When will it ever end?
Apparently no one in the GOP has the brains or guts to call this what it is. Even Sarah is drinking the kool-aid. Pretty damn sad.
When one group of anti-American muslims wants to engage in civil war with another group of anti-American muslims the best thing that we could do is to make sure that both sides are well armed and then get out of the way.
I noticed Mr. Hunter does not address the issue of what Mr. Obama could POSSIBLY have meant when he said:
“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,”
-— Barack Hussein Obama, December 20, 2007
I sent the below letter to the paper today.
To: San Diego Union Tribune Letters (sosdnews@uniontrib.com)
Subject: Obama’s Libyan Actions Required Congressional Debate
Concerning national security Alexander Hamilton said, “Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies….no constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. Since Libya poses no national exigency (emergency), Obama cannot espouse that statement for war.
Next as criteria for war come natural rights where Thomas Jefferson writes, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Eleanor Roosevelt defines our U.N. commitment to collective security by writing that equal and inalienable rights for the human family encompass rights to life, liberty and security of person. John Kennedy reinforced this commitment saying, “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Finally, Ronald Reagan said we cannot escape destiny as the last best hope of afflicted mankind.
However, Barack Obama cannot claim natural rights as criteria for Libyan action, because he considered preventing genocide inconsistent reasoning for maintaining troops in Iraq; pointing out our un-involvement in the Congo and Darfur.
This leaves John Kerry’s international test making the U.S. subservient to worldwide conscience. Under that criteria Libya becomes more equal than the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda. Uninterrupted European access to natural resources seems the paramount reasoning, with humanitarian protection purely random.
Such reasoning required that Congressional debate accompany Obama’s leisurely deliberations.
P.S.
White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn’t Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html
Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/
Ha ha. Hussein has to have DH defend him. How humiliating!
Not a tough choice, considering what we're discovering about the elements of the anti-government factions.
So, I disagree. Circle gets the square.
Is Duncan Hunter now a RINO?
Your comments would be welcomed!
Note how Liberals/Progressives are forgiven for not following their own statements of principal. Whereas Republicans are excoriated.
How can President 0bama be said to act correctly when he barely acted at all? He high-tailed it out of the country and has said more on his NCAA basketball picks than he has on Libya.
Another one to cross off the list.
Not mentioned is AL-QAEDA’S involvement in the Libyan rebellion.
He is completely wrong. How is any humanitarian crisis in Libya more urgent than Sudan? How about the Slaughter of opposition in Iran? Bahrain? Egypt?
This is a way the dog moment for Obama and meant to bail out his arse and Europe’s.
Where is our Speaker of the House on this? I am sure this is tissue worthy.
One group of islamists for another. What a monumental load of crap!
What was/is our interest in Libya? Why should we consider investing lives, and treasure in attacking Libya? What of benefit to the United States will be gained from the assault on Libya?
The President dithered, waffled for a couple of weeks prior to making his decision based upon a United Nations resolution, and had to be convinced then by his Socialist alleged Nat’l Security adviser, and his Socialist SOS to assault Libya for the purpose of “R2P Humanitarian Wars”.
It was, and isn’t in our interests to go to limited, kinetic, engagement in Libya. It was the United Nations interests. Screw them, and screw anyone that concedes to resolutions by the UN, over our own Congress.
“Either avoid the fight altogether and watch a humanitarian crisis unfold, or stand with the international community to protect others and assist rebel elements that are outnumbered and outmatched.”
Well, what the hell here... How about the Green Movement in Iran in 2009? They were demonstrably anti-authoritarian and pro-West. Yet, NOTHING was done to help THEM!!!! So, along comes an al-Qaeda - supported insurgency in Libya, and suddenly we’re compelled to help THEM?
WRONG
The War Powers act does NOT give the POTUS carte-blanche to use the military as his toy. There has to be a tangible threat to the United States or its interests, or a statute of some sort. Neither of these apply to Libya. Also, the POTUS is required to provide Congress with an explanation of why this action is necessary to prevent a threat to the US.
Regardless of how you feel about Libya, this sets a really bad precedent.
Hunter is WRONG.