In Libya, Obama playing the cards he’s been dealt
President Obama’s decision to join our European and Arab allies in launching air assaults against Libyan forces has been criticized by some as an ad hoc, patched-together reaction rather than a carefully thought-out strategy. And to a degree, they’re right. Sometimes, an unexpected and quickly changing situation does not permit the careful application of strategy. Sometimes, you just have to play your cards as they are dealt, recalculating risk and reward as each card is flipped your way. I don’t know how this is going to play out, but so far Obama seems to be playing his hand rationally and cautiously.
Sure, intervening earlier against Gadhafi on the side of the Libyan rebels might have proved more effective in military terms, but it also would have put the United States in the position of trying to dictate outcomes in the Arab world. And not intervening at all, as some on the left still advocate, was a cruel option at best. Had the coalition not acted when it did last week, the world today would probably be sitting back and watching helplessly while a brutal Gadhafi massacred tens of thousands of his fellow Libyans.
Many of those now condemning Obama for acting would have been condemning him for not acting. That’s how these things go. As Obama himself noted in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, “I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”
The fact that we are acting, somewhat reluctantly, at the urging of European and Arab allies also minimizes the geo-political risk. This is not an American initiative in which the United Nations and others are being strong-armed to support our policy; this is an international initiative which the United States has agreed to join as its most powerful member. There’s a world of difference between the two, not least because it has forced other countries to shed their infantilism and take responsibility, rather than leaving the tough decisions to Uncle Sam all the time and then grumbling about the outcome.
Obama’s critics also point out that we have no real idea how this will end, or even how we want it to end. Again, that’s accurate to a degree. However, Gadhafi himself has made it clear that he sees only two possible outcomes: victory or death. He has no third option — at this point, he can’t leave Libya to live elsewhere, and he knows it.
Publicly, coalition leaders are saying that Gadhafi is not a military target, but the smoking ruins of his personal compound in Tripoli offer more convincing evidence to the contrary. And at some point, if Western air power doesn’t take him out, his own commanders might. They now see their units being taken apart from the air, and there’s nothing they can do to defend themselves. The quickest way to make it stop is to make Gadhafi stop.
So we shall see.
– Jay Bookman
ADDENDUM: After all these years, the cynicism of Newt Gingrich continues to amaze and even disgust.
Until last week, the former speaker had been pressing Obama to intervene militarily in Libya and force Gadhafi’s ouster. “This is a moment to get rid of him,” he told Greta Van Susteren on Fox. “Do it. Get it over with.”
So what does he say now? As Politico reports:
“Newt Gingrich blasted the decision to attack Libya Sunday afternoon as “opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism.”
“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said in a statement to POLITICO, his first public comments since President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead order on Saturday.
Iran and North Korea pose “vastly bigger threats” to American national interests, he argued. There are other countries in Africa where strongmen brutalize civilians, including Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
“Mugabe has killed more people, the Sudanese dictatorship has killed more people, there are a lot of bad dictators doing bad things,” Gingrich said.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,639 comments Add your comment
Jay
March 21st, 2011
9:07 am
WOW, how about Sen. Richard Lugar, the GOP’s top foreign policy expert:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/20/Sen-Lugar-fears-Middle-East-quagmire/UPI-97411300640312/
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:07 am
“The Lefties for the action see it in an idealistic view, I think, in that saving the downtrodden, the underdog, is our national job.’
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AmVet
March 21st, 2011
9:07 am
“Eventhough ,he almost single-handedly brought down our automobile industry…”
???????
I’m not even gonna ask…
And like him, not being a member of the Republicrat Parties, I don’t waffle in the wind based on who is in the White House…
“Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat.”
And insanity, it would seem, never goes out of fashion…
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:08 am
“WOW, how about Sen. Richard Lugar, the GOP’s top foreign policy expert:”
What about him, Jay? You said “critics” plural.
Paul
March 21st, 2011
9:09 am
Jay
Standards, criteria, go/no-go. If you thought I meant “if N people die and we think American casualties will be less than C” then I miscommunicated. I used ‘circumstances” and said it’s all pretty ‘fuzzy.’
Being part of a UN coalition is a lot different than taking lead on every mission. And for that, we don’t need a $700 billion a year military.
