Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Will Kerry get another CIA hat? After all, he did ply the rivers in Libya.

From what I've read so far, Obama relented to Hillary's team insisting that he needed to make a decision and the decision should be to intervene. Obama relented to her but insisting that there would be no ground actions involving American troops and that this would last "days not months".

What isn't clear to me is whether he also means non-American ground actions are off limits and whether he is including American logistical support for a British/French-imposed no-fly zone once the preliminary preparations for one are concluded.

Obama is clearly doing this under protest and already looking to get out regardless of the facts. Being "party-all-the-time" president is hard enough already.

Is president Obama now in favor of regime change?

What, our politician's altering positions for expediency and political gain? I am aghast! Surely this must be the first time this has happened? No, and don't call me Shirley.

I see no way NOT to have boots on the ground in Libya, if we are to see this through to a successful conclusion.
President Obama is obviously in favor of regime change... this time.

These statements are... seared into my memory.

Hopefully, this will energize the Left to mount a primary challenge against Obama. Politico is running a story that liberals are furious and that Kucinich has asked why the strike on Libya is not an impeachable offense.

Run, Dennis, run!

@rodney wolfe, aren't we all?

There are limits to what air power alone can do. After all, war production in Nazi Germany reached it's peak in the last few weeks of the war. The only way to stop German factories from producing war material was to have allied troops in those factories.

I was for Senator Kerry before I realized I was stupid. Now, I'm older and, hopefully wiser, and I'm not. How swift is his sailboat?

Is it just me, or is something reminiscent of Ghengis Khan?

It took Amr Moussa what, three and a half days? I said before the resolution that these cretins in the Islamic diplomatic community have no earthly idea what establishing a no-fly zone *means*, despite having seen it multiple times over the last two decades. Dream Palaces of the Arabs, indeed.

What happened to No Blood For Oil?
What happened to Democracy at the Barrel of a Gun?
What happened to Not in Our Name?
What happened to Rush to war?
My God, the hypocrisy here is stunning. Just look at yesterday: Obama sends us to War #3, then heads to Brazil for a vacation where he hands Soros-dominated Petrobas an oil rig permit so WE can buy oil from Brazil.

I dare any Liberal to defend this.

In a small garage kept a weapons of mass destruction that could kill mobs
Invisible, odorless - and deadly.
In a small garage south of Gaddafi's hometown is Libya's Sirte horror: 10 tons of mustard gas in the hands of a mad tyrant. More at http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/blogs/webmaster_ann/world_fears_gaddafi_terror_weapons

There are three substantial differences between Iraq and Libya:
1. Bush and the neocons seemed eager to invade Iraq. Obama is doing a good job potraying himself as a reluctant warrior. He's letting Hillary look like the neocon.

2. Bush pinned the entire justification for the Iraq war on WMD and 9/11. Turns out Iraq didn't have the WMD's Bush and Powell claimed, and the 9/11 link is so tenuous as to be nonexistent. Obama's humanitarian justification is self-evident (you can however still argue whether it qualifies as a US interest).

3. Bush asked for and received Congressional authorization for use of force. He asked for but was denied UN approval. Obama on the other hand got UN approval but has proceeded without Congressional authorization.

The first two sunk Bush. The last will sink Obama.

War is only a good thing when Democrats hold office. That is why the media ingores the flag draped coffins returning from Afghanistan. That is why the media, and the Democrats ignore that while Bush lost 630 soldiers in Afghanistan in 8 years, Obama has managed to lose 885 in 26 months. Remember, Afghanistan is the GOOD war.

But John Kerry is gonna say what he thinks will pander to The Won. He is pandering for Hillary's job. He has already stated that he wants the Secretary of State job. Great, let's have a back stabbing traitor as SoS. Perhaps he can throw his medals over the fence again, since they seem to be hanging on his office wall, neatly framed.

What a disgusting poodle Kerry is.

Words are already being carefully parsed at the People's Ketchup factories in order to help us grasp the difference between stupid evil Nazi Bush and sainted lightbringer Obama. Once one digs thru all the obfuscation and evasion, the point will be he was against it when Bush did it but for it when Obama does it. It will take him and the other lefty mush mouths hours to say that without appearing to say it. Nuance.

The worse part of this is that there is no narrative that puts us in Libya.

As everyone can see, Qadaffi lost favor with the witch's coven of senior officials because, hmm, what? Maybe he needed to announce he was going to impose better fuel standards on his tanks, ya, that would have done it. Or solar panels. Whatever

Obama is a leftist, but no fool, and knows what everyone else will realize just as soon as a plane goes down or one of our ships sunk. There is no reason to be there, that most of the new rats will look and act like the old rats, unless he can get one of the former colonial countries to reimpose a regime on Libya. Yep, that will work.

Bush pinned the entire justification for the Iraq war on WMD and 9/11.

He did nothing of the sort.

There were numerous reasons listed for the invasion. WMD was just one on that long list.

Had a similar comment over at The DiploMad 2.0 (thediplomad.blogspot.com)

Lance:
1: - Agreed, to a point. Bush and the neocons were eager to get rid of someone that the world was pushing us to get rid of - i.e. to go in, get the job done, and LEAVE (someone goofed on that last part - I think it was the flypaper strategy and the democracy virus, which may yet work I suppose). But the entire WORLD, including the Clintons were for us going in and getting rid of that SOB.

2: As Jim said, that is completely untrue.

3: He was denied another specific, final UN approval but had 17 prior UN resolutions granting approval to do what was done. I agree with you that Obama's rash rush to war (one meeting, one day and bango!) with no Congressional oversight or approval in direct contradiction to his own quotes is gonna be the end of him. Finally. I hope.

Can we impeach him now?

Orion

John F. Kerry's personal website here - LIVESHOT.cc

Iraq WMDs were the sixth of twelve reasons given to Congress by the Bush administration. Nor was 9/11 even on the list - the Bush administration repeatedly said Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11,

Pres. O may have waited for the UN, or felt we did not [yet] have resources [carrier] in the area, or something else.

Looks like the Arab League proposal for a no-fly zone just wanted pilots to be asked for their licenses and registrations - nothing must fall from the sky lest it fall on a civilian.

Obama took action once Clinton had talked with the rebel leadership and confirmed that they WANT outside intervention (which they did not before).

The vast differences between Iraq and Libya are obvious:

1) Libya's democracy movement was initiated and fought for by Libyans who have united to resist without any outside 'help.'
2) Iraq was not a UN effort and was justified by intelligence that was so flimsy the Bush administration was either incompetent or dishonest. Libya is all over CNN. We don't often see 10's of thousands of people holding hands and singing -- irrespective of their sect.
3) Libya is a humanitarian effort to avert genocide.
4) The US is not taking the lead. The UN has made it clear they are willing to send ground troops, Obama has US troops will not be among them.
5) There was going to be an intervention (by some of the European countries) regardless of the UN.
6) Our standing in the world is best served by participating.

"US Interests" have been too narrowly defined in this discussion. It is in our interest as a people and as a power to do the moral thing. Particularly when the dilemma is unfolding on CNN and the failure to act permit genocide. We will never win the hearts and minds of any people, if we don't show ourselves to uphold values the hearts of others understand.