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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (419733)	4/3/2011 6:17:44 PM
From: steve harris	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

Clinton and Obama both said Qdaffy must go about March 13. About March 20 the Arab League said the bombing was going too far... Even though the Arab League recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government March 12. washingtonpost.com The Arab League called on the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to immediately impose a no-fly zone over Libya and announced that it was recognizing the rebel movement as that country’s legitimate government. So my deduction is that everyone was for Qdaffy to go, now that the Arab league changed it's mind, Obama changed his. This is what gave us Clinton and Obama contradicting each other is later conversations with the press. Obama's latest is that Kdaffy doesn't have to go... politico.com Kate: My assumption is that in spite of what statements are being made, getting Gaddafi out is an objective. You've reminded me of the question I ask Obama supporters from time to time, how do you know when Obama is lying or when he is telling the truth? Obama remains a community agitator. He stirs up a situation, backs away, then throws all in once he discerns what the winning position will be. I believe he is that simple, and that evil. Does the end justify the means? Seems so with today's politicians... How can you tell what America's policy on Libya is TODAY Kate?