So SICK of the media criticism of Obama over the Libyan situation

[woolldog]

Tired of the media asking "why did it take sooooo long" for the US to declare a no fly zone.

Taken so long? We shouldn't be there at all.

I'm watching this Elliot Spitzer tool now (and other types like David Gergen and Fouad Ajami (who I distinctly remember pushing the US to get involved in Iraq) who've been trying to push the US into war with Libya since the situation began. I don't understand the hard on these guys have for war.

No comments about the sheer hypocirsy of our position. We're instituting a no fly zone over Libya for the same things that are happening in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. This will just embolden protesters in those countries. And we really need those governments in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to stay in place. But our actions in Libya will end up undermining the current monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

[David__77]

1. It's because the anti-war movement is weak,

It needs to be stronger and bolder. There will be more criticism of Obama over this when things don't turn out like many of the elites want it to.

[vaberella]

2. What's funny is that the right doesn't want to go to Libya but the Left does...

~sigh~

[David__77]

4. Not ALL the left. This is just like that Kosovo things.

I would go to anti-war demonstrations then, and all I saw were communists, anarchists, Serbian nationalists, and a sprinkling of religious-oriented pacifists. Granted, it's California...

[woolldog]

5. the RWers I've heard

are also asking what took so long and blathering on about how he's making the US look weak by being indecisive. It has taken some time, but I assure that's because he was trying to get those 5 countries to abstain, rather than vetoing the resolution. Not easy.

And agree with the other poster that there's a very good chance this doesn't work out well. And if it doesn't the same people asking what was taking so long, will be criticizing the decision to get involved. Funny how that works.

[zbdent]

6. I also remember a bunch of Republicans in the 1990s saying

that Clinton was facing a bloodbath sending troops into Haiti to restore democracy ...

of course, the only U.S. serviceman killed (at some sort of toll booth incident, IIRC) SIX FREAKIN' MONTHS LATER was touted as a damned good reason (at least for the Republican ranting about the poor family's loss) to get our asses out of there ...

[Cali_Democrat]

3. I'm disappointed that Obama now supports military action in Libya

He could've vetoed the UN resolution, but he probably thought that would be too confrontational and he didn't want to anger the French and British.

Now it looks like we're gonna have 3 simultaneous wars :(

[vaberella]

7. What are you talking about? He made clear that there will NOT be ground troops.

And military action will ONLY be brought into the mix by the UN if Gaddafi doesn't stop. I don't like his intervention in this---but I heard his words clearly and I additionally read the transcripts. There will be no troops physically in the country unless Gadaffi continues and at the moment he's relented a bit.

[Exilednight]

14. So you read the transcripts, huh?

From the official UN transcript: "Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country"

If you read the document, it says nothing about not sending in ground troops. All it says is that we can not have an occupying force.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Military action does not always refer to ground troops.

When you drop bombs on another country, it can still be considered military action even though ground troops aren't involved.

I didn't even mention ground troops. Just because the UN approves military action, does that make it OK? What kind of logic is that?

[Clio the Leo]

8. Flip it to MSNBC and you have the opposite...

.... Chris Hayes saying "AHHH!!! We're now at war in three diff. countries."

.... a war without any US troops. Now THAT is some talent Obama! lol

[vaberella]

9. Ever since they gave him too much air time.

Shit went to his head. Facts are facts, but it's whatever when it comes to the left sometimes.

[Clio the Leo]

10. He was cracking me up tonight...

"I dont even know what I'm mad about! But I'm mad!" (paraphrased)

[vaberella]

12. Like a spoiled brat. He'll get his facts and won't recant.

He's part of the same news machine. He understands sensationalism even if he's wrong. And I don't even really back this move by the President.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. I'm so sick of some of the petty criticism of President Obama he gets from everywhere

What I particularly dislike is the reflexive knee jerk "criticism" he receives on a daily basis pretty much everywhere, especially the kind that is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of what he says or does and/or complete absence of facts to support it.

[vaberella]

13. Agreed. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vinca]

16. It all starts out so pure . . . so innocently. We are doing it to protect

the people, they say. Then a jet is shot down, a pilot is captured, and next thing you know we're in a third war we don't have the bodies or dollars to fight. If we are doing this to protect the people, why is it usually only in oil-producing countries?

[woolldog]

18. Agree

As I understand it the exact same thing that's happening in Libya is happening in the Sudan. But you don't hear a peep about it.