Regarding Newt’s comment: he’s smart enough to know, and deceptive enough to not state, we don’t go after the N Koreas of the world because they can do us great harm. Libya’s pretty much a ’safe’ operation.
Thanks for the correction on Bosnia. I was thinking of a specific case, must’ve happened right after the settlement, wherein an Army officer was standing down a Bosnian officer over an on-site inspection. Bosnian was pretty threatening until an AH-64 Apache helo appeared.
But, the emphasis some like to place on somehow ‘no ground troops’ is ‘better’ is, I think, misguided. Air power wouldn’t have done anything to have stopped the killing of nearly a million in Rwanda. Sometimes ground forces are the only option.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:09 am
Jay
So Lugar sees a quagmire in the Mid East. Imagine that?
Deep Throat
March 21st, 2011
9:09 am
Nobel Peace Prize = joke,
Obama =Joke’
Nuff said !
Doggone/GA
March 21st, 2011
9:09 am
“Doggone, I am glad that you supported Bush in his war also”
Don’t cheer too louldy…I didn’t support Bush in HIS WAR
Haywood Jablome
March 21st, 2011
9:09 am
I’m gonna fire my own heat seeking missile into Labia.
Senior Citizen Kane
March 21st, 2011
9:09 am
“Kay was the man handpicked by Bush to head the post-war Iraq Study Group.”
And he concluded Iraq had no WMDs.
Peadawg
March 21st, 2011
9:10 am
Ah, so REAL Conservatives support being involved in 3 wars at the same time and attacking countries that haven’t attacked us. Thanks for clarification, Palin fan!
Normal
March 21st, 2011
9:10 am
Before I go…
WOW,
You should read this…
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-gas-prices-fall-880033.html
buck@gon
March 21st, 2011
9:11 am
The difference here is that the United States has become a follower for the first time in decades instead of a leader. For that, we have the UN as a supposed “higher authority” and the urging of the ubiquitous Arab states who demand this or that. Obama can’t even get his rhetorical story straight until the UN brings him kicking and screaming into action. Witness Hillary Clinton’s stronger position.
So, what obama has done is play golf, go to Rio, pick brackets and gaze at his own navel while awful news stories appear about Libya and while always-friendly Washington reporters scratch their heads in wonder why an American President is allowing a slaughter on display before God and the world on television–many of them probably wondering why he doesn’t just go on television himself, show his face, speak eruditely (with whistling s’s) and strike the rest of the world with such awe that they will give up their hate and struggle.
Truly, this act of follow-the-leader by Obama is what in the eyes of European leftists, Marxists and dimwitted editorialists is post-justification for giving HIM the Nobel peace prize. Congratulations Mr. President. Your dithering has earned it for you!
TaxPayer
March 21st, 2011
9:11 am
It looks like the cons on here really have their panties knotted up this morning.
Joel Edge
March 21st, 2011
9:11 am
Nothing on Democrats asking if this is an impeachable offense, Jay.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
I’m with him on this one. This was a correct decision. I suspect with not a little Hillary persuasion. It’s probably not going to play well with the LIberal/Dem base. May cause him some grief in 2012. However, it was correct. The Arab League is starting to back pedal on their support. With friends like these, huh.
Haywood Jablome
March 21st, 2011
9:11 am
Deep Throat
9:09 am
Nobel Peace Prize = joke,
Obama =Joke’
Nuff said !
How do you feel about what god said in the bible. You should go into the bumper sticker business.
Jay
March 21st, 2011
9:11 am
WOW argues:
“Bosnia was Clinton trying to draw attention away from cigargate. Nothing more, nothing less.”
An interesting claim, given that the no-fly zone etc. was imposed in 1995, leading to the Dayton accords, while news of the Lewinsky affair didn’t break until 1998, three years later.
Once again, that time machine ….
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
March 21st, 2011
9:13 am
“PUTIN: UN RESOLUTION ON LIBYA RESEMBLES MEDIEVAL CALLS FOR CRUSADES…
Condemns ‘trend’ of US military intervention…”
Hummmm ………….. Knight Obama leading the Crusades ???
moonbat betty
March 21st, 2011
9:13 am
The attacks on lib-ya would be ok if the u.n. would pay us a $billion/hr. for our time!
Or would that be like paying ourselves?
