Hillary and Obama make foreign policy blunder . . . . "NO Fly Zone" becomes bombing battle ground

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

without congressional authority. Talk about HYPOCRITS!

Where are you NOW democrats??? I mean where are those anti-Bush liberals who decried the war on terror? What about, "Bush lied people died?".

Doubts Mount on Libya War

By Chris Stirewalt

Published March 21, 2011 

| FoxNews.com

Fractures Emerge in Anti-Qaddafi Coalition

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

-- Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, condemning the U.S.-led air assault on Libya

A second day of U.S. air strikes on Libyan positions came amid deepening anxieties among coalition partners about the means and objectives of the effort there.

American military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have promised that the U.S. role would soon fade to logistics and support once the mission no longer required “special capabilities” inherent to our military.

While the forces of Libyan Dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi seemed to be in disarray following sustained bombardment from American forces, there did not seem to be signs of an immediate end to his 42-year reign.

The dictator has promised to arm a 1 million-citizen militia and the regime has reportedly been amassing civilians in likely American targets, like airports. There were unconfirmed reports that Qaddafi had moved human shields into his presidential compound before a strike – potentially one of the few not carried out by the U.S. – devastated the palace.

American attacks have come from sub-based missiles, high-altitude bombardment from stealth bombers and close-in strikes by Marine jump jets. But appearing on “FOX News Sunday” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reiterated the promise that once the situation was stabilized, it would be European and Arab jets enforcing a no-fly zone.

But the coalition is currently suffering from a lack of direction and waning support.

Turkey blocked a bid to have NATO take over command of the operation, called Odyssey Dawn. The Arab League, which helped spur a sudden shift in the Obama administration late last week by calling for a no-fly zone, is now expressing misgivings about the size and ferocity of the effort.

The Russians and Chinese, who withheld a Security Council veto of a French-British-U.S. resolution allowing any military steps short of ground forces, are already tut-tutting the shock-and-aweish nature of the effort so far.

Much has been written about the conflict between the State Department and the Pentagon in the run up to the attacks on Libya – State reportedly favored action while the Pentagon publicly and privately warned of the cost and consequences of such a mission.

One retired general suggested to Power Play that while Hillary Clinton’s agency may have won the debate about intervention “it’s still up to the war fighters to fight wars.” The general’s “informed guess” was that the Pentagon was not interested in having weaker members of the coalition dictate strategy and insisted instead on overwhelming force if U.S. forces were to be put at risk.

What Qaddafi will now do – quit, stand and fight, retreat and retrench in his oil-rich tribal homeland, start a long-term terror war against his enemies – will largely dictate options for the U.S.

The Libyan military is out in support of a cease-fire with the rebels and the Obama administration has been inconsistent on the question of whether the president’s original requirement of regime change is still operant. Certainly, Qaddafi knows that the longer this drags on, the more likely the coalition against him will break down.

 

Liberals Rue Obama’s Attack on Libya

“There’s a lot of anxiety from some people who see this as Iraq all over again.”

-- House Democratic aide to Power Play discussing Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya

There is bipartisan grumbling on Capitol Hill that President Obama, despite his denunciations of his predecessor for failing to further consult with Congress over invading Iraq, told lawmakers about his Libya attack plans rather than seeking approval or advice in advance.

While most Republicans say they would have given authority for the air strikes undertaken so far, there is growing concern on the right that the military, already obligated to fighting two wars, will be further stretched if the situation in Libya devolves. House Speaker John Boehner says he wants to know exactly what the mission is before the mission changes again.

There is deepening anxiety among Democrats though. While liberals generally appreciate the efforts to obtain U.N. blessing for the operation, there is unhappiness that Obama did less to consult with Congress about his Libyan attack than President George W. Bush did in advance of his invasion of Iraq.

Bush obtained authorization for the use of force from Congress long before the war and even before he went in search of international approval. The complaint in Congress was actually that Bush had sought approval too far in advance and that the situation had changed before the invasion (today marks the eight-year anniversary of the first major land battle of the invasion, the Battle of Nasiriyah). Later they would claim that they had been misled into supporting the war (Sen. John Kerry) or that they had assumed that Bush would not make use of the authority they had granted (then-Sen. Hillary Clinton).

Obama, meanwhile, offered only a perfunctory conference call for Congressional leaders after committing U.S. forces to a coalition strike.

And in weekend remarks during his family’s five-day tour of Latin America, Obama did little to clarify what the goals were in Libya.

“No one can say for certain how this change will end, but I do know that change is not something that we should fear,” Obama said in a brief statement.

Many sincere liberals broke with Obama in December 2009 over his decision to embrace the Bush doctrine in Afghanistan by committing 30,000 troops to a now open-ended surge. That disappointment has been reinforced by the current administration’s decision to keep the Guantanamo Bay prisoner of war camp open and to make use of domestic spying.

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore is one of those who have long lamented their support for Obama over establishment candidate Clinton in 2008. Moore jeered Obama via Twitter over the weekend writing “May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?”

But while the administration has long had problems with what former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs once sneered at as “the professional left” there is a new political risk from offending more moderate Democrats, especially those on the Hill, by a dismissive and disengaged strategy for dealing with Congress.

Having so pilloried Bush, many Democrats in Congress now feel embarrassed to be treated so cursorily by a president who once joined them in their denunciations of executive power run amok.

Whatever the coming hours in Libya bring, agitation in Congress, particularly at a time when Congress is looking for ways to save money, means lots of pressure to quickly minimize U.S. involvement.

There is NO limit to the democrats ability to lie, cheat, steal, extort, and obfuscate.There is NO reason to EVER vote democrat.