Gates: No vital national interest or imminent threat in Libya before Odyssey Dawn

posted at 10:15 am on March 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Jake Tapper reminds ABC why they foolishly spent money on Christiane Amanpour last year for the anchor job on This Week with a tough joint interview of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  Tapper asks Gates exactly what vital national interest the US has in Libya and what kind of imminent threat to our security Moammar Gaddafi posed at the beginning of Operation Odyssey Dawn.  Gates says … none in either case:

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.

Gates then says that refugees from Libya could have destabilized Tunisia and Egypt, which is true — obviously, the revolutions in those places helped destabilize Libya — and that somehow that was of interest to the United States.  That is certainly an arguable point either way, but that point should have been argued in Congress before committing the US to war.  The War Powers Resolution requires there to be “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” before a President can send US military forces into a new conflict.

People have disputed the constitutionality of the WPR ever since Congress passed it, but no President has ever had the nerve to challenge it.  Moreover, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2007-8 by challenging George Bush’s record on military adventurism, and now-VP Joe Biden specifically campaigned on the promise to impeach Bush in his final year in office if he violated it.  Gates’ admission leaves Obama with very little room to pretend that he followed his own campaign rhetoric on warmaking.

Hillary felt the need to swoop to the rescue.  She claimed that Obama didn’t need to go to Congress because this coalition is so darned multilateral:

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.

Obviously, the Secretary of State has trouble with both math and the law.  There is no “multilateral” waiver in either the WPR or the Constitution, but even if there were, Obama would be the least likely President to qualify for it.   This coalition is the smallest since World War II involving the US in military action, only half the size of  George W. Bush’s Iraq War coalition.

She also fails vocabulary test in her claim that the mission has a limited timeframe.  Later, Gates says that no one knows how long this will drag on:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

“Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that.  Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year?  Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.

This administration has had trouble throughout this Middle East crisis getting its stories straight from day to day.  Now they can’t even get their stories straight in the same interview.

Smart power.


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 3

and the gop???

they should be crying foul for cripe sakes

these folks just gave you the amunition you need

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Tapper’s too good for ABC.

kingsjester on March 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Presidentin’ is hard.

misterpeasea on March 27, 2011 at 10:20 AM

They all should be impeached, including Amanpour.

Emperor Norton on March 27, 2011 at 10:20 AM

There is no “multilateral” waiver in either the WPR or the Constitution, but even if there were, Obama would be the least likely President to qualify for it.

nice work.

ted c on March 27, 2011 at 10:21 AM

just saw david gregory ask the same question….gates says no and hillary swoops in once again with no challenge from gregory….

pathetic

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:21 AM

OT somewhat: Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday–after speaking with Gingrich and before going to commericial–took shot at the Obama administration for not providing his show with anyone like Gates or Clinton, even though his show beats two of the other three Sunday shows.

He said “we thought you viewers would like to know.”

It was a delicious jab.

BuckeyeSam on March 27, 2011 at 10:21 AM

kingsjester on March 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM

tru dat

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Ogabe..”Hill and Rob just gone and say anything the pops into your head. I’m not going to get called on it anyway..”

Caper29 on March 27, 2011 at 10:22 AM

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

What a load of cow crap, in so many ways.

Bishop on March 27, 2011 at 10:23 AM

just saw david gregory ask the same question….gates says no and hillary swoops in once again with no challenge from gregory….

pathetic

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Gregory is the White House’s bitc#.

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:24 AM

These ppl just make up stuff as they go; whatever’s convenient. That’s what makes them so dangerous. They have no scruples and they will do whatever they can get away with.

But I can’t remember a state of war being declared for any recent conflict by any president of either party. That is exactly what guys like Ron Paul have been complaining about.

paul1149 on March 27, 2011 at 10:24 AM

They can’t even keep the story straight in THE SAME INTERVIEW? I would have loved to have been next to the aids for these two. They were probably pissing themselves trying to keep their mouths shut while these guys make our government look like a bunch of bumbling incompetents.

Mord on March 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

What a load of cow crap, in so many ways.

Bishop on March 27, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Spoken by the biggest cow of all

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM

The choice of Ammanpour over Tapper reminds me of the colossal error of CBS, choosing Dan Rather over the far superior Roger Mudd. This mistake is correctable, though, if the brass ever wakes up.

paul1149 on March 27, 2011 at 10:26 AM

No matter what, the zero will be hailed as a hero, a saviour, king of the world, awesome of awesomes and the smartest human being ever known in the history of the Earth itself.

The MSM will make sure of it.

Key West Reader on March 27, 2011 at 10:26 AM

Gates tells ABC’s “This Week” that he doesn’t think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the U.S. before military operations began last weekend.

Aaaaand there goes the Left’s second point. After its been demonstrated that Obama’s coalition is smaller than Bush’s was, it’s now known from the very mouth of Obama’s Def. Sec. that Libya poses no imminent threat. So will the Left now pour into the streets and call Obama a imperial dictator? Or is it still “different” because Obama farts awesomeness?

Weight of Glory on March 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Hillary felt the need to swoop to the rescue. She claimed that Obama didn’t need to go to Congress because this coalition is so darned multilateral:

The U.N. now is the governing body for the U.S. It’s all good.

a capella on March 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:24 AM

good point…the whole msdnc/nbc lot

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM

these guys make our government look like a bunch of bumbling incompetents.

Mord on March 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Not that hard to do, jes’ sayin’

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Key West Reader on March 27, 2011 at 10:26 AM

yepper KWR, carl levin lied on state of the union pushing the same WH meme with no challenge from crowley…

all hail dear leader

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Where oh where is the Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, on and on and on of the REPUBLICAN party?
Why are the Republicans keeping so quiet about all this?

If Republicans had started this war there would be a constant flow and attack from Democratic Congressmen on the Republicans.

albill on March 27, 2011 at 10:29 AM

It makes me very angry to think of our brave men and women being pimped out as mercenaries by the UN and Europe. Obama is a true disgrace.

Daveyardbird on March 27, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Clinton and that make-believe Republican are dangerous. They truly believe the American people are hopelessly stupid.

rplat on March 27, 2011 at 10:30 AM

If Republicans had started this war there would be a constant flow and attack from Democratic Congressmen on the Republicans.

albill on March 27, 2011 at 10:29 AM

exactamundo with the lsm beating the drum

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:31 AM

good point…the whole msdnc/nbc lot

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM

David Gregory during the Bush years: “What this administration want us to believe”

David Gregory during the Oblahblah years: “What this administration is wisely doing”

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:31 AM

“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.”

Where does the phrase “internationally authorized intervention” appear in the Constitution? How is this kinetic military action any more multilateral than kinetic military actions of the past?

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

What timeframe? What mission? What process?

steebo77 on March 27, 2011 at 10:31 AM

While I realize the middle east revolts are very different and have very different connotations, at the risk of going against the grain, were it not for the French we might not be autonomous.

I don’t personally think the Presidents ability to engage is the issue, I think the greater issue is our corrupted internal physiology of timidity guided by a very twisted idea of what our national beliefs and identity is.

Speakup on March 27, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Gates is okay with this but not with Israel or America attacking Iran?

Seth Halpern on March 27, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Gates’s comments should be enough to have Congress preparing for an impeachment.

Oh, wait…are they still on vacation?

I’m not surprised that political hacks like Shrillery Clinton and the ‘Crats are backing Osama Obama’s play, but am continually amazed that so-called conservatives, politicians and pundits alike, are not issuing calls for the Traitor-in-Chief’s removal from office.

I guess that whole affirmative action thing is more deeply ingrained in Americans’ minds than I thought. His incompetence and hatred for America will be tolerated and glossed over until he makes the move that irrevocably destroys the country.

At this moment, I don’t know who is more deserving of scorn: is it the liberals, now flush with power and a stranglehold over the media and commentary in general, or the squishes on the right who don’t have the courage to stand up and say “enough!”?

MrScribbler on March 27, 2011 at 10:33 AM

s/b wants us to believe
damned arthritis

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:33 AM

What does the boy wonder have on Hil? It must be really delicious if she’s willing to spout ridiculous comments and positions that change hourly. People used to call her the most intelligent woman on earth. She’s now a dupe for Obowma. Look how far she’s fallen. Gates probably wishes he’d taken early retirement. This will ruin his legacy.

Kissmygrits on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

So, Gates and Clinton admit that we are now under the United Nations when it comes to The United States taking or choosing national security actions?

The stupid thing of it all was that if there was an imminent threat to the United States or our forces overseas from Libya….the White House could do whatever they wished under the WPA until the statutory time limit had been reached or Congress had approved continued action. They both could have easily obfuscated deftly and fashioned such a situation out of whole cloth…been done before.

But…and this is what should make every American stand up, grab a pitchfork and head to DC…immediately…the very idea of having both Cabinet officials come out and essentially say it was because the United Nations and the Arab League authorized it that such is perfectly legal and Constitutional…that is just the most profound stupidity ever uttered by both, ever.

So…now if the Arab League “authorizes” the implimentation of shariah in the United States, our Justice Department will be required to enforce that, regardless of what the Constitution demands? Or the United Nations “authorizes” the collection and destruction of all firearms in private hands…the DoJ ad FBI and ATF would have to do it…regardless of what a bunch of old dead white guys said over 200 years ago?

Is anyone else finding this troubling?

coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Gates is okay with this but not with Israel or America attacking Iran?

Seth Halpern on March 27, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Of course. It’s really simple. You see, Iran poses no threat to the U.S. and they are not part of a region, which if destabilized, could hurt vital U.S. interests. See? Simple.

Weight of Glory on March 27, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Some defense contractor with ties to Clinton or someone else in the pentagon needed to let loose of munitions so as to build more and get government contracts renewed. Making war has become an exploitable enterprise just as much for leftists as republicans. IMHO

fourdeucer on March 27, 2011 at 10:36 AM

What does the boy wonder have on Hil? It must be really delicious if she’s willing to spout ridiculous comments and positions that change hourly. People used to call her the most intelligent woman on earth. She’s now a dupe for Obowma. Look how far she’s fallen. Gates probably wishes he’d taken early retirement. This will ruin his legacy.

Kissmygrits on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

I’ve been saying the same thing since ’08, she went out with out even putting up a fight.

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:37 AM

There is no “multilateral” waiver in either the WPR or the Constitution, but even if there were, Obama would be the least likely President to qualify for it.

nice work.

ted c on March 27, 2011 at 10:21 AM

This action was unconstitutional. It can be twisted and turned but the fact does not change.

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Where are our respective representatives?????? Why are they not protecting the constitution????????

KMC1 on March 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Is anyone else finding this troubling?

coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

I find everything about this den of liars and thieves troubling.

They keep telling lies when the truth would serve them better.

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:31 AM

yepper..spot on

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 10:39 AM

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

You lie, Hillary.

Naturally Curly on March 27, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Is anyone else finding this troubling?
coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

“No. Commerce clause.”

-crr6

Bishop on March 27, 2011 at 10:42 AM

King Obama
Pharaoh Obamseys II

This fool thinks he’s a monarchy, and we are his subjects.

“Let them eat Cake with Food Stamps” he says while going to war under the flag of the UN or NATO.

IMPEACHMENT.

portlandon on March 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM

“I don’t care. Obama is awesome.”

ladyingray on March 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Gates is okay with this but not with Israel or America attacking Iran?

Seth Halpern on March 27, 2011 at 10:33 AM

The fact that overall Lybia is small and weak helps as well.

Qatar is made out to be some hero yet I doubt they would ever have bombed Lybia without its big brothers there. Again I ask is Bill Maher talking about just how “cowardly” this action is? (rhetorically of course)

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM

coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

It is outrageous.
Everyday brings a new surprise regarding how Obama’s and his administration are intentionally dismantling America’s greatness.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 27, 2011 at 10:44 AM

The mental gymnastics performed by the Media to cover Obama’s a$$ is astounding. We are in Bizzaro World.

portlandon on March 27, 2011 at 10:45 AM

So the Obama doctrine is to attack countries that pose no danger to the US and where there is no national interest?

Switzerland next?

artist on March 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM

They can’t get their stories straight because they’re too busy stumbling over the hypocrisy.

GarandFan on March 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM

They can’t get their stories straight because they’re too busy stumbling over the hypocrisy.

GarandFan on March 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Or as my mom was fond of saying: “First liar doesn’t stand a chance”.

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM

She also fails vocabulary test in her claim that the mission has a limited timeframe. Later, Gates says that no one knows how long this will drag on

I don’t think that’s what she meant. The limited timeframe refers (I think) to the fact that they had to act quickly if they were going to prevent Qadaffi from putting down the insurgency. (Of course, they had a few weeks to act and failed to do so until late in the game.) She doesn’t mean that the operation itself will be a short one, just that it had to begin soon.

JS on March 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM

What really concerns me about this, Ed, is that we have a President who seems to think he can do whatever he wants, just because he is the King President.

What is going to happen in January 2013 when it is time for America to inaugurate our newly elected President to replace Barak Obama, and the international community makes it known that they feel Obama should remain President? Will the international consensus be invoked to justify Obama’s refusal to leave office? Could the United States become the next Ivory Coast?

Ordinary American on March 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM

I don’t think that’s what she meant. The limited timeframe refers (I think) to the fact that they had to act quickly if they were going to prevent Qadaffi from putting down the insurgency. (Of course, they had a few weeks to act and failed to do so until late in the game.) She doesn’t mean that the operation itself will be a short one, just that it had to begin soon.

JS on March 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM

You work for NBC? That sounds like Gregory-esque linguistic masturbation.

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:55 AM

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

Mission Accomplished?

iurockhead on March 27, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Okay so we know the old guard gop doesn’t have the balls to ask for impeachment. So the challenge goes out to col west, rand paul, palin, bachmann. Will you stand up for america? Especially Col West who swore to uphold the constitution and it would be harder to play the race card agaisnt him.

After clinton will anyone dare to bring impeachment? Would any democrat vote for america, vote for the constitution? Very clear lines here. What laws do we work under? The constitution or the UN?

odannyboy on March 27, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Will the international consensus be invoked to justify Obama’s refusal to leave office? Could the United States become the next Ivory Coast?

Ordinary American on March 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Wouldn’t that be fun?

darwin-t on March 27, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Why no blog on Obama supporters now saying he is like Ike?

President Dwight Eisenhower Had to File a Birth Certificate to Run for President – Unlike Obama, Ike had nothing to hide!

Heckle on March 27, 2011 at 10:58 AM

So, Gates put the president under the bus (or tanks as the case may be) and the Hillary did the old forward/reverse/forward thing while pretending to get the president out from under the bus.

Very smart power, indeed.

myrenovations on March 27, 2011 at 10:59 AM

The fact that overall Lybia is small and weak helps as well.
CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM

There ya go. Bullying can be kinda fun if you are careful about the victim selection. Need to be a little careful about going up against the 1st team middle linebacker. Probably want to extend a hand of friendship rather than a clenched fist, in that case.

a capella on March 27, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I don’t think that’s what she meant. The limited timeframe refers (I think) to the fact that they had to act quickly if they were going to prevent Qadaffi from putting down the insurgency. (Of course, they had a few weeks to act and failed to do so until late in the game.) She doesn’t mean that the operation itself will be a short one, just that it had to begin soon.

JS on March 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM

I am really tired of this cr#p.
Obama and the democrats have turned our government processes inside out by intentionally creating a “crisis,” which requires immediate action and a rejection of the rules about how to do things. We needed Obamacare enacted “tonight” and we can figure out what is in it later. We need a No Fly Zone tomorrow to prevent a massacre. Of course, they had the precedent of the government needing TARP within 24 hours to prevent a financial collapse.
We Americans have lost control of our government.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 27, 2011 at 11:00 AM

You can call me Lincoln, Ike, JFK or FDR
But those whose path I follow, well we all know who they are
Reverend Wright and Sol Alinsky, Comrade Marx and Mr Ayers
Taught me how to make you think that I’m the answer to your prayers
So look into my eyes, my Hopey Changey eyes
While I charm you with my honey coated teleprompted lies
I’ll promise you the moon and stars until we’re all agreed
That everything that’s yours is mine, cause that’s the change we need

Heckle on March 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM

After clinton will anyone dare to bring impeachment? Would any democrat vote for america, vote for the constitution? Very clear lines here. What laws do we work under? The constitution or the UN?

odannyboy on March 27, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Bad optics, old chap.

Imagine what would have happened if the blogoshpere existed in the 1970s: the “Nixonatuerism of the Day,” pundits asserting that ol’ Tricky Dick “could do better,” ad nauseum.

Of course when Nixon went down, there were Democrats and Re3publicans alike who did the right thing because it was right, not merely for political advantage. Even RN’s political allies wanted him out, because he had overstepped the bounds.

If Osama Obama walks, we might as well remove “impeachment” from the Constitution.

If we still have a Constitution when the Traitor-in-Chief is done.

MrScribbler on March 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Well, the timeframe question has already been answered; Barack Obomba™ said “days, not weeks.”

BKeyser on March 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Our political class is intellectually and morally bankrupt. If this overreach is not punished in some way – and it won’t be – it merely invites more of the same or worse.

Mason on March 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Is anyone else finding this troubling?

coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

It is extremely troubling. Because what he did, was set a new precedent where the UN has defacto control of our Military. He should be impeached.

Key West Reader on March 27, 2011 at 11:05 AM

This is how the progressives slowly make Congress irrelevant. If “war” can be implemented by making the case it’s multilateral and the UN is running the show….this will be used on ever issue including the 2nd amendment and all Constitutional rights and protocols.

katy on March 27, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Heckle on March 27, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Well done!~

Key West Reader on March 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM

The size and length of the war is also being used to confuse the issue of ‘war’.

An act of war can never be determined by this criteria and once again…they think we’re stupid!

katy on March 27, 2011 at 11:09 AM

“Whatevah…what time are we teeing off gibsy?”

winston on March 27, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Obama’s Wag the Dog adventure is causing him more damage than benefits.

portlandon on March 27, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I don’t think that’s what she meant. The limited timeframe refers (I think) to the fact that they had to act quickly if they were going to prevent Qadaffi from putting down the insurgency. (Of course, they had a few weeks to act and failed to do so until late in the game.) She doesn’t mean that the operation itself will be a short one, just that it had to begin soon.

JS on March 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Sorry, but no dice. Your argument doesn’t stand up in context of the rest of her statement. She said, “I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling.”
The second half of her statment clearly indicates that she meant that the mission was clear and unambiguous and would not drag on interminably.

Dopenstrange on March 27, 2011 at 11:12 AM

They all should be impeached, including Amanpour.

Emperor Norton on March 27, 2011 at 10:20 AM

I think I will impeach myself for watching her.

faraway on March 27, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Is anyone else finding this troubling?

[coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM]

Um, yeah. I do!

I’ve leaned (80-20+/-) for action in Lybia, but Clinton’s argument is outrageous. Who does she think their Administration is serving to assert she got foreign approval to take our country to war? Who the eff appointed foreign countries to serve as the imprimatur giver that meets the requirement of giving the American President the thumbs up sign as defined by the Constitution.

Obama serves the American public, NOT foreign potentates whether they are democratically elected ones or despots. The American public has rules and those rules say get authorization via our representatives, not somebody else’s.

What’s really outrageous is that Obama could have been working all along to get the Constitutional authorization that is needed, but, instead, he and his fellow arrogant, supremacist, despotic cronies in the Administration (Clinton being the worst here) prefers to flip the bird to the people who hired him.

For all the talk of Constitutional amendments to reign in the fiscal irresponsibility today, it’s clear there ought to also be a move to pass one addressing this arrogant abuse of power, and it ought to include specific phrasing that it that violations like this both is an impeachment offense and requires the House to initiate impeachment proceedings within a specified short amount of time.

Dusty on March 27, 2011 at 11:16 AM

yes by all accounts the military did not want to go in to Libya, thus Gates, I dunno how long we will be there, which was his argument against going in. But Hillary did want to go in and assured Obama we can go in, bomb the crxp out of Qaddafi and get out and let France and UK Italy deal with nation building since it is their economic energy interests at stake.

Hillary is trying to handle this the way we handled Milosivic, unfortunately Obama blew the ‘pressure’ aspect when he ruled out ground troops publicly, again not to help the military effort, ut to boost his polling numbers. ugh.

So now it will be harder to pressure the people around Qaddafi, but we did this kind of action before, successfully. We can do it again.

ginaswo on March 27, 2011 at 11:17 AM

If you haven’t done so go read up at some lefty site like dkos. Many really do think the President owes more allegiance to the UN than to the United States.

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I watched the whole interview, and it struck me that Hillary and Gates seemed like a couple of zombies on quaaludes. I found it quite disturbing. Gates just sat there with a thousand-yard-stare while Hillary was talking lying her face off.

Naturally Curly on March 27, 2011 at 11:22 AM

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM

holy macaronies….i fear for my country

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I am no fan of Obama, but I can not help but notice how a lot of people on the right pissed and moaned for weeks because Obama did not do anything to stop Gaddafi and then when he finally does, it is either not worth messing with…or Gaddafi is not really a bad guy…or it is impeachable.. I watched and listened to idiot Democrats spend years not knowing who to choose between…Bush or Saddam. I hope Republicans don’t follow their example and try to make this all partisan.

This is no more impeachable than going into Grenada where we actually did put people on the ground. I doubt very much that the US was threatened by the goons in Grenada. And that is just one example.

This is a no fly zone like we flew over Iraq for years and Gaddafi is a mass murdering dictator who got away with killing hundreds of Americans.

Gaddafi deserves to be tried, convicted and punished for his crimes.

Terrye on March 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

If there isn’t a mutiny from the DoD on this issue…we are screwed.

Gates knows… and if he holds his peace…God help him!!…and us.

katy on March 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Tapper is to the liberal media what Shep is to FOX!!

abobo on March 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM

will this move gates to resign sooner rather than later?

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 11:27 AM

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM

We have two or three generations educated on the progressive ideas that Obama has been implementing.

This is no surprise. While we were working, raising kids and living the dream, the progressives were infecting generations to undermine the US.

We’re now seeing the fruits of their labor.

katy on March 27, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Simple: Soft target

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Tapper is to the liberal media what Shep is to FOX!!

abobo on March 27, 2011 at 11:26 AM

You mean whiny, inconsistent, annoying and always willing to jump to a conclusion before the facts are in?

MrScribbler on March 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

“But Obama is awesome. He is so brilliant!”

While he sits, looking stoned out of his gourd, chair dancing to the samba.

Blackacre on March 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

we’ve gone from days to weeks and now it is months…

*shaking the head*

cmsinaz on March 27, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Obama’s slogan for 2012~

CHUMP CHANGE

profitsbeard on March 27, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Does the administration issue hip boots to reporters or do they have to supply their own? The bs bo and his crew spew is really becoming unbearable.

tim c on March 27, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Lieberman and McCain on Fox News Sunday are good little lap dogs aren’t they? They both totally ignore the prospect of MB and al Qaeda filling vacuums. Lieberman postures on U.N. intervention in Syria by using Libya as an example. McCain punts on Yemen but says Egypt is key and fully anticipates a transition to a democratic form of government. These guys are our foreign policy experts?

a capella on March 27, 2011 at 11:33 AM

While he sits, looking stoned out of his gourd, chair dancing to the samba.

Blackacre on March 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM

HA!! I hadn’t noticed the expression on his face! I’m surprised there’s not a big bag of Doritos on his lap.

Dopenstrange on March 27, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Is anyone else finding this troubling?

coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 10:34 AM

You mean ignoring the rule of law?

I’ve been troubled since the auto bailout. Ignored the bankruptcy act, and the priority secured creditors (bondholders) had over unsecured (union pension funds).

Obama got away with that, so now why should he pay attention to the war powers act?

Wethal on March 27, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Clinton and that make-believe Republican are dangerous. They truly believe the American people are hopelessly stupid.
rplat on March 27, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Nov 4, 2008:
52%
I rest my case.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 27, 2011 at 11:39 AM

You listen to her crap and still think Shrillery is smart? The only good thing turdboy did was erase her from any future presidential ticket. Of course there’s no shortage of progressive fascists wetting themselves at the thought of being the next in line.

SKYFOX on March 27, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I’m just a stupid conservative. I obviously missed all the crap in the US Constitution about “multi-nationalism” and “humanitarian aid”.

Oh, wait. I forgot. According to Janet “Napoleono”, expecting Fedzilla to obey the Constitution makes me a “domestic terrorist”. My bad. Never mind.

oldleprechaun on March 27, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 27, 2011 at 11:39 AM

heh

katy on March 27, 2011 at 11:41 AM

I am no fan of Obama, but I can not help but notice how a lot of people on the right pissed and moaned for weeks because Obama did not do anything to stop Gaddafi and then when he finally does, it is either not worth messing with…or Gaddafi is not really a bad guy…or it is impeachable.

Terrye on March 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

All I really wanted was for him to do it through Congress. I wonder did you keep track of those pissed to see if their comments stayed consistent throughout this mess?
—————————————–

This is no more impeachable than going into Grenada where we actually did put people on the ground. I doubt very much that the US was threatened by the goons in Grenada. And that is just one example.

Terrye on March 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

…. seven Democratic congressmen, led by Ted Weiss, “introduced a quixotic resolution to impeach Reagan…which would, of course, go exactly nowhere.”[5]

Wiki

Some Dems agree with you and just because there was no impeachment then does not justify this now.

Gaddafi deserves to be tried ….

Terrye on March 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

There we agree.

CWforFreedom on March 27, 2011 at 11:41 AM

This is no more impeachable than going into Grenada

Terrye on March 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

You may wish to try to do a bit more research on the events and timetable leading up to Grenada.

I was around at the time (1983)…and involved.

Statutory members of Congress were consulted, and the Governor General of Grenada requested assistance (just before he was arrested by the same thugs who had just murdered the Prime Minister) and as events unfolded rapidly the Secretary of CARICOM was no longer able to communicate with a treaty-member nation (Grenada) because the duly-elected leadership had been bloodily deposed and just couldn’t get to a phone…many were already dead, the rest in makeshift prisons. (And, there was Cuban, Libyan and Nicaraguan involvement in the coup and events leading up to the coup. Fancy that.)

The White House at the time followed the War Powers Act to the letter.

Of course, the usual suspects made the usual protests about Reagan being a rogue cowboy intent on ruining our relationships with the rest of the world.

Now, how is the Obama-Libya War similar to Grenada?

coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 11:42 AM

This is no more impeachable than going into Grenada where we actually did put people on the ground. I doubt very much that the US was threatened by the goons in Grenada. And that is just one example.

There were a lot of American students in Grenada who had been placed in immediate danger by the Marxist coup. Overturning that coup was a part of the larger struggle of the Cold War.

Compare that to what’s happening now. Gates won’t lie: there’s no national interest there. It’s just: Gaddafi isn’t democratic, we don’t like him and so we’re going to get rid of him because we can.

Will there be any consequences to jumping willy-nilly into in a civil-war in North Africa? There might be. Libya could become another Iran run by Hamas-like jihadists. But hey, that’s all in the game right?

aengus on March 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM

This is no more impeachable than going into Grenada where we actually did put people on the ground. I doubt very much that the US was threatened by the goons in Grenada. And that is just one example.

Terrye on March 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Hmmm. Any comment?

Now, how is the Obama-Libya War similar to Grenada?

coldwarrior on March 27, 2011 at 11:42 AM

a capella on March 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Our elected leaders are pathetic…

I love my country and hate my government…

PatriotRider on March 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3