President Pootie Tang Forced to Cut Short Mayan Holiday

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

President Pootie Tang was forced to abandon plans to visit Mayan ruins from his Great Tour itinerary today and fly home to face a nation angered and dismayed by his decision to launch a military action against Libya without first consulting the U.S. Congress.

White House aides have taken pains to portray him as fully engaged in the deployment of missiles, Navy ships and warplanes to Libya even as he devoted his public time to playing soccer with children in Rio de Janeiro and partying with elite Latin American leaders.

But he can’t escape the juxtaposition his actions and the latest U.S. mission in Libya as you can clearly see from this picture taken at an official dinner at the National Palace in San Salvador, El Salvador on Tuesday.

The three-country, five-day romp was meant ostensibly to re-establish U.S. leadership in the region and if all went well, get a commitment from Brazil to sell oil to an energy-addled U.S.

President Pootie Tang first traveled to Brazil, then Chile and finally El Salvador, all countries that have undergone political transformations over the past decades.

This entry was posted in International News, News, Politics, President Pootie Tang, Worst President Ever and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to President Pootie Tang Forced to Cut Short Mayan Holiday

  1. Rachel says:

    Perhaps I stand corrected but this is the first time I can recall where a president was out of the country and simultaneously started a war. I know modern communications and Hillary Clinton make such things possible but, it just seems peculiar and I am not comfortable with it. If you’re going to send the military into harm’s way, at least have the decency to stay in residence.

  2. DMason says:

    While the troops risk their lives in Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan), Boozin’ Barry is hanging with the swells in Central America. I sure hope the GOP hangs him out to dry when he comes home. I’ve had all I can take of this scoundrel.

  3. joe s says:

    You know I don’t look favorarbly upon Obama but he is in dambed if u do and damned if you don’t. We went to Ieaq and after we didn’t find aby wmd’s we called it a humaniyarian war because of how Suddam reated his people. This guy threatens to bust in Lubuans homes find them hiding ijn the closet and kill them. Then Obama lets France take the lead and Hannity criticized him for that. If Bush is forgiven for Iraq them militarily can forgive anything. Iraq =trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

  4. joe s says:

    Sorry for the sloppiness of last post …should have proof read

  5. TOM339 says:

    If Tweety has his facts right, Obama was handed a letter from Boehner within minutes of landing at Andrews Air Force Base an hour ago demanding answers about Libya and according to Tweety, Boehner used the “W” word: WAR.

    I think this president is in very serious trouble. He’s so in over his head and not ready for primetime. He doesn’t have a vision for Libya, for the economy, or for the office he holds.

  6. Massagatto says:

    It looks like the west’s worst case Libyan scenario has come true. According to the Washington Post, Qaddafi’s snipers continue their murderous assault on the rebels despite U.S. airstrikes.

    Barack Hussein Obama’s strategy (or was it Hillary Clinton’s strategy?) appears to have fallen on its face with a huge splat. Our “no boots on the ground” effort to aide and abet the Libyan rebels — whoever they are, is a failure and just adds to the failed legacy of this president.

    If Barack Hussein Obama weren’t such a she-man he would man up and do what is really necessary vis a vis Libya and that is assassinate Qaddafi. How it’s done doesn’t matter as much as accomplishing the task: bomb him to death, shoot him, or poison him but, kill him dead.

    Because when Qaddafi emerges fortified, stronger than before a newly minted hero to the Muslim world for having withstood an attack from the Great Satan America, trust me, the American people and the non Muslim world will hold Barack Hussein Obama is as much esteem as a flea and the left and liberals will pray Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2012.

  7. VicoDANIEL says:

    The Middle East is a complicated place and our role in the world can’t be maintained through brute force now because the US Treasury is empty.

    It’s very clear to me that we need change and this starts with changing the leadership at the top of the food chain. We must focus our energies on the next General Election and resist rewarding those who do not deserve reelection.

    Now is the moment in our country’s history for a viable third party candidate to run against the current occupant of the White House. Let’s not waste a moment of energy supporting a two-party system that has failed us. Too much is at stake.

  8. Matteo says:

    Here is the link to the Washington Post story I think Massagatto is referring to.

    Allied strikes hit Libyan forces in Misurata, but snipers continue to claim lives

    Obama and Hillary can call it whatever they want but, I call it a war.

  9. Does anyone have a copy of the letter Speak Boehner gave Obama today?

    I want to read it and post it here. Thanks.

  10. Matteo says:

    Christopher – Here it is. I found it on Politico.

    March 23, 2011

    President Barack Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    Thank you for your letter dated March 21, 2011, outlining your Administration’s actions regarding Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn. The United States has long stood with those who seek freedom from oppression through self-government and an underlying structure of basic human rights. The news yesterday that a U.S. fighter jet involved in this operation crashed is a reminder of the high stakes of any military action abroad and the high price our Nation has paid in blood and treasure to advance the cause of freedom through our history.

    I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief and support our troops as they carry out their mission. But I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission. In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered. At the same time, by contrast, it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League.

    It is my hope that you will provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved. Here are some of the questions I believe must be answered:

    • A United Nations Security Council resolution does not substitute for a U.S. political and military strategy. You have stated that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi must go, consistent with U.S. policy goals. But the U.N. resolution the U.S. helped develop and signed onto makes clear that regime change is not part of this mission. In light of this contradiction, is it an acceptable outcome for Qadhafi to remain in power after the military effort concludes in Libya? If not, how will he be removed from power? Why would the U.S. commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests?

    • In announcing that our Armed Forces would lead the preliminary strikes in Libya, you said it was necessary to “enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.” Do we know which partners will be taking the lead? Are there clear lines of authority and responsibility and a chain of command? Operationally, does enforcement of a no-fly zone require U.S. forces to attack non-air or command and control operations for land-based battlefield activities, such as armored vehicles, tanks, and combatants?

    • You have said that the support of the international community was critical to your decision to strike Libya. But, like many Americans, it appears many of our coalition partners are themselves unclear on the policy goals of this mission. If the coalition dissolves or partners continue to disengage, will the American military take on an increased role? Will we disengage?

    • Since the stated U.S. policy goal is removing Qadhafi from power, do you have an engagement strategy for the opposition forces? If the strife in Libya becomes a protracted conflict, what are your Administration’s objectives for engaging with opposition forces, and what standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by our government?

    • Your Administration has repeatedly said our engagement in this military action will be a matter of “days, not weeks.” After four days of U.S. military action, how soon do you expect to hand control to these other nations? After the transition to coalition forces is completed, how long will American military forces remain engaged in this action? If Qadhafi remains in power, how long will a no-fly zone will be enforced?

    • We are currently in the process of setting priorities for the coming year in the budget. Has the Department of Defense estimated the total cost, direct and indirect, associated with this mission? While you said yesterday that the cost of this mission could be paid for out of already-appropriated funds, do you anticipate requesting any supplemental funds from Congress to pay for ongoing operations in Libya?

    • Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East. The American people deserve answers to these questions. And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?

    The American people take the use of military action seriously, as does the House of Representatives. It is regrettable that no opportunity was afforded to consult with Congressional leaders, as was the custom of your predecessors, before your decision as Commander-in-Chief to deploy into combat the men and women of our Armed Forces. Understanding some information required to respond may be classified, I look forward to a complete response.


    John A. Boehner

  11. Kate Novotny says:

    Tell me again why Barack Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize? Was it for being black or for giving nice speeches? It certainly has nothing to do with peace.

  12. Pechanga says:

    Believe it or not, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer had the most logical idea of all.

    He said since the US has frozen Libyan assets estimated to be worth $30 billion, why not use them to fund Barry’s North African adventure as opposed to squeezing more from already maxed out American tax payer.

    In fact, Blitzer even proposed the idea to some droid on Obama’s team who hemmed and hawed basically rejecting the idea outright.

  13. Thai Noodles says:

    Too bad Obama didn’t follow his instincts which told him not to bomb the shit out of Libya because his instincts were correct.

  14. Randy Arroyo says:

    Pechanga – Wolf Blitzer said that? Wow, I’m stunned. He’s usually such an idiot that I wouldn’t expect such a logical solution from him. $30 billion is a lot of coin and would cover the expense of Obama’s raid on Libya. Of course, I’m certain Obama would prefer to burden the American people with the cost of funding his folly.

  15. Arizona Leatherneck says:

    I had to shut off MSNBC. The drumbeat favoring Obama’s attack of Libya made me sick to my stomach. Talk about drinking the koolaid.

    Gaddafi should’ve been taken out covertly long ago. But for this president, who says he is a constitutional law professor, to reach out to the UN, the Arab League and allies in Europe but not the US Congress before ordering the attack, is very troubling and I’m worried about the next person we elect to be president.

    The US is marching toward oligarchy. Maybe the United States Constitution has just become an object to be viewed under glass in a museum?

  16. Jolly Roger says:

    I don’t think it ever was up to us to do anything about Qadaffi, any more than it would have been up to Qadaffi to do anything about Chimpy or Cheney. That
    s wrong thinking, and it has to stop. Qadaffi is nothing without his oil, and a sensible energy policy in this country would make us immune to him.

    Having said that…. Boy oh boy, do I wish there were honorable people in the Rushpubliscum Party right now. If there were any, even an old liberal like me might be willing to listen to what they had to say.

  17. Big Hank says:

    Libya is Hillary’s war. She’s the driving force behind Obama’s decision to station Navy ships off the coast and fire missiles at Qaddafi.

    I always held that Hillary Clinton is much more ready to pick a fight than Obama and after the mess called the Iraq war, I was tired of the deaths and wanted a period of peace and quiet. So I supported Obama in 2008. Libya is a sampling of what things would be like if the voters had elected Hillary. I hope Obama’s learned a lesson. She and her husband aren’t to be trusted. Not on Libya and not ever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s