Replies

RE :” 3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was “No blood for oil!” What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there's no compelling reason for America to invade....except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting “No blood for oil?”

This article is fun to throw in Democrats face. I was making this same point yesterday.

Actually I am no fan of Bush and I am not enthused about Obama’s third war either. I like that Republicans keep calling him to clarify his objectives, that can only cause him headaches.

#4) asks where are the protests, actually left wing (communist) groups like ANSWER are protesting Libya bombing in different cities but it is not being reported. The protests are relatively small compared to the Bush era ones because Obama is president. It's like Republicans not protesting Bush over spending. It's called the ‘lesser of two evils’ strategy. The president says to his base :”I know you dont like what I did but that other party would do even worse”. It's also called ‘good cop-bad cop’. The key is to believe that your guy had good motives, and was tricked by the other side. now Democrats will feel compelled to play that game.

Still it's fun to watch the liberals now try to defend going to war without congressional approval and defending Bush regime change doctrine that that they all claimed was illegal under Bush, now great under Obama. Will Sweden indict Obama for war crimes now?? :)