Nobel Peace Prize winner...

You are referring to Clinton's launch of missiles into SUDAN...not Somalia....and if it matters, yes, Clinton's National Security adviser notified Gingrich (SOTH) and Lott (Sen Maj LDR) and Daschle (Sen Min LDR) prior to the attack.

The reason Senator Jim Webb (Democrat) is pissed - Obama did not even notify congress ahead of time...senators on high ranking committees learned about it just like we all did...saw it on the news. Think about how screwed up that is....

Alot of people keep pointing at the flaws of past presidents, as justification for Obama's problems (even if the correlations are untrue or incorrect). This man has got to pick himself up, become a leader, and act like he's in charge. Ponder this - when is the last time we entered into a military conflict, without the customary ten minute speech from the Oval Office, explaining the mission to the American people?




And....I don't know why Bush has anything to do with anything...but assuming it matters:

Authorization of Force in Iraq: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243

Authorization of Force in Afghanistan:
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

Clinton did blow up a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan but not to distract from Lewinsky. He had a series of cruise missiles launched into Iraq and CNN (and the rest) cut away just as Linda Tripp arrived to testify at the grand jury. We found out about a week later the missiles had been launched a day ahead of time but the captain of the ship was told to embargo that information until a precise time.
The factory in the Sudan was not a legitimate target according to our own intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and Russian intelligence but Bubba needed a scapegoat.
We also blew up an empty building in Iraq when it was discovered that Hussein had put a contract out on George HW Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Iraq were contacted about reprisals and missiles were launched at 3 AM so the building targeted would have minimal staffers in it. No one important.
The military is at the beck and call of the president and no one else. Since Truman, no, strike that, since Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution all presidents have exercised authority without the consent of congress. The War Powers Act was passed to prevent another Gulf of Tonkin act. We have used troops to aid countries like Yugoslavia (back in the 60s), Lebanon, Crete, Gaza (yes, not a country) and the act has been used to conduct military operations like Grenada, pirate attacks (Cambodian, remember Gerald Ford and the Mayaguez), Libya, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Bosnia, Lebanon again, and Somalia. The constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been challenged.

This is a cluster fuck of the first magnitude though.

When in doubt, blame Bush.

We are going to have these problems as long as the American people put more thought into who should win "Dancing With the Stars" than who should be President.

IMHO, the only invasion that was warranted in the past decade or so was Afganistan, but even that got screwed up. It should have been go in get Bin Laden and get the hell out. Time to cut our losses and get out.

Iraq was based on false information. Saddam was contained and posed no real threat to us. Going in destabilized a country that was a sworn enemy if Iran. It also took away from the mission in Afganistan.

Gulf war I ? No need, Iraq was an ally and as long as the oil flowed who cares. The Brits forced the play on this one. Now we became enemies of Saddam. But at least Bush the 1st had the sense to get out right away.

Libya. Don't show support for a group unless you know they are going to win, or you are prepared to back them completely. Once Obama made the statement that Qudafi had to leave, we were screwed. Let the French have this one.

Anyone? No comments? Come on LongerMonger, I know you're out there. Originally Posted by Philhelm

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 21, 2011
Letter from the President regarding the commencement of operations in Libya

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

March 21, 2011

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

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.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

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.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

So yeah, it's iffy. But he has an argument. And that's just based on what's public knowledge. Information will be given on a need to know basis...and guys who post on a hooker board in Kansas City don't need to know. LOL I can't believe you guys are asking for him to broadcast everything to the enemy! Aren't you the same guys that balked at setting a "date certain" withdrawal date? Well, if you tell Gaddafi what the plan is, then he'll just out game the plan.

Obama is about results. That means keeping US fingerprints off of this operation as much as possible, keeping Gaddafi in the dark, keeping as many people in the dark as possible for as long as possible, and speed. Sect. Of State Clinton just announced that NATO would be taking over. Obama's already in and out before Republicans could get on the same page to criticize him.

he has done a great job of keeping us in the dark.in fact he is a master of it.he can go on espn for ten minutes and talk about his brackets but cant go to congress and tell them what he plans on doing in libya if this drags out. hilary is acting like the president and looks presidential. he will lose the nomination to her if she runs and she will.

IMHO, the only invasion that was warranted in the past decade or so was Afganistan, but even that got screwed up. Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

I'd take it a step further and say that the only wars we should have been involved in are the American Revolution (duh!), the War of 1812, and WWII (Pacific Theater). I guess I could throw in the Spanish-American War, since that one was just about kicking ass.

You don't keep your commanders in the dark.
I was in the first Gulf War and I was out in the amphib fleet when George HW Bush came to visit us. We were a feint, a ruse, a ploy as Inspector Clouseau would say. When the 23rd Mech came into Kuwait they found 100,000 Iraqi waiting for the marines on the beach. The commanders knew what they were up to which is far different from this. No operational security is air tight, people learn things, people figure things out, the handwriting is on the wall but an opposition commander can't respond to every threat. So he (or someday she) has to make choices on which to respond to.
What are our immediate goals in Libya? Remove Ghadaffi? Not according to our state department. Kill Khadaffi? Not according to Obama. Protect "innocent" lives? Now we find that Al Queida are some of those "innocent" lives and they are not so innocent. We are not going to get involved on the ground. Turns out we are already on the ground and some of us with the experience/knowledge strongly suspected that. Who will declare victory and what is victory?

Philhelm, I would point out that we made out pretty well in the Mexican-American war.

President Obama began these strikes before consulting Congress. Ninety minutes before the strikes, he told select congressional leaders what was about to happen.

Both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden called this type of action impeachable prior to the election. Both were adamant about it.

We do not have the resources or national interest to assist people in another country institute a new government that hates us, to replace a former government that hates us. This is insane, and just as impeachable now as it was before the election.

Impeachable? Put up or shut up. If it truly is impeachable then a failure to impeach is just as illegal. After all, those Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen SWORE to uphold the laws of the United States.

Longer be careful, Congresswoman Pat Danner said that what B. Clinton did was indefensible and ILLEGAL (perjury, etc.) but she refused to vote for impeachment as did many democrats. So instead of getting into shit slinging lets just agree that Obama is a total louse and deserves to be kicked out (rather than locked out of) the White House. Glad you're on board with that.

I'd take it a step further and say that the only wars we should have been involved in are the American Revolution (duh!), the War of 1812, and WWII (Pacific Theater). I guess I could throw in the Spanish-American War, since that one was just about kicking ass. Originally Posted by Philhelm

You left out the Mexican-American - we acquired a lot of land in that one.

Civil war? I'm out on that one, sometimes I think it would have been better to just let them go,,,

Longer, I'm not the one who said it was an impeachable offense. President Obama and Vice President Biden did. The question is are they lying now, or were they lying then?