Perpetual War

[Jim]

[Sandy]

Regardless, this is a NATO action, not a unilateral US action. Qaddafi, or however his name is spelled, is a recognized international outlaw. Essentially, if we're talking about justification, the War Powers Act gives the President latitude to act in order to protect civilian lives from military action taken against them. Qaddafi's brutality in slaughtering the rebels who are part of the movement against his government, and the civilians and non-combatants who sympathize with them justifies NATO action, which justifies US participation and meets the conditions of the WPA.

It is awfully hard for the Muslim haters and war hawks in the GOP to object to this. They're not sure how the cat will jump just yet, since they see everything they do in terms of its political capital, and going after Libya is a popular idea among their "rogue" constituency. They love to see Qadaffi getting bombed and strafed, and they are cheering the possibility of regime change in Libya but they don't want to see President Obama get full credit for something they'd have done in a heartbeat if Bush were still in office.

[Jim]

[Jim]

The dear leader has now made himself, besides being commander-in-chief, judge and jury with respect to his rape of Libya.

From the New York Times, 17 June:

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations. Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

.

[Sandy]

This is an action authorized by the NATO alliance, which the US supports. It's covered by the War Powers Act.

Of course, Qadaffi is a mess left behind by the first president Bush. If he'd have taken care of the problem back then, it wouldn't have been left up to Obama to do it now. And in light of all of the lies, and the changing of reasons for attacking Iraq, finally having to settle for "Saddam is a bad man and we need to liberate the Iraqi people," it is a bit hypocritical to criticize Obama for wanting to do the same thing with a dictator who has been just as brutal, and who is murdering his own people.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

Harbored terrorists who brought down a Pan Am (American owned company) jet over Lockerbie, Scotland. Of course, for hypocritical conservatives, it was O.K. for Bush 2 to do the same to Saddam, who actually hadn't attacked the US, and let him have a pass after lying about WMD's. This isn't a unilateral US action, and it falls under the jurisdiction of the War Powers Act, which permits the US President to intervene militarily if civilians, regardless of their nationality, are being targeted. It's the same clause Bush eventually got around to citing.

I might be inclined to say that Obama needs to back off here, but you'll have to acknowledge Bush as a lying, murdering war criminal first. Then I'll give your view a little more thought and consideration. That's the only way it would be credible. Or, perhaps, President Obama could just say he's going after Qadaffi because he's hiding weapons of mass destruction. The conservatives in Congress ought to be gullible enough to go for that again.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

Perhaps I should have been clearer when speaking of Bush. George Herbert Walker Bush was President of the US until January of 1989. And I believe the Qadaffi regime's status as a nation harboring terrorism was declared on his watch.

Obama's on solid ground here, given the Bush record on these things, he's just following previous precedent. You can argue this until you're blue in the face (which you probably already are) and you will still be wrong (which you most certainly are).

I'm done with this topic. You're on ignore.

[Chris]

[Jim]

[Sandy]

[Chris]

I like James Fallows' assessment

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ya/240590/

War is good for the economy. So we toss our young men and women in uniform into the pit, and convince them (and their families) that they are "fighting to protect our country". They are fighting to protect the appetite of the Executive Branch. Nothing morel

[KeithE]

[Chris]

[Jim]

Obama’s death-watch (his own fatwa) regarding Qaddafi is turning into a fatwa for the Libyan people, courtesy NATO, Obama’s weapon of choice in leading from behind. The Brits, French and whoever else have, according to their accounts, about run-out of ammunition, so Uncle Sugar aids and abets all the needless killing – fish in a barrel stuff – against first the advice of the Pentagon and now against the legal advice of the Pentagon. The dear leader thumbs his nose at Congress and lets the whole world know just how vicious the Americans can be, especially against a country that presents no threat to any other country. . Perhaps never has this country been in the hands of such a novice, unless, of course Obama has an agenda. Muslims declare fatwas against Muslims, so maybe there’s an answer there.

[Jim]

[KeithE]

I love it when you talk anti-war.

[Jim]

The latest on the dear leader, who just excoriated Congress for lollygagging and then took off on his grand fund-raising tour: .

[Jim]

The news biggies were on the tube yesterday reporting that the Libyan rebels are in high gear in the west but need ammo and such. All the stuff promised by the world powers seems not to have come through somehow. Perhaps they’re broke, like the U.S. (not that it matters here – just print money), or perhaps they figure, correctly, that anything that replaces Qaddafi could be much worse, notably al Qaeda, which needs new digs, or the Muslim brotherhood. Another look: . The prez is on track for $1.5 billion by the end of September, all printed, of course, since there’s nothing to back it up. He said back in March that we’d be out of “kinetic” action in days, not weeks, but we’re still in “kinetic” action (he seems not to know what ammo and drones are), killing Libyans while he campaigns for next year’s election.

[KeithE]

[Gene Scarborough]

This discussion is most interesting! Some of the participants have surprised me with their take.

We are basicly trying to decipher "what is legal and what is right."

Is it "wise" to keep medling in the affairs of so many countries when we are going broke at home? What is happening to our neglected infrastructure as we spend billions on warfare?

If we want to control the world, it would be better to offer inspiration over bullets and dead soldiers along with the multitudes of civilians who get in the strike zone.

Can anyone conceive of how we would feel IF foreign armies were marching in our streets and their tanks and planes were flying over our heads?

What kinds of medical solutions could be found if this kind of money were spent on peace rather than war?

I see few solutions coming our way with the continued hostilities and aggression. Of greatest interest is the fact that EVERY government overthrown in NE Africa had our backing before the overthrow---usually based on desired freedom by the citizens of those countries.

[Jim]

Soon after becoming prez, the dear leader made his “Mid-east Apology Tour,” degrading his own country while bowing and scraping to the likes of the fat Saudi princes (terrorist-supporters) and Egypt’s Mubarak (whom he could ill afford to lose as an ally). The Muslims in the street took that effort as Obama’s virtual promise of money, arms, money, finances, money, air support, money, military support, money, and jobs (something he keeps helping to lose in this country, as well as money). So, they have risen up with every expectation that the savior who jogs the Potomac would back their play. Result: blood in the streets, even in Egypt, where Paradise was supposed to descend when Mubarak was eliminated. Tahrir Square is now the Egyptian army’s boot camp. The fight goes on in Tunisia. Syria’s Assad laughs at this country, as do the Palestinians, who thought Obama would continue Jimmy Carter’s dissing of Israel, only to find that Netanyahu thumbs his nose at Obama and makes the best speech in the U.S. Congress that anyone has heard in many years, without a teleprompter.

The dear leader’s cynicism came to light in his first days in office when one after another of his appointees failed to make it, a number of them because they were tax-cheats, although the whiny Geithner is still working his mischief while Bernanke prints money and Geithner never has paid his whole bill. If the multitude of personal czars were terminated, eliminating their salaries and perks, Obama could help with budget problems, but these people are necessary to drive businesses toward bankruptcy, with the concomitant loss of jobs and the general public becoming wards of the state. The destruction of capitalism, which has driven this country to living standards only dreamed of in most of the world, is the aim, and sooner or later – hopefully sooner – people are going to rise up against the dear leader and his apparatchiks at the ballot box. It started last November. A leader shows himself to be desperate when he resorts to scare tactics, such as his threat against SS and Vet payments. It won’t wash. The communists and socialists couldn’t turn this country during the Great Depression of the 1930s, much worse than now. Admittedly, that involved a stronger generation, but when common sense finally attacks the citizens – and it will – the worm WILL turn.

But give thanks, one and all! Libya has been invaded by air since 19 March, proving the military acumen of the prez. He said it’s by way of saving some Libyans but didn’t mention by killing other Libyans, his choices. That’s helped the U.S. profile in the Arab world…pick on a nation of 6 million people…for no believable reason. Well…there’s oil in that desert, and nobody liked Qaddafi anyway, and Libyans all look alike anyhow.

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

Jim---

Is there any such thing as an acceptable Democrat for you???? I'm serious. They can't ALL be so bad after Bush and his buddies did their deceptive stuff.