Thread: Losing the legitimacy to govern: Mubarak, Gaddafi, Obama?

If Mubarak and Gaddafi have no legitimacy to govern, why does Obama?

April 18, 2011

Losing the legitimacy to govern

Tony Gallardo
8 Comments

A few weeks ago, we were awash with the Obama administration and his acolytes in the media bleating about the legitimacy to govern, as in "Mubarak/Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to govern," or "He has lost legitimacy with the people." We were then told that these men had to step down or be forced out of power. Lefties lectured us that this loss of legitimacy was justification for bombing the smithereens out of Libya

"He has lost his legitimacy to govern." That's a catchy phrase, don't you think? It has a nice ring to it.

Suppose someone closer to home has lost his legitimacy; I am thinking of you-know-who, the current occupant of the White House. It's true that he hasn't bombed or strafed us or anything, but isn't there another standard we could use to determine this legitimacy thing?

Consider that he has broken not a few, nor even most of his campaign promises, but every single one. Employment and underemployment, health insurance premiums, and gasoline prices are higher, more people are uninsured, the debt and deficits are higher, we are now in three, not two, or zero wars, Guantanamo Bay is open, not closed, we are trying terrorists in military tribunals, not Manhattan, Americans are more, not less divided, there is less, not more transparency in Obamaland, and on and on it goes.

Listening to his speeches...er...teleprompter readings as I did on Wednesday causes my brain to ache. He is for and against everything simultaneously. He says the government should live within its means and proposes more spending, he lauds the Republicans for putting forth a budget which he himself has repeatedly failed to do and then says the Republican plan will cause people to die and 50 million to be without insurance. He wants a strong economy and proposes tax increases.

There is a word that comes to mind with this kind of thinking, if indeed we can call it thinking; loopy.

Even the oceans have dissed him by refusing to lower their levels as he commanded. The Japanese can attest to that.

Now, about this legitimacy thing; I am not proposing that we sic the U.N. or NATO or the French on him or anything. But can we not now at least admit that as president, he is an abject failure and has lost all legitimacy?

Sponsored Link: “Undergroundâ€

Platitudes, bromides, spin, TOTUS, and tweets will not hack it

April 18, 2011

Hope is not a Strategy

By Ed Timperlake
4 Comments

President Obama is now hearing thunder from his left. On April 15 2011, Jason Ditz, writing in the blog antiwar.com, took on directly the President's Libyan folly: http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/15/obam ... stalemate/

"Obama Admits Libyan War a ‘Stalemate' Says He Expects War Will 'Eventually' Succeed"

I actually agree on his point about a stalemate, and then the writer goes on to predict, playing off President Obama's words, that the duration of the Afghan war might be a precursor to the duration of the Libyan War.

"My expectation is that if we continue to apply pressure and continue to protect civilians, which NATO is doing very carefully, (with an occasional oopsie -- "Botched NATO bomb raid on Brega leaves 13 Libyan rebels dead after jets blast wrong convoy" - UK Daily Mail) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... onvoy.html then over the long term Gaddafi will go and we will be successful" noted Obama. He gave no indication of what he meant by "long term," but with officials terming a prospective exit after a decade in Afghanistan "hasty" it could be an extremely long time.

In linking the Libyan War with the Afghan war, the author Jason Ditz has made an important connection. America and NATO are bogged down in an "no end game" -- "end game" in Afghanistan, and now the Three Amigos, Secretary Clinton, NSC Samantha Power and Ambassador Rice, have given Obama in his reported words a "turd sandwich" of a war in Libya.

Currently, it is highly likely that the pernicious and insidious strategy by the MSM will be to simply turn a blind eye as the Libyan War turns messy and unpredictable-thus not holding those responsible accountable

Understanding with the Libyan War leaving the front page---events may conspire for a way ahead of getting out of both wars. If NATO is prepared negotiate a settlement to end the Libyan War why can't they concurrently negotiate an end to the Afghan War.

Antiwar Jason Ditz meet American Conservative Daniel Larison, who makes a very insightful point about the current American way of going to war. Both men have made excellent points. Larrison:

"Perhaps one of the reasons we find ourselves in wars based on dubious, uncertain, and false claims is that we invest far too much importance in the public rhetoric and deliberately misleading behavior of megalomaniacs who misrepresent reality as a matter of course. If there were reliable intelligence or real evidence that supplemented this, that would be one thing, but we don't have any of that. We're not being asked to take our government's word for what would have happened in Benghazi. We're being asked to take Gaddafi's word at face value and largely on the basis of that our government has started a war."

So now with the left and right finding the famous common ground always looked for in American political debates both wars can be ended. But first President Obama must stop channeling his inner Chancy Gardner from the great movie Being There. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... me=topNews

"One Western official compared the no-fly zone to a greenhouse that hopefully will allow for the gradual growth of a national opposition movement in Libya that draws together the disparate rebel factions"

Platitudes, bromides, spin, TOTUS, and tweets will not hack it.

The fundamental point is get motivated and seize the moment. America is finally facing up to the painful political reality that we are broke. As a nation we all will be tested on how effective we can be to stop Government spending before we have our credit card cut in half and thrown away.

In this debate there will be many voices heard for saving whatever the individual or group deems important. It is possible to lose focus in this cacophony of requests that the number one focus of the US Government is to guarantee their never-ending responsibility of protecting National Security.

We can actually go broke (figuratively in reality) and still not lose the fabric of what it means to live in America; however if we lose a major war or take a series of nuke strikes (literally) all bets are off on the quality of our way of life.

Without the forces necessary to protect our national sovereignty we will ultimately over time have nothing.

One can argue that the rise of the PRC is for this new Century the single biggest threat to America. The stark evidence is their rapidly modernizing capabilities and often stated intentions against the US. So one way ahead is to immediately negotiate an end to both the Libyan War and the Afghanistan War right now AT the same time.

This visionary action will then allow resources to flow to 21st Century military systems that can effectively deter the PRC until that regime crumbles from within.

Ed Timperlake assisted the late John P. Wheeler in his quest to build a Memorial in Arlington Cemetery for the innocent victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/ ... ategy.html