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:

Mr. President, with all due respect - it's time to bomb the muthafucka

An F-15 Striking Eagle.

I don't usually write directly political posts here at the Hub Review. And I'm by nature a pacifist (believe it or not).  But I'm sorry, it's time - past time - for real solidarity with Libya, and by extension the rest of the Middle East. And that means military action against the Gaddafi regime (which even now is murdering its own citizens in Tripoli).  We sat on our hands as the Iranian revolution failed. Are we really going to do it again? Isn't there some way to push a resolution through the UN Security Council and quickly have some F-15s on their way to military targets (military targets only, not cities, not civilians) in Libya?  History has HANDED us an opportunity to re-align ourselves with an entire region (and with Islam), and we are, excuse me, so far blowing it.  The Middle East needs us now, and we can help its people achieve democracy - or at least a chance at a better life - with minimal risk to our own forces.

As for the usual fears regarding direct military action - yes, there are risks.  There are ALWAYS risks.  But this time the popular will would be behind a limited intervention, not against it, and that would make all the difference.  As for handing regional dominance to Iran - please; the Iranian regime is itself fragile.  Who knows if the fall of Gaddafi might bring about a renewed revolutionary spirit in Tehran, too?

And in the meantime - can you just imagine the faces on the fucking Tea Partiers and birthers - not to mention that idiot Glenn Beck and the disgusting Rush Limbaugh - if their arch-enemy brought down Muammar Gaddafi?  When Barack HUSSEIN Obama was behind the destruction of one of America's longest-standing enemies, the nutjob who outwitted Reagan and both Bushes?  I confess that would be a sweet, sweet day - almost as sweet as the fall of the Libyan madman would be to his own oppressed people.