The fatman speaketh. If he would only get over his obsession with "free" stuff... Michael Moore rips Obama over Libya By Jordan Fabian - 03/19/11 06:41 PM ET Anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore tore into President Obama for taking military action in Libya on Saturday. Moore, a frequent critic of President Bush for launching the Iraq War, unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military's mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, using a mantra coined by Charlie Sheen: It's only cause we're defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That's why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy And we always follow the French's lead! Next thing you know, we'll have free health care & free college! Yay war! We've had a "no-fly zone" over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How's that going? #WINNING ! Khadaffy must've planned 9/11! #excuses Khadaffy must've had WMD! #excusesthatwork Khadaffy must've threatened to kill somebody's daddy! #daddywantedjeb Moore also suggested that Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009: May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? #returnspolicy Moore's comments came after the U.S. launched 110 Tomahawk missiles at military targets in Libya as part of an allied effort to prevent forces loyal to Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi from overtaking the rebel-held city of Benghazi. The strikes on Libya began on the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. Obama explained Saturday the U.S. and its allies acted to protect the Libyan people from a potential massacre. "Make no mistake, today we are part of a broad coalition," the president said. "We are answering the calls of a threatened people, and we are acting in the interest of the United States and the world." The Michigan native and prominent left-wing activist supported Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary race. But since then, he has criticized the president for escalating the conflict in Afghanistan. Moore penned an open letter to Obama in 2009 on the eve of his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, warning him not to do it. "If you go to West Point tomorrow night and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president," he wrote to Obama. "Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you." http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/150857-michael-moore-rips-obama-over-libya-
That's probably because you weren't paying attention very much or creating your own caricature of them. The left fully supported 3 of our last 4 major military interventions - Gulf War I, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, though support for Afghanistan has obviously dropped since. They only strongly opposed Iraq II. Major. You are very very wrong on the left supporting Gulf War I. Do some research. Many Democrats did support Bosnia and the initial attempt to capture Bin Laden.
My own position on this latest war is very cautious support. It is ok to use force to prevent gencodie and this is nearly that. There is great danger of mission creep and the US/Nato seeking to put in a Qadaffi light to do nice oil deals, buy a lot of our main export--weapons--, and support apartheid in Israel.
AP reports announcement tomorrow Halliburton to be awarded no-bid contract to rebuild Kadaffy's palace. Hamid Karzai being flown in Wednesday to consult on poppy field landscaping for the courtyard
The Obama haters in this thread astound me. On one hand, they criticize Obama for not bombing Libya sooner, and on the other, they criticize Obama for losing international support due to bombing Libya? What the heck do they think would have happened if the US bombed Libya immediately? That everyone in the world would just fall into line and praise the USA? Do they hate Obama so much they're willing to contradict themselves blatantly?
His indecision on this matter showed what a weak leader he is. More on the job training.... but don't worry -- he did have time to fill out his bracket (go Kansas! woot woot!) and hit Rio for Spring Break.
For that matter if the US hadn't pushed for a UNSC resolution and done nothing regarding Libya they still would've criticized.
I guess the Brasilian military are pro Obama. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sytD2N1hGzc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Unfortunately there is some truth to that but not always. Mubarak was a good friend of the US yet the US did nothing to help him and essentially supported his removal. Historically the same can be said for people like Marcos and Suharto. That said the US has more often failed, or even supported, an allied regime that has brutalized its own people. While the US hasn't always acted nobly I still don't see why that means it shouldn't act now. Are you saying that sine the US isn't doing much regarding Bahrain then it should do nothing regarding Libya? That strikes me as overly cynical and the reason why things like Srebenica and Rwanda happened.
A UNSC resolution has the force of US law as a US is a signatory to the UN Charter treaty so in this case the result is essentially the same.
Mission creep is something that worries me quite a bit about this but to reassure you I think the fact that Obama has been very cautious and reluctant about doing something on Libya is a sign that the Admin. is also going to be worried about mission creep. As far as this having to do with oil I strongly doubt that. The easiest way to get more oil out of Libya is to make nice with Gadaffi and prior to last month that was pretty much what was going on. As Iraq proves a war is about one of the worst ways to get oil out of a country.
