Posted on 03/20/2011 1:12:27 PM PDT by Clairity
On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a 9 month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a "rush to war." Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Yet, Obama is doing exactly that. How does Obama explain getting involved in Libya, but doing nothing, when the Irani Mullah's killed protesters, who wanted democracy?
Irani Mullahs — I know grammar... sorry.
What doubts? This is stupid.
*barf*
I consider this payback for Pam Am 103...
You guys who are against this simply because its Obama’s war wouldn’t be if this had occurred under Bush.
I don;t like Obama anymore than the next Conservative but, its long since past time we exacted a little bit of justice from him, especially since the so called release of the Lockerbie Bomber.
I hope he caught one of our TLAMS...
EDITORIAL
Mister Obama finds a war
* Published: 21/03/2011 at 12:00 AM
Libya is entirely Mr Obama’s war, compared with the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts started by his predecessor. The US military opposed taking action in Libya, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convinced Mr Obama to reject the Pentagon’s advice.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/227727/mister-obama-finds-a-war
Already complaints are coming in from the Arab League that the “allied” air strikes are killing the proverbial “innocent civilians.” Just takes the heat off Gadaffy for his killings.
It would have made more sense to take Kadaffy out BEFORE his opposition became as anti-American as he is.
Evidentally, President Bush considered it paid back already. I don't think we can be using that legally as reason to bomb Libya in 2011
President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said.[103] US State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, called the move a "laudable milestone ... clearing the way for a continued and expanding US-Libyan partnership."
So who’s President? Hillary, or Valerie?
While that may be true, it is still critical that Zer0 fail and cause a disaster.
Unlike Bush, Zer0 is acting only in the effort to improve his own public image. What's good for Americans and America is the farthest thing from his mind, and even a coincidental application of revenge is not worth giving a publicity boost to Zer0 and the traitor Rats in his cabinet.
It is far more important that Zer0 be exposed as incompetent and corrupt in the defense of America, as the media will never expose him as a competent traitor, seditionist and saboteur.
Do you think bush would have gone to rio? I think not.
The Libyan adventure is also a great distraction from Obama's problems with the weak U.S. economy and his contentious budget. Obama doesn't have congressional approval for this military action and although the Republican majority in the House may approve of the 'no-fly-zone' being established in Libya with the goal of helping the rebels, who may or may not be able to win this essentially civil war. Gadhafi doesn't look as if he is going to give it up any time soon and this could end up a disaster.
Libya is not critical to U.S. interests and I'm skeptical that the 'no-fly zone' will be effective to the point of allowing the rebels to overthrow the Gadhafi regime. We also hardly know who we're helping but, it's a little late now. I hope this ends well but I see it as a ploy for Obama and one that is problematic. Still, it's a great opportunity to remind leftists about how G. W. Bush invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein was characterized as an impeachable offense, etc, in 2003. Now, Obama is engaging in an overseas military action, albeit with U.N. 'approval' and a European partnership, that is far less justified as Bush's invasion of Iraq was 8 years ago that was opposed by Obama. Can we say 'hypocrite'? I thought so.
The point is that we don’t know who is going to replace him.
Just remember Carter railing against the Shah of Iran and his support of the uprising against him and look how that turned out — Mullahs and Ahmadinejad with nukes, Iran is a major supporter of terrorism, they have been sending weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah and working on destabilizing Iraq.
Do we really need another Iran?
So WHO is running the show...The Collectivist in Chief or The Sociopath of State...and why is Congress cowering in the corner (especially the republicans)?
Why are we paying these dolts in D.C.?
The Iraq War was also voted on by Congress.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. Much as I hate to say it, His Uselessness is right on this one.
Let us not forget that qadaffi BUTCHERED 189 Americans in the skies over Lockerbie. He’s many years overdue for his eternal dirtnap.
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.