Thomas Lindaman weighs in on Libya.
Guess what he does? He goes into his usual "Obama is not a leader" spiel. And again taking the talking points from the right-wing pundits.
For those of you just tuning in, this is what's been going on:
Obama: "We're meeting with allies discussing options, meanwhile we're moving assets into position to act."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Dithering!"
McCain: "Bomb them already!"
Then, a couple of days later...
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Obama is letting the rebels get crushed. He should have put up a no fly zone already."
Lindaman: "He's weak and indecisive!"
Obama: "The UN and I have a group of nations ready to act. We will be assisting them."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "We should be leading the way!"
McCain: "Why is he letting someone else run the show?"
Then, a couple of days later...
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "No exit strategy. It's too little too late."
Obama: "We've established a no fly zone, the rebels are advancing and we'll be handing it over to the allies."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Who are these rebels? Should we be helping them at all? Quadaffi was an okay guy. This was a huge mistake."
Staying out altogether and watching Quadaffi level Benghazi is not an option. Going in and removing Quadaffi by ourselves is not an option (to do so de-legitimizes the entire Libyan revolutionary movement).
For the right-wingers claiming there was no clear objective: I think "preventing a massacre of civilians and doing what we can to support their revolt without getting directly, disastrously involved" is a pretty clear objective. "Remove Quadaffi or do nothing" are not the only options. Have you considered that the objectives might be wider than Libya? Imagine if the US, the UN, and NATO had sat out and watched Quadaffi crush his revolt.
Congressional Republicans, first against the "unconstitutional" war in Libya, then concerned over too much US involvement, then against mission creep, now want US forces to take a more active role. Give them a break. Sometimes it's hard to pin down how to be opposed to what Obama's doing 100% of the time. Hey, Teabaggers! Obama wants to take away your right to point your pistol at yourself while cleaning it loaded!
The right-wing tards are realizing that Americans are failing them yet again, in not getting furious at Obama for going into Libya and then handing off control to NATO. So, now they're demanding that Obama do more, just because they need to complain about "something" that he's doing in Libya. You have to feel bad for the right-wingers, you really do.
Obama is well within the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. He doesn't have to withdraw until May 19, unless Congress approves before then. Our actions in Libya are pursuant to treaty obligations to the UN and NATO. International treaties made pursuant to the Constitution are equal in force to the Constitution (Article VI). Why do some Republicans want to violate the Constitution by preventing Obama from acting to fulfill our treaty obligations? Do Republicans hate the Constitution? The President doesn't need congressional authorization according to the War Powers Act, so he's fine here. Congressional support in this case is entirely political and is why it's probably good that the War Powers Act exists. This way the President can use our military in a more agile fashion and not have to worry about purely political stonewalling in congress.
Trying to compare Libya with Iraq is funny, too. The UN refused to authorize support for the Iraq invasion, and several of our allies refused to help us because of that. The UN asked us to participate in Libya. There have also been relatively low amounts of protests, compared to Iraq which created possibly the largest world wide simultaneous protests ever. And it passed the Security Council which should be all the international recognition you need. Bush's war is still considered illegal by many in the international community for this reason. Detractors can't say the same about Obama's, even if they disagree with it.
Most of the Republicans supported the no fly zone when they didn't think he'd do it. Then when he did it, they withdrew support. Then when he wound down our role, they said he should take a bigger role.
And if his incursion goes beyond 60 days and starts to look like a bad idea... then Congress will have to approve further funding. And I find it doubtful that Democrats will question everyone's patriotism in not funding this war, like the Republicans did with every military spending bill from 2003 onward.
I really liked how the right wing was screaming about how Obama was being a pussy and not doing anything in Libya... right up until we started bombing Libya. Then, all of the sudden, he was attacking another nation unconstitutionally and needed to be stopped.
It just seems weird to see the right-wingers suddenly join the anti-war crowd. It's a real conundrum. On the one hand, they would gladly destroy the entire nation to discredit the Captivating Kenyan, and on the other hand, their soldier fetish means they have to "support the troops" 100%. What's a bagger to do?
President Sarkozy really went above and beyond to get international light shed on this situation and garner support! Why, he even got the help of the US and the UK! Oh, and for you right-wingers attempting to say Obama pulled other nations into this: Obama didn't "get other nations involved"... it was the exact opposite. Just because we're the largest power, doesn't mean we are the instigator.
Bush: Made shit up, pushed us into a war without support from the region, from the UN or anyone else.
Obama: Has support from NATO, the UN, the Arab League, the regional powers and the Libyan people.
Bush: Unilateral military action, involving a bloody ground force occupation, costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of civilian lives.
Obama: Multilateral action, focusing on air power and naval strikes.
In short, this is how you should wage war if you're the USA.
I hope you retards in the GOP are paying attention.
Guess what he does? He goes into his usual "Obama is not a leader" spiel. And again taking the talking points from the right-wing pundits.
For those of you just tuning in, this is what's been going on:
Obama: "We're meeting with allies discussing options, meanwhile we're moving assets into position to act."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Dithering!"
McCain: "Bomb them already!"
Then, a couple of days later...
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Obama is letting the rebels get crushed. He should have put up a no fly zone already."
Lindaman: "He's weak and indecisive!"
Obama: "The UN and I have a group of nations ready to act. We will be assisting them."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "We should be leading the way!"
McCain: "Why is he letting someone else run the show?"
Then, a couple of days later...
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "No exit strategy. It's too little too late."
Obama: "We've established a no fly zone, the rebels are advancing and we'll be handing it over to the allies."
Republicans and Right-Wing Pundits: "Who are these rebels? Should we be helping them at all? Quadaffi was an okay guy. This was a huge mistake."
Staying out altogether and watching Quadaffi level Benghazi is not an option. Going in and removing Quadaffi by ourselves is not an option (to do so de-legitimizes the entire Libyan revolutionary movement).
For the right-wingers claiming there was no clear objective: I think "preventing a massacre of civilians and doing what we can to support their revolt without getting directly, disastrously involved" is a pretty clear objective. "Remove Quadaffi or do nothing" are not the only options. Have you considered that the objectives might be wider than Libya? Imagine if the US, the UN, and NATO had sat out and watched Quadaffi crush his revolt.
Congressional Republicans, first against the "unconstitutional" war in Libya, then concerned over too much US involvement, then against mission creep, now want US forces to take a more active role. Give them a break. Sometimes it's hard to pin down how to be opposed to what Obama's doing 100% of the time. Hey, Teabaggers! Obama wants to take away your right to point your pistol at yourself while cleaning it loaded!
The right-wing tards are realizing that Americans are failing them yet again, in not getting furious at Obama for going into Libya and then handing off control to NATO. So, now they're demanding that Obama do more, just because they need to complain about "something" that he's doing in Libya. You have to feel bad for the right-wingers, you really do.
Obama is well within the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. He doesn't have to withdraw until May 19, unless Congress approves before then. Our actions in Libya are pursuant to treaty obligations to the UN and NATO. International treaties made pursuant to the Constitution are equal in force to the Constitution (Article VI). Why do some Republicans want to violate the Constitution by preventing Obama from acting to fulfill our treaty obligations? Do Republicans hate the Constitution? The President doesn't need congressional authorization according to the War Powers Act, so he's fine here. Congressional support in this case is entirely political and is why it's probably good that the War Powers Act exists. This way the President can use our military in a more agile fashion and not have to worry about purely political stonewalling in congress.
Trying to compare Libya with Iraq is funny, too. The UN refused to authorize support for the Iraq invasion, and several of our allies refused to help us because of that. The UN asked us to participate in Libya. There have also been relatively low amounts of protests, compared to Iraq which created possibly the largest world wide simultaneous protests ever. And it passed the Security Council which should be all the international recognition you need. Bush's war is still considered illegal by many in the international community for this reason. Detractors can't say the same about Obama's, even if they disagree with it.
Most of the Republicans supported the no fly zone when they didn't think he'd do it. Then when he did it, they withdrew support. Then when he wound down our role, they said he should take a bigger role.
And if his incursion goes beyond 60 days and starts to look like a bad idea... then Congress will have to approve further funding. And I find it doubtful that Democrats will question everyone's patriotism in not funding this war, like the Republicans did with every military spending bill from 2003 onward.
I really liked how the right wing was screaming about how Obama was being a pussy and not doing anything in Libya... right up until we started bombing Libya. Then, all of the sudden, he was attacking another nation unconstitutionally and needed to be stopped.
It just seems weird to see the right-wingers suddenly join the anti-war crowd. It's a real conundrum. On the one hand, they would gladly destroy the entire nation to discredit the Captivating Kenyan, and on the other hand, their soldier fetish means they have to "support the troops" 100%. What's a bagger to do?
President Sarkozy really went above and beyond to get international light shed on this situation and garner support! Why, he even got the help of the US and the UK! Oh, and for you right-wingers attempting to say Obama pulled other nations into this: Obama didn't "get other nations involved"... it was the exact opposite. Just because we're the largest power, doesn't mean we are the instigator.
Bush: Made shit up, pushed us into a war without support from the region, from the UN or anyone else.
Obama: Has support from NATO, the UN, the Arab League, the regional powers and the Libyan people.
Bush: Unilateral military action, involving a bloody ground force occupation, costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of civilian lives.
Obama: Multilateral action, focusing on air power and naval strikes.
In short, this is how you should wage war if you're the USA.
I hope you retards in the GOP are paying attention.