My local paper had a great editorial cartoon today: It showed Barry dressed as a cowboy, holding a six-shooter and a sign "Ghaddfi must go". Barry says "George Bush may have been a cowboy, I am a wild west organizer."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

I hear you, Pat.

I'm with you.

He did exactly what we expect a President to do...what I expect a President to do, anyway.

Hang in there, Pat...

If recent experience is any indicator, President Obama's in for a rough ride.

Pat,

If it was the right thing to do, save innocent civilians from slaughter, why didn't Obama just say that first and stop it three weeks before? Did Obama not know that this was wrong until the Arab League pointed it out? Did he not have the moral conviction to act like the leader of the free world, or did he need the moral authority of the Arab League? And if he had acted, would not thousands more be alive today?

Nope, He said Gadhafi must go and then gutlessly sat back and ignored the slaughter until the Arab League, UN, French and British drove up - then he hoped on board.

Well he is back from vacation, maybe Sarkozy can clue him in on what is going on.

Pat, I agree with your observation. Then there is this:

"Despite speculation that the Tomahawk campaign in Libya had ended, coalition ships fired 14 more Tomahawk missiles over night"

So now the media is mad because events are unfolding contrary to the script the they are working from? I don't get this observation. The media has decided we have fired enough missiles and now it should stop? What handbook are they working from?

We are trying to keep them alive

Who exactly are we "trying to keep alive". And is dropping tons of ordnance on them the best way to achieve that goal?

So now the media is mad because events are unfolding contrary to the script the they are working from

Script? There is no script. This is impromptu comedy.

Absolutely, 100% correct, Amy B.

The mainstream media has allowed its anti-war bias to question even the legitimate efforts of our President to prevent a massacre of Libyan dissidents.

They ought to be ashamed.

bob:

If it was the right thing to do, save innocent civilians from slaughter, why didn't Obama just say that first and stop it three weeks before?

So, bobby, are you saying it WASN'T the right thing to do, just because he did it later than you think he should have done it?

And wasn't the coalition thing exactly what Daddy Bush did?

And why didn't Daddy Bush keep marching on right into Baghdad, bobby?

Wasn't that because the coalition wouldn't go along with it?

And I guess when George W. Bush got back from visiting that grade school in Florida, after he got back from a REAL vacation in Texas, which he took immediately after being warned that Al Qaeda was "determined" to attack within the United States, someone must have explained that to him, too.

Pat. Get used to this kind of coverage from the"liberal media" If the President had not backed Briton and France and given our support to this operation, They would have called him weak.

You have to know that every move President Obama makes is scrutinised to death. And his political enemies have all of the pundits on speed dial, unfortunately most in the media are more like repeaters then reporters. That is why 25% or more of republicans do not think the President is an American, the media is no longer a filter and that is why all kinds of garbage gets through.

Wow, Anna Molly-

Nice.

I think I agree with the parts that weren't overtly partisan.

But...what about President Obama?

Now?

Hey, Patrick-

Are you agreeing with me...

Or squirming to avoid it?

This...

RIGHT HERE...

Is why I love First Read.

Pat, Boston, MA

I have been so so so disappointed in the coverage of what's happening in Libya. It's almost as if no one thinks they are worth assisting. At least from what I'm hearing in the media and late night jokes. This crap about how President Obama handled this with Congress is complete and utter BS.

So am I

This concern, obviously, negates the ambiguities the GOP/T-Baggers and the far left is accusing President Obama of. We lessen our Great America status perceived through out the world thereby angering and could embolden the Muslim community worldwide for more terror strikes if we allow Gaddifi to continue his purge and anti- American talk . As I see it President Obama did the right thing by stating this mission as a coalition including the Arab League.

Bag Boy:

I think I agree with the parts that weren't overtly partisan.

LoLoL What was that I was just reading about the "fence," Bag Boy?

Now you're sounding just like me, which I assume was your point. Hope it doesn't hurt too much.

It's so nice that some people love to reminisce about both Bush I and Bush II. Fond memories for sure.

But what does that have to do with the quagmire Obama has got the world into? It appears the Majorette in Chief has led us down a deadend street.

You're way too smart to misunderstand someone like me.

I support President Obama's intervention in Libya.

I can't be any clearer than that.

Right or wrong...I think he did the right thing.

Anna Molly:

You just cut Bob (numbers) off at the knees. Now he can no longer play with grown-ups because he does not understand the meaning of the word "coalition."

Hit him hard and harder...Arm the rebels with weapons that will at least equal what is being used against them...Keep hitting them with missles and airstrikes till Moammar is dead or leaves.

Seems to me that back in 1776 we were a rag-tag group of people fighting a revolution, too.

Anna,

Actually the first four sentences were questions. The second paragraph sentence was a statement of the obvious and the last was an observation / conjecture.

But to answer your question, the Middle East is incredibly complex. He could have not said anything and waited. Fine. He could have backed up his words. Fine.

But for the President of the United States to make the statement, then vacillate, then change the goal, then turn leadership over, then leave town.........to follow the Arab League and go to the UN without BOTHERING to go to the American people or Congress (Arab League and UN are more important than the people and his own Congress?). Nope - I'm not cool with that.

Daddy Bush was a leader, he had defined goals and objectives and it was brillantly executed. This is a fiasco so far - Obama hasn't even been around. Did Daddy Bush hand anything off? Nope he was the leader of the free world.

He didn't go into Bagdad because that was not the stated goal, was not what he said he would do.

The last paragraph quite graciously reveals your complete ignorance of the facts, distorts the issues and provides another example of your political bigotry.

Thanks for you comments and btw - can you answer any of the questions in my original post?

pat of boston - I have found no shortage of media coverage on libya, but then again I don't limit my news to just FR. Try msn.com for stories, you can even leave comments!

Pat, great post.

There's been some excellent journalist reports on Libya, Richard Engel pointing out the need for better arms for the rebels, etc. and how the US/UN efforts have provided time but the Beltway media gets so caught up in second guessing President Obama, in questioning everything he does or says that it makes them all look like fools. It's as if the MSM knows it botched coverage and questioning of the lead up to Iraq and during the war, so they go overboard and now question everything this President does and their handling of Presidential decisions borders on hysteria and is unfounded.

Devon-596739

Hit him hard and harder...Arm the rebels with weapons that will at least equal what is being used against them...Keep hitting them with missles and airstrikes till Moammar is dead or leaves.

Devon

I agree with you to a certain point. I'm hoping the rebels have the opportunity to decide Qadhafi's fate. Whether it be exile, the Hague, or death, at least it will not give the Muslim community worldwide the impression that we are quick to exceed our limitations as the World Police. Thus, creating a mandate for fanatical fundamentalist Muslims to see us occupiers in the Middle East.

I 'm glad our President struck the right balance with UN and the Arab League. Hopefully, the Libyans will have the opportunity to determine their fate and Qadhafi's even if they decide to kill him.

steeler fan - By your comparison and of many comparisons by libs on what todays tea party consists of, looks like we in America have come full circle, I am sure the tea party appreciates your support.

Seems to me that back in 1776 we were a rag-tag group of people fighting a revolution, too

Joe in Albany

"My local paper had a great editorial cartoon today: It showed Barry dressed as a cowboy, holding a six-shooter and a sign "Ghaddfi must go". Barry says "George Bush may have been a cowboy, I am a wild west organizer."

Say.... That IS funny. I'm a little sad for you, though, in that your local newspaper is so.. how you say... LIBERAL MEDIA?

"If it was the right thing to do, save innocent civilians from slaughter, why didn't Obama just say that first and stop it three weeks before..."

I bet it's because he hadn't yet heard Newt say how important it was that he establish a 'no fly' zone RIGHT NOW! Uh.....wait......

american---surely you aren't confusing today's people who call themselves the Tea Party with the people who dumped tea in Boston harbor to protest taxation without representation?

bob:

But for the President of the United States to make the statement, then vacillate, then change the goal, then turn leadership over, then leave town.........to follow the Arab League and go to the UN without BOTHERING to go to the American people or Congress (Arab League and UN are more important than the people and his own Congress?). Nope - I'm not cool with that.

Me, either. And this is why I'm still on the fence. Seriously. I think this has been incredibly mismanaged, and it sounds more like Iraq by the hour.

As for your original questions, that's what I was doing. Socrates ain't got nothing on us, bob.

1. Thousands of protesters killed in Syria [not to mention Tunisia and everywhere else - and for god's sake - Sudan?];

2. Libyan rebels "chopping up black Africans" in rebel stronghold.

Ok my FR friends, what now?

According to you cheerleaders, including Howard Dean, Joan Walsh, Maddow, and Schultz I guess we got to got in and protect the Syrians, right? And if not, why not?

And why exactly are we protecting butchers?

I absolutely believe Libya is a horrid idea, and that any intervention in the Middle East, or anywhere else is stupid, wasteful and is killing our guys for nothing.

So what say you all? Go into Syria? And what of the rebels who appear to be kinda bad?

Bev in Chicago,

I 'm glad our President struck the right balance with UN and the Arab League. Hopefully, the Libyans will have the opportunity to determine their fate and Qadhafi's even if they decide to kill him.

Well Bev, while I value your right to opinion, I don't see how President Obama struck the correct ballance with the UN and the Arab League. If those folks in the sand countries wish to remove Qadhafi from Libya, why use Americans, French and English to accomplish it? Why not have the Saudi military and their Arab League Armies go in to do whatever they choose?

I do feel for anyone who is suffering at the hands of a tyrant. No with our targeting of ground targets, what type of no-fly zone do we have? Seems to be a softening of hard targets prior to boots on the ground. Now will the Arabs enter then, after we all have expended our munitions?

Who's paying for this Obama War Bev?

bob-1805084

But for the President of the United States to make the statement, then vacillate, then change the goal, then turn leadership over, then leave town.........to follow the Arab League and go to the UN without BOTHERING to go to the American people or Congress (Arab League and UN are more important than the people and his own Congress?). Nope - I'm not cool with that.

As I said yesterday... all the above are your opinion, of how you would like things to be done - we get it, it wasn't done the way that you approve of... but bottom line, the president did nothing wrong. I think he his actually doing something right, given the circumstances.

Daddy Bush was a leader, he had defined goals and objectives and it was brillantly executed. This is a fiasco so far - Obama hasn't even been around. Did Daddy Bush hand anything off? Nope he was the leader of the free world.

You know this is because Daddy Bush and US had a lot of interest/investments in Kuwait...not just because they wanted to save Kuwaitis... in Libya, we have virtually no interest in that land... so should we lead?

Mixed Bag.... please keep telling the repubs on here the truth, I see that they are not responding to your post, because they have nothing to say or add to it.

They think we are libtards, hence not worth listening to... wouldn't the world be a better place if we listen (across the aisles) every once in a while.

By the way, bob -- my facts in the last paragraph are pretty accurate. Bush was on vacation in Texas from August 3 through September 3, 2001, although on August 29, he apparently gave a speech to the American Legion. On August 6, the daily briefing memo to which I refer was issued. No action was ordered or taken in response to the memo. Bush was most assuredly in Florida on September 11. Please tell me where my facts are either wrong or represent political bigotry, unless you agree that facts generally tend to have a liberal bias.

steeler fan - no confusion at all. I block quoted your statement accurately and I am sure that many tea partiers (of 2010 era) have no doubt on how many liberals view them as rag tag, inconsequential, etc. Anyone with any current events knowledge or reading these FR blogs can follow that. It is no secret.

As for the Boston tea party I am resonably sure that it occured prior to 1776. Dec 16, 1773 is the date given by wikipedia

So lets see if I understand Anna, because Bush didn't react to a "Memo" oh by the way what did this "memo" say? How are you comparing 9/11 to Libya? Are you saying that Bush was on vacation before 9/11 and that upset you or are you saying Obama decided to bomb Libya and then go on vacation or are you saying "Can you say Iraq"?

Here's some help Anna, wake the F**k up, stop living in the past and realize that most of the country sees that there MIGHT had been a mistake here. Obama is on freaking vacation or golfing or having bag a@@ parties every week! This is happening now, get it? Not yesterday, last year, well ya last two years, 5 years ago. You don't understand that your guy F***ed up and you so desperately want to blame somebody but him.

3Wolves please don't take their Bush arguments away.

It'll make it way too hard for them.

I for one hope Obama does a better job, on all "fronts."

HEY!

Where's the Feisty Redhead...?

Anybody seen her?

Tunde,

Thirtyfour countries joined the coalition, Saudi Arabia paid 36 billion - because Daddy Bush and the US had investments and interest in Kuwait?

Thanks for the chuckle Tunde.

Anna Molly,

There were six significant terrorist attacks where Americans were killed in Clinton's eight years before Bush took over. Bush received a PDB that said there was a terrorist threat. Duh. You don't think Obama gets one everyday? The point is - was the report, how detailed, was anything actionable. I never heard one thing that suggested Bush was negligent on a report other than the think progress left drivel. Please provide exactly what the report was and how it was actionable / not acted upon by Bush. I would love to see that.

Bush didn't order a military campaign and the go on vacation. Also the ranch his secured home with full presidential capabilities is not the same as going to South America with the girls. You never do work at home? You never take the lap top home or hook into the work computers? That the same as when you go on vacation? Of course not.

In the belief and expectation that you understand the above and just for you Anna, l will re-phrase the last paragraph..... I feel your last paragraph was disingenuously offered. Have a good weekend.

Mixed,

I have always wondered if Feisty knows what day it is.

Maybe she thinks it is Friday and is planning her imaginary party.

I'm not going anywhere, Tunde...

Be careful what you wish for, my friend.

Feisty has squared off against me and the President on this Libya thing, Bob...

We're both looking for her.

lol.

WASHINGTON -- Anxious to reduce its front-line air combat role in Libya, the Obama administration pressed Thursday for allies who first pushed for the campaign to come up with a workable alternative.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/24/general-us-us-libya_8373420.html

One week into this, and Obama is looking for the exits.

You broke it Barack. You own it.

So, what do you all think. This part of Hillary's revenge?

Hillary KNOWS what she thinks, JoAnna...

Apparently, Susan Rice does too.

Go Valkyries...

Go!

@3WolvesandaMoon -- the text of the August 6, 2001, memo --

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html

@bob ~ There were hearings about this in 2004. Read about them yourself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml

The content of the August 6, 2001 PDB makes clear why the administration was so reluctant to release the document. It is a clear and stark warning that Al Qaeda is actively preparing an attack within the US, that its previous attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania show that it has the capability to do so, and that a likely method of attack involves the hijacking of one or more US commercial aircraft.

In her April 8 testimony before the 9/11 panel, Rice, under prodding from one of the commissioners, former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste, gave out the title of the August 6 presidential brief. The official heading of the suppressed document produced an audible gasp from the audience in the hearing room, which included dozens of family members of 9/11 victims.

Yet Rice continued to lie about the contents and implications of the PDB. Her dissembling had three essential components.

* Lie number one: Rice declared numerous times that the PDB was not a "threat warning." It was merely a "historical" review of past events and old intelligence, and contained no warnings of current threats. Nor did it, she claimed, give any indication as to specific cities or buildings to be targeted.

* Lie number two: Notwithstanding the title of the document, Rice continued to maintain that it contained no warnings of attacks within the US.

* Lie number three: Rice reiterated her previous assertions that the PDB in no way pointed to the possibility of hijacked airplanes being used as missiles.

Unfortunately for Rice and the rest of the Bush administration, the plain language of the document, and the actual context in which it appeared, flatly contradict all three contentions.

The claim that the memo was purely of a "historical" character and contained no warnings of current or specific threats is belied by the following information in the document:

Al Qaeda, it said, had active cells in the US that were planning attacks. It mentioned the existence of such cells in California and New York. It said the FBI had collected information since 1998 indicating "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." (Our emphasis).

The document also referred to the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 in connection with a statement by bin Laden that he wanted to follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America." It further said that the foiled Al Qaeda plot to bomb the airport in Los Angeles during the millennium celebrations of December-January 2000 "may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US." It cited statements from convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam to the FBI that bin Laden was aware of the plot and that a top bin Laden lieutenant helped facilitate it. (This history, it should be noted, was anything but remote, since the aborted attack on Los Angeles occurred only twenty months prior to the August 6, 2001 briefing).

The document went on to say that the FBI was conducting 70 full-field investigations throughout the US into bin Laden threats, and that the FBI and CIA were investigating a tip that bin Laden supporters in the US were planning attacks with explosives. (Why would the FBI and CIA be conducting such probes if there were no current threats? Rice did not explain this conundrum).

Finally—and in a sense most damaging to Rice's characterization of the memo as merely of "historical" interest—the CIA briefers wrote that bin Laden was "patient," that he began planning for attacks years in advance, and was not deterred by setbacks. This comment could have only one meaning: it was a specific caution against any tendency to belittle the looming threat on the grounds that most of the hard information at hand dealt with past events and previously gathered intelligence.

What's the matter with all you conservatives? Quite honestly, given how much you claim to know about everything, you don't seem to know ANYTHING about September 11.

And you belittle ME? Please.

bob:

You don't understand that your guy F***ed up and you so desperately want to blame somebody but him.

What are you talking about? -- someone else, obviously. That's NOT what I've been saying AT ALL, as Bag Boy can confirm.

Anna, What in the memo was actionable intelligence? Knowing there is a threat is one thing. Knowing when , what and where, is another. If it was by airplane,which one and where. There are hundreds of planes in the air at any given moment. Would shutting down all air flights be a prudent measure based on the content of the briefing?

Anna Molly-

Please...

What you posted was an analysis of the findings of the 9/11 Commission with regard to the infamous August 9, 2001 CIA memo that dealt with the possibility of a Bin Laden attack on the U.S. mainland...as filtered by something called "The World Socialist Web Site".

The "World Socialist Web Site"? Published by "the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)"?

Really?

Who are they, AM?

Are they supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the 9/11 Commission's findings?

I'll simply echo the question of another blogger...

Where's the actionable intelligence?

What should the Bush Administration have done, based on that memo?

Anna,

An opinion piece from the "World Socialists Web Site" is your source?

Me belittle you?

Not near as much as you did to your self with that post. You should have just let it go.

Rocco -- Your rantings get thinner and thinner with each passing fact. The main point being that George W. Bush did not cut short HIS vacation when he became aware of this memo detailing a SPECIFIC kind of threat, and he gave no instructions to anyone for further follow-up. The part of the article that I cited tells you what parts of the memo were actionable. The September 11 Commission visited this and was not necessarily pleased with the response of the President or the Secretary of State (then National Security Advisor) to that memo. Here is the transcript of her testimony. Read it for yourself. What they knew is that Al Qaeda was trying to learn how to hijack planes, and also that Al Qaeda was still looking at the World Trade Center as a potential target. From there, it's not that far to "actionable intelligence." But here's what Condoleezza Rice had to say about that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html

RICE. Let me address this question because it has been on the table. I think that concern about what I might have known or we might have known was provoked by some statements that I made in a press conference. I was in a press conference to try and describe the Aug. 6 memo, which I've talked about here in the - my opening remarks and which I talked about with you in the private session. And I said at one point that this was a historical memo, that it was not based on new threat information. And I said, No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon - I'm paraphrasing now - into the World Trade Center using planes as missiles. As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, I could have not imagined. Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999; the intelligence community did look at information about this. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us. I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst. Part of the problem is, and I think Sandy Berger made this point that, when he was asked the same question, that you have thousands of pieces of information: car bombs and this method and that method. And you have to depend, to a certain degree, on the intelligence agencies to sort, to tell you what is is actually relevant, what is actually based on sound sources, what is speculative. And I can only assume or believe that perhaps the intelligence agencies thought that the sourcing was speculative. All that I can tell you is that it was not in the Aug. 6 memo - using planes as a weapon. And I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning that planes might be used as a weapon. In fact, there were some reports done in '98 and '99. I think I was - I was certainly not aware of them at the time that I spoke.

Apparently, our National Security Advisor, a Russia expert, had never heard of Middle Eastern suicide bombers, nor did she think it was necessary to study up on the reports that had been done on Al Qaeda in the years immediately before Bush took office, notwithstanding the Cole bombing, which had occurred in October, 2000.

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

I think that's odd -- don't you?

Anna,

An opinion piece from the "World Socialists Web Site" is your source?

Is that the best you've got, bobby? Where's YOUR source? And where are YOUR facts? I haven't heard a single one yet.

Besides, I gave you the transcript of the memo. Right from the horse's mouth, so to speak. And in the post immediately above, I gave you Condoleezza Rice's testimony trying to shift the obvious blame away from herself on to everyone else, with her best excuse being "well, who would have imagined that?"

Isn't that EXACTLY what someone in her position is supposed to do?

Anna Molly-

Is it odder than the fact that, according to the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 pilots were trained in the U.S.; in U.S. aircraft; by U.S. instructors; at U.S. flight schools...

All while Bill Clinton was President of the United States?

What conclusions should we draw from that, AM?

This has to stop.

Bag Boy:

Are they supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the 9/11 Commission's findings?

Speaking of which, as I recall it, Bush refused to implement the findings the Commission DID make. There were, of course, a few more that the Commission did NOT make. The Commission did conclude, however, that although the attack was a "shock," it should not have come as a "surprise," as Condy Rice suggested.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.pdf

Pay particular attention to pp. 2 and 3. The clues were there.

But not to George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, apparently. Or were they?

Is it odder than the fact that, according to the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 pilots were trained in the U.S.; in U.S. aircraft; by U.S. instructors; at U.S. flight schools...

All while Bill Clinton was President of the United States?

What conclusions should we draw from that, AM?

We should draw the conclusion that Bush AT LEAST as much information as Clinton had, AND they knew about the pilots being trained, but ignored it. We should further conclude that, if it's possible to blame Clinton for anything, then it's certainly more possible to blame Bush, Cheney, and the rest for ignoring the same things you seem to think Clinton should have seen.

Weren't they smarter than Bill Clinton, Bag Boy? Surely you're not conceding that.

This has to stop.

Your wish is my command, Bag Boy.

Anna Molly-

My conclusion is actually more similar to the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission:that there is plenty of responsibility to be assessed, across partisan lines, for the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Your conclusions are your own...I don't really believe this should be a partisan issue.

I can't see who benefits...other than partisan ideologues.

Can you?

AM, Asking what the actionable intelligence was is a rant? Wow! OK. My question still stands. What actionable intelligence was contained in that memo? Where in that memo did it state what airplanes would strike when and where?

Rocco:

Where in that memo did it state what airplanes would strike when and where?

My sincere apologies. I wasn't aware that exactly where and when is the official standard for "actionable intelligence." Although, in the CYA category, that obviously was Rice's standard. The September 11 Commission itself said that no one should have been surprised. They knew about planes as bombs and the World Trade Center. They had some idea that it would be soon. The FBI even knew that Zacharias Moussaoui was training in Minnesota and detained him there. Yet they refused to allow anyone to look at his laptop when it was right in front of them.

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

In other words, there was enough to do more than nothing, which is what Rice did do.

But thanks. I'll add you to my list of Bush apologists. The group will be holding a reunion as soon as the mission in Iraq actually IS accomplished and Osama bin Laden is captured. That may take a while yet.

Bag Boy:

I can't see who benefits...other than partisan ideologues.

Can you?

Just remember that you're the one who said this has to stop. But the answer is yes, I can.

Truth benefits, and learning the lessons of history might be beneficial to those who come after us. Not learning them certainly is NOT beneficial.

Later, gentlemen.

Anna Molly-

I'm not the final arbiter...on anything.

Glad you believe you can find the truth...big picture...about culpability for the 9/11 attacks.

I wish I had your certitude.

I've pretty much focused on Bin Laden and his compatriots.

Too "small picture" for you?

Sorry.

rocco - doncha know it's obamas way of cutting the military budget by $1.5 million/missile.

President Obama has acted...he may placate the left-wing of his own party with some ethereal notions of a hand-off of responsibilty for his actions.

But, have no doubt...

Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice know better.

The United States is deeply involved in the military intervention in Libya, and cannot somehow avoid responsibility for President Obama's decision...U.S. domestic political considerations aside.

Can we now state without issues, that this is the Obama War? It isn't a Bush conflict.

But, but, but mixed bag hillary declared on 3/15 that there was no support for a no fly zone.\

The obama supporters can tap dance all they want, it was still obamas orders that launched the missiles and aircraft.

Welcome to the POTUS reality obama.

Swampy - we got us an Obama's war, just like we got us an Obama's tax cut for the rich.

And brother over on Kos, Firedog, and other, how do I say it, oh yea, non-libbie light websites they are absolutely besides themselves.

But Obama's got Bev and Feisty's supposrt, and sure Anna M is a little wobbly, he should be good. Right?

Although I gotta say he sure seems to be trending in the RIGHT direction.

If only he'd do something on energy. Wait, there is the Drill, Brazil, Drill mantra, so that's cool. World supply and all.

Yep Spanky, we can finally say we got an Obama war. Now let's see how he intends to end his war, and how he will spin the nearly $T for rocket systems used so far.

Have the libbie sites mentioned how the taxpayers will be compensated for the fireworks expended? Or is this a gift to the Arab League? Yes, let us expell our young mens lives so you can sell us oil at inflated prices.

I would like to see drilling and refining and pipelines in the Balkin find and the Alaska field. Perhaps then we don;t need to be beholding to the Arabs and Latin American left-wing wackos.

Easy guys, its a UN mandated resolution to protect the citizens of Libya, just because obama went off half cocked without US congressional support doesn't put him in the same category as bush2 who at least took the time to consult with congress.

After all "knee jerk" obama isn't facing the same international scenario as bush2 did.

Trust me, american-

Without Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice...

None of this would be happening.

Believe it.

Without Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice... None of this would be happening.

So when does Barack fire Hillary? How's his schedule look for next Tuesday? Nothing like anything to do with NCAA brackets or something like MoTown night to get in the way or anything I hope.

Shouldn't take long. Let Joey B. fire Rice.

JoAnna-

Like me here at First Read, Hillary isn't going anywhere for the forseeable future.

And...

Susan Rice will rip Biden's face off.

My money's on her.

Fence sitting is painful, Anna Molly...frankly, I avoid it.

Did President Obama do the right thing, or not?

Up, or down?

Either view is OK if it's honestly held, AM.

I hold all my views honestly, Bag Boy. In this case, however, I really cannot make up my mind. You surely can respect that.

But I usually look up. And I think I'm usually against letting innocent civilians die. But I also think wars should be properly authorized, and it looks like this is going to take more than a few days. While we're discussing that, since you favored this action, I want to hear no more talk from you about how we're broke. We're obviously not broke when no one is even talking about a supplemental defense authorization, even though we've already dumped about $200 million down the rathole on that broken plane and all those Tomahawks. Easy come, easy go.

Does fence sitting hurt boys more than girls? I never can figure that out.

And I think I'm usually against letting innocent civilians die.

Just as long as someone else does the dirty work half a world away. I guess we can tell out Harrier jet pilots "Shoot, but be certain not to hit any innocents". Those pilots shouldn't complain, they knew the job was tough when they took it.

But I also think wars should be properly authorized,

Yeah, we need the proper paper work. That's the major sticking point in all this.

Anna Molly, the above exchange is a perfect example of a contrast betweeen the liberal and rightwing world views. Liberals question themselves, those in authority, and can tolerate ambiguity as long as it takes to reach the best answer.

Rightwingers see issues in black and white, good vs evil. Looking any deeper makes them nervous.

I applaud your willingness to think through the issues. Don't let the righties push you around. You are worth ten of them.

"Liberals question themselves, those in authority, and can tolerate ambiguity as long as it takes to reach the best answer."

Yes, of course. Do you also say this in the mirror each morning, with Stuart Smalley:

"I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me."

"Can you say IRAQ????"

That made no sense at all! How in the hell do you compare the two?

AmyB -

Rightwingers see issues in black and white, good vs evil. Looking any deeper makes them nervous.

Sorry AmyB, we look down the road and see many of the turn offs ahead and where they may lead. Do we only see good and evil? Perhaps, but we also realize that that not all sovereign nations have the same constitutional laws to follow as we have. Nor do we make the assumption that all sovereign nations can be treated the same and expect the same results.

We still have multiple rapes, murders, assualts, thefts, etc occuring daily in the USA. Should we assume that you mean to take on each case to understand ones motives on why they occured?

Stop messing with Anna M Mixed. Here, I'll make it real easy for her:

AnnA M - pretend it's 2007, not 2011. Bush is Pres. and storms into Libya.

You still on the fence? Might Walsh, Dean, Maddow, et. al. has a slightly different position?

Come on let's call a spade a spade, and stop pussy footing around the Bush. Say it with me Anna M: War, what it it good for? Absolutely nothing...

Unless it was instituted by Obama. Then I suppose it's : War, what is it good for? "humanitarian principles."

Anna Molly-

No President...not this one, nor the ones before him, nor the ones that follow...should weigh the dollars-and-cents costs of deploying U.S. military forces when the President decides that such deployment is justified based on the national interests of the United States.

