Obama's "Dumb Wars"


No clear leaders, no clear aims – and Obama’s war will achieve what?

Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.  (CNN thanks to ZIP, pic via Moonbattery)

But the Obamessiah’s war is different:

This is a liberal war. Did I say war? I meant “kinetic military action,” or “humanitarian mission,” or maybe “internationally authorized intervention,” or perhaps “time-limited, scope-limited military action” even. Liberals don’t fight wars. They manage “conflicts,” oversee “interventions,” and participate in “actions.” Bullets fly. People die. Just don’t call them wars.

Liberal bombs and missiles are humanitarian in intent. When American ordnance and Libyan people experience their moment of cultural exchange, the Libyans will surely appreciate how well meaning the American policy is. What is “I am from the U.S. government and I am here to help you” in Arabic?

(Frontpage has more)

Syria’s dictator now trembles

The fall of the Syrian dictator would have a far bigger impact on the Middle East than the fall of Libya’s. For a start, Syria sponsors Hezbollah and arms Hamas:

Syria’s Cabinet resigned Tuesday to help quell a wave of popular fury that erupted more than a week ago and is now threatening President Bashar Assad’s 11-year rule in one of the most authoritarian and closed-off nations in the Middle East.

One thought on “Obama's "Dumb Wars"”

  1. People invent snappy key phrases for conflicts that have no meaning ie “kinetic action”. Why are you guys in the states allowing this monkey to make such a fool out of you???

Comments are closed.