Rubio to State Dep’t spokesman: Why did we wait for the UN to act against Qaddafi? Update: Congress briefed on war plans

posted at 8:54 pm on March 17, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via the Right Scoop, I’d be miiiighty curious to see some new polling on what tea partiers think of his defense of unilateral interventionism for chiefly humanitarian reasons. Not all TPers are Paulian isolationists, and I’ll bet most fully support unilateral action when it’s in America’s interests, but a movement devoted to cutting spending can’t be uniformly thrilled with another “world policeman” excursion. And yet here’s one of the base’s two or three most favorite senators passionately making the case in favor. I guess Politico was right that neoconservatism is still on top.

“The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor,” said Rubio. “It looks unwilling, and maybe even unable, to act in this capacity….What are we going to do if there’s a bloodbath after this? The president of the United States has specifically said Qaddafi must go, but has done nothing since saying that, except have internal debates about it for a week-and-a half or two.”…

“So our message to the dissidents,” Rubio said, “the people with the bravery to stand up to Muammar Qaddafi, and then the people maybe thinking to stand up to the Iranian regime, and in other places, our message is: ‘You guys go ahead and do this stuff, and if we can ever get the Russians or the Chinese to ever come around, we may or may not join you’?

“Russia and China don’t care about this stuff,” Rubio continued. “They don’t care that Muammar Qaddafi is going to massacre people. So if Russia doesn’t care, and China doesn’t care, and we care but won’t do anything about it, who is it up to – the French?”

I can’t tell if he’s arguing that NATO should act on this and not bother with the Security Council or if he thinks we should act alone, even without help from NATO or a “coalition of the willing.” Presumably it’s the latter, per his crack about the French, which makes this an ultra-unilateralist argument. Is that what the public wants? Here’s some new polling just across from Fox News — and it even has tea party numbers:

The question’s imprecise. The public is surely more likely to back an air campaign than a “military” campaign, which implies all sorts of assets, including ground troops. But the result’s still interesting: The tea party is the single most supportive demographic of “military” action, yet even they’re at net -15. Can’t wait to see how this issue ends up playing in the primaries, especially if the war in Libya drags on and/or the new rebel government lurches towards ye olde reliable anti-American demagoguery.

Exit question: Is Obama planning to ask Congress for an Authorization to Use Military Force? If not, why not? There’ll be plenty of votes available from Republican hawks, and Democrats won’t undermine The One at a critical moment. Besides, they can always repudiate their votes later if things get messy. After all, they’ve had plenty of practice.

Update: I wondered in this afternoon’s post whether Tunisia or Egypt would help police the no-fly zone. Answer: No. But:

Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington’s knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said…

The Egyptian shipments are the strongest indication to date that some Arab countries are heeding Western calls to take a lead in efforts to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy rebels in their fight against Mr. Gadhafi in Libya. Washington and other Western countries have long voiced frustration with Arab states’ unwillingness to help resolve crises in their own region, even as they criticized Western powers for attempting to do so.

Update: Not just a no-fly zone, but a no-drive zone.

Several senators emerged from the briefing convinced that the administration was intent on beginning military action against the forces of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi within the next few days and that such action would include both a no-fly zone as well as a “no-drive zone” to prevent Qaddafi from crushing the rebel forces, especially those now concentrated in Benghazi.

“It looks like we have Arab countries ready to participate in a no-fly and no-drive endeavor,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters after the briefing…

Asked exactly what the first wave of attacks would look like, Graham said, “We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces.”

Update: Middle East analyst and former Army Ranger Andrew Exum wonders where we go from here:

What happens if Gadhafi pulls back? Do we continue to try and press the advantage of the rebels until his government falls? Do we have the authorization to do that? Do we expect a civil war in Libya to drag out, and if so, how will we take sides? If Gadhafi falls, what comes next? What will the new Libyan government look like? Will they be friendly to U.S. interests? Someone please tell me how this ends.

A lot of the things I have been reading have been along the lines of, “After the dictator falls, everything will be alright,” which sounds awfully familiar to Iraq ’03 veterans. I would hope that this time around, we are planning Phase IV and have a clear vision for how stabilization and reconstruction should go.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Besides, they can always repudiate their votes later if things get messy. After all, they’ve had plenty of practice.

heh! nice slap. Oh, BTW…it’s r-e-f-u-d-i-a-t-e….

ted c on March 17, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Here’s the thing, though:

This was going to happen. The UN was going to pass the resolution. It was a done deal. And we were going to take part. Also a done deal.

That being known, why did the U.S. continue to look weak by seeming to be in the shadow of other nations?

amerpundit on March 17, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Bravo to the UK!

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Any chance to bomb them back into the stone age and NOT hang around to rebuild is fine by me. But, I’m not a Tea Party member, just a conservative. Not a neo conservative.

C o n s e r v a t i v e.

doufree on March 17, 2011 at 9:01 PM

First Obama does make the US look weak because he is weak and vacillating. Libya is easy and Colonel Daffy has already earned a bullet for his part in Pan AM 103.

Second, why should we care if we don’t have a reasonable national interest involved?

There are lots of sad stories out there and unless we want to be involved in occupying a lot of real estate we are going to have to pick and choose which fights are worth it, and decide which ones are not.

sharrukin on March 17, 2011 at 9:01 PM

The president of the United States has specifically said Qaddafi must go, but has done nothing since saying that, except have internal debates about it for a week-and-a half or two.”…

Which makes it even worse that he did nothing afterwards. Bad enough if he did nothing at all, no statements, no action. It could be interpreted as a “we’re not the world policemen anymore” stance.

To go out of his way to make a statement saying Qaddafi must go, but then do nothing is significantly worse. He can’t pretend to be neutral, and he did nothing to acheive the end he is publically championing.

If Qaddafi remains, he has not only won, but now has full knowledge that the US wants him out. (Not that he wouldn’t have suspected it, but now there isn’t even a fig leaf to wear on the subject)

A solid B+ as usual.

DrAllecon on March 17, 2011 at 9:01 PM

If we were drilling here, drilling now we’d wouldn’t have to care what happens in those sand trap countries.

SouthernGent on March 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM

State Dep’t spokesman to Rubio: “Because our President was not finished with the back nine”

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:05 PM

I’ve seen some stuff (here for example http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-usa-idUSTRE72A6EC20110318) that seems to suggest that in the end the US will be doing the heavy lifting… so, yeah, why do we need the UN?

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM

If we were drilling here, drilling now we’d wouldn’t have to care what happens in those sand trap countries.

SouthernGent on March 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Deserves repeating!

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Qaddafi is responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. It doesn’t take a neoconservative to realize justice is long overdue in this instance. We don’t have to take out every murderous dictator everywhere, but there is a moral necessity in taking out those with American blood on their hands.

troyriser_gopftw on March 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Because the Bullying Conference, his Golf game, Motown and all the rest of the WH banquets, the phony award he got yesterday, and packing for Brazil came first.

kingsjester on March 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM

So, if the U.S. gets fully engaged here, will Obama cancel his Rio trip?

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Rubio to State Dep’t spokesman: Why did we wait for the UN to act against Qaddafi?

Because our current president couldn’t care less about what’s going on over there one way or another?

The other answer would be because it’s none of our damn business.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 17, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Qaddafi is responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. It doesn’t take a neoconservative to realize justice is long overdue in this instance. We don’t have to take out every murderous dictator everywhere, but there is a moral necessity in taking out those with American blood on their hands.

troyriser_gopftw on March 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Then why not sooner?

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:11 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM

So we should be starting wars with Iran and NoKo as well, right?

MJBrutus on March 17, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Then why not sooner?

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:11 PM

A good question. It should have been done sooner, but do you think there should be a statute of limitations on murdering Americans?

sharrukin on March 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Our dear reader is NOT a leader.

tarpon on March 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM

The USA can still be a leader without being the sole nation of the willing. But it would cut into golf time and beer making.

pedestrian on March 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM

American Prestige, please exit stage left…

mjbrooks3 on March 17, 2011 at 9:15 PM

It’s either a good idea to intervene or not. But as a wise 900 year old Jedi once taught me:

“Do, or do not. Or you can even try. But there is no Waffle.”

RINO in Name Only on March 17, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Maybe I can have it all…..

Hillary/Rubio ’16

Hey, a girl can dream :0)

ginaswo on March 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM

O.T. Did Obama really condition our aid offer?

Nuclear Problem In Japan: Is Obama Partly Responsible?

flyfisher on March 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM

A good question. It should have been done sooner, but do you think there should be a statute of limitations on murdering Americans?

sharrukin on March 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Nope

I’m just hoping for some quick, cheap justice.

If it’s about killing anti-American terrorists, there are cheaper ways than a NFZ that is designed to help some questionable rebels.

I do not believe that the current actions taken by our gov’t against Libya have anything to do with the killing of innocent Americans.

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM

If we were drilling here, drilling now we’d wouldn’t have to care what happens in those sand trap countries.

SouthernGent on March 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Deserves repeating!

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Over and over again……….

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM

I’m just hoping for some quick, cheap justice.

Three letters, starts with a C and end with an A.

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:20 PM

I’m just hoping for some quick, cheap justice.

Same here.

If it’s about killing anti-American terrorists, there are cheaper ways than a NFZ that is designed to help some questionable rebels.

I do not believe that the current actions taken by our gov’t against Libya have anything to do with the killing of innocent Americans.

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Well we also know its about the oil. Thats not a crime and it helps our economy so I don’t have a big problem with it.

I also hope we get a look around to secure any gas or other nasty goodies he claims to have gotten rid of.

As for Obama’s motives, I assume they are always suspect.

sharrukin on March 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM

I’d be miiiighty curious to see some new polling on what tea partiers think of his defense of unilateral interventionism for chiefly humanitarian reasons

If you use vocabulary like that, Mr. Thinks-He’s-Bill-Buckley, you’ll get only responses like this:

What you talkin’ bout, Willis?

turfmann on March 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Three letters, starts with a C and end with an A.

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:20 PM

That’s one way.

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:23 PM

I’d classify myself as a tea partier/libertarian and I say Rubio’s right. Why the hell are we asking permission to do anything from the UN or anybody else for that matter? I’d say that question is more important than whether or not the action we take is in our best interest.

hogfat on March 17, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Wow Allah. Charts, graphs, polls? Over a generic opening statement by Rubio?

Geez. I can sum up Rubio’s intent with just 3 words:

AMERICA MUST LEAD.

David2.0 on March 17, 2011 at 9:25 PM

If Obama waits until the U.N. Security Council says it’s OK he’s got cover, and doesn’t have to take responsibility if things go wrong (though if they do, the liberal angst will be fascinating to watch, as they’re torn between their longstanding belief that the U.N. is the answer to every world problem, and going along with Barack Obama throwing the entire Security Council under the bus to salvage his own reputation…).

jon1979 on March 17, 2011 at 9:25 PM

I thought the Fox poll was kind of strange..on one hand only 43% like the way Obama has handled things thus far…but only 25% want military action…but then again a CNN poll came out a couple of days ago that stated 56% supported a no fly zone over Libya.

Of course Obama complicated things by saying Gaddafi has to go and then not doing anything about it. That just makes us look weak and people do not like that either.

I don’t know if this no fly zone will do any good or not and I don’t know what the future will bring…however, I do know that oil is back up over$100 a barrel and all of this chaos is not helping. Add to that the fact that Gaddafi is terrorist passing himself off as a head of state. He already has the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands and in the past he had a nuke program and chemical weapons. He gave up his wmd because of the Iraq war..if he survives this he will be more dangerous than he has been in years and he has sons who will carry on his regime.

I don’t know, there are not any good answers but it just seems wrong to stand back and watch while this madman uses mercenaries Russian air craft to kill his own people.

Terrye on March 17, 2011 at 9:26 PM

I’m firmly in the “It’s too damn late to intervene” crowd…

ninjapirate on March 17, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Well we also know its about the oil. Thats not a crime and it helps our economy so I don’t have a big problem with it.

sharrukin on March 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM

Oh, it’s not a crime but

1) We could ramp up domestic production – a lot cheaper.
2) While ultimately more oil will be in supply, I really hope the US doesn’t carry the brunt of the costs. The Europeans will most certainly be benefiting from this too.
3) Like I’ve said, there are cheaper, quicker ways to getting the oil than having the US enforce a NFZ.

At this point, I’m hoping this action isn’t a huge net loss.

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Sorry, but I don’t think we have any damn business butting in at all.

changer1701 on March 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM

I’m firmly in the “It’s too damn late to intervene” crowd…

Actually, I’m in the assassinate Qaddafi for lockerbie crowd now… and whatever happens after that happens.

ninjapirate on March 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM

If we were drilling here, drilling now we’d wouldn’t have to care what happens in those sand trap countries.

SouthernGent on March 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Deserves repeating!

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Quite right!

bluemarlin on March 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM

So do we have some solid numbers on how much this will cost us and how many troops are going to be involved?

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

So, if the U.S. gets fully engaged here, will Obama cancel his Rio trip?

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM

The Rio trip wasn’t a sick joke? I honestly thought I misheard Beck when he mentioned it this morning.

Bee on March 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Pan Am 103

unclesmrgol on March 17, 2011 at 9:34 PM

The Rio trip wasn’t a sick joke? I honestly thought I misheard Beck when he mentioned it this morning.

Bee on March 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Not a joke. He’s going on a vacation to Rio this weekend.

amerpundit on March 17, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Then what, Kaddafi’s air force is grounded and the two sides end up in a stare down while we police the skies for a decade?

Kill him or let them duke it out.

Bishop on March 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Hopey the Fence Post Turtle……………….

waiting……waiting……for the UN….waiting…
for the EU….waiting…Kicking the Can….waiting
for the Arab League….waiting….for the UN……
waiting for the French…..finally…waiting for a
UN RESOLUTION….Kicking the Can….waiting for the
Vote in the UN…..FINALLY…UN RESOLUTION OF NO-FLY
ZONE….Kicking the Can…NOW LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVES CAN
LIVE WITH THEIR GUILT RIDDEN SELVES,NOW THAT THEY HAVE
INTERNATIONAL “CONSENSUS”!!!!

WHATS NEXT…..Obama waiting for NATO……..

TEAM SOCIAL JUSTICE HUMAN RIGHTS BLEEDING HEARTS…

KICKING THE BLOODY CAN DOWN AND THROUGH LIBYIAN STREETS!

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Bee on March 17, 2011 at 9:32 PM

No joke.

kingsjester on March 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM

1) We could ramp up domestic production – a lot cheaper.
MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Once we can get drilling going and production online I agree with you but that will take some time. One problem here is that most, if not all, Italian refineries are built to run specifically on libyan crude. If they cannot get that, the best alternative is the West African crudes which they would have to go and start bidding against the current regular buyers which will raise prices. That will in turn send the losers of that to go bid for the next best alternative which is the Saudi Arab Light oil which will spark more of a bidding war between those bidders. Short term we are still screwed on oil prices I fear. We only get about 10-15% from the Arabian Gulf but we are still highly affected by the price swings. Canada is our biggest supplier at the moment with Mexico and Venezuela behind them I believe.

bluemarlin on March 17, 2011 at 9:39 PM

Why did we wait for the UN to act against Qaddafi?

We wouldn’t need to ask this question if we had a leader instead of someone who is just along for the ride.

I think its too late to get in the game now, Qaddafi has just about got it wrapped up now….another missed opportunity.

Smart Power

tommer74 on March 17, 2011 at 9:42 PM

“We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces.”

it’s gonna be a cakewalk.

sesquipedalian on March 17, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Btw,Rubio has his priorities,and Morals Compass straight
and narrow and true!!

Team Republicans will always HAVE,AND WILL OWN,THE MORAL
HIGH GROUND!!

LIBERALS WILL ALWAYS BED DOWN WUTH DICTATORS/THUGS!!

And,why is that….THEY(Liberals)ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

That is why,OBAMA IS SO PARALYZED!!!!

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Once we can get drilling going and production online I agree with you but that will take some time. One problem here is that most, if not all, Italian refineries are built to run specifically on libyan crude. If they cannot get that, the best alternative is the West African crudes which they would have to go and start bidding against the current regular buyers which will raise prices. That will in turn send the losers of that to go bid for the next best alternative which is the Saudi Arab Light oil which will spark more of a bidding war between those bidders. Short term we are still screwed on oil prices I fear. We only get about 10-15% from the Arabian Gulf but we are still highly affected by the price swings. Canada is our biggest supplier at the moment with Mexico and Venezuela behind them I believe.

bluemarlin on March 17, 2011 at 9:39 PM

True and good points. I guess I was just thinking that the US government would have to invest little to no money for domestic drilling whereas they will have to fund this NFZ that does not promise to quickly open the Libyan oil lines.

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Winning The Future? SUSFU

ElectricPhase on March 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Even though the Clinton administration had called for a regime change in Iraq based on Hussein’s murderous thugs poisoning his own people, (and world-wide consensus that Hussein was developing WMDs), Clinton did nothing, but Bush did.

Now, Obama will wait until Ka-daffy murders thousands of his own people and the liberals on the left will say, “it’s not our business”, and Obama will say, “Kaddafi must go”, and many will die. Leadership? What would JFK have done?

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM

This is the kind of war that Liberals love. We have no interests of our own at stake. We’re putting our men in harm’s way purely for humanitarian reasons. It’s PBHO’s mini Kosovo.

MJBrutus on March 17, 2011 at 9:44 PM

I think BAms has been dithering because he wanted it to be resolved BEFORE

PattyJ on March 17, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Update: Not just a no-fly zone, but a no-drive zone.

Which, coincidentally, is exactly what Obama wants for the United States as well. No word on whether he’ll allow Libya high-speed rail.

Fabozz on March 17, 2011 at 9:44 PM

oops

…before he had to ask for authorization from Congress. How would a war authoriation look for President Present, the Light Worker Peace Man?

PattyJ on March 17, 2011 at 9:45 PM

““The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor,” said Rubio.”

Weeellllll…

Let’s see if we can find out what the problem is. Let us start at the top.

Who is the Commander in Chief?

(crickets pack for vacation)

Seven Percent Solution on March 17, 2011 at 9:47 PM

it’s gonna be a cakewalk.

sesquipedalian on March 17, 2011 at 9:42 PM

sesquipedalian:

Not,if Obama,who doesn’t even have experience as a girl
guide,tries to play Armchair General,with zero Military
Experience,only 2 years as a Community Organizational Sh*t-Distruber,and attempts to run the Operation form the 8th hole,or basketball court!!!(sarc).

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Someone please tell me how this ends.

Yes, please. And while you’re at it, tell me how Afghanistan and Iraq end, too. How many endless no-win wars are too many?

Bugler on March 17, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Weeellllll…

Let’s see if we can find out what the problem is. Let us start at the top.

Who is the Commander in Chief?

(crickets pack for vacation)

Seven Percent Solution on March 17, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Seven Percent Solution:It is safe to say…NONE,I wish
the Cin C was MIA,or AWAL,but at
this point,he doesn’t exist!!:)

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM

amerpundit on March 17, 2011 at 9:35 PM

kingsjester on March 17, 2011 at 9:38 PM

…………………wow.

How mind-numbingly obtuse.

Bee on March 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM

I’m just hoping for some quick, cheap justice.
Three letters, starts with a C and end with an A.

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Sheriff Joe says the middle letter must be “R” for the Community Reinvestment Act & he agrees with you.

batterup on March 17, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Bee on March 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM

It does sort of leave one numb from the tone-deafness, doesn’t it?

kingsjester on March 17, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Bee on March 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You feelin’ me, catch my drift, or am I being obtuse?

Bishop on March 17, 2011 at 9:53 PM

60 rounds of f()cking golf in two years.

carbon_footprint on March 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Didnt Rush just ask a couple of days ago===Why doesnt Rubio run for POTUS…….

Now all of a sudden he throws himself in the spotlight with a slam on Obama…….

thinking about it???

sbark on March 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM

carbon_footprint on March 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Last weekend was number 61.

kingsjester on March 17, 2011 at 9:55 PM

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM

This is the kind of war that Liberals love. We have no interests of our own at stake. We’re putting our men in harm’s way purely for humanitarian reasons. It’s PBHO’s mini Kosovo.

MJBrutus on March 17, 2011 at 9:44 PM

MJBrutus:The mini-Kosovo sounds accurate!!

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Last weekend was number 61.

kingsjester on March 17, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Has he no shame? Rhetorical, of course.

carbon_footprint on March 17, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Remember the Elvis Presley movies — he would take all the punches – and at the last moment -knock the heck out of the guy — is that what we are doing now –???

wheels on March 17, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Palin/Rubio/2012!

West/Rubio/2012!

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Last weekend was number 61.
kingsjester on March 17, 2011 at 9:55 PM

In other words, at least every other week, every month, for the last two years.

Bishop on March 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM

I’m just hoping for some quick, cheap justice.
Three letters, starts with a C and end with an A.

Rovin on March 17, 2011 at 9:20 PM

The Chicago Transit Authority?

JohnGalt23 on March 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM

This is an act of war. As such, Obama should have the decency to get a vote from congress first.

JohnGalt23 on March 17, 2011 at 10:00 PM

katy on March 17,2011 at 9:54 PM

Dick Lugar, last seen voting for START, should read the War Powers Act of 1974.

amerpundit on March 17, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Then what, Kaddafi’s air force is grounded and the two sides end up in a stare down while we police the skies for a decade?

Kill him or let them duke it out.

Bishop on March 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Bishop:Excellent point,at over 1 Million per day,to run a
Aircraft Carrier alone,will the US,park a Carrier
Group,off of Libya,in your words,which I agree,to
police airspace,on constant (CAP)Combat Air Patrols
!
===================================

From New York!

Just take out Khadafy
A Predator can do the job
8:59 AM, March 5, 2011
*************************
*************************

Slaughtering his own people and mocking the world’s pleas for peace, Libya’s Moammar Khadafy can only be stopped by force. President Obama is comfortable using Predator drone strikes to kill terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan; why not do the same with Khadafy?

So far, the only air-power option on the table is establishing a “no-fly zone.” But seeking UN Security Council approval for that risks a veto by China or Russia. Even if we ignored the UN, we’d need to use NATO facilities to make the zone work — and that means getting the approval of NATO’s members. The Turkish prime minister has said he would oppose such a move.

A no-fly zone also creates political problems for Obama. He came to power promising to end two wars, not to start a new one. “Let’s just call a spade a spade,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya.”

There are practical problems, too. Pilots patrolling a no-fly zone would be targeted by Libya’s surface-to-air missiles and radar-guided anti-aircraft guns; death or capture is a real possiblity.

Collateral damage to civilians is likely — and friendly fire is a real risk. On April 14, 1994, two US helicopters were mistakenly shot down over Iraq by US planes, killing 26.

Besides, no-fly zones only stop air attacks, they don’t stop violence on the ground, as our “no-fly zone” experience in Bosnia shows. A single Predator strike could stop the civil war and save lives on the ground
(more…….)

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/just_take_out_khadafy_Mv572R5wC23plCPNNMSq7H#ixzz1GueUfp1u

canopfor on March 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Frankly, Allahpundit, if you can’t figure out why Senator Rubio might be sensitive to the rebel cause against the Libyan tyrant, maybe Hot Air is paying you too much.

Knott Buyinit on March 17, 2011 at 10:09 PM

…maybe Hot Air is paying you too much.

Knott Buyinit on March 17, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Understatement. Anything over free is too much.

carbon_footprint on March 17, 2011 at 10:11 PM

So if John Kerry supports this, does this mean he is for it before he was gainst it…again? And anyone want to explain to me why Liberals would be for this on “humanitarian” reasons but were against us taking on Sadaam even though he had killed all those Kurds?

Deanna on March 17, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Failbama is a one world government idiot who hates the United States being the sole superpower? Our government is serious off the rails – just for those tuning in late.

But hey ! Rio! Swank hotel a staff of hundreds. How many planes, cars and hangers on are going along this time?

dogsoldier on March 17, 2011 at 10:13 PM

So if John Kerry supports this, does this mean he is for it before he was gainst it…again? And anyone want to explain to me why Liberals would be for this on “humanitarian” reasons but were against us taking on Sadaam even though he had killed all those Kurds?

Deanna on March 17, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Because Bush re-established relations with him after he gave up his WMD program. Oh yeah and he did that after we went after Saddam and then he, Daffy, supposedly cooperated with a Republican whent he Dems had decried everything the evil Bush had been doing as useless. Just spitballing though!

bluemarlin on March 17, 2011 at 10:20 PM

It’s quite possible that little Bammie is dithering because Jeremiah Wright is lobbying in favor of his old friend Qhadaffi. Has the White House been asked if they are in contact with the loony Reverend re Lybia?

slickwillie2001 on March 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Funniest thing I’ve see today on teh Webs

Solution to the problem in Libya :
They want a new Muslim leader, I say, give them ours.
Solves two problems.

MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Army Ranger Andrew Exum wonders where we go from here:

Knock out his planes. Knock out his tanks. Arm the rebels. Even the odds. Go home and let it play out.

pearson on March 17, 2011 at 10:25 PM

If we were drilling here, drilling now we’d wouldn’t have to care what happens in those sand trap countries.

SouthernGent on March 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM

No f’ing kidding.

The only interest we have in the ME is oil. Period. As long as we keep that stable we (or I at least) don’t care how many mohameden kill each other.

One is just as bad as another.

They are all inbred a## wipes (arranged marriages to first cousins are illegal here – for health reasons. Not so in the ME).

BowHuntingTexas on March 17, 2011 at 10:27 PM

If we are broke, if we aint got no damn money, why are we providing free security service to radical islamists attempting to overthrow an evil dictator?

paulsur on March 17, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Can’t wait to hear the Sheryl Crow Leftie protestors outside the White House screaming………..

……………NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

PappyD61 on March 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM

I wouldn’t want to be a Libyan rebel right about now…

This party’s over, and they should try and fade into the woodwork ASAP… The alternative is a quick trip to the afterlife…

Khun Joe on March 17, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Drop Guns over Tripoli and the rest of the cities and let them get after it!!!

In fact if it works…….can we call it “THE PAPPY DOCTRINE”?

:-)

PappyD61 on March 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM

That being known, why did the U.S. continue to look weak by seeming to be in the shadow of other nations? amerpundit on March 17, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Because….for the thousandth time, in November 2008 America elected as POTUS a man who had agitated from 2006 onwards for oil rich Iraq to be conceded to Al Qaeda and Iran; a man who claimed The Surge wasn’t working for months after everyone knew it was working. America elected a foreign policy dunce and therefore will remain week until January 2013, at the earliest.

Basilsbest on March 17, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Solution to the problem in Libya :
They want a new Muslim leader, I say, give them ours.
Solves two problems.
MeatHeadinCA on March 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Agreed, I got that email early this morning.

bluemarlin on March 17, 2011 at 10:47 PM

I will go with him just arguing that we should not be going to the UN for anything. I think that is Tea Party.

WoosterOh on March 17, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Besides, they can always repudiate their votes later if things get messy. After all, they’ve had plenty of practice.


Snap!!!!!

If Gadhafi falls, what comes next? What will the new Libyan government look like? Will they be friendly to U.S. interests? Someone please tell me how this ends.

Exactly…
….I have yet to hear any credible answer to this question.

Will we just be lining Libya up for the takeover by Islamist radicals similar to the Brotherhood?????

Baxter Greene on March 17, 2011 at 10:50 PM

and therefore will remain weak until January 2013, at the earliest.

Basilsbest on March 17, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Well, I’m starting to get a little impatient. I want some video of a French or Limey plane swooping in and blowing
sh!t up. Even a missle. It’s already been a couple of hours. What’s holding things up. Let’s go!

a capella on March 17, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Can’t wait to hear the Sheryl Crow Leftie protestors outside the White House screaming………..

……………NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

PappyD61 on March 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM

That’s not going to happen in any significant numbers.

democrats are obviously just fine with War as long as a democrat is waging it.

The code pink/move on leadership is engaging in their selective hate fest toward a Republican Governor right now…..they took the “EEEEEEEvil war and it’s policies of war crimes” off their radar as soon as Obama took the White House.
liberals see no need in exploiting the difficulties of war unless you can score political points against Republicans.

Baxter Greene on March 17, 2011 at 10:56 PM

AP –

The first thing you have to understand about Rubio is that he is a Cuban-American, through and through. And for the Cuban-Americans, the spector of the Bay of Pigs looms large.

The comparison should be obvious.

SWLiP on March 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2