1948

WWII was over. Most of our military were home, settled down with new jobs, they had young families, and most important - they were buying their own homes. They had started a new life. Yet, their work was not done in Europe after all. They received a telephone call or a telegram – “We Need You To Go Back to Berlin.”

And so they went.

May 15, 1998

The old woman stood clutching two pink roses in her hand along with a piece of plain white paper on which she had written four words: "Danke, USA! Thank you."

Traudel Jannietz is 75, her hair white, her step not as sure as it was 50 years ago when she lived in West Berlin and waited every day for the planes of the Berlin airlift to deliver the food and coal that kept her, her family and her city alive.

"I had two small sisters," she said, standing patiently in the bleachers at the edge of the tarmac at Tempelhof Airport on Thursday. "I had to bring them food."

"Thank you," she said, reaching up and stroking the face of the American reporter interviewing her. “Thank you.”

Walter Lippmann, the most prominent columnist on foreign affairs at the time, believed the Allies should negotiate the German peace treaty because “…to supply the Allies sectors of Berlin by air is obviously only a spectacular and temporary answer to the ground blockade. . . The operation can only be carried on for a while in the summer months. But in the long run, especially in the fog and the rain of a Berlin winter, the cost in lives of the pilots and crews of planes which would have to be replaced, and of the money, would be exorbitant.”

2011

President Obama: The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference.

... for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

1st Read, "the Place for Politics" could find time to LiveBlog CPAC,& the recent Crazy Train arrival in Iowa, but could'nt or would'nt delegate the Time for The President Of the United States of America addressing the Nation.

Well Done 1st Read! Absolutely Pathetic!

Isn't it about time for EVERYONE to quit pretending Fox is anything other than the propaganda arm of the Conservative Movement?

"Joe"

Would it have mattered to you if he said anything different last night? I think not.

Bev:

Nice post this morning. Our President is doing his job. The situation in Libya is evolving on a day to day basis. I do not fault him for not responding to some of the rhetoric. The right wants to try and pigeon hole him into a hard position one way or the other. Other Presidents have done that and look what typically happens. He has to leave some options open as I said, this is evolving day to day.

What he has to do now, is keep the American people informed as to what and why he is doing what he is doing within reason. I do not want this to be a long drawn out affair like the the other two wars. Do I suspect that the US will play a role in Libya for the next few years? Unfortunately yes.

I heard this AM that if you break it you bought it. Sounds reasonable. We are now involved and I hope that we get the job done ASAP and go home. We cannot make these people in our image. We can support them and point them in one direction or the other, but the people in Libya will have to stand on their own at some point and the sooner the better.

Joe in Albany....

MWUAH!!!!!!MWUAH!!!!!!MWUAH!!!!!!MWUAH!!!!!!

Obama doctrine? lol... only the talking heads and their minions will be talking about Obama doctrine.

Did he ultimately do the right thing? If yes, lets move on.... if not, we can wallow in your sorrows.

BTW, great post Navy.

I switched to Fox yesterday... just to see Hannity explode....and all he seems to talk about was exit strategy... should I characterize this as "Cutting and Running".... and that "we should let our enemies know our plan" or "defeatism"

Well said, US Navy. I saw old Pat B this morning. His comment that "we" had taken back half the country in a week was justification that "we" should just go ahead and in one more week be done with Gadhafi was so ridiculous on so many levels. First, "we" only provided air strikes, it was the Libyan rebels whose boots are on the ground and who took back half the country. Second, the UN Resolution does not address "regime" change or taking out Gadhafi; the coalition's goal is to protect the rebels. Third, Pat is just full of hot air and annoyed that President Obama in 31 days accomplished with the UN what has taken months and as long as a year for previous presidents to accomplish--Pat can't stand that idea.

Pat, Boston, as always an excellent post reminding us of history to add some perspective to the present.

Pat:

Excellent post! You make history and people come alive. Our President has Christian values that we cannot just stand and watch atrocities taking place in Libya. We can all be proud of our President.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. So predictable to hear the criticisms. Some day maybe the right-wing will surprise us all and say something we didn't expect.

Like "thank you, Mr. President, for standing on REAL American values."

Sigh. I'm not holding my breath, and neither am I forgoing chocolate, in anticipation of that event.

Meanwhile, for me, the question of the hour is:

As between Mike Huckabee and Roy Moore, how will God decide which republican candidate He will support --

And where does that leave St. Sarah of Wasilla?

Oh, and Maine -- remember Maine? Between taking down a labor mural from the Department of Labor -- thus incurring costs that the governor insists Maine cannot afford -- and making that big whoopie pie ....

Doesn't that seem to sum up the entire national republican agenda?

I mean, really. Oh, I'm sorry.

I left out abortion.

Carry on.

Scott Walker: Closed to people. Open to business. Can't understand the word "publish." Where are the 250,000 jobs you promised us, Governor Scotty?

"Would it have mattered to you if he said anything different last night?"

_____________________________________

Saying what he thought the end game would look like would have been a nice start. That way the American people could judge success or failure for themselves. Which is likely the very reason he didn't do it.

Feisty and Bev:

It should be a very interesting day on FT to say the least. I also am waiting to see. P. Buchanan was rabid this morning on MSNBC. If he had his way we would have nuked them. Thank God he and those that think like him are not our President. PB wants to go back the Nixon and Regan era. Somebody needs to tell him this is the 21st century he had his chance and blew it. Move on.

Beverly, well said and so true.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama clearly said there would be times when military action would be necessary but that unless there was a direct threat or attack on the U.S., he would seek a coalition with other countries to address whatever that crisis might be. For those looking for an "Obama Doctrine", study that speech.

Joe, did President Bush provide an "end game" for Iraq or Afghanistan? As I recall, his end game was "stay the course."

Thanks everybody. It would have been horrible if we had done nothing. Horrible. President Obama is the one who has to make these decisions after careful deliberation, after conference call after conference call after conference call, not the idiots on tv.

Why do I get the impression that most of them are just a bunch of rich socialites in their own little world. Yet they believe they have all the answers. I hear some "pundits" talk about this and I wonder - why am I listening to him/her?

Why is their opinion more important than the leaders of the world who are involved in this?

The fact of the matter is their opinions don't matter. And haven't for a long long long time.

Great thoughts Tunde. Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.

Why is their opinion more important than the leaders of the world who are involved in this?

Way too easy, Pat. Because they have more money. First Amendment, money is speech, the big megaphone, and all that. They can buy legislators, so they believe that also entitles them to buy policy.

Trouble is, too often nowadays it does just that.

All anyone needs to know about President Obama addressing the Nation lastnight is to go back to 2004 Democratic Convention.

We are not Red States, we are not Blue states:

We are The United States of America!

So if you understand That concept, you'll understand his way of thinking on Lybia.

John B-

"Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative."

Now that's funny, you military interventionist, you...

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Feisty and Bev:

P. Buchanan was rabid this morning on MSNBC. If he had his way we would have nuked them.

I'm not surprised Navy.

Uncle Pat is one crazy ole cuck. Thank you for the kind words. I have to call it as I see it. And it's hilarious to see the war mongers pigeon hole the President because there is no money for war. What a Surprise.

@Feisty

I'm going to sit back and leave the foreign policy experts around here to do the Tuesday morning 'quarter backing' on last night's speech.

Bottom line is NO matter what the President articulated it will NEVER satisfy the Obama haters!

Again we are on the same page. I agree Pt. Barum would be happy with the rabid right wingers.

I can just see the cages now rare and endangered species.

What an excellent foreign policy victory.

Forged peace keeping with allies

Prevented massacre of civilians

Handing over control to NATO

Allowing the Libyans to dictate their own faith.

Lashed out at Russia, China and others who'll sit and watch mass murder from a tyrant.

Reminding us we don't overthrow other Governments.

Above all, he went through U.N to get this job done.

This is why you're the peoples President.

Thanks for using my tax money to prevent a massacre. As for the flip floppers, keep it up.

“ORIGINAL POST: Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.”

“The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that:”

Jack Mirkinson

Just for the Lefties information, last night one of your beloved Guru's, Mr. O'Reilly, said that the Presidents speech was very good.

You guys need to listen to your own Guru's.

"Joe, did President Bush provide an "end game" for Iraq or Afghanistan?"

___________________________________________________

So, Jody, you are making the point that if it was good enough for GWB, it's good enough for Barry??

OK

The speech has gotten mixed reviews from both sides:

Bill Kristol lauds it...he's one of those conservatives...

"As I found the rest of the speech. The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya. I think we will."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/you-ve-come-long-way-baby_555622.html

President Obama's home town Chicago Tribune was not impressed;

"Monday night, nine days after airstrikes began, the president finally tried to lay out to the American people the full case for war. He cleared up some of the confusion, but his presentation fell short in many ways."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-libya-20110328,0,5037169.story

This issue is complex, and does not fall cleanly along party lines. The attempts here to frame the debate along the simplistic left-right divide only show that one should read more then they write...

Tunde A;

Thank you and nice to see you this morning. Great post I love your work. Go get em, Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Regardless of what was said or how well it was said, this "humanitarian" effort is nothing more than protecting Europe's oil suppliers.

His foreign policy is much like his health care plan. "We'll make it up as we go along." Can anybody say waiver?

Bag Boy:

Now that's funny, you military interventionist, you...

You mean militarism is a conservative value? I guess Ike was right. Wouldn't you agree, Bag Boy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Anna Molly-

I know that national defense is a conservative value.

Watch the old newsreels of terrrified civilians fleeing bombs in Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, or Nanking and Shanghai.

Watch terrified civilians fleeing from the collapsing towers at the World Trade Center.

Then, ask yourself...honestly...what is the first responsibility of any government is to its citizens?

After watching President Obama's speech last night, I thought, he won't need me to defend him on First Read tomorrow, he's doing a great job and any rational person can see that. Then I come to First Read today, and I learn his speech was "unsatisfactory" to the chattering class. Just goes to show, in my opinion, how irrelevant our media pundits have become. That speech was direct, convincing and SATISFYING. As Richard Engel himself said, it would resonate across the Middle East. I can safely say it resonated with this American voter. The American press, I think, is the President's least important audience.

Joe:

Saying what he thought the end game would look like would have been a nice start. That way the American people could judge success or failure for themselves. Which is likely the very reason he didn't do it.

Tell you what, Joe -- he can get to that right after he announces the end game for Afghanistan, not to mention Iraq.

Whew. Now that Bag Boy has finally outed me, I can say what I REALLY think.

Feels SO good not to be a hypocrite anymore. Conservatives should try it.

Since when did FOX NEWS take over First Read?

Well, there goes the conservative argument that FIRST READ is a tool of the commie liberals.

I can sum up their "opinion" piece in three words : Unnecessary, Unfair and Unsatisfactory.

C'mon you guys, you're supposed to be reporting the news and giving us a balanced analysis. If I want unfair and unbalanced I'll turn to FOX.

Low blow, First Read, low blow.

Bag Boy:

Then, ask yourself...honestly...what the first responsibility of any government is to its citizens.

And when did THAT get to be a "conservative" value? That sure as heck sounds like defense is a liberal proposition, doesn't it?

But "militarism" -- THAT'S a conservative value. Wouldn't you agree?

Ehhh hem! Eeeee Hem! Meee mee mee meee! Hem! Meee mee mee meee! Eh Hem! Mee mee mee mee! MEEE MEEE MEEE MEEEEEE! Eh Hem! MEEEEEE MEEEE MEEEE MEEEEEE!

"Mr. President, they're ready for you."

"Be right there, just limbering up my pipes."

Anna Molly-

President Obama is clearly a military interventionist...I wouldn't call him a militarist.

And, neither should you.

You're painting with too broad a brush.

Sorry, but this "Obama Doctrine" stuff sounds an awful lot like "we will get involved in issues that have popular support". Sorry Darfur and other places where humanitarian aid is REALLY needed - you just don't have the cache to make it worth while. I am having a very hard time on this humanitarian rationale for this Libyan thing - I think that using it as the reason is REALLY the smoke screen, and many of you are getting all wrapped up in it to allow yourselves your partisan leanings. I just don't think that a semi-organized group of dissenters fighting with their leaders over how their country is run, and subsequently taking the risk of getting wiped out because of their military inferiority is the same level of a humanitarian issue as a majority of a country attempting to live in peace, but being starved to death as a means of internal torture from their despot leader. And yet, there appear to be many, including NATO and our President, that are propping up this argument for their purposes. Basically, what I have seen in these posts is a conscious adjustment of facts to provide partisan support. At very least, you have to have concern over the reasons for our involvement, and the methods used to get there, regardless of your affiliation.

Oh - and by the way, PLEASE don't continue to suggest that the ends will justify the means. 1. They don't/won't in this case - the methods and reasons for getting in were insufficient at the time they occured, regarless of how it ends up 2. Use of the humanitarian ends is not appropriate anyways - see above. However, it is the only potential result that could can eventually be used for such an argument. You can't use the "end" of a Ghadafi assasination (by any party), as the President has now gone on record saying that it is not the purpose of this effort. And by the way, how do you make this arguement anyways? How do you count the people that might have been affected by this supposed humanitarian issue if they end up not affected? 3. You might find that the "end" will blow up in your face - 3a - if the rebels win and install a government that is no better than Ghadafi or 3b - if Ghadafi is able to retain control.

Gen X/Y pay no attention to the old partisan hacks; both sides of the aisle (Dems & Repubs) where pro-bomb Libya before they found out the public was against it...

Dems wanted to stop a "massacre"...

Repubs wanted regime change...

Bag Boy:

You're painting with too broad a brush.

Oh, like that's something new.

Conveniently changing the subject, she continued --

Have you seen today's news from Iraq? Check below.

I see that poor Feisty got collapsed again...the first one, so far, in the thread.

It's gotta be you lefties...there simply aren't that many conservatives here.

Gen X/Y its important that you get both sides of the story (from numerous indiviuals) and then draw your own conclusion (don't just regurgitate others thoughts and concepts)...

To read posts/comments with a mostly Repub perspective check out the yahoo articles - comment section

To read posts/comments with a mostly Dem perspective check out the msnbc articles - comment section

NJNB hurry back Im not sure I can fend off all 14 of them for long! Maybe if I keep them dancing (you know how those liberals love to dance) We can make it until you get home.

Let do the Tuesday morning version of the Liberal Cha Cha!

Koch Koch Kock cha cha cha Rove Rove Rove cha cha cha bushy bush bush ummmmpoppa mau mau! Do the hokie pokie and shake it all about( be careful though dont want to harm any innocent children)...Cha cha cha! Aiiiiiiie carrumba !!! BMI fiesty .......BMI!!!!

"Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed". (From the official White House transcript)

Can't find any reference to this in any news stories. The President has been spot on with his actions in Libya, but when he makes up lies to justify it, he's worse than past leaders who did the wrong things for the right reasons. To put it bluntly..at least Bush thought there were WMD in Iraq. A quick Google search would have shown Obama that no journalists have been sexually assaulted or killed in Libya in the past month. If you are going to claim the high moral ground, you have to do better than this.

True American-2367375

Actually, I was glad the President answered his critics, who said it's too little, too late AND it's too much, too fast by drawing a comparison to President Cinton's strike in Bosnia (a year to get the UN on board), and George Bush (boots on the ground for a DECADE.) What is key, to me, is that President Obama needed to make those comparison, not for narcissistic reasons, but to make his stategy clear to America. I think we all know a big part of the criticism he has gotten is because people are afraid we will end up with another Iraq. Bush's Iraqi disaster's ghost hangs over this country, like Vietnam hung over his generation. President Obama was perceptive to address it.

Contrari-Tom

Good thoughts. I welcome the thoughtful un-biased post whatever your political affiliations may be. I'll encourage you to keep them coming.

Isn't it about time for EVERYONE to quit pretending Fox is anything other than the propaganda arm of the Conservative Movement?

Past due! Most sane people don't even take the time to watch those truth benders! I would rather have my hair lit on fire and put out with a sledge hammer than watch that crap!

Nice post John B.

How many of you really smart elite liberals has actually lived in the Middle East? Im not talking about a vacation to the pyramids or perhaps a kibbutz in Israel. I mean actually live day to day with Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds maybe even a few Chaldean's . I would love to see any of you fine liberal women walk down the street of Riyadh with your tie dyed tee shirt on and have the very friendly Mutaween want to take you down town and discuss why your dressed like an infidel whore because your arms are showing. You sit here and make assumptions like you have experience in these areas. Ive lived in Iran (obviously during the Shah's reign) and Saudi/ Kuwait as well as a short 8 months in Bahrain. MB is correct in his assumption these armed rebels are getting training from somewhere and from what I can tell by observation its def one of the subversive military groups in the area. So my liberal posters this is not over yet.

Dec. 2007 B.O. on the campaign trail said:

"The president does not have the 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."

Well, I guess he should know being a "Constitutional Law Professor."

Given my lack of intellectual discourse on foreign affairs, I didn't adequately understand B.O.'s speech last night, so maybe some could "clarify" what I didn't comprehend:

1.) Are we supporting taking Khaddafy permanently out of office or not?

2.) Do we know yet who the "rebels" are, who is their leader and is there any possibility that they are being trained & led by either Al Queda or the Muslim Brotherhood?

3.) What is our 'end game" there in Libya that we must accomplish before we can pull out entirely?

Mixed Bag

RVZ555-

Those were the days, eh?

I've been thinking of Keith lately, what with the passing of Geraldine Ferraro.

Ferraro's might have been his finest "Special Comment" ever, eh First Readers?

I find you abundantly hypocritical and disrespectful; Bag boy.

You accused me of being disrespectful Saturday. Why do you keep bringing this up?

If you must have an answer...

She railed against President Obama and ginned up race/class/gender resentments in the Democratic Party.

Worst, she became a part of Rupert Murdoch’s pocket change as a FOX-ite.

I hate answering you because I do want her spirit to rest in peace. But, you just won't let her go.

If you think taking jabs at both independants & conservatives was being "the only adult in the room", that says volumes of what the far left stands for. Sorry, but everything in that speech other than the jabs sounded like he was talking about the Iraq war.

Also, the jabs about people only watching Fox News to people reading MSNBC aren't very intelligent. The people reading MSNBC but not nodding yes like a bobble head are the self educated readers who prefer not to be spoon fed party lined news from only 1 side. If you guys don't stop the hate speech and pushing away everyone but the 15% who declare themselves far left liberals, you're going to have noone to blame but yourself when you end up with Palin for president.

I'll buy off on this as a humanitarian mission when I see a US carrier fleet sent to a non-oil producing country to prevent a massacre.

Thanks lefty liberals for collapsing my post #1.1 above. It reminds me of the great Jack Nicholson scene in A Few Good Men: "The truth!! You can't handle the truth."

Joe in Albany

"Would it have mattered to you if he said anything different last night?"

_____________________________________

Saying what he thought the end game would look like would have been a nice start. That way the American people could judge success or failure for themselves. Which is likely the very reason he didn't do it.

Well slap my knee...you are really funny Joe. Success OR failure??? We all know that those who do not like this President will never allow him any successes.

But seriously...you should know by now that this President doesn't operate by "presidential playbooks" from the 90's or any other time period.

you should know by now that this President doesn't operate by "presidential playbooks" from the 90's or any other time period.

___________________________________________________

Yes, he is very accomplished at hiding what he really believes from the American people. Sometimes I think he doesn't even know what he really believes.

Joe in Albany, just another Marxist. And poor Joe doesn't even know it.

Sad really.

Joe in Albany....

Sorry Joe, but you haven't made a darn point today.... I didn't collapse your post... but does it make a difference?

The comparison between Libya and Iraq is stupid at best.... and asking for Obama doctrine? that's something you are parroting - as the media folks have asked you to.

Think Joe.... think~! (I know this is just my opinion - I just had to voice it out).

Nice to see that the Lib's still follow their "One Worlder" Obama and Hillary to the Death of America. As usual, most collapsed comments disagree with the left, but we expected that. The Nation and The Left demanded Congressional approval, and the UN approval, prior to Bush doing what should have been done by Clinton after Saddam Gassed entire villages of Kurds, Men,Women,Elderly,Disabled?sick,Toddelers,Infants prior to acting. He got the "required" approvals, but the Left still whine and cry about it.

Now comes Obama, following his One World Gummit, by just going as he and Hillary wished and placing more American money we don't have, and Troops that are cursed upon tour and return, and the Leftist Communists thing that's just Ducky. You can't have it both ways, Lefties.

Clinton sold us out to Asia with NAFTA, the single most America damaging Treaty in History, then Killed off his own with Vince Foster, and getting the Arkansas Troopers tresifying against him fired. Obama goes to war at a whim, no approval, just the UN. Last time I checked, the Constitution declares that No Citizen may fight or serve under another Nation or orher form of any Government without Loosing their full and permanent citizenship.

Obama went immediatly out of the Country after signing the Orders to the Military. Bush stayed until he Visited the Troops the first time, in Bagdad. Obama went to So.America to enter into MORE agreements with Latin Countries to pay back their Contributions to the DNC and his Campaign, as Clinton/Gore used Charlie Tri and the Mosque in California. Both were and are in Violation of American Law.

When Bush acted WITH PERMISSION of both Congress and the UN, after Hans Blix falsly Testified to the Security Council, as it's Executive Officer, stating "there were and are WMD in Iraq and under Hussein's direct controll". However, most Democrats, and Hillary, swear they ALL voted against it, after they voted for it(John Kerry, the lying Veteran). The Left called for Bush's Impeachment, but Praise Obama, with much lsee cause or authority, as a "Great" Leader.

Bush asked for and received funding to build a Border wall to restrict and deal with the Illegal attack by Border crossing ILLEGAL Immigrants and Terrorists, Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the United States Constitution.

Pelosi, Reid, the Democrat Majority including Hillary, voted the Funding down and stopped the President from acting LEGALLY to prevent any attack on America by any Foreign Power(s). BIG VIOLATION BY THE DEM'S. (Art. 1 Sect. 8 of the U.S.Constitution, Amended.

Obama refuses to stop the Illegals and sues the Border States thaat are following the Conastitution. GROSS VIOLATION of Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution HE swore to upon his inauguration. "... I Swear to Protect and defend the United States from all enemies, both Foreign and Domestic..." a blatant lie on Obamas and the Democrats, that swore to the same thing!!!!

Obama is a Liar, and he, Hillary, and the Left and DNC only consult our Constitution when they get low on Toilet Paper, no other time, unless they want to TRY to use it against the Right.

As far a Fox goes, we on the Right are only allowed so many outlets of the truth and with the Leftist Broadcast Channels in ABC,CBS,and NBC/Katie Couric and Brian Williams, and Diane Sawyer, NPR, CNN, CNN/HL, etc. are way outnumbered. Why does the Left hate and discredit ANY Right-wing News? Because, as any Fighting Soldier knows the first thing you want to capture in your campaign is the Radio/TV/and Newspapers, allowing no other. Leftiist/Communist/Marxist Agenda at it's finest.

The Left will still bow and swoop over this loser, ObamaGod, and still curse Bush for getting permissions/funding first. However, now America knows especially the non-leadership of this non-President, and the DNC, and the proof will be shown in 2012. But of course, if the Left looses in 2012, they'll bribe somemore Federal Judges to overturn the LEGAL election. Bush was Elected by the Electoral College, Legally, over the Popular vote in FLA(maybe), all fair and per the US Constitution. Obama can't even prove his Citizenship, refuses, in violation of the Constitution once again. How ILLEGAL can one Democrat be?????

I'll be Censored by Collapse/Delete by the Left, because they NEVER allow any truth to exist, only their slanted and skewed anti-Amrican Republic views. I see some warnings about COH on Name calling. How then is it the Left can whine, cry, lie, NAME CALL, and Lable anyone on the RIGHT(for a reason), for expressing their view's, called Free Speech.

Actually Ray, I'd say you're the Marxist.

I'll be Censored by Collapse/Delete by the Left, because they NEVER allow any truth to exist, only their slanted and skewed anti-Amrican Republic views. I see some warnings about COH on Name calling.

Nice rant, Ray. This was masterful. I really do NOT want you to EVER be censored, Ray, because it is just som much fun to see you do the things that you abhor.

How then is it the Left can whine, cry, lie, NAME CALL, and Lable anyone on the RIGHT(for a reason), for expressing their view's, called Free Speech.

Do you mean like THESE names you used in YOUR rant?

Nice to see that the Lib's still follow their "One Worlder" Obama and Hillary to the Death of America.

Or this one...?

Obama is a Liar, and he, Hillary, and the Left and DNC only consult our Constitution when they get low on Toilet Paper, no other time, unless they want to TRY to use it against the Right.

Or this characterization...?

The Left will still bow and swoop over this loser, ObamaGod, and still curse Bush for getting permissions/funding first.

No, Ray, I WANT you to continue posting so we can see what you REALLY are. Imagine that - someone that decries name calling but does it more than once in his post.

It is kinda hard to take any post seriously when we see characterizations like this. It is really NOT hard to say 'President Obama' or 'Secretary of State Clinton'. Even though I do not agree with what President Bush did in his terms as President, I refer to him as 'President Bush'. Even though I detest Speaker Boehner, I refer to him as 'Speaker Boehner' and I make sure I spell his name correctly.

I gotta admit it was amusing to see your post, Ray.

Carry on.

What I found interesting was three different words he used:

I, I , and I. He sure loves himself, thats for sure. You must remember, he is higher than the rest of us and this is all about him. And while we're at it, might as well throw in 100+ umms & uhhs. Hillary is just as bad. Our beloved leaders who went to exceptional colleges cannot speak without stating umm and uhhh 100 times or more. Watch a press conference and see what I mean.

I suppose you would be much happier, if he referred to himself in the third person. Or not use I , that way you could blame him for not taking responsibility.

There are people who think while they are speaking, hence the umm, uhhh. Some use fillers, some just don't think and therefore spews crap.

We totally need a Republican candidate who talks about himself in the 3rd person. Epically awesome.

As for Al Qaeda training the rebels? They don't seem to have been trained by anyone. If they were Al Qaeda lackeys, I would think their battlefield tactics would be better. That being said, the Libyan Opposition deserves our respect for standing up to this madman. And Obama deserves our respect for showing both restraint and decisiveness in these tumultuous times.

Jody, Iowa

Today, the criticism began before the first light of day. Today, the media and other analysts are busy trying to establish an "Obama Doctrine" based on Libya alone.


I thought the insatiable right wing started with the noise before the President opened his mouth. LOL. AT Least that's what I heard when Fox News was doing its Radio Rwanda fear mongering shtick yesterday.

Your comments about Libya are succinct and exactly to the point.

"It's time for Gaddafi to go."

I know that last night, President Obama framed the Libyan military intervention as primarily humanitarian in nature, an operation intended to protect innocent civilians, but keep your eyes on the ball, First Readers.

Last night, fighting was reported outside Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte. The town is evidently a bastion of pro-Gaddafi supporters determined to fight the rebels opposing Gaddafi's regime...will President Obama's coalition step in to prevent the rebels from slaughtering innocent civilians in pro-Gaddafi Sirte?

Also last night, NBC correspondent Richard Engle reported that the Pentagon announced that it was employing AC-130 Spectres and AC-10 Warthogs in the Libyan action. Both are close-combat aircraft intended to be used in coordination with personnel on the ground. A Pentagon spokesman asserted that "we're not coordinating with the opposition". Who are the AC-130s and AC-10s coordinating with?

The last and most important question I would ask is one the President completely ignored in last night's address:

Who are the Libyan rebels that President Obama and his coalition are allied with?

Who does President Obama, his cabinet and advisors, and his intelligence sources think they are?

Excellent post, Jody. I voted for President Obama because I trusted him to use his best, informed judgment in these difficult situations where there is no simple answer. He has not let me down. The media, pundits and other politicians still don't seem to get it when he said he would do things differently.

Oh---to our FR friends---I did not find the speech "unsatisfactory"---I wasn't expecting the President to please me or anyone else---I expect him to do his job as he sees fit.

Jody:

Great points. I think one of the reasons President Obama is playing this pretty close to the vest is to avoid being pigeon holed into one position or another this early in the game. As it evolves I am confident we will see more or what his ultimate plan may be.

After all, he is the CIC and has access to information that none on this board have so to try and second guess him is an exercise in futility at best.

Who are the Libyan rebels that President Obama and his coalition are allied with?

Who does President Obama, his cabinet and advisors, and his intelligence sources think they are?

Would you not agree, Bag Boy, that this is one little detail that maybe ought to be withheld, at least for the timebeing? Sort of like not broadcasting over the airwaves the locations of our troops during combat?

But I always love it when the Warthogs come into play. Whoa. War is a real rush, isn't it?

Jody: Excellent post!

Solid, accurate, factual. You should be teaching a journalism class. Your posts are that good.

Thanks Beverly, Steeler Fan, Navy, Ron. This President is so far ahead of everyone else and has been from the beginning, you'd think they would have figured that out by now.

The President said Gadhafi should step down, urged him to do; it was a warning to Gadhafi. Nothing in that statement is wrong nor did making that statement mean it would happen. The right will beat that comment to death in their quest to find something wrong or inconsistent in President Obama's actions of the past few weeks. Gadhafi was warned, he did not heed that warning and as other previous presidents have done, President Obama sought a solution with the UN thus keeping the U.S. from being again seen as a imperial power and perpetrator of war in another middle eastern country. But that's something that is beyond comprehension for too many on the right.

Ron:

Jody: Excellent post!

Solid, accurate, factual. You should be teaching a journalism class. Your posts are that good.

Correction, Ron: Jody should be teaching journalism in a time and place where they have journalistic standards. She's too good for our times.

Cute response, AM. You must know that Mixed Bag was not asking for names and addresses.

It would be nice, however, to know just exactly what is motivating the rebels, who armed and supplied them, how those arms and supplies got through, how they are being replenished.

For all we know, we are helping the Iranians topple Qaddafi.

And, yes, I do think Obama is that clueless. He is about everything else.

Anna Molly-

It's inappropriate to give the American people a broad description of the people our military is fighting with against Gaddafi?

Why is that, exactly?

I'm not asking for names and addresses, Anna Molly...just a general description of who we've thrown in with.

Bag Boy:

Why is that, exactly?

I dunno. I made that up, just to see if I could get your goat.

How'd I do? ;-)

Cute response, AM.

Why, thank you, no joe ... I do believe that's the kindest thing you've ever said to me.

Anna Molly-

You're clearly winging it...

You're not really a military interventionist at all, are you?

Hmmm...

Now I'm beginning to suspect some of the others, as well...

Aw, shucks ... you caught me, Bag Boy ... ;-)

Jody my favorite part of the President's speech was when he said "we've gone down that road before" in regards to criticism from the Right that we should just take out Qaddafy. President Obama reminded us that taking out Saddam and putting Iraq back together took eight years, countless lives and a trillion American dollars. We are not going to do that in Libya. I heard the President loud and clear, and that part of the speech resonated with me.

President Obama reminded us that taking out Saddam and putting Iraq back together took eight years, countless lives and a trillion American dollars.

We put Iraq back together? When did we finish that? Because we still have 50,000 troops there and violence is still an everyday occurrence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html

Gunmen dressed in police uniforms and suicide vests stormed the provincial council office in the northern city of Tikrit on Tuesday and seized hostages in a brazen attack that left at least 12 people dead, officials there said.

The assault in Tikrit, the hometown of the toppled former President Saddam Hussein, was so serious that United States military forces stationed nearby responded — an unusual intervention for the Americans in Iraq these days — and some soldiers sustained minor injuries.

This happened TODAY, folks.

RVZ555-

Those were the days, eh?

I've been thinking of Keith lately, what with the passing of Geraldine Ferraro.

Ferraro's might have been his finest "Special Comment" ever, eh First Readers?

Taped the speech and watched it after he made it to ensure I would miss the pundits scrutinizing each word.

On a genuine and human side I think he expressed why and how he intervened, he framed that explanation well. I also find it encouraging that Obama stressed that or involvement would only be to enforce the no fly zone. I didn't hear any "by any means necessary" ultimatium chest thumping language. What I did hear is that the goal is to save lives, a humanitarian one. There is strong evidence that the initial no fly zone accomplished that.

Truth be told however, a purely humanitarian mission doesn't square with what is happening in the field as of right now. Not talking about the first two or three days when the loyalists were marching to Benghazi, it is hard to see the fighting right now as strictly a humanitarian mission. I'm afraid that with these actions the coalition is taking more responsibility for the rebels then they should. I don't think the coalition will be able to stomach seeing the rebels crushed.

In fairness, no one can know the end game but by leaving it open ended with no clear exit strategy it could drag on. It would have been easy for Obama to say Khaddafi must be removed and we will help militarily by any means necessary. Clear objectives even if I would disagree with them. Thankfully that is not what he said.

However by saying we will help those who yearn for freedom and yet not state the limit of our help disturbs me. Perhaps the uncertainty could allow for mission creep and a longer engagement. Obama stated that this is not immediate regime change, so by definition there is no end date or limit to how long the coalition needs to be the Libyan people's bodyguards?

