Posted on 06/22/2025 2:25:42 PM PDT by Rummyfan
After last night's strikes on Iran, Democrat politicians reached screeching levels of hypocrisy over Donald Trump's decision to act rather than wait for an Iranian nuclear weapon deployment. Chuck Schumer demanded action from Congress, as did Hakeem Jeffries. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led calls for impeachment. Practically every Democrat on Capitol Hill -- with the notable exception of John Fetterman -- rushed to promote their "authoritarian" narrative about Trump.
All of this venting reveals very short memories on the port side of Capitol Hill. Fourteen years ago, they couldn't get enough of presidential strikes on a nation in the very same region. Remember Hillary Clinton's chortling over the fall of Moammar Qaddafi and the role she and Barack Obama played in it? "We came, we saw, he died," she raved to Leslie Stahl after a joint US-EU bombing campaign decapitated Qaddafi's regime, and left a failed state in its wake...
In March 2011, Obama ordered a series of military strikes on regime targets in Libya, not because of a clear and present danger to US security or assets, but because of a "responsibility to protect" doctrine promoted by Samantha Power. The Qaddafi regime was brutally suppressing dissent at the time, as Qaddafi had done for decades, but Qaddafi had also cooperated with the West on nuclear non-proliferation. Nevertheless, Obama and the Left wanted Qaddafi gone, and without going to Congress conducted military attacks with the express purpose of collapsing his regime in favor of the rebels in and around Benghazi -- a bitter irony, in the end.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Turning Libya into a failed state, a launching point for terrorists, and also an embarkation point for millions of refugees into Europe. Not to mention September 11th, 2012.
The Three Stooges. But at least Moe, Larry, and Curly provided entertainment value.
Oh Gawd, they are beyond parody.
They destroyed Libya for what?
Obama ordered it for what? Because BP oil well contracts were up with Libya. Because. Obama needed Russian style military arms for his private Islamic army in the Middle East—-aka—-ISIS. Libya was no risk to the US. They ended all nuclear ambitions, disposed of chemical weapons, and were advocating the same for other Arab states.
You betcha the Democrats cheered that on! What a disaster it has been since! Don’t worry, no US ambassadors will be killed dealing enriched U-235 to Islamic terrorist groups out of Iran. Oops, or was that just supposed to be captured and traded for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, and those damn seals got in the way of Obama’s deal?
Oh well, “What difference does it make anyway” if hypocrisy rolls from the TDS democrats.
-PJ
“We have met the enemy and he is US!(DEMOCRATS!)”—POGO.
The assassination of Gaddafi after ending his WMD program showed every dictator in the world that nuclear weapons are the only path to personal safety. Thanks Barry and Hilly.
I usually write...Mornin' guys...
Anyway, once you figure out the formula, it gets fairly easy to do.
-PJ
I’ve racked up 3 ones....My kids...”0”
I think my longest streak was about 55 before I got one of those words with too many combinations.
-PJ
I agree, it sent the wrong message.
I still ask why Barack and Hillary felt the need.
Shows you how little they have to go on now
The assassination of Kadafy by Hillary and the Obama-Biden-Harris cabal opened the door to Europe’s vulnerable underbelly by ALL of the tens of millions Arab-African “refugees” into Italy, Spain, and France who left Africa on boats launched from Libyan beaches and ports.
Something I noticed recently, is that “dude” is coming back... but if I remember correctly, “dude” was always referring to a male...
I think that is another word they changed the definition of.
Qaddafi was hoarding gold and had intentions of creating an African currency. (Like EU). Where’s the Gold?
"The state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States".
I say this is correct because 1) Success in war involves both the States (Senate) and the People (House); and 2) If Congress does not both DECLARE and PLEDGE, then as soon as the going gets tough, as war tends to do, Senators and Congressthings head for the exits.
Now, I don't say that failure to use the "authorized AND DIRECTED" language is why, since 1945, we always lose wars whereas prior to 1945 we never did, but at least, fellow FReepers, please think about what I said.
And, yes, when SLBMs are rising out of the Atlantic Ocean and are 7 minutes away, I am aware that the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy has authority to issue necessary orders, but to go from there to sending 580,000 soldiers and Marines halfway around the world to bleed for ten years without proper Constitutional authority - that's a long journey into unconstitutional action.
And, if anyone wants to respond by citing the "war powers act", don't bother. I'm a hardcore non-delegation guy and if the President can act as Presidents have recently, I don't see why we need a Congress at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.