BMDPD
March 21st, 2011
9:13 am
Uh, who are we ‘protecting’? What do these rebels really represent? That is what kills me. Are these the same type rebels that repeatedly raped the western reporter? Are they actually pro-democracy? Are they Iran backed Shiites like in Bahrain? Will this bite us in the rear later?
Palin fan
March 21st, 2011
9:14 am
Peadawg, if the attack against the plane over Lockerby wasn’t an attack, what is? If holding Americas hostage is not an attack, what is, genius?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 21st, 2011
9:14 am
Jay, gret article. Newt’s position changes would be laughable if they were not coming from a man who thinks he can be president and some who would vote for hum,
Paul
March 21st, 2011
9:16 am
So it appears what we’re left with is the Left is pretty much okay with attacking another country and working for regime change as long as the UN gives the go-ahead.
And they’re okay with interpreting “no fly zone” as “attack any ground targets you think the regime might use.”
And even though not many people have died but a whole bunch might die. Soon. Especially if we don’t attack.
And as long as a ruler who’s been in power for decades is shown to have done bad things.
And it’s really okay if we didn’t want to do anything originally, but our allies kept saying “we’re going in, you really should be there.”
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
March 21st, 2011
9:16 am
Jay:
Not going to take a “shot over the bow” on my 8:39?
Out for awhile ………. check in later.
Peadawg
March 21st, 2011
9:16 am
Like someone said on the first page, Palin fan, but Reagan took care of that, didn’t he? Your name, “Palin fan”, says all I need to know about you. Nutjob.
Vinny
March 21st, 2011
9:17 am
Obama apologists like Bookman are merely enablers of his incompetence
kayaker 71
March 21st, 2011
9:17 am
Banana dictators have been killing their own for a long time. Robert Taylor, al-Bashir, Edi Amin, Gaffadi, Seku Toure, Pol Pot, Mengistu Haile Marian, Robert Mugabe, Issayas Afeworki, Siad Barre, Laurent Kabila, Hissene Habre, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, not to mention that machete war in Rwanda where the wrong tribe brought you a little short of arms and legs. Why is this one any different? Oil, my friend, oil. Why was Iraq and Kuwait any different? Oil, my friend, oil. None of the above, except Gaffadi had any oil. It is the elephant in the living room.
jm
March 21st, 2011
9:17 am
RE Newt. Silly season is upon us. AKA, presidential election cycle.
Daedalus
March 21st, 2011
9:19 am
Kyle Wingfield has already branded Obama’s policies in Libya and absolute failure, since Obama is solely to blame for this mess, there is really no point in prolonging this debate.
So, how’s your NCAA Bracket holding up?
Paul
March 21st, 2011
9:19 am
moonbat betty
“The attacks on lib-ya would be ok if the u.n. would pay us a $billion/hr. for our time!”
Or, as Trump asked, “Why isn’t the Arab League, who asked us in, paying for this party?”
(not an exact quote, but he did reference the hundreds of millions we’ve spent already)
Jay
March 21st, 2011
9:20 am
Paul writes:
“So it appears what we’re left with is the Left is pretty much okay with attacking another country and working for regime change as long as the UN gives the go-ahead.
And they’re okay with interpreting “no fly zone” as “attack any ground targets you think the regime might use.”
First, a good portion of the left is NOT okay with this. Second, the UN resolution calls not for a no-fly zone but for “all means necessary” short of actual invasion.
jm
March 21st, 2011
9:20 am
RE Obama in Libya. Easy to criticize the other guy (Bush) until you’re put in the driver’s seat (the Oval Office). Newt maybe a hypocrite. So is Obama. Politicians of almost all stripes stink.
Mitch, Mitt, or Johnny H 2012.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:20 am
“An interesting claim, given that the no-fly zone etc. was imposed in 1995, leading to the Dayton accords, while news of the Lewinsky affair didn’t break until 1998, three years later.”
You’re right, Jay. I got Kosovo and Bosnia mixed up.
The term Kosovo War or Kosovo Conflict is used to describe two sequential, and at times parallel, armed conflicts in Kosovo. From early 1998[21] to 1999, the war was between the army and police of FR Yugoslavia, and the Kosovo Liberation Army. From March 24, 1999 to June 11, 1999,[22] NATO attacked Yugoslavia, and ethnic Albanian militants continued battles with Yugoslav forces, amidst a massive displacement of population in Kosovo estimated to be close to 1 million people.
poison pen
March 21st, 2011
9:22 am
Doggone, I was being sarcastic about supporting Bush, I was showing everyone how two faced you are. Daddam killed a lot more people that Ghadaffi has, yet you support Obama. You are the biggest Hypocrite that has ever written on this blog.
What trash.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:22 am
“First, a good portion of the left is NOT okay with this.”
Sounds like a conundrum for the left.
TaxPayer
March 21st, 2011
9:22 am
So, the cons on here must be upset that Obama is working with other nations in accordance with a UN resolution. How shockingly awesome. What will they do next. Demand that Congress not allow any open funding of this effort.
poison pen
March 21st, 2011
9:22 am
Meant Saddam
jm
March 21st, 2011
9:22 am
Jay 9:11 – Bill’s original Obama bombing (not Bosnia) and Lewinsky did coincide. People did theorize it was an attempt at distraction. History obviously shows that was a totally bogus theory.
jm
March 21st, 2011
9:23 am
scuzee. “Obama bombing” = “osama bombing”
saki bombing?
Call it like it is
March 21st, 2011
9:24 am
Well to quote Dennis Green…The Obamas are what we throught they are, They’re who we thought they were, and they are who we thought they were. Another president getting us into another area that we dont need to be in. Its not a right thing, its not a left thing. Its all about power. You can say what you want when your running for Pres, but in the end you do the same thing. Still in Iraq, still in Afg, still in Gitmo, now in Libya. Yeah, the left thinks there is such a hugh difference between your man and the other guys man. Dont see it.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:24 am
The Big Dither
Obama was right to back a no-fly zone over Libya. But he should have done it weeks ago.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/20/the-big-dither.html#
RW-(the original)
March 21st, 2011
9:24 am
The SOFA was negotiated and completed after the election, dumbass.
Just passing through, but if the BS flag hasn’t been thrown on that one yet I’m tossing it now. Completed, yes, negotiated, not even close. 2 free throws and the ball for whomever stands is calling a dumbass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the topic the more confusing thing to me is the statement back when Obama wasn’t willing to do anything that Colonel G/Q must go and now that the rebel forces are fractured we’re setting up a no-fly zone that only seems to preserve the status quo. Let’s hope that what Jay B alluded to is correct and one of those Tomahawks will “accidentally” veer off course into the Mo-mans tent.
Later
godless heathen
March 21st, 2011
9:24 am
I agree with the mission to attempt and stop the Liberian military from killing the rebels. The administration has stated that the removal of Daffy Duck is not the mission. However, if Daffy stays in power, this will not look good. He has got to go and the administration needs to be forthcoming with its goals.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:24 am
“Bill’s original Obama bombing (not Bosnia) and Lewinsky did coincide. People did theorize it was an attempt at distraction. History obviously shows that was a totally bogus theory.”
WAG THE DOG.
big un
March 21st, 2011
9:25 am
Vinny @9:17 wins this morning’s prize for astute comprehension. And in so few words. Well done!
JB
March 21st, 2011
9:25 am
Obama had total control for two years. Now we find ourselves with 9.5% unemployment( really 15%) 14 trillion in debt, Gas heading to $4 ( not his fault as of today, but liberal lack of Energy policy killing this country). Rising food prices.Campaign promises unfulfilled right and left after he gets in and see’s the REAL world. Landslide historic losses in Mid terms. Very weak on leadership, even by his on party. AWOL when ( golfing,traveling)the you know what hits the fan. I thought I would never say this as a hard core Republican, But I wish Hillary would of been elected. At least she has a set.
Doggone/GA
March 21st, 2011
9:25 am
“You are the biggest Hypocrite that has ever written on this blog.”
Hate to tell you this, but it isn’t hypocritical to see that there are differences between 2 unrelated situation. If you’re going to claim we attacked Saddam Hussein because he killed his own people, then why did we wait something like 10 years to do it? We had him contained by a no-fly zone.
I see a huge difference between attacking someone for a 10 year old offence and attakcing someone for an IMMDIATE offence. And anyway, there’s always Lockerbie. It just took us 22 years to get around to it…right?
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:26 am
The Audacity of Golf
No-Change You Can Believe In!
