The new war

President Obama explained America’s military involvement in Libya in a speech last night:

Defending the first war launched on his watch, President Barack Obama declared Monday night that the United States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the world’s conscience and “been a betrayal of who we are.” Yet he ruled out targeting Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake. Obama announced that NATO would take command over the entire Libya operation on Wednesday, keeping his pledge to get the U.S. out of the lead — but offering no estimate on when the conflict might end.

He never described the U.S.-led military campaign as a “war” and gave no details on its costs, but he offered an expansive case for why he believed it was in the national interest of the United States and allies to act.

In blunt terms, Obama said the U.S.-led response had stopped Gadhafi’s advances and halted a slaughter he warned could have shaken the stability of an entire region.

“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” Obama said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

From the Washington Post

Two of Victor Davis Hanson’s observations about our new war:

6) It’s Only Congress. Both Bushes went to the U.S. Congress before they bombed and invaded. Clinton and Obama did not. Is there a pattern here? The liberal War Powers Act is a good brake on conservative Strangloves, but a mere nuisance to humanitarian liberal McNamaras? We can argue over the need to get congressional approval before major military operations (I think we must), but I don’t think in my lifetime a U.S. president has ever asked for both a UN and Arab League OK — and not the sanction of the Congress of his own country (e.g., our reps were voted in, theirs were not). That paradox is also unsustainable. At some point the president will either 1) ignore the limitations of the UN and Arab League mandated no-fly-zones (while praising them to the skies); or 2) get so involved that when he finally goes to Congress, Libya is a fait accompli in the way Clinton finessed it during the Balkan bombing. (I am still waiting for Joe Biden to go to Congress to impeach his boss, as he once boasted twice that he would do if any president bombed a Middle East country without congressional approval. Or for that matter, I am still waiting for Senator Obama to demand that President Obama get approval from his peers before, not after, bombing.)

7) Oh, So that Was What Iraq Was About. Libya is now an exegesis of the Iraq War. By now we know that the Bush-Cheney “shredding” of the Constitution (e.g., tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, renditions, preventative detention, Predator drones, and Guantanamo Bay) was simply a liberal talking point. Why do we know that? Because Obama has either embraced or expanded all of those anti-terrorism protocols, and even hired the very lawyers and deans to legitimize them who used to sue the government to stop them. But Libya was the capstone of the entire liberal reset. When the MSNBC talking heads now support bombing an oil-producing Muslim Arab country that does not threaten our national security — without congressional approval, and with fewer allies than went with us to Afghanistan and Iraq — then we realize the entire Iraq hysteria was simply partisan politics, not about principles. That’s why we won’t see Rendition II at the movies, a return of Cindy Sheehan to network news, or Michael Moore in the VIP seats at the 2012 Democratic convention.

via Works and Days » President Obama’s Ten Libyan Paradoxes.

Supporters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you support the war in Libya also?  Opponents of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are you supporting this one, since it is Obama’s war rather than Bush’s war?  Those of you who support the humanitarian mission of this conflict, do you think the President has been following the right process, acting at the behest of the UN rather than Congress and turning over command to other countries?

And, finally, how do you think this will turn out?  A quick engagement, overthrowing Gadaffi and then we leave, having set Libya free?  Or will this turn into another quagmire?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I didn’t support our illegal war in Iraq, I don’t support our illegal war in Libya. However, this war is, in some ways, worse, for the simple fact that we have got no idea how our involvement will affect future relations with this nation…

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I didn’t support our illegal war in Iraq, I don’t support our illegal war in Libya. However, this war is, in some ways, worse, for the simple fact that we have got no idea how our involvement will affect future relations with this nation…

  • kerner

    I didn’t think that the war in Iraq was ilegal, and I don’t think the war with Libya is illegal. But my greatest concern is also one of John’s concerns (though maybe not his greatest one). I have no idea where this war is going, how it will (or even should) end or how we will relate to Libya when it’s over.

  • kerner

    I didn’t think that the war in Iraq was ilegal, and I don’t think the war with Libya is illegal. But my greatest concern is also one of John’s concerns (though maybe not his greatest one). I have no idea where this war is going, how it will (or even should) end or how we will relate to Libya when it’s over.

