It looks like Barack Obama is vindicating George W. Bush. Like Brit Hume and Bill O’Reilly said Obama’s Monday night speech basically vindicated GWB and Iraq.
Of course it also gives The Pink Flamingo a chance to use my favorite GWB photo once again. I think one of the things I am beginning to notice is how The Great Man is being vindicated.
The Pink Flamingo found an editorial finally praising The Great Man
“…President Bush deserves far greater credit for his much maligned foreign policy. Under Bush, the United States was feared by her enemies, respected by her allies, and decisive in the face of a series of crises. His successor however seems all too often paralysed when it comes to US leadership, and unable to act without a permission slip from the United Nations or the Arab League. Liberals should just admit it – George W. Bush led the world rather than followed it. In contrast, the professorial President Obama runs US foreign policy like a focus group, unable to act without the stamp of approval of other international actors, and projecting weakness in its wake….”
You gotta give Lindsey credit for being consistent. He is one of the few Republicans who is. Then again, Lindsey is a Republican, NOT a libertarian stooge, like some are.
Have you noticed that the FOX mime is how much this war is costing. I noticed it this morning. I am so glad Lindsey has picked up on it. I think we are seeing more of the FOX leaning libertarian than anything else.
If there was ever a war for oil, this is it.
Pink Flamingo friend and confidant (and partner in crime) Sally Vee forwarded an email to me. I’m using snips of it.
“…Underlying Europeans’ willingness to pursue military action in Libya are two perceptions. The first is that Europeans did not adequately support the initial pro-democratic protests across the Arab world, a charge frequently coupled with accusations that many European governments failed to respond because they actively supported the regimes being challenged. The second perception is that the Arab world is in fact seeing a groundswell of pro-democratic sentiment.
The first charge particularly applies to France — the country now most committed to the Libyan intervention — where Former French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie vacationed in Tunisia a few weeks before the revolution, using the private jet owned by a businessman close to the regime, and offered then-Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali the services of French security forces to suppress the rebellion. Though an extreme example, the French case highlights the close business, energy and often personal relationships Europeans had with Middle Eastern leaders….
In fact, EU states have sold Gadhafi 1.1 billion euros ($1.56 billion) worth of arms between 2004, when they lifted their arms embargo, and 2011, and were looking forward to much more in the future. Paris and Rome, which had lobbied hardest for an end to the embargo, were particularly active in this trade. As recently as 2010, France was in talks with Libya for the sale of 14 Dassault Mirage fighter jets and the modernization of some of Tripoli’s aircraft. Rome, on the other hand, was in the middle of negotiating a further 1 billion euros worth of deals prior to the unrest. British media meanwhile had charged the previous British government with kowtowing to Gadhafi by releasing Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan held for the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. According to widespread reports, the United Kingdom’s Labour government released al-Megrahi so that British energy supermajor BP would receive favorable energy concessions in Libya.
The second perception is the now-established narrative in the West that the ongoing protests in the Middle East are truly an outburst of pro-democratic sentiment in the Western sense. From this, there arises a public perception in Europe that Arab regimes must be put on notice that severe crackdowns will not be tolerated since the protests are the beginning of a new era of democracy in the region….”
Lindsey on Gadhafi:
“…“I think he did a good job talking about the signal we would send if Gadhafi murdered his way back into power, that we’re a values-based people, and standing by these young people will serve us well in the future,” Graham said Monday on CNN, adding that he thought Obama had taken too long to act. “But the line that really sort of broke my heart was that regime change by force would be a mistake.
“The goal of this country is to replace Gadhafi,” Graham continued. “If you look at the balance sheet of what it costs this nation with Gadhafi versus what it costs without him, it is in our interest to get rid of him, and the opposition needs continued military support — not a ground invasion by the U.S. or any other Western power — but air support, all the way to Tripoli.”…
…“These people who are fighting Gadhafi — I don’t think they are taking to the streets and risking their lives to replace Gadhafi with al-Qaida,” Graham replied, adding there might be some al-Qaida elements among the opposition, but, “we need to pour it on, we need to stay behind the opposition forces, give them the military support — just like we are doing now.
“But when this is over and Gadhafi leaves, it would be a huge mistake not to help the Libyan people,” he continued. “They’ve been enslaved for 40 years — and if there are al-Qaida elements in that country, we will help the Libyan people take care of them.
“It is my belief that these young Arabs — in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, now Syria — do not want to replace these regimes with more oppressive regimes,” Graham added. “They are not going to the streets in Egypt to have al-Qaida take over. I don’t buy that for one minute.”…”