US launches military action against Libya

By Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent – 1 hr 34 mins ago

BRASILIA, Brazil – President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said 112 cruise missiles were launched from US and UK ships and subs, hitting 20 targets.

Obama said military action was not his first choice. "This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

A senior military official said the U.S. launched air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is "deeply aware" of the risks of taking any military action.

Earlier in the day, Obama warned that the international community was prepared to act with urgency. "Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency," Obama said.

Top officials from the U.S., Europe and the Arab world meeting in Paris, where they announced Saturday immediate military action to protect civilians caught in combat between Gadhafi's forces and rebel fighters. American ships and aircraft were poised for action but weren't participating in the initial French air missions.

As the military action was announced, French fighter jets swooped over Benghazi, the opposition stronghold that was stormed by Libyan government forces earlier Saturday, in defiance of a proclaimed ceasefire.

France, Britain and the United States had warned Gadhafi Friday that they would resort to military means if he ignored the U.N. resolution demanding a cease-fire.

The United States has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers, amphibious assault and landing ships.

The U.S. intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses, but depending on the response could launch additional attacks in support of allied forces, a U.S. official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of military operations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_libya_obama

Quote:

---

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. "

- Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007

---

hhhmmmmm ....

----

112 missiles and 20 targets!?!?!? at like a billion dollars a missile!?!?!? Its Lybia, can't we just turn their electric off or something ?

---

So when do we establish no-fly zones in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen. Why do we get involve in these civil wars? We are their friends when they need us and the Great Satan when things get better.

When are we going to learn?

So what is next....Iran? Too bad for the North Korean people, the Sudanese, etc. that they don't have vast supplies of oil then we would be in there helping to "liberate" them too.

Clinton: Fears of Libyan `unspeakable atrocities'
Matthew Lee, Associated Press – Sat Mar 19, 2:12 pm ET

PARIS – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that the U.S. will bring "unique capabilities to bear" in Libya as a global coalition began enforcing a U.N.-authorized no-fly zone to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

The world will not "sit idly by," she said at a news conference, amid fears that Gadhafi will commit "unspeakable atrocities" against his people. "We have every reason to fear that left unchecked Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities," she told reporters after an international conference at which world powers launched enforcement of the no-fly zone.

Clinton said there was no evidence that Gadhafi's forces were respecting an alleged cease-fire they proclaimed and the time for action was now. "Our assessment is that the aggressive action by Gadhafi's forces continue in many parts of the country," she said. "We have seen no real effort on the part of the Gadhafi forces to abide by a cease-fire."

"Further delay will only put more civilians at risk," she said. "So let me be very clear on the position of the United States: We will support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce" the no-fly zone and protect Libyan civilians.

She said that Gadhafi must put the cease-fire into place immediately, stop advancing on the opposition-held city of Benghazi, turn on water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas of the country and reopen hospitals and clinics. She made clear that the U.S. has no intention of sending ground troops into Libya and insisted that the Obama administration was working only in collaboration with the coalition. "We did not lead this, we did not engage in unilateral actions in any way," Clinton said. She emphasized that "we are standing with the people of Libya, and we will not waver."

Despite U.S. support for the operation, Clinton said the United States had not yet decided on whether to follow France's lead in recognizing an opposition leadership council as the legitimate government of Libya. She said U.S. officials were in constant contact with opposition figures but would wait for developments to play out before deciding how to deal with the council.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_us_lib...ludG9uZmVhcnM-


Oh really? Atrocities? What about the genocide that has been happening in Darfur for years!? I guess since its Christians dying no one cares. This is a @#$%%ed up world we live in when.

---

That's funny. Saddam Hussein committed "unspeakable atrocities" toward hundreds of thousands of his own people and when Bush took him out he was called a war criminal for it. Hmmmm..............

--

Yes they do need help. 100 million is be proposed as a cut to the Pell Grants in the US but we send 10 million to a country in need as emergency funds. What about the need of US students and the emergency that will exist in the US when we become a 3rd world?

--

Hope and change most have meant Change locations?

---

Yeah....it reminds me of when Saddam was using WMD against the kurds...gassing whole villages of people, women and children. I still see the pics in my mind. Absolutely horrible. Gadhafi hasn't done anything even near to those atrocities. Yet, Obama is getting a pass on this. I bet when those US missiles kill some civilians there won't be much of an uproar from the media for Obama to be tried as a war criminal like there was against Bush.

---

Different year, different President! Same story.

---

assistance teams = Military.

Why play word games

I believe they should stay out of it. Because I bet they'll turn against us then more than him. It will just give people more ammunition against the U.S.

Guess I'll go out and fill up my tank, before it hits $5.00 a gallon tomorrow morning.

How come the liberals aren't saying that Obama is doing this for the oil? Where are the clips of the protestors with signs proclaiming "Blood = Oil" ? Where is Code Pink ?? I just read that the liberal media has said this is about lowering gasoline prices, and they cheered him for it!!! :shakeshead:

What are the goals and objectives of the US role in the Libya airstrike war?
Posted by: ST on March 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Tim Carney wonders what many of us are in light of the news over the weekend that the US is “leading” the airstrike campaign against the Libyan military : http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...ama-enters-war

Quote:

---

At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war — a war in which America’s role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.

Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama’s entry into Libya’s civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama’s announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama’s record of deception.

“Today, I authorized the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya,” the president said. For him it was self-evident he had such authority. He gave no hint he would seek even ex post facto congressional approval. In fact, he never once mentioned Congress.

Since World War II, the executive branch has steadily grabbed more war powers, and Congress has supinely acquiesced. Truman, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all fought wars without a formal declaration, but at least Bush used force only after Congress authorized it.

And, once more, the president’s actions belie his words on the campaign trail. In late 2007, candidate Obama told the Boston Globe, “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.”

There is no claim that Moammar Gadhafi poses a threat to the United States. But asking President Obama to explain his change of heart would be a fruitless exercise. This is a president who has repeatedly shredded the clear meaning of words in order to deny breaking promises he has clearly broken — consider his continued blatant falsehoods on tax increases and his hiring of lobbyists.

---

It’s interesting, when you consider how George W. Bush was treated – and still is – by hardcore leftists in the aftermath of the start of the Iraq war, even after we’d had considerable public debate about the issue for a good year or so. He was a “warmonger” who was waging war with Iraq for no reason other than “oil.” According to the left, Saddam “didn’t present a threat” to us, and therefore we had no business going into Iraq. And don’t forget how the left verbally brutalized Bush for allegedly not getting Congressional authorization for the war in Iraq – even though he did. Yet our celebrity President can launch an air war against the Libyan military with little to no public discussion/debate whatsoever, no Congressional vote, with the rationale/goals unclear, and all of a sudden it’s supposed to be ok (update: with a few exceptions, as my co-blogger notes here).

Ah – I’ve figured this out now, I think. President Obama has the UN’s permission, more or less, and for most on the left, that’s pretty much all that’s necessary – unless we’re talking about a Republican president, and then so much more is needed, like time, debate, Congressional authorization, etc …

Oh, and didn’t we hear all during the Bush admin on how waging war with Muslim countries only emboldened the terrorists??

If the word “hypocrite” wasn’t in the dictionary, it wouldn’t be too difficult to offer up ideas to The Powers That Be for what the word should be: Democrat.

Phineas butts in: For another possible explanation of why Obama changed his mind on Libya, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection offers “wag the dog.” Maybe Obama really is taking Clinton’s advice?

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...airstrike-war/

comments

One only needs to understand that for the left it is not about moral principals, it is about power. The left only uses the concept of morals and mores as a prop in their grandiose theater. It is similar to liberation theology where Marxist hide their true intent with a cloak which is supposed to resemble righteousness and scratch their heads when bona-fide theologians call them out on their deceptions. So it is the same with regards to war. The left does not care one whit about humanity [just ask Russians in the USSR, Germans under the Nazi's, Chinese under Mao, Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge, or any Cuban today.] they only care about their obtainment of power. And warfare is certainly a method to gain such.

3/21/2011
This Illegal War
Aaron Worthing @ 12:56 pm
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

http://patterico.com/2011/03/21/this-illegal-war/

Update (II): Lindsey Graham demonstrates his constitutional ignorance.

I glossed over this earlier today, relying on what my high school teacher and the New York Times said about the War Powers Act. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/wo...act-works.html

But after looking carefully at the Constitution, and the War Powers Act I can only conclude one thing: this war is illegal.

And let me start by saying that this has nothing to do with whether I support the idea of military action. I do. My chief complaint about this action is that it might be too little, too late. And anyone who followed my twitter would see me say that I believed that we were missing a historic opportunity in our inaction. But it is not enough to do the right thing under our Constitution. We must do the right thing, the right way.

First, it is a war. When our planes are dropping bombs on enemy armies, what else can one call it? Even if it is unlawful, it is still war.

And it is not authorized by The War Powers Act which is codified as 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq. Just follow the link and use the “next” link towards the top to browse during the different sections. Section 1541 states that the President can only go to war… http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...1----000-.html

…only pursuant to:

(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.

Now I am not one of those kinds of constitutional formalists who says that the declaration of war has to be called a “Declaration of War.” The constitution is about substance and not form and therefore the substance of a Declaration of War is to authorize the creation of a state of war between two nations where none previously existed. A simple authorization to use force, for instance, qualifies.

But we don’t even have that. Nor can we say that Gdaffy has attacked the U.S., our territories, or even our military, except for the reason that our military is attacking his country and the statute makes it exceedingly clear that this doesn’t count for self-defense purposes.

So it’s not authorized by the War Power Act. But is it perhaps justified under the Constitution itself?

It would seem not. First, of course, only Congress has the right to declare war. This appears to be the only way our nation can create a state of war between our nation and another, where none previously existed. We were not at war with Gdaffy before we invaded his territory and the state of war that exists is solely because of that invasion. Again, this isn’t to say it is wrong, but it is being done the wrong way. Congress would have every legal and moral right to declare “sic semper tyrannis!” and declare war on Libya. But the President does not have that legal right.

For instance, it is not altogether clear that the President could actually wage war on his own accord if we were invaded. The Constitution states that it is a Congressional power to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions[.]” Arguably, that is exactly what the War Powers Act was all about. But let us say for the sake of argument that by implication coming from provisions like the Take Care Clause and the fact that the constitution differentiates between the Militia, the Army and the Navy, that maybe the president has the implied power to at least deploy the army and navy in self-defense. But nothing in the Constitution could be stretched to allow for a war of choice in a far-off land, where we were not attacked first.

And no, the U.N. resolution doesn’t provide justification, either. The Constitution assigns the power to declare war to Congress and no treaty can abrogate that.

So what do we do? I think we do two things. First, we consider and if appropriate, pass an authorization of force. I wish we would call it a “Declaration of War,” but that is not likely. And then I think Congress should officially Censure Obama, for unlawfully starting a war. I don’t believe impeachment should be on the table, but we should make it clear that if he dares to try this twice, impeachment will follow. The President must be reminded that the decision to go to war is not his, or the United Nations’, but Congress’. To do anything less would risk turning the Declaration of War Clause into a dead letter.

Hat Tip: Dustin.

Update: I forgot to add that the Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief himself agreed with me, when auditioning for this job:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/

Quote:

---

2. 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?)

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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

---

Last night on the news they commented that this "war" was to get rid of Gadhafi and that once gone, the powers would be handed over to the "new" regime....only...they don't know the "new" regime who has no "history" nor do we really know their "intentions" ? :doh

Quote:

---

Tim Carney wonders what many of us are in light of the news over the weekend that the US is “leading” the airstrike campaign against the Libyan military : http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...ama-enters-war

Quote:

---

At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war — a war in which America’s role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.

---

---

What the heck are we doing? :shrug

And please don't tell me what Bush did or how he did it to try and justify this.....especially after Bush was so criticized and crucified by the person who now is doing a 180 himself on all his preachings.:headshake

What a freakin' mess. Arrogance & inexperience once again, hope & change.

Dennis Kucinich Wonders Why Missile Strikes Aren’t Impeachable Offenses
By Doug Powers • March 20, 2011 11:40 AM

Yesterday, US and British forces launched over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya in an attempt to knock out its air defenses.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...e-consequences


A group of left-wing House Democrats are fretting about the constitutionality of this military action (military action seems to be about the only time this bunch worries about constitutionality). Rep. Dennis Kucinich — who recently awarded himself the Purple Molar for injuries he sustained single-handedly attempting to thwart an olive pit attack at the congressional cafeteria — is even talking about impeachment:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

Quote:

---

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

---

I love the smell of a potential primary challenge in the morning.

Others on the left who helped carry Obama into office on their shoulders are going apoplectic as well. Michael Moore http://weaselzippers.us/2011/03/19/o...l-peace-prize/ suggested that Obama return his Nobel Peace Prize and compared him to Bush (a charge that will be especially hard for Obama to avoid if he’s going to recycle W’s speeches, http://dougpowers.com/2011/03/19/ano...ted-from-bush/ but at least that might help keep the greens happy). Louis Farrakhan asked Obama “Who the hell do you think you are?” Obama’s even lost Joan Baez, http://www.sify.com/news/legendary-s...srkgbcbdd.html and you know how the old saying goes: If you’ve lost an aging folk singer from the 60′s, you’ve lost… well, not much actually.

-----

comments

Doesn’t that make these representatives racists because they want Obama impeached? If I had said that Obama should be impeached, these four would claim I’m racist.

---

Pfft. Boehner’s disappointing me. He kept talking about “getting the message”, but he’s still playing politics as usual, it seems.
I am very disappointed (yet again) by the number of so-called constitutional conservatives who think that this is somehow constitutional.

The Second Amendment is probably the only section that is written with any greater degree of clarity.

We are not under attack. Libya’s civil war posed no imminent danger to America.

Picking and choosing which parts of the constitution to read literally is a liberal trick.

----

Another liberal president shreds another clause of the constitution, and the right is all about cheering him on because it upsets the left?

We are so screwed.

---

I am very disappointed (yet again) by the number of so-called constitutional conservatives who think that this is somehow constitutional.

December 2007 quote from then-candidate Obama:

Quote:

---

“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.”

---

There you have it. The ‘catch’ here, is they are calling this a Humanitarian effort.

---

Is this bho’s “bomb an aspirin factory” moment? What better distraction to use since he’s tanking in the polls and went to Brazil to buy oil, because he won’t allow drilling here. How much more can he muck up?

Quote:

---

and you know how the old saying goes: If you’ve lost an aging folk singer from the 60′s, you’ve lost… well, not much actually.

---

:lol That tickles me....:lol

US jet crashes in Libya; fighting rages in cities
Ryan Lucas, Associated Press – 18 mins ago

BU MARIEM, Libya – An American fighter jet crashed in Libya's rebel held east, both crew ejecting safely as the aircraft spun from the sky during the third night of the U.S. and European air campaign. Moammar Gadhafi's forces shelled rebels regrouping in the dunes outside a key eastern city on Tuesday, and his snipers and tanks roamed the last major opposition-held city in the west.

The crash was the first major loss for the U.S. and European military air campaign, which over three nights appears to have hobbled Gadhafi's air defenses and artillery and rescued the rebels from what appeared to be imminent defeat. But the opposition force, with more enthusiasm than discipline, has struggled to exploit the gains. The international alliance, too, has shown fractures as officials struggle to articulate an endgame.

China and Russia, which abstained from the U.N. Security Council vote authorizing the international intervention, called for a cease-fire Tuesday from international forces.

The U.S. Air Force F-15E came down in field of winter wheat and thistles outside the town of Bu Mariem, about 24 miles (38 kilometers) east of the rebel capital of Benghazi.

By Tuesday afternoon, the plane's body was mostly burned to ash, with only the wings and tail fins intact. U.S. officials say both crewmembers were safe in American hands.

"I saw the plane spinning round and round as it came down," said Mahdi Amrani, who rushed to the crash site with other villagers. "It was in flames. They died away, then it burst in to flames again."

The U.S. Africa Command said both crewmembers were in American hands with minor injuries after what was believed to be a mechanical failure of the on Monday night. One was picked up by a rebel force and the other by a Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft.

Most of eastern Libya, where the plane crashed, is in rebel hands but the force has struggled to take advantage of the gains from the international air campaign.

Ajdabiya, city of 140,000 that is the gateway to the east, has been under siege for a week. Outside the city, a ragtag band of hundreds of fighters milled about on Tuesday, clutching mortars, grenades and assault rifles. Some wore khaki fatigues. One man sported a bright white studded belt.

Some men clambered up power lines in the rolling sand dunes of the desert, squinting as they tried to see Gadhafi's forces inside the city. The group periodically came under artillery attacks, some men scattering and others holding their ground.

"Gadhafi is killing civilians inside Ajdabiya," said Khaled Hamid, a rebel who said he been in Gadhafi's forces but defected to the rebels. "Today we will enter Ajdabiya, God willing."

Since the uprising began on Feb. 15, the opposition has been made up of disparate groups even as it took control of the entire east of the country. Regular army units that joined the rebellion have proven stronger and more organized, but only a few units have joined the battles while many have stayed behind as officers try to coordinate a force with often antiquated, limited equipment.

The rebels pushed into the west of the country in recent weeks, only to fall back to their eastern strongholds in the face of Gadhafi's superior firepower.

Misrata, Libya's third-largest city and the last major western redoubt for the rebels, was being bombarded by Gadhafi's forces on Tuesday, his tanks and snipers controlling the streets, according to a doctor there who said civilians were surviving on dwindling supplies of food and water, desperately in search of shelter.

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals if the city falls to Gadhafi's troops, he accused international forces of failing to protect civilians as promised under the United Nations resolution authorizing military action in Libya.

"Snipers are everywhere in Misrata, shooting anyone who walks by while the world is still watching," he said. "The situation is going from bad to worse. We can do nothing but wait. Sometimes we depend on one meal per day."

Mokhtar Ali, a Libyan dissident in exile elsewhere in the Mideast, said he was in touch with his father in Misrata and described increasingly dire conditions.

"Residents live on canned food and rainwater tanks," Ali said. He said Gadhafi's brigades storm residential areas knowing that they won't be bombed there. "People live in total darkness in terms of communications and electricity."

Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment. But while the airstrikes can stop Gadhafi's troops from attacking rebel cities — in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians — the United States, at least, appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others said the U.S. military's role will lessen in coming days as other countries take on more missions and the need declines for large-scale offensive action like the barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles fired mainly by U.S. ships and submarines off Libya's coast.

A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss classified data, said Monday that the attacks thus far had reduced Libya's air defense capabilities by more than 50 percent. That has enabled the coalition to focus more on extending the no-fly zone, which is now mainly over the coastal waters off Libya and around the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the east, across the country to the Tripoli area this week.

In his first public comments on the crisis, Army Gen. Carter Ham, the lead U.S. commander, said it was possible that Gadhafi might retain power.

"I don't think anyone would say that is ideal," the general said Monday, foreseeing a possible outcome that stands in contrast to President Barack Obama's declaration that Gadhafi must go.

The Libyan leader has ruled the North African nation for more than four decades and was a target of American air attacks in 1986.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya;...lieWFyZWJlbHNz

Obama to address nation on Monday about Libya
AP – 20 mins ago Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – The White House says President Barack Obama will give a speech to the nation Monday explaining his decision-making on the Libyan war.

The timing comes as some lawmakers of both major parties have complained that Obama has not sought their input about the U.S. role in the war or explained with enough clarity about the U.S. goals and exit strategy. U.S.-led forces began launching missile strikes last Saturday against embattled Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi's defenses to prevent him from attacking his own people.

Obama is expected to emphasize a greater NATO role and a shrinking direct U.S. military involvement.

NATO has announced control over enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya; the White House says NATO is working out military details on taking over the broader military mission.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Even as other nations begin taking a larger role in the international air assault mission in Libya, the Pentagon is considering adding Air Force gunships and other attack aircraft that are better suited for tangling with Libyan ground forces in contested urban areas like Misrata, a senior Pentagon official said Friday.

Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney told a Pentagon news conference that for the second consecutive day, all air missions to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya were flown by non-U.S. aircraft, and U.S. planes conducted about half the missions attacking Libyan air defenses, missile sites and ground forces. Qatar became the first Arab nation to join the effort, flying F-16s in support of the no-fly zone. "The division of labor between the U.S. and our partners has largely evened out," Gortney said.

With the Obama administration eager to take a back seat, it remained unclear when NATO would assume command of the no-fly patrols. Also unclear was when — and even if — the U.S. military's Africa Command would hand off to NATO the lead role in attacking Libyan ground targets. President Barack Obama spoke with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders about Libya on Friday afternoon amid criticism that he's failed to adequately consult with Capitol Hill on the U.S. military goals there.

Political pressure on Obama to spell out his Libya policy mounted Friday as a prominent Democrat expressed reservations about the wisdom of continuing the military mission. "I know the president carefully weighed all the options before taking this emergency action but now that our military has prevented an immediate disaster, I have very serious concerns about what this intervention means for our country in the coming weeks," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller. "Our military, and our budget, are stretched thin fighting two wars already, and I want to avoid getting into another conflict with unknown costs and consequences."

Obama intends to update the country in the "very near future," press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Obama was traveling in Latin America last weekend when he authorized the U.S.-led attacks on Moammar Gadhafi's defenses. Obama has not spoken out on the fighting since returning on Wednesday. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has been traveling abroad this week, also was quiet on Libya on Friday.

The U.S. commander in charge of the overall international mission, Army Gen. Carter Ham, told The Associated Press, "We could easily destroy all the regime forces that are in Ajdabiya," but the city itself would be destroyed in the process. "We'd be killing the very people that we're charged with protecting."

Instead, the focus is on disrupting the communications and supply lines that allow Gadhafi's forces to keep fighting in Ajdabiya and other urban areas like Misrata, Ham said in a telephone interview from his U.S. Africa Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. Ham said the U.S. expects NATO will take command of the no-fly zone mission on Sunday, with a Canadian three-star general, Charles Bouchard, in charge. Bouchard would report to an American admiral, Samuel Locklear, in Locklear's role as commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, Ham said.

If NATO also decides to take on a wider mission broadly defined by the United Nations Security Council as protecting Libyan civilians from their own government — a mission that is currently carried out under U.S. command — then Bouchard might command that effort, too, Ham said.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner says the Obama administration needs to do more to explain how the mission in Libya "is consistent with U.S. policy goals." The spokesman, Brendan Buck, made the comment Friday after the speaker participated in a conference call with Obama and congressional leaders.

In announcing on Thursday that NATO had agreed to take on the no-fly zone mission, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the campaign was evolving in line with Obama's plan to limit U.S. involvement. "We're already seeing a significant reduction in the number of U.S. planes involved in operations as the number of planes from other countries increases in numbers," she said.

Gortney, however, said there has been no reduction in the number of American planes participating. In fact, he said the Pentagon was considering bringing in side-firing AC-130 gunships, helicopters and armed drone aircraft that could challenge Libyan ground forces that threaten civilians in cities like Misrata. The U.S. has avoided attacking in cities thus far out of fear that civilians could be killed or injured. AC-130 gunships, which operate at night at low altitude, can attack with unusual precision.

Gortney is staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Ham said in the AP interview that he would not discuss specific U.S. weaponry that might be used in the future. "But that is the challenge: How do you more precisely target these regime forces without causing civilian casualties? So more precise weapons systems is what we are looking for."

NATO's governing body, the North Atlantic Council, is expected to meet again on Sunday to revisit whether the alliance will take command of the rest of the Libya operation, including the protection of civilians.

Asked about the condition of Gadhafi's armed forces after a week of U.S. and coalition bombing, Gortney said their communications had been degraded, yet they remain a dangerous threat. In the contested city of Ajdabiya, for example, attacks against pro-Gadhafi forces were producing limited results. "We assess that our strikes on regime forces around the city have had an effect, but the regime is still able and still determined to reinforce their positions there," Gortney said.

As the transition to NATO command and control of the military operation proceeds, the administration has still not made a decision about recognizing the Benghazi-based Libyan opposition council as the legitimate government of the country. The U.S. closed its embassy in Tripoli in February but has not broken diplomatic relations with the Gadhafi regime.

Gene Cretz, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who has been reaching out to opposition figures, said the administration was still not entirely certain about the identities and intentions of the transitional council, although he said they had made positive statements about their goals and plans to respect human rights. "I think they're off to a good start," he told reporters at the State Department. "That's not to say that we know everything about them; we don't. We have to be very careful about who might be included in the future and how they go about forming a government, if in fact they have that opportunity."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/...1hdG9hZGRyZQ--

Quote:

---

Obama is expected to emphasize a greater NATO role and a shrinking direct U.S. military involvement.

---

Quote:

---

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the campaign was evolving in line with Obama's plan to limit U.S. involvement. "We're already seeing a significant reduction in the number of U.S. planes involved in operations as the number of planes from other countries increases in numbers," she said.

---

I heard on the news last night ... although I seem to be having trouble finding a print source at the moment ... that Obama was not committing US Ground forces in Libya...

Pentagon: US-led forces pound Libyan ground troops
Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press – 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon says U.S.-led forces pounded Libyan ground troops and other targets along the Mediterranean coast and in the contested cities of Tripoli, Misrata and Ajdabiya in strikes overnight into Saturday.

The military assault helped Libyan rebels regain ground in the eastern city of Ajdabiya. That was the first major turnaround in the week-old operation.

President Barack Obama is citing significant progress in the military operation even as the U.S. gets ready to turn over portions of the mission to NATO control.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Darryn James, says there were no Tomahawk cruise missile strikes overnight.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


Even after a week of U.S.-led air strikes, forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi are a potent threat to civilians, say Pentagon officials who are considering expanding the firepower and airborne surveillance systems in the military campaign.

"Every day, the pressure on Gadhafi and his regime is increasing," President Barack Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, aired just after Libyan rebels regained control of the eastern city of Ajdabiya. It was the first major turnaround in an uprising that once appeared on the verge of defeat.

Obama also readied for a speech to the nation Monday evening to explain his decision-making on Libya to a public weary of a decade of war.

Lawmakers from both parties have complained that the president has not sought their input about the U.S. role in Libya or stated clearly the U.S. goals and exit strategy.

"The United States should not and cannot intervene every time there's a crisis somewhere in the world," Obama said in the speech Saturday. But with Gadhafi threatening "a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region ... it's in our national interest to act. And it's our responsibility. This is one of those times."

Among the weapons under consideration for use in Libya is the Air Force's AC-130 gunship, armed with cannons that shoot from the side doors. Other possibilities are helicopters and drones that fly lower and slower and can spot more than fast-moving jet fighters.

Obama said in an e-mail statement Saturday that "we are now handing over control of the no-fly zone to our NATO allies and partners, including Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates."

