More than 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck over 20 targets inside Libya today in the opening phase of an international military operation the Pentagon said was aimed at stopping attacks led by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and enforcing a U.N.-backed no-fly zone. President Obama, speaking from Brazil shortly after he authorized the missile attacks, said they were part of a “limited military action” to protect the Libyan people.
“I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice I make lightly,” Obama said. “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”
The first air strikes, in what is being called Operation Odyssey Dawn, were launched from a mix of U.S. surface ships and one British submarine in the Mediterranean Sea at 2 p.m. ET, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.
They targeted Libyan air defense missile sites, early warning radar and key communications facilities around Tripoli, Misratah, and Surt, but no areas east of that or near Benghazi. Because of darkness over Libya, Gortney said it was too early to determine the strikes’ effectiveness.
tcc3–well said. They won’t “learn” though. All thoughtless dogma where after uttering the talking point of the day, all they expect is a “Yea, man!”
Thats a typical problem when your position is anything Obama does is wrong. After about 3 issues, hard not to create a conflict.
course, that doesn’t include lies, straw men, misquoting, and diversions, made up BS. JB demonstrates 3 of these by characterizing the coverage of Obama as being the soccer match. I saw it 1-2 times, Libya about 10, and Japan 4-5. I’m pretty sure though Obama is still half black.
Any puke?===What should Obama have done? They are afraid to answer not knowing whether he did it or not—calls for too much individual thinking and knowledge of the facts.
JB–prove you aren’t being thoughtless when you say: ““Obama, adeptly juggling a soccer ball, as his aides helped him juggle his agenda.” /// What is being spun? What is the truth? What should Obama have been doing instead? What should the Aides have been doing instead?
We’ll all wait while you phone home.
Oh Pedro–I don’t defend BushtheRetard except as collateral damage. I do think that the POTUS can perform his duties anywhere that he is “if” he can perform them at all. THAT means Obama can authorized military action while traveling in Brazil while not inconsistently BushtheRetard could not pronounce the word nuclear while clearing weeds.
Several issues are starting to irritate me though–the whining of the Dumbo’s, the misstatement that the Pres has to get the approval of Congress BEFORE going in, the emphasis that we aren’t at War as if words can mean whatever our elected carpetbaggers would like us to think for their various audiences, that we aren’t about killing Kdaffy asap.
War and killing is where we shouldn’t be so silly.
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death’s construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Yeah!
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait ’til their judgement day comes
Yeah!
Even a moran like Ozzie Osbourne can figure it out.
#135. “It doesn’t take clairvoyance to know what would have happened to those who wanted democracy in Libya if the UN didn’t intercede.”
Democracy? BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAH.
Thats so cute. Here’s a Milk Bone..now go lay down ….so cute!
Thomas and Alfie: you both overstate your case/issue/concern/facts as they are known now/the “intentional” aspects of this war.
1. Not all wars are bad–some are good like this one.
2. If you aren’t FOR the removal of kdaffy, then you are for the worst tyrants in history==why?
3. Before I forget again: another irritant: calling Libya “a sovereign contry.” while legally true, NO COUNTRY ruled by an unwanted military dictator should be considered “sovereign” in any way. They should not be treated as such in world economic relations and on and on. The UN is a place for “enemies” to meet in circumstances other than war, but that does not make evil regimes like kdafy “legitimate” in any but the most limited ways==eg, prohibition against assassination. The theory of the UN, world polity, needs to be worked on.
4. Just because we did not remove the tyrants in Darfur, Somalia, China, Russia, earlier in Bosnia, all thru South America a few decades ago, etc–doesn’t mean we shouldn’t for the various and multiple reasons that do exist, do it when we can/do and its justified. Recognizing the limits of our power from time to time does not make our actions hypocritical.
5. We are not selecting the next regime for Libya. Thats a confusing mix the outcome of which cannot be known, determined, and likely not even influenced.
Its realpolitik—the USA should ((but rarely if ever does)) act only/always in its own interests as they are perceived to be which confoundedly includes acting as a world leader/member of Nato and UN/good friend and ally.
We are FOR democracy–even if it is largely corrupted by taints we don’t agree with. If the taint is overwhelming, then by definition, its no longer a democracy. Fairly simple concept to understand.
If you are not FOR our action in Libya==you are a malignant fool. If we “stay” in Libya past the killing of Kdaffy, then we haven’t learned a thing in the past 20 years. I fear both statements are all too evidenced/likely.
I should add: We are AGAINST dictators, Kings, single party charades but recognize the same realpolitik in operation. to this end, we are also for “the truth.” Its a wonderful guiding principle directly in contradiction to the foundation and scaffolding of most of “diplomacy”–at least its public face. Wikileaks may become seen as the most influential development in forming World History of the early 21st Century–ie, like Facebook and Twitter, a fold and wrinkle of the internet and its unintended consequences. Manning should be pardoned on this basis alone.
We are all different and the same at the same time. Knowing which rule to apply while honoring the other is our challenge.
Ha, ha. Best TV talking head at the moment is Elliot Spitzer. Just ripped Ron Paul a new one and Ron Paul is totally non-cognizant. Like a samurai movie where the bad guy has been cut in half: 10 seconds before he falls apart.
Stupid LIEbertarians. The sludge in the cesspool of American political thinking.
War. Powers. Act.
Even if the asshats on the Right are correct in that the President must advise with them, he has three months to do so.
Then again, these are the same turd-chewers that frothed at the mouth to get us into Iraq.
The Right seems to think it is only good to use force to prop us dictators and other friendly regimes, or to put one into power. To actually help people achieve freedom, especially when it is inconvenient financially, is beyond their capacity.
163, Bobbo,
You seem to either be suffering from a comprehension problem or you’re putting blinders on. I was pretty clear in that Obama shouldn’t be playing games with kids as a PR photo op while we’re fighting in another country’s civil war.
Fascinating how you picture others when they reciprocate. Typical liberal double standards. 🙂
McGuyver–can you understand the difference between plus and minus? Positive and Negative? Action vs Inaction?
I have asked you 3-4 times what you would have OBAMA DO—–DO—–and you continue to respond with what he should not do. NOT do. As in: “Anything he does is wrong.” An idiot Obama Bashing Kneejerk naysayer UNTIL you offer a plausible alternative.
You are smart enough to think of something? Given your inability to even understand the direct request of you, I doubt you will actually come up with a positive action he should have done, more likely just a rephrasing of what he shouldn’t have done.
You got nothing. Do you really not see it?
Ha, ha.
Stoopid Human.
This is not a unilateral action.
http://nationalreview.com/corner/262725/president-reticent-stanley-kurtz
From the above link
It seems reasonable to conclude from his long-term relationship with Power that Obama shares her interest in making humanitarian military interventions more common. Yet the president has said little about this, and the obvious policy implications of his ties with Power are rarely drawn. In his biography of Obama, David Remnick describes the beginnings of the Power-Obama relationship thus: “Obama did not strike Power as a liberal interventionist or a Kissingerian realist or any other kind of ideological ‘ist’ except maybe a ‘consquentialist.’ In foreign policy, Obama said, he was for what worked.”
Here we have the classic protective presentation of Obama. The future president reads a book by a passionately ideological humanitarian interventionist and quickly hires her as his key foreign policy advisor. Yet the obvious ideological implications of this are left entirely unexplored. Instead we are quickly reassured that Obama is nothing but a pragmatist.
>of course the Pres “has the power.” You have confused the concept of power with the concept of a right or authorization. common mistake as are most of your notions.
It’s not my notion. This is from a professor of Constitutional Law. Perhaps you should read it again with that in mind.
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.
182, Bobbo,
Yup… it’s definitely a comprehension problem on your part. I answered your question. You just don’t like it because you want a proactive response on what I would rather have him doing to occupy his time.
You’re so partisan that you’re trying to make this into a Repub vs. Dem ideological rant.
If the guy really wants to demonstrate he’s really taking his job seriously as commander-in-chief, maybe he should be spending more time at the office and less time playing games?
Hasty conclusion. Are you so dumb that you need to have pointed out to you what presidents do? That you’re so sensitive over criticisms over how your messiah handles himself in the public that you demand an alternative?
Only an idiot would assume that something MUST be done in exchange for not doing something that is in bad taste.
Just because someone can easily point out something done in bad taste, does not mean that the person needs to provide something to be done in good taste.
You SEEM to be trying to turn this into a “now that you’ve identified the problem, what is the solution” situation. I gave you a solution. Just don’t do it. It’s THAT simple.
If you want me to give suggestions on what he should be doing as Commander-in-Chief other than playing soccer with some kids while we fight a foreign civil war, then you’re just being stupid. Don’t get so upset because your messiah is too dumb to realize his actions while conducting military actions are in bad taste. But hey, it could be worse… he could have been shoving a cigar into one of his interns at the office while giving orders for military action. 🙂
Bobbo, I haven’t seen a reasonable explanation as to the Constitutional arguments around the War Powers Act.
You seem to think maybe it authorizes the president to go to war. That makes no sense at all. Imagine Congress passing a law that the President can make laws in the public interest for 60 days.
Walter Dellinger’s article defending the actions in Libya say the text of the War Powers Act assumes the President has authority to make war on his own, and indeed it does.
That could be an argument in favor of WPA is unconstitutional, and idiotically so.
Mike–Regarding the Powers/Obama/Reticence issue you’ve done the best job of posting the link, posting what you think the relevant part of it is, and making your argument===but you aren’t ENGAGED with anyone on that particular subject. Who are you talking to? Remember: its ok to talk to yourself, but you should never argue.
Regarding the “definition” of power, you also do a good job there but by definition if you have done/ARE DOING something, how can you possible not have the power to do so? And so you/the scholar add “under the Constitution” but that is the very definition of a “right.” You see the definitional quagmire you have entered? All too much like McGuyver who also doesn’t get the linguistic foundation of rational thought.
McGuyver: you do puzzle me. Like Mikey–cool, calm, and collected never taking offense where many would. I respect that, it usually leads to deeper thinking than either of you regularly demonstrate. You think being shown playing the NATIONAL OBSESSION of Brazil with the local kiddies is “in Bad Taste.” What should he be doing? Teaching how to brush their teeth? That is why I ask for the alternative you would find tasteful. He is in Brazil to better relationships. Brazil is a culture based on catholicism (ie–lots of kiddies), soccer, and sugar cane. I can’t think of anything BETTER he could do to accomplish better relationships, that don’t cost the USA anything, than playing soccer. Well, raising the dead might impress them?
I have so very adroitly pointed out to you in two different ways: acting like Carter, all bound up and paralyzed by a single issue, makes one nothing but ineffective and TRAPPED/defined by your adversaries. Then I sharpened this recognition by directing your attention to the fact that there are GENERALS running Odyssey Dawn—WHAT DO YOU WANT OBAMA TO DO? “we” are not at war. Our Military is, the military in the Mediterranean more specifically. What do you want Obama TO DO???? Knit socks? Give Blood?
You are a nit picking, anything Obama does is wrong. In short, an idiot. I guess you think it would be more appropriate for the press to show him reading tactical reports and looking at maps? Is that the Hollywood drivel you accept as responsible leadership? Or would you then criticize Obama for “playing at war?” What does a Harvard Law Professor/Community Organizer think he can do except double guess the Generals?
Its one kind of stupid to be so out of the gate. Once your error and the correct position is repeatedly pointed out to you, then its not being stupid anymore. That, is being a tool.
Democrats are shouting for Obama to be impeached.
World leaders are demanding Obama give back his Nobel Peace Prize.
Hey Bamster… how’s that hope and change doing?
Obama tells Turkish Prime Minister the goal is to install a democratic system in Libya.
A question for Obama the neocon: How does one “install” a “democratic system” from 30,000 feet?
Mike–I have time before an appointment so I thought I would peruse your professors comments, but I don’t see a link or quote anywhere. Nothing to read again.
I have not argued the constitutionality of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Legal analysis is mostly irrelevant as it is DECIDED by the Supreme Court. There really is nothing to argue–just wait for that 5-4 decision with 4 written submissions for the definitive answer. Doesn’t matter what the logic or the words or the history or the sense of the issue is. The Supremes decide. Thats why I prefer more accessible issues like the pro’s and con’s of defeating tyrants. Supremes may mention that in passing, but its not binding.
Let’s see. Two by JB. Anything there?………….. No. Ha, ha.
Bobbo, Really what will the Supreme Court decide? Bring the soldiers home? Good luck with that.
>so I thought I would peruse your professors comments, but I don’t see a link or quote anywhere.
OK, I’ll do the reveal. The Constitutional Law professor who made these statements was Barack Obama in 2007.
Well Mickey, I’m confused. Who is Walter Dellinger then, and regardless, what did he or Obama ACTUALLY say? Was he questioned on the fine distinction between a power and a right?
Either you are confused as usual, or more likely, just caught on which lie you are currently spinning.
But bottom line, rather than misconflicting what other’s have said, do you have your own opinion on whether or not Obama should have taken us to war. and a bonus: while doing so, is it an impeachable offense that he played soccer with the kiddies in Brazil or will he later only roast in hell for that lack of taste?
The US (and UN) didn’t get involved when the Tunisian or Egyptian rebels were having a rough time. And the US didn’t nothing to help those in Bahrain, who have been largely defeated. But soon as things started getting bleak for the rebels in Libya, the UN decides that the US (and coalition) military forces will be useful in helping out. What changed? Well you’ve got to figure that big Oil is a factor.
But I’m thinking it’s not just because Libya has oil, and the other north African countries had much less. But also that the Japan crisis was threatening to bring the price of oil down, in the world market. And heating things up in Libya, war-wise, would turn that around and sent oil and gas prices back upward. Or at least keep them from dropping too fast, too soon. I mean, the US and UN didn’t care enough about the Libya dictator, to get rid of him, before now. But suddenly, they’re all hot to do it. And they may just end up doing what they did back in the 80s. Bomb a few Libyan strongholds. And then give up and go away. I don’t remember the price of gas shooting up, back then. So why does a little war in Libya, do that now?
They call it “Operation Odyssey Dawn”. Which is just word they chose to fit the two letter designation “O.D.”, and it really could be anything you want. Supposedly the two letters are randomly chosen by computer. But it’s a interesting pair of letters the just happen to come up with. Because they could also stand for Operation “Oil Demand”. Or “Outa Dictator”. Which makes more sense than “Odyssey Dawn”. What the hell does that even mean?!
The paragraphs from the Constitutional Law professor are statements by Barack Obama. Get it, Obama was a : UChicago, whatever the term is for lowest level professor, who teaugh classes on the Constituion.
Walter Dellinger is a former executive branch official, I think Office of Legal Counsel, who wrote an article defending the Libya action.
190, Bobbo,
Showing the President playing with kids isn’t normally a big deal… doing it when he’s launched a military campaign against a country in the middle of a civil war at the request of the U.N. is bothersome.
It simply doesn’t look good to the military troops taking his orders, to the American public, and to the International public. It’s a “Hey look at me! I have time to play soccer with kids while I’m dropping bombs over in Libya”.
Rather than doing dereliction of duty, he should be doing less photo ops and more of what people expect of him at times like this.
Hey we could talk about your apparent accidental gayness whereby you ask me what you should do to stop coming across as being gay.
I would say for you to STOP holding hands, STOP pulling puds, STOP playing the skin flute, STOP exploring the orifices of the same gender, or to STOP having the same gender explore your orifices… IF you don’t want to come across as being gay (regardless if you think about being gay 24/7)
But you would shout out loud that what I just stated did not address your concern of doing something about it. So what you’re looking for is a skin patch or an app (because that would be proactive). Even if you choose to remain gay because that’s all you can think about, you can at least conduct yourself in such a way that’s in “good taste”.
But sure, you can flaunt your gayness and exclaim that unless I can tell you to do something proactive about it, that you’re just as good attending a gay pride parade.
At the end of the day, I don’t care what Obama really thinks about the war. But if he wants the respect of those in the military who serve under him, then he should take his job more seriously. The military serves one purpose; to kill and to destroy. Playing soccer with kiddies for a photo op is really unbecoming of the position of commander-in-chief. I can think of a number of people who would conduct themselves in this manner, but none of them are historically good guys.
Do his job and don’t look like someone who looks like they take military action lightly by having a good time elsewhere. He should be at the office instead of looking for photo ops. If he wants to play on his game console at the office, then fine… but don’t do it in public.
And why does bettering our relationship with Brazil take precedence over doing a military campaign in Libya, a dismal economy, high unemployment, etc?
There’s a time and place for bettering our relationships with relatively insignificant countries. Yes, Brazil isn’t too terribly important right now. The man’s priorities are out of whack given our current state of affairs. He’s setting himself up as the guy who likes to have a good time when the country needs someone who takes things seriously.
And in 2012 his adversaries will ask the American people are you better off today than you were four years ago? Sounds like a Carter moment.
He can do whatever he wants that is unbecoming of a commander-in-chief in the privacy of his home / office. I don’t care. Military troops have a knack for not respecting their leaders who goof off in the middle of military campaigns. He should at least make himself look engaged.
Hasty conclusion. You’re just being politically dogmatic and demonstrating your knee jerk reaction.
Or not be in the presence of the press at all if he wants to have fun while he’s ordering military action. I really don’t care what he’s predisposed to do, but if it’s in bad taste he should have the common courtesy of doing it in the privacy of his home / office.
What a dope. You think the Generals have all the answers too? They have their advisers as well. They choose what to filter up and the decision comes down on what to do based on what is filtered up.
You’re just demonstrating how emotionally invested and compromised you are when someone calls a spade a spade. 🙂
184, Pedro,
He has a knack for tunnel vision. 🙂
Putting the “T” back in freedom…”T,” as in TYRANNY. Or maybe “S,” as in “SHUT UP SLAVE!!”
Guyver: we disagree completely. Now the only trick is to wait 2 or 6 years and see what you do to another Pres in the same situation. I guess going back in time showing Presidents doing all sorts or things in all sorts of situations proving the point that they are all the same because they are only human AND that your desired automaton behavior is totally unrealistic is not relevant?
You don understand while the military is involved in a very simple, low level activity the President of the USA is still POTUS for all his other activities?
Your “view” if honest, is entirely one dimensional in a multidimensional world.