March 28, 2011
Posted by on
I may have addressed this before, but at the risk of being repetitive, I have to question the rhyme or reason behind the US getting involved in Libya. Further, I have to look at it from a different view–if we are going in there to help with regime change, or prevent a leader from killing his own people, how do we decide which places to stick our noses in and which ones to ignore?
President Obama publicly rebuked Libya leader Mommar Quaddfi, saying that the US and its allies would get involved in Libya to stop the killng that was going on there. On the surface, such actions are noble. who doesn’t want to see an end to slaughter and bloodshed by a tyrannical dictator? But the issue is a complex one. If we are going to take this stance on Libya, why not on other countries? There have been hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur. The people in Iran tried to rise up and got squashed. There are numerous countries in the Middle East where the citizens are currently protesting their government.
Of the situations mentioned, there is no plan for intervention from the US or otherwise.
So the question becomes, under what grounds do we decide to jump in? Does the situation have to be 100% winnable? Only under NATO approval? Only when invited by the Arab League?
Someone somewhere needs to spell this out.
March 23, 2011
Posted by on
We’ve seen it many times. Candidate runs for President and says “I will do A, B, and certainly C.” They then get into office…and suddenly, a few of those promises are conveniently forgotten. With the recent actions in Libya, President Obama has joined the club.
First, a few quotes from then-Senator Obama about the US and military actions:
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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
Then-State Senator Obama on why the US shouldn’t go into Iraq, circa 2002:
“I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity … But … Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors …”
Fast forward to 2011. Quaddafi is no threat to the US. They only produce 2 percent of the world’s oil. But not only are we participating in Operation Odyssey Dawn against Libya, we did so without Congressional advice and consent. A complete 180-degree turn on both counts, no?
“Q and A with Presidential Candidate Obama”
“From Iraq to Libya, Obama Becomes a Hypocrite”
March 21, 2011
Posted by on
Just a quick hit, from Politico, where it seems President Obama’s actions in Libya have have ticked off his own party members:
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Further, Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought up the “i” word:
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Now, Kucinich has come up with some off-the-wall things in the past, and this is no different. But to me, this just goes to show that as Obama not only tacks to the center in terms of policy, and also becomes more agressive militarily, he risks having his own party mates turning against him. Time will tell.
Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action