Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann admitted Sunday
that Libya may still be under the rule of former dictator Muammar
Gaddafi if she had been president instead of Barack Obama.

In May, the candidate called the U.S. military action in Libya “a
disaster in the making.”

“If President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn’t Muammar Gaddafi
still be in power?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Bachmann Sunday.

“Well, he may be,” Bachmann agreed. “I stand by that decision. I think
it is wrong for the United States to go in to Libya. Barack Obama said
we were going in to Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t
humanitarian purposes. It was regime change. And what’s the result? We
don’t know who the next leaders will be.”

“It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It
could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that
regime will be, but worse, we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and the
shoulder-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that could fit into a
trunk of a car. And there are some reports out there that they may
have even gone as far as Gaza and of course, that could be used to
bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision, and
it’s created more instability in that region, not less.”

“Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Gaddafi’s
dictatorship still in effect?” Wallace wondered.

“The world is certainly better off without Gaddafi,” Bachmann replied.
“But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snapshot
today. The last chapter hasn’t been written on Libya… We knew who the
devil was that was running [Libya]. We don’t know the next one. And
again, this was leading from behind on the part of the
administration.”


The world is better off without Gaddafi. She said it. Why does she
have to flop around like a Romney fish?

On 10/23/2011 5:42 PM, jps wrote:
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann admitted Sunday
that Libya may still be under the rule of former dictator Muammar
Gaddafi if she had been president instead of Barack Obama.

In May, the candidate called the U.S. military action in Libya “a
disaster in the making.”

“If President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn’t Muammar Gaddafi
still be in power?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Bachmann Sunday.

“Well, he may be,” Bachmann agreed. “I stand by that decision. I think
it is wrong for the United States to go in to Libya. Barack Obama said
we were going in to Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t
humanitarian purposes. It was regime change. And what’s the result? We
don’t know who the next leaders will be.”

“It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It
could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that
regime will be, but worse, we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and the
shoulder-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that could fit into a
trunk of a car. And there are some reports out there that they may
have even gone as far as Gaza and of course, that could be used to
bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision, and
it’s created more instability in that region, not less.”

“Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Gaddafi’s
dictatorship still in effect?” Wallace wondered.

“The world is certainly better off without Gaddafi,” Bachmann replied.
“But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snapshot
today. The last chapter hasn’t been written on Libya… We knew who the
devil was that was running [Libya]. We don’t know the next one. And
again, this was leading from behind on the part of the
administration.”


The world is better off without Gaddafi. She said it. Why does she
have to flop around like a Romney fish?
I can't rate any, of their performances, more than a 3.
Glad I'm not paying for this show.
So far the attempts to tell the most convincing set of lies is still up
for grabs.
I mean these people can't keep from laughing at themselves, almost.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:24:47 -0400, Lil Abner wrote:

On 10/23/2011 5:42 PM, jps wrote:
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann admitted Sunday
that Libya may still be under the rule of former dictator Muammar
Gaddafi if she had been president instead of Barack Obama.

In May, the candidate called the U.S. military action in Libya “a
disaster in the making.”

“If President Bachmann had been in charge, wouldn’t Muammar Gaddafi
still be in power?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Bachmann Sunday.

“Well, he may be,” Bachmann agreed. “I stand by that decision. I think
it is wrong for the United States to go in to Libya. Barack Obama said
we were going in to Libya for humanitarian purposes. It wasn’t
humanitarian purposes. It was regime change. And what’s the result? We
don’t know who the next leaders will be.”

“It could be a radical element. It could be the Muslim Brotherhood. It
could be elements affiliated with al Qaeda. We don’t know yet who that
regime will be, but worse, we’ve seen the MANPADS go missing and the
shoulder-fired rockets that are very dangerous, that could fit into a
trunk of a car. And there are some reports out there that they may
have even gone as far as Gaza and of course, that could be used to
bring down a commercial airliner. This is a very bad decision, and
it’s created more instability in that region, not less.”

“Are you suggesting that we would be better off with Gaddafi’s
dictatorship still in effect?” Wallace wondered.

“The world is certainly better off without Gaddafi,” Bachmann replied.
“But consider what the cost will be. We are only looking at a snapshot
today. The last chapter hasn’t been written on Libya… We knew who the
devil was that was running [Libya]. We don’t know the next one. And
again, this was leading from behind on the part of the
administration.”


The world is better off without Gaddafi. She said it. Why does she
have to flop around like a Romney fish?

I can't rate any, of their performances, more than a 3.
Glad I'm not paying for this show.
So far the attempts to tell the most convincing set of lies is still up
for grabs.
I mean these people can't keep from laughing at themselves, almost.


They're caricatures of shallow people who aren't worth imitating.

This is what political science and the art of division have wrought.