Posted on 03/26/2011 3:32:51 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The top-ranking Republican on homeland security issues in the House said he would support President Obama if he had to request more money from Congress to continue U.S. military operations in Libya.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, stressed that the U.S. needs to “take out Gadhafi” but that Obama needs to tell lawmakers exactly what the White House’s end-game scenario is going forward.
“I want us to take out Gadhafi,” said King on CNN’s John King on Friday evening. “I want this effort to be successful. I just don't think it's been thought through. So I would not be willing to cut off funding. I want the president to lay out exactly what our plan is.”
As Congress continues to deadlock in its arguments over the federal budget and spending plans, with Republicans attempting to slash billions more than Democrats want, the issue of how to pay for any continued U.S. military action against Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi is highly likely to be launched to the forefront of debate next week.
Prominent liberal Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) have vehemently objected to spending money on U.S. military action in Libya, saying that Obama should be pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not committing the U.S. to another military engagement.
“It is costing us $6.5 billion a week in Afghanistan,” said Woolsey on CNN. “The very thought that we would start investing in a war in another country makes my stomach ache.”
And Kucinich has promised to introduce an amendment in the coming weeks that would ban the use of any federal money for military actions towards Libya.
The U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the one week since it began bombing pro-Gadhafi Libyan forces, according to most estimates, with some saying that the cost to the U.S. has already reached $1 billion. The majority of that money, officials say, comes from funds that have already been appropriated for the military to use.
But the financial backing for any long-term action by the U.S. towards Libya will have to be addressed by Congress. King and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties have criticized Obama for not consulting them about the White House’s plan of attack and whether the goal of U.S. military action is to remove Gadhafi from power or to try and stop the killing of Libyan rebels.
Obama has been rapidly trying to defuse congressional concern, saying in his radio address on Saturday that the U.S. would have a limited military involvement in Libya going forward. On Friday, Obama held a meeting with lawmakers in which he laid out some details of his plan, and he is scheduled to give an address to the nation on Monday.
Earlier this week, NATO agreed to take over the no-fly zone over Libya, which the U.S. had been enforcing up until that point.
King also said that the U.S. is more vulnerable to an attack since it began its military campaign to quell Gadhafi’s war with Libyan rebels who are protesting his rule after more than 40 years in power. But that was no reason for the U.S. to stop bombing pro-Gadhafi forces, King argued.
“We can't back down just because the enemy may threaten to attack us back,” said King.
“And I know that our homeland security forces have upped their efforts here, that they are monitoring carefully. It's more likely if he does attack, it could be in Europe. But again, we have no evidence of it. But the presumption is that we certainly have to be ready in case that he does.”
We have no reason to be there at all.
“We have no reason to be there at all.”
Absolutely right - this whole thing is the bunk. And very expensive bunk, too.
when it comes to bankrupting the usa, each party wins.....
They’re going to put troops on the ground to force our support. They know we’ll support the troops even if we don’t support them.
We have lost our collective minds.
I can’t believe I agree with Woolsey and Kucinich... but I do.
And what exactly did Libya do to us...and/or how do they threaten us????
No matter what you do for or to a muslim, at the end of the day, he is still taught to hate us infidels.
Kinda funny for King to get so brave now after the way he wanted protection from the people after the Giffords shooting.
Ditto.
Good ‘Ole Repubican lemmings right over the cliff as usual.
/golfclap.
Qaddafi has $6.5 billion dollars in gold stashed in Libya. All we have to do is outspend him. /s
I guess Peter King doesn’t know it’s legal to “take out” another government leader unless there is a declared war. Why is he not asking for that?
To help Al Qeada. Civil war - stay out. The US should get the hell out of the ME and let the Sunni and Shia kill each other.
“Just as right-wing hawks embrace the Orwellian notion that
War is Peace, left-wing egalitarians believe that Slavery is
Freedom. The hawks wage endless war to end war, while the
social democrats engage in massive theft—or “taxation” as
they call it—to eliminate crime.
“It is high time to abandon such monstrous paradoxes....
From Chaos Theory, p 11 by Robert Murphy, Mises.org
http://blog.mises.org/6314/chaos-theory-now-online/
Iraq and Afghanistan are also a huge waste. Our troops fire back and they go to jail. No mission, no objective except to protect the evil corrupt Sunni Saudis from the Shia.
We will still be able to buy the oil. If they don’t sell oil, they starve plus we have incredible amounts of nat gas. Eff the Saudis. Get our troops out of the ME.
Pet king and newt are twins, they both are worthless and want to be all in for everything and no back bone for anything.
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.