E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSo far, we’ve seen statements on Libya from Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum. Santorum also spoke on it yesterday in New Hampshire. Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain have not released statements.
ROMNEY: He takes the stance of telling the new Libyan government what to do. NBC’s Garrett Haake with the statement:
"The world is about to be rid of Muammar el-Qaddafi, the brutal tyrant who terrorized the Libyan people. It is my hope that Libya will now move toward a representative form of government that supports freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. As a first step, I call on this new government to arrest and extradite the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, so justice can finally be done."
PERRY: He says the news “is cause for cautious celebration,” per NBC’s Carrie Dann:
"The crumbling of Muammar Ghadafi's reign, a violent, repressive dictatorship with a history of terrorism, is cause for cautious celebration. The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries."
HUNTSMAN: He said, per the Washington Post that he was “hopeful -- as the whole world should be -- that [Khaddafy’s] defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it.”
SANTORUM: He had maybe the hottest statement of the candidates, giving President Obama little to no credit, and intimates that the uprising in Egypt made the U.S. and “allies in the region,” presumably Israel, less safe.
"Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing, but this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph. The stated task from the very beginning for this administration was to determine whether the US can positively influence the direction of the successor government. As we have seen in Egypt, the euphoria of toppling a dictator does not always result in more security for us and our allies in the region."
Yesterday in New Hampshire, per NBC’s Jo Ling Kent, he said:
"Look we have cast our lot with the rebels with this administration, and I think it's important that we capitalize on that. Hopefully in the last few weeks and months we have been working with the rebel forces and working with their ears and developing relationships and trying to see what we can do with our allies in NATO to make sure that the successor to Khaddafy is not as bad as the dictatorship that Khaddafy had. So working as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, in this case hopefully working out that NATO is a partner in this effort, hopefully working with the French, Italians and Brits, have some constructive role to play as a NATO operation in establishing a stable republic in Libya."
CAIN: Cain hasn't yet released a statement on Libya, NBC’s Ali Weinberg reports, but as part of a written statement released yesterday over Syria, Cain said:
“Yet again, the Obama Administration has called for the head of another foreign government to step down. If this is another veiled signal from this administration that it supports democracy there, then the President should just say so. In Egypt and Libya, the Obama Administration called for Mubarack and Qaddafi to step down. The questions that still linger in both of these countries are ‘To what do these nations transition?’ and ‘Who should we recognize in their stead?’”
Leave a Comment:
URGENT-BREAKING:
House won't accept Gaddafi surrender w/out cuts to Medicare & SS, & no revenue increases.
Gaddafi's having a hard time quitting... he should call Palin for some tips.....
In all seriousness - if this isn't an ISSUE we can ALL rally around, I don't know what is...
Yet, even in victory, the insane clown posse of 2012 candidates can't be gracious or give due recognition!
*shakes head*
I'll sit back and now wait for the rest of the Obama haters to pile into crazy train!
Feisty, you left out a few "job destroying" terms in your write up.
Isn't that part of everything that comes out of the mouths of the house.
Better now? Tom! ;o)
Don't agree with it, but if it's coming out of The Boner and Cantor's mouth, it's pretty close to what we can expect.
Maybe throw in a few "The American People Believe..." in there too and we can take credit for their talking points for this week.
Remember we were given a mandate - also too... lmao!
In all seriousness - if this isn't an ISSUE we can ALL rally around, I don't know what is...
_____________________________________
Nasty, if John Boehner's or Mitch McConnell's mom baked you an apple pie and personally delivered it to your house in Roselle and it was served it in an American flag covered pie plate, you would reject it because it was from the "Teapublican's".
Get over yourself.
Not bad - only took the idiot in Albany 10 minutes...lol
Definitely not some of his best work - but a worthy attempt none the less...
Not an idiot, just challenged, be nice to the disabled.
I did notice he left out the unusual "lefty liberal (LL)" term in every other sentence.
He's coming around. Good for you Joe, my prayers are working.
You didn't have to wait long, Feisty now they'll all be foreign policy experts, bet most of them couldn't find Libya on a map.
Aw, Feisty- I think it's pretty cool. I mean, how long has it been since we've all enjoyed an "I know you are, but what am I" post??
And one year from now, President Obama will visit the middle east and the stories will read, "US President Obama visits newly elected President of Egypt, fill in name. This is the fifth new democratically elected president in the middle-east this year. As part of this trip, President Obama has previously welcomed Tunisia, and Lybia. Following a short stop in Israel, the President will welcome the newly elected presidents of Syria and Yemen. The wave of countries embracing democracy began with the speech President Obama gave in Eqypt just a short 4 years ago. "
gee how time flies. sure seems like its been months, instead of weeks.
will bam bam seek congressional approval now?
mitch: moot point, war is over. By the time the Republicans could get around to doing anything, the next war will need to be funded.
Really? The president who took intelligent steps to ensure the safety of Americans, to ensure we would be welcomed by the Libyan people, to ensure global support including the Arab League, to ensure a united effort with NATO to provide air support only -- Cannot take any credit. Seriously?
This is why Santorum and his ilk are seen as a bunch of clowns endlessly coming out a little car (or under a rock, or from another planet, etc.). May the circus go to another place, far, far away from here.
idiot in Albany
____________________
As I said, Betty, you're a natural, a really, really, Nasty one. Not a particularly creative or clever one, but, just rotten and nasty to the core.
BTW, that mom's apple pie from the Tealiban mothers tastes extra good with some fresh whipped cream from the Blue Heron Farm cows that come with Barry's $50K per week vacation rental. Greens fees at the local country club are still extra.
This coming from someone who continually refers to me as Nasty Redhead!
*Yawn*
Do you seriously believe I give a crap what you think?
John McCain (The Last Boy Scout) was one of the few Republicans who even supported US involvement in Libya, and knowing this full well has the audacity to blame the "leadership" rather than his own Grand Obstructionist Party of No.
President Obama could find the cure for cancer and would still be attacked by conservatives, because conservatives hate any Democrat president, but especially a black one, and we all know it.
Bachmann, will give the credit to the Founding Fathers, who worked so hard to over throw Ghadafi's reign.
I could post a long laundry list of right-wing nastiness, from Watergate on (well, probably the JFK assassination too), but just since the 2010 election, we've seen open meeting violations, fake building codes to close abortion clinics, fake Democrats in a unnecessary primary on the tax payer's dime, ballots with incorrect date, "straw" or Bank of America campaign contributions, etc. Excuse us, what Party is nasty to the core?
Fight fire with fire or be a door mat--that's the choice. And when the GOP/TP bullies get hit back they cry like little school girls. Get used to it. Progressives are done with olive branches and one-sided concessions. It's time to force Republicans to admit to their throwing-America-under-a-bus "party first" strategery.
As for conservative's penchant for petty poop, I suppose if the Obama's bought a ranch instead of renting a place with their own money, that would be okay? No, because that's not really the issue, is it?
Do you seriously believe I give a crap what you think?
__________________________________________
In the immortal words of another resident of Roselle, Il named Al Bundy, married to a nasty redhead, and who was far more famous than you:
"Don't know, don't care"
Anyways, have a really, really, Nasty day, you have earned it, and give your Al my condolences.
But here you...
Me thinks the idiot from Albany doth protest too much!
Contrary to popular belief - always having the last word does nothing to bolster what ever point you were attempting to make! ;o)
Credit? No Credit? Who cares!
It is about the Libyans controlling Libya!
Send them cake and ice cream and an invitation to ask for help and guidance!
Don't get so caught up in yourself that you forget what it is really about! FREEDOM!
I love the bloodlust from the hypocritical left.
Guess it's only okay to wage war when the President is someone who thinks like you do, huh? I mean, you all have been for this illegal invasion since it started. Cheering it on even. Just because it went faster and cost less doesn't make it any less shady then Shrub's war. The fact that you refuse to see that is why no one takes the left seriously at all anymore. You show more hypocrisy in a week then the Republicans do in decades. But keep it up. All this blatant hypocrisy served you so well in 2010.
Say bubye to Nobel "Blow You to Pieces" Prize winner, President Downgrade. He's done.
Contrary to popular belief - always having the last word does nothing to bolster what ever point you were attempting to make! ;o)
____________________________________
And YOU get the last word, Peg.
Gharms,
You are trying to compare Iraq to Libya? No one can be that foolish!???
If we could only shut up the left and the right. Leave us normal people alone!
Now wait a minute, nobody said anything about having to find Libya on a map!
Let's all have a minute of silence to remember those who truly deserve our thanks at this time - George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
(You know that thought is going through some teabagger's brain right now).
[will bam bam seek congressional approval now?]
...didn't need it then, doesn't need it now but ahhh, my teabagging little friend mitchell j is at the rhetoric again...
CONGRATULATIONS LIBYAN CITIZENS!!!!!!
Now you have a chance to make a real difference in the Arab world. Forget this mindless "Arab Spring" nonsense everyone is touting. Be independent, strong and self reliant. Don't let influences, especially our incompetent president, decide your fate. Look at the disaster he's creating here and the rest of the world.
Your liberation was hard fought, make wise choices. Refuse any ideologies that mirror our Vacationer in Chief. The world is laughing at our lack of ANY domestic, foreign, fiscal or energy policies. But we will be honored with another "I'm gonna focus like a laser" speech in a few weeks by Barrack Hussein. No one here or anywhere else in the world listens to any of his social or economic justice anymore.
Good luck Libya. Your future is in your hands. We HOPE you make the right CHANGE.
We certainly didn't with the "Great mistake of 2008".
God Bless you and your future.
God Bless America.
TruePatriot-445959
If Obama did discover a cure for cancer, McCain would attack him for not discovering it sooner.
markmich
I'll bet pictures from Libya like this drive you Obama haters crazy:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/libyasquare.jpg
The Libyans are responsible for their revolution, but it wouldn't have happened without the support of the people pictured on this poster: Obama, his UN ambassador, and our British and French allies.
Houston!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
But I thought he was "leading from behind"?
It looks more like he was hiding from behind.
Nice try though,,,Spanky.
MDB123......
You're right. There is no comparison between Iraq and Libya, as one was actually voted for in congress, and the other was entered into illegaly and then continued under the guise of a "NATO Humanitarian Mission".
Now, the whole world knows that "NATO Humanitarian Mission" is code for "State Sanctioned Assassination".
Gharms, who was assassinated? No one I've heard about. Comments like yours and markmich only reveal how absolutely out of touch you right wing tea smokers really are. Obama gets this done in 6 months, minimal cost, no loss of US life, and no congressional side show. Simply put, well done, much to your consternation. The Shrub on the other hand, lied about why, paid for it with a credit card, and declared victory a few years too early. Along the way destroying our nation's economy and enriching quite a few of his cronies. Halliburton comes to mind first. But just like Bin Laden, you guys can't admit when Obama just handles it better than Bush did. Probably because he didn't strap on his six-shooter, mount up and declare, you're with us or against us.
That "sideshow" you comment on is CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED. You know, the very document Obama has sworn to uphold? But keep ignoring that, like because this is a win it somehow dulls that offense. It doesn't.
Seems like Pres. Obama, (I always refer to him as Mr. President, 'cause it just drives the right nuts.), has won two victories overseas in less than 3 years, while our former Pres. Bush, couldn't win one, or get the big prize, bin Laden.. Way to go victorious Pres. Obama, a man of steel at times.
No gharms, it is not a constitutional question. What you are questioning stems from the War Powers act, a law passed by congress as a result of the Vietnam experience that has never been court tested for constitutionality. There are lots of schools of thought on whither or not this would actually pass the test or is just one branch trying to inflict its form of control over another. You should read up on a little history. To claim that the president violated the constitution in supporting the NATO effort in Libya is just misinformation and personal opinion.
markmich
Obama never used that phrase but another black guy you no doubt hate did use it: Nelson Mandela.
http://blogs.hbr.org/imagining-the-future-of-leadership/2010/05/leading-from-behind.html
You can't stand it that Obama's leadership is getting praise from Libyans while Bush's "leadership" got a shoe thrown at him.
Houston!:
[...while Bush's "leadership" got a shoe thrown at him.]
And we can STILL have the same fun the Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi had...
http://www.sockandawe.com/
...enjoy...!
The fact that you can't see the difference between terrorists like bin Laden and Gaddafi versus a run-of-the-mill despot like Saddam, or a friendly dictator like Mubarak is precisely why Republicans suck at foreign policy. And looking at the current GOP/TP presidential field--Yikes!
With exception of maybe Huntsman, though funny how he's being praised for speaking Chinese when John Kerry's fluency in French and German (because he actually lived there when growing up, not just a two-year missionary gig) was never noted. Keep grasping at straws, conservatives...
Gharms
You mean like the unconstitutional mandate in the Health Care Redistribution of Wealth hoax?
You mean like this very war, in Libya, that he still hasn't gotten Congressional approval for?
You mean his viewing Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional and refusing to defend it in court?
You mean his intending to use the 14th Amendment to get his weak little fingers on $2.4 TRILLION more dollars to waste in the debt ceiling debate? That cost us our first ever bond rating downgrade?
You mean his 36 unconstitutional czar's?
You mean his belief that the Constitution is a "living document" and demonizing it as a "charter of negative liberties"?
Nice try Bubba.
"Run of the mill despot"? HAHHAHAHA.
Saddam gassed more innocent civilians then Gaddafi and our next war, Syria, combined. Nice try. Keep grasping at those straws. He also routinely executed people for sh!ts and giggles.
As to the War Powers Act cop out.......
The ACTUAL wording of the law is "Under attack or under imminent threat of attack". Please......tell us all how we were under attack or under imminent threat of attack from Libya. I'll wait.....
PS - markmitch....less rabid partisanship, more reading classes. I happen to agree with you on this.
Gharms
I understand. The Bubba comment was not directed at you.
@Job1:
You are probable correct. Since Bachmann still think Elvis is alive, she probably thinks The Command In Chief is George Washington.
Gharms| I've kept quite till now but I can't avoid calling an idiot an idiot. Sorry, but you've earned the title.
So no rebutal, just name calling? Classy Ed. LOL.
Fail debater is fail.
Nice try Gharms. Let's see, we have a Republiconbagger whining about an illegal invasion...did we invade Libya? ...I thought that was Iraq...under let's see, oh yes...GW Bush. Hypocrisy...you folks are hypocrisy central!
As to your comment about a downgrade? The only downgrades the American people have witnessed lately were the Republibag downgrade of Congress, which caused the downgrade of our National credit rating...and the American people won't forget who was elected screaming "where are the jobs" then promptly ignored the cry for jobs! 2012 will show.
LOL you guys can't fight that we're there illegaly so you try to tie it all back to Iraq? Hahahahahaha.
I'll slow it down for you.....
Iraq voted on. Passed.
Afghanistan voted on. Passed.
Libya not voted on. When Obama called on it, buries it under guise of NATO.
Keep bringing up two CONGRESSIONALLY BACKED WARS while trying to defend your illegal invasion without consent of congress. It makes you look dumber and dumber everytime you do it.
Gharms| You dissemble!
Still no real rebutal of facts from Ed, but at least he was able to keep his Tourrettes under wraps this time.
PS - Explain this to me. If we're just playing "the support role" that Obama insisted we are doing as to not get in trouble for attacking a sovereign nation without consent of congress.....how are you able to give him the credit for any of this? Oh, right. You Obots give him credit for everything good, and deny fault when anything bad happens.
Gharms| I see you don't know the meaning of the word dissemble. Look It up>
I see you don't know how to debate in a civil and coherent manner.
Just jumping in and calling names and not bringing any facts to rebut your opponent doesn't makeyou king of the conversation like you apparently think it does.
We were not at war with Libya which is why there was no need for congressional approval. What is so hard to understand about that?
Huge difference between declaring and waging war against another country and offering support for a country that is at war with itself.
markmich
Bush had 36 czars. Obama 32, however, the White House has stated that they don't use the term. In fact, some of the posts referred to as "czar" are of appointments that are held over from previous administrations. This article is very instructive on how many Republicans called for czars to be appointed in the past several years.
Gharms
The Senate voted to approve US support of NATO in Libya. The House voted against approving US support - followed by a vote to approve funding for US operations with NATO. The Republican House will spend money on anything -- even when they disapprove.
LOL "offering support" in this case = fighting the war for the rebels. Don't believe me? Go check the story on MSNBC......where they just updated that NATO, not the rebels, are bombing Gaddafi's compound. You can try to spin it any way you'd like, but WE are fighting this war. WE are buying and dropping the bombs. WE are running the ops. WE are using our drones to bomb the side WE chose in a civil war.
Like I said...."NATO Humanitarian Mission" is just code now for "State sanctioned assassination of a head of state and the ability to unilaterally wage war without consent of congress". Had GWB pulled this BS, you all would have been screaming for his impeachment, and rightfully so. But since it's the great "Peace" Prize winner Obamessiah, you fall silent and bury your noses in his ass. Hypocrites.
PS - Gates himself even said we are NATO, and that the other nations, without us, couldn't do what they're doing in Libya.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/501364/main20070541.shtml
Gharms
And the Republicans are paying for it all. Remember the 'shellacking' last November. Maybe that was actually a floor finish.
Interesting that when President Obama ignores Congress - he gets exactly what he wants.
So you're an advocate of Totalitarianism then?
PS- He CAN'T ignore Congress on this, no matter what the outcome is. But you're apparently okay with him usurping the Consitution. I'm wondering how your tone would be if we had lost, or Gaddafi had dug in and required us to send in troops.
Can I play too? The FOunding Fathers didn't take the COnstitution from God's Hand only to have the job killing Obama Freedom Haters try to use it to oust Ghadafi. If it doesn't mention Ghadaif specifically in the Constitution, then Obama is betraying America, and is a socialist... and hates Jesus.... and furthermore, Reagan would have defeated Ghadafi in a month, without even trying, just by using Liberty. And Freedom.... uh... dang, it's hard to sound that teatarded!
Gharms
I support fixing problems without sitcom political theater. Looks like President Obama achieved that. The President acted decisively, defended his position, and succeeded. President Obama acted like a 'decider'.
I can "decide" to rob a bank tomorrow. It doesn't make it legal. I can even not consult my family and frinds about it.
I do agree that the political theater schtick is growing old from both sides, however. But, no matter how old it gets, it doesn't negate the fact that Obama violated his oath, not only an impeachable offense, but if it turns out these rebels are indeed Al-Qaeda (who knows, both sides are playing it pretty close to the vest on this fact), it's treason.
Gharms
Impeachment proceedings are initiated by the House - that is part of the Constitutional authority and responsibilty of the House. If President Obama's actions are truly impeachable - the House is not fullfilling it's Constitutional duty.
Since the House is paying for the military operation with NATO in Libya - I assume the House does not view this as an impeachable offense. I assume the House understands the Constitution - since reading it into the House record was the first official act of the sitting House.
You'd think that, but probably not. I make no excuses for the stupidity of the Republicans, but I also will not tolerate the same from the Democrats.
Eris2010
A country at war with itself is in a civil war. Where in our Constitution does it give us the right to interfere in another nations internal affairs militarily?
If you condone that, where were we when the Iranians were begging the world to help them?
Why aren't we outarged at 2,000 Syrians being slaughtered in their streets.
And now we're going to continue nation building in Libya. I thought you Liberal Progressives were against that.
Red on the nooodle like the D*** on a poodle in IL. If you didn't care what anyone thinks, you wouldn't respond with "do you seriously think I give a crap what you think".. your little liberal bottom feeding mind can't stand not having reinforcement of any kind. you thrive on hand outs, let others work hard, then you demand they share their hard earned money with you..after all your entitled! it's not your fault you dropped out of school, it's everyone else's fault, therefore your entitled! go stand up for whatever is convient at this moment, just as all bottom feeding liberals do. P*** off a liberal, work hard, keep what you worked hard for & be happy!!!
Gharms
It appears President Obama's 'illegal, stupidity' is going to pay a dividend. The entire middle east could set up democratic governance before Iraq does. Amazing what a little diplomacy and limited, well defined military action can achieve.
Also appears that supporting NATO helped maintain NATO support in Afghanistan while the United States draws down President Obama's surge.
And you don't seem to grasp that it doesn't make it any less illegal. If I make money from robbing and murdering someone, can I go scott free because I made "dividends"?
Gharms
If you 'robbed and murdered', you would be innocent until indicted, tried in a court of law, and proved guilty by verdict of a jury. Until President Obama is indicted, tried, and proved guilty - President Obama is innocent of illegal actions.
Ignoring our Constitutional system of jurisprudence for sitcom political theater only supports and promotes the uncompromising, dysfunctional politics in Congress.
President Obama acted decisively and achieved desired results that enhances the security of the United States and its allies. This is a win for the United States. President Obama should receive congratulations.
How does he deserve the congratulations. By your own party's admission, we were merely playing a suport role supposedly.
It blows my mind how we can go from "barely involved" to "deserving all the credit" as soon as the dust settles.
Gharms
Yes, the United States was part of a team - working in a collaborative effort to achieve a result that benefits the team as a whole.
You are correct this is a win for the NATO team. President Obama should be congratulated for assisting the NATO team in achieving that win. President Obama should be congratulated for being involved in a clear military win - the United States has not had one of those in awhile.
....how do we deserve credit for anything? The claims from the left is we were BARELY involved. That's like proclaiming the man who machined the ball bearings in your tires as the great creator of the Tesla (coolest car ever....sad to see it go out of business).
Gharms - Isn't this what Bush and the neocons wanted? Freedom for the people of the Middle East? I bet you were so patriotic when when Bush and neocons decided to invade (with the approval of Congress) to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq and brayed(saber rattling) about doing the same in Iran. I'm betting you had goose bumps the size of grapefruits full of patriotic zeal and phony-baloney swagger, when you idol "Dumbiyah" was in office. I guess that zeal has worn off since the bills have been coming due, huh, Bubba! Get your Republican HOR to try to impeach the POTUS or at least produce some jobs. Then again maybe Bush is just a distant memory for a pinhead like you.
Thanks for telling ME how I felt. There's nothing narcissistic about that at all.....
I was AGAINST Iraq. I served there. Don't tell me how I felt. I'm not like you and the other fringe zealots around here who blindly back the President because he's of my own party.
Gharms
The only thing I have ever stated is that the United States was supporting NATO because the United States is a member of NATO. A more apt analogy would be the pit crew for a NASCAR racer. Only the driver is on the track but the importance of the pit crew is recognized. A NASCAR win is a team win.
I had not heard that the Tesla had dropped out. I have only seen videos - looked like a hot little number. If I recall correctly, the Tesla was pushing performance limits of electric vehicles well beyond corporate designs- really important to have that type of innovation. I agree - sad to hear it is gone.
Yes, supposedly the CEO's business partners ripped him off for a bunch of money, and now he can either sell his high end tech to another car company, or just keep it. Electric cars seem to be going out of style now anyways, but perhaps with that kind of performance, they could be revived. The new bio-deisel or whatever it is seems to be the new thing now.
Honestly though, an electric car that can do 0-60 in 4 seconds and has a top speed of almost 200mph is insane....188hp.
Back to the Libya thing though, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I just think the whole NATO thing is disingenuous, seeing as we re the ONLY ones there at first, but as soon as Obama got called on invading a country without consent from Congress, we took a "tertiary role in a kinetic military action". And let's be real, NATO is headhunting for Gaddafi, which is HIGHLY illegal. They killed his grandkids trying to kill him, then want us to buy their "We're not specifically targeting him" story? Gimme a break.
Gharms
My understanding that the US would step back after the initial heavy lifting was the original plan. The US had to lead first simply because NATO did not have the resources for the initial assaults.
My read is that the poilics of the 'loyal' opposition ramped up just before the already planned transition to NATO leading the operation. Congress knew what the plan was - they were being briefed. The 'loyal' opposition always takes advantage of situations like that so it appears they forced the President to back down.
I think the entire operation went down exactly as planned - just took longer than expected - hence the mission creep.
A big part of US involvement, I think, is that President Obama wanted a bigger draw down in Afghanistan. That would only be possible if NATO continues support. 'Give a little - get a little' diplomacy. That part seems to have worked, too.
NATO doesn't tell us where and when we do anything with our troops. We aren't beholden to their authority. That would also be an impeachable offense, seeing as no one is to have command of our military unless it's ina situation like this where it's a coalition fighting an enemy. Afghanistan is technically that, but it's OUR war, so they can't really make policies on how we do business there. They can give advice, but in the long run, the President and the military top echelon make those decisions.
Regardless of how the relationship turned out, we started the involvement in that war. That's against the bylaws of the Constitution without congressional consent. The War Powers Act was enacted for a single purpose, and has been deemed unconstitutional ever since. It's intended purpose was to allow a President to fire nuclear ordinance in the event that someone fires at us first without convening congress to get the okay, since time would be of the essence. It clearly states we must either currently be under attack or under imminent threat of attack. We were neither.
Gharms
Afghanistan is not 'our' war. President Bush turned theater command over to NATO in December, 2003, I believe. That was to allow redeployment of troops for operations in Iraq. The UN authorized NATO to conduct operations in Libya - Libya operations are under NATO command. NATO has the authority to 'tell us what to do' because NATO has command authority in both Afghanistan and Libya.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_69349.htm
Since you are familiar with the Constitution - the President is the only authorized representative of the United States to conduct foreign affairs. The Constitution establishes a Secretary of State to conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the President - but the President has final authority. The Constitution expressly prohibits the President from delegating that authority to anyone else. Congress has no authority, under the Constitution, to interfere with the President in conducting foreign affairs. Foreign affairs includes conducting diplomacy, establishing trade agreements, negotiating and enforcing treaties, and the use of the military to support diplomacy, negotiations, and comply with or enforce treaty obligations. The United States military is part of the foreign affairs function of the President.
The Constitution also designates that the Senate is the only body that can officially declare war. A declaration of war provides the President 'war powers' - meaning the President can prosecute the war without review or approval of Congress as Commander in Chief. The recent adoption of 'authority to use force' is an iunconstitutional form of declaring war because it expressly denies the President 'war powers' authority. If the United States is not conducting war - then military action would be covered by foreign affairs authority of the President. Congress is expressly prohibited from interfering with President's conduct of foreign affairs.
The War Powers Act infringes on the Contitutional authority of the President to conduct foreign affairs - to use the military to support diplomacy and enforce or comply with negotiated treaties.
Your position is unconstitutional - it is illegal.
Gharms - I have no doubt you were all gung-ho when you were in the military. Your memory fails you my friend. Just like I bet you didn't follow the Shrub "blindly". Save your amended memories for someone, who might believe you.
Oh look, amused is telling me how I felt again.
Back to your cave, troll.
PS- Of course I followed "shrub", just like I followed Obama. It was my DUTY, something you wouldn't know a damned thing about.
No it isn’t an issue we can all rally around. I’ve said it before that we had no business interfering in what was a Libyan internal conflict and now we will pay and pay as money is poured down that rat hole. One thing is certain and that is whoever becomes the new leader of that country will remain our friend only so long as the money keeps flowing. We have struck a blow for middle eastern instability.
I remain annoyed at every politician that supported this ill advised action, of any party.
You know what Gharms, a successful man's sins will be forgiven him. You can give yourself apoplectic fits over the legality of supporting the rebels, but very few people actually care. A win is a win, and the U.S. can use the moral booster after what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Historically, it's always ok to fight a war, if you win. The founding fathers fought and illegal war and won. Stick that in your crack pipe and have a toke.
How many Americans were lost in this "third" war, the connies kept complaining about?
0
you guys talking about fast and furios? at least 2.
Yes. Keep asking THAT question.
Let me ask you one in return.
How many reps and senators voted to okay a unilateral war on Libya? The answer is also zero, and the offense is not negated by a low body count.
Gharms - its negated by your pitiful argument without a statutory precedent, unless of course we consider Reagan invaded Grenada without the consent of Congress. Yeah, that St. Reagan.
You don't need permission to act in the country's best interest. When you start committing to getting your fellow Americans killed in so doing, then you are expected to seek popular support.
Tell you what, Mitt.
Tell Libya to take a number ... right after you restore those things in the US, we'll let you interfere with Libya.
Mitt might be able to restore these back to America since Obama has taken them away.
The "progressives" who don't support President Obama much are pretty quiet as well. They were against this. Or, they were against it going past what? - 30 days? One of those in and out jobs I guess. The Libyan people provided their blood, sweat and tears, not us. They are to be commended not never giving up. So isn't President Obama.
I turned on Fox this morning and their resident idiot - Doocey(?) said - The powerful United States v. Libya took 6 months? He wanted to know what took so long. Unbelievable.
How long was our revolution? 8 years?
Going after Ghaddafi took nothing short of very brave souls. One of the bosses of my co. yesterday, who is 100% Republican purity and v. wealthy, told me - GWB's way was wrong - President Obama's way of thinking is the future. I couldn't believe it. Astounding.
And he asked me why the "left" never gives him a break.
I hope Ghaddafi is killed. Soon. A despicable despicable human being. Who should have been arrested years and years ago.
How nice that your boss is open to seeing other views, Pat.
Just saw a post that showed a picture of President Obama and said: When this President goes on vacation he doesn't clear brush, he clears dictators!
Congratulations to the brave people of Libya.
Pat - The "progressives" who don't support President Obama much are pretty quiet as well.
Hi Pat, Boston have not spoken for a while. As a progressive I will respond, as my original post on First thoughts only saw a response from No Jo NoBo. You are right the Libyan people who died for this deserve 99% of the credit not Nato. Congratulations to them. Now lets hope they died to form a peaceful democracy and not something else.
For now I will hopefully hum - The Winds of Change by the Scorpions. In a years time perhaps we will see fruits in the tree of liberty or we will see thorns.
__________
The Arab Spring not started by a speech
....As I and others have mentioned before this was caused by a sense of desperation and hopleseness, triggered by that fruit vendor in Tunisia. This wave of kinetic energy has been kept back by US backed dictators and supposed allies for decades until with that last straw it was not able to be held back. Now we are seeing that potential energy rushing forward.
I was against this exercise in Libya and questioned its justification as a humanitarian effort. I don't believe that anyone is calling for keeping Khadafi in power but at least realize that even with the best of intentions the outcome could be messy. Now that it appears to be coming to a close I hope the Libyan people the best and pray that that rag tag group of rebels doesn't form something worse or begin to fight amongst themselves. Very few military takeovers and or rebellions lead to democracies. As the liberal antithesis on the right Ron Paul would say, Why can't we keep ourselves out of other countries affairs?
I asked this question last week, how do my fellow liberal FR posters think Obama should proceed in Syria. Knowing that Obama's reasoning for humanitarian military intervention in Libya was the possible killing of thousands based on Khadafi's rhetoric and threats, why no action against Assad who has killed thousands? Could it be my fellow FR posters are waiting for their talking points on how Obama should proceed. I say diplomacy should be used to get the Arab League to stop that dictator from killing his own people. If they can't or won't, I'm sorry but it is not our problem. It is but another country where atrocities are committed and the World doesn't lift a finger to stop it. The US can no longer be depended to do everything.
Pat,Boston,MA,
How did you keep your mouth from hitting your desk or stay in your chair (as in falling out of)?
Good job!, however you managed it.
Yellowdog, that should be Bluedog. You say you are progressive, but your rhetoric is plainly not. In answer to your question, Obama should proceed with caution in Syria as it is a different type of situation than Libya. The Libyan rebel leaders ASKED for assistance, the Syrian rebels have not. Until such time as they do we are better off to remain on the sidelines and offer what political support that we can. As for curling up in a fetal ball and saying that the US cannot help those who seek freedom any longer, I say rubbish. It sounds like you've got a contact Tea buzz going on there. It is always in our interests to support freedom loving people, regardless as to the form of government that comes out of it as long as those who live in the country do not consider it repressive. We cannot expect to tell the world what form of government they must have, or what form of GOD they may worship. We can, however, do what we can to support those who seek to eliminate the source of their own repression. IF we cannot do that any longer, then we are not America and no longer have the right to call ourselves the greatest country to ever exist. It is those morals and values that give us that title, not our individual egos.
Yellowdog-Mark D
The US did NOT do everything in Libya. That's why the Repubs are attacking Obama for "leading from behind." The United States played a limited but indispensable role in a home-grown rebellion that looks to be on the verge of success, although that's not yet certain. You seem disappointed that your dire warnings of doom have come to naught and you can't say "I told you so."
Amused - So a person who doesn't cheer lead for every Obama initiative and policy is not a progressive. Thanks for the definition of what a progressive is. Try telling this to leaders like Kucinich and Conyers, Sanders and Durbin.
Just because Obama campaigned as a progressive means I should support his escalation of the Afganistan war twice, support his calls for renewing the Patriot act, support his increased deportation of non violent undocumented immigrants, support his extension of the Obama Tax cuts, accept his capitulation to an all cuts no revenue debt deal.
Houston, fair enough if you think that is what motivates me, but believe me I would rather be wrong and things go peacefully from here on out.
If Syrian leaders ask for help, and NATO responds, we would be fools not to help. Putting the Sunnis into power in Syria (they are the majority, after all) would provide a buffer against what is going to become the state of Iraq/Iran, thanks to our poorly thought out invasion. Republicans, especially the religious right, should agree with this whole heartedly, since that buffer is the last thing protecting Israel from a massive shiite invasion backed by Iran. You have to know the muslim factions to make informed choices in the middle east.
Romney is a peach, isn't he? "I call on...[blah blah]"....will someone remind the one term governor of the 47th state in terms of job growth during his term, who outsourced millions of american jobs, who flip flops on all issues, that he is neither the president, nor his party's nominee for president!!!!
They're all applying GOP political tennets, as usual:
Never give credit to Dems.
Always attack Dems.
Always take credit for good things.
Never admit to problems from Republican policies or pols.
Pretend to be Christians and patriots to get their votes.
They are muted because extremist are bitter and petty. How much more proof do we need that these GOP candidates are not deserving or worthy to occupy the oval office. I will not give my vote to extremist.
I think Libya follows an "if only" script. It was a true coalition of the the real powers of the world (as opposed to the "coalition of the willing"(mostly countries you never heard of sending one or two 'advisors', supporting the actual people of a country hungry for freedom (as opposed to a partnership w/ a corrupt corner or tribe creating a different regeime of repression like Karzai). We actually insisted, or allowed, other countries to step up and take a roll of support while allowing the people of Libya to assume the credit for their own victory. And after just 6 months, Douchey wants to know what took so long? Yeah, 6 mo seems awfully long compared to the years in Iraq and Afganistan. If only...
I think it should be pronounced (or spelled) Douchey...still as douchey now as he was when he was in KC.
How quickly the candidates forget their "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" celebration.
If only Bush had played Iraq the same way.... Obama did it right by staying the heck out of it other than material help... but you'll never get the GOP to say that... those current people would have bombed the heck out of everyone... but what the heck... they still have Korea when then get in....
They would also have occupied the country and tried to instate their own government like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would have turned into another 10 year occupation if the GOP had done it.
I am with you MTATL67! The Tea-bagger party should be classified as a terrorist group! Please someone tell me the difference between Tea-party, and white citizens council?
Tea Party = neo-nazis 2.0 (they've re-invented themselves for a new era!)
OK, The Tea Party is for freedom and Liberty and limited government for ALL, regardless of race
haggisbingo-2225582, you might want to think about removing that tin hat
That's a fantastic idea, your a genius "GreedyBizOwner".
What in the tiny mind of a Tea Smoker makes them think that "freedom and liberty" can be guaranteed by "limited government". Doesn't this mean that we just take everything out of the bucket where we help PEOPLE and put it into the bucket where we spend trillions on useless military hardware and enrich the General Dynamics and Halliburton of the world? Get real people, how in all of that Tea fog can you honestly believe that in the reality of today's world that would happen at all? Obama just proved that you don't need to fund the military establishment with the entire treasury to win a conflict. You people need to start believing in people again and not so much about your own pocket and greed.
"OK, The Tea Party is for freedom and Liberty and limited government for ALL, regardless of race"
Oh, I see, the TP just wants to remove government protection for all people, whether they can afford to buy protection for themselves afterward or not. So I guess you're not really racist. A rich black, or latino, or asian, or white, or native American are all fine with you. It's just the poor and middle class that you are predjudiced against? I must tell you, 98% of us shouldn't find that very comforting.
Kevin - back to class! "Obama did it right by staying the heck out of it other than material help".......there was no one else to give material help to in Iraq, which in case you have forgot was run by a man who considered Stalin a hero. You know, the Iraq where all the Dems agreed Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction and was menace that needed to be taken out.
Which, of course, they abandoned when the going got tough and they all wanted to run, whined about how the war was lost, ad infinitum.
Democrats are the biggest phonies on the planet Earth.
No - the Dems abandoned their support when they realized the Iraq had no WMDs, hadn't had them in decades and that the Bush Administration lied to them about it.
But hey - you're obviously a Republican, so the actual facts won't matter to you.
There was no one else to give material or even military support (except the poor gullable Brits, bless their well meaning hearts) because virtually every leader in the world thought Iraq was a FOOLS WAR. Guess what? They were not wrong, and smart to stay out, like President Obama has stayed out of Libya. The reality here is that even if things go south there, it is still Libya's mess. We don't have to police it. We don't have to rebuild it. We don't have to create a government. All we did was help the common people overthrow a wack-job that Regan (bless his black wizened soul) tried to get in the '80s. One of the few things he did right.
SANTORUM = total jerk. Time to go home loser...
I wish these GOP jerks would just give it a rest, anything they say is based completely on their twisted politics. Who really cares what any of them say….....it’s all meaningless trash.
BigAl, far too many Americans do care what they say. That's the real shame of our country. Take the money and motivation out of education and this is what happens. That, and not launching NATO air strikes against the stations where Fox Propaganda is made.
I think it should be pronounced (or spelled) Douchey...still as douchey now as he was when he was in KC.
God job, Rebels of Libya! Good call, Mr. President! Now I hope the devil we don't know in Libya isn't worse than the devil we helped the rebels topple.
So the President made the right call when he ordered Bin Laden to be taken out, and he makes the right call with regards to Libya, you'll never ever hear any GOPER give this man credit for anything period, unless of course if it had a TAX CUT attached to it then maybe, but don't hold your breath!
sfilutze,
Not true at all. I give the President two thumbs up that he OK'd sicking the Seals on Bin Laden. I think he should get a brass Balls award for not telling the Pakistanis we were coming. Other than that I can't stand his policies.
Well TX&Proud, I agree with the award, but standing up to congress and telling them this is going to happen no matter how much you bitch about it should count for something.
Is there any traditional Republicans left in America?
All those that wear the republican label now are outside of the political stadium. Their words are those of someone who has mental problems, gleeful and smarmy with their adolescent words.
Give us an Eisenhower, a Ford, or even a Nixon with all his faults would be much, much better than the present, worst of the worst crop of fake republicans ever.
All they have to offer is more of the same miserable failures of the past. They have not reformed and are still hanging on to their narrow minded ideology of totally unregulated capitalism that has almost destroyed America economically. They will not admit that and are telling lies, even preposterous lies, and repeating them over and over to brainwash the American people that they are not responsible and are blaming President obama and the Democrats for the economic disaster that happened under their watch.
What could be worse for Republicans right now?
Obama ordered the pirates taken out when he first came into office, Then passed a HCR LAW with the only arguments surrounding a Republican idea (mandates) Then passed WSR with Republicans scared to fight it (WS had screwed the WORLD) The Iraq war is drawing to a close, A plan is in place to end Afghanistan war and has a time frame for withdrawal, Obama ordered Bin Laden taken out, Done,,,,,,Now Gaddafi (who every President in the last 40 years tried to remove) is out of power thanks to the USA,,,,And not one NATO or American life was lost!!!!
Simply put, If Obama can make force the end of the Republican forced taxcuts, End Corporate subsidies, and end both Bush wars within the next year he will be looking at going into his re-election with an almost balanced budget and PEACE for the first time in a decade. How can Republicans compare????
Joe in Albany is an ass clown......
That is a horrible thing to say about ass clowns.
Republican candidates and their cowardly followers are nothing but Monday morning armchair quarterbacks.
Booo!
Go back to babyville GOP.
You couldn't catch Bin Ladin and you're too soft to support your President when he got Gadhafi removed in two seasons.
Man up you treasonous creeps.
Obama got Gadhafi removed? What a joke. The French should take most of the credit, if anyone. As for Obama catching Bin Laden, everything was put in place by the previous president; all Obama had to say is yea or nay and he wasn't stupid enough to say nay. It's amazing how anyone could support this Idiot in Chief after all the damage he's done to this country.
If you really believe such trash therealmerridian, then why were you yelling so much about President Obama not complying with the WPA, and that he should "get out of Libya" and "end the war" and so on and so forth?
If you hadn't noticed, we have decided to NOT ALLOW YOU WINGNUTS TO CONTINUE YOUR DOUBLE STANDARDS anymore, and particularly in Nov. '12. You can not have it both ways any longer....
TRM - How can you say that everything was put in place by the previous president when in 2006 Bush dismantled the group that was looking for Bin Laden and Obama had to re-create that group in 2009?
'It's amazing how anyone could support this Idiot in Chief after all the damage he's done to this country.' - You're speaking of Bush, right?
JDills,
REALLY????? You seriously think we stopped looking for that A-Hole and Oby formed some magical team of intel fairies that threw all this together since 2009? Your obviously like all those street walkers interviewed by the late night comedy shows after Obama was elected. Only a handful who said they voted for Obama could tell you who the VP was, or what the mission of the Congress is or anything of national importance. Obama got the Zombie vote to include yours I'm sure.
As Bill Maher recently opined on a political commentary show about the 40-some-odd percent of voters who vehemently oppose President Obama: "Obama could personally save them and their children from drowning, but they still wouldn't vote for him." I think Bill is probably right.
I think that those 40% are largeley dominated by people that object to his skin color - although they will never say it. When I hear my parents speak, and the parents of my friends speak, their bias is predominately racial. They have opinions about economic matters, but they're only parroting rubbish they heard on Fox. Try and engage them in any sort of conversation and you'll quickly find that they will contribute their racial bias, but when pressed to talk about money matters they quickly don't have a clue. It is sad that in 2011, there is still so much suppressed racial bias in this country. The good thing is that a lot of it is in the older generations and they'll all be gone soon.
GCV, my feelings exactly. I'm 69 years old, white, and do not nor have I ever had a racist bone in my body despite coming from a racist family. It thoroughly sickens me to hear the garbage coming from the senior tea baggers and seeing their disgusting signs depicting President Obama as everything from the Joker to Hitler. That racism could still be so prevalent in this country is truly sad.
GVC
Way to go...you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your a card carrying LIB. If the 40% who can't stand Obama's policies are in-fact RACIST then what about the fact that 98% of all Blacks who voted actually voted for OBAMA???????? Seriously, I can't believe I torture myself by reading the ramblings of Libs. To bad for Black America that they are just now finding out how white Oby really is. Hey, Thanks for your vote but don't expect my Million Dollar Bus in your Neighborhood anytime soon. But I digress.
i'll tell you what run herman cain for president and see how many black votes he gets....0 you think black people don't watch fox, but we do even fifty cents the rapper because we have to keep an eye on you crazies
-
The Republicans especially Santorum have shown their BS way of acting absolutely smarmy. When I hear their babble it makes me want to go and wash my hands. These are times to get behind our country and our president and to make negative comments like he did will result in him leaving the race just that much sooner. Good riddance.
Obama does what he always does; sit in the background without a plan, take credit when things go right, and blame others if they don't. This is certainly no "victory" for Obama; will he still take credit if radical muslims end up controlling the country? No. He'll find someone to blame and distance himself from the whole situation. Obama is a joke.
Great post and very true. Remember the chairman did say we were not involved in ground operations. He will however try to drum up support from his apologists with their heads buried in his azzzzzzz. Nasty redhead, and mentally disabled, we are waiting.
TO: TheRealMerridian who wrote:
"Obama does what he always does; sit in the background without a plan, take credit when things go right, and blame others if they don't. This is certainly no "victory" for Obama; will he still take credit if radical muslims end up controlling the country? No. He'll find someone to blame and distance himself from the whole situation..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hum, but Republicans DO have a plan, to rob the American People blind, AGAIN, and to repeat the same 30-year-old trickle down economic plan that NEVER worked, but they're going to try again, and hope for a different result.
We watched as Republicans borrowed and spent and borrowed and spent us all the way into a near-depression; we watched the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Now Republicans want everybody to agree to continue that same exact exercise: watch as Republicans borrow and spend and borrow and spend us all the way into a near-depression; and then watch the rich get even richer, and the poor get even poorer as Republicans ask the American People to allow them to continue to do it all over again, and again, and again.
That's the Republican Plan, only this time they've added "and let's all promise to take all that Social Security money so if the American People elect us, they know in advance that the Social Security money is going to be spent on the debt/deficit and the American People won't be getting any of their money back -- EVER."
It's a Republican "Plan" that I don't want any part of !
Well we promise aid, but we cant promise the eight million children of America a meal,,,,,figures oil is more important than taking care of our own...........Children.......
Russell, good one!
One thing I've noticed about Republicans is they simply can't stand the thought of helping their neighbor, but claim to read the Bible which says they MUST "love thy neighbor" (but just the opposite, they can't stand their neighbor), and at the same time can't send enough billions of American Taxpayer dollars overseas to help people from other countries. It seems Republicans have a "anywhere but here" mentality.
What is up with that?
Yes, Bill Maher is correct.
The 40-percent of voters that dislike Obama will vote for his opponents that are drowning them, though. Fox News does a pretty good job of convincing their viewership of voting against their own interests.
And exactly what has Obama done in the last two and a half years other than destroy our economy and create massive unemployment. Obama doesn't deserve respect or any more time in the White House; he has been the worst president in U.S. history; he'd be more like Ted Kennedy rather than save someone from drowning.
rradiko, the same bill maher, spokesperson for the liberal left, that suggested that conservative men and women be violently raped?
great source you liberals have, wonderful spokesperson, pretty much represents all of you.
TheRealMerridian, Obama destroyed our economy?? Months before he was elected the economy was in literal free-fall. 750,000 jobs lost every month, with no real job creation for years on end before. This was under Bush's presidency. I know you righties aren't big on history or facts, but the cold hard numbers are in the public record and won't change just because you choose not to acknowledge them.
if bill maher said that people should be raped (link? I couldn't find that?) then he doesn't "pretty much represent all of anyone, and if you truly think that, you're a fool.
our economy was 'destroyed' by obama? It was crashing before obama got elected..guess you weren't paying attention. And 9% is NOT "massive" unemployment, well, unless you also consider reagan's 10% to be "massive" also..do you? :)