Michael Barone: The Damning Contradictions of Obama's Attack on Libya "Instead, members of Congress, like the general public, heard the president make the announcement in Rio de Janeiro. That's quite a contrast with George W. Bush, who sought and obtained congressional approval of military action in Afghanistan in September 2001 and Iraq in October 2002.
"Since then, many Democrats have denounced Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq. But military action there began a full five months after Congress approved. Obama didn't wait five days after the Security Council resolution."
Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart "Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.
"U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.
"But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.
From Blackfive: A new use of military force doctrine "Our leading from the rear President may have stumbled upon a decent compromise while attempting to Eurocratize the mission in Libya. Barry says no ground forces, period."
Row over role of Nato splits coalition forces
Navy chief: We don’t know what happens next in Libya war
Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy from STRATFOR : "In this case, the United States, France and Britain are intervening in favor of a poorly defined group of mutually hostile and suspicious tribes and factions that have failed to coalesce, at least so far, into a meaningful military force. The intervention may well succeed. The question is whether the outcome will create a morally superior nation. It is said that there can’t be anything worse than Gadhafi. But Gadhafi did not rule for 42 years because he was simply a dictator using force against innocents, but rather because he speaks to a real and powerful dimension of Libya."
Somehow all this brings this from May, 2009 to mind: Letterman writer: Obama 'too competent' to make jokes about Then Letterman writer, Bill Scheft: "It's not because he's black and it's not because we're afraid. It's just that he's, just so far, just a little too damn competent and we ain't used to that. [multiple panelists say "yeah."] .
"Since then, many Democrats have denounced Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq. But military action there began a full five months after Congress approved. Obama didn't wait five days after the Security Council resolution."
 |
| http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/lisabenson/2011/03/17/84271 |
Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart "Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.
"U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.
"But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.
From Blackfive: A new use of military force doctrine "Our leading from the rear President may have stumbled upon a decent compromise while attempting to Eurocratize the mission in Libya. Barry says no ground forces, period."
Row over role of Nato splits coalition forces
Navy chief: We don’t know what happens next in Libya war
Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy from STRATFOR : "In this case, the United States, France and Britain are intervening in favor of a poorly defined group of mutually hostile and suspicious tribes and factions that have failed to coalesce, at least so far, into a meaningful military force. The intervention may well succeed. The question is whether the outcome will create a morally superior nation. It is said that there can’t be anything worse than Gadhafi. But Gadhafi did not rule for 42 years because he was simply a dictator using force against innocents, but rather because he speaks to a real and powerful dimension of Libya."Somehow all this brings this from May, 2009 to mind: Letterman writer: Obama 'too competent' to make jokes about Then Letterman writer, Bill Scheft: "It's not because he's black and it's not because we're afraid. It's just that he's, just so far, just a little too damn competent and we ain't used to that. [multiple panelists say "yeah."] .
No comments:
Post a Comment