How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Fact-checking Obama's speech on Libya   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Fact-checking Obama's speech on Libya

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


25 posted 04-01-2011 07:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

An eye for an eye, serene one? I'm feeling close to you right now!

(only kidding, folks! Put down those sabers...)
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


26 posted 04-01-2011 07:49 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Warning, adult language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94obmaiJXXQ

*shaking my head*

and that? Made me laugh.

lawsy I'm in a bad mood today...





moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


27 posted 04-02-2011 03:59 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Ok Mike, so I know I'm a bit late to the party, but at least it's bang on topic.  

I truly don't get why you are so fixated about the supposed contrast between how the press and the people here react to Obama as opposed to Bush; I don't see what you are hoping to achieve and it just gets in the way of your message all the time - unless of course it IS your message. Anyway, whatever, this is what I wrote a few days ago;

It's actually a pretty good attempt at adding substance to your double standards charge against poor old Obama, but really when you stand back and look at what you are saying it doesn't amount to anything more than any other politician does "wrong" - and in fact imo a lot less.  

1 NATO - Yes it's a given that whatever a President says the US will have a big role in any NATO operation - so what?  If Obama is seeking to play down the US role, maybe that's not so much playing to the gallery, as a signal to other countries that they need to stop relying on the US so much - a good thing imo.   The truth is I think that certain elements of US society can't stand the idea of the US being anything other than the openly acknowledged visible leader of any military action.  The testosterone charged gung-ho attitude of the past is just loved by the Palin-clones, and taking a back seat in anything is a big no-no - though they can't admit it openly.

2 Saving lives - The deafening silence from media on casualties makes a refreshing change from the disasters of past conflicts.  However irritating it is to some people who would just love Obama to look bad, it appears that there is actually a degree of intelligent compassion behind this conflict, instead of the usual brash complacency of past attempts at intervention.

3 Congressional authorization - This is arguably needed to satisfy internal law, but certainly totally irrelevant in the bigger picture.  A non-point.

4 Deadly advance - OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."  What part of that is it so hard to understand?  It's the truth, so is it really necessary to resort to speculation about the future to rubbish it?

5 Double standards on intervention - Every politician since prehistoric days has said one thing to get into office, and had to face up to realities when in office.  The difference with Obama is that he's done it less than most.  Again, so what?

  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 04-02-2011 09:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I don't see where your comments about topic one have any connection to the point made in the article. Point two actually has nothing to do with the press reports of casualties so I don't know where that comes from. Congressional authorization a non-point? Tell that the to democrats and republicans in congress.
And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance." What part of that is it so hard to understand? Uh, the part about the advance being stopped....which wasn't....and has gotten stronger with each passing day?
Every politician lies so the  lies are no big deal? Hopefullywe never get to the point where we think that lying and deception is ok because "everybody does it".
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


29 posted 04-03-2011 02:37 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance." What part of that is it so hard to understand? Uh, the part about the advance being stopped....which wasn't....and has gotten stronger with each passing day?

As you say, evolving.  We'll have to wait and see.


Every politician lies so the  lies are no big deal? Hopefullywe never get to the point where we think that lying and deception is ok because "everybody does it".

It's inevitable.  Everybody lies, every politician lies, the acceptability or otherwise lies in the degree and the purpose. This politician imo is on the side of the angels.

The last one, well, ~sigh~ I think he thought he was - maybe he actually believed the God nonsense and thought he was some kinda divine instrument.  Maybe that was the problem; basically a good simple guy being led astray by relgious delusion.  Hummm, where have I heard that before, I feel a new thread coming.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


30 posted 04-03-2011 07:24 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Congressman Warren Hatch is a very decent, likeable person, even to Democrats. He is not a "rabble-rouser" or a person who does not speak with respect toward everyone. I think he summed up Obama very well in an interview the other day..

I believe he's sincere. I believe that he is, you know, he is very interesting and, I think, a good man. I don't think that he really -- you really want my opinion, I think -- I think -- I think that he just doesn't know what to do.

And some of us would help him to know if he would work with us. But I got to tell you, I think that is part of it. I think he is inexperienced. We put a man in as president who had two years of the Senate and the rest of his life was a community organizer. My gosh, that is important, but for president of the United States?

He is a likeable guy. He is articulate and charismatic. I think he is a good looking person, handsome man. He's a person you want to like. You want him to be successful as the African-American president. It would set a wonderful example. But he is not leading, and that is the problem.

Some of us would help him lead. He could have the credit. I would do anything to have the country get its spending and healthcare under control, and, of course, resort to being the greatest country in the world as it should be and as it currently is but fast slipping away.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4622377/hatch-obama-inexperienced-doesnt-know-what-to-do

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


31 posted 04-03-2011 08:17 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

That quote would be from our other option for President--John McCain.

I don't think that there's any way to prepare for the challenges we are facing now, Mike.


Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


32 posted 04-03-2011 10:31 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Congressman Warren Hatch is a very decent, likeable person,


Orrin Hatch may be decent and likeable Mike but, as he suggests himself, that's no reason to believe that he knows what he's talking about.

There are other reasons to believe that Orrin doesn't know what it takes to be President, the main one being that he has less experience than Obama when it comes to holding that particular office. Obama has 800+ days experience of being President, Hatch has zero.

If experience is the ultimate deciding factor Mike, can I assume that at the next election you'll be voting for the person with the most experience of being President?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


33 posted 04-03-2011 11:54 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

You're so naughty.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


34 posted 04-03-2011 01:30 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/6951-clinton-obama-will-ignore-congress-on-libya-war
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 04-03-2011 02:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hatch did not claim to have all the answers, Uncas, nor did he claim he could do a better job himself.. What he said was that there are members of congress who do have the experience in fields that Obama doesn't, fields like running business, dealing with economies, military experience, etc. It would be wise of the president to use this experience, which he doesn't.

A smart CEO doesn't need to know everything about the business he runs. The smart CEO surrounds himself with people who DO know and uses their experience and expertise to advise him and point him in the right direction. Obama does not do that. He ignores them and tries to run a show himself that he has no experience in whatsoever. He has two yes-men in Pelosi and Reid who carry the water for everything he says and he ignores the rest. He has some of the most unqualified czars to ever get through the front door of the WHite House. Hatch was polite and respectful in his remarks, an act obviously wasted on those like you with your own thought processes. It's sad when a congressman has to ask a president to accept their input.

Who will I vote for in the next election? I'll vote for the person that I think has the best credentials for the job,  the one most knowledgeable in dealing with the challenges that face us. It won't be Obama.

Karen, I don't understand your comment about naughty. Would you care to explain?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


36 posted 04-03-2011 03:58 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

That was directed to Uncas, Mike. Not a slur toward anyone, just teasing someone I assumed was teasing you.

I could have mistaken the intent--that's very easy to do. I'll dismiss myself from this conversation as well.

The tone is getting to be rather vague and abrupt--and I have my own links to read with my little timeline project I'm working on anyhow.



I think everybody is understandably tense, so I shall leave you all with a hug and my most sincere respect and affection.



ciao
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


37 posted 04-03-2011 04:49 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

That quote would be from our other option for President--John McCain.

I don't think that there's any way to prepare for the challenges we are facing now, Mike.


Rite on Karen!!  I totally agree with that  

Moreover, as I've said before here somewhere, this "experience" thing is vastly overrated at the level of President.  You need experience to shovel snow, to survey a building, to develop software, to breed rare rabbits, to make lemon chicken ... what you need to be a President is to be:

"[a] very interesting and, I think, a good man.

[And] a likeable guy. ... articulate and charismatic. ... a good looking person, handsome man. ... a person you want to like. ... to be successful as the African-American president."


In other words all the things that Hatch says he is - thanks Mike  

Sure there will be loads of Hatch's all with there ideas of how Obama could be helped to do better - if Obama is smart, which he is, he'll listen to them and then do exactly what he thinks is best. That's gonna upset a lot of people no doubt and please others - so what's new?  It's called leading.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


38 posted 04-03-2011 05:22 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
What he said was that there are members of congress who do have the experience in fields that Obama doesn't, fields like running business, dealing with economies, military experience, etc. It would be wise of the president to use this experience, which he doesn't.


Why restrict it to members of Congress Mike?

Wouldn't it make more sense to cast the net a little wider and follow the normal tradition of appointing highly experienced advisors from a wide spectrum of American society?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


39 posted 04-03-2011 05:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, it would, Uncas. Have you seen his list of czars? Which outside influences do you think he contacted with regards to Libya?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 04-03-2011 06:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

what you need to be a President is to be
"[a] very interesting and, I think, a good man.
[And] a likeable guy. ... articulate and charismatic. ... a good looking person, handsome man. ... a person you want to like. ... to be successful as the African-American president."

There is no way I could argue with logic like that....or would even try. Carter was that type of person, minus the African-American status. It didn't stop him from becoming arguably the worst president in modern times.

If you feel that the president need be nothing more than a figurehead....fine. That may apply to one who depends on Congress, business leaders, military leaders and the like to advise him on what to do. That's not Obama. Obama wants to make all of the decisions himself, shutting out the rest of the government, even his own party, along with the will of the people, in the decision making process. He simply says, "This is what I want done....do it." You find that admirable in the leader of the free world? Good luck.  If we spend hundreds of millions bombing Libya and getting involved with yet another war, it's ok because we have a handsome and charismatic president. How could anyone disagree?

Actually, up to a point, I can almost agree. A president could be like your Queen, for example. Do the right photo ops, spread happiness and light wherever you go,  stay away from controversial things , and let parliament and the prime minister do the heavy lifting. The problem is that Obama doesn't do it that way. A president has never been that dangerous of a problem because we are set up with checks and balances. Obama, however, ignores and bypasses them. He's a movie actor who doesn't realize that he's just an actor and believes he is the part he is playing.

if Obama is smart, which he is, he'll listen to them

Then, by your logic, he must not be smart...because he doesn't listen to them. He doesn't even consult them. Thank you for acknowledging his unsmartness.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


41 posted 04-03-2011 07:23 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I thought we were fact checking President Obama's speech on Libya.

     I didn't understand that there were a bunch of white folks around who were for some totally bizarre reason trying to evaluate what kind of job somebody else was doing at being an African American President.

     I want to know, Mike, how good an African American is the President being, and what could this possibly have to do with the job he's doing as president?  And what would the quality of any other prior President's whiteness have to do with their job as President?

     Community corganization, on the other hand, has a lot to do with political skills and learning to build coalitions.  It has to do with bottom up organizational development.  The cartoon you include is very much to the point.

     The military is an authoritarian top-down style organization, which is skeptical of organizational structures built the other way around.  Authoritarian versus democratic organizational structures.  We need both here, but the preference we have in this country is generally been for the Democratic structures to predominate and govern the authoritarian.  That has been our traditional political choice.  

     Civilian over military control.

     This is why I've been upset over President Obama's lack of consultation with congress in Libya.

     This is why I'm somewhat puzzled by the apparent flip-flop of positions in this thread by my Right wing friends.  Whether his Republican allies tend to back President Obama's position in Libya or not, President Obama still should have consulted congress, no matter whether Speaker Boehner supports the President or not, no matter if Mitch McConnell supports the President or not, no matter whether Newt Gingrich supports President Obama or not.

    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


42 posted 04-03-2011 08:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Your last sentence is a good one, Bob. The rest of off the wall. I can understand why Hatch threw that in and there is nothing racial about it.

Having an African-Amereican president for the first time in history is a very big thing, not only to African-Americans but to the country itself. It is important to them that he do well. Whether he asked for it or not, he is the standard-bearer. It would be very beneficial to his race, along with the country, that he do well. Hatch's statement was understanding and even compassionate in that regard. If you want to twist it into some kind of racially-biased comment, you are reading it all wrong. It it were the first female president, it would be the same thing for women.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


43 posted 04-03-2011 09:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Clinton: Obama Will Ignore Congress on Libya War
Written by Alex Newman Friday, 01 April 2011 16:28
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a classified congressional hearing that the Obama regime would ignore Congress if it tried to rein in the unconstitutional war in Libya, but that the administration would send press releases to lawmakers, according to news reports.
When Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) asked Clinton during the briefing what the regime’s response would be to Congress exercising its constitutional authority over war, the Secretary said Obama would proceed with the war anyway, according to a senior Republican lawmaker in attendance cited by Talking Points Memo. Apparently the regime has “legal opinions” that justify the “kinetic military action.”
The Secretary’s answer reportedly surprised even attendees because “Clinton plainly admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as Commander in Chief to make military and wartime decisions,” TPM reported. Other news reports citing lawmakers reported similar findings.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/6951-clinton-obama-will-ignore-congress-on-libya-war
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


44 posted 04-03-2011 09:39 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

President Barack Obama, told the Boston Globe in 2007:
The 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.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was also questioned by the Globe when she was running for President and had this to say:
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.

Pundits can be ignored; but Americans allow politicians to get away with such two-facedness at their own peril. These people take oaths to uphold the Constitution, and their comments when they are out of power suggest that they know full well what that document really says. They are therefore without excuse for violating it when they are in power.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/6791-obama-clinton-and-biden-agree-war-on-libya-is-unconstitutional
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


45 posted 04-03-2011 11:51 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Thank you for clarifying that President Obama and other Democrats who are acting in what appears to be an unconstitutional fashion have issued previous statements that would appear to disapprove of their current actions.  I too disapprove of their current actions, though I disapproved before and continue to do so now.  Your support of the necessity of congressional support, I'm certain, has been unwavering, even during the Iran/contra hearings and other similar situations.  It has been certainly consistent.  My curiosity is about Mitch McConnell and some of his Republican friends who were very much in support of intervention in Libya before and after The President's intervention, and even more so with those Republicans whose support, like that of Newt Gingrich, was heavily in favor of intervention when the President had not chosen a course of action, and, afterward, is highly critical.  

     Mr Boehner and Mr. McConnell have, at least, maintained a clear position.  Though I don't agree with it, it is understandable.  The change of position that Mr. Gingrich has offered us seems to have no further justification that a reflexive opposition to the President.  That seems  to smack of either incredibly shoddy reporting on the basis of everybody or an incredibly flexible sense of ethics.  Given the size of Mr. Gingrich's political publicity machine and his skill at using it, I'm putting my money provisionally on the side of flexible ethics.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


46 posted 04-04-2011 02:03 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


The “rebels” have characterized Gadhafi as a kaffir.
We could be very well killing because they are angry at him
for giving up Libya’s nuclear weapons program.  As far as Gadhafi’s
forces, we bombed them, strafed them and hit them with missiles
and still they’re fighting though we have absolute air superiority
which is a very good reason to run away; there’s something more than money
involved.

And the "rebels" have already talked of
having adequate foreign cash reserves
so they're not short of change either.

Meanwhile Assad is killing his people on the streets of Syria but he's a "reformer".


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


47 posted 04-04-2011 02:47 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:
.

The “rebels” have characterized Gadhafi as a kaffir.
We could be very well killing because they are angry at him
for giving up Libya’s nuclear weapons program.



     Yes, certainly; or because of the day of the week, or the temperature, or the color of the sky.  The question is which explanations have the best chance of having some causal connection.  The one you offer is not one I notice you care to offer any evidence for, that might suggest a causal connection for the insurrection.  At least you suggest none.  The mere appearance in the same general area might suggest that some folks should panic.  In fact, some folks would, and do panic on the basis of such a presentation.  Are you suggesting that this is rational behavior?  I would not.


quote:


As far as Gadhafi’s
forces, we bombed them, strafed them and hit them with missiles
and still they’re fighting though we have absolute air superiority
which is a very good reason to run away; there’s something more than money
involved.



     I would suggest that there may be evidence in this behavior of something more than money involved.  Exactly what this might be is not something that you have offered an hypothesis to cover, though.  I will offer a couple:  1) These forces are very loyal to Mr. Kadaffi, and have given him heartfelt allegiance not to be shaken by mere fear of death. 2) They are being paid an awful lot of money, enough to overcome prudence.  3) They are in a precarious position, and they are more frightened of what will happen to them if they desert and are caught by Mr. Kadaffi's police forces than they are of what might happen to them if they merely have to deal with the rebels.  4)  They believe they have some sort of realistic chance of beating the rebels even with the situation being the way it is.

     I would go with any of my alternative explanations as offering as reasonable an explanation as the Non-explanation offered by John in this case.  In fact, I believe they all offer a more reasonable explanation than the lack of explanation that John appears to offer.

     John may have an interesting rebuttal, of course.  He often does; and I look forward to having a look at it.

quote:

And the "rebels" have already talked of
having adequate foreign cash reserves
so they're not short of change either.

Meanwhile Assad is killing his people on the streets of Syria but he's a "reformer".




     John's information is the first I have about this interesting turn of events  I would assume that the rebels are using funds from the U.S. or from NATO to purchase arms.  We've been looking for ways to topple Kadaffi since at least the Lockerbie bombings.  The man has been at best a loose cannon.  He was our professed enemy for many years before he became our professed Pal during the last administration.  I am somewhat dizzy trying to keep up with our current status.  

     The current state of affairs is, however, one of the consequences that the Neocons had been talking about during the original discussions around the invasion of Iraq — the fall of other problematic dictatorships in the middle east, including Syria.  I don't remember if Egypt and Libya were to have been included in the planning at that time, but the idea was to destabilize the middle east and to have a more Democratic middle east emerge as a result.  I confess to have been very skeptical of the plan at the time, and especially skeptical of the safety of the plan, and I remain skeptical of it, even now.

     Am I the only guy who remembers any of this stuff?  I'd be interested in hearing from anybody whose memory extends to any of this material, especially in reference to Paul Wolfowitz.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


48 posted 04-04-2011 04:10 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Apparently the regime has “legal opinions” that justify the “kinetic military action.”

Thanks Mike for that.  It's exactly what I said to you a week or so ago.  And it's why it's fairly pointless debating this issue of whether he does or doesn't have "authority". Frankly, neither you nor I have a clue.

Also, I am sure Obama listens, that doesn't mean he has to act on what he hears of course.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


49 posted 04-04-2011 04:11 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

The “rebels” have characterized Gadhafi as a kaffir.
We could be very well killing because they are angry at him
for giving up Libya’s nuclear weapons program.  As far as Gadhafi’s
forces, we bombed them, strafed them and hit them with missiles
and still they’re fighting though we have absolute air superiority
which is a very good reason to run away; there’s something more than money
involved.

And the "rebels" have already talked of
having adequate foreign cash reserves
so they're not short of change either.

Meanwhile Assad is killing his people on the streets of Syria but he's a "reformer".


And your point is?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Fact-checking Obama's speech on Libya   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors