Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (47279)	3/27/2011 11:51:54 PM
From: John	2 Recommendations Respond to of 103300

If only the globe-trotting slut would have died of an STD before conceiving of the illegal alien African Muslim terrorizer. -ng-

To: Wayners who wrote (47279)	3/28/2011 5:53:36 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

ODUMBO MUST ANSWER FOUR QUESTIONS TONIGHT... A WAR BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A WAR Tonight, in a speech that should have been delivered before American planes began flying missions over North Africa, odumbo will try to explain to a puzzled nation why we are now at war with Libya. Not that the word “war” will ever pass odumbo's lips, advertising tonight’s address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya.” What a coward. But by any other name or euphemism, the United States has gone to war again, and there are questions that odumbo must answer. Here are the four biggest ones: 1) What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations resolution we’re enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect civilian populations “under threat of attack” from Qaddafi’s forces. But we’re interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the way for a rebel counteroffensive, whose success is contingent on our continued air support. 2) Who exactly are these rebels? Given that we’re dropping bombs on their behalf, it would be nice if they didn’t turn out to be led by Islamist extremists. 3) Can we really hand off this mission? odumbo has said our involvement will be measured in “days, not weeks.” With one week down already, is this really plausible? But more importantly, how responsible is it to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest, as a senior administration official did last week, that “how it turns out is not on our shoulders?” Did I hear this correctly? odumbo is committing American forces and then doesn't care how it turns out? 4) Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While we’ve been making war on Qaddafi’s tin-pot regime, our enemies in Syria have been shooting protesters, our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents, Yemen’s government is teetering, there’s been an upsurge of violence in Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the Egyptian military. Oh, and we’re still occupying Iraq and fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran. Defending the intervention on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Robert Gates let slip that he believes that Libya is not a “vital interest” of the United States. odumbo's most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his secretary of defense is wrong — and why, appearances to the contrary, the potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks. nytimes.com GZ