War is hell and we are now involved in our third conflict with an Islamic Country. First and foremost I fully support all our brave troops who are engaged in these conflicts so far away from home and their families. I pray they come home soon and in one piece. Now that the decision has been made I pray that our troops are allowed to fight to win and are not being used as political pawns again. I pray that they complete their mission quickly and successfully and then get out and come home safe. We cannot afford another long term conflict. We are not the World’s Police Department.

Second I hope that the GOP/TP that supported going into Libya in the first place will now support our President and not use this as political grandstanding

.

Navyman, I support the venture in Libya but I have a feeling that Barry is distancing himself from all the conflicts. Why should he be in Rio when our men and women are putting their lives on the line. The Arab world is not only brimming over with unrest , it is exploding in a dangerous way with the Brotherhood waiting in the wings. We should frustrate their efforts.

Juven,

“Why should he be in Rio when our men and women are putting their lives on the line.”

His trip is about jobs as he continues to do more than the Teapublicans in Congress. To cancel it would indicate a lack of interest in doing business in South America.

Firing missiles from ships is hardly putting lives on the line unless there is an accident, just like there are during training exercises or if there is retaliation action which is doubtful.

Or do you believe that no President should ever leave the Whitehouse while a conflict is going on anywhere that involves US troops?

Dennis, if this trip were really about trade, it would include removing the thirty per cent tariff on Brazilain sugar ethanol.

I have not heard that as part of the agenda, have you? In fact, the reason I have heard about the invite is the desire for Brazil to become a permanent member of the U.N. security Council.

Not a word about trade. Nice talking point, though.

The entire business of the United States doesn't have to come to an end just because we're launching some cruise missiles. In fact, given the challenges that still lie ahead for our nation we need a leader who can multitask.

NoJo

Since no one from the White House or the Department of State properly briefed you on the trade discussions the President would be having while in South America I can understand your insistence that they will not occur. I would also like to remind you as I did last week, the characters on your T.V. machine do not go to sleep when you turn it off for the night.

NoJo,you mean the President didn't clear his agenda with you? Again?!

This trip is absolutely about trade. And it will not always be immediately apparent what the discussions are or why they are proceeding as they are. Especially to individuals like you. And me.

Lots of people these days in business, politics and other fields are required to multi-task. That's what the President is doing.

I am supposed to be impressed by his multiple- tasking abilities when he is shown kicking a soccer ball while we are firing missiles at a target in the Middle East?

Put it this ways- I am as impressed as you would be if he happened to be a republican.

Difference is- I still would not be impressed. I would still think it betrayed a lack of comprehension about what the job is supposed to entail. Think it displayed a desire to be ex obligo on a decision that might not turn out well. Think it showed a lack of plain common sense. Think it showed he needed to be replaced, as soon as the next election came up.

You gotta love disingenuous people. The President made it clear to the right wing that he would not engage Libya unless there was an international effort. The French and British realize he was serious so they started the process. Russia and China got out of the way (they did not veto the resolution). Once everything was in place the U.S. held up it's side of the deal. We lend support, so this is not an American war. This was not the US going it alone. The Arab League is a sham and a bunch of cowards, so I could careless what they feel is right or wrong. As for as the French being the face of this, I say good. Let them do the heavy lifting. We are not there to be the world police, but we will lend our support. Only thing I really did not want was the involvement of US war planes, but I will have to accept that as a part of lending aide to an international effort. As for as the congressmen and women complaining...suck it up. This was done right, even if it doesn't fall into your little run it by me first litmus test. You were told what would happen all the way leading up to international acceptance of a plan to create a no-fly zone.

Respectfully, US Navy-

I AM supporting the President...without equivocation.

Surprisingly...I don't sense that you are.

Please...correct me.

Ordinarily...I suspect you would jump all over the invitation.

Good points, Jahmekan, and Conservatives were whining as of FRIDAY that the Obama Administration wasn't doing ENOUGH about Libya. I'm sure we aren't supposed to talk about that now, but let's have a look. First from American Thinker;

I am for the intervention in Libya. It may have come weeks too late -- and it may not be executed correctly by those who have been entrusted with the responsibility -- but it is absolutely the right thing to do. We cannot allow national security to become the hostage of politics, as has too often been the case in recent years. Now that combat has actually begun, it is absolutely necessary that we set aside hand-wringing and finger-pointing over the past and, instead, commit ourselves to supporting the military as it works for the defeat of the enemy. This was the standard to which I -- and many others -- asked the left to adhere during the conflicts of the last decade and it would be tremendously hypocritical of me to abandon it now.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_conservative_case_for_the.html

From Strong Conservative;

Secular, pro-democracy groups should be supported by all means available throughout the Middle East. The human spirit and the universal desire for liberty will live on, it is an eternal fire and universal right of every man, woman and child.

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2011/02/libya-on-brink.html

Conservativeamerican.org chimes in;

While protesters in Libya seem to be close to getting rid of Gadhafi’s 40-year rule, once again Team Obama is at a loss.

http://conservativeamerican.org/dems-libs-socialists/dems-libs-socialists-obama/obama-hearts-gadhafis-libya/

Conservativedailynews.com contributes;

Without international assistance, Gaddafi may well remain in power and take out his anger on the revolutionaries once the rebellion is put down.

http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/03/why-obama-may-be-hesitant-on-libyan-no-fly-zone/

The Heritage Foundation believes;

That message also couldn’t be clearer to Moammar Gadhafi and his sons, who are busy bombing and killing their way to victory against the Libyan opposition. As the U.S. defers to the world, the world can’t decide what to do, and the vacuum is filled by a dictator and his hard men who have concluded that no one will stop them.

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=54685

Individual Conservatives may have issues with a new adventure abroad, but everyone should stop pretending that Conservative Movement leadership wasn't for this action before being against it. For them this isn't about doing the right thing, it's about criticizing Barack Obama and trying to damage the American President politically.

Thanks, John B.-

We're in rare agreement, no?

I was on record here at First Read supporting the President's decision the moment I heard of it.

I'm not a partisan ideologue, John...

I keep saying it...you keep ignoring.

I have no idea where some of you get your information.. I do have to respond to the idiots that continue to speak of GW Bush as though he was still giving the orders.

First: GW did have the approval for war with Iraq.. You need to google this.. This was approved by everyone in Washington, the U.N., this being done in either Nov. or Dec.. He went to war in March.

You forget, he had to rebuild a military,, weapons, just about everything that Bill Clinton did away with, to balance his budget along with a trillion dollars stolen from S/S...If you will also remember, Bill Clinton had Osama Bin Laden in his scope and let him go...Could have killed him.

Get your facts straight.. GW BUSH had the approval of everyone when he attacked IRAQ...

All I can say is the last time Obama went on TV and told a leader "he had to go" it was Mubarek. He told Khadafy the same thing and we now know when Obama says you have to go, he will bomb you to he**ll if you don't.

I don't like it, another Middle East war. But then again, Khadafy must have po'd somebody in the Arab world in order for them to turn against them and ask the US/Nato to bomb.

Poor LouisJ-

Looks like the progressives decided his eloquent support of our Libya policy meant he was a warmonger...they collapsed his post!

You...

Me...

Arm in arm, LouisJ!

Mixed Bag, I admit to being remiss in not commenting on your support for the Commander in Chief. Count me as "concerned" about this action even though for now I'm giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt. Things that aren't yet known will either validate that position or not.

I also give you credit for not being among those who automatically spout whatever talking points the radio voices are using on a given day. There are plenty of reasonable Conservatives out there...I just believe they aren't the loudest or those who have the most influence within the Conservative Movement today. Probably the closest parallel I might draw would be when the McGovern wing took over the Democratic party and through rigid ideology tanked all the good work of the party for many years. I wasn't an adult at that time so it's "the closest" without a lot of direct exposure. A lot of people, in fact, still seem determined to fight THOSE Left/Right battles even though nearly everything has changed in the interim.

Now that we've had this little discussion hopefully it will enable us to have more constructive conversations in the future.

Important to remember that US is only one of many coalition partners involved in Libya. Decision to participate by our international community was almost unanimous. The Arab League called for a No-Fly and by golly they got one. Amazing to realize that action in Libya has only been underway for two days and already the first phaze of knocking out air bases is completed. Very swiftly done.

No-Fly can now be put in place, safely maintained and humanitarian aid flown in. The US led first phaze because we had the equipment needed etc, to do that part of the plan. And sounds like there'll be a transfer/handover to another member of the coalition within days rather than weeks.

Qaddafi lost legitimacy by killing his own people. The United Nations is following Res. 1973 concerning humanitarian effort and they will stick to that mandate. You cannnot kill your own people and still call yourself a leader. And however inconvenienced some folks may feel about helping out other families across the world, we know very well that human rights or human feeling does not end at the border of any country.

Every single nation involved can look back and be happy that they responded to a massive human cry for urgent action. Our international community made a hard choice, but it was the only one available.

@ From Chicago,

Ok let's talk about Mubarak and POTUS Hamlet:

Hosni Mubarak was a dictator and was not a dictator, who had to leave yesterday, today or tomorrow. The situation in Libya is deemed "unacceptable" but how exactly it could be made acceptable is never spelled out. Intervening there to support rebvels is said to be good; but apparently, so is supporting Saudi troops intervening in Barring to put down revels and protect the status quo. - Words from POTUS.

OK Bev, now it is time for you to call me a racist.

John B.-

Love the George McGovern reference.

First candidate for President I ever voted for.

Lol.

True confessions.

Fair is fair in that regard...my first vote was for John Anderson.

I like yours better than mine, John B.

Great job Mixed and John if we can work together we can accomplish anything.

Oh yeah, this is totally different from what George did. And where is the coalition? What percentage of the firepower and sorties is being provided by those across the pond? This is exactly the same mentality that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republocrats are at it again.

But let's not forget that it's Sarah Palin's fault. She drew an X on a map of Libya one time.

To go along with my post above, here is an article setting forth five "myths" that are killing education. Very important reading for anyone who is REALLY interested in saving it.

http://myednext.org/profiles/blogs/5-myths-killing-education

This is a sample of one of the myths that is blindly regurgitated over and over again by conservatives on this board:

Myth #2: Teachers should not have a “Job for Life.” The teacher’s unions protect bad teachers and make it impossible to fire bad teachers.

Nothing could be further form the truth. First, it is important to be clear on what teacher tenure is and what it is not. “Unlike tenure for university professors, tenure for K-12 teachers does not, in theory, shield them from dismissal. Instead, it's simply a guarantee of due process — that if a teacher is fired, it will be for cause.”

Teachers and their unions are not the least bit interested in hiring or protecting poor teachers. Nor are teachers hired for life. Teachers and their union are interested only in protecting good teachers from abuse and arbitrary firings and this requires due process. The fact that poor teachers can hide behind these protections is really a reflection of administrators who are unable or unwilling to clearly articulate a case against a poor teacher.

I have said this same thing many, many times. It is not up to unions to weed out bad teachers. Unions have a legal obligation to protect their members' interests. The job of evaluating teachers and, when necessary, removing those who are ineffective, belongs to administrators and school boards. You can take away collective bargaining rights, but nothing will change unless and until those folks begin to do their jobs.

And to go along with that myth, there's this one:

Myth #5: Why shouldn’t teachers be held accountable when everyone else is accountable for their performance?

Teachers are and should be held accountable. For good teaching.

Most teachers want to be the very best teacher they can be and that is impossible without being regularly and properly evaluated. It is difficult to make specific comments because how teachers are evaluated varies from district to district but it is fair to say that most teachers don’t have an issue with being evaluated.

However, teachers want to be evaluated on their teaching. Tying their evaluations and pay to student performance is unfair. There are far too many variables that are outside a teacher’s control. And unlike a manager in the private sector a teacher cannot interview potential students and pick the best nor can a teacher fire those who choose to ignore their responsibilities in school.

A teacher’s role is to teach the best they are able. To implement best practice and the best teaching strategies. To continually adapt to the needs of their students and to learn new ways to reach them and teach them.

That is what a teacher should be evaluated upon.

A student’s role is to be in class and to complete the tasks a teacher asks – whatever those task may be – to the best of their ability. If a student does not do this, for whatever reason, they are not doing their job and they will not learn as well as they are able. A teacher does not control this, and no matter how well the teacher teaches a student who fails to perform their job will fall short of expectations and their potential.

We need to develop a tool to evaluate how well a teacher teaches.

But again, until we stop looking at it backwards, it is unlikely that anything will change, no matter how much money you take away from teachers and how much harder you make it for them to do their jobs.

Anna "None so blind as them that will not see" Thank you for a Beautiful try though. Hope somebody is paying attention.

Anna, as to your second post- the problem is not that teachers in general do not want to be the best teachers they can be- the problem is that some people should not be teaching. Period.

It does not matter what grades you got in college, or how many teaching courses you take- some people simply cannot succeed. Of course much is on the student- but an even greater share of the responsibility falls on the teacher. What eleven year old actually WANTS to do long division problems when it is the first beautiful day of spring, or Christmas is coming, or it is two weeks before break? It is up to the only adult in the room- the teacher- to motivate the students in his or her charge. Difficult? Sure, sometimes. I always kept in my mind the look of joy on my toddler son's face when he has mastered a new skill- and attempted to do all in my power to nurture that joy of achievement in my students.

If you think that is the motivating factor for most teachers, you are nuts. New teachers have that spark, but the "experienced" corps spend much of their time trying to being them face to face with "reality". As in, they will learn what they learn- it's THEIR responsibility.

These are CHILDREN, not adults. If find it ludicrous that those on the left who believe that adults bear no responsibility for their financial status find children as young as five responsible for their own educations.

As to your first post, you might be interested in what Rutgers Professor Thurman Hart, a staunch union supporter, wrote in the Star Ledger: "the fastest way to kill a program of any kind is to concentrate the benefits but make everyone pay for them. Therenis no reason for 90% to rally for benefits that accrue to only 10% of the workforce when they, themselves, ( the 90%), are cut out of those benefits".

Is there any proof of his theory? Well, consider Miami Mayor Carlos Alverez, who was recalled by almost 90% of the electorate, ( the actual number was 88%), because he had hiked taxes to pay for a big raise for public employees, and we have at least some anecdotal proof.

You rely in the results of polls that ask the general question about support for collective bargaining- and ignore the results on specific aspects of Walker's proposal, which are overwhelmingly in favor of specific restrictions.

It is like looking at Obama's general approval ratings, and ignoring the fact that the majority disapprove of just about all of his policies.

Twist, spin, lather, rinse, repeat- public workers have been living with benefits not enjoyed by the overwhelming majority, at the expense of that same majority. It is not a situation that can or will continue.

The public trough is empty.

Excellent post, Anna Molly.

I gave up understanding the illogical logic of the conservative mind let alone trying to explain to them that for far too many conservatives their logic is not based on fact but rather on what they are told to think and believe. Now by making that comment, I am certain to be accused of buying the liberal spin and the accusers would be completely wrong. No, I do not agree with every liberal word spoken nor do I believe what every liberal tells me, nor do I agree with every decision democratic legislators make or even President Obama--I do my own research and think for myself. I stopped being a republican when I analyzed what former President Reagan said as opposed to what he did; when he began the anti-union rhetoric, I disagreed; when he claimed that Government "is the problem", I determined that Government is necessary to protect the people from the greed and corruption of the private.

What a great post Anna Molly.

Your thoughts and reasoning are so obvious and accurate. Unfortunately our Conservative friends won't understand any of your reasoning.

Great thoughts to start the week Anna Molly. It's important to recognize that this isn't just an attack on public workers and not just in Wisconsin. It's an attack on ALL average Americans. I've been wondering for a while now how all of this legislation pops up simultaneously in almost identical forms everywhere Republicans control the statehouse. It turns out there's a clearinghouse for such things...the American Legislative Exchange Council. They have a huge volume of "model legislation" here. http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Model_Legislation1

It might be nice to know what this Conservative clearinghouse has in mind for the American people, but apparently they don't want us to know. If you follow the links you'll discover very quickly that most of it is inaccessible unless you're invited to the party.

No Jo,

Your example doesn't work because that is not the main reason why the Mayor in Miami was recalled. The recall came after a "cleaning up the streets" campaign was followed by some of the steepest increases in criminal activity in the area. Money was unaccounted for and the people lost trust in their elected official. Like most of the other untrustworthy officials in state government the Mayor claimed the missing funds were spent on public employees.

These are CHILDREN, not adults. If find it ludicrous that those on the left who believe that adults bear no responsibility for their financial status find children as young as five responsible for their own educations.

No Joe -- this is as much of a misinterpretation of my point as it can possibly be -- no one is saying that teachers are not responsible for student learning. But the whole point is to evaluate teachers based on what they do, not necessarily on what their students take away from it, although to be fair, one certainly can -- and should -- influence the other. In my own experience I quickly learned that the child who was struggling in my classroom was likely to have problems everywhere -- I could only be responsible for the one hour a day that I had that child, and not for the other 23. They came into my classroom with all sorts of personal problems and special needs, including learning disabilities, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol issues, and abuse at home. All of these things naturally affected their ability to learn. ALL adults, and not just teachers, must take responsibility for children's education. And that starts, inevitably, at home.

It does not matter what grades you got in college, or how many teaching courses you take- some people simply cannot succeed.

This is certainly true, and the article addresses that point, but you ignore it. It's not a union's job to weed out those who can't succeed. Some realize that on their own, but that's administration's job, another point that you ignore.

As to your first post, you might be interested in what Rutgers Professor Thurman Hart, a staunch union supporter, wrote in the Star Ledger: "the fastest way to kill a program of any kind is to concentrate the benefits but make everyone pay for them. Therenis no reason for 90% to rally for benefits that accrue to only 10% of the workforce when they, themselves, ( the 90%), are cut out of those benefits".

This whole part of your comment is pure poppycock that doesn't address the specific points made in mine. Most notably, at the time public workers received these "benefits," everyone had them. It's not public workers' fault that private sector workers permitted their own benefits to be taken away and allowed their own jobs to fly overseas. And it's not their fault that governments ran huge deficits relating to wars and out-of-control health care costs. But instead of trying to control those health care costs, which would mean going against the interests of their insurance company supporters, republicans would rather take that money out of the pockets of public workers.

The whole point of my post was that these benefits, granted in lieu of more costly pay increases, actually saved employers money. Since you claim to be fiscally responsible, you ought to see the beauty in that. But instead, like most ignorant conservatives, you merely denigrate it because you have been too lazy to hang on to it. Well, instead of taking it away from others, go get it for yourself. Get a union, no joe.

Your private sector paymasters can certainly afford it, despite the lies they tell you. They just prefer to keep it for themselves.

Read about the rubber rooms, Anna Molly. Then tell me how easy it is to get rid of a bad teacher. As to the rest- well, we just disagree. Theremis one salient point, though: businesses have a pretty firm limit as to how much they can compensate their employees- too little, and they lose good employees; too much, and there is no longer a business left to compensate any employees.

Public workers never seem to run out of taxpayers.

And, Tom- sorry, but you are wrong. Perhaps being in Virginia, you did not follow what led to the recall drive- the wildly successful recall drive.

Alverez raised taxes by $178 million- and gave $132 million of that increase away in salary increases. He also increased the salaries of his own staff- then lied about it. He also built the Marlins a new stadium- one hundred percent at taxpayer expense.

What you cite was a blip on the radar. Read here
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-10-28/news/recall-carlos-alvarez/

It is done in reverse order.

It is the beginning of the end for tax and spend policies. Public workers need to face the new reality. Tell you what- ask some of the long term unemployed if theynwould take public sector jobs with the proposed healthcare and pension contributions.

The answers may inform you as to why democrats are on the losing sidemof this argument.

Anna Molly

The whole war on teachers is about the elimination of public schools. It is being pushed by "for profit schools" They have recently been hurt by changes in the school grant program and are looking at future cuts to their companies. It is also about the elimination of unions and their campaign support for democrats. So all of the straw men they present are just a means to justify their actions.

Public workers need to face the new reality.

Not if reality keeps going the way it's going. ALL workers need to re-up their old reality. Your position is apologist and defeatist, and personally I don't accept it.

You might be interested in this little article yourself.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/power_concedes_nothing_without_a_demand_20110314/

And then, tell me what's in there that's NOT 100 percent accurate.

Salt Grass:

The whole war on teachers is about the elimination of public schools. It is being pushed by "for profit schools" They have recently been hurt by changes in the school grant program and are looking at future cuts to their companies. It is also about the elimination of unions and their campaign support for democrats. So all of the straw men they present are just a means to justify their actions.

You are, of course, 100 percent right. And thanks for expressing it so clearly. But if they won't even believe those little incremental things I mentioned in my post, just try getting conservatives to believe THAT.

That would require big picture thinking, and most of the conservatives here either don't have it, or are determined to confuse things so no one else will see it.

Shiny object, shiny object.

Anna Molly, thanks for a great post. I really appreciate the effort and research that went into it.

I also appreciate your follow up comments. The one about evaluating educators based on their performance, rather than that of the persons they educate, had particular resonance for me.

Education is so important in our society. The "killing the messenger" philosophy of so many who are denigrating public sector workers is very sad.

Thanks again...

No Jo

Ahh it may be the end of tax and spend but clearly not the end of bait and switch. I just said he wasresponsible for raising taxes and mismanaging the funds, but that is not the point. You took an issue of mismanagement and attempted to present pay increases for the public sector as the reason he was recalled.

Which took more of the pie, unaccounted for funds and a MLB stadium or raises for public workers?

The conservative mindset is about privatizing or out sourcing government functions to for profit companies. They think that the private sector can always do a better job than the government. I have always said the difference between democrats and republicans is that the republicans want to give your money to business and the democrats want to let government spend you money. So the theory is out sourcing saves money, but it has never actually been proven. They also have to emulate their hero by busting unions, because to them employee unions are like soviets. Union’s are little communes of a larger ploy to turn the USA into a communist state. They actually fear worker rights because of the big red scare.

Actually, no jo, you might want to fully read your own links. The pay raises were for his staff but the rank and file public employees had their wages cut. In addition to the crime wave, it was also about taxpayers paying for a new stadium for the Marlins(?) rather than the Marlins paying for it for themselves. Hmm, seems as if a 'private enterprise' (the Marlins' management) can't seem to make it in the free market.

@Anna Molly

Salt Grass:

The whole war on teachers is about the elimination of public schools. It is being pushed by "for profit schools" They have recently been hurt by changes in the school grant program and are looking at future cuts to their companies. It is also about the elimination of unions and their campaign support for democrats. So all of the straw men they present are just a means to justify their actions.

You are, of course, 100 percent right.

I see no attempt to eliminate public schools in the suburbs.

I agree with you that teachers are not responsible for all the ills of kids in the inner cities, but to argue that student performance should not be a component of a teachers review is ridiculous. Are you saying that there is no way to measure improvement in a students test results? If a student starts a class with a 30% average and leaves the class with a 35% average then he has shown improvement that should be credited to the teacher. If he leaves with a 25% average then that too should be part of a teacher's review. If over the course of a few years a teachers students are showing improvement then that teacher should be rewarded, and if not then like other professions remedial action or dismissal should be the course of action. The fact that a good teacher may not get a bonus one year because they had lousy students is a fact of life. Everybody who gets merit pay has a bad year now and then.

I agree with you this is not the unions responsibility, it is for the managers of the school system. Conversely the union must allow these people to do their jobs.

I do not support tax dollars for parochial schools but the fact that inner city parents do not have the economic ability to have schools choices leads me to some sort of voucher system. I don't know the best answer to this but the status quo is unacceptable.

Alan J

Most of the well off conservatives (income above 100,000.00) already send their children to private schools and do not like having to pay school taxes and tutition. The comment about the suburbs should read" I see no attempt to eliminate public schools in the mostly white and affluent schools".

THANK YOU Molly Ann: Very well said.And parents need to teach respect,.. when childern see teachers being sued because the child was embarassed by being corrected what kind of message does this send. you couldn't pay me enough to be a teacher even if I could..... anyway good post....

I must have missed something somewhere along the way. Looks like the only benefactor of unionized teachers have been unionized teachers. Don't see where any data supports improved education because of a union. Looks like education became a second priority, with benefits and pay being more important than teaching. The quality of education has decreased over the years. Unions have protected bad teachers. Performance has not mattered. Only recently has there been any movement on these issues by teachers unions.

"Read about the rubber rooms, Anna Molly."

I have followed this argument over "bad teachers who cannot be fired" story line with interest.

Several questions come to my mind:

1) What the heck is the problem with the hiring process, if "so many" bad teachers are entering the system? Or, are these teachers who were once competent and have lost it over time?

2) I have worked in numerous positions in different fields and have seen very few employees fired over time. Are you telling me the strength of an organization is based on their ability to fire peole?

Tony: If you point is correct, then why does Texas who has no unions have some of the worse producing school in the states? Your theory doesn't work.

I could not read Molly's diatribe once I got to the part that she is a lawyer. (Thankfully close to the top) I didn't need to hear any more from her at that point. Saved me a lot of time...

Tony C:

I must have missed something somewhere along the way.

Truer words were never spoken. Reason and logic immediately come to mind.

JC in G:

I could not read Molly's diatribe once I got to the part that she is a lawyer. (Thankfully close to the top) I didn't need to hear any more from her at that point. Saved me a lot of time...

This should save me time in the future, as well.

Insert Chickenhawk cries of "Congress Gave Bush Approval" here.

"Da Noid

Insert Chickenhawk cries of "Congress Gave Bush Approval" here."

Approval was given based on the lies that the Bush administration gave to Congress, justifying the Iraq war. If lawmakers had it to do over again, they would vote NO on approval of invading Iraq.

Anybody willing to give up on cutting taxes to pay for it as we go? I thought not.

Amazing how quite the chicken hawks have been on this, isn't it?

Crush the middle class NO matter what the cost = excellent idea!

How are we going to PAY for involving ourselves in a 3rd Middle Eastern conflict? = Not a peep

Time to grease up the old Chinese VISA card I guess...

Great post, IR---you read my mind. But wait---we'll pay for the war out of the oil riches of Libya----that one didn't work so well with Iraq now did it?

More pearls of wisdom, IR, great post. Of course, in the minds of the GOPTP, military ventures don't count toward the deficit or debt the same as tax cuts don't count.

The *crickets* around here are deafening...

Morning Aces. Me I'm always totally amazed at this particular crowd of Yahoo's. Had to have an emergency meeting last week to make sure that Bert and Ernie didn't get thier 5 million, yet come Monday morning when we spent a 100 Million we're Playing where's Waldo with the House of Representatives and all that NoJo and her crowd can worry about is where the President is. Guess old Boehner didn't think the debt crisis or participating in the Libyan Shindig was worth giving up his Tee times this week. Kind of makes a fellow wonder who's trying to HooDoo who don't it.

Hey, can we bomb other countries, too? We have all these bombs and missiles lying around. Let's start using them!

Quite frankly, I've had just about enough of Canada and their smug attitude.

IR I am glad that you are feeling better. I hope this military conflict is short lived. But we both know these things can be tricky.

Thanks for the concern lisa nothing real major just getting old I guess. We kind of got distracted the other day but I sure would like for you to pass on my best regards to the F-4 Pilot. If he didn’t do it directly he probably knows one or two that pulled this old Coot’s chestnuts out of the fire a time or two. Father in Law is retired A.F. and Brother in Law is retired backseater AWAC’s and still an instructor up at Elmendorf.

You are quite correct when folks get to shooting at one another things have a tendency to get complicated fast. That’s why my vote is generally not to start unless it’s an absolute necessity. I’m still not convinced that this one is but like you since the decision has been made I hope and pray for safety for the Military folks and to keep their exposure down to a bare minimum.

I hope and pray for the safety of our military. I hope your prayers go from your lips to god's ears.

I don't understand the comments over the President's trip to Brazil---long-planned and full of events. Could it be because most of the pundits are men and they don't understand multi-tasking?

The pictures from the obamadiary are stunning---thanks for turning me on to this site, Pat. The First Family are such wonderful representatives of the best of our country.

Maybe it is because he cancelled his trip to Australia in order to ram through his wildly unpopular health care plan.

Kind of begs the question about his priorities, does it not?

No Jo I'll repeat the question from above. Where is your esteemed Speaker of the House this week? Kind of begs the question of where his priorities are don't it?

Well said, Pat.

It's beyond me why anyone would think President Obama should cancel his trip to South America--it is important to rebuild the broken bridges to our southern neighbors. This is the age of technical gadgets that allow constant, direct communication with any president no matter where he/she is. In my view, it simply is that the right-wingers oppose any and all things Obama even when the next week, they switch sides on issues. We can go to FR archives and read the right-wingers complaining the President should bomb Libya and now they're complaining that he's in South America or took too long--they must get dizzy spinning so much.

Moving the UN to act in such a short time span is amazing and it took the diplomatic skills of the President and his team to get it done. It was quite an accomplishment by President Obama to get the five countries (Russia, China included) who would have voted NO to simply abstain and allow the UN Resolution to pass. No small accomplishment at all and done at warp speed--it also proves that The President has re-established diplomatic trust with these countries in just 26 months.

@ nojo all blow #7.2 - Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:30 AM EDT

yea all blow....pretty tough to explain that our President has the American middle class as his priority. I don't know how he can justify looking out for us.

Well, IR, I will ask you a question:

When did the mantle of "Commander in Chief" get transferred to the Speaker of the House?

As to what Boehner thinks about this, read here

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51617.html

Actually, it is a question I, many Americans, and, oh, yeah, more than a few of our military, would like answered.

Jody, it is ludicrous that anyone on the left, who criticized Bush for being in a classroom reading to children when the planes hit the towers would give Obama a pass for taking off on this latest junket as he ordered our bombers to hit Libyan targets.

This is no trade mission. Were it a trade mission, he would move the free trade agreements with Panama and Columbia down street, where they will,pass overwhelmingly.

This is no trade mission. Were it a trade mission, he would remove the tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol, as well as our price supports for cotton- which, by the way, have been found illegal by the World Trade Organization.

This is a family junket with a few speeches and meetings thrown in. Brazil wants a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, and hopes for Obama's support. What do the American taxpayers get for this?

The same as always- the bill.

He has now shown, clearly, where his priorities lie- with his own self indulgence. It is bizarre. It is ridiculous.

And only idolators can find some justification for clearly unacceptable behavior.

Well NoJo I would say that if Mr Speaker wants a definition of the mission he might want to stay in town so he gets the briefing. Seeing as how he's third in line for the presidency you would think that it would behove him to take his actions and attention a little more seriously don't you think.While he's waiting on the briefers maybe he could spend a little time on his debt crisis. Just a thought there Dear.

Weak argument, IR. Then again, what kind of strong argument could possibly be made for the misplaced priorities of this president?

If you bothered to read the article I cited, you would learn that Boehner WAS briefed- but, like all Obama talks, speeches, and probably emails- you are left with the same questions you had going in.

He says a lot of worlds, but there is never any real meaning behind them.

Well IR, I guess the Speaker had better hope there's never a need for him to move up the succession list...one of those other jobs might be full time!

NoJo, I read the article. What's your point? The Speaker asked a question, the President answered it.

The trip to Brazil is indeed about trade, whether you want to admit it or not. It just may not work into your specific defintion of what a trade mission should be. China has just passed the United States to become Brazil's biggest trading partner. The President seeks to reverse that. It isn't about other agenda items or other countries.

Admit it NoJo, you simply hate the President. No matter what.

no jo-

Not much point in engaging IR really...all you get, in the end, is homespun homilies.

Truth is, whether it's health care reform or President Obama's decision to intervene in Libya, IR agrees with his policies.

Pretty much par for the course at First Read.

Although...not sure I've heard IR really supporting the President on Libya.

A lot of us have been out front on that.

Can anyone confirm?

And, no jo...some people simply love the President. "No matter what."

Where is the screaming and wailing from our nutty lefty posters like, Fiesty, USN, IR, Jody and the rest of the crack pots that make stupid comments and then spend pages congratulating each other. This President just started another war without even consulting Congress - something his predecessor did. 0bama was forced into this by the French and England otherwise he would look 10 times weaker than he already does. Also nice job 0bummer in tipping our strategic hand to Qaddafi that US troops won't hit the ground. That just gives Qaddafi the impetus he needs to try and hold on like Saddam did in 98 and hope we get tired of shooting missiles at him at $600,000 each. Another example of not being ready for the job and having no leadership skills. January 20, 2013 - the end of an error.

Re: Libya---I agree with you, Jody---the conservatives can now quarrel with the timing of the President----he should have done this 2 weeks ago, they will say.

But in the meantime---while the deficit will grow because of this action---they can deflect attention away from their inaction on jobs with continued assaults on reproductive rights.

Good MOrning Jody and SF............great post Jody and SF excellent point and now Congress is off this week, when are they going to work on the jobs ....deflect and vacation, deflect and vacation, no wonder they cant get out of their own way........except to infringe on women's rights.

And they have the nerve to critize The President for being on a business trip.....there is no end to their moxie.

Steeler Fan, Gingerbread Mamma, I find the GOPTP tiresome and repetitively boring in their constant criticism of the President. I watch President Obama and his family in South America with pride, they represent all that is good in this country.

Several weeks ago I suggested that they should forgo their breaks and be locked in a room and not let out till they came out with a budget. Then give them a day or to and come out with jobs bill. then debt reduction.

Hit the drawing board..Get your facts straight..Poor women are the ones using the abortion kill.. They won't purchase contraceptives and continue to use abortion as the likes..

You need to research the facts of whom uses the system so well..

Any proof of that, Jean, or shall we just take your word for it?

Dan, President Obama thought long and hard about this decision. It's what leaders are supposed to do. The Brits aren't too happy with Cameron I understand - he's all gung ho for this war. President Obama was and is not.

He wants to hand this off in a few days. No excuses No anything.

President Obama is not a war monger. He hates war.

And we're all better off for it.

I wouldn't call waiting for someone else to take the lead and act as, "President Obama thought long and hard about this decision." Due to his lack of response within a reasonable amount of time others had to act which forced him into a decision about two weeks after it should have been made. His failure to act two weeks ago may be the determining factor in how the situation in Libya turns out.

So now we get the real lie from the GOP/TP. France and England did not force President Obama into the game Dan. It was discussed in a meeting in Paris. Another lie form the right. Did you get that lie from Fox?

New York Times:

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya’s civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

DanG- 461155: "The same posters arguing one side of the argument quickly change to the other for the sole reason of making excuses for the President's inability to make a decisive decision within a reasonal amount of time."

Dan, that door swings both ways. Read enough posts from last week and you'll find the same posters arguing one side of the argument quickly change to the other for the sole reason of making excuses for the President's being wrong no matter which decision he made.

And to paraphrase Meet The Press, if it's Monday, it must be time for Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

None of us live in or otherwise have access to the inner workings of either the White House, the State Department or the Pentagon. We don't have security clearances. We don't get to listen in on private phone calls or intelligence briefings or strategy meetings. We are not in contact with any leaders of any other countries in the world. In other words, most of us don't have the first clue as to the actual facts on anything being done behind the scenes. The media is at best a step or two ahead of us, but then, they're also pretty much biased in what they present and how they present it.

No one - not the President, not the military leaders, not the Congress, not the diplomats, not the other countries involved, and certainly not the media nor any posters here - can possibly know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, what the end result of this action will be. No one. Which of course won't stop everyone from playing "coulda, shoulda, woulda" loud and long.

Like Pat, Boston, I believe that the President thought long and hard before making this decision. I also believe that he made it knowing full well that he'd be damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

But that's just my opinion. And it's the same one I had last week.

So Pat, yes I'm a 'right of center' independent voter and have a question for everyone! President Obama has made a decision to intervene. I believe a decision like this to put our military in 'harms way' with a clear cut goal is very dangerous. I don't disagree with the decision; however has anyone ask the question, 'what are the unintended consequences' of this move. 1. We can create a 'no fly zone' to help protect the citizens of Libya. However, without the deployment of ground troop by 'someone', you can't protect them from the armed supporters of Q! So what is Obama's next move? Does he stop with just providing air cover and strikes on military targets? That in and of itself I believe will not remove Q from power. Second, if Q is removed, who fills the space? Q hated AlQ, do we risk a chance that they or the Muslim Brotherhood fills the space? I don't know. I just hope the President has a 'clear vision' of the goals he's trying to accompish in Libya. Just saw SOD Gates say 'we will not be in the lead' on this intervention? So who will? France, England, and the other countries don't have the capabilities or will to take the lead and hold on for the long haul. Finally, the Arab League is now, after supporting the intervention, is saying 'we went to far'??? My read, we've open a can of worms and we'll find a snake in the can.

NJ John,

Thoughtful post John and agreement from this far left of center poster. Agreed on all counts. Your questions are ones that hopefully the administrations have planned for. A No fly zone will not be able to stop this civil war. The worst fears would be that the air strikes will not have diminished enough of Libya's mobile armor and artillery prior to their continued engagements in populated areas. As you note, ground troops within urban centers will by and large be able to move and strike with impunity. I don't support Gaddaffi in any way but who are these brave rebels we are helping?

Yes Obama thought long and hard on this, but unfortunately in my opinion he made the wrong decision. We should have sat this one out, there is too much on our plate.

All war is terrible and horrific, civil wars sometime even more so. There are dozens of civil wars going on all over the world right now. Not to be heartless, but how does this have anything to do with America's national security?

YellowDog, appreciate your reply! I know that we probably 'strongly disagree' on the Presidents political philosophy and policies. That said, I believe that we can have a 'vigorous debate' on the issues without name calling, ect. On one hand, Q has committed terrorists acts in the past against Americans and worked to get WMD.s! So without intervention what makes us believe that, left in power, he won't commit more acts like that against American interests? At the same time, we have no evidence that he was engaged in 'current terrorists activities' against us. Finally, his treatment of his people is deplorable and sad. As a Democratic/Republic, do we have a responsibility to help these people? Tough questions, I just know I don't have the answer without knowing all the revelent intel available to the President.

NJ John,

I don't know any of the answers. I'm a bit old to still call myself an air force brat, but my dad was in the Air Force. Fought in another UN sanctioned police action or whatever you want to call it in Korea. Although he is more to the center of things than me he would not support an action like this. He knows the limitations of an air only offensive. Of the many things I've heard him say on more than one occasion is our forces should only put forth their lives for the safety of the country and our allies. Libya is neither. In addition he would say if you go in, you go in balls to the wall with everything you got. Airstrikes first, naval bombardments, ground forces etc and steam roll the enemy.

In the face of a genocide I will grant you things get hazy; perhaps there is no right answer. People have been dying in Sudan and other parts of Africa for a generation. Should more be done yes, but the US can't do it alone. The vindicative part of me thinks that as England was so good to let the Lockerbie bomber go back to Libya they should be doing all the leading and fighting.

The other problem I have, not with you, but the majority of the public needs to realize that military campagins are not going to be neat, short engagements. Here is hoping that the first stanza of the marine core anthem is not relived.

Yeah, and can anybody explain why Chocodiles are no longer available on the east coast? What's up with that???

Aunt Molly,

Thanks for the article. You will not get responses from this. Those who support Walker are now being very quiet. These 14 Democrats are heroes, who filibustered the only way they could and are being disparaged. Republicans do not care enough to go to those kinds of length for their constituents. Well if they were all rich, then definitely.

The fact that anyone is willing to give testament to what they did, will not make much difference, since it's positive.

Walker is in big trouble, so all you will get is crickets.

I couldn't agree more.

Great post, Houston---the media with its 24/7 news cycle wants a crisis to cover and now that the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear crisis in Japan seems to be winding down, they have moved on in search of the next story.

Why does the US have to lead every battle in the world? Why is it a problem if the French or British get involved?

Houston and Louis-I'm not defending another war; in fact, quite the opposite.I agree the President is doing what the Republicans ran on in November; he is attempting to get business moving and companies to invest in America with jobs. Remember; it is the Republicans "number one priority; jobs." The fact that he is somewhere doing the countries business instead of sitting in the oval office trying to justify another war is a good thing.

Houston and Louis, my sentiments too. It doesn't bother me if we dont lead in this, in fact I think it is the wisest course.

The British and French have a lot more interest at stake than we do. the French have had long standing cultural and business ties mainly oil and Britain, made that horrendeous deal with the devil, agreeing to release the Lockerbie mastermind so BP could drill for oil. We have bought very little oil from Libya, approx. 1% and Saudia Arabia, upped it's production more than that to compensate.

That's what the media wants, a dog and pony show, instead of covering real news. The MSN is the biggest enabler of the hate going on in this country than anybody else.

I'm pretty sick of our opinion based news media. (Not the journalists themselves, of course, that Engel guy deserves a Pulitizer for what he has been through, and Lestor Holt braved radiation to bring the world his story.) I mean the news writers who feel compelled to tell us the public is confused by seeing The President in Brasil while bombs are dropping in Libya, without waiting to find out if the public actually feels this way. News flash to the media: in this "virtual" era, where we are used to seeing holograms of Will.I.Am projected into news studios to be interviewed "in person," The President in Brasil while action occurs in Libya is not alarming.

Terrific post, Houston. I'd say most liberals have mixed feelings but I trust President Obama and remember his words before he was even a Senator--I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars. This is not a war and I believe President Obama will not involve the U.S. in another middle eastern conflict despite the action taken over the weekend. He is not a war monger and has taken this action not alone but with a coalition.

The GOPTP, the media and the talking heads once again have been proved wrong by this President. He did no saber rattling, he made appropriate comments and behind the scenes was diligently weighing the options and using diplomacy to forge a humanitarian effort. Unlike republicans, the President has no problem with the British and French taking the lead attack role--he is confident and I appreciate the fact that he has no need to be a tough guy, cowboy to achieve goals.

Amy, I agree. Journalists do an excellent job of reporting the facts. The media 24/7 news channels stir controversy where there is none. The public is not confused, the media is. The public multi-tasks but apparently the media finds it difficult to handle more than one news story at a time.

I keep wondering when the chattering media class will stop saying the President isn't doing this or that, hasn't spoken enough publically, is too slow, etc., and each time, they end up with egg on their faces. You would think after 26 months, the chatterers would have figured out the President is ten steps ahead of them and that perhaps they should just wait before jumping to conclusions.

Amy B:

I mean the news writers who feel compelled to tell us the public is confused by seeing The President in Brasil while bombs are dropping in Libya, without waiting to find out if the public actually feels this way.

I guess if the media tells us to be confused, they assume we will obey. None of these savvy media pundits has mentioned the hard feelings it would have caused in South American countries if Obama HAD canceled his trip. If Obama had done that and followed the standard operating procedure with the Very Important Speech from the Oval Office about the war, you know that the media would have attacked him for showboating and ignoring South America They've already criticized him for no t paying enough attention to South America. He can't win for losing.

Houston, just trying to be 'fair' here. The liberal media pounded President Bush on 'everything' he did 'every day' during his administration except immediately after 911!! Your comment about 'he can't win for losing' applies to every President in office.

NJ John

Houston, just trying to be 'fair' here. The liberal media pounded President Bush on 'everything' he did 'every day' during his administration except immediately after 911!!

Nice try at revisionist history, but no cigar. The corporate media were cheer leaders for Bush's Iraq misadventure and never questioned what the alternate media pointed out from the very beginning was the extremely dubious quality of the "intelligence" that was the excuse for the war. Phil Donahue was even fired from "liberal" MSNBC for questioning the war. It was only after it was already clear to everyone that Bush had made a horrible mess in Iraq that not even the corporate media could pretend otherwise.

"It was only after it was already clear to everyone that Bush had made a horrible mess in Iraq that not even the corporate media could pretend otherwise"

I agree with Houston. I almost wonder if the media is trying too hard to make up for their unquestioning stance towards Bush in his first term, by jumping all over the current President from all sides. They seem to give an awful lot publicity to every little Republican armchair general out there too. I don't remember the left being given that much publicity befor Bush tanked.

Houston & Amy, guess we just have a different 'perspective' on what role the media played during Bush's administration. I don't think of it as 'revisionist history'....are you saying that you don't remember MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, Maher, Matthews, ect not on TV every night talking about the terrible job Bush was doing? Don't quite remember it that way. Amy, you've got to be kidding! The 'mainstream media' has been jumping all over President Obama from Day-1 of his administration???????

Did you give Bush the same respect????

Well said, Steeler Fan. Having also once been a republican, the open disagreements within the democratic party were troubling but like you, now find the fact that liberals do not march lock step, do not speak with one voice and are not afraid to disagree the best part of being a democrat.

As for giving President Bush respect, yes, I did for his response to 9/11 and his effort in Afghanistan. My criticism was his starting another war before finishing the first. Saddam Hussein was effectively contained and that war was a "dumb war" costing the lives of and wounding of thousands of Americans, nearly $1 trillion in deficit spending, and the lives of many thousands of Iraqi civilians. Bush had the support of democrats after 9/11, but with Iraq, the support I had for him disappeared.

ITM:

Did you give Bush the same respect????

Bush deserved no respect for starting a war based on lies. The military operation in Libya is similar to the one in the Balkans to avert a genocide in the '90s. It bears no resemblance to Bush's Iraq debacle whatsoever.

I did in fact give George Bush the same respect. I did not agree with his decisions but I never called him disrespectful names, always referred to him as President Bush and never once questioned his patriotism or love for his country. There are many on the right who can't say the same about President Obama.

Houston:

ALL POTUS deserve respect. That war was not based upon lies. We were only at a cease-fire following Desert Storm in 91', the UN resolution clearly stated the US had authority to basically attack him if he violated any of the sanctions. He violated many, mostly during the Clinton era. We trained all of the 90's to re-enter Iraq. The military has always known we were going to Baghdad just as soon as we got another Republican POTUS.

Iraq was not a debacle and when you say things like that; what you are saying is that all of my fellow soldiers that lost their lives were in vain because some of you in America didn't like Bush. I will not let their memories be treated indignant.

I was in the Balkans, probably before many of you even knew where the Balkans were. It was similar in respect to bombing runs but we were there lasing those targets and eventually what happened?; ground troops were put in. IN 1996 Clinton stated that the last US troop would leave that country in early 97', we are still there today, not in the numbers but we are there.

That war was not based upon lies.

Sorry, I disagree. I distinctly remember watching Meet the Press, and VP Cheney was expounding upon the importance of taking out Saddam soon. He explained that the Sunni Triangle was the core of the Saddam loyalists, and that we KNEW they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. We KNEW they had them, and we KNEW where they were.

So, was he lying, or simply mistaken?

Based on the evidence I have seen, I'm inclined to believe he DID believe that there were WMD's, but when he claimed we KNEW it, he LIED. Cheney hoped we would get in there, and find sufficient evidence of WMD's to cover their butts, and it never happened.

I DID respect Bush at first, and when they repeated their claims over and over, I opted to give them the benefit of the doubt, because as President, he knows stuff we never will.

Unfortunately, I have been proven right.

Iraq was not a debacle and when you say things like that; what you are saying is that all of my fellow soldiers that lost their lives were in vain because some of you in America didn't like Bush.

Again, I disagree. They didn't lose their lives in vain, Iraq is a burgeoning democracy now, or as close as it would get. The soldier's sacrifice's have NOT been in vain, though they WERE done for the vanity of Bush and Cheney. It WAS a debacle, we went in specifically for WMD's, and they were shown to be so much ether...

Houston - you are full of $hit and revisionist historian. Saddam was shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone on a daily basis and continued brutalizing the Shia and the Kurds. Saddam also transferred many weapons to Syria days before we invaded. Additionally Saddam did everything he could to make people (even his own commanders) think he was going to use WMD if we invaded so he could look tough to his neighbors. He succeeded in tricking the Russians, French, English the US and every other country. Our Senate voted 77-23 to take out Saddam based on the 98 bill passed under Bill Clinton. Hillary even gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate about how she knew he had WMD. Dirty Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer and John F-ing Kerry even voted for the resolution. You are nothing but an Dem shill and an 0bama apologist!

Cheryl: Was his house bombed? I heard last night that they specifically did NOT bomb his palace. They bombed a part of the bldg where Qaddafi held high level meetings.

No one was killed that I know of.

Pat, could you tell us all how many "air-defense" systems there are in that building please?

Because that's ALL I've heard about this entire weekend is how it's the "air-defense systems" that will be bombed in order to enforce the no-fly zone. Nothing was said about bombing ANY part of anyone's compounds, homes, government buildings, meeting centers, or anything else.

And so it starts. Again, the defense of the same things that the left condemned when it was someone named Reagan or Bush doing it.

And out of my entire thing, the ONLY thing you could come up with Pat was to attempt to point out that a building in Kaddafi's compound that was attacked wasn't really his home being attacked, because after all, it's where they held meetings.

High level meetings, where he had you know equipment - high level equipment - that they needed to take out soooooooooo, he wouldn't have it any longer.

Okay?

CherylLM

Perhaps you need to do some research. When W. Bush launched the start of the invasion of Iraq, there was a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland and not a coalition 15 or more countries in Iraq.

And why is it that a group of 5 or 6 countries is called a "coalition" by the left, when a coalition of 15 or more countries in Iraq was called us "going it alone"?

Wow, and how man air defense systems are in a meeting room Pat?

Wouldn't it have been better to take out the communications buildings instead of a building where meetings are held?

And Job1, why don't YOU go do some research?

There were FORTY NINE countries that supported militarily or in some other way the invasion of Iraq. The U.S., U.K., Spain, Australia, Poland, Portugal, and Denmark were involved with the initial invasion, with 33 other nations providing troops after the invasion was over. There were 6 nations that provided support but had NO military.

Would you not call that a coalition?

Geez, why do you even try?

It's kind of funny how a lot of rightwingdingers have suddenly become peaceniks. Maybe they'll let their hair grow real long, wear love beads, and stop taking baths in protest.

Peace, Man!

No Houston, I actually support taking Kadaffi out.

It's just that I find it really interesting that the same people that spent years condemning Bush all of a sudden support Obama for doing the same thing.

Hypocrites man!

CherylLM

I think you have your invasions mixed up. You do know that there were two?

Houston, what is funny is the flip flop on the left. Seems you don't have a position on an issue or issues. You just follow a President blindly that you like. You and your crowd kind of remind me of the followers of the Pied Piper.

CherylLM

It's just that I find it really interesting that the same people that spent years condemning Bush all of a sudden support Obama for doing the same thing.

How is invading Iraq based on false pretenses to get at its oil and turning that country into a hell hole the same as preventing mass murder in Libya?

Tony C-2383666

Houston, what is funny is the flip flop on the left. Seems you don't have a position on an issue or issues. You just follow a President blindly that you like. You and your crowd kind of remind me of the followers of the Pied Piper.

I'm not following anyone blindly. You're the one with a blindness problem. You're blinded by hate for the president. When Obama was campaigning, he said he was not against all wars, just dumb wars. Iraq was a dumb war. The military operation in Libya has risks, but it is certainly not dumb to intervene to halt the massacre of civilians.

So the people that were being killed in Iraq were not civilians.

Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of civilians - if not millions. Go check with any soldier who was unlucky enough to discover the mass graves. Qaddafi looks like a school girl cat fight in comparison to Saddam.

Of which Obama had absolutely ZERO to do with, since the agreements are already made, and were negotiated by the State Department, or even private companies.

And since when does the President of the United States of America have to fly to another country to signs "a series of accords" that don't actually DO a single thing except "aim" at reducing barriers, without EVER actually reducing a single thing right now.

All he did was sign agreements to negotiate.

He's on vacation Pat, just admit it.

Cheryl, yes, you're right. Presidents don't need to travel to get anything done. Why should Presidents want to meet leaders from around the world?

Why doesn't he just listen to the morons in this country who continue to try and dictate how he should "behave".

He's miles ahead of people like you. Miles.

Yes, seening he's using our tax dollars to go sign agreements to agree to future agreements, he's definitely miles ahead of me.

He's NOT getting anything done, he's just doing his usual, travelling around to look like he's doing something wonderful that was already done by someone else.

As for his going to "meet leaders from around the world", can I ask you who's he's going to bow or apologize to in Brasil while our military attacks a nation that is in a civil war?

You know, the SAME type of civil war that all of you on the left were saying was going on in Iraq when you wanted us to pull out of there? The same type of civil war that was going on in Iraq when you spent day after day attacking Bush, and of course the "morons in this country who continue to try to dictate how he should behave" said we shouldn't be there?

You actually show the hypocrisy of people like you, who attack one President while defending another President for doing the same thing, just because of political "Party".

Cheryl, they didn't bomb his house. That's an out and out lie. Everything that comes out of the mouths of the right is lies.

Obama ain't Bush. Get used to it.

Bush - "I know the WMD's are somewhere", he jokes as he looks under his desk.

Bush - "I never said Saddam Hussein had WMD's."

One thing you got right, Obama ain't Bush. Obama has NO guts. Obama is willing to allow the United Nations dictate how our country's military forces are used.

As for "everything that comes out of the mouths of the right is lies", would that be the same as:

"Gitmo will close in one year", or "You can keep your doctor or present policy if you like it", or maybe "I'll cut the deficit in half", or maybe "fiscal responsibility"?

I guess that would make Obama the most right wing person in this nation based on your ignorant claims.

You know, you on the left always bring up the WMD stuff to attack Bush, but if you go back and READ just a little bit, you'll find that not only the UNITED NATIONS itself, but nearly every nation on earth's intelligence services claimed that there were WMD's. Hussein himself claimed that there were WMD's. United Nations inspectors IN IRAQ claimed there were WMD's.

Now we have Obama, claiming that we can't have Kaddaffi, "slaughtering" his people, when all this is in the end is a CIVIL WAR, with the people that are trying to overthrow Kadaffi ARMED with all kinds of the same weapons that Kadaffi has.

In the meantime you ALL forget that Saddam WAS slaughtering his own people. He was gassing them, torturing and executing them, and there were mass graves all over the country. You always seem to FORGET that we freed 23 million people from his and his sons brutal tyranny. You always seem to forget that Iraq CELEBRATED our invasion and that it was ONLY the Bath party and the hard wing Muslims that were against our invasion and the people's liberation.

To all you on the left that quite literally spread hate just because of a political difference of opinion, it's all about "hate Bush" and nothing else.

People like you are lower than whale poop at the bottom of the ocean becaue of your hypocrisy.

Correction, Obama is using borrowed money and seems to have no problem spending like a drunken sailor on leave. You ever stop your tunnel vision long enough to think what is down the road if Obama's request to keep spending and racking up deficits of 9.5 trillion dollars in total over the next ten years will do to us all? This added to a 14 trillion dollar debt that exists today. All the while he keeps saying the opposite.

Cheryl: Yes, BUSH freed the Iraqi's.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Tell that to the innocent people who died. A country we invaded.

Libya. We were asked to come to help them. Libya is NOT Iraq. We have a great deal of support from the Arab world for this.

Bush & Cheney left office in disgrace for what they did in Iraq.

The inspectors told them there were NO WMDs. They didn't care.

They lied. To you, to me, to everybody.

Lets see, Obama promised to hold all the healthcare hearings in front of cameras and microphones. Obama promised to go line by line on every budget item. Obama promise to close Gitmo. Obama promised to post every bill on C Span so we all could read them. Do I need to go on? Is Obama a liar?

"Of which Obama had absolutely ZERO to do with, since the agreements are already made, and were negotiated by the State Department,"

And the State Department is part of which branch of government? The Secretary of State answers to whom?

Civics 101 wasn't your thing, was it?

Please Mr. President take you dog and pony show to Iran and share the love of your fellow man

Bighorn: If the defense industry is in the pockets of the dems. They why is it that the Repugs are always the ones who don't want to cut the defense budget. You are smoking the wrong stuff. And by the way, the first person to send advisers into Viet Nam was Ike. And if I remember right...he was a Republican.

There is a big difference in Ike sending in advisors and Robert McNamara and LBJ lying that lead to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Vietnam and gave us back 55,000+ dead?? Verno - do you know anything about history.

The Democrats led this country into both world wars, Korea and Vietnam.

It is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are the party of war.

For those who wish to make war on the entire Muslim world, you probably have the right guy in office.

Do you know anything about these wars you are talking about? Democrats lead us into the World Wars? Really? And the two communists wars? Which part was responsible for McCarthyism and made everyone afraid to death of communists being everywhere and the domino effect? Convenient to blame Democrats just because they were President when the sh*t hit the fan.

The Republicans are more the party that wants to start World War III as a holy war against Muslims. ie. Rep Peter King's hearing on Muslims in America because he thinks that 80% of the religious leaders in America are radical.

This wisdom from a person from a state that elects Barney Frank.

Hey Pat,

"What is happening in Libya DIFFERS fromt he aim of imposing a no-fly zone. And what we want is PROTECTION of civilians and NOT the shelling of more civilians."

Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, condemnin the U.S. led air assault of Libya.

Could you explain to us again Pat? How is it that attacking civilians and civilian targets actually establishes a "no-fly zone"?

Hey Cheryl -

I know what Moussa said. Everybody knows what Moussa said. And everybody knows he wasn't speaking on behalf of the Arab Nations. He was speaking on behalf of himself. The Arab Nations again last night said they 100% support this action. Everybody knows that.

How is that explanation?

What a great article, Pat--thanks for sharing. I think it is hard for the media to recognize that President Obama really sees things differently and goes about his job differently----they can't fit him into their conventional wisdom. And I think he is like a chess player---several moves ahead of everyone else.

I am a Steeler fan as well - but 0bummer is about a dozen steps behind - never been ahead since he was sworn in. Jan 20, 2013 - "the end of an error."

Little early to be calling that when you don't even know who the opponent will be. The Republicans still need to hold their primaries and the results of the general election in large part will be dependent on who the Republicans select. If they choose someone that only appeals to Republicans then they will have a hard time defeating Obama. Based on 0bummer I am guessing you hate the President and you let that blind you to things called facts that will really dictate the result of the election.

In the mean time I will wait and see who the Republicans select before I will start making predictions of the result.

I think President Obama has a new generation type leadership about him. If he had acted like President Bush, people would have been okay with that I'm guessing.

What he has done is taken people out of their "comfort" zone by wanting other countries to step up to the plate. By waiting until he had assurances. People were uncomfortable with that.

It reminds me a little bit of JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. People were clamoring for Castro's head on a silver plate. He didn't listen to them. And it looks like President Obama made it clear as well what he was willing or unwilling to do, despite what people wanted him to do.

There is a re-awakening going on right now.

You have to be kidding right?

The Obama administration is quoted with both of the following statements (the second by Obama himself)

"Washington is merely following the Europeans' lead"

"American leadership [in the Libyan conflict] is essential"

This isn't a new kind of leadership....this isn't leadership...this is an administration that doesn't know what it is doing or saying.

There is no Leadership from this President. The President is a hypocrit who critizied past Presidents for following the exact sme action he is takeing now. But we have less than 2 years until he is thrown out of office, the only question is how much damage can he do, after seeing what he has done in his first two years, it can be alot!

There may be a connection. The left wing nuts have made repeated death threats to anyone who supported the governor and the governor himself. You know, the war in Wisconsin.