A new era in U.S. foreign policy
(Getty Images)
August 23rd, 2011
10:57 PM ET

A new era in U.S. foreign policy

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

Back in March, many neoconservatives in Washington were extremely dismissive of the way President Obama was handling the intervention in Libya. They argued that he was doing too little and acting too late – that his approach was too multilateral and lacked cohesiveness. They continuously criticized President Obama for, in the words of an anonymous White House advisor, "leading from behind."

But now that these critics are confronted with the success of the Libya operation, they are changing their tune and claiming paternity of the operation.  They are further arguing that if their advice had been heeded, the intervention in Libya would have been swifter and even more successful. But the Libya intervention is so significant precisely because it did not follow the traditional pattern of U.S.-led interventions. Indeed, it launched a new era in U.S. foreign policy.

The United States decided that it was only going to intervene in Libya if it could establish several conditions:

1)    A local group that was willing to fight and die for change; in other words, "indigenous capacity".

2)    Locally recognized legitimacy in the form of the Arab League's request for intervention.

3)    International legitimacy in the form of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

4)    Genuine burden sharing with the British and French spelling out precisely how many sorties they would be willing to man and precisely what level of commitment they would be willing to provide.

It was only when all those conditions were fulfilled that the Obama Administration agreed to play a pivotal but supporting role in the Libya operation.

It is important to emphasize that even though it was a "supporting role," the U.S. was indispensable to the operation. Nobody else could have eliminated Gadhafi's air defenses – and, effectively, his air force - within three days. Without America, the operation in Libya could not have taken place. But the U.S. was also "supporting" in the sense that after these initial strikes, it moved into the background and asked its NATO partners to do the heavy lifting. Thereafter, the U.S. intervened only when it felt it needed to. All of this suggests a very different model for intervention, which I believe is a vast improvement over the old, expansive and expensive model.

The new model does two things:

First, it ensures that there's genuinely a local alliance committed to the same goals as the external coalition.  This way, there is more legitimacy on the ground. And if there is anything Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us, it is that local legitimacy is key.

Second, this model ensures that there is genuine burden sharing so that the United States is not left owning the country as has happened so often in the past.

Compared to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Libya operation was a bargain.  It cost the U.S. about $1 billion.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan collectively cost the U.S. $1.3 trillion. In other words, success in Libya could be achieved at less than one-tenth of one percent of the cost of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That's not a bad model for the future.

Now there are critics of this approach on both the right and left. Some on the left – the great liberal internationalists – are horrified by the fact that people in Benghazi cheered for French President Nicolas Sarkozy. They think only President Obama's name should be on the lips of the liberated Libyans.But there is actually nothing wrong with a world in which the Europeans are also associated with the cause of freedom and liberty. It means that they will also be more willing to bear some of the burdens and pay some of the costs of intervention. And it means they are more likely to be involved in the difficult process of reconstruction.

The old model of American leadership - where we took all the decisions, bore all the burdens, paid all the costs and took all the glory – has to change. People in Washington are going to have to realize that when other countries step up to the plate, they too will naturally get some share of credit.  It's more important that Libya be saved than that Washington is seen as the sole savior.

In the future, we will again have to follow this limited model of intervention. The United States is not going to have the kind of defense budget nor the national will to engage in a series of major military operations in countries that are, frankly, not vital to our national interests. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was very clear and he was right: Libya is not vital to our national interest. The point, however, was that the Libyan revolution was an important event in the context of the Arab Spring and that if we could be helpful, it would be of great benefit to Libya and to America.

The question before Libya was: Could such interventions be successful while keeping costs under control - both human and financial.

Today's answer is: Yes.

For more of my thoughts through the week, I invite you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and to bookmark the Global Public Square.


soundoff (1,076 Responses)
  1. LGD

    This is a great article and I agree with every part of it. But I have one small comment:

    You said, "Now there are critics of this approach on both the right and left." Then you follow up by commenting on the critics of the left and what they are saying. You never identified who the critics from the right are or what they are saying. You talked about those who want to keep the old world order (America on top) but don't identify them as being on the right.

    This is a common theme among journalists now. In an effort to appear even-handed, the journalist must make criticisms of the left but give the right a freer hand. That's why the Republicans did not get the absolute condemnation that they should have for the way they conducted themselves during the recent debt limit bill fiasco. They couldn't stand for President Obama to get a "victory" by coming to an agreement about the budget and debt limit so they held the American economy and the world economy hostage so that it would appear that President Obama lacked the leadership to come to an agreement.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:33 am | Reply
  2. paul

    This shouldn't cost us a dime. Libya has oil. It is not our burden to rebuild their country. We helped them liberate it from a madman. It is now their job to rebuild their own country.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:33 am | Reply
  3. Ahmed

    I dont see how taking a back seat to the arab league is showing any leadership on obowmas part.....fareed, get your lips off of obowmas ars...

    August 24, 2011 at 10:33 am | Reply
    • demogal

      And you are an idiot! The citizens of a country, and the leadership of an area, should take the lead in change. We seriously overstepped when our country invaded Iraq, and will pay for that for a long time.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:37 am | Reply
  4. El Flaco

    A Conservative president invaded two nations by mistake (first time in world history).

    We invaded Iraq to find WMDs but they weren’t there, so every American who died in Iraq died for nothing.

    We invaded Afghanistan to find bin Laden, but he wasn’t there. He was sipping latte and watching soccer on his big screen TV in Pakistan. So, the Americans who died in Afghanistan died for nothing.

    So you Conservatives have to give Obama at least this much ... At least Ghadafi was actually in the country we were bombing.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:33 am | Reply
    • Brett

      Sadam Hussein killed thousands more of his own people than Qaddafi ever did.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:36 am | Reply
      • olepi

        Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians with gas the US provided. Then we resupplied him with new ones. The US had no problems with Saddam killing his own people.

        August 24, 2011 at 11:13 am |
    • El Flaco

      That is not why we invaded Iraq. I remember those days after 9/11 very well. We invaded Iraq to capture "20,000 TONS of bioactive and radioactive weapons grade material."

      How many WMDs did we find? ZERO!

      August 24, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply
      • tcp

        MASSIVE oversimplification.

        August 24, 2011 at 11:43 am |
    • tcp

      Trust me, NONE of my brothers and sisters in arms "died for nothing" but you probably just wouldn't understand that. Go back to class, we got this.

      August 24, 2011 at 11:37 am | Reply
  5. Sovereignhominin

    The U.S. Consti2tion will no longer be censored by cointelpro globalist hacks like zakaria! The MSM has become nothing but a thinly veiled propaganda machine involved in shaping opinion rather than reporting facts. How many times did they tell us that Ghadaffi's sons had been captured? These dinosaurs will soon become extinct.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:35 am | Reply
  6. demogal

    And this is the way to do it!

    August 24, 2011 at 10:35 am | Reply
    • GotThumbs

      NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:55 am | Reply
  7. JOE

    Fareed this is one of the best written, most concrete and viable articles I've ever read. You hit the nail right on the head Fareed. But the reality is that the GOP and their Tea will never give president Obama any credit at all for his sound judgement, his intellect and tremendous leadership in getting the world community on board to intervene in Libya. And Fareed, you hit it right on the head when you describe how at the very beginning of the Libyan crisis, the GOP criticized the president's leadership arguing that he was dragging his feet while civilians were being killed by the Ghadaffi regime only to reverse their position and accused the president of rushing to war. Then there are the likes of Dennis Kunick, a supposedly Democratic congressman from John Boehner home state of Ohio crossing party lines to entertain the notion of impeaching of our president. How absurd, pathetic and outrageous.

    But Fareed what has been evident to the American people from day one is that these critics in Washington will never admit it but the reality is that the opposition and criticism of this administration's policies have nothing to do with the policies themselves but more to do with the color of the president's skin. I just hope the GOP and their Tea Party and people like Dennis Kunich would admit the obvious. After all, they cannot hide their true colors.

    But I'm grateful and honored and pleased that president Obama is my president and president of the United States because since he has taken office, America has once again forged ahead as the leader of the free and democratic world. Our credibility and trust and image around the world has improved significantly and we are slowly but surely surging ahead of the problems that George W. Bush and the GOP left the American people to deal with.

    And unfortunately, like with all the other issues that this president has dealth with, it is sad to say that the GOP and their colorful Tea Party is yet to give president Obama credit for sending our Navy Seals off to kill Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. But Fareed, thanks a million for your well articulated article of the president's handling of the Libyan crisis. Fareed, America need more people like you, that is people who can make an independent judgement and assessment of the issues in a fair, objective and precise manner. Thank you Fareed Zakaria.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:36 am | Reply
    • jimbo84

      Huh? Sec of State is the one who put this effort together, and Pres Obama is the first sitting president who has taken credit for an operation conducted by our military forces. The Seal/Bin Laden 'show' put on by the administration really sticks in my crawl because their disclosure of operationa (to include the New Yorker article) has put my son-in-law (a seal) and his family in danger. He and his admin should have kept their mouths shut wrt killing OBL>

      August 24, 2011 at 10:40 am | Reply
  8. jimbo84

    Coalition of the willing has been a common theme for quite awhile now – to include efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan...where have you been? Despite this coalition of the willing – the US is still pulling the most effort.
    What do you think we'll do with Syria – which looking at their and Assad's track record – have been much more dastardly than Libya has ....

    August 24, 2011 at 10:36 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      Obama will do nothing in Syria unless he is convinced that it will succeed, like this Libyan operation has apparently succeeded.

      President McCain would have had 50,000 American troops on the ground in Libya and Syria by now, and Vice President Palin would be talking about "how proud we are of our soldiers in Liberia."

      August 24, 2011 at 10:41 am | Reply
  9. fixingstupid

    Fareed – why don't you just marry Obama... we all know your in love with him. Maybe after two months of marital bliss the rose color glasses will ware off.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:36 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      "Wear" off.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:41 am | Reply
  10. ArizonaYankee

    Hey Zakeria, he is the UK's Chamberlin of the the 30's. His policies are a disaster, and so is this one. If you thought that Gadaffi was bad, and he was, wait until you see what is coming. Just look at Egypt. Obama is clueless and the sooner you / we figure that out the better off we will be.....

    August 24, 2011 at 10:37 am | Reply
  11. boka

    Obama lied. He promised he would not go after medical marijuana users and dispenseries before he was president. Then did the opposite when he was elected. Liar.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      I don't think the Obama Administration has a drug policy. Changing our drug laws is politcally impossible due to the willingness of Conservatives to make it an election issue.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:43 am | Reply
  12. Mark

    Other nations shared the burden?? Your joking right? NATO is 80% funded and 60% staffed by the USA. 70% of all combat missions in Libya and the ordnance expended were accomplished by USA. We shared the Libya mission with ourselves

    August 24, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply
    • ZeroGods

      If those numbers are right (I wouldn't be surprised), then that seems like an important point that the US administration should be pushing. Time for a more balanced partnership in NATO between the US and Europe. Shared responsibility, shared decision making. A less US-centric organization should be better for everyone.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:45 am | Reply
  13. dave richman

    Fareed Zakaria is once again predicting the future of Obama's actions. It will mean nothing when the voters go to the polls to vote him out of office. All that matters is jobs, debt, and economic recovery.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply
  14. Roadrun63

    Zakaria is rapidly becoming dangerous...this article reads like a manifesto for world conquest. Trumpeting "local legitimacy" begins the slide down the slippery slope....What's next?...The "intervention" into sovereign countries if there is a rebel group of any kind? Who's next?....Britain? Nah! Greece? Nah! Let me think...where is there a country with a rebel group to justify intervention?....With plenty of neighbors to provide "local legitimacy"?....Where could it be Fareed?....Could it be?.........ISRAEL!

