Obama’s Libyan Adventure: What’s In It For Him?

It’s disconcerting. Hallucinogenic, even. If I didn’t know better, I might suspect that some aging refugee hipster from the Haight had slipped into my cupboard and dropped a tab of vintage acid in my  jar of chicory coffee.  You see, for once I find myself agreeing with left-wing moonbats like Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore. But before you suggest that I make an emergency visit to the Bad Trips Tent, listen up: Both Dennis the Menace and  the Fatso Film Maker accurately point out that neither our Boy Blunder ‘president’ nor the damnable United Nations have any statutory authority to commit the military forces of the United States to combat without the consent of the American citizen, as expressed through his/her duly elected representatives in Congress. As Free Republic put it:

[…] Kucinich and other progressives are correct in that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Presidents to initiate military action without the involvement of Congress unless an immediate threat to American national security arises, the “clear and present danger” exception. One Constitutional scholar put it best 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.” [Ed Note: Quote from presidential candidate Barack H. Obama]

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

Ed Brayton, in a Dispatch From The Culture Wars, also reminds us that Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was once:

[…] on board with this too:

“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. That is why I have supported legislation [GG: also supported by Obama] to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.”

Isn’t that convenient? When Bush was in office, both Obama and Clinton were totally opposed to the president initiating military actions without the authorization of Congress except in self-defense. Now that they are in power, that no longer applies. Greenwald points out how both parties play this dishonest game:

Leading Democrats constantly argued the same thing during the Bush years: that Presidents lack the power to order military actions in non-emergency, non-self-defense situations without Congressional approval; indeed, they insisted that even the attack on Iraq, which (unlike Libya) was justified as necessary for self-defense, required Congressional approval [and, needless to say, the always-principled Republicans routinely argue that Presidents do possess unilateral war-making power whenever there is a GOP President, but argue the exact opposite when there is a Democratic President].

As the song goes: My country tis of thee, sweet land of irony.

But since President Blunder’s enthusiasm for Middle Eastern popular revolt seems ever limited to those budding ‘democracies’ in which Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood predominate, it may be germane to ask,  just Who Are Libya’s Rebels?:

This is no Solidarnosc movement. The revolt was started in Benghazi on February 15-17th by the group called the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition. The protests had a clear fundamentalist religious motivation, and were convened to commemorate the 2006 Danish cartoons protests, which had been particularly violent in Benghazi.

None of this is surprising. The leaked State Department memos describe Eastern Libya (2008) as an area of fervent Islamic sentiment, where “a number of Libyans who had fought and in some cases undergone ‘religious and ideological training’ in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the West Bank in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s had returned […] in the mid to late 1980’s”.  There they engaged into “a deliberate, coordinated campaign to propagate more conservative iterations of Islam, in part to prepare the ground for the eventual overthrow by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime, which is ‘hated’ by conservative Islamists”. While Qaddafi’s position was perceived to be strong, the East Libyans sent jihadis to Iraq, where “fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers”.

It is these same religiously and ideologically trained East Libyans who are now armed and arrayed against Qaddafi. Qaddafi’s claim that all his opponents are members of Al Qaeda is overblown, but also not very far off, in regards to their sympathies. Anyone claiming that the Eastern Libyans are standing for secular, liberal values needs to overcome a huge burden of proof.

[…] the Western leaders seem to be rushing to replace an already bad regime with one that is likely to be even worse.

Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels US Has Vowed To Protect

[…] on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to kill Americans than Libya — and almost all of them came from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

Wherever birds of an anti-American feather flock, there you will generally find hovering Barack Obama or someone from his wretched mis-Administration.  Just coincidence, I’m sure.

About Bob Mack

Retired since 2003. Military Service: U.S. Army, 36th Artillery Group, Babenhausen, Germany 1966-67; 1st Signal Brigade, Republic of Vietnam, 1967-68 Attended University of Miami, 1969-73
This entry was posted in News, Opinion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Obama’s Libyan Adventure: What’s In It For Him?

  1. Freedom, by the way says:

    Great post, Bob. It’s not like Obama didn’t have any time to seek congressional approval–he waffled and cowered for days. He needs to be called on it.You gave me my first belly laugh of the day with “Dennis the Menace and Fatso Film Maker.” It just goes to show that if you’re wrong often enough, one day you’ll be right. (Dennis & Michale, not you). I, too, am very worried about who’s waiting to take over when Quadafi falls.

  2. Bob Mack says:

    With Obama, if you look for a nefarious ulterior motive, you’ll usually find one.

  3. AFVET says:

    Who cares who takes over after Qdaffy is out.
    Obama violated the Constitutional rights he was sworn to uphold and has consistently spit upon.
    He doesn’t deserve the office he holds.

  4. Bob Mack says:

    Apropos of nothing, this was too good not to post up somewhere (From The People’s Cube):

  5. Bob Mack says:

    Pamela Geller agrees – Obama: Consistently Anti-American

    […] Throughout Obama’s presidency and all of the Islamic revolutions sweeping the Middle East and Africa, he has sided with the Islamic supremacists at every turn.

    […] Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He specifically invited Brotherhood representatives to attend his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo in June 2009, and during the uprising against Mubarak signaled that he would have no problem with their having a place in Egypt’s new government.

    He has backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

    He backed the brutal mullahcracy in Iran during the Iranian people’s bloody march for freedom.

    He has backed Hezb’Allah in Lebanon.

    He has backed Islamic law at the UN, having the U.S. co-sponsor with Egypt in summer 2009 a resolution on the restriction of free speech regarding Islam.

    And now he is essentially backing Al-Qaeda in Libya. Al-Qaeda has already established an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, and is playing a leading role in the revolt against Gaddafi. The Libyan Islamist Fighting Group is also involved. They’re a group that is, according to the Telegraph, “focused only on promoting sharia law in Libya, rejecting a worldwide ‘jihad.’”

    “Focused only on promoting sharia law.” So they are focused on spreading honor killing, the killing of apostates, clitorectomies, the notion of women as property, amputations for stealing, stoning for “adultery,” hangings for gays, Jewish genocide, ethnic cleansing, and more.

    Why Libya? Why not Iran? Iran has been systematically killing and torturing its people since their bloody march for freedom began in June 2009.

    Why did Iran, one of the most dangerous threats to world security, escape criticism, sanction and retaliation for its unmatched putdown of the millions who took to the streets for freedom against brutal Islamic theocracy?

    Meanwhile, shortly before America fired missiles into Libya, Hamas fired mortars into Israel, injuring two civilians. Here is more of the poisonous fruit of Obama’s stunning foreign policy failure, unprecedented abandonment of American allies, and absolute sanction of Islamic Jew-hatred.

    […] But this week there was one bright spot in the news, and an indication of things to come. Barack H. Obama Elementary School in Asbury Park, N.J. is closing. A school named for an unremarkable community organizer who had accomplished nothing, achieved nothing, and was elected in a marketing coup, had to fail. The Obama election was the triumph of style over substance, collectivism over statism, the moron over the informed.

    And now Obama’s fierce Islamophilia threatens free men the world over.

  6. anatheimp says:

    This is a really super article, Bob, one of your best.

    • Bob Mack says:

      Hi ANA. Thanks. And I’ll take the opportunity to direct interested parties to your UK views on the same topic: Cassandra’s Lament.

      If there is ever some future Chilcot Inquiry over David Cameron’s war on Libya he will, unlike Tony Blair, his avatar and inspiration, be able to wave his little flag: “But it was all perfectly legal. The United Nations said so.”

  7. samiam60 says:

    My O my Bob, you never cease to amaze me with your applications of words. I walk away from reading this article with a whole new perspective of what the implications are in our newest and 3rd Middle Eastern War. Seems we are digging this hole so deep we may never be able to climb back out.

    • AFVET says:

      Yeah Sam, we’ll get out.
      The first step is to impeach Obama.
      I have yet to see anybody in congress that has the nuts to start the proceedings though.
      The very fact that Dennis is speaking out against O should tell you something.
      We can only hope that the tide turns far enough that the regime can’t survive.

      Great post Bob.

  8. Excellent point about the State Department memo and eastern Libya.

    So, in the end, the “coalition” is advancing the cause of jihad. Ugh.

  9. Bob Mack says:

    Morning ANA, SAMI & AOW. Was just reading Ben Stein’s letter in the American Spectator (One World Government Obama):

    [..] when did we amend the Constitution to declare that the United Nations had control over our military? When did we abolish the part of the Constitution that said Congress had the right to declare war? Now, I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don’t have declarations of war. But we have Congressional debates. We have funding votes. We have a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution.

    This time, zip. Nada. Nothing. Just France and the U.K. and Norway saying that it’s time to go to war, and off America goes to war. And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a South American “fact finding” trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing junket for the Obama girls.

    (I wonder if there has ever before in history been a national leader who sent his country to war — and the same day went off on vacation. Has that ever happened before? )

    Libya and Col. Gaddafi were and are no threat to the United States. It is sad and cruel that the Gaddafi regime was murdering its own civilians, but so do many governments all across the world, including North Korea, Iran, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. Are we going to war with all of them, now?

    (By the way, this is the same UN where Libya until recently sat on the Commission on Human Rights.)

  10. AFVET says:

    The no fly zone is costing US a lot of money.
    The B-2’s they sent over there left Missouri, accomplish their mission and land again in Missouri.
    They never touch the ground on foreign land.
    In air re-fueling is required.
    I live just south of Rickenbacher AFB which is an Air National Guard base that supports a squadron of KC-135’s.
    Normally, I hear, or see one fly over my house probably once a week.
    I haven’t seen or heard them for at least two weeks.
    I wondered why that was, now I know.
    They also re-fuel the fighters that are enforcing the no fly zone.
    I would be curious to know where the tankers are based, and who is providing the fuel.

  11. An excellent post and a great site. I came here by way of Always On Watch and I’m glad I did. I’m going to add your site to my blogroll.

    I have made similar comments as those of Ben Stein although not nearly as elegantly. Obama in my opinion is in way over his head. I suspect some else is manipulating him. Someone like George Soros. Can I prove it? No. But I’m convinced that Obama hates the Constitution and he hates America. He is a socialist or something much worse.

  12. Ike Jakson says:

    You have done it again, Bob. It is a superb Post. But I am still deeply worried that those who agree you seem to be in the minority in the large overall Media.

    We don’t need maniacs and super extremists with their own unholy agendas; enough of them exist already and another One in the White House spell trouble for the World.

    I am horrified to see who supports and/defends this horrible intrusion into the domestic affairs of a smaller and almost defenseless sovereign country.

    Why are the American’s of 2008 hiding behind closed doors; those who wanted to prosecute the former President? And he had gone through the legal channels of Senate and all.

    I am worried.

    • Bob Mack says:

      Hey, Ike. Good to see you, buddy. I’ve got no love for Gadaffi, that’s for sure, but this unconstitutional excursion in support of radical Islamists is a disgrace.

  13. Matt says:

    Why does none of this surprise me?

    • Bob Mack says:

      Howdy, MATT. Yeah, it didn’t surprise me either. I looked up “Libyan Rebels” pretty much knowing what I was going to find before I got there. I think Pamela Geller (article quoted above) was 100% right.

  14. Angel says:

    Congressional approval is a foreign concept to this tyrant my friend..UGH! hope alls well my friend~!:)

    • Bob Mack says:

      Hi ANGEL. Just read this in American Thinker:

      […] Obama’s responsibility to protect goes beyond American civilians and extends to the United States itself. Even before Libya he has failed miserably in both areas. Islamists and Jihadists have struck or attempted to strike on many occasions in the homeland since he took office and it is only a matter of time before an attempt at large-scale mass murder succeeds. The Islamization of the country is also well and truly underway and its values and institutions are under constant attack. The U.S. is far weaker and more vulnerable militarily and economically than it was before he was elected as well, which has emboldened its enemies and discouraged its allies and placed its very existence in jeopardy. The intervention in Libya has just exacerbated a very bad situation, that’s all.

      America can’t stand any more of this and neither can the rest of the free world. What Obama has done to date is bad enough. The damage that could occur if he is allowed to serve out the rest of his term is incalculable and could be irreversible. Impeachment is in order and proceedings should begin immediately. There are ample and compelling grounds and time is of the essence.

  15. Bob Mack says:

    I’m flabbergasted. Apparently, Joe Biden’s not as dumb as everybody thought: Biden Demands Impeachment

    Barack Obama’s presidency has entered a new, and possibly terminal, stage of crisis, as Vice President Joe Biden has called for his impeachment.

    “I made it clear to the President,” a furious Biden declared, “that if he takes this nation to war without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact.”

    Has any VP in history ever called publicly for the impeachment of his boss? I don’t think so. (And BTW, it was actually Dubya’s scalp ol’ Joe was calling for).

  16. Biden also threatened Bush with impeachment if he took action against Iran. Thus, Bush left office without taking care of the growing nuclear threat that is now almost fully grown.

    Fascinating info on that part of Libya, Bob. Yet another “leaked” document out of State. What would we do without them? Perhaps Libyan Islamists saw Western support in the name of freedom and liberty during the Egypt uprisings, as a vehicle to take their country even deeper into the dark.

    I’m over helping Muslim countries achieve freedom. As long as the Koran guides their life, there will be no freedom. When your holy book allows men to commit grotesque deeds in the name of a god, there is no freedom in that country’s future.

    • Bob Mack says:

      I’m with you, Maggie. Another blurb from Andy Stone’s piece lists a number of reasons why the radicals dislike Gadaffi:

      The NCLO web site (Arabic) carries a document (Arabic; Google Cache; legible in automatic translation) dated February 15th (the day the protests began), which clearly spells out NCLO’s objections to Qaddafi’s rule. The main points of “Qaddafi: Islam’s no. 1 enemy” are as follows:

      * Qaddafi has closed an Islamic university and a seminary, has forbidden some Islamist publications, and has thrown thousands of Islamist activists into jail.

      * Qaddafi has urged to put the Qur’an on the shelf, as no longer appropriate for this age.

      * Qaddafi has made fun of the Islamic veil, calling it a “rag” and a “tent”.

      * Qaddafi has dared to say that Christians and Jews should be allowed to visit Mecca.

      * Qaddafi has rejected the Hadith and Sunnah, and said he follows the Qur’an alone.

      (The last claim involves a curious episode. At one point, Qaddafi declared himself a follower of the “Qur’an alone” movement, which rejects orthodox Muslim punishments, like stoning for adultery, death penalty for homosexuals etc. This got him into some serious trouble. An international committee of scholars went to discuss the issue with Qaddafi. After being told that “if he did not repent and take back his statement, he would fall under the law of renegades and infidels […] which would force true Muslims to kill him”, Qaddafi “repented and took back his statement”.)

  17. Bob Mack says:

    Obama A Traitor And War Criminal–Where’s Congress? (Rightside News)

    Acting alone while congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on the sovereign nation of Libya in a dictatorial maneuver to force regime change of a foreign land.

    He launched a military assault on Libya under what authority? To be certain, Gadhafi is no prize, but what Obama just did is far worse. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his Oath of Office, Article I and II of the US Constitution and The War Powers Act all in one mindless kneejerk decision.

    Obama touched down in Brazil as American soldiers launched a military assault on Libya at Obama’s command. Obama stands alone in this decision and order, without the support of the American people, without constitutional authority and in direct violation of his Oath of Office and the War Powers Act.

    Obama is a war criminal and traitor as a result. He has acted alone, well beyond the scope and authority of his office and at odds with the national interests of the United States and the constitution which he took an oath to uphold and defend.

    Who in the US Congress, specifically the Republican controlled House, is going to launch a full scale investigation into Obama’s dictatorial use of military might and begin impeachment proceedings?

    Americans are well aware of the fact that we have a lawless renegade regime running our federal government, which does not concern itself with the constitution or rule of law no matter the subject.

    But now that anti-American renegade regime is illegally using military might to enforce its political will upon foreign sovereign nations, acting as though their oath is to the UN rather than the USA and as if they are free from any limitations or consequences.

    Who in the US Congress is going to put a stop to the growing insanity? We have a runaway government acting against the interests of the United States and beyond its legal authority. Will anyone have the backbone to stop it and hold Obama accountable?

    Will there be an international war crimes trial of Barack Obama?

  18. cube says:

    Excellent post. I see it as a no win situation for the U.S. The devil we know versus the devil we don’t know.

    • Bob Mack says:

      Hey cube. Yeah, with the added attraction of a shredded Constitution, unless some of the drones in Congress grow a pair & stand up to our own power-grabbing dictator.

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s