GOP on Obama’s Handling of Libya

2012ers on Libya: Scathing or silent

They fall into three categories: No Comment, Back Off, He Sucks.

  • The No Comment Crowd:
  • Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachmann
    We’ll see how he does, then we’ll weigh in. Silence is golden.

  • The Back Off Crowd (of one):
  • Haley Barbour: “Whenever our men and women are involved in military action, every American stands with them and supports them as I do. This is not the time to critique what the administration has done or will do.”
    Classy all the way and very diplomatic. Gold star.

  • The He Sucks Crowd:
  • 1. John Boehner: “Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”
    You better run everything by me and my big gavel.

    2. Newt Gingrich: Refers to Obama as the “spectator-in-chief instead of commander-in-chief” and says it “makes us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf.” Also, “This is opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism.”
    “I want to be POTUS more than any of you losers. That’s why I have the most to say about it.”

    3. Rudy Giuliani: “The president of the United States gave (the rebels) encouragement…(and people) got killed and slaughtered by Qadhafi while Obama dithered.”
    “‘Dithered’ is a great word. Thanks Sarah.”

    4. John McCain: He thinks a no-fly zone isn’t enough. “He waited too long, there is no doubt in my mind about it. But now, it is what it is. And we need, now, to support him and the efforts that our military are going to make. And I regret that it didn’t – we didn’t act much more quickly, and we could have.”
    Drop a nuke on Libya, and call it a day.

    5. Sarah Palin: There would have been “less dithering” if she were in the White House. “I won’t criticize what (Obama’s) foreign policy has been, but certainly there would have been more decisiveness.”
    If you were in the White House, you’d authorize it and go back to setting up your Theocracy.

    6. Rick Santorum: “Under any score, I don’t know how you could play this worse than this president has.”
    Um, ouch!

Of course, the He Sucks crowd is the largest. This is what happens when you have a POTUS that thinks long and hard before committing the country to a war. He’s not the trigger happy cowboy we’ve gotten used to seeing. He looks before he leaps. He realizes we’re stretched thin enough, militarily. This is a huge commitment on our part.

Why do we always have to take the lead? IMHO, letting the UK and France drive until they needed help was the best strategy. Sadly, he did not follow through with that plan. I’m guessing there was a lot of pressure on him for us to climb back into the driver’s seat. For me, that is what makes him look “weak.” Personally, I would have said, “Look we’re taking a back seat since we still have two wars going. We’ll be there to help them when we’re needed. End of story.” More people would see him as decisive if he said that and stuck to it.

So here we are again. If we give control to NATO in “days not weeks” according to Obama, why couldn’t we have supported the UK and France until they did that themselves. I know, water under the bridge. I hope the transfer happens soon. It probably won’t matter, though. We’ll be involved one way or another. Like always.


17 responses to “GOP on Obama’s Handling of Libya

  • Terrance H.

    I can’t figure you people out. Some of you were screaming this was a war for oil, and now you’re claiming Obama’s not a trigger happy cowboy, obviously cleverly alluding to Bush. A man, I might add, who many on the Left accused of waging a war for oil.

    Which one is it? Is this about oil? Because despite the neoconservative line – and I read it – no war for oil is a smart war, or more importantly, a just war. We don’t get the majority of our oil from Libya, or from anywhere in the Middle East. The majority comes from Canada and Mexico. Then comes Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, and then Iraq. That’s the top 7. And from them, combined, we import anywhere from 10 to 12 million barrels a day.

    The CIA says there is little risk of an upheaval in Saudi Arabia, and Iraq is still largely under our control. The neocon hawks – many have never served a day in uniform themselves – love to beat the war drums, and they’ll use any and all rationale for doing so, however odious.

    The current events in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East will not – repeat NOT – incite, bring about, or pave the wary for a global depression. That’s fear-mongering nonsense, period. Every word out of the neocon mouth is just another beat of the drum.

    • SpinnyLiberal

      Oil and humanitarian aid. With more emphasis on the oil. Look at how the conflict over there is spooking the market.What is it now? $102/barrel?

      Iraq – oil and Halliburton, more emphasis on Halliburton.

      Obama is far from trigger-happy. Why do you think it took weeks for him to figure out what role we should play? I don’t think he wanted this at all, hence the backseat compromise that lasted all of 24 hours. I believe there was so much pressure for him to make the US drive that he caved. He has the “thinking’ part down. He needs Bush’s balls.

      He also needed Congress’ OK, but that’s another point entirely.

      • Terrance H.

        And what was the price of oil before the conflict, Spinny? It didn’t go up all that much, so out the window goes the neocon line of global depression.

        And if we limited the power of speculators, it wouldn’t go up – at all. There are too many other nations who could ramp up production to meet demand. Don’t fall for the neocon nonsense, please!

      • SpinnyLiberal

        But Kendrick said this,

        But Europe and Japan could not. And given the interconnectedness of our economies, a massive depression one place would be devastating in domino fashion.

