E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRepublicans largely cheered on Thursday the apparent killing of Libyan leader Moammar Khaddafy, though a number of the party’s standard-bearers had expressed initial criticism of President Barack Obama’s action to help remove the dictator from power.
Khaddafy’s death after having been deposed in August would seem, at first glance, to provide some measure of validation to Obama’s strategy in Libya. The president authorized the U.S. to join in limited airstikes with NATO in consultation with international partners and institutions.
That decision won him little praise from the GOP, and opposition even from members of his own party, and especially the GOP presidential hopefuls vying for Obama’s job.
Almost none of the candidates had pressed for as aggressive of a strategy as Obama pursued, joining NATO efforts to launch airstrikes targeting Khaddafy himself, and assisting Libyan rebels looking to overthrow the regime.
All of the Republicans candidates found ways to be critical of Obama at the time. But in a reflection that the GOP has shifted to an extent from its more hawkish stance during the Bush administration, few of the candidates endorsed Obama’s intervention there; only two candidates, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty – who’s no longer in the race – called for Obama to be more forceful.
But most of the other Republicans in the field might be forced to come to terms with what may be considered an ultimately successful, if extended, operation.
Republicans, particularly on Capitol Hill, were vocally critical of the intervention authorized this spring by Obama, in which U.S. troops joined NATO forces in launching a series of targeted airstrikes aimed at driving Khaddafy from power, and aiding rebel forces in Libya.
Republicans were largely – though not uniformly – critical of the intervention at the time. 225 House Republicans, joined by 70 Democrats, voted in June against a resolution authorizing the campaign against Khaddafy. But the House GOP was more split in a subsequent vote on defunding military action in Libya; 144 Republicans voted for that measure, but 89 Republicans voted against it.
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who emerged as one of the foremost critics of the operations in Libya, was one such Republican to split her vote.
"President Obama has failed to articulate our goals and strategies or even provide a vital national interest in Libya,” she said in a statement following those votes. At the same time, in a June presidential debate, Bachmann accused Obama of “not leading” when it came to international policy toward Libya.
She was joined by other candidates in the field in opposition to the strikes against Libya.
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said the intervention was “not core to our national security interest,” and argued the U.S. should let the situation “play out.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had advocated establishing a no-fly zone over Libya, but said after Obama launched the effort that he would have not intervened.
And Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a dogged critic of most U.S. intervention, had similarly opposed the intervention in Libya.
Ironically, it was the three candidates who lead in current polling – former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry –with the most scant records on the Libyan intervention.
Romney in particular sought to thread the needle, carefully voicing support for the military action in Libya, while sharply criticizing Obama, accusing him of “leading from behind” when it came to the intervention by following the lead of other countries and international bodies like the United Nations.
And Cain condemned Obama for lacking clarity in the president’s approach toward Libya and Syria, but stopped short of voicing opposition to the airstrikes in Libya.
“We need a real clear national security strategy with every nation on the planet, friend or foe. We obviously didn’t have that, because you can see between those two examples [Syria and Libya] inconsistencies between the president’s decision, and in his action,” he said at a debate in May.
And Perry wasn’t even a candidate when Obama first launched the airstrikes; he enjoys the luxury of not having any real criticism in the past against which he’ll be measured.
Virtually all Republicans, even those who were critical of Obama’s initial intervention, celebrated Khaddafy’s killing on Thursday.
"It's about time. Khaddafy, a terrible tyrant, that killed his own people, and murdered Americans and others in the tragedy in Lockerbie. The world is a better place with Khaddafy gone,” Romney said following a town hall meeting in Iowa, per NBC’s Garrett Haake and Alex Moe.
But the question of whether Obama deserves credit (Romney avoided a question in Iowa about whether Obama does) could be the way in which candidates now distinguish themselves from Obama. And beyond that, they’ll keep the pressure on Obama about how he handles the situation going forward.
“The United States should work closely with Libya to ensure the transition is successful, and that a stable, peaceful nation emerges," Perry said in a statement hailing Khaddafy’s death. “The U.S. must also take an active role in ensuring the security of any remaining stockpiles of Qaddafi's weapons. These weapons pose a real danger to the United States and our allies, and we cannot help secure them through simple observation.”
Leave a Comment:
Obama just took the GOP to SKOOL on HOW TO HANDLE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT.
Bush got us into two Wars of Stupidity using his stupid tactics and sold to the American People with Lies, Damn Lies and More lies. A decade later, we are STILL ENGAGED and do not look to be getting out with a "W" anytime soon.
Obama handled the Libyan situation with aplomb. No America deaths, low cost and 100% EFFECTIVENESS.
So, all the GOP contenders proved is that THEY ARE WORTHLESS GOP WINDBAGS and if we aer STUPID ENOUGH to actually ELECT one of these NUMBSKULLS, we get what WE DESERVE!!!
Funny to see the Far left Cheer for an oil War.
If Obama ate nuclear waste and sh*t gold the wingnuts would find something wrong with it.
if obama mandated everyone slaughter their first born dems would find a way to rationalize it as something "good for society"
the major problem with obamas handling of liyba is that is was unconstitutional but seeing as progressives have no use for our constitution they have no problem with it being trashed
Ah...on what basis? He had a Senate Resolution suggesting he do what he did, prior to him doing it.
The war powers act is not part of the constitution, nor has it ever been constitutionally tested. Please vote for education funding so we do not have to read any more of this ignorance!!
President Obama - 4! neocons,teabaggers,faux news,gop candidants - 0!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!
Republicans are against everything. How many Americans died in this conflict compared to the needless invasion of Iraq? And the same result I might add.
For all of the Republicans asking (over and over) "What has President Obama accomplished?" Add this to the list! And they said President Obama would be "weak in the face of the enemy"....LOL!
I don't think the rebels could have done it without the support of NATO. They had, and have the heart and the will to fight, but they were having a hell of a time overcoming the tanks, rockets and heavier weapons of G man. It would have been an even more miserable fight for all of Libya for sure, leaving them weaker and more fractured at the end.
I'm wondering if there are any public statistics yet on the number of missions flown from each of the contributing countries to the air campaign. I'm going to bet that the US was a huge, if not majority supplier of hardware, personnel, and ordinance.
I wish the people of Libya peace, prosperity, and a large heart for forgiveness in the future.
The Obama Team thanks First Read for another critical piece on the GOP.
First Read: partnering with the Obama team to bring you the latest leftist tripe.
Go back to Fox if you can't handle the heat.
Why isn't Bush getting any credit for this? It's so unfair! ;P
LOL
Righties like Bob just can't stand that its another foreign policy victory for Obama. They can't stand the fact that the torture used by Bush and Cheney didn't work to get any terrorists.
FR
I give Obama credit for getting us involved in a conflict that cost us about 10 billion that we had no business getting involved in when we can't pay our bills and keep our own government running. If you htink this Libya thing is a "win" you need your head examined. We will be paying for this for a long time and it is very likley the new government will cause us more grief in the long run than daffy ever dreamed of.
The Republicans say whatever they think will get them votes, and change their views with the political winds. Much like cowards and traitors do on the battlefield. There's not one with the courage to stand up for what they believe in or even the brain to decide what to believe in. Much like Bush. They're puppets who can't do a thing without a hand up their back. Perfect foils for guys like Cheney.
Obama is getting credit for the drone strike ...it was just on tv ...He is the most effective president ..so far militarily....his record speaks for itself !
The Arabs are praising him on Al Jazeera Radio !
Oh Bob, boo hoo! President Obama has one more feather in his cap and you don't like that it was even mentioned by anyone. Why don't you get lost, and take your neocon rhetoric with you!
Where does this Brianb clown come from and WHY won't he go back there??
Locked out... No room at the asylum.
I guess the republicans will find something to
cry about.This administration has done more to help our Country ,check the score
Obama 2 Bush and the cry babies NOTHING
It took the republicans eight years and the Bush
people could NOT get out of their own way!!! OBAMA DID THIS IN THREE YEARS and
you want a republican in office? I think NOT!!!
Odumbo takes 2 months to act on Libya, costing thousands of lives, then he acts for a few weeks and turns everything over to NATO. How are Republicans supposed to react to a President that doesn't know what to do? Liberals criticized Bush for sending troops into harms way but now it's okay. Ironic that the article tries to portray Republicans as political opportunists when Democrats wrote the book on it. I guess in the end, it's all Bush's fault???
No matter what Obama does, it's never good enough for Repubs. It just goes to show that all Repubs want to do is get rid of him at all cost. Lie, lie, lie, lie to get rid of Obama.
Sickening.
Let's see...In 2 1/2 years President Obama has accomplshed to see to it that 3 major terrorist were eliminate, 400,000 illegal aliens deported, and did it with a calm manner and did not involve us with "more boots to ground" conflcits. I give him an A so far on his for his foreign policy expertise. I also think Sec. Clinton is doing an astounding job. Too bad that the GOP cannot seem to get on board with rest of a nation and start to help to turn around our economy.
My, O, My, another win for us blood sucking destitute welfare baby liberals. Not only are we richer and smarter than conservatives but we are better at warfare and foreign diplomacy. My, O My what are the conservatives going to do now--- I know deny deny deny, lie lie lie, fact mangle and fact mangle until they finally convionce themselves that they know it all. Wow, good luck with that!
How will the Repubs spin this? They've already used "Bush's strategy was used for years, leading to the death of Osama" (no one fell for that pack of lies).
Why would ANYONE care what Republicans thought then, or now? Their "thoughts"are completely irrelevant to national and world events. Michelle Bachman said WHAT? Give me a break. All of them are disgraceful, shameless, and irrelevant.
Iran boldly planning an attack on US soil is not a sign of weakness on President Obama's part, it is a sign of stupidity on Iran's. Did the US not find out about it before it happened? Sounds like the US has a pretty strong defense against those types of plans.
Weak try at spin, there, Booby Jones.
"called for Obama to be more forceful," unlike iraq to ouster saddam, which cost this country the deaths of over 4400 young men and women and a trillion dollars, this cost no american lives and only 1 to 2 billiion dollars.
no lies to the american people, no lose of lives, less money - and for this the unpatriotic republicans - i'm talking to you lying rubio - gave him any credit or thanks. they bring shame on themselves, their families and this country.
The continued ignorance of the "Gross Odd People" (GOP), and the "Really Not Competent (RNC) is not shocking Progressive Power at all. Progressive Power has carefully read, and researched the political thinking of President Obama. The conclusion is very simple. This President is cool under preasure, thinks things out carefully, learns very quickly from his mistakes, and knows that he is not perfect. Economically, he inherited a terrible situation that almost lead our nation into a huge Depression. President Obama is still trying to clean-up the "Brainless Bush" Economic Policies that failed our nation. This is still a "Bush Economy," and President Obama is fighting to change this. The "Party Of No" has been trying to destroy this President, and our nation since the first day of President Obama's Administration. This is fact! The GOP?RNC have been very treasonous towards their President, and their nation. First, they called our President a terrorist. That was wrong! Then they wrongly insisted that our President is not a citizen. That was wrong! Then they said the President in not well educated. Remember that "Trampy Trump??" That was wrong! Then the GOP/RNC said the President does not know how to form Foreign Policy. That was wrong! The GOP/RNC spewed that our President is weak on terror. That was wrong! What has the GOP/RNC been correct on over the last Two years?? Absolutely nothing America!!
The current GOP are clowns that have highjacked the good Republican Party.