Jets over Libya as H. Clinton Assumes Presidency
Only Barack Obama could make Nicolas Sarkozy look good.
Why did it take our president so long to act in Libya with the international community fairly begging us to do something? Is it because there is a weird similarity between Muammar Gaddafi and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright — both men jawing on publicly with radical rhetoric while privately enriching themselves to the maximum degree possible in their individual instances? (Easy to imagine Wright as a Third World despot.)
Or is it just Obama’s natural predilection to do nothing that we first saw writ large when he failed to support the democracy demonstrators in the streets of Teheran in ’09? This man is clearly no neocon. He’s not even much of a lover of democracy and freedom, as far as anyone can tell.
What is clear is that it was only pressure from his secretary of State that propelled him to act before more bodies were splattered across Libya and Gaddafi stood triumphant over the country, mocking the world like the Batman Joker he is while soaking up more billions in petrodollars.
This division in our leadership could not have been more evident today watching Obama speak from Brazil followed by Clinton’s Paris conference. Obama was a blip, his vaunted verbal facility from the ’08 presidential election now seeming a distant memory from a particularly bland and pompous advertising campaign. Meanwhile, Clinton handled her press conference like a true statesman, fielding questions exactly with ready answers. She had thought things through and it showed. The woman had not been off playing golf or taking samba lessons in Corcovado. She obviously skipped the March Madness, as well, for more significant matters.
I know there are some extreme libertarians that think Libya is none of our business — that we, and the international community, should stay out and let the locals blow each other to smithereens until the next dictator takes the throne or the old one keeps it and locks his enemies in torture chambers. Attractive and consoling as that idea may be, the world is nowhere near that simple. We live on a tiny globe that is shrinking by the moment for a myriad of reasons from instant communications to limited energy to a global economy. The bloodshed in Benghazi affects the refineries of Texas just as the tsunami at Fukushima rocks the boatyards of Crescent City. And those are only a couple of the most obvious instances this week.
We’re all in this together. Sorry.
And I have to tell you one other thing. Remember this: We’re Americans. Good is what we are supposed to do.
Well, it seems the French finally have the ball rolling. Obama, from what I read, is still “assessing”, “warning”, “putting measures in place” and “preparing for imminent action.” Maybe even (ghasp!)”tightening the noose” around Khaddafi. No wonder Hilary is fed up with him. Go, France! Le jour de gloire est arrive!
This illegal, unconstitutional action by the alleged POTUS is designed to defeat Ghadaffi, who is the Good Guy here, and empower the Jihadist Moslem Revolutionaries who constitute the “civilian rebel forces”, armed, by the way, with artillery and helicopters. It is in concert with concurrent uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Saudi, etc.
The Moslem-In-Chief must be impeached and imprisoned. But nobody in power has the guts to do it, including the weeping alcoholic of the Capitol Dome.
Watch while the Traitor in the White House murders the enemies of Islamic Jihad and the GOP rolls over and raises the national debt limit. And the incredibly evil, ignorant, amoral electorate grants the Great Deceiver another four years.
are you nuts? the “alleged” POTUS? Barack Obama IS the President of the United States, although some unpatriotic dim-wits think it’s smart to disparage him. I helped elect Obama as the best of the choices available. He’s the duly elected President of my country, and I appreciate that he thinks and considers the multiplicity of issues before acting. Unlike Geo. W. Bush, the pseudo-cowboy nimcompoop.
Of course he’s the president, Jessica, but I just have to wonder if during the Bush years you ever engaged in a little “disparaging” yourself? Let’s see if I can remember – Nazi, war criminal, dumb cowboy, ignorant. Remember any of those from your side of the fence? I wonder if you or any of your friends ever claimed that President Bush wasn’t actually “your president”.
And, to call someone an “unpatriotic dim-wit” for disparaging him, and then finish your response by disparaging the former president says quite a bit about the … um… intellectual disconnect that apparently drives you – though my impression is that what actually drives those who provide knee-jerk support for this president isn’t just an intellectual disconnect, but a pathology of hate.
I only really ask this of you; next time, before you respond on PJM look in the mirror, and try to grow up first.
I’m sure Jess has always referred to “cowboy, nincompoop” PRESIDENT Bush in a very respectful manner, BUT Bush had it easy. Since PRESIDENT Obama was so used to voting “present”, it’s gotta be a real strain on his liberal psyche to make actual decisions on a “multitude of issues” for all 58 states (57 he visited & the “1 left to go”). BTW Jess, how’s that new flag comin’?
Agree, DITTO, with your comment to Jessica – I believe that if you are still blindly following our POTUS, then you have not been paying close attention.
Hillary is far better at this POTUS business than the “elected one”. The erosion of our place in the world is due to lack of action, leadership, and focus things that matter. Actions and lack of, speak volumes….Sad that this is who we have to deal with until 2012. The Transformation of America per Obama is NOT the America I desire.
Thank you for saying that! People, unfortunately we have a President now who has let power blind him and he has forgotten the reason he wanted the position or he just lied, as he has done with his birth certificate, to get the position of President to make sure he has left a footprint on America. Read his book and find out more about the man and his socialist ways and dislike for American White men. Look around and see who is being run out of their jobs! Those that have worked the hardest and longest and kept the welfare ticket going for those who wouldn’t go to work and just waited for that hand-out to come in the mail every month. We are tired of it! Get a job!
Jessica, so YOU’RE the one!
Seriously, if you have not yet regretted your vote sincerely, then you are too far gone for any hope of salvation.
I have always been a believer in respect for the office of President, regardless of which party that President may be from. The knee-jerk reaction from many is to immediately attribute “wicked” or “hidden” motives to Presidents and other elected officials they do not agree with. Sometimes people, and yes even Presidents, make mistakes and bad decisions. A President can be mistaken, foolish, or even incompetent without having to be “evil” or a “socialist” or a “fascist.” That being said, I do believe there is a level of hypocrisy from the left that is staggering, when it comes to their treatment of George W. Bush and how they would like to see Barack Obama treated now. The best we can do as conservatives and libertarians is to focus on electing a better President in 2012. Name calling, invoking secret agendas, and engaging in conspiracy theories defined the liberal mindset during the Bush years, and we should never allow ourselves to defend “crazy” merely because it directed at the left.
@Edward;
Yes, a POTUS can be foolish, mistaken, or even incompetent without being an evil socialist Mystery Man Fake. But it happens that this one is all of the latter. Not a smidgeon of evidence has ever surfaced to disprove or cast the slightest doubt on the veracity of the accusations against him. Quite the contrary.
So your Praising Him with faint damns doesn’t work.
are you nuts? the “alleged” POTUS?
Alleged yes.
There is no substance to him.
He is just an empty suit.
As to Roger’s Why did it take our president so long to act in Libya with the international community fairly begging us to do something?, well at least he did sort of react as opposed to his inaction when Ahmadjinejad was killing and repressing Iranians who protested his stealing of the election.
Is this the manner of a President of the USA from hanging limp to fluttering in the changing breeze as he thinks and considers the multiplicity of issues before acting. ?
Jessica, I trust that you have the integrity to apologize to people like me for foisting the current occupant of the WH on the American public. If indeed he took his duties seriously, he might be considered a legitimate leader, unfortunately he still hasn’t taken the reins in hand. For him and his wife it is merely good high on the hog living and payback time. Although payback for what is my question. The undeserved advantages for schooling, jobs, etc? Please give us all a break!
“Foisting” indeed. The Dem party will have him hung like an albatross around its neck for a century or two, as the party that “foisted” Obama on America with malice aforethought.
Which brings up the interesting speculation: assuming the existence of principled Democrats, could the party eventually split? I know the GOP is usually the candidate or target for such projections, but …
JESSICA
1) “are you nuts?”
Ad Hominem attack.
2) “although some unpatriotic dim-wits think it’s smart to disparage him.”
Second Ad Hominem
3) “as the best of the choices available.”
Prove it. Says who, you? What is your evidence? You like him, that proves it, right?
4) “He’s the duly elected President of my country, and I appreciate that he thinks and considers the multiplicity of issues before acting.”
What evidence is there that this statement has any truth to it?
5) “Unlike Geo. W. Bush, the pseudo-cowboy nimcompoop.”
Another Ad Hominem.
You are thinking with your emotions. EMOTIONS ARE NOT FOR THINKING, THEY’RE FOR FEELING.
Read a book on critical thinking.
SDT, very well done.
Take a cold shower and thank God it’s not Bush and 1000′s of our troops murdered for a lie. Our you men and women are dieing for a take over of our way of life, to make it more like China Capitalism destroying workers rights and freedoms!
TEXAS
That was either the worst attempt at sarcasm I’ve seen, or someone needs to drink some coffee and take a cold shower before typing.
Oldone, ever try proofreading your stuff. Give it a try next time and see if you can make sense.
OLDONE
Try proof reading your stuff next time, maybe it will make sense, then.
I am not a fan of Obama, but Gaddafi has the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands. He is insane, and if he is allowed to get away with using mercenaries to kill his own people there will be nothing stopping him from upping his nuke program again..or doing just about anything else he wants. And why assume that those rebels are all just a bunch of jihadis? For years westerners have said the people of the middle east need to rise up against the dictators and when they do…we ask for their resumes. There is no guarantee that these people are all the good guys, but to call Gaddafi a good guy is just ridiculous..not to mention an insult the family members of the people killed on Pan Am 103.
Where the hell is congress now that Obama has entered us into a shooting role in a civil war that has nothing to do with the US?
I don’t give a damn how much the UN begs or the French “lead” this is not our business in any way shape or form. Do we now go into the identical situations in Yemen, Baharain and Saudi Arabia? How about Iran? Short round and the mullahs are gladly offing protesters there. Shouldn’t we be trying to shoot him too?????
Why is THIS not an impeachable offence?
Bahrain and Saudi Arabia: No. They are on our side, more or less.
Yemen: oh, maybe eventually, but Yemen will never be anywhere near the same potential threat as a Libya ruled by a vengeful madman.
Iran: sure, why not? As long as we do it right–and by that I mean targeting the individuals who make up the Iranian nazi ruyling clique. Good suggestion – thanks.
As to why it’s legal, I suggest you go learn something. The President is completely empowered to order this kind of action, and he has sixty days before he has to seek approval from Congress. In 20 days, tops, Kaddafi will be gone, fled to Venezuela, where he can swap lies with Hugo Chavez to his heart’s content, and issue periodic manifestos declaring himself King of the World.
Maybe you need to learn something. The 1973 war powers act is not a blank check for the President to start shooting whenever he feels like it. There is supposed to be some identifiable threat to the US or at least sovereign US interests / allies. This situation has none of those.
This is nothing more than Barry trying to build back his self esteem, after ceding the presidency to Hillary and the French, by being a war “leader”.
For those of you that need an education on what are the limits on the PoTUS’ power….
War Powers Resolution of 1973
1541. Purpose and policy
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Now it is up to anyone that think that the Obamanation is correct in bombing Libya you mus be able to state which of those 3 caveats apply. Here’s a hint: NONE OF THEM DO.
Mike, can you please supply the supporting info for your statement on President having Constitutional backing for this action. Words are cheap, so please share something to back up that statement.
As much as I disapprove of obama this continual knee jerk “impeach him” is getting just plain stupid. We are turning into the same kind of non thinking dopes that attacked Bush for 8 years. Just realize he’s there for the term and work like hell to make certain it’s only ONE term.
Ken I could not agree with you more. It is even tiring to me to hear continually about his picking teams in March Madness like the man can’t even take a crap. And no I am not fan of Obama.
Forget who the president is and think about what he was elected to do. If you belive in the separation of powers envisioned by our founders, enshrined in our Constitution, and supported by the sworn oath of every current and past President, member of Congress, and federal judge, then it is clear that our Constitution is under attack.
Those who say “Impeach Obama” are merely trying to defend the Constitution. Yes, there will be some who would say “Impeach Obama” if he left the White House Rose Garden gate open, but let’s not get distracted by the loonies .
What is your suggestion for dealing with this assault on our Republic? What Constitutional response would you propose in order to prevent this sort of unconstitutional action by a sitting president? If you propose no action then you have abandoned America – like so many others.
Who gave Obama the authority to take this action/
the French are only taking action because they know there will be no fighting back to hurt them
Yes indeed. I first heard the term “French war jets” Saturday and sat straight up in my chair. “French war jets?” How can that be? Have they fought a war since the American Revolution?????
I am curious: If Canada suddenly began firing on its citizens, or Great Britain did, would we intervene??? Why did we not assist when Iranian citizens tried to take their government back from the Muslem fanatics? Where do we draw the lines and how do we justify where we decide to uphold or condemn to perdition leaders of foreign nations?
From a trip in the wayback machine here are Barry and Hill same question
same interviewer (Charlie Savage)on the campaign trail….
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
OBAMA: 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.
CLINTON: , the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.
Now will someone please explain to me what the “actual or imminent threat to the nation” is from ‘daffy and Libya?
Oh, and what’s that thing about power and corruption again?
And this from a guy who “taught” constitutional law?
I don’t see why we’re in this one either. We didn’t threaten Egypt, we gave the Iranians a pass, and we’re letting the Saudis help the Bahrainians violently quash protests.
Iran is more of a national threat than Libya ever would be at this point. Voluntary compliance with disarmament demands, engaging in the global community, even paying reparations for Lockerbie. Yeah, he’s a despot and a tyrant, but there are loads of them, and at least he knows which side his bread is buttered on (so to speak), so why this fight? He’s not posing a real threat to anyone, whether Europe or the US, at least, not on the level of say, IRAN or even Syria. Again, he’s a tyrant, supressing his people. It sucks, and I don’t like to see it, but I don’t see a reason for us to be in this fight when there are so many others like it.
If it were strictly for national interest, we’d leave well enough alone- the sooner it’s done, the sooner the oil supply (our national interest) is stable (this is the ‘why’ for us not even scolding the Saudis, not that they are in some vague way our allies/friends- we’re tolerated by them because we give them lots and lots of money, if our economy had truly collapsed, our bases would soon be shut, and likely replaced by Chinese envoys).
If we were all about helping the little guy, why aren’t we actively bombing Chavez? Why aren’t we forcing Mugabe out? Helping the opposition in the Ivory Coast (the president there refuses to step down after losing an election)? These all represent humanitarian causes as well, and Chavez controls a lot of oil too. Why does he get a pass?
It really makes no sense, and gives more propaganda tools for the other despots in the region- well, actually the globe (I just bet there’s a lot of crap coming out in South American state medias about how imperialist we are again).
France does it, again:
No build-up. No UN. Just do it.
For decades, French forces have intervened in Africa, whenever their leaders chose.
As with nuclear power, the French again show leadership.
Remember that any action taken by the US in Libya or anywhere else depends on Obama not to mess it up. The nearest US aircraft carrier is 8 days away. We will not accomplish anything positive while this man is president.
One fear I have is that he will eventually realize that his fecklessness in foreign policy could cost him the 2012 election. When that realization dawns, God help us, as he could do anything. He has no sense of what would be a good or bad idea. His only concern is being elected.
To Mike K:
Be cool.
I don’t think he’s intelligent enough to realize that “fecklessness in foreign policy could cost him the 2012 election.” In other words, he really believes his own propaganda.
In the long term, thank goodness. (Although the nation will pay an awful price over the next two years.)
Obama will use this war to his own electoral advantage.
Already, we see strange articles being written about the fact that Obama is not ‘unilateral’..like Bush.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/03/the_obama_doctrine_the_limits.html
If you can believe it, this article is praising Obama,
“There was a recurring rhythm to President Barack Obama’s speech about the no-fly zone over Libya. But it wasn’t a drum beat of war – it was a chorus about consensus, an insistence on internationalism.”
And how about: “Throughout his declaration Mr Obama makes it clear how different this is to the Iraq war”
This utterly ignores that Bush, in Iraq, also insisted on internationalism. There were over 35 coalition partners in that war – with the greatest numbers supplied by the US, UK, Australia, Netherlands, Italy, Georgia, Ukraine.
But Obama will wait and wait, and then, take credit for the benefits of the war..and if there are problems, he’ll blame the UK and France. Obama’s agenda, as a narcissist, is always, always, to come out on top.
Plus, quite frankly, as a narcissist, Obama cannot work with anyone else. He, unlike Bush, is not a collaborator, is not someone to work within an equal group. Obama doesn’t consider anyone equal to him..er..Him. So, he delegates all policies to ‘My Administration’ and takes no part in the debates and analysis; he won’t sit in a committee and work with people on an equal basis.
(remember his arrogant behavior during the health policy meeting with the GOP when he told them that he had the right to talk as long as he wanted because ‘I’m the president’..and they could not ask him more questions.)
So- Obama will take credit for the work and decisions of others, if the results are good – and blame others..if the results are not good. That’s Obama, the Messianic Manipulator.
Not a manipulator; more of a hanger-on type. His colleagues in the Illinois Legislature and in the US Senate were annoyed by his penchant for jumping on board something at the last minute, and then taking camera credits for it even though he wasn’t even present during its development.
I hope we can afford him for two more years. It’s going to be painful.
This was how his political career got going. The black president of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones, said he would make Obama a Senator and promptly made him author of a bunch of bills he had had nothing to do with. There were grumbles but that was how his legislative record was made. He, himself, had nothing to do with it.
“We will not accomplish anything positive while this man is president.”
Exactly.
There was a time when Americans and American presidents tried to do the right thing.
For Obama, the right thing is always, ALWAYS what increases his power. So his entire strategy with Libya has been to position himself to take credit, while positioning others to take the blame. He was more than willing for Gaddafi Duck to slaughter the entire opposition, if he Obama couldn’t cover his rear before acting. Regardless of what you think about what has occurred, it’s hard to deny that he has lots of parties to blame if things go wrong in Libya. I’m suprised that Hillary has gone along with it. But Bubba has also been making some strange noises lately, so it may be that they have concluded 2012 is their last or best chance to resume their own regency.
A pedantic footnote
I think you are using “regency” in the wrong way. A regency is government by regent, and a regent is an administrator of government in the case of a monarch’s incapacity. The Clintons don’t want to be regents, they want to be king and queen (or in the case of a Hillary presidency, queen and prince consort).
(Arguably, as suggested in a variety of ways here at PJM, Hillary is acting as regent right now.)
Which is why Hillary, sensing Obama’s weakness, will primary him. Who knows, maybe we’ll get the matchup in 2012 that we should have had in 2008, namely Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee.
Oh, so you want Hillary to be elected in 2012? I’m a conservative, and no way, no how could I ever vote for Huckabee. It was bad enough voting for McCain.
Just ask seattlites how they feel about the huckster – he pardoned a felon with a life sentence who went on to brutally murder four police officer’s in cold blood. (and was about to murder a fifth – but the LEO was faster.) and I disagree with too many of his politics. I’m glad to read reports he’s probably not going to run again.
Thank heaven he already HAS his peace prize. The Nobel peace prize committee ought to be award themselves a prize for that.
The only problem Mr. Simon is, we don’t know who or if there are any good guys in Libya.
We don’t know who the “rebels” are whether they or whoever seizes power after Gaddafi will be better or worse for us, the world or the Libyans. And if “we’re all in this together,” why haven’t we intervened in Sudan, Zimbabwe or any of a number of other hellholes where the population is every bit as subjugated and brutalized as Libyans?
I agree Obama is a clueless, detached incompetent in most everything. But I don’t see why it’s our duty to rush to help Libyans, just because CNN happens to be covering their rebellion. I don’t think I’m an “extreme libertarian.” But I would like to know what our interest is, what our goals are, what our exit strategies might be, before we send in our already overtaxed military to “save” a bunch of people who would cross the street to spit on our corpses. Sorry.
We do know that these rebels couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag, They were running out of ammo after firing all their guns in the air before losing battles to Ghadfi’s crappy army.
Even with a no-fly-zone, the rebels are going to lose without more help.
And why is that our problem? People all over the globe, in numerous nations, are being killed, tortured, repressed and subjugated by dictators every bit as odious as Gadhaffi. Why are the citizens of Libya to be chosen for protection by us? Because they are on CNN every day? I think we have to have a policy that governs when we step in to “help the rebels,” in whatever hellhole we decide to do so. And, unlike the Left, I believe that policy should be based on America’s national interest. What urgent interest do we have in protecting some, but clearly not all, since that will involve measures we are unwilling to take, of Libya’s “rebels?” We have no idea who they are, what they will do if they, or some new tyrant, seizes power, or how long we will have to protect them. Are we just making a gesture (that would be just like Obama, wouldn’t it.) We have no policy, and starting a war without one is a big mistake.
Mr. Paladin — you want to know who our allies are in the new Obama-Hillary-UN-Arab League war in Libya? Well, they would appear to include more than just Monsieur Sarkozy.
Behold:
Al Qaeda supports the rebels in Libya
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/al-qaeda-offers-aid-to-rebels-in-libya/
as does Supreme Ayatollah Khamanei and his Mullahs in Iran (these “demonstrators” are official government-organised and sponsored ones)
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/thousands-iran-march-support-arab-revolts-20110318-062104-720.html
You think there can’t be worse than Gaddafi in Libya? Think again.
Mr. Paladin, you want to know who our allies are in the new Obama-Hillary-UN-Arab League war in Libya? Well, they happen to include more than just Monsieur Sarkozy.
Behold:
Al Qaeda supports the rebels in Libya
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/al-qaeda-offers-aid-to-rebels-in-libya/
as does Supreme Ayatollah Khamanei and his Mullahs in Iran (these “demonstrators” are official government-organised and sponsored ones)
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/thousands-iran-march-support-arab-revolts-20110318-062104-720.html
You think there can’t be worse than Gaddafi in Libya? Think again.
“Why did it take our president so long to act in Libya with the international community fairly begging us to do something?”
Maybe Obama just likes people begging him.
hello. the joy for Halliburton and the military industry from a country able to finance reconstruction and resupply with petrodollars, comes from definitive military target commitments, and infrastructure devastation. people are only collateral. for comprehensive long term future contracts, you have to have devastated refineries, generators, buildings, towers, tanks, war planes, airfields, transport vehicles;etc. you need evidence of enemy engagement before crippling towns and cities. Kaddafi really only geared up his military this past week, and now true scorched Earth can commence, with UN approval. only Kaddafi is a player here, and one sniper could have solved everything- but that is not what this is all about. all the humanitarian foot stomping rhetoric available does not change that. this is about profit. the people now should know to just get out of the way.
Rolizone we dont need moonbats like you here go to the Unions or the Deem’o'crats to peddle your taqqiya
Hey click on his link and you will find that it is basically a placeholder for a non existent entity on the internet. He is bogus as well as his link, what a farce, oh but under food apparently there are restaurants nearby where you can get a bagel!
Wow! You spelled Halliburton correctly. You get a free lollipop.
I think rollzone has just rolled away. He made his hit and will be back possibly never!
Rollizone, this is about world conquest; not a few billion in profits. This is about POTUS empowering part of the worldwide islamic jihad to succeed under the pretense of “protecting civilians”, who, ostensibly have never needed protection during the genocides in several other african countries.
Oscambo cannot constitutionally do what he is doing. But no one will stand up to him. Everyone has been bought and/or intimidated.
Rollzone: Capitalization is very important. It’s the difference between:
- Helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and
- Helping your uncle jack off a horse.
Granted the content of your post alone makes you look like an imbecile, but there’s no reason to make yourself look like you’re only marginally literate as well.
obama is really on Gaddafi Ducks side on this .. his stalling has given him time.
actually I don’t agree with this intervention since who knows the opposition?
my prediction is a islamist government as bad or worse then the present one.
President Obama said it himself a long time ago. We (USA) are not better than anybody else. So it shows with his diplomacy, let somebody else do it. Just a thought, but do you think he got involved because the MB might be ruling Egypt soon and the oil fields are near Egypt?
The largest oil field is near Egypt and is also the least populated area of Libya. The country’s population is stretched along the Mediterranean coast with a gap in population between Benghazi and Tripoli. It would make a lot of sense for Egypt to lop off the east end of Libya. We will see how this goes. I have no confidence in Obama to do the right thing although I don’t think he is smart enough to be running some secret plan.
Of course he isn’t smart enough to run any kind of plan or deception – but don’t bet on the shadowy figures behind him to be as dumb as The Idiot In Chief. They are the ones that worry me – not Obama.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Obama makes no decision, that is why he had to wait to get the word from the shadow government before agreeing to go with the airstrikes. He is a coward who shuns responsibility and accountability. As someone already said, he follows rather than leads and that way he can easily blame eventual failure on those he followed, but will take credit himself should the situation in Libya actually improve. I disagree with Simon that the USA should have gotten itself involved in the first place.
Obama is a Popularity Poll whore he has been on the 2012 election trail ever since he was elected he does not dare do anything to upset the Racist Blacks and his left wing moonbat worshipers. America you dont have a MAN who can make tough unpopular but NECESSARY decisions in charge you have a USURPER a narcissistic Man/Boy who cant make a decision to save his life. Under Obambi the USA has ceased to be a leading world power and has become a SHEEP.
When the going gets TOUGH Obambi gets GOLFING.
Roger what good is supporting some one bad. those opposition people I see on the news don’t look like my idea of good.
I think your “good” is misplaced and misinformed.
The U.S. and other nations of the U.N. are at present, aiding their next enemy.
The so called “rebels” are being covertly supported by, so far, an ambiguous entity, that has not displayed any sort of leadership. Leadership for the rebels does exist, but it hasn’t shown it’s face yet.
Has any of these “rebel” groups asked to be aligned with the U.N. or the U.S? Are they showing any type of allegiance to a popular movement that has non-sectarian involvement?
These rebel uprisings have an unsettling atmosphere about them, that does not emit any reassurance that they will become an ally of ours.
It looks to me that, after these “rebels” coalesce, we will have an even greater and united enemy to deal with.
A war starting in Libya. A cataclysmic disaster underway in Japan. A fierce budget battle going on in Congress. A cataclysmic national debt that needs to be addressed. The president leaves for five days in Rio. I think that after this week, the DNC will start looking for another potential candidate for 2012.
Obama should not be disengaged from the budget battle, true. He is no doubt waiting for the Republicans to start proposing the real cuts, so he can jump on them. Cynical and cowardly.
But why is Libya an American priority? And why is Japan’s catastrophe something that demands the action and attention of the American president? We need to focus on saving ourselves fro our own financial and political perfidy, not riding off like the Lone Ranger to respond to whatever crisis CNN is obsessing about this week. We are sending some help to Japan, and Obama has made some supportive statements. I think these are cases where his restraint has been the right thing, much as I hate to admit anything he does is right. But Japan is a rich nation, and as heart rending as their catastrophe is, it is not the job of the American president to drop whatever he is doing and run to the rescue. I agree he should not be filling out his March Madness brackets on TV and playing golf during such dire times. And maybe his “restraint” is just more Obama detachment and incompetence. But there are plenty Obama misdeeds and shortcomings to rip him on without piling on for failing to do things he shouldn’t have been doing anyway.
While it’s true Japan has more resources than, say, Indonesia and the Phillipines, a catastrophe of this magnitude demands some outside assistance. Yes, the Japanese will have to rebuild themselves, but hummanitarian aid at this point would help them get started. There is also a national interest issue in terms of maintaining Japan- it’s a buffer and intemediary between us and China, and an economic partner as well.
There’s also a perception issue- Obama had the chance to shore up US popularity in a major way- the Nobel Peace Prize Winning President ™ could have made an elegantly understated show of support and material assistance, generating good will that could then be used elsewhere (admittedly, good will with a short half-life).
Besides, I’d rather see the money the current military action will cost go to rebuilding homes and lives than aiding an uprising we really know little about. Are they Shi’ite or other muslim wanting to install their version of an Islamic state? Backed by a faction that wants control of Libya’s oil? Led by another would-be despot? Maybe they are the poor, downtrodden masses, and they want to put in a fair government. Then again, a lot of the poor, downtrodden masses in that region blieve Sharia based Islam to be a fair government. Is that what we want?
Must be some sort of new speed record for the Obama Adm. President Transparent only dithered for 31 days this time.
I think the only “good” side we can be on is the side of stopping killing innocents. I think we can all agree that while we have no idea which side is the “good” side that those stuck in the middle aren’t “evil.”
We have no evidence on that, either. Leave it be.In combat, one cannot assume anything. Just follow the evidence
….and follow the money too.
Obama’s War now: doesn’t matter where our Navy is when we launch fighters and missiles
— and our Tomahawks have just been launched.
We are in it. Don’t know if we’ll “win” it. Now we finally know what Bush wrote in that letter to Obama he left behind on the desk in the Oval Office on Inauguration Day.
The “International Community” (the UN) has, in Libya, met their Abyssinia (I wonder what will become of all those buildings on Turtle Bay?).
Bodies have also been splattered all over Bahrain and Yemen. Have you called for intervention there, too? The Arab countries need to step up and take control of the situation. The Arab League called for the no fly zone, let them conduct the operations. We probably sold them the planes they could use!
Obama is a WIMP as well as a USURPER
It doesn’t surprise me that Hillary is more of a man than Obama is.
I assume the H. stands for either harridan or harpy?
Dont shout to loud guys that plane you saw being shot down belonged to the REBELS and it was shot down by Gaddafis guys so please dont make yourselves look stupid by crowing.
gpsjr I believe so she is the Dyke not the Fem but in Obambis case does anyone know if he is the ‘giver’ or the ‘taker’ my money is on ‘taker’
Well, he does wear kneepads to the mensroom….
And he jokes about homosexual encounters with his subordinates…
And he boosts homosexual causes at every opportunity…
And he is neither an athlete nor a warrior…
He may well be a teabagger; but not in the political sense.
I’m guessing that Nero is his adult male role model.
No? Then how about Eldridge Cleaver, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Davis, or Billy Ayers?
Sweet!!!
siccum, tiger!!!!!
I think there is room for debate on this subject and that different opinions are okay so I am not too critical of Obama in this case. On the one hand, why does the US have to have a thumb in every pie? On the other hand this is a case where we can pick up some brownie points from the international community and give some pay back for Lockerbie.
Also, we don’t have the access to the intelligence reports that Obama has. These things are always more complicated that the news reports would make you think.
I’m not a fan of Obama’s liberal economics but I think a lot of criticism is simply political – the opposition will never pass up an opportunity to criticize him for political points. It’s Obama derangement syndrome, it doesn’t really help the conservative cause.
Bingo!!
D-White, why would you want to “help” conservatives? Which part of the D-White Collective, The Pingo Pongo Tongue, The Pick It Fence BUT, or the Birkenstocked Red Pencil Neck feels conservative to you?
Are you truly a Closet Conservation, imprisoned in the tweed lined faculty lounge echo unit? Come on out, toss that Modern Liberal Jason Mask away, and proclaim that freedom and liberty for all is a noble cause!
I’m on the pavement,
Thinkin’ about the government
thank you for your comment, Bill O’Reilly.
After all, Obama is just a normal, but incredibly smart and principled, American who is working hard to make the country a better place.
Got it in one ‘proreason’ faux conservative RINO”S like O’Really give conservatism a bad smell.
I would be very surprised if he read the reports you are referring to. What with golf, lavish parties, basketball when does he have time?
OK as long as you admit to the left’s “Bush Derangement Syndrome”. Which side will prove to be more deranged in actuality? Let’s see in a few years when all of Obama’s pigeons come home to roost. In a lot of ways, Bush’s presidency isn’t looking so bad right now.
Sarkozy has looked ok before.
Only Barack Obama could make Hillary Clinton look good.
At this point it makes the primary voters who voted for Hilary smarter than ever.
You have to wonder if she had won the primary and beaten McCain (something I think I could have done) where we’d be today.
Wistful thinking at this point eh?
When Obama promised during the campaign to bring the troops home, little did we know it would be through Libya. Let the Euros and Arab League do the heavy lifting for a change. Civilians are being slaughtered in Yemen…do we have to go in there too? There are no “good guys” in the Middle East…only the lesser of evils.
“Good is what we are supposed to do.”
Indeed. If you can’t stand for something, siddown.
“Good is what we do” is no basis for national strategy. Having just heard Obama’s radiocast on Libya Saturday afternoon, we still don’t know what the “good” is we are supposed to be bringing about.
To paraphrase the Beatles, You say you have a resolution, we’d all love to see the plan.
My position hasn’t changed. To paraphrase what Bismarck said about the Balkans in 1888, “The whole of Libya is not worth the bones of a single American pilot.”
So true. Obamalot could have done some good in Iran that would have helped out troops. This is just nonsense.
Allied forces attack forces of despotic madman in Libyan Desert, Japan devastated by massive citywide disasters along with the specter of nuclear fallout.
OK, who thought it would be funny to take Mr. Peabodys WAYBACK machine on a trip back to 1942?
“…there are some extreme libertarians that think Libya is none of our business”
I am no libertarian, let alone extreme, yet I think Libya is none of anyone’s business but that of Libyans.
“the international community”
Would you be kind enough to provide a definition, Mr Simon? I do not have any.
“We live on a tiny globe that is shrinking by the moment for a myriad of reasons from instant communications to limited energy to a global economy.”
No, that is not the case, item by item.
“The bloodshed in Benghazi affects the refineries of Texas…”
Forgive me, but I may be a little slow today. So, how exactly?
“Good is what we are supposed to do.”
Now you got me going. I think about Libya in terms of the classic Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo, and definitely have trouble with identifying The Good one. The Bad and The Ugly, no problem with casting; but The Good? Pray, who might that be? All I can see is a dusty, empty horizon, with no heroic figure looming on it.
I have a feeling the action in Libya could become messy, and when it is all over, I would not expect more gratitude than: “Hey Blondie! You know what you are? Just a dirty sonofabitch!” At best.
Maybe it should be The Bad – The Badder – and The Baddest?
“…a United Nations battle group, clustered around the U.S.S. Hillary Clinton (named after “the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States”), …” from Weapons of Choice.
I am no fan of HRC. However, she is far superior to BHO.
Mr. Simon has clearly forgotten Sec. Clinton’s “under-fire” whoppers from 2008. However informed she may look in a press conference, Sec. Clinton has zero warfighting experience. She doesn’t understand the process, and she’s ignorant of the constraints. It’s a mistake to look to her for leadership on this issue.
Mr. Simon points out that the world is small and complicated. It’s for this reason the US should NOT intervene. Gates and Donilon are right: the secondary and tertiary effects of this military action are simultaneously unpredictable and consequential. Under present conditions, it’s impossible to determine whether military intervention would actually serve US interests. Given that, the US is wiser to postpone action.
The author is so sure it is necessary for the U.S. to intervene
militarily but he doesn’t even try to answer the most important
question – just who are we helping?
If the rebels actually want to bring freedom to Libya, offering
support to them is a no-brainer. It would also be great to see
Qaddafi finally pay the price for the murder of all the innocents
on the Lockerbie flight. But if the rebels are made up of anti-
American, anti-freedom, anti-semetic, Muslim Brotherhood supporting
7th century throwbacks, we should stay out of it. Let them kill
each other.
I’m guessing Obama and Hillary (not to mention the French or the
British) have no idea what they are stepping into.
Roger, Obama will always be slow and halting speaking extemporaneuosly –he has to mentally translate into a foreign language (“Noncommunist”) first.
Extreme libertarians, Mr. Simon?
Keeping our noses out of other people’s business – and thereby avoiding entangling alliances – was once a conservative position. Now, it’s extreme foolishness, eh?
Hmpf. Throw a fit about the epithets the left uses against the right and then use similar epithets to demean people who don’t support your own ideology. Heh.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is only one ideology which counts within our own borders: Liberty or death. Everything else is bullshit. A distraction. An entertainment. No other position in politics is serious about allowing others to determine their fate, for good or ill. Every major politicl ideology in America is about controlling the lives and welfare of others, even if they live in other nations. To admit to anything else is to lie through your teeth and to dismiss individual freedom and liberty as too great a burden for individuals not only across the globe, but in America, as well.
Stop being damned fools and think…and then fight for your own freedom…but that fight must first begin within your own minds and hearts and spirits. Until you conquer your own fears, you will conquer nothing, remaining enslaved and continually seeking to enslave others.
Stop being slaves and stop trying to be slavemasters. Start being free and try being masters of yourselves. The latter will kep you quite busy enough, while the former will merely earn you the labors of Sisyphus.
Weird. We disagree a few days ago, and then Roger says something that I’ve been verbalizing (saying out loud) for days now. How is South Park going to make jokes about the French being pussies if they have more backbone on Libya than we do? This is ridiculous!
Yeah, we shouldn’t contribute large contingents of troops. Yes, I understand that the commitment of air power (actual planes) will probably mean some personnel will be in danger, and we may have a hostage crisis in the offing if one of them gets shot down at the wrong time in the wrong place. But what are we supposed to do, sit on our hands and fill out our NCAA March Madness brackets while this lunatic slaughters his own people? I don’t think so, fears of what the Arab world will say if we do aside. At some point, our rhetoric about freedom and Democracy has to be something more than just words.
Dave, it ain’t none of our business! How do you know that the rebs are any better than the Ghaddafi guys? We traded the Shah for Ahmadinejad? We swapped Sadam Hussein for a potful of murdering islamic warlords? Where did these poor, oppresssed “civilians” get planes, artillery and ‘copters? Who are their leaders and suppliers?
And, above and beyond all that, Oscumbag does NOT have the authority to wage war against anybody without a congressional declaration.
“fears of what the Arab world will say if we do aside. At some point, our rhetoric about freedom and Democracy has to be something more than just words.”
I really don’t care what the Arab world says about the USA…
…come to think of it – just what is the Arab World doing to help out in this fools errand? Seems to me all they are doing is pushing every one else’s buttons. Goading on the world.
What will it do for you and me?
One more dollar per gallon at the pump.
I predict gas will soon be sold by the quart so the dim-witted in this country will think prices have dropped.
KT, you’re almost right. In the rest of the world gasoline is sold by the litre — almost identical to a quart. And you’ve nailed the reason why.
I’m against intervention in Libya for non-libertarian reasons. My reasons are 1. Somalia (remember that humanitarian intervention in the beginning of Clinton Administration), and 2. I have no doubt that the people we are going to help in Libya were chanting Death to USA and burning our flag just a few days ago as we were toppling Saddam. Simply said, the rest of the ungrateful world is not worth one more American life. Let them all save each other. I do not want to be visiting the American cemetery in Benghazi or Tripoli.
Roger, your dead wrong on this one.
If I was Gaddafy I would send 10 jets on a suicide mission out towards the US fleet. All I need to do is sink one US ship and Obama’s bluff is called. Obama would withdraw the fleet so fast it would make your head spin.
Tomahawks are the ultimate stand-off weapon…Tomahawks are what we do when we want to look tough but don’t really want to fight.
If we were serious we would be targeting Gaddafy…not fixed IADS sites. Note to Obama…the most advanced IADS C2 nodes are mobile. Tomahawks don’t work too good against mobile targets.
That fleet has a Nimitz Class aircraft career that has no doubt launched its E-2 (which means they’d see the enemy planes coming a long way off) and has dozens of F-18s on standby (which trump anything the Libyans have in a dogfight). Qaddafi may regard his men as expendable, but planes are a different story, especially if the attack doesn’t work. This also assumes the pilots don’t simply say “Screw this,” and defect to Cyprus.
There are some spectacular golf courses in Rio de Janiero.
When the going gets TOUGH Obambi gets Golfing/Holidaying/Basketballing/Partying/Electioneering / Foreign Tripping/ Hiding (delete whichever is inappropriate)
Your headline is very disturbing. I don’t want Hillary to be president. Remarkable that this slick finesse of hers begins at the kick off of the 2012 election season. I think Obama is only a place holder and foil, who will make her acceptable to the electorate in 19 months. Nothing else would have worked, with her popularity deficit. Plus many will be happy imagining Bill down the hall!
I harbor the same fear. It is so obvious now that the dumbed down voters of this country will be so ready to put Hilary in the WH, after the disaster that is there now. Almost anybody will be considered better.
Roger
Since you are not from Chicagoland, but you are familiar with the traffic snarls in and around LA.
Being from Chicago, the way those in the know skirt around any thorny congestion is to use the I-PASS.
Obama has perfected the technique. In fact, the I-PASS has replaced Hope/Change as the motto of his administration.
Every time some issue crops up demanding leadership, strength, a demonstration of bold, decisive, or deft stewardship for our country, Obama has shrunk from it and whispered meekly “I-PASS”.
This is a repeating story from a man who has lived the “Ghostwritten Life”.
Much of his life that is cloudy, oblique, shaded…is written in invisible ink. I’ve never heard of an Editor of a law review who does absolutely nothing to earn the position, to keep the position or from which there is zero evidence he had the qualities to do the work of the position. In terms of producing a scholarly sentence, phrase or word…he responded, “I PASS”
His books are both autobiographies, written at a time when nobody other than the author would have cared about the subject and they don’t reflect his writing style or ability. When asked about any of the critical elements that became interesting only in much later reflection on his attachment to people like Jeremiah Wright and Frank Marshall Davis, he responded with “I PASS”
His state senate record is so unremarkable, the only thing notable about it was the rather strange way his opponents were removed from the contest and his refusal to be on record for anything. His tenure was a political life in hiding. He is the only sitting state senator who could have been in the witness protection program WHILE he was still in office. It was the ultimate “I PASS” tenure.
And now, as our President, he has allowed Pelosi/Frank/Reid to carry his water for the first two years. He took a “shellacking” and has to let the lapdog media carry his water through the BP spill, the domino toppling of country after country in the Middle East, the economy, the jobs market, skyrocketing gas prices, …and each step along the way he has shrunk from the job and said, “I PASS”
The new movie out in Hollywood very well may be, “Honey, I’ve Shrunk the Presidency”
Hopefully, when 2012 rolls around and the Democrats once again give our countrymen the chance to elect the champions of the Lilliputian ticket Obama/Biden…they will have learned to utter a phrase that should be cemented in their minds by then….I PASS.
Interesting that while the Presidency has shrunk, Fedzilla has swelled so.
Who wears the pants? Well Hilary always did, but now it’s official. And where are all those super bright individuals around Obama, the Brilliant David Ploufle, is Fatso Axelrod still in the game? Exposed, nothings, considered bright only because they’re leftists.
Obama probably wasn’t even a good street organizer, mindless, cowardly trash.
Well, doing “good” is indeed good, and pretty much all of us would like America to stand for that, but theory and practice are two different animals. We all know what path is paved with good intentions. The Arab world seems to consist of governments ranging from the vain and ineffectual through merely bad to downright awful. Gaddafi has the virtue of being a rational actor. He was very quiet for some years after Regan bloodied his nose, and even quieter during the Bush II administration, as he seemed to be genuinely terrified of Bush. That would place him in the “bad” part of the spectrum; a long way from “downright awful”. What we want to avoid is ousting the “bad” if it’s going to be replaced by the “downright awful”. An Islamic theocracy, for instance, seems a good way to do nothing but increase the local sum total of human misery; and what, really, have the Libyans done to deserve that?
I must confess, Roger, this is one of those times that my philosophical self is at odds with my pragmatic self. My philosophical self finds much common ground with, say, a Christopher Hitchens who believes it’s the duty of those who have secured their own liberty to help still oppressed peoples secure theirs by removing despotic leaders by any means necessary. After all, do we not consider life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness inalienable rights? But, why does it always have to be us, some will ask. Well, because such undertakings require leadership, know-how and the tools to do the job and, as Tony Blair told us, if not us, who? Who indeed.
On the other hand, my pragmatic self is aligned with those who would demand a compelling national interest before we commit blood and treasure. And, I’m afraid, the argument that “we’re all in this together” falls somewhat short of a compelling national interest. As others have asked, why here, why now? Why not Egypt? Iran? Somalia? Darfur? Rwanda? Tunisia? What makes this particular internal conflict so special?
We fought one costly, bloody war on our own continent to establish our right to liberty and another more costly, more bloody war to establish that right for all. There’s a good argument to be made that others desirous of liberty should be willing to do the same without our clearing the path for them. Answering the cry of “where are the Americans” does get old especially since we seem equally damned whether we do or don’t. The world wants it both ways: they want us to take the lead in these things and they want to be able to complain bitterly about us when we do (mostly that amuses me. mostly).
However, one can’t dither on like President Hamlet forever. I understand the risks involved and have no objections to establishing this no-fly zone. I wish it had been done sooner. At some time in the future, we might wish we could have Mubarak back (after all, he was a despot, but he was our despot) or even a Gaddaffy. But for now, I’ll stand with the freedom fighters and pray that freedom is indeed what they are fighting for.
Barack Obama is an empty vessel forever calculating how he can get away with voting present. He’s useless to either of my selves and we can’t be rid of him soon enough. As for Miz Hillary, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time patting her on the back. She supported regime change in Iraq and military action both there and in Afghanistan until it was politically expedient not to. As I commented in another thread, Hillary was one of the people who urged Bill to bomb bomb bomb Serbia. Her favorite wars, it seems, are those which are fought strictly from the air in regions where the US has little-to-no strategic interests.
OK, we’re going to prevent Gaddafi from winning or perhaps even make him lose. Then what? Is there any policy beyond that? Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing a picture of him and his precious sons hanging from lampposts, but is there anything even vaguely like a legit government waiting in the wings? And if not, doesn’t that mean that “someone” will have to occupy Libya and make sure it doesn’t turn into another Somalia?
That is a question that I have asked myself too. I propose France!
From today’s New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/africa/20libya.html?_r=1&hp
[Colonel Qaddafi addressed President Obama as “our son,” in a letter that combined pleas with a jarring familiarity. “I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son, and I do not want your image to change with me,” he wrote. “We are confronting Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, nothing more. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? Tell me how would you behave so that I could follow your example?”]
Why would the Manchurian Candidate initiate the order to fire upon one of his Muslim mentors?
In 2008 the horse was voted inside the gates of Troy, we are now receiving his bountiful “gifts”
PS. I agree, as long as we’re in, we should be targeting Daffy. Reagan sent him underground with one sortie and Bush brought him to heel (only temporarily, alas) by invading a whole other country. He was invited to leave, he didn’t. Let him pay the consequences.
Did the DoD get a word in? Gates wouldn’t have opened the gate to this new ‘interference’ he doesn’t believe in, would he? Will he now resign?
Excellent point.
I really can’t see why American troops have to risk their lives “for the Libyan people.” Let the Libyan people get off their fat butts and get rid of their own dictator. Why should we save them?
So the Democrats and the Hildabeast can look decisive, tough, etc.? She/they simply look like stupid warmongers. Backing the Iranian freedom fighters would have been worth something to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, naturally, we didn’t do that.
Said before, said now, and likely to be repeated – twenty more months. The world’s despots, dictators, tyrants, and trouble makers have this much time . . . and they know it. It may be a long twenty months for us and the word’s opressed.
Can Mr. Simon please state his exact position on neoconservatism?
I would like to see a condemnation of it in general.
Mr Leinart – why don’t you make a donation to PajamasMedia first? The founder is under no obligation to explain anything at all to you.
If you “would like to see a condemnation of neoconservatism”, try HuffPo or Kos. They will suck up to your condescending and smug request.
Let us pray for a nice, tight bomb pattern which kills as few civilians as possible …
I disagree with the premise. I think that Obama is doing precisely what he said he would and is acting in accordance with his beliefs. He is a progressive who wants to make the U.S. one nation among many, with no particular standing or power. He put the question before the Arab League and the U.N. and is acting only upon their request and authority.
When it’s easy, like giving a bum a dollar, sure, Good is what we’re supposed to do. Even if the bum buys a bottle, we meant well.
In this situation, we are responding like robot people to trigger words “freedom”, “democracy”, without knowing anything about the real situation. Col. G is supported by his tribal associates – are these rebels really old tribal enemies making a power play using the Arab March Madness as a platform? Who are these people? Maybe mostly weary citizens wanting freedom – but we don’t know.
Say they are good guys – OK, why now, why them, why not Darfur, Burma, N. Korea, ad infinitum? Which of the next badly treated folks do we whiz over and save – Bahrain? Yemen? Syria? Lebanon? Iran? Or in our hemisphere, Haitians, or the poor Mexicans being brutalized by narco-terror? Or maybe even Arizona??
Bottom line to me – we can’t afford it. Don’t know how much bombs, planes, etc. all cost, but it will be billions and billions we don’t have, for a poorly defined ideal, in a poorly defined mission, serving the interests of others, not the US.
In these circumstances, “good” needs a bit more definition and scrutiny.
If we can afford to dump a couple hundred million dollars in Libya in a day there must not be any need to cut the federal budget.
No fly zone. Cowards. Bomb Ghadaffy.
We have an enormous daily bill to fund our intelligence operations, but apparently WE DON’T KNOW WHO THE HELL THE GOOD GUYS ARE IN LIBYA.
WTH ????
Fire. Them. All.
Hard to believe that Hillary! now cuts a sympathetic character. I admit I enjoyed Obama eating her lunch during a campaign she felt entitled to, but the Obama presidency is such a failure, one cannot help but feel a little sorry for Hillary, trying to pull together some sense of leadership for America as the world falls apart in our absence. The only thing that would’ve garnered more respect for her is if she’d dumped Bill after the Monica revelation. Alas, at this point, she’s left to try and muster a little respect at the end of a checkered career.
Hillary sizes up the boss:
http://www.moonbattery.com/light_saber.jpg
You never really get rid of the Clintons. I just wonder if Hillary is using Obama’s inaction to show him to be the fool he is, and to show the world how competent she is, by comparison. I further wonder if this is just a prelude to one last run at the big brass ring, the 2012 presidential election.
Who knows? Maybe we will have a Clinton-Palin contest.
Finally the Obama admin grows a pair, unfortunately they grew on Hillary
Yeah. The Obama should’ve asked the Gadaffi overe for a few beers in the rose gardern.
…..repeating myself, but I’ll paraphrase my theme again:
Let the former oh-so-smart colonial masters of that part of the world take any perceived need to “Lead” in supressing that overly bloody factional arena…..don’t they have the generations-old experience/expertise in dealing with those mercurial people? Let those Islamist kill each other without us Americans attempting to be the referee…arbiter…or what you will. For us Americans, it remains always..”damned if we do…damned if we don’t”.
Enough of that B.S.
Let the Europeans take the flack among themselves, for a change…..which they have been so unhesitatingly launching against us Americans “doing good” by “responding” to the world’s crises.
I suspect that’s why such as the Chinese “abstain” in these U.N. votes…..they simply don’t want the responsibility (a pregnant term in the Far East) of these risky outcomes. Maybe that’s why Merkle in Germany had the strength to say they wanted no part of this latest “involvement”.
Why America…..all the time?
why didn’t Obama call Gheddaffi for a beer summit too?
Hillary would have been a FAR better president than Obama. if you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention for the last couple of years.
but I think I’ve figured out Obama’s strange priorities: he thinks he’s VICE president of the United States! look at his schedule while the world burns around him: the pointless overseas trips to vaguely relevant countries…the grip-and-grins with sports teams and medal winners…the vitriolic speeches about “punishing the enemies” that one normally expects from the VP, rather than the president, who’s supposed to stay above the fray.
I hope HRC has shamed him into realizing he is the head of the most awesomely powerful country in the world, and that he may yet start acting like it.
“I hope HRC has shamed him into realizing he is the head of the most awesomely powerful country in the world, and that he may yet start acting like it.”
Chhyaaah. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
President Obama deserves to be roundly criticized and punished for attacking Libya without the authority/permission of the U.S. Congress. Congress has the big stick why won’t they use it? Congress can defund the President’s activities when the actions of POTUS exceed the authority of the COTUS. 112 tomahawks cost about a million apiece. It would be different if we didn’t have to borrow money from the Chinese to reload.
The United Nations may vote to authorized a military action, however, they don’t pay for it. And we will be paying for our attack against Libya for a long time. Consequently, if we will be paying for the consequences, the citizens of the U.S. should decide to make it worthwhile.
“I know there are some extreme libertarians that think Libya is none of our business — that we, and the international community, should stay out and let the locals blow each other to smithereens until the next dictator takes the throne or the old one keeps it and locks his enemies in torture chambers.”
And you think US intervention is going to change this?
That cesspool called the Middle East has been like this for 1400 years, thanks to their ‘perfect man’ and his followers who raped, pillaged and murdered their way across the desert.
Is Iraq any better off after the US intervened?
Afghanistan?
Somalia?
The new Obama-Clinton doctrine of protecting “innocent people” from their brutal dictators should apply also to Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, and, most importantly, Iran. But since they don’t have oil for us, it won’t.
Roger, it looks as if you have learned nothing from Egypt. You gave us a very nice mea culpa over SandMonkey. Within days, you are back cheerleading for ‘freedom fighters’ who are almost certainly worse than the regime they challenge.
Qaddafi is a pretty savage character, but if you want to commit American military forces to ‘do good’, why not send them into Russia? After all, Chechniya is blood-spattered and grave-rich. Since you identify mass-Muslim populations as having ‘the same aspirations as Americans’ (a thoroughly liberal assumption), why not destroy Putin’s regime for killing – according to Czech President Havel – 400,000 in Chechniya. Why not embargo Russia and cut off their military routes because of Georgia and their open and successful attempts to destroy democracy in Ukraine?
It is a matter of size, I understand. This is why you need to listen to the echoes of your heritage, Roger, and get off the intoxication of spreading ‘freedom’ anywhere there is a dictator. Or, if you want to pursue this, do it with consistency. First, though, do us the favor of checking whether your President is actually legally qualified for the job.
OK, what the hell are we picking on the small puke, when Pakistan hides the enemy, or Saudi Arabia spreads it’s BS through Mosques to wage Jehad, and follow their perfect murderer?
Is it to help the Muslim brotherhood take over all of North Africa? I suspect DaOne would be happy about his fellow Islamic believers is Allah getting that Sharia law in place.
This smells real bad.
Pajamas Media is officially a joke now, with Roger Simon, like the liberal he still is (and those who think like him) calling for military intervention by an overtaxed military and a soon-to-be bankrupt country (or at least with a debt that long since spiralled out of control) in aid of Muslim fanatics to topple another thug Ghadaffi. Hey Roger get a clue, they are Muslim fanatics, duuuh. Oh no wait you never thought to enquire about who these rebels are and what their beliefs are. Hey Roger where were you when the Sudanese thugs in Khartoum were committing ethnocide in Darfur? There was a lot more reason for intervention there (Darfur Christians and animists for one are not Muslim fanatics and even many of the Muslims who were being slaughtered and persecuted there were genuinely moderate. I know some of them personally), but one never heard anything from anybody on that front. Well hardly. Why no shrill call for intervention in Sri Lanka over the years of their civil war (the Tamils are not Muslim fanatics) or were the Sinalese the good guys in that one?
Obama should be excoriated for this, as should the UK, Italy, Canada, France for mindlessly joining in. So Roger if your aid to the rebels succeeds in toppling Quadaffi, and a Muslim fanatic regime replaces him, remember how you cheered them on. And when the next major war against Israel begins in earnest (and it’s really picking up in Gaza as I write, the worst it’s been since the Gaza War two years ago) and the Muslim fanatic regime of Tripoli joins in or sends its holy warriors to fight us, remember how you supported them coming to power (if they do succeed and with the support of Western air power they might well do so).
Roger newsflash, the rebels you bleed for hate you to death, that’s ’cause you a Jew see? Probably even more than Ghadaffi hates you, you think that’s impossible? Believe me, it isn’t. Here in Israel, the only people who support Western intervention in Libya are the loony Left! The West’s collective brains have fallen out, if they ever had any.
Thank you, Larry, for speaking out from a part of the world that knows of what it speaks. Those faux freedom fighters are overwhelmingly fanatical Islamists, who will likely usher in a Libyan sharia regime should they win. Our intervention will win us no friends. As bad as Khaddafy is, this is one where we just have to hold our nose and look the other way.
well stated Larry
the west is digging it’s own grave.
You’ve swerved into it, Larry. Some here imagine a battle between good and evil and how we must side with the good (unknown rebels) over the known evil
Gaddafy. Problem is, the forces facing-off are Love and Hate, not good and evil. It boils down to Christianity vs Islam in this region. One promotes love, the other hate. One follow the teachings of the bible/Christ, the other the Koran/Muhommad.
Our mission (should we decide to accept it) is to not fuel Hate whenever possible- and this region is awash in it. No matter what we do I doubt they’ll ‘feel the love’ the West might have for those suffering in this part of the world, because I don’t feel they understand us. They understand conquering but concepts like liberation are probably foreign to them. If they manage to liberate themselves, great. If we can assist with what comes after, all the better. However, dropping bombs on people doesn’t seem the quickest path toward endearment. The democracy experiment in Iraq will only succeed when people lose the hate and begin to love ideas like freedom, individual liberty, and self-determination. Not an easy task in this region.
We should only defend those who’ve demonstrated their allegiance to freedom as we define it and have abandoned the hate so endemic to this area and the tyranny it fosters. Someone once said that peace between the Arabs and Jews will only happen when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate Jews. This is true, as only love can destroy hate. We can defend those who embrace love while ignoring those filled with hate as it will eventually devour them. By letting Nature take it’s course, by not wasting our treasure and our lives on a fool’s errand we will eventually triumph over the evils inherent in hate-filled societies. Love thy neighbor is not a complicated concept. Just as extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. If we’re prepared to do both, we’ll win this battle one heart at a time, but it’ll take a long time- considering Love and Hate have been going at it for an eternity.
Obama has outsourced everything else, why not his foreign policy? I’m sure that decisions about Libya, health care, the national debt, etc., are above his pay grade anyways. Indeed, we might be better off if he solicited bids and simply outsourced all of his executive functions. In the long run, it would be cheaper, and certainly it would give Obama more time for more pressing activities–golf and basketball, for example.
Hilly ‘n Barry — two peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. Joined at the hip. Two-fers. Buy one, get one free. Double trouble. Twin diseases. Spit and image. Dead ringers. Two-timers. One and the same. Tweedledum & Tweedledee. Dumb and Dumber.
And she’s as accomplished an inveterate liar as he is any day of the week.
Word’s out Hilly’s p.o’d with Barry. She says she’s gonna quit in 2012. So why not now, if Barry’s so bad, you ask? Well, he’s not all that bad. They both see eye to eye on Israel, for one. In fact, Hilly’s been ranting and raving over Israel loud and long, and as bitchy and nasty as Barry, ever since he made her his rumposculatory Sec’y of State.
Hilly ‘n Barry — a gruesome twosome.
Now the Pentagon is saying that the US is leading the operations in Libya. Last night Obama said US would not take leading role? Who is leading the US?
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-takes-lead-in-libya-operations.html
Does anyone remember when the President would seek and receive authorization for war from Congress and it was called being unilateral because the French didn’t like it?
Now the President acts independent of any authorization from Congress and it’s called a multilateral action because the French are on board.
Ironic, don’t you think? I guess for the President, his supporters and the press (I repeat myself), the opinion of France is held in higher esteem than that of Congress.
All that nitpicking aside, Obama now has the U.S. on a path that will lead to “an escalating scale of military intervention with no clearly defined goal”. Why do liberals always misunderstand how to properly use our military might? Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and now Obama – all failed to understand Roosevelt’s point of his “carry a big stick” line.
The less we talk and the more we look ready to use the stick, the less need we will have to use it. Instead, the liberals want to tip-toe into military intervention as if Teddy had said, “Walk softly” instead of “Talk softly”.
If we want Gaddafi gone, then show him the exit, give him a deadline to meet and if he doesn’t leave, start swing the big stick. If we don’t intend to remove him, then let France play air police.
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-fly-zone-is-not-our-big-stick.html
So Roger… you’re not remotely concerned that we have no idea who we’re backing and that given the nature of those countries it’ll quite possibly end up being an actual hardcore Islamofascist regime?
Qaddafi’s a dick, but the Iraq war mostly scared him into behaving, and the fact is that he’s also a target by radical Muslims who think he’s too impure a ruler.
As for “we’re all in this together,” please. You know perfectly well, or you should, that it isn’t possible to intervene every time a regime violates human rights and that there are times when letting a dictator stay in place is preferable to allowing a “popular” movement of America-hating fanatics to take power. The Shah in Iran being a perfect example.
Tell ya what’s really funny. Watching the SFChron trying to duck this story.
I contend, not as an “extreme libertarian”, but as a conservative with a rational head on his shoulders, that the US has no business declaring war against Libya. Libya did not attack us, nor does it even threaten us. Why Libya? Why not Darfur, or Burma, or central Africa, or Iran or China, or any number of other countries that oppress their citizens? The willingness and arrogance of warrior wantabes, who beat their chest from the safety of their armchairs, while sending others to die or be maimed in their stead is breath taking. We are neither masters of the universe nor the world’s policeman. To assume that role ensures that we will forever sacrifice blood and treasure (or debt) in far-off places around the world because oppression is an enduring feature of human nature, like it or not. Conservatives who ignore that fact place themselves in close company with utopian liberals and leftists. BTW, our constitution gave congress, not the president, the responsibility to declare war, because in a free country such grave matters deserve rigorous debate among the people’s representatives. Lastly, I suggest the Dept. of Defense be renamed the Dept. of War (as it once was), a more fitting handle, indeed!
Is Obama Dancing in Rio?
Not a surprise to anyone….Now he has given the presidency to both of the Clinton’s….The trouble is he keeps wanting it back….once they fix what ever problem he don’t know how to…..Not that I’m a big Clinton fan but anything is better then nothing.
I have to disagree with Roger Simon on this one. The situation in Libya is so messy that no outcome can be rationally predicted. Military intervention should not be undertaken based on a very hazy principle such as “good is what we do.” As many of the comments have noted, defining “good” in the context of the Libyan mess has not taken place. Given the misinformation and chaos in Libya, it may well be impossible.
I am surprised too that no one seems to have noted that the Security Council invoked Chapter 7 powers to intervene in a purely internal matter of a sovereign state. That ought to be very worrisome precedent to anyone who is not a one-world advocate – when China, Russia, India and Germany abstain it’s time to step back and consider what the heck we are doing by joining in.
And POTUS does have the constitutional authority to act in an international situation pending congressional authorization – the legalities are not the issue; the meaninglessness of the gesture is.
I do not expect Obama to get anything right – he has proved to be way out of his league. No more am I a fan of Robert M Gates, who is busy gutting the Department of Defense on his own initiative. Still when this fellow, who is no friend of the military or national security, hesitates to commit US military forces, it should also send a message of caution.
I don’t see how anything good can come of this….
Max, you are wrong. The president does NOT have the power to do what he is now doing UNLESS the situation meets one of the 3 caveats below.
War Powers Resolution of 1973
1541. Purpose and policy
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
None of these now apply. This is the move of a rogue politician and his cabal. I wish that the military had stood up to him or at least that congress was screaming down the house.
Alan – I was not referring to the War Powers legislation, but to constitutional doctrine on the powers of the commander in chief. Prevailing legal opinion is that the President has inherent authority under the Constitution to act in what he considers an emergency, subject to later ratification or objection by Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed over a presidential veto, is widely considered to be constitutionally suspect – even when passed. All presidents since have been careful not to accede explicitly to the terms of the War Powers Resolution. In my own opinion, the act is unconstitutional as it infringes the legitimate authority of the president as commander in chief, and it runs afoul of the Chadha ruling on the Presentment Clause issue – that is, an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
Max, I’m well familiar with the debate around the War Powers Act, BUT, until it is adjudicated to be unconstitutional than it is the law. The “emergency” issue is explicitly dealt with in section 3 of that act. As I asked earlier, anyone that thinks that this is legal has got to be able to justify that a civil war in Libya is
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Are you taking it on yourself here to define the emergency? To date I have heard no such justification from anyone.
Obama is doing a ‘Dorian Gray’ where his face is slowly transforming into that of Bush.
It is still too early to know the outcome of the Libya conflict. But, Obama has accomplished more in establishing a true coalition of the willing. And, willing they are. It seems the French, British and other military forces are taking a leading role. When has this been achieved before? If the outcome is successful, Obama will go down in history as brilliant in his foreign affairs policy.
Have another kool-aid and dream on.
I have the impression that the Brits, in the person of Cameron, at least, are looking towards having NATO directly involved, hence they become the broader multilateral organization ultimately responsible here in this emerging Libyan cauldron. I hope that the French and the Brits don’t become more slippery once they see things getting truly complicated and try to slough this off on NATO.
We’ll just have to wait and see. No nation will like taking the flak aimed habitually at the United States….being literally “responsible”.
The irksome thing to me is that if it’s the UN or NATO, we Americans (as usual) still must become directly involved as we are always the major contributor of the cash and lives to UN and NATO operations.
I’m getting sick and tired of us being manoevered into escalating direct participation under the annually increasing concept of America-The-Umbrella-Nation being “The most powerful and richest on Earth”…..that’s wearing terribly thin as the years progress now well into the 21st Cent……after that particularly bloody 20th Cent.
And, the cash inside America has run out. We have dangerous domestic unfunded debts….printing more bales of cash devalues the dollar. A sinking tide lowers all boats…with apologies to the original author of that reversed truism.
OK…all ye nations bristling with “leadership” potential, step right up! See what it’s like being the lightning rod. Do your good.
Amen to Kent Fortson’s comment. I do not see “extreme libertarianism” in pointing out that despots in Zimbabwe murder tens of thousands of their opponents and we do nothing, in Sudan calculatedly starve and turn cavalry loose on on several hundred thousand innocents in darfur, and we do nothing, Ruwndans practice genocide on tribal enemies, Nigerians and Congolians kill political opponents by the thousands monthly, and we do nothing. But Gadafi kills a few dozens and we’re dropping bombs and shooting down their aircraft.
Please explain to me, Roger, why this is a noble effort, while ignoring murder on a far vaster scale is okay? Is Gadifi a worse ruler than Mugabe?
We have absolutely no idea of the mindset or character of those who rising throughout the mideast other than they are protesting against harsh tyrannical rulers. Simple observation points to the probability that there is little nobility or high character among the leaders of the oppressed, and that their rule would be just as greedy and intolerant as the one that is overthrown. The “enlightenment” of the West has not yet shone upon many parts of the world: tribalism in its most primitive form still prevails. They are all like Haiti writ large, doomed to suffer from a succession o f despots, each one worse than the previous.
I would think that our experience in such a weak and backward country as Somalia would have taught us that our intervention in the internal affairs of despotic or disfunctional nations is not only ineffectual but seriously counter-productive. That Hillary’s rhetoric is more resolute and stirring than of President Perks does not make it right or in the best interest of the United States or the world.
Let’s see we are not supposed to investigate Jihadists within USA b/c it will encourage more Muslims to be “radicalized” and hate us (more than they already do)
but airstrikes by Obama on Muslims in Pakistan and Libya & encouraging Muslim Brotherhood against the actual demoocracy groups in Egypt
will make them like us more? is good?
Seems the Dumbocrats are more than a little confused- Bush did it- bad evil wrong warcrime
Obama does same or worse- wonderful good savior
UGH
wake me up when the world returns from backwards land
March 18th, 2011.
The day Hillary Clinton took over the Presidency of the United States.
To paraphrase Napoleon: She did not usurp the presidential seal; she found it lying in the gutter and pick it up with her sword…
March 18, 2011 – the day Hillary Clinton took over the Presidency of the United States of America when no one was using it.
Obama, “Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?”
For some while now–about two years or so–I’ve been thinking that things can’t really be as bad as my perceptions tell me, that the United States isn’t respected internationally, that the economy and unemployment rate aren’t improving, that our commander in chief was so far in under his head that he can’t tell which side is up, that he is a committed ideologue whose commitments supersede by far the interests of America, that he is a loser par excellence.
My suspicions are rapidly being confirmed and Rasmussen.com confirms the American people are on to Barack Hussein Obama, the pseudo-American apotheosis, as well.
If they still hold firm to the belief that he is deserving of even minimal respect, witness the disrepectful reflections of an unacknowledged buddy and intimate of his former pastor, Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright and Moammar “Daffy” Gadhafy, Rev. Louis “Calypso Louis” Farrakhan: http://bit.ly/hKWHwt.
For those not curious enough to click on that story and video, Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan addresses his brother Obama and says, among other things, ”I warn my brother do you [sic] let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world. . . Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can’t order him to step down and get out.”
Calypso Louie then totally disses his bro, the President of the United States, with the rhetorical question, “Who the hell do you think you are?”
Disapprobation by one’s bros may be acceptable to fellow bros. Statistics may not be.
The highly-respected pollster Rasmussen.com has tracked Obama’s approval ratings literally from Day One, January 21, 2009 when his approval index was 28 with a whopping 44% of Americans strongly approving the president and 65% in the total approving column and a mere 16% strongly disapproving, 30% total disapproval.
Contrast those numbers with March 19, 2011 . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3913
We can’t afford this Libya fiasco. We need to mobilize for a lot bigger fights in the offing, not fritter our military resources away on this operation. The bank is broke, and we’re stymied with our defense capabilities as it is.
That’s in fact a good reason why Obama’s going along with this Libya operation. Every little bit of damage he can do helps to “bring us down to size.” And if it turns out the rebels are even worse than Qadhafi, that’s all for the better as far as Barry’s concerned. (When he explains this to Farrakhan, who’s pretty upset with our Prezzy right now, I’m sure he’ll understand, and they’ll arrange to bring their mutual pal Muammar to Hyde Park and set him up with a nice pad in the neighborhood, right next to William Ayers.)
Now’s the time to make noise and demand that we start drilling for oil immediately. Because sure as shooting Obie’s going to move to use up our emergency oil reserves for this adventure, and leave us really high and dry.
But what will happen instead, as usual, is everybody puts one thumb in the mouth, the other wherever, paints themselves red, and goes hopping around like a jelly apple.
I’m confused. Help me out with the party line here. First it was Obama is a jerk because he dithered and did nothing. Now he is a jerk because he is sending in the Tomahawks. I can’t say that I am crazy about this move either, but it is clear to me that so many people here would take ANYTHING which Obama did or didn’t do and use that as proof of his incompetence or malice.
Hey, I didn’t criticize him for doing nothing on Libya, because doing nothing seemed about right to me. I’m not sure what the point of this action is or where it gets us. Maybe he really IS wrong this time, but when the right has cried “wolf” every time the man has done anything, who can they work up over this?
Oh yeah, I forgot, we are supposed to be disgusted because he is “vacationing” in Rio. Didn’t he say quite a while ago that he was going down there to promote trade? Whatever. It’s all bad, got it.
I believe libertarians were picked on here by calling them extreme libertarians, as those who believe that the U.S. should not be the World’s Policeman. While libertarians do believe that, it should have been the extreme, or classical, or prehistoric conservatives that were cited for this fault, since not being the World’s policeman is one of their badges of honor.
I have a great respect for Roger Simon as a newer conservative, and the home he has created here for all of us to become better educated, and to put in our own two cents as well. When I retired I used to joke that having a home office was kind of like being a prostitute, we did some of our best work in our underwear. I assume Roger also does great work in his P.J.’s which is a step above those of us who haven’t invested in P.J.’s yet.
With all due respect, and that is meant sincerely, we need to call attention to where, with our passive approval, our political leaders have placed us today. We are broke and so highly indebted that the country will crash and burn if the World suddenly decides to stop investing in our debt. To end this situation we must immediately stop borrowing and show a plan to eventually pay off the debt already accumulated.
Every day we wait to agree-on and implement the plan, we are abusing our children and grandchildren. We have enjoyed the good life that came from loose money and hidden inflation, but are trying to keep the good times rolling by papering over the cracks in the wall. We are postponing the bitter medicine of the cure and bequeathing all our disease to our children and grandchildren to suffer under while trying to cure themselves under a much more unforgiving environment.
The reason for dwelling on our financial problem is to point out that all those who wish to “do good”, however they may describe such, are free to do such. However as a Nation, like as our own family, we must fix ourselves first and then when we have left-over resources we can consider contributions to others. If we don’t do that we will have devoured our own seed corn, and we, as well as the World will starve.
Conservatives and Republicans have no coherent domestic agenda, mostly because they are paralyzed by the r-a-c-e issue. They support endless wars overseas to blind their voters to that fact. It that vision thing. Someday the wars will end, if for no other reason than economics, by which time, of course, the nation will have been destroyed, and it’ll be too late for visions. I suppose at that point the Great and Powerful Ozzes at the RNC, National Review, the Heritage Foundation, etc., will simply shoot out the lights, grab the cash, and head for the balloon.
Who here would not prefer that we demobilize two Army divisions and take half the cash needed to run them and build the wall, staff it with extra BP, and hire 1000 new investigators to hunt illegals in every state of the union? Can anyone imagine the Republican Party ever supporting such a plan – you know, something that would actually do the nation good and might even save it?
Roger, Libertarians should be capitalized.
And, “let the locals blow each other to smithereens” sounds like a damned good idea!
Dwight,
Obama got picked on, rightfully, because he DITHERED not because he didn’t get involved!!!!
If he had come out with a ‘daffy’s gotta go BUT it is not the US’s business to remove him that would be fine. But that’s not what he did is it?
He vacillated as he does with most everything except when it comes to taking over more of the economy by the Feds.
If he wanted to act on Libya it was up to him to make the case about why we should get involved and get it through Congess with a public discussion. You know, like GW did over Iraq.
Obama nor Hillary are worthy of the Presidency. Obama has no convictions, no belief system. Hillary spoke because Bill told her to. We are in this trouble because of the amateurs in this administration. Gates is the only one who seems to be competent, and he’s from the Bush years.
So we need to be in Libya because we need to be in Libya. How about a crash course in critical thinking.
This unbelievably stupid article says:
Horsepuckey.
There are NO good guys in this fight. Helping one side or the other is NOT doing good, it’s exacerbating whatever is already going wrong in Libya, while wasting American tax money and risking American lives.
If you want to know what America should be all about, go take another look at George Washington’s Farewell Address.
There is NEVER any excuse for the US to be helping ANY Muslim country, organization, or group of people anywhere in the world, for any reason, no matter what. It’s always one hundred percent wrong and it’s always against American interests.
I want that tax money to be used for REDUCING THE DEFICIT and nothing else.
It take a Barack Obama to make a Clinton look principled.
takes