Torpedos Over Tripoli

Just one point. Presidents since Harry Truman have taken military action without Congressional approval, every one of 'em -- even Gerald Ford (remember the Mayaguez? Probably not). This is because Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, LIKE it that way. They get to second guess without having to cast a vote that makes them partially responsible for what does or doesn't happen. If the Congress could figure out a way to NEVER vote on anything, it'd be in a state of perfect bliss. Gridlock is the closest they've come to that.

 

. . .wholly based on a heap of lies, delusions and fantasies - typical, for a dry-drunk.

 

This is true and I meant to mention it before.

I wonder who it would be a harder vote for. I think it would pass easily, but he'd lose votes on the far left and he'd lose some Republicans.

Part of the reason I think he should go to Congress for authorization is so that they do have to vote. I want them on the record. Most would prefer to say nothing or to say something so vague so that they can criticize it if it goes bad.

Sen. Menendez (D. New Jersey) was just asked if he supports the President's actions on MSNBC. He replied that he supported the No Fly Zone, which isn't the same thing.

 

I think it might come down to the fact that no matter how liberal or anti-war a president is, when he gets in office he finds out he's got a lot of toys: guns, battleships, helicopters, jets, subs, etc., and can order around the guys who use them.

 

NO republicans are going to vote for anything associated with Obama at this point. Zero zip zilch nada.

 

Just as Democrats voted for war in Iraq, Republicans would have supported this action in Libya. At least I'd hope. Although ... I don't like how it was handled. Clearly, this isn't France or Britain driving the bus. It's their oil dammit. Why can't other "western" nations have the balls to fight their own battles first?

 

Star, you might be right but why not get them on record. The Dems throw the "obstructionist" label around quite a bit...this would be a perfect opportunity to get the Republicans on record as actually acting in an obstructionist manner. Because, actually, the obstructionist charge has been laughable to this point. They were not obstructing Obamacare because, clearly, that legislation goes against everything they are for...and it is difficult to obstruct when you are locked out of the meetings and the Dems have a super majority anyway.

Again, I applaud Obama for finally stepping up to the plate on Libyia. It would be nice, now, if he would address the nation and tell us exactly what the plans are. It would be nice to know the objectives. His leaving for Brazil was a public relations mistake, but it seems like he tries to make PR mistakes just so his defenders can point and should "racist" at those who question his movements.

 

All I know is that in what is probably the most important time in modern history regarding the Middle East, I'm sure glad we have a president who kicks the can down the road for three weeks and then decides to just do whatever the French are doing.

 

It's going to be very interesting to see how this proceeds:

It's clear that we are the only ones who could put a NFZ in place so quickly. Will anyone be able to take it off our hands?

 

Yes. The Brits and French have more than enough air force to do it. They didn't have all those cruise missiles needed to knock out the anti-aircraft capacity.

 

Israel has a great Air Force. Could you imagine that?

 

Might have gone over better if the USA did not downplay their role.

Next we'll find out that our special forces have been on the ground in Libya for a month marking targets.