Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Google "Obama weak on Libya" and see all the conservative press hounding Obama to intervene.

http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/critics-call-obamas-libya-response-weak/

The New Republic called the president out Friday for empty words.

“This ‘must’ denotes an order, or a permission, or an obligation, or a wish, or a will. It does not denote a plan. It includes no implication, no expectation, of action. It is the rhetoric of futility: this infection must stop, this blizzard must stop, this madness must stop…. Must the murder of his own people by this madman stop, Mr. President? Then stop it.”

^ New Republic calls on Obama to stop Ghadaffi.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/non_leader_of_the_free_world_ge9qm3qBkKl3Q10Zi35DhL

The UN Security Council voted last night to authorize a no-fly zone above Libya and approve "all necessary measures" to aid rebels being crushed by Moammar Khadafy's forces. The question now: Will it come too late?
How typical of US leadership -- Obama-style.

^ New York Post attacks Obama's leadership because he didn't aide rebels quick enough.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367952/Libya-Newt-Gingrich-bashes-Obamas-lack-leadership-We-look-weak-uncertain.html

Newt Gingrich has slammed Barack Obama for his lack of leadership over Libya as Western jets - led by France - bombed Muammar Gaddafi's forces today.
The former House Speaker, who is considering a presidential run in 2012, mocked Mr Obama yesterday for publicising his Final Four pics as Libyan rebels battled for their country.
He attacked the President for making America look 'weak and uncertain', and said former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would have been far more decisive.

^ Gingrich: Obama should have attacked Libya like Reagan did.

http://blogs4victory.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/why-is-obama-so-weak-on-libya/

Why is Obama so Weak on Libya?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/rubio_america_looks_weak_on_libya_and_russia_and_china_are_enjoying_it

Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) lashed out at the Obama administration's Libya policy on Thursday, saying that the United States looked weak and naïve in hoping that the U.N. Security Council would act to protect the Libyan people.

"The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor, it looks unwilling to act,"

^ Rubio: Obama should have acted.

Here, you had the ENTIRE Republican party and conservative media blasting Obama before the Libyan intervention for not attacking. Then, as soon as he did what THEY wanted, they turned on him, and on American troops, and cut funds. The Republicans in congress and the media were BAYING for a Libyan attack, but as soon as Obama committed forces, they betrayed the mission by not authorize the action THEY demanded.

Th ball was in their court, they wanted to have their cake and eat it, and gave Obama a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice. Honestly, demanding someone do an action, yet refusing to authorize it.

Total lying hypocritical scum-baggery.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Cut to today, with Libya.

Invade might be a bit strong winded there; with the exception of CIA (who are probably everywhere), did even a single american soldier set foot in Libya?

Soldiers=/=spies. The CIA is a civilian agency.

Since when is invasion defined by people setting foot on the ground? To the contrary, let's use Merriam Webster.

"to enter for conquest or plunder"

We conquered, as in, defeated, Libya.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Google "Obama weak on Libya" and see all the conservative press hounding Obama to intervene.

http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/critics-call-obamas-libya-response-weak/

The New Republic called the president out Friday for empty words.

“This ‘must’ denotes an order, or a permission, or an obligation, or a wish, or a will. It does not denote a plan. It includes no implication, no expectation, of action. It is the rhetoric of futility: this infection must stop, this blizzard must stop, this madness must stop…. Must the murder of his own people by this madman stop, Mr. President? Then stop it.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/non_leader_of_the_free_world_ge9qm3qBkKl3Q10Zi35DhL

The UN Security Council voted last night to authorize a no-fly zone above Libya and approve "all necessary measures" to aid rebels being crushed by Moammar Khadafy's forces. The question now: Will it come too late?
How typical of US leadership -- Obama-style.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367952/Libya-Newt-Gingrich-bashes-Obamas-lack-leadership-We-look-weak-uncertain.html

Newt Gingrich has slammed Barack Obama for his lack of leadership over Libya as Western jets - led by France - bombed Muammar Gaddafi's forces today.
The former House Speaker, who is considering a presidential run in 2012, mocked Mr Obama yesterday for publicising his Final Four pics as Libyan rebels battled for their country.
He attacked the President for making America look 'weak and uncertain', and said former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would have been far more decisive.

http://blogs4victory.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/why-is-obama-so-weak-on-libya/

Why is Obama so Weak on Libya?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/rubio_america_looks_weak_on_libya_and_russia_and_china_are_enjoying_it

Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) lashed out at the Obama administration's Libya policy on Thursday, saying that the United States looked weak and naïve in hoping that the U.N. Security Council would act to protect the Libyan people.

"The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor, it looks unwilling to act,"

Here, you had the ENTIRE Republican party and conservative media blasting Obama before the Libyan intervention for not attacking. Then, as soon as he did what THEY wanted, they turned on him, and on American troops, and cut funds. The Republicans in congress and the media were BAYING for a Libyan attack, but as soon as Obama committed forces, they betrayed the mission.

They never asked him to unilaterally attack without seeking congressional approval. It's assumed that when there are rules, rules will be followed. Obama has to ask Congress to attack Libya pursuant to Article 1 of the US Constitution, and he wasn't at the time. It is rare, and in fact, has never happened in the history of the country for Congress to declare war without the President seeking it and endorsing it. If Obama encouraged war, he could have gotten Democrats in Congress on board as well. Saying "the United States should act" does not mean "The President should violate the constitution"

Assume for the briefest moment, arguendo, that your allegation was true, all that proves is that your buddy Barack is weak and spineless, to break the rules which he swore to preserve, protect and defend so help him God at the opposite party's behest, and is therefore unfit to be president.

[Blargityblarg]

Cut to today, with Libya.

Invade might be a bit strong winded there; with the exception of CIA (who are probably everywhere), did even a single american soldier set foot in Libya?

Soldiers=/=spies. The CIA is a civilian agency.

Since when is invasion defined by people setting foot on the ground? To the contrary, let's use Merriam Webster.

"to enter for conquest or plunder"

We conquered, as in, defeated, Libya.

Uhm, no. That is not what that word means. If y'all conquered Libya, Libya would be owned by America.

[Eagle_eye]

...that part of the constitution is broken all the time. Vietnam wasn't a declared war, at least not initially. I think Korea may have started as an undeclared war as well, though I'm not sure. The Quasi-War with France is the first example.

[Reelya]

Dude, the Republicans were blasting Obama for not acting fast enough., yet THEY controlled Authorization. Obama naturally sought authorization, yet the same political forces criticizing his slowness in attacking chose to withhold that authorization.

And when he finally took the initiative THEY demanded, they slammed him for not getting their own stamp of approval.

[Lord Shonus]

Not only is there zero support that military intervention violated the Constitution, the War Powers Act specifically acknowledges that the president has the right to do so.

[Osmosis Jones]

-snip-

But... by that exact definition, Libya wasn't invaded! There sure as hell wasn't any plundering going on by armed forces belonging to ANY international force, and aiding a pre-existing rebel force that is more idealogically aligned with you, while a bit suspicious, is not conquest by any sane definition of the word.

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

[Urist_McDrowner]

-snip-

But... by that exact definition, Libya wasn't invaded! There sure as hell wasn't any plundering going on by armed forces belonging to ANY international force, and aiding a pre-existing rebel force that is more idealogically aligned with you, while a bit suspicious, is not conquest by any sane definition of the word.

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Hence the operative word "or".


I feel like you're using words you don't understand. If something isn't military, it isn't military. In fact, there's an exact word for something with military function and organization (the CIA does not have military organization, FYI) and isn't formal military. Paramilitary. Note, that the CIA has a paramilitary wing it is not of itself paramilitary.

[mainiac]

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Don't let the movies fool you, the vast majority of what the CIA does is information gathering.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Not only is there zero support that military intervention violated the Constitution, the War Powers Act specifically acknowledges that the president has the right to do so.

I hope you don't mean the War Powers Resolution Barack Obama violated?

The US intervention began in the Spring and ended in October. That's more than the 60 days allowed by the WPR.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Don't let the movies fool you, the vast majority of what the CIA does is information gathering.

Namely, putting holes in paper, not people. Pushing paper in the office, not guns in people's faces in exotic secret prisons.

[Heron TSG]

The US intervention began in the Spring and ended in October. That's more than the 60 days allowed by the WPR.

True, but according to Obama's report to congress at the end of the first 60 days, command had been transferred to NATO by that point.

[Osmosis Jones]

Hence the operative word "or".

Not conquest OR plunder.

:. Not invasion via the cited Merriam Webster definition.

Also, CIA may have civilian oversight, but they are trained in military grade weapons and tactics. They are civilian only in a funding sense; they are still combatants which work for the US government. It's far mor accurate to call them soldiers than to call the Libyan uprising a US invasion.

Don't let the movies fool you, the vast majority of what the CIA does is information gathering.

Namely, putting holes in paper, not people. Pushing paper in the office, not guns in people's faces in exotic secret prisons.

Yep, vast majority is information gathering and analysis, but also includes activities such as espionage, providing liasons/military training to sympathetic elements and spotting for drones/artillery/military insertion. Oh, and paramilitary wetwork.

Press reports served up in the wake of the bin Laden mission to the effect that special forces teams and their CIA paramilitary counterparts perform such feats on a daily basis only underscores the high quality of these units and their value to the nation.

I think it likely that there was at least a single CIA operative trained in field work in the country; local news papers here in Aus mentioned CIA acting as trainers and advisors to the Libyan rebels, and I cannot imagine them being sent without suitable training.

Finally, even if we do take CIA as civilian... that doesn't change my original point, as I used CIA as an exception.

Invade might be a bit strong winded there; with the exception of CIA (who are probably everywhere), did even a single american soldier set foot in Libya?

Oh hey, CIA aren't soldiers? Well then, that makes my point all the more pertinent.

Unless you really want to claim that the U.S. invaded a country
a) Without conquering it.
b) Without looting it.
c) Without any soldiers touching it.


Edited quote to clarify who that was directed at.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Not conquest OR plunder.

:. Not invasion via the cited Merriam Webster definition.

Erm, what? The aim was to conquer. Conquer, as it is mistakenly defined by laymen, does not actually mean "annex". It means "defeat". We employed our military force to defeat Qadaffi on his home turf in an offensive action. Invasion.

Conquer means "to overcome by force of arms."

Again, you're using words, and you don't know what they mean.