Ramirez Editorial Cartoon

Michael Ramirez

© 2011 Investor's Business Daily, Inc

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

Obama: The Picture Of Clarity

What a refreshing surprise!  This gem of an article was found in the Chicago Tribune, President Obama's state.  It is a beautifully written account of a very serious matter, with just a hint of dry wit.  Not surprisingly the comments to Mr. Kass' article are not too favorable by the Chicago crowds.   Mr. Kass captured our attention with the title and we decided to share the find with our readers whom we're sure will be more understanding of his opinion.
Two Sisters

While Obama searches for clarity, we're plunged into another war

President Barack Obama unmasked himself Tuesday.



by  John Kass

Chicago Tribune

March 23, 2011

He was in El Salvador, standing with Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, when reporters asked him about his war in Libya.

It is indeed his war. He started it. He gave the order to launch the missiles over the weekend. And now the man who ran for president as an anti-war candidate owns his very own war.

But there has been confusion over which member of his coalition will command the war. Will Obama ask a foreign general to direct American troops? Will President Nicolas Sarkozy of France take the coalition lead?

On Tuesday, Obama was asked about these command issues. It wasn't a trick. It should have been expected. He stood there, and he opened his mouth.

"I would expect that over the next several days you will have clarity and a meeting of the minds of all those who are participating in the process," Obama said.

We'll have clarity in a few days?

Clarity in a few days, Mr. President?

You don't wait to find clarity a few days after you begin a war. You'd better have complete clarity before you ever give the order to fire in the first place.

Days after ordering the launch of cruise missiles at around $1 million a pop isn't the time to find clarity, Mr. President.

Days after you bomb a country — even one run by a murderous psychopath like Moammar Gadhafi — isn't the time to begin searching for clarity.

The president must find clarity before beginning such an enterprise. To do otherwise is to risk not only American lives and his own presidency and political fortunes, but to risk America's future security and its place among nations.

There wasn't much drama in that quote in El Salvador, so I wonder whether Mr. Obama's Search for Clarity will remain in the news cycle or will drop mercifully from public notice.

Given the free pass he's had on this Libya business, I doubt whether it will become a slogan.

But he did say it — in front of TV cameras. And it would be laughably ridiculous, except that lives are at stake.

I suspect that every world leader saw it, and their generals saw it, from China to Russia and beyond, and they all took his measure and saw what was in him.

His enemies, the Republicans, say that if you take away his teleprompter, he's quite vulnerable. He's misspoken many times, but so has every president.

If this were merely a matter of rhetoric or misspeaking, I wouldn't mention it.

But that passive discussion about clarity, coming from the mouth of the president, underscores another problem that's been noticed by Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate.

He hasn't been clear on the war at all.

Before he ordered the strikes against Gadhafi, he'd argued that the Libyan dictator had to go, that driving him from power was the important thing.

Then that argument changed, and Obama and his advisers said we had to save the people of Libya from a bloody civil war. So it became a humanitarian mission.   Sort of.

Naturally, members of Congress are shrieking, since he attacked without asking their permission. Liberal U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat, brought up a quote from the past:  "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."

And who said it? Barack Obama, to The Boston Globe in 2007.

Early polls show that only 50 percent of the American people are in support of Obama's attack on Libya. Historically, such numbers are much higher at the outset of a war. So expect the numbers to get worse.

Sen. Mark Kirk, the Illinois Republican and U.S. naval intelligence officer, was speaking at the City Club of Chicago the other day, and I caught up to him there.

"The president needs to clearly define the war aims and who is in command," said Kirk, who supports the war in Libya.

"My hope is that when he returns to the United States, he needs to speak to the nation because he's just taken the country to war," Kirk said. "And a presidential address from the Oval Office is necessary to outline the mission, how he expects to achieve it and who is in charge."

When the president returns to the U.S. on Wednesday, and if his teleprompter is working, he'll put on a blue suit and a red tie and a white shirt and look quite presidential.

He'll speak forcefully. He'll speak reasonably. He will appear to the world like a leader.

And he won't look anything like the back bencher in the Illinois Legislature who never confronted power and spent his entire career accommodating the bosses so he could climb the political ladder. He won't look anything like that fellow who voted "present" time after time after time.


Instead, he'll look the picture of clarity.


jskass@tribune.com  

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

Be A Force For Good

The Two Sisters From The Right do not operate under any illusion that we will become famous or wealthy by writing this blog.  Ours, as you know, is a not for profit publication.  We do not advertise, we do not request donations.  Our purpose is strictly to provide a forum of expression  for ourselves,  and our readers.  Often through many of the articles presented here, our readers can become informed on issues and topics of current interest.  In some cases it is an outlet for our personal friends and colleagues to release their own frustrations, worries, and their angst regarding our current political situation. 

We know what it is to live during politically turbulent times.  Even at the height of the counterculture movement in the 1960s when our world was rocked by a variety of  cultural revolutions, we still felt safe in America.   Those who did take part in the various movements had different axes to grind.  The turmoil of those years was triggered by a number of factors; racial relations,  women's rights, and a sexual revolution which altered our mores from then on.   The hippie movement came to the forefront and it spawned a youth subculture which encouraged fighting against the establishment,  sexual promiscuity, widespread use of hallucinogenic drugs,  defiance of civic and parental authority, and of course, the protest of the Vietnam War. 


For those of us who chose not to indulge, it was a spectacle that we observed for an extended period of time.  Many of you lived through it,  most of you were not even born  during those years.  The counterculture movement peaked during the years 1965 (my Sophomore year in college) through 1972 (the birth of my second child).  In spite of domestic terrorists such a Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn of the Weathermen or Weather Underground, and the Black Panthers formed by Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton all of whom were leftist, socialists, we didn't really fear for our country's freedom. We knew our system of law and justice would prevail.

As the demonstrations and protests took place from East coast to West coast, in the southern United States, the Civil Rights movement had gained momentum.  It was successful in obtaining rights for blacks that had long been denied. The Civil Rights movement owes a great deal of its success to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s theory of non violent protest, and also to the many non black Americans  who joined them and often died in their support.  Today, those tumultuous times are but a vague memory.  Some called it America's growing pains.  We survived, not unscathed, but with our sovereignty intact.

We mention those years above because we lived through those times. It wasn't always easy growing up in a post Atomic Age world, or in a nation gripped by the tension of the Cold War. We know what it is like to live in a country undergoing a counter cultural revolution which brought about many cultural and sociological changes which forever touched our lives. This could be why we did not buy into the hope and change shtick. We have lived through change.

The tension that was felt during all those years had a different feel, a different tone, than the tension that we feel today. Many who voted for Barack Hussein Obama bought into the Hope and Change scenario. Little did they realize that being President of the United States of America is no simple task, and Barack Hussein Obama, was not up to the task of leading this nation. Behind his "hope and change" scheme there was a darker more sinister motive: the defeat of a republic whose success is dependent on a free market capitalist system, and to replace it with socialism instead.

In her introduction to her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand wrote -- "No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as capitalism—and none has ever been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly. The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today have no idea . . . of its actual nature." American capitalism has never been in such peril.

Yesterday in this blog, BornintheUSA99 asked of our readers, "Had enough?"  He asked how long We The People would tolerate this corrupt, inept, government which has brought our republic to the verge of destruction.  We've seen how the labor unions took charge of the Wisconsin teachers' protest and changed its entire character.  As a result, the teachers lost.  They might not be aware of it yet, but they're losers, one and all. The union interference prolonged the situation, and gave them false hope.  First responders who were not going to lose collective bargaining rights, lost them. All of them were used to suit the purpose of the union bosses.  They were used for media attention, and the purpose it served was to propel unions like SEIU straight into the leftist media's lens.  I was perfect timing for the unions to begin hatching their plan.

The Blaze, a publication read by many conservatives, today revealed an audio recording of a conversation in which former SEIU leader Steven Lerner is heard talking about radical plans and strategies to destroy the American economy by causing disruption and spreading fear, instability and uncertainty throughout the country.  The Wisconsin protesters fell right into their hands.  


In an article published in The American Thinker, Chris Banescu writes, "What the Bolsheviks and communists did to their own people with violence, indiscriminate murder, starvation, torture, and concentration camps, union leaders in America want to accomplish via plans to destroy our financial system, undermine the stock market, disrupt capitalism, redistribute the wealth, and destabilize the country." To learn more about it click on The Blaze, or the paragraph above.


Never, in our many years, have we felt so threatened or so vulnerable.  After the attacks of September 11, 2001, our nation finally took notice of the threat that radical Islamists present to our country.  Since then we've seen countless examples of their relentless pursuit of our citizens' Islamization.  Their blatant attempt to interject Sharia Law into our justice system is proving to be successful.  This is an issue of great interest to those who value their Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.  Author Richard Carroll has written about it very eloquently in this blog, as well. 


Now we are facing a war on a third Muslim front. The totally clueless Obama, without consulting Congress, has committed the American military to a war in Libya.  Regardless of his assurances that we will be out of there in no time, does he really believe that he can withdraw our people as simply as he entered into this alliance?  Will he really turn control of the U.S. military over to a foreign power?  Each of those missiles fired costs $600,000 and yesterday we lost a multi-million dollar F15 when it went down over Libya. 


The man who criticized George W. Bush for starting a "dumb war" in Iraq has now placed the United States in a supporting role, in a war we simply can not  win under the present circumstances.  How "smart" is that? 


Had enough?  What are we going to do about it?  "Speak Up America, I Can't Hear You!"  We want to hear what YOU think.  We're going to try a little experiment and we can only get results if our readers participate.  At the end of this article there is a comments section.  It is designed by Blogspot, sometimes it is not easy to use.  The easiest way to use it is to write under the title  Anonymous.  Although we  do care who all our readers are, we really want to hear YOUR opinion your ideas.  You can also email us at SisterOne46@yahoo.com  No names will be used to contact you or will be revealed.  We invite your comments.  Are we going to sit back and allow this completely incompetent administration, allied with the union madmen to cripple our economy for their own personal gain.  Are you willing to be used and exploited by union thugs? 


Obamacare was rammed down our collective throats a year ago.  Then Speaker Pelosi told us we needed to vote it in first, and then read it.  Well, we're reading, and we don't like what we see -- neither do doctors and health care professionals.  How much longer are we going to allow this administration to trample the Constitution and ignore the rule of law?  By the time the economic ax truly falls we might not be here, but our children and grandchildren will and securing their future is the passion which drives us.  We're in a struggle for survival against evil forces.


Heed the words of John Adams: " Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." (1763)


Wake up, America.  Speak up America!  Be a force for good, before it is too late!

That Was The Week That Was

Testing for Radiation in Japan

An earthquake struck Japan, sending planet Earth spinning off it's axis, followed by a Tsunami and a nuclear meltdown.  Thousands are dead, missing and injured.  The country is in a tremendous upheaval, and the repercussions of this natural disaster will not only affect Japan, but the entire world, economically and in some cases, physically if the radiation effects are maximized.  



Protest in Bahrain

On the other side of the world, the Middle East was a hot bed of protest and unrest as those who demonstrated against their governments asked for freedom and democracy.  The Middle East has been dominated by tyrants, despots, Royals, and dictators for generations.  As the world becomes smaller due to the Internet and the electronic media, the oppressed clamor for the freedoms that many here in the freest nation on the planet take for granted.  Let it be a lesson to those who support politicians who trample our Constitution and want to suppress our own freedoms, no one has it better than we do. 

During the past week, here in the States, the labor unions were having a field day and issuing death threats to political leaders in Wisconsin, while enticing even more chaos in other states as well.  The leftist media in turn was giving them around the clock press.  Any Tom, Dick, Harry or Michael Moore with a bullhorn was  filmed, photographed or written about.   But then the tragedy in Japan and the genocide in North Africa  bumped them off the the journalistic front burner.

 

With all that has happened this past week, we  watched the stock market plummet, our portfolios shrink, and we held our collective breaths in uncertainty as to what the future holds for us, the American people. Our rate of unemployment is in record high numbers, our national debt unchecked, the housing market down,  budget cuts all around, while the price of food and fuel rises.   Is it a wonder  that we develop new worry lines daily?  These aren't the worst of times yet folks, but they aren't the best of times either. 



Muammar al Qaddafi

Then there was Libya, and those "revolting Arabs."  Muammar al Qaddafi has been a thorn in the side of the United States since Richard Nixon was president.  In 1969 he led a successful coup against the monarchy of Idris I.  Qaddafi established himself as Libya's commander in chief and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. Blending Arab nationalism, revolutionary socialism, and Islamic orthodoxy, Qaddafi proceeded to run Libya's government as a stridently anti-Western dictatorship. British and American military bases were closed in 1970; in the same year the property of Libya's Italian and Jewish communities was confiscated.   A fervent Arab nationalist, he sought to unify Libya with other Arab countries, including Egypt and Tunisia, while bitterly opposing Israel. Since Qaddafi took power the Libyan government has supported many international terrorist and guerrilla organizations, including the IRA, the PLO, and other extremist Arab and Islamic groups.  In 1986 the United States sought to quell Libya's alleged terrorist activities by bombing several sites in Libya. Qaddafi survived, but several of his children were hurt or killed. In 1999, following the turning over of the suspects in the Lockerbie bombing, Qaddafi sought improved relations with Western European nations and issued a denunciation of terrorism. 1 

As other Arab countries sought to liberate themselves from their oppressors, the people of Libya attempted a coup of their own.  Unlike in Egypt, where protesters succeeded in ousting President Hosni Mubarak and establishing a temporary government, the Libyan rebels suffered the wrath of Qaddafi and he began to quell their protests by turning his military powers on them, indiscriminately killing all who stood in his path.  With his superior air power (Soviet Era issue) over the rebels, he was emboldened by his success gaining control of most of the cities and towns held by the rebel forces.  There were pleas from the rebels for the UN to establish a no fly zone over Libya, as Qaddafi's genocide continued.  

At the White House,  President Obama continued to plan his South and Central American excursion and did not comment on the situation in Libya.  Some criticized him, others felt he was right not to comment.  We wrung our hands waiting, afraid that one of our deepest fears would come to fruition -- that a situation would arise which would test Barrack Hussein Obama's skills as commander in chief of the United States military!



The Arab League

We didn't have to wait long.  As Qaddafi slaughtered his "subjects" in genocidal frenzy, the powerful (and infamous) Arab League petitioned the UN Security Council for a coalition of allied forces to establish a no fly zone over Libya, in order to protect the Libyan people. On March 18, the UN Security Council authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians. European leaders in France and the U.K. agreed to take the lead with the United States taking a supporting role. 

It was then, that Barack Hussein Obama swung into action and agreed to join the coalition.   On Saturday morning, he, along with his family, boarded Air Force One en route to Brazil.   Later that day, on  Saturday March 19, eight years to the day that President George W. Bush authorized the attack on Iraq,  from a convention center in Brazil, Obama announced to the the U.S. that he had authorized a limited military action, as a humanitarian gesture, to save Libyan civilians.  

Air strike over Libya

"Obama Finally Has A War Of His Own," read the German Spiegel headlines, as others questioned the wisdom of his leaving the continent just as the American military began to rain missiles and bombs on Tripoli.  Earlier in the week we began to see a rift in the Obama foreign policy team.  Secretary Gates had opposed the establishment of a no fly zone, while Secretary Clinton met in Paris with European leaders to coordinate the plans for implementing one.  Former Obama supporters such as Michael Moore and other Liberal Democrats were in an uproar.  Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan warned  him: "Be Careful Brother.  Who the hell do you think you are?"

We've simplified the events of "the week that was."  We are aware that serious negotiations and discussions and talks took place before decisions were made. But we express the queries and concerns of many of our fellow citizens when we ask some questions of our own.  Why did Mr. Obama wait for the Arab League to act before breaking his silence on the situation in Libya and the massacre that was taking place?  Why leave the country at a time when he was sending American military men and women into a battleground?  Why wait till Congress was in recess before deciding?  Wouldn't it have been better to ask the opinion of both parties?  Is this a new shift in American foreign policy, to follow instead of leading? 

We have noticed that no Arab nation has participated in this "humanitarian" action, but the Arab League wasted no time in criticising the West for the "attacks."  How will Obama reply?  Does he owe them an answer, a bow or two perhaps, and maybe some apologizing?  Has the community organizer bitten off more than he can chew?



American protests

Like the Peregrine Falcon, our wandering president will eventually have to head home.  It will be very interesting indeed to follow the developments as he wings through our southern hemisphere on Air Force One.  Even more interesting will be the reception he receives upon his return.

Obama: From Peace To War

Two Sisters From The Right have opposed any American involvement in another Middle East conflict.  While Harry Reid and other Democrats have come out in support of the president, we stand in SUPPORT OF OUR TROOPS.  There are entirely too many unanswered questions for us to be supportive of spending millions of dollars on another Military action, especially in defense of people who went out in the streets and cheered when our country was attacked by terrorists.  We don't know who these rebels are.  We don't know who leads them or if it is truly a desire for democracy that motivates them. We know nothing about who supplies them with arms.  There are too many unanswered questions. 

Why must we put our Armed Forces in harm's way just because the Arab League asked it of us?  We don't always have to be the ones who lead and leap to save the world.  We seriously doubt that the Arab League would unite in any sort of effort to defend Americans or American interests.  Although we feel for those who are victims of genocide, it is time that others took charge, especially while at home, we are still receiving flag draped coffins from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Journalist Rick Moran has written that unless boots are put on the ground, Qaddafi might still get his way.  It is our belief that if they do put boots on the ground, they had better be Arab boots.  It is a frightening thought that Obama should really decide to take the lead in a war.  The US Military is not Acorn!

We have chosen to feature this article from Spiegel Online International, because it presents an objective view of the facts, adding in some historical comparisons, and an accurate, if somewhat flattering, evaluation of the reluctant commander in chief.
Two Sisters

A Libyan plane crashes after being shot down in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi on March 19: Barack Obama has committed the US to military action against Moammar Gadhafi.

Obama Finally Has His Own War

By Marc Pitzke in New York


Barack Obama has taken a firm stance against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in one of the toughest speeches of his presidency. For Obama, threatening air strikes against Libya is a decisive turning point. Now the formerly peace-minded US president finally has a war of his own making.
____________________________________________

US President Barack Obama has struck a new tone. It's one that would have been unthinkable back when he was still a presidential candidate -- the candidate of peace, who rejected his predecessor's wars and wanted to have as little to do with them as possible. But now he is president and commander-in-chief. And now he has the first war of his own making.

US President Barack Obama has struck a new tone. It's one that would have been unthinkable back when he was still a presidential candidate -- the candidate of peace, who rejected his predecessor's wars and wanted to have as little to do with them as possible. But now he is president and commander-in-chief. And now he has the first war of his own making.

On Friday afternoon, Obama entered the East Room of the White House, to make one of the shortest but toughest speeches of his presidency. It was not an open declaration of war -- the word was not mentioned once. But the speech was the culmination of a week in which the pacifist turned into a warrior. At the end of that week, Obama himself committed American troops to a new, distant front for the first time. He did so reluctantly, but it was clear to him that the decision was inevitable.
 
It was one of the most decisive moments in Obama's still young presidency.
 
From Peace To War
 
Following the UN resolution on Thursday night that paved the way for military strikes against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Obama had been silent for 20 hours. While the French and British were making preparations for military action, and the Germans pondered the wisdom of their abstention, the White House preferred to wait.

That was partly because no one in Washington really knows what to make of Gadhafi's recent maneuvering. But mainly it is because Obama finds himself trapped in a dilemma: He must explain to his people why he gone from being a staunch opponent of US military action to its advocate. It would be the third current American military operation in a Muslim country, after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some American commentators have already begun referring to the Korean War. That war, which traumatized generations of Americans, began in a similar fashion in 1950, with a UN resolution and an offer of help from the West.

From peace to war in seven days: It is enough to give people "whiplash," complained Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson on the TV channel MSNBC.

'We Will Not Respond to Words'

The discrepancy could also be seen during Obama's appearance in the East Room. He was addressing two different audiences. On the one hand, he threatened Gadhafi in tougher terms than ever before. On the other, Obama, with an eye to the domestic TV audience, played down the consequences from an American perspective. Supporting the UN was fine, he said, but ruled out unilateral military action or the use of US ground forces.

In terms of the message to Gadhafi, Obama could hardly have expressed himself any more clearly. "These terms are not negotiable," he said, referring to the conditions laid down by UN Resolution 1973, namely a ceasefire, an end to attacks on civilians and halting the advance on Benghazi. Obama has never seemed so determined before.

At the same time, he had his foot firmly on the brake when it came to military action. He announced that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would first meet with America's European allies and Arab partners on Saturday in Paris to discuss how the resolution should be enforced -- meaning that the bombing would not start immediately.

Washington also appeared unimpressed by Gadhafi's announcement of a ceasefire on Friday. "We are going to be not responsive or impressed by words," Clinton said. "We would have to see actions on the ground."

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who discussed the situation with Obama in a telephone conversation, made similar comments. "We will judge (Gadhafi) by his actions, not his words," he told the BBC.

Events on Saturday proved the leaders' skepticism to be well founded. Gadhafi's ground troops attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, and a fighter jet was shot down over the city.

Selling War to the American People

During his speech, Obama summarized how the situation had escalated, partially for the benefit of those in his domestic audience who had previously paid little attention to the situation in Libya. He described how Gadhafi had responded to pro-democracy protests with an "iron fist": "Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Gadhafi chose the path of brutal suppression." Obama also described the long series of international responses to Gadhafi -- the sanctions, the arms embargo and the repeated warnings.

Then came the most important part of the speech: why the US should get involved. "Now, here is why this matters to us," said Obama, sounding a bit like a math teacher explaining a problem to his students. "The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow." In other words, America is prepared to go to war over such concerns.

Obama may well have used similar words when, earlier in the White House, he had briefed the most important representatives and senators in detail about the possible UN deployment for the first time. The audience included both supporters of a US involvement, such as John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John McCain, as well as opponents such as Dick Lugar.

Congress does not need to approve the US action, because it is not an official declaration of war. But it can still hold a symbolic vote. By then at the latest, the divisions in Washington will probably start showing.

The first cracks were already appearing on Friday. "None of this makes any sense," the columnist Andrew Sullivan wrote in his blog for The Atlantic. Gaddafi is not a threat to the US, he argued, adding "not even the most righteous neocons" have pushed for military action on such slim grounds. Sullivan also condemned "the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height than even Bush."

'Our Cause Is Just'

It is now clear that Obama's attitude changed on Tuesday evening at a crisis meeting at the White House which apparently became extremely heated. Both sides presented their arguments for and against an intervention in the conflict. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was taking part via telephone, advocated military action. They were opposed by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and his deputy, Denis McDonough.

In contrast to his stance on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, Obama ended up joining the side of the interventionists, arguing that Libya was central to the whole wave of change in the Middle East. "This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, according to the magazine Foreign Policy. The official apparently said that the sentence came from Obama himself. The president included the same sentiment in his speech on Friday.

In his address, Obama stipulated one condition, however: no invasion. "Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong," he said -- sounding exactly like George W. Bush. By an irony of history, his speech came just before the eighth anniversary of the bombing of Iraq on the night of March 19-20, 2003, which began the Iraq war.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," Steve Clemons from the New America Foundation told Foreign Policy. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy."

It also shows that the old divide between the State Department and the Pentagon has reappeared. Hillary Clinton has won this round, at the expense of Gates, who did not want to impose an additional front on his already overburdened forces -- especially as all the strategic scenarios in Libya are unappealing.

Nevertheless, the troops are ready. The US has brought six warships and a submarine into position in the Mediterranean. "We have been deploying in the region for a few weeks," says one government source. "We are ready to fight." The "full range" is enabled, he says: combat jets and bombers, reconnaissance aircraft and marines.

'He's Going on Vacation'

But there was a sense of disbelief in some quarters in Washington about the fact that Obama set off on a long-planned five-day trip to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador on Friday evening, just hours after his Libya speech and despite the ongoing crisis. Gates was also planning to leave for a three-day trip to Russia on Saturday.

Obama is "going on vacation," mocked host Steve Doocy on the conservative Fox News network. "He's going to Rio. You've got to be kidding. He's taking his family."

The deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, had earlier defended the trip. "It's imperative that the United States not disengage from these regions," he told reporters on Wednesday.

But there's no getting away from the fact that Rio is a long way from Tripoli. Obama is indeed a reluctant commander-in-chief.