I heard and saw Obama’s speech (March 28, 2011) trying to explain why HE, not WE, but HE ordered America’s troops onto Libya. Obama also used the word I so many times during the speech that I lost count.
IT’S ALL ABOUT HIM ALL THE TIME.
But, what other word could he possibly use to describe who was responsible for taking sides in a civil war, backing fighters who might be as bad or worse than the man they’re fighting, since Obama NEVER consulted the American people about going to any kind of war, let alone a CIVIL WAR.
Following Obama’s speech, I watched a bit of O’Reilly on FOX News, who analyzed what Obama said, only the way O’Reilly could. And what I came away with from O’Reilly’s take on Obama’s behavior vis a vis this war of Obama’s choosing, is that O’Reilly is no less full of crap than this ego maniacal President.
I sat there during Obama’s speech listening to him talk about America’s long tradition of helping in the world, wherever and whenever people needed help. And about stepping up to the plate to insert American troops in harms way when the rest of the world wouldn’t or couldn’t.
HE SPOKE ABOUT AMERICAN LEADERSHIP. He didn’t, but came very close to describing American EXCEPTIONALISM.
WAIT A MINUTE – Isn’t this the President who traveled the world immediately following his Presidential victory, APOLOGIZING for America and for America’s involvement in the affairs of others to all who would listen?
The fact that Obama went to war against a sovereign nation without any imminent threat from that nation, and without any American National Interests at stake, and without the Approbation of Congress seems to have completely escaped O’Reilly.
But, then again, if you kiss ass sufficiently, and play nice with the worst and MOST dangerous President in America’s history, perhaps that would merit yet another of those one on one interviews with Obama that O’Reilly loves to boast about.
BUT ENOUGH ABOUT O’REILLY.
Obama’s speech served to only regurgitate what everyone already knew about HIS decision to attack Libya. He spoke in his usually platitudes. And he never once really explained why HE invaded another country. Or what HIS end game is.
EVEN THOUGH THIS WAR OF OBAMA’S IS ABOUT REGIME CHANGE, which he says that it’s not, didn’t he slam George W Bush for doing nothing less? Except, didn’t Bush come right out with his intentions for regime change and go to Congress and the American people to make his case?
I find it fascinating how Obama talks about HIS “partners” in battle, while all the heavy lifting is done by the USA.
He speaks with pride about the Arab League, who for all intent and purposes is invisible.
He extols his great British and French friends, who couldn’t sustain a no-fly-zone if they used all their airpower combined.
And wasn’t it awe-inspiring to hear the Dufus-In-Chief talk about NATO taking charge, led by a Canadian General who will take command of the whole enchilada, which was supposed to happen on Wednesday March 30, 2011, as if anyone really believed that.
And now, as everyone knows . . . that’s not going to happen. Besides, there is only ONE reality about NATO, and that reality, is that it is the USA that is NATO, regardless of how Obama wants to spin it.
While it is true that Obama once again received a BIG bye from the media, INCLUDING FOX News, this was not one of Obama’s best performances.
Not only was Obama’s speech far less than inspirational, he reverted back to slamming George W Bush for Bush’s Regime Change in Iraq, so as not to draw a comparison between what Bush did then, and what Obama is doing now.
AND HE’S 100% RIGHT . . . AS I WROTE A FEW PARAGRAPHS UP.
Bush was straightforward in his intentions to take out Saddam Hussein and create a new Iraqi reality, while Obama hides the truth of what he’s doing in Libya like a thief hides in the shadows of the night.
I won’t ask why there are NOT howls of derision from the “Moderate LEFT” and other mainstream Democrats. But I do want to know where’s the acrimony from the RIGHT?
WHY LIBYA AND NO OTHER COUNTRY?
I won’t bother going into the litany of Obama distortions, illusions and outright lies, since you probably know them as well as I do. But I do want to know why Libya and not Yemen, or not Syria, not Bahrain, not the Sudan, or not any of the other Arab/Moslem hotspots where human life seems to have little to no value at the hands of the Tyrants are NOT on Obama’s HIT-LIST?
Is Libyan blood less important than Syrian blood? And how does Obama get to pick and choose? And who elected Obama to become the moral conscience and policeman of the world? WAS IT YOU?
Did you elect Obama to carry out the pleasures of the Arab League, the UN, or a few European countries that can’t carry their own weight, even in an unfair fight loaded to their advantage?
Considering all things, Obama isn’t doing as poorly as George W Bush. HE’S DOING SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE, since Bush, at the very least had an endgame in mind, and went to the American people through their elected Congress for the permission to do what he thought had to be done.
WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS MIA?
When do you think the Republicans will finally begin to figure out what the people who elected them expect of them? They better figure it out pretty damn soon, or Obama will be coming back for FOUR MORE YEARS, and that will be the absolute end of the already shaky American Dream.
There is no Audio Editorial associated with this Commentary. But, as I wrote in my last editorial, we are closing-in on the start of our first LIVE Internet Radio Broadcast.
Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov
Good for you Howard and I appreciate anyone with enough guts to voice their opinion.
I firmly believe that Canada should have a second amendment also, as our enemies can
travel at will and are not subject to any controls or restrictions.
The cops are just spread too thin to be able to control or expose everyone.
Comments are closed.