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

[NYcarbineer]

...and despite those quotes, most Democrats in DC voted against the war.

Vote 77-23 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 11 October 2002, 12:50 AM
Republicans: 48-1
Democrats: 29-21
Independents: 0-1


Vote 296-133-3 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 10 October 2002, 3:05 PM
Republicans: 215-6-2
Democrats: 81-126-1
Independents: 0-1-0

Not quite the way you paint it...

147 to 110 the Democrats voted against the Iraq resolution. Contrary to your ignorance on the matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You leftist supported GOING INTO the Iraq war. Once we were there, you started with the attacks and bullshit.

Kind of the opposite of me. I loudly opposed going in, but once we did, I shut up and supported our troops.

That would be a lie. Most Democrats voted against the Iraq war authorization; most liberals were against it.

You are ignorant of the facts.

So why are so many Liberals now so silent on yet another unauthorized attack?

Sure some on the left are mad at Obama for this, but it sure is far less than if a Republican were doing the same thing.

And?

I've been shouting my opposition to this since long before most here had made up their minds.

 

[taichiliberal]

Lets face it,a 'D' is in there doing the bombing now. So if you're looking for honesty from Democrats or especially the Liberal Press,please don't hold your breath. It's all just spin for them now. They'll say anything. I just saw that Spitzer idiot on CNN claiming these bombings are "Humanitarian." Yea bombing and killing people is real "Humanitarian." I wonder if Spitzer would be saying that if an 'R' was in there right now? What you think?

All one has to do is just enter "Protest against Libya Bombings" into google and you see the results.

Let's face it, LibocalypseNow doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

reading these post , I think your all a bunch of isolationist,
get rid of the UN on our soil ? leave Nato ? stop diplomacy all together ? get rid of embassy's ?

nothing new just now you whiners have a media to complain .

What you're not seeing is that a very large number of the usual conservative regulars around here have pretty much gone to ground for awhile because they do in fact support the action in Libya, and did in fact support Iraq,

but the thought of having to openly agree with President Obama is too much for them.

 

[taichiliberal]

I thought the Democrats supported the Iraq war, isn't that what you clowns have tried to sell for the last 8 years?

Yes, it is...

And I thought that under Obama this was a coalition just like Bush 1 in Kuwait. Actually it's looking more and more like the Iraq war you all hated so much. France said they'd help then they stabbed in the back.

Now according to reports, the French were going to lead this one, Ummm, Houston, we have a problem... Does anyone really think that with what the Arab League, Turkey, and Germany are doing and saying that France or any other country is going to take over this 'mission'?

Print Story: International alliance divided over Libya command - Yahoo! News

International alliance divided over Libya command
By Laura Rozen laura Rozen Mon Mar 21, 5:15 pm ET

President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.

And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.

The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.

The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)

Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep....

Unlike the Shrub & company, Obama moved WITH CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL. Big difference. Also, since this is NOT a lone action or US initiated action (check France's actions), you cannot compare the two. Remember, acting along with the UN of which we are apart of, is NOT an individual declaration of war.

By the rules, Obama has about 2 months, and then the Congress has to determine further cause. To date, NOTHING Obama has done has been illegal.

Now, that being said, our interest in Libya is primarily seein the civilian crisis as a window of opportunity to remove a control on an oil source that is not friendly to US interests. Just saying.

 

[sinister59]

reading these post , I think your all a bunch of isolationist,
get rid of the UN on our soil ? leave Nato ? stop diplomacy all together ? get rid of embassy's ?

nothing new just now you whiners have a media to complain .

What you're not seeing is that a very large number of the usual conservative regulars around here have pretty much gone to ground for awhile because they do in fact support the action in Libya, and did in fact support Iraq,

but the thought of having to openly agree with President Obama is too much for them.

once you get involved you have a duty not to cut and run like republicans did in Vietnam . you doom your friends to death by just leaving them . we have to support Iraq and Afghanistan . or heads will be lopped off. liberals don't care about aftermath but then neo cons don't either .

 

[rikules]

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?

you should try listening to the news.

the left IS attacking obama over this issue


though you may enjoy false accusations and personal attacks (as most cons seem to do) in this case you are wrong

but
I have no doubt the facts won't stop you from believing this lie

 

[taichiliberal]

reading these post , I think your all a bunch of isolationist,
get rid of the UN on our soil ? leave Nato ? stop diplomacy all together ? get rid of embassy's ?

nothing new just now you whiners have a media to complain .

What you're not seeing is that a very large number of the usual conservative regulars around here have pretty much gone to ground for awhile because they do in fact support the action in Libya, and did in fact support Iraq,

but the thought of having to openly agree with President Obama is too much for them.

once you get involved you have a duty not to cut and run like republicans did in Vietnam . you doom your friends to death by just leaving them . we have to support Iraq and Afghanistan . or heads will be lopped off. liberals don't care about aftermath but then neo cons don't either .

So in your opinion, who in the USA does care about the aftermath if not liberals or neocons?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Naw man,a 'D' is doing all the bombing & killing now. So it has to be all about those poor abused Libyan people and it's definitely not about their Oil. Yup and i got some nice swamp land for sale too. It's all about the D & R stuff man. If the guy in there now had that 'R',the Left/Democrats would be screeching their "NO WAR FOR OIL" and "Impeachment" stuff. This is the logic we're dealing with unfortunately. The R's will be back in there bombing again someday and the Left/Democrats will run their game on the People once again. And the vicious circle will continue to go round & round. Nothing ever changes. We need a real alternative to vote for. Hopefully this will happen someday. I'm not very optimistic though.

 

[Spoonman]

Naw man,a 'D' is doing all the bombing & killing now. So it has to be all about those poor abused Libyan people and it's definitely not about their Oil. Yup and i got some nice swamp land for sale too. It's all about the D & R stuff man. If the guy in there now had that 'R',the Left/Democrats would be screeching their "NO WAR FOR OIL" and "Impeachment" stuff. This is the logic we're dealing with unfortunately. The R's will be back in there bombing again someday and the Left/Democrats will run their game on the People once again. And the vicious circle will continue to go round & round. Nothing ever changes. We need a real alternative to vote for. Hopefully this will happen someday. I'm not very optimistic though.

Look at all of our major wars, started by dems. Civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam. all started by dems

 

[bodecea]

Naw man,a 'D' is doing all the bombing & killing now. So it has to be all about those poor abused Libyan people and it's definitely not about their Oil. Yup and i got some nice swamp land for sale too. It's all about the D & R stuff man. If the guy in there now had that 'R',the Left/Democrats would be screeching their "NO WAR FOR OIL" and "Impeachment" stuff. This is the logic we're dealing with unfortunately. The R's will be back in there bombing again someday and the Left/Democrats will run their game on the People once again. And the vicious circle will continue to go round & round. Nothing ever changes. We need a real alternative to vote for. Hopefully this will happen someday. I'm not very optimistic though.

Look at all of our major wars, started by dems. Civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam. all started by dems

I'm glad you acknowledge that the Civil War was started by Dems.

As for WWII, I was under the impression it was started by the Japanese.

 

[Spoonman]

Naw man,a 'D' is doing all the bombing & killing now. So it has to be all about those poor abused Libyan people and it's definitely not about their Oil. Yup and i got some nice swamp land for sale too. It's all about the D & R stuff man. If the guy in there now had that 'R',the Left/Democrats would be screeching their "NO WAR FOR OIL" and "Impeachment" stuff. This is the logic we're dealing with unfortunately. The R's will be back in there bombing again someday and the Left/Democrats will run their game on the People once again. And the vicious circle will continue to go round & round. Nothing ever changes. We need a real alternative to vote for. Hopefully this will happen someday. I'm not very optimistic though.

Look at all of our major wars, started by dems. Civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam. all started by dems

I'm glad you acknowledge that the Civil War was started by Dems.

As for WWII, I was under the impression it was started by the Japanese.

so we weren't at war with them but we embargoed them and tried to cut off their supply of oil and rubber.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

No War For Oil!!! Impeach Obomba!!!!!

 

[High_Gravity]

Politics really can be a lot of fun. It often exposes the liars & hypocrites. And that's always fun. This Libyan War is supposedly not about the Oil but instead is all about helping those poor abused Libyan People. Yea it's hard to believe that anyone believes that. What happened to all those "NO WAR FOR OIL!" peeps? Where did they go? Now that a 'D' is doing the bombing,it definitely has nothing to do with Oil and is only about helping those poor abused Libyan People. Why such a change of heart? Seems way too convenient to me. So we jump in the middle of a Foreign Civil War but it has absolutely nothing to do with Oil? Yea can't get much more dishonest & hypocritical than this. Shame Shame on the Left/Democrats.

You have a point, where are all the "NO WAR FOR OIL" guys? did they miss the bus on this one?

 

[Chicago720]

Letting a dictator kill his people at his insane whim is not going to be good for anyone in the world.

If Gadafi is allowed to bomb his own people until only his cronies are left what do you think that says to the rest of the countries on the brink of revolution for democracy?

You people just hate anything this president does no matter what it is.

This is a UN action and not a declared war.

So you totally agreed with the Iraq war too? And next we're headed to S. Korea, then China, then Darfur, Then Ivory Coast... if this is about not allowing dictators to kill their own, we had better get a move on.

Obama was asked about the scope of this war yesterday and his only response was that we should have clarity in a few days.

So, the incompetent in chief has decided to start a war and THEN decide what we want to accomplish. This guy is an amateur and proves it on every major issue. He's all bluster and not a bit of leader.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Letting a dictator kill his people at his insane whim is not going to be good for anyone in the world.

If Gadafi is allowed to bomb his own people until only his cronies are left what do you think that says to the rest of the countries on the brink of revolution for democracy?

You people just hate anything this president does no matter what it is.

This is a UN action and not a declared war.

Same argument for Iraq. You lefties criticized that and defend libya, hypocrites.

 

[Vanquish]

It's hilarious that partisan hacks like LibApoc get on here and type their little rants about how the Dems are evil. Barry Oblammy tried to make you fuckers happy...and this is what we get. He just can't win in your eyes...I'm not sure why he ever tried.

He's basically a 3rd Bush term. Why would I vote for him again?

 

[Dr.Drock]

It's hilarious that partisan hacks like LibApoc get on here and type their little rants about how the Dems are evil. Barry Oblammy tried to make you fuckers happy...and this is what we get. He just can't win in your eyes...I'm not sure why he ever tried.

He's basically a 3rd Bush term. Why would I vote for him again?

Partisan hacks like LibApoc?

The whole thing he's attacking is how partisan dems are towards warmongering. They cheer it when a D does it and freak out when a R does it.

LibApoc attacks republicans for their hypocrisy as well. When a D increases spending, welfare, social security it's a travesty according to reps, when a R does it they make light of it and excuse it by saying a D would be doing it even more so.

He goes after both sides and I've seen him do it dozens of times, making him amongst the tiny minority on this board.

 

[georgephillip]

Naw man,a 'D' is doing all the bombing & killing now. So it has to be all about those poor abused Libyan people and it's definitely not about their Oil. Yup and i got some nice swamp land for sale too. It's all about the D & R stuff man. If the guy in there now had that 'R',the Left/Democrats would be screeching their "NO WAR FOR OIL" and "Impeachment" stuff. This is the logic we're dealing with unfortunately. The R's will be back in there bombing again someday and the Left/Democrats will run their game on the People once again. And the vicious circle will continue to go round & round. Nothing ever changes. We need a real alternative to vote for. Hopefully this will happen someday. I'm not very optimistic though.

If you live in a state with third party candidates already appearing on your ballot, it CAN HAPPEN in November 2012.

Hundreds of Republican AND Democratic incumbents from sea to shining sea CAN be FLUSHED in a single news cycle.

But NOBODY will have a clue what comes next...

 

[Vanquish]

It's hilarious that partisan hacks like LibApoc get on here and type their little rants about how the Dems are evil. Barry Oblammy tried to make you fuckers happy...and this is what we get. He just can't win in your eyes...I'm not sure why he ever tried.

He's basically a 3rd Bush term. Why would I vote for him again?

Partisan hacks like LibApoc?

The whole thing he's attacking is how partisan dems are towards warmongering. They cheer it when a D does it and freak out when a R does it.

LibApoc attacks republicans for their hypocrisy as well. When a D increases spending, welfare, social security it's a travesty according to reps, when a R does it they make light of it and excuse it by saying a D would be doing it even more so.

He goes after both sides and I've seen him do it dozens of times, making him amongst the tiny minority on this board.

Point me to a few. I'd love to see 'em. I'm betting there's more context needed.
If he was, I'd be on his side. I'm a centrist and it'd be great if the board didn't do this bs dems vs republicans tug of war every hour.