        Would that happen because Europe and Japan don’t have enough oil?

      • Terrance H.

        Spinny,

        Kendrick is obviously very knowledgeable. In fact, he’s brilliant, as are most of the bloggers I converse with. And when it comes to foreign policy issues, I’m probably something close to a babe in the woods.

        And while it seems as though I’m talking about Kendrick when I sayneoconservative</i I’m certainly not. Instead, I refer to some of the talking heads on Fox, like Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and a few others.

        Now, Kendrick’s point is well-taken. But I think there may be a bit too much worry on his part.

        For instance, Japan receives the majority of its oil from Iran. So if you’re worried about their economy failing due to a shortage, then you’re several years late on the worry. Even Japan admits Iran is not a stable energy supplier. And that is the reason Japan has decided to cut their consumption of Iranian oil.

        Japan is the first to call Iran an unstable energy supplier

        Japan, Iran’s biggest oil customer, has become the first country to reduce its imports of Iranian oil because of Tehran’s nuclear dispute with the West. Nippon Oil, Japan’s largest refiner, will cut its purchases of Iranian crude oil by 15% this year, Fumiaki Watari, Nippon’s chairman, said last month.
        The 22,000 barrels per day (bpd) cut is only half a per cent of Japan’s total imports. However, the ramifications of this decision could be huge, if other Japanese customers decided to follow suit and turn their backs on the Middle East producer.
        Nippon Oil’s move came as negotiations have intensified in the UN Security Council over the drafting of a resolution that denounces Tehran’s uranium enrichment activities, which many countries suspect are a cover for making nuclear weapons.
        Although another major Japanese oil company, Arabian Oil Company, said it has no plans at the moment to cut imports, the company said it is taking precautions. “We are considering other ways to ensure a stable supply, such as increasing imports from other countries, in the event of an emergency,” Masatoshi Kasuya, a spokesman for AOC Holdings, Inc, Arabian Oil Company’s holding company told Japan Times.

        Here

        Japan, I think, has some contingency plan in place. Japan is not a third-world country run by despots, so it’s frankly insulting to assume they’d be lost without Middle-Eastern oil. And it’s frankly bizarre to assume Japan and Europe rely heavily on Libyan oil, because they don’t. Must of the European oil comes from Europe. Some does come from the Middle East, but typically Saudi Arabia. Libya is 17 as far as production goes. So there are many other nations, I believe, who could ramp up production to meet demand.

      • Terrance H.

        A small correction. I mistakingly said Europe receives most of its oil from Europe. That’s not accruate. They receive much of it from themselves, but Saudi Arabia and Iran produce much of their oil.

        But, again, the CIA says Saudi Arabia is not at risk for turmoil, currently, and other nations could ramp up production.

        In any event, I don’t see a global depression occuring over this, because I think there are too many oil produces and too many other forms of energy. I could be wrong.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        Oh I know you weren’t thinking of Kendrick as a neocon. He is brilliant, which is why that made me worry. I don’t know. We’re in it now, and who knows what is going to happen?

      • Terrance H.

        I just don’t think a global depression is realistic, because we are in fact talking about Libya here, not Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia were to succumb to turmoil (which is not even close to happening right now) then perhaps we should worry. But global depression? That’s a bit of a stretch, because as you know, there are many more forms of energy available. And as for oil? There are many other nations who could ramp up production.

        That’s what I think.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        Yeah, the KSA paid off their citizens not to get too mad. Hahaha

  • Terrance H.

    Hell, I’ll give you the top 15 places we get our oil, accofing to the EIA

    Here it is.

    1).Canada
    2).Mexico
    3).Saudi Arabia
    4).Nigeria
    5).Venezuela
    6).Iraq
    7).Angola
    8).Brazil
    9).Algeria
    10).Colombia
    11).Ecuador
    12).Russia
    13).Kuwait
    14).United Kingdom
    15).Argentina

    Now how many of those are in the Middle East? I count three. Most our oil comes from Canda and Mexico. And if some were to happen in to Saudi Arabia, however unlikely, then the United States could deal with it. We have our own supply as well. Other nations could pick up the slack. It wouldn’t be this apocalyptic event the hawks claim.

    I’d tell you what the neocon hawks are after, but if you think about it, you’ll figure out it. They all have one thing in common.

  • lobotero

    It is all political theater……a theater of the absurd…I might add

  • The Patriotic Democrat

    The 3 tiered disaster that has clobbered Japan is truly a horrible and incomprehensible set of events, but as Warren Buffet recently said it will create some very profitable opportunities.

    I won’t repeat one of my favorite old sayings that I have heard time and again through the years due to it’s graphic nature but to paraphrase it – “Buy when things look their worst.”

    As someone who owned his own brokerage for many years I can say that buying select Japanese stocks or the Nikkie index on hard dips would probably be a profitable venture if history is any guide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: