Obama's illegal war

[Option D]

We've already dropped close to 1/2 a billion dollars on Libya. And for what? Obama still hasn't even laid out what the end-game is. What a sick joke this is.

ok.. ill just assume all this conversation from the right went on with Bush Sr. ODS. Clintons Bosnia airstrikes, GWB's operation find WMD's..errrr Iraqi freedom and Afg.

Is it safe to say we should have stayed out of all of those?

[Fury]

ok.. ill just assume all this conversation from the right went on with Bush Sr. ODS. Clintons Bosnia airstrikes, GWB's operation find WMD's..errrr Iraqi freedom and Afg.

Is it safe to say we should have stayed out of all of those?

Ahh, the moral equivalence argument. When all else fails....

But to answer your question; yes, we should have stayed out of at least half of those examples you listed.

Why do you pro-Obama guys rationalize all of his actions by comparing them to Bush and co.? Bush, who you guys think was the worst president in the history of this country, should not be used for rationalizing tovarich Obama's actions.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama administration struggles to define American mission in Libya
The Hill ^ | 3/22/2011 | Sam Youngman, John T. Bennett & Russell Berman



The Obama administration scrambled to define the U.S. mission in Libya on Tuesday amid congressional criticism that it has not clearly explained its endgame for the war-torn country.

The White House strongly denied that regime change is part of its mission after a statement earlier in the day characterized the goal there as “installing a democratic system.”

Separately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton struggled to respond to questions from ABC’s Diane Sawyer over whether the U.S. operation would be a success if Col. Moammar Gadhafi remains in power. Clinton said the United Nations resolution authorizing force against Gadhafi was broad, but included nothing “about getting rid of anybody.”

At the same time, Clinton said it is “highly unlikely” a stable and peaceful Libya can be established with Gadhafi in power. She also said the U.S. mission was intended to give insurgents fighting Gadhafi a “level playing field” and a “much better chance” at toppling the dictator.

 Since the U.S.-led operation started on Saturday, lawmakers from across the political spectrum have raised concerns on the grounds that President Obama went to war with undefined goals and, according to some critics, in violation of his constitutional authority.

Strikes against Gadhafi’s compound have raised questions about whether regime change is a part of the multinational mission, as have conflicting statements from different foreign leaders.

The clarification issued Tuesday by Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, came after a White House-issued readout of a phone call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that installing a democratic system in Libya was a goal of the two leaders. 

In the later statement, Rhodes acknowledged that Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explaining that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.

“We're clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change, that as we actually say in this readout, it’s the Libyan people who are going to make their determinations about the future,” Rhodes said. “We support their aspirations, their democratic aspirations, and have stated that Gadhafi should go because he’s lost their confidence.”

The earlier statement on the Obama-Erdogan call said the two leaders had reaffirmed their support for implementation of United Nations security resolutions authorizing force in Libya. After noting that this would require a broad-based international effort, the statement said the two leaders “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”

The clarification came as Republicans raised questions about the operation.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House majority whip, said Obama has not been clear on the goals of the U.S. military mission and that he waited too long to intervene.

“I have a concern: What is the mission? What is the goal?” he said in a local television interview in California.

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), said he supported the president’s policy but that Obama had “to make clear to the American people and the Congress what his plans are.”

“There are a lot of unanswered questions,” King told The Hill. He said there was a lack of clarity on the mission’s endgame and that Obama had “a very confusing message” on whether the goal was merely to protect civilians or to oust Gadhafi.

“We want Gadhafi out of there, but we’re not using the military to bring that about. It just sends a very confusing message,” King said.

Obama defended the mission in comments in El Salvador on Tuesday, saying it was limited in time and scope and had a well-defined purpose.  He also said the operation had already saved lives.

Senior Republican aides added a new line of criticism Tuesday, telling The Hill that several prominent GOP leaders remain unsatisfied with the amount of consultation they have received from the administration — and over the substance of exchanges that have occurred. In some cases, communication between the Pentagon and the House Armed Services Committee consisted of military officials forwarding transcripts of media briefings to the committee staff, an aide said.

A House Republican leadership aide described the consultation from the administration as “insufficient” and said Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had not heard directly from the president about Libya except for a briefing of congressional leaders on Friday.

White House officials said Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, called Boehner on Saturday before the start of military operations.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) has been “unsatisfied” with the administration before and during the Libyan operation, said a senior GOP panel aide.

McKeon participated in the Friday briefing via telephone, and received a Saturday telephone call from Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense for policy, a few hours before U.S. and coalition warships and aircraft began bombing Libyan targets.

During the conversation with Flournoy, the aide said McKeon asked several pointed questions. “He said she didn’t have good answers,” the aide said.

McKeon also spoke last week by telephone with the new U.S. Africa Command chief, Gen. Carter Ham, in an introductory phone conversation.

That’s basically been the extent of the official consultation,” the senior aide said, describing those sessions as administration officials “just saying, ‘This is what we’re going to do.’” 

Since the onset of the operation, there has been little official back-and-forth between the Armed Services chairman and either the Pentagon or the White House, according to the senior aide.

Committee staff received some information from the Navy about the operation, and the Pentagon “forwarded over the transcripts” from separate media briefings conducted Sunday and Monday by Adm. William Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, and Ham.

A House leader in the president’s own party also criticized the outreach to lawmakers before the start of military operations.

“I am very concerned that the president committed America's military to operations in the region without true consultation with the Congress,” the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. John Larson (Conn.), wrote in a CNN.com column.

White House officials have pushed back on charges that they did not adequately consult with Congress before launching military action. “We take very seriously the need to consult with Congress, and we have been doing that, and we would welcome any action they took to show support for this,” press secretary Jay Carney said on Monday night.

Rhodes cited congressional hearings that led to the president’s decision, and he said administration officials have briefed relevant oversight committees in recent weeks.

[theonlyone]

 

[Soul Crusher]

This really is Obama's waterloo.     Even members of his own arty are calling for impeaching this freak of nature.   

[240 is Back]

We've already dropped close to 1/2 a billion dollars on Libya. And for what? Obama still hasn't even laid out what the end-game is. What a sick joke this is.

we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.

[Option D]

Ahh, the moral equivalence argument. When all else fails....
But to answer your question; yes, we should have stayed out of at least half of those examples you listed.
Why do you pro-Obama guys rationalize all of his actions by comparing them to Bush and co.? Bush, who you guys think was the worst president in the history of this country, should not be used for rationalizing tovarich Obama's actions.

no this is a seperate issue. I dont agree with this.. I hate this.. I Malcolm Victor Pigford do not like this move by Obama, as i dont like GITMO, the OBAMACARE bill, Lazy foot on DADT, and lack of Infrastructure spending in the Stim bill, the fact that we didnt cut bait Afg and iraq.. I..hopefully for the last time.. Malcolm Victor Pigford being of sound mind and body do denounce any assertions that i am an aggreance with any of these policies enacted by the 44th president of the United States of America Barack Obama....there you go...

Now.. my reason for asking this question is not do defend what i think is awful policy.. as there is more to life than black and white arguments. It is to question the "all or none" Americans who applaud when side A does  something, but when side B does the same EXACT thing, it is scoffed at. But the kicker is, When someone brings up the fact that side A did this quite recently, there seems to be an endless amount of "well when he did it.. the climate was that so it was cool" when infact... its allbad.. but i understand, to some.. thats way too much thinking. They like "red vs Blue" way better

[whork25]

we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.

Exactly

[Soul Crusher]

Exactly

 

[Kazan]

Exactly

Exactly what? How exactly is this a good thing? The so called coalition is falling apart, Gaddafi will remain in power.

[Soul Crusher]

Exactly what? How exactly is this a good thing? The so called coalition is falling apart, Gaddafi will remain in power.

And we will look ike total fools and incompetent morons.

[Soul Crusher]

Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message
By REUTERS 
03/13/2011 22:54


Abu Yahya al-Libi urges anti-Gaddafi forces not to retreat; reports of mutiny among Gaddafi forces slowing attack on rebel-held Misrata.
Talkbacks (4) 
 
A senior member of al Qaida urged Libyan rebels to continue their fight against Muammar Gaddafi and warned of the consequences of defeat, in a videotaped message posted on Jihadi websites, the Qatar-based Gulf News reported on Sunday.

The message from Libya native, Abu Yahya al-Libi, marked the first time a top ranked al Qaida commander had commented on the uprising in Libya. Gaddafi has repeatedly blamed al Qaida for inciting the unrest against him.

RELATED:
Terrorism: Whither al-Qaida?
Libyan troops push back rebels from oil town
Libyan forces say they cleared 'armed gangs' from Brega

“The Libyan people have suffered at the hands of Gaddafi for more than 40 years ... He used the Libyans as a testing ground for his violent, rambling and disgusting thoughts,” Abu Yahya stated.

He warned that "Retreating will mean decades of harsher oppression and greater injustices than what you have endured.”

Abu Yahya also accused the West, and the US in particular, of having supported oppresive Arab regimes at the expense of the people.

The taped message could not be independently authenticated, according to the Gulf Times report.

An assault on Libya's rebel-held city of Misrata was stalled on Sunday by renewed fighting between members of Muammar Gaddafi's security forces, rebels said, but the government denied reports of a mutiny.

Residents said fighting broke out on Saturday after some units of the Libyan leader's force refused to attack Misrata, Libya's third-biggest city and the only place in the west of the country still openly defying Gaddafi's rule.

The reports of a mutiny could not be verified because Libyan authorities have not allowed reporters access to the city of 300,000 which is 200 km (130 miles) east of the capital.

"From the early morning they (the security forces) are fighting among each other. We hear the fighting," Mohammed, one of the rebel fighters, told Reuters by telephone on Sunday.

"This division between them came to us from God. Just when we thought the end was coming, this happened. Now we are waiting to see what will happen."

MUTINY REPORTS "RUBBISH"

Asked about reports of a mutiny in Misrata, government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim said: "This is rubbish. It is not true."

"The army has surrounded the centre of Misrata. They are in the city. Tribal elders are talking to them (the rebels) to surrender," he said in Tripoli.



Misrata residents said they could hear the sound of heavy fighting from a military airfield to the south of the town, where pro-Gaddafi forces have been based. They said there were no clashes between rebels and security forces on Sunday.

"They (Gaddafi's forces) are still fighting each other. The shelling hit a house and a shop in southern Misrata, I don't know whether there are any casualties," said rebel spokesman Gemal.

He said shops in the city were open as normal, but added: "Of course there is tension as everybody is waiting to see what will happen."


More about: Al-Qaeda, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Tripoli, Reuters

  Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive news updates directly to your email


http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003

[240 is Back]

Kadaffi sent the names of jihadists to our govt so we could look out for them.  He 'played ball' after we pulled saddam out of his spider hole, remember?

Of course al-Q is going to back the other guys.

[Soul Crusher]

Kadaffi sent the names of jihadists to our govt so we could look out for them.  He 'played ball' after we pulled saddam out of his spider hole, remember?

Of course al-Q is going to back the other guys.

So Obama is on the same side as Al Queda - got it. 

[240 is Back]

So Obama is on the same side as Al Queda - got it. 

he was born in kenya, despite what certain lib cowards will tell you.

[Fury]

So Obama is on the same side as Al Queda - got it.  

Obama = war criminal, ally to terrorists and supporter of people who murder American civilians.

we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.

So you support military intervention in Yemen and Syria.

[240 is Back]

Obama = war criminal, ally to terrorists and supporter of people who murder American civilians.

Kadaffi also killed american citizens.  Blew up a plane. 

So you support military intervention in Yemen and Syria.

shit no.  we have no business there.  i'm against any libyan intervention.  This would have been over a few days ago if we had stayed out of it.

[Fury]

Kadaffi also killed american citizens.  Blew up a plane. 

shit no.  we have no business there.  i'm against any libyan intervention.  This would have been over a few days ago if we had stayed out of it.

You're against it? Could have fooled me as you've done nothing but rationalize it since they started the bombings.

[Option D]

bf.. did you see my above post

[Fury]

no this is a seperate issue. I dont agree with this.. I hate this.. I Malcolm Victor Pigford do not like this move by Obama, as i dont like GITMO, the OBAMACARE bill, Lazy foot on DADT, and lack of Infrastructure spending in the Stim bill, the fact that we didnt cut bait Afg and iraq.. I..hopefully for the last time.. Malcolm Victor Pigford being of sound mind and body do denounce any assertions that i am an aggreance with any of these policies enacted by the 44th president of the United States of America Barack Obama....there you go...

Now.. my reason for asking this question is not do defend what i think is awful policy.. as there is more to life than black and white arguments. It is to question the "all or none" Americans who applaud when side A does  something, but when side B does the same EXACT thing, it is scoffed at. But the kicker is, When someone brings up the fact that side A did this quite recently, there seems to be an endless amount of "well when he did it.. the climate was that so it was cool" when infact... its allbad.. but i understand, to some.. thats way too much thinking. They like "red vs Blue" way better

Haha, just breaking your balls, man. Debating you is much more worthwhile than watching one of the other douche bags like blacken copy/paste whatever MSNBC article/clip they can find to prove their point.

But I agree completely with your point about a lot of "all or nothing" Americans. They're on both sides. My claims stem from the fact that people constantly rationalize Obama's actions by comparing them to Bush's when they should be criticized, not rationalized. Not so much you but I see other people on here constantly justifying Obama's failures by comparing them to Bush,even when the entire thought process behind electing Obama was to go in the opposite direction of Bush.

But I digress, that's why I'm registered independent and swing vote on issues and not along party lines. 

[Fury]

CAIR praises Gadhafi and asks him to fund distribution of 1 million Korans across America

(IPT)- Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), asked Muammar Gaddafi to underwrite CAIR’s efforts in the United States during a September 2009 audience with the Libyan dictator.

According to an account of the meeting in a Libyan news website, Awad was joined by two other leading CAIR officials in praising Gaddafi’s leadership and asking him to help underwrite a program to distribute 1 million copies of the Quran to government officials and the general public in America and to help start up a new foundation Awad was trying to launch.

The account was published in Arabic by Libyalive.net, and was translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Libyalive.net describes itself as “an independent Libyan electronic newspaper,” but the story about Gaddafi’s visit is attributed to the Jamahiriya News Agency, Libya’s official state news service.

Awad’s pleas to Gaddafi’s generosity came after the Libyan leader left United Nations observers slack jawed at his rambling, 100-minute speech to the General Assembly.

Now, after Gaddafi started killing his own people as he tries to fend off a popular uprising, Awad and CAIR have denounced him as a madman. They have organized rallies and news conferences demanding that violence against Libyan civilians by Gaddafi’s forces stop.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/2709/cair-officials-sought-gaddafi-money


CAIR = terrorist organization

[Option D]

Haha, just breaking your balls, man. Debating you is much more worthwhile than watching one of the other douche bags like blacken copy/paste whatever MSNBC article/clip they can find to prove their point.

But I agree completely with your point about a lot of "all or nothing" Americans. They're on both sides. My claims stem from the fact that people constantly rationalize Obama's actions by comparing them to Bush's when they should be criticized, not rationalized. Not so much you but I see other people on here constantly justifying Obama's failures by comparing them to Bush,even when the entire thought process behind electing Obama was to go in the opposite direction of Bush.

But I digress, that's why I'm registered independent and swing vote on issues and not along party lines. 

cool.. my vote goes to Nader if he runs again

[240 is Back]

You're against it? Could have fooled me as you've done nothing but rationalize it since they started the bombings.

I'm 10000% against any US involvement in Libya.  I said as sad as it was, we should have let him kill the armed rebels (who were in fact trying a govt overthrow), and it would be back to peaceful libya trade partners now.

However, when obama does it anyway, I like to analyze WHY and look at the political ramifications.  i can only say "I'm against US involvement" so many times before I grow bored and like to talk about higher level motivations, etc.

[dario73]

we spend two billion a week in iraq.

So libya is a bargain so far.

Key words.  So it's ok to bomb another country as long as it's inexpensive. Gotcha.  In that case, Venezuela should be next. Don't have to sail or fly that far.

[Fury]

Key words.  So it's ok to bomb another country as long as it's inexpensive. Gotcha.  In that case, Venezuela should be next. Don't have to sail or fly that far.

Yemen and Syria are even closer, two countries that have been lighting up protesters left and right.