There are some on the other end of the spectrum that believe Bush did no wrong. These type of people believe their idols are gods simply because the sun rises in the east on their watch. Obama takes all the credit for the right thing, but refuses credit for the thousands that have died in the cross fire. Bush takes full credit for the capture of Saddam, but he also rightfully takes the credit of the thousands of American deaths and hundreds of thousands of civilians. Since we are having the urge to give accolades for partial or unwarranted accomplishments, lets size them up in this manner: Trials given to dictators and/or terrorists: Saddam: Yes Bin Laden: No al-Awlaki: No Qudafi: No Is it safe to say Obama doesn't believe in fair trials like the liberals love to bahhh about?
Not really. He deserves some credit. It was an American drone that first spotted the convoy leaving. Without the US and it's allies the rebels who took the country would still be being slaughtered at demonstrations. Obama had a plan to help the Libyan rebels and his plan worked. That doesn't mean the rebels don't deserve most of the credit, but Obama does deserve some.
Many liberals don't bahhhh about fair trials when you're at war with someone. Truman didn't believe in fair trials either since Hitler didn't get one, and Mussolini didn't get one.
I'm watching CBS news right now and they have two representatives of the families of victims of Lockerbie and they are overjoyed over the death of Qadafi. They are saying they are going to have champagne at this year's reunion. Just to add personally I find the joy people are greeting this with a little disturbing but I never suffered from Qadafi's rule.
exactly. I don't know what civic books you've been reading but suicide isn't getting a fair trial is it?
Except Truman never had a chance to say whether Hitler would get a fair trial. Anyway the whole discussion about blaming Obama for Qadafi not getting a fair trial is off base. Obama wasn't in a position to give or deny Qadafi a fair trial since the US's role was only in a support role. The only way the US could've given Qadafi a trial would've been if the US military took an active role in the ground fighting to try to capture Qadafi, something that I doubt most Americans would support.
And Obama never got a chance to say whether Qadafi got a trial as you've said. That was the point I was trying to make in response to the silly conclusion space ghost put forward.
"Is there no Republican that can be gracious and statesmanlike in this situation? "We removed a dictator in six months, losing no American soldiers, spending like a billion dollars instead of a trillion dollars." "What the **** is wrong with you people?" -- Jon Stewart
Lol, I saw that last night too. Loved the clip from the Fox In the Morning roundtable show, where that guy tried to console the lady who said something along the lines of "I guess he did ok."
I've never been in the position, I assume I never will and I doubt I have the balls to be in the front lines of Hell on Earth but if someone murders someone I love, and lives beyond the reach of civilized law, I'm killing the b*stard. No if, ands or buts, no second thoughts, no regrets. And none of this happens in a vacuum. Every factor has an influence: yes, the economics of the oil supply to Europe, the Lockerbie bombing, the Arab Spring in other countries, hell the dude that got slapped by the public official and burned himself was probably THE catalyst for what has happened in the Arab world recently. Everything is not just US partisan politics. Ethical choices take place in context. Everything, every day is a power struggle rooted in economics (or sex, they are the same thing).
And my point is you don't get to pick and choose which credit to take. Either Obama takes the credit for removing Quadafi AND all the atrocities that went with it or you take a back seat just as many of the nations that have helped in this joint effort. If you feel the need to remove the credit from the rebels, then give it to France, not the US. Further, the only reason the rebels received any help from France and NATO was for the natural resources. For someone who hates Bush for getting into Iraq for the oil (which we still did not get), you should be appalled by this. If it were McCain or any other republican in office, you would.
You are wrong on many points. 1. France does deserve some credit as does the US, and so do the rebels. It was a US drone that was the first to spot the caravan with Qadafi leaving. Without the US drone he would have gotten away. Obama also gets some credit for helping put together the allies that provided the air strikes on the convoy with Qadafi in it. 2. I never accused Bush of going to Iraq for oil. I also don't believe that the allies got involved in Libya for the oil. If they did they would have had soldiers on the ground. Though Republican Lindsay Graham has been talking about how bad it is that the US doesn't have boots on the ground so they can profit by all the oil that's there. I think France and other nations got involved so as not to have tons of Libyan refugees fleeing the slaughter by govt. troops and flooding France straining resources. The US does get credit for what it did right in the situation, and not for atrocities that they didn't commit.
I'm going with small credit on this one. We were a role player on this one and didn't ball-hog, and our team won without us taking all the shots. We should probably play more of our games that way. It's okay to not get credit for it.