Good post, Mark-

Were you at all surprised that the President had virtually nothing to say about the rebels we're now allied with and supporting with close-combat air-to-ground missions?

Anything about that strike you as odd?

Amy:

You shouldn't put too much stock in what a POLITICIAN (Obama) says. They ALL talk a good game and believe me; we will not be ejected from this mission anytime soon.

Clinton said the November 1996 rotation to Bosnia would be the last for America. We STILL have troops in Bosnia today.

Obama is finally seeing that it is easy to talk she-i-t and criticize a POTUS while on the campaign trail, but now his azz is in the seat and reality is hitting him in the face. I guess now he is facing the fact that the Middle East is a frikken cesspool and that the U.S. is not loved by everyone, no matter who is the POTUS.

Looks like the 'lefty liberal cheerleading squad' is at it again. Really, as a right of center independent, I would have so much more respect for your comments if you attempted to be 'somewhat objective'. In reading your post everyday to assess your positions; I find it sad that all you can do is (1) support 'anything' the President does without question; and (2) bash 'anyone' who has a different opinion than your, and (3) your absurd focus on 'Fox News' without commenting on 'all the liberal media outlets that you constantly reference'. As a supported of President Bush, I found many things I disagreed with him, and agreed with some of the opinions of the Dem Party. So when you guys continue everyday with your 'cheerleading' for Obama, at least use some objective observations in your comments. And one final note to Bev; I take it very personally that you continue to push this 'anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist and hater of him just because he's 'black'. What a bunch of nonsense! Yes, there are racists in the Republican party JUST LIKE there are there are some RACISTS IN THE DEMOCRATIC-LIBERAL PARTY as well! The reason I didn't vote for Obama is NOT BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR, but because I don't support most of his political philosophy and policies! So now let's talk about Libya. I understand the President's decision to go into Libya for 'humanitarian reasons'. However, I also have serious reservations about the decision based on: (1) who are the rebels and 'why' are we supporting them when we don't know who they are. it's now reported the a large number fo Al Quada members have 'infilltrated' the rebel forces. Not surprised as many AQ members who fought us in Iraq come from 'Eastern Libya. Next, 'why' would we delegate the command of our military to the UN? I also find it interesting that the UN now says they are 'not ready' to assume control of the operation like the President said would happen 'in a few days'. One final word about Fox News. Yes, I watch Fox, but I also watch CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ect to get a 'variety' of viewpoints on the issue. Yes, overall Fox leans right, BUT NO MORE THAN MSNBC/CNN/MSN/NPR/MAHER/MADDOW LEAN LEFT! So, could you agree that the media bias is a 'wash'???

Mixed Bag - Answering those questions would have complicated things for the narrative.

Perhaps now that you understand my position, I would like to know yours. I understand that you support this intervention. I believe you agree with me that the coalition is aiding and clearing the path for the rebels. Do you condone this? Also what should the coalition's course of action be if the rebels directly, not the civilians, take heavy casualties from loyalist ground forces?

What do you think should be the end game, ultimate objective for this incursion? If you think it is to forcibly remove Khaddafi what should be used to do this?

NoJoe, buonasera. Milano, davvero! Come vanno le cose?

again, what the hell do you people know about the middle east!

Mark-

I do indeed support the intervention...in particular, the President's authority to intervene. Whether you buy that the President acted primarily to prevent a humanitarian disaster, or as I believe, to prevent the imminent annihilation of the Libyan rebels (based on his well publicized assertion "It's time for Gaddafi to go"), he was the only one in a position to act in a timely fashion.

I am also acting on the assumption that President Obama has a very good idea who the Libyan rebels are based on the advice of members of his cabinet, and the intelligence agencies of the U.S. and its allies; if the President weren't convinced that a Libya ultimately controlled by the leaders of the rebellion better serves the interests of the United States than a continuation of the Gaddafi regime, he absolutely should not have intervened, because the ultimate result of this intervention will very likely be the toppling of Gaddafi.

I am hoping, and even counting on the likelihood that the intelligence the President is receiving about the Libyan rebels is far more accurate than the intelligence his predecessor received in the run-up to the Iraq War. Apparently, he believes it is. We'll see about that.

To me, the coalition has clearly signaled its support for the rebels, whatever the Obama Administration says about humanitarian concerns...you only need to view images of the Gaddafi regime's destroyed aircraft, armor, and military equipment.

President Obama has said Gaddafi must go, and his coalition's support for the rebels indicates that he's comfortable with the rebels being Gaddafi's replacement. That is the endgame...the Gaddafi regime's survival is now out of the question, as I see it.

As far as the means to that end...I'll leave that up to President Obama, his coalition, and the Libyan rebels, Mark.

Keith Olbermann while on Countdown at MSNBC. Strident, over the top, only partially true...........I think he apologized and walked it back.........Not something you would see done at FOX "NEWS", unless Jon Stewart spent a week shaming them into doing the right thing.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired Comment collapsed by the community

President Obama gave a great speech yesterday on Libya. Thank you President Obama for being the only adult in the room. And as expected the results of the speech are mixed all across the board. Pew report gave it a 50/50. Those who wanted to go into Libya initially are still flipping and flopping. I said that no matter what President Obama did there would be those that claimed he did to little, or too much. He did not react fast enough or too fast. This was exactly played out this morning with idiot P. Buchanan on MSNBC this morning. This guy should retire, he is a legend in his own mind and his shelf life has expired, he is like sour milk lately.

This yapping about not addressing Congress first is another smoke screen. Why would the right want to go on record about Libya one way or the other? What would they do if it is a success? They got exactly what they really want in that now they can attack the President from any direction depending on how the wind blows. If they had to vote in Congress they would have boxed themselves in, no doubt. So the constant yap about Congress not voting is BS and a smoke screen, period. Now both sides can read the polls and adjust their rhetoric accordingly with no accountability of a recorded vote.

This morning the Syrian Cabinet has been dissolved.

• 44

• !

#1 - Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:15 AM EDT

Their sure working overtime Navy - to make sure the truth is suppressed! lol

Cowardly, sniveling, phony 1st Amendment Lovers aren't they?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

I'm going to sit back and leave the foreign policy experts around here to do the Tuesday morning 'quarter backing' on last night's speech.

Bottom line is NO matter what the President articulated it will NEVER satisfy the Obama haters!

In the meantime, I found this little item to be of interest:

In audio obtained by Media Matters, top Fox News executive Bill Sammon says he purposely liedin the closing days of the 2008 campaign in order to harm Obama. "I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched," he said.

Guess that shoots their premise that Fox News is 'Fair & Balanced' now doesn't?

P.T. Barnum would be PROUD!

BTW: Have I mentioned lately just how PROUD I am of our President?

Feisty:

That is what the Fascist/Neo-Nazi's do. They cannot defend their racist, sexist and religious intolerance now that they have been exposed, so the best they can do is try and take our free speech away by collapsing our posts thinking and hoping we will go away. NOT. Defenders of the Constitution, my A$$. Repugnant llittle cowardly snipes is what they really are.

Repugnant llittle cowardly snipes is what they really are.

I almost feel sad for these phonies... I said 'almost'! lol

Like you... I'm not going anywhere! ;o)

Funny thing happened over the weekend under the bat sh!t crazy Bachmann thread, they collapsed me with 40 some votes and by Sunday I was at 100!

Real 'strong' strategy these idiots have going for them! lol

Jolly old soul1

Your other post about living amongst the people of the middle east was collapsed. I hope in the time that you lived there you were able to interact with the people, and not do as most americans living abroad do, and congregate amongst other westerners.

Don't worry jolly I am not Muslim but, I am proud to say that I have muslim friends and family (by marriage). Hopefully in your sojourn abroad you have been able to participate in the iftar meal after a friend's rammadan fasting. Perhaps you have participated in an Eid celebration, with delicious food commemorating the end of Rammadan? Or listened with amusement at the singing of Happy birthday in Arabic? I'm sure you have been invited to an Arabic wedding ceremony?

Have you talked to a friend or family member who may be devoutly against our foreign policy, and no they are not extremists or radicals. Have you tried to listen to someone who may have lived through the direct effects of our country's foreign policy. Or Israel's foreign policy? Have you tried to listen to their side of the story?

Yes Jolly, you may know more about the middle east then most people here including me. I'm not talking about radical and anti american idealogies here, but, I would hope that with your experience abroad you would have learned that to understand a situation, a people, an event you need to listen and discuss objectively to truly learn.

As long as we're on the subject of collapse cowards, did you happen to see this exchange from last week?

I've got plenty more where that came from...

alwaysfaithfull

All is well.......remain calm.....just because a rookie President and former community activist is at the helm with his two years Senatorial experience (this does not include the 2 years he campaigned for the Presidency)....no need to panic here....not yet......he will think of something........soon........I hope.......at least....maybe......sorta kinda..........c'mon Donald Trump......announce something will ya......i wanna see ya really piss off "Feisty Redhead" and watch her posts get closed down "by the community" even more than they are now! Ha!Ha!Ha!

• 3

• !

#115 - Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:15 PM CDT

KevinT

Always, I do not read her posts anymore, I just click inflammatory. Gingers do not have a soul.

• #115.1 - Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:20 PM CDT

I'm not sure what appals me more... the sucking up of liberals on this board to Obama, or to each other. Personally I believe it is the complete lack of vision for either. Obama doesn't follow the laws of the land, doesn't inform the American public, or even worse, Congress on his intentions, makes a speech 9 days too late but yet liberals all give him kudos... and give themselves pats on the back for what a wonderful job they are doing to slam anyone of a different political posture. Name calling will get you nowhere. If the liberals on this board only understood how much they are laughed at for their incredable foolishness, they should be embarassed.

I boil it down to typical liberal "feel good" attitudes. Reality isn't a part of their function. It could be a drug induced hangover or flash backs from all the LSD they took in the 60's. No matter what it is, substantiating a desire to see the radical policies of Obama succeed means they truly hate this country and all it stands for. Given their hatred of capitalism and a free society, only bolsters the effect Marxism had on the hippie generation during the Viet Nam war era. I remember the protests, the marches, the posters and the propaganda spread through our society back then. Today's liberals are the result of socialist activity and the active spread of bringing down the United States by our enemies. It doesn't matter what walk of life they held... military or being a red headed step child... the liberals have bought hook, line and sinker a committment to the lunacy of socialism and loss of freedom.

Anna Molly. Your comment about journalism and me is appreciated, especially when it comes from a master at debate.

brianb:

And your point, other than showing us you are a complete A$$, is what?????

Talk about buying something hook, line and sinker explain to us why you are buying into an ideology that has demonstrated racism, sexism, religious intolerance, denies equal education and health care to its peoples, wants to do away with science and medical research and the list goes on.

Please explain to us why I should buy into that ideology of you teabaggers (your name not mine) ??

Concerning Libya: we're here to help each other. We're not disconnected.

We're not here to be Puppets-for-Profit though. For example, by giving gigantic tax cuts to benefactor corporations at the expense of equal Education for all, Governors like WI Walker are going after the very core of our democracy. Is it OK?

Points for content and grammer Jody but you sound just like a press agent for Obama. As always, his speech and your translation reminds me of a Billy Preston song: "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing."

Navy Vet - I guess it takes an A$$ to know one, right? If you feel your ideology doesn't have the same exact faults then you are so totally blind, I'm surprised you can see your keyboard. Explain to me how the democrats/liberals/progressives have excelled in supressing racism. Tell me what the liberals really feel about Christianity, how they have embraced it and never call Christians names. Tell me how the democrats/liberals really feel about women's rights when you have women activists doing everything they can to immasculate men. Where do conservatives deny equal education in relation to the democrats giving exceedingly more rights to minorities than non-minorities just for votes. Equality? I think not. How have conservatives proved they want to do away with science and medical research? Your assertions are rediculous!

I will not ask you to buy into the ideology of the Tea Party. In fact I'd rather your kind stay away from it. We don't need people promoting socialism and the removal of freedom. I can understand your need to be controlled. After all if you retired from the military, your personna needs you to be controlled. I am a veteran so I know what happens in the military. Unfortunately you have never been able to get out of the mindset that you need control. Makes total sense.

Backhouse:

Touche' well said.

The fact that both sides are pissed is a good indication that Obama did something right. Brian, while I tend by nature to see the other side, you make good points. It is sad that we have become so polarized and demonizing that we can't allow others to help us see what our nature prevents us from seeing and learn to compromise and negotiate instead of entrenching in bunkers to lob acusatory zingers at our fellow Americans who honestly see things differently, but are equally passionate and patriotic. Are we so sure of our rightness and so sure of others wrongness that we are willing to do ANYTHING to get our way? That is where we are today, and when we finally get everything we want and have fully crushed our enemies, who are our fellow citizens, it will dawn on us how blind each of us are, just about different things. A little humility would go a long way. It was Jesus who said, "in humility count others as better than yourselves." I too have very strong opinions, but I am greatful that I don't have to make the decisions that our leaders have to make and I pray that those that do seek God's widom and courage to make the right decisions.

Backhouse - In what world do you live where collective bargaining for civil service workers is the core of democracy? Aren't you overshooting a bit? Slightly? Maybe just a bit?

So.......Libya is looking for a new president?

They can have ours.

Americandude - what a novel idea!! After he is removed from the bounds of the US Constitution, he can finally obtain the desires of his heart... to be a dictator. When he starts ruling like he really wants to he'll be the love of all the people of his country... even by force. Something he will never obtain here.

I guess Navy Vet has no response to my questions. Approach with evidence that the left harbors false claims and hypocracy and they run away like roaches at night when the light comes on. I was hoping for an honest debate but I guess that will have to wait until another day. Wait... at least honest on my part.

Brian,

Do you want to live in a world where maximizing corporate profits is the goal of federal and state decision-making?

In that world you, the average person, will not get a good deal. You will be labor to be traded and exploited. You won't have health care or retirement benefits or worker safety and you won't have representation or an Education unless you can pay for it. You will be a cost item.

CA Tom:

Thank you for the kind words. Good to see that you are around scoping things out. You have a great week I will be off on Vacation for awhile. Hold down the fort.

IR:

Very well said. I agree Kudos!

Great post, IR---I had that thought this morning---how sad it is that we still solve problems with guns and killing. But as long as we do, I am glad it is President Obama making these decisions.

IR:

Well said as always.

Terrific post, IR. I absolutely agree with everything. How wonderful it is to have a President who ignores the naysayers both left and right and does what he promised and does what he believes is best based on analysis and facts.

"In the midst of the cacophony some clarity."

Cacophony is a great word for it. They don't call it the "chattering class" for nothing. President Obama's calm and clarity stand out in such sharp contrast to the hysterical voices in the media and on the Right. (Are they the same thing?) I am so proud he is our President.

For those of you who still love to ridicule Bush.

Ask yourselves a very pertinent question. Who is responsible for the recent desire of Middle Easterners to throw off their oppressive dictators? If you are honest you will say that this is, and was, the Bush doctrine, it was his vision!! How it will turn out; I'm not so positive about. I do not trust that the general Middle East Muslim street is up to democracy (but that is a different argument).

President Barack Obama should have praised G.W. for his vision instead of lamely attempting to show how "this operation" was so much different than Iraq.

The only differences I see are:

1) Our Libya coalition is smaller

2) Libya lacks congressional approval

3) Ghadafi was on the U.N, Humanitarian Panel a few months prior while Saddam had a list of U.N. mandates against him a mile long and years in the making.

4) Ghadafi has killed his thousands (and probably would have killed more), but Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (at one point using WMD's on his own people)

5) Saddam attacked his neighbors and was a threat to the region (oil) with a substantial military. Ghadafi not so much, and certainly not a threat to us (Gates)

I read and interesting quote today:

"But were the hundreds of thousands found in mass graves in Iraq any less worthy?"

I supported the operation in Iraq (as most Americans did) and still do. And I support the operation in Libya. My reservations are wrapped up in our wishy washy commander. At least Bush was all in. That is the only way we should ever fight, period (There's your Vietnam comparison). Go all in or stay home, this lukewarm stuff makes me ill.

There is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, but I have to say; This one (Iraq, Libya) all lands in your left leaning laps.

Do you see the difference between letting the people of a sovereign nation own their own rebellion, take responsibility for it, and carry it out in their own time as opposed to marching US troops in as an occupation force?

Maybe you do, may be you don't, but it's a VERY important distinction in the Arab world.

Tod..........Your comments comparing Libya to Iraq evoke memories of shock and awe and the smell of the previous "stories" about weapons of mass deception by Cheney et al.

Thanks IR. You said it best.

John,
I give you multiple differences/comparisons, and you come back with what you believe is one of your own, without addressing any of mine. So what's your point? The Arab world respects strength, not what you think you know about the Arab world by listening to MSNBC blatherers. There own time, as you call it, was timed, predicted and initiated by our actions in Iraq. Address what I posted coherently if you are able to put aside your bias.

OB,
Gadz the WMD argument is such hot air. Clinton, Congress, the English, the U.N. etc. etc. etc. all were part of the WMD argument. Do you Leftists really believe that repeating the same, tired, fallacious claims, over and over and over again will some how cause it to be true? That really only works if you live in a communist country. Give it a rest, its a pathetic argument.

Tod, you're missing an important point here. If this is all GW Bush's vision why didn't any of these societies rise up against their dictators then, when there was an Administration bragging about their ability and willingness to put boots on the ground to take dictators out of commission? Why didn't democracy "bloom like wildflowers" as the Neocons envisioned?

Because they were wrong then and they're still wrong, that's why. This isn't due to a new American Hegemony. This isn't the vision of the Project for a New American Century, the blueprint around which Neocon dreams were hatched. Corellation isn't causation, and even the corellation you speak of is years off.

Bloom like widflowers is exactly what I see happening (it may not turn out pretty, due to the Arab tribal system). Who ever said it would happen right then? Iraq has only been stable since after Bush's surge, and the reality of a self governing peoples has only now begun to be appealing. What do you credit it to? What middle eastern model would you point to?

Once again, address coherently my differences/comparisons, without the tired anti-Bush blather.

IR - Interesting, but I missed the news on when qaddafi left or that yemin, syria and bahrainhave peaceful demonstrations again. All in all, obama presented much the same case as bush2 did before invading Iraq. Only real difference I see between the two is one made the case before the fact, the other is trying to do it after the fact. I do so like obama and company stating on march 15 that there was "no support of a no fly zone" to "launch missiles" by the 20th. Here I thought "transparency" was obamas watchword?

Sarcasim aside, I to would like to know what obama is thinking of at times. Especially regarding foreign policy. What is it? Seems that we handle each event without any defined objective policy. I will grant that each sovereign nation may have their own agendas, but really we treat each protest differently from "so & so must go..." to "you must allow peaceful protests to occur". Where is the consistancy?

JohnB - I do but apparently you don't...

Do you see the difference between letting the people of a sovereign nation own their own rebellion, take responsibility for it, and carry it out in their own time as opposed to marching US troops in as an occupation force?

When obama and company said "I told Mubarak..." or "Mubarak must go..." How does that fit in with your above statement? It will probably be years before we know of how our military leaders interacted with Egypts military leaders to maintain the Egyptian military remaining neutral.

Then we have obama and company saying "qaddafy must go". Yep, over 100 tomahawks launched, numerous tanks and ground equipment destroyed and recent air support for rebels retaking previous positions lost. May not be "boots on the ground" yet, but what of latter?

No matter how you may try, it is still America attempting "Middle east nation building" from supporting the Shaw of Iran, to support of Israel and their neighbors, to Iraq to North Africa and Saudi's neighbors.

Seems that what is really missing here has been a lack of any effective foriegn policy thru the years regarding non Israeli nations.

John B:

How true. The GOP/TP is playing both side against the middle. This is exactly why I did not buy their argument about really wanting a vote in Congress. To do so would have put them on one side of the fence or the other. Now they can play both sides and there is no record to disprove it other than the miles of video tape. The GOP/TP may be a lot of things, but they know politics.

Excellent analysis of today's GOP/TP, John B. President Obama has the right so confused, they nolonger know what position to take on any given day let alone what their beliefs are or were. If this were not so serious a defect in modern conservatism, it would be comical to observe. On March 1, the Senate passed unanimously a Resolution supporting a No-Fly Zone among other actions--yet those same republican senators who were demanding action, are now demanding to know why the U.S. intervened when we should have done nothing. They cannot have it both ways and be taken seriously as legislators let alone as future leaders of this country.

"Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle, it's about finding a message to sell whatever leaders wish on a given subject"

Boy, has the crisis in Libya made that apparent. I get whiplash trying to follow the Republican message: Sarah Palin traveling through India and Israel ridiculing our President even as he ordered ships and planes to Libya (whatever happend to that "criticism of the U.S. stops at the water's edge?" Republican mantra.)

Republicans saying: it's too little too late! Save the rebels! Then: why are we there anyway? The rebels are ridiculous. Then: what's the end game anyway? Like, Republicans are so good at predicting end games, the costs of war, or determining what is or isn't in our national interest.

JohnB - yep you and a few other FR libs are the voice of calm and reserve. Of course we all know how your posts are so informative, to the point, with no ommisions of fact and with very little doubt that you believe the conservatives and the right serve no purpose other than being your intellectual inferiors, hardly worthy of mowing your grass or washing your windows. Let us not forget you and your fellow buds rapier wit and thoughtful discussions with fellow bloggers, but I digress at your inate ability to spin, misdirect and misinform.

Us navy - GOP senators didn't want to have a vote on a libya no fly zone. Seems obama didn't even provide that option? Wonder why?? Probably afraid of the outcome.

jody - liked your analysis...

Excellent analysis of today's GOP/TP, John B. President Obama has the right so confused, they no longer know what position to take on any given day let alone what their beliefs are or were

Just think of how the general populace and independent voters will view this! Lmao already. Obama spreading misinformation and misdirection to all the voters. Such a sign of leadership in getting America to pull together. I hope every major news source picks up your analysis and spreads it world wide, what a coup for obama and company. Such leadership! Such inspiration! Such a god!

Poor Amy - dazed and confused again by obama, Have a whoopie pie while you regain your sense.

Wow, nice martyr play american, always a reliable fallback position for the Conservative Movement.

Obama spreading misinformation and misdirection to all the voters.

Strong accusation, care to back that up?

It isn't President Obama's fault Conservatives can't follow the reality as it exists, and as it changes rapidly during the early stages of a rebellion. That's the problem with being part of a group that believes its own propaganda, you lose the ability to react to facts that contradict your chosen narrative. Karl Rove said;

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Well guess what, sometimes reality exists OUTSIDE the Conservative Movement. That has Conservative leaders confused.

to bad you were incapable of reading jody's post and what she implied. You know if the republicans are confused what of the independents and other voters.

But, you can bet, that simple country girl certainly isn't any kinda racist.

Sometimes, I think we've devolved into a nation that cares only for bread, circuses and shiny objects!

Excellent post JoAnne.

JoAnne PA:

Yep, sounds about right. I agree, many people have already been pretty well brain washed by the right wing media. How else can one explain that 78% of all GOP/TP still believe that President Obama is not a US Citizen or may be a Muslim thereby a supporter of terrorism.

This is what happens when a party is so far off the reservation that they cannot defend any of their positions, they lie about what they supported during their campaigns (jobs, stimulate the economy, improve education, etc.) and do just the opposite.

This is going to blow up.

JoAnne Thats just fine like frog hair split there

JoAnne, PA, great post. That woman represents what is wrong with the country--they see a TV entertainment show as more important than anything else. I doubt she voted for President Obama and truth be known, I doubt she votes period, too many other things to get in the way. Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Pres Obama appeared on that show.

Why, IR (*batting eyelashes*).....you do know how to make a girl blush! :)

With so many large numbers of Republicans and Tea Baggers believing that President Obama is not a US Citizen, which is being spread by crazies like Trump, I can’t help but believe that many of them can't stand having a Black Man as President and we need to face these facts.

It has been proven over and over again that the President is a U.S. Citizen who was born in the United States. So, knowing these facts, these so called birthers are nothing more than racist.

I also want to add that they are most likely not the KKK type racist, but the type that believe that people of color should just know their place.

Nothing worse than a medicare card carrying teabagger complaining about someone else...they are the problem with this country...society has heaped wealth upon these socialists pretending to be real Americans...Barf Brooks and Over Dunn suck anyway.

Nash -

Ironic, isn't it? For all that the right wing contingent on here is always spouting words like "worship" and "idol" and "Messiah" when it comes to liberals and the President, the only ones who actually seem to expect him to be some all-knowing, all-powerful God are.....well.....them.

Nash:

I agree. This situation is evolving every day and our President does not have a crystal ball. The right and others are just trying to get him on record one way or another so they can try and use it later against him. President Obama is too smart for that and he is playing his cards right. We have seen him do this time and again. Let them cry and whine about him playing it close to the vest. He is the CIC they are not. It is his responsibilitynot theirs and that give him the right to call it as he sees it, since he has the ultimate accountability.

Nashville Fan, excellent comment. They keep moving the goal posts because President Obama is successful and, well, that just can't be allowed. Perhaps in last night's address the President should have used Bush's "stay the course" as an end game plan.

Nash--great post. The President was refreshingly honest with us---he doesn't have a crystal ball that tells him how things will turn out---he does the best that he can in the moment. It is beyond me that people expect him to do more. That is the thing about being in the middle of historic changes---you just don't know how it will turn out and, dang it, you have to wait to see what happens.

Nash- GREAT POST. It feels so good to have a GREAT leader like President Obama.

The right is so busy changing positions daily that it makes the rest of us dizzy.

Jody, a veritable KARMA Sutra, as it were! hee hee

Funniest line of the day goes to Clara!

Amen, Amy - nuts, cheese, and all.....though especially the ever hopeful part. I missed the show, opting to relax with (speaking of cheese and D-list stars) Dancing With the Stars instead. I posted this yesterday, but late in the day, and at Anna Molly's request, am re-posting a light-hearted take on those who think they could do a better job:

A co-worker was teasing me earlier today because I let it slip that I've been known to watch "Dancing With the Stars". "You mean that show is still on?" he asked. "The one with all the D-list celebrities? Didn't that show jump the shark a long time ago?" This, of course, from a guy who listens to sports talk radio 24/7.....

But it got me thinking about the similarities between DWTS and the current plethora of GOP candidates. A bunch of has-beens that never were. People who know they have zero chance of winning but can't resist the limelight even if they make fools of themselves in front of a national audience. Trying to conceal a lack of talent with a lot of flash and glitter. All those tricky new steps to learn (one, two, form a committee, three, four, announce a website, five six, no, wait, it's a book tour, seven, eight......damn, I forgot where I was again). And now with names like Trump and Bachmann as contestants, then yep - they've officially jumped the shark.

Then it came to me - the GOP circus is just a reality show without a title. So here are some possibilities for your consideration:

Stumping With the "Stars"
Americans Idle (do any of these people actually do anything for a living?)
Extreme-Right Makeover: GOP Edition
So You Think You Can Lead
America's Got Talent (So why aren't any of them running?)
Are You Even Smarter Than A Third Grader?
Jersey - Sure (sure to go blue, that is)
Presidential Apprentice
The Biggest Losers
Antique Roadshow
The Deadliest Catchphrase
The Not So Amazing Race

The lines are now open. Limit ten votes per phone line. Or you can text the words "No Way" to "2012" (standard text messaging rates will apply).

Not that it matters. Because immediately following "GOP Wipeout", the winner will be the same one as back in 2008.

Survivor: White House.

Amy, JoAnne--thanks for lightening things up this morning, big smile in Iowa. Nuts and cheese with some whine.

JoAnne---I love the political reality show!! But more importantly---how did Hines Ward do last night?

Steeler Fan -

Quite well, actually - wouldn't be at all surprised if he makes it to the Final Four! And he looks like he's having a blast.

Very creative JoAnne. I watch Dancing with the Stars too! I had a fantasy that this season they would find the daughter of a Democratic politician to compete with the memory of Bristol. This girl would come to the show already fit, with some dancing classes in her background. She would practice her routine till her feet bled, watch and study clips of Fred and Ginger, establish a respectful and positive relationship to her partner and perform her heart out . I have a feeling America would vote her up every show, but the judges would find her perfomance somehow "unsatisfying." They prefer Bristol's quick step in a pink tutu Ape suit.

JoAnne: Love your humor and wit. Well done.

Amy -

In all fairness, I have to admit that I wasn't nearly as bothered by Bristol Palin's turn on DWTS last year as I would have expected to be. While her actual dance ability wasn't nearly the level of some of the "stars" who were voted off before her, I sort of felt sorry for the way she got caught in the middle of the "stuffing the ballot box" controversy started by some fans of her mother on some conservative websites, and in the interviews I saw with her she seemed like a polite, pleasant person - somewhat lacking in self-confidence, but putting forth an honest effort. Just totally out of her league.

On the other hand, the bad memories of Tucker Carlson and Tom DeLay just live on and on...... :)

JoAnne - Funny. I would love to see the 2012 GOP candidates run the "Wipeout" course. They can "man up" on the big balls obstacle.

Amy B. Portland, ME
Very creative JoAnne. I watch Dancing with the Stars too! I had a fantasy that this season they would find the daughter of a Democratic politician to compete with the memory of Bristol. This girl would come to the show already fit, with some dancing classes in her background.

----------------------------
nah, Amy, not gonna' happen,...Dem Daughters are in College, Grad School, law school and med school. They don't have time for NONSENSE. Only the dropouts on the Repub side have that kind of 'fortune'.

Clara KCMO

Good point!

Yellowdog-Mark D

I love the idea of the GOP primary as an episode of "Wipeout!" I can just picture Huckabee doing a belly flop!

Between Tom Delay and Lawrence Taylor maybe the should call it Dancing with the Cons.

Steeler Fan

Hines Ward did awesome - he's very elegant and has leadership qualities rarely seen on the dance floor from any foot ball player (or "cough" star) in the past. He even looks better than Emmit and Emmit won.

Any way - I stopped watching DWTS when Tom Delay and Bristol Palin were on - I was so disappointed with that show because the show's name is Dancing with the Stars - these two are certainly not stars - Tom is heading off to "Dancing with the Convicts" and Bristol is still peddling her "abstinence only" crap while carting her out-of-wedlock baby around on her hip (well, when the media is snapping pictures - all other times the baby is no where to be found).

I started watching (again) last night to see how Hines was doing - He really is good and he represented all you Steeler Fans ( he showed off the colors of his arm bracelet) You can be proud.

Anyway - Our President gave us the information we required and I am damn glad he is our President - I cringe in horror thinking about McCain (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) and the Tundra Twit slobbering over the "red button" and then I think to myself - "self" - I really, really like this President and I will be voting for him again.

FR must pretend to be objective, so every once in a while they will throw in a mild criticism.

Not to worry, NBC is still the Official Obama Rumpswabber Network.

Just remember-

That well known Obama-hater, Chuck Todd, likely had a hand in this.

When is First Read going to dump that right-wing extremist, anyway?

Bob. Sure it is, that is why the Right Winger Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC every fifteen minutes.

Mixed Bag

I realize you were being sarcastic, however I actually think Chuck Todd has a personal problem with President Obama. It's not a deal breaker for me, I like both men; I think some people just have personality clashes.

Oh no, Amy B.

Don't suggest that Chuck Todd has a "personal problem" with President Obama.

That's too vague.

Before long, one (or more) of the First Read usual suspects will conclude that Todd is a racist.

Imposing a No-Fly-No-Genocide Zone is not going to WAR. Ground invasion and an occupying force is 'going to war".

Just in time, Paul.

You stopped that hypocrisy dead in its tracks.

As far as what constitutes "going to war", well, you should discuss that with someone who's been in a structure hit by a Tomahawk...if you can put them back together.

Why is it unpatriotic to criticize a republican president for going to war, but ok to attack a democrat for doing the same thing?

You can't. However, Kinetic Military Actions always get criticized.

Patrick, you forgot that the GOP/TP Platform clearly states that only republicans/tea partiers are "patriotic" and only republicans/tea partiers are "real Americans". The Democratic Platform states we are all patriots and all real Americans even when we disagree.

RVZ555 is one of those brainwashed "sheeple" afraid to question what his government tells him, no matter how far fetched. His opinion is worthless because it is provided to him by liars.

Until proven otherwise, 9/11/2001 was clearly a falseflag inside job. When you admit there has yet to have been allowed any subpoena empowered-security clearanced- witness protected investigation into the mass murder of 2979 Americans on American soil, and think that glaring deficiency should be remedied as the Constitution requires, then you will be taken seriously.

Republicans are smeared as 'birthers'.

.....Yet it is funny how Paul the Troofer , 9/11 was an inside jobby job, fits in well with these leftwing zombies in here...like OJ's glove. Same paranoia, irrational hatred of Bush, ignores inconvenient facts...

Steven:

Touche', you sure do have a way with words. Nice job.

Steven, you hit that one out of the park.

Excellent post Steven. I urge you to write more often.

Steven,

Ouch, good one. I bet old RVZ555 felt it.