Mark Steyn
By the time you read this, President Obama will be taking a well-deserved break from the 54th hole of today’s scheduled golf game and the grueling responsibility of picking out his Final Four priority high-speed-rail projects on ESPN by relaxing on a beach in . . . Libya? Japan? No, Brazil. Oh, here he is now:
“Tall and tan and young and lovely
The boy from Spendaholica goes walking
And when he passes
Each one he passes
Goes ‘Aiiieeeeee . . .’”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262499/audacity-golf-mark-steyn
Whaheema
March 21st, 2011
9:26 am
So we “joined our allies” in the attack on Lybia? You mean we did ALL the heavy lifting. No offense to our allies but Bookman’s spin is foundationally dishonest. After weeks of dithering Clinton finally shamed Obama into action. It’s now all his.
itpdude
March 21st, 2011
9:26 am
Bookman, Gingrich is what passes as “smart” in the GOP. Funny, eh?
BMDPD
March 21st, 2011
9:26 am
Let’s take a look at things.
1. Why is the Arab League endorsing this when they did not endorse everthing else? What is their motive?
2. Who are these rebels?
3. Will this bite us later?
jm
March 21st, 2011
9:27 am
NO MORE WAR!
Ich bin war weary.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:28 am
Israel gets attacked…..again. No word from the left.
JERUSALEM (AP) — Palestinian militants fired two rockets into southern Israel on Sunday and Israeli troops killed two Palestinians in a new outburst along the volatile border with Gaza.
larry
March 21st, 2011
9:30 am
I dont support the no-fly bombing zone just like i opposed Bush’s war on Iraq. I dont think we should get involved and i am very sure we do not have the money.
I think if we gave it a little bit more time , the Lybian military would have turned against him. Just like what happened in Egypt.
larry
March 21st, 2011
9:31 am
2. Who are these rebels?
3. Will this bite us later?
Exactly !!
Joel Edge
March 21st, 2011
9:31 am
“Sounds like a conundrum for the left.”
And I’m loving it. Still behind Barry’s decision though. I wouldn’t have done it. Not a lot of sympathy for the Libyans. It’s funny, I read an article about this calling it the “liberal way of war”. It’s basically Bush 1 and Desert Storm. Ally consensus, etc.
Atlanta 1
March 21st, 2011
9:31 am
Not as easy to defend a President then to attack on – huh Jay. Go back and read your column – you would have been better off leaving this one alone.
Any way you shake this – he came across weak and had to be pushed into this by the French (of all Nations) and British. Should be fairer to the French; they are one of our most dependable allies these days.
Frankly, I like the fact that he is careful about comitting our forces, but this case was clear cut – meaning we may have missed the chance to help a muderous dictator be taken out by his own people.
Paul
March 21st, 2011
9:33 am
(Jay at 9:20)
“First, a good portion of the left is NOT okay with this”
I know – there’s a call in Congress now to actually bring forth articles of impeachment, by Democrats. And there’s all kinds of angst over the War Powers Act.
But as far as the Left on this blog…. seems it’s an accurate comment, absent Normal and… who else?
” Second, the UN resolution calls not for a no-fly zone but for “all means necessary” short of actual invasion.”
I really don’t see how attacking tanks, pickup trucks, etc it necessary to enforce a no-fly zone. That sure as heck wasn’t the interpretation over Iraq.
Which is why the Arab League’s getting uneasy.
Fletch
March 21st, 2011
9:33 am
I’ll remain silent on the topic as long as we don’t have to go back to ordering “freedom fries”.
poison pen
March 21st, 2011
9:33 am
Doggone, You are the one who claimed that you support going to war to help Libya and it’s people, not me. Don’t try to flip it to me.
I don’t think we should be in any war, and I think we should bring all our troops home. Most libs are choking on this as they ripped Bush for going to war but now that Obama has done the same thing you are finding any excuse you can to support him.
Jay & Tucker must choking on this one.
RB from Gwinnett
March 21st, 2011
9:33 am
I just want to see you libs hold Obama to the same standard you did W. He has now attacked a soverign nation that did not first attack us and he did so without congressional approval. If this is not your definition of meddeling in the middle east which you blamed bush for to cause muslim hatred of us, what is it?
Speak up lest you be accused of having a double standard.
big un
March 21st, 2011
9:34 am
It is alarming, if not interesting, that the formerly doveish liberal types, who during previous administrations decried missle attacks on soveriegn nations without direct provocation, seem giddy at the prospect of their guy, BHO, lobbing a few hundred million dollars worth of deadly explosives onto Libyan soil. They even speak of “taking him out”. When did that cease being murder? Wouldn’t you peaceniks be more true to your mantra by insisting Col. Nutjob be arrested and put on trial? Think about it. How can you have any integrity when you support these attacks. Don’t hide behind a U.N. resolution this time, as the airstrikes are what you railed against many times before.
jconservative
March 21st, 2011
9:34 am
I have heard no one explain why it is necessary for the US, the UN or NATO to intervene in a civil war in Libya.
And do not tell me that a bunch of people were being killed is the reason for the intervention. The US has about 40,000 people killed every year in traffic accidents. And no one is calling for the UN to intervene.
DebbieDoRight
March 21st, 2011
9:34 am
HermanCain: Funny how the bedwetters that are cheering this move by little barry onj the grounds mo-mar was attacking his own people arethe same chicken littles that screamed about Bush taking down saddam when it was common knowledge the terror of mass killings
Morning HermanCain!!! Still having problems with parallels and problem solving 101 huh? Bush & Co., (If you ain’t with us you’re aggin us), took on Iraq without credible data and without an exit strategy and by themselves; which meant that we had to pay for it by ourselves. With a UN initiative the costs of engaging LIbya will be spread around. These are just some facts, and I know how facts hurt your head, so I won’t give you too many at once.
AmVet
March 21st, 2011
9:35 am
“Once again, that time machine ….”
More times than not, when I peruse past the con-piffle, I can’t help but think of the famous Monty Python line, “Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?”
Like I said, the immoderate chickenhawks are in one huge quandary. Thought they loved it, their lack of testicular fortitude precluded them from cheering (out loud) when BHO surged into Afghanistan. But out of their lips came this strange noise – quite amazingly, they suddenly got “war weary”!
LOL at the not-so-clever transparency.
But now, given this choice opportunity for more bloodshed, the BushCorp Crusaders are really in a pickle. And what the hell if more of our marines, soldiers, sailors and airman die needlessly? What good is it having those guys, if we’re not using/losing them?
Do the fake conservatives want to see more Muslims get killed (YEAH! Of course!) – even if they have no clue who’s who or what’s what? And which “side” we are supposed to be cheering on?
Or should they focus their hypocritical opprobrium at their historical enemy, the Uppity Muslim without a Birth Certificate?
More laughs from the fringe…
DebbieDoRight
March 21st, 2011
9:35 am
jcon: I have heard no one explain why it is necessary for the US, the UN or NATO to intervene in a civil war in Libya.
One word – OIL.
Paul
March 21st, 2011
9:35 am
TaxPayer
“What will they do next. Demand that Congress not allow any open funding of this effort.”
Actually, I believe that’s what some Congressional Democrats are talking about.
williebkind
March 21st, 2011
9:36 am
If the left is going to include war in their foreign affairs, then we must bring back the draft. I want more liberals on the battlefield.
jt
March 21st, 2011
9:36 am
For this kind of money……..every Libyan (that wanted) could have been resettled in Los angeles.
The only good to come of the latest “war’ was to expose Left-wing maniacs and Obama apologists.—————I am sure that Obama hates this as much as his followers do.Birthers have nuthing on these guys———————-but anyhoo….let us keep the prisoners busy and the corp profits rising———————–
Prisoners Help Build Patriot Missiles(missels have a shelf-life,,,,,,gotta use them).
This spring, the United Arab Emirates is expected to close a deal for $7 billion dollars’ worth of American arms. Nearly half of the cash will be spent on Patriot missiles, which cost as much as $5.9 million apiece.
But what makes those eye-popping sums even more shocking is that some of the workers manufacturing parts for those Patriot missiles are prisoners, earning as little as 23 cents an hour. (Credit Justin Rohrlich with the catch.)
The work is done by Unicor, previously known as Federal Prison Industries. It’s a government-owned corporation, established during the Depression, that employs about 20,000 inmates in 70 prisons to make everything from clothing to office furniture to solar panels to military electronics.
One of the company’s high-tech specialties: Patriot missile parts. “UNICOR/FPI supplies numerous electronic components and services for guided missiles, including the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile,” Unicor’s website explains. “We assemble and distribute the Intermediate Frequency Processor (IFP) for the PAC-3s seeker. The IFP receives and filters radio-frequency signals that guide the missile toward its target.”
double
March 21st, 2011
9:38 am
All you Bush supporters-search,read April Glaspie-Saddam thought he was given permission to attack Kuwait-No weapons MD none found by inspectors.Saddam backed by USA against Iran.Yeah we meddle,bully the small weak in the name of humanity,or is it oil,and global dominance?And give some thought to Ossetia & Abkhazia where do we stand if the big dog gets into picture?
Paul
March 21st, 2011
9:39 am
DDR, others
US didn’t ‘go it alone’ in Iraq. There were a couple of dozen countries with forces involved.
big un
March 21st, 2011
9:41 am
The U.S. will be hated in the region even more now. The new found “ally”, the Arab League, is already hedging and will leave us holding the poopy end of the stick. Obama did not lead on this, but followed after being pushed. He was played for the fool he appears to be and will pay the price. One can say the U.S. military is in a secondary position all day long, but sane people know different. Here we go again, playing the world cop. Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:42 am
AmVet
Are you on the no-fly list?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
March 21st, 2011
9:42 am
Well, if we only had President Romney and his Special Mormon Underwear we could of kicked this Towelhead’s butt already and had all of Libya’s oil for ourselfs.
It don’t matter to me what his Illegal Kenyan does. It’s all his fault, no matter what he tries. I’m with Peadawg and Old Newt. We’ll find something to blast him about. And we’ll keep blasting till we got a good Conservative Republican in the White House.
Impeach Oblammer! He’s a bad shot or else we would have pictures of the pieces of that Towelhead flying thru the air and splattering our TV screens.
And have a good day everybody.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:43 am
“I want more liberals on the battlefield.”
If that happens, they’ll all wave the white flag and head on over to our enemies pow camp. When that happens, they’ll be seen on tv protesting the USA.
JB
March 21st, 2011
9:43 am
You guys are correct. Ole Barry got shown up by the French…LOL… The French, and had little choice……Well, once the UN…LOL Told Barry it was OK……. This is to rich. Would of loved to hear is old preacher Sunday talking about Chickens coming home to roost…….. Being president is giving this guy fits…..When in fact, he dreams of being a life long Dictator. He probably Envies ole Momar………
AmVet
March 21st, 2011
9:44 am
Most libs…
I just want to see you libs hold Obama…
The answers cannot be found at the bottom of a bong, boys.
I think you repudiated neo-cons are just making up shiite to desperately fit your own delusions.
Otherwise, who exactly are all of these libs? Names? Quotes? Anyone? Bueller?
In fact, I’ve seen numerous libs on this very thread speak out AGAINST this move.
Put up or….
Morning, Paul.
US didn’t ‘go it alone’ in Iraq.
Technically true, but other than, and even including, England, the “coalition” was a complete farce. And why we bore 93% of the casualties (UK 4%) and cost…
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:45 am
“There were a couple of dozen countries with forces involved.”
That’s not what the Democrats who signed onto the Iraq War said.
TaxPayer
March 21st, 2011
9:46 am
I just want to see you libs hold Obama to the same standard you did W.
What I thought would be real funny is for the cons to hold W to the same standards that they are trying to hold Obama to — the moving target standard, the it’s up if you say it’s down and vice versa standard.
Paul,
I wonder if these Dems in Congress that you didn’t identify will be able to muster enough votes to put forth legislation to recommend against open funding of this effort.
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
9:46 am
Murph @8:21 am Unlike us rushing into the Iraq war with no real exit strategy, Obama and his team have tried to carefully make a difference in Libya, all the while improving our stance in the world.
Assuming you meant the 2nd Iraq war, we hardly rushed in. There were a list of UN resolutions passed over several years and diplomacy and inspections and embargoes were all employed for several years. Pres. Bush sought and received Congressional approval before taking any action, and this debate lasted more than a month in Congress before passing convincingly.
Wikipedia on UN resolutions:
In March 2003 the United States government announced that “diplomacy has failed” and that it would proceed with a “coalition of the willing” to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the U.S. insisted it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.
Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council over how to deal with the situation. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed during 2002-2003.
Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.
In 2003, the governments of the U.S., Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the “eighteenth resolution” and others called the “second resolution.” This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. [1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the U.S., Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq’s breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that “…false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations.”
On September 12, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:
* “In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments….And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.”
* The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found “extremely grave” human rights violations
* Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
* Iraq used proceeds from the “oil for food” U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
* Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.
Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have misgivings about an invasion of Iraq: Russia, China, and France.
On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
On the Authorization:
An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration’s proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
* Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
* Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
* Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
* Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, 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.
* Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution “supported” and “encouraged” diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:46 am
“I think you repudiated neo-cons are just making up shiite to desperately fit your own delusions.”
That’s our AmVet!
USMC dawg
March 21st, 2011
9:47 am
What happened to Hillary Clinton’s claim last week that “No-Fly Zones” are a bad idea and have never been effective?
AmVet
March 21st, 2011
9:47 am
“…they’ll all wave the white flag…”
The United States Army now accepts inductees up to the age of 42.
What is your excuse, this time?
F. Sinkwich
March 21st, 2011
9:47 am
Haliburton !!!!
Paul
March 21st, 2011
9:47 am
AmVet
Just like to get the details correct before we analyze the situation and to see if those details give a misleading impression. It give a whole different tenor to the conversation to say ‘we went in and stayed alone”
than “we assembled others to go with us but the results – in money and casualties – weren’t much different than if we’d gone in alone.”
DebbieDoRight
March 21st, 2011
9:49 am
Peadawg: Supporting our troops and supporting being involved in 3 wars at the same time are 2 different things.
Engagement in Libya is NOT a war – we have sent troops in to Somalia, the Balkans, and Yugoslavia — and were not “at war” with any of these countries. That’s because these were not wars — they were military engagements. Iraq and Afghanistan WERE wars, (Bush has already signed a declaration, [SOFA], for us to get out of Iraq before he left office and Obama also has set a timetable to draw down troops in Afghanistan. Your argument is false, misleading, and a downright lie.
TaxPayer
March 21st, 2011
9:49 am
US didn’t ‘go it alone’ in Iraq. There were a couple of dozen countries with forces involved.
Some of those countries sent as many as two or three non-combat personnel, didn’t they.
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:50 am
“The United States Army now accepts inductees up to the age of 42.
What is your excuse, this time?”
This is why I love, AmVet. He goes around assuming he knows all, sees all and yet hasn’t a clue as to who served.
TaxPayer
March 21st, 2011
9:50 am
Have mercy, MPercy. Post a link, not a book.
Doggone/GA
March 21st, 2011
9:50 am
“Most libs are choking on this as they ripped Bush for going to war but now that Obama has done the same thing you are finding any excuse you can to support him.”
I am not finding “any excuse” to support him I am in favor of this as an INTERNATIONAL effort. I would not support it as a unilateral one. I would have preferred that we stay out, to tell the truth, and let Europe and the Arab Leagues deal with it, but since it’s a UN resolution we would probably get involved anyway. If not sooner, then later.
Philip
March 21st, 2011
9:51 am
Still waiting for the anti-war libs to do their backpeddling. Oh, how I love thee hypocrisy.
F. Sinkwich
March 21st, 2011
9:51 am
No Blood for Oil !!!!
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:52 am
“Post a link, not a book.”
Yeah Percy, libs can’t read books, remember?
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:52 am
OBAMA LIED, LIBYA DIED!!!!!
OBAMA LIED, LIBYA DIED!!!!!
OBAMA LIED, LIBYA DIED!!!!!
OBAMA LIED, LIBYA DIED!!!!!
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:52 am
NO BLOOD FOR GE
NO BLOOD FOR GE
NO BLOOD FOR GE
jm
March 21st, 2011
9:52 am
“The United States Army now accepts inductees up to the age of 42.”
Really? Awesome…. I assume you still have to get through basic training somehow though….
TaxPayer
March 21st, 2011
9:53 am
What is your excuse, this time?
He has to stay here and defend blogland from invaders. It’s a tough job.
jconservative
March 21st, 2011
9:53 am
“Let’s discuss how Jay and other liberals are giving Obama a free pass for getting involved in a war with a country that never attacked us…”
If the criticism of Bush for attacking Iraq was valid then the criticism of Obama for attacking Libya is valid. And the reverse.
But that is not the point. The point is do we want the USA to be the military enforcer of our morals?
jm
March 21st, 2011
9:53 am
WOW – fab work
WOW
March 21st, 2011
9:54 am
jm, it’s easy, but thanks.