How Exactly Is Killing Gaddafi In America’s Best Interest?

October 24, 2011 1 Comment

Gaddafi is dead, apparently we’re supposed to rejoice. There’s no doubt that Gaddafi was a bad guy in the world. He’s responsible for terrorism in the 80′s and he led a generally repressive regime. But he did become a minor ally of the United States after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Gaddafi provided the US information about a Qaeda, both Bush and Obama acknowledge this. Obama went so far as to meet Gaffafi. Now we have a dead former ally that we inexplicably turned on and his former country now being run by radical Muslims. How is this a victory for Obama or the United States?

Obama met with this guy in 2009. Gaffafi didn’t suddenly change between 2009 and April 2011. He didn’t suddenly take a pro-terrorist position, he didn’t become an al Qaeda member and he did nothing to hurt US interests in the middle east. The only thing that changed in the world is that the Muslim Brotherhood was starting uprisings in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. Obama supports the Brotherhood because of their socialist leanings and because he has Brotherhood sympathizers within his administration.

This appears to be the sole reason for turning on Gaddafi. Obama’s talk about the Pan Am bombing over Scotland in the 80′s is disingenuous. If Obama is so outraged over the bombing why did he meet with Gaddafi and say pleasant things about him in 2009? It simply makes no sense. Obama’s reason for turning on Gaddafi have nothing to do with his former terrorist ties and everything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Long term Obama has seriously hurt America’s position in the world. He’s more or less told regimes throughout the world to not trust us. Don’t become our allies because we’ll come after you anyway. Every tin pot dictator in Africa, the Middle East and Asia is now less likely to become our ally and share information that helps us, whether it’s concerning the War on Terror or any other subject. Why would any nation want to become our ally when we so quickly turn, without justification, against Gaddafi? Obama has seriously hurt our position in the world.

Now that Gaddafi is gone, who is he going to be replaced with? The current leader, Mustafa Abdel Ja­lil, has declared Sharia law in Libya. So we’ve helped replace one repressive violent regime with a regime that, if it strictly follows Sharia law, will be stoning raped women, supporting honor killings and cutting the heads off of infidels. Keep in mind of course that the proponents of Sharia law are the people who took down the World Trade Center. Why exactly are we favoring these people? Worse, al Qaeda is part of the group that revolted against Gaddafi. Again, why is the US supporting these people?

There’s no doubt that Gaddafi was an awful leader. He was brutal, arbitrary and had a terrorist past. But he was a known entity. He became a minor ally, he helped us fight al Qaeda. That doesn’t forgive what he did in the 80′s but it goes a long way. We’ve now helped replace him with radical Muslims who are bringing Sharia law to Libya. We’ve helped the Libyans trade one brutal dictatorship for another. How exactly was this in our best interest?

Obama has yet to adequately explain why getting rid of Gaddafi was in our best interest. Gaddafi’s terrorist past isn’t a valid excuse when he’s been an ally of Bush and Obama’s since 2004. Obama can’t meet with Gaddafi in 2009 and praise him then expect to get taken seriously when he calls him a terrorist in 2011. There was absolutely no justification for aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in getting rid of Gaddafi. We’ve now lost an ally, we’ve lost someone who provided us with intelligence on al Qaeda. We’ve helped replace him with a regime that supports terrorism, against us and Israel. Worse, that regime will keep Libyan’s in bondage just as much, if not more, than Gaddafi. How was this a victory for Obama and the United States?

Filed under Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , ,

Libyan Rebels Support Jihad, Sharia Law

September 5, 2011 3 Comments

To listen to the media last week you would think the war in Libya was over. Never mind of course that Gadaffi is still alive and his troops continue to fight. Obama didn’t declare mission accomplished but he praised the efforts in Libya. This months after he declared American operations in Libya would be a matter of days and two months after the War Powers Act was violated by the administration.  Even if Gadaffi is removed from office and killed, we have to ask ourselves whether the new regime will be better than the old. Keep in mind, Gadaffi became an ally during the Bush administration when he provided us with information about al Qaeda. Obama even met with him in 2009.

According to the CIA, jihadists are plotting to take over in Libya now that there’s a power vacuum. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering a draft of a new Libyan constitution declares sharia law. We’ve known from the beginning that radical Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention al Qaeda, participated in the rebel uprising. Keep in mind, this is the side that President Obama decided was so important for us to support. Even after having met with Gadaffi in 2009 and even after having said nice things about him them. Nothing changed on Gadaffi’s side since that meeting, it’s not like he’s engaged in terrorist activity in the last two years. Libya has gone from a state that was obviously borderline but still an ally in the region to a nation that appears set for a jihadist government that enforces sharia law.

The Libyan rebels are rounding up black Libyans and black migrant workers, accusing them of being part of Gadaffi’s forces. The rebels are putting these blacks in concentration camps and it wouldn’t surprise anyone if they were killing some of them. They have no evidence against them, their only reason for arresting them is that they’re black. So not only are the rebels jihadists who want the government to enforce sharia law, they’re racists as well. This is the side Obama made out to be virtuous and freedom loving.

Let’s face facts, President Obama is more allied with the Muslim Brotherhood then he is with American interests. He’s supported the Brotherhood in Egypt even though we had an ally in Mubarak for more than 30 years. He’s supported the Brotherhood in Libya despite Gadaffi becoming an ally and despite an otherwise pleasant and positive meeting with the man in 2009. Obama appears to be shifting on Assad in Syria, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against him. Syria isn’t really an ally but it’s interesting to watch Obama’s support shift to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Keep in mind, the Muslim Brotherhood’s main goals include destroying Israel, destroying capitalism, creating a socialist caliphate and enforcing sharia law. Interestingly the radical left from which Obama comes from believes in destroying Israel and capitalism and creating socialist nations. It’s why George Soros funded groups supported the Arab Spring and why union leaders and assorted radical leftists have called from an American version. Obama is closely associated with Soros and we all know of his radical leftist ties. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood gets more support than America’s long term interests in the middle east.

Filed under Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama’s War in Libya Now Illegal

June 20, 2011 Leave a comment

The unmitigated arrogance and lawlessness of President Obama has been on full display during the last week. Congress has demanded an explanation of the war in Libya. Under the War Powers Act the President must explain to Congress within 90 days why the military is being used in a particular operation. He must also ask for approval from Congress for continued military operations. The President’s response to Congressional demands for explanation in Libya is nothing short of outrageous.

Obama claims there is no war in Libya! Apparently dropping bombs and having CIA operatives on the ground does not constitute war in the mind of President Obama. Keep in mind, as a Senator Mr. Obama insisted the war in Iraq was “illegal.” Never mind of course that President Bush asked for and received Congressional authorization in Iraq under the War Powers Act prior to dropping the first bomb. Obama isn’t just a lawless socialist, he’s America’s first postmodern President.

President Obama has such a thirst for war in Libya that he overruled Justice Department lawyers who told him that he was violating the War Powers Act. This is an almost unheard of event. President’s almost always go along with the opinions presented by the Justice Department, especially so on matters such as the War Powers Act. But not President Obama, law doesn’t matter to this man. Not only does law not matter to Obama, neither does language. When language doesn’t work to his advantage, he simply denies language exists. It isn’t a war, it’s a kinetic military operation! Now apparently action in Libya isn’t kinetic, military or an opperation.

Congress is threatening to cut off funding for Obama’s illegal Libyan war. Congress should not only cut off funding but impeachment hearings should be held if Obama continues to drop bombs on Libya. This isn’t a matter of disagreement with the war we’re fighting against Libya. This is a matter of law. We cannot have a President that disregards both the Constitution and the War Powers Act. Only Congress may declare war and under the War Powers Act (passed in 1973 on an override of a Nixon veto) the President must seek Congressional approval for any conflict lasting more than 90 days. For the President to ignore the War Powers Act and continue fighting a war in Libya based on little more than a redefinition of war is an impeachable offense regardless of whether Libyan action is in America’s best interests or not.

What Obama really needs to explain is why we’re trying to assassinate Gaddafi and why this is important for American interests in the middle east. Furthermore, Obama has yet to explain who the rebels are that we’re fighting for. There is ample evidence that the rebels include members of al Qaeda. These are people who are fresh off of fighting our soldiers in Iraq. They have our soldiers blood stained on their hands, yet Obama is supporting them in Libya. Obama is indeed the first postmodern President. We’re at war with al Qaeda, no, we’ve always been friends with al Qaeda. It’s all very 1984.

Obama must be forced to follow the law in this matter. The War Powers Act is clear as to Obama’s duties under the law. Mr. Obama is not living up to his duties and no amount of redefining the word ‘war’ will change what is going on in Libya. Congress must defund the military operation in Libya. If they don’t, then the War Powers Act is irrelevant and will forever be ignored by this President and future Presidents.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Will Congress Have The Guts to Cut Libyan War Funding?

June 15, 2011 Leave a comment

Speaker John Boehner has given the President until Friday to explain himself concerning the war in Libya. Nearly three quarters of the House, including half of the Democrats, supported resolutions demanding answers about the Libyan war from the administration. The non-binding resolution gave the President 14 days, which expires on Friday. The President has done nothing to advice Congress about the war in Libya. If Obama refuses to inform Congress about Libya, then it will be up to Congress to defund the operation.

Libya was a mistake from the beginning. It lacked a clear focus and clear objective. Obama’s refusal to take the lead in Libya, letting France of all nations lead the effort, meant that victory was never going to be possible in Libya. Whatever victory may have been, that still hasn’t been explained.

Obama apparently stands against Col. Gaddafi, even though he’s the first President to meet with him and even though the Colonel has been an arms length ally since the first Bush administration. Obama apparently supports the rebels, whoever they are. We know the President supports the radical anti-Isarael, anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, he supported them in Egypt. The Brotherhood has been on record wanting to kill Gaddafi for years. But guess who else is fighting with the rebels against Gaddafi? Al Qaeda of course. Al Qaeda hates Gaddafi because he provided the US with information about them. So to be clear, we killed al Qaeda’s leader but we’re supporting their effort to overthrow Gaddafi. Such is ridiculous and clearly not well thought out.

Say what you will about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the purpose and goals of those wars were always explained to the Congress and American people. Who we were fighting and why was never at issue because Bush always explained himself. Sometimes intelligence wasn’t very good, other times the Bush administration made mistakes or didn’t do a very good job. But even if we disagreed with what Bush was doing, we at least knew why we were there because Bush explained himself. Why then can’t Obama explain himself in Libya?

The Constitution is very clear, only the Congress may declare war. Congress, for better or worse, has delegated to the President the ability to go to war for 90 days without Congressional approval. At the end of those 90 days, it is up to Congress to declare war or pass some sort of resolution endorsing the war. Congress appears unwilling to support further action in Libya, certainly so if the President is secretive and won’t explain himself. Honestly, who does Obama think he is that he can start a war and not have to explain himself to Congress?

I hope that if the President refuses to meet Boehner’s deadline that Congress will defund the Libyan campaign. The war is pointless and riddled with contradictions. It does nothing for the United States in the middle east and it arguably hurts our position because we seem to be supporting the most radical elements of Islam. Congress needs to do its job and defund this war and prevent Obama from continuing action in Libya. It will be fascinating to see if the GOP has the guts to stand up to the President.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

State Senator Obama Believes Libyan War Is Dumb and Rash

March 31, 2011 Leave a comment

In 2002 then Illinois State Senator Obama claimed that using force to remove a brutal dictator was a “dumb war.” Obama was of course speaking of Bush’s plan to remove Saddam Hussein which was being debated back in 2002. Obama said the following:

Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him….

I don’t oppose all wars.  … What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

The speech is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it’s clear that Obama didn’t start speaking in a condescending way when he ran for President. He’s been talking like that his whole life. ‘Now let me be clear’ is one of Obama’s trademark condescending terms.  But beyond that then State Senator Obama makes several arguments against President Obama’s actions in Libya. Libya is a rash war, it isn’t well thought out. It doesn’t have clear goals or purpose. Rather than Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz playing weekend warrior (which is insulting and untrue in the extreme) we have Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power stamping their feet for war. Not to mention George Soros.

Libya is a grossly rash war. Al Qaeda has swooped into Libya and is now infiltrating the rebels. The very rebels the administration debates arming. The fact that al Qaeda is heading to Libya to fight against Gaddafi should come as no surprise to anyone with a little knowledge about the history of Gaddafi. In 2003 Gaddafi made peace with the United States by providing the Bush administration with information about al Qaeda. That information has turned out to be very useful. Gaddafi hates al Qaeda and they certainly hate him. So it should be no surprise that al Qaeda is fighting with the rebels against Gaddafi.

The fact that al Qaeda is willing to fight Gaddafi calls into question why we’re aiding the rebels. Do we really want a nation such as Libya to fall into the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda? I understand that Gaddafi is a brutal dictator and himself a terrorist. But if Obama thinks he’s such a bad guy, why did he become the first American President to meet with him in 2009? Gaddafi didn’t suddenly become a bad guy since 2009.

Libya is a rash war with no real American purpose. It is not our duty to save every nation from brutal dictators. If it is, Libya surely should not be the only nation we bomb. We ought to start bombing North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela and maybe we should go bomb China as well. The argument that it is our duty or the world’s duty to fight brutal dictators is absurd and impossible. Especially so when we likely cannot even agree on who the brutal dictators are in the world.

The Obama administration is supporting Libyan rebels, some of which have al Qaeda ties. Others have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that the Obama administration has supported in Egypt and elsewhere. All of the revolutions taking place in the middle east, largely supported by the administration except oddly in Iran, are aiding al Qaeda. We already know they’re aiding the terrorists who want to destroy Israel in the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Americans we have to ask ourselves why Obama is supporting these people? Why is he making conditions for Muslim terrorists easier? Is this the sort of foreign policy we want our nation to have? We’re talking about people who believe it is ok to murder women who have been raped. We’re talking about people who believe in murdering people who leave the Muslim faith. We’re talking about people who believe in oppressing women and who rejoice when their children die as human suicide bombs. Are these the people we want to support in the middle east? Because that’s who Obama appears to be supporting. The President has bragged about passing off leadership in the Libyan war to NATO, yet in Turkey, a NATO member, the Photo of the Year was of a bloodied Israeli soldier. Do we really want NATO running our wars?

The war in Libya was not well thought out. President Obama rushed to war at the behest of Samantha Power who believes in a Soros doctrine that demands the world protect everyone from dictators he doesn’t like and Hillary Clinton who was tired of being badgered by the British and French. The President hasn’t clearly laid out for us who we’re actually supporting. I dare say if the American people knew we might start arming al Qaeda support for the war and this President would drop substantially.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Libyan Arguments Simply Don’t Add Up

March 29, 2011 Leave a comment

President Obama finally got around to explaining to the American people why he’s bombing Libya. His speech didn’t quite add up. The first half of the speech Obama praised American involvement in leading the UN/NATO/World coalition that is currently against Gaddafi. However, the second half of the speech Obama is quick to point out that the United States will not lead and that removing Gaddafi and/or regime change isn’t really the goal. Obama insists it’s in America’s best interest to intervene in Libya, insisting that the no fly zone will prevent a ‘massacre.’ He provided no evidence that a massacre was imminent.

The President claims that the US led the effort to put a coalition together against Gaddafi. That is revisionist history at its worse. It wasn’t Obama who put together the coalition against Gaddafi, it was France. It was France that recognized the Libyan rebels two weeks before Obama decided to support a no fly zone. It was European leaders who put the coalition together, begging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to talk Obama into joining. President Obama didn’t lead this effort against Gaddafi, he was at best a passive participant.

So while Obama claims that the US led the effort to put together the coalition he is quick to declare that the US will not lead this effort. It makes no sense. Why would we put together this coalition only to back off immediately? It doesn’t make any sense if the goal is actually to remove Gaddafi or prevent some sort of massacre. The two halves of Obama’s speech just didn’t fit, it just makes no sense.

President Obama spoke of American exceptionalism in suggesting that it is the duty of the United States to step in and protect citizens against a wicked oppressive dictator. There are two problems with the anti-war President’s sudden belief in American exceptionalism in this area. First, Obama sounds a lot like President Bush when he went into Iraq. In fact, the arguments are almost identical. You’ll recall Obama ran in 2008 against the Iraq war and the Bush Doctrine. Suddenly Obama is embracing the Bush Doctrine and applying it to Libya. Second, if it is the moral duty of the United States to step in and protect citizens in the world against their oppressive, murderous dictators, why then doesn’t the President support bombing Syria? After all, there are supposedly freedom loving citizens protesting in the street and getting shot by their government. Why not bomb Syria?

President Obama should have given this speech 10 days ago from the Oval Office. Instead he waited and waited and waited and then gave a speech at the National Defense University. It is absurd to give this speech anywhere but the Oval Office. The power that the Oval Office represents is immense and it seems that Obama is either uncomfortable with that or doesn’t care to portray that power. So much for American exceptionalism. To give the speech in front of military, where they will have no choice but to clap afterward is exploitative of the military and the American people. At this point, nothing surprises me with this President.

President Obama’s speech was too little too late. It exaggerated the administration’s work on putting the coalition together to the point where it borders on a lie. The willingness of the President to not lead to the point that Gaddafi is removed destroys all of his arguments in favor of bombing. Especially so when it comes to American exceptionalism. If it is our duty to protect the citizens of the world against their wicked dictators, why are we quitting so quickly in Libya? Obama’s position simply doesn’t make any sense.

If you’re going to take Vienna by God take Vienna. If Gaddafi is such an awful dude and if we have such a moral duty to protect the Libyans from this man, why isn’t it the goal of this mission to kill Gaddafi and/or remove him from power? Why wasn’t it the goal of the United States in 2009 when Obama met with Gaddafi and consider him an ally? These are the questions I’m left with after Obama’s speech. I suspect we will never get the answers from this administration.

Filed under Libya, Obama Tagged with , , ,

Israel Under Attack; Left-Wing Media Largely Ignores

March 25, 2011 1 Comment

A lot has been happening in Israel the past couple weeks which has been largely ignored by the left-wing US media. Last week the Fogal family was murdered by Palestinian terrorists while they slept. Apparently the Fogal’s live in a new Israeli settlement. As a result of the murders Palestinians rejoiced in the street and passed out candy and cookies. Meanwhile in the past several days Hamas has launched dozens of rockets into Israel. On Wednesday Palestinian terrorists bombed a bus in Jerusalem.

These stories have been largely ignored by the left-wing media. I’m not willing to say that is intentional on their part, after all our President is busy bombing Libya for no stated reason. What the media is guilty of in ignoring this story is not connecting the dots. In connecting the dots it appears that there is more going on in Israel and the middle east than the media is willing to tell us about.

Our President openly supported the Egyptian rebels against Mubarak back in late January and early February. The rebel protesters were organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, with aid from Hamas as well as Code Pink and other leftist outfits in the US. What is the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood? The elimination of Israel. One of their biggest beefs with Mubarak is that he remained at peace with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood wants war with Israel, hence their support for Hamas, which we know Code Pink has aided in the past.

In Libya who wants Gaddafi dead? None other than the Muslim Brotherhood who called for protests against him and ultimately his execution. It’s interesting that once against Obama is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that seeks the destruction of Israel. There any number of reasons why folks not associated with the Muslim Brotherhood might want to see Gaddafi dead, not the least of which are the families of those killed in the Pan-Am terrorist attack in Scotland. But we would be foolish to ignore the connection between the uprisings in Egypt and Libya.

There is a deep rooted hatred of Israel among the extreme left. It seems to be a goal of theirs to eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth. The extreme left, such as the George Soros funded Code Pink and a number of other Soros funded organizations, are allied with radical Islamic socialists such as the Muslim Brotherhood. What I can’t figure out about the extreme leftists is whether their opposition to Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism or if it is an opposition of convenience. By that I mean, Isreal happens to be the biggest US ally in the middle east and desiring the fall of the US requires the fall of its closest allies.

Either way, the media is missing the boat in Israel right now. I believe the increase in terrorist attacks in Israel is directly related to what has happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the middle east. Islamic socialists in the Muslim Brotherhood are organizing revolutions, all of which focus on Israel as the enemy. Those revolutions have been successful in important countries such as Egypt, a one time ally of Israel.

Hamas, a group closely linked to the Brotherhood, is now suddenly firing rockets into Israel, bombing buses and murdering families while they sleep. Could it be that they expect Egyptian backing when Israel attacks them? Could this not signal a wide scale war in the middle east between Israel and any number of its neighbors? Why is the media not talking about this? Are they sp stupid that they cannot connect the dots? Or perhaps are there sinister motives behind the media’s actions?

Israel isn’t a perfect nation and I by no means seek to pretend that everything they do is sunshine and flowers. But it is clear they are under attack right now from Hamas. When the dots are connected it seems to suggest that something more is happening against Israel than Hamas stamping its feet about nothing. It seems to suggest that plans are being made for a wide scale war against Israel, under direction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The media will act shocked when this happens. If only they had paid attention…

Filed under foreign policy, islamic socialism, Libya Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Claims War in Libya is a ‘Kinetic Military Action’

March 24, 2011 1 Comment

The Obama administration has declared that the US is not at war with Libya. No sir, we’re engaged in a ‘kinetic military action.’ And when I rob the 7-11 later today I’ll be engaging in ‘product redistribution’ rather than robbery. Press Secretary Jay Carney called the mission “a time-limited, scope-limited military action.” It would be nice if the action and time were defined, which they have not been by the administration.

What is the deal with liberals constantly changing the language to deflect attention away from what they’re actually doing? Why can’t the Obama administration be truthful about what they’re doing in Libya? There is no need to put a fancy name on what’s going on in Libya, it’s a war and nothing else.

There is no way around calling the action in Libya a war. This is more than just a no fly zone, we’re bombing Gaddafi’s military infrastructure, tanks, anti-aircraft installations and yes we have bombed some civilians. This is in no uncertain terms a war. It isn’t some fancy name that liberals have decided to use in order to not call it a war. We’re killing people and breaking things, it’s a war.

It’s a war that the President authorized a week ago and still hasn’t explained to the American people. We still don’t know why the President decided to go to war with Libya, other than the UN signed off on it. We still don’t know what the mission actually is. Are we trying to get rid of Gaddafi or are we going to allow him to stay in power? We don’t know the answer to that yet. After a week, President Obama still hasn’t held a primetime speech to explain the war to us. That is shocking to me.

Interestingly al Qaeda supports the UN/Allies/American action in Libya. While al Qaeda doesn’t have a presence there now, they hate Gaddafi. You’ll recall that when Gaddafi made peace with Bush back in 2003 he began feeding our government information about al Qaeda. Apparently some of this information was good. So there’s no doubt that al Qaeda hates Gaddafi and wants to rid Libya of him. We already know the Muslim Brotherhood hates him and wants him dead, they so much as said so when they won in Egypt. It begs the question why Obama is on the same side as al Qaeda in this matter.

This war would be much easier to stomach if Obama spoke to the American people and gave us concrete reasons for war with Libya. Instead, we have no reason and the allies are all over the place in terms of what is going on there. Obama says we’ll be out in days, France says weeks. If Obama is telling the truth, what exactly is the mission? Surely Gaddafi isn’t going to be removed in a matter of days. If removing him isn’t the point, what exactly is? We’re not aiding the rebels by imposing a no fly zone for two weeks.

What Obama is doing in changing the language of war is nothing short of a lie. Don’t buy the lie that this isn’t a war with Libya. We still don’t know why we’re in Libya and terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood support the allied effort against Gaddafi. The allies have no idea what they’re doing and aren’t on the same page at all. This is a mess, all thanks to our anti-war President who started a war and is now going to lie about not starting one.

Filed under islamic socialism, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

When America Doesn’t Lead A Political Steering Committe Runs Wars

March 23, 2011 2 Comments

The War in Libya is nearly a week old and the President still hasn’t spoken to the American people. He has yet to lay out what the mission of the war is, he has yet to tell us how our military will achieve its goal. No one seems to be leading this effort, as France and Britain seem to want the war run by a political steering committee. The French don’t appear to believe they’re at war. Meanwhile the British are running out of missiles after less than a week of war. Yet Obama remains silent and no one seems to be in control.

This entire operation highlights the failure of leadership that Obama has displayed over and over and over again. He failed to lead during the Obamacare debate, allowing Congress to play around with the bill for a year before it was finally passed. He did the same thing with the Stimulus bill. The result of passing the buck to Congress is that it kept Obama out of the loop and allowed Congress to get its greedy paws in the bill. When Congress starts playing with a bill, it becomes bloated and public opinion is easily swayed against it. When a President leads and directs Congress, he’s able to control the message about a bill. Obama failed to lead during his first two years and the end result is that public opinion swayed against his proposals more so than it would have had he led the debate.

Obama is doing the same thing in Libya. He refuses to speak to the American people nearly a week after he endorsed the no fly zone. We have launched hundreds of missiles into Libya and at least one plane has gone down in that country. Not only does Obama not explain the mission to the American people but he’s letting an international steering committee lead the war effort. Mind you this is a steering committee led by France, a nation better suited for surrender and currently believes it is not at war, and Britain, a nation whose Navy is running out of missiles.

We need leadership in the White House. Unfortunately we don’t have a leader right now. We have a President who can’t even explain to us what the point of the no fly zone is. He doesn’t seek counsel from Congress, he so far hasn’t sought a resolution from Congress concerning Libya. Interestingly Vice President Joe Biden suggested that if Bush attacked Iran he would seek impeachment. I wonder why Biden doesn’t seek impeachment for Obama. Perhaps the same reasons why the anti-war left isn’t protesting in the streets and why the left-wing media isn’t complaining about the lack of explanation or purpose for the war.

We can’t put our soldiers in harms way without a clear purpose. We can’t have them subject to an international political steering committee led by two nations as incompetent as France and Britain. Yet Obama seems to be deferring to them, despite the fact that one doesn’t think they’re at war and the other is running out of weapons. This is what the world looks like when America doesn’t lead.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , ,

When Will Obama Explain The Mission In Libya?

March 21, 2011 Leave a comment

“The President does not have the 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.” – Senator Barack Obama in the Boston Globe, 2007

Obama continues his South American trip today after having played soccer with children in Brazil. Since the UN Resolution was passed on Thursday and American troops were used on Saturday the President still hasn’t explained what the goal of the mission in Libya is. Removing Gaddafi apparently isn’t the goal of the mission, which begs the question what exactly the goal of the mission is. Meanwhile Louis Farrakhan had a sharp warning for Obama on a Chicago radio station (it gets good at the 7:21 mark) while Gaddafi pens a letter to Obama calling him his dear son.

The arab world has descended into chaos while the President lives it up in South America. We’re now three days into our mission in Libya and the President has yet to explain why we’re at war with Libya. He has yet to define the mission to Speaker John Boehner’s satisfaction, in fact the President hasn’t sought counsel from Congress at all. To busy playing soccer or going to beach to talk to Congress I suppose. If ever there was a time when our nation cannot afford an absent President it is right now. Unfortunately President Present cannot be found three days after he ordered our troops into combat in Libya and five days after he announced his support for a Libyan no fly zone.

Farrakhan’s comments were very interesting. It is clear that Farrakhan believes in an Islamic socialist revolution. He clearly subscribes to the black liberation theology that Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright believes, albeit the black Muslim version of it. Farrakhan is sending a clear message to Obama. Back off in Libya or he’ll be in jeopardy. I don’t know if Obama knows what Farrakhan’s threat is or not but there is clearly an implied threat within Farrakhan’s statements. The middle east is on fire thanks to the Islamic socialists that Farrakhan supports. He seems to believe more is on the way and perhaps socialist revolution is on the way to the United States, at least in Farrakhan’s mind. He clearly is warming the President to join the revolution or get out of the way.

Interestingly Gaddafi’s statement to Obama hits at Obama’s colonial past. One of the theories out there about Obama is that he’s simply an anti-colonialist, which is why he tends not to talk proudly about the United States. Clearly Gaddafi thinks this is the case, otherwise he wouldn’t have said it. There may be some truth to Obama’s anti-colonial outlook as evidenced by the fact that it took nearly a month to support a no fly zone and Obama’s near absence since the war began. Couple that with Obama’s wishy washy statements about Gaddafi and I dare say that the Colonel’s letter may grab at Obama’s heart strings. Keep in mind, this is an oil war being pushed by the French and British as much as it’s a war to rid the world of Gaddafi.

At this point I’m wondering if we’ll ever get an explanation from Obama about the war in Libya. The President seems conflicted in the matter, at least when we take into account his historic position on Gaddafi, Islamic socialism and colonialism. Having a President whose heart isn’t in a war he started isn’t the way to go. If Obama’s heart isn’t in this battle he should get us out of the war now. This isn’t a war started by Bush or created by Bush, it’s soley created by Obama. Unlike Bush, Obama hasn’t even explained to us why we’re at war or what the objective is.

We need the President to come home. His trip to South America appears not just frivolous but absurd. Obama needs to come home, speak with Congressional leaders (two ways rather than the one way that has happened so far) and most importantly he needs to speak to the American people and clearly lay out what the purpose is of the war in Libya. He needs to do this in primetime on a weeknight, preferably tonight. But of course, it’s unlikely to happen. There are children in South America who he wants to play soccer with.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers