God Has Spoken…

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Sorry, time-limited, scope-limited military action.Kinetically even! 🙂

“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

…At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice.  Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people.  He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment.  In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day.  Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city.  We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”–President Obama Last night.

Gee, in 2009 when the student revolution against Ahmadinejad came and went when it was crushed BRUTALLY he did nothing. No outrage.

Darfur, in the Sudan must be next. That’s a genocide.

Then there’s North Korea.

China, people are sent to gulags and imprisoned or just “disappear” all the time.

How about Cuba, Venezuela, Ethopia, Zimbabwe…

Oh that’s right, Liberals hate having their shortcomings pointed out to them. They were righteous and we just let them be righteous and bask in their superiority.

And “feel good” liberalism.

They are all puffed up with a sense of greatness right now. The fact that they are ridiculously hypocritical, yet again, is not the be mentioned.

Especially, the “Gadhafi must go” and now he has he ruled out targeting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake.

So what is the end game here then?

And the rebels are now being supported by Al-Qaeda, and who’s supporting the Rebels, we are!

So that’s why I secretly think he wants the “rebels” to do it for him. Because if Gadhafi stays in power he will slaughter his enemies. That’s a given and Obama knows this. But his “superior morality” won’t extend to doing in war what you are supposed to do in war.

Win.

That’s dirty George Bush “unilateral” “cowboy” stuff.

Of course, since this is a tribal war, the rebels will undoubtedly slaughter the pro-Gadhafi forces if they win.

And if indeed, Al-Qaeda is supplying the rebels and the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the coming elections in Egypt, Obama may have just created the biggest, nastiest mess for the US in generations that could last generations.

But his heart was in the right place.

He had the best of intentions.

So cut him a break.

Sorry, NO!

The road to hell is pave with liberalism’s “good intentions”.

All thanks to our Dear Leader. 🙂

Victor David Hanson: President Obama just gave a weird speech. Part George W. Bush, part trademark Obama — filled with his characteristic split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes…

His dithering and confusing Orwellian  need to be a COMMUNITY ORIGINIZER, perhaps.

“Um, I think we’re all beginning to lose sight of the real issue here, which is “What are we going to call ourselves?” um, and I think it comes down to a choice between `The League Against Salivating Monsters’ or my own personal preference, which is `The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society’. Um, one drawback with that… the abbreviation is `CLITORIS’.- Red Dwarf episode “Polymorph”.

So that’s why he waited a month and up to the point where the resurgent Gadhafi was about to crush the rebels with superior firepower.

I think somewhere a flock of ducks just went lame.

So it’s up to his superior morality to decide who is being slaughtered and whose not.

He’s God. The decision of who lives and who dies is in his hands.

Gee, that sounds like ObamaCare. 🙂

And as for the liberal harp count on how much Iraq and Afghanistan cost (in just 6 days):

One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.

U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals to the tune of $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.

U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.

downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.

And operation of the war craft, guzzling ever-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week, experts say.

In 6 days, God made $600 million dollars that we don’t have disappear. So how long before we need a “stimulus” or a “quantitative easing” to borrow more money for the Chinese for this war that isn’t war because Liberals don’t even recognize the word exists when they start one.

In 6 Days God made a mountain of debt, again!

But damn if they don’t “feel good” about themselves and puffed up their superior moral selves!

And how dare you poke holes in their superiority!

How dare you question GOD himself!

Charles Krauthammer: President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.) It’s war as designed by an Ivy League professor.

True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Qaddafi went from besieged, delusional (remember those youthful protesters on “hallucinogenic pills”) thug losing support by the hour — to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi, and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.”

But what is military initiative and opportunity compared with paper?

Well, let’s see how that paper multilateralism is doing. The Arab League is already reversing itself, criticizing the use of force it just authorized. Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, is shocked — shocked! — to find that people are being killed by allied airstrikes. This reaction was dubbed mystifying by one commentator, apparently born yesterday and thus unaware that the Arab League has forever been a collection of cynical, warring, unreliable dictatorships of ever-shifting loyalties. A British soccer mob has more unity and moral purpose. Yet Obama deemed it a great diplomatic success that the League deigned to permit others to fight and die to save fellow Arabs for whom 19 of 21 Arab states have yet to lift a finger.