  • http://www.brandywinebooks.net Lars Walker

    I am reluctant to condemn the Libyan action, because I have to question whether, as a supporter of the Iraq war, my opinion may be driven more by partisanship than principle. However, I have no hesitancy in saying that I’m deeply concerned about the nature of the Libyan revolutionary movement, and whether we might be raising up another jihadist radical state.

  • http://www.brandywinebooks.net Lars Walker

    I am reluctant to condemn the Libyan action, because I have to question whether, as a supporter of the Iraq war, my opinion may be driven more by partisanship than principle. However, I have no hesitancy in saying that I’m deeply concerned about the nature of the Libyan revolutionary movement, and whether we might be raising up another jihadist radical state.

  • Dennis Peskey

    (Note to our Host: Libya is actually War #4 – Let us not forget Korea where the ceasefire continues.)
    Since I couldn’t squeeze into either your “supporter” or “opponent” categories, I declare a third possibility of “independent”. I suppose listing the “conflicts” would be the most efficient means of addressing the issue.
    LIBYA – Our President intervened to prevent a massive slaughter of civilians; he refuses to take action against the leader of this action. Not a good idea – chance of success (ad infinum) ZERO. I’ll bypass the constitutional obituary for other scholars to follow.
    IRAQ – Before anyone mounts their high horse for a full calvary charge, please answer me the following; “Why did the elder Bush, with full U.S. military presence less than ninety miles from Baghdad choose to declare a ceasefire thereby ending Desert Storm I?” I supported DS1; I concurred with President GHW Bush’s decision to terminate hostilities and permit Saddam Hussein to continue ruling Iraq. The second Bush demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension for mid-eastern politics. Where the father showed detail, the son sowed destruction. Where the father exercised restraint, the son built gallows. Where the father demonstrated wisdom in knowledge of the situation, the son has our troops still in Iraq after eights years and has removed the one moderating influence on Iran. Chance of success – forty percent at best.
    Afghanistan – We had our chance and politics triumphed over military tactics which inevitability leads to quagmire. We needed to attack Afghanistan shortly after 911. Bin-ladin was there and we had our shot. In the finest tradition of SoD Cheney, we arrived too little – too late. Where was Gen Curtis Lemay when needed; did Gen George Patton have no survivors; where’s Chesty? Instead, we’re cursed with tulip tripping Cheney who couldn’t punch his way out of a wet paper sack. Osama left Afghanistan – we have yet to depart. Final grade – “F” as in failure to accomplish.
    KOREA – How different would the world have been if Goldwater had defeated Johnson in 64? But, we elected the “peace” candidate and some 58 thousand war-dead later, we finally arrived at a ceasefire. Let’s not neglect Korea – I think the dumbbumb incharge may have acquired nuclear weapons. Final grade is incomplete.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    (Note to our Host: Libya is actually War #4 – Let us not forget Korea where the ceasefire continues.)
    Since I couldn’t squeeze into either your “supporter” or “opponent” categories, I declare a third possibility of “independent”. I suppose listing the “conflicts” would be the most efficient means of addressing the issue.
    LIBYA – Our President intervened to prevent a massive slaughter of civilians; he refuses to take action against the leader of this action. Not a good idea – chance of success (ad infinum) ZERO. I’ll bypass the constitutional obituary for other scholars to follow.
    IRAQ – Before anyone mounts their high horse for a full calvary charge, please answer me the following; “Why did the elder Bush, with full U.S. military presence less than ninety miles from Baghdad choose to declare a ceasefire thereby ending Desert Storm I?” I supported DS1; I concurred with President GHW Bush’s decision to terminate hostilities and permit Saddam Hussein to continue ruling Iraq. The second Bush demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension for mid-eastern politics. Where the father showed detail, the son sowed destruction. Where the father exercised restraint, the son built gallows. Where the father demonstrated wisdom in knowledge of the situation, the son has our troops still in Iraq after eights years and has removed the one moderating influence on Iran. Chance of success – forty percent at best.
    Afghanistan – We had our chance and politics triumphed over military tactics which inevitability leads to quagmire. We needed to attack Afghanistan shortly after 911. Bin-ladin was there and we had our shot. In the finest tradition of SoD Cheney, we arrived too little – too late. Where was Gen Curtis Lemay when needed; did Gen George Patton have no survivors; where’s Chesty? Instead, we’re cursed with tulip tripping Cheney who couldn’t punch his way out of a wet paper sack. Osama left Afghanistan – we have yet to depart. Final grade – “F” as in failure to accomplish.
    KOREA – How different would the world have been if Goldwater had defeated Johnson in 64? But, we elected the “peace” candidate and some 58 thousand war-dead later, we finally arrived at a ceasefire. Let’s not neglect Korea – I think the dumbbumb incharge may have acquired nuclear weapons. Final grade is incomplete.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Carl Vehse

    Reporting from Libya, NBC reporter, Jim Maceda gave his opinion about the effect Barry Soetoro’s speech had on Muammar Gaddafi:

    “I would think, it’s an educated guess but I would say that Gaddafi, after hearing that speech, of course it wasn’t on Libyan TV but anyone with satellite television could have watched it, that the regime now is feeling a lot better. That they’re feeling that they dodged a bullet. If NATO’s taking over, they like that. They’ve got much better relations with NATO than with the United States in general. And they love the idea that the US position as stated by Obama is that they’re not looking for regime change. Soon as he heard that, I’m sure Gaddafi was quite excited. He thinks he can probably negotiate his way out of this as he has over the past 41 years in other situations.” [emphasis added]

    It’s also being reported by the AP this morning that militias loyal to Gaddafi have attacked al Queda-linked rebels at Sirte and forced them into a retreat. The rebels are fighting now to avoid losing Bin Jawad as well.

  • Carl Vehse

    Reporting from Libya, NBC reporter, Jim Maceda gave his opinion about the effect Barry Soetoro’s speech had on Muammar Gaddafi:

    “I would think, it’s an educated guess but I would say that Gaddafi, after hearing that speech, of course it wasn’t on Libyan TV but anyone with satellite television could have watched it, that the regime now is feeling a lot better. That they’re feeling that they dodged a bullet. If NATO’s taking over, they like that. They’ve got much better relations with NATO than with the United States in general. And they love the idea that the US position as stated by Obama is that they’re not looking for regime change. Soon as he heard that, I’m sure Gaddafi was quite excited. He thinks he can probably negotiate his way out of this as he has over the past 41 years in other situations.” [emphasis added]

    It’s also being reported by the AP this morning that militias loyal to Gaddafi have attacked al Queda-linked rebels at Sirte and forced them into a retreat. The rebels are fighting now to avoid losing Bin Jawad as well.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Per what Carl says, if indeed Gaddhafi is fighting rebels associated with Al Qaida, please tell me exactly why a slaughter of these rebels is a bad thing?

    I know; it sounds REALLY cold, but hey; these are the guys training people to kill thousands of innocents by crashing airliners into civilian buildings. A massacre or two of them by people relatively more sane would do a world of good, I think.

    Never mind this; since when has the United States always stood up for people getting slaughtered? Tell that to dissidents from the former Soviet Union, China, Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, and a host of other countries. Libya is getting hammered because Dear Leader needs a publicity boost and their air force can’t stack up to cruise missiles, not because the slaughter would be so bad.

    (not that Gaddhafi doesn’t deserve a few cruise missiles coming his way, but please….let’s not jump from the frying pan into the fire!)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Per what Carl says, if indeed Gaddhafi is fighting rebels associated with Al Qaida, please tell me exactly why a slaughter of these rebels is a bad thing?

    I know; it sounds REALLY cold, but hey; these are the guys training people to kill thousands of innocents by crashing airliners into civilian buildings. A massacre or two of them by people relatively more sane would do a world of good, I think.

    Never mind this; since when has the United States always stood up for people getting slaughtered? Tell that to dissidents from the former Soviet Union, China, Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, and a host of other countries. Libya is getting hammered because Dear Leader needs a publicity boost and their air force can’t stack up to cruise missiles, not because the slaughter would be so bad.

    (not that Gaddhafi doesn’t deserve a few cruise missiles coming his way, but please….let’s not jump from the frying pan into the fire!)

  • http://www.Utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I think I just might be a hawk. I actually thought Obama should have gotten involved in Libya earlier than he did. I’m not sure that pardons him for being a hypocrite in the way he went about it, but I think we are doing the right thing.
    If Gaddhafi were only killing rebels, I might agree with Bike and Carl. But it was Gaddhafi who escalated a protest into a military action and targeted civilians. And that is why we are involved.
    As for who the rebels are, and where this is going to go? I tend to think getting involved in the Revolution helps us get a voice at the table to decide that very question.
    Some say they are playing us. Maybe. It is yet to be seen. on the other hand doing nothing leaves it totally up to them and Gaddhafi, and leaves us, Nato, and the rest of the world out for sure.
    Helping the rebels win at least helps us have the chance of forging a positive relationship with the country that rises from the ashes. It may even change the mind of the few Al Qaida who are fighting with the rebels. Or it just might be those guys who get played.

  • http://www.Utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I think I just might be a hawk. I actually thought Obama should have gotten involved in Libya earlier than he did. I’m not sure that pardons him for being a hypocrite in the way he went about it, but I think we are doing the right thing.
    If Gaddhafi were only killing rebels, I might agree with Bike and Carl. But it was Gaddhafi who escalated a protest into a military action and targeted civilians. And that is why we are involved.
    As for who the rebels are, and where this is going to go? I tend to think getting involved in the Revolution helps us get a voice at the table to decide that very question.
    Some say they are playing us. Maybe. It is yet to be seen. on the other hand doing nothing leaves it totally up to them and Gaddhafi, and leaves us, Nato, and the rest of the world out for sure.
    Helping the rebels win at least helps us have the chance of forging a positive relationship with the country that rises from the ashes. It may even change the mind of the few Al Qaida who are fighting with the rebels. Or it just might be those guys who get played.

  • Joe

    My biggest issue with this is that we have no national interest in this fight. As a Christian, I don’t want to see innocents slaughtered. As a matter of foreign policy, however, we can’t jump into every country where a dictator is abusing/killing his people – there are simply too many. We have to be judicious and go into countries only when we see a confluence of humanitarian need and self-interest.

    I believe that was present in Iraq. Dictator killing innocent civilians and brutalizing the population, friendly to (if not directly supporting) terror groups hostile to us, refusal to document the supposed destruction of his WMD as per the terms of the cease-fire, belief by just about every intelligence agency in the world that he was still pursuing WMD, and a big old oil field that we wanted to keep flowing.

    In Lybia, I see a dictator who is suppressing a rebellion with extreme force and killing innocents along with the rebels. That is terrible but where is the rest of the calculation? He already gave up his WMDs in response to our invasion of Iraq (strange way we are rewarding him for that – do you think anyone else with a weapons program thinks giving them up is a good idea now?). His oil was still flowing to Europe. Then there is the question as to who the rebels are. At least some of them are Al-Qaeda.

    I don’t think we can afford to be in Libya, the analysis doesn’t add up. In plain terms, we ain’t got no dog in that fight.

  • Joe

    My biggest issue with this is that we have no national interest in this fight. As a Christian, I don’t want to see innocents slaughtered. As a matter of foreign policy, however, we can’t jump into every country where a dictator is abusing/killing his people – there are simply too many. We have to be judicious and go into countries only when we see a confluence of humanitarian need and self-interest.

    I believe that was present in Iraq. Dictator killing innocent civilians and brutalizing the population, friendly to (if not directly supporting) terror groups hostile to us, refusal to document the supposed destruction of his WMD as per the terms of the cease-fire, belief by just about every intelligence agency in the world that he was still pursuing WMD, and a big old oil field that we wanted to keep flowing.

    In Lybia, I see a dictator who is suppressing a rebellion with extreme force and killing innocents along with the rebels. That is terrible but where is the rest of the calculation? He already gave up his WMDs in response to our invasion of Iraq (strange way we are rewarding him for that – do you think anyone else with a weapons program thinks giving them up is a good idea now?). His oil was still flowing to Europe. Then there is the question as to who the rebels are. At least some of them are Al-Qaeda.

    I don’t think we can afford to be in Libya, the analysis doesn’t add up. In plain terms, we ain’t got no dog in that fight.

  • Daniel Guagenti

    A war must be winnable to be just. I did not hear from the President how we plan to win this war. Rather, it seemed like he argued that we have done what we have done and we will hand things over and eventually it will be up to others to bring things to a proper conclusion. Did I hear him wrong? I am grappling with this, but my initial response is to be very uncomfortable with this explanation. Similarly, I was struck at how personally defensive the speech was. It was less, “This is why we have undertaken this as a country,” and more “This is why I’ve done what I’ve done (which is better than what my predecessor did).”

    If you buy Bob Woodward’s picture of the negotiations and planning President Obama did as he re-examined the Afghanistan strategy, sending troops without a conviction of possible victory is a repeated theme. As I understood Woodward’s reporting, the final political calculus in Afghanistan did not include the question of whether the war is winnable. The decision was made to send troops without the sense that victory was obtainable. And a just war must be winnable.

    I can’t say that I’ve made up my mind regarding support or opposition. Right now I’m very uncomfortable, and more so after the speech than before it.

  • Daniel Guagenti

    A war must be winnable to be just. I did not hear from the President how we plan to win this war. Rather, it seemed like he argued that we have done what we have done and we will hand things over and eventually it will be up to others to bring things to a proper conclusion. Did I hear him wrong? I am grappling with this, but my initial response is to be very uncomfortable with this explanation. Similarly, I was struck at how personally defensive the speech was. It was less, “This is why we have undertaken this as a country,” and more “This is why I’ve done what I’ve done (which is better than what my predecessor did).”

    If you buy Bob Woodward’s picture of the negotiations and planning President Obama did as he re-examined the Afghanistan strategy, sending troops without a conviction of possible victory is a repeated theme. As I understood Woodward’s reporting, the final political calculus in Afghanistan did not include the question of whether the war is winnable. The decision was made to send troops without the sense that victory was obtainable. And a just war must be winnable.

    I can’t say that I’ve made up my mind regarding support or opposition. Right now I’m very uncomfortable, and more so after the speech than before it.

  • Tom Hering

    The mission isn’t to remove Gaddafi, it’s to confuse Gaddafi. So, mission accomplished – but not without a lot of collateral confusion.

  • Tom Hering

    The mission isn’t to remove Gaddafi, it’s to confuse Gaddafi. So, mission accomplished – but not without a lot of collateral confusion.

  • Louis
  • Louis
  • DonS

    I’m with Joe @ 8. I still don’t understand, after hearing Obama’s speech, what our national interest is in this conflict, since we have specifically sworn off having anything to do with militarily removing Ghaddafi. Are we now obligated to enter into any conflict throughout the world where the government is killing civilians? Myanmar? China? Various African states? Why Libya, and not these other nations?

    I don’t think the war is illegal at this point. Once hostilities started, Obama had up to 60 days to consult with Congress. Some have argued that this provision of the War Powers Act doesn’t apply unless U.S. interests are urgently at stake, under the law, but that’s more or less a political question that will never be resolved. However, I do not like this increasing tendency to consult with and gain the approval of international agencies while ignoring our own legislature. If you have time to consult with the UN, and gain its approval and cooperation, you have time to consult with and gain the approval of Congress.

  • DonS

    I’m with Joe @ 8. I still don’t understand, after hearing Obama’s speech, what our national interest is in this conflict, since we have specifically sworn off having anything to do with militarily removing Ghaddafi. Are we now obligated to enter into any conflict throughout the world where the government is killing civilians? Myanmar? China? Various African states? Why Libya, and not these other nations?

    I don’t think the war is illegal at this point. Once hostilities started, Obama had up to 60 days to consult with Congress. Some have argued that this provision of the War Powers Act doesn’t apply unless U.S. interests are urgently at stake, under the law, but that’s more or less a political question that will never be resolved. However, I do not like this increasing tendency to consult with and gain the approval of international agencies while ignoring our own legislature. If you have time to consult with the UN, and gain its approval and cooperation, you have time to consult with and gain the approval of Congress.

  • Tom Hering

    Wasn’t Congress out? And couldn’t it have called itself back pronto? And why didn’t it? Just asking. :-)

  • Tom Hering

    Wasn’t Congress out? And couldn’t it have called itself back pronto? And why didn’t it? Just asking. :-)

  • Dennis Peskey

    Pastor Hering – Was your post#10 intended to be declarative or sarcastic? How could anyone manage to “confuse Gaddafi” beyond his level of insanity (unless you dealt with him as a normal human).
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Pastor Hering – Was your post#10 intended to be declarative or sarcastic? How could anyone manage to “confuse Gaddafi” beyond his level of insanity (unless you dealt with him as a normal human).
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • mark†

    Libyan rebel committing atrocities, http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/

  • mark†

    Libyan rebel committing atrocities, http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/

  • Tom Hering

    Dennis @ 14, I’m ordinary, not ordained. :-) As for my post @ 10, I’ll let you figure that out by repeating what I posted in another thread, right after the President’s speech last night.

    (1.) I’m uncomfortable with all of Obama’s talk about “freedom” and “fighting for freedom,” just as I was uncomfortable when Bush talked that way. Freedom-talk is the way our Presidents sell their wars to us. (2.) I’m left with the feeling that fighting three wars is fighting three wars too many.

  • Tom Hering

    Dennis @ 14, I’m ordinary, not ordained. :-) As for my post @ 10, I’ll let you figure that out by repeating what I posted in another thread, right after the President’s speech last night.

    (1.) I’m uncomfortable with all of Obama’s talk about “freedom” and “fighting for freedom,” just as I was uncomfortable when Bush talked that way. Freedom-talk is the way our Presidents sell their wars to us. (2.) I’m left with the feeling that fighting three wars is fighting three wars too many.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    We need to send speacial forces into Libya.

    Someone needs to fight their way to the Colonel’s tent and get the low-down on how to spell that SOB’s name.

    And what kind of a self-respeacting dictator only makes himself a ‘Colonel’? We ought to kick the kenesis out of him just for that.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    We need to send speacial forces into Libya.

    Someone needs to fight their way to the Colonel’s tent and get the low-down on how to spell that SOB’s name.

    And what kind of a self-respeacting dictator only makes himself a ‘Colonel’? We ought to kick the kenesis out of him just for that.

  • LAJ

    Did anyone hear about the Koran burning in Florida, and the subsequent violence against Christians in Pakistan?

  • LAJ

    Did anyone hear about the Koran burning in Florida, and the subsequent violence against Christians in Pakistan?

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    We ought to burn a Bible to show these wacky religionists that our God is a Living God, not trapped by blots of ink on a pages in a book.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    We ought to burn a Bible to show these wacky religionists that our God is a Living God, not trapped by blots of ink on a pages in a book.

  • steve

    So now we’re hearing that Obama may escalate US involvement (supplying opposition forces) because the opposition is still getting hammered. It’s a shame it always takes something like this for the new administration to learn the same lessons as the old administration. Again I will say, we’ve well seen what sticking our toes into a war will cost. There’s only one way to go into a war and that’s with the full intention to win.

  • steve

    So now we’re hearing that Obama may escalate US involvement (supplying opposition forces) because the opposition is still getting hammered. It’s a shame it always takes something like this for the new administration to learn the same lessons as the old administration. Again I will say, we’ve well seen what sticking our toes into a war will cost. There’s only one way to go into a war and that’s with the full intention to win.

  • Joe

    “And what kind of a self-respeacting dictator only makes himself a ‘Colonel’? We ought to kick the kenesis out of him just for that.”

    He actually earned the rank of Colonel before to overthrew the King in a bloodless military coup.

  • Joe

    “And what kind of a self-respeacting dictator only makes himself a ‘Colonel’? We ought to kick the kenesis out of him just for that.”

    He actually earned the rank of Colonel before to overthrew the King in a bloodless military coup.

  • Jonathan

    Why haven’t we intervened in eastern Africa all these years if our goal is to prevent slaughter of innocents, considering the genocide that’s been going on in that area, most of which is Muslims killing Christians? Are we going to go into Pakistan to prevent slaughter of innocents there, too?

    The only interest I can see in Libya that makes any difference is the oil connection. Why some, and not others?

  • Jonathan

    Why haven’t we intervened in eastern Africa all these years if our goal is to prevent slaughter of innocents, considering the genocide that’s been going on in that area, most of which is Muslims killing Christians? Are we going to go into Pakistan to prevent slaughter of innocents there, too?

    The only interest I can see in Libya that makes any difference is the oil connection. Why some, and not others?

  • Tom Hering

    One argument I’ve heard is that a Gaddafi victory would create a wave of refugees who’d end up in Europe, and Europe doesn’t want more immigrants. And we have to support Europe’s interests if we expect them to support ours.

  • Tom Hering

    One argument I’ve heard is that a Gaddafi victory would create a wave of refugees who’d end up in Europe, and Europe doesn’t want more immigrants. And we have to support Europe’s interests if we expect them to support ours.

  • Carl Vehse

    In his column, “When Dumb Wars Become Brilliant,” Peter Heck points out the eleven key statements Barry Soetoro made Monday night justifying his “kinetic military action” in Libya and compares them with Bush’s statements on his military actions in Iraq, which Barry had persistently derided as “dumb.”

  • Carl Vehse

    In his column, “When Dumb Wars Become Brilliant,” Peter Heck points out the eleven key statements Barry Soetoro made Monday night justifying his “kinetic military action” in Libya and compares them with Bush’s statements on his military actions in Iraq, which Barry had persistently derided as “dumb.”

  • Tom Hering

    Dumb and dumber? At least when it comes to justifying wars?

  • Tom Hering

    Dumb and dumber? At least when it comes to justifying wars?

  • Pingback: Michael Moore: “US Military needs a timeout.” | | Kevin's Random Rants

  • Pingback: Michael Moore: “US Military needs a timeout.” | | Kevin's Random Rants

  • Carl Vehse

    Oops. It seems the descriptive. “kinetic military action,” for Barry’s War is already passé.

    According to the NBC White House correspondent}, Savannah Guthrie (and who can be more trustworthy than an MSM clymerette?), our Dear Leader has issued a new title for the Libyan military situation.

    This should not be confused with a newurl{http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/19/the-most-craptastic-crap-sandwich-ever/”>similar title describing the the adminstration of Barry Soetoro and the Democrat Congress.

  • Carl Vehse

    Oops. It seems the descriptive. “kinetic military action,” for Barry’s War is already passé.

    According to the NBC White House correspondent}, Savannah Guthrie (and who can be more trustworthy than an MSM clymerette?), our Dear Leader has issued a new title for the Libyan military situation.

    This should not be confused with a newurl{http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/19/the-most-craptastic-crap-sandwich-ever/”>similar title describing the the adminstration of Barry Soetoro and the Democrat Congress.

  • Carl Vehse

    According to a not-so-secret Reuters report:

    WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:12pm EDT
    (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

    Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

    “…according to four U.S. government sources…”?!?

    Referring to Barry’s motto, WTF (“Win The Future”) ?!?

    Two days ago Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said that no decision has been made about supplying arms to Libyan rebels.

  • Carl Vehse

    According to a not-so-secret Reuters report:

    WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:12pm EDT
    (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

    Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

    “…according to four U.S. government sources…”?!?

    Referring to Barry’s motto, WTF (“Win The Future”) ?!?

    Two days ago Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said that no decision has been made about supplying arms to Libyan rebels.

  • Carl Vehse
  • Carl Vehse
  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “He actually earned the rank of Colonel before to overthrew the King in a bloodless military coup.”

    Thanks, Joe!

    But he is a dictator for cryin’ out loud. It’s about time he got a promotion!

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “He actually earned the rank of Colonel before to overthrew the King in a bloodless military coup.”

    Thanks, Joe!

    But he is a dictator for cryin’ out loud. It’s about time he got a promotion!

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Here is the criteria for a justifiable war:

    ‘D’.

    That is all that is necessary, after your name.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Here is the criteria for a justifiable war:

    ‘D’.

    That is all that is necessary, after your name.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X