Now what?
After playing Hamlet for a period of some weeks, a supremely disengaged President Obama has been nagged into action on Libya. Over the weekend, US and allied forces hit Libya with a barrage of cruise missiles which was followed up by airstrikes directed not only at infrastructure supporting the Libyan air force but also against the Libyan army
What has been more notable than what has happened is what hasn’t happened. We still have no idea of the goals or objectives of this exercise. Are we trying to topple the odious Muammar Qaddafi? Are we trying to establish a “free state of Benghazi” where his opponents, the self described mujahideen, can rule? Are we trying to moderate his use of force as he exercises the legitimate right of any sovereign to put down an armed insurrection? Are we leading this coalition? Or is Nicholas Sarkozy? Who decides when enough is enough? When, if ever, is the administration going to ask for Congressional approval to carry out this operation?
Not only do we, the American people, not know these answers it is more than a little unclear that the administration itself knows the answers or is even of one mind on the few answers it does have.
We are muddling our way into a conflict which doesn’t rise to the level of caprice and which, contrary to Obama’s pious clucking, will ultimately involve either American or European ground troops. Indeed, it is hard to see how we accomplish anything at all – either overthrowing Qaddafi and handing Libya over to the mujahideen or the protection of a mujahideen enclave — without the insertion of a substantial number of ground forces.
So we are stuck into this mess and now the question becomes how to accomplish something worthwhile rather than turning what little American prestige that remains after two years of this abominable administration into a flaming holocaust on the altar of internationalism and feel-goodism.
Unless the administration produces some answers in very short order it is hard to see how this exercise becomes anything other than an encouraging example to our enemies of the weakness and fecklessness of this administration.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
My fellow Americans...
dhoerster (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 12:17PM EST (link)What I can’t understand is how no one in the MSM (that I can see) is expressing any sort of concern that the American military is involved in an operation and the President of the United States doesn’t show up on TV from the Oval Office during prime time stating what just happened, why we’re doing it, and what we can expect to happen. Whether we bombed Gaddafi’s tent back in the 80′s, to invading Grenada, to invading Iraq, Afghanistan, our involvement in Bosnia, etc. etc. etc. – the President always made a statement to the press about it. I didn’t really see a statement like that from this President. Maybe I missed it.
He really does seem disconnected from everything but the world in which he interacts with.
It’s just weird.
There was a television address on Saturday
Getting_Back_to_Basics Monday, March 21st at 12:50PM EST (link)It was by Hillary.
The situation from start to finish (well, no one knows what constitutes finishing this) is absurd. If it weren’t for the media’s liberal bias, I would assume they are silent because they are still shell-shocked by the ludicrous nature of this unconstitutional action while the president is out of the country. I know I still am.
It's Good That Someone Is In Charge In DC
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 12:51PM EST (link)Ok, Ok, I’ll fix that sarcasm lock problem with my keyboard…
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
It's oBOMBa's M.O., be responsible for nothing, so he can throw others under the bus.
Common_Cents (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 12:54PM EST (link)He is the self insulated untouchable, well, until voting time.
Obama=Golfer in Chief, Leading from,
behind, the Back Nine.Leaders don’t create movements. Movements create leaders. Get involved. Your future depends on it.
Govt “invests” YOUR tax money for POLITICAL return rather than economic return.
A couple of thoughts
inthisdimension Monday, March 21st at 12:23PM EST (link)Obama has just lost 2012:
http://inthisdimension.com/2011/03/20/has-obama-just-lost-2012/
.. and clearly, Obama has no idea what he’s doing:
http://inthisdimension.com/2011/03/20/does-even-obama-know-what-hes-doing-in-libya/
Stop asking intellectually grounded questions...
Marcus_Traianus (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 12:30PM EST (link)you are screwing up Mr. Obama’s concentration on his short-game.
I am sure the LFIG and AQIM will send him a fruit basket when this is all over…
“Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.”.Thomas Jefferson
Pentagon Says Objective Are Being Achieved
kipling (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 12:35PM EST (link)I just heard a Pentagon spokesman on Fox News Radio saying that the no-fly zone is achieving the objectives of the administration. However, still no word on what those objectives actually are.
One is left to wonder if the objective behind installing a no-fly zone is to install a no-fly zone.
Objective being Achieved
edintexas Tuesday, March 22nd at 8:43AM EST (link)It seems apparent that the objective of installing the “No-fly Zone” is to destroy all those Libyan Army tanks, vehicles and personnel flying about in Libyan airspace.
MAObama Ignorant of History, Particularly Byzantine/Arab History
Ausonius (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 12:46PM EST (link)The old saw about repeating history by being ignorant of it: BIG BRObama needs to go back to college for some History courses.
I have written about the Byzantine nature of Russian diplomacy: substitute “Arabs” for “Russians” in my diary from last December…
http://www.redstate.com/ausonius/2010/12/05/why-treaties-with-the-russians-are-worthless/
And so you can see why I laughed out loud when I saw this article this morning: after demanding that the USA/The West take some action against Kha-Daffy, they do a 180 with no problem and stab MAObama in the back.
A salient excerpt:
“The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.”
“TO RECONSIDER ARAB APPROVAL…” It is to laugh! Completely predictable that after waiting for the Arab League to approve action, MAObama gets stabbed in the back by them fairly quickly. (Putin of course is following the same predictable path of anti-Americanism.)
Pride goeth before the fall!
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3
Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.
Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
Cato@rock.com
By what authority do the Joint Chiefs have in starting this war?
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 12:46PM EST (link)I know that Obama is deranged, considers himself a dictator, ignores the Constitution and can only be described as a traitor, but do we actually have a military that is led by such a pusillanimous group of sycophants that they are willing to conduct a war without any Congressional action?
Which countries is the President allowed to attack at his whim? All of them? Any of them?
Where is the Republican leadership in allowing this action to take place?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
An excellent question no one seems to be raising
Getting_Back_to_Basics Monday, March 21st at 1:14PM EST (link)If the generals/admirals know that the Commander-in-Chief has no legal authority to commit acts of war, surely they are not obligated to follow illegal orders. I understand that lower down the ranks they may not have the luxury of sifting through the constitutional questions, but surely the commanders must be obligated to do so.
If the commanders do not analyze the legitimacy of the president’s order under the Constitution, then does that turn the military into Obama’s private army?
I don't agree with this line of reasoning at all
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:22PM EST (link)Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces. I don’t see why this scuffle is a constitutional issue at all. I think it is boneheaded but it isn’t illegal for presidents to do boneheaded things. Take the War of 1812 for instance.
Personally, I think this suggestion that you want each officer deciding independently what he will and will not do is just as dangerous today as when the left was encouraging the same back in 2004-2006.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Congress was apparently briefed in ...
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:27PM EST (link)which would appear to include at least some Republicans…
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Agreed Strife
powertothepeople (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:45PM EST (link)there is a tremendous difference between an unlawful order and an order we do not like. Obama is well within his rights concerning Libya and for an officer or soldier to refuse would result in a charge.
Now if Obama ordered our troops into lets say Wisconsin and ordered them to shoot on sight anyone without a union shirt, that would be illegal and any officer/soldier who did not refuse to obey the officer would need to be charged.
We def do not need our military refusing order based only on personal political sway or the “smarts’ of the person giving the order.If that were to start occurring, chaos would soon follow along with a coup. And we do not need the military running our country.
"...Obama is well within his rights..."
edintexas Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:10AM EST (link)I guess I’m really uninformed. I never knew that a President could legally initiate a war by attacking another sovereign nation without either a formal vote of the Congress, or a current direct attack on the US by that other nation.
You are certainly correct that any officer refusing to follow an order, legal or illegal, would be subject to UCMJ Courts Martial for that action.
The Problem Is One Of Who Has The Right To Judge.
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:17AM EST (link)Image your feelings and opinions, had a large convention of US Army Platoon Leaders, on a fateful morning during George W. Bush’s first term, approached the tent of General Tommy Franks and said the following.
“Sir, we regretfully inform, as good and decent Liberal Americans all, that George W. Bush stole the 2000 Election. As such, Sir, any orders that he relays to you, Sir, are therefore invalid. Sir, we do not obey any unconstitutional commands, and thus refuse to obey your orders to cross that birm into Iraq! That is all.”
In other words, a plurality of Americans elected the dumd (redacted). He therefore is the C-in-C of the US Military. If Congress, after protracted study and debate, decides President Obama has violated his Constitutional responsibilities they, not soldiers in the field, have several paths of varying severity by which they can punish President Obama.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
This is an important question
Getting_Back_to_Basics Monday, March 21st at 2:29PM EST (link)I didn’t say I want each officer decidingly independently, I was referencing the commanders. To be more specific, I suggest the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the immediate commanders of the Operation. I do not think it is unreasonable that the Joint Chiefs would “wonder” about the authority of the president to order an attack. There is certainly a clearer difference between sending federal troops into Wisconsin than the Libyan conflict, but it is a marginal difference highlighted only by geography.
I do not see where Obama has the authority to make war without Congressional authorization if the U,S, is not under immediate or imminent attack or it is not to immediately preserve a vital national interest. Please show me in the Constitution where any other type of act of war is permitted.
The restrictions on the Chief Executive to wage war are a vitally important principle within the Constitution.
I think it is just silly and wrong
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 2:37PM EST (link)1. They are entitled to “wonder” all they wish. They aren’t entitled to not carry out their orders and retain their commissions. If they want to retire. Fine. Otherwise they need to do the best they can with what they have.
2. You are sort of ignoring most of US history. As we’ve discussed here before George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all engaged in wars that were not declared. I’m not really interested in your particular definition of what is allowed under the Constitution as it doesn’t matter.
3. There is no restriction on the president’s ability to wage war in the constitution other than the decision by the Congress to either not fund the war or impeach the president.
4. If you want to continue this RonPaulRonPaul/Buchananite argument please do it on another website because it is a waste of time for me to argue with someone who has blotted out most of America’s military history.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
The Constitution is not a waste of time
Getting_Back_to_Basics Monday, March 21st at 3:09PM EST (link)That other presidents have engaged in wars without Congress’s approval does not make the current action legally justifiable. As James Madison said, “War is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides in the legislative department of the government.”
I believe the Constitution is one of the wisest political pacts written and that the brilliance of the separation of powers is critical to maintaining our republic. No, sir, it is not a waste of time to discuss and analyze what the Constitution means. Such a discussion is essential to the rule of law.
However, I do agree with you that it is a waste of time to argue with you because you and I clearly have very different views of the Constitution and those view do not appear to be reconcilable,
I didn't say the Constitution was a waste of time
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:19PM EST (link)I said arguing with people who don’t understand the Constitution or American history is a waste of time.
If you want to disregard the laws of the United States that is your business but you’re not going to argue patently stupid ideas on this website.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
The restriction is on declaring war, not making or waging it
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 2:58PM EST (link)This distinction was an intentional one. Authority over the armed services is vested in the executive; authority to *declare* (not wage or make) war is vested in Congress. A declaration of hostilities is a diplomatic tool akin to treaty-making; making war is not included in such actions. That said, it’s still pretty jaw-dropping that we did this with no attempt to consult the American public or the Congress, both of whom should be miffed that the President has not followed the standard practice of Presidents since radio was invented.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
A Lawyerly Parsing
edintexas Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:20AM EST (link)That is what governments, and the ruling class, do. That being said, words fail me to describe the extent to which that is parsing the language. A President can “make” war by unilaterally attacking another sovereign nation, but he can’t “declare” the war he is waging. And before one of the self appointed “moderators” chimes in, I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul for any office other than Chief Gadfly of Congress.
5
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 2:53PM EST (link)There is a difference between stupid and un-Constitutional. This latest action on Obama’s part is mind-numbingly stupid, but it appears to be Constitutional unless Pres Obama wants to curtail freedoms of Americans here, or unless he un-Constitutionally appropriates funding for this action.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
And if Obama ordered an attack against the UK?
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:54PM EST (link)Are you still willing to agree Obama’s command authority is supreme?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Morality Is Not law Nor Vice-Versa.
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:58PM EST (link)He would still have supreme authority. It goes with the job title. Elections have consequences.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
Um, I'm not sure about this particular hypothetical
Greg Garrison (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:09PM EST (link)Can the President violate a treaty (NATO) without congressional authorization? I thought that it was against the law. (Full disclosure: Most of my knowledge of the law comes from watching too many hours of Night Court during my clearly misspent youth.)
That said, Libya is obviously not a NATO signatory, so they’re really not analogous. As I have patiently explained to a facebook friend of mine who is a big fan of Ragin’ Ron Paul, inadvisable =/= unconstitutional.
http://www.thejoyofreason.com
“The art of compromise, which is central to a successful democracy, is not something that people learn overnight.” – Donald Rumsfeld
I Hadn't Considered The NATO Angle.
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:11PM EST (link)Another aspect to that would be how would the rest of the world allow the US to wield as much power as we do in that unpredictable a fashion? Without at least threatening us with serious nuclear warfare…
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
The answer to that is simple, Jack.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:17PM EST (link)Treaties are just words, right?
Being marginally more serioius, it would require that the NATO treaties insert a roadblock between the Commander in Chief and the Armed Services.
That is, one of the Joint Chiefs, perhaps, would have clear reason to say “This is an illegal order”, and force the issue… but again, only if there is a legal road block.
Given the tone at the time of the writing of NATO, and the historically rocky relationships among some of the signatories, I’m not sure if it would have inserted such language or not …
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
That Would Be A Dangerous Thing To Say About NATO.
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:22PM EST (link)We are too closely identified w/NATO. I think Congress, the JCS and the Sec Def all three would throw down the gauntlet on that one. It would be the closest thing to a legal coup attempt our country has seen since VP John Tyler tried to ascend to the Presidency.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
's a dangerous world, Jack.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:31PM EST (link)And differently so, not less so, when NATO came into being.
I’m not sure the French would have wanted the Brits to be able to interfere in their chain of command or vice versa, or if America of the 1940s and 1950s would have trusted even the Brits interfering in ours …
If not, then it’s unlikely that there’s a legal precedent for the Joint Chiefs to stand on, other than trying to get their congressional minders to take a quickie vote to de-fund the mission…. That’s the only potential legal stop I see.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
True, But...
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:53PM EST (link)One of the curses of having as much power as the US does, is that the rest of the world does like keeping you on a nice, tight leash. If France acts like a King Richard character in a Sartre play, people ask “What is France, anyhow?” If the US goes off the globalist reservation, it had better be prepared to fight wars over it. The rest of the world feels it has a vested interest in keeping us tied down.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
I doubt the President or Sec State considered the NATO angle either.
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 9:44PM EST (link)They have their UN resolution which trumps the US Constitution.
/end snark.
For that reason and that reason alone it would almost be worth it to make a fight over this. Almost. But there is one thing on the line now that trumps even that – Americans are being put in harms way. Time to tighten up the ranks and get as many of them home quickly and safely as possible. And that means there are two options:
1. The immediate pulling of funding coupled with the impeachment and conviction of the first Black president of the United States.
2. Give him the Declaration of War and clearly outline the objectives of that war so the generals have a road map.
Anything else just muddles things and gets more Americans killed.
If it doesn't bother you any more,
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:41PM EST (link)why did you mention he was Black?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
It is a valid political factor, Tbone.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:55PM EST (link)Or do you believe that we are living in Martin Luther King’s dream?
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
I didn't ask you, but I do agree with you.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:16PM EST (link)It is Gadfly’s statement. It is to him to defend his inconsistency.
Besides you really need to focus on you own problems, Heck, you have President Palin defending Brownsville from a Mexican invasion.
BTW, we already lost that war. LOL
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Defending Minot from Canadians seemed .. unnecessary....
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:46PM EST (link)But .. the root of the problem you raise seems to be not that the president has the power, rather that the president is an idiot.
The solution to that takes place in November of 2012, or sooner if the Joint Chiefs bring a serious problem to the right congresscritters.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Well, enough of this, your squirming is making
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:16AM EST (link)me feel guilty.
I will assume you and your brothers in arms in defense of blind obedience to the CiC will be voting for Charles Logan come 2012.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
We are a country of laws, Tbone.
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 10:49AM EST (link)That includes the chain of command.
You are ignoring that I’ve given examples of ways for the Joint Chiefs or for Congress to stop a President from making a stupid-but-legal attack on an ally.
You are ignoring, also, my repeated statements that the problem isn’t the laws, the problem is the person in charge. You agree on this, I know….
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Well, enough of this, your squirming is making
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:17AM EST (link)me feel guilty.
I will assume you and your brothers in arms in defense of blind obedience to the CiC will be voting for Charles Logan come 2012.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
So long as you're not supporting Nehemiah Scudder ... [nt]
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 12:50PM EST (link)——
Caveat Suffragator
Has anyone ever seen him and Huckabee
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 1:14PM EST (link)in the same room at the same time?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Purely the political calculation.
The_Gadfly (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 6:36AM EST (link)Or are you claiming there are at least 20 race-blind Democrats in the Senate who would vote for his conviction?
I should have been more clear. The question was
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:17PM EST (link)at any point should the exercise of the President’s authority be impeded by the Joint Chiefs? If not, so be it, if so, based on what?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The JCS Can Impede At Any Time
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:19PM EST (link)via the submission of their resignations in a public and rahter blunt fashion. Does that necessarily deter? Let’s not elect President Nero and find out.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
Impeded?
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:20PM EST (link)Sure. The chiefs could have resigned their commissions. That could have created enough attention that it would have slowed things down. But if you’re talking about the chiefs having legal authority to not carry out an unwise order the answer is no.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
So basically you are saying that if a President
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 5:58PM EST (link)was willing to sort down through the ranks until he found a yes man that would order the B2s and Tomahawks into the air, there is really no recourse.
It is unlikely that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a World where a President could destroy another nation between midnight and 6 am from a beach in Brazil.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
My copy of the Constitution is inanimate. (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:00PM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Funny, mine has Amendments. nt
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:21PM EST (link)Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Perhaps we should both make copies
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:22PM EST (link)and send them to Barry, he seems to have neither.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Well what do you know
Neil Stevens (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:27PM EST (link)So does mine.
You don’t like that the President is the Commander in Chief with the power to project force globally? Amend the thing.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Not my job. But don't complain when Obama
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:35PM EST (link)orders the JCoS to shut down the internet for some undefined national security reason.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Cool Story Bro
Neil Stevens (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 7:09PM EST (link)Or how about when Obama grabs every gun in America because the framers didn’t intend modern weapons to qualify under the second amendment?
Because you backed that logic and all?
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
You missed the logic.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 7:36PM EST (link)The logic is more the unringing the bell concept where an executive decision can bring irreparable harm on a national or international scale because there is no time for correction either judicially or legislatively.
Of course, imminent threats can be excluded such as ordering all commercial planes grounded on 9/11.
BTW, it is somewhat comforting to me that the NRA maintains bipartisan legislative juice and a suite of lawyers to deal with Obama either legislatively or judicially.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Assuming Concorde-like flight profiles...
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:33PM EST (link)rather than SR-71 profiles… there would be 4-6 hours from launch of cruise missiles to the last possible opportunity to (relatively) safely abort.
As for the authorization, which you’ve been ignoring, it comes in via the President being the keeper of the armed services.
I don’t see a need to change this because we’ve had two lousy Presidents – Carter and Obama – rather I see these failures of the President as a need to elect better, wiser people … and it seems that we need to re-learn this every 20-30 years.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Assuming launched from a ship there would be
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:54PM EST (link)what 3 to 30 minutes? As I said, before he finished lunch. However, perhaps the Joint Resolution to abort the missiles could be Tweeted.
We now live in a technological age where a POTUS unchecked by the JCoS can commence a war, costing 100s of millions of dollars, and with the most dire longterm consequences, in a matter of moments.
It makes the War Powers Act of 1973 moot.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Again, the problem is having elected a non-serious person to a serious position. Can't fix stupid, Tbone. [nt]
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:57PM EST (link)——
Caveat Suffragator
I've been trying,
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:10AM EST (link)but you won’t take your medicine.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Don't quit your day job.
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 10:55AM EST (link)Your argument that there should be a legal change to neuter a president, to limit his or her ability to act unilaterally is not a bad one .. but I find it surprising that this is the first time this has come to your attention.
Were you told when Clinton blew up tents and an asprin factory? I wasn’t.
In short, Obama apparently briefed in the appropriate congresscritters prior to striking Libya, and therefore is in compliance with the constitution as currently interpreted.
My argument is that if Obama or another president were to skip the congressional step, the Joint Chiefs would ensure that the congress had enough time to respond… you’ve glossed over this repeatedly.
I am persuaded that, perhaps, the War Powers Act is in need of an update – but that as the law stands, this president is within his responsibilities.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Sounds about right.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:04PM EST (link)The only limits on the Executive branch are the Legislative and the Judicial branches .. and the Supremes are unlikely to get between the POTUS and the DoD.
The only non-executive solution is for Congress to vote to not fund, with specificity, the “millitary adventurism” you’re describing.
For that to happen, though, they’d have to be made aware of it before the fact. This is why the Presidential appointees are not “Czars”, and why the choosing of the guy to occupy the big chair at 1600 Pennsylvania is supposed to be a big deal.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Do you think they may get between the Potus
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:30PM EST (link)and the Department of Energy or can we kiss Gulf drilling goodbye?
BTW, your funding argument is abstract. Maybe back in the day when a POTUS might need a purse to raise an Army but not today when a POTUS can issue an order and blow $100 million in Tomahawks before he finishes his lunch at the turn.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
"Back in the day" like 1968, Tbone?
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:56PM EST (link)Because the reason we “lost” in Viet Nam was the vote to cut off funding, last time I checked.
I would expect the Supremes to interfere in the oil inudstry eventually .. probably a case or two grinding their way through the couts already, but Vladimir would be better to ask about that.
Yes, the POTUS can order the launch of Tomahawks .. but they can still be overridden until they hit…
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
May want to check your dates.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:00PM EST (link)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution.
You might direct me to where in the Constitution it authorizes the President to launch Tomahawks, in effect commencing a war. I know he is designated CiC but that doesn’t exempt him from either the Constitution or having to enforce laws passed by the legislature.
In fact, you make that argument in saying that he doesn’t have the power to ignore an appropriations bill that excludes war funding. As such, how is it that you are willing to exclude not only him but the JCoS from being subject to the War Powers Act of 1973?
Specifically, what is the legal argument under which Obama pushed the button?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Recursion detected.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:23PM EST (link)This convo is now going in circles.
We elected this empty suit knowing that he’ll be carrying the football.
The only solution prior to 2012 November involves allying yourself with Kucinich…
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
It is.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:31PM EST (link)Around you.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The better question to ask, Tbone...
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:38PM EST (link)is whether whatever solution you propose – a vote of the Armed Servies Committee perhaps? – would be acceptable if the situation were reversed….
Consider that President Palin receives information that one of the Mexican cartels is going to stage a heavy, armed assault on Brownsville, TX reinforced by elements of the Mexican army – can she send troops without seeking congressional approval?
Can she authorize the troops to cross into Mexico to assume better defensive positions, or to pursue the (eventually) fleeing cartel forces?
Or, asked another way, were you concerned when Bush 1.0 went into Iraq?
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Are you just plain nuts?
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:01PM EST (link)You have just posed an imminent threat scenario including an invasion of our Country by a foreign military.
A more similar scenario would be if a cartel declared a rebellion against the government of Mexico and, along with some Mexican military defectors, were headed to Mexico City to forcefully overthrow the government. Would I support President Palin, at the behest of France and the UK, bombing the Mexican military column sent out to intercept the cartel rebels without following the War Powers Act of 1973? No.
Uh, when Bush I went into Iraq, I think he didn’t do it during lunch and the suggestion of France. From Wikipedia:
“The Persian Gulf War (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991), commonly referred to as simply the Gulf War, was a war waged by a U.N.-authorized coalition force from thirty-four nations led by the United States, against Iraq.”
Was there some unilateral decision he made that I missed?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
As you framed the argument, it isn't a question
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:27PM EST (link)of unilateral, it is a question of a Declaration of War. There was no Declaration of War, although there was an Authorization For the Use of Force. Yes, it was leftists trying to finesse the issue, but if you tie waging war = declaring war with the strong enumerated powers school, you’re stuck with the President needing the Declaration of War, not anything else including said Authorization.
Give it up TBone, history has declared this argument moot.
Waging war is not declaring war nor is it, more importantly
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:57PM EST (link)commencing a war. No one would argue that the CiC has pretty much a free hand in waging war once it is authorized either by a formal declaration or other legislative device. Ask either of the survivors of Dresden or Hiroshima.
The question is should there be any check on the POTUS in unilaterally and in his singularity commencing a war when there is no imminent or immediate threat. In effect STARTING a war with tools of such immediate mass destruction that the consequences of his action could cause the destruction of hundreds of thousands of US lives?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You are now contradicting yourself in your own thread.
The_Gadfly (Diary) Wednesday, March 23rd at 6:07AM EST (link)As to your attempt at introducing yet another new point in hopes of gaining some sort of foothold anywhere, my last line applies to that as well: History has made your question moot. The lads and lasses working on the Manhattan project put that responsibility and power in the hands of the President for every one in office since they finished their work.
As I recall, Tbone...
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:52PM EST (link)Desert Shield changed to Desert Storm while George H.W. Bush was on his boat in Kennebunkport.
I’ve said before that the appropriate members of Congress were apparently briefed in.
The minimum requirement was met. Two branches of government.
If you are demanding a full declaration of war to allow the armed services to engage in offensive actions … while that may have been what the Founders intended, the counter-argument is that, thanks to some of our other archaic traditions, it’d require Congress to return to D.C. to vote out a declaration of war, and there are several attacks I can imagine that’d make that .. difficult.
Just sayin’
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
I am not demanding a Declaration of War.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:02PM EST (link)I am saying that the JCoS should have a higher responsibility to the Nation than just following an order from their CiC.
What do you believe about that?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
See below reply. Again, there is a difference between a stupid order and an illegal one.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:11PM EST (link)And the Joint Chiefs are already in position to both thell the difference and, more importantly, to have the connections to Congress to be able to – if they choose – act as a brake on a stupid-but-not-illegal order.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Then, do you believe Obama's order to attack Libya
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:05AM EST (link)was either stupid or illegal and if either or both, why did the JCoS execute it? Were they complicit in stupidity, illegality, both? What is your answer? It has to be one of those unless of course you think Obama’s action was both legal and smart. In which case you must agree the JCoS were correct in their agreement.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
If I may...
Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle) (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:14AM EST (link)I think the JCoS want Qaddafi out… that’s why they support the unintelligent Obama response… cause they could care less about how Obama justifies action or “markets” the idea back to the U.S. or international community… the JCoS simply support the removal of Qaddafi. I believe they are united only in the endgame, and even though Obama can’t equivocate what the endgame should be there, the JCoS likely know exactly what they want… ‘cut off the head of the snake… and get the hell out’. At least that’s my armchair analysis.
What’s your take on motive?
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison
Sycophants.nt
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 10:27AM EST (link)Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
well that just totally nullifies your previous argument doesn't it?
Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle) (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 1:12PM EST (link)I mean if the JCoS are all simple minded sycophants… then what’s the point of:
Why give a higher responsibility to sycophants? That’s like giving a rubber stamp process a narrative of credibility, and that’s what this is really all about… narratives…
End game, remove Qaddafi and get the hell out. Anything else that happens in Libya, hopefully stays in Libya, and doesn’t spill out into GCC countries where we have a particularly friendly relationship with “benevolent” monarchies…
If we help the Libyan rebels, we take away the legitimacy of a “grassroots” revolution in the Shiite world. We also leave a gaping logic hole when it comes to Iran stirring the pot against Sunni run states in the region. Iran wants to convince all other Shiites to war against Sunni run states… they can’t claim that strictly associate the U.S. with Sunni run states, if the U.S. is taking a direct interest in assisting a Shiite revolution in Libya… we’re trying to buy credibility in the region by taking out an asshole that the U.S. has had a personal vendetta against since the early eighties.
Justified process or not…. Obama took the Clintonian approach to act of war over the Bush approach. Hem and Haw all day long about the “rightness” of the action… but you’re going upstream against precedence, … it may not be right.. certainly not fair… but it is what it is… you simply won’t see Defense Conservatives and foreign policy hawks going after the action itself… they will however criticize the absolute bungling of the messaging failure on the road to the same endgame result, along with “too little too late” as their exit strategy in case the whole mission is an absolute failure in achieving the desired outcome… that’s the politics of it…
the only issue I take with your line of thought is that you’re somehow trying to turn back the clock on foreign policy engagements in a pre-U.N. world… not that there’s anything wrong with that… but you may as well be trying to change the direction of the Missouri river with rowing paddle.
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison
Not really. What part of "should" don't you understand?
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 1:49PM EST (link)As for the rest of your ramble.
1. It is doubtful Qaddafi gets removed without ground forces. That would be who?
2. If he is not removed, he will arm terrorists in retribution. Count on it, he has a history.
3. If he is removed, he will be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, count on it. Think of them as the Sinn Fein of Al Queda.
Now, which of the above is better than leaving him alone?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
All of the above no longer matter. The avalanche has started, the pebbles no longer have a vote. [nt]
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:09PM EST (link)——
Caveat Suffragator
thanks for getting it. nt
Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle) (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 4:23PM EST (link)“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison
To Tbone's point.. the time to discuss neutering the POTUS was ...
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 6:42PM EST (link)before we got into this mess – not during/after.
It’d be like neutering the bull after he’s already knocked up the cows…
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
context my friend... context.
Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle) (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 5:06PM EST (link)I was suggesting what I believe is the motive of the JCoS behind your question…
I didn’t suggest that I agree with that motive… but I was attempting to answer your question with a hypothetical…
You seem to be hung up on lamenting the process and the reality…
In regards to 2 and 3 those are both misleading and over simplifications of possible outcomes. I think you’re overlooking the fact that 2 and 3 roughly have the same outcome, the question is, which leads to more instability in the region…and I don’t think anyone really knows… both are moot points for this reason.
You’re correct Qaddafi likely won’t be removed… its either “accidental death” or “left alone to punish his opposition as he sees fit”… there can’t be anything in between… If we “remove” him by force, we get blowback from the Arab world. If we leave him alone, we can say “we tried” to support pro-democracy efforts without becoming interventionists…
either way its a crap sandwich for the military… and that’s an understatement…
I am entirely disgusted with the whole damn episode… but screaming about constitutionality of Obama’s actions is a waste of time… and as acat points out below… its too late to undo… and there’s a host of lawyers that will disagree with you.
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison
The legal requirements, Tbone...
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 11:00AM EST (link)are for the President to brief in part of Congress. This appears to have been done, otherwise I suspect the blogosphere would be lighting up like a christmas tree…
As the legal appears to have been done, I do not believe the order was illegal.
My *opinion* of the *wisdom* of attacking Libya does not influence Obama administration policy any more than yours does, unless you’ve left a few things off your resume…
I’m opposed to this adventurism. I think the Italians should confiscate Gaddafi’s holdings in Italy and use that to pay for whatever adventurism they want, on their dime, using their sons’ blood. I don’t see where we have a legitimate role. But, as I said, my opinion doesn’t carry much weight in D.C.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Probably a similar one to the one advanced by John Yoo
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:27PM EST (link)a high-ranking official in the US Justice Department while Pres Bush was in office, and which was used to defend our undeclared wars in Yemen and Pakistan (both continued and expanded by Pres Obama), among other actions. Obama is a shameless hypocrite for running to the nearest convenient argument in the service of an action that would have been condemned by Obama the Candidate, but he’s actually on firm Constitutional ground (for now). If he or his State Dept unilaterally undertake any of the actions traditionally associated with a declaration of hostilities (and I imagine that if they haven’t, they will soon), then there’s an argument that they have engaged in un-Constitutional actions. Until then, the Obama administration’s actions are legally in line with what other Presidents have done and with the Constitution’s basic requirements.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I doubt you will find an argument in Yoo's opinion
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:40PM EST (link)that provided for attacking the sovereign government’s military forces in either Pakistan or Yemen.
So in that acat has conceded the field, perhaps you can do this:
“You might direct me to where in the Constitution it authorizes the President to launch Tomahawks, in effect commencing a war.”
Maybe you can ask Neil to send you his copy. It’s so old it doesn’t even have any amendments. LOL. (Of course, back when it was written the President didn’t have a military with which to commence a war, now did he?)
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Probably the same place
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 9:02PM EST (link)where it specifically authorizes the creation of an air force and a central bank. Implied powers: learn them, love them, live them.
Make no mistake: the Constitution was written to leave an out for the executive to make war (much to the protestations of anti-federalists, so at least you’re in good company), and since Washington, the power to wage war unilaterally by the executive branch has been common practice. Just for the fun of it, here’s a memo written by the Bush admin’s DoJ after 9/11 providing the legal justification for the unilateral attacks on Afghanistan on Bush’s part before receiving Congressional assent; it counts 125 separate incidents where a US President has unilaterally waged war without the assent of Congress. This ain’t exactly the Where’s Waldo of Presidential actions we’re talking about, here.
So long as we’re reading the same Constitution, Jefferson (among other Presidents) unilaterally authorized expeditions against the Barbary States (note the term indicating sovereigns), and his only concerns were that a) he would not get the requisite funding from anti-federalists, and b) that he would have egg on his face after arguing against giving the executive such a unilateral power during the Constitutional debates. Pretty much every one of our wars against the various Indian tribes were undeclared. In short, it is extremely difficult to argue that war-making is not within the exclusive purview of the executive branch; the political aspects of declaration of hostilities being a separate issue. I have no problem with people arguing that it should not be (again, the anti-federalists were no slouches and you’d be standing on firm ground), but as a matter of legality, it’s a moot issue until you get an amendment.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I have conceded where, Tbone?
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:17PM EST (link)I don’t recall conceding your point.
He’s the duly authorized commander in chief. He has the authority to do this.
The solution, as I see it, is to not elect unserious people to the most serious of positions … anything else becomes a game of “who watches the watchmen”.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
5^ nt
Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle) (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 1:16PM EST (link)“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison
"...actions traditionally associated..."
edintexas Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:29AM EST (link)You mean like conducting bombing, rocket and strafing attacks against the armed forces of a sovereign nation? I see we’ve lost an F-15, though not (thankfully) the two crew. This is reported as not due to Libyan military action.
Actually, no
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 11:38AM EST (link)Given the actions that we took during the Quasi-War and the choice of the word “declare” over “make”, I would say that those actions are legally associated with the phrase “make war”, not a declaration of hostilities. I don’t want to sound pedantic, but I think that this is an important distinction to make. (All the same, it’s pretty breathtaking that we’re doing this without consulting the people who are funding this little venture: the taxpayers and their ostensible proxies in the Congress, respectively.)
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
The people who are actually paying for the Libyan operation, the Chinese government, have said "No"...
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 11:50AM EST (link)http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/china-calls-for-immediate-cease-fire-in-libya-after-days-of-allied-airstrikes-1.351113
(in summary, China calls for immediate cease fire in Libya)
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
The Chinese Central Bank Could Defund This
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 11:57AM EST (link)as rapidly as the US Congress. They just refuse to buy any US Treasuries until the US military is completely withdrawn. They could form “The Coalition With Credit Standards,” and get India, Russia, Brazil and 45 other nations to stop buying T-Bills as well. Interesting times.
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
Just as the French could have de-funded...
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 12:46PM EST (link)the American revolution… or we (or the Soviets or .. Chinese) could have de-funded Korea, Viet Nam (wait, we did…) or Afghanistan circa 1980…
Some things never do change, eh?
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
I think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:42PM EST (link)and you know what, so does most of Congress.
Unless there is an enforcement mechanism I don’t see how you stop a President from committing US forces to combat if he disregards the political risks associated with it.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Good, that makes you, Nixon and most of Congress.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:36PM EST (link)Seems you all may be short 5 SCOTUS votes so far. Until you all get those 5 votes it would seem that it is the Law of the Land wouldn’t you agree?
We are a nation of laws are we not?
I would pose that it is the responsibility of the men with their hands on the trigger.
Does a private have a duty to follow an order to execute an unarmed foreign national, posing no imminent threat, using his service rifle? Of course not because there is a larger concept to consider, i.e. the morality of murder.
Does not a 4 Star General, at his level, also have larger concepts to consider i.e. his higher responsibility to the Nation than to the whim of the CiC?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
There is a difference between an illegal order and a stupid order, Tbone. We've been over this. [nt]
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:00PM EST (link)——
Caveat Suffragator
Well then, what is an illegal order.
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:08PM EST (link)You are arguing that there isn’t any because of the supremacy of the CiC.
Of course, you are also arguing that the JCoS must also follow stupid orders or resign and be replaced by those who will. Not a particularly good system to assure quality decisions.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Please do not put words in my mouth, Tbone.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:24PM EST (link)I did not say that the C in C cannot issue an illegal order.
The Joint Chiefs have many options beyond go along or resign – there’s also deliberately failing to comply, not admitting it, and going to Congress.
You’re reaching, Tbone.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
You failed to answer my simple question.
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 1:56AM EST (link)What constitutes an illegal order?
In this age of technology, the JCoS really don’t have your 3 options. It is pull the trigger and pull it now. Refuse and you are under arrest, resign and you are replaced with some one who will.
I’m not reaching, you’re running and have lost.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
An illegal order is an order that violates the laws of the U.S., the UCMJ, or both. You know this, Tbone. [nt]
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 11:08AM EST (link)——
Caveat Suffragator
Such has it always been
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 11:35AM EST (link)and such will it always be. Do you seriously not understand chain of command and its costs/benefits? This is basic chain of command: beyond an illegal order that violates UCMJ or a law established by the Congress or the pre-eminent authority, the word of the commander appointed over you is law, it is manna from heaven, and it is pure gold, whatever your personal view on it is. Believe it or not, having a rogue army that interprets the Constitution at will is a really, really Bad Thing, and you should thank your lucky stars that the JCoS hasn’t taken you up on your advice for the present situation in the past.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Reading you two "a"s is like watching
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 1:54PM EST (link)two motorcycles riders in a barrel cage. Hot in pursuit of their own butts.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
"And suddenly, the horn section starts playing a different tune" ...
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:00PM EST (link)Way to dodge the points – again – Tbone.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Maybe you should move on from this thread then (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:00PM EST (link)RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
You are absolutely right Neil,
Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 6:47PM EST (link)anytime a Moderator has to show up to protect the weak and down trodden, we of superior abilities must recognize that we may have inadvertently become a burden to their intellect. Rather than damage their self esteem permanently, I will withdraw and leave you to succor them back to a state of emotional well being.
Thanks for caring, man, I’ld give you a hug if I could.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
That reminds me of the movie the Dead Zone
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:41PM EST (link)Funny how silly left winger like Steven “Hack” King can create something that makes you actually think. I say it’s funny because left wingers never actually think about anything, they just “feel”.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Only thing that can get between them may be a treaty ..
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:21PM EST (link)that would make the order to attack illegal…
…but the joint chief(s) would have to (a) recognize that it’s an illegal order and (b) be willing to put their careers on the line over it and (c) be able to make the case with the body that holds their leash – i.e. the congressional oversight folk.
That’s a tad more comforting today than it was in 2009, but still…
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
If the Supreme Court issues a ruling
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:36PM EST (link)and Pres Obama fails to comply, or if Congress impeaches and Obama holds onto the reins. I would argue that both actions divest the current executive from being able to exercise his Constitutional duties, and that in such cases he cannot be considered the CinC (thus making his orders from this point forward unlawful). Anything else and we’re talking rule of men, not of law.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
We elected to give him the power, yes.
acat (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:04PM EST (link)That we elected an un-wise and un-serious person says, perhaps, more about most Americans than we’d like, but .. yes, he does have this power.
In that case, though, the Congress would likely vote to de-fund immediately, unless enough of the key players could be convinced (behind closed doors) of the necessity of such an assault…. and further, unless the case could be made to the American people, the majority would be unlikely to grant O the benefit of the doubt at this point….
Today, though? Right now? Yes, he has that power.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Yep. nt
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:05PM EST (link)The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I remember once looking up a list of wars in which the US has fought,
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 9:33PM EST (link)and the number of undeclared wars outstripped the number of declared wars overwhelmingly. I always recall my high school history teacher pointing to Mr. Jefferson himself as the prime example of the weakness of the strong enumerated powers school of interpretation. Exhibit 1 was always the Louisiana purchase. Exhibit 2 was always the war against the Barbary pirates. So the precedents go back almost as far as the Constitution itself.
I would like to be more concerned about the lack of concern over the Constitutional issues. I think an actual Declaration of War would help clarify the objectives and means with which we will pursue those objectives. The problem for me is that leftists have so poisoned that well that it is difficult for practical conservatives to worry over it. The Leftists have argued, and impeded too many necessary strategic military decisions to allow them to have veto over military action.
But given the lack of clarity, perhaps we would be better off if the House took up a War resolution and worked to define those issues. It seems clear the administration is incapable of doing so.
Hoisted By His Own Words: BIG BRObama in 2007
Ausonius (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:22PM EST (link)“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” — Senator Barack Obama 2007
Note the poor grammar on top of the hypocrisy!
See:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/candidate-obama-vs-president-obama-a-message-on-the-use-of-military-force/
Ausonius: 310-395 A.D. Teacher, Poet, Consul, General, Farmer.
Personal Tutor to the future St. Paulinus of Nola and to young Gratian, heir to the throne during the turbulent final years of the Western Roman Empire. When his former student Gratian was assassinated, Ausonius threw up his hands and retired to his farm in Gaul. Rome was captured by barbarians 14 years after his death.
Cato@rock.com
The President ordered them, that's what
Neil Stevens (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:45PM EST (link)The President is the Commander in Chief, not they.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
I am glad you asked the question.
antisocial (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:20PM EST (link)Are we trying to moderate his use of force as he exercises the legitimate right of any sovereign to put down an armed insurrection?
I have been thinking about this for some time. We saw the hoo haa at UN and then the statement from Presentident. Enforcing NFZ and attacking military are different things.
By that logic we should have intervened in Chechnya, China, India, Sri Lanka and host of other nations.
If it is in our strategic interests go ahead define the mission and bomb the crap out. I just don’t like the morality argument.
As I said earlier… I would prefer to let the fundies and Gadafi deal with each other and then deal with the winner.
Obama Doctrine – Boot On The Throat
—————————–
What is to be done?
——————————
No. You can’t – Moe Lane
——————————
The Emperor has no clothes!!!
Personally I don't believe the President
kyle8 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:45PM EST (link)should have the power to start a war. If it is the reaction to a war provocation, then that is one thing, but just jumping us into hostilities without even an authorization of force by congress is, to me, unconstitutional.
And I would apply that to Republican or Democrat Presidents.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
I agree with you kyle8.
runner12 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:59PM EST (link)I am sorry, but I do think this action was unconstitutional. You can argue semantics all day long, but when you bomb another country without them attacking you first that is pretty much a declaration of war. I am fairly certain that if someone began bombing the US we would interpret it as a declaration of war and not simply “waging” war.
If one of our allies were being attacked and we were supporting them, that would even be a different scenario because we would be bound by a treaty that Congress had approved.
I am by no means an anti-war person, but when we do have to make the difficult decision to go to war, it must be for the right reasons.
again this is just wrong
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:39PM EST (link)1. You are free to think what you wish so long as you don’t expect others to take you seriously.
2. Throughout our history we’ve been involved in 200+ wars, incursions, punitive expeditions, etc without a declaration of war. We’ve only done that on 5 occasions.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
In fairness...
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 9:06PM EST (link)We’ve gotten Congressional assent on most of them (authorizations of force, treaty signing and the like), so while Constitutional, getting Congressional approval in a situation where American lives are not on the line seems like a best practice that should have been followed here.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
With respect streiff, did they not receive
runner12 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:57PM EST (link)Congressional approval on most of those military actions and /or were they instances in which we were providing support to some of our allies?
If so, then that would be a different scenario altogether and within the bounds of the President’s powers and the Constitution.
But I am trying to think of a major military mission in which the President initiated action without a). Congressional approval b). an action in which we were supporting our allies or c.) in which we were defending ourselves.
If there is a specific one, I would like to know.
BTW, it is never a bad thing to question the Constitutionality of an action that is somewhat suspect. If my opinion turns out to be incorrect and not in line with Constitution, then I will be wrong and learn something new in the process.
A cursory search
powertothepeople (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 11:13PM EST (link)showed that 125 times we have engaged in action without the prior approval of congress. The ones listed were
Korea 1950
Philippine-American War 1898–1903
Nicaragua 1927
It is only 3 of the 125, but it is a start.
Thank you.
runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 8:40AM EST (link)I will look into those.
kowalski, I just did a brief overview of Korea
runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 8:53AM EST (link)and it appears that Truman’s rationale for going into Korea was based on a UN resolution (similar to Libya now). That opens a whole other can of worms and begs the question is a UN resolution more important or equally as important as Congressional aproval?
My gut instinct would say no, but I have not done enough research on the subject to present an informed argument for my gut instinct.
kowalski #2
runner12 (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:54PM EST (link)Truman was a Democrat as well.
Go figure.
Responses to Libya bombing from outside USA
lineholder (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:21PM EST (link)From the Arab League (I think they were expecting a softer touch on this)
http://www.france24.com/en/20110321-arab-league-chief-condemns-air-strikes-libya-moussa-mussa-no-fly-zone-un-resolution
From Turkey – They want NATO to review scale of bombardments (again, looking for a softer touch)
http://www.france24.com/en/20110321-Signs-of-division-in-international-anti-Gaddafi-coalition
From Iran – conflicting stories here
Australian sources claim Iran in support of coalition w/o backing it up
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/raw-hatred-for-colonel-unites-enemies/story-fn87qlu5-1226025700225
Indian sources claim Khomeini condemning Western allies,
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/iran-condemns-military-intervention-in-libya-khamenei/617592.html
From Russia, word on Twitter (through DTNRussia) is that Putin is against coalition, Medvedev in support
streiff, I've wondered all along
lineholder (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:38PM EST (link)If we get into this, even if we do not claim a leadership role, will other nations perceive us as taking on a leadership role, just because we are the US? If that occurs, then does the accountability for the outcome become ours? If it requires long-term intervention, will this be ours to maintain?
So here’s the latest from BBC, posted two hours ago, implying “US lead” in this little venture.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12802108
good point
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:44PM EST (link)obviously we’re going to own this and even though I think this is one of the most capricious and cavalier uses of military force in my lifetime we have to make this a success. As soon as we have an idea what that is.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Yep. We're running C and C plus logistics, therefore
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 9:51PM EST (link)we own the war. And as you said, it doesn’t matter how capricious an cavalierly it was made.
Is there any doubt why?
VanishingNYRep (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 2:55PM EST (link)The US attacked Afganistan becuse of the Taliban’s comlicity in the 9/11 attackes. The US attacked Iraq because it refused to give up its WMD program and ignored about 19 UN resolutions.
The US attacked Libya because …?
The US attacked Libya because the Pres was told that unless Libya stabilized, gas would be over $5 per gallon by the time of the 2012 election and he would be toast. He needed to stop the civil war there from further driving up the price of gas.
There is no national interest in the US attack on Libya.
if I thought we were involved in Libya because of oil
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:04PM EST (link)I would cheerfully support the action because at least that is an identifiable national interest.
I need for you to provide a cite to the “$5/gal” comment because I can’t find it anywhere.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Yeah, I know he deserves to get his wing clipped for tone,
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 9:57PM EST (link)but I’ve heard plenty of references to $5/gallon gas in casual conversation. So I used a search engine and found
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/27/markets/oil_commodities/index.htm
And while I wouldn’t put it past The Big 0 to have launched a war to prevent that if it meant he could win the next election, I have given up all hope that he is actually capable of planning that far ahead. He seems only to be capable of positioning himself to avoid responsibility if things go badly, while being sufficiently close to close to claim credit if they go well. This UN resolution is a prima facie example.
A quibble
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:06PM EST (link)A “sovereign” has no “right” to stamp out an “insurrection” unless you believe that the citizens of a country are chattel slaves whose fate is within the purview of an arbitrarily or wrongly selected leader. Airbombing the unfortunate souls who live in an odious regime, and torturing one’s own citizens to quell rebellion comes nowhere near being a “right”, any more than the right of prima nocta is a right. In practice, it is convenient to tolerate a sovereign’s violation of the rights of the citizens of his country — we just don’t have the will or the means to eliminate injustice worldwide. That is not the same as prescribing a sovereign a “right” whose exercise grossly violates the rights of the citizenry to be left at peace.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
disagree
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:14PM EST (link)that is an enumerated power under Article II Section 8 of the US Constitution and has been demonstrated in such events as the American Civil War
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Power =/= right
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:36PM EST (link)As an example, taxation is a power explicitly vested in the federal government (even the dreaded income taxation since the early 1900s), but it is in no way the “right” of the US government to take 104% of my income, as was the case in Sweden. A right is simply something that ought to be as a result of our human nature; a power is a specific violation of rights that government is empowered with, and is granted through a system of laws that requires the super-majoritarian consent of the governed.
Rights do not emerge from a document, they are recognized and thus codified. The social contract in Libya (such as it is) has been violated by Gaddhafi in the means he used to attain and keep power, and as there is no means to redress grievances, there’s no way that his brutal crackdowns on the citizenry could be construed as a “right”. The Libyan state has militantly violated Libyans’ rights for decades; it is Gaddhafi who has been the aggressor, not the Libyan people who finally rose up. The right of the Libyan citizen to live in peace and to have some control over their government trumps a dictator’s “right” to unimpeded control over his citizens’ livelihoods and lives (even if it is impractical for the US government to prevent such abuse worldwide).
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
I don't agree
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:42PM EST (link)that the rights given to American citizens, or even those identified by the UN, are a universal set of rights. If you can’t defend it, it isn’t a right. Case in point Communist China. I don’t even agree that the Libyan social contract has been “violated.” They’ve supported this clown for years and most of them seem to still support him.
I simply disagree with the idea that a government doesn’t have the “right” to put down an insurrection. No amount of quibbling over definitions is going to change that. If you don’t agree that a government has the right to preserve itself than we simply have wildly different worldviews which are never going to be reconciled.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
not all rights are given
20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:51PM EST (link)There are certain unalienable rights, as well. Otherwise, I agree with your larger point that you have to be willing and able to defend freedom to enjoy it. And if someone wants to take away my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, they can, perhaps with impunity. But that does not lessen their status as rights from which no man can separate me.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
kowalski
20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:54PM EST (link)Violation of a right does not necessarily equal the disappearance (or removal or abrogation) of that right. The right stands, violated or not.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
kowalski x2
20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:55PM EST (link)The unborn children slaughtered every day in America have the right to life whether we protect them by our laws or not.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
5
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:04PM EST (link)A right’s violation is in and of itself evidence of a “wrong” that should be corrected.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
so let's take this as a point of departure
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:09PM EST (link)are we advocating launching cruise missiles at NOW or Planned Parenthood. If we are I’m more than willing to sign up for it but the larger point is that just because a wrong, which merits correction, has occurred that is not a reason to suppose it will be corrected.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
The fact that wrongs are not corrected
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:18PM EST (link)is evidence that we live in an imperfect world. It is not cause to call for blase indifference in the face of self-evident wrongs, or to see two countries’ claim to sovereignty or competing packet of rights as morally equivalent. Lobbing missiles at PP is ill-advised for a number of reasons, there are questions about proportionality, and the classic “do two wrongs make a right” dilemma, but do I think that it would be wrong for a third party to prevent PP from doing what it does (even at the point of a gun)? Nope, and I’d say that anyone who is pro-life fundamentally agrees with me (for what is a government law stopping abortion but the enforcement of a norm using the business end of a rifle)?
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Lake Wobegon Rights
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:56PM EST (link)where all the men are strong, all the women are good looking, and all the children are above average.
We have human desires/aspirations which may be close to universal and we have rights which we have to defend. We may be deprived of either with relative impunity if there is no way to assert them. This is why the “animal rights” movement is so ridiculous.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Depends on the government
aesthete (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:02PM EST (link)Depends on the insurrection. As a rule of thumb, I’m not pro-insurrection, but that mostly has to do with the fact that they often tend to be much worse than the cure, and that they exact a pretty high toll whether successful or unsuccessful.
I don’t see any logical reason that government, a structure created by people to serve people, should be immutably and permanently constructed to deprive those self-same people of their real-world rights without reprisal (even of the armed variety). Governments have risen and fallen worldwide for decades; those that rise based on their ability to secure the rights of man should be given leeway to preserve themselves, and those that do not should not.
Might makes right is certainly the law of nature, and is adhered to more often than I’d like in the real world (case in point: Communist China, heh), but is in no way the ideal. We do disagree if you see rights as an arbitrary package doled out to citizens by their government, and if you see might making right as a morally equivalent way of organizing society.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Wasn't the American Revolution an insurrection?
Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:26PM EST (link)And fear of government oppression one of the primary reasons for granting the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment?
Or am I just way off base or off topic?
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)
"alter or abolish"
20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:54PM EST (link)can be done at the ballot box–less mess.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
20jan2013, I agree. Should have noted I am not advocating insurrection, just asking a question. nt
Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 5:21PM EST (link)The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)
Yep. Right up until Sept 3, 1783.
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:13PM EST (link)Or maybe April 9, 1784. These things took more time to get settled back then.
Don't even have to go that far forward.
The_Gadfly (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:06PM EST (link)Washington had to use the powers shortly after he was inaugurated – 1794, The Whiskey Rebellion.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/whiskey_rebellion.htm
Firefox doesn’t like the page. IE seems to render it tolerably. Don’t know what that means for Mac or *nix users.
What's the Entrance Strategy?
vamoose Monday, March 21st at 3:30PM EST (link)Never mind the exit strategy. What’s the entrance strategy? Why are we taking military action against Libya? The president’s pronouncement, “Gaddafi must go”, has been rendered meaningless as the US has simultaneously gone to war and disavowed regime change as an objective. Either stay out or take Gaddafi & sons out, but don’t try to level the playing field so that a prolonged civil war can continue. There’s nothing humanitarian about that.
I think the "entrance strategy"
streiff (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:36PM EST (link)is abundantly clear. Obama thinks this helps his chances of getting re-elected.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Yep, because Hillary told him she was going to primary his sorry
Tbone (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:44PM EST (link)ass if he didn’t quit making her look like a fool to her European friends.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
It's a political play for the rube, neocon war-hawks
Marcus_Traianus (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:41PM EST (link)I frankly believe they should pay for all the ordnance from Obama’s reelection fund. Most of it is from foreign donors anyway.
“Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.”.Thomas Jefferson
Brits want to go after Gaddafi
lineholder (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:44PM EST (link)There have been conflicting reports about the death of one of Gaddafi’s sons. From the RIAN in Russia there is this:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110321/163128183.html
From ynet out of Israel there is this
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4045624,00.html
Either way, look at the last portion of the second report. The Brits want to take Gaddafi out.
Already, the world’s perception of who is/is not leading this hunting expedition is shifting leadership responsibility to US.
We are so leaving ourselves wide open in this.
Give Odummer a Break
billinsuwanee (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:58PM EST (link)Cut the Idiot-and-Chief a break. We are lobbing in $519,000 cruise missiles to protect the civilians from this brutal dictator. The solution, kill the civilians before Ghadaffi can get to them.. 114 cruise missiles impacted dozens of civilians killed. The plan is working as constructed.
——–
The Tea Party movement is the greatest civic uprising since the Revolution.
Do you have a link
20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 4:56PM EST (link)to prove your assertion that the U.S. military is trying to kill civilians in Libya with cruise missles? Or if your assertion is that the military is accidentally killing civilians, can you prove that?
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
tendentious
streiff (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:24PM EST (link)I doubt that we are deliberately targeting noncombatants. But to think they aren’t being killed is just silly.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
He said "dozens of civilians killed"
20jan2013 (Diary) Wednesday, March 23rd at 12:10AM EST (link)by our missles, and I wanted the link, that’s all. Not trying to split hairs.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
We know all we need to.
Menlo (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 5:04PM EST (link)Everyone does seem to agree in public statements this is supposedly “stop a leader from harming his own people.” If that were a basis for action, they’d have to blow up half the planet! Since they are so obviously lying about that, the only other possible explanation is that political leaders are seeking to enhance their own personal wealth, power, or prestige.
Given that, the whole action is unjust, unethical, immoral, and evil! It makes no difference whether they have a clear strategy and goal or not.
I will also add that “they” would be a better pronoun choice than “we.” Those not involved in the actual military operation are not bombing.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Gaddafi sitting on $6.5bn worth of gold
lineholder (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 7:45PM EST (link)How many mercenaries can he buy with that? And for how long?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/588ce75a-53e4-11e0-8bd7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HGfs2GWN
If there was any doubts left
23rdamerical Tuesday, March 22nd at 7:03AM EST (link)about the sorry state of this country’s leadership, those doubts should be long gone. This guy is pitiful. He is just what his record shows a neighborhood organizer! I shudder to think his ignorant hand is on the throttle of the most powerful country on earth and his incompetence is blatantly obvious! We’re supposedly backing the rebels and we don’t know who they are or their agenda. This is ridiculous!!!
It is okay to attack Libya
napensnake Tuesday, March 22nd at 8:01AM EST (link)because France gave its approval.
That is the Obama Doctrine. WWFD (What Would France Do?)
In 1986 Reagan attacked Lybia and
spiritofreagan Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:10AM EST (link)the left raised holy hell about it. He should have been left alone to finish the job. Now we have a Progressive Liberal attacking and not a word from congress or the press. Confused? I think this is mainly the governments trying to cover up the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Collateral Damage - Russians want Obama's Nobel Prize revoked.
acat (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:06PM EST (link)http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304909
The Bolivians started it, but now the Russians have jumped in, saying that Obama’s NATO-approved attack on Libya is justification for revoking the Nobel Peace Prize Obama was awarded* in 2009.
Mew
* “was awarded” because “stole” seems too harsh.
——
Caveat Suffragator
CROTUS
finnmccuill Thursday, March 24th at 11:01PM EST (link)The only mystery is how soon our “president” is going to bail out. He’s lining up the Hillary Twins for the fall, along with many self-important waffle-heads.
Guess it’s a matter of which fascistSouth American country will pay his bills.