In light of that goal, the discussion of adding weapons to step up the assault on Gadhafi's ground troops reflects the challenges in hitting the right targets.

U.S.-led forces began missile strikes last Saturday to establish a no-fly zone and prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people.

American officials have said they won't drop bombs in cities to avoid killing or wounding civilians — a central pillar of the operation. Yet they want to hit the enemy in contested urban areas.

"The difficulty in identifying friend from foe anywhere is always a difficult challenge," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday at the Pentagon. The difficulty in distinguishing "friend from foe inside an urban environment is magnified significantly."

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the U.S. officer in charge of the overall international mission, told The Associated Press, the focus is on disrupting the communications and supply lines that allow Gadhafi's forces to keep fighting in the contested cities.

Ham said in a telephone interview from his U.S. Africa Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, that the U.S. expected NATO would take command of the no-fly zone mission on Sunday, with a Canadian three-star general, Charles Bouchard, in charge. Bouchard would report to an American admiral, Samuel Locklear, in Locklear's role as commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, he said.

But with the Obama administration eager to take a back seat in the Libya campaign, it is still when — or even if — the U.S. military's Africa Command would shift the lead role in attacking Libyan ground targets to NATO. U.S officials say the alliance is finalizing the details of the transfer this weekend.

Obama spoke with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders about Libya on Friday afternoon. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he was concerned that the current military action might not be enough force Gadhafi from power, his spokeswoman said.

Brooke Buchanan said McCain, the top Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee, supports the military intervention but fears it could lead to a stalemate that leaves Gadhafi's government in place.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110326/...ot/us_us_libya

Why is it always the United States having to intervene in these matters? It's alway us. We have enough on our plate, not to mention all the domestic issues at hand.

---

ts none of OUR business...we are not world police ....if they downed a plane of ours it should have been handled at the time !....We are broke because we get sucked in to all these wars ! And we give billions to everyone but our own people !

Debate Needed on Libyan Intervention
Marjorie Cohn WarIsACrime.org

Since Saturday night, the United States, France and Britain have been bombing Libya with cruise missiles, B-2 stealth bombers, F-16 and F-15 fighter jets and Harrier attack jets. There is no reliable estimate of the number of civilians killed. The US has taken the lead in the punish-ing bombing campaign to carry out United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

The resolution authorizes UN member states "to take all necessary measures... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." The military action taken exceeds the bounds of the "all necessary measures" authorization.

"All necessary measures" should first have been peaceful measures to settle the conflict. But peaceful means were not exhausted before Obama began bombing Libya. A high level international team - consisting of representatives from the Arab League, the Organization of African Unity and the UN secretary general - should have been dispatched to Tripoli to attempt to negotiate a real cease-fire and set up a mechanism for elections and for protecting civilians. There is no doubt that Muammar Qaddafi has been brutally repressing Libyans in order to maintain his power. But the purpose of the United Nations is to maintain inter-national peace and security. The burgeoning conflict in Libya is a civil war, which arguably does not constitute a threat to international peace and security.

The UN Charter commands that all members settle their international disputes by peaceful means, to maintain international peace, security and justice. Members must also refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Only when a state acts in self-defense, in response to an armed attack by one country against another, can it militarily attack another state under the UN Charter. The need for self-defense must be overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Libya has not attacked another country. The United States, France and Britain are not acting in self-defense. Humanitarian concerns do not constitute self-defense. The UN Charter does not permit the use of military force for humanitarian interventions. But the UN General Assembly embraced a norm of "Responsibility to Protect" in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit. Paragraph 138 of that document says each individual state has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Paragraph 139 adds that the international community, through the United Nations, also has "the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

Chapter VI of the Charter requires parties to a dispute likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to "first of all, seek a solution by negoti-ation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice." Chapter VIII governs "regional arrangements," such as NATO, the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity. The chapter specifies that regional arrangements "shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements..."

It is only when peaceful means have been tried and proved inadequate that the Security Council can authorize action under Chapter VII of the Charter. That action includes boycotts, embargoes, severance of diplomatic relations and even blockades or operations by air, sea or land.

The "responsibility to protect" norm grew out of frustr-ation with the failure to take action to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, where a few hundred troops could have saved myriad lives. But the norm was not implemented to stop Israel from bombing Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, which resulted in a loss of 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians. Nor is it being used to stop the killing of civilians by the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is also hypocrisy inherent in the US bombing of Libya to enforce international law. The Obama administration has thumbed its nose at its international obligations by refus-ing to investigate officials of the Bush administration for war crimes for its torture regime. Both the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions compel member states to bring people to justice who violate their commands.

The United States is ostensibly bombing Libya for humanit-arian reasons. But Obama refuses to condemn the repression and government killings of protesters in Bahrain using US-made tanks and weaponry because that is where the US Fifth Fleet is stationed. And Yemen, a close US ally, kills and wounds protesters while Obama watches silently. Regime change is not authorized by the resolution. Yet, US bombers targeted the Qaddafi compound and Obama said at a news conference in Santiago that it is "US policy that Qaddafi needs to go." The resolution specifically forbids a "foreign occupation force." But it is unlikely that the United States, France and Britain will bomb Libya and leave. Don't be surprised to hear there are Western forces on the ground in Libya to "train" or "assist" the rebels there.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates pegged it when he said that a "no-fly zone" over Libya would be an "act of war." Although the Arab League reportedly favored a no-fly zone, Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, said, "what is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone." He added, "What we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians." He plans to call a new meeting of the league to reconsider its support for a no-fly zone. The military action in Libya sets a dangerous precedent of attacking countries where the leadership does not favor the pro-US or pro-European Union countries. What will prevent the United States from stage-managing some protests, magnifying them in the corporate media as mass actions and then bombing or attacking Venezuela, Cuba, Iran or North Korea? During the Bush administration, Washington leveled baseless allegations to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq.

Moreover, Obama took military action without consulting Congress, the only body with the constitutional power to declare war. It is not clear what our mission is there or when it will end. Congress - and indeed, the American people - should debate what we are doing in Libya. We must not support a third expensive and illegal war. There is a crying need for that money right here at home. And we should refuse to be complicit in the killing of more civilians in a conflict in which we don't belong.

Open Thread: Obama About to Address Nation
(Update: Transcript and My Thoughts)
Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 4:31 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

http://patterico.com/2011/03/28/open...ddress-nation/

Not much going on here, but an open thread to discuss whatever Obama is about to say.

Update: It’s over and it was less than inspiring. There is no attempt to explain why he could wait for the U.N. but not Congress. There is no attempt to explain why this is different than bombing Iran (which he said Bush couldn’t do, without Congess’ consent). And on one hand he tells us that we should be proud to have led the international community (except we didn’t), but don’t worry we won’t be leading it much longer.

And by the way, isn’t that worse if we aren’t leading it? I mean notice he didn’t say that the other nations will be taking over the actual, you know, fighting. Just the leading. So presumably over 90% of the bombs being dropped will be dropped by us, but at the command of a foreign power. How on Earth is that a good thing, or better that we are in control?

Anyway, you can read the prepared remarks here. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us...rexy-text.html

Update (II): And more contradictions. At one point he says:

Quote:

---

“I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.”

---

Which implies at some time Gaddafi was legitimate. But he also says this:

Quote:

---

“Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States.”

---

Seriously, huh?

President Obama: We Had to Support Al Qaeda in Libya To Prevent a Refugee Crisis That Could Hurt the Muslim Brotherhood's Rise in Egypt [/i]

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...upport-al.html

Of course, I'm reading between the lines of President Obama's speech.

Quote:

---

...In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air...

...America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power...

---

I'm still confused about "The Obama Doctrine" -- if, indeed, there is one apart from poll-watching.

No mention of the 400,000 lives lost in Darfur, Sudan.

No word on the slaughter of the civilians involved in Iran's Green Movement, arguably the most strategic 'democracy movement' in the Middle East.

Precious few words on the Muslim Brotherhood's burgeoning alliance with Egypt's military, an ominous portent for anti-Western sentiment.

Or the scores of civilians killed in Syria, a rebellion that could severely wound the interests of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Yet nearly every American would support killing Gaddafi. We still owe him for Pan Am Flight 103, which shredded 270 people. Among them were 35 students from Syracuse University and scores of infants.

There are humanitarian crises erupting throughout the Arab world. Given Al Qaeda's involvement with Libya's rebels, I have yet to figure out the administration's logic. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...aeda-question/


About the Libyan Rebel-Al Qaeda Question
Abe Greenwald 03.27.2011 - 11:47 AM

There have been a slew of recent reports that some of the Libyan rebels have al Qaeda ties. This seems not only credible, but obvious. Eastern Libya is a known jihadist hot spot. Where Arab governments are repressive and abusive, Islamism and jihad will fill the space occupied by legitimate political opposition in pluralistic systems.

So, yes, some rebels undoubtedly have ties to al Qaeda. And, yes, it is frightening to think that in a slightly tortured mechanical reading of things, this puts us indirectly on the side of al Qaeda. But there is a more important, more legitimate, and more realistic way to view this. Does America want the rebels indebted to the United States for helping them topple Muammar Qaddafi or want them aligning with al Qaeda’s local representatives after we confirm the jihadist narrative that the U.S. does not care about Muslim freedom and only wants to maintain ties with oil-funded dictators?

The answer is obvious. The surest way to turn al Qaeda from a sideline detail to a major player is to abandon the rebels and deliver the country back into Qaddafi’s hands. It’s become something of a punchline, but the “battle for hearts and minds” is still the most maddeningly important dynamic of the war on terror. That battle is not won by sitting back and letting al Qaeda make its best case to desperate Muslims. Lest we forget: for the two years that Barack Obama implemented his “who are we to judge dictators” policy, support for jihad went up among Muslims in the Middle East. We stay out of things at our own risk.

We can prevent a pro-jihad outcome in Libya, but we must be unapologetic about–and committed to–toppling the Qaddafi regime. As we scramble for an early exit al Qaeda will get stronger and Libyan rebels, like those who aided the downed American pilot last week, will be sure to put their trust elsewhere.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0328094523.jpg

Analysis: Obama doesn't mention Libyan rebels
Anne Gearan, Ap National Security Writer – Tue Mar 29, 6:21 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wanted to tell a hesitant America why he launched a military assault in Libya, and he wanted to describe it on his terms — limited, sensible, moral and backed by international partners with the shared goal of protecting Libyans from a ruthless despot.

Trouble is, the war he described Monday doesn't quite match the fight the United States is in.

It also doesn't line up with the conflict Obama himself had seemed to presage, when he expressly called for Moammar Gadhafi's overthrow or resignation. Obama's stated goals stop well short of that. And although Obama talked of the risks of a long war, he did not say just when or on what terms the United States would leave Libya.

Obama never directly mention the Libyan rebels seeking Gadhafi's overthrow, even though the heavy U.S.-led firepower trained on Gadhafi's forces has allowed those rebels to regain momentum and push toward Gadhafi's territory. "We have intervened to stop a massacre," Obama said.

Ten days into a conflict many Americans say they do not understand, Obama laid out a moral imperative for intervening against a murderous tyrant, and doing so without the lengthy international dithering that allowed so much blood to be spilled in Bosnia. His address at the National Defense University echoed campaign rhetoric about restoring U.S. moral pride of place after squandering it in Iraq. "Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges," Obama said. "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."

Gadhafi's forces have been largely pinned down and unable to mount a massacre since the first hours of the war, while U.S. and NATO warplanes have become an unacknowledged aerial arm of the rebels. Obama said the United States will help the opposition, an oblique reference to the rebels.

Over the weekend U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft, designed to provide battlefield support to friendly ground forces, flew attack missions for the first time in this conflict. The Pentagon also disclosed Monday that Air Force AC-130 gunships, low-flying aircraft armed with a 105mm howitzer and a 40mm cannon, had joined the battle. Those two types of aircraft give the U.S. more ability to confront pro-Gadhafi forces in urban areas with less risk of civilian casualties.

The Pentagon's lead spokesman on Libya operations, Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, told reporters Monday that the U.S. military is not coordinating with the rebels. But he left little doubt that, by design or not, Western air power is propelling the rebels forward. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Gortney said. He displayed a chart that showed rebels advancing within 80 miles of Sirte, Gadhafi's home town.

If the purpose of the U.N.-sanctioned military action is to protect civilians, does that include pro-Gadhafi civilians who are likely to be endangered in places like Sirte that are in the rebels' crosshairs? If not, it is difficult to see the Western intervention as a neutral humanitarian act not aligned with the rebels.

The first goal of the intervention was to prevent a massacre of civilians in Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city where Gadhafi forces were threatening to crush the rebellion two weeks ago. Gadhafi said he would "show no mercy."

A U.S.-led assault quickly accomplished that first goal. A no-fly zone was established two weekends ago with little resistance. The U.S. and its partners then launched airstrikes on Gadhafi supply lines and other military targets not only near Benghazi but around other contested areas as well. But the role of Western air power then went beyond that initial humanitarian aim, to in effect provide air cover for the rebels while pounding Gadhafi forces in a bid to break their will or capacity to fight.

Now U.S. forces are pulling back, handing much of the responsibility for the open-ended military campaign to allies, as Obama said they would. "So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do," Obama said with clear satisfaction.

He meant that the U.S. had hewed to its stated role under a U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized force. But he acknowledged that the U.N. mandate doesn't extend to Gadhafi's ouster, even if many of the nations carrying it out might wish for that. Obama was frank about the reasons why. "Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," Obama said.

It would shatter the international partnership he relies on for diplomatic cover and security backup. It would probably mean sending U.S. ground forces into yet another Muslim nation, something Obama has said he will not do in Libya. It would undoubtedly increase the risk to the U.S. military, the costs of the war and U.S. responsibility for shoring up and protecting whatever Libya might emerge, Obama said. "To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq," Obama said, where thousands of U.S. forces remain eight years after the fall of Saddam Hussein. "That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya," Obama said.

Getting rid of Gadhafi "may not happen overnight," Obama warned, in his first acknowledgement of the stalemate with the rebels that many analysts and some of his own military advisers suspect is coming. Gadhafi, Obama said, might well cling to power for some time.

The United States is considering arming the rebels, directly or indirectly, and U.S. officials say the U.N. resolution would allow that. Obama mentioned nothing about the possibility of civil war in Libya, or what the U.S. might do if the war grinds on for months.

Obama still faces questions about why Libya and not Yemen, or not Syria. One of his closest national security advisers, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the administration doesn't "get very hung up on this question of precedent."

"We don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," McDonough said.

Throughout his address, Obama seemed to be answering his own criticism of past wars and past leaders who committed military force too hastily or too hesitantly.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner never used the word "war" to describe what's happening in Libya, but made a point of addressing what the conflict he chose "says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader leadership in the world, under my presidency."

His book "The Audacity of Hope" and his Nobel speech established the same predicates for U.S. military intervention — an allied coalition and use of multinational power. "We know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help," Obama said Monday. "In such cases, we should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America's alone."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/...libya_analysis


Obama doesn't mention bypassing Congress either.

---

Quote:

---

"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."
- Sen. Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

---

Umm, Mr. President? This is exactly what you did in the Libyan crisis.

---

We go into Libya but don't consider helping oppressed people in Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, or other areas where atrocities are just as bad, or worse, than in Libya. Also, in Bahrain, where the Saudis sent in troops to quell rebellion, we say nothing, since the Saudis are staunch allies and we want to protect our oil interests.

We are bogged down in the Middle East spending billions of dollars there protecting the interests of our big corporations, many of which pay no income taxes and receive subsidies. Daily we are told that we must have "shared sacrifice" because we are broke, but sacrifice falls only on the middle and lower classes. The USA is quickly becoming a third world country with a rich elite, a dwindling middle class, and a rapidly growing lower class. Whose interests is the USA protecting?

---

The Libyan rebels are Muslim brotherhood terrorists and rival tribes. The rebels are not mentioned because not much good can be said about them. The rebels in Egypt and Libya hate Israel and will join forces to destroy that country once they gain power. It seems that Obama is willing to sacrifice Israel to appease Islamic radicals.

---

Where's the outrage?

--

In his speech he said he would not tolerate anyone who shows no mercy to civilians. What about our own government showing no mercy to our seniors and disabled?

How Obama's Libya claims fit the facts
By Calvin Woodward And Richard Lardner, Associated Press – Tue Mar 29, 3:07 am ET

WASHINGTON – There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show. And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.

Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

___

Quote:

---

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

---

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

___

Quote:

---

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

---

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

___

Quote:

---

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

---

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the 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," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

___

Quote:

---

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

---

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."

___

Quote:

---

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

---

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/...N0Y2hlY2tob3c-


This reminds me of an interview in Haiti I saw on CNN. The person being interviewed said they didn't want Americans there, just their money.

---

It is hard to believe the people running this country think they can solve this and other serious problems by renaming it.

---

President Obama's reason for attacking Libya is to PREVENT civilian deaths, meanwhile we ignore dictators currently killing civilians? Why?

---

What?!?!? Obama is not committed to his own doctrine? I'm shocked...bewildered ...

---

Obama questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?". . . lets add why Libya and not Yemen or Barhain .. . .yeah tell us why mr nobel peace "winner"

---

Obama did not seek congressional authority before he took military action in Libya, nor did he consult closely with congressional leaders, sore points for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Quote:

---

(AP)..Feb. 15. 2007---- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade without specific approval from Congress.

---

Quote:

---

(AP)... In 2007 ... Joe Biden Warned That He'd Impeach Bush For Waging War Without Congressional Approval ...

---

Has any body seen Pelosi or Biden Lately .... or the liberal media crying... H or anyone protesting this war as they did when Bush was in charge? A clear non-show of liberal hypocrites!

---

If Obama gives this the same laser-like focus he gave to jobs and the economy the whole Mideast is doomed.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0329120711.jpg

NBC Reporter: You Know Who Must Have Liked Obama’s Libya Speech? Gaddafi
By Doug Powers • March 29, 2011 02:46 PM **Written by Doug Powers


According to NBC’s Jim Maceda, who is in Libya, President Obama’s speech last night probably has Gaddafi and his regime shaking in their boots… because they’re so thrilled.

Transcript from Newsbusters:http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...ing-lot-better

Quote:

---

JIM MACEDA: Well, there hasn’t been any official comment, Willie, from Gaddafi or from the regime or from the compound, yet. I can tell you that the whole, the atmospherics here of the government officials and minders is very different. They had gone to ground for a number of days: very quiet, very tense. They’re looking much more themselves: much more bellicose, much more defiant in the past 24 hours. I would think, it’s an educated guess but I would say that Gaddafi, after hearing that speech, of course it wasn’t on Libyan TV but anyone with satellite television could have watched it, that the regime now is feeling a lot better. That they’re feeling that they dodged a bullet. If NATO’s taking over, they like that. They’ve got much better relations with NATO than with the United States in general. And they love the idea that the US position as stated by Obama is that they’re not looking for regime change.

---

To paraphrase history a little, the tone of Obama’s kinetic military action speech fell somewhere in between “Mr. Gorbachev, paint this wall” and “all real Americans love the sting of a UN-approved coalition.” But others thought the speech was magnificently Kennedy-esque. Which was it? Only one thing is certain: The Obama administration made sure the speech was over in time for Dancing with the Stars (just like JFK, who timed his Bay of Pigs speech so it was finished in time for Gunsmoke). Attacking another country is one thing, but preventing people from watching Kirstie Alley do the Cha Cha could cost votes next year. Crisis averted.

----

Has there ever been a more incoherent US policy? Air cover for Al Qeada, no regime change for a regime that the Resident says must go.

---

We have no reason to be in Lybia. It is a civil war. Why are we picking sides? Get out now.

---

Even the Onion could never think this up. The Sock Puppet general, even the people of Grand Fenwick can see through this joke.


BO owns this war, err… “kinetic military action” now.

No more W’s fault.

What’s ironic in this quagmire is that, I believe BO and his advisers knew they would have been questioned if they would have led the military action in Libya. They ended up stalling so much that France made the had to make the first move in denouncing Gaddafi.

The stalling seems like it was stretched out, in order to take military action, coincidentally while congress was in recess. (IMO, to avoid answering the questions we are all asking now). Then after the decision was made, BO wrote a cowardly little note stating what he had done.

Now he’s in a little pickle. He should grow some b*lls, this BO.

But such is life, what did people expect when they voted for a community organizer?

Hillary Stages ‘Kinetic Butinsky Action’ on Question Intended for SecDef
By Doug Powers • March 27, 2011 03:02 PM **Written by Doug Powers


Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton were guests on Meet the Press this morning, and host David Gregory gave Gates a 9 a.m. phone call that Hillary decided to barge in and answer herself after Gates, in the previous question, stated that Libya is not a vital interest for the United States.

Newsbusters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...oots-bob-gates

Quote:

---

It was a stunning power play. On Meet The Press this morning, after Defense Secretary Bob Gates conceded that Libya is not a “vital interest” of the United States–but before he could complete his comments–Hillary cut him off. She launched into a minute-and-forty-second monologue seeking to justify US military involvement in Libya.
[...]
Clearly Clinton didn’t trust Gates to make a sufficiently muscular defense of President Obama’s policy. Host David Gregory never gave Gates a chance to defend himself. When Hillary finished her monologue, Gregory moved on to another subject: inviting Hillary to comment on the death of Geraldine Ferraro.

Gates never got to say another word. It was a classic DC big-footing, and one the Defense Secretary would seem unlikely to forget anytime soon.

---

The look on Gates’ face at the end of this clip after Hillary took a handoff intended for him and ran away with with the ball speaks volumes:

Update: The duo had a very similar approach to the same line of questioning on ABC’s “This Week Without Christiane Amanpour.” http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/2...-odyssey-dawn/

Jake Tapper asked Gates if Libya posed a threat to the US, he answered 'no', and Hillary was there to clarify and reiterate.

Was the “good cop, better cop” thing a planned routine for the day? If Gates actually blew it by admitting Libya wasn’t a threat to the US during their first appearance (I’m not aware which one was recorded first) resulting in Hillary taking over the interview, it’s unlikely he’d have said almost the exact same thing on a subsequent program.

comments

Quote:

---

Lets see the Sock Puppet try to slither out of this

---

He won’t have to. Nobody in the media will bother with this story. Even if it does start to grow legs, there will be a Charlie Sheen sighting or another American Idol vote-off and the public will see shiny objects.

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2011/03/30/86083

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0329035050.jpg

Quote:

---

The soldiers fight, and the kings are heroes.
--Yiddish Proverb

---

Quote:

---

Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come.
--Carl Sandburg

---

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0329060411.jpg

Quote:

---

Where's the outrage?

---

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0330090113.jpg

What Happened to the American Declaration of War?

March 29, 2011

By George Friedman

In my book “The Next Decade,” I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.

World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public.

Almost all Americans have heard Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan … I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.”
It was a moment of majesty and sobriety, and with Congress’ affirmation, represented the unquestioned will of the republic. There was no going back, and there was no question that the burden would be borne. True, the Japanese had attacked the United States, making getting the declaration easier. But that’s what the founders intended: Going to war should be difficult; once at war, the commander in chief’s authority should be unquestionable.

Forgoing the Declaration

It is odd, therefore, that presidents who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.

In understanding how war and constitutional norms became separated, we must begin with the first major undeclared war in American history (the Civil War was not a foreign war), Korea. When North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman took recourse to the new U.N. Security Council. He wanted international sanction for the war and was able to get it because the Soviet representatives happened to be boycotting the Security Council over other issues at the time.

Truman’s view was that U.N. sanction for the war superseded the requirement for a declaration of war in two ways. First, it was not a war in the strict sense, he argued, but a “police action” under the U.N. Charter. Second, the U.N. Charter constituted a treaty, therefore implicitly binding the United States to go to war if the United Nations so ordered. Whether Congress’ authorization to join the United Nations both obligated the United States to wage war at U.N. behest, obviating the need for declarations of war because Congress had already authorized police actions, is an interesting question. Whatever the answer, Truman set a precedent that wars could be waged without congressional declarations of war and that other actions — from treaties to resolutions to budgetary authorizations — mooted declarations of war.

If this was the founding precedent, the deepest argument for the irrelevancy of the declaration of war is to be found in nuclear weapons. Starting in the 1950s, paralleling the Korean War, was the increasing risk of nuclear war. It was understood that if nuclear war occurred, either through an attack by the Soviets or a first strike by the United States, time and secrecy made a prior declaration of war by Congress impossible. In the expected scenario of a Soviet first strike, there would be only minutes for the president to authorize counterstrikes and no time for constitutional niceties. In that sense, it was argued fairly persuasively that the Constitution had become irrelevant to the military realities facing the republic.

Nuclear war was seen as the most realistic war-fighting scenario, with all other forms of war trivial in comparison. Just as nuclear weapons came to be called “strategic weapons” with other weapons of war occupying a lesser space, nuclear war became identical with war in general. If that was so, then constitutional procedures that could not be applied to nuclear war were simply no longer relevant.

Paradoxically, if nuclear warfare represented the highest level of warfare, there developed at the lowest level covert operations. Apart from the nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, there was an intense covert war, from back alleys in Europe to the Congo, Indochina to Latin America. Indeed, it was waged everywhere precisely because the threat of nuclear war was so terrible: Covert warfare became a prudent alternative. All of these operations had to be deniable. An attempt to assassinate a Soviet agent or raise a secret army to face a Soviet secret army could not be validated with a declaration of war. The Cold War was a series of interconnected but discrete operations, fought with secret forces whose very principle was deniability. How could declarations of war be expected in operations so small in size that had to be kept secret from Congress anyway?

There was then the need to support allies, particularly in sending advisers to train their armies. These advisers were not there to engage in combat but to advise those who did. In many cases, this became an artificial distinction: The advisers accompanied their students on missions, and some died. But this was not war in any conventional sense of the term. And therefore, the declaration of war didn’t apply.

By the time Vietnam came up, the transition from military assistance to advisers to advisers in combat to U.S. forces at war was so subtle that there was no moment to which you could point that said that we were now in a state of war where previously we weren’t. Rather than ask for a declaration of war, Johnson used an incident in the Tonkin Gulf to get a congressional resolution that he interpreted as being the equivalent of war. The problem here was that it was not clear that had he asked for a formal declaration of war he would have gotten one. Johnson didn’t take that chance.

What Johnson did was use Cold War precedents, from the Korean War, to nuclear warfare, to covert operations to the subtle distinctions of contemporary warfare in order to wage a substantial and extended war based on the Tonkin Gulf resolution — which Congress clearly didn’t see as a declaration of war — instead of asking for a formal declaration. And this represented the breakpoint. In Vietnam, the issue was not some legal or practical justification for not asking for a declaration. Rather, it was a political consideration.

Johnson did not know that he could get a declaration; the public might not be prepared to go to war. For this reason, rather than ask for a declaration, he used all the prior precedents to simply go to war without a declaration. In my view, that was the moment the declaration of war as a constitutional imperative collapsed. And in my view, so did the Johnson presidency. In hindsight, he needed a declaration badly, and if he could not get it, Vietnam would have been lost, and so may have been his presidency. Since Vietnam was lost anyway from lack of public consensus, his decision was a mistake. But it set the stage for everything that came after — war by resolution rather than by formal constitutional process.

After the war, Congress created the War Powers Act in recognition that wars might commence before congressional approval could be given. However, rather than returning to the constitutional method of the Declaration of War, which can be given after the commencement of war if necessary (consider World War II) Congress chose to bypass declarations of war in favor of resolutions allowing wars. Their reason was the same as the president’s: It was politically safer to authorize a war already under way than to invoke declarations of war.

All of this arose within the assertion that the president’s powers as commander in chief authorized him to engage in warfare without a congressional declaration of war, an idea that came in full force in the context of nuclear war and then was extended to the broader idea that all wars were at the discretion of the president. From my simple reading, the Constitution is fairly clear on the subject: Congress is given the power to declare war. At that moment, the president as commander in chief is free to prosecute the war as he thinks best. But constitutional law and the language of the Constitution seem to have diverged. It is a complex field of study, obviously.

An Increasing Tempo of Operations

All of this came just before the United States emerged as the world’s single global power — a global empire — that by definition would be waging war at an increased tempo, from Kuwait, to Haiti, to Kosovo, to Afghanistan, to Iraq, and so on in an ever-increasing number of operations. And now in Libya, we have reached the point that even resolutions are no longer needed.

It is said that there is no precedent for fighting al Qaeda, for example, because it is not a nation but a subnational group. Therefore, Bush could not reasonably have been expected to ask for a declaration of war. But there is precedent: Thomas Jefferson asked for and received a declaration of war against the Barbary pirates. This authorized Jefferson to wage war against a subnational group of pirates as if they were a nation.

Had Bush requested a declaration of war on al Qaeda on Sept. 12, 2001, I suspect it would have been granted overwhelmingly, and the public would have understood that the United States was now at war for as long as the president thought wise. The president would have been free to carry out operations as he saw fit. Roosevelt did not have to ask for special permission to invade Guadalcanal, send troops to India, or invade North Africa. In the course of fighting Japan, Germany and Italy, it was understood that he was free to wage war as he thought fit. In the same sense, a declaration of war on Sept. 12 would have freed him to fight al Qaeda wherever they were or to move to block them wherever the president saw fit.

Leaving aside the military wisdom of Afghanistan or Iraq, the legal and moral foundations would have been clear — so long as the president as commander in chief saw an action as needed to defeat al Qaeda, it could be taken. Similarly, as commander in chief, Roosevelt usurped constitutional rights for citizens in many ways, from censorship to internment camps for Japanese-Americans. Prisoners of war not adhering to the Geneva Conventions were shot by military tribunal — or without. In a state of war, different laws and expectations exist than during peace. Many of the arguments against Bush-era intrusions on privacy also could have been made against Roosevelt. But Roosevelt had a declaration of war and full authority as commander in chief during war. Bush did not. He worked in twilight between war and peace.

One of the dilemmas that could have been avoided was the massive confusion of whether the United States was engaged in hunting down a criminal conspiracy or waging war on a foreign enemy. If the former, then the goal is to punish the guilty. If the latter, then the goal is to destroy the enemy. Imagine that after Pearl Harbor, FDR had promised to hunt down every pilot who attacked Pearl Harbor and bring them to justice, rather than calling for a declaration of war against a hostile nation and all who bore arms on its behalf regardless of what they had done. The goal in war is to prevent the other side from acting, not to punish the actors.

The Importance of the Declaration

A declaration of war, I am arguing, is an essential aspect of war fighting particularly for the republic when engaged in frequent wars. It achieves a number of things. First, it holds both Congress and the president equally responsible for the decision, and does so unambiguously. Second, it affirms to the people that their lives have now changed and that they will be bearing burdens. Third, it gives the president the political and moral authority he needs to wage war on their behalf and forces everyone to share in the moral responsibility of war. And finally, by submitting it to a political process, many wars might be avoided. When we look at some of our wars after World War II it is not clear they had to be fought in the national interest, nor is it clear that the presidents would not have been better remembered if they had been restrained. A declaration of war both frees and restrains the president, as it was meant to do.

I began by talking about the American empire. I won’t make the argument on that here, but simply assert it. What is most important is that the republic not be overwhelmed in the course of pursuing imperial goals. The declaration of war is precisely the point at which imperial interests can overwhelm republican prerogatives.

There are enormous complexities here. Nuclear war has not been abolished. The United States has treaty obligations to the United Nations and other countries. Covert operations are essential, as is military assistance, both of which can lead to war. I am not making the argument that constant accommodation to reality does not have to be made. I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?

My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about war. I have questions about Libya, for example, but I am open to the idea that it is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure. But I am not open to the possibility that quickly after the commencement of hostilities the president need not receive authority to wage war from Congress. And I am arguing that neither the Congress nor the president has the authority to substitute resolutions for declarations of war. Nor should either want to. Politically, this has too often led to disaster for presidents. Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties.

As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.

http://ce.investorsinsight.com/CT003...zMDkyOQAA.html

Slaughter in Libya's Misurata: Is this Obama's 'Rwanda'?
By The Monitor's Editorial Board – Wed Apr 20, 1:14 pm ET

President Obama was rightly praised for using US forces last month to prevent a civilian massacre in the Libyan city of Benghazi. Now he and US allies must decide whether to stop an ongoing slaughter in Misurata, a port city of 500,000 people.

Hundreds of civilians in Libya’s third-largest city have been killed – including dozens of children – by pro-Qaddafi fighters. Hospitals are overwhelmed as snipers pick off people trying to survive in a city with little food and water. Entire families are being wiped out as devastating types of bombs are used indiscriminately on homes. Thousands are trying to flee by ship, the only way out for them.

NATO commanders admit they are helpless against the urban-guerrilla tactics now being used by Muammar Qaddafi’s forces. Air power alone cannot strike at soldiers in pickup trucks – indistinguishable from rebels – with mortar rockets or at snipers on tops of buildings. The ragtag rebel groups have few arms.

As a Canadian officer told German media: “It’s a knife fight in a phone booth and it’s very difficult to get in the middle of that.”

The UN mandate for foreign forces to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Libya didn’t anticipate the type of killing in Misurata. “What we have perhaps underestimated is Muammar Qaddafi’s capacity to adapt,” admits Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister.

Only half or less of Libya’s military equipment and headquarters facilities has been destroyed, despite nearly two months and thousands of airstrikes by the United States and other NATO aircraft.

This week, the horrific crisis in the besieged city of Misurata compelled Britain, Italy, and France to decide to send military advisers to the rebel leaders in Benghazi. The Europeans will assist the rebels in organizing their forces better. And a group of French lawmakers wants to send noncombat military specialists to Misurata to help rebels identify targets for NATO air attacks.

But such steps may not be enough as Qaddafi forces quickly make inroads in Misurata, ready to kill civilians who want an end to the Libyan leader’s rule. The rebels there are pleading for on-the-ground help from NATO.

But Mr. Obama opposes deploying either US combat forces or the kind of aircraft designed for close-in strikes on urban areas. The administration claims the US has limited resources and little strategic interest in Libya compared with Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen.

America’s humanitarian impulse to prevent massacres does indeed have a checkered history. President Clinton, for instance, failed to act against Rwanda’s genocide but he did save lives in Bosnia and Kosovo. The US attempt to feed the starving in Somalia ended with US troops being killed in 1993.

Will Misurata become Obama’s Rwanda, a humanitarian stain on his presidential legacy.

The president is in the midst of a campaign to cut defense spending, and wants to limit American leadership in the world. The US has so far spent more than $600 million in the Libyan effort. But then the US did prevent a civilian slaughter in Benghazi with powerful US airstrikes.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, now Obama’s secretary of State, has offered some guidance on what to do in such situations. In 1994, the then-first lady gave a speech after accepting the Elie Wiesel Humanitarian Award. She spoke of a young Jewish girl in Nazi Germany whose writings had awakened “us to the folly of indifference and the terrible toll it takes on our young.

“She wrote: ‘until all mankind, without exception, undergoes a great change, everything will be destroyed and disfigured, after which mankind will have to begin all over again.’

"Those were Anne Frank's words. Those were the words of another child caught up in another ... war. But they are the words that you could hear throughout the decades, and that if we listen we can hear today. It is not enough that we sympathize with the plight of children here and around the world. Sympathy is important, but empathy is even more important, and action is essential.”


http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110420/cm_csm/378327


comments

Saudi Arabia has a modern airforce and a well-equiped army, plus trillions of surplus dollars in the sale of oil. Why don't they lift a finger to prevent a massacre?

----

obama is a killer either way no better than bush..Egypt is his muslim brothers not lybia..He will turn his back on something he actuallt started and could careless of the little children being mascred..If you start something finish it one way or the other..You dont turn away from babies being killed for no aparent reason but what you and your muslim brother percieve and tell the world..How can anybody trust a man they knew nothing about and still dont..someon who spent mill of dollars to cover his past so people dont know what hes done..How can you trust someone so secret? maybe you acorn followers know what im talking about this is your man..He wont tie his campaining with a war..No way are you kidding people would compare him to bush..We already do..lmao..Obama good at that starts something and never finishes it walks away with a smog look ..He is so transparent more and more and these fools keep praising him..They work for acorn or to young and dumb to know any better..wait till they have to make a real living and the IRS is knocking at their doors with their hands out..More you make more you pay..Sure get rich that way..Take the power from the rich thru taxation..soacialistic way..And his sheep actually believe it will profit them..

The real robin hood America..Right? Good luck with the change you think will happen the peaceful non corrupt nation and the world..With the UN in control..ya thats what I want for my grandkids..Communism who tells who lives and dies just as they doing now playing war games with peoples lives cause they thisnk they are right..No better than Bush.,War monger killer of innocent families..At least bush had the balls to give the people warnings to get out before we got there.

---

Praised by who? The idiot Obama did'nt get congressional approval to murder all those Libyans in the 110 cruise missle attacks and thousands of rockets and bombs afterward; instead he went to the U.N. Obama killed thousands of innocent Libyans, speculated to be more than all Iraquis killed in Iraq. Obama is a muslim terrorist; he used this strike to get rid of the muslims he doesn't like kind of like Suni and Shiite !! Obama is a KILLER of Babies and innocents !!!

Rebecca Hamilton – Tue May 3, 11:28 am ET

New York – “Why does the world care about Libyans and not about us?” I was asked during a phone interview with a Darfuri leader recently. He told me that the displaced people in the camp he was speaking to me from had been listening to radio reports about how swiftly the world had moved to protect civilians from Muammar Qaddafi.

The quick and easy answer to why Libya and not Darfur – the western province of Sudan where people continue to suffer after years of atrocities that have left an estimated 300,000 dead – boils down to two factors. First, oil. Libya has it, Darfur does not – Sudan’s oil lies in the south of the country. Second, proximity to continental Europe. Libya is close enough to make the Europeans jittery about the consequences of instability. But neither of these factors would have been enough to get France stepping up to lead the enforcement of a no-fly zone without prior authorization from the UN Security Council. And this is where the story gets interesting.

Pushing against the BRICSOn Libya, the Arab League’s request that the UN Security Council enforce a no-fly zone provided political cover to enable Western powers to push for action, helping them fend off analogies to Iraq. But the Arab League’s greatest impact was on the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, now known as the BRICS bloc.

BRICS nations, who are all currently on the 15-member UN Security Council, comprise almost three billion of the world’s nearly seven billion people. And their combined economies are set to surpass the US in terms of GDP by 2014. In short, they are the group that is on track to hold the center of gravity in terms of global decision-making in the decade to come.

As a bloc, the BRICS tend to eschew calls to universalist human rights claims, and oppose forceful intervention. However, they also show deference to regional players, which is why the Arab League’s request made it very difficult for them to stand in the way of action.

IN PICTURES: Libya conflict

Of all the BRICS nations, China is generally the most opposed to intervention of any kind. But in addition to China’s general deference to regional players, defying the wishes of the Arab League would have been particularly risky given that China depends on key members of that body to fuel its growth.

Oil dependencyChina currently imports 4.7 million barrels of oil per day, and the International Energy Agency predicts that by 2025, China will have overtaken the US to become the world’s largest importer of oil. Arab League member, Saudi Arabia, is the largest source of that oil, accounting for more than 20 percent of China’s imports. And other Arab League members in attendance at the no-fly zone meeting (Libya was excluded) account for almost a further 20 percent. So while none of the Arab League’s 22 member states have a veto on the UN Security Council, China’s oil dependency makes the Arab League a potential game-changer in UN voting patterns.

On Darfur, the Arab League never played that game-changing role. A significant part of the reason was that the Bush administration, pushed by US activists, got ahead of the rest of the world in condemning the atrocities. Against the backdrop of Iraq, this was spun in the Arab media as evidence of an American intent to invade another Muslim country. As a consequence, the Arab League stood firmly by the side of Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir. This in turn meant that Beijing faced no cost in pursuing its default position of non-interference, and it did this by repeatedly threatening to use its veto on the UN Security Council to protect Khartoum from pressure.

The result was that every resolution proposed by the US was watered down, the Council rarely spoke with one voice, and al-Bashir read this (correctly) to mean he could get away with defying the UN. Had the Arab League condemned al-Bashir, then there’s every chance China would have allowed stronger resolutions to pass, since the oil China gets from Sudan is less than one-fifth of what it gets from the rest of the Arab League.

On Libya, Obama’s early reticence created space for the Arab League to take the lead. And high-level defections from Qaddafi’s inner circle sealed the deal.

ANOTHER VIEW: Libya intervention: US cannot afford to 'go in search of monsters to destroy'

This then allowed the discussion at the UN Security Council to shape up very differently from the way it had done on Darfur.

If we are to make sense of how it is the world moved so quickly to protect civilians in Libya and not in Darfur, then we would do well to look beyond the easy answers and place a decision taken, not in Washington or Paris, but at an Arab League meeting in Cairo, at the forefront of our thinking.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110503/cm_csm/381223

White House defends legality of Libya mission
Julie Pace, Associated Press – 40 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Pushing back against congressional criticism, the White House said Wednesday that President Barack Obama has the authority to continue U.S. military action in Libya even without authorization from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

In a detailed, 30-page report being sent to Congress, the administration will argue that the U.S. has a limited, support role in the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya. Because U.S. forces are not engaged in sustained fighting and there are no troops on the ground there, the White House will say the president is within his constitutional rights to direct the mission on his own.

The administration's defense of the Libya mission comes in response to a non-binding House resolution passed earlier this month that chastised Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for U.S. involvement in Libya.

The resolution gave the administration until Friday to respond to a series of questions on the mission, including the scope of U.S. military activity, the cost of the mission, and its impact on other U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report for lawmakers marks the first time administration officials have publically explained why they believe the president can keep U.S. forces involved in the Libya mission without violating the War Powers Resolution. That measure prohibits the military from being involved in actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, plus a 30-day extension.

Obama did not seek congressional consent for U.S. airstrikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, and House Speaker John Boehner sent Obama a letter this week stating that the 90-day window runs out on Sunday.

However, senior administration officials previewing the report Wednesday said U.S. forces are not involved in the kind of "hostilities" for which the War Powers Resolution says the commander in chief must get congressional approval.

While the U.S. led the initial airstrikes on Libya, NATO forces have since taken over the mission, which is in its third month. However, the U.S still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president expects congressional support for the Libya campaign will continue. With Gadhafi under pressure to leave power, he said now is not the time to send "mixed messages" about U.S. commitment to the campaign.

However, a bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers sued Obama Wednesday for taking military action against Libya without war authorization from Congress. The lawmakers said Obama violated the Constitution in bypassing Congress and using international organizations like the United Nations and NATO to authorize military force.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110615/...us/us_us_libya


House Republican leader Boehner warns Obama over Libya
Susan Cornwell – Tue Jun 14, 7:53 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – House Speaker John Boehner warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he was skating on thin legal ice by keeping U.S. forces involved in Libya for nearly three months without the authorization of Congress.

The letter from the Republican leader of the House of Representatives to the Democratic president threatened to turn lawmakers' unease over the Libyan conflict into a clash between Congress and the White House over constitutional powers.

Boehner accused Obama of "a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of Congress" in military operations and a "lack of clarity" about why the U.S. was still involved in Libya.

He asked Obama to explain the legal grounds for the war by Friday, adding that by Sunday Obama would be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution if nothing changed.

The Constitution says that Congress declares war, while the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The War Powers Resolution sought to resolve the tensions in these roles and was passed by Congress over a veto by President Richard Nixon.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


No sitting president has ever recognized the resolution, which prohibits U.S. armed forces from being involved in military actions for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, and includes a further 30-day withdrawal period. Boehner said the 90 days expires on Sunday.

"It would appear that in five days, the administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission," Boehner said in the letter, which was released by his office.

"Have you ... conducted the legal analysis to justify your position?" he asked. "Given the gravity of the constitutional and statutory questions involved, I request your answer by Friday, June 17, 2011."

CONSULTATIONS

Obama notified Congress in March that the United States was taking part in a multinational operation conducting air strikes to protect Libyan civilians from by Muammar Gaddafi's forces. Obama did not ask for congressional authorization.

There are no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, where NATO is leading the intervention with the United States providing logistical support and intelligence.

The White House says it has consulted regularly with lawmakers on the war and officials have suggested that the limited U.S. action might not meet the War Powers threshold.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said administration officials have testified at more than 10 hearings on Capitol Hill, which included substantial discussion of Libya. Officials also took part in more than 30 briefings with lawmakers and staff and would keep engaging with Congress, he said.

"We are in the final stages of preparing extensive information for the House and Senate that will address a whole host of issues about our ongoing efforts in Libya, including those raised in the House resolution as well as our legal analysis with regard to the War Powers Resolution," Vietor said.

If Obama did ask for congressional authorization, it is not clear he would get it. The Democratic-controlled Senate has not tried to pass a non-binding resolution supporting the war.

Two House lawmakers, Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Walter Jones, said they would file a lawsuit in federal court concerning Obama and the Libyan war.

Earlier this month, a House majority passed a resolution accusing Obama of not having offered a "compelling rationale" for the Libyan war and demanding information about its costs and scope by Thursday June 16. Boehner's letter indicated that lawmakers are still waiting for answers.

That resolution noted that Congress has the authority to cut off funds for military operations, implying this might be considered if the Obama administration did not respond.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110614/...NlcmVwdWJsaQ--

NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers
posted at 10:32 pm on June 17, 2011 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/1...ya-war-powers/


No “Quotes of the Day” post today. This is big enough that I don’t want anything new on the site distracting from it overnight. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/wo...pagewanted=all

The Times is treating it as the major story that it is, but under a Republican president (especially one named, say, George Bush) it would be a scandal of nuclear proportions. What they’re basically saying here, without actually saying it, is that the president’s own lawyers told him that the Libya war is illegal and he responded by looking around for other lawyers who’d tell him what he wanted to hear.

The congressional hearings begin on Monday, I hope.

Quote:

---

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch…

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

---

See what he did here? The OLC is typically called “the president’s law firm” because it’s tasked with advising him on what he can and can’t legally do with his office. They study the law and consult with relevant agencies, and then they make a formal determination to guide his actions. That’s what should have happened here — they likely would have determined that he was violating the War Powers Act, which in turn would have forced him to go to Congress and finally request formal authorization of the mission. (In fact, Johnson, the Pentagon’s counsel, reportedly told Obama he’d be on firmer ground if he stopped the drone strikes, at least. Obama refused.) This time, because he almost certainly knew that they’d tell him that he was in violation, he bypassed the normal procedures to avoid a binding ruling and treated the OLC as if it was just one lawyer among many. He rigged the game because he knew what the probable outcome would be if he didn’t. Disgraceful.
Ironically, Boehner’s now in almost as tough a position as Obama is. He’s the one who confronted O about the War Powers Act after Kucinich forced his hand; now he’ll have to figure out what the proper congressional response to this should be. Does the House hold hearings? Vote to defund the mission, citing Krass and Johnson for authority that it’s illegal? File suit in federal court charging Obama with violating the WPA, even though any court will almost certainly refuse to rule on it on “political question” grounds? And what happens to O’s supporters on Libya in Congress, especially among Democrats, now that his warmaking has been deemed renegade by his own core legal team? This doofus almost certainly could have gotten congressional authorization shortly after the mission began if he’d asked for it, but for reasons I still don’t understand, he refused. I guess he wants to maximize his presidential prerogative to use drones anywhere he likes, notwithstanding Johnson’s assessment that that’s enough to constitute “hostilities” under the WPA, in order to give himself a free hand in Yemen and beyond. Good work, champ — you’ve now forced a high stakes, politically risky separation-of-powers confrontation with Congress over a conflict to which virtually no one has paid attention for weeks.

Here’s Harry Reid insisting that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply here, and even if it did, “this thing’s going to be over before you know it anyway.” Which is basically what Obama himself said — three months ago. Remember “days, not weeks”? Exit question: That’s going to be one awkward round of golf, huh?

comments

ObaMao shopped around until he secured the vague weasel-wording of the international-law pimp Koh. Stanley Kurtz says that O’s declaration is a “gift to Samantha Power.” I would add that this kowtowing to the UN falls into line with the open-borders, no-nation-is-sovereign philosophy of O’s puppetmaster, George Soros.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-stanley-kurtz

---

So he did commit a “High Crime” after all and his own legal team told him so. Tome for an impeachment for that and “Gun Runner”

Oh wait, the law doesn’t apply to dems anymore.

I agree, AP if a Republican acted this way the LSM would be screaming to the rafters, but all we hear on this for Failbama is crickets.

---

He’s the One. He is above the law and doesn’t have to answer to you peons.

---

Was this news just another part of a Friday afternoon dump that is supposed to go down the memory hole? Will the Sunday squawk shows spend meaningful discussion time on the ramifications of O’s misuse of power?

---

The War Powers Act the far-left Dems who controlled congress and over-rode a Nixon Veto in 1973 is an Unconstitutional Law.

So Obama is defying a law, but not the Constitution. This is the position all Presidents since 1973 have agreed on basically.

The only true Constitutional grounds Congress has with Lybia is they could vote to Defund the mission at anytime.

---

In the name of Equal Opportunity, Osama Obama, the “historic first” President, should be treated like any other President, especially those eeeeeevil Repub Presidents: Congress should go into session Monday and offer up at least one impeachment resolution (preferably one for each of his unconstitutional and illegal acts during the last two-plus years). They should then follow through and throw the Traitor-in-Chief’s America-hating butt out of office.

Instead, they’ll hem and haw, make excuses, and the punditocracy will play along, out of “fairness” to the poor, overworked guy.

Quote:

---

He’s the One. He is above the law and doesn’t have to answer to you peons.

---

Can't recall the exact verbage, but wasn't it...."I won, I trump"?

Here ya go.....

Quote:

---

The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

---

Quote:

---

'I Won:' President Obama Works to Be Bipartisan But Shows There Are Clear Limits

---

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...president.html

Farrakhan : The White Man Made Obama Bomb Libya
Larry Elder – Thu Jun 23, 3:00 am ET

Creators Syndicate – The White Man made him do it.

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan recently unmasked the reason for President Barack Obama's unpopular, non-congressionally authorized, War Powers Resolution-violating decision to bomb Libya, a country that poses no imminent threat to the United States. "We voted for our brother, Barack," said Farrakhan, "a beautiful human being with a sweet heart, and now he's an assassin. They've turned him into them."

"Them," of course, refers to the evil, racist, manipulative, all-powerful White Man, who as in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," seized Obama's mind, body and soul, and changed him into an enemy of the poor, the downtrodden, the black.

Don't snicker. Farrakhan may be on to something.

Here's what presidential candidate Obama said about use of force: "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." Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to restrain the president in non-imminent threat situations. Obama, however, disagrees that it applies to Libya. This humanitarian mission, Obama argues, does not involve "hostilities," a condition that triggers the WPR's application.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, however, before Obama made his Libya decision, told Congress what a "no-fly zone" over Libya required: "Let's just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses ... and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down." Sounds a lot like "hostilities." And Americans, by a two-to-one ratio, oppose military involvement in Libya.

The White Man, says Farrakhan, forced Obama to bomb Libya for the oil. Obama's alleged humanitarian intent, he said, is merely a "noble motive to hide (America's) wicked agenda!"

Farrakhan's analysis also explains Obama's job-killing domestic economic policies — the disastrous effect of which disproportionately hurts blacks. The White Man, after President Ronald Reagan, vowed, "Never again!"

Reagan, in the early '80s, faced an even tougher economy, with higher unemployment, higher inflation and higher interest rates. Reagan cut taxes, slowed the rate of domestic spending and decreased regulation on businesses.

Reagan, from The White Man's perspective, was catastrophic: Black adult unemployment fell faster than white adult unemployment, black teen unemployment fell faster that white teen unemployment, black businesses were created at a rate faster than white businesses, and the revenues of black businesses grew faster than those of white businesses. Egads!

Sociologist Charles Murray, in one of the most important books on public policy in the last 50 years, "Losing Ground," explained how welfare dependency increased the number of black out-of-wedlock births. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 resulted in a dramatic decline in the welfare rolls, without a corresponding increase in abortion. Welfare recipients, a large percentage of whom are minorities, found jobs and became self-sufficient.

The White Man discovered an inexperienced, left-wing, collectivist, spread-the-wealth, tax-the-rich black senator from Illinois who had not read Murray's book or, if he had, did not believe it. In fact, then-Illinois State Senator Obama spoke out against the Welfare Reform Act.

Determined not to repeat the Reagan mistake, The White Man hatched a plan.

Obama would be The One.

The White Man engineered his election, then programmed the charismatic Obama to enact policies guaranteed to have the opposite effect of Reagan's policies:

The White Man made Obama sign costly "health care reform," which causes employers to drop coverage, premiums to increase and health care quality to decline.

The White Man made Obama raise the minimum wage. This increases unemployment for those with the lowest skills, a disproportionate percentage of whom are black.

The White Man made Obama sign laws to rein in "Wall Street greed," but left untouched the real reasons behind the housing meltdown: Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the FHA and the Community Reinvestment Act, all of which induced the otherwise non-creditworthy — a disproportionate percentage of whom are racial minorities — to take on mortgages they could not afford.

The White Man made Obama oppose choice in education, including the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program that, by lottery, gave vouchers to inner-city Washington, D.C., children and saw high school graduation rates increase from 70 percent for applicants not offered a scholarship to 82 percent for the scholarship recipients.

