So, is the left denouncing Obama's "unlawful" war in Libya?

[Care4all]

So you agreed with liberating the Iraqi and freeing them of Saddam WoodChipper Hussein. Yes?

I would have agreed to stop Hussein from slaughtering his own people, pure genocide, when IT WAS HAPPENING.....10-15 years later, after his genocide stopped, no.

And you know that his genocide stopped how? exactly? Didn't they find about a half a million people in mass graves. What year did he stop? I'd like to read about it.

google it, you can get the dates you want to know about on the mass genocide that he committed, more than once in the previous 20 years....

we, the usa sat by, and let it happen....at least that is what the news reported on it, at the time...

 

[Modbert]

Still, we didn't know the havoc and misery that the sanctions were creating for innocent people until we got in there.

Actually, we did.

 

[WillowTree]

I would have agreed to stop Hussein from slaughtering his own people, pure genocide, when IT WAS HAPPENING.....10-15 years later, after his genocide stopped, no.

And you know that his genocide stopped how? exactly? Didn't they find about a half a million people in mass graves. What year did he stop? I'd like to read about it.

google it, you can get the dates you want to know about on the mass genocide that he committed, more than once in the previous 20 years....

we, the usa sat by, and let it happen....at least that is what the news reported on it, at the time...

so in conclusion, you got nothing.

 

[Care4all]

And you know that his genocide stopped how? exactly? Didn't they find about a half a million people in mass graves. What year did he stop? I'd like to read about it.

google it, you can get the dates you want to know about on the mass genocide that he committed, more than once in the previous 20 years....

we, the usa sat by, and let it happen....at least that is what the news reported on it, at the time...

so in conclusion, you got nothing.

actually, i'm shocked you were unaware of the genocide he committed on the shiites and kurds in previous years....

do your own homework willow....you can learn more by doing such...reading is good!

 

[kaz]

we, the usa sat by, and let it happen....at least that is what the news reported on it, at the time...

Please. So anything bad that happens is our fault for letting it happen. What a ridiculous standard to set for ourselves. We don't have the world's concurrence that's our job either. This is why these stupid wars and military interventions are endless and we're under constant terrorist threat.

You also could find ways to help besides government you know. Before we joined WWII, many Americans joined the British military and sent them money. What about starting a private movement to affect change in the middle east instead of sitting in your lazy boy saying we let it happen because our government didn't intervene?

 

[The T]

Liberals Freak Out After Obama Takes Military Action in Libya

[SNIP]
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

[/SNIP]

Serious Doubts Raised About Obama's War In Libya


House Speaker John Boehner released his first satement on the U.S. attacks on Libya expressing his approval for the actions taken, but demands, "the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved." Below is Speaker Boehner's statement:

"The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.
The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America's role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved."

Is this another "Wag The Dog" scenario a-la Clinton of the 1990's?

 

[Luissa]

No? Well then what is the problem with Iraq again? (Not that I am defending Iraq, I thought it was dumb, I think military action in Libya is dumb too). So...where are the left's cries for peace like in 2003?

Assume much?
I know many liberals who do not agree with this.

 

[The T]

we, the usa sat by, and let it happen....at least that is what the news reported on it, at the time...

Please. So anything bad that happens is our fault for letting it happen. What a ridiculous standard to set for ourselves. We don't have the world's concurrence that's our job either. This is why these stupid wars and military interventions are endless and we're under constant terrorist threat.

You also could find ways to help besides government you know. Before we joined WWII, many Americans joined the British military and sent them money. What about starting a private movement to affect change in the middle east instead of sitting in your lazy boy saying we let it happen because our government didn't intervene?

Hell, man...we were sending ships and supplies over to help the British before we were formally 'involved'...and if the ship was under a US Flag? The Germans couldn't touch them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's so rare that y'all have differing opinons on anything that it'll be hard to put that brush down but I'll give it a shot.

This is classic rightwingery - they decided ahead of time that Liberals were all going to support Obama, because that is what the Right wanted them to do in order to make the hypocrisy angle fly. Now the myth is in place and the Rightwing herd is running with it.

btw, have you noticed how many conservatives here are refusing to state their own position on the ACTUAL ISSUE?

You wonder why that is??

We are. Only your glaring ignorance prevents you from seeing it.

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

 

[The T]

This is classic rightwingery - they decided ahead of time that Liberals were all going to support Obama, because that is what the Right wanted them to do in order to make the hypocrisy angle fly. Now the myth is in place and the Rightwing herd is running with it.

btw, have you noticed how many conservatives here are refusing to state their own position on the ACTUAL ISSUE?

You wonder why that is??

We are. Only your glaring ignorance prevents you from seeing it.

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

I have answered. Only your idiocy binds you from seeing it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

This could get interesting:
From Politico (Sorry it's not Fox or CNN):
Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House.

​

MERGED with existing thread

 

[WillowTree]

Liberals Freak Out After Obama Takes Military Action in Libya

[SNIP]
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

[/SNIP]

Serious Doubts Raised About Obama's War In Libya


House Speaker John Boehner released his first satement on the U.S. attacks on Libya expressing his approval for the actions taken, but demands, "the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved." Below is Speaker Boehner's statement:

"The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.
The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America's role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved."

Is this another "Wag The Dog" scenario a-la Clinton of the 1990's?

I beg to differ with Mr. Boehner. The US has NO moral obligation to anyone else, especially those who give us a finger salute every chance they get. **** them.

 

[WillowTree]

This is classic rightwingery - they decided ahead of time that Liberals were all going to support Obama, because that is what the Right wanted them to do in order to make the hypocrisy angle fly. Now the myth is in place and the Rightwing herd is running with it.

btw, have you noticed how many conservatives here are refusing to state their own position on the ACTUAL ISSUE?

You wonder why that is??

We are. Only your glaring ignorance prevents you from seeing it.

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

Not.

 

[bodecea]

Liberals Freak Out After Obama Takes Military Action in Libya

[SNIP]
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

[/SNIP]

Serious Doubts Raised About Obama's War In Libya


House Speaker John Boehner released his first satement on the U.S. attacks on Libya expressing his approval for the actions taken, but demands, "the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved." Below is Speaker Boehner's statement:

"The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.
The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America's role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved."

Is this another "Wag The Dog" scenario a-la Clinton of the 1990's?

Is THIS the position you say you ... er ... stated?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Well, his legal obligation is to inform the congress about this kind of thing.

But he might have figured they would read about it in the paper.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are. Only your glaring ignorance prevents you from seeing it.

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

Not.

Ah so you're the mirror image of all these hypocrites the 'nuts here are going on and on about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We are. Only your glaring ignorance prevents you from seeing it.

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

I have answered. Only your idiocy binds you from seeing it.

Answer again, you fat drunk.

 

[The Gadfly]

This is classic rightwingery - they decided ahead of time that Liberals were all going to support Obama, because that is what the Right wanted them to do in order to make the hypocrisy angle fly. Now the myth is in place and the Rightwing herd is running with it.

btw, have you noticed how many conservatives here are refusing to state their own position on the ACTUAL ISSUE?

You wonder why that is??

We are. Only your glaring ignorance prevents you from seeing it.

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

One more time: I am going to give this president the benefit of the doubt, with regard to his ordering American military action. I am going to assume, that he has intelligence information the rest of us do not have, and I am going to assume he is acting with a sound military plan and a clearly defined objective. That is precisely the presumption I have accorded to every president, and I will do so again.That applies whether I agree with the man's politics (I do not) whether I voted for him (I did not) or what party he belongs to (not the one I favor).

The president is acting on behalf of our country, He has ordered our military forces into action. I will assume that action is in the national interest of my country, therefore I will support it, until there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, or the president violates the constitution. Until and unless that occurs, I intend to support my country, its military forces, and the Commander-in-Chief, whether I personally like him or not. Is that clear?

 

[WillowTree]

Then state your position clearly. Are you with the president on this or not?

Not.

Ah so you're the mirror image of all these hypocrites the 'nuts here are going on and on about.

I'm whatever you fantazie me to be. I'm not with obie wan, Never have been. So, if that makes me a hypocrite then so beeee it.

 

[boedicca]

Something for our Leftwing associates to consider:

Barack Obama has now been responsible for firing more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.

He’s still in 2nd place for number of Arab deaths caused (and 3rd place for Muslim deaths) behind Yassir Arafat and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The PJ Tatler » Some Obama Milestones


How Hopey Changey is that?!?!?