Obama's lies about the attacks in Libya are bad enough, but why hasn't America yet responded?

It took less than four weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for the Bush administration to gather intelligence, plan the full-scale invasion of Afghanistan and begin executing Operation Enduring Freedom. By October 7, 2001, multinational forces from the United States, Britain and Australia were on the ground, linking up with friendly Afghan forces, overthrowing the Taliban and driving al-Qaeda from the haven from which they had attacked our country. ...

This is not to suggest an invasion of Libya. But certainly by now we could have identified the groups responsible for the attack, targeted their compounds and retaliated in some fashion. Heck, the Libyan people have done more to retaliate than Obama has. The Associated Press reports that a few days after the attack, "Hundreds of protesters seized control of several militia headquarters ... including the compound of one of Libya's strongest armed Islamic extremist groups, evicting militiamen and setting fire to buildings as the attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans sparked a backlash against armed groups."

What kind of signal does it send when a Libyan mob does more to avenge the killing of an American ambassador than the president of the United States?

Our enemies need to learn that they cannot attack us and kill us with impunity. We need to respond to violence with violence. We must kill our enemies, because they're eager to kill us.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Obama Has No Response in Libya.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.mwilliams.info/mt5/tb-confess.cgi/8137

Comments

Supporters

Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info

Support