At a time when the American people overwhelmingly oppose our continued military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama has responded by committing the United States to another war. Today, the U.S. attacked Libyan forces with over a hundred cruise missiles hitting the capitol and surrounding areas. With the two wars already draining the United States of billions a day, these cruise missile attacks alone will cost hundreds of millions in both the equipment and commitment of forces.
While we go to war against Libya for its crackdown on democratic reformers and protesters, the United States continues to support its allies like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (which have unleashed tanks on protesters). What is the principled line determining when we go to war to support protesters or reformers? Will the same line apply to our allies?
Here is what Obama has stated today: ”Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world . . .”
We are now going to war in a country which seems to be experiencing a civil war. It is also a country that greeted the mastermind of the PanAm terrorist attack as a national hero. Finally, we are once again going to war without a declaration of war. While the Framers were quite clear about the need for a declaration, we are once again simply circumventing that inconvenient principle. The same Democrats who insisted that they were misled in using a resolution to start the Iraq War are again standing silent in the face of another President committing this country to war without a declaration. I consider bombing the capitol city of a nation to be an act of war.
I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans are opposed to the other two wars but would want to go fight in Libya.
While we are clearly not committing to a ground conflict, this is a move that is clearly opposed to the public’s desire to end this foreign military entanglements — and not to add new ones. The political disconnect over these wars is both distressing and dangerous for a system that, while a representative democracy, is still based on the notion of responsiveness to the voters.
Source: CNN
Jeff,
Your arguments for the removal of Gadaffi are far from convincing.
And your blind praise of G.W. Bush is simply disturbing.
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/
I don’t know Swathmore Mom. I think the minister Farrakhan has a lot of people rethinking the situation. We shall see. Obama could be using his hoops skills and going for a lay up instead of going strong to da hoop. Lets see if he holds true on bowing out of Libya quickly. He needs to. He can’t handle things as they are now. He’s to busy drilling for oil in Brazil or is it letting the Brazilians drill here after he ran everybody out of the GOMEX.
What if the entire Middle East just exploded into violence then what? 50 mortars fired into Israel yesterday. Thats all we need right now.
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=212838
The Arab League is wavering but the good news is Yemen might fall soon. bdaman, The far right is trying to tap into the left on this war but you won’t meet on economic justice issues or social issues which will be the driving force in 2012.
Questions for Obama
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops — either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
answers by Obama
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
rafflaw,
OK, sorry, I misread your post. My bad.
Afghanistan was never going to be the central front in the war against Islamism, only the first. It’s too remote, too backwards and does not command enough respect in the Muslim world. Your point about taking troops and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq is wrong, however. Afghanistan was always supposed to have a small US/NATO footprint because it is extremely difficult to supply (landlocked and mountainous) and vulnerable to being cut off by, say, Putin bribing and bullying our central Asian allies, such as they are.
Iraq is much more central to the effort. It’s Arab, relatively developed, relatively cosmopolitan and closer to the Muslim centers of power, even having a few of its own like Karbala. Saddam using al Qaida as a delivery system for WMD was a very realistic scenario, as is Ahmedenijad doing so today. After 9/11, that possibility cannot be tolerated.
Aside from Habitat for Humanity, what “good” has Jimmy Carter done, for the world in general and for the US in particular (the latter of which was sorta his job as POTUS)? Aside from Habitat for Humanity, what evidence do you have that Carter is a “good” person?
Blouise,
I had no problem with Carter. He was and is a good man. How many ex-presidents have done as much good as he has?
Jeff,
I wrote that Bush lied us into Iraq, now Afghanistan. he did steal men and equiptment from the Afghanistan mission to send them to Iraq, but that is another story.
You are right about the typos. I have a hard time on the IPAD and that virtual keyboard. I am getting better at it though! 🙂
Pete, Rafflaw,
I liked Carter and was one of the few who voted for him on his second time around. My brother, who was very much a part of the military/CIA group who planned the Hostage Rescue, literally hated Carter.
Swarthmore mom
1, March 20, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Blouise I don’t know if I am for it or against it. I just keep reading things. Did you know that Jefferson did not seek a declaration of war from congress for the first Barbary War?
==============================================
Now that was a President who knew how to pick a war … Pirates!
(Keep this to yourself, but I’ve heard from some very reliable sources that Jefferson was protecting “Corporate” interests when he went after the pirates … sshhh)
I’m comfortable discussing the subject of war with you. I’m not a pacifist and I believe there are some military actions that have to be taken to protect both our nation and our nation’s interests abroad. However, I no longer trust the words of our elected leaders nor the military leaders who issue and carry out the orders. That lack of trust leads me to agree with you when you say: “I don’t know if I am for it or against it.”
I do, most emphatically agree with Bob,Esq when he writes about “declarations of war”, queries the War Powers Resolution of 1973, wonders if “the coalition help pick up the tab?”, and makes points concerning who benefits.
SwM, I wish our government were more trustworthy … I would really like to be able to believe what they tell us. But they aren’t and I can’t. It honestly and truly makes me very sad.
Rafflaw,
Don’t worry. I won’t hit you over the head because of typos. My own iPhone autocorrect keeps coming up with things that look more like Sumerian cuneiform.
How, precisely, did Bush “lie” to go to war in Afghanistan?
That second sentence should start with He, not E.
Jeff,
You are confusing Bush’s vote totals with his performance. E lied us into Iraq and he led us into this recession with 2 wars off budget. And as a liberal, I do state that he did not have our best interests in mind when he decided to attack Iraq even before the smoke had cleared on 9/11!
Pete, Rafflaw,
Given the landslide against Carter in 1980, you are in a distinct minority.
Additionally, whatever Bush’s faults, and there were many, not even liberals question that he was trying to act in the best interests of the United States. Almost regardless of the policies Carter pursued – failure to take action against Khomeini in Iran, giving away the Panama Canal, Nicaragua, cutting the US military, etc. – it’s difficult to see how those policies were even intended to benefit the US, let alone how they could gave been so.
Since Carter’s primary job as POTUS was to protect the American people, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that he was a complete failure as president. His actions post-presidency – supporting Hugo Chavez, North Korea and Hamas, none of which were in US interests – reveal Carter to be a thoroughly despicable and anti-US individual who was unfit to hold the presidency in the first place.
There have been several Presidents that make good candidates for the worst. Buchanan may well take the gold medal. Runner ups include Reagan, Dubya, and Harding. Carter is not even in the running when compared with that crew.
Pete I agree that Carter was not the worst. That spot is held by George W. As a Bears fan I have to go with Jim McMahon!
Jeff Cox
1, March 20, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Pete,
Jimmy Carter was by far the worst POTUS of the modern era and quite possibly the worst POTUS ever. Until now. Carter is to US presidents what Ryan Leaf is to quarterbacks.
===================================================
your opinion, on presidents or quarterback is just that, your opinion. in my opinion ronald reagan occupies that spot, as to quarterbacks, i have no opinion or interest.
Never mind. What appear to have been two Tomahawk cruise missiles hit a large round building in his personal compound next to his tent. They did not hit the tent, but there is extensive damage to the compound according to early news bulletins. The UK is credited with the strike, not the US.
Officials are denying Gaddafi was the target.
Here is how MSNBC reports the story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42177894/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Sorry, Blouise. Didn’t get the joke. Probably still in my Roman world from watching “The Eagle” today. Is there some law that says every movie involving the Roman army must show them making a testudo? There was one in “The Eagle” and one in “The Last Legion.”
Do any of our legal eagles know if the prohibition against attacking another head of state directly is still in place?
Jeff, the Feds already “settled” that issue with Gadhafi during the Bush administration. Didn’t they take Libya off the State Department terrorist list then too? They should have taken Gadhafi out after the Locherbie act of terrorism. How did he threaten us now?