Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron joint op-ed: Qaddafi must go; Update: Senate resolution coming?

posted at 8:39 pm on April 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

I’m not sure what the point of this is, unless they’re simply out to do damage control amid reports that O’s vaunted multinational coalition is running into predictable multilateral problems. The one kinda sorta newsy bit is that they’re making regime change an overt goal of the mission, which they acknowledge isn’t authorized by the UN resolution. But since there’s no sustainable outcome that leaves Qaddafi in power and since Obama’s been saying for weeks that his departure is now official U.S. policy, hey — they’re not going to sweat the small stuff.

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal…

There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya — a future without Qaddafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people. This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words. The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misurata and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Qaddafi must go and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.

If you’re worried that there’s no actual mechanism described here for getting Qaddafi to leave, well, just remember that Obama’s more of a framework/outline kind of guy. Besides, the mechanism should be clear enough given that bombs were falling on Tripoli today, any lip service about the limitations of the UN resolution to the contrary notwithstanding. The op-ed goes on to say that the mission has the support of a “broad coalition of countries,” but the lead Libya story tonight at the Times is that only half of that broad coalition is now actively participating, with just six nations responsible for airstrikes against Qaddafi’s forces. So heavy has the load gotten for Britain that, despite Obama’s promise that U.S. contributions would last “days, not weeks,” we’re still chipping in with bombing runs here and there. Which is to say, our “kinetic military action” is still quite kinetic.

We’ll pass the 30-day mark on the mission this week, the halfway point in the time allotted by the War Powers Act for the president to seek authorization from Congress. Imagine if that issue comes to a head in the middle of May, right when the debt ceiling armageddon is upon us.

Update: So here’s how they’re going to dodge the War Powers Act:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday evening that he and a group of negotiators have “nailed down” language on a Libya resolution and are waiting for instructions from leadership on how to proceed…

McCain’s office confirmed that the current language is a “sense of the Senate” resolution, meaning it would not carry the force of an authorizing measure. Given that Unites States has handed off power to NATO, the White House has argued that congressional authorization would not be required.

But as of Wednesday, American planes were still running missions in the region, according to news reports. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers two weeks ago that U.S. forces would be on “standby” in case allied forces were failing.

So as long as the president commits U.S. servicemen to action under an international umbrella — even one, like NATO, that’s basically a subsidiary of the United States — he doesn’t need Congress’s approval? That’s a neat wrinkle in Article II 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

So they sent a strongly worded letter?

sandee on April 14, 2011 at 8:43 PM

“Lean on me, when your not strong, I’ll be your friend, I’ll help you carry on” – N. Sarkizy

swamp_yankee on April 14, 2011 at 8:43 PM

He be soooo scart.

hawkdriver on April 14, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Until they find weapons of mass destruction, we should let France swing in the wind. That’s how it works, right?

JavelinaBomb on April 14, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Barry is about as worthless as teats on a table. What in the world does this op-ed even accomplish? God help us until we can get rid of this clueless rube in 2012.

WarEagle01 on April 14, 2011 at 8:46 PM

LOL, they still think the NY Times is the Newspaper of Record?

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Ya know,it really must be a clusterfark,knowing that NATO airpower is
helping out AQ!!!!!!!!!!!

Lord love a duck…ugh!

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 8:47 PM

I’m assuming all those Liberals who were afraid to call themselves “American” when they visited Europe during the Iraq war will now be giving those warmongering Europeans a hard time over this.

JavelinaBomb on April 14, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Obama dithered! Libya withered!

JavelinaBomb on April 14, 2011 at 8:49 PM

This letter has CYA written all over it.

RedRedRice on April 14, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Yes, The U.S. is Still Bombing Libya
April 14th, 2011
*****************

In case you didn’t see this yesterday, six U.S. Air Force F-16CJ Wild Weasels and five Navy EA-18G Growlers have been flying “defensive” strike missions against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya since NATO took charge of the air campaign there.

So, what qualifies as “defensive” missions? Why suppression of enemy air defenses, so yes, technically the Weasels and Growlers are helping protect allied aircraft from Gadhafi’s antiquated air defenses even though they’re hitting air defense targets targets with 500-pound bombs to pave the way for more strikes by NATO jets. Wait, how does Gadhafi have any air defenses left, at this point? And interestingly, it sounds like the Growlers didn’t use their HARM anti-radar missiles.

Anyway, according to the New York Times, we’ve still got operating in or near Libya:

One guided-missile destroyer; one P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft; one EP-3E signals reconnaissance aircraft; 22 KC-135 tankers; six F-16CJ aircraft; five EA-18G attack aircraft; two E-3 command and control aircraft; two EC-130 signals and communications aircraft; two RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft; one U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft; one E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System; two MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicles; and one RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/04/14/yes-the-u-s-is-still-bombing-libya/#ixzz1JY57vZH5
Defense.org

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Are there any nautical themes in the article?

turfmann on April 14, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Uh, so, I suppose “Regime change is not the primary focus” is old and busted now?

RachDubya on April 14, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Obama’s more of a framework/outline kind of guy

Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.

Barry can pencil this into his “Lessons learned”. Right next to “There is no such thing as a shovel-ready job.”

“Air power alone will not rid a country of it’s dictator-for-life. It still comes down to boots on the ground.”

And that’s something Barry has no stomach for.

GarandFan on April 14, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Eurofighter Typhoon Fires its First Shots in Anger
April 13th, 2011—-(Video)
*******************************

We all know that the Eurofighter Typhoon made it’s combat debut in the early phases of the campaign against Moammar Gadhafi’s ground forces in Libya. However, it was only yesterday that the jet fired its first ever shots in anger, according to a tipster.

This clip, posted today, shows what’s apparently a Royal Air Force Typhoon FGR4 demolishing a Libyan tank on April 12 with an Enhanced Paveway II laser-guided bomb. The jet was operating alongside a Tornado GR4 which hit another tank with a Paveway IV. Enjoy.

http://defensetech.org/2011/04/13/eurofighter-typhoon-fires-its-first-shots-in-anger/

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Well, I’m glad they finally made a decision on this. Now, it will be days, not weeks. For certain!

Dusty on April 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM

What A mess!

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM

The worst part about this is killing Daffy is the only goal now. That is why we aren’t bombing his army, just trying to catch him out. Once he’s dead we’ll be out of there so fast heads will be spinning. The rebels will be no better than Daffy when we are gone either. They have pretty much guaranteed a humanitarian disaster at this point. not that western media will report a word of it.

Rocks on April 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Make me.
— Qaddafi

Socratease on April 14, 2011 at 8:57 PM

That’s a neat expansion of Article II power.

Aw, you can trust Barry. He’s a lawyer and ‘Constitutional Scholar’. Said so hisself.

GarandFan on April 14, 2011 at 9:00 PM

BTW, the rebels need a $2 billion dollar loan.

Cash preferred, I’m sure. Unmarked bills is a plus.

Dusty on April 14, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Days, not weeks…

d1carter on April 14, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Never thought I’d see Juan Williams and other liberals screaming for the blood of a foreign leader. Aren’t they the ones that pushed through laws forbidding assassinations? Can’t use a rifle but an F-15 is okey-doke?

slickwillie2001 on April 14, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Operation Unified Protector (was Odyssey Dawn) explained (Day 25) April 13, 2011
**************************

Previous debriefings:

Day 1,through to Day 25

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/operation-unified-protector-was-odyssey-dawn-explained-day-25/

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Not only is Obama an idiot, but he has his good buddy John McCain to back him up.

kringeesmom on April 14, 2011 at 9:06 PM

So as long as the president commits U.S. servicemen to action under an international umbrella — even one, like NATO, that’s basically a subsidiary of the United States — he doesn’t need Congress’s approval?

President Trump will find that very interesting.

JavelinaBomb on April 14, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress(PDF)
**************

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41725.pdf

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Umm…where’s the media and those anti-war protesters?

JavelinaBomb on April 14, 2011 at 9:11 PM

the only way, ONLY WAY to get rid of Daffy is to send in boots on the ground. You know, like an invasion, like a war.

Otherwise, they’re just wasting time and money…

mjk on April 14, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Too bad for Nixon that he didn’t use an international coalition to cover-up the Watergate burglary.

Mark1971 on April 14, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Qaddafi is forced out? Radical Islam takes over. No rocket science here.

petefrt on April 14, 2011 at 9:13 PM

So as long as the president commits U.S. servicemen to action under an international umbrella — even one, like NATO, that’s basically a subsidiary of the United States — he doesn’t need Congress’s approval? That’s a neat wrinkle in Article II power.

This is ridiculous. by this standard the Soviets could have invaded eastern Europe and the president could have prosecuted World War III without even a By Your Leave.

McCain is a pimp.

Rocks on April 14, 2011 at 9:15 PM

how can our elected officials be so stupid? Does that mean the US population is even dumber? We are the ones who voted for them. Does the russian reset button work for the USA too?

offroadaz on April 14, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Juan McCain. The gift that keeps on giving.

bofh on April 14, 2011 at 9:17 PM

“Given that Unites States has handed off power to NATO, the White House has argued that congressional authorization would not be required.”

Ha. The Senate ought to rub it in a little with an extra intro whereas:

Whereas we have a president who does not understand constitutional law, …

Dusty on April 14, 2011 at 9:17 PM

So as long as the president commits U.S. servicemen to action under an international umbrella — even one, like NATO, that’s basically a subsidiary of the United States — he doesn’t need Congress’s approval? That’s a neat wrinkle in Article II power.

Well, when you crumple up the Constitution it tends to have a lot of wrinkles.

SouthernGent on April 14, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Given that Unites States has handed off power to NATO, the White House has argued that congressional authorization would not be required.

This from the same people who argued that wiretapping NON citizens without a warrant was a High Crime & Misdemeanor.

Listening to their phone call = BAD
Dropping a Tomahawk, by order of a foreign power, on their asses = Okey Dokey!

Rocks on April 14, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Press Releases Media
**********************

April 14, 2011
ENSIGN, HUTCHISON RESOLUTION DECLARES LIBYA NOT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST
********************
********************

Washington, D.C. –Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) today introduced a resolution that would declare that the United States has no vital interest in Libya. The resolution would also assert that Congress has not authorized military force in the region, contrary to what the Administration says.

“As the situation in Libya has played out, I have been asking questions of this Administration as to what our role is and will be in the region,” said Ensign. “These questions have not been adequately addressed by either President Obama or his cabinet members. For this reason and because the Senate has yet to fully debate this issue, I believe that the Senate needs to pass this resolution declaring that our country has no vital interest in Libya so that we can get our servicemen and –women out of there once and for all.”

“The president should never commit our military forces to battle unless there is a vital national security interest at stake and without authorization from Congress. The conflict in Libya does not meet this test,” said Sen. Hutchison. “With our forces providing the leadership for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, our NATO allies and the Arab league, which do have vital interests in Libya, should bear the major share of the costs and the burden for future operations there.”

The resolution does three things: declares that there is no vital U.S.-American interest in Libya; states that Congress has not authorized military power in the region; declares that the NATO allies and Arab nations that do have a vital interest in the region step up their military and financial contributions. Passage of this resolution by the Senate would express its disapproval of the handling of this intervention and serve as a warning against deeper military involvement in a conflict that does not affect our vital interests.

To read Senator Ensign and Senator Hutchison’s Resolution,
—*click here.
=============

112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. RES. ll
************************

Expressing the sense of the Senate that it is not in the vital interests
of the United States to intervene militarily in Libya, calling on NATO
to ensure that member states dedicate the resources necessary to ensure
that objectives as outlined in United Nations Resolutions 1970 and
1973 are accomplished, and to urge members of the Arab League who
have yet to participate in operations over Libya to provide additional
military and financial assistance.
===================================

The (PDF)is a SECURE DOCUMENT,you have too click on the
link,to access it,I copy/pasted a bit above!

*click here.

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 9:23 PM

O^ps,sorry,forgot the Linky!!
*********************************

Press Releases
April 14, 2011
ENSIGN, HUTCHISON RESOLUTION DECLARES LIBYA NOT IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST

http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Media.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=55bfb410-0527-a803-1132-20fd6ee53faa

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Days, not weeks.
Weeks, not months.
Months, not years.

One term, not two.

SlaveDog on April 14, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Earlier this week, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the negotiators, said they were almost at an agreement. “We’ve got the language resolved except for two words,” he said.

Hmmmm….let me guess. “Vital interest’?

Rocks on April 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM

The worst part about this is killing Daffy is the only goal now. That is why we aren’t bombing his army, just trying to catch him out. Once he’s dead we’ll be out of there so fast heads will be spinning. The rebels will be no better than Daffy when we are gone either. They have pretty much guaranteed a humanitarian disaster at this point. not that western media will report a word of it.

Rocks on April 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM

-
A ‘checked box’ moment… Just like ObamaCare… The outcome is not so important as is the checked off item.
-

RalphyBoy on April 14, 2011 at 9:34 PM

So as long as the president commits U.S. servicemen to action under an international umbrella — even one, like NATO, that’s basically a subsidiary of the United States — he doesn’t need Congress’s approval? That’s a neat wrinkle in Article II power.

…way to go anti-war liberals…..Obama and his support from the “war is not the answer” crowd has set the bar really low for pre-emptive war.

….now when Obama “casually” goes from “protecting citizens and enforcing the no-fly zone” to absolute “regime change”, I am expecting the usual suspects to yell and scream “Obama lied us into war”….

………oh that’s right…it’s all good as long as a democrat does it.

………….What the he!! are all those liberals going to do with their “War is not the Answer” and “Obama peace sign” bumper stickers???????

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 9:45 PM

So, what qualifies as “defensive” missions? Why suppression of enemy air defenses…
 
canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 8:53 PM

 
This made my head hurt.

rogerb on April 14, 2011 at 9:46 PM

So as long as the president commits U.S. servicemen to action under an international umbrella — even one, like NATO, that’s basically a subsidiary of the United States — he doesn’t need Congress’s approval? That’s a neat wrinkle in Article II power.

So the US Military are now mercinaries, lent out the highest bidder? Are we the new Prussians? No national interest need be involved; we’ll fight your wars for you. Nice.

melchitt on April 14, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders.

Say that five times and you have one fine aural laxative.

OT Morale check….better than I’d hoped.***

***contains soldiers slang

BL@KBIRD on April 14, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force.

….and yet trying to remove Qaddafi by force is exactly what we have been doing the whole time.Only problem is our President is telling this Nation just the opposite.
What happened to being straight with the American people…..
……guess it went down the same rabbit hole that getting Congressional approval for waging war went.

But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.

Then why didn’t you say that in the beginning….
….Oh that’s right…had to brag to everybody about getting the UN approval that you are breaking on a daily basis.

The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.

…where was this massive concern for civilians when Saddam was murdering,torturing,and raping hundreds of thousands of his own people???????
……….oh that’s right…you were to busy condemning Bush for stopping a genocidal madman that makes Qaddafi look like a street thug.

The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal…

….tell that to the citizens of Iran,Syria,Yemen,and Bahrain.
…oh that’s right…saving those civilians would be to “messy” because you can’t do it from 30,000 ft….what a noble position to take.

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 9:58 PM

A Tale of Two…

Why would the Left be outraged by this? It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

VDH:

Now, in exasperation, many on the left have suggested that they are no more hypocritical than those on the right, who supported the removal of the dictator Saddam Hussein, but now oppose bombing the dictator Qaddafi, supposedly because a liberal Obama, not a conservative Bush, is commander-in-chief. But here are some reasons why Iraq in 2003 made sense, and Libya in 2011 makes no sense.

1. There was no ambiguity about our mission in Iraq: remove Saddam, and stay on to foster a consensual government. In Libya we have no mission, since we want Qaddafi gone in theory, but apparently can neither synchronize that aim with international sanctions nor pursue it openly by military means.

2. In Iraq, we were taking the lead in setting up a consensual government; in Libya to this day we have no idea who the rebels are, except that a few spoke good English in their impassioned interviews on CNN.

3. Qaddafi had viciously killed perhaps a few thousand rebels to prompt our humanitarian outrage; Saddam had killed perhaps a million at home and abroad before we intervened. Perhaps we were properly anticipatory with Qaddafi and unduly reactive with Saddam — but nevertheless, Qaddafi’s record of genocides simply was not comparable to Saddam’s.

4. The Bush administration made it clear, despite a growing insurgency and Democratic criticism, that it would not leave Iraq in defeat, but was intent on finishing the mission by removing Saddam’s Baath party from power, stabilizing the country, and ensuring an elected government. In Libya, the Obama administration intervened and then in less than two weeks abruptly quit military operations, outsourcing them to Britain and France. The administration apparently was not worried that Qaddafi is still in power and killing his opponents — to prevent which we intervened in the first place. Success in Iraq sent a signal; so did quitting in Libya. Now we can anticipate an endless cycle of horse-trading with a resilient Qaddafi, much as Saddam once made a mockery of U.N. resolutions.

5. When we went into Iraq, Saddam was in a virtual war with the United States, which was enforcing a twelve-year-long no-fly zone after the full-fledged 1991 Gulf War, and he was still sponsoring terrorism in the post-9/11 climate. Qaddafi was a similar nefarious dictator but, unlike Saddam, the subject of intense and ongoing Western outreach. And there had been no direct American hostilities against him in over 20 years

6. Libya is a tiny country of less than 7 million people, of far less geostrategic interest to the United States than Iraq. Iraq, a country of 26 million, was central to the stability of the Gulf region, from which 40 percent of the world’s oil was shipped. While Saddam Hussein’s desire, past and present, to sponsor terrorism was arguably matched by Qaddafi’s prior to 2003, his ability to do so, given his more ample resources, larger population, and central location, was far greater.

7. Bush was careful to obtain authorization (on 23 grounds) from both houses of Congress in October 2002, more than five months before he went in. Yet Obama has still not even attempted anything similar.

8. Bush attempted to go to the U.N. and was rebuffed, and then fell back to the (dubious) position that he was at least enforcing U.N. resolutions. Obama indeed got U.N. and Arab League approval for a no-fly zone and for unspecified action to help the rebels, but then de facto exceeded it by bombing ground targets and apparently inserting operatives among the rebels to coordinate air assaults — far in excess of the U.N.’s notion of no-fly zones or efforts to prevent a humanitarian disaster. The U.S. was immediately put in a box of bragging about having obtained international sanctions, and then discovering that it could not remove Qaddafi without violating the spirit and letter of just those international authorizations.

9. When we went into Iraq, we were already involved in one war, in Afghanistan, but a war that at that point had cost less than 100 American lives in over 18 months of fighting. The United States’ annual deficit was less than $400 billion. When we went into Libya we had nearly 150,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the government, facing an imminent shutdown, was running a $1.6 trillion deficit — four times as large in dollars as in 2003, and almost three times in terms of GDP.

10. When Islamists inevitably tried to hijack the U.S. removal of Saddam, we moved to prevent that; in Libya, if and when the removal of Qaddafi happens, we have no ability to govern events and are far more likely to foster than to prevent Islamic radicalism.

11. In Iraq, we were faulted for being unilateral despite having far more allies than we do at present in Libya, when we are praised for being multilateral.

12. Stabilizing Afghanistan proved far more difficult than the brilliant six-week removal of the Taliban, stabilizing Iraq far more difficult than the brilliant three-week removal of Saddam. Such lessons teach us that Libya would probably follow the same course, or conceivably worse, given that we have not yet brilliantly removed Qaddafi. The United States might be able to stabilize two post-war constitutional governments, but probably not three — and the third attempt could very well endanger the earlier two.

To be fair, in Obama’s defense, it perhaps soon may be said that we suffered greatly in victory in Iraq and, by comparison, far less in defeat in Libya.

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2011 at 10:00 PM

cripe….thanks mccain….

cmsinaz on April 14, 2011 at 10:07 PM

so its not an authorization authorization

cmsinaz on April 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM

canopfor on April 14, 2011 at 9:24 PM

thanks C

cmsinaz on April 14, 2011 at 10:09 PM

There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya — a future without Qaddafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people.

..Wow…what a beautiful dream you have going there.
Did Obama loan you some of his rainbows and unicorns to help out with this fantasy?????

Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders.

Transition to who??????
You mean to the rebels that many of their leaders have pledged their allegiance to Osama?????
You mean the same rebels that chant “the time for jihad is now” on a regular basis??????
The same group of “rebels” that Iran and Al-Qaeda are licking their chops waiting to move right into the massive power vacuum that will be their if and when Qaddafi is gone.
The same people that don’t believe the jihadist will take over Libya are the same people that said the muslim brotherhood and “other guys with long beards”would not have any influence in Egypt’s new “government”……

The “war is not the answer” OBama is waging war on an oil rich country without Congressional approval,that did not attack us,and posed no imminent threat….with the goal of turning it over to the rebels jihadist.

Once again showing why “smart power” is such a joke.

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Until they find weapons of mass destruction, we should let France swing in the wind. That’s how it works, right?

JavelinaBomb on April 14, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Here, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty…

Sleeper Cell from the last HA open reg, AP?

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Thanks for that.

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Yea…I remember hearing from the Obama administration how having Libya’s refugee’s pouring over their neighbors boarders would threaten the stability of the region…..

….well…so much for that:

UN says 500,000 flee Libya fighting
By Guy Dinmore in Rome
Published: April 12 2011 18:26 | Last updated: April 12 2011 18:26
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58a54576-651d-11e0-b150-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JMKCVnP2

More than half a million people have fled Libya over the past two months, the UN refugee agency reported on Tuesday as it warned that the exodus had picked up pace in recent days.

….of course this is the type of results you get when a failed community organizer is running the show.

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:34 PM

….of course this is the type of results you get when a failed community organizer is running the show.

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:34 PM

fun times

/

cmsinaz on April 14, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Speaking of WMDs and Iraq, another Hero of the Left had a bad day today. I’m sure the State Run Media will be all over this story tomorrow…

Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter has been found guilty of unlawful contact with minors and five lesser charges after a three-day trial in Monroe County Court on charges stemming from an online sex sting.

Ritter, 49, of Delmar, N.Y., was found guilty of unlawful contact with a minor for masturbating on a Web camera and engaging in a sexually graphic online chat with an undercover Barrett Township police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl in 2009.

The jury deliberated for more than six hours after the prosecution and defense both gave closing arguments in the morning.

During the trial, the defense portrayed Ritter as a family man and decorated veteran, even suggesting he could be a victim of a conspiracy for his outspoken criticism of the 2003 Iraq war. Ritter’s legal team tore apart the techniques used by Barrett Township officer Ryan Venneman in conducting the sting.

Meanwhile, the prosecution pointed to similar accusations surrounding Ritter in New York state back in 2001. In both incidents, he was accused of arranging to meet with teenage girls – who turned out to be undercover cops.

Ritter was never arrested in the first case, receiving only a warning, and the charges were later dropped in the second incident after he agreed to seek professional help.

Ritter said his controversial 1998 resignation from his U.N. job drove him into a self-destructive depression that led to those incidents. He said he knew the teenage girls he met online were really undercover officers.

As to the most recent charges against him, Ritter said he once again was feeling depressed, but thought the “girl” he was chatting with was really an adult playing out a fantasy of being a teen who likes older men.

Ritter, 49, of Delmar, N.Y., was the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq following the first Gulf War. He accused the United States government and U.N. of failing to take action when Iraq blocked inspectors from suspected weapons sites in 1998, leading to his resignation.

But he later became an outspoken critic of the 2003 Iraq war, insisting the country had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20110414%2FNEWS%2F110419856

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2011 at 10:37 PM

BTW, the rebels need a $2 billion dollar loan.

Cash preferred, I’m sure. Unmarked bills is a plus.

Dusty on April 14, 2011 at 9:00 PM

…Just bypass the rebel middlemen and send this money straight to Osama……..

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Ritter, 49, of Delmar, N.Y., was found guilty of unlawful contact with a minor for masturbating on a Web camera and engaging in a sexually graphic online chat with an undercover Barrett Township police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl in 2009.

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2011 at 10:37 PM

All this does is strengthen his resume with the democratic party.

Ritter will be hailed as a liberal hero the same way Polanski is…..

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:43 PM

fun times

/

cmsinaz on April 14, 2011 at 10:36 PM

yea…
…..just not quite how I had Disney world pictured.

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Baxter Greene on April 14, 2011 at 10:44 PM

you’re not kidding…

cmsinaz on April 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Er,…about that Gaddafi thing…

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/14/us-libya-usa-rebels-idUSTRE73D68S20110414

a capella on April 14, 2011 at 11:01 PM

How any Soldier can salute this narcissistic teenager in a fancy suit is the miracle of all.

How the media have not suffocated in his ars, yet, is the second miracle.

Schadenfreude on April 15, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Stand back everyone, the President has formed a committee to write an op-ed.

motionview on April 15, 2011 at 1:44 AM

Impeach Obama and leave Europe to strangle. They’ve earned it.

{^_^}

herself on April 15, 2011 at 5:26 AM

has the support of a “broad coalition of countries,”

uh, yuh….so what happens when the primitives, and savages in the UN, the “arab league” and their “broad coalition of countries”, start deciding they don’t like the way we do things in our country?

Will it still be cool, hip, and acceptable acceptable when they come to the next Folsom parade and start hanging the queers? Careful what ya wish for Libtards.

Alden Pyle on April 15, 2011 at 7:25 AM

so lemme see if I’m gettin’ this one right. . .

we’ve handed off the ability to wage war to an unelected, unaccountable, military organization

Does this organization have any authority or mechanisms to make and carry out decisions? Oh. . .it doesn’t?

Really?

Jason Coleman on April 15, 2011 at 9:47 AM

I keep wondering, if we actually do survive the Obama administration… will the world be as critical of American leadership in the future?

If we had a strong take charge kind of leader they would be complaining as usual… but seeing what world problems look like with no leadership has to be sobering.

I bet there are more than a few Europeans now who miss Bush.

petunia on April 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Deep in the confines of his fortified bunker, from the bowels of a nondescript building in Tripoli, the New York Times is moistened by the drooling uproarious laughter of K. Daffy Duck.

Steve Z on April 15, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Woody Allen Obama to Qaddafi: I am pointing a gub at you…

Steve Z on April 15, 2011 at 12:16 PM