Barack and awe baby. The Obomber strikes back!!!! Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Peace Prize winners combined!!
I suspect that it would have been far more beneficial had those Tomahawks blasting Libya had been aimed at the UN building in NY City instead.
I agree, the Libyan tyrant is despicable, and immediately after these acts of terrorism, particularly Lockerbie, we should have declared war and gotten rid of him.
But, we didn’t, and instead what we have is the UN authorizing military action, and the US military, with no debate or congressional authorization, becoming involved in what amounts to a civil war because we don’t like one side, and our allies, the French and Brits, have strategic interests there.
Last time I checked, our armed forces didn’t exist to advance the goals of France and Britain and the UN.
Besides, who are we backing? Are the “rebels” really eager to bring a representative government to Libya, or are we just doing the heavy lifting for a new Taliban?
Barack Obama finally has a war he can believe in. This intervention in Libya seemingly conforms to the president’s world view. He gave soothing assurances in his Friday afternoon statement that this action would not entail committing US ground troops and somebody else will lead it, just like he gave us assurances that if you like your health care plan than you could keep it..
I don’t see this as a cautious desire to minimize foreign or domestic fallout should TV images become unduly horrific, but I suspect that the motive is less to minimize the US role than it is to exalt that of the UN and other supra-national organizations, such as the Arab League, and all of the NGO camp followers that normally feed off such international coalitions.
Our Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war and the POTUS as commander in chief of the armed forces. That authority cannot be delegated to an international tribunal that lacks political accountability to the American people.
This action promises finally to use American military power in the kind of international relief and social service agency capacity Obama’s internationalist foreign policy team would like it to be, its mission unsullied by grubby considerations of national interest. One observer has already compared it to the international intervention in Kosovo, an intervention that delivered the Kosovars into the hands of UN and EU caretakers, despite their declaration of independence.
Even more significantly Obama’s world view requires victims to be serviced, and not winners to be supported. As long as the Libyan rebels had a chance to prevail, they were of little value to a messianic narcissist bent on removing the “Incomplete ungraded section” from his Nobel Peace Prize citation. Battered, pleading Libyans huddled around Benghazi are the prerequisite for making this intervention work politically. In just the same way Obama and Pelosi needed the image of sick, desperate, hard up Americans to make the case for ObamaCare, the Stimuli, and financial services “reform.”
War without victory, intervention that produces dependency, Americans shouldering the burdens but obscured in a fog of UN acronyms, a maze of rules of engagement and process that squeezes every last bit of spirit and motivation out of warriors, may not be a strategy, but it sure as hell explains the motivation.
The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
So, has the clock started and does congress give a damn?
The next question, since when does the UN authorize the US to go to war?
Since one half of our fellow Americans believes in one world without borders and at least one half of the remainder do not care.
Everyone and his dog thinks nowadays in collectivist terms: as long as we sat down ’round table, shared our feelings, and came to a consensus — all is well! Principles, our Constitution, the gradual submission of our courts to foreign ones — all be d-mned ’cause we reached a consensus.
It is all about some delusional touchy-feely thing. Has someone, whether Europeans, UN, our government, even tried to tell us whom we are supporting in Libya or what kind of structure they see will emerge? The point is not whether to agree with their opinion but what is that opinion? Not a word of reasoning, but all governments are beating themselves in their populist chests, “We want to defend the pe-e-o-o-ple of Libya.” Yep, all 50 tribes from each other.
President George W. Bush did communicate a national security objective for OIF. But this action in Libya seems to be warranted by it’s authors precisely because there IS no national security objective. I am still struggling to explain why conservatives, including Sarah Palin, would even think a second about supporting attacks on Libya. But they blame the President for not doing enough.
In keeping with the theory that Obama is overtly evil rather than merely stupid, all of his actions can be easily understood as follows: any action that will help diminish the U.S. domestically or internationally is the one Obama will take.
Domestic destruction of our freedom and our economy are taking place via massive and unsustainable deficit spending, co-opting the Fed to print unlimited amounts of money, insane regulation, insane EPA carbon regulation, wealth “redistribution”, empowering unions, ignoring case law, trampling our constitution, failing to secure our borders, suing states that wish to try and protect themselves from the depredations of Obama’s government, preventing development of domestic coal, gas, and petroleum resources, socializing health care, trying to establish the constitutional principle that the federal government can make us buy anything they tell us to, stealing ownership of the GM and Chrysler from its secured bondholders, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
On the foreign front we have dithering, rudderlessness, daily policy reversals, physically bowing to foreign leaders (especially Muslims), eschewing and insulting our allies like the U.K. and Israel, supporting our enemies like Iran, prosecuting the Afghanistan war in a manner deliberately calculated to lose, putting clueless idiots in charge of national security like James Clapper, ad nauseum.
And now Obama decides to go to war with Libya for no particular reason, this latter calculated to fail in such a way as to discredit our military and to discredit entry of the U.S. into any future foreign action no matter how well justified.
Kaddafi has been a terror sponsor since the 80s. Reagan had every reason to depose this SOB. After Lockerbie, there was even more reason.
Why do we leave murderous despots in power, for DECADES, when they kill Americans, yet attack him when he kills his own people?
If the oil production of one small, unstable country is so important to our economy, then why wont we “drill, baby, drill”?
When it comes time for a Congressional vote under the War Powers Act, I would like to see the House insert an earmark striking down obamacare, attach an earmark streamlining the budget, vote yes and send it to the presidents desk for his signature or veto.
Who said this, “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”. — Barack Obama, December 20, 2007
Remember – When a Republican President launches military action after lengthy UN & Congressional debate,fruitless economic sanctions, and ultimately resolutions to use force, it’s an illegal war and “cowboy” diplomacy.
OBama’s action in Libya have EVEN LESS legitimacy than Bush’s Iraq/Afghanistan. AT least Bush got authority from Congress and UN with one year debate. Obama only got it from UN and then rushed to war
Obama has just given Qaddafi all the encouragement and incentive he needs to go back into the terrorism buriness, IMO!
Liberals have a fungible idea of how this stuff goes, depending on who occupies the White House.
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
Western air strikes pounded Muammar Gaddafi’s defenses and allied warplanes patrolled Libyan skies Sunday, lifting the siege of Benghazi and allowing rebels to surge forward and retake lost ground.
We had tamed Daffy and he was not disturbing us much. Now we have opened up a whole new can of worms which will not be to our benefit.
What exactly would be the example shown? That the UN is sovereign? That military action must be allowed by governments even when directed at themselves?
And the message to the tin-hat dictators (not sure all those countries fit that description in any case) is what? That the UN might depose them if opposition arises in their countries? That insurrection is not to be resisted?
There were things on the table Obama could have threatened to take from Gadaffi before war. In recent months, new trade agreements with Libya, we just reopened (few months ago) tourism between our two nations. We are bombing a country and it has nothing to do with national security. And we’re doing it in THIS economy!
But it has to do with national security now. We cannot stop this until Gadaffi’s dead, we have to topple his government, and we baby-sit Libya until the vacuum is filled. We certainly cannot do what we did to a whack-job dictator like Gadaffi and then let him remain in power without seeing civilian aircraft falling from the skies.
What was not a national security issue before has become a national security issue since the bombing started last night.
This war is a NO WIN for us. You have heard of the old salesman pitch win/win. This is a lose/lose.
If Gadaffi stays in power, we lose. Damaged relations and he will surely seek revenge. As it is now, the world must kill him.
If Gadaffi is ousted, Iranian proxy groups take over and Iran becomes the defacto M.E. version of USSR superpower. This will threaten the US and put extreme pressure on Saudi and Israel.
Bush had it right. As with Iraq, the only way to win in Libia is to conquer and occupy. But we do not have the money or resources to do this. It will bankrupt us.
No matter how ‘Obama’s Folly’ ends, we lose. We should have sat this one out. Too late now.
Obama spent another $220 million of taxpayer money and killed a number of Libyans which will no doubt burnish his tough guy credentials for the 2012 reelection campaign.
Plus, it helps his buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda take control of Libya and their oil and turn Libya into another militant Islamic stronghold.
Thanks to Obama, we will soon see Libya go the way of Iran:
“Abu Yahia al-Libi, the head of Sharia committee of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, has urged his Muslims countrymen to overthrow the regime of Moammar Gaddafi and establish the Islamic rule, taking advantage of current events that sweep through the region, UmmaNews reports citing the Associated Press.”
Previously, Muammar Gaddafi said that al- Qaeda was behind the Libyan uprising seeking to end his dictatorship that lasts for more than 40 years.
It is worth noting that Gaddafi brutally suppressed any attempts to appeal to Monotheism and to implement the Sharia Law which are an integral part of Islam.
He forbade the imams to preach in their sermons (hutbah) on issues associated with politics, and also brutally punished the Libyans who had fought in Afghanistan.”
Obama hastened to declare in his Friday afternoon statement what it would not entail– no US troops on the ground, and somebody else will lead it.
Being fluent in Obomanics, I can translate this:
We will send thousands of troops in as peacekeepers under U.N. command.
And to conclude Barack Hussein Obama!!! Umm Ummm Ummmm!!!!!