Thursday, March 24, 2011

Did Hillary Clinton set up Obama for a historic foreign policy blunder?

Trusting the Clintons is like trusting a snake that has teeth that it won't bite you. You do so at your own risk. Obama's true believers believe Barry is the smartest person ever to become president. Of course, that should be taken at face value then laughed at. If I was running for president, I wouldn't be stupid enough to pick someone I knew who hated me and make him or her my Secretary of State. Well, that is of course what Barry did. Now it looks like that decision has come back to hunt him. Just as liberals claimed that Saddam Hussein was isolated and wasn't a threat in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya prior to three weeks ago was the same situation. It wasn't until these so called rebels in Libya started protesting against Gaddafi that he started acting out against them. Hillary Clinton stressed the point that Gaddafi was killing his own people, and that he needed to be removed. Actually to Obama's credit, he wasn't concerned with removing Gaddafi at that time. He had to have known that any use of military action by him to try and remove Gaddafi would make him look like the biggest hypocrite around for his then blasting of former president Bush over the use of the military in Iraq. Somehow Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and the Office of Multilateral and Human Rights Director Samantha Power convinced Barry to take the lead in enforcing a "no fly zone" over Libya. There's a difference between taking advice on doing something and being pressured into doing something. Obama clearly was pressured into launching air strikes. So much for the Commander In Chief having a spine of steel. Because of his actions in Libya, Obama may have caused himself irreversible damage next year in his re election bid. He's lost the majority support of independent voters, but now he has lost a certain percentage of his die hard core kook supporters as well. I still have to wonder did Hillary set this up. Hillary came out last week and said that she wouldn't be serving a second term as Secretary of State. I know she isn't planning on challenging Obama next year, but who knows what she is thinking about possibly 2016. Prior to the situation in Libya, Obama's foreign policy could be described as pathetic. Now, it can definitely be described as weak to clueless. Hillary has painted Obama into such a corner, there aren't enough words on Obama's teleprompter that can correct the situation for him. He was so concerned with getting the UN's approval for the air strikes, he didn't even bother briefing congress on what he was planning. That has gotten members of both parties ticked off at him. This is what Democratic Congressman Dennis "The Red Menace" Kucinich of Ohio had to say.



Dennis of course stopped short of calling for Obama's impeachment, surprise, surprise. As I said, a lot of the true believers are very upset over the air strikes. The best person to speak out against Obama actions in Libya should be "himself".



Even if Obama is able to sucker NATO, the French or Great Britan into taking the lead in this "operation". The ultimate outcome could lead to one of if not the biggest foreign policy misjudgments in a century, even surpassing Carter and Iran. When the riots first started in Egypt, progressives didn't really ask themselves the question of "who really are the protesters"? All they cared about was that they were against Mubarak, so they had to be just seeking freedom. There are stories coming out that are showing that Islamic hardliners had a role in the organization of the protests. With Libya, there are growing concerns that Al Qaida is embedded to an unknown degree into the rebel movement if not in charge of the movement fighting against Gaddafi forces. So lets say that the rebels defeat Gaddafi, and it turns out that Al Qaida was behind the rebel movement. Obama would be responsible for the Islamic terrorist organization gaining a stronghold in an oil producing country bordering Saudi Arabia. Al Qaida has come out in support of the rebels. Gaddafi isn't a Muslim extremist. Yes, he is a kook but not a Muslim fanatic one. Al Qaida didn't dare try and face off against Gaddafi out in the open, because support would be on the side of Gaddafi due to the people seeing Al Queda as being the bigger threat then Gaddafi ever could be. So Al Qaida decides to use the Trojan horse approach of dressing themselves up as Libyan rebels who only are looking for" freedom" from the oppressive rule of Gaddafi. The old saying goes that sometimes the cure can cause more pain and suffering to a person then the actual illness. Way to go Barry. I said Obama was the second term of Carter for a reason.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Juanita said...

Another Superb Article Tyrone. Your 100% right about Hillary, nothing like a womens scorn. lol Hillary is a sore loser. But Barry is no better he deserves what he gets.

8:44 PM  
Blogger JD Curtis said...

Great post. American foreign policy is completely adrift.

10:54 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

First off, I was totally (and still remain) against America's involvement in another war - particularity in the middle-east region.

CB;"Just as liberals claimed that Saddam Hussein was isolated and wasn't a threat in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya prior to three weeks ago was the same situation".

So now you're admitting Saddam was not a threat? So now, since the shoes on the other foot, the conservative tune has changed. Consistency certainly ain't a conservative trait...

Contrary to Alan Wests' assertion that "Reagan fired a missile that kept Qaddaffi quite for 30 years" (ie; in actuality Qaddaffi ordered the bombing of a jet over Lockerbie a year later, killing Americans), whereas Saddam never fired a shot toward the U.S. Even though I don't agree with the presidents decision to go to war in Libya, I can plainly see the "vast differences."

Prior to the Iraq war there were lies told of WMD's to the U.N. Security Council and the American people. The people of Libya, the U.N. and the Arab League asked for U.S. help. The president said that U.S. involvement will be limited in scope and time spent in the war. (just tonight it was announced the U.S. is turning over the No-Fly-Zone to the U.N.)

There are two things Saddam and Qaddaffi had in common - killing his own people, and oil. Dictators killing their own people has never been high on the scale of U.S. policy.

1:08 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Hillary came out last week and said that she wouldn't be serving a second term as Secretary of State".

It's extremely rare that "any" Secretary of State serves throughout the complete term, or terms of a sitting president.

I think the following proves you're just "hacking and hawking" the conservative line, with absolutely no regard for the use of common sense.

CB;"I still have to wonder did Hillary set this up".

yet, you say this;

CB;"He (President Obama) was so concerned with getting the UN's approval for the air strikes, he didn't even bother briefing congress on what he was planning".

If Hillary Clinton is indeed purposely, as you say "setting him up", (ie; in doing something he doesn't want to do) why would the president be concerned about getting approval from ANYONE??

Simple examples - If you didn't care if your house gets broken into, why spend the money to put in a burglar alarm? If you don't like pizza, why would you care what's on it? If you didn't care about politics...why write about it?

Even moreso, If you really don't like the president, why would you agree with anything he says or does??.

I'll give Dennis Kucinich his props in being consistent in his political beliefs and statements. That's more than I can say for many Republicans.

2:00 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "First off, I was totally (and still remain) against America's involvement in another war - particularity in the middle-east region."

So are you saying that Barry is a "war hawk" who is waging an illegal conflict allen?

P Allen "It's extremely rare that "any" Secretary of State serves throughout the complete term, or terms of a sitting president. "

Normally Secretary of States wait until AFTER THE ELECTION before making plans. Hillary doesn't want her name associated with Barry's failed foreign policy.

p allen "I think the following proves you're just "hacking and hawking" the conservative line, with absolutely no regard for the use of common sense."

No allen, common sense would be for our military to NOT HELP ALQUEDA BACKED REBELS. It's not a conservative line, it is a common sense line. Gaddafi wasn't a threat on anyone's radar as I stated and will continue to state. Don't blame conservatives for Obama's foreign policy blunder. They didn't shape it, and they sure as hell aren't enforcing it allen. This is all on your boy. He about to commit the biggest foreign policy error on record, and conservative hands are clean. He didn't ask for approval from congress don't forget. He went it alone.

p allen "If Hillary Clinton is indeed purposely, as you say "setting him up", (ie; in doing something he doesn't want to do) why would the president be concerned about getting approval from ANYONE??

Hillary and company could have easily set Barry up by making an urgent plea for him to take action on Libya but also by not giving all the facts or giving a certain picture of the situation in libya that might not be so truthful. As much as Obama positioned himself as the anti war candidate, something must have change big time for him to reverse his stance and run the opportunity of alienating his anti military kook liberal base.

1:20 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "Even moreso, If you really don't like the president, why would you agree with anything he says or does??.

Hillary should have been picked for Obama's VP, she knows it and most of the political pundits and experts knew it. Michelle and Barack do not like the Clintons and vice versa. This isn't nothing new. Hillary would gladly serve on the surface yet plot to take down Obama behind the scenes. What does she have to gain by being fateful to the man who she feels robbed her of the presidency she thought was rightfully hers?

1:25 AM  
Blogger nduji olujimi said...

CB;"common sense would be for our military to NOT HELP ALQUEDA BACKED REBELS".

Would that be the same "ALQUEDA" (formally the Mujahedeen) that Reagan spent billions to help in Afghanistan?

CB;"He about to commit the biggest foreign policy error on record, and conservative hands are clean".

Biggest foreign policy error ever?? Either you're crazy, or once again you're just throwing the slings and arrows of conservative hacking!!

Reagan did not get approval from congress to bomb Libya... you know, Libya?? That same country headed by the same dictator that President Obama and a coalition of U.N. and foreign forces are bombing as we speak?? Was it a "policy error" then?

The more you spew the conservative party line, the sillier and more "ass-backwards" it sounds.

Look at it this way... Why is it that I didn't agree with Reagan's missile attack on Qaddaffi, both Bush's going to war in Iraq, and don't agree with President Obama's war in Libya? Yet you've found some way to find error with only President Obama's war. President Obama's actions have been TOTALLY CONSISTENT with the U.S.'s military foreign policy.

7:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home