By John W. Lillpop
With the mainstream liberal media distracted by Michelle Obama's $540 shoes and appearance on Sesame Street, President Obama has taken advantage of the situation by committing war crimes in Afghanistan and by abdicating his responsibility in Pakistan.
As reported by the Chicago Tribune, in part:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-afghanistan-civilians7-2009may07,0,6958477.story?track=rss
"Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - The Red Cross today lent its support to assertions by Afghan officials that dozens of civilians were killed in U.S. bomb strikes this week in an isolated district in western Afghanistan.
"Villagers said dozens of people -- including women, children and elderly men -- were killed while sheltering in crowded civilian compounds as fighting raged in the area Monday. About two dozen insurgents were thought to have died in the confrontation as well. Provincial officials Tuesday put the number of dead around 70"
Shame on you, President Obama! Killing women, children, and elderly men sounds like something former President George W. Bush would do, but hardly the sort of CHANGE you promised.
Just how in Hades is killing 70 innocent civilians remaking America's image through out the world, sir? You do recall that that was another promised CHANGE, right?
Even more hazardous to the future of humanity is the carnage enveloping Pakistan, where the Taliban threaten to topple the government and seize control of that nation's nuclear arsenal.
Americans who bought into the Obama swine double talk during the campaign may have though that President Obama would be quick to intervene in Pakistan should events warrant.
That would have been a reasonable expectation based on candidate Obama's rhetoric as reported in the Washington Post, on August 2, 2007, in which Obama was quoted as saying, in part:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233_pf.html
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center here. "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
And this from the NY Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/08/02/2007-08-02_id_invade_pakistan_for_osama.html
"But yesterday, Obama sounded like Bush on steroids, warning Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to crack down on Al Qaeda safe havens in his country.
"Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
That quote made it perfectly clear that this inexperienced community organizer was willing to use the military option if needed. Even to the point of invading a nation considered an ally in the war on terror.
What, then, are Obama's plans for dealing with the unfolding crisis in Pakistan that, although it does not involve Osama bin Laden directly, could see Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the hands of the world's most notorious Islamofascist?
As reported, in part, at the Phoenix link listed below:
http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/articles/2009/05/06/news/srv0000005269669.txt
"MINGORA, Pakistan (AP) — Turbaned Taliban militants seized government buildings, laid mines and fought security forces Tuesday in the Swat Valley, as fear of a major operation led thousands to pack their belongings on their heads and backs, cram aboard buses and flee the northwestern region.
The collapse of a 3-month-old truce with the Taliban means Pakistan will now have to fight to regain control of the Swat alley, testing the ability of its stretched military and the resolve of civilian leaders who until recently were insisting the insurgents could be partners in peace. The government feared the refugee exodus could reach half a million people."
With all of this going on, why is Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) not on the floor of the US House demanding the impeachment of the president? Why is Nancy Pelosi not threatening to slash scores of billions from the defense budget based on Obama's war crimes?
In fact, why are Democrats, the anti-war party, eager to give Obama another $95 billion to fund his war crimes and dereliction of duty?
