Clichés, Not Clarity, His Forte

Yesterday Obama, who often likes to "be perfectly clear," eschewed that cliché and used another one in 'splaining the rationale for intervening in Libya but not going after Gaddafi:

"I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” Mr. Obama said.

At the same time, he said, directing American troops to forcibly remove Colonel Qaddafi from power would be a step too far, and would “splinter” the international coalition that has moved against the Libyan government.

“To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Let me be perfectly clear: to be blunt, going into Libya but allowing Gaddafi-Qaddafi to stay put makes about as much sense as...going into Iraq and leaving Saddam Hussein at the helm to fight another day.

Remember how well that worked out?

And, oh yeah, if Dubya hadn't gotten rid of the tyrant and his despicable progeny, Gaddafi-Qaddafi would never have thought it wise to dismantle his nuclear program. Can you even imagine the power dynamics in a world in which the Tripoli peacock had his finger on a nuclear button? The mind reels.

Update: How's this for clarity?

Moreover, Obama said that to allow Gaddafi to defy the United Nations would be "crippling [to] its future credibility."

How does it feel, America, to fight for the sake of UN "credibility"? What a noble cause to live and die for!

Update: When a Wahhabi rag applauds you for "rejecting regime change," you can be fairly certain you're on the wrong track.