...

 TR> Here's a few things to add.....Klahn ought to turn
 TR> red-face3d over this:

 ...

 TR> Commander in chief?Consistent with his socialist,
 TR> we-are-all-one agenda, Barack Obama used a non-unanimous
 TR> 10-vote nod from the United Nations Security Council to
 TR> justify commencing hostilities against Libya, bypassing

 If unanimous was your requirement we would not be in Iraq now.
 Which would be a good thing, come to think of it.

 Oh, and the UN vote was not the justification, but a procedural
 point.

 TR> Congress, the Constitution, the will of the American public
 TR> and a couple hundred years' worth of precedents. Since none

 Bush sent them down the garbage chute in 2003. OTOH, Reagan's
 invasion of Grenada also qualifies.

 TR> of these have mattered in the past, why should they now?

 They stopped mattering when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.

 ...

 TR> recently -- UN authority supersedes U.S. constitutional
 TR> authority and sovereignty.

 Ah, you made that one up out of the whole cloth. Bush, OTOH, did
 claim his authority of commander in chief superceded the
 constitution. By which standard Obama could claim the same
 thing.

 ...

 TR> state-sponsored terrorism. It was Gadhafi that ordered the
 TR> 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland,
 TR> which killed 270, most of whom were Americans. That said, a

 That alone justifies action against Gadhafi.

 TR> number of countervailing arguments counsel against
 TR> intervening in Libya's civil war with this, as Deputy

 Much more conseled against invading Iraq, but that didn't stop
 Bush from doing it, or you supporting it.

 TR> For one, it is a civil war. U.S. policy -- at least
 TR> ostensibly -- has been to refrain from engaging in
 TR> conflicts where U.S. vital national interests are not at
 TR> stake.

 Those two points are not connected in any realistic way.

 And there is and was no such policy in any real world.

 TR> Whatever interests the U.S. has in Libya, the term
 TR> "vital" certainly does not apply.

 Lockerbie says it does.

 TR> Second, as a sovereign nation, the U.S. neither seeks nor
 TR> is granted authority from a supra-national organization
 TR> such as the UN to use American instruments of national
 TR> power, including military force.

 Doesn't change the desirability of getting international
 support.

 TR> Such authority must vest
 TR> from within, and in the U.S. that mechanism is the
 TR> Constitution. While the president has both the authority
 TR> and duty to use force in protection of the United States
 TR> from an actual or imminent attack, that is the extent of
 TR> his unilateral authority.

 Didn't make any difference to you when Bush invaded Iraq. Why is
 it different now?

 TR> Congress alone has the authority to approve the use of
 TR> military force in all other circumstances as it did in the
 TR> wake of 9/11. In the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq,
 TR> President George W. Bush specifically approached Congress,
 TR> asked for and was granted a resolution authorizing the use
 TR> of military force.

 Not for the invasion of Iraq. Bush was granted a conditional
 resolution authorizing action. Since the conditions were not
 there the invasion was not legal. Yet you didn't complain about
 that.

 TR> His successor -- not so much.

 Just as much so. Lockerbie alone is reason enough.

 TR> Next, we have no idea whether the regime that replaces
 TR> Gadhafi (if that happens) will actually be a change for the
 TR> better.

 That is true in every place in the world every single day. It
 seems the government in power in Iraq is *WORSE* for US
 interests than Saddam was.

 TR> While the words "democracy" and "freedom" are
 TR> bandied about indiscriminately, no one knows what Libya
 TR> will look like post-Gadhafi.

 No one knows what America will look like post 2012.

 TR> In fact, the rebels are
 TR> self-described Islamic "holy warriors" who have at least
 TR> the verbal backing of al-Qa'ida. This fact alone should
 TR> advocate for restraint.

 Do they?

 TR> Moreover, as America nears the tenth anniversary of 9/11,
 TR> we should pause to reflect upon the fact that our nation
 TR> has been at war continuously for almost a decade. Should we

 Yes, it has. And that is because the Bush Administration took us
 into war in Iraq for oil. Gen Jay Garner, the first
 administrator the administration sent to Iraq wanted to have
 elections immediately, so the administration fired him.

 As a result, the US has been in Iraq for nearly 8 years, and in
 Afghanistan for almost 10 years.

 You didn't complain when Bush kept us there.

 TR> -- or can we even afford to -- embark on a third commitment
 TR> of manpower and resources, much less one that is undefined
 TR> and open-ended?

 Funny, you didn't ask if we could afford Iraq. Get our troops
 ouot of Iraq and we have the means to deal with Libya.

 TR> Supposedly, no "boots on the ground" were to be committed,
 TR> but as we go to press 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine
 TR> Expeditionary Unit are stationed just off the Libyan coast.

 There is a fleet there, isn't there? And Marines on the fleet.

 TR> In the first few days of this conflict alone, we have
 TR> already lost a plane and spent hundreds of Tomahawk
 TR> missiles -- are we prepared to commit to this effort to the
 TR> point that we're willing to sacrifice American lives as
 TR> well?

 We lost American lives at Lockerbie.

 We lost over 4500 American lives in Iraq, with far less
 justification, and on the basis of lies from the administration.

 TR> In 2007, both Barack Obama and his levelheaded sidekick Joe
 TR> Biden believed that the president's authority to use
 TR> military force is limited to repelling an imminent or
 TR> ongoing attack on the U.S., and that Congress alone has the
 TR> authority to authorize the use of military force in all
 TR> other circumstances.

 He has learned, hasn't he.

 TR> "The president does not have power under the Constitution
 TR> to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation
 TR> that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat
 TR> to the nation," said Barack Obama then. Likewise, Joe Biden
 TR> chimed in, "I made it clear to the president that if he
 TR> takes this nation to war without congressional approval, I
 TR> will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact."

 For some reason you did not object when he invaded Iraq.

 TR> These claims were made when they were "Candidate Obama" and
 TR> "Senator Biden," respectively -- that is, before either
 TR> decided that their heartfelt words on the campaign trail or
 TR> a TV talk show were never meant to be applied to themselves
 TR> at some future point.

 Didn't bother you in Iraq.

 TR> Finally, it's worth highlighting how utterly disagreeable
 TR> is the military operation label "Odyssey Dawn." An odyssey
 TR> is a very long, convoluted saga -- not an event wrapped up
 TR> in a few days, as this effort has been promoted, thus far.
 TR> We're hoping that the Pentagon has a good sense of humor
 TR> and irony.

 Or just bad literary judgement.

 TR> Otherwise and unwittingly, it may have aptly coined the
 TR> beginning of yet another endless military journey. It might
 TR> be nice to rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi.

 Another? You admit Bush was guilty of reckless military
 judgement? Amen amen amen!

 TR> But before we commit American lives and resources toward
 TR> doing so, shouldn't we first pause to ask the question: At
 TR> what cost?

 You didn't do that for Iraq.

 TR> Quote of the Week
 TR> "We don't know whether the current U.S. president is
 TR> mindful of what he is uttering, or if he is unconscious and
 TR> confused." --Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei

 He said a lot worse about Bush, but you feel that was worth
 quoting.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)