He's also okay with adding more troops to Afghanistan, he's also OK with authorizing another no-fly zone over another Muslim country and taking part in bombing them. You don't seem to recall - but in the early 2001-2003 another President did this same thing and the result was hyperbolic rhetoric from the left - worldwide condemnation, protests in theU.S. Europe and Asia constantly about Bush=Hitler, Bush=Fascist, Bush=Blood for Oil, Bush=Baby Killer... etc.
Now almost the exact same thing happens --- we throw in with the UN, we authorize bombing of a Muslim country who's greatest export is... anyone? OIL.
Not a ****ing peep ... out of the media, with world wide protests, with anything. But you see this is all to save the people of Libya - that's the narrative context cover story. If it was bull**** when G.W. Bush did it, it's bull**** when Obama does it. Anything else from our left of center political friends is the biggest steeming pile of hypocrisy ever seen and should be called out as such. Right now, the only sound is crickets.
It's not "almost the same thing". Saddam wasn't (currently) slaughtering his own people. France did NOT lead the charge. (Remember Freedom Fries?). And the "narratives" were quite different. "Theys gots WMDs, theys gonna kill us", is quite a bit different than "look at ALL the news outlets showing Qaddafi massacring his own people".
And no coalition of the willing. No creative interpretation of UN resolutions. Even Russia and China didn't stand in the way this time.
And Libya's oil is primarily used in european diesels. This type of crude is different than the type we generally use.
Obama, afaik, doesn't have a previous personal and ideological hardon for Libya.
No existing plan requiring construction of permanent military bases on top of the second largest puddle of oil in the world, as the neocons had.
I'm not thrilled with our participation in Libya. We have enough wars on our plate.
But I doubt you could find anywhere near as many people in this country who seriously question whether some response isn't necessary in this situation.
No need to spin up support to protect the weak who are obviously being abused by the strong, right there on the tv. No American chickenhawks leading the charge from the safety of DC.
Hell, Obama was kinda wimpy (as usual) about the whole thing.
And we don't have any kind of leadership role. Just helping the rest of the world do what they agree needs to be done.
Anyway, far enough topic.
