Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's be honest. If this had happened under Bush few liberals would be cheering it. At the same time Republicans and conservatives would be applauding it and calling Bush a hero. It cuts both ways. The hypocrisy exists on both sides.
Al Zarqawi was killed in an air strike in 2006. Unless Obama was secretly commanding an Airforce task force from a hidden bunker under the Illinois state capitol building, he had nothing to do with it.
I'm not a huge fan of Obama at the moment, but I will say this--when he has the chance to get things done without dealing with the gridlock in Congress, it happens. That takes a chunk away from the "weak leader" argument.
You mean his "my way or the highway, I don't have to compromise" approach? That "gridlock" is what separates us from a dictatorship.
I 100% support taking out Quaddaffi. But I 100% denounce the hypocrisy of the Obama-lovers who shrieked for years about Bush and his cowboy leadership. He wasn't called a strong leader - he was called a warmonger, killer, and criminal. But Obama's a strong leader....interesting.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,349 posts, read 54,490,349 times
Reputation: 40799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinny Puppy
Let's be honest. If this had happened under Bush few liberals would be cheering it. At the same time Republicans and conservatives would be applauding it and calling Bush a hero. It cuts both ways. The hypocrisy exists on both sides.
Let's be really honest. Qaddafi should've been taken out just as soon as we learned of the Libyan government's involvement with the PanAm bombing. I don't recall just who was in the White House at that time but it was certainly the time to deal with the little SOB.
Obama committed 70% of NATO forces in Libya to oust Gaddafi. It might have been led by France and England, but America provided the muscle, like a TRUE INTERNATIONAL COALITION is supposed to look like. Republicans should be taking notes.
Not since FDR/Truman have we had a president with such great success in foreign policy during wartime. And Obama getting Bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi, and now Gaddafi prove how much of a failure Bush truly was.
You know you are speaking of policies that is a continuation from the Bush admin - at least with bin Laden & Al-Zarqawi. Does Bush get any love for starting the plan?
And I don't understand the foreign policy victory regarding Qaddafi. How does that benefit us? We spent a bunch of money killing a leader who was no threat to us. Who really won here?
You know you are speaking of policies that is a continuation from the Bush admin - at least with bin Laden & Al-Zarqawi. Does Bush get any love for starting the plan?
And I don't understand the foreign policy victory regarding Qaddafi. How does that benefit us? We spent a bunch of money killing a leader who was no threat to us. Who really won here?
France?
See, now, that is the difference between France and Greece.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
