No Clear And Present Danger

In the two years, and two months since Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, we have not willingly sat down to hear him speak.  We prefer to read the transcripts of his speeches after the fact.  Reading his lies doesn't seem to affect our hypertension as much as watching Obama read from his well placed teleprompters, while attempting to appear sincere when addressing the American people.  Normally when Obama speaks, we turn off the television, or switch channels.  Tonight we listened intently to most of his speech.  Our plan was to  listen objectively, take notes, and reserve judgement until the speech had ended, but it was not to be.  Obama's innate arrogance is one of the many character deficiencies that the man is incapable of controlling, and we are incapable of tolerating.  When he reached the point in his speech where he began to seemingly gloat in self congratulation,  and began to compare the actions in Libya to the war in Iraq, he totally lost us...click, the screen went black.  It'd be back to reading the text again for us.


Obama began his "update to the American people" by recognizing the United States military.  We appreciated his acknowledgement of them and are  sure that most Americans did as well.  In the next very carefully crafted paragraph he appealed to the American sense of pride for being the nation that has traditionally taken a leading role in righting the wrongs of the world.   Continuing in that vein he said, "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That's what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks."


Our values? Yes. Our interests? No. We have no interests in Libya other that to see Moammar Gaddafi's gone!  Obama went on to talk about  Libya's geographical location between Tunisia and Egypt and the danger of those countries being flooded by refugees from Libya.  We did not disagree.  The world doesn't need anymore  displaced refugees.  Just as Ronald Reagan did, we too believe that Moammar Gaddafi is a "madman", and should not be allowed to turn his military might on his own people. We also couldn't argue with using Gaddafi's ill gotten millions to help the Libyans rebuild -- better Gaddafi's money than the American taxpayer's.


We listened to the pacifist candidate turned warrior president, talk about issuing orders for Libya, the continuing war in Afghanistan and ending the combat in Iraq.  In his own, inimitable self serving way, Barack Hussein Obama, who opposed war and the use of  military force,  uttered these words:  "I've made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests."


What we discern in those words is the 2012 presidential candidate hard at work.  Did he make it clear to his Left Liberal base, or is he launching an appeal for a new support group.


Just this past week ,  Secretary of Defense Gates, in an interview with ABC Senior Correspondent Jake Tapper said about Libya,  "No, no.  It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States"  However, in Gates' opinion, what was of interest was, " The  engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans,"  "The general humanitarian  question that was at stake,” he said. 


We did not  finish watching Obama speak, but  have read the complete unedited text of his speech.  It was obviously written to appeal to the American public's natural sense of patriotism.   It is probably the most American-president-like speech he's ever read, with the exception that an American president wouldn't authorize the use of force against another country without first asking for Congress' authorization -- as George W. Bush did.


When Hillary Clinton was a senator in 2007, contemplating a bid for the presidency, she took a tough stand with President Bush, and on the floor of the Senate she stated:  “If the administration believes that any -- any -- use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority"   Appearing in  the same interview with ABC's Tapper she had obviously undergone a change of mind about the president needing Congress' authority.  


When Tapper  asked her, in regards to Libya  "Why not go to Congress?" Clinton replied, “Well, we would welcome congressional support, but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”  She continued, “I think that this had a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling.”   Clinton was of course referring to candidate Obama's assertion, also in 2007, that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”  which we all know well, is exactly what now president Obama did ten days ago.


In his speech Obama assured the American people, " This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday," and the United States will act in a supporting role.  Really?  And what nation will invest as much man power, equipment, ordnance, airplanes, and naval vessels, as the United States?    This exchange leads us to believe that Liberal Democrats are truly guilty of believing their own propaganda.  They DO believe that those of us on the right are rubes incapable of seeing through their charade.


The fact is that Obama didn't answer the most searing questions for us.  Who are these rebels whom we are helping?  What about the reports that some of the rebel leaders are really members of al Qaeda?   Again we ask, why did Obama wait so long?  It seems to us that the rebels were asking for help BEFORE the UN resolution, the Libyan people were being slaughtered, BEFORE the UN resolution. Libya's geographical location remains the same BEFORE and AFTER the UN resolution and the administration did not feel any humanitarian urges then?   Libya has in the past, but not now, presented a danger to American interests.  If the need to intervene was "humanitarian" why did we let the massacre and retreat of the rebel forces continue until it was almost too late?  Why was it necessary to have the Arab League's involvement?   This was an obvious case of humanitarianism mixed with politics.  There might be other factors not yet ascertained.


As the president spoke, there were atrocities being committed in other oil rich Muslim countries.  In Syria, since the uprising began, 62 persons have been killed by the Syrian government.  What about Bahrain?  Are we not going to issue our support for those who seek freedom  and democracy?   Is this adminitration involved in selective "regime change"?  Isn't that the goal in Libya?  Having all that oil, and a government friendly to the U.S. -- quite a coup.


After all the criticism that the previous administration endured at the hands of Liberals, it is extremely ironic to see, particularly this anti-war, anti-military administration supporting and defending the bombing and killling, without Congressional authorization, of a country that did not directly attack us.  What say the Liberals now to our involvement in an OIL rich country which did not present a clear and present danger to America or American interests? 


Obama had plenty of time to consult with Congress before the recess but he chose not to do so.   Instead he waited for the Arab League's involvement in a UN resolution to act.   The president cannot be allowed to continue  deploying and engaging our military in actions such as the one in Libya, authorized only by a resolution in the United Nations Security Council.  By the same token, the United Nations cannot be allowed to have control of the United States military at any time.  


In 1973, Congress passed   The War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) over the veto of President Nixon on November 7,  to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. When such a report is submitted, or is required to be submitted, section 5(b) requires that the use of forces must be terminated within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes such use or extends the time period. Section 3 requires that the "President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. "


Barack Hussein Obama seems to have a way with ignoring our laws as well as our Constitution.  Now that he has committed our military and our tax dollars to a third front in a Muslim country, Obama has to make sure that Gaddafi IS defeated and ousted.   As other Middle Eastern despots and tyrants continue to suppress their people and deny them the liberty they seek is Obama going to send them the message that the "coalition" will not tolerate the slaughter of the oppressed people?  That hardly seems likely in light of Secretary Clinton's statement this past weekend that  Bashar Assad of Syria is a reformer, unlike Gaddafi. 


This administration is a mass of inconsistencies and disimulation.  Do they consider us to be idiots because we place more value on those principles which they so cavalierly eschew?   Where are all the peace seeking anti war protesters now that their revered leader has shown his other side?   Does their messiah have feel of clay?  Barack Hussein Obaba is simply a man, a politician who wants to be re-elected to the highest office in this land.  Every decision he makes, every word he utters, will be done with one purpose in mind, re-election. 


After watching and reading Obama's speech on Libya we still have unaswered questions.  We are particularly bothered by the whole Arab League connection.  We are repulsed by the Left's insincerity and hypocrisy.  We won't erase the years that we, those of us who supported the previous administration, were called vile name by the elitist, arrogant Left which included Barack Obama.  We have not received satisfactory answers, and resent being played for fools.  It is our hope that American voters can see through Obama's new personna, and ask themselves, was this speech really an update on Libya, or  the launching of re-elect Obama 2012?

Two Sisters