President Obama, in his role as Commander-In-Chief, acted as he thought appropriate.

I'm good with it.

Do what you will with that.

Bag Boy:

No President...not this one, nor the ones before him, nor the ones that follow...should weigh the dollars-and-cents costs of deploying U.S. military forces when the President decides that such deployment is justified based on the national interests of the United States.

I didn't say he should have, but then again, I'm not the one running around claiming we're broke.

On the whole, I'm good with it, too, but I wish it were being managed better.

What I want to do is push some buttons. How am I doing so far?

3WolvesandaMoon:

"Can you say IRAQ????"

That made no sense at all! How in the hell do you compare the two?

Read the quote again. It appears that we are getting ourselves into a situation where it will be tough to turn it over to local forces. Very much like Iraq, where we first fired the entire army and then wondered why there was no army. If we can't turn it over to local forces, we can't leave, either. Can we?

Heck, we're still in Iraq. Aren't we?

JoAnna:

Just as long as someone else does the dirty work half a world away. I guess we can tell out Harrier jet pilots "Shoot, but be certain not to hit any innocents". Those pilots shouldn't complain, they knew the job was tough when they took it.

Yeah, we need the proper paper work. That's the major sticking point in all this.

Sigh. Is there a school where you go to learn how to misrepresent what people say in a way that implies, but never actually states, that there's something wrong with it?

I mean, besides Anna Molly's School. ;-)

As for the first part, I was talking about Khaddafi's killing of innocent civilians. As for the second part, res ipsa loquitur.

Would this be a good time to talk about cutting the Defense budget?

Yes it is JAS1, but we got us a was hawk president, so that's going to be tough.

Although he did say we'll be out of Iraq, but...when was that? And he said we'd definitely be out of Afghanistan by,,,wait, didn't that date go by already?

But he for sure said we are handing over control of Libya by this Firday, so at least we got that. Wait, the coalition is refusing to take over? They only like it when it's our $1.5 million tomahawks?

Good golly but I really think Anna Molly has go this one right. Long haul people, looks like it's gonna be a long ride.

Yeah Anna I am in Iraq and??? What do you know besides listening to MSNBC and get what you want to hear. Hey, let me ask you a question before I hit the rack, since Obama took office, what had you heard about Iraq? I'll keep my mouth shut, since this is most likely being monitored.

Remember what you wrote, it "Appears" what does that word mean to you? Boy didn't hear you say "Saddam killed 100,000+ and he was stopped". But I think in your logic, it wasn't Obama that wasn't able to call the shots so it was the wrong war. Was it the wrong war? I don't know, this is my third time here, but I'm thinking you APPEAR to more on this subject than I do.

Doggone it, Anna Molly-

If you're good with it...

And...

I'm good with it...

What are we tangling over?

Don't make this so difficult...

Oh my.

3 wolves. End. Game.

Thank you, sir.

Spanky: Yes it is JAS1, but we got us a was hawk president, so that's going to be tough.

You'd think General Obama would want to preserve the military. If he didn't, just what was that huge hissy fit he had over DADT all about?

Spanky: Although he did say we'll be out of Iraq, but...when was that? And he said we'd definitely be out of Afghanistan by,,,wait, didn't that date go by already?

We are out of Iraq, and Afganistan. Those people there, they're "advisors". There's just a lot of them.

Spanky: But he for sure said we are handing over control of Libya by this Firday, so at least we got that. Wait, the coalition is refusing to take over? They only like it when it's our $1.5 million tomahawks?

Who is this handoff going to? A consortium of Icelandic committees headed on a rotating schedule by Middle-Eastern Indigenous Groups?

Good golly but I really think Anna Molly has go this one right. Long haul people, looks like it's gonna be a long ride.

This country needs a distraction. Would this be a good time to talk about raising the Debt Ceiling?

Anna - Gee, if our creditors wanted to call in our outstanding debt and our politicians refuse to raise our national debt limit and the rating services rate the US as not worthy of loaning $$$ to. Would you then say we were broke???.

Why do I think we have reached the end of Anna M's ability, or should I say, will to respond.

Come on Anna M. you have been a brave little soldier in the liberal army of redistribution, and you have many here counting on you.

Now man up and respond to 3Wolves - I think he deserves your attention on this particular issue, don't you?

And Mixed Bag - this is why FR rocks!

3WolvesandaMoon:

Boy didn't hear you say "Saddam killed 100,000+ and he was stopped".

We didn't "stop" Saddam from killing anyone. The killing of Kurds had mostly been done long before we got there -- in the 1980s, in fact. These are the crimes for which Saddam Hussein was later tried and executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

And then, after we did get there, we facilitated the deaths of more than 4,000 American soldiers and probably 100,000 more Iraqis.

All in all, I'd say the price was too high for stopping what had been done years before.

And besides, that's not the original reason we were given for why we went to Iraq. It's only the reason that people like you were given to justify it once the original reason proved to be FALSE.

