We all know the mainstream media won’t bring this up, but if they did, what use would there be for B&R?
President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be actively involved in any military action against Libya for “days, not weeks,” after which he said the U.S. would take more of a supporting role, sources tell ABC News.
— 3/18/11U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.
— 3/27/11
Just making the point, and trying to figure out how Obama will blame this all on Bush.
Seems an appropriate re-post from the prior thread:
Liberal/Progressive “kinetic verbal action”?
“Whatever I said yesterday, means what I say it means today…”
Courtesy of our: Prevaricator-In-Chief, and The Vice-Plagiarist of the United States
I hear that the Brazilian Riviera is nice this time of year.
Apart from la-la land where progressive corruption (PC) is the rule, weakness and equivocation is not respected in the world at large. There will be, and there have been, consequences arising from Obama’s inability (anything else would be a conspiracy) to lead.
Ah, the ties that bind. Many conflicts were initiated over less. I wonder if Libya (or Egypt for that matter) is another Serbia where certain interests are favored irrespective of reality. At least a reality which is commonly perceived.
So, how do we justify a war without a precursor? Solely based on humanitarian concerns, to the exclusion of all others? I think it’s time to re-inflate the market. People are starting to pay attention to semantic games.
Definitions: stooge, anyone who allows another to use him; shill, one who poses as a decoy, customer,or innocent bystander in a confidence game.
Obama is a Lie, a Liar and a Confidence Man. Part of his act is as an illusionist and as a dealer in a three card monty. His antics, his hands, his words and his actions draws us away from what his administration stooges are doing. We are lured in by his shills to believe we can beat him at this monty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_card_monty.
And the Obama fraud continues as “Obama the Illusionist” with one hand draws our attention while his other hand is doing the vile deed. See the picture of ‘The Conjurer” and its caption, “Note that the man in the back row is stealing another man’s purse. He is also applying misdirection by looking up at the sky to misdirect the audience from his actions. The artist has even misdirected us from the thief, because we are drawn to the magician.” at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusionist
Obama’s hand is taking our wallet while we are diverted.
Libya is a diversion which fills the media and our attention after the Japanese Disaster fades. What about the budget deficit or Obama’s stooges at EPA or the FTC? One of Obama’s stooges (unwitting?) is the House Speaker.
Watch Obama other hand. Note he switches our latest concern to immigration legislation, drawing attention away from the Libya diversion.
Would Obama be such a craven cheat and liar? Yes, he’s doing for his father’s dream.
Are you suggesting that it’s what we don’t know that is the most interesting? I agree. The criminals always have the advantage. The competing interests are supposed to, by design, keep them in check. Unless those interests happen to coincide or are eviscerated. Let’s hope that neither case has come to pass.
In the meantime, we observe what is not secret nor hidden, and attempt to infer their intentions.
It’s not what we don’t know; it’s what we are distracted from while following Obama’s illusions. Obama’s intentions are irrelevant, although quite obvious in his monty. It’s not his intentions, but his administration’s actions that we’re not paying adequate attention to. It’s what we don’t actively oppose, because we’re following his hands and his monty cards. We cannot win Obama’s monty. Obama and his shills control that game. We can win, when we don’t follow his cards; when we don’t respond to his words. We play our own cards; Obama has to answer our questions; Obama and his shills must play defense to our offense.
What are his intentions?
We have limited awareness of how he seeks to ingratiate himself with “native” Americans, Hispanics (and Latinos in general), Chinese, Muslims, etc. There is only one way these sessions can proceed and that is with an offer of collateral (either promissory or tangible). From what we have observed, none of these relationships are in the best interests of America and her citizens.
For example, we recently learned that the federal government was engaged in supplying arms to the drug cartels. Meanwhile, they encourage people from Central and South America to abandon their nations. Predictably their presence (especially an unmeasured illegal alien component) in America has lead to the displacement of Americans and the progressive destabilization of our society.
How do we control the conversation without full awareness and with passive or marginalized players? Someone has to lead and they must engage the people, if they hope to have their message upheld and enacted.
There have been some efforts to lead, but, other than the Tea Parties, they have lacked popular support, and predictably so. Most people are still sufficiently well off, and their primary concern is their life and that of their family. Their priority remains to be responsible for their commitments to others, in exchange for a return which enables them. Unlike the union (and other professional) protestors, most people do not have the luxury of spontaneous departure from their normal lives and livelihoods.
There is a long-term solution to curb progressive corruption, but what is the short-term plan to mitigate it? The problems are compounding and punishing people who were not voluntary participants in the corruption will have its own consequences.