When President Obama announced his plan to protect the people of Libya from the onslaught of violence that Muammar Qaddafi promised, Republicans began crying foul. How dear the President of the United States even think of wanting to protect the lives of innocent people.
Well after a few months, and zero American troops killed, Muammar Qaddafi is dead. His reign on the Libyan people lasted 40 years, but today, video of his dead body was broadcast today for the world to see. After the reports of his death were confirmed, President Obama made the following statement from the Rose Garden.
2:07 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Today, the government of Libya announced the death of Muammar Qaddafi. This marks the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya, who now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya.
For four decades, the Qaddafi regime ruled the Libyan people with an iron fist. Basic human rights were denied. Innocent civilians were detained, beaten and killed. And Libya’s wealth was squandered. The enormous potential of the Libyan people was held back, and terror was used as a political weapon.
Today, we can definitively say that the Qaddafi regime has come to an end. The last major regime strongholds have fallen. The new government is consolidating the control over the country. And one of the world’s longest-serving dictators is no more.
One year ago, the notion of a free Libya seemed impossible. But then the Libyan people rose up and demanded their rights. And when Qaddafi and his forces started going city to city, town by town, to brutalize men, women and children, the world refused to stand idly by.
Faced with the potential of mass atrocities — and a call for help from the Libyan people — the United States and our friends and allies stopped Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks. A coalition that included the United States, NATO and Arab nations persevered through the summer to protect Libyan civilians. And meanwhile, the courageous Libyan people fought for their own future and broke the back of the regime.
So this is a momentous day in the history of Libya. The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted. And with this enormous promise, the Libyan people now have a great responsibility — to build an inclusive and tolerant and democratic Libya that stands as the ultimate rebuke to Qaddafi’s dictatorship. We look forward to the announcement of the country’s liberation, the quick formation of an interim government, and a stable transition to Libya’s first free and fair elections. And we call on our Libyan friends to continue to work with the international community to secure dangerous materials, and to respect the human rights of all Libyans –- including those who have been detained.
We’re under no illusions — Libya will travel a long and winding road to full democracy. There will be difficult days ahead. But the United States, together with the international community, is committed to the Libyan people. You have won your revolution. And now, we will be a partner as you forge a future that provides dignity, freedom and opportunity.
For the region, today’s events prove once more that the rule of an iron fist inevitably comes to an end. Across the Arab world, citizens have stood up to claim their rights. Youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship. And those leaders who try to deny their human dignity will not succeed.
For us here in the United States, we are reminded today of all those Americans that we lost at the hands of Qaddafi’s terror. Their families and friends are in our thoughts and in our prayers. We recall their bright smiles, their extraordinary lives, and their tragic deaths. We know that nothing can close the wound of their loss, but we stand together as one nation by their side.
For nearly eight months, many Americans have provided extraordinary service in support of our efforts to protect the Libyan people, and to provide them with a chance to determine their own destiny. Our skilled diplomats have helped to lead an unprecedented global response. Our brave pilots have flown in Libya’s skies, our sailors have provided support off Libya’s shores, and our leadership at NATO has helped guide our coalition. Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come to an end.
This comes at a time when we see the strength of American leadership across the world. We’ve taken out al Qaeda leaders, and we’ve put them on the path to defeat. We’re winding down the war in Iraq and have begun a transition in Afghanistan. And now, working in Libya with friends and allies, we’ve demonstrated what collective action can achieve in the 21st century.
Of course, above all, today belongs to the people of Libya. This is a moment for them to remember all those who suffered and were lost under Qaddafi, and look forward to the promise of a new day. And I know the American people wish the people of Libya the very best in what will be a challenging but hopeful days, weeks, months and years ahead.
“This is a victory for the United States military, for our British and French allies, for NATO, for the president of the United States, but most importantly for the Libyan people. …” Kirk said in a conference call with reporters from the Libyan capital. “Unquestioned kudos goes to the president and his team, but the challenges are not over yet.”
“This was a success by President Obama and his team. Any military conflict has ups or downs or things you might have done differently … but we have all the makings of a very strong U.S. ally in Libya.”
Those are the words of Republican Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who criticized the President at the beginning of the conflict for not getting congressional approval before joining forces with NATO to help the Libyan people. Now, after touring the war-torn country, Mark Kirk is singing a different tune.
Kirk traveled to Tripoli with three fellow Republican senators – John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida – to meet with members of the National Transitional Council, comprised largely of the opposition movement that removed Qadhafi from power.
The congressional delegation toured a hospital and the U.S. embassy, and spoke with civilians in Martyr’s Square, the site of protests and fighting earlier this year.
While driving through the streets of the city, Kirk described seeing “spontaneous graffiti” that was overwhelmingly anti-Qadhafi. Billboards which had previously displayed the Libyan leader’s image had been ripped down.
“The age of Qadhafi has definitely ended,” Kirk said, though the ousted leader still remains at large.
Now only if Kirk could spread those words to the rest of the Republicans in Congress, and don’t be surprised if we find out that Republicans are now trying to come up with a way to credit George Bush for Libya’s success.
It is a match made in Heaven, and it is something we should have all expected. It seems NATO and the band of rebels in Libya have called off their search for Gaddafi. Apparently, he was found announcing his intention to run for the Republican nomination in 2012. Here’s the report;
CONCORD, NH – The mystery surrounding Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred candidates.
While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col. Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate made perfect sense.
“In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly disconnected from reality,” said the aide. “So I think he’ll fit right in.”
Okay, okay… But think about it. If this were true, would you be totally surprised? I wouldn’t.
The present Congressional Republicans and their presidential candidates are doing their best to destroy this country, with their irresponsible blockade against everything the Democrats and President Obama does. They are on a mission, the same mission Gaddafi is on – trying to bring America to its knees.
The ‘Michele Bachmann’s A Joke Show’ continues, this time, in friendly territory. But even there, on the Foxnews Network, Michele Bachmann – another wanna be Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential campaign – couldn’t answer a question truthfully.
Interviewed by Chris Wallace of Fox, Michele was put on the spot. Caught like a deer in the headlights, she appeared ill-prepared and quite frankly, ill-informed on the most basics of war ethics – you don’t believe what the enemy says, especially when the enemy is Qaudaffi;
WALLACE: We’re going to have Lindsey Graham on in a moment. Is he wrong when he says in fact we should get more deeply involved and in fact should take out Qaddafi? I would also like your reaction to the missile strike overnight that apparently killed some of Qaddafi’s family.
BACHMANN: Well, remember, Defense Secretary Gates said we were not attacked by Qaddafi, nor were we threatened attack. He also said we have no vital national American interest in Libya. Those are the two prerequisites for our United States military entry.
He was later asked what our military goal was in Libya. He couldn’t state what our military goal is. What in the world are we doing in Libya if we don’t know what our military goal is? And if we still aren’t sure about who the opposition forces are? What possible benefits–
WALLACE: When you say the opposition, you mean the rebels?
BACHMANN: The rebels. What possible benefit could there be for the United States if in fact we could potentially be benefiting Al Qaida of North Africa or Hezbollah, which is a very strong likelihood?
This would be a terrible mistake for this reason, because if we give Al Qaida of North Africa access to sustained revenues from oil, they could continue to fund global terrorism. How is that going to help anyone? This is a disaster in the making.
That’s why President Obama’s policy of leading from behind is an outrage. And people should be outraged at the foolishness of the president’s decision. He said he wanted to go in for humanitarian purposes, and overnight we are hearing that potentially 10,000 to 30,000 people could have been killed in the strike. Those are some of the reports.
WALLACE: In the NATO strikes, 10,000 to 30,000 people?
BACHMANN: There is a report that came out from an ambassador from Tripoli that said we won’t know until we’re able to go in.
WALLACE: But did the NATO strikes kill 10,000 to 30,000 people?
BACHMANN: Yes.
WALLACE: So you’re believing the Qaddafi regime?
BACHMANN: We don’t know. We don’t know. All I’m saying is that —
WALLACE: Do you think Muammar Qaddafi is a reliable person?
Last time we heard about Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic Congressman was questioning whether or not President Obama should be impeached for his actions in Libya. Kucinich believes he should be.
Today, Kucinich somewhat redeemed himself and was able to reconnect with his Democratic roots during his questioning of Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker. Walker went to congress to give his testimony about his recent actions of stripping Wisconsin’s public employees of their collective bargaining rights. Mr. Walker has always maintained that taking away these rights from Wisconsin’s public employees was a necessary step towards deficit reduction.
Enter Dennis Kucinich;
KUCINICH: Let me ask you about some of the specific provisions in your proposals to strip collective bargaining rights. First, your proposal would require unions to hold annual votes to continue representing their own members. Can you please explain to me and members of this committee how much money this provision saves for your state budget?
WALKER: That and a number of other provisions we put in because if you’re going to ask, if you’re going to put in place a change like that, we wanted to make sure we protected the workers of our state, so they got value out of that.
KUCINICH: Would you answer the question? How much money does it save, Governor?
WALKER: It doesn’t save any.
KUCINICH: I want to ask about another one of your proposals. Under your plan you would prohibit paying union member dues from their paychecks. How much money would this provision save your state budget?
WALKER: It would save employees a thousand dollars a year they could use to pay for their pensions and health care contributions.
President Bill Clinton, one of the 43 previous men who carried the banner of President of the United States, who was never accused of being born anywhere else other than the US during his tenure, expressed his displeasure of criticism, by some, of the 44th man to carry the torch – President Barack Obama. One criticism that Mr. Clinton referred to, was the suggestion that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya. Mr. Clinton calls this “ludicrous.”
“If I were them, I’d be really careful riding that birther horse too much. Everyone knows it’s ludicrous.”
Appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America, the ex President then suggests to Bianna Golodgrya the reason why President Obama is not giving in to the wishes of the Birthers, by putting out a version of his birth certificate to satisfy their needs, instead of the version his native Hawaii government allows:
“I think one of the elementary rules of combat is you don’t want to get in your opponent’s way if he’s shooting himself in the foot.”
Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”
Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. 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.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi 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. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi 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. Gaddafi declared that 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 had 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 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 UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. 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 Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
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.
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. 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.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi 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. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.
That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
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. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Tripping over himself in all manner of ways, is Republican hopeful for the 2012 presidential elections, Newt The Gingrich.
Mr. Gingrich exemplifies the Republicans response to President Obama in all his policy endeavors, and that is – look at the President’s position, and find a way to say and do the complete opposite.
So in keeping with that philosophy, the video below shows Newt Gingrich, criticizing President Obama for not acting on behalf of the Libyans being killed by Muammar Qadhafi. Asked what he would have done differently, Newt replied;
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening!… All we have to say is, slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and we are intervening.
Breaking News: President Obama and the International Community Exercised a No-Fly Zone over Libya.
Let’s now rejoin Newt, and see how he feels about this no-fly zone…
Mr. Gingrich, how do you feel about President Obama’s no-fly zone over Libya?
I would not have interveneD. I think there are a lot of other ways to affect Qadhafi.
As Muammar Qadhafi authorized his army and air force to board planes and drop bombs on protesters in his own country, the International community came together and decided that the only way to stop the massacre of innocent people was to create a ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya. President Obama joined European and Arab forces to enforce the no-fly zone, in an effort to ground Qadhafi’s bombers, thus stopping the killing of the Libyan people.
Seemed like the right thing to do at the time. The allied forces came together over the weekend and the ‘no-fly’ resolution they all agreed upon, was put into effect. Here in the United States however, although a new poll by CNN states that over 70%k of Americans are in favor of the resolution, Democrats and Republicans alike are now pondering whether or not President Obama should be impeached for violating the Constitution for declaring war on Libya.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution is often referred to as the War Clause. It grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, stating; “The Congress shall have Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.
This power was given to Congress by the Framers of the Constitution and has certain exclusive authority – in addition to the declaration itself, Congress is also responsible for supplying the necessary funding to keep the war going. But the Constitution also grants exclusive authority to the President as Commander-In-Chief of the military forces, and determining which body should exercise their authority and when, is where the confusion comes in. It’s often referred to as “the zone of concurrent powers”.
In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important–in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.
Presidents have used their authority in this capacity for decades. The most recent, the Iraqi War by President George Bush, was done without initial congressional declaration. Slate documents other times Congressional declaration was not done in major conflicts;
That practice confirms that the president, under his commander-in-chief and other executive powers, has very broad discretion to use U.S. military force in the absence of congressional authorization. Presidents have done this, in military actions large and small, over 100 times, since the beginning of the republic.
The largest and most consequential unauthorized military action is the Korean War launched by President Truman in 1950. Another big conflict without congressional authorization—and, indeed, in the face of an overt congressional vote that declined to provide such authorization—was President Clinton’s Kosovo intervention in 1999.
Some less significant unilateral uses of military force in the past 30 years include Haiti (2004), Bosnia (1995), Haiti (1994), Somalia (1992), Panama (1989), Libya (1986), Lebanon (1982), and Iran (1980). The executive branch has issued public legal opinions explaining the constitutional basis for most of these actions.
Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich told Raw Story;
“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.”
But Kucinich didn’t stop there. He then went on to question whether President Obama should be brought up on impeachment charges. In the interview, he told the site, “And I’m raising the question as to whether or not it’s an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
And the President states his constitutional authority as Commander In Chief;
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
This is not a new issue. This question has been asked before, and chances are, after President Obama’s tenure is over, it will be asked again. The President, as Commander In Chief is legally and constitutionally within his rights to take the actions that are underway in Libya.
If Dennis Kucinich and his Democratic and Republican congressmen feel that the actions of the President were unconstitutional, the Constitution gives them the authority to cut off funding to the military. And that too, would be legal. How far will they take this?
Bill Maher is considered by many on the right as a far left ideologue. But when you consider the things he says, although said in a humorous way, you have to admit that he’s usually on the money.
Take for example what he said a few days ago about the Republican party and how they govern:
“Governing this country with the Republicans is like rooming with a meth addict. You want to address real-life problems like when the rent is due, and they’re saying, ‘How could you even think of that stuff when there’s police scanner voices coming out of the air conditioning unit?!'”
Again, what he said is funny, but think about it. This economy is trying to make its way out of what many consider the second Great Depression. There are over 14 million Americans who’ve lost their jobs over the last 4 years, families are losing their homes at an alarming rate, middle class Americans are still continuing a downward slide into poverty – a slide that began under the Bush Administration, and there’s a war going on… not the one in Libya, but a war against the middle class and their pursuit of the “American Dream.”
But instead of focusing on these issues and coming up with policies that will get the American economy back on its feet, Republicans have focused on things like defunding NPR, taking away union rights from the middle class, eliminating funding for planned parenthood and voting to take away America’s health care reform initiatives. These are the kinds of issues that Republicans are focusing extreme energy on.
Maher says todays Republican’s style of governing is full of “fantasies.” He went on to say, “fantasies are for sex, not public policy.” Again, funny and true. He spoke about another non-issue that many Republicans love to indulge in, this one involved Michelle Obama, and her efforts to promote healthier eating habits for America’s youths. Maher gives this example;
“Michelle Obama’s war on desserts. For Christ’s sake, she’s just trying to get you to eat a carrot, not stick it up your ass.”
The perception of who we are matters greatly in what comes from ourselves. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the woman or man that perceives themselves as ‘great’ carries themselves in a manner which reflects their state of mind. Whether their ‘great’ self perception is agreed upon by others is relative to what comes from the individual, be it the great energy he or she brings to the environment or actual works of accomplishment.
Just like our individual selves, our communities, our homes, our nation, our very planet and its condition reflects the world communities perception of who and what we are collectively. Whether by the ‘ACTIVE WILL’ of those bold enough to forge ahead and accomplish (for better or worse), or by the ‘PERMISSIVE WILL’ of those who sit in the back of the bus while others drive the bus…. “any resemblance of circumstances in recent memory is NOT a coincidence”.
From those who control international agendas to the common sheep-oh-uh, I mean person….we ALL have our energy stain and fingerprints on the now bubbling cauldron that is our world. So who are we really? What is our perception of ourselves as a nation? What can we tell about our collective state of mind by what our nations hands have shaped?
As we sit at the precipice of yet another military action, this time on the African nation of Libya, we need to think consciously, “is THIS who I am?” As we watch while our political leaders spend billions of our dollars a month on wars that cost the lives of young soldiers only to enrich the coffers of über wealthy contractors and corporations while schools close and educators become jobless, we need to contemplate with a clear mind, “is THIS who I am?”
Its so easy to change the personal pronoun “I” for the pronoun “they,” but as long as we sit on the back of this bus and just go along for the ride… “WE ARE THEY”.
The honorable Dr. Martin Luther King in his illustrious speech in Montgomery Alabama 1965 said, “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice”. And I say to you today that WHO WE ARE IN ALL TRUTH IS… we are living, breathing, thinking, functional parts of the whole system of life in all its order and glory. We are one with the universe in mind, body and spirit, and as the universal law of justice inevitably drops its gavel… let us strive to be who WE REALLY ARE in our original universal garments of freedom, justice and equality.
As we saw in the recent tsunami in Japan, when its time for nature to express herself there is no army to stand between us and her. When its time for the harvesting of sown seeds, Sarah Palin’s scripted bumper sticker type punch lines won’t be a sufficient distraction for those in need to continue to tune out reality.
Before we were intoxicated by the modern day ‘Pharos magicians’ dazzling our minds with shiny objects of illusion, an independent thought did not seem so far fetched. Before the new Jordan’s, Brooks brothers suits and sagging jeans, we were clothed in the attire of universal order. Prior to tel-li-vision’s lies, where the tv tells lies to our vision, we actually saw each other. Do we really see each other now… as we are? Who are we … really?
The main-stream media has been transfixed over the last three weeks by two stories, Libya – including whether the correct spelling is Kadaffie, Gadaffie or Qadiffie – and Charlie Sheen and the tiger-blood running through his veins! Lost in all this confusion is a massive recall effort going on in Wisconsin, and the people’s fight to work, live, and pay their bills.
In a move that many have considered illegal, Republican governor Scott Walker and his Republican cohorts rammed a bill through the state’s congress to its passage. The bill, which takes away the negotiating rights of public union employees, created such an uproar in Wisconsin and all across the country, that a tremendous effort to recall 8 of the Republicans who passed the bill have been in progress for the last two weeks.
And now, a report from the Washington Post is stating that 45% of the votes needed to recall the Republican congressional lobbyists, have been achieved.
Dems have now collected over 56,000 signatures supporting the recall drives, according to party spokesman Graeme Zielinski, after another surge in organizing activity over the weekend. That’s up from rougly 14,000 after last weekend. This means Dems are well ahead of schedule: In each targeted district, Dems need to amass the required signatures — 25 percent of the number who voted in the last gubernatorial election — by a deadline of 60 days after first filing for recalls, which happened nearly two weeks ago.
In other words, Dems are reporting they are nearly halfway to the finish line, with roughly three-fourths of the alloted time remaining.
As per the report and the rules for recall, Democrats have 60 days from the time the recall paperwork was filed to come up with the needed signatures. The report continues;
According to Wisconsin Dem spokesman Zielinski, Dems are ahead of pace in signature gathering in every single one of the eight districts being targteted, and in three of the districts, Dems have well over 50 percent of the number required.
But who cares about this fight? Tune in to CNN and MSNBC for continued coverage of Kadaffie and Sheen’s night out!
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.