The American Spectator : Obama Goes to War

Text Size

Obama Goes to War

By W. James Antle, III on 3.21.11 @ 6:09AM

Indecisiveness meets interventionism. But don't call it a dumb war.

It was as if the Sunday morning talk shows were being broadcast this week from an alternate dimension. There was Paul Wolfowitz defending the president from George Will's criticisms. President Obama, that is, not George W. Bush. That would be the same Paul Wolfowitz Obama once denounced as an "arm-chair, weekend warrior" shoving his "ideological agendas down our throats." As Jim Traficant would say, "Beam me up, Scotty."

Barack Obama sits in the Oval Office today because he opposed the Iraq war. Like most of his accomplishments, Obama acquired his antiwar record verbally. While Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, and John Kerry were in Congress voting for the invasion, Obama was a candidate for office giving a speech.

What a speech it was. Obama, the Reinhold Niebuhr of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, opened by saying he was "not opposed to war in all circumstances." "What I am opposed to is a dumb war," he elaborated. "What I'm opposed to is a rash war." A sentence later the future president took his swing at Wolfowitz, throwing in Richard Perle and Karl Rove to keep him company.

Obama allowed that Saddam Hussein was a "brutal man," a "ruthless man," a "man who butchers his own people to secure his own power," a "bad guy" even. But that did not make Saddam's ramshackle military capability a threat to the United States, Obama argued, and thus did not offer sufficient grounds for war on a country that had not attacked us.

How then can these Nobel Peace prize-winning words be squared with the president's decision to bomb Libya? The case for military intervention was based entirely on Muammar Gaddafi being a ruthless man, a bad guy, a man who threatened to butcher his own people to secure his own power. This administration isn't exactly renowned for its outrage over Lockerbie and Gaddafi's current military might makes Saddam look like a superpower.

What is different, apparently, is that we've brought more friends along. The no-fly zone is sufficiently multilateral for the president's tastes, bearing the imprimatur of the United Nations Security Council. Yet another relevant legislative body rather conspicuously did not authorize Obama's actions -- our own Congress.

Here is candidate Obama on the unconstitutionality of presidential wars:"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." Any Republican, hawk or dove, not protesting the lack of congressional authorization must have skipped the day where the House read the Constitution. The Framers were pretty specific about which branch of government has the power to declare war.

Large parts of Obama's base have proved equally malleable on questions of war and peace. This is not surprising. The left uses opposition to unpopular wars to recruit supporters the same way young men use poetry and cute dogs to pick up girls. Once in power, liberals discard their antiwar convictions as quickly as a successful Don Juan ditches Fido and Sylvia Plath.

But just in case any liberal activists start to feel queasy about Obama's bomb-dropping, the president predictably hedges. Having already dithered past the point some analysts thought the no-fly zone would be most effective, he assures us that we won't be there long. We're not really committed to regime change or a full-scale invasion. Defense Secretary Robert Gates vows to hand off Libya -- probably to France and Britain -- "in a matter of days."

We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty -- as long as our stay will be shorter than a handgun waiting period.

That this is incoherent and the precedent it sets imposes no principled limits on interventionism aside from attention deficit disorder does not seem to trouble the president. Obama is confident he can make Bush's dumb wars smart. He just isn't a very good Decider.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (167) | Leave a comment

Darin| 3.21.11 @ 6:59AM

Waiting for the same people (and media) who ripped Bush apart for Iraq to do the same to Obama over Libya. While we haven't sent ground troops into Libya (yet), it's also true that no one in the US or internationally sees Gaddafi as a threat to our country. So, I expect to see Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and the usual suspencts to be all over this. But I won't hold my breath.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.11 @ 9:16AM

Isn't it amazing, Darin? It's like OPPOSITE DAY, every day, when the Democrats are in Power.
Remember that Senator from Washington State (or was it Oregon) who was giving "Unwanted KISSES and HUGS, to a coupla women? Remember? The DEMOCRAT Women, in the House, marched over to the Senate, and DEMANDED HIS RESIGNATION.
When Bill Clinton had to testify before a Grand Jury, because he pulled his pants down, and EXPOSED himself to a woman he didn't even know? When he was using an INTERN as a Cigar Humidor and a DNA Collector? When he was being accused of RAPE, on National Television, in Prime Time, on the #1 Show in the Country? When he was accused by ANOTHER WOMAN, of groping her Breasts and rubbing up against her, on that SAME SHOW?
The Democrats couldn't have cared less. "It's his PRIVATE LIFE", don'tcha know.
When BILL CLINTON and AL GORE and JOHN KERRY and MADELINE ALBRIGHT, all said that Saddam Hussein had WMD? It was GOSPEL.
When George W. Bush, said the same thing? He LIED.
When Bush was President, all we heard was: "WHERE"S OSAMA BIN LADEN." We don't hear that anymore.
All we saw on television was the DAILY DEATH COUNT of U.S. Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't see that anymore.
And we watched as the Media became excited at the impending MILESTONE Number. They don't do that anymore.
Deficits used to be BAD. Now, they're not big ENOUGH.
Going on VACATION, PLAYING GOLF and THROWING LAVISH PARTIES, while we're fighting two WARS, while the GULF is inundated in OIL, and while the whole world BURNS, is back in Vogue.
Nice, huh?
Happy Opposite Day.
Happy End of our LIVES, as we know it.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 9:33AM

"What is different, apparently, is that we've brought more friends along. The no-fly zone is sufficiently multilateral for the president's tastes, bearing the imprimatur of the United Nations Security Council"

Yes this IS a war we can win more quickly than in Afghanistan and Iraq, that's what it's all about; you could have come out right away and said that- but why waste a chance to be unfair to Obama?

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.11 @ 9:51AM

As you can see, class, Alan Brooks has wasted little time in proving my point.
Obama could Crap on the Stage, and then EAT it, and the Alan Brooks of the world, would admire the way he held his fork, and remind us all, that, if we ALL ATE CRAP, there wouldn't be the OBESITY problem that we have now.
Thank You, Alan. You're truly amazing.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 9:55AM

Don't care what you say, as long as a draft is never reinstated in America-- because then you will share a fate not dissimilar to Gaddhafi's.
That is not a threat, it is a guarantee.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.11 @ 10:02AM

Wow. That's quite a statement. I'm curious. Can you write that on your computer WHILE you're putting on your Mom's underwear, or do you have to wait till it's completely on?
By the way, jackass, I already SERVED.
Unlike you.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 10:06AM

AB,
In the short time I've visited and commented on this blog all I have ever read from you are comments blaming others for what even the left has now come to recognize as a mistake in having obama as the lead donkey.
Would you kindly comment on his virtues as a leader, his DOJ, his redistribution of wealth and any other points of strength he has as the leader of the free world?

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 10:23AM

"I already SERVED.
Unlike you."

America had no right to conscript anyone then, and no right to do so now- THAT is the point.
I supported Bush on Afghanistan and Iraq, and so did many Dems; not a majority of Dems, but many.
Main point is: you want Obama to fail so you can push another post-Reagan empty-suit into the White House-- and I detest you for it.
I despise you with all of my heart for that.

Maddox| 3.21.11 @ 10:39AM

Obama has already failed and I despise him for it. He has no right to conscript anyone of us for his war on freedom to impose his leftist doctrine.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 10:51AM

"Obama has already failed and I despise him for it. He has no right to conscript anyone of us for his war on freedom to impose his leftist doctrine."

But Vietnam is different? you think America had a right to conscript from '65 to '72? No matter what you write, I'll warrant you do.

Charles Stevens| 3.21.11 @ 11:08AM

In addition to ignoring the main point of this article, trying to change the subject, and throwing a temper tantrum, now AB can read minds, too ("you want Obama to..."). Although telepathy is certainly a nice bullet on anyone's resume, I doubt seriously if it has anything to do with intelligence, analytical skills, and ability to carry on logical discourse. Good luck with all that, AB!

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.21.11 @ 12:13PM

"I supported Bush on Afghanistan and Iraq, and so did many Dems; not a majority of Dems, but many."

100% FALSE. What was the vote count, Alan? I won't spoil it for you so go ahead and go look it up.

Ted| 3.21.11 @ 12:27PM

Well well well.... Another one of those types. I want my freedom, and I want it now, to live my life as I see fit. But damn you all, I will not ever acknowledge any responsibility whatsoever to defend that freedom... No right to draft you.

People like me defend your right to say any damn idiotic thing you like. And you feel you have no obligation whatsoever to stand with us.

You are beneath despicable.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 2:17PM

"Ted| 3.21.11 @ 12:27PM
People like me defend your right to say any damn idiotic thing you like."

No, you defend whom you care about: your people, not mine- you are a congenital liar.

Negro X| 3.22.11 @ 7:39PM

Brooks you support on one except your cowardly self, you leach off the government and serve no useful purpose. You are afraid of being drafted.
You are the same type of coward I punched in the face in 1970 at SF airport when I got back from Vietnam.
You are a coward who would sell his own mother to save his ass, luckily idiots like you are a minority.
Go change your diaper.

JF| 3.23.11 @ 10:40AM

Obama and his administration has yet to justify this involvement. Ghaddafi was subdued into housecat status when GWB sent troops into Iraq. My guess is that this move is Obama trying to look presidential so he can re-impress the many independent voters who have moved to the right side of the aisle. No one wants Obama to fail - he can do that without any help from us, just as his resume-building stint as a "community organizer" leaves many of us pondering the results as we drive thru Chicago's south side, marveling that the community Obama organized looks worse than Baghdad after our ground troops invaded.

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 10:51AM

You mean a draft like Lincoln's draft of 1863?

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 10:57AM

"You mean a draft like Lincoln's draft of 1863?"

You are correct, there should not have been a draft. But that doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy was a bad cause, the Confederacy was based on a giant lie: that it wanted to be left alone-- even Buchanan said that. But the South wanted the Western lands as slave territories-cum- states. And wanted the fugitive slave statutes continued.
Remember this: opposition to the Vietnam War ended v soon after the draft ended. So you can't say all the protesters were un-American.

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 11:29AM

Subjective nonsense, as usual. That the Confederacy was "bad" is subjective and irrelevant. The real questions are, is secession legal? And, was it worth killing 600,000 people and ruining countless lives to stop secession? In your vile hatred you obviously think it was worth it, and previous posts suggest that you believe more Southerners should have been summarily executed in 1865.

"Remember this: opposition to the Vietnam War ended v soon after the draft ended." This is true enough. However, your next statement "So you can't say all the protesters were un-American" does not logically follow from the previous statement.

The real questions of the day are: What is Bozo's motivation for this action in Libya? Is the action legal (e.g. authorized by Congress)? And, will Bozo attempt to institute a draft to support it? The answers are: 1. Ego. 2. Not yet. 3. I don't know.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 12:15PM

"Is the action legal (e.g. authorized by Congress)?"

Neither was the Vietnam War. Besides, the real issue is: you want Obama to fail so you can elect another time-wasting dynasticist.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 12:17PM

"you believe more Southerners should have been summarily executed in 1865."

Yes, Jefferson Davis, and those who sent funds to the Booth conspiracy.

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 1:53PM

You keep changing the topic. The issue of the article is President Bozo's motives and expectations for bombing Libya, and his competence in handling the situation. This has nothing to do with the war between the States, or Viet Nam, or the draft. There is no draft. If there is to be a draft it will be voted on by Congress and signed by President Bozo. It does not appear that Congress is likely to do that. If your hero President Bozo adopts a draft anyway, it will be by executive order and would be flatly illegal. But flatly illegal orders are President Bozo's trademark.

I still do not understand your outrage here, except the challenge to your idolatrous hero worship of President Bozo. We look at President Bozo and see a person of unparalelled incomptetence, gargantuan ego, and self-serving duplicity. All you have to offer is "Obama is great because Bush was bad too! Nyaa! Nyaa! Nyaa!" Grow up little boy. Start wearing long trousers and get rid of the propeller beanie.

Bill| 3.21.11 @ 1:09PM

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution is usually offered as the Congressional imprimatur on the prosecution of the Vietnam War.

Our federal government has no rights. It only has power. One might argue that governments, including our own, has the "right" to protect itself from an attempt at armed overthrow, but beyond that, one gets into a real mire when talking about the "rights" of the federal government.

In our constitutional scheme, Congress has the power to raise and support an army and navy (Article I, Section 8). That power has been deemed by the Supreme Court to include involuntary conscription.

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 2:02PM

This is correct and notes a common mistake, substituting the word "right" for "power." Governments have powers and ONLY those powers delegated to it by the People. Only People have rights. Power is hierarchical and in these United States, the supreme power is the People. Next is the power of the States executed by the elected representatives of the People of those States. The next level is the US Constitution, a construct of the States, a Supreme Law that voluntarily binds the States together. Next DOWN the line is the power of the United States government, which has ONLY those powers delegated to it by the States under the Supreme Law. This is the BOTTOM of the power chain, not the top. Once the US government operates in violation of the Supreme Law, it ceases to be a legitimate government.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 2:21PM

"We look at President Bozo and see a person of unparalelled incomptetence, gargantuan ego, and self-serving duplicity."

You said that about Clinton, and he was re-elected handily. A false prophet you are.

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 2:59PM

"False prophet"? ??? Do you know what the word "prophet" means? I was not prophesying about Clinton or Bozo. Clinton's re-election in 1996 is hardly relevant to this discussion. Are you having difficulty keeping a train of thought? Propeller beanie too tight?

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 1:39PM

This is incorrect. Congress authorized all actions taken in Viet Nam.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.21.11 @ 2:27PM

"Neither was the Vietnam War. Besides, the real issue is: you want Obama to fail so you can elect another time-wasting dynasticist."

Do you EVER get tired of being 100% wrong Alan?

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 7:16PM

Alan has "Negative Attention Craving" Disorder. That's why he doesn't get tired.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 8:58PM

I'm 48, with hypertension and diabetes---my draft time is over. And, when I volunteered to be a doc in the Navy in 1984, before med school, they told me I was not needed. Oh well, paid off my student loans in less than 18 months, all $80,000 of it, working 90 hour weeks in rural 'Bama. Now I'm old with two kids, and medical conditions. Oh, well.

I appreciate all the Veterans' service, protecting my soft fat ass.

Bill| 3.22.11 @ 9:01AM

If you're 48 this year, you were 18 thirty years ago. Thirty years ago was 1981, eight years after the draft ended in 1973.

Although you were required to register for the draft, you were never at risk of being drafted in any realistic sense.

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:21PM

Correct. And that's why my act of volunteering as a Navy Doc WAS a true act of volunteerism. Again, my thanks to the Vets who protect my ass.

Mike W| 3.21.11 @ 10:16AM

This attack is a pointless waste. However, had Bush done it, or if elected, had McCain done it then supporters on this board would have been almost orgasming in support of "taking out" the dictator. Then they would have said "we can't cut and run" so we have to stay in Libya, despite being broke, for 20 years.

On this military adventure, the Democrat party will once again show that is intellectually bankrupt. They will support B.O. regardless of what he does.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 7:17PM

I am inclined to agree, which is why you have to hand it to principled and consistent loons like Michael Moore for attacking Obama on this one.

canuckistani| 3.21.11 @ 11:09AM

The Aristocrats!

RN in Houston| 3.21.11 @ 3:18PM

Correction...Obama would crap on the stage and Alan Brooks would eat it.

Ken in Tyler| 3.21.11 @ 10:21AM

So, Alan- the decision on whom to blow up today is based on how quickly victory can be declared? No reference to right, wrong, national security, existing treaties or even consultations with Congress (You know, the way it was supposed to be under the Constitution). And do you suppose in that addled head of yours that these attacks are somehow accomplished without civilian casualties? The duplicity of the statist is mind-boggling.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 10:24AM

Alan B
"What is different, apparently, is that we've brought more friends along” Ah, Alan, we didn’t bring anybody along, our POS POTUS was dragged kicking and screaming into providing refueling aircraft and a few other supporting aircraft.
“Yes this IS a war”…no Alan this is midair refueling practice, at least for the US.
“but why waste a chance to be unfair to Obama?” …once again when it takes the leader of the world’s superpower two to three weeks to act while an enemy advances how is questioning his judgment somehow unfair?
Alan, from what I can tell just from your various defenses of perhaps a president eclipsing Jimma Carter in ineptitude is that you are not a person whose powers of reason should be brought to bear on any topic of political importance. It is apparent to all that if obama, under oath, questioned the meaning of what the word “is” is you would come to his defense, which puts you in extremely rarefied air…or lack thereof.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.21.11 @ 12:41PM

Habu
please understand, and get some perspective. Alan Brooks has been a joke here for years.

Don't waste your typing on him.
PS: welcome aboard.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 2:50PM

Ken (Old Texican)

Thanks or the welcome aboard and the news(to me) that Alan has been the blogs joke for years. Some of his (mis) statements of the facts are mind boggling and he today came perilously close to assault. He said he served during Vietnam or at some time: was that in the US military? Also given his mercurial tantrums I don’t believe we can rule out PTSD. I’m 62, in a month 63, joined the Marines in ’68 and was in the mud with a platoon until I got recruited by the CIA. Fifteen years there and saw Angola and Rhodesia during those hostilities. But that is all history and the future is where our focus should be since there are now more than a few bad guys gunning for us. AB should probably take a step back from the blog for a time and allow some of the hostility to past events settle, although there is every indication that it may not be possible. He obviously carries a heavy burden in his attempts to defend obama. Once again thanks for the heads up.
Best,
Habu

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 8:59PM

Habu,

welcome aboard. Nice to see another intelligent one.

V8| 3.21.11 @ 10:54AM

So you object to how long a war may take, not the merits of it? Or the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were approved by congress, as the constitution states, but that Libya was not? I can't keep up. I agree we should have stepped in in the case of Libya, but would it have really been that hard for Obama to get Congress to step in and vote on this?

Oldefarte| 3.21.11 @ 11:15AM

Oh yes, fool, it's typically about RACISM. Right, AND THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON, WHILE THE DISH RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON! I don't know who the larger idiot is, you or Obama. I do know that he is a lying, hypocritical, incompetitent, inept Chicago community orgainzer; but I'm not completely sure as to what your are [or more rightly, are not]!!!!!!!!

Dustoff| 3.21.11 @ 12:21PM

What makes you think that. Were bombing from the air.

Just like the early days of Saddam.
He didn't go anywere.

vtwin| 3.21.11 @ 10:56AM

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution required oath of office of the President of the United States: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

The United States Congress neither declared war on Libya nor voted to authorize the use of military force against Libya. Therefore, President Barack Hussein Obama should be impeached and removed from office for this clear violation of the Constitution United States.

V8| 3.21.11 @ 11:40AM

Never thought I would say this but for once I agree with Vtwin

Anthony| 3.21.11 @ 12:36PM

Hey vtwin, we haven't heard from you in many days. Many of us were starting to wonder, if after your smarmy comments about the Japanese nuclear reactors, and your discovery that the cloud you were so hoping for, was headed your way, that you might have packed your bags, mounted your tricycle and headed East.
Did you purchase a gas mask yet vtwin? How about stocking up on iodide capsules?
Maybe you are hiding out in the East. Keep us posted vtwin, we worry about you.

vtwin| 3.21.11 @ 1:00PM

Well thanks for your concern but no I haven’t “headed East.” As for California she has has faced far worst challenges in her past than any amount of nuclear fallout from Japan and survived like the governorship of Ronald Reagan:)

Anthony| 3.21.11 @ 3:01PM

Whew, that's good news vtwin. Unfortunately, America will not be as fortunate as you were to have survived Reagan. (don't you wish)
Surviving Obozo appears to be an ever more daunting a challenge each day.
But glad to see you think Obozo should be impeached. Are you sure you're not suffering the effects of radiation, this doesn't sound like you?
Maybe it's an alien abduction thing. Now you got me worried about you again.

GavInTucson| 3.21.11 @ 1:04PM

I guess this is one of those rare times when I wholeheartedly agree with you, vtwin.

WhiteBikerTrash| 3.21.11 @ 1:13PM

Oh my!!! V-Twin, what a reasonable fact based argument! You must be joking?

The Big E| 3.21.11 @ 1:55PM

This morning I got out of bed and found out I agreed with Dennis Kucinich. This afternoon, get back from lunch and find out vtwin is making sense.

My God! What's become of me?

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:01PM

Broken clock. Right twice a day.

But...thank you, vtwin, for a polite, well researched and reasoned opinion. Bravissimo!

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:00PM

Jeez, vtwin. I. Agree. With. You.

(and JHarp on stadiums)

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 11:44AM

"Obama is confident he can make Bush's dumb wars smart. He just isn't a very good Decider."

TRANSLATION: you want Obama to lose a war or two so you can insert another GOP chairwarmer in the Oval Office.

W. James Antle III| 3.21.11 @ 11:59AM

Mr. Brooks: Given that I opposed Bush on Iraq and opposed McCain on foreign-policy grounds, this is a fairly moronic statement to make. Though it is in keeping with the rest of your "contributions" to this comments thread.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 12:24PM

Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008?
You of course are not not obliged to reveal your voting habits; however if you did vote for Bush and then McCain, it is not a stretch to suppose you want another such lapdog as POTUS in preference to a Democrat, no matter if the Democrat (i.e. Clinton) happens to be a somewhat better choice.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 12:32PM

... bTW, because you opposed Bush on Iraq and opposed McCain on foreign-policy grounds does not mean you would necessarily want to be fair to Obama in any way. Nor, being partisan, do you have to be fair any Democrat or leftie-- yet I can point out that unfairness. What irks me is that we went through all of this with Clinton many years ago and, predictably, he was re-elected. My GOP friends insisted Clinton wouldn't be re-elected, however every time they said so it was less convincing than the time before.
Correction: "You of course are not not obliged to reveal your voting", included an erroneous extra "not", it was not a double negative!

W. James Antle III| 3.21.11 @ 1:07PM

I've applied the same standards to Obama as I've applied to Bush and McCain. You've provided no evidence to the contrary. My voting habits have regularly been stated publicly and I'm not going to waste everyone's time rehashing them here. Use Google.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 2:28PM

"I've applied the same standards to Obama as I've applied to Bush and McCain."

All I care about is that another Nixon, Ford, Bush (and the worst of all of them in the last 40 years, Carter) not be elected again. If you are in agreement on such then good for you and good for this country.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 3:00PM

A Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 2:28PM

"All I care about is that another Nixon, Ford, Bush (and the worst of all of them in the last 40 years, Carter) not be elected again.

Alan, if we could somehow find a Gen. Curtis Lemay could you support him? I mean the man knew a good cigar and an incenidary bomb ...not a bad combo. And now that we have some very nice size MOAB's , well ...it's goat or camel for dinner.

Alabn Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 3:57PM

"..it's goat or camel for dinner."

Makes one hungry already just thinking about it.
Look I voted GOP in the '80s, but the Bushes, Doles, and McCains didn't appear to be suitable for the post Reagan era- which is still the era we are in. I'm worried that since politics is the art of the possible, another of the post Reaganites will be elected in 2016 or even next year.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:02PM

Hey....I like LeMay. Shouldn't have run with Wallace, and I think he knew it. But a great patriot and one of the best generals in US history.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:13PM

I agree. I'm just worried this won't end well. I find it interesting that Red Phillips is in favor (I guess) of intervention and I'm opposed to it (please correct me if I'm wrong, Red), when I tend to be a big fan of dropping bombs on places like Libya. I also am agreeing with Dennis Kucinich, which is VERY uncomfortable.

Skippy| 3.21.11 @ 7:44PM

Best quote of the day?
"They told me if I didn't vote for Obama, there would be another war in the Middle East.
I guess they were right."

Doorgunner| 3.21.11 @ 7:05AM

A blazing start to the re-election campaign... and a much-needed distraction from the budget/deficit/impending fiscal doom miasma.

The man is a pragmatist after all, I suppose.
...

And now, some unneeded words from Alan Brooks...

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 9:37AM

Yes: drop dead, rightwing paranoid Doorgunner. And please do run another "compassionate" (not) "conservative"dynasticist next year; see if you can waste another four years at least, perhaps even another eight-- because if you waste others' time then you are the winner.

Maddox| 3.21.11 @ 10:41AM

Your posts are especially snarky today. Could it be you feel the sting of having Obama prove his supporters were fooled?

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 10:52AM

Bingo!

Oldefarte| 3.21.11 @ 11:18AM

The only WASTE will be if this worthless empty suit with a Harvard law degree is allowed another four years of ruining this country!!!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 11:48AM

Oldfarte, you are too senile to appreciate what a relief it is McCain wasn't elected POTUS, and that hopefully (unless Rich Lowry has his way), the B ush dynasty is finished.

Wayne | 3.21.11 @ 12:56PM

Brooks, you are obviously a war-monger.

Steve A| 3.21.11 @ 2:15PM

I hereby volunteer Brooks as a human shield for Quadaffy.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 2:31PM

And you will be right in front of me- that is on the OUTSIDE of the three of us.

Anthony| 3.21.11 @ 3:07PM

I'll supply the chains. Or, maybe Brooksie would perfer handcuffs, for the ultimate experience in kinky human shields.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:03PM

Velcro or steel?

Fairbanks99| 3.21.11 @ 11:05AM

Wag the dog!

Appleby| 3.21.11 @ 7:10AM

Is he in Brazil scoping out hideouts once his foreign policy has been implemented? And isnt threatening to *take out* foreign leaders (unless he wants a date), like, a war crime?

Brian Mc| 3.21.11 @ 7:11AM

As my mother hovered over her 80th birthday cake last night a few members of the family hollered for her to make a wish. My ultra-liberal sister muttered, "How about world peace?" I responded, "Same thing Muslims want, ain't that strange?" She did not get it. They don't even know who the enemy is but are going after bullys in the schoolyards at a federal level...I hope it helps them sleep better at night as the alien stumbles along.

Melvin| 3.21.11 @ 7:29AM

The problem is, that we do the bleedin, and he does the stumblin. A person's whole attitude changes about war, when the first bullet personally wiz's by them.

Doorgunner| 3.21.11 @ 8:12AM

Heck, I'd settle for them drinking six liters of water -before noon- without ever having to pee... and then still peeing the brown syrup when they do go.

Could we please not do the desert, again?

A. C. Santore| 3.21.11 @ 7:48AM

Four short points.

1. Never pay attention to what Obama says, only to what he does - they are rarely even similar.

2. There's a synaptic gap here that I just can't get across. We're attacking Qaddafi because he is bombing cities, but we did it.

We praise Israel for bombing cities to defend itself, but we attack Libya for doing the same thing.

3. We're not bombing Iran, who attacks its own citizens.

4. Never underestimate the power of hypocrisy.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 3:30PM

A. C. Santore
Your first point has merit.

Your second is that in Libya it is a civil war nurtured by the other outbreaks in the region. Once all the rebel factions in the ME over throw the governments’ they won't have a clue as to how to run the country except to keep killing. Now I personally enjoy Islams killing Islams since it saves us the trouble and weakens people whose ideology would have us as slave or dead. In fact it really puts the kibosh on not bombing mosques. Please don’t use the Iraq was a civil was defense since we know Sadam has used chemical weapons (against all conventions) against Kurdish women and children and Huday and Kusay enjoyed the chipper-shredder method of dispatching those they simply didn’t like. I’m unsure what bombing of what cities you’re referring to in Libya? Iraq? Germany,Japan?Your third point. Not bombing Iran.

Third point: Not bombing Iran.

I kinda of agree but I’d use nukes and be done with it. If you mean conventional…one war at a time, plus they may now fall from internal pressure and there youth from wanting to audition for American Idol.

Point four: “. Never underestimate the power of hypocrisy. “Keep this in mind, “Idealism is what precedes experience, cynicism is what follows.”

Mike W| 3.21.11 @ 5:10PM

Huday and Usay put people in wood chippers. That's why I spent a trillion of my tax dollars to remove a threat that didn't exist!

Hard to argue with that "logic".

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:10PM

Umm, because Israel does it after unbearable provocation and after 3 month olds get their heads cut off?

Mitch Angoop| 3.21.11 @ 7:53AM

Just the latest example of the deadly double standard that lets democraps do any damned thing they want; while dissecting every single move any Republican makes. Our lying, dangerous media needs to be smashed to very small pieces and asrrested for treasn for their role in getting this imposter in the White House.

The whole reason behind any Libyan intervention is barry jangling his gonads to prove his alleged manhood as a planned step to his reelection campaign. Impeachment is too good for barry; how about a trial and a very public trip to the gallows?

This link goes to a terrifying view of what barry the muslim is working to bring to America. Please go to the link and watch it; and then forward it to everybody you know; regardless of party affiliation. It should wake up every American.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YQANdvvbY

Ken in Tyler| 3.21.11 @ 10:38AM

Thanks for the link to the vid. For a more indepth glimpse into the future read Mark Steyn's, America Alone. And prepare- this will not end well.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:05PM

And Bat Ye'or's Eurabia, and Melanie Phillips Londinistan, and Bruce Thornton....actually, just go to the CIA factbook site and the UN Demographic site, and start looking up average ages and birthrates.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:10PM

Good man.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.21.11 @ 8:04AM

O'Stalins 14th Rule:

When you've destroyed the economy in your own country you look for opportunities to screw things up in other countries.

Louis Jenkins| 3.21.11 @ 8:27AM

Maybe Obama's not so docile afterall. It worked with the Shlick Mister, maybe it can work with him. A few bombs here and there are good for PR so we can expect his dis-approval rates to disappear. Not really! He has gotten us into another quagmire, and though there are bombs now we can imagine the Marines going ashore shortly. Yes, the Democrats can do just about anything and expect laurels and congratulations. What a waste! Meanwhile, the USA is going down the tubes.

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 2:34PM

maybe the Midwest, South and Northeast are, but the West is doing well.

V8| 3.21.11 @ 3:43PM

Not if your in California. Govenor MoonBeam to the rescue

Oldefarte| 3.21.11 @ 5:16PM

Yeah, MORON, California has a $25billion defecit.......that's real WELL. Your heritage obviously neglected you in the financial/economic brain-cell department!!!!

The Bishop| 3.21.11 @ 8:34AM

I never thought I'd be in agreement with leading morons in the Democrat Party. I think I need a drink.

From the Politico: A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Frank Tavos| 3.22.11 @ 4:51PM

They want to impeach Obozo???!!!??? RACISTS!!!???!!!

John | 3.21.11 @ 8:38AM

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war." This is a "smart" war. We do not know who we are supporting. That's smart. However, there are more important things in life. He still has a nice crease in his pants and how about those basketball picks?

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 3:37PM

John,
Great points….but he reneged on his cigarette smoking , or are the blunts?

qwilly| 3.21.11 @ 8:49AM

Any private in the military knows, you never lead from the rear. Sorry Obama, you were never a private.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 9:52AM

qwilly,
He's an ass, he has to lead from that position.

qwilly| 3.21.11 @ 9:56AM

True, true...........

Anthony| 3.21.11 @ 3:20PM

Obozo appears to have had some experience in leading from the rear, or so the talk about the thin black state senator in Ill during Obozo's tenure, who frequented the gay baths.
And where oh where has my Pakastani love puppy gone?

The Big E| 3.21.11 @ 9:29AM

Why would Obama need the approval of Congress when he already had the "Official UN Stamp of Approval?" In Obama's world view, UN approval would trump any Congressional disapproval anyway, so why should he waste his time seeking the approval of a body with no authority to tell him NO? And after all, why should the disapproval of one country (the US as represented by the Congress) be permitted to overcome the will of the ENTIRE WORLD (the UN)?

Of course, the reality is that Obama didn't go to Congress because he knew they would never approve this adventure, so in classic Obama fashion, he simply didn't ask, and then did what he wanted to do anyway. Remember, after the election in November, all the talk about him using the regulatory power to enact a legislative agenda he knew a Republican house would never approve? How is this any different? It's the same tactic he used with his drilling ban in the Gulf. When a Federal Judge declared the ban unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, he continued to enforce it anyway. How many here remember that the administration was held in Contempt of Court for its continued enforcement of the drilling ban in the face of a Court order enjoining its enforcement? Fat lot of good it did for the Court to hold them in contempt, too. The drilling ban is still being enforced. So whose power trumped whose?

Obama recognizes no power but his own. He recognizes no limits to his power, save those he himself imposes. He has long, LONG ago exceeded the powers vested to him by the Constitution. He has assumed certain powers vested in the Constitution only to legislature. He has made it abundantly clear that he views himself and his administration as being beyond the reach of the Judiciary. The longer we put up with this outrage, the more power he will accrue, and the harder it will be to undo the damage he has done.

We cannot wait till 2012.

IMPEACH THIS CRIMINAL NOW !!!!!

Anthony| 3.21.11 @ 9:30AM

Cindy Sheehan, please call home. It's time to leave Crawford Texas for Washington D.C., if you dare. However, proceed with caution, Obozo doesn't take too kindly to protests, unlike the gentlemanly W.
Hillary, run like hell girl, because you are fronting for the biggest empty suit in the history of American politics.
Sen. Reid, pull out your old speech about " this war is lost", because under our incompetent, feckless, and gutless leader, whatever the hell Obozo finally does in Libya, it will surely end in defeat for America, Obozo's ultimate goal.
Democrats, you all better hide because 2012 is coming sooner than you think, and take Boehner with you.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 9:50AM

Maybe I'm just not up on what "war" is anymore since we haven't had one since the 1940's but what obama has just pulled on the rubes was akin to a Cub Scout (no offense Scouts) working on a merit badge. He’s playing Sky King for a day.
This maneuver was totally political done to provide political fodder for 2012 and sure to come back in a campaign speech read from Mr. Teleprompter written by Obama as a self-approved encomium of chest beating on his Chicago gangsta toughness. Well it’s a bit late and lame to turn this flaccid POS into a mahogany woody. He hasn’t got the stones to do anything “tough” except talk. But then hisws weeks long paralysis was born of his birth as a Muslim and our muzzie wasn’t going to take any action until the mighty French Air Force lit up their afterburners….then he was a follower, not a superpower leader. Barry Hussien Turderio Mocha Latte obama just go back on vacation ,please.

A. C. Santore| 3.21.11 @ 10:45AM

"written by Obama"?

I most seriously doubt that he has ever written one word of what he reads to us. And if someone told me that he doesn't even proofread them before he reads them, I'd believe that, too.

What gulls we can be!

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 3:10PM

Sky King! That's going back a ways. I remember Sky King (mostly in syndicated re-runs on TV).

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.21.11 @ 9:53AM

It's like OPPOSITE DAY, every day, when the Democrats are in Power.
Remember that Senator from Washington State (or was it Oregon) who was giving "Unwanted KISSES and HUGS, to a coupla women? Remember? The DEMOCRAT Women, in the House, marched over to the Senate, and DEMANDED HIS RESIGNATION.
When Bill Clinton had to testify before a Grand Jury, because he pulled his pants down, and EXPOSED himself to a woman he didn't even know? When he was using an INTERN as a Cigar Humidor and a DNA Collector? When he was being accused of RAPE, on National Television, in Prime Time, on the #1 Show in the Country? When he was accused by ANOTHER WOMAN, of groping her Breasts and rubbing up against her, on that SAME SHOW?
The Democrats couldn't have cared less. "It's his PRIVATE LIFE", don'tcha know.
When BILL CLINTON and AL GORE and JOHN KERRY and MADELINE ALBRIGHT, all said that Saddam Hussein had WMD? It was GOSPEL.
When George W. Bush, said the same thing? He LIED.
When Bush was President, all we heard was: "WHERE"S OSAMA BIN LADEN." We don't hear that anymore.
All we saw on television was the DAILY DEATH COUNT of U.S. Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't see that anymore.
And we watched as the Media became excited at the impending MILESTONE Number. They don't do that anymore.
Deficits used to be BAD. Now, they're not big ENOUGH.
Going on VACATION, PLAYING GOLF and THROWING LAVISH PARTIES, while we're fighting two WARS, while the GULF is inundated in OIL, and while the whole world BURNS, is back in Vogue.
Nice, huh?
Happy Opposite Day.
Happy End of our LIVES, as we know it.

Bob Miller| 3.21.11 @ 10:01AM

The best way to stop Obama from doing anything dumb is to convince him it would hurt his chances in 2012.

Paul from SA| 3.21.11 @ 10:36AM

"It's a quagmire, just like Vietnam." It took the media two weeks in Iraq before they began comparing it to Vietnam.

I'll bet anybody the media will not do that with this war.

Dustoff| 3.21.11 @ 12:27PM

Ahhhhh Paul. Remember who is in Nam first. Yep the French. Could this be Nam part II?

Wayne | 3.21.11 @ 12:55PM

Yes, when things get rough, they will bail out leaving the US to clean up the mess.

Albert| 3.21.11 @ 10:55AM

President Bozo needs to prove he is a "real man-real President." So he launches missiles and drops bombs. This is like Clinton's excursions into Sudan and Yugoslavia, an attempt to show he's got "gravitas". A public relations stunt. The only interest being served is Bozo's ego.

Nunya| 3.21.11 @ 7:16PM

Clinton did this very thing when he fired cruise missles into the aspirin factory. It's all for show.

bluecollarbytes| 3.21.11 @ 11:00AM

Gaddafi was 'cleansed' during the Bush administration, in part because it 'proved'
Bush interventionist policies to be working.
Turns out he's still a mad dog, surprise surprise.

U.S. military action in defense of Muslims is a no-win situation though.

Redstateboy| 3.21.11 @ 11:07AM

Hussein is sucha frigg'n Moron!! Had he acted 2 weeks ago this might've had a positive effect on history..

Chalkdust| 3.21.11 @ 11:08AM

"Lucky Strike Red" and the liberal party takes the USA to war. Did I miss the congressional vote to authorize war?
As I read the posts/comments attached to this article, I am struck by the irony that each one seem to make more sense than President Barrack H. Obama. Awww... What fun it must be to bask in the Rosy glow of having said in 2008 "I'm an independent and I voted for Obama".

Alan Brooks| 3.21.11 @ 11:15AM

"The duplicity of the statist is mind-boggling."

Ken in Tyler, at least I'm not a libertarian. antique Anarchism and libertarianism are relics. Where is Tyler located-- in a backwater?

Wayne | 3.21.11 @ 12:54PM

Are you 12?

The Big E| 3.21.11 @ 2:00PM

Actually, I thought most children moved past the temper-tantrum stage about 5 or 6.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:07PM

No. I knew a genius from Tyler. Went to TCU with me.

Al Adab| 3.21.11 @ 11:26AM

Should we now await the arrival of the "No blood for Oil" protests and the Women in Black on the corners until this war ends? After all just because the UN sanctioned it, like Iraq; and just because our allies are involved, like Iraq; doesn't mean our Congress approved it, unlike Iraq. Or is it true that all the Iraq protests were actually about Bush and not about war?

Thelma's Louise| 3.21.11 @ 6:35PM

Al Adab,

You make entirely too much sense, but it does not agree with the anti-war Leftists. Thus they have removed one post of mine for agreeing with you. Let's see if they remove this one, too!

Oldefarte| 3.21.11 @ 11:27AM

The only exposure to war that this imbicile has ever been exposed to was on the mean streets of Chicago as a community organizer. He's the most extreme case of a lying, hypocritical politician that the western world has ever experienced, and he'll say anything, do anything, etc that furthers his radical political agenda!!!!!!

Steve A| 3.21.11 @ 11:27AM

Somebody correct me here but my memory tells me that Obama campaigned about ending the wars & has been in office 2 + years & now we are involved in 1 more than when he started......Must make the anti-war dems proud!

Charles Stevens| 3.21.11 @ 11:30AM

This article and most of the commenters here do a good job of categorizing all the myriad things wrong with the US blundering into Libya. Just one more point: as a conservative, I cannot decry the intransigence of political Islam on the one hand, and expect classically liberal democracy in a country like Libya via its unspecified 'rebels' on the other. That kind of thinking is at best feckless, at worst schizophrenic.

Short of killing him directly, Khaddafi will simply find other means to do what he was going to do anyway, only now filled with revenge for his multinational oppressors. The semihemidemigod Obama will then use this as excuse to meddle further militarily, i.e., mission creep. As in Serbia, the result will be the typical standoff favored by progressives... neither side having enough power to finish off the other, which is congruent with progressive equality of outcomes such that no conflict is ever finalized.

Five years from now, expect to still see the US military performing operations in Libya. I guess with the unholy alliance of neoconservatives and the left, this country will never learn.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.21.11 @ 12:44PM

Unfortunately have to agree. The first point the UN vigorously wanted to make was that Q-daffy was absolutely "not a target."

Well, of course not, taking him out might be too fast, effective and successful. The left's spin machine doesn't know how to process those things.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.21.11 @ 11:40AM

Here's Obama playing soccer in Rio. Mission Accomplished!

http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm.....&zoneid=14

Dustoff| 3.21.11 @ 12:24PM

Why does this look just like Kosovo all over again. Another (dem) prez with dropping numbers. So to get the focus off him. He goes to war.

GavInTucson| 3.21.11 @ 1:11PM

And, like the Kosovo adventure, the president didn't get authorization from the Congress to do it.

LK| 3.21.11 @ 12:40PM

What is our national interest in Libya? I'm not saying a case can't be made for it, but I haven't heard or seen it articulated yet. How will the deployment of our military persue that interest?
The President should have gone to congress to make his case. Bush did. He apparently had the time. We don't need the approval of the UN to protect our interest!

Wayne | 3.21.11 @ 12:53PM

The bombing is an act of war and illegal, making Obama a war criminal, and he needs to be tried a one. The UN does not have authority over the US and Congress has not approved of the war.

Dixie Pixie| 3.21.11 @ 2:43PM

Gentleman there is a few points to consider.

1...The war with Libya is not authorized by the Congress of the United States and thus an illegal war.
2...The War Powers Act specifies Obama has 48 hours to request authorization from Congress and Obama bugged out to Rio. The 48 hours thus elapsed.
3...The Obama administration has a track record of illegal actions that has a tendency to spontaneously blow up.

4...We still do not know who we are fighting for.
5...The American people may be deliberately misled about the substance and philosophy of the Rebels by a MSM and Obama minions who have shown no tendency to tell the truth.
6...It is high probability that the Rebels are a Wahhabi offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood which would explain why the MSM does not want the facts about the Rebels known.

Gentlemen this is explicitly the type of war the Founding Fathers recommended the US avoid.
This is the type of war the US Constitution prohibits thus making the Obama / Libyan War an illegal and outlaw endeavor.

Al Adab| 3.21.11 @ 5:36PM

In re: #4
Sure we do, oil for France. Never our own of course and we mustn't drill for any. Ya gotta love The Left.

Dixie Pixie| 3.21.11 @ 6:15PM

....LOL....
The question was "Who" not "What" or "Why".
To narrow down the question, What group of Muslim wingnuts are we supporting as the next government of Libya???

Is it my imagination that the Obama administration has turned into a variant of the movie "Blazing Saddles".

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:09PM

Time to do a "Number Six."

Dixie Pixie| 3.21.11 @ 11:18PM

...LOL...Occam's Tool
A "Number 6" what?
Right now "Plan 9 From Outer Space" has a better chance of working than what ever Obama has in mind!

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:25PM

Dear Dixie:

Please watch Blazing Saddles. This quote is from Slim Pickens:

"we will work up a number six on them that's where we go a-ridin' into town, a whampin and whompin every living thing that moves within an inch of its life we rape the living shit out of them at the number six dance."

Dixie Pixie| 3.21.11 @ 11:39PM

...LOL...
Is your "Number 6" plan, where we ride into Rockwell / Tripoli a -whompin and a-whumpin and run Daffy out to sea?
To misquote Hedley Lamarr "Marvelous...But not subtle enough..." for the Europeans.

Dixie Pixie| 3.21.11 @ 11:49PM

Oops.... That should have been "Rock Ridge" not "Rockwell".

Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 2:29PM

You understand...if he indiscriminately bombs EVERYONE in Libya, that might upset me much less...

martin j smith| 3.21.11 @ 2:56PM

Oil, and politics. that is exactly what this is about period. It fits the needs of the Europeans and fits Obama's needs as well. They all agree--oil needs to flow. They all agree their economies suck. And they all agree they need political boosts in their respective countries. There is absolutely no support for FREEDOM or whatever in this exercise. Lets sit back, take a long deep breath and see what happens. And, what the reaction in the region . But lets recall how all of these nations reacted to Iraq. And dear old Obama in particular. Then I will ask: What about Iran ?

Wayne | 3.21.11 @ 5:51PM

What about ANWR which would produce as much oil as Libya.

JmsA| 3.21.11 @ 3:21PM

Nicely stated, Martin. By the way, I've just heard Gaddafi's troops are shedding their uniforms and going underground a la the Baathist Sunnis in Iraq. Let's see how our highly esteemed Mediterranean allies acquit themselves now.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 3:45PM

Hey....did we do a leaflet drop before the bombs started to fall ...it's so unfair.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 5:34PM

AB said:
" I don't know who the larger idiot is, you or obama" back a few entries ago.

Good point but from my short time blogging here I'd say WE are the biggest idiots for responding to AB.
Apparently it is an acknowledge fact that reason,logic, and valid history play little if any part in his world.

So why do WE even spend our time pounding on the "challenged child" over in the corner?

The blog themes end up getting shorted and distorted as WE follow AB down the rabbit hole.

We could ignore him and focus on the thread.

Yes, I too have taken shots at him but then I wonder why I wasted my time ...time is all we have. Do we want to waste it on engaging a seriously disturbed man/woman/person?

BackToBasics| 3.21.11 @ 6:34PM

I watched a video of Obam's speech concerning the military action in Libya and I am not so convinced he wanted to do this at all. He seemed as if he was angry about having to go in and was hiding it as best he could. His voice was hard-edged and spoke more about getting out quickly than anything else.

Maybe Clinton threatened to resign over it or he was pressured into a decision in multiple ways by Americans, French, British, maybe Saudi Arabia; I do not know. But it is my hunch that he was pressured into it. It is not an easy situation either way and some say he had at least some affinity with Ghadaffi and so did not try to dictate the terms to Ghadaffi the way he did with a more American-friendly Mubarak.

In any event, I still do not trust Obam, but a half-hearted military attempt by the West may weaken Ghadaffi enough to allow a prolonged guerilla-style conflict in Libya. The outcome of that will very likely not be in America's or Europe's interest I believe.

If he did not want to go in, I think it was a mistake for him to allow himself to be pressured into it if that is what happened. Like I said, this is my hunch about it. It will be messy either way. I think we should have stayed out. But to go in if he did not want to or to go in only half-heartedly is a mistake I think.

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 7:38PM

Under the War Powers Resolution, The president's authority to order hostilities is 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. Thus reads the opening lines of the much debated and much ignored by presidents of both parties the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Anent Libya we were not attacked, period: unless you want to say that the statute of limitations on murder( Pan Am 103, Lockerbie)never expires and this is our best effort at payback…midair refueling aircraft of other nations and identifying targets.I do not believe we have any fighter/attack aircraft involved in delivering ordinance on target but I could easily be wrong….any help out there on that? Thx

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 12:13AM

You are absolutely correct. Maybe we can get the TAS staff to focus just a little bit on this GIGANTIC violation of the constitution let alone the incompetency displayed in making this decision.

Winning Charlie Sheen| 3.21.11 @ 8:57PM

By doing this, Obama has proven he also has Tiger's Blood and Adonis DNA.

Occam's Tool| 3.21.11 @ 9:08PM

Yup. I expect things to go badly. Time to get out my Avalon Hill Afrika Korps game and get reacquainted with the topography.

1blumutt| 3.21.11 @ 9:39PM

Whoa, back up the milk wagon. Obama goes to war? Whose tending the farm, here ? Hillary is out of the country. Not a peep from the veep. Obama goes to--- Rio!!!

Habu| 3.21.11 @ 10:01PM

Both Wayne and Dixie Pixie picked up on the ostensible illegality of the US aiding in these Libyan air strikes. Ever since the War Powers Resolution was passed it has been an ignored resolution by almost every president. The constitutionality of the resolution has never been ruled on by SCOTUS so presidents have felt in their capacity as CINC they are entitled to utilize the armed forces when they deem it is in the national interest to do so. Most all presidents have complied with certain provisions of the WPR but not all, most feeling it is an over reach by Congress. Most presidents feel their oath of office bestows upon the President the power to do whatever is necessary to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which is indeed the wording in the oath.
At the same time the Constitution grants to Congress the right to declare war, so there exists a chasm, an ambiguity in who may act and when.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 70 put it in part this way:
Taking it for granted, therefore, that all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic Executive, it will only remain to inquire, what are the ingredients which constitute this energy? How far can they be combined with those other ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense? And how far does this combination characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention?
The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.

So for brevities sake I will conclude by saying we have an unresolved conundrum regarding who gets to do what when. The energy in the Executive Hamilton refers to is for cases where a 3 AM call comes in that one of our aircraft carriers or military installation in a foreign land, is under siege, engaged in battle, the facts not fully known, but the limned information is grim. Clearly some action must be taken. Does the President authorize an immediate dispatch of all vessels and aircraft available to strike the opposition or does he wait for Congress to assemble and debate the situation? A conumdrum.

Dee See| 3.21.11 @ 11:10PM

---"The US has one final task before its
own collapse is finished and RED China's
brought in as the Globalist's 'World Enforcer'
---and that's to 'bring in' (i.e. franchise slum)
the recalcitrant Middle East."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online listening)

HUAC meets NUREMBERG-----with all possible
speed.

In this the 11th hour of doomed POST-America
we can't say it often enough.

WJ| 3.21.11 @ 11:44PM

I had the misfortune to be driving most of the day and being forced to listen to Rush's fill in - Mark Davis. Rarely have I heard a bigger ignoranus than this person. He basically said that we are fighting the same in Libya as we were fighting in Iraq.

The mental emptiness of that idea makes me ashamed of the conservative movement and ashamed or Rush for putting this fool on the air.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 12:09AM

WJ, you hit the nail on the head. These two situations are completely different in a dozen ways. The GIGANTIC difference seems to be completely missed by the STUPID PARTY. Please do not be ashamed to be conservative. It's calling oneself a Republican anymore that makes me sick to my stomach. These morons like Boehner have literally had the commmunist-in-chief's head handed to them and are saying nothing. EVEN Dennis Kusinich can figure this out and has brought up the question of impeachment. This has been an unambigous violation of the War powers Act and the constitution. Bush with all his misteps was smart enough and reasonable enough to involve Congress in both wars and seek their input and approval. The whole way this was handled from the very start and to this hour has been one of complete incompetence and disrespect to our constitutional form of self government. Everyone is stunned and scratching their heads from the Pentagon to Kusinich.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 1:40AM

Dee See,
Don’t despair, we’ve been on slipperier slopes and further down them than now. The Civil War was a fairly testy event, Lincoln suspending laws left and right and threatening to throw selected Congressmen in jail if they disagreed with him. Habeas corpus suspended. All very messy.
The election of 1800 is considered by most historians as a seminal turning point in this country’s history, with the loss of our entire Constitution and a return to monarchy in the balance, and one that eventually lead to Burr v. Hamilton, Hamilton losing by being stupid. We’ve seen tougher times.
I only point these out, not to diminish the lurid state we currently find ourselves in but rather to point out that with resolve we’ll rid ourselves of obama and his comrades and return to our more normal state of chaos and confusion….not to mention fiscal mismanagement, pressure from other pretenders to the thrown of THE SUPERPOWER, etc... Hang in there.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 1:51AM

simon templar,

" This has been an unambigous violation of the War powers Act and the constitution"

I don't know if you read my contribution but the law has never been settled, re: the legality of the War Powers Act. SCOTUS has never ruled on it and as I pointed out it is one of the spots in the Constitution that is ambiguous. Consequently it can't be an " unambigous " violation of the WPA.

Until whatever ambiguity exists is ruled on by SCOTUS then the co-equal other two branches of government are free to interpret it in the manner they choose.

The Bruce| 3.22.11 @ 2:33AM

"Obama allowed that Saddam Hussein was a 'brutal man,' a 'ruthless man,' a 'man who butchers his own people to secure his own power,' a 'bad guy' even. But that did not make Saddam's ramshackle military capability a threat to the United States, Obama argued, and thus did not offer sufficient grounds for war on a country that had not attacked us."

No worries. He's entitled to his own opinion, of course. I'm just wondering if anyone has the stones to play this audio back to him, and ask for his response, given his current actions (without a teleprompter, of course).

And I say this as an individual that supports our Libyan incursion, though I question the manner in which it was performed, without the consent of one of our other branches of government.

I just want to see our President squirm, trying to reconcile both of his positions. Politicians are very slimy creatures, regardless of their stripes.

Habu| 3.22.11 @ 3:06AM

LIBYA & USA>>HOW IT CAME DOWN

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), “a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

“Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government,” he said.

Inside the NSC, Power, Smith, and McFaul have been trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward. Donilon and McDonough are charged with keeping America’s core national interests more in mind. Obama ultimately sided with Clinton and those pushing R2P — over the objections of Donilon and Gates.

Remember that until Tuesday, the consensus around Washington DC was the US would not intervene in Libya. Obviously UN SecGen Moon’s communication of this new “principle” (R2P) isn’t something that he thought up that morning. Apparently it was communicated (and one assumes, agreed upon) well before then and, it would seem, may have played an important part in the decision to participate in a place in which which we have no real national interest at stake.

Read that last paragraph very carefully. Well, read the whole thing carefully, but you have to ask, what does agreeing with this “principle” mean in the future?

Do we intervene in Sudan or the Congo? Ivory Coast? And if not, why not? None of them, like Libya, put our core national interests at stake. But all certainly fit the new R2P principle. How about Bahrain and Yemen? Nepal?

Instead, what we see here is precisely what the left has decried for years – the US along with others who can afford it and are willing to do it –agreeing to police the world. However, in this case, it would be at the behest of the UN. We are agreeing that the UN can determine when and where we commit our military forces simply by invoking this principle. Invoke R2P and, by our precedent in Libya, we agree to respond.

This is far and away different than case by case agreements among member nations to intervene with peace keeping troops in troubled areas around the world. This is a “principle” that Moon says is a “new international security and human rights norm” apparently is interpreted as a “right” to intervene with military force.

Funny – I don’t remember us agreeing to this “new norm”, do you? Did we negotiate and sign a treaty saying all of this? Or did we just hand over our power to make sovereign decisions concerning the use of our military to a world body?

Think about it – the new principle, this new “norm”, essentially gives the UN the ability to decide when we should deploy military force in support of this new “norm”.
Fascinating – and not in a good way. Remember Hillary Clinton’s words about “venue”. It wasn’t proper to talk about action against Libya at the G8 conference. That was a topic for the UN only. Now we have an inkling of why
.
I’m not much on conspiracy theories or other grand schemes, but if what Moon is saying is true and given the action by the Obama administration that reversed its presumed course on the subject of Libya, I am indeed concerned about the “why” of the decision and if it was in support of the principle Moon outlined above.
If it is, we need to renounce it immediately. I don’t want any world body making decisions about where our military should be used, especially when we have no abiding national interest in the area of concern.

C Smith| 3.22.11 @ 3:34AM

The impetus du jour is insurrection. Presidents and prime ministers and a far flung unity of nations are facilitating anarchy to their own ends. Facebook and Google are also complicit in fermenting rebellion. A plethora of "talking heads," like an aviary of parrots, mimic the refrain, obvious to reason. And "He that sitteth in the heavens will laugh: The Lord will have them in derision" (Psalms 2:4).

As Libya continues to affirm national sovereignty i.e., not only her right but responsibility to repress anarchy, the US, France, and UK, by launching a barrage of missiles, have imposed a greater tyranny then that they profess to oppose.

Although Gadhafi may lack "international" graces, he is hardly to be compared with the Rome's Nero during an era when the Apostile Paul pinned these words affirming "civil obedience," rather than the always contemporary "civil disobedience":

"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher [civil] powers [be it Nero or Gadhafi or Mubarak]: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1).

"Therefore he that resisteth the power [be it Thoreau or Gandhi or Martin Luther King], withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment" (Romans 13:2).

"For he [Nero] is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4).

So as presidents and prime ministers and a far flung unity of nations perfect the art form of anarchy, there is an unseen reality "... we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).

Deals in China| 3.22.11 @ 5:01AM

fuck you War. i not like. i love my lift.

simon templar| 3.22.11 @ 3:55PM

This appeared today on Red State,
There is not in any way, shape, or form any rational explanation for the United States engaged in Libya to do nothing except for one I can think of — Barack Obama’s re-election.
Obama is sitting out negotiations on Capitol Hill for the budget lest he take any ownership of anything that should happen. He wants a government shutdown because that’s what Bill Clinton got. But he wants to keep everything away from himself so he can’t have any ownership of the shutdown and can instead work to re-open the government.
This make sense. This is why our trolls today want to keep us distracted on discussions about the constitution, branches of government,
the federalist papers, and every other academic exercise.
Back to the budget! Impeach this imposter!

RPFAE| 3.23.11 @ 9:34AM

From where did the authority come to bomb Libya? When did the U.S. acquire the role of policeman of the world? Why must we have an empire? Whatever happened to diplomacy, trade and leading by example? Has it occurred to anyone that there will probably be blowback as a result of this intervention? And further, that we will lose even more of our constitutional rights as a result of the blowback? Since when is the U.N. in charge of the U.S. military? How much will we have to borrow to pay for this?

Non-interventionism does not equate isolationism although the warmongers, the neocons, the international banking cartel, the Zionists, and the military-industrial complex would have us think otherwise. Sadly, just more of the same. Unfortunately, the GOP will probably hold forth another "more of the same" candidate in the next presidential election cycle. The Republocrats and the Demicans are, for the most part, on the same team. One monster, two heads. The elite who don't have to play by the same rules as the unwashed masses. The ones selling out our country for their own political and financial fortunes. The government should NEVER be able to do something that a private citizen cannot do without it being a crime. I worry for our republic.

ONTIME| 3.24.11 @ 12:57PM

I have listened to at least sixteen different people in this error filled adminstration try to justify our presence and even tell me if Goofy Gadaffy is going to be a target...the answer is still"maybe", I guess.

A knee jerk war called a Kinetic War, I guess that is better than one caused by static charge, is called Operation Odessy Dawn, this is possibly a hooker friend of Lawrence Taylors and cokehead LT is a bit out of whack himself.

Oxymoron: Islamic Democracy...snicker