It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, really. Not that Ghaddafi (or however you want to spell it) is a saint, but it seems odd to be siding with his opponents when they have admitted links to al Qaeda.
Weren’t we supposed to be fighting against terrorism?
The oil was flowing out of Libya just fine (as it was in Iraq), so it can’t be about that.
So just what is it about? Obama needed a war of his own?
Slate reckons he’s contradicting himself – a plausible conclusion since Obama’s schtick has been all about the US looking after number one and not interfering so much.
And then there’s the running joke out there: “I authorized this war that is not a war, which is narrowly focused but broad in scope, so we could lead. As helpers.”
No, that’s not an actual quote from Obama’s speech, but if you read it through, that’s what it basically boils down to.
Or seems to boil down to (just what does it boil down to?). A handy wordcloud notes Obama went heavy on the “people” line.
But what people? The Libyans who can’t afford to eat? Al Qaeda’s recruits whom the “people” he’s supporting have links to?
Obama (real quote): “This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.”
OK, mate. But you’re not sounding all that convincing right now.
Anyway, good luck with it… if you can figure out what it is you’re actually doing.
PS Where’s Michael Ware?
Rush reckons it is about oil – Europe’s this time (like Europe needs Libya’s oil if the proverbial were ever to hit the fan).
Are Righties now gonna protest “No War for Oil”?
I read a lot of media, and I didn’t hear squat about any oil flow problem out of Libya before this new war started.
Let’s face it. This war – well at least the need for multilateral international involvement in it – has essentially come out of nowhere. Is this InstaWar?
More from spot @ Tizona.