Libyan rebels retreating after Gadhafi onslaught
Below:

x Jump to discussion comments below
.discussion

x Next story in Europe UK police brace for all royal wedding threats
related

Libyan rebels flee as shelling from Gadhafi's forces start landing on the frontline outside of Bin Jawaad, 150 km east of Sirte, central Libya, Tuesday, March 29, 2011.(AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)By RYAN LUCAS
The Associated Press
updated 45 minutes ago 2011-03-29T14:49:34
Share Print Font: +-BIN JAWWAD, Libya — Libyan government tanks and rockets have driven back rebels who attempted an assault on Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte. Opposition fighters fleeing in a panicked scramble pleaded for international airstrikes that never came.

This just in from one of the other great MSNBC pages....

"The worst deluded are the self-deluded."
Christian Nestell Bovee

oOooOooo Man.....he really hit them where it hurts. lol! Really again which one of your middle east experts has actually lived in and among a Muslim people in a Muslim country? That would be one of the MAJOR qualifiers that would allow you to comment on anything except what words came out of Mr.Obama's mouth. Perhaps navy boy there has some experience in the area, but Im betting the rest of you have only seen dates in a package. Keep dancing to the liberal cha cha!

"...softball season..."

lol

Nice, Bob.

LOL...great one, Bob...

No, he was supposed to do JUST like every other President in our history has done. Take it to the people of this nation and the Congress before committing our armed forces to any sustained combat operations.

Instead he's taking the orders of the United Nations and thumbing his nose at the nation.

And if you READ the article above, he has NO plan, he has NO endgame, he has NOTHING except people like you attacking with hate anyone that doesn't agree with him.

Sure am glad you're heeding his call for "civility".

B!tch, b!tch, b!tch........................endlessly. What was the endgame in Iraq again? When do we stop looking for the Weapons of Mass Destruction that never posed any kind of real threat to America again?

Your memory needs a little work, Cheryl. March 1, 2011;

The Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign and allow a peaceful transition to democracy.

The resolution, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has no force of law. And its symbolic impact on U.S. posture toward Libya is uncertain. But the resolution puts the full Senate on record behind an aggressive posture and could bolster a growing number of calls for the United States—which has already sent warships carrying hundreds of Marines into the region—or its allies to take limited military steps in support of Libyans seeking to overthrow Qaddafi. Earlier on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that all options to address the Libyan crisis are on the table.

“There is a bipartisan consensus building to provide assistance to liberated areas of Libya and to work with our allies to enforce a no-fly zone," Kirk said in a statement.

The resolution condemns "gross and systematic violations of human rights, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms," by Qaddafi and urges him to "ensure civilian safety" and "guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations." It also applauds a move by the U.N. Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the council and calls for the U.N. General Assembly to vote in support of that step.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-passes-resolution-calling-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya-20110301?page=1

Conservative leaders who are saying President Obama didn't consult Congress and had no authority to participate in this multinational effort are simply liars.

Conyers v. Reagan is a case that challenged the U.S. invasion of Grenada.

Description

In October 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had ordered a pre-dawn invasion of Grenada by nearly 1,900 Marines and armed airborne troops under the code name “Urgent Fury.” The fighting was heavier than expected and by the end of the month, the United States military presence had reached more than 5,600 troops. After a few days of heavy fighting and a number of deaths, the shooting ended.

The invasion and occupation constituted, within the meaning of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a war against the people of Grenada. The President, however, at no time sought the required congressional approval. He justified the invasion by claiming falsely that the lives of U.S. medical students were in danger. The same pretext was given to justify the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965. ..................................................................... Cheryl do tell me how all our other President's in History have done such a wonderful job of consulting with Congress......

Well said, sfilutze. The naysayers choose to ignore the facts--Congress knew what was going on, anyone paying attention to the addresses by Pres Obama, SoS Clinton, knew what was going on, the Senate on March 1, 2011, passed unanimously S.RES.85 Resolution supporting what the President coordinated with the UN, 18 legislators were briefed by President Obama and not one of those 18 felt it necessary to debate or discuss it in Congress or even to brief their own caucuses. Now they stamp their feet, throw tantrums and pout.

Only the Senate passed a non-binding resolution. So exactly how was the House consulted?

I think many of you "forget" things were supposed to be different. Hope and change...remember? So far it seems you all are defending o'bama predicated on what his predecessors did. Well, if it feels good, do it.

Did President Obama choose a nation at his own discretion and march in as an occupying force?

If you can't see the difference there you aren't trying very hard.

"Did President Obama choose a nation at his own discretion and march in as an occupying force?"

And you think that isn't comming considering air power and sanctions alone isn't going to get rid of this dictator?

"Keep Gaddafi's planes and armored forces out of action until Gaddafi is overthrown by the rebels or agrees to go into exile"

And you think that without boots on the ground from other countries that this rag tag bunch of RADICALS is going to overthrow him? Are you kiddding? BTW you are naive as they come to think that this man will go into exile. Please enlighten us an suggest a country that would be willing to take him?

"But what was the president supposed to do"

Enforce that no-fly zone about nine days before he decided to get off his ass and get in the game. The rebels had Gaddafi beat but thank to our non decision no combat experience POTUS this conflict will continue for months to come.

Houston, well said. That last paragraph sums it up perfectly. Just further proof that no matter what this President does, the other side finds fault and the media too often plays along with the GOP/TP giving them far too much coverage.

Tracy1973

Are you kiddding? BTW you are naive as they come to think that this man will go into exile.

You have trouble reading? I didn't say it was likely, only a possibility. He's being "encouraged" to go quietly, but I doubt he will.

Enforce that no-fly zone about nine days before he decided to get off his *** and get in the game. The rebels had Gaddafi beat but thank to our non decision no combat experience POTUS this conflict will continue for months to come.

Obama chose not to engage in cowboy military adventures that only succeed in turning people against the US the way his predecessor turned most of the world against the US with his Iraq fiasco. Instead, he built a coalition and was able to get persuade the Russians and Chinese not to veto the UN resolution that made the no-fly zone LEGAL. Just because neocons, teabaggers, and wingnuts think that laws are made for other people to obey and not for themselves, doesn't mean that everyone thinks that. Thank goodness.

Houston, Navy, and the liberal cheerleading team on FR: before you start on the 'cowboy mentality' of Bush, please consider the following and answer this question: 'If you were the President immediately following 911 and you had the following information to consider' what would have been your decision? Just curious!

Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

On August 25, 1998 the Fort Worth Star-telegram reported a link between Iraq and the Sudanese chemical weapons factory destroyed by the United States in a cruise missile attack. The chemical weapons factory was hit because of links to Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the recent embassy bombings. A senior intelligence official said one of the leaders of Iraq's chemical weapons program, Emad al-Ani, had close ties with senior Sudanese officials at the factory. The intelligence official also said a number of Iraqi scientists working with al-Ani attended the grand opening of the factory two years earlier. Emad Husayn Abdullah al-Ani surrendered to U.S. military forces on April 18, 2003.

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history ofsupporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 14, 1999, an article in the Aberdeen American News claimed U.S. intelligence officials were worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article said bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the Central Intelligence Agency said, "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq." The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Abu Ibrahim was also believed to be in Iraq.

On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying."

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official.

On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York."

After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.

On December 3, 2001 USA Today reported that the CIA had convincing evidence from the mid-1990s Saddam Hussein's regime was funneling money through Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria and other terrorist organizations. Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst in the CIA's counterterrorism center until his retirement in 1994, said "We were convinced that money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it to places that Iraq wanted it to go."

On March 15, 2002 the Christian Science Monitor reported that a Taliban-style group known as Ansar al-Islam was threatening stability in the Kurdish northern region of Iraq. Prior to the start of the Iraq War in 2003, Colin Powell addressed the United Nations and pointed out that both Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida had links with the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group. Saddam had provided arms and funding for this terrorist group waging a jihadist war against the Kurds. One month prior to the formation of Ansar al-Islam, leaders from several Kurdish Islamist factions had visited the al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan. Ansar al-Islam announced their formation on September 1, 2001 just days prior to the September 11 attacks in the United States.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

On October 16, 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was signed into law. Theauthorization (Public law 107-243) had passed the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. This resolution stated, "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" and "Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens."

Babil, an official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, published information that appeared to confirm U.S. allegations of the links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. In its November 16, 2002 edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan."

In December 2002 the House and Senate intelligence committees issued a report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. CIA director George Tenet testified (page 137) that, “Atta may also have traveled outside of the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet an Iraqi intelligence officer, although we are still working to corroborate this.” This report also noted (page 211) that, "In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation."

On April 25, 2003 CNN reported that Farouk Hijazi had been captured by U.S. forces. Farouk Hijazi was a former intelligence official who may have plotted the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush in 1993. He was also a contact between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden. Farouk met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 and is also believed to have met with bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990's.

While sifting through the Iraqi Intelligence Service's [Mukhabarat] bombed ruins on April 26, 2003 the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

On May 7, 2003, a federal judge in New York awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. "Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida."

The 9/11 Commission Report (pages 228 - 229) provides details of what is known about Mohamed Atta's alleged April 9, 2001 11:00 A.M. meeting with an Iraqi Intelligence agent in Prague. According to the FBI, Mohamed Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 and in Florida on April 11. Atta's cell phone records indicate calls were made from Florida during this period but they cannot confirm whether he placed those calls. The report mentions, however, that Czech intelligence has stated publicly they believe there was a 70 percent probability that the meeting took place. The Czech Interior Minister made several statements to the press about his belief that the meeting had occurred. Atta is known to have been in Prague on at least two occasions: once in December 1994 and again in June 2000.

On September 13, 2006, a deputy prime minister of Iraq by the name of Barham Salih gave a speech in which he said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime."

On March 20, 2008 the Pentagon declassified results of their investigation into captured Iraqi documents. The report entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project -- Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents" stated, "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust."

In June 2008 the Senate released their report "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information." Among the conclusions (page 71), it reported that public statements by government officials that Iraq (prior to the war) provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qaida related terrorist members was substantiated by intelligence assessments.

On June 18, 2008 the Iraqi newspaper Kurdistani Nwe published a 2002 letter from the Iraqi presidency that it said proved there was cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al-Qaeda. The letter, which appeared on the paper's front page, was written by Iraqi intelligence and discussed an intention to meet with Ayman Al-Zawahiri in order to examine a plan drawn up by the Iraqi presidency to carry out a "revenge operation" in Saudi Arabia.

Let's try it a different way. If you were going to send Americans to their deaths in battle would you base it on the word of a guy who takes off his microphone and walks away because you insist that he tell the truth? http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7359532n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Absolutely not...but I would also be more comfortable if the current POTUS would give a straight answer as to why he chose to help the Libyans other than "it would have been a slaughter" if he didn't. There are far worse things going on in Africa that demand our attention if the reason was to provide humanitarian assistance from a dictator who kills his own people.

As far as I am concerned Obama was caught up in the moment with all the civil unrest in the Middle East and he did it to attempt to get on the good side with the Muslims in that part of the world.

