The Left’s Libya Schizophrenia


Pages: 1 2

Al Gore’s 2000 presidential running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), said he supported the mission’s goal of regime change – assuming, of course, that is actually the objective. “This peaceful democratic revolution in the Arab world ends here,” he told the Senate. “If Qaddafi survives this, he is going to cause no end of trouble for the United States and anyone else in the world who stood with the freedom fighters.”

The extremists who are reflexively opposed to U.S. soldiers serving as anything other than heavily armed social workers and first responders were predictably outraged.

Anti-American, anti-Semitic cult leader Louis Farrakhan, a man who has long been on Qaddafi’s payroll, addressed Obama, obediently blasting him on cue. “Don’t let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world,” he said. “They don’t like the way you handled [former Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak!”

Farrakhan scolded Obama for demanding Qaddafi’s ouster. “You can’t order him to step down, and get out – who the hell do you think you are, that you can talk to a man that built a country over 42 years, and ask him step down and get out?”

Farrakhan said “the American people are rising against their own government” and warned Obama that, “America will be bathed in blood, not because Farrakhan said so, but because the dissatisfaction in America has reached the boiling point. Be careful how you manipulate the dissatisfaction in Libya and other parts of the Muslim world.” (Obama is connected to Farrakhan by way of radical academic Cornel West. The Marxist professor advises Farrakhan and was an adviser on Obama’s 2008 campaign.)

Perennial presidential candidates Ralph Nader and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) called for the president’s impeachment. Said Nader:

Why don’t we say what’s on the mind of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should have been impeached.

Kucinich, Capitol Hill’s foremost authority on UFOs, a man who uses pie charts during radio appearances, said Obama’s Libyan initiative “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

After France led the attack on Libya and the U.S. fired more than 100 Tomahawk missiles at Qaddafi’s forces in Benghazi, propagandist Michael Moore angrily took to Twitter, the micro-blogging website, to mock Obama. Here are some of his tweets:

“And we always follow the French’s lead! Next thing you know, we’ll have free health care & free college! Yay war!”

“We’ve had a ‘no-fly zone’ over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How’s that going? #WINNING!”

“Khadaffy must’ve planned 9/11! #excuses”

“Khadaffy must’ve had WMD! #excusesthatwork”

South America’s two leading communist heads of state condemned Obama.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who claimed this week that capitalism might have extinguished life on Mars, said, “Libya is under imperial fire. Nothing justifies this.”

“Indiscriminate bombing,” the caudillo said. “Who gave those countries the right? Neither the United States, nor France, nor England, nor any country has the right to be dropping bombs.”

In a move that might endear him somewhat to right-thinking Americans, Bolivian President Evo Morales cheekily suggested Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was undeserved. “How is it possible that a Nobel Prize promotes an invasion?”

Interviewed on one of his frequent anarchist world tours, octogenarian ultra-leftist Noam Chomsky told the Irish Times that intervening in Libya was a mistake. The U.S. is “hated in the region for very good reasons.”

But the rest of America’s leftists seem to have either fallen in line behind the president or are biting their tongues.

Meanwhile, it needs to be said that although Obama embraces aspects of so-called liberal internationalism, he doesn’t particularly care about foreign policy. Sure, he may ponder it from time to time, but the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize lottery a mere nine months after being inaugurated doesn’t care much about things that distract from his transformative socialist agenda. His Alinskyite discipline allows him to choose his battles with exceptional care.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter. Vadum’s book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, will be published in mid-2011.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick_Mac

    The hard left, as mind-boggling ignorant as they are, at least remain true to there convictions as they castigate Obama as a traitor. The soft left, much more palatable for polite company, are utter hypocrites, excusing in Obama the same thing for which they excoriated Bush.

    Reminds me of the difference between a Muslim extremist and a so-called moderate. I have more respect for the former…at least they are being honest. The latter are either self-deluded hypocrites…or more likely, are practitioners of taqqiya.

    • StephenD

      I would agree with you Chez except I don't think the hard left were attempting to be "true to their convictions…." of appearing to be against war per se but rather they are opportunists that seek any and at all times to find fault with America. I would point out Chomsky's comment "The U.S. is “hated in the region for very good reasons.”"
      It appears to me this is sufficient reason for them to castigate Obama. In reality, it is merely a chance to blast the USA.

      • Chezwick_Mac

        Well Steve, it certainly goes without saying that hatred of America is the epicenter of the Leftist world-view. My point is that their position on Libya is perfectly consonant with that over-all view. It's the soft left that is wallowing in hypocrisy, supporting Obama for the exact reason they despised Bush.

  • punditwannabe

    Remember when the left's mantra was that we shouldn't send our troops into harms way to fight someone else's civil war (VIETNAM ring any bells?). They have criticized that action forever. Now, of course they're fine with it?? Drives me crazy, the hypocrisy.

  • http://newmediaage.shugartmedia.com/NewMediaWorld/ Tar_n_Feathers

    Obama sure has taken on a tough role. He has to play Commander in Chief during a real military conflict and not make it look like George Bush. Not even his teleprompter can help him now.

  • Fray222

    Of course the left and the right are both getting schizophrenic about the war in Libya, because they have both been harbouring incoherent policies for decades. Small government can't launch trillion dollar wars, and giant welfare states will never be able to mind their own business, either at home or abroad. Ever 8 years the parties take turns pretending to be anti-inteventionist libertarians, then transform back into big government neo-cons the second they get back into power. This has been going on for the last 100 years and is more predictable then the tides. There are only two real ideologies in the U.S., libertarianism and neo-conservatism, its time for everyone to pick sides.

  • ben

    According to Obama, attacking Libya is justified since it had international backing. It's kind of like saying a bully is justified in tormenting his victim if he can get the entire class to join him in tormenting his victim. Or, if most of the world is evil, then evil is what is right.

    What a twisted opprobrius man. I guess he doen't believe in god or any higher laws. He can't believe in our Constitution which speaks of unalienable rights, because in his view those rights can be annuled by the majority. Yet, he supports affirmative action and bogus civil rights claims by "minorities." So he's not a steadfast believer in tyranny by the majority…he switches back to upholding rights of the minority when it suits him. He's a reprehensible coward and bully, and a damned hypocrite to boot.