GOP challenge on Libya: Cheer or not to cheer? (Politico)

[blacken700]

GOP challenge on Libya: Cheer or not to cheer?
By ALEXANDER BURNS | 8/22/11 6:51 AM EDT

The cheerleading for President Obama’s role in the Libya intervention has begun, with former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell crowing on “Morning Joe” that “everyone mocked him, said it wouldn’t work” – and now Muammar Qadhafi looks to be on the verge of defeat.

When it comes to the 2012 GOP field, Rendell is right. Now that Qadhafi appears all but ousted, the challenge for Republicans is to figure out how to respond to what looks – at least for now – like a victory for the United States.

For some of Obama’s challengers – Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and Tim Pawlenty before he exited the race – one of the key criticisms of the Libya action was that it wasn’t muscular enough to succeed. Romney, for example, said that he supported the intervention, but was concerned about Obama’s “inability to have a clear and convincing foreign policy.”

The task for those candidates will be to cheer Qadhafi’s downfall, while noting that the removal process was imperfect, without looking peevish and small.

<SNIP>

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61813.html#ix...

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

GOP challenge on Libya: Cheer or not to cheer?
By ALEXANDER BURNS | 8/22/11 6:51 AM EDT

The cheerleading for President Obama’s role in the Libya intervention has begun, with former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell crowing on “Morning Joe” that “everyone mocked him, said it wouldn’t work” – and now Muammar Qadhafi looks to be on the verge of defeat.

When it comes to the 2012 GOP field, Rendell is right. Now that Qadhafi appears all but ousted, the challenge for Republicans is to figure out how to respond to what looks – at least for now – like a victory for the United States.

For some of Obama’s challengers – Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and Tim Pawlenty before he exited the race – one of the key criticisms of the Libya action was that it wasn’t muscular enough to succeed. Romney, for example, said that he supported the intervention, but was concerned about Obama’s “inability to have a clear and convincing foreign policy.”

The task for those candidates will be to cheer Qadhafi’s downfall, while noting that the removal process was imperfect, without looking peevish and small.

<SNIP>

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61813.html#ix...

Damn first Bin Laden and soon to be Quadaffi.  They already captured another one of his sons at that. 


Taking out Reagan's garbage is a winner

[240 is Back]

Taking out Reagan's garbage

Very good observation - Obama is cleaning up terrorists who have been running free for 30 years.

[Dos Equis]

Cheering what?  Our "non-kinetic" military action? 

Or the fact we took sides in another country's civil war, putting our support behind rebels that include elements of Al Qadea? 

[Deicide]

Cheering what?  Our "non-kinetic" military action? 

Or the fact we took sides in another country's civil war, putting our support behind rebels that include elements of Al Qadea? 

You don't support the war in Libya?

[Kazan]

You don't support the war in Libya?

What war would that be? The undeclared one that somehow the US is involved in under the blanket of "well its really NATO"

[Hugo Chavez]

what happened to Libya being a Bush success story in the war on terror?


The bargain gave each what they needed: Gaddafi is a pariah no more, and the Bush administration has a success story in the Middle East.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html#ixzz1VmtjdzSW

[Kazan]

Very good observation - Obama is cleaning up terrorists who have been running free for 30 years.

Fucking please

[Dos Equis]

You don't support the war in Libya?

No.

[Deicide]

What war would that be? The undeclared one that somehow the US is involved in under the blanket of "well its really NATO"

The US has not declared a war since WW2, why would it matter now?

[Kazan]

The US has not declared a war since WW2, why would it matter now?

Gee I don't know, because that's what the constitution requires?

Gadhaffi is just the next ME boogey used to justify illegal military action

[Soul Crusher]

The US has not declared a war since WW2, why would it matter now?

It should, and it would require these cowards in the congress to be put on record and held to account. 

[blacken700]

The US has not declared a war since WW2, why would it matter now?

because obama is pres.

[Deicide]

Gee I don't know, because that's what the constitution requires?

Gadhaffi is just the next ME boogey used to justify illegal military action

I agree, just always thought you were of a more neoconservative bent. So you oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan as well?

[Kazan]

I agree, just always thought you were of a more neoconservative bent. So you oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan as well?

I am a conservative not a fucking neocon. The wars in the ME are simply "nation building" exercises and a waste of time. The US doesn't declare war because it has no intention of actually winning.

[Deicide]

I am a conservative not a fucking neocon. The wars in the ME are simply "nation building" exercises and a waste of time. The US doesn't declare war because it has no intention of actually winning.

100% agree

[Kazan]

100% agree

Well you know if we actually declared war then the public would expect results.

[headhuntersix]

No no no no...let Barry own this one. Let him have it for a few weeks..until the wheels come off the wagon like they have in every other raghead country. This country has known nothing but a strongman since the 70's. Democracy isn't just going to break out overnight. The nuts will need to consolidate power and financing and then they'll take over.

[Deicide]

Well you know if we actually declared war then the public would expect results.

...and a clear war objective beyond 'killing bad guys'.

[Kazan]

No no no no...let Barry own this one. Let him have it for a few weeks..until the wheels come off the wagon like they have in every other raghead country. This country has known nothing but a strongman since the 70's. Democracy isn't just going to break out overnight. The nuts will need to consolidate power and financing and then they'll take over.

And that is the problem, these countries/people have no idea what democracy is. They are ruled by strongmen, and everyone wonders why chaos breaks out when there is no one to keep them inline. On top of that these are Muslim countries, sorry but democracy and Islam do not mix.

[240 is Back]

Cheering what?  Our "non-kinetic" military action? 

Or the fact we took sides in another country's civil war, putting our support behind rebels that include elements of Al Qadea? 

many top repubs supported this war.

suddenly, with a terrorist like kadaffi being ousted, repubs are against a war?  LMAO

Mitt backed airstriked and the no-fly zone... along with mccain and most of the others.  Senate voted 100 to 0 to allow Obama to bomb them.  EVERYONE wanted this.

Now, repubs do'nt know how to acknowledge success.  Let history judge him on this.

[Dos Equis]

many top repubs supported this war.

suddenly, with a terrorist like kadaffi being ousted, repubs are against a war?  LMAO

Mitt backed airstriked and the no-fly zone... along with mccain and most of the others.  Senate voted 100 to 0 to allow Obama to bomb them.  EVERYONE wanted this.

Now, repubs do'nt know how to acknowledge success.  Let history judge him on this.

Who the heck cares what "top Republicans" supported this?  It was a bad decision.  It contradicted Obama's own jello-like philosophy.  It spent money we don't have.  It got us involved in another country's civil war.  It was reckless, given the involvement of Al Qaeda. 

I have all the information I need to judge him on this. 

And "everyone" did not want this.   

[240 is Back]

Who the heck cares what "top Republicans" supported this?  It was a bad decision. And "everyone" did not want this.   

The senate voted 100 to 0 to give Obama the power to drop bombs into Libya.

it's that simple.

Senate resolution 84, wasn't it?  BB, you and I keep butting heads on this one - you first didn't seem to believe the senate voted for it - and when i posted the link, you got all quiet.

I don't give a shit what the libyans do, but I am cool with american-killer kadaffi being out of there.  and whoever gets in will certainly not have the terror/insulation infrastructure that kadaffi had after 4 decades. 

So yeah, more of the senate supported bombing libya than bombing iraq or even afghanistan, right?

[OzmO]

Really?  100 to zero?

Link?

[240 is Back]

Really?  100 to zero?

Link?

us senate approves resolution supporting and calling for a no fly zone over libya
Published March 28
Views: 1702

 abuseFYI -

On March 1, 2011 - the US Senate passed by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 85 which recognized and applauded the "courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights and strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms.

The resolution also urged "the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

This resolution was debated, sponsored and passed by unanimous consent in the US Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.85:

Also - under the UN Participation Act of 1945 - passed by Congress in 1945 and signed in to law by the President:

"The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein"