Posted on 03/19/2011 12:34:50 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
John R. Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations who is weighing a presidential run in 2012, accused President Obama on Friday of failing to address threats to U.S. national security and called the administration's approach to the crisis in Libya "pathetic."
Hours after the president warned that the United Nations was ready to launch a military strike to defend the Libyan people if their leader Moammar Kadafi did not halt his attacks on civilians and pull back from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and three other cities, Bolton cast the president as indecisive, inconsistent and uninterested in foreign policy.
Speaking on the opening night of the state Republican Party convention in Sacramento, Bolton told fellow party members that had he been in charge, he would have moved far more swiftly and would have unilaterally declared a no-fly zone in Libya during the early stage of the crisis.
"Had we acted in those early days, we could have tipped the balance conclusively against Kadafi and this whole thing might be over," Bolton told hundreds of delegates over dinner in the ballroom of a downtown hotel. "Instead the president dithered, and he watched, and he waited, and he temporized."
"In the course of his ruminations, he said Kadafi has got to go — and then he still didn't do anything about it — thus exposing the United States to an enormous credibility problem with our friends and allies, as well as our adversaries."
In recent days, the United States and its allies at the United Nations have ratcheted up pressure on Kadafi to leave power. The U.N. Security Council agreed Thursday to use "all necessary measures" to protect the Libyan people, clearing the way for military strikes on Libyan aircraft and ground forces.....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I think it’s stupid to get involved in Libya at all but Bolton is right. 0blahblah dithered as usual.
John Bolton would make a great SecState or SecDef but he lacks the charisma for an Executive post. I love the guy.
Obama did not get Congressional approval for this. That’s a big deal. The War Powers Act does NOT cover *saving* people. Dennis Kucinich is right about this!
Then there were calls for a no-fly zone during the days when we figured any hour now Gadaffi will be stepping down and leaving the country. Sean Hannity was saying at the end of his radio show "tune into Fox news tonight and get the latest on Gadaffi's stepping down".
Well since the no-fly zone regime change calls initiated it appears now that Gadaffi's back in total control and now the military action has been approved.
I'm sure Obama's looking for a way out of this now.
Didn’t stop Clinton, remember his 78 day bombing campaign back in 1999?
Yeah but the difference is by that time most of Saddam’s airforce was in Iran.
I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country -- especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense -- but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when -- during the campaign -- he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:
Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
Obama's answer seems dispositive to me on the Libya question: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." And he went on to say that the President could constitutionally deploy the military only "in instances of self-defense."
0bama was for Constitutional authority before he was against it.
‘I love the guy.’
Ditto what you said.
It’s a sad fact - - we elect our president according to how they look and sound on T.V., and Bolton doesn’t have ‘it.’
I love the guy, too.
And am eager to see him serve in a Republican administration.
Well, how the heck is he going to be able to take care of Libya in a timely manner when there are so many other important things going on? Rio, golf, basketball...
Here’s what I think should be the talking ponts from now until 2012.
1. Obama is getting us involved in an INTRACTABLE CIIVL WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
2. He is OUTSOURCING the main part of the military effort.
3. He did both of these without ANY CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL whatsoever, therefore acting UNILATERALLY.
I am laughing my ass off how much Obama is emulating Bush and getting no credit for it.
And there's the rub if you're a conservative. The libs have just about won the wussification of American men and the turning of American women into dithering, addle-brained school girls.
When charisma is put ahead of intelligence, right-mindedness and abilities, we have turned the presidency into a parody of a beauty contest with no regard for anything of real value.
I think the vast majority have stated that John Bolton would be an excellent Secretary of State!
I also like him very much. This man has more common sense in his little finger than all the liberals and Obama combined.
nobama is the first war criminal with a Nobel Peace prize.
Palin-Bolton in 2012
Before it’s too late.
On second thought...maybe the second (arafat being the first).
Yes, John is rather abrasive but he says
“it” like it is. I would love to see him as POTUS.
I was not referring to Iraq but Serbia. Clinton went on a 78 day bombing spree without congressional approval and was never really challenged, so I call it like I see it. The Constitution is, and has been, ignored whenever it became convenient to do so.
What I like about Bolton is he calls it as he sees it. He has leadership qualities, he has a backbone. I wouldn’t mind having him for President.
Palin would serve best as an ‘inspiration’ tool for the citizens.
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.