Obama whacks another bad guy

[Sandra]

Muammar Qaddaffi

Obama whacks another bad guy

 Klaus Rohrich  Thursday, October 20, 2011
 
Who’d have thought that Barack Hussein Obama, the skinny community organizer from Chicago would turn out to be so butch?  First, he goes out and personally hunts down Public Enemy #1, Osama bin Laden, and finishes him off with a nice clean double-tap, making his head explode like an overripe watermelon.  Then he goes after that arch cross-dresser Muammar Qaddaffi and whacks him as well.  America hasn’t seen a president this bellicose since Theodore Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill.  Never mind Harry S. Truman dropping The Big One on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Obama gets up close and personal with America’s enemies, making them bleed in the streets.

Or at least that’s what the former mainstream media would have its dwindling audiences believe, as they portray the president as a fearless foe of foreign tyrants.  There is such a thing as consistency, a commitment to doing the right thing, the same thing, in each and every instance, but Obama’s butchness is strictly situational.  When Bashar Assad’s goons shoot down hundreds of his citizens in the streets Syrian towns, Obama is nowhere to be seen.  When Iranian kids protest a rigged election, as they did in July of 2009, Obama was mum for fear of offending the Iranian theocracy.

Most recently Obama sent 100 American military “advisers” to Central Africa to help defeat Joseph Kony, rebel leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, who Obama accuses of waging a campaign of rape, murder and terror for two decades.  One wonders where he’ll wage war next.

It’s been said that war is good business and in many respects it’s also good politics, as frustrated voters discover a sense of emotional release by witnessing the demise of a despised despot. 

But here’s a question that we really should be asking ourselves before we laud Obama’s pugnacity:  Is any of this in America’s best interest?  Is killing Qaddaffi in America’s national interest?  True, he’s been a thorn in our side, but why wait 41 years to settle the score?  Is the capture of Joseph Kony in America’s national interest?  Will it advance our foreign policy goals?  Why is it not in America’s interest to affect regime change in Iran or Syria?  After all, these two piss-ant countries are among the largest sponsors of terrorism in the world.  They have created some real problems for America and its ally Israel, and will continue to do so into the future.  So why are they off limits?

I’ll admit that the contract on bin Laden was in dire need of fulfillment and laud Obama for seizing that opportunity when it presented itself.  But I hardly delude myself with the idea that anything Obama does is in the best interest of the country. 

If there were consideration in the formulation of foreign policy he would not have withdrawn from Iraq, which is now rapidly reverting to no man’s land, as warring factions blow each other up.  In addition, Iran’s indelible hand is plainly evident in the strife now plaguing that struggling democracy.  I think Obama withdrew from Iraq because he was afraid that Bush might get the credit for creating the first Arab democracy in the Middle East.  Ditto for his hurry to get out of Afghanistan, lest our involvement there will lead to open conflict with Pakistan.  But then, open conflict with that country is inevitable and I would prefer it to take place in their in their homeland, rather than ours.

Credit should be given where credit is due.  But praising Obama as the new McArthur is delusional as there is a wide streak of erratic inconsistency in America’s foreign policy.  And that inconsistency and failure to define and advance America’s foreign policy interests can only be laid at the feet of Obama.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41521