As for what I've heard about Iraq since Obama took office, I know that we claim combat operations are over, but people have still died there and the violence continues, almost every day. Infrastructure is still largely inoperable, and conditions in general are probably still worse than they were when we got there.

But thank you for your service. I don't envy you that job. I do, however, respect those who are brave enough to do it. I only wish we had better politicians who wouldn't put people like you in harm's way without legitimate justification.

Anna - Gee, if our creditors wanted to call in our outstanding debt and our politicians refuse to raise our national debt limit and the rating services rate the US as not worthy of loaning $$$ to. Would you then say we were broke???.

You'd better not say that, American. We have another war to fight.

What was the title of that old movie, "What if They Gave a War and Nobody Came"? What if they gave a war and there was LITERALLY no money to pay for it? You think Halliburton works on credit?

Bag Boy:

What are we tangling over?

Don't make this so difficult...

LoL I'M making it difficult? Hello?!

I`m with you Anna Molly You keep going you are saying something unlike others who just come on to be combative. I do not know all the real reasons Obama decided bomb Libya and I guess most of us will never know. I will be on his side for the sake of our military men and women risking their lives. Hopefully we will be able to end all the wars soon and everyone will be back with their families.

Why anna, didn't realize you were such a war monger! Hoping that war will get our economy rolling again as in the early 40's? Sorry sweety, our military stackpiles are way different in quality and quantity than they were in the 30's.

So what does haliburton have to do with libya? Obama got an idea for their services?

Mixed Bag -

Can I jump in here? I think if people in general were being truly honest with themselves about this situation instead of diving headfirst into the standard FR political whack & bash, they'd be forced to concede that we don't - ANY of us - really have the first clue yet how any of this is eventually going to turn out. Have we ever been able to properly judge the ultimate success or failure of any military action just one week into it? Okay, sure.....the South thought they had them damn Yankees licked about that far into the Civil War, but I think history proved them wrong four heartbreaking years later.

I'm usually pretty conflicted about war in general. I can't speak for Anna Molly (even if I am one of her loyal minions!) but I'd seriously mistrust anyone who claims to know what this is going to look like tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. Or what it coulda/shoulda/woulda looked like last week, last month, or if the 2008 election had gone the other way.

If that's considered hypocrisy here at First Read - or anywhere else - then I plead no contest.

I say we mandate an Anna M decision drop dead date.

Say Friday? That's the command turn-over day and all.

Ain't going to be any real fun until she picks.

JoAnne In PA-

This President, any President...has to make decisions on deploying the U.S. military based on his best judgment and the advice of the people he trusts. That presupposes that he believes that the end result will be in the national interest...otherwise, why bother?

U.S. Presidents have and always will make mistakes...I'm not nearly ready to assume that this one has...not in this instance, anyway.

48% "cautious and consultative", cautious means he doesn't know what to do and can't decide. 36% means he's scared to make or call the shots.

Those numbers is not Obama bashing, it's shows he can't lead and over half of the country sees that.

As a former military member, I would follow "strong and decisive", I would not follow "cautious and consultative", and "indecisive and dithering" will get people killed.

It's only "kinetic military action" What a crock if bleep

Geez billy, did you have the attitude when Bush did the same? What's United States or Nation?

Geez condescending horses*** I'm a lib I don't mind at all that we went into Libya. I just don't like when you lie to me. This is a war he should have been forth coming and went to congress and called it a war like it is. We are now in a third war in the Middle East our President campaigned by saying we shouldn't be in any wars in Middle East. A little hypocritical. I didn't vote for Bush but I supported him when we to Iraq so did congress almost 100% even Pelosi

Well time4truth, you're in the minority for admitting that you supported Bush. You're a brave soul for that statement. Now answer this, does Congress support Obama's actions? A lot of Dems don't.

Hey Wolves sorry about the horse*** I'm having a challenging day. Now to answer you, I think most of congress supports his actions it's the way he went about it.You know congress needs to justify their jobs. Some dems are suggesting impeachment I think that may be a little extrem.

About me admitting to supporting Bush most people did when we first invaded Iraq people haave short memories. We were a united country then it's much more en vogue to bash Bush now

Pablo - what happened to Germany? Why did they bail?

Maybe you should ask THEM instead of Pablo. Or even better- YOU tell US? I'm betting on you to tell us. I know that you can.

Why thank you for asking DBO. They bailed because they see 1. this is a riduculous monkey show; and 2. that it cannot end well.

You know the whole - Can't let the mission be defined by the coalition, but rather the mission must define the coalition. Obama's got this on ass-backwards.

This is France's baby, they took the lead, and we all know how good France is at War. Especially the Germans.

Historical perspective my man.

Going to war with the French by your side is like taking an accordion on a hunting trip.

Why? Because I'm wearing my 3 Wolves and a Moon shirt and by wearing this shirt, I'm always right. You don't know???

OK, I'll play your game time, what are you referring too?

Hurry up man, it's 11:25pm here and the Wolves are howling..........