Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.
The following citation from <http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-libya-rebels-close-in-on-gadhafi-hometown-032811/>
states that U.S. aircraft are flying direct combat support missions in support of the Libyan rebels,
“U.S. Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. was hitting Libyan targets with Thunderbolts and AC-130 gunships, aircraft that can fly low enough to support ground operations.
There was growing criticism from Russia and other countries that the international air campaign is overstepping the bounds of the U.N. resolution that authorized it. The complaints came at a critical transition in the campaign from a U.S. to a NATO command. That threatens to hamper the operation, as some of the 28 NATO member nations plan to limit their participation to air patrols, rather than attacks on ground targets.”
This is not what the Administration is saying. They have said that they do not want to replace Qadaffi, but these highly capable ground attack aircraft can and will decimate Qadaffi’s forces for the rebels.
Does the Administration have any idea who will rule Libya after Qadaffi?
If our enemies, such as al Qaedi, take charge of Libya, then our Administration may help to create an enemy, i.e. anti-Western Jihadist, stronghold in North Africa.
The News media and their pollsters may chide Americans who think that President Obama is a Muslim, but they neglect to ask the more important question: Do the Libyan rebels think that President Obama is supporting them because he is a Muslim?
There’s no “there” there.
[blockquote]Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way[/blockquote]Not all revolutions are equal, a simple glance at history reveals that the French Revolution brought us the Guillotine, the Russian Revolution brought us Stalin, and the Cuban Revolution brought us Castro.
“…history is on the move…..and young people are leading the way.”
Well, as long as they’re young people, what could go badly?
Why is it that Eric Holder has not chimed in with lets bring Qaddaffi to New York and try him before a Federal District Court? Why are we not pursuing him as a terrorist that has killed probably hundreds of Americans over the last few years? It seems the evidence and now available testimony proves that he ordered the PanAm flight bombing. Isn’t that illegal to murder over 200 people? Or has he promised to behave like a good little boy to Obama and company? It seems to me that the Obama administration doesn’t have a clue what they are doing and are making it all up as they go along. Also, isn’t it a violation of our federal laws to turn command of US troops over to any foreign power, ally or not? Seems to me that the Republicans need to be bringing articles of impeachment. Refusal to enforce or commiting acts expressly forbiden comes under the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Not sold. The Democrats will rue this day. They have allowed their own to use the US military as his private Praetorian Guard to launch a war of his own choosing without so much as a by your leave.
He did not ask the American people or their representatives, he told them. Plus as 1 points out he lied through out his speech. We intervened in a civil war, in a country that posed no immediate threat to us to overthrow the existing government and he, on his own authority, is ordering the US Military, to conduct military operations to that end.
In overthrowing one dictator we are installing one in our own country.
I really regret the President’s refusal to seek authorization from the Congress to spend funds on this project.
And don’t forget, NATO is a US run organization. All we will do is shift command and control from one American command to another:
[blockquote]The president failed to mention what this means in practice: Come Wednesday we will transfer responsibility for the mission in Libya from an American general (Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command) to an American admiral (James Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander-Europe). He might also have mentioned the other mission that we have handed over to NATO — the mission in Afghanistan. Feel like responsibility for the war in Afghanistan has been handed over to our European allies? If so, you’ll love the transfer of responsibility for the war in Libya.[/blockquote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-fundamentally-dishonest-speech/2011/03/28/AFC0NfrB_blog.html