Saturday, March 19, 2011

"Libya, Obama's Baby"



Bombs away! Barack Obomber has launched an attack on Libya! And this has sent DUmmieland into shock and awe! Should they defend their Obamassiah? Or should they disown him? Is he just the new Dubya, Barack McSame, the new Destroyer of Worlds? The DUmp is abuzz with the sound of manic!

The whole board is filled with Obama-Libya threads right now. But we'll go with this
THREAD from DUmmie GSLevel9, "Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss."

But before we do, let's sing this song that captures the DUmmie Dilemma:

LIBYA, OBAMA'S BABY
Tune: "Lydia, the Tattooed Lady"

Libya, oh, Libya
I don't mean Namibia
Libya, Obama's baby
He's a Bush, with thorns and thistles
When he sends in long-range missles

Libya, oh, Libya
Barack's just like Dubya
Dubya, the bane of DU!
We thought we'd have peace with Obama the Great
But he's a repeat of the bomber we hate
Is Cheney in charge at Defense or at State?
Déjà vu anew with Libya!

So will it be Barack McSame, or will there be a DUmmie DUbya DUbble Standard? Perhaps some of both. Let's find out. So now it's on to Operation Odyssey DUmb, in Baracket's Red Glare, while the commentary of your humble guest correspondent, the wag tailoring the doggerel, Charles Henrickson, loving to see the DUmmies squirm between Barack and a hard place, is in the [Barackets]:

Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.

[Barack McSame, Destroyer of Worlds.]

Warmonger corporate tool.

[But, but, President Obama has won the Nobel PEACE PRIZE, for goodness' sake! He's a DEMOCRAT! Indeed, he's your OBAMASSIAH! Shouldn't unicorns be farting rainbows and sparkles by now?? Instead, they're launching Tomahawk cruise missles!]



In the case of Libya I believe you are wrong.

[See, what makes this different from Bush and Iraq is that . . . is that Khaddafi has violated numerous U.N. res-- uh, wait, no, hold on . . . is that Khaddafi has been brutalizing, I mean, BRUTALIZING, his own--no, wait, that won't work either. . . . Oil? Nope, don't want to go there. . . . I've got it! Weapons of Mass--no, shoot. . . . Well, it's different, let me just say that. Obama is one of us, and Bush is, well, Bush. So you're wrong.]

How about in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq?

[LALALALA I CAN'T HEEEEAR YOU!!!]

Ghadaffi is like, super evil. He's stepped up to Axis of Evil level now. We're gonna kick his ass like he was Saddam.

[I detect a note of sarcasm.]

like DR EVIL status?

[Worse! DEVIL status!]

Unrec, alert and laugh at your ignorance. In that order.

[How DARE you compare our beloved Prog President to Chimpy McHitler!]

the president, with this brief set of remarks, has crafted something of an Obama Doctrine for military intervention: The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation's interest and when the locals are involved and desire US participation. In short, the Anti-Bush Doctrine.

[Which sounds suspiciously a lot like the Bush Doctrine.]

As annoyed as I am at times with POTUS, that is such an outrageous and false statement. I'm starting to hate this place...Flame

[DUmmie monmouth launches a missle strike on the OP, DUmmie GSLevel9!]

Deleted message. Message removed by moderator.

[The banning begins in five--no, the banning begins NOW!]

We're locking this thread. A consensus of moderator have decided that this post violates this rule ==> Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats.

[Hee! Hee! Expect MANY more Barackophobia lockdowns in the daze to come!]

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Jug-ears, the golfer in chief, get congressional approval before committing military forces? You know, like the evil Bush did? No?

You mean Bush's war was actually MORE legal than the great peace-maker Obama's? Oh the Irony, it burns!

12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Anonymous!

This war actually is illegal and Obama explained why when Bush was President.

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Obama has to get the consent of Congress to go to war. It's not just up to the UN. We are not subject of the UN we are citizens of the United States and as such it's up to our representatives to give permission to go to war.

Bush had permission from Congress for the Iraq war and after being attacked by terrorist was granted immediate power to attack Bin Laden.

Obama thinks because the UN said it was OK some how makes it ok in the US. That's the knife in our back. Thanks again Barack. This should get him impeached this is clearly illegal according to the constitution.

Johnny 5 is alive

1:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know why the libtards are upset. They must be missing what actually happened. The citizens were "speaking truth to power" against the recognized government. That recognized government descended upon them like the wrath of Gaia. The libtards should be 100% (well, 115% if you include the necro-American vote) behind Ear Leader in this.

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Corona said...

Smart Power! If Obamas' skin looks darker than usual it's because so many progs are going to be shitting on him.
Let's sit back and let the moonbats frogmarch him out of office by themselves.

12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the president, with this brief set of remarks, has crafted something of an Obama Doctrine for military intervention: The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation's interest and when the locals are involved and desire US participation..."[sic]

Apparently those things matter a whole lot more when the people asking have oil or have buddies who have oil...and why anyone with functioning neuron in their head would honestly believe either side of the Libyan goat-rope/civil war has 'Democracy' in mind as an end state is a total mystery.

I would kinda like to see us drop Geraldo on them, though.

DAT

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Adam said...

"A consensus of moderator have decided that this post violates this rule ==> Disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats."
Whereas disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, and left- wing smears against Republicans are not just allowed, but openly encouraged.

4:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home