Obama's Keystone Cop foreign policy. (Update: And yes, he lied again - There ARE, and HAVE BEEN "boots on the ground.")

.
B-Ho has, of course, shown himself to be an abysmal failure in every area of government that can be measured.

You name it, he's screwed it up.

In the long list of foreign policy idiocies B-Ho is responsible for, Libya has to top the list as the singularly most moronic move this clown has ever made.

The United States needs a clear and cogent message that explains our positions and provides at least SOME level of certainty to the world.

As the increasingly weak and confused super power, we must become the pillar that super power status confers.

If we do not... then, well, the rest of the world will ignore us just like Qaddafi.

Yet, the Administration has gone to particular pains to do just the opposite.

Contrary to the Clueless One's assertion that there is no relativism; that is, a slaughter in Libya is bad, but a slaughter in Syria is OK, US foreign policy must be the exact opposite.

IF "slaughter" is bad in Libya, and we must, for whatever the reason, do something THERE: then, in fact, we must treat everyone the same wherever slaughter is taking place and do something wherever that may be.

Because the very idea that we are somehow in the "selective slaughter prevention business" is sickening.

I'm given to understand that in 1982, the clown running Syria slaughtered 15,000 people... an entire city... because of an uprising.  Riots are now happening in Syria, again.  The son of the clown running the show back in 82 is running it now.

What are we to do if he gives a repeat performance?  What if his military begins to slaughter thousands more?

What do we do then?

Don't know.  But we SHOULD know.  And IF the answer is to go in and put a stop to it... SHOULDN'T THE IDIOT IN CHARGE ALREADY KNOW THAT?

Because if he did know it... maybe it wouldn't happen in the first place.

But no... we can't have that.  We can't have any certainty... like we did under, say, Reagan.

We're fighting in a war that isn't a war.  We missed our opportunity when this first popped up.  And now we have an utterly clueless moron running the show.

Meanwhile, OUR intransigence will result in a far great bloodbath then would have resulted if we had just stayed out of it... had we acted appropriately in the first place.

And, in the alternative, the Clueless One doesn't know who we're helping, who the terrorists are (and we all know they ARE there) and what will happen when we DO arm them... and we will.

And, by the way?

We do have troops on the ground in Libya.  They wear those funny hats.  Green, to be precise.  And they have been since at least March 1. Others have the Budweiser on their chests.  But you know damned well... they ARE there.

Who's calling in the gun ships, the AC 130's, the Tomahawks?  Western Union?

Please.  Why does this slimeball have to keep lying to us?  He sounds more and more like Ridgefield Barbie by the minute.

Or is the other way 'round?
.