The White Man made Obama support a nearly trillion-dollar "stimulus" package — largely giving money to state workers and other supporters of the Democratic Party. It neither "saved or created" 3.5 million jobs nor prevented unemployment from reaching 8 percent. Unemployment actually rose to 10.2 percent, and now stands at 9.1 percent.

The results have exceeded The White Man's expectations. Black teen unemployment is nearly 41 percent. The unemployment rate for black adult males is 17.5 percent. Yes, Obama's war for Big Oil and his anti-black economic polices mean lots of whites get trampled in the process. Collateral damage. Friendly fire. Addition by subtraction.

The White Man, as Farrakhan duly notes, is back.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20110623/...Jha2hhbnRoZQ--


comments

Malcolm X realized the fraud behind the Nation of Islam and sought to expose it in order to no longer mislead congregants who'd faithfully followed, as did he, Elijah Mohammed, founder of NofI. Malcolm X's denouncement of EM ultimately led to his (X) assasination. Louis Farrakhan, in his undying hatred for whites, continues to deceive black youth today which, is sad.

---

Farrakan has always been un- american. His only point has ever been to blame Whitey.
He is offended by the attack on Libya because he and Quaddafi are lunatics.

---

Wow, when do I get my "Evil Whitey" mind contol powers?
I could really use them.

Gadhafi's 'suicidal plan': Would he really blow up Tripoli?
The Week – 12 hrs ago

A Russian diplomat says the Libyan leader might turn his missile stockpile on his own capital before letting rebels overtake it

According to Russia's special envoy to Libya, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has a "suicidal plan" to blow up his country's capital, Tripoli, if it falls into rebel hands. "The Libyan premier told me: If the rebels take over the city, we will cover it with missiles and blow it up," says Mikhail Margelov, as quoted Thursday in the Russian newspaper Izvestia. Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said the claim was "absolutely unfounded, untrue." Would Gadhafi really destroy Tripoli before he would surrender it?

Gadhafi just might go that far: The Libyan leader's back is against the wall, says Neave Barker at Al Jazeera. He's running out of everything from fuel to shells for his tanks. But he hasn't used any of his surface-to-surface missiles, and Margelov is convinced Gadhafi is ready to use them on Tripoli if it comes to that. "Hardly reassuring words from the man Russia's put in charge of mediating the conflict."

No. He just wants us to think he would: Gadhafi is playing a crafty game, say Flavia Krause-Jackson and Caroline Alexander at Bloomberg. By "flitting between conciliatory overtures and threats," he's keeping NATO and the rebels guessing about whether he'll accept exile, or fight to the death. The distractions have helped him prolong the armed conflict, and his ability to manipulate the situation will only grow as European leaders focus less on Libya, and more on their mounting debt crisis.
"Gadhafi lives up to wily reputation as allies yet to oust him"

The endless speculation is meaningless: It's certainly unsettling to hear that Gadhafi has missiles and isn't afraid to use them on his own capital city, says Jeff Neumann at Gawker. But don't worry, for every scary report about his bloodlust, there's a rosy prediction that victory and democracy are just around the corner. "There will probably be another 'Col. Gadhafi is definitely leaving today" report out within the next few hours to calm everyone's nerves."

http://news.yahoo.com/gadhafis-suici...105400025.html

Rebels hold most of Tripoli, Gaddafi out of sight
By Missy Ryan and Ulf Laessing | Reuters – 13 mins ago

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/SZU...70670001e8.jpg

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Libyan government tanks and snipers put up scattered, last-ditch resistance in Tripoli on Monday after rebels swept into the heart of the capital, cheered on by crowds hailing the end of Muammar Gaddafi's 42 years in power. The 69-year-old leader, urging civilians to take up arms against rebel "rats", said in an audio broadcast that he was in the city and would be "with you until the end". But there was little sign of popular opposition to the rebel offensive, two of Gaddafi's sons were seized and it was unclear where he was.

Reuters correspondents saw rebel forces hunt sharpshooters from building to building. Sporadic gunfire and shelling kept civilians off the streets, waiting anxiously for the fighting to end after a brief outpouring of jubilation late on Sunday. "Revolutionaries are positioned everywhere in Tripoli," said a senior rebel in the city, who used the name Abdulrahman. "But Gaddafi's forces have been trying to resist. "There is gunfire everywhere," he added, saying government tanks were in action near Tripoli's Mediterranean port and downtown near Gaddafi's Bab al-Aziziya compound. "Snipers are the main problem," he said. "There is a big number of martyrs."

World leaders were in no doubt that, after six months of an often meandering revolt backed by NATO air power, the disparate and often fractious rebel alliance was about to take control of the North African desert state and its extensive oil reserves. Some warned of a risk of a longer, anarchic civil war after what has been the bloodiest of the Arab Spring uprisings inspired by the overthrow of autocrats in Tunisia and Egypt.

The fall of Gaddafi could also give new heart to embattled opposition groups across the Middle East, notably in Syria. "Time has run out," said Franco Frattini, foreign minister of Libya's former colonial ruler Italy, adding that Gaddafi's forces now controlled only 10 to 15 percent of the capital.

Laila Jawad, 36, who works at a Tripoli nursery, told Reuters after the rebels arrived: "We are about to be delivered from the tyrant's rule. It's a new thing for me. I am very optimistic. Praise be to God."

CALLS FOR CEASEFIRE

State television seemed still to be held by Gaddafi loyalists. "The morale of our troops is high," a presenter said. But children's programing replaced the martial music and images of Gaddafi which have dominated its airtime for months.

In a coordinated move late on Saturday by rebel cells in the capital and assaults on several fronts, Tripoli saw some of the heaviest fighting of the war. A government official told Reuters 376 people on both sides were killed, and about 1,000 wounded, though it was unclear how the figures were arrived at.

Civilians had flocked late on Sunday to Green Square, long the showpiece of the leader's personality cult, waving rebel flags. Some said they would rename it Martyrs' Square. But early on Monday, rebel spokesman Nouri Echtiwi said, tanks and pick-up trucks mounted with machineguns had emerged from Gaddafi's Bab al-Aziziya compound: "They fired randomly in all directions whenever they heard gunfire," he said.

U.S. President Barack Obama and other Western leaders urged Gaddafi to accept defeat and prepared to work with the rebels -- though the future leadership of Libya remains very unclear. The European Union, whose members had in recent years resolved disputes with Gaddafi in return for energy supplies, welcomed a "new era": "We are witnessing the last moments of the Gaddafi regime," EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton said. She urged the rebels not to settle scores in blood and to respect human rights and move swiftly toward a new democracy.

South Africa, a leading power on the continent to which Gaddafi devoted much of Libya's wealth and influence, denied it had sent a plane for Gaddafi or was planning to shelter a leader who has been indicted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said: "We are watching history." But he cited the bloody epilogue to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and warned: "There is a risk for actions of revenge, and uncontrollable violence."

First signs emerged of moves to begin restoring oil production that has been the foundation of the Libyan economy. Technical staff of Italy's oil and gas major Eni arrived to look into restarting facilities, Frattini said.

In China and Russia, both powerful critics of the NATO war launched in March in support of the rebels, officials agreed that Libya appeared to have new masters. In Beijing, the foreign ministry said it would respect the people's choice.

SONS DETAINED

Two of Gaddafi's sons, including Saif al-Islam who was once seen as heir apparent and a potential friend of the West were captured by the rebels. But the whereabouts of Gaddafi himself, one of the world's longest ruling leaders, were unknown. He had made two audio addresses over state television calling on Libyans to fight off the rebels. "I am afraid if we don't act, they will burn Tripoli," he said. "There will be no more water, food, electricity or freedom."

But resistance to the rebels faded away. Near Green Square youths burned the green flags of the government and raised the rebel tricolor last used by the post-colonial monarchy which Gaddafi overthrew in a military coup in 1969.

Many Tripoli residents received a text message from the rebel leadership saying: "God is Great. We congratulate the Libyan people on the fall of Muammar Gaddafi."

Gaddafi, a colorful and often brutal autocrat, said he was breaking out weapons stores to arm civilians. His spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, predicted a violent reckoning by the rebels. "A massacre will be committed inside Tripoli if one side wins now, because the rebels have come with such hatred, such vendetta," Ibrahim said on Sunday. "Even if the leader leaves or steps down now, there will be a massacre."

Obama, on vacation in the island of Martha's Vineyard, said in a statement: "The surest way for the bloodshed to end is simple: Muammar Gaddafi and his regime need to recognize that their rule has come to an end. Gaddafi needs to acknowledge the reality that he no longer controls Libya. He needs to relinquish power once and for all."

NATO said the transition of power must be peaceful and warned it would bomb any Gaddafi forces who kept on fighting.

TRIPOLI FALLS QUICKLY

After civil war that became a stalemate in the desert for long periods, rebels raced into Tripoli, with a carefully orchestrated uprising launched on Saturday night to coincide with the advance of rebel troops on three fronts. Fighting broke out after the call to prayer from the mosques.

Rebel National Transitional Council Coordinator Adel Dabbechi confirmed that Gaddafi's younger son Saif al-Islam had been captured. The ICC, which wants him along with his father on charges of crimes against humanity, confirmed he had been held and said he should be handed over for trial.

Gaddafi's eldest son Mohammed had surrendered to rebel forces, Dabbechi told Reuters. In a television interview, Mohammed said gunmen had surrounded his house. He told Al-Jazeera in a phone call that he and his family were unharmed. Only five months ago Gaddafi's forces were set to crush the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the far east of the vast and thinly populated North African state of six million. He warned then that there would be "no mercy, no pity" for his opponents. His forces, he said, would hunt them down "district to district, alley to alley, house to house, room to room".

The United Nations then acted quickly, pushed notably by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, clearing the way for the creation of a no-fly zone that NATO, with a campaign of bombing, used ultimately to help drive back Gaddafi's forces.

In Benghazi, thousands gathered in a central square. They waved red, black and green opposition and trampled on pictures of Gaddafi as news filtered through of rebel triumphs. "There are still plenty of questions," said Anthony Skinner, Middle East analyst, at risk advisers Maplecroft. "We know there have been some serious divisions between the rebel movement and we don't know yet if they will be able to form a cohesive front to run the country."

Just last month, the rebels military commander was killed after being taken into custody by fighters from his own side.

http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-enter-h...000932445.html

double post

Moamar Gaddafi's Costly Retirement Party
By Richard Miniter | Forbes – 11 hrs ago

Cheering crowds greeted Libyan rebels as they poured into the center of Libya’s seaside capital, while the Arab world’s longest-serving ruler, Col. Moamar Gaddafi, fled into his own private spider hole.

Beneath the cheering throng, the strongman is said to have built an elaborate series of tunnels and chambers in a dark honeycomb that may take weeks to clear out. It is camouflaged with children’s playgrounds and neighborhood clinics to deter NATO air strikes.

Like the death of Osama bin Laden, this looks like a victory for the Obama Administration. Gaddafi seems to be gone and his three sons, who helped run the murderous regime, are now in rebel custody. But, the “victory” is less clear-cut upon closer inspection.

There are two ways to assess this apparent triumph: by examining what happens next and by weighing realistic options against Obama’s Libya policy.

In short, we need a “retirement plan for dictators,” a much less violent way to coax them from power. (I suggest one below.) We need to learn the lessons of the Libyan experiment because, most likely in the coming months, the Obama Administration will be called on to repeat it in Syria and, perhaps, Yemen.

What Happens Next?


If everything unfolds perfectly, it is possible that the rebel Transitional National Council will rebuild the shattered economy, heal the wounds of war, hold fair trials for captured Gaddafi loyalists, maintain public order and hold free elections. If so, then President Obama’s daring foreign adventure will have paid off. A stable and free Libya, which doesn’t threaten its European neighbors with waves of refugees or terrorist bombings, may well be worth the billions of dollars spent and the lives risked.

Yet even Pollyanna would see that rosy outcome as remote. Looting, mob “justice” and even civil war are just as likely.

Libya is a nation of 140 major tribes, all of which are armed with small arms and big grievances. Most of those tribes have spent the past few months killing members of other tribes—setting up an epic cycle of revenge killings that could go on for years.

Of course, Gaddafi would be partly to blame, even if he is dead. For 42 cruel years, he strangled or smothered every independent, intermediate institution: local government, free mosques, charitable organizations, firms with more than 50 employees, and independent media in all forms. With no virtually no civil society, Libya has no trusted national institutions that transcend tribe or geography. Even the army splintered into regional and tribal factions.

There is no history of self-government at the national level, only kings, sheikhs and dictators. What’s worse, Libya is really two nations in one. Historically, Benghazi (the rebel capital) and Tripoli (Gaddafi’s last stronghold) vied for control of the nation. Does Benghazi now rule and how would that sit with the people of Tripoli, Libya’s largest city?

Who will keep order? The police have fled and the rebels lack the radios, leadership and structure to keep order. Without large numbers of American and allied troops on the ground—which no one is proposing—there is no force to stop riots, looting, and revenge attacks. As America’s experience in Baghdad in 2003 shows, even a large, modern army cannot necessarily stop determined mobs of looters.

The Dictator’s Retirement Plan

The other means of deciding whether the Libya adventure was worthwhile is to measure it against other policy alternatives. Could the U.S. have achieved the same results (the departure of Gaddafi, the dismantling of his evil regime, and safeguarding of civilian lives) at less cost? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. It is time to consider the alternatives to military action as the Libyan situation replays in Syria and Yemen.


The U.S., together with its allies, needs to develop a “dictator retirement plan.”

Let’s consider the world from the point of view of an Arab dictator. Currently, there are three retirement options for any dictator: die in office and hope your sons take over, flee the country as the citizens storm the palace gates, or face trial and execution in a rebel court.

The first option is the goal of any dictator, but it rarely works out. Establishing a dynasty while enjoying the power and wealth is not a retirement strategy in the Arab world. Very few Arab leaders last more than 40 years in the Middle East—and that was before “Arab Spring” put bullseyes on their backs. Egypt’s Anwar Sadat was gunned down by an Islamic militant. Lebanese leaders last little longer than second lieutenants in Vietnam. Yemeni dictators are replaced about as often as vinyl siding in a sketchy neighborhood—about once every 25 years.

Option two is rarely used and rarely turns out well. Sudan’s dictator, Ja’far Numeri, fled to Saudi Arabia in 1989, where he joined Uganda’s onetime dictator Idi Amin. With comparatively little money, little freedom to leave the oil kingdom, and life entirely dependent on the goodwill of his hosts, both Numeri and Amin complained bitterly about their haven. While it is hard to work up much sympathy, the press statements of the former strongmen were certainly noticed by the current crop of tyrants.

Option three is to depend on rebel justice. This, too, is unappetizing to dictators. Egypt’s former strongman, Hosni Mubarak, on a hospital gurney, now waits for a hostile judge to decide his fate. Saddam Hussein fled, was captured, tried and executed by his enemies.

Given a Sophie’s choice between death or powerlessness, it is little wonder that most dictators cling to power. Why not make option two, fleeing to a neutral country, more attractive to them?

That would mean allowing them to keep some sizeable percentage of their loot hidden away in secret bank accounts and a reliable treaty mechanism that would make them immune to prosecution by both their former subjects and various international courts, such as the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Issuing a literal “get out of jail free” card to dictators may well be seen as rewarding evil behavior. But it is not. It is simply a way to use a dictators’ own ill-gotten gains and desire for freedom to buy him out of waging a civil war that could cost tens of thousands of civilian casualties while sparing America’s war fighters and taxpayers the burden of removing him. Think of it as “greenmail” for totalitarians.

This idea needs work. But it is high time that we start thinking about a retirement plan for dictators that encourages them to flee, not fight. We cannot afford too many triumphs like the one convulsing Tripoli today.

http://news.yahoo.com/moamar-gaddafi...092543972.html

Bodies may be Gaddafi son and Libya intel chief
By Omar Fahmy | Reuters – 2 hrs 44 mins ago

CAIRO (Reuters) - Two bodies have been found that could be those of Muammar Gaddafi's son Khamis and his intelligence chief Abdallah Senussi, Al-Jazeera television reported on Monday, citing unnamed sources.

http://news.yahoo.com/bodies-may-gad...175152973.html

Libya victory holds little political promise for Obama
By George E. Condon Jr. National Journal | Exclusive – 20 mins ago

No one in 2008 could have anticipated that the greatest triumphs and signature moments in Barack Obama's presidency would come in the realm of foreign affairs. But with the reports Thursday of the capture and possible death of Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, Obama's successes overseas now dwarf his domestic accomplishments.

Under Obama's watch, the foreign dictators responsible for the most American deaths — Qaddafi and Osama bin Laden — are gone , giving a measure of justice to the thousands who died on Sept. 11, 2001 and the 270 killed in the downing of Pan Am 103 in 1988. Add to the terrorist toll Anwar al-Awlaki killed just last month, and add the winding-down of the war in Iraq and the president has a record Democrats will be eager to run on in 2012.

The problem for the Democrats and for Obama, of course, is that foreign policy is likely to be at best a minor factor in next year's presidential campaign. Americans today — and voters next year — are focused almost entirely on the domestic economy. Foreign policy has been little more than an after-thought at the Republican candidate debates this year, with Obama taking a beating for his Libya policy. The numbers in Gallup have been consistent this year when voters are asked to name the most important problem facing the country. Month after month, between 73 and 76 percent have named economic problems, with only 1 or 2 percent naming wars or terrorism or overseas issues.

That is unlikely to change regardless of the news from Misrati or Tripoli. The killings of bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Khan did not even slow the GOP contenders from their favored lines of attack. They would much rather blast him for what they see as his "apologies" for America than credit his successes as commander-in-chief.

This makes Obama just the latest in a long line of presidents to confront the reality that Americans rarely vote on their foreign policy concerns. That benefited Obama in 2008, first against the more-world-savvy Hillary Rodham Clinton and then against the war hero John McCain. Obama did just enough to pass the foreign policy threshold but still lagged far behind McCain at the time of the election when voters were asked which candidate they trusted to handle foreign policy and defend against terrorist attacks.

The president who suffered most memorably from this reality was President George H.W. Bush after his big victory in the Persian Gulf War pushed him to 91 percent approval. His chief of staff, John Sununu, infamously downplayed the need for a new domestic agenda and declared in 1990 that "there's not a single piece of legislation that needs to be passed in the next two years." The voters had another idea and tossed Bush out of office, replacing him with a Democrat who pledged to focus on the economy "like a laser."

And Libya is no Persian Gulf War. Libya is a military operation the American public never warmed to, never really understood and never paid much attention to, according to pollsters. They were unhappy when allied military operations began on March 18 and remained skeptical even after the president pledged there would be no American boots on the ground. Throughout, it was hard for the news about Libya to break through stories about Hurricane Irene and economic hardship. "There was a good deal of interest in Libya during the first week of NATO bombing but relatively little since then," said Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center. He said that in the week that rebels captured Qaddafi's compound, only 22 percent said they were following the story very closely.

And those who did follow Libyan developments were less than enthusiastic about Obama's policy. A Fox News poll conducted Aug. 29 to 31, found that only 30 percent favored the U.S. military involvement. A majority of 55 percent opposed it, with 14 percent unsure. The opposition included 66 percent of Independents, 58 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Democrats. More recently a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 61 percent of the public views Obama's foreign policies as favorable. The same poll shows they generally disapprove of his job performance.

Numbers like those are why Obama never ran to be a foreign policy president.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusiv...160504716.html

After turbulent ties, U.S. relief at Gaddafi demise
By Tabassum Zakaria | Reuters – 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If ever there was a roller-coaster of a relationship it was the one the United States had with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, which went from bombing to befriending to supporting bombing again.

But after decades of bloodshed and turmoil, the U.S. reaction to Gaddafi's death during a battle for his hometown of Sirte could be summed up in one word: relief.

"I think it's about time," Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told reporters in Sioux City, Iowa. Gaddafi was "a terrible tyrant that killed his own people and murdered Americans and others in the tragedy at Lockerbie. The world is a better place with Gaddafi gone."

If Gaddafi had survived the war with the Libyan opposition forces who are now internationally recognized as the new government, it could have started yet another downward cycle with the United States.

"Gaddafi was a major threat to the United States up until a few years ago, and if he had survived this regime change, he very well could have continued to be a threat since he would have blamed us for his demise," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at The Brookings Institution.

How three different U.S. presidents handled the mercurial man who seized power in Libya in a 1969 coup illustrates the tempestuous journey of U.S.-Libyan ties.

A generation ago, President Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi the "mad dog of the Middle East," and named Libya a suspect in the deadly 1986 bombing of a West Berlin discotheque frequented by members of the U.S. military.

About a week later, U.S. military jets struck Libya, hitting a Gaddafi compound in Tripoli and reportedly killing his adopted baby daughter. Reagan said: "Today we have done what we had to do; if necessary, we will do it again."

Gaddafi, in short, was a U.S. nemesis long before al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden or Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, whom he joins in death.

U.S. animosity toward Libya intensified further after the 1988 bombing by Libyan agents of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.

But over a decade later the ice started to thaw under President George W. Bush after Gaddafi promised in 2003 to give up his weapons of mass destruction and completed a compensation settlement for the families of the Lockerbie victims in 2008.

Bush is believed to be the first U.S. president to speak to Gaddafi when he phoned the Libyan leader in November 2008 to express satisfaction about the Lockerbie claims settlement.

Diplomats and businessmen flocked to Libya in greater numbers. Famous U.S. entertainers performed for the Gaddafi clan. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Gaddafi in Tripoli in 2008.

TENUOUS TIES

But when the rebellion against Gaddafi's rule began earlier this year, the United States demonstrated how tenuous the relationship had been. It backed the rebels against a fierce onslaught by Gaddafi's forces. President Barack Obama came out and said Gaddafi must go.

On Thursday, in a statement after Gaddafi's death, Obama declared: "You have won your revolution."

Under Obama, the United States played a mostly supporting role in NATO military operations over Libya. As far as is known, Washington had no direct role in his death.

Others nonetheless saw the events as a fulfillment of the long, winding road of U.S. policy on Libya. "It completes the Reagan legacy, he called him the mad dog of Tripoli and tried to kill him," Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said. "Yes he was welcomed back into the international community in 2003, but even so I think they had to hold their nose when they did it."

The biggest relief was likely felt by the Lockerbie families. "I hope he's in hell with Hitler," said Kathy Tedeschi, whose husband was killed on Pan Am Flight 103.

Along with antagonism toward Gaddafi, his eccentricities, such as having a tent pitched on property owned by New York real-estate magnate Donald Trump ahead of the U.N. General Assembly, became fodder for American jokes. "He seemed very strange, but yet the guy maintained his hold on office over a very long period of time, and so he clearly was more wily than people gave him credit for. He survived most other leaders on the world stage," West said.

Gaddafi's death did not provoke the same jubilation in the United States as the killing of bin Laden, when crowds gathered outside the White House chanting "USA, USA."

But it was generally welcomed among the smattering of tourists meandering outside the White House on Thursday. "It's good news," said Dan DeBoise, 49, a nurse from Spokane, Washington. "The U.S. constantly feels like we need to police the world and the less bad guys out there it's going to be better."

http://news.yahoo.com/turbulent-ties...205526242.html

The Seven Weirdest Things About Moammar Gadhafi
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN | ABC News – 8 hrs ago

Col. Moammar Gadhafi, the dictator who ruled Libya for 42 years, was killed by rebels in his hometown of Sirte on Thursday. A dictator who oppressed his own people and sponsored terrorism abroad, Gadhafi's legacy will be stained by violence. But beyond his brutality, Gadhafi will be remembered for something else entirely… being a first-class weirdo.

In no particular order, ABCNews.com brings you the seven weirdest things about Moammar Gadhafi.

1. The "Bulletproof" Tent: When Gadhafi was at home in Tripoli, he lived in a well fortified compound with a complex system of escape tunnels. But when he travelled abroad, this "Bedouin" brought a bit of the desert with him, camping out in the world's capitals. The tent was so heavy it needed to be flown on a separate plane, wherever the dictator travelled. To complete the Arabian Nights theme, Gadhafi often would tether a camel or two outside.

2. All-Female Virgin Bodyguard Retinue: They apparently weren't around when Gadhafi needed them most on Thursday, but the eccentric dictator was historically protected by 40 well trained bodyguards – all of them women. The bodyguards, called "Amazons," were all reportedly virgins who took a vow of chastity upon joining the dictator's retinue. The women, trained at an all-female military academy, were handpicked by Gadhafi. They wore elaborate uniforms, as well as makeup and high-heeled combat boots.

3. His "Voluptuous" Ukrainian Nurse: For a decade, Galyna Kolotnytska, a Ukrainian nurse often described in the press as "voluptuous," was regularly seen at the dictator's side. Kolotnytska was described in a leaked diplomatic cable as one of Gadhafi's closest aides and was rumored to have a romantic relationship with him. Several other Ukrainian women served as nurses and they all referred to him as "Papa" or "Daddy."

4. Crush on Condoleezza Rice: In 2007, Gadhafi called former Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice his "darling black African woman" and on a 2008 visit she made to Tripoli, the dictator gave her $200,000 worth of gifts, including a ring and a lute. But it wasn't until rebels stormed his Tripoli compound that the depths of the dictator's infatuation were exposed. There among Gadhafi's belongings was a carefully composed photo album made up of dozens of images of no one but Rice.

5. Fear of Flying and Elevators: Part of the reason Gadhafi loved travelling with that tent of his was because he was worried about lodging in a hotel where he'd have to ride an elevator. According to leaked diplomatic cables, the Libyan didn't like heights much either, and would only climb to a height of 35 steps. He therefore wasn't much of a fan of flying, refusing to travel by air for more than eight hours at a time. When he would travel to New York of the U.N.'s annual general assembly, he would spend a night in Portugal on the way to the U.S.

6. Bunga Bunga: In 2010, one of Gadhafi's most eccentric pastimes was exposed by Italian prosecutors investigating Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. A 17-year-old prostitute named Karima el-Mahroug, better known as Ruby Heartstealer, revealed that she had been invited to an orgy, called a "bunga bunga." "Silvio told me that he'd copied that formula from Muammar Gadhafi," she told prosecutors according to La Repubblica. "It's a ritual of [Gadhafi's] African harem."

7. An Eclectic Wardrobe: In those photos of world leaders standing shoulder to shoulder on the sidelines of this or that international forum, Gadhafi was always the easiest to pick out. His wardrobe was an eclectic mix of ornate military uniforms, Miami Vice style leisure suits, and Bedouin robes. Gadhafi, who pushed for a pan-African federation of nations, often decorated his outfits with images of the African continent. He'd sport safari shirts printed with an Africa pattern, or wear garish pins or necklaces of the continent.


http://news.yahoo.com/seven-weirdest...170209296.html