Posted on 03/29/2011 7:17:05 AM PDT by blog.Eyeblast.tv
Last night, President Obama delivered an address and strongly defended his decision to take action in Libya.
Yahoo writes on the speech:
Defending the first war launched on his watch, President Barack Obama declared Monday night the United States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the worlds conscience and been a betrayal of who we are. Yet he ruled out targeting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake.
They go on to write:
He never described the U.S.-led military campaign as a war and gave no details on its costs, but he offered an expansive case for why he believed it was in the national interest of the United States and allies to act.
President Obama did not seek Congressional approval to intervene in Libya. For this reason, Sen. Rand Paul delivered a rebuttal to Obamas address in which he said, In 2007, then candidate Obama said 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.eyeblast.tv ...
You can’t win a war without ground forces.
You can’t win this war without regime change.
The war will “evolve” into full U.S.-led invasion as Zero won’t want to get a loss on his war bracket.
Oh, check out the Anointed One’s photos on USA Today — the halo is back!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-29-RW1AObama29_ST_N.htm
In order - Yes, Yes, Yes and “I just threw-up a little in my mouth”.
Not true, he DID say that under his green energy plan energy costs would skyrocket and well...
Look how much we've had to spend in Iraq to keep that from happening. So, if Gaddafi goes, does America win? I'm not so sure, not in the near-term and probably not in the long-term.
I posted this in the comments of Obama’s facebook:
Only three ways to end this war:
1) The US stops now and hopes Gadaffi can regain control of the Al Qaeda infested Libya.
2) The US topples Gadaffi then goes back home leaving Libya as a Mediterranean Somalia
3) Gadaffi loses control and the US has to occupy the country, fight the Islamists / Al Qaeda in an Iraq War type scenario until there’s a new government installed (6 to 8 years).
Just as President Obama was not truthful when telling you this war is not about OIL he’s also not telling you the whole story about what comes next after Gadaffi is gone. This will NOT have a happy ending with just air power... there WILL be troops on the ground. That’s a shame. This all was not necessary.
Bump. Rand Paul gets it.
Another case of Obama stumbling around in the dark.
The story here is that a US President unilaterally followed a UN resolution as if it were the legal authority rather than Congress or the constitution.
And almost no one cares.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q&
Sen. Paul’s response to the office-holder’s speech last night (simply video, no commentary).
“The story here is that a US President unilaterally followed a UN resolution as if it were the legal authority rather than Congress or the constitution.”
EXACTLY!!!! If only our elected representatives got off their ***** and hammered Zero on this!!!
But... no, we shall have hearings on the civil rights of Muslims....
I am going to be sick.
Rand hit the nail on the head, as usual! Would love to see him run for POTUS. I sent a campaign donation to him when he ran for Senator in Kentucky and I don’t even live in or near Kentucky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.