admittedly have no such goal. Second, we were there to work with the Iranians in putting together a democratic government. Here, we're going to stand on the sidelines with our thumbs up our butts waiting to see what happens next. There's an old saying, when you shoot at the king, you better kill the king. Gaddafi has in the past killed sponsored terrorists who have killed Americans. We better make sure he's out of power when this is over otherwise we'll be asking for trouble in the future.
Classic Obama speech. Unadulterated ******** garnished with finger pointing and personal bow taking. You launch 150 cruise missiles from ships and spend a week dropping bombs into another country and its not war? Its kinetic action? He did not specify a mission, a timetable nor an estimated cost. That was 26 minutes of our lives we can never get back. Jimmy Carter has always been the modern day standard for presidential ineptitude but this clown is setting the bar to depths that hopefully will never be reached again.
Use this next time he makes a speech. It will ease the pain. And the whole family can play. http://firstpatriots.com/wp-content/uploads/Obama-********-Bingo.jpg
Now here is a right-winger winning friends and influencing people: http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/ppp-survey-rick-scott-highly-unpopular-55-dislike-32
Actually Obama has said he is for regime change.... He's said it more than once. His reason for not going to Congress, well his minions and defenders say it's because it was such and emergency. In the mean time Obama and his "coalition" still have no idea who they are supporting, they could be Al Queda, he has no idea how much it will cost, he has no exit strategy, no real defined mission. I mean what if this thing ends up a stalemate, amazing as it is the Col has actual supporters. Of course all of this is way different from going into Iraq. Oh and they are thinking of arming the rebels. Well if we go back to the Days of Charlies War. (Rep Charlie Wilson, Tex) we armed those "freedom" fighters in Afghanistan that we now call the Taliban. That's worked out real well hasn't it.
It seems as though every time Gaddafi's troops stand and fight the rebels retreat. Arming them might not be enough to win the battle. Maybe we should send in military "advisors" like we did in Vietnam. That worked well too didn't it?
2,200 marines from Camp Lejeune packing their bags for Libya. will be deployed off the coast for "advisor" duty. Can you believe this?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/7/democrat-white-house-low-balling-costs-libya-missi/ Democrat says Libya costs run much higher Lawmaker: White House ‘dramatically underestimating’ military expenditures