Are you asking yourself why the U.S. has joined a military effort that effectively opens up the third leg of a war in the Middle East? Are you asking the great question progressive media refuse to ask? That question, of course, is how a president could justify a war where there was no aggression towards America when as a US senator, the elected official had nothing good to say about any war. One Middle East expert, Michael Scheuer, tackled such questions in a blog post and Scheuer did not go easy on our commander-in-chief.
Scheuer, former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has written books, articles and blog posts about US policy in the Middle East. Scheuer believes Obama’s cooperation in establishing a no-fly zone is a cataclysmic mistake for the U.S. Scheuer and others believe al Qaeda and AQ sympathizers will view and promote this action as one more in a long line of assaults on Muslims.
Scheuer voiced his opinions in an essay on Saturday, and I highly recommend you read it if you’re interested in U.S. foreign policy. There are things I disagree with Scheuer about, but I often agree with his perspectives. His book Osama Bin Laden is arguably the most authentic book on the AQ leader because Scheuer had access to insights no other writer has had, not even Lawrence Wright whose The Looming Tower is top of the list as a tool for researchers.
I noticed when our president spoke about the no-fly zone on TV, his heart just didn’t appear to be in the rhetoric. President Barack Obama, when he’s fired up, could talk a popsicle out of melting—he’s that good when it comes to oratory. But as I listened to his reasoning—protecting the Libyan people—I felt even he didn’t believe what he was saying.
Scheuer didn’t pull punches. Here’s what he said—bear in mind Scheuer is a non-partisan basher, blasting Dems and Republicans:
“Well, Obama laid back and let the British and French leaders advance the newest glorious cause of secular progressivism — neo-colonial military intervention. With London and Paris in the lead, the Western interventionist bloc managed to produce a UN resolution authorizing military action against Gaddafi in the name of humanitarian concerns and the hoax known as international law. (How many former USSR officials have been tried for murdering 60 million people between 1917 and 1991?) Up to the last moment, Obama disingenuously played the part of a shy and unwilling bride, determined to protect her virtue to the last.”
Ironically, even as world leaders chastise Gadaffi for cruelties, it’s useful to point out the CIA World Fact Book said the United Nations gave Libya a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2010.
It gets better. Scheuer and I both share no small amount of disdain for UN ambassador Susan Rice:
“Ms. Rice’s war lust ought to be sated by the gift of an AK-47, a box of granola bars, and one-way ticket to Benghazi. (NB: Beware also of the lie told by Obama, Clinton, and Rice; Senators McCain and Graham; and much of the media that because Qatar and the UAE are involved in the military mission, and because the UK and France led at the UN, the Libyan intervention will not be seen as a U.S.-led invasion by the Muslim world. Horse hockey!”
Read the column for an insightful assessment of what our country is doing in the Middle East. Scheuer, unlike politicians, has a knack for anticipating unanticipated consequences.
Scheuer's Osama bio rattles blogosphere
The US Report
Intervening in Libya was a mistake
By Adam Salmon; The Daily Caller
Okay, we're bombing Libya
By Strieff; Red State
List of corporations and companies in Libya
At Libya Online
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/March 21, 2011)
Please use the PayPal donation link in the top right column to help keep The US Report online. Donations are used to pay contributors, fund research and help pay hosting fees. TUSR appreciates your support!