Let’s start where it first began.
No, not the election of Barack Hussein Obama, although that would be a good call.
Jump further ahead in the story.
Back in March 2011, when Obama started lobbing missiles at Libya, liberals assured us that we were NOT at war.
Editor's Note: In commemoration of our Dear Leader's Glorious Victory, I reprint this tribute to his courage, fortitude and BS-ability. What? You expected me to be repentent? Far from it. See you tomorrow ;-)
Instead the administration described it as time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military activity- which is just another made up phrase that liberals use to remind us that they are the people Orwell warned us about.
And thankfully, NPR-- yes THAT NPR, the Big Bird NPR-- allowed us to remain calm, by helping the administration keep it simple.
Just lie, they reminded the greatest communicator ever. Obama took his cue and lied from behind. >
<
We are not at war, the Corporation for Public Race-baiting tells us, even if we are a bunch of Tea Party fascists and racists, I wrote in March 2011.
To bolster the NPR case, their totally, 100 percent, objective reporter found a college professor to tell us not to worry, we’re not at war.
"Would I consider us 'at war' with Libya at this moment?” Judkin Browning, a professor of Military History at Appalachian State, who studies the American Civil War, told NPR. “I would say no, simply because of the very limited nature of our military mission."
Wow. That was easy.
Kind of like an award-winning Sesame Street episode.
Recommended
“No.”
N.O. spells “No.” This non-war was sponsored by the letters N & O.
Remind me: Just exactly why does Romney propose killing and eating Big Bird?
It’s not like Big Bird was responsible for the subsequent capture and sodomizing of Muammar Gaddafi before he was killed by extra-legal means.
“No.”
N.O.
It was likely a contingent of NATO soldiers that made Gaddafi’s capture and beating death possible.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the guy deserved to get beaten to death.
But then there is a big difference between my personal opinion, and the obligations of the president of the United States to follow the laws of war, especially when he’s the “brilliant” legal scholar and Nobel Prize recipient, law-giver and leading cell-phone provider in the United States, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
Not to worry, lied the man who condemned the trial and hanging of Saddam Hussein-- who, by the way, received justice under the laws of Iraq. Gaddafi got it on the side of the road by a mob enabled by the USA under president Obama.
And pay no attention to the men behind the dictator beating him says the guy who condemns U.S. detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay as inhumane.
“U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she supports calls for an investigation into the death of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi as part of Libya's transition from dictatorship to democracy,” winked the Associated Press at the time.
“Clinton says a democratic Libya should begin with the rule of law and accountability, as well as unity and reconciliation. She says investigating Gadhafi's death is part of the process.”
It’s been 18 months since Obama got off his missiles in Libya.
There’s been no investigation, no declaration of war, no explanation as to why we are destabilizing the region deliberately.
One would think that the man strong enough to stop the seas from rising, as Obama says he has, might be strong enough to withstand his own administration’s rhetoric.
Democracy, rule of law, accountability and… lies.
Especially lies.
The lies are the glue that holds Obama’s Libyan policy together.
Because the line Obama must take at all costs is that, of course, we are NOT supporting Al Qaeda-- or radical Islamists-- in Libya, or Egypt, or Syria, when, OF COURSE that’s exactly what we are doing.
Hence the coordinated terror attack by Al Qaeda on the American Embassy in Benghazi, Libya proves an inconvenient truth for Obama that must be blamed on someone else. The repeated call for increased security by the diplomatic staff before the attack, also proves awkward for the administration as it lies from behind.
"It's awkward for anybody. If you talk to people in the intelligence community and now at the State Department, they're not happy,” said CNN’s John King. “The leaders of the administration, in their view, Jay Carney speaks for the president, so that's the President of the United States, the Vice President last night, on stage last night, essentially publicly scolding, publicly blaming others for what happened in the administration. Those people don't like that."
They don’t like it because they have warned Obama that arming Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, and likewise Islamists in Egypt, has spread the influence of terror networks just at a time when their bases of operation in places like Yemen are under pressure.
These are folks who have suffered through multiple deployments overseas fighting Al Qaeda, and personally know people who have died for Obama’s bumper-sticker wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Africa.
Ask your kids a quick question: Arming Al Qaeda; good idea? Yes or No?
It’s an easy question only Obama could flunk.
And now these brave people, who have born the brunt of the war on terror around the world, have a commander-in-chief who blames them for their own casualties, while he claims credit for their victories, like the death of bin Laden.
And like all his other failures, Obama can only blame others for his own mistakes and then lie from behind.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member