Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

LOL - wait, how is this "Obama's" coalition? Wasn't it France and the UK that took the lead? Obama was invited along because he's the kid with the money and all the cool toys.

VanceMack said:

… you should snatch up your slingshot and get your ass over there and put some muscle behind your hustle. …

Click to expand...

You have repeatedly and contemptuously fallen back to the proposition that if what is happening in Libya is so troubling to me, then I should take up arms and travel there to participate in the struggle. But, of course, the discussion isn't about me and my individual action in the matter; instead, it's about what actions should our country undertake.

Now that France, Britain, the Arab League and the U.S. under the authority of a U.N. Security Council resolution have albeit belatedly traveled down what I considered the only moral pathway available: entering the conflict to stop the inevitable massacre of the residents of rebelling Libyan communities; you continue to spout unfounded accusations and irrelevant calls to individual action. Thanks for that contribution. No, not really.

yesterday, JAKE TAPPER of all people called the president out hard over obfuscating obama's attempts to REDEFINE the words "exit strategy," actually going so far as to label our lame leader's language JABBERWOCKY

the point---abc's tapper is CORRECT

today, obfuscating obama's latest national security adviser (he can't keep one more than a few months), ben rhodes, says libya's not a WAR

it's "KINETIC MILITARY ACTION"

White House: Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action' | Byron York | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

too underhanded by half, just who the heck do these homies hope to hoodwink

certainly no one in congress, certainly not the europeans, certainly not the international press

this white house has no hope

it's humiliating

How many people think that the current critics of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 and the coalition enforcing it would be just as critical if Qaddafi loyalist forces had been allowed to massacre the civilians who are now protected?

In my eyes these critics would be blasting the Obama administration no matter what.

America at Not-War - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/22/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Excerpted from “Gingrich Was for Libyan Airstrikes Before He Was Against Them” By Elspeth Reeve, National Journal, Wednesday, March 23, 2011 | 2:52 p.m.
[SIZE="+2"]O[/SIZE]n March 7 Newt Gingrich insisted on airstrikes in Libya. Sixteen days later, the Republican presidential candidate says he would have never intervened. Think Progress' George Zornick caught the conflicting TV interviews. In his earlier statement, Gingrich says he would "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him."

And not only did he completely reverse his position on the no-fly zone, he flip-flopped on what would justify the bombing, Slate's Dave Weigel notes. Humanitarian reasons are no longer good enough.

Here's Gingrich today, March 23: "The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. This isn't a serious standard. ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi." …

Click to expand...

Chappy said:

How many people think that the current critics of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 and the coalition enforcing it would be just as critical if Qaddafi loyalist forces had been allowed to massacre the civilians who are now protected?

In my eyes these critics would be blasting the Obama administration no matter what.

America at Not-War - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/22/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Click to expand...

What a bombshell. This is truly a defining moment for him. I kinda' liked him...but this is beyond the pale. How could he even do that?? What a dingbat. Are we all so anxious to be on the opposite side of the President that we can't see straight?

Chappy said:

In my eyes these critics would be blasting the Obama administration no matter what.

Click to expand...

perhaps, but if the president knew what he was doing his critics wouldn't have DOZENS of LINKS of AMMUNITION

obama's an amateur

sorry

The Prof said:

perhaps, but if the president knew what he was doing his critics wouldn't have DOZENS of LINKS of AMMUNITION

obama's an amateur

sorry

Click to expand...

More like hundreds or thousands. In all fairness to Obama he was ushered into running by his super rich libtard puppeteers. He was in over his head from the start, he had absoloutely no background remotely qualifying him to be a successful President.
The first indication that he was a total smuck was the marxist, socialist ultra left he surrounded himself with...he had zero chance to be successful

actively progressive senator sherrod brown of ohio, today:

JOHN BOEHNER IS RIGHT---HIS QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED

RealClearPolitics - Video - Dem Senator: Boehner Is "Right," Obama Needs To Talk To Congress

what else could sherrod say?

boehner's "scathing" letter to the president simply wants to know:

1. is gadaffi a target or not

2. which nations will lead

3. what are the lines of authority and responsibility

4. are there to be land based targets

5. if coalition partners quit, how is america's role effected

6. when are we gonna turn over control

7. if gadaffi survives, how long will we continue doing whatever it is we're doing

8. what's our relationship with the opposition, what standards must they meet

9. what's it all gonna cost, what's the payfor

10. how does whatever it is we're doing over there fit in with our broader mideast policies

sherrod brown of ohio says BOEHNER IS RIGHT

do YOU think the orange dude is outta line?

or does the president indeed have THAT MUCH explaining to do?

about this MILITARY INTERVENTION?

it's a SERIOUS business, war is

The Prof said:

actively progressive senator sherrod brown of ohio, today:

JOHN BOEHNER IS RIGHT---HIS QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED

Click to expand...

Sorry, Prof. Senator Sherrod Brown once checked out The Blaze on line and listened to Rush Limbaugh in a rental car last year. Not to be trusted.

MaggieD said:

Sorry, Prof. Senator Sherrod Brown once checked out The Blaze on line and listened to Rush Limbaugh in a rental car last year. Not to be trusted.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you like that, but while I agree, those are nice questions to have answers to, I do have these few consolations:

1) This is a world wide agenda with UN approval
2) This is sanctioned by the Arab League
3) The people of the country actually want our support
4) We have been told that there won't be ground troops
5) Because it is a UN resolution, many nations are stepping up. It is not just our missiles and we can not be left holding the check by ourselves.
6) We stopped a march that would have almost certainly resulted in a genocide.

I am happy with all of these things. We waited for approval from the world before we helped intervene. How about it? The United States of America actually having a foreign policy that isn't "if you don't like it then you are the enemy".

Yes, the more questions that are answered the better, but I am happy with the ones that have been answered so far. But you won't hear those things on Rush, sweetheart.

you probably don't know 19 term congressman george miller from martinez

but as a lifelong resident of the bay area, i sure do

around here he's been known for most of his career, like the rest of the bay area delegation, as pretty much a pelosi clone

woolsey and miller and stark and speier are very, very close

RealClearPolitics - Video - Top Dem: Obama Had Constitutional Obligation To Consult Congress

of course everyone knows bawney

Frank isn't buying case on Libya | POLITICO 44

"consultations schmonsultations," sputters the congwessman

The Prof said:

perhaps, but if the president knew what he was doing his critics wouldn't have DOZENS of LINKS of AMMUNITION

obama's an amateur

sorry

Click to expand...

Many are sorry, but what makes matters worse is that his Secretary of State is no more experienced than he.

While they might have made a good novelty act in peacetime, neither were designed to serve in times of genuine crisis.

whysoserious said:

I'm glad you like that, but while I agree, those are nice questions to have answers to, I do have these few consolations:

1) This is a world wide agenda with UN approval
2) This is sanctioned by the Arab League
3) The people of the country actually want our support
4) We have been told that there won't be ground troops
5) Because it is a UN resolution, many nations are stepping up. It is not just our missiles and we can not be left holding the check by ourselves.
6) We stopped a march that would have almost certainly resulted in a genocide.

I am happy with all of these things. We waited for approval from the world before we helped intervene. How about it? The United States of America actually having a foreign policy that isn't "if you don't like it then you are the enemy".

Yes, the more questions that are answered the better, but I am happy with the ones that have been answered so far. But you won't hear those things on Rush, sweetheart.

Click to expand...

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, if your last line was trying to say that's where my thoughts come from. Glenn Beck either. If you hadn't called me Sweetheart, I prolly wouldn't have responded. But I'm a sucker for flattery.

I don't disagree with much in your list. However, I believe that President Obama should have brought his case to Congress.

Further, I think this is an issue long in need of resolution: Does the President of the United States have the right, sans Congressional approval, to commit our military without our country, or one of our allies, being in imminent danger ?

MaggieD said:

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, if your last line was trying to say that's where my thoughts come from. Glenn Beck either. If you hadn't called me Sweetheart, I prolly wouldn't have responded. But I'm a sucker for flattery.

Click to expand...

It always works.

MaggieD said:

I don't disagree with much in your list. However, I believe that President Obama should have brought his case to Congress.

Click to expand...

I am neutral about this currently, but I can see the issue you take with him not taking it to Congress first.

MaggieD said:

Further, I think this is an issue long in need of resolution: Does the President of the United States have the right, sans Congressional approval, to commit our military without our country, or one of our allies, being in imminent danger ?

Click to expand...

That does appear to be the golden question, doesn't it? I don't see why all countries don't just have a permenant military group that is dedicated to the UN so that any UN resolutions passed can be enforced without having each country needing to debate internally first. Also, if countries can just opt out even when a vote is passed, what is the point of it all?

whysoserious said:

That does appear to be the golden question, doesn't it? I don't see why all countries don't just have a permenant military group that is dedicated to the UN so that any UN resolutions passed can be enforced without having each country needing to debate internally first. Also, if countries can just opt out even when a vote is passed, what is the point of it all?

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more.

Wiseone said:

Why the hell would anyone want that to be the case? I could understand if thats you're opinion, but to list the failure of western nations to respond to a crisis and act together has something desirable? What the ****.

Anyway, any bickering in the coalition is normal, its what allies do. There was plenty of bickering about how to deal with Germany and Japan in WW2, how to deal with the USSR, the Gulf War, the Yugoslavia break up, the Afghan conflict, the Iraq War. Bickering is nothing new and it hardly means the alliance is going to break up.

Click to expand...

Because I'm tired of us propping up Europe. I'm tired of their anti-American bitching and second guessing. I want them to learn handle something on their own, and take the criticism they deserve.

a week into this miserably muddled mission, where are we:

1. obama consults an international community while bypassing the us congress, representatives of the american people

2. he sees some lost "legitimacy" in the gadaffi regime which most sober americans never perceived the mass murderer possessing

3. our no fly zone routinely targets assetts on the GROUND

4. "days not weeks" morphs within a few hours into "this could go on awhile"

5. get gadaffi, get gadaffi not, get gadaffi, get gadaffi not

6. the DEPT OF JUSTICE chimes in on REGIME CHANGE---one wonders what is the position of the folks at INTERIOR

7. gates goes ROGUE, hillary complains she's been left OUTTA THE LOOP

8. WHAT IF GADAFFI SURVIVES IN POWER?

9. the russians accuse us of CRUSADING, ala COEUR DE LION

10. china demands an instant CEASE FIRE

11. the arab league is SUSPICIOUS

12. turkey says we've already gone TOO FAR

13. the germans are OUT

14. italy threatens to withhold its airbases, accuses france of lusting for libya's OIL

15. the french do NOT want nato to lead

16. the uk INSISTS that nato lead

17. the president wants no part of LEADERSHIP

18. emerging nations---india, brazil, south africa---openly OPPOSE

19. if maintaining GITMO is a RECRUITMENT TOOL...

20. what will this effort COST, how will it be PAID FOR

21. what are the lines of AUTHORITY and RESPONSIBILITY within the coalition

22. hillary announces her DEPARTURE, says she JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, the INDECISION, the AMATEURS in what coulda been HER white house

23. the only reason all this is going on is cuz THE LADIES ran roughshod over the admin's machismos

24. obama embodies HAMLET in the white house

25. his latin american trip, meanwhile, accomplishes SQUAT

26. congress is in REVOLT, members of the PARTY and BASE openly broach IMPEACHMENT

27. the publicly PISSED include---NADLER, LEE, CAPUANO, BARTLETT, LARSON (the caucus chair), MILLER, FRANK, SHERROD BROWN...

28. no DENNIS KUCINICH's, those

29. as of tuesday the white house says it has NOT YET DISCUSSED the operation with DAVID CAMERON

30. everyone's kvetching about MISSION CREEP

31. when the rebels were outside tripoli, hamlet DITHERED

32. elements of the opposition appear to have real ties to AL QAEDA

33. the rest of the MIDDLE EAST is on FIRE---the naive optimism that greeted egypt, unmindful of obvious regional REALITIES, succumbs

34. obama's NOBEL elicits universal LOL's

35. the united nations, his COVER, is a JOKE---the SUBJECT of the nfz is a member of its HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

36. on wednesday france declares its intention of bombing BEYOND benghazi

37. the white house wages a WAR OF WORDS with the brits over the tyrant's ultimate fate

38. gates says it'll all RECEDE in a few days, gates says the effort will go on awhile, gates says there is no timeline, gates says we've never done a no fly on the fly like this, it takes some time to SORT OUT the trifles

39. the uk suggests we could be there THIRTY YEARS

40. obama's assertion that presidents do NOT possess the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to unilaterally attack is thrown in his face by libs, cons, establishmentarians, msm's...

41. biden said he'd make it his business to IMPEACH anyone who tried

42. rhodes says it's not a WAR, it's KINETIC

43. jake TAPPER likens obama's elliptical language to JABBERWOCKY

44. the worldwide press SAVAGES the administration at every turn, apparently hillary's not alone in being pushed over the edge

americans have never seen so much incompetence, even buffoonery

the merits of military action in libya aside, who can claim that this white house has approached this problem with even a pittance of professionalism

and the harshest homiletic---he STILL doesn't know what he's gotten himself into

Taylor said:

LOL - wait, how is this "Obama's" coalition? Wasn't it France and the UK that took the lead? Obama was invited along because he's the kid with the money and all the cool toys.

Click to expand...

Exactly Obama is showing he is not a leader and knows nothing about being president of the most powerful country in the world.

whysoserious said:

It always works.



I am neutral about this currently, but I can see the issue you take with him not taking it to Congress first.



That does appear to be the golden question, doesn't it? I don't see why all countries don't just have a permenant military group that is dedicated to the UN so that any UN resolutions passed can be enforced without having each country needing to debate internally first. Also, if countries can just opt out even when a vote is passed, what is the point of it all?

Click to expand...

Many people simply don't like the idea of a world government, that's why. I forget which conservative figure said this (think it was Buckley), but he said something along the lines of "world government would lead to world tyranny."

lpast said:

Germany pulls out of Nato and the coalition falls apart...what a cluster this is...we shouldnt be in there in the first place


Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart | Mail Online

Click to expand...

This falling apart statement was premature because even Turkey has come on board and approved the control of the Coalition by NATO.

I still think we should turn over control after a major assault on Gaddafi ground Forces using A-10s and Apaches for at least two days.

Councilman said:

This falling apart statement was premature because even Turkey has come on board and approved the control of the Coalition by NATO.

I still think we should turn over control after a major assault on Gaddafi ground Forces using A-10s and Apaches for at least two days.

Click to expand...

To what end? Are we kinda half-assedly but not really declaring war on Libya, or are we enforcing a no-fly zone? If we do what you suggest then we should stop with the pretense of a no-fly zone and engage in combat and regime change.

American said:

Because I'm tired of us propping up Europe. I'm tired of their anti-American bitching and second guessing. I want them to learn handle something on their own, and take the criticism they deserve.

Click to expand...

How are we propping up Europe? We didn't start operating in Libya recently because Europe couldn't handle it, we did it because we are allies and its important diplomatically to support each other. Why did Europe go into Afghanistan after 9/11? To support us, and would you believe many European partisans believe they are the ones propping us up there? Because if it weren't for their tens of thousands of troops there we wouldn't have the troops to do things like Iraq. I disagree with that entirely but both you and those europeans who think that are wrong.

What most here don't realize is Eastern Libya has been a big supplier/foreign fighters in Iraq and Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are rebel participants!!

The Muslim Brotherhood presence is much larger than AQ and like Egypt, are probably the largest organized group.

Woops, can't be right all the time, but Obama is backing up the wrong crowd lmao

American said:

Because I'm tired of us propping up Europe. I'm tired of their anti-American bitching and second guessing. I want them to learn handle something on their own, and take the criticism they deserve.

Click to expand...

Absolutely right, but they won't do it voluntarily. The status quo, from their point of view, is perfect.

Some tough love is required.