******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Obama Pushed Mubarek Out The Door But Has Been Silent About Gaddafi

The Obama administration was very active in sheparding Hosni Mubarek out of power in Egypt, yet has been almost silent until today about Muammar Gaddafi, even as Libyan troops have used aircraft to bomb protesters.

Explanation?

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share

26 comments:

  1. When asked to comment, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, responded,

    "Huh?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. BHO loves him some tyrants, it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He wishes he could bomb protesters domestically.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Prof. Jacobson,

    thank you very much for your great blog. I am a regular reader and often post links to your post via twitter so that my German friends get to read them too. A short while ago I was asked why you keep spelling "Mubarak" "Mubarek"? The person used this to question your expertise and credibility... I do have to say that I couldn't find a proper explanation for this so I thought I simply ask you and ask for a quick response as to why you spell Mubarak the way you do. Thank you very much in advance and keep up the good work.

    God bless,
    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well I guess after commissioning the report on Egypt on what would happen if Mubarak left office but not considering the implications of anyone else in the M.E., this might be considered an Oophs!

    ReplyDelete
  6. As easy as it would be to search for some nefarious intent behind who he does and does not support, I think it simply boils down to the fact he's clueless.

    In-over-his-head, hasn't-the-foggiest-idea clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Libya has more oil reserves than any other country in Africa, so my first instinct is that it's about oil. A disruption in oil from Libya could adversely impact oil prices.

    But then I realize Obama wants high oil prices so he can lecture us again about the need to consfiscate taxpayer money and let his central planners "invest" it in alternative energy projects.

    But as I think about it some more, I realize that if gasoline prices spike and stay high, say $5/gallon, it will likely tank the economy and jeopardize Obama's re-election bid.

    My head hurts trying to link oil to Obama's different responses to dictators. Maybe he simply admires Gaddafi's cutting edge fashion sense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Incompetence is the best bet with this bunch.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Robin - either way is a transliteration from the Arabic, so I'm not sure one is correct and the other wrong, although you are right most (but not all) people use the "ak". I think I've been pretty consistent, and old habits die hard. If someone wants to use that against me, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm guessing that it is either because he is an AMERICAHATINGMUSLIMSOCIALISTCOMMUNIST!!!; or perhaps it is because Egypt is an ally and U.S. aid recipient, and thus more amenable to persuasion by an American president than a long time enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Prof. Jacobson - thank you very much for the quick reply. This sure helps. I did check wikipedia and conservapedia (which strangely has two articles, a short one under Mubarek and a longer one under Mubarak) and none offered a clue in regard to the spelling difference. But I'll pass on your take on it to my German friends.
    Tanks again and all the best.
    God bless,
    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Robin - the spelling of Gaddafi has changed over the years quite a bit in English but I don't think his name (in Arabic) ever changed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wasn't the spelling Gaddafi-al-duck at one time?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another correction, Professor. Don't you mean Señor Gaddafi?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Coworker: It's over for Gaddafi. You know where he's going, don't you?

    Me: Hell?

    Coworker: That's right, Venezuela.

    I'm not so sure. Some parts of France might be welcoming to Gaddafi Duck:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028423.php

    ReplyDelete
  16. I also read today that the protesters are being shot at from helicopters by troops with machine guns and when taken in to be treated for injuries by goons hired for the purpose. Talk about a reign of terror.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Jim: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Egypt = US Friendly Regime
    Libya = Not a US Friendly Regime

    Nothing Else Need Be Said.

    ReplyDelete
  19. y'all don't get it. The Great Satan has destroyed the relationship between good, moderate Muslims and the western world, what with all the slashing and burning, and raping of those countries.

    It has single-handedly subjugated the Arab countries by supporting dictators. If it were not for us, those countries would all be much further advanced.

    But we can mend these differences by standing for freedom where we have transgressed, and keeping our noses out of their other affairs. In that way, they will in time love us.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by simple stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's simple-minded to believe Obama and team are just being stupid.

    What the Iranian demonstrators and the Mubarek regime have in common is a lessened antipathy toward the US and Israel.

    The others, well, out of the radical clerics' mouths to western Progressive ears: Riot! Workers revolt! Muslims unite! Hate The Man! Blame America! Kill Jews! War against Israel! Cut the West's petro off! Give to the People! Brown power!

    It's about Prog conceits and politics justified. Obama, Michelle and their dinner guests can now point to how fixing the evils of American hubris and Israeli illegitimacy, constraining capitalism with Third World ascendancy and multicultural Social Justice, grooving to anti-western Islam chic, going green, and advancing the cause of global governance are now nigh upon us

    if only the WI gambit would succeed...

    ReplyDelete
  22. You have to remember that Jeremiah Wright, Obama's "spiritual advisor" is a friend of Quaddafi's and visited him numerous times over the years. Could that have something to do with it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. More deer in the headlights diplomacy from Obama. Give it at least a week. Clinton hasn't even had time yet to pronounce Libya stable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Libyan regime wouldn't be doing this if it weren't for Israel's intransigence regarding the settlements.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tom has it right.

    Mubarak is a bastard, but he is our (pro-West) bastard. Khadaffi is also a bastard, but anti-West.

    Therefore in keeping with his mantra and history of appeasement and abasement, Obama trips all over himself to beat the crap out of Mubarak, while turning a blind eye and ignoring the crimes and human rights abuses of Khadaffi.

    Just a voice crying in the wilderness (a conservative living in the People's Republic of Maryland).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Do I have to say it?

    "Enemy-centric foreign policy."

    That is all. (Thanks, Sarah!)

    ReplyDelete