Umm, Tracy 1973

funny you should ask about EXILE. Apparently ITALY (with nojo's help perhaps, hee hee) is brokering a deal right now:

http://www.sify.com/news/italy-leading-move-to-get-gaddafi-liability-free-exile-in-africa-news-international-ld3okjhhjce.html

Alan. Yes it is. But considering McConnell said at the end of the last election, that the republicans main priority was to defeat Obama, The President has no choice. Fortunately unlike Bush, this President can walk and chew gum at the same time.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do — and will do — is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gadhafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gadhafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadhafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Gadhafi's side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be...........................................................Kind of sounds like an plan and and endgame to me 'course I may be paying closer atttention than you are

How many jobs has the GOP House created? Hmmm, let's see, they've voted on all kinds of legislation restricting women's reproductive rights, a bunch of things about religion, and that's pretty much it.

IR, perfect response!

LOL at the redneck...That is NO end-game. IF Mr. Obama is gong to intervene, and HE did, in Libya then next it will HAVE to be Iran, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and ANYWHERE else these IDIOTS are killing their own people. If HE doesn't do that then HE is no more than a hypocrite. I know, that might be too big a word for you but go ahead and look it up since you are ONLY able to repeat the same nonsense Mr. Obama spews daily. And how do YOU think these rebels, who by the way have NO military training, will take Tripoli? EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! SOMEONE will have to put boots on the ground. Or maybe you THINK it is wise to have another Somalia that is at civil war for 20 plus years. Yeah, great END-GAME....NOT!!!!!!!!!

Jody just because you are from Iowa doesn't mean you CAN'T get and education at some point. The House just turned over to the GOP NOT even a year ago yet. Give them time. They have to figure out what to give Mr. Obama that he won't veto. Or say they are acting stupidly. But then of course HE will invite them over for a beer.

We go and do what we can where we can. Our ability to make it permanent is also an issue.

The President clearly stated we were OUT of the REGIME CHANGE BUSINESS based on the failure of the Bush administration's experiment in Iraq.

By what criteria do you judge that the experiment in Iraq has failed? They have had 3 or 4 elections and are attempting to form a government through debate and dialog not a rifle and and a bullet. If this is how Libya looks in 5 years would consider it a failure?

And when President Obama states clearly that "Gaddafi must go!" how is that not regime change?

By what criteria do you judge that the experiment in Iraq has failed?

By the criteria that the Iraq war killed between 100,000 and one million civilians and created 4 million refugees. If Iraq does ever manage to become a real democracy, which by no means is certain, Iraqis will owe nothing to Bush, who turned Iraq into a living hell.

Well said Houston. Iraq is a disaster. Within six months after the last US soldier leaves Iraq and Iran will be "twin provinces", practically the same country again. The radical Islamists will overturn the duly elected government and set up a Sharia-based Islamic Republic just like Iran. The Iraq war was based on lies and hounded by poor planning causing untold deaths and misery both in that country and in ours.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks, we're OUT of the REGIME CHANGE business and good riddance.

By what criteria do you judge that the experiment in Iraq has failed?

By the mere fact that we have spent over 10 years, over 4400 American lives and over $1 TRILLION in treasure and we still are mired in Iraq as we speak. I didn't even factor in the millions of REFUGEES that this war has produced.

That, to me, is FAILURE on a GRAND scale.

When we asked how we were going to pay for this adventure, the American people were assured that the Iraqis would be paying for this adventure with the proceeds from their oil.

We can CLEARLY see THAT hasn't happened.

Using your criteria is Afghanistan a failure also, and if so why did the current administration escalate our involvement?

If we are still mired in Iraq why is the current administration touting the end of military operations as a major foreign policy success?

"The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -- and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people -- Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."

www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/31/president-obamas-address-end-combat-mission-iraq

President Obama doesn't seem to think we're still mired in Iraq from this statement I would almost think he was calling it a success.

Alan, NJ - as long as there are American troops in Iraq, we are still mired in Iraq. The President said, as your quote directly addresses, that the American COMBAT MISSION in Iraq has ended. Was the COMBAT mission a success? Some would say YES; Saddam Hussein in no longer in power in Iraq.

What about the ensuing 'logistical' mission and the 'rebuilding of Iraq' mission that everyone seems to CONVENIENTLY forget about? That is STILL costing America money and lives and it will for DECADES to come.

Iraq was STUPID to do in the first place. I hope President Bush enjoys his TRILLION DOLLAR pistol. America paid DEARLY for that little 'trophy'. I am sure the 4400 Americans that died and the over 50,000 that were maimed and injured for it are proud (sarcasm off).

If you haven't figured out, I am against the Iraq war (it was STUPID to do in the first place) and Afghanistan is no better. I vehemently DISAGREE with this President about Afghanistan, although I am willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, July 2011 is the 'magic' date, so let's see how that turns out.

@Pietro

I was against the Iraq adventure as well. I still do not understand how so many democrats in the US Senate voted for it. The intelligence produced defied common sense (and I don't care if the UK, France, Germany etc thought the same). Iran has been attempting to build a bomb for over 10 years in relatively peaceful conditions. So how Iraq which had 2 no-fly zones and extreme sanctions could produce a "mushroom cloud" was beyond me. Chemical or biological weapons yes, because any industrial society could make them with relative ease....but the nonsense about a drone that could deliver them OMG. I also could not believe that there was no tax increase to pay for this boondoggle. The cost in lives in treasure for this was too high. However, and I do not like to admit this, a democracy at the center of the Arab world may in fact come into being. The thought that a dope like GWB may have gotten this part right scares the @!$%# out of me, but facts are facts and at the moment the jury is out. Just because you were against the war, and nobody will ever be able to justify the cost to me, does not mean that there may actually be a positive result in the long run.

Alan,

The original mission in Afghanistan was starved for the troops and equipment wasted pointlessly in Iraq.

President Obama is trying to salvage the mission but I fear it too is another failed Bush experiment in regime change and in less than six months after we leave the Taliban will be back in control.

This is not President Obama's fault. He inherited these two failed experiments from the previous administration. He's getting us out of Iraq and he's going to get us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

If you have issues with these two wars you need to write to George Bush II, c/o General Delivery, Crawford, Texas and express your displeasure.

This is not President Obama's fault. He inherited these two failed experiments from the previous administration. He's getting us out of Iraq and he's going to get us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Really. Strange way of doing it. Deploy another 50,000 troops and spend millions just so the Taliban to be in charge 6 months after we leave. You just can't bring yourself to say he may be wrong on this can you?

Alan,

I guess you missed the part where I pointed out the President was trying to salvage the mission but I feared it is destined to be another failed experiment in regime change instigated the Bush administration.

Alan, I suspect you are a Marxist and nothing the president says or does will satisfy you.

"I don't know what they have to say,

It makes no difference anyway,

Whatever it is, I'm against it.

No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it."

Groucho Marx, 1932, HORSEFEATHERS

Say the magic word and win a hundred dollars

The cost in lives in treasure for this was too high. However, and I do not like to admit this, a democracy at the center of the Arab world may in fact come into being. The thought that a dope like GWB may have gotten this part right scares the @!$%# out of me, but facts are facts and at the moment the jury is out. Just because you were against the war, and nobody will ever be able to justify the cost to me, does not mean that there may actually be a positive result in the long run.

Alan, NJ - I TOTALLY agree with your assessment. There are MANY ways we could have foistered Democracy in the Arab world, but trying to do so using the business end of a firearm should NOT have been the ONLY solution.

Alan, NJ - TOTALLY agree with your assessment. There are MANY ways we could have foistered Democracy in the Arab world, but trying to do so using the business end of a firearm should NOT have been the ONLY solution

Seriously? This guy's been around for how long, 40 years? Was this his first, second, 1000th transgression? Was this the US anxious to foist regime change on the world in the midst of two other military actions or the US being the leader of the free world working with others to immobilize a dictator all too happy to conduct genocide on his countrymen using his entire military apparatus? I think the message was clear to Ghaddafi before anyone did anything - just walk away. He chose force to solve this problem. Seems to me, there was no other option at hand once he decided tanks not talk was his solution to this uprising.

Seriously? This guy's been around for how long, 40 years? Was this his first, second, 1000th transgression? Was this the US anxious to foist regime change on the world in the midst of two other military actions or the US being the leader of the free world working with others to immobilize a dictator all too happy to conduct genocide on his countrymen using his entire military apparatus?

C'mon, Rick, you can do better than that. Since when does ANYONE 'topple' a 'dictator' unless there is a strategic interest? There are MANY dictators in the word today - so why doesn't the US topple all of THOSE? Why this PARTICULAR 'dictator'? What about the dictators in Somalia and the Sudan? Why aren't they on the 'list' to be toppled?

The context of the exchange between Alan, NJ and myself was about HOW we 'introduce' Democracy to the Middle East. Under President Bush, it was at the end of a firearm. Under President Obama, it is (usually) backdoor diplomatic pressuring and concensus through the UN.

If you are going to 'meddle', then using the UN to do it is the CORRECT method.

Make no mistake - I think that getting involved in ANY way with this action in Lybia is a MISTAKE, especially with squirrely and sometimes less than reliable NATO allies. However, I am willing to give this President the benefit of the doubt - like I am doing with Afghanistan - before I pass judgement.

Obama's a total joke and the liberals have their noses so far up his a** that they can't see the punchline. Libya is yet just another small example of his disdain for our constitution. Had a GOP President taken such action without consulting Congress the libs would want his head. Such hypocracy. I cannot get a grasp on the sickness that is liberalism. I sure wish they'd find a cure for it though.

If the Libyan intervention was about oil (like Iraq was), then the best thing to do would have been to stand back and let Gaddafi crush the rebellion. Gaddafi was getting along famously with western corporations. That's why Scottish authorities let Gaddafi's Lockerbie hit man out of prison and go home to Libya. The "humanitarian" reasons they gave were totally bogus. They did it because big business was eager to keep on good terms with Gaddafi, and it made Gaddafi unhappy that one of his murdering thugs was in prison for the heinous crime Gaddafi ordered him to commit.

Houston, kinda curious.....IF Iraq was about oil, why didn' we just go to the oil fields there, use our troops to take control of the wells, back up our tankers and just take it! The last time I looked, the oil remains in the hands of the Iraq government; they own it; they sell it to whoever they want, and they keep the money. So.......

Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to that one! He voted like every other member of the US Senate...in favor of a no fly zone!

Cornyn is a liar to claim otherwise now.

John B.

Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to that one!

Apparently, whoever wrote the FR paragraph didn't know, or at least thought it wasn't important enough to let the readers know about information leading to the inescapable conclusion that Cornyn is a dishonest hypocrite playing cynical political games with a life and death issue.

The date was March 1, 2011; it was S.RES.85. I said this last week, it would be nice if just one journalist asked these hizzy fit throwing senators to explain S.RES.85 which passed with unanimous consent, without one Senator raising a question or demanding a Roll Call vote.

Susan Rice is the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. The UN Resolution 1973 allows for the coalition to provide weapons to the Libyan opposition. Ms. Rice was referring to what the UN is considering and the U.S. would be part of that consideration. Never paint with a broad brush--the details become obscure.

You are so funny, 2 weeks!! That's what they said in Iraq and afganistan. Mark your calendar and let's chat in 11 years.