By Douglas V. Gibbs
Muammar Gaddafi is more popular than ever, or at least that is the word in the government buildings in Tripoli. Granted, Gaddafi is a master of showmanship. He is a dictator that bends public opinion, manipulates the press, and orchestrates a circus of lies and deceptions so that the gullible believes he is as popular as ever. . .
I'm talking about Gaddafi, not Obama.
Hmm, so Gaddafi threatens to kill and torture his own people, Europe pitches a complaint, Obama ignores everyone except NATO and the UN and jumps in too, and suddenly we are supposed to believe Gaddafi is a more popular guy?
Yes, but not for the reasons Gaddafi claims.
I do think his popularity has gone up, but not because Gaddafi is such a stand-up guy (that was sarcasm for you leftists), but because it gave the regime a place to point fingers. Libya is not Iraq. The popular reaction is very different in this North African national of tribal thinking.
Obama wanted to be able to say he saved a people from tyranny, like Bush did. Barry figures his dismal numbers would improve, because everyone likes a wartime president, right?
Wrong.
Besides, what good is saving a people if their way of thanking you is to loot and pillage their own cities?
Obama's indecision didn't help either.
Obama first proclaimed that Colonel Gaddafi had to go. Then, Barry said Gaddafi belonged in jail, then we are finding rhetoric that he wants Gaddafi dead, then Obama offered that Gaddafi be turned over to the International Criminal Court to face prosecution.
An embargo entered the picture, until Barry and gang realized the same embargo would prohibit shipments of defensive arms to the rebels too.
Ooops.
Now Obama is trying to amend the embargo to allow for arming the rebels.
Then, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that Gaddafi “will prevail” over the opposition, which is contrary to the White House’s promise that Gaddafi’s “days are numbered.”
Then, the U.S. began to slink away, leaving it all up to Europe, because Obama’s actions, apparently, were not designed to be military involvement in Libya (kinetic action?).
Not that Obama, in his words (not actions), is against possible military intervention. “The bottom line is that I have not taken any options off the table at this point,” Obama said.
And as a result of Obama's incompetance, Tripoli remains under Gaddafi’s iron grip.
Which leads Obama to one of two corners he has painted himself into. Either Obama works with international partners to replace Gaddafi, which could require military force and lots of follow-up assistance, and risks seeing someone worse— an Islamist Jihadist like Iran's Ahmadinejad —rise to lead that nation, or we sit back and allow the Libyans to resolve the crisis themselves.
Obama should have left well enough alone the moment his UN buddies came calling.
As for Gaddafi, he probably is more popular than ever, not because he is somehow appealing to the population, suddenly, but because they all have someone to hate together (common enemies tend to unite).
One thing is for sure, Gaddafi may very well be ready to join the Islamic jihad in ways he hadn't before. And as Gaddafi renews his support for terrorists, and restarts his pursuit of weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, he may actually become the next Saddam Hussein, or Ahmadinejad.
If his health doesn't give out first.
One thing is for sure, when Gaddafi goes (either by exile, jail, execution, or failing health), there will be left behind a much stronger Islamist element in Libya.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Libyan Rebels We "Saved" From Qaddafi Have Taken to Looting, Burning, and Beating - Reason
How Obama Bungled The War In Libya - The Daily Beast
Gaddafi Safe With Obama - Human Events
Qaddafi Victorious Over U.S.: Obama Loses First War - Gather: Politics
White House Defends Continuing U.S. Role in Libya Operation - New York Times
0 comments:
Post a Comment