And what about that brilliant U.N. resolution?

● Russia’s Vladimir Putin is already calling the Libya operation a medieval crusade.

● China is calling for a cease-fire to be put in place — which would completely undermine the allied effort by leaving Qaddafi in power, his people at his mercy, and the country partitioned and condemned to ongoing civil war.

● Brazil joined China in that call for a cease-fire. This just hours after Obama ended his fawning two-day Brazil visit. Another triumph of presidential personal diplomacy.

And how about NATO? Let’s see. As of this writing, Britain wanted the operation to be led by NATO. France adamantly disagreed, citing Arab sensibilities. Germany wanted no part of anything, going so far as to pull four of its ships from NATO command in the Mediterranean. France and Germany walked out of a NATO meeting on Monday, while Norway had planes in Crete ready to go but refused to let them fly until it had some idea who the hell is running the operation. And Turkey, whose prime minister four months ago proudly accepted the Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, has been particularly resistant to the Libya operation from the beginning.

And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Qaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add “unless he changes his approach.” Approach, mind you.

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience, and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

And on the 7th day, God went and played another round of golf while dreaming of being a sports analyst on ESPN… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Going Nuclear

Nuclear the new “green”??

NBC WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing nuclear energy like never before, trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation.

Obama singled out nuclear power in his State of the Union address, and his spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. This emphasis reflects both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year and a shift from his once cautious embrace of nuclear energy.

He’s now calling for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

This ought to be a fun show, as no nuclear power planet has been built in this country since 1978!

Why?

Environmentalists.

The same radical fringe that promotes Global Warming.

What strange bedfellows these.

And yet…

His administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been criticized for his slow rollout of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to spur investment in new nuclear power plants, and the administration killed a Bush-era proposal to reprocess nuclear fuel.

So is this more of the doublethink and two-faced “objectives”??

Like “creating jobs” with tax cuts here, but tax increases over there.

Why the change? Or at least the change in talking points?

Sen-Elect Scott Brown.

What has changed is the outlook for climate and energy legislation, a White House priority. The House passed a bill in June that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases for the first time. But the legislation led to a Republican revolt in the Senate, where the recent election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts has made the measure even more of a long shot.

White House officials say Obama’s actions reflect his long support of nuclear power. But lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming.

The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from pollution-free sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Several analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation. One of those studies, by the Environmental Protection Agency, assumed 180 new reactors would come on line by 2050.

“I see an evolving attitude on energy by the president,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, who has called for 100 plants to be built in the next 20 years. Alexander, R-Tenn., said Obama’s mention of nuclear energy in the address Wednesday night was the most important statement that the president has made on nuclear power.

“Up until now, the administration has been pursuing a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy, which is the military equivalent of going to war in sailboats,” he said.

Oh, the howling from Environmentalists and their Lawyers is going to be at banshee levels.

And won’t that be an interesting cat-fight.

The plan is actually not a bad one.

But do I think it stands a chance against the Environmentalist lobbies that have crushed it for 32 years?

Unknown.

And there is chatter that it’s just a sneakier way of passing the Capt & Trade Bill.

That I would not discount. Not at all.

Obama’s $787bn economic recovery plan set aside $50bn for the nuclear industry but Democrats in Congress cut out the funds.

What’s unclear is whether Obama’s endorsement will help. It could attract more Republican and moderate Democrats. But nuclear energy and offshore drilling may alienate some liberal Democrats and environmentalists. One environmental group, Friends of the Earth, called it “a kick in the gut.”

UK Guardian (a very “green” newspaper) Headline: US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama’s climate change bill.

Opponents have complained that the loan guarantees for projects that cannot draw commercial investment amount to “nuclear socialism.” 🙂 (NY Times)

That’s funny on so many levels…

Oh, and on a tangent,  that wacky fun guy in Iran whom Obama just wants to sit down and talk with (while he build nuclear weapons) has said:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the “global arrogance” on this year’s anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

“The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism,” Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

“If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles,” he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches.

Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades. (press tv)

And The president has sent multiple Patriot missle batteries to the area.

But don’t worry, we can just talk them out of it. 🙂

After all, there nuclear power is just for domestic use. <<wink wink>>