Bipartisan Congress Rebukes President on Lybia Policy

[BenNatuf]

I voted 'convince congress', because we really do need to do this. We cannot withdraw now.

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.

for instance as to what the mission is.

First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.

If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might know more who the players are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.

That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.

How do we do it?

A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.

What is the end game?

Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.

Bush doctrine 101

 

[Foxfyre]

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.

for instance as to what the mission is.

First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.

If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might no more who the playors are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.

That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.

How do we do it?

A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.

What is the end game?

Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.

Bush doctrine 101

A most interesting and provocative concept Ben. I'm going to think on it some before responding. My intitial reaction is somewhat positive and you've offered something different here to chew on for sure.

 

[Charles_Main]

What has been funny about Libya to me. Is watching all these lefties who support Obama, try and explain why Libya is justified. They point to humanitarian Reasons. One big Problem. Not only are there compelling Humanitarian Reasons to take actions in many other countries around the world currently, But these same lefties attacked Republicans for supporting the war in Iraq, and opposed Vietnam. When the same compelling Humanitarian Reasons to act existed in both cases. The Lefts selective outrage about war is on display. Hate any war a republican gets us into, and support any action no matter how misguided and poorly planned a Democrat might take.

 

[BenNatuf]

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.

for instance as to what the mission is.

First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.

If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might no more who the playors are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.

That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.

How do we do it?

A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.

What is the end game?

Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.

Bush doctrine 101

A most interesting and provocative concept Ben. I'm going to think on it some before responding. My intitial reaction is somewhat positive and you've offered something different here to chew on for sure.

It's my take. I only hjope Obama hasn't so screwed the pooch with his inept ideology which demanded rejection of the Bush Doctrine to have made it impossible or extremely difficult to achieve short term.

 

[The T]

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.

for instance as to what the mission is.

First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.

If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might know more who the players are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.

That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.

How do we do it?

A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.

What is the end game?

Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.

Bush doctrine 101

Where Obama has failed is that those movements he's supported have turned out bad (Egypt)...and as to Libya? The Rebels seem to be AQ types with a beef with Mo-Mo...and it threatened France and the EU and their Oil Supply...

And look at those he's failed to act on? Syria, Iran, Yemen?

Democracies in a fledgeling state?

 

[BenNatuf]

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.

for instance as to what the mission is.

First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.

If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might know more who the players are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.

That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.

How do we do it?

A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.

What is the end game?

Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.

Bush doctrine 101

Where Obama has failed is that those movements he's supported have turned out bad (Egypt)...and as to Libya? The Rebels seem to be AQ types with a beef with Mo-Mo...and it threatened France and the EU and their Oil Supply...

And look at those he's failed to act on? Syria, Iran, Yemen?

Democracies in a fledgeling state?

The original protest movement in egypt was NOT the brotherhood. the danger all along there was that the Brotherhood would hijack the movement if it was successful at ousting Mubarark. That does seem to be happenning. if Obama had subscribed to the Bush doctrine, he would have been either working with/quietly pressuring Mubarak to strengthen the democracy/liberty movement as "loyal opposition" or he would have been working covertly with them to make sure they could do it and became the alternative to the Brotherhood in an Egypt minus Mubarak.

Same in Libya, the benghazi rebels put out information which was quite positive, they met with European heads of state and they were co-opting towns and the leadership in those towns to their cause. They, on their own would have been not only acceptable, but preferable. But they had neither the political might nor the ability to either resist or succeed on thier own, so using the enemy of my enemy concept... in comes the LBG (or whatever it's initials are) and we have a problem. Now we have to purge them. Had we worked the last to years on strengthening an alternative (quietly, behind the scenes) as the Bush Doctrine would seem to say we should have... maybe it would be different.

 

[The T]

I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.

for instance as to what the mission is.

First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.

If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might know more who the players are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.

That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.

How do we do it?

A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.

What is the end game?

Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.

Bush doctrine 101

Where Obama has failed is that those movements he's supported have turned out bad (Egypt)...and as to Libya? The Rebels seem to be AQ types with a beef with Mo-Mo...and it threatened France and the EU and their Oil Supply...

And look at those he's failed to act on? Syria, Iran, Yemen?

Democracies in a fledgeling state?

The original protest movement in egypt was NOT the brotherhood. the danger all along there was that the Brotherhood would hijack the movement if it was successful at ousting Mubarark. That does seem to be happenning. if Obama had subscribed to the Bush doctrine, he would have been either working with/quietly pressuring Mubarak to strengthen the democracy/liberty movement as "loyal opposition" or he would have been working covertly with them to make sure they could do it and became the alternative to the Brotherhood in an Egypt minus Mubarak.

Same in Libya, the benghazi rebels put out information which was quite positive, they met with European heads of state and they were co-opting towns and the leadership in those towns to their cause. They are on their own would have been not only acceptable, but preferable. But they had neither the political might nor the ability to either resist or succeed on thier own, so using the enemy of my enemy concept... in comes the LBG (or whatever it's initials are) and we have a problem. Now we have to purge them. Had we worked the last to years on strengthening an alternative (quietly, behind the scenes) as the Bush Doctrine would seem to say we should have... maybe it would be different.

Thanks.

 

[The T]

I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.

for instance as to what the mission is.

First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.

If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might know more who the players are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.

That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.

How do we do it?

A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.

What is the end game?

Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.

Bush doctrine 101

Where Obama has failed is that those movements he's supported have turned out bad (Egypt)...and as to Libya? The Rebels seem to be AQ types with a beef with Mo-Mo...and it threatened France and the EU and their Oil Supply...

And look at those he's failed to act on? Syria, Iran, Yemen?

Democracies in a fledgeling state?

The original protest movement in egypt was NOT the brotherhood. the danger all along there was that the Brotherhood would hijack the movement if it was successful at ousting Mubarark. That does seem to be happenning. if Obama had subscribed to the Bush doctrine, he would have been either working with/quietly pressuring Mubarak to strengthen the democracy/liberty movement as "loyal opposition" or he would have been working covertly with them to make sure they could do it and became the alternative to the Brotherhood in an Egypt minus Mubarak.

Same in Libya, the benghazi rebels put out information which was quite positive, they met with European heads of state and they were co-opting towns and the leadership in those towns to their cause. They are on their own would have been not only acceptable, but preferable. But they had neither the political might nor the ability to either resist or succeed on thier own, so using the enemy of my enemy concept... in comes the LBG (or whatever it's initials are) and we have a problem. Now we have to purge them. Had we worked the last to years on strengthening an alternative (quietly, behind the scenes) as the Bush Doctrine would seem to say we should have... maybe it would be different.

Thanks.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I voted 'convince congress', because we really do need to do this. We cannot withdraw now.

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

It's conceivable that the current plan is to continue a war of attrition to the point where Gaddafi decides to negotiate for a cushy asylum somewhere. I do remember hearing that, at the beginning of the bombing, the rebels did not want international ground troops assisting them. Whether that's still true today, I have no idea.

 

[BenNatuf]

Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

It's conceivable that the current plan is to continue a war of attrition to the point where Gaddafi decides to negotiate for a cushy asylum somewhere. I do remember hearing that, at the beginning of the bombing, the rebels did not want international ground troops assisting them. Whether that's still true today, I have no idea.

To what end? If we don't purge the LFG (or whatever thier initials are) from the other rebels we have a bigger problem than Khadaffy ever was. On the other hand we can't just leave him there now either.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The golden boy may haver lost his touch. Congress is going to spank his ass.

Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.
Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission - Washington Times

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxuajAxFCck&feature=feedu]YouTube - ‪Congress says BAD BARRY!‬‏[/ame]

 

[Wonky Pundit]

We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.

Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:

1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.

Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?

I honestly don't know. Does anybody?

2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.

Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.

3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.

Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.

It's conceivable that the current plan is to continue a war of attrition to the point where Gaddafi decides to negotiate for a cushy asylum somewhere. I do remember hearing that, at the beginning of the bombing, the rebels did not want international ground troops assisting them. Whether that's still true today, I have no idea.

To what end? If we don't purge the LFG (or whatever thier initials are) from the other rebels we have a bigger problem than Khadaffy ever was. On the other hand we can't just leave him there now either.

If by "to what end?" you mean "why would the rebels not want assistance from ground troops?" then I'm afraid I have no idea.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

All of Congress should be rebuking this President over Libya. Checks & Balances need to be restored. This Libyan War is a sad travesty.

 

[The T]

All of Congress should be rebuking this President over Libya. Checks & Balances need to be restored. This Libyan War is a sad travesty.

Let us hope Boehner finds the spine to take "further action" like Impeachment? Yeah, yeah...I know...

 

[Foxfyre]

All of Congress should be rebuking this President over Libya. Checks & Balances need to be restored. This Libyan War is a sad travesty.

Let us hope Boehner finds the spine to take "further action" like Impeachment? Yeah, yeah...I know...

I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors any more than I thought Clinton's escapades rose to that level though. And at least Clinton knew he was breaking the law. I'm not giving President Obama credit for being that smart. His Arrogance probably thought a President could support a NATO operation without the consent of Congress. He has assumed a President can do a lot of things over his relatively short tenure in office, and his admiring public has been willing to overlook, forgive, or excuse most of it. I would like to think that won't be the case forever though.

To initiate impeachment proceedings would almost certainly cost the GOP all their political capital which they have been oh so slowly been building over the past months. The GOP deserved to fall out of favor when they did, and I simply don't think they can afford to risk a questionable and most likely highly unpopular impeachment process now that they are trying to clean up their act.

 

[The T]

All of Congress should be rebuking this President over Libya. Checks & Balances need to be restored. This Libyan War is a sad travesty.

Let us hope Boehner finds the spine to take "further action" like Impeachment? Yeah, yeah...I know...

I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors any more than I thought Clinton's escapades rose to that level though. And at least Clinton knew he was breaking the law. I'm not giving President Obama credit for being that smart. His Arrogance probably thought a President could support a NATO operation without the consent of Congress. He has assumed a President can do a lot of things over his relatively short tenure in office, and his admiring public has been willing to overlook, forgive, or excuse most of it. I would like to think that won't be the case forever though.

To initiate impeachment proceedings would almost certainly cost the GOP all their political capital which they have been oh so slowly been building over the past months. The GOP deserved to fall out of favor when they did, and I simply don't think they can afford to risk a questionable and most likely highly unpopular impeachment process now that they are trying to clean up their act.

OK...I'll buy this...But know this isn't the only instance where Obama has thumbed his nose at the Congress, The Judiciary, and the Constitution...and he does deserve to held accountable. He is NOT a Monarch.

 

[whitehall]

It's a sign of the profound incompetence of the former community activist and and Bubba Bill's wife not to mention the world class hypocrisy of the American left that the US could start killing people in Libya once the muslem brotherhood created the right envirnment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let us hope Boehner finds the spine to take "further action" like Impeachment? Yeah, yeah...I know...

I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors any more than I thought Clinton's escapades rose to that level though. And at least Clinton knew he was breaking the law. I'm not giving President Obama credit for being that smart. His Arrogance probably thought a President could support a NATO operation without the consent of Congress. He has assumed a President can do a lot of things over his relatively short tenure in office, and his admiring public has been willing to overlook, forgive, or excuse most of it. I would like to think that won't be the case forever though.

To initiate impeachment proceedings would almost certainly cost the GOP all their political capital which they have been oh so slowly been building over the past months. The GOP deserved to fall out of favor when they did, and I simply don't think they can afford to risk a questionable and most likely highly unpopular impeachment process now that they are trying to clean up their act.

OK...I'll buy this...But know this isn't the only instance where Obama has thumbed his nose at the Congress, The Judiciary, and the Constitution...and he does deserve to held accountable. He is NOT a Monarch.

No argument from me there. As I said His Arrogance has been doing stuff for some time that his admirers would have deemed intolerable, offensive, and indefensible for his predecessor. That's the ideological hypocrisy we live with these days.

And I am glad Congress is calling him to task on the Lybia thing. It needed to be done though i suspect if he plays his cards right, he will obtain Congressional consent for limited action there. But I do want them to make him state the mission, how it will be accomplished, and how we will know we are done before they give him any kind of green light on that. We don't need a third prolonged war dragging on for years as we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if he refuses to include Congress in the process, I hope they pull the plug on the funding forcing him to just bring our guys home and not put them in harm's way on a mission we don't even know what we are supposed to accomplish.

 

[The T]

I don't think this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors any more than I thought Clinton's escapades rose to that level though. And at least Clinton knew he was breaking the law. I'm not giving President Obama credit for being that smart. His Arrogance probably thought a President could support a NATO operation without the consent of Congress. He has assumed a President can do a lot of things over his relatively short tenure in office, and his admiring public has been willing to overlook, forgive, or excuse most of it. I would like to think that won't be the case forever though.

To initiate impeachment proceedings would almost certainly cost the GOP all their political capital which they have been oh so slowly been building over the past months. The GOP deserved to fall out of favor when they did, and I simply don't think they can afford to risk a questionable and most likely highly unpopular impeachment process now that they are trying to clean up their act.

OK...I'll buy this...But know this isn't the only instance where Obama has thumbed his nose at the Congress, The Judiciary, and the Constitution...and he does deserve to held accountable. He is NOT a Monarch.

No argument from me there. As I said His Arrogance has been doing stuff for some time that his admirers would have deemed intolerable, offensive, and indefensible for his predecessor. That's the ideological hypocrisy we live with these days.

And I am glad Congress is calling him to task on the Lybia thing. It needed to be done though i suspect if he plays his cards right, he will obtain Congressional consent for limited action there. But I do want them to make him state the mission, how it will be accomplished, and how we will know we are done before they give him any kind of green light on that. We don't need a third prolonged war dragging on for years as we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if he refuses to include Congress in the process, I hope they pull the plug on the funding forcing him to just bring our guys home and not put them in harm's way on a mission we don't even know what we are supposed to accomplish.

No we don't need any other conflicts at this time seeing as we are broke.