Currently viewing the tag: “action”
(Ilya Somin)
Several liberal Democratic members of Congress are claiming that President Obama’s decision to use force against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi requires congressional authorization:
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses….
Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”
Andrew McCarthy, a prominent conservative legal commentator, makes a similar argument here.
This is another of those rare cases where I agree with Dennis Kucinich though I would not go so far as to advocate impeachment, . Unlike Kucinich (and Andrew McCarthy), I tentatively think that Obama has chosen the right policy on Libya. But whether right or not, military action on this scale surely does require congressional authorization under the Constitution.
Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the president, the “power… to declare War.” The Founding Fathers sought to avoid a situation where one man had the power to commit the nation to war on his own initiative.
It’s arguable that some small-scale uses of force don’t rise to the level of a war and therefore can be undertaken by the president acting alone under his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. President Reagan’s 1986 airstrike on Libya might be an example, as were Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile strikes against Al Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan. If all the Obama administration intends is to launch a few Tomahawk missiles, perhaps this action would fall in the same category. However, it seems highly likely that the president plans to go well beyond this. Military operations are likely to continue for some time, perhaps until Qaddafi has either been overthrown or at least compelled to leave the rebel-controlled parts of Libya unmolested. If so, it seems quite clear that congressional authorization for military action on that scale is required.
Congressional also might not be needed if all the president is responding to an ongoing or imminent attack. However, Qaddafi has not attacked the US in recent years (though he did sponsor numerous anti-American terrorist attacks in the 1980s and early 90s) and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he had any immediate intention of doing so.
As Andrew McCarthy recognizes, congressional authorization need not specifically use the words “declaration of war.” It is enough that it clearly authorize large-scale military action against the enemy in question, as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban did in 2001.
For all the hoopla about the supposedly overwhelming growth of presidential power, presidents have in fact gotten advance or nearly simultaneous congressional authorization for almost every major military intervention the United States has undertaken since World War II. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, the two Iraq wars, and many other cases. Bill Clinton’s 1999 military action in Kosovo was the one time during that period when a president entered into a major conflict in the face of actual opposition by the majority in Congress. In part for that reason, Clinton strictly limited the scale of American involvement, avoiding the use of ground forces and ensuring that US troops didn’t suffer any combat casualties. Perhaps Obama plans to do the same thing with Libya; but if so, he will be in a difficult position if more coercion is needed to succeed.
In addition to constitutional reasons, presidents also have strong political incentives to seek congressional support for military action. Without it, the president will have to take the sole political blame if anything goes wrong.
In this case, I have little doubt that Obama could get congressional authorization if he tries to do so. There is considerable Republican support for the Libya intervention, and Obama can also count on the support of most of his fellow Democrats. The Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate is backing him, despite the opposition of some House liberals.
For both constitutional and political reasons, the administration should seek a congressional vote as soon as possible.
(Ilya Somin)
Several liberal Democratic members of Congress are claiming that President Obama’s decision to use force against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi requires congressional authorization:
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses….
Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”
Andrew McCarthy, a prominent conservative legal commentator, makes a similar argument here.
This is another of those rare cases where I agree with Dennis Kucinich though I would not go so far as to advocate impeachment, . Unlike Kucinich (and Andrew McCarthy), I tentatively think that Obama has chosen the right policy on Libya. But whether right or not, military action on this scale surely does require congressional authorization under the Constitution.
Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the president, the “power… to declare War.” The Founding Fathers sought to avoid a situation where one man had the power to commit the nation to war on his own initiative.
It’s arguable that some small-scale uses of force don’t rise to the level of a war and therefore can be undertaken by the president acting alone under his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. President Reagan’s 1986 airstrike on Libya might be an example, as were Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile strikes against Al Qaeda base camps in Afghanistan. If all the Obama administration intends is to launch a few Tomahawk missiles, perhaps this action would fall in the same category. However, it seems highly likely that the president plans to go well beyond this. Military operations are likely to continue for some time, perhaps until Qaddafi has either been overthrown or at least compelled to leave the rebel-controlled parts of Libya unmolested. If so, it seems quite clear that congressional authorization for military action on that scale is required.
Congressional also might not be needed if all the president is responding to an ongoing or imminent attack. However, Qaddafi has not attacked the US in recent years (though he did sponsor numerous anti-American terrorist attacks in the 1980s and early 90s) and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he had any immediate intention of doing so.
