The Insane Megalomaniac in Libya, and the Fool in the White House

For those of you who are checking back for new material, it is here. My articles are a work in progress. OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!! President Obama has just announced it. Before Obama announced it to us, he called former president George W. Bush to inform him of the news. That was very considerate of Obama, since it was Bush’s search orders that Obama benefited from. Here is the quick story Obama told us. Obama was briefed about a lead on Osama’s location last August, and he approved the pursuit of that lead. Last week, Obama approved a ground operation to attack on Osama’s location in Pakistan. That operation was a success. The CIA-led secret military team of Navy Seals killed Osama, along with his 24-year old son, and two women. One of the women was used as a human shield to protect Osama. The woman was killed and Osama was shot in the head. The Seals took his body. Within 24 hours, his body was buried at sea, to prevent his burial site from becoming a Muslim shrine.  So now, our intelligence and military forces have succeeded in killing the most notorious and dangerous terrorist in the world. Obama deserves little of the credit, though he and his supporters will try to claim it all. But as Obama rightly said, “JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE.” This makes me very happy, but it puzzles me even more about why Obama would not authorize the targeting and killing of Ka-daffy. Right when we are successful in killing Osama Bin Laden, President Obama has blown a chance of killing the next king of terrorists, Ka-daffy, who could finance and orchestrate a terrorist operation that would make 9/11 look like child’s play.

Here is a photo of Ka-daffy’s youngest son, who was reportedly killed in another NATO airstrike on Ka-daffy’s compound in Tripoli. But Ka-daffy was not hurt. What a shame. If NATO keeps trying, maybe they will kill him soon.

This other photo struck me as very cool. It shows Libyan rebels taking a break. All but one of them are doing their Muslim prayers in a group. The loner is sitting by himself, smoking a cigarette and wearing a cowboy hat!! Maybe there is some hope for these ragtag rebels, if they will allow one of their men to do this while they are praying. It whispers a hint of freedom of religion.

Just today (Monday April 25), there were reports of heavy gunfire in Tripoli, and reports of a NATO airstrike on underground bunkers in Ka-Daffy’s headquarters complex in Tripoli. On the surface, a library and residential buildings were destroyed. About 45 people were killed or injured. Ka-daffy’s government is accusing NATO of an assassination attempt. Of course NATO will deny it. But it is my hope that the Brits and the French are trying to do what Obama would not do: just kill the damn dictator when we have the chance to do so. There is also new material in the article below. You will have to read it all to find the new material. My apologies to those with limited time or short attention spans. The newest material is highlighted in bold, to help those in a hurry:

The leader of Libya needs to be killed, for the good of his own people and the good of the world, and we have a golden opportunity to kill him. But the leader of America refuses to kill him, or even to make him a legitimate military target, as he certainly is. If we are willing to kill the hapless soldiers of the Libyan Army with our smart bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles, then we should be targeting their supreme military commander, who is the primary reason for the trouble in Libya. But Obama the pacifist fool will not do it, and he will not even explain why not. I will explain for him why not, and why he is wrong, at the end of this article.

You may ask: why should we care what happens in Libya? Why should we help them? You are not alone. The standard liberal / pacifist argument of the last century is: why should we do anything in Germany / Japan / Korea / Cuba / Vietnam / Nicaragua / Panama / Kuwait /  Iraq / Afghanistan / Iran / Egypt / Libya, when there are equally horrific crimes occurring in many other countries at all times? This argument could be summarized as a moral argument thusly:  if we intervene in one tyrannical country, then we must intervene in all of them (which is, of course, impossible). If we cannot intervene in all tyrannical countries, then we should not intervene in any of them, or we are guilty of being morally inconsistent and hypocritical. It could also be summarized: If we cannot save the entire world from evil, then we should let it all go to hell. This is the persistent liberal argument that condemned George W. Bush, subjected Bush to an incredible level of visceral hatred, and is now being used by the same extreme liberals to condemn Obama (although they will still vote for him in 2012… this is just a little love-spat between friends).

This liberal / pacifist argument is  IMMORAL AND INSANE in itself.  Do not let people get away with this idiotic argument. It is rooted in selfishness and apathy. It is like saying: If we cannot save all the victims of a fire in a building, then we should not save any of them. It is like saying: If we cannot cure every person in the world who has cancer, then we should not try to cure any of them. It is like saying: If we cannot catch every criminal in the world, then we should not have any police. It is like saying: if we cannot stop every evil person in the world, then we should give up trying to stop any of them.  Even the extreme pacifist Obama has partially learned the immorality and insanity of this liberal / pacifist argument. It is fascinating to watch a dedicated pacifist president being forced by reality to do things against his irrational philosophy, and then try to justify it. In his speech about Libya, he said:  “It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for NEVER acting on behalf of what’s right.” Hooray.  So Obama had a pang of guilt… to try to stop a madman’s slaughter,  he went against his pacifist friends and his own past words, and used the deadly forces of goodness against the deadly forces of evil. Good for Obama. But he will not take the next step and stop the main source of the evil. He will kill the lackeys, but he will not kill the leader. He will kill the peons, but he will not kill the patrone. He will kill the slaves, but he will not kill their master. He will kill the privates, but he will not kill the general. He will kill the pawns, but he will not kill the king. No one can win a game of chess with this stupid strategy, and you can’t win any real fight with it, either.

We have a pathetic idealistic community organizer for a president, who is great at giving speeches, but who has no clue about how to use deadly force to win a war, or even to stop a slaughter. After Obama’s great military fling, Gaddafi’s slaughter of his people  is not stopped, it is just slowed down and not reported as much.

John Bolton, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, agrees that Gaddafi should be killed now, as reported in this article: So, it is not just me…..

For the past 42 years, Libya has been terrorized by an evil madman with an iron fist and a flair for really bad clothes. Lately, during the rebellion against him, he has been obsessed with the plain bedsheet / robe thing, and a plain bellhop cap. In the past, he has made hateful, idiotic speeches at the UN with weird but ornate “desert lord” costumes and heavy makeup (see pic to left). He fancies himself a new prophet of Islam, and he has written his own book of religious philosophy, which he calls “The Green Book.”  I have seen several spellings of his name: Gaddafi, Gadhafi, Ghadaffi,  Khadaffi, Khadaffy. All of them share the phonetic word “daffy” and that is perfect for this maniac. He is a comic caricature of a Muslim tyrant, and an embarrassment to the rest of Islam. But we cannot laugh, because he is a murdering, power-obsessed maniac who has stifled and terrorized his people for 42 years, started several local wars, and supported terrorism all over the world. He has been able to survive as a tyrant because of two things: money and murder. He has tons of money from Libya’s oil, and he murders anyone who opposes him, or just disagrees with him. Here is a good article about him by David Brooks, the distinguished columnist with The New York Times:

“There’s something I’ve always wondered about Moammar Gadhafi: How does a guy who seems to be only marginally attached to reality manage to stay in power for 42 years? He gives rambling incoherent speeches at places like the United Nations. His head is stuffed with oddball conspiracy theories and strange obsessions, like calling for the elimination of Switzerland or blaming the JFK assassination on Israeli intelligence. He shows up in foreign countries in odd dress, with odd make-up and hair-gel preferences, once having pinned a photograph to his chest (see pic to left). He has an all-female bodyguard contingent (see pic below).  In 2008, he announced that as part of a government shake-up, he was going to abolish all government ministries except Defense, Internal Security and a few others.

These are not the actions of a cold, calculating Machiavellian. Yet Gadhafi can’t just be dismissed as a comic loon. He’s maintained dominance in a ruthless part of the world, and he may outlast the current shambolic attempts to unseat him.

It seems that there is something advantageous in the megalomania that is his defining lifelong trait. He was kicked out of school for trying to organize a student strike. He began plotting a coup to take over the country while in college. He has repeatedly compared himself to Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad. He calls the Green Book, his book of teachings, “the new gospel.” That book, which Libyans are compelled to read (he canceled student summer vacation at one point and replaced it with indoctrination sessions), is filled with oddball notions and banal assertions. It consists of three parts, “The Solution to Democratic Problems,” “The Solution to Economic Problems” and a section offering solutions to social problems.

Gadhafi apparently wrote the book with the conviction that he had discovered the answers to all human problems, which he calls the Third Universal Theory. In a characteristically absolutist passage, he writes, “True Democracy has but one method and one theory.”

Along the way he offers banal observations as if nobody had ever thought of them before. He reveals that women menstruate and men do not. He unveils doctrines that have nothing to do with how he actually behaves: “Mandatory education is a coercive education that suppresses freedom. To impose specific teaching materials is a dictatorial act.” Talk about hypocrisy. He seems to be one of those people who believes he possesses absolute truth, who wants to impose his thoughts on everybody else and exercise total dominance over others like some World Historical superman.

That’s how he has run his country. According to the Freedom of the Press Index, it is the most censored country in the Middle East and North Africa, which is saying something. Experts estimate that as much as 10 percent or 20 percent of the population is made up of state security informants. To eliminate outside influence, Gadhafi at one point removed foreign languages from schools and removed the Latin lettering street signs. Early on, he expelled the Italian community, forcing its members to exhume the bodies of Italians from Libyan graveyards to take home. He broadcast the exhumation live on state TV. Street posters say things like: “Obey Those in Authority.”

Over the decades, he has tried to remake the world in his own grandiose image. He tried to create a larger empire by merging Libya and Sudan. He tried to create a Federation of Arab Republics with Egypt and Syria. He tried to create an Arab Legion. He has named himself King of Kings, Imam of All Muslims and, in 2009, sought to create a United States of Africa. He has created dictatorship academies and has trained some of the world’s most brutal autocrats, and, of course, he has supported terrorist movements in Australia, Ireland, Germany and beyond.

Yet this very megalomania seems to be both the secret to his longevity and to his unhinged nature. The paradoxical fact is that if you want to stay in office as a dictator, it is better to be a narcissistic totalitarian than a run-of-the-mill autocrat. Megalomianiacs like Gadhafi seek to control every neuron in their peoples’ heads and to control every aspect of life. They destroy all outside authority and civil society. They personalize every institution so that things like the army exist to serve their holy selves, rather than the nation at large. They are untroubled by doubt or concern for the good opinion of others since they already possess absolute truth. They are motivated to fulfill their World Historical Mission and have no interest in retiring peacefully to some villa.

Jeane Kirkpatrick was right years ago to make the distinction between authoritarian dictatorships and totalitarian ones. The totalitarian ones are both sicker and harder to dislodge. Gadhafi’s unhinged narcissistic oddness seems to be the key to his longevity. So remember: If you’re going to be a tyrant, be a wacko. It’s safer.”  — end of David Brooks article.

Dictatorship academies?? The idea of Ka-daffy’s “dictatorship academies” intrigued me, so I did some research. According to Wikipedia:

Gaddafi’s World Revolutionary Center (WRC) near Benghazi became a training center for groups backed by Gaddafi.[65] Graduates in power as of 2011 included Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso and Idriss Déby of Chad.[66]Gaddafi trained and supported Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, who was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone.[67] Foday Sankoh, the founder of Revolutionary United Front, was also Gaddafi’s graduate. According to Douglas Farah, “The amputation of the arms and legs of men, women, and children as part of a scorched-earth campaign was designed to take over the region’s rich diamond fields and was backed by Gaddafi, who routinely reviewed their progress and supplied weapons”.[66] Gaddafi aided Jean-Bédel Bokassa, the Emperor of the Central African Empire.[68][69]After the International Criminal Court (ICC) filed international arrest warrant for Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir in connection to the Darfur genocide, Gaddafi complained that the ICC represented a “new form of world terrorism” that wanted to recolonise developing countries.[70]Gaddafi supported the Soviet protege in Ethiopia Mengistu Haile Mariam,[69] who was later convicted of one of the deadliest genocides in modern history.[citation needed]Gaddafi intervened militarily in the Central African Republic in 2001 to protect his ally Ange-Félix Patassé. Patassé signed a deal giving Libya a 99-year lease to exploit all of that country’s natural resources, including uranium, copper, diamonds, and oil.[65]

So, the craziest dictator in the world has a dictator academy, to spawn evil clones of himself, who he releases into the world to take over countries and let Ka-daffy rob them. Is this dictator academy still in operation? Is it on the target list of our half-baked military campaign? I do not know. Average citizens such as you and I do not know the many assorted crimes of Ka-daffy for the last 42 years, and we should not have to know them. I should not need to be reporting them here. But our government should know them, Obama should have been briefed on them, and our career intelligence professionals  should have had a plan in place to take advantage of just such an opportunity as we have now, in one Middle Eastern country after another, but especially in Libya. Ka-daffy should already be dead, and we should be sizing up his successor for a possible quick dispatch, as well.

There is an old Islamic saying:  “One hour in the execution of justice is worth seventy years of prayer.” Libya sorely needs that hour of justice, to answer the 42 years of prayer by Ka-daffy’s millions of victims.

But Obama was not prepared, as a person much less President, for this rare historic Middle Eastern upheaval, this incredible string of opportunities. Revolutions are happening one after the other, and this is the time for America and the other Western countries to assist and guide the revolutions in the direction of freedom. We would not have won our own American Revolution without the military and monetary assistance of France. But we are cursed with a President who thinks America is “imperialist”, and all he can manage is limited military action to attempt to stop a slaughter in Libya. I give him a half-salute for that, but it is nothing more than a band-aid on a gaping wound. He has already passed up the golden opportunities in Iran, Tunisia, and Egypt. He will surely take a pass in Syria, Yemen, and whatever other country boils over next. If these countries slide from political dictatorships into Muslim religious dictatorships, it will be Obama’s fault for letting it happen.

And before the Obama disaster befell us, all of the petty dictators who graduated from Ka-daffy’s dictator academy should have been monitored and neutralized (yes, killed) before or shortly after they took power, when they are probably the most vulnerable. For that matter, all of the brutal dictators in the world should have been killed early in their bloody careers by the intelligence arms of the democracies and freedom-loving Republics of the world. Some of the currently most oppressed countries that come to mind are China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Laos, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan. There are others I could find. Consider this list of Muslim countries which enforce Sharia Law (obtained from

Countries using strict forms of Muslim Sharia Law include:

Death for Blasphemy (for those who did not graduate from high school, “blasphemy” is saying anything against the established religion):
1. Afghanistan
2. Bahrain
3. Iran
4. Mauritania
5. Oman
6. Pakistan
7. Yemen
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Gaza

Imprisonment for Blasphemy:
1. Algeria
2. Bangladesh
3. Egypt
4. Iraq
5. Kuwait
6. Libya
7. Malaysia
8. Maldives
9. Morocco
10. Somalia
11. Tunisia
12. United Arab Emirates

Nations that include some level of Sharia (leniant sentences for honor killings, ban on new churches, floggings, etc):
1. Indonesia (Flogging, Caning; Sharia applied strictly in Aceh province)
2. Turkey (Restrictions on alcohol)
3. Brunei (Caning, Alcohol is illegal)
4. Jordan (2 years or less for honor killings)
5. Eritrea (Girls as young as 8 can be married, spousal rape is not recognized)
6. Syria (1 year or less for honor killings)
7. Djibouti (Sharia law regarding divorce)
8. Chechnya (Modest dress enforced, Alcohol and gambling suppressed by local authorities)
9. Niger (girls can be married off before they reach puberty)
10. Nigeria (Sharia is enforced in the northern states)
11. Kenya (Ad Hoc Sharia enforced in the east near the border with Somalia)
12. Gambia (Sharia courts decide all family matters, including for non-Muslims)
13. Qatar (public consumption is illegal during Ramadan, Alcohol heavily restricted, blood money acceptable punishment for murder, “kafala” law

Their list and my list total about 50 countries. This might be the most complete list of nations whose leaders are committing the greatest crimes against their people, outside of the offices of Amnesty International, which reports on human rights abuses in 159 countries: Ka-Daffy is just one of many tyrants, but they probably number less than a hundred people. Let us assume the number is a hundred. And now, the bonus question of the day: what should we do about these hundred dictators?

The popular answer, and Obama’s preferred answer, is– nothing. The reasons are– we are not the world’s policeman, they are not attacking us, it is none of our business, it is too difficult and expensive to intervene, all killing is wrong.  Ted Koppel, the aging journalist who now works for BBC, asked the sarcastic question: “Why did Libya win the Humanitarian Defense Sweepstakes of 2011?” Very funny. Obama had much the same general opinion before he was President. Now that Obama is in the hot seat, he has changed his tune, but only a little bit. This was also the popular answer shortly before World War II. This is known as isolationism, and it is not a new idea. In 1935, as Hitler became a deadly threat in Europe, 50,000 veterans of World War 1 demonstrated for “peace” in Washington, D.C. and 175,000 college students held an antiwar strike. Incredibly, in 1941 before Pearl Harbor, when Hitler’s blitzkrieg war was raging in Europe, Gallup polls showed that 70 percent of Americans regretted our involvement in World War I (even though American involvement had won the war).

The proper answer, taking both justice and practicality into mind, is simply to kill the hundred dictators. Who is to do the killing of a dictator? They do not seem to fall over dead from a guilty conscience or by the hand of God (Ka-daffy thinks that he is the hand of God). The proper answer is, the dictator should be killed by his closest surviving victims who have the best reasons and the best opportunity to kill him. But that doesn’t seem to be happening very often, either. That is understandable, because it would probably be a suicide mission. So then we are left to watch the torture, the terrorism, the summary executions, the genocides, the brutal prisons, the stifling oppression that slowly crushes the life out of billions of people.  Can you imagine the far-reaching misery and destruction of human potential that these hundred evil people are causing on our planet? Of course they have a lot of help, since they are magnets for human scum, but the leaders of these nations are, collectively, the greatest force for evil oppression in the world. They are the worst lying, murdering, power-hungry psychopaths on this planet. A hundred evil people are ruining the lives of perhaps three billion people. So by the weight of numbers alone, overpowering all other arguments, they should be killed. Their sudden removal or death, by whatever means, would be the greatest boost to human progress in history. It is the only humane thing to do, like killing a dog infected with rabies, before it kills or infects others. Cut off the head of the hydra, and see if it grows back. If their successors continued with murder and oppression, then they should be killed, too. The nations of the Judeo-Greco-Christian West are probably capable of doing this, from a logistical / technological standpoint, but alas, bad philosophy gets in the way of doing what is right.

You see, killing psychopathic murdering tyrants is a big no-no, ever since the hapless President Ford was forced by a liberal Democrat-controlled Congress to sign Executive Order 11905, which prohibited assassination of anyone by our government . Our intelligence agencies were then deprived of their greatest capability. President Carter reinforced this liberal/pacifist stupidity with Executive Order 12036. Incredibly, President Reagan reinforced it again with Executive Order 12333. Shame on him. Reagan should have known better, but I do not have the time to research how or why this happened.

Some of the reason had to be the global creep toward liberal / pacifist philosophy, which is championed by the United Nations and the assorted international tribunals and World Courts. These pompous judges and diplomats from various nations are united in their superior, glowing  liberal/pacifist ideals. All violence is wrong, all killing is evil, all weapons are inherently bad and should be banned. Here is a famous sculpture that stands outside the UN building in New York:

In all areas of life, the pacifists, led by the U.N. in the international arena,  are trying to disarm all people all over the world— a foolish, idealistic goal that can never be achieved, and will only disarm the good people, so that they can be slaughtered by the bad people. And it never occurs to the liberal / pacifist fools that the bad guys will agree with them, right up until the moment that the bad guys gain enough power to kill them. God forbid that murderers could be good liars. Comrade Lenin once said “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” As for Muslims, they are permitted to lie to their “enemies”, which is all of us infidels. It is called the doctrine of “taqiyya”:  Check out that web post, it can open sleeping eyes.

The UN Human Rights Council includes the following member nations: Libya, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba. This not just the fox guarding the henhouse, it is more like the fox beating and raping the henhouse, and eating a hen every night.

As the bumper sticker says: “If  guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.” President Obama is trying to do the same thing with nuclear weapons (ban them and eliminate them), and the exact same principle applies. Destroying our nuclear weapons would clear the way for our enemies to use theirs on us. We should be constantly improving the power and accuracy of our nuclear weapons, NOT trying to destroy them.

How would the world react if this was a statue of a man with his mouth sewed shut so he could not talk? Or a statue of a woman with her hands tied up so she could not write or type or blog? These are all equal rights: the right of free speech with our voice, the right of free press with our written words and computers, and the right of defending all our other rights with guns. Nothing else will do when criminals and tyrants attack us. They will use every weapon, preferably guns, and so must we. Guns are the great equalizer, that enable a 100-pound woman to defend herself against a 200-pound rapist/murderer. If you support equal rights for all, then you must support individual gun ownership. But I am getting off the subject.

The pacifist’s idealistic fantasy of a world with no guns and no nuclear weapons will never happen. Likewise, my idealistic fantasy of killing every tyrant in the world will never happen (although it is marginally possible). But when the golden opportunity to kill a tyrant FALLS IN OUR LAP, we are morally obligated to take that opportunity, for the sake of all humanity. This particular tyrant, Moammar Ka-Daffy, deserves death a thousand time over. He terrorizes his own country of six million people daily, and he has killed Americans. President Reagan called him “the mad dog of the Middle East”, launched air strikes on Libya in 1986, and almost got him. This is our chance to finish the job.  This may be a God-given opportunity, to provide our own human justice on behalf of His divine justice. But it is incredibly bad timing, because we have the wrong President for this.

As  I said above, Obama’s participation in the no-fly zone is like a band-aid on the gaping wound that has opened up in the Middle East. But I am glad he has done that much.  In the first article of my blog, “The Dark Man in the White House”,,  I did not think he would commit any military force in a new country:

“He has condemned America as an “imperialist” country that meddles in other countries’ affairs, so he will not consider any action that could be interpreted as meddling, other than his half-hearted attempts to win the war in Afghanistan. He will issue stern statements, but he will not effectively counter the forceful actions of any countries except America, European countries, and Israel.”

I was wrong, and I am glad that Obama has proven me wrong. Perhaps he is growing and learning a bit. In his Libya speech on Monday, March 28, 2011, he justified limited military action in an outstanding manner, sounding like a war hawk. And Obama answered his critics  such as Ted Koppel above, who point out all the other countries whose dictators are brutal. Obama said:

“It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Obama justified military action better than I could have!! Let me paraphrase his message: “we cannot take on all the dictators of the world, but we must oppose a single dictator when we have the opportunity and capability to stop a slaughter.” I think this is just a baby-step in the right direction, but at least it is in the right direction.  I think it was a forced speech, written by others, and not from his pacifist, anti-imperial heart, but the words were right on. Too bad he did not feel this way back in 2009, during the failed bloody revolution in Iran. We had opportunity and some capability there too, but Obama initially would not even criticize that slaughter.

At least Obama has come to his senses and taken appropriate limited military action. But he will not take the next needed step and kill Ka-daffy. He could easily target Ka-daffy as an illegitimate leader and a  legitimate military target, but he will not do it. Here is what he told us in the same Libya speech on Monday:

“Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government. Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.” He went on to cite the lengthy difficulties we have had in trying to accomplish nation-building  in Iraq. But the comparison of the situation in Iraq to the situation in Libya is totally invalid.

I am surprised that Obama did not cite the three executive orders prohibiting assassination by Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan (mentioned above), but that would be a weak argument anyway, for Obama could have done a new executive order permitting it. There is no way that he would take that extreme step and have it haunt his pacifist soul forever.

Or, he could have argued the vague “loophole” in Reagan’s executive order that allows the killing of “legitimate military targets” in time of war. But he did not seek the approval of Congress for this little war in Libya, which already has him being accused as a hypocrite, as he certainly is. In 2007, Senator Obama righteously proclaimed:  “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Senator Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007. President Obama just did what Senator Obama said he did not have the power to do.

But Obama’s flaming hypocrisy has its limits.  If he tries to argue the legitimacy of killing Ka-daffy, becoming entangled in the issue of executive orders, then his fellow pacifists in his own political party will declare war on him.  So he just ignores the entire issue of executive orders.

Instead, he makes the killing of Ka-daffy sound like Mission Impossible, equating it with “regime change”, likening it to the entanglement of Iraq. This is just a smokescreen. Our prolonged war in Iraq is nothing like the limited military action in Libya. We do not need to pursue “regime change”, we just need to kill the damn dictator!….. who is  the legitimate military commander of the hostile forces we are trying to stop, and thus an important military target. Let the Libyan people work out their own “regime change” after that, with the maniac Ka-daffy out of the equation. One rebel leader has said that Ka-daffy will not leave until his blood is spilled. The rebels cannot do that, but we can. Put Ka-daffy’s name on a few Tomahawk cruise missiles, monitor his every move, and hit him when he is exposed, even for just a few minutes.

Do it now, Mr. President, or forever regret not doing it. Every day you let him live, he is commanding the murder of more people, and plotting his revenge on us. You have had the power to stop him for 3 or 4 weeks now. Let that haunt your pacifist soul forever. And that is not all…..

President Clinton had at least one chance to kill Osama Bin Laden, when that monster was in our sights and was let go. Clinton should have been impeached for that and other betrayals, instead of being impeached for lying about sex. Bin Laden went on to give us 9/11/2001.

Ka-daffy has a lot more money and power and terrorist connections than Bin Laden. We have deprived Ka-daffy of his own personal country to abuse. What will Ka-daffy give us if Obama lets him go now? It could make 9/11 look like small change.


About goldenmeantx
Truth seeker, fact finder, amateur philosopher, amateur historian, ex-soldier, ex-motorcycle racer, world traveler, rancher, hunter, gun owner, dirt bike rider, mountain bicycle rider, husband, father, grandfather, hard worker, good friend to all who put up with me, and even some who don't.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: