It sure is easy to criticize when you are not setting in the decision maker's seat. President Obama has taken the moral high road. That's what he is expected to do. Or is doing nothing and watching thousands of people get killed your cup of "tea".

So which is it: he waited too long and should have done this with out the UN, or he did this too quickly and should have consulted Congress?

Crikey, it's like Sunday's Meet The Press all over again "is The President being too passive? Is the President being too aggressive? Should we have done this weeks ago? Should we have done this at all? Isn't it great France and England are taking the the initiative? Isn't it bad that America isn't front and center? Isn't it great the Arab League is on board, oh noes, the Arab League has said we went too far...."

It's a wonder we can get anything accomplished in this country at all.

"It's a wonder we can get anything accomplished in this country at all."

Surely Amy and the progressives felt the same way about the mean press asking questions of George Bush? No?

Jim Webb is a good man...a war veteran and a patriot.

That said...our political system is what it is.

Bottom line...this is President Obama's call.

He is our Commander-In-Chief.

Period.

He'll face the consequences, good or bad...just as every U.S. President always has and always will.

Nice posts today Mixed Bag. You didn't seem to be copying the right's talking points and instead used your own judgments. That is to be admired and respected, regardless of your point of view.

At least it's yours and no one else's.

Pay attention, Pat...

My "talking points" belong to me...

No one else.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around, but it is particularly interesting to watch the liberals squirm because of the Presidents actions; they would be screaming if he were a Republican. I think that he was right to take action to avert genocide, and I have been impressed by Hillary's leadership; of course we know that she was carrying the water for Bill as well, while he provided the warm and fuzzies.

Too many Monday Morning Quarterback's and not enough playing field around here today!

They've repeatedly provent that they will b!tch & moan NO matter what President Obama does... that's what makes their narrow world go round!

BTW - Still waiting for ONE of them to tell us how we're going to PAY for this?

Mixed Bag, I DO pay attention. And whatever the right wing is criticizing the president for, you are right there, repeating the same crap that they spin. Fox Propaganda talking points. This place is full of Fox talking points.

Brackets? Really?

Mixed for once you and the old hopeless ideologue are in agreement. Simply amazing Since I voted for him I think I have the right to say this. Sen. Webb you are wrong and you need to go on and set down somewhere.

My mistake, Pat...

I thought you were CONTRASTING my remarks about our President, and praising my dissent from the "right wing"...

What drummer are you marching to? I'm marching to my own.

Make up your mind...

Do you think I'm criticizing the President's decision on Libya, or not?

I KNOW what I think...

Do you know what YOU think?

I don't understand why Mr. Webb is surprised that the president has not explained this recent action to the public "in a meaningful way". Mr. Obama does not explain anything he wants to do "in a meaningful way".

Why start now ?

The lefties on this site are always crying for Bush to be tried as a war criminal for invading a country "that didn't do anytrhing to us". Do you propose the same thing for Obama in this case.....or this this somehow "different'?

IR-

I honestly wish that all of the people we send to represent us in Washington, DC had even one-tenth of the integrity that Jim Webb has...you are lucky to have him. I have Barbara Boxer. That's somewhat offset by Senator Feinstein...in any event, it isn't enough.

Agree or disagree with Senator Webb's remarks...

Consider yourself lucky.

When are you clowns going to learn that the only difference between these megalomaniac politicians are the excuses they use?

Mixed you and the old idealogue agree twice in one day. Must be something in the water. As you say that is the reason that I supported the gentleman. Even if I don't agree with him in this particular case I do wish that he decided to run again. Now it looks like I'm going to have to chose between Allen and Kaine neither of which I feel are adequate to the task.

You're losing a good one, IR.

The next one will have trouble measuring up.

Oh that's right Bush got permission to fight the Iraq war. You know, the one we're still in today. The one we started because Bush believed Saddam was involved in 911 (Seems he wasn't). It changed to a search for WMDs which Iraq was full of (Turns out it wasn't). Then it changed to a humanitarian war which is complete B.S. because we only fight for oil. Republicans (the knee jerk ignorant ones) would bitch if Obama didn't do anything and they'll bitch when he does.

So, horngreen, answer my previous question. Obviously, Bush was wrong according to you; Obama has just done exactly the same thing - is he just as wrong....or is it ok in this case just because he's not Bush?

Horngreen... you really have no idea.. Do some research of your own.. Hint.. You won't find it on MoveOn.org or The Daily KOS...

True that Mixed

Ron Indiana Comment collapsed by the community

It sure is easy to criticize when you are not setting in the decision maker's seat. President Obama has taken the moral high road. That's what he is expected to do. Or is doing nothing and watching thousands of people get killed your cup of "tea".

I am having a problem with your statement Ron. When Bushie was in charge, the liberal element blasted every Republican when we made similar statements. Now, apparently, it's a correct statement to make.

A bit hypocritical isn't it Ron? Oh, you are censored.......right.

Everyone who has taken the time to read my postings know I am no fan of Obama.. BUT he only messed up because he didnt give 48 hour notice before he did it. At least the way I understand the act.

Per the War resolution act of 1941

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

If he would of given the 48 hours notice he would be clean and following the letter of the law. The exact same thing Bush did. He used this war resolution to attack, then congress said ok to it later.

On a humantarian side of me, says we should of done this two weeks ago.. On my fiscal side, I am saying how the hell can we afford another war..

I just dont know what to think about this. I think im in a wait and see mode now.

Hasn't behaving like a dictator with no "clear policy" been his M.O. since day one?

P.S.

The supreme court has voted against Obama's wish to keep the taxpayers in the dark about where their bailout money went. And this guy actually campaigned on "more transparent government".

"High Court Denies Bid to Bar Details of Fed Bailout"

"The Obama administration had asked the high court not to hear the appeal. But the Clearing House Association, which represents some of the nation’s largest banks, wanted the high court to review the decision."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/business/22bizcourt.html?src=busln

Bob-1887910

Oh no! You mentioned ole whatshisname, the former Present we are not supposed to refer to ever again! Let's not go there! Let's not bring him up! Past is past! Obama owns the crisis now! Where are the jobs! Where are the jobs! (Oh, that's what Obama was doing in Brasil....)

President Obama made the call on this issue, because he is the Commander and Chief and he doesn’t need any ones permission on a short tern conflict.

So, please stop the FAKE OUTRAGE and get over it. There is not a thing you can do about it.

When we were on the 'buildup' to war in 2003, I questioned it and I opposed going into Iraq. Gee, turns out my skepticism was dead on right...I DID support going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden in 2001, and I'd have done it WITHOUT a timeline to hand him over...something that may have been possible 10 years ago, but doesn't seem to be any longer, but no, we had to implement Krystal/Cheney, and the other neo-con's ideological 'spread of democracy' under the guise of a shifting rationale of either exaggerations or outright lies and spread our forces across 2 wars. This 'spread of democracy' has been a spectacular failure in Iraq, but which Arab people all over the middle east are doing ON THEIR OWN...We won't even tally up the cost of those wars which, combined with the 'temporary' tax cuts and other failed economic policies of the past 30 years, have driven us so far into debt we may never get out.

You can't force democracy on a country, they have to embrace it in their own time and on their own terms because they're the ones who have to make it work for them.

What Obama's doing by joining with NATO is supporting a no-fly zone and preventing a slaughter of Qadafi's own people...our involvement is (according to what we've been told, at this point) to be limited...and it's up to the rebels to fight for their freedom and country, which would not have been possible when that ahole Qadafi used fighter jets to bomb them to hell and gone.

On a slightly less objective note...I won't be disappointed at all to see Qadafi burn, he's one of the worst violators of human rights in the region, and his people are the ones who have the right to light the match...they're the ones who have been tortured and killed at his hands

And this is what I get when I go do my PRIVATE SECTOR job for a while -- I miss all the fun out here.

So, if Webb isn't running for re-election, then what IS he running for?

I've been wondering about this for a while now.

Do you think I'm criticizing the President's decision on Libya, or not?

I KNOW what I think...

Do you know what YOU think?

Goodness gracious, Bag Boy, are you STILL on this topic? Sheesh.

I can't speak for Pat, who ALWAYS seems to know exactly what she thinks, but personally I have absolutely no idea what I think, except that I think that thinking hurts my poor little liberal brain, and like Scarlett O'Hara, I have resolved never to go hungry again.

Or wait. I'm confused. I'll think about that tomorrow. Or maybe not.

Thinking hurts. And thinking a lot hurts absolutely.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Anna Molly-

Unfortunately for Virginia, and the rest of us...

It doesn't look like Jim Webb is running for anything after he finishes his current Senate term.

Our loss...his gain.

No TIME!?!?

This has been going on since FEBRUARY!!!

He had plenty of time.

If the Brits and French had time to go to the UN, Obama had time to go to his own Congress!

True American:

Sounds like grounds for impeachment if you ask me!

Sounds like grounds for a plagiarism suit, if you ask me. You left out a key quotation mark.

Not to mention grounds to sue your typing teacher for malpractice. You'd probably like that.

I think Webb's planning to run for Governor.

The cost here isn't as large as you might think...yet. After all, the fleets were in the region, so the principle cost is aircraft fuel and ammo (including rockets). If we lose a ship or an aircraft (either of which is possible, but not probable) that would be COST.

For those that say this is unprecedented, I wonder, did Clinton advise congress when he authorized missile attacks on certain facilities, did Reagan advise congress when he bombed Libya the first time? Don't think either did.

As part of the role of commander and chief, the President has the authority and obligation to make decisions like this that would be considered short term engagements. (I believe the president has enough funding to sustain about a month's worth of combat without going to congress, though I wouldn't call that fact, I just know there is some leeway there. Otherwise would there be even any point in being commander in chief).

Now this is not an endorsement or criticism of the decision that was made.

You're a hoot, Scarlett..

Er, I mean, uh... Anna Molly.

IR and Mixed, Maybe he'll switch to the republican party and run for President.

I think Americans know what a no fly zone means, we had it with Saddam.

With a 70% approval of the no fly zone in the polls, Obama doesn't have to worry about anything.

Funny, ron. Obama, the pathological-liar-in-chief, does not even know how to spell "moral high ground".

Well, molly admits it: thinking hurts. Hey, we know that for non-thinking, yellow-dog, socialist/liberals thinking would certainly hurt, if they were capable of doing it.

70% approval because all the liberals decided to change their opinion due to the fact that it was Obama's call this time...and the sheep all get in line....priceless!

“We have a military operation that’s been put into place, but we do not have a clear diplomatic policy or a clear statement of foreign policy that is accompanying this military operation,” Webb said.

No kidding. I seem to recall Bush talking to the American people to explain the reasons for going into Iraq, whether we might agree with the decision or not. He also got broad bipartisan support from Congress (including Hillary Clinton - Obama not yet even a member of Congress). So what does Obama do?

Head for Rio for Spring Break with his kids, with no justification or plan. I suspect they have some nice golf courses there. I'm sure he's thinking "Why ME, can't someone else take care of this?"

At least we have Hillary taking care of things while he's gone. She should have been elected President - she's clearly the best 'man' for the job.

IndependentThinker-796986

Well, molly admits it: thinking hurts. Hey, we know that for non-thinking, yellow-dog, socialist/liberals thinking would certainly hurt, if they were capable of doing it

-----------------------------------------

Am I the only one that sees the IRONY here? buzz? come on, anyone?

Am I the only one that sees the IRONY here? buzz? come on, anyone?

I might, if I wasn't one of those yellowdog socialist/liberal thingy-dingies who can't think. ;-)

Interesting Pat... you talk about people just blabbing on the same thing as someone else says but your entire criticism on the right hinges on "blah blah blah Fox News blah blah blah" as if every leftie around here doesn't say the same thing.

You're nothing but another goose stepper, you just happen to think you're right in your gross assumptions.

HONK if you're a goose stepper and proud of it.

HONK. And I am also an Independent THINKER - regardless of how much it HURTS!

Job1

So, please stop the FAKE OUTRAGE and get over it. There is not a thing you can do about it.

==========================

Ahhhhhh, but you're wrong. There is something we can do about it. I voted for him in 2008. Unless the rethuglicants run someone like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, or Sharon Angle, he may not get my vote. There's your term limits.

A question for all of you shedding tears for the people of Libya: When are we going to start chucking criuse missiles and air strikes into Yemen? The same situation exists there. I'm assuming the President, unlike many of you on here, knows where Yemen is. BTW---the Horn of Africa is a bigger terrorist nest than Libya.

Or, for that matter, Mexico?

someone asked if there is any difference between this attack on a country not a threat to us versus the attack on Iraq which was also no threat to us. Well obviously for us bleeding heart types the obvious difference is Qaddafi is attacking civilians and we are smacking his hand simultaneously to try and stop him versus Saddam being bottled up in his palace in international obscurity and we take the country over. Now maybe there should be a lot of outrage over this Libya @!$%# but after ten years ensconced in Afghanistan and eight in Iraq (we are still there and always will be) I think most of us have figured out that these f**kers in Washington are going to do what they want and our corporate media will enable their efforts so what is the point. As long as the bankers that run this place keep printing up the bills the global US military efforts will go on

Its interesting for this senator to say that this is not the way the system is suppose towork. What else would make it work..congress has 550 members that are more involved with themselves, lobbyist and big money than the condition of this country or any other country. They continuely side witrh big business and the lobbyist that hand them tons of cash for their re-elections , so say. I would have to think that this senator must be siding with the powers in Libya while they kill off thousands of its own people to make sure they remain in power. This is not something the USA is in alone...the world is watching and acting on the behalf of the citizens of Libya.

Obama DEFIES the constitution of the United States. It IS NOT his job to declare war as so many of you HAVE CLAIMED. I say Webb is right and here is one more instance where Obama DOES NOT ACT LIKE AN AMERICAN.

Here is the constitutional provision. I DARE YOU TO FIND OTHERWISE IN THE CONSTITUTION. You WON'T find it.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

At least we have Hillary taking care of things while he's gone. She should have been elected President - she's clearly the best 'man' for the job.

Unfortunately she is not THANKS TO YOUNG FEMALES who have a problem with Hillary. During the election, they (young woman under the age of 40) were so quick to criticize her because of Bill. They were very judgmental because they thought Hillary should have left Bill.

Gee thanks girlies. You should have picked Hillary. At least she does not take off when the going gets tough. She's not out on vacations EVERY FREAKING MONTH. She does not scoff at the U.S. Constitution.

Hillary WAS the best choice and I heard that she will not work for Obama next term if he is re-elected.

I too have a thing that I need to respect my boss or I can work for that person.

Let's look at this logically. What are the chances of Obama being impeached for doing what previous presidents have already done? On a scale of one to ten, I would say zero. What we need to do is look at the Constitution and change some of the antiquated parts. The modern president has to be able to react a little quicker than George Washington did. The Constitution is not a bible, it is a document written by men who were smart enough to include ways to change it if it became obsolete in some way. The time has come!

One more thing, Libya and Iraq are apples and oranges. There was no time pressure on Bush, Iraq was at peace at the time. If Obama had waited for Congress to do something, he would have to wait 'till 2012...too late; the orcs were already at the gate of Helm's Deep. He also got U.N. and Arab League approval, something W. would never have been able to get. George couldn't even get his allies to come along in Iraq, let alone the Arabs. As far as the money goes, tell Congress to deny funding for the replacement of the missiles. We already paid for the ones we fired at Ghaddafi.

bad precedence here and Sen Webb is right. Obama can order the Marines in, but not the other services without congressional approval. A special session should have been called to authorize the use of force, even under a UN mandate.

It would have been like Bush launching into Iraq before congress had a chance to vote on it because the UN said it was OK.

We have rules for a reason, and even if they interfere with a Senator's day off, we need to follow them. Of course we can discard that rule so when the next GOP president wants to cut off the air space and bomb ground targets in a foreign country without the express consent of congress we can all feel good about the Libya crisis.

The modern president has to be able to react a little quicker than George Washington did.

Congress could have voted on this and passed it in hours. We have that technology too. The President DOES NOT need the power to independently launch attacks on foreign countries without the approval of Congress.

I completely agree with Bill M in NY and Frag re: we will NOT impeach Obama over this.

We only impeach Presidents who have sex in the Oval Office.

Obama changes his tune on many things. The only thing that remains consistent is the undying love of the man by the far-left nitwits - many that post on these very pages.

Some other Obama classics:

Obama in 2006: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”

Obama administration in 2011: On Sunday, President Obama’s top economic adviser, Council of Economic Advisers chair Austan Goolsbee, cautioned members of Congress not to “play chicken” by voting against raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling – despite the fact that as a senator in 2006, President Obama voted that way.

__________

Obama in 2007: When candidate Obama was campaigning in South Carolina in 2007, he said he was proud to wear the “union label” and that if workers were denied rights to organize or collectively bargain when he was elected, “I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America.”

Obama in 2011: [crickets-chirping]

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around, but it is particularly interesting to watch the liberals squirm because of the Presidents actions; they would be screaming if he were a Republican, just look at what has been written so far. I think that he was right to take action to avert genocide, and I have been impressed by Hillary's leadership; of course we know that she was carrying the water for Bill as well, while he provided the warm and fuzzies.

Hillary would have made a far superior president!

I'm very liberal. I don't love Obama. In fact I didn't even vote for him, but you neo-cons, as usual have got this thing all twisted up to some imaginary level that your bizzaro channel and it's talking heads have made up. NO ONE has declared war here. We aren't invading anyone. We've got a loon oppressing his people and we're going along with our allies in an effort to bring him to heel with as little bloodshed as possible.

You righties should like this. It gives your BIG BUSINESS bodies lots 'o bucks and puts more cheap oil in your big gas guzzling trucks. Only thing that could make it better is if they made a commemorative automatic weapon for all y'all and had a kegger to celebrate.

mj - You righties should like this. It gives your BIG BUSINESS bodies lots 'o bucks and puts more cheap oil in your big gas guzzling trucks.

You wonder how much money Halliburton is making off this "war".

Beverly in Chicago

Clara KCMO

Exactly, Bev. No more Cowboy Diplomacy. And I believe France has taken the lead on this one. I can't wait to hear Glenn Beck defend the 'caliphate' and then take an antiwar stance. It's what these fools live for - complete defiant oppositional behavior.

The contortionism is entertaining anyway. All this pretzel bending makes me thirsty for BEER.

Hi Clara

Get a load of this Beckerism. It's hillarious.

Beck got Upset that President Obama Didn’t Act On Libya -- Then, 20 Seconds Later, Starts Crying That President Obama Did

http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201103180044

this cracks me up,...it bears repeating! mj-1451595 - Love your post and your point!

Bev or is it "from chicago",

Clara is moving into your position of keyboard queen of the cut and pastes.

Safecracker:

Clara is moving into your position of keyboard queen of the cut and pastes.

Cut and pastes are a heckuva lot better than comments consisting of nothing more than cheap insults and petty digs.

Or wait. What am I saying?

For that matter, what are YOU saying? If there's a point in there somewhere, your hair appears to be covering it.

Okay, it appears that I actually have no problem with cheap insults and petty digs.

Don't tempt me, safecracker.

JoAnna:

You wonder how much money Halliburton is making off this "war".

I'm betting it's more than I will.

Ana, you always get in that sarcastic dig whenever possible. Go ahead, I don't care.

Bob:

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

Bob, you are about as shameless as you could be. You would twist your own mother into a pretzel if you thought you could score a point.

You know there is NO comparison between an out-of-control yahoo proposing to unilaterally attack a country, causing his own commander of Centcom to do an interview to "out" him so that he couldn't get away with it, effectively ending his own career, and what is happening here, with full approval both from the UN Security Council and the Arab League, not to mention our allies.

Safecracker:

Ana, you always get in that sarcastic dig whenever possible. Go ahead, I don't care.

I know that. In fact, it's my stock in trade. Thing is, so do you, but you don't seem to notice that you don't get in much else.

How'd you like that one? ;-)

like water off a duck's back. I've seen you do better, so really go for it Ana.

Then obviously, I need practice. And I'll interpret that as an invitation to practice on YOU. ;-)

And the winner of today's Larry the Cable Guy's "I don't care who you are, now that's funny" award:

bethcat

Hillary would have made a far superior president!

Thank you Beth. As bad a work's been tonight you brightened up my day.

Hmmm let me think. When was that No Fly zone implemented over Portions of IRAQ.. Hmm would that have been after Desert Storm in 91 When Iraq Surrendered to the American Forces? Just want to make sure we get all the facts out about why there was a No Fly zone in Iraq

Erik: The No-Fly zone was established in Iraq after Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurdish Iraqis who were in opposition to him, after his 1991 defeat in Operation Desert Storm. The current conflict in Iraq, began in 2003 followed by something we in the US refer to as "9-11", the terrorist attack conducted on September 11, 2001. Perhaps you've heard of this...

The No-Fly zone in Iraq in 1991 had nothing to do the subsequent US lead invasion of Iraq 12 years later in 2003. You're comparing apples to oranges. The US invaded Iraq in a preemptive move to remove Saddam Hussein from power and terminate his reported Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The WMD program we know now was not as mature as was reported by almost the entire free worlds Intelligence Agencies, but that was the impetus for Operation Iraqi Freedom, not some type of "mission creep" as you're alluding.

As for Present GW Bush dragging the world "kicking and screaming" into the conflict, is seems to me there was a "Use of Force" declaration by the UN and Congressional approval by the Democratically controlled US Congress. That certainly doesn't sound our country was dragged "kicking and screaming" into anything.

Good job Steve. The left has a penchant fo revising history and stating only the parts of a particular event that support their agenda and the actions of this President. This administration in collusion with the Democrats is turning out to be the most corrupt we've had since Nixon. I don't think Obama, who I voted for, started out with those intentions, but the old Democrat jackasses in the party, like Pelosi and Reid, have had way too much influence on this young politician who is our President.

The WMD program we know now was not as mature as was reported by almost the entire free worlds Intelligence Agencies

oh God I think I just threw up a little bit, Cheney's little intelligence operation (scam) is now "almost the entire free world's Intelligence Agencies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

OBAMA is bombing and killing in our name and our elected representatives have not even had a chance to discuss the situation.

HEY DEMOCRATS your silence only underlines your hypocrisy. You either have to excuse Bush or impeach Obama, you can't have it both ways." So for those that went after bush for his invasions - you really cant criticize bush now if you refuse to say anything about obama. You cant criticize conservatives for supporting bush when you say nothing about obama. Jim WEBB in 2012

Peace lover-

you know Boehner has the power to reconvene at any time. He just needs to call an emergency session. Where are you Boehner? Do you hate to give up your Tee Time to handle American Business?

And really, two weeks on one week off? And you claim to care about Americans? By the way, WHERE ARE THE JOBS? You said that was your top priority and I have yet to read an article about a jobs bill proposal.

WHY? is Obama bombing libya? But not Iran,yemen,Bahrain,SAudi arabia for murdering protesters? BRITISH PETROLEUM OIL!

@John

Facts are facts. And the fact is that much of the UN was against our war in Iraq, only 7 or 8 nations agreed with us on it, the rest said it was pre-mature.

Obama Da Bomber, do you think the current house would have agreed on doing the right thing? They can not even agree on how we should fund our Government.

Also the reason Obama is doing this is because he has the backing of the rest of the World for the most part. The Arab Nations is also behind us in this course of direction. Bush said we are going to Iraq with or without your support (just stating the difference here, not Bush-bashing).

This is not a war, we are not fielding any soldiers, we are not making any plans to, this is not going to be a drawn out thing. All we are contributing is several hundred missiles then we are getting the **** out.

I can already hear the Tea Party's foaming mouths as the rack their brains trying to find a way to spins this as an impeachable act. Fact of the matter is, whether Obama went over their heads or not, it is the correct action to take. If McCain was pres and I would have agreed if he decided to take this course of action as well.

During the term of George H.W. Bush, the term "waffling" was used by critics to describe his flip flopping on issues when the heat got too hot for him to handle. As a result his presidency became mired in the politics of deception, delusion and duplicity.

Beth...

That's funny...I thought this article was about the current president and his decision on what to do in Libya ???

I must have read the wrong article.

Just commenting on recent history to place things into perspective! And his non-decisions on Afghanistan and Libya will in the end prove to have been another waste of American soldier's lives.

So Obama makes a new war without giving congress even the time of day??

This is what you get when you mix total stupidity with unbelievable arrogance. You get someone named Barrack Hussain Obama.

@Edward

Technically this is not a war, or should not be considered one. We are only in it for a few days and are only contributing a few hundred missiles. There was probably a loop hole in the doctrine somewhere that states specifically what constitutes as war (duration or troop diversity) and Obama's admin just abused that loop hole, something Republican's let happen on a daily basis for their business pals.

I do not see this as a war and many others do not either (89% of the country) or at least they agree with the decision. Congress was voted to express the will of the people, they can not say the do not support it when more then 3/4ths the country does and still claim to be public servants.

That said, if, and I stress that, we end up in this longer then we are supposed to be I would be fine with some kind of corrective action against Obama. Like a leash or something to keep him in the WH till Libya and Japan cool down.

Pat, Boston, MA

There is a lot of anti-Libya sentiment in our country, particularly from the left. And that's good. Anti-war voices are always important, regardless of what country you are from.

The Rebels said they don't want Qaddafi killed. They want him alive, so they can bring him to justice.

===========================================
Very good Pat
Even the Arab League wanted support as well as the rebels. President Obama is not the firt president to go to war without Congressional approval. For instance...


Clinton's air bombing campaign of Kosovo without Congressional approval





George H.W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama



Republicans routinely argue that Presidents do possess unilateral war-making power whenever there is a GOP President, but argue the exact opposite when there is a Democratic President.

===========================================================
Why didn't the republican Congress discuss this before they went on vacation while they were discussing cutting American livelihoods to the bone and NPR? Because they hate President Obama and Gaddafi just about with the same intensity. So again Republicans set up scenario to polarize America. America is losing her way when they oblige the GOP/T-Baggers.


@Joe in Albany

Can you say "Cowboy Barry"??

Sure you can.

Even GWB went to Congess and got them to approve a Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq in October 2002, well BEFORE coalition forces went into Iraq in March 2003.

Not true Georgie boy was

U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and other congressional colleagues filed a lawsuit in a Boston Federal Court arguing that, according to the U.S. Constitution, President George W. Bush only has the authority to go to war in Iraq if Congress passes an official declaration of war - and Congress has not passed such a declaration. Congress cannot willingly or voluntarily relinquish its constitutional authority and responsibility in this critical area."

Conclusion

A reporter recently stated to President Bush that it appeared inevitable that the nation was headed toward war with Iraq. The president responded: "That's not for you to decide. That's for me to decide."

http://www.themoderntribune.com/jesse_jackson,_jr__-_article_and_full_text_of_comments_on_the_duty_of_congress_and_the_war_on_iraq.htm

My post did save; I don't why anyhow @Joe in Albany

I can not say President Obama is a cowboy.

It is not true Georgie boy had..

Plaintiffs who filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, along with their complaint. The motion seeks an immediate hearing on the request that the President be barred from launching a military invasion against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war

http://www.themoderntribune.com/jesse_jackson,_jr__-_article_and_full_text_of_comments_on_the_duty_of_congress_and_the_war_on_iraq.htm

Conclusion

A reporter recently stated to President Bush that it appeared inevitable that the nation was headed toward war with Iraq. The president responded: "That's not for you to decide. That's for me to decide."

So all this hulaboolo is hypocritical. I realize the democrats are critical;but, at least they are not hypocrites.

The GOP/ T-baggers are because the don't want to cut defense spending

True American-2367375

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
– Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

Sounds like grounds for impeachment if you ask me!

But, it's not war; it's a humanitarian mission.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42088980/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

You righties are hysterical. When it comes to war I imagine President Obama will get a declaration.

Try Again UN-American!!!

Only when Obama does it, apparently. I swear this man could kick a puppy on live television and some people would say, "Well, the puppy had it coming."

Carrying an egg across the street sounds like impeachment to you, dork-boy.

Beverly, Is that anyway to have a civil discussion, resorting to profanities. I may not agree with most of the liberal comments from the usual FR group but I don't have to resort to name calling. Way to stay classy.

ksw62118

Beverly, Is that anyway to have a civil discussion, resorting to profanities. I may not agree with most of the liberal comments from the usual FR group but I don't have to resort to name calling. Way to stay classy.

I never said I was an Angel; okay? Lefty yes Angel no

Bev...never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, however you undermine your message when you don't do a little more research and support what you say, or allow him to provoke a reaction from you.

As to TA:
I find that 'name' you chose, TA, to be singularly offensive, you disgrace it with your nasty rhetoric...some civility and thoughtfulness would go a long ways toward opening up your message to more people. Dissent is the cornerstone of our political process, and you appear to only want to hear your point of view repeated (or that of the neanderthals you apparently revere).

You use the term liberals like an epithet, and regardless of any sort of thought process or reasoning involved in an argument, you knee-jerk oppose it if it comes from somebody you perceive as being left of the far right. Which is the downfall of anybody who follows a particular ideology...they don't bother to examine it periodically or test it for soundness, they just doggedly plow ahead regardless of the soundness of their beliefs.

True American-2367375

President Obama made the call on this issue, because he is the Commander and Chief and he doesn’t need any ones permission on a short tern conflict.

So, stop the FAKE OUTRAGE and get over it. There is not a thing you can do about it.

"To the critics, it does not matter a whit what course of action Obama chose or will chooose in future, you will find fault and you will find some reference that supports your fault finding."

Maybe...but to the Obama 'tingly leg ' poodles on MSNBC, it does not matter a whit what course of action Obama chose or will choose in future, you will love him for it and you will find some reference that supports your finding that he is a genius.

You mean like you guys did with Bush? Just want to get all the facts out there and not just your little cornier of the world you want to live in...

magnificent - I don't recall any president jumping into the fray as fast as obama. March 15 2011 - no support for a no fly zone. March 18, 2011 let's go boys and girls the UN said it was OK! launch those tomahawks!!! Times awasting!!

Steve-505729

"You mean like you guys did with Bush?"

BUSH?? Hell, Steve- they even did it with complete zeros like Palin and Chrisine O'Donnell! Still do, some of 'em.

magnificent50

Palin says he "dithered", but does not reveal what SHE would have done if she were President

Sarah is a dithering bycth!Who cares what Silly Failing Sara Pain says; India didn't.

Palin said if she had her way, she'd shoot first and ask questions later like her stereotypical gun rhetoric.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110320/pl_ac/8098296_sarah_palin_remains_irrelevant_in_india

Sarah Palin now also mad at India's lamestream media

According to IRTV, nothing in the mall costs less than $500. Palin liked a jacket, but the fit wasn't right, so she did not buy it. She returned to her hotel.


In addition to the shopping trip, IRTV had also reported that some people at India Today weren't happy with the selection of Palin as a keynote speaker, on account of her being a no-account failed former politician with a shrinking base of support and a mostly illusory influence on American affairs.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/18/palin_india

=============================================

@american-2051576

Go jump. you're another un-American.

american - I don't recall any president starting military action while on vacation either. It sends a pretty bad message about how trivial the matter is being treated.

David Cameron has told House of Commons the UN coalition helped to avert a bloody massacre in Benghazi "just in the nick of time".

Speaking about the action taken over Libya, the Prime Minister said the strikes had been a success in crippling Colonel Gaddafi's air defences.

He also confirmed the coalition operation would soon move from US command to Nato-led command.

Clearing up contradictory statements from ministers about whether the UN can remove Colonel Gaddafi from power, Mr Cameron said he believed Libya "needs to get rid of Gaddafi".

But he confirmed that it is up to the Libyan people to decide their own future.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/David-Cameron-Libya-UN-PM-Tells-House-Of-Commons-UN-Averted-Massacre-In-Libya/Article/201103315957222?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15957222_David_Cameron%2C_Libya%2C_UN%3A_PM_Tells_House_Of_Commons_UN_Averted_Massacre_In_Libya

fancy that fancy this - So saddams crimes against the kurds, opposing religious factions and iran were ok even though bush finally stepped in to put an end to his rule. A lot of whining and crying came from the left after 2006 on bushes iraqi policies but now that the war monger obama does something you bitch about the right??? Srebrenicka indeed!

Fancy This Too-

You have no idea what Jim Webb has sacrificed for this country...our country.

I simply disagree with him...

You should be ashamed.

I disagree with Senator Webb on this issue...

But...

Will no First Read regular, other than me and IR (who actually lives in Virginia), step up to defend Jim Webb?

Really...?

Wow...

Take a closer look at YOUR own U.S. Senators, First Readers...

Jim Webb is an American hero. His family history is inspiring and I love the book Born Fighting

lol bo bo, you mean idiots like mikey moore? Farrakhan?

love it!

Cause afterall those "CIVILIANS" didnt pick up Arms and attack the Govt........... in the Lefties Minds Civilians are anyone that doesn't side with the Govt . Regardless of the fact they picked up Weapons..

Yes- if they earned it. Otherwise, no. Just like anything else.

mitch. Only if we were as irrational as teabaggers.

your right pat, its bush's fault, of course.

mitch. You need to get better specs, I never mentioned Bush.

Mitch J - You'd complain if he solved world peace...

don, still waiting for the seas to recede.

remember who betrayed the last Messiah,/who was responsible (not that barry is one, regardless of how much mathscrew's leg is a tingling). hint: his own people (in barry's case, it will be people like you)

lol

Don:

WAIT... I thought Obama DID solve world peace... didn't he get the Nobel Peace Prize for being in office for what, eight days when the Nobel Laureates voted? Wait... maybe he got the Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishments in three years as the Junior Senator from Illinois, where I'm pretty sure he solved world peace, while voting "Present" like 70% of the time... Hmmmm, maybe Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for his tenure in Harvard Law School, where he was the first black editor of the newspaper...

Gosh... I wish people had listened to the Hillary when her political TV ads asked... "It's 3 am, there's a crisis in the world, do you really what this dufus picking up the phone..."

Oh well... we can fix this in 2012...

Dale:

I'm proud too, of what the administration is doing in Libya... I think it's important for the US to attack every country in the world that's engaged in a civil war, or any country that's trying to over throw their leaders. We can pick a side, even if we have to do a coin toss, and just start lobbing missiles at them.

It's clear to me that Obama is on the right path.... bomb and kill who ever you'd like, just as long as you have the will of the UN to back you up.

I mean, he's already won the Nobel Peace Prize, so.... let's go all in now Barry... Order a few missile strikes, then hit the golf course, or shoot some hoops Dude.... you d'ah Man!!!

ThinkProgress:

Soon after Muammar Qaddafi’s government said yesterday that the Allied bombardment of Libyan air defense systems there had killed dozens of civilians, Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League — which had initially urged the UN to act in Libya — criticized the mission. “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,” he said. The New York Times reports today that “reporters seeking proof have been offered none to account for even part of that number.”

Today on Fox News, war hawk John Bolton criticized the Arab League for “grumbling” about the alleged civilian deaths and — echoing many on the right — said the U.S. should’ve attacked Libya without Arab League support because they would have “grumbled in public” anyway:

BILL HEMMER: What is confounding is the Arab League backed us a week ago. Now Amr Moussa the head of the Arab League, has reservations in the past 24 hours suggesting that the military action that has already taken place has gone to far. Now how do you figure that out?

BOLTON: Well I think that’s par for the course. And that’s why the Obama administration was wrong to base its decision to use force in part anyway on the Arab League announcing it was in favor of the use of force. If we had just done what we should have done a month ago, the Arab League would’ve grumbled in public and in private would’ve said, “You’re doing the right thing.” The only difference now is that they’re grumbling in public.

This morning, Moussa actually backed off his original criticism, saying the Arab League “respects the U.N. Security Council resolution, and there is no contradiction” and that, “We have received assurances that these issues, especially the protection of civilians, will remain a unanimous goal for the U.N. and the Arab League.” Indeed, the British Defense Ministry announced yesterday that British Tornados abandoned a mission because “further information came to light that identified a number of civilians within the intended target area.”

“Republicans don’t know what to do with this because they wanted this to happen, the no fly zone, so that’s good, but now Obama wants it, so it’s bad,” HBO’s Bill Maher noted on Friday. “Fox News today just put up a test pattern that said, ‘Please be patient while we figure out how this makes Obama the worst president ever.’” In the meantime, Bolton’s silly quip and attacking Obama for going on “vacation” (actually a pre-scheduled trip to Latin American to shore up U.S. economic ties) is all conservatives and Fox News have to go on.

_______________

Truly mind boggling.

Hi Pat,

First off, I would like to say that it is good to see you posting here more often of late :}

"Republicans don't know what to do with this because they wanted this to happen, the no fly zone, so that's good, but now Obama wants it, so it's bad,"

You bring up a good point. Some though not all of the right side are beside themselves and mad that Obama did what they wanted him to do. Or they are angry that he didn't do it sooner. Reminds me of the Tax cut extensions he went along with...but I digress.

I don't think we should have gone in. Obviously Obama as POTUS has every right to conduct this action. He has stated the reasoning as humanitarian but I think he needs to explain to the American people what the goals are for this conflict.

The highlighted portion from your text calls GOP supporters into question for hypocrisy and I will agree with you on that. However, how is it not hypocritical for some on the left to whole heartedly support this action after so much angst against Bush?

Another military action! Left seems right, up seems down. This whole situation is mind boggling.

Yep, take this and blame it on the Republicans. What a joke.

Obviously Obama as POTUS has every right to conduct this action. He has stated the reasoning as humanitarian but I think he needs to explain to the American people what the goals are for this conflict.

Did you also comment favorability when Bush did this and more by including Congress in the approval process? You can only spin this so far until your POTUS, President Hamlet, can't spin it anymore.

Some of the Righties couldn't even CATCH their breath before tripping over their outrage,...no wait,...glee,...no, WAIT,...OUTRAGE:

hat tip to, Beverly in Chicago

Get a load of this Beckerism. It's hillarious.

Beck got Upset that President Obama Didn’t Act On Libya -- Then, 20 Seconds Later, Starts Crying That President Obama Did

http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/201103180044

Clara KCMO

I love Glenn Beck uses his Zelda Rubinstein voice. I swear this man has a multiple personality disorder. I'm waiting for the paramedics to Beck off stage in a strait jacket.

Pat, Boston, MA

BOLTON: Well I think that's par for the course. And that's why the Obama administration was wrong to base its decision to use force in part anyway on the Arab League announcing it was in favor of the use of force. If we had just done what we should have done a month ago, the Arab League would've grumbled in public and in private would've said, "You're doing the right thing." The only difference now is that they're grumbling in public.

That's why I call him John BOLT-ON.

BOLT-ON has only one solution for every problem. BOMB IT!!!

safecracker,

Wasn't around here back then, but if you care to know, Bush did get a coalition together and received an authorization to use force. He explained why we went to Iraq, First for WMD then he did it again for spreading democracy and again for humanitarian needs and again and again. President Obama has said he is acting on humanitarian issues. Now I'm asking for Obama to explain to us what the goals are. I heard a newscast on NPR about the confusing UN resolution mandate and what it covers and doesn't cover.

Bush and company pressured, CIA analysts to trump the case for war. That being said, I also blame Congress for supporting the use of force resolution. Many Democrats signed off on it. I blame them and the GOP for not looking at the facts and taking the easy road and casting a favorable political vote. I applaud people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul for voting against going to war.

One of the reasons I could never support Clinton was that unlike Kerry and Edwards, Clinton never admitted she was wrong. Even when asked, Had she known then what we know now, that the supposed reasoning and proof for war was trumped up lies fed our government by the likes of "curveball" etc she would have still authorized the use of force.