As Andrew McCarthy recognizes, congressional authorization need not specifically use the words “declaration of war.” It is enough that it clearly authorize large-scale military action against the enemy in question, as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban did in 2001.
For all the hoopla about the supposedly overwhelming growth of presidential power, presidents have in fact gotten advance or nearly simultaneous congressional authorization for almost every major military intervention the United States has undertaken since World War II. This was true in Korea, Vietnam, the two Iraq wars, and many other cases. Bill Clinton’s 1999 military action in Kosovo was the one time during that period when a president entered into a major conflict in the face of actual opposition by the majority in Congress. In part for that reason, Clinton strictly limited the scale of American involvement, avoiding the use of ground forces and ensuring that US troops didn’t suffer any combat casualties. Perhaps Obama plans to do the same thing with Libya; but if so, he will be in a difficult position if more coercion is needed to succeed.
In addition to constitutional reasons, presidents also have strong political incentives to seek congressional support for military action. Without it, the president will have to take the sole political blame if anything goes wrong.
In this case, I have little doubt that Obama could get congressional authorization if he tries to do so. There is considerable Republican support for the Libya intervention, and Obama can also count on the support of most of his fellow Democrats. The Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate is backing him, despite the opposition of some House liberals.
For both constitutional and political reasons, the administration should seek a congressional vote as soon as possible.
Is Barack Obama trying to become a wartime GWB President?
One had to wonder what the far LEFT’s reaction would be to their President becoming a military initiating President. Barack Obama was the same person who as a candidate stated he would get the US out of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Obama has implicated the US in a new military action in Libya. Is the LEFT going to call this Obama’s war for oil?
Pic Hat Tip: AWD
It did not take long after the 100′s of tomahawk missiles were shot into Libya for anti-war film maker and Leftist Michael Moore to rip Obama a new one. As reported at The Hill, Moore unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military’s mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan. Don Suber has much more reaction of the LEFT of Obama’s imperialism and illegal war.
It’s only cause we’re defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That’s why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy
And we always follow the French’s lead! Next thing you know, we’ll have free health care & free college! Yay war!
We’ve had a “no-fly zone” over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How’s that going? #WINNING !
Khadaffymust’ve planned 9/11! #excuses
Khadaffymust’ve had WMD! #excusesthatwork
Khadaffymust’ve threatened to kill somebody’s daddy! #daddywantedjeb
I will give Michael Moore credit, where credit is due … at least Moore is not being a hypocrit. Did I just say that? Moore’ss tirade against Obama and also stating that Obama should return his 2009 Nobel Peace prize.
From the Right Wing News, a great post dripping with sarcasm about the anti-war LEFT, ‘White House Anti-War Protesters Get To Watch Launch Of Obama’s War From Jail’. Nice.
As many have noted, Obama launched his adventurous, unnecessary, and possibly illegal war of aggression in order to steal Libya’s oil without Congressional approval* on the same date as Operation Iraqi Freedom started. And Obama wasn’t even at the White House. He was partying in Brazil. Of course, they want him to “Go home.” Though Obama is bummed that he missed Carnival.
Over at the HUFFPO, they state that Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect. Hmm, wouldn’t that mean that the LEFT would be in support of these folks? Talk about a confused message.
Not to be outdone, Louis Farrakhan tears Barack Obama a new one, “Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?” and questions Obama for calling for Qaddafi to step down. WATCH THE VIDEO HERE. Does this mean that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan no longer considers Barack Hussein Obama a Messiah? It was just 2008 that Louis Farrakhan called Obama a Messiah.
FARRAKHAN: “I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world…Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can’t order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?
EXIT QUESTION: Why the 180 degree flip by Obama on the military action against Libya? Obama claims it will be a quick war, not lead by the US, not to oust Qaddafi but to only protect citizens and the US will not commit boot on the ground. Isn’t this really more about Obama trying to not look like a military wimp in foreign policy than it is the “no fly zone”?
Is Barack Obama trying to become a wartime GWB President?
One had to wonder what the far LEFT’s reaction would be to their President becoming a military initiating President. Barack Obama was the same person who as a candidate stated he would get the US out of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now Obama has implicated the US in a new military action in Libya. Is the LEFT going to call this Obama’s war for oil?
Pic Hat Tip: AWD
It did not take long after the 100′s of tomahