"I don't oppose all wars... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
BARACK OBAMA, October 2, 2002
John Hawkins raises some interesting questions about Obama's war in Libya.
Hawkins writes:
It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change" instead. It's funny how that worked out, isn't it? We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush's footsteps.
His seven questions for liberals:
1) Isn't this is a rush to war?
2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him?
3) Is this a war for oil?
4) Where are the massive protests?
5) Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead?
6) Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya?
7) Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk?
Excellent questions.
I assume Obama supporters will have lame answers; but the fact is Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, led the country to another war.
No question about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment