News and Political Blog
I am so confused! The Obama administration has taken the US into another war, this time striking Libya with air strikes to take out Kuadaffy’s military. This mission has been for supposedly humanitarian reasons, but why didn’t we get approval from the congress weeks in advance of this? Obama was able to gather together support from the Arab League, the UN with the appropriate votes, yet President Obama couldn’t consult openly with the congress? Why didn’t President Obama address the American people, even briefly, before the action was to take place? Every other president has done so. Every criticizism that President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton had of President Bush is now irrevalent, because they have not done what President Bush did do. That was get congressional approval.
During his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007, Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “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.”
Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any — any — use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”
Sec. of Defense Gates declared today that Libya was not a threat to the United States. This was a big contention with many of the leadership of the Administration, in criticizing President Bush, yet now they have taken us into a messy situation. They declare they aren’t going to remove Kuadaffey from power, yet it is the Administration’s policy, according to President Obama, to remove him from power!
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.
So according to both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, when they were running for election, they had a totally different story about how any President should get congressional approval for any military action. So far, I’m so confused by what the mission is exactly. President Obama has declared retreat and withdrawal of US forces, before they had barely begun to strike. It is such a weak position to take against enemies.
Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not got to Congress?”
“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”
“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-pose-threat-to-us-was-not-vital-national-interest-to-intervene.html
Here other another questions. Who are these rebels that the US are defending? Do we know anything about them? What about the Syrians? Syria has the same exact situation occuring in its streets that was and is occuring in Libya. Why not do an intervention there? Why is it OK to strike Libya but not Syria?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won’t enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya.
“No,” Clinton said, when asked on the CBS “Face the Nation” program if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities yesterday after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html
The coaliation that the President and Sec. of State Clinton put together, seem to be teetering. Almost immediately, the Arab League criticized the incursion into Libya, after initially agreeing for a No Fly Zone. NATO was going to be the ones who took over missions in Libya, yet they have not agreed to be the leaders just yet. They are just now going before their decision making body to decide. Germany has pulled all of its NATO troops out of NATO, because they are not happy about the confusing and irresponsible way this mission is being handled. President Obama said this mission would last days, for the United States, but it seems NATO is going to ramp up air strikes that will last for months. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nato_libya_3
I for one am so confused, I don’t know where to stand on the entire issue. I do believe it constitution, to ask for congressional authority to use military force, especially when a military action is being done that is not done to insure protection of the United States, with it being at great peril, say for example if we were attacked, and needed to counter attack immediately. President Bush had authority from Congress to use military to go into Afghanistan and Iraq both. But the way he was criticized by both President Obama and Sec of State Clinton, you would never think he did get approval. Now both Obama and Clinton have egg on their faces with this confusing, mismanaged, strange incursion into Libya.