    August 24, 2011 at 10:38 am | Reply
    • ZeroGods

      Many issues in the real world are a "slippery slope". Complaining about it is often the first sign that you've turned off your brain and are about to make some claims that appeal to fear and uncertainty.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:49 am | Reply
  15. dov hatzafon

    So from now on if anything in the world eventually works itself out without much or any help from America it will be declared a victory for Obama. In that case, decreasing poverty in China is a victory for Obama, India's economic growth is a victory for Obama, the Chileans' success retrieving the trapped miners was a victory for Obama. Obama also has domestic victories: nobody got killed in the recent earthquake in Virginia! Good going Obama, yes we can!!!!

    August 24, 2011 at 10:39 am | Reply
  16. Bill

    What a joke of an article, how much have we spent in tax dollors? Share that burden.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:39 am | Reply
    • GotThumbs

      NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:54 am | Reply
  17. Yale Alum

    Fareed, please run for president. Every week you provide poignant articles and discussions that clearly illustrate you understand today's world. Please run for president. As a fellow Yale alum I greatly admire you.

    Fareed Zakaria/Jon Huntsman 2012!

    August 24, 2011 at 10:40 am | Reply
    • gary

      Really?

      August 24, 2011 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  18. Scott

    Obama didn't invent the idea of building consensus before going to war. Both Bush's did that with Iraq, building coalition armies to defeat Sadaam. And of course, you crowing about a victory that hasn't happened yet. There is still fighting in the streets of Tripoli, Quadaffi is still at large... where is the victory? And when/if Quadaffi falls and there is still fighting in the streets of Tripoli, starvation and food riots in the country, mass looting and other criminal offenses against persons and property going on without any law... where will be the victory? Your article does nothing but demonstrate your own ignorance.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:40 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      Let us not confuse the brilliance with which Bush Sr. managed the Gulf War with the utter stupidity of his draft-dodging son. We went in, we kicked butt, we left. Soldiers were actually safer in Kuwait than they would have been back home driving on the freeway. Bush Sr. was a genuine war hero in WWII. His son was an awol helicopter pilot in Texas.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:45 am | Reply
      • tcp

        You're just a W hater. We went to Iraq with BROAD support.

        August 24, 2011 at 11:07 am |
  19. John

    Isn't it a bit early to be declaring the Libya operation a success? Isn't it a bit like saying the war in Iraq was a success the day that Baghdad fell? Since we've never tried "leading from behind" we have no idea how much good will the rebels will be affording NATO. Nor do we know what kind of country they intend to create. And since we were only minimally involved in their success, I'm guessing that they won't be taking too much of our advice.

    Remember the story of farmer's son and the wise man's response ... "We shall see."

    August 24, 2011 at 10:40 am | Reply
  20. tj66

    Most of these points applied to Afghanistan and Iraq as well. It seems to me the biggest difference is that we didn't put boots on the ground (the loudest voices demanding troops were Dems, as I recall, and at the time I suspected this was a political trap). If we had only dropped bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq we wouldn't have 10's of thousands of troops deployed there 10 years later.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:41 am | Reply
  21. dannyboywh

    Lets put all the cards on the table. American dominance for the sake of it. Dead soldiers and civilians are soon forgotten, but glory of domination lives forever. Name 5 dictators...now name five dead american soldiers...which list is easier to make. you see my point. People will marvel at American military and political dominance in the future. Give the american people a share in the plunder!!!

    August 24, 2011 at 10:41 am | Reply
  22. J_Sparks

    All propaganda depending on the day of the week.
    Obama is too political for me with a mindset I do not understand; not to be trusted.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:41 am | Reply
  23. Ted Peters

    Nonesense. The Euros pushed us into Libya for their own economic self interest. They balked in Iraq for the same reasons. We went in only half-heartedly in Libya because it is strageically insignificant, whereas we went whole hog into Iraq because it is the keystone nation in the middle east. Fareed has jumped the shark for me... he's become nothing more now that an Obama cheerleader.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:41 am | Reply
  24. Roger

    What a concept! Shared burden... too bad Conservatives have yet to understand that.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:42 am | Reply
    • GotThumbs

      NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:53 am | Reply
  25. mmc

    This article is poorly thought out. Europe is in Libya because it is easy and because of direct national interests. It is easy because of the location of bases. No overfly permission is needed to get to Libya from Europe. National interests include historic ties, business relationships, and oil contracts.

    And finally, the US has very little interest in Libya. They had shaped up enough on the world stage to not be viewed as a threat to our national security.

    Now after reading that, how can you draw a conclusion that this is a new US policy direction? You can't.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:44 am | Reply
  26. Raat

    Libya may be nothing but a "rat hole" to some of you, but this is a globally connected reality, with subtle channels connecting all things. By supporting democracy and freedom, in a cost-effective, cooperative, and ideologically sound way, we are strengthening the world, and strengthening our country in a way that only appears to people who have the ability to see the whole picture. A more stable Middle East means a more stable world and less violent extremism. That means less of a need for a giant, absurdly priced military. This isn't a "you break it, you bought it" situation like Iraq and Afghanistan, hence the mention of indigenous legitimacy. I invite you to try to look at the big picture and toss off the soundbites like "America is broke". Its just not true 🙂

    August 24, 2011 at 10:44 am | Reply
  27. Deryk Houston

    I have a lot of respect for Mr. Fareed.....but it is unfortunate that he doesn't understand the importance of adhering to international law. It is wicked to pretend that you don't have "boots" on the ground when in fact the US does have boots on the ground in Libya. (Hired X military experts are really just the same thing. Everyone also knows that this attack on Libya was to create Regime change. Canada's prime minister mentioned that when he came out of an early meeting )
    How can we create a safe world for our children when our leaders believe that they can ignore international law when it suits them? I wish that Mr. Fareed would also understand this idea.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:44 am | Reply
  28. Mark from Louisiana

    I guess the idiot who wrote this crap has a short memory span. I guess he is fine with obozo not getting approval from congress before going to war with Libya. I guess this idiot has no problems if the muslim brotherhood governs Libya.

    August 24, 2011 at 10:45 am | Reply
  29. Invsblhand

    Hmm... does all this crowing remind anyone else of Bush's "victory" speech on the aircraft carrier? Of course most of the crowing this time comes from the media

    August 24, 2011 at 10:45 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      They are not similar at all.

      Apparently the most vicious thing a Conservative can say about a non-Conservative is that he is just as stupid and incompetent as the last Republican President.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:46 am | Reply
      • GotThumbs

        NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.

        August 24, 2011 at 10:52 am |
      • DC

        Is it possible for a democrat to speak or write a sentence without using derogatory remarks, such as "jerk, stupid, incompetent, idiot, dumb, retarded, fool, etc)??? Didn't think so.....

        August 24, 2011 at 11:02 am |
  30. Shiva

    Now let's see – Bachman wishes Happy Birthday to Elvis on the day he died; Obama makes a considered decision to let NATO take the lead in the Libyan civil war – who is it that seems to be on top of things? Just wondering. LOL

    August 24, 2011 at 10:47 am | Reply
    • GotThumbs

      NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.

      August 24, 2011 at 10:51 am | Reply
    • tcp

      Oh, I dunno'. How many states in the union? Which living Soldier did the President present a Medal of Honor to? In which YEAR did the President visit Westminster Abbey? Is Austrian a language? How old is the President's daughter? When's the last time he bowled in the Special Olympics?

      August 24, 2011 at 10:56 am | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.