The British Ministry of Defense, the French government and the American White House all insist: The target of the military attack on Libya is not Qaddafi; it’s only military buildings.
So let me get this straight. We’re attacking Libya because the dictator Qaddafi is oppressing his people — yet we’re not attempting to kill Qaddafi.
I guess this is how liberals fight wars. Just as you cannot call a terrorist a terrorist, you cannot call a war — a war. This is noteworthy, but should not be a surprise. These are the same people who insist that socialized medicine lowers the cost and increases the quality of health care. These are the same people who believe that increased taxes on wealth producers generates economic growth.
My question is: Why are we attacking Libya, if not to punish Qaddafi? For weeks, Obama has been saying that Qaddafi should step down, and that he no longer legitimately deserves power. Did he ever? I thought that no dictator ever has a legitimate hold on power. Only democratically elected leaders in a free republic respectful of individual rights deserve power (at the consent of the governed). According to Obama, this applies in some cases but not in others. Some years back, Obama condemned the Bush Administration for attacking Iraq. The American government had no right to unseat another country’s government, he and liberals like him insisted. I wonder what those liberals who love Obama think of his actions in Libya? If it’s arrogant and wrong for the United States to attack another country’s government, even when that government is run by a dictator, then what’s the justification for going after Qaddafi now?
Clearly, Obama recognizes his own contradiction. He cannot openly go after Qadaffi, as President Reagan did back in the 1980s in retaliation against Libyan-sponsored terrorism. Back then, President Reagan made no bones about the fact that it was Qaddafi he wanted to kill and punish. He almost succeeded. Obama, although he also opposes Qaddafi, goes after Qaddafi but expects us to believe … he’s not going after Qaddafi. How can this be? Such are the wonders and mysteries of foreign policy under left-wing pacifists who suddenly decide to play soldier.
Obama isn’t attacking Qaddafi in order to protect American interests. That would be selfish and wrong, according to his ideology of self-sacrifice and anti-individualism. We’re doing this to protect the Libyan people. We are their keepers. We are everyone’s keepers, except our own when it comes to foreign policy. The proof of this statement lies in the fact that we would never, in a million years under Obama, attack or even threaten the far more dangerous nation of Iran, the one country who poses the biggest threat to American interests.
Remember the war in Bosnia? Back in the 1990s, Bill Clinton played soldier there after his Secretary of State declared, in essence, that we have all these weapons so we might as well use them. It was a convenient distraction from Clinton’s unpopularity for his Big Government policies and growing sex scandals. Obama is unpopular as well, and playing soldier in Libya gives him the opportunity to look like a President, once and for all. Even though the country is engaged in military action, Obama continues to dance with school children and do what he considers routine presidential things. Back when he was ramming ObamaCare through the Congress, he cancelled his schedule. No such disruption in his schedule now. This shows the true priorities of a genuine socialist. He doesn’t care about American interests and he doesn’t really care about the Libyans suffering under the dictator Qadaffi. He cares about looking good and holding on to power, and redistributing as much wealth as he can in the process.
Obama’s little war may end up toppling Qadaffi or it may not. Either way, you can be sure it’s not about the preservation or expansion of liberty, individual rights, freedom and capitalism anywhere. It’s all about Obama.
Obama’s core supporters are pacifists, at least when the use of military force is in American interests. Will they be fooled by Obama’s claim that he’s not being arrogant by attacking Libya because it’s not really Qadaffi he’s after? If so, then they’re even more foolish than their advocacy of Obama’s domestic policies suggests.