Aha!

Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2012

Iran, Libya, Syria, any one of them will do. After all a distraction's a distraction.

I swear folks you simply CANNOT make this stuff up.

Donald Trump says the world was "100%" better with dictators Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi still in power.

Courtesy of CNN: 

Donald Trump believes the world would be much better off if ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi were still in power. 

"100%," Trump replied when asked that question in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper that aired Sunday on "State of the Union." 

Trump said he believes Iraq and Libya, the respective countries of the since-deceased dictators, would be less fractured and promote a more stable Middle East if the two had not been forcefully pushed out of power. Hussein fell from power following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Gadhafi was ousted following violent civil strife in 2011 that ultimately drew a NATO-led military intervention. 

"I mean, look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Iraq used to be no terrorists. He (Hussein) would kill the terrorists immediately, which is like now it's the Harvard of terrorism," Trump said. "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now, Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. Right now Libya, nobody even knows Libya, frankly there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It's all broken up. They have no control. Nobody knows what's going on."

"People are getting their heads chopped off, they're being drowned. Right now, they are far worse than they were, ever, under Saddam Hussein or Gadhafi," he said.

Okay well you know how much it pains me to say this, but I kind of agree with Trump here.

I mean in the case of Iraq I am in almost total agreement, and on Libya I am in partial agreement because I think that situation is still evolving.

I also agree that when the United States intervenes in the affairs of other countries it seems to rarely work out in our favor, or even for that matter in theirs.

In some ways this is kind of what worries me about Hillary. Not that she is quite the war hawk embraced by the Right, but many of her votes while in the Senate put right quite comfortably among them.

Now if you will excuse me I have to go into my closet and scream until I no longer feel shame over agreeing with Donald Trump on something. This may take awhile.

Sarah Palin would like everybody to stop talking about the stupid cancelled wedding and get back to the important business of attacking Hillary Clinton.

Click open maw to play video

"Well interesting news on the Hillary Clinton campaign front: her 2000 Senate campaign manager, he said he’s not endorsing her, well, not yet anyway. That former campaign manager is none other than New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. He's been a close associate of the Clintons for years., but he's keeping his options open. Well he's not alone among Democrats who worry that Hillary's not liberal enough, or honest enough, for them. Some of them are hoping for another Democrat to step up, step forward, and challenge her because.. well she is vulnerable. But not because she's not liberal enough. She's way more left wing than most every American. (More left wing than most EVERY American? Says who?) She's vulnerable because she’s ethically challenged. Well, she failed as Secretary of State, and her signature effort as First Lady was Hillarycare, remember? And that was a disaster. That, of course, was the equivalent, mmm, to Obamacare.  (Which is such a failure that we now have just under 17 million newly insured Americans.) She’s held high office, but she’s proven that just ’cause she’s had a title, well, she still can’t handle the challenge, making wrong decision after wrong decision. The Obama-Clinton foreign policy was an absolute disaster, our government actually backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and gave Libya to jihadists who murdered our ambassador and three other brave Americans (Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!) and withdrew too soon from Iraq, which gave ISIS an opening to strike. That list doesn't even include the ridiculous reset with Russia, which is now bullying its neighbors in a manner that we haven't seen since the Col War was hot. (Really? Even worse than the Russian invasion and occupation of Georgia?) So Mayor Bill, he’s smart to keep his options open. [Shows clip of de Blasio.]  He believes that Hillary is the wrong candidate at the wrong time, perhaps, along with a lot of other Americans"

Yeah that's not what Mayor de Blasio said, but since this is perhaps the least of Palin's exaggerations in this clip we'll let it slide.

According to Wonkette this video popped up this week over at the Sarah Palin Channel along with another one clearly filmed on the same day, and with the combined running time of just three minutes and thirty eight seconds.

Because, you know, there's nothing too good for her loyal followers.

But to be fair it is REALLY hard to focus all of your bitchiness toward Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and the liberals when your carefully orchestrated wedding plans for your slutty daughter are falling a part all around you. 

So let's give Palin a break here.

Besides it's really only for her subscribers, and seriously how many of those can there actually be at this point?

Lara Logan takes "leave of absence" after flawed 60 Minute Benghazi report.

Courtesy of the New York Times:

The CBS News correspondent Lara Logan and her producer, Max McClellan, made serious errors in an Oct. 27 report on the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, and will take leaves of absence, the network announced on Tuesday. Four Americans died in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. 

The moves come after weeks of criticism directed at a “60 Minutes” report which was based on an interview with a hired security agent, Dylan Davies, whose comments to CBS News were later discredited. 

