Per the far-Left - "Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003" and also per the far-Left - "Libya's Leader Gaddafi Sodomized Before Execution" -- very GRAPHIC VIDEO, viewer discretion is advised

---

These Leftists totally crack the Observer up.  It's the hypocrite's badge of courage and it is just awesome to behold.  One for the history books:  "I have taken a lot of heat for my support of the revolution and of the United Nations-authorized intervention by the Arab League and NATO that kept it from being crushed. I haven’t taken nearly as much heat as the youth of Misrata who fought off Qaddafi’s tank barrages, though, so it is OK."  Translation from Liberal into English: "The Libyan democrats are good.  The Iraqi democrats are bad."

http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html

Per the far-Left, here are some of the differences between Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Obama's action in Libya:

1. Saddam was never sodomized by the Iraqi democrats
2. Saddam was never tortured by the Iraqi democrats
3. Saddam was never executed without trial by the Iraqi democrats

Most telling, per the American far-Left: "The Libyan democrats are good and worthy; however, the Iraqi democrats are bad and not worthy."  It's pure leftist bigotry for the whole world to see - BOMBS AWAY over Libya, yea!!!  Weeee, kaboom, yea we Leftists are hardcore!

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

http://www.breitbart.tv/gaddafi-sodomized-with-stick-before-execution/

American Leftists still claim the Iraqi democrats are 'inherently' incapable and that Baghdad must be surrendered to a dictator.  American Leftists claim the Libyan democrats are worthy; however, the Iraqi democrats are not worthy.  These progressive bigots are a bunch of frauds.  "Bush was forced into that SOFA because US troops could not fight in Iraq without a legal cover if they were to avoid possible war crimes prosecutions and lawsuits. From June 2003 until fall of 2008, the United Nations Security Council resolutions recognized the US as the occupying power with the responsibility to provide security to the population (a duty that might necessitate the deployment of military force). But the Iraqi government did not want, by 2008, to go to the UNSC for yet another such resolution, because it was eager to begin escaping its subordination to the UN. In the absence of a UNSC resolution, US troops needed a bilateral treaty to legalize their activities in Iraq.  Thus, Bush had to sign what the parliament gave him or face the prospect that US troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat."

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.