The war of words over Libya

This being an American political campaign, the discussion won't be about the long love-hate relationship between Washington and Libya's former dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi. It won't be about the war--oops, the humanitarian mission to enforce a no-fly zone--that Barack Obama commanded last year without consulting Congress. There will be no talk about the interests of Western oil companies in Libya--nor the attempts by the U.S. government to make sure post-Qaddafi Libya is ruled by a pliant regime.[FONT=Georgia, serif]Instead, it will be a debate about words. Specifically, whether Barack Obama used one particular word--"terrorism"--a month ago.[/FONT]

They might have talked about why Obama authorized military intervention in Libya without Congressional approval--despite his statement as a candidate that 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."
Of course, Mitt Romney isn't interested in critiquing the bloody details of U.S. foreign policy. He's grasping at an issue where he thinks he can make some headway at election time--over which candidate will be more committed to fighting the "war on terror."
[FONT=Georgia, serif]But Romney is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks the facts show Obama has been less committed to the "war on terror"--or militarism in general.[/FONT]

Under Obama, the "war on terror" has flourished, just as the prior Bush administration intended it to--as a never-ending war with a limitless number of enemies and fronts, into which every president sinks endless resources, without even a chance of opposition from other politicians.
[FONT=Georgia, serif]

Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Read more @: [/FONT]The war of words over Libya | SocialistWorker.org

[FONT=Georgia, serif]So do you think tonight at the debate they will have an actual real debate and discussion about our foreign policy? Or is it going to revolve around one stupid word? I personally think the two candidates foreign policies views are basically the same thing; The Bush Doctrine and continuing the Bush Doctrine. When will we actually have a real debate about US foreign policy? [/FONT]

Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Read more @: [/FONT]The war of words over Libya | SocialistWorker.org

[FONT=Georgia, serif]So do you think tonight at the debate they will have an actual real debate and discussion about our foreign policy? Or is it going to revolve around one stupid word? I personally think the two candidates foreign policies views are basically the same thing; The Bush Doctrine and continuing the Bush Doctrine. When will we actually have a real debate about US foreign policy? [/FONT]

Click to expand...

Bronson said:

Great source Comrade

Click to expand...

Muddy Creek said:

I think, unfortunately, it will be more campaigning.

Click to expand...

TheDemSocialist said:

Unfortunately yes, you are probably correct. You can never get an honest conversation like this in the spot light and its a damn shame main stream politics cant have these type of conversations.

Click to expand...

Muddy Creek said:

Corporations now own the platform for the discussions. When the League of Women voters owned it,they had some SERIOUS debates and debate questions.

Click to expand...

Muddy Creek said:

Corporations now own the platform for the discussions. When the League of Women voters owned it,they had some SERIOUS debates and debate questions.

Click to expand...