CBS did not specify the length of the leave of absence for its two staff members, nor whether they would continue to be paid. In general, television correspondents do not lose salary unless they are suspended. 

Beyond Ms. Logan, who has been a rising star at CBS News, the review could have implications for the leadership of Jeffrey Fager, the chairman of CBS News, who is also the executive producer of “60 Minutes.” Mr. Fager sent an email to the staff on Tuesday, saying: “As executive producer, I am responsible for what gets on the air. I pride myself in catching almost everything, but this deception got through and it shouldn’t have.” 

He added: “We are making adjustments at ’60 Minutes’ to reduce the chances of it happening again.”

I can see the Fox News coverage of this already, "Benghazi claims yet another victim."

Man you would think at this point even the Right Wing would avoid Benghazi at all cost.

You know if they had any journalistic integrity whatsoever.

Which of course they don't.

Sarah Palin is advising President Obama on Syria. Through the use of cartoons posted on Facebook.

The above cartoon showed up on Hypocrisy Barbie's Facebook page.

Under it she had tapped this out with her cloven hoof:

Mr. President, please give America justification before you spend blood and treasure to intervene. Start with: who are you rooting for in this?

Yeah, uh huh. 

I might be worth noting that when President Obama was approaching what to do in Libya and Egypt carefully, and trying to justify intervention, that Palin responded with this:

America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

I don't speak for the President, who I am positive will never even notice this bullshit, but if I may respond on his behalf, just this once, I'd like to say, "Fuck you Sarah Palin!"

Sarah Palin, having had such success with an Obama adviser, decides to take on the White House itself.

WTH is he doing in our White House? Radical leader supporting mission to kill our US soldiers in Iraq gets warm... http://t.co/1Iab9B4E2v
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) June 26, 2013

Amazing -- the White House gates remain closed for school group tours, but open for those with ties to terror. http://t.co/1Iab9B4E2v
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) June 26, 2013

This according to Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah's website:

Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah visited the White House where he met with senior advisers and aides to President Obama and called for the protection of the Syrian people and the Muslim minority in Myanmar. 

The distinguished scholar Professor Abdullah bin Bayyah, President of the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance and Vice President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, visited the White House where he met with Ms. Gayle Smith, a senior aide to President Barack Obama, and Mr. Rashad Hussain, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He also met with a number of experts including the director of public relations in the White House and representatives from seven government agencies. 

Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah addressed the audience by speaking about humanity’s need for two kinds of justice, namely: a) justice in which everyone is equal and one person does not oppress another, nor does one state oppress another state, and b) a justice specific to the powerful, which is to help lift the injustices from vulnerable peoples such as the Syrian people, the Palestinians, and the Muslims in Myanmar. In this context, Shaykh bin Bayyah thanked President Obama for demanding the rights of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar (formerly Burma) during his recent visit there. Likewise, the Shaykh called on the U.S. government for urgent action to help lift the injustice on the Syrians. 

Apparently Palin's advice is to bar influential Muslim clerics requesting help for their people from having access to officials in America, Or simply have them refuse to speak to them, even if by doing so we could perhaps develop a relationship that is not based on us bombing their countrymen back into the stone age.

You know the part that REALLY irritates me is that the Republicans have been beating the drums trying to get the President to get more involved in Syria, yet as he is trying to gather data on who to help, and how to help them, he gets this dipshit and her pals at Fox News attacking him for it.

Its called diplomacy, and if the White House aides refused to meet with anybody from the Middle East even tangentially connected to a possible "pro-terrorist" group, who would they have left to meet with?

Perhaps she would like to bring these concerns up with David Plouffe? After all that worked out so well for her last time.

The Right Wing's pet Benghazi "whistle blower" might not be quite what he makes himself out to be.

Courtesy of Think Progress: 

Throughout his testimony on Wednesday, Hicks seemed certain that any critique of his leadership style while serving as deputy chief of mission in Libya was based solely around anger related to his stance on Benghazi. He also blamed his subsequent assignment after being pulled from Libya in mid-Oct. 2012 on his speaking out against the Obama administration’s response to the attacks. However, ThinkProgress has talked to staffers based in Libya who counter Hicks’ portrayal of both his own performance and the State Department’s alleged response to him speaking out. A meeting between Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and Hicks took place in Tripoli prior to his removal from Libya, but not under the same circumstances Hicks sought to portray. Counter to Hicks’ story of an unwarranted reassignment, the staff was upset with Hicks’ performance since he was first assigned to Tripoli on July 31, and told Jones as much prior to her meeting with Hicks. 

“[Jones] and her aide had one-on-one meetings with us to see if [Hicks] could be guided into being a better leader,” a State Department employee posted to Libya told ThinkProgress. “Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post,” said the employee, who spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity, as they were not cleared to discuss personnel issues with the press. 

A second State Department employee present in Libya before and during the Benghazi attacks confirmed the meetings occurred. Assistant Secretary Jones’ meetings with the staff prior to Oct. 2 were “entirely” focused on Hicks’ performance, according to this second employee, who also believed that Hicks should be removed from his position. “The group of us who were here during the attacks, we sat here two nights ago and watched [the hearing] with our jaws dropped,” the staffer said, referring to Hicks’ claim that he was demoted out of retribution for speaking out. 

“He was removed from here because he was a disaster as a manager,” the second employee went on to say, expressing the belief that Hicks’ reassignment had “nothing to do with him being a whistleblower, it had everything to do with his management capacity or lack thereof.” This statement contradicts the narrative promoted on conservative media outlets that Hicks was being forced to remain silent and being punished for speaking out. 

The same employees also told ThinkProgress of several troubling incidents involving Hicks and the staff at the Tripoli Embassy both before and after the September 11, 2012 assault in Benghazi. During the aftermath of Benghazi, Hicks showed a lack of diplomatic protocol that both staffers found extremely questionable given the tense times. This includes going to a meeting with the Libyan Prime Minister Mohammed Magarief in a t-shirt, cargo pants, and baseball cap. “I’m too upset to wear a suit,” Hicks allegedly told a staffer. “I want the Libyans to know how upset I am about this attack.” 

In testifying before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, Hicks gave some of the most riveting testimony yet on what occurred in Tripoli the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. That detailed account was prefaced by Hicks’ written testimony, which included claims that his superiors praised his performance during the night of the attack, which now rings slightly hollow given the critiques of his colleagues. 

When speaking about the night of the attacks, the employees ThinkProgress spoke with described Hicks as being in a daze while other senior Embassy officials organized the evacuation from Tripoli to Germany. “At one point [Hicks] wandered past the huddled State evacuees, muttering to himself, and just sank into a couch,” the first employee relayed to ThinkProgress.

Hmm, isn't THAT interesting?

Of course the Right Wing will simply write this off as an attempt at character assassination in order to smear this guy. However I would be less than surprised if this guy did not have quite a few skeletons that he did not want to see the light of day.

To me he came off as very melodramatic in his testimony, and I thought that a number of the pauses he took to "compose himself" were overly theatrical.

I will be interested to learn more about Gregory Hick in the upcoming weeks. I have a feeling that in their rush to damage Hillary Clinton's credibility the Republicans might be backing the wrong horse yet again.

Politico chooses the 10 best viral political videos of 2012. See if you agree.

Oh yeah!  I had almost forgotten about SOME of those!

You can read more about these videos, and many others NOT included among the selections above, over at Politico:

Wife of General Petraeus threatens divorce and demands to know how many women there have been. Uh oh!

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:

David Petraeus' wife of 38 years has threatened him with divorce after she was left 'humiliated' by his affair with his biographer, it was claimed today. 

Holly Petraeus is reportedly 'furious' about the affair, which forced her husband to resign from the top of the CIA ten days ago, and is demanding to know how many other women he has shared trysts with throughout their marriage. 

'She can't turn on a television, go online or open a newspaper without being bombarded by the latest revelations about his cheating,' a source told the National Enquirer. 'No wonder she's angry. 

'David has been falling all over himself, apologising and begging Holly to forgive him, but she isn't listening. After all his lies, she doesn't believe anything he says anymore, and she's thinking about consulting a divorce attorney.' 

The source claimed Holly has suspicions that her husband had an affair with Jill Kelley, the Florida socialite who sparked his downfall after tipping off the FBI about threatening emails from Broadwell. 

While Petraeus denies they have ever been involved, Holly is uncertain and keeps demanding to know how many other women he has cheated on her with, the source said. 

Wow, and I bet that General Petraeus thought his troubles were almost over after testifying about the Benghazi thing.  I imagine after his wife gets finished with him he will wish he were standing before Congress spilling his guts, or perhaps even on the front line dodging bullets.

You know I am a guy and should probably show solidarity with my gender, but I just have to say that from what I know about guys in general, and guys in power specifically, if there was one affair there were probably more. In other words Holly Petraeus has every right to be suspicious and to not take her husband at his word.

I will probably lose my Men's Club super masculine decoder ring for saying that, but there you have it.

By the way I have a feeling that this story is far, far from over, and have to wonder just what new revelations will be coming down the pike.

Yet more rioting in Libya. Wait, WHO are they rioting against?

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:  

Hundreds of protesters in Libya have launched an attack on the jihadist militia responsible for killing the U.S. ambassador last week. 

The pro-American backlash on Friday night saw the Ansar al-Sharia Brigade driven out of its base in the city of Benghazi, where Chris Stevens and three other U.S. officials were murdered in an attack on the local consulate. 

The unprecedented movement suggests that ordinary Libyans are rising up against Al Qaeda fighters who seek to hijack the democratic reforms of the Arab Spring. 

Ansar al-Sharia militants initially fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually abandoned the site with their weapons and vehicles after it was overrun by waves of protesters shouting 'No to militias.' 

'I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform,' said Omar Mohammed, a college student who took part in the takeover of the site. 

No deaths were reported in the incident, which came after tens of thousands marched in Benghazi against armed militias. One vehicle was also burned at the compound. 

Wow! So perhaps it is time for Americans to realize that not ALL Muslims are radical Jihadists determined to spread violent and disharmony among the people o the Middle East.

Gee didn't Sean Hannity and Latino Sarah Palin rip into our President just a few days ago for trusting these people to make the right choice on their own instead of having a prefabricated, by America of course, government foisted upon them? Yeah, I kind of think we did.

Well I wonder what their response to this might be? Oh never mind, if they can't somehow fault President Obama in some way they will simply ignore it.

P.S. By the way these protests have openly spread since this  incident and protestors have now seized a raft of other paramilitary bases as well.

Rachel Maddow reports on the wild conspiracy theories partly responsible for the protests in the Middle East and Paul Ryan's connection to those who have fomented those conspiracy theories in the past.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As usual I turn to Rachel Maddow to help explain just what is happening in the Middle East right now, and find myself amazed that the roots of the unrest can be traced directly back to those who support the Republican party, and are now closely associated with the VP candidate on the 2012 ticket.

But then again, why should I be surprised by that?

Really? This happened on Fox News?

Apparently Sarah Palin was not the ONLY loser from the Republican's 2008 ticket to be interviewed by Sean Hannity last night.  He also interviewed crusty old bastard john McCain.

However I don't think things went as Hannity had imagined that they would go. Take a look.

Courtesy of Mediaite:

“How is it that Sean Hannity and a few others of us out here predicted with pinpoint accuracy that the Muslim Brotherhood would be in charge in Egypt?” Hannity asked the senator. “Their first task when they took over the Parliament was to declare Israel, our closest ally, their enemy.” 

“How is it that the administration with all their intelligence and the CIA — how is it that they didn’t see this coming?” he asked McCain of both Egypt and Libya, before disputing the notion that the Libyans had a free election: “They kept telling the American people, this is democracy. I don’t view the Muslim Brotherhood as democracy. They want Sharia law implemented now.” 

“That’s not clear that that’s true,” McCain responded before accusing Fox of repeating a false claim about the Libyan elections: 

"It was you and people on Fox that said in Libya, “We didn’t know who they were and let’s not help these people.” They had an election and they elected moderates. They rejected Islamists. And yes, there are al-Qaeda factors and there are extremists in Libya today, but the Libyan people are friends of ours, and they support us, and they support democracy. So you were wrong about Libya."

“I don’t think I was wrong about Libya at all,” Hannity shot back. 

“I know you were,” McCain responded. “They had a free and fair election, and a democratic non-Islamic government was elected. So you were wrong.” 

“I was not,” Hannity said. “They didn’t think the Muslim Brotherhood would take over? This is a known terror organization. We say we are fighting a war on terror but we are apologizing, our government, to Egypt after they raid our embassy and rip our flag down?” 

“Frankly, Senator, I would think you are with me on this,” the conservative host added. 

“I am not taking the side of the administration,” McCain pushed back. “I am saying that the largest nation in the Arab world is something we have to carefully calibrate our actions with.”

You know what I am so stunned that I literally do not have anything smart ass to say about this.

I don't EVER get the chance to say this anymore, but good for your Senator McCain!

Now while we have you in a combative mood, could you tell us what you REALLY think of that crazy lady you plucked out of the wilds of Wasilla? Come on! We know you want to! 

P.S. By he way, whether he wanted to or not, McCain WAS essentially "taking the side of the administration." Simply because he was telling the truth.

Herman Cain refuses to allow Rick Perry to "out dumb" him. You have to see this to believe it!

This was Herman Cain's response to a question posed by the Journal Sentinel editorial board about whether or not he supports President Obama's Libya policy.

This guy has NO idea about ANYTHING!  The fact that he is polling at the front of the pack seems proof positive that the Republicans actually want the dumbest man on earth leading this great nation.

How is that not the work of traitors?

Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin angrily refuse to give President Obama any credit for death of Gaddafi.

Palin and Hannity essentially decide that this might be a terrible thing in the end because an even worse regime might rise to take Gaddafi's place. Much of Palin's concern seems to hinge on her belief that Islamists might take over. Which considering HER religious proclivities is fairly ironic.

But that is not enough for Palin, who then decides she needs to evoke the "Oh High Father of Republicanism," Ronald Reagan, to give the ultimate smackdown to those damn liberals.

Courtesy of Mediaite:

Hey, let me add something, though, to this Gaddafi regime change now discussion. And that is, it strikes me as quite ironic, Sean, that those on the left had been so dismissive of Ronald Reagan’s 1986 strikes against Gaddafi and calling it a criminal act and these are the same people now, today, celebrating Obama’s participation in NATO’s leadership with the air strikes that has lead to the demise of Gaddafi. The inconsistencies there with foreign policy support and actions that our military and our participation with NATO and what the White House does, the inconsistencies and the hypocrisy that comes from the left never ceases to amaze. 

It should be noted that Ronald Reagan's strike against Libya was NOT in support of a rebel uprising, was not successful in curtailing terrorist attacks, and that it in fact gave America a black eye in the international community.

This according to the BBC:

The attacks began soon after an increase in coded radio traffic between US ships and planes off the Libyan coast had been noticed. 

The fighter jets appear to have been both carrier based aircraft, operating in the Mediterranean and British based bombers which would have refuelled in mid air. 

The Americans hit the harbour's naval academy, the capital's military airport and army barracks. Tripoli's embassy area and residential districts also suffered extensive damage. 

The Tripoli central hospital and two other medical centres say they have treated hundreds of injured people, including a number of Greeks, Italians and Yugoslavs. 

Mobs of angry survivors have taken to the streets shouting: "Down, down USA. Death to all Americans." 

There are also fears that Britain may be subject to terrorist attacks because some of its involvement in the raids.

Of course there is NO reason to bring Reagan's name into this, as these are two entirely different situations, with two entirely different outcomes.

But leave it up to Sarah Palin to attempt to impugn President Obama's success by comparing it to President Reagan's failure.

President Obama to Libyan people: "You have won your revolution."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

No matter how you spin it, this is DEFINITELY a big win for the President. And I have to imagine that it is causing a great deal of heartburn among the contestants on that GOP presidential reality show whose immature antics have been so entertaining as of late.

The President played this EXACTLY right, and the fact that he suffered such backlash from members of the GOP (Including some currently vying for the nomination), as well as members of his own party, will only make him appear that much more like the Commander-in-Chief, and make the current field of challengers appear impotent and unqualified for the job by comparison.

Yeah the Republicans better HOPE the job situation doesn't improve, because if it does they are SCREWED!

Reports out of Libya confirm death of Muammar Gaddafi.

Courtesy of Reuters:

Muammar Gaddafi was killed on Thursday as Libya's new leaders declared they had overrun the last bastion of his long rule, sparking wild celebrations that eight months of war may finally be over. 

Details of the death near Sirte of the fallen strongman were hazy but it was announced by several officials of the National Transitional Council (NTC) and backed up by a photograph of a bloodied face ringed by familiar, Gaddafi-style curly hair. 

"He was killed in an attack by the fighters. There is footage of that," the NTC's information minister, Mahmoud Shammam, told Reuters.

This a breaking story, and apparently it has not been confirmed by the state department, but there are numerous confirmations coming out of Libya, including from the Libyan Information Minister,  that the tyrant has been killed, and there are widespread reports of rebel celebrations in the streets

I am not exactly sure what this means for the relationship between the United States and Libya, but it looks like President Obama's early support of the rebels was certainly the smart choice, and the recent visit by Secretary of State Clinton, may provide the United States with some influence over the type of government that finally emerges from the ashes.

These are fascinating times we live in, that is for damn sure!
.

The GOP candidates weigh in on the fall of Qaddafi's regime in Libya. Great, they can admit they were wrong and finally give President Obama credit! Wait, what?

Now that the situation in Libya seems to have vindicated President Obama, the GOP Presidential hopefuls are left in the ticklish predicament of having to cheer the accomplishment of America's military, and NOT accidentally give Obama any of the credit.

Let's see how they did:

Rick Santorum: “Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing, but this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph.” 

Mitt Romney: “The world is about to be rid of Muammar el-Qaddafi, the brutal tyrant who terrorized the Libyan people. It is my hope that Libya will now move toward a representative form of government that supports freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. As a first step, I call on this new government to arrest and extradite the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, so justice can finally be done.” 

Rick Perry: “The crumbling of Muammar Ghadafi’s reign, a violent, repressive dictatorship with a history of terrorism, is cause for cautious celebration. The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries.” 

Michele Bachmann weighed in, also refusing to credit the administration or NATO: “I opposed U.S. military involvement in Libya and I am hopeful that our intervention there is about to end. I also hope the progress of events in Libya will ultimately lead to a government that honors the rule of law, respects the people of Libya and their yearning for freedom, and one that will be a good partner to the United States and the international community.” 

You know I was trying to think what exactly ALL of the GOP candidates had in common, and now I know what it is.  They are all assholes! 

Quotes courtesy of Think Progress.

President Obama announces that Qaddafi regime is coming to an end.

What?

No aircraft carrier?

No flight suit?

No codpiece carefully padded to enhance image of virility?

And they call this guy Presidential?

Well I know I do.

(If video will not play try visiting here.)

Libyans choose their version of the "Fantastic 4." Update.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

At the main square in Benghazi, people have been gathering to celebrate the end of the rule of Muammar Qaddafi. As euphoric Libyan rebels advanced into Tripoli on Sunday, there were scenes of jubilation in the rebels’ de facto capital, Benghazi, where thousands celebrated in the streets. 

One large sign in the middle of the square in Benghazi features a picture of the “Fantastic 4” (from right to left): Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and U.S. Ambassador the U.N. Susan Rice. The text on the sign reads: “God Bless You All. Thanks For All.”

Both Republicans and Liberals went after the President HARD for launching a military action in Libya.

To be honest I was not exactly doing cartwheels over the decision either, but I have learned with this President not to rush to judgement too quickly.

And what we are seeing today is confirmation that my "wait and see" approach was the correct one in this case.  I struggle every day to form ANY trust in a government that for eight years seemed to treat its citizens like potential insurgents and whose military strutted around the world like a gunslinger itching for a fight.

But slowly I am beginning to relax and to stop looking for conspiracies behind every action.

It occurs to me that there is very likely a LOT of things happening behind the scenes that we are not allowed to see, simply because the President is not exactly comfortable showing all of his cards to a VERY adversarial Republican party, who have already demonstrated a penchant for sabotaging his efforts to do the right thing for the American people simply for short term political gain.

Here is an interesting take on Obama's Libya decision from the Economist:

I AM on holiday for three weeks in a faraway corner of Cornwall, but the momentous news from Libya has reached even here. Barack Obama received a lot of stick for his cautious approach to the uprising in Libya. Liberals traumatised by Iraq could not believe he had started another war. Republicans mocked him for "leading from behind". But with the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi's regime now in prospect, his critics ought to eat at least some of their words. 

Like many others, I had strong misgivings (see here), for example, but the president remained supremely calm throughout and the speech he made in March looks pretty good in light of what has now happened. The intervention (Mr Obama notoriously refused to call it a war) could not have taken place without America's technological help; it was conducted mainly by allies; it had the blessing of the UN Security Council and the Arab League; and for those reasons it has generated almost no blowback from the Arab world. In short, a job well done - though I don't expect his Republican critics to be willing to admit this.

I have already seen John McCain making the case that this success could have taken place much faster if Obama had chosen to "employ the full weight of the US Air Force." But as most of us are undoubtedly aware, doing so would have brought Obama even MORE condemnation from both the Right and the Left in this country.

No I think Obama played this just right, and that this will be yet another big win, much like the taking of Osama Bin Laden, which will make the Republican's efforts to take back the White House in 2012 just that much more impossible.

(H/T to The Obama Diary.)

Update:

Jon Stewart gives props to President Obama for his measured approach to Libya, and then tries to figure out what the hell Palin meant by using the word "squirmish."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
America at Not-War - Obama's Pragmatic Foreign Policy Decisions
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook