It's detailed in my sidebar column daily. Obama's minions said that the current military effort in Libya would "recede" a "few days" after March 22, 2011. Almost 80 days later, there is still no end in sight. Matter of fact, Ghadafi's forces and so-called "rebels" have been bogged down in a stalemate for weeks in the eastern part of Libya. This thing could on for years, much like our involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq.One of the few things less popular in the United States right now than Obama himself and the stale, uninspiring group of potential GOP presidential candidates is the Libyan war effort. A new Rasmussen poll today reports that just 26% of likely U.S. voters favor continued military action in Libya. But that comes as no big surprise, since Obama has consistently given us two-and-a-half long years of governing against the will of the American people.
The war in Libya has also been costly in terms of the dollars spent -- dollars that our $14.3 trillion national debt says we do not have to be throwing away. A report from recent days in the Financial Times says that the U.S., at a minimum, is spending $2 million a day on Libyan airstrikes. That adds up to a minimum cost of $60 million a month, even though Obama's defense department apparently lied to us last month by saying the war effort was costing only about $40 million/month.
Even the apparent liars at the defense department admitted last month that the total tab for Libya is now approaching $1 billion (translation: it's actually much, much higher).
And for what? To pursue a George W. Bush-style Neocon dream that it's America's role to go around getting involved in foreign wars in order to try to spread American-style democracy to the world's various peoples. How has that worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan, BTW? Hardly with flying colors. And how many American boys are dead (and still dying) as a result?
Not to mention, Obama, the complete disingenuous hypocrite that he is, ran against the Neo-con notions of W. Bush in 2008, only to fully embrace them when in office. In addition to the war in Libya, Obama hasn't gotten us out of Iraq and he's ratcheted up troop levels and spending in Afghanistan far beyond the modest increase that he campaigned on in 2008.
And just look at Obama -- the self-described personal and mighty slayer of Osama Bin Laden (what a laugh) -- getting his lunch handed to him over the weekend by slimeball dictator Ghadafi, who actually had the gall to invite the president of the international chess federation (Kirsan Ilyumzhinov) to Libya for a photo op and relaxing game of chess. Yep, sure looks like that Libyan dirtbag is real scared of "regime change" occurring anytime soon.
Meantime, despite the immense unpopularity of the Libyan military effort throughout U.S., the silence is almost deafening when it comes to the sleazebucket partisans on the left and right.
The leftist 20 percenters -- who would be out on the streets in droves every weekend protesting Libya if a republic partisan was in office -- have either run for the hills or have actually joined in rounds of applause for Obama's Libyan initiative.
The republic partisans, meanwhile, say very little as well because, truth be told, they love this kind of shit. If one of their own was in office, most of them would want that president to have us involved in Libya. Therefore, they largely keep their mouths shut too out of necessity and ideology.
Maybe next weekend, Ghadafi, Obama and John Boehner can declare a Saturday ceasefire and the three of them can get in a refreshing round of golf in the northern sands of Libya. I bet even Obama hasn't played that course yet.
Posts
