President Obama deserves credit for facilitating the overthrow of a brutal dictator at little immediate cost to the United States. Republican critics were wrong to claim that this result could only be achieved with a much larger commitment of U.S. forces.So stay tuned for the unintended consequences.
On the other hand, it is far from clear whether the new regime in Libya will be any better than the old. The new Libyan government includes many different groups, including an influential radical Islamist faction..... If radical Islamists do take over Libya, the result could well be a regime that is just as oppressive as Gadhafi’s and much more hostile to American interests.
The United States may also pay a price for violating our 2003 agreement with Libya, under which Gadhafi agreed to stop supporting terrorism and give up his nuclear program in exchange for the US and Britain implicitly committing themselves to not seeking his overthrow....
Obviously, Gadhafi deserved to be overthrown. He certainly had no “right” to tyrannize over the people of Libya. But, after seeing what happened to him, other dictatorships such as Iran may be less willing to sign similar deals....
Finally, by going to war without congressional authorization, the president violated both the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act. Then-Senator Barack Obama got it right back in 2007, when he wrote that “[t]he 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.”
Update: LA Times--not real pleased and pointing out it's not going to help him much with his friends or enemies. This year, he has sent U.S. troops into action on land or in the skies of seven countries on two continents. More serious, in my opinion, is his encouragement of "Arab Spring" which is bring out of the wooodwork a whole new batch of bad guys.
Posts
6 comments:
Yes, let's stay negative at all costs. Unless it was a republican making the decision and not the black man. Then throw a parade of course. But not for the black man. Everything he does is wrong by definition. And aren't you lucky to have so many people to listen to that provides that 'definition' for you so you don't have to think about it on your own?
Phariseeing is believing, I guess.
You're a hoot. It's not because he presented himself as the anti-Bush, but because he's black. The poor man can never catch a break--for the libs he's always the black guy.
Brian, I know you come here hoping to find the truth in the message of Christ's sacrifice on your behalf, but your bullying and name calling are bad manners (I was going to say "not appropriate" but you're out of middle school and don't need pc-isms), and I'll delete you. True, it's one of those sins Jesus died for, but I don't have to broadcast it for you.
"someone that believes they're decent but in reality. . ." please try to get your pronouns to agree, Brian the Saintly. It would be better to say "someone who believes she's decent but in reality. . ."
Brian the Saint and Holy: just out of curiosity, has your method of educating dense people--name calling, hysteria, loitering, etc.--ever won anyone over to your dark side?
My notes to Brian are to an internet stalker--seems to be fairly crippled with hate, especially for Jesus. His comments (about 100) have been deleted and he's been reported to his ISP and Google for violating their terms of service.
Post a Comment