Does Libyan Intervention Prove Obama Right?

Does Libyan Intervention Prove Obama Right?


 R.E. Prindle

     The Daily Beast/Newsweek doesn’t give up.  They have now commissioned P.J. Crowley to pull Obama’s chestnuts from the flames.

In the first place we don’t know where the Libyan Domestic Terrorists came from.  We have Gaddafi’s word that they are hard core Al Qaida of one stripe or another and we have Obama’s word that the DTs are ‘democrats’, whatever he means by that.  Obama cannot know which would be worse, the DTs or Gaddafi.  As Gaddafi was neutralized before the intervention there was no reason to risk a change.

Secondly, regardless of Obama’s personal beliefs and desires, which is all that he considered here, this self-professed Constitutional scholar and expert must have known he was willfully violating the Law and his own worthless oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States Of America.  Hence he is a lawless president and a criminal  no better, in fact worse, than the dictators he is removing with all these interventions, military or internet.

P.J. shows the expedient nature of Liberal thought when he fatuously says:  Success makes moot various criticisms that the administration did not move fast enough, didn’t do enough, or should not have done anything at all.

By P.J.’s reasoning success in Viet Nam would have made all objections to that intervention moot.  Does P.J. really believe that or does he let expediency knock off his thinking cap?  Remember P.J. this is history; what went before matters.  Or would one less hit of LSD have saved him from such egregious nonsense.

I see no reason or justification for anyone to have intervened in Libyan domestic affairs to help the DTs. P.J. gamely presents some specious reasoning nonetheless:

Taking (the objections) in order, within the region, there was remarkable support for this intervention…The administration took time to build regional support and gain the necessary authority and legitimacy through a United Nations Security Council resolution.  It was time well invested and paid a rich dividend.

Taking the justifications in order:  If there was remarkable (but not overwhelming or unanimous) support for intervention in the region then why did they not act on their own initiative?  Why were US soldiers and treasure needed?  Why did they need the Great Black Elephant’s help?

P.J. says that the GBE took the time to build regional support.  I suppose by that he means Obama had to recruit a DT army and provide them with those magnificent weapons and ammunition they’re holding.  You know, one of the main beneficiaries  of all these now numerous interventions of Obama is the Saudi State.  Would I be impertinent if I asked P.J. how much cash the Saudis are putting into this intervention?  Or will all these new ‘democracies’ be replaced by a New Monarchy when the noise dies down?

It was nice that the GBE sought the legitimacy and authority of the UN but here’s the catch:  He pledged to honor the US Constitution when he was sworn in and not that of Mexico, Zimbabwe, or even the UN.  Obama is a liar and rogue president who does not represent the constituency that elected him.  There is nothing P.J. or the Beast can say to contradict that fact.

Libyan DTs, Well Armed Beyond Their Means


One comment on “Does Libyan Intervention Prove Obama Right?

  1. Pingback: Information Connection | Blog | Does Libyan Intervention Prove Obama Right?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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