Not saying I was a clairvoyant back then or knew what would happen but I never for a moment bought into the fact that Sadaam had WMD or drones ready to spray the US with mustard gas or that he was involved in 911 etc....

And whaat afre all these civilians doing in these military installations? Normally the military wouldn't let them within miles of an antiaircraft battery. I'll bet the government rounded up a bunch of them, placed them in the center of the antiaircraft complex (probalbly without food and water), and let the Brits know that they were there. Wily Gadhaffi.

Yellowdog-Mark, I think it's very healthy to question when we start messing around in other countries. For the record, I have always thought it was wrong to drop the bombs in Japan. I am in the minority. I was against going into Iraq. I was in the minority. I was for Afghanistan, which turned into a nightmare as it has been going on for way way too long. But I was for it, and I'm anxious to see the pull out beginning this summer.

Vietnam, I was too young to understand but have since learned, as we all have, that it was a mistake. At least I believe that's what most people believe now. Especially since McNamara came clean.

Libya is one I support for all the reasons given. I think President Obama has made it clear that this is not our (USA's) war. That ultimately it will be up to the rebels to finish this fight.

Yes, we have heard this before. And if I am wrong, I will say so. There was a revolution started behind the Iron Curtain in Hungary in the late 1950's. The people there were under the impression that President Eisenhower was going to help them. They fought for their lives, but there wasn't anything Eisenhower could do. And their freedom was lost.

It left a very bitter taste in their mouth when the USA didn't intervene. Sometimes countries need assistance when they themselves want change. Perhaps Eisenhower was right not wanting to start a war against the Soviet Union.

This is different. Libya doesn't appear to have many allies and it looks like the rebels want to "own" this. They were up against the wall and the Arab world asked for our assistance. I believe we are doing the right thing.

If you are against this, I see nothing wrong with that. We all hate these things, but there are times when we can't sit back. There are times when we can't just do nothing.

I think this is one of those times.

Pat,

You may be right. It will not be the first time I've been wrong. I will support the military now that the decision has been made. I only wish all parties would leave politics out of it, but that is probably too much to ask.

You are right in one thing, It is good that Obama received authorization through the UN something Bush never did after the 1441 resolution. 1441 after all was only a last chance call for Iraq to comply with the '91 cease fire agreement not an authorization to remove him by any means necessary.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can only look back to my experiences watching Desert storm as an undergrad and the Iraq war 2002 thru present. Both times I've seen some people glued to their screens watching the tracer fire and perhaps getting I dunno excited like it is a video game. I know you are not like that. You strike me as a very thoughtful and hopeful individual.

Thanks for your feedback.

Mr. Reynolds-

Your comments are perfect for this set of circumstances. I ususally agree with the President but the jury is still out on whether this is the right course of action for the Libya crisis.

But to wait for Congress... Well, that is a joke. They can't agree on how to get to the restrooms!

Gates's argument was against intervention when he testified before Congress. However, only Congress has the power to commit to war. An issue the liberals brought up even after George Bush had Congress's approval.

Bill Clinton notified key congressional and senate members before he bombed Bagdad and took the case before Congress regarding Kosovo without UN approval. Reagan notified Congress 24 hours before hitting Tripoli but had discussed the issue with the leaders of both parties.

Right now it appears that President Obama did not consult anyone in Congress.

Obama didn't formally meet with Congress but he did call in John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the committee chairman over foreign affairs and update, which is all at this point he's required.

Unless you weren't paying attention the UN authorized the no-fly zone. We are part of the UN...and if I remember, many people, republican's I might add were complaining we should have acted without UN approval...

And every right wing poster on this tread would have complained if he didn't help, and if he did help. Lets's be clear I haven't seen a one of you ever agree with a single position of his...even if he did exactly what you were asking...

thats wrong it is pretty clear that he consulted the leaders of both parties and held a caucus to lay out the plans... some republicans refused to attend because they were on vacation

dont worry, if barry knows anything, its about civil war, just look what hes doing here in the USA!

mitch. You really are a dope.

pat, if your from utah, i wouldnt be throwing any stones!

were gonna fire hatch soon enough!

You do remember it was a peaceful demonstration by the "so called rebels" until the Libyan government started killing them... My guess is you'd pick up arms too if you were peacefully demonstating and they started shooting at you..

And Mitch, you are just plain lame. You'd complain regardless of what was done...

exactly right don, seems barry and his band is not the only group to read alinsky's book!

ha ha

I sure am glad that Webb and Kucinich were not in the French Govt when the "Rebels" of the 13 colonies rebelled against Britian. Keep it up Far Let Democrats, harping on everything the President does and in 2013 you can harp against Pres Palin or another one of the nuts the GOP runs,

And if it was George W. Bush you'd have said he did have the authority...

Don - No. It would have been no more true for Bush than it is for Obama. And incidentally, since we don't know one another how can you suggest what I might say? As we used to say in Texas you're talking like a man with a paper @!$%#.

Congress is in session longer than Obama is actually in Washington. Until Thursday Obama was against going into Libya, Gates and McMullen testified to it. On Friday we bomb Libya (which I agree with), but if this were a republican President you would be screaming impeachment.

Remember, it took Obama five months to decided whether or not he would support the surge in Afghanistan.

@navyvet98: The President need not stay in that swamp to be active in their position as CIC. Almost every President leaves as often as possible (who can blame them.)

It probably is a good thing that Congress is not in session for very long. They cause less damage that way.

@ navyvet98

"Until Thursday Obama was against going into Libya"

He wanted the Un resolution and the support league of Arab counrties! Don't be dim

The Dems fully supported Bush in Afghan and didn't impeach him for fabricating lies to ger us into Iraq

So your comment is brainless!

You couldn't possibly have a clue about anything the POTUS knows because it's all top secret.