Obama is Michael Corleone

FWIW, Bill Maher used this exact line last night -- calling Obama Michael Corleone.

 

Obama deserves credit for Bin Laden. Anything else is a colossal reach.

 

Forget it. He's rolling.

 

Can't do it Sally.

 

Not that colossal a reach. The US provided some assistance that facilated the rebels winning. I don't know if the rebels would have won or not without the assistance. That's speculative, but the assistance certainly helped.

But I remember when there was a thread on this board where posters were angry at Obama for dragging us into another war. On the other hand Obama was also accused of leading from behind because of the limited nature of the intervention.

So, no war and Gadaffi gone. Well played, I think.

 

I think it's not as much of a reach as you might think, Mizzou.
The U.S. brass and powers-that-be supported all of the killings that've been mentioned here.

 

According to some board conservatives, wasn't Libya this administration's "third war" or "fourth war" or something? They seemed eager to assign responsibility a few months ago.

 

Yeah, I can understand your confusion ... Hussein was only hanged two years before Obama took office, thereby rendering one-third of your original posting lame and brainless. And I haven't seen, in the most starry-eyed Obama musings, anyone else who claimed he got Hussein. Legends happen when something is widely-accepted.

 

I don't think Seal Team Six was anywhere near that drain pipe where they found Muammar.

 

Yes, we clearly engaged in a "third war". And, we did it without Congressional approval.

A couple of points for the folks looking to celebrate this as some genius way of conducting a war:

There was an opposition to aid in Libya. You can't compare it to other countries, like Iraq or even Syria or Iran. You can only pursue this strategy when the opportunity allows.

And, in fact, it's much the strategy GWB employed in Afghanistan, where a small number of CIA and special forces troops helped the Northern Alliance topple the Taliban in a speedier fashion than the Libyan NTC toppled Gaddafi. (And, that strategy was criticized by many hailing our Libya strategy.)

Also, by not fully engaging with the NTC, we exerted very little influence over them.

We began our operations in Libya to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. We achieved that, but then we didn't stop our "allies" from committing their own atrocities.

Sub-Saharan Africans were murdered as suspected mercenaries with no evidence. Sirte/Surt was besieged in a way that we feared for Benghazi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/world/africa/battle-for-surt-threatens-libyas-healing-process.html?pagewanted=all

And, of course, Gaddafi -- murderous thug that he was -- was executed without a trial.

We gave the NTC free reign to become the very thing we said we were there to stop.

And now we are celebrating that we will have no role in the helping to form a post-Gaddafi government in Libya.

Having seen how the NTC has operated, I think our celebrations may be premature.

 

A couple more things...that first rule of journalism existed in the 1880s and now exists only at TMZ and other tabs. I hope you're really not practicing that kind of journalism where you work.

And, if Old Tony, Carltonbanks, Yankee fan or myself had made that blatant a fact error in trying to trumpet some accomplishment of George Bush, you and the rest of the libs would be dog-piling on like you just won the World Series.

 

A Republican giving advice on premature celebrations? That's a bit rich.