What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Libya?

I don't know what "turn-about" you're speaking of since I'm anti-war to begin with. It certainly is extremely hypocritical for anti-war liberals to be suddenly and inexplicably pro-war.

View attachment 148

View attachment 149

 

I'm afraid the hypocrisy is on your side. I see none of the more well-known liberals supporting this action although neither side can claim 100%. I don't support this action in Libya. However, where organizations like Fox supported any war Bush started, now they are against war because Obama is in charge. That is hypocrisy. I don't personally care if all Libyans kill all other Libyans. I wish that they wouldn't but it's not our business! Let the Arabs deal with it.

So to sum it up, liberals against war in either case, cons for war in the case of Bush and against it in the case of Obama. Con after con has come out and criticized Obama on this action. You can't deny that they are painting themselves as anti-war. That wasn't the case with Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

What about the HEAD LIBERAL in the US? You know, the guy who criticized Bush for taking military action? The guy who has been so proud of proclaiming he voted against action in Iraq?
Where are all those anti-war lib war protesters now? Where are the people saying BO is wagoing a war for oil? Heck, dr moen, you just mentioned in passing that you opposed BO's action in Libya but I'll bet if it were a Repub in office right now you would be a bit more vocal. Hypocrite!

 

Sorry if I'm not vocal enough for you. Just let me know which terms are acceptable to you and I'll try to work them in. I AM AGAINST THIS MILITARY ACTION!

 

I couldn't care less what you think, my original post was a comment on the hypocrisy of BO. You claimed NO well-known liberal supported this action yet the head liberal, BO, is the one calling the shots. Right? Care to retract your statement now?

 

When you can point out where Obama lied to get us into war, I'll accept your comparison to Bush. I still don't think we should be taking sides in Libya but at least I have the confidence that our Commander-in-Chief didn't bake the intelligence and lie about weapons of mass destruction in order to get us into one of the longest wars in our history. I may disagree with the military action Obama took but I trust that I haven't been lied to. You Bush/Cheney NeoCon types can't say that.
Now do the smart thing and tuck your tail between your legs and wimper off into a corner. What am I say! "Do the smart thing"? I forgot who I was talking to for a second.

 

Nice dodge attempt there, dr moen, but I didn't really contrast Bush with BO did I? My posting was simply to point out the hypocrisy of BO by criticizing our involvement in one conflict while making the decision to get us into another. BO has spoken out against US involvement in regime change yet he calls for the removal of Ghaddafi as well as Mubarak. Doesn't sound hypocritical to you?

 

Will this lie work?

 

Actually that is nothing Obama said.

 

So you're saying that you never brought up Bush? I see!

Listen, if you were able to be intellectually honest, you'd admit that there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. But instead, you'd rather pretend only your political party opponents are hypocrites. Politics, hypocrisy it is just the way it is. You might as well point out that they all breath oxygen and drink water, it is just as much of an earth shattering revelation as political hypocrisy in this country. Now why don’t you impress us all and tell us which horizon the sun will rise from tomorrow.

 

There are a whole bunch of people out there who would be very interested in learning their tapes and manuscripts of him saying just that are wrong.

 

They'd probably want the question asked and the entire response given not just the comment taken out of context. Are you sure that you aren't James O'Keefe?

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?)

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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

 

I stated Obama said;

You then said "Actually that is nothing Obama said." And then you quote him as saying;

Now, either you are going to have to splain to me what the difference is or you are going to have to get the @#%!#@ out of your mouth and talk English. Regardless of his "context", it is still a lie to me.

 

There you have it! Right there. Maybe it is just because you are a Rightie that context means nothing to you. Context is everything.

 

So you are admitting to lying when you said "Actually that is nothing Obama said."?

 

Thanks for answering OKC now I'll give you my opinion.

As many others I would prefer we were not involved in Libya at all. Somehow though I felt it would happen and it did.
As for President Obama stating we would not involve ground forces I agree. He should not have said that as it could feasibly happen.
I'm not taking sides here I'm being a realist about the whole mess.

To me Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Actually, I believe ANY President would be in the same boat as he is right now.

Now. Why just Libya? Well, I think Lehigh made an excellent point. Gadahfi basically announced he'd resort to genocide if he had to. I believe he would as well.
Does anyone think oil might have something to do with it as well? I'm thinking so and it seems to me Europe has a vested interest in it. Perhaps a European nation should take the reigns?

Should Gadahfi be taken out? Probably so.
Is there a chance that the next ruling government could be just as bad? could harbor terrorists? Absolutely.

Now does anyone think maybe terrorists are already being harbored? I'd bet money on it. Gadahfi didn't care until the ipposition started messing with him.
Now it's a talking point for his loyal followers. Hell of guy ain't he?

This seems to be turning into the "typical" crap in that whole area. Corrupt government or dictator. Oil rich. Hates the West.
Regime goes down. New corrupt government/dictator steps in but we get oil. Seems I've seen this a few times.

Yes,
Important folks like Ron Paul are against this action. Still other important people aren't.

I was watching CNN on Sunday morning. Caught an interview on State of the Union with Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Interesting to say the least.
Basically both will support what President Obama is doing. Both also wish he would have taken such action two weeks ago.

Of course had he taken action two weeks ago it would have just been the U.S. To me THAT would have really been a mistake.

Like I said damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I also caught a few phone interviews with journalists in Libya that were in Benghazi. Seems the local rebels said the strikes were precise and especially thanked the FRENCH for it.
For the record I believe that the journalists were real even if just by phone. I also believe that they probably did interview locals. Of course it's up to you the reader to decide.

In closing OKC I got a REAL good chuckle out of your comment about Obama and Chavez being friends.
They met and shhook hands in public. Pretty common. I doubt they're shooting hoops on the weekends.

 

Oh no clembo. Youre wrong. If OKC says they are friends, its gospel. And you will never change his mind.

 

I love the irony. ''Talk'' English

 

Maybe they're not shooting hoops, but Chavez certainly wanted to be Obama's friend (from 2009):

Chavez to Obama:

After Libya, I'm not so sure that's the case anymore, however...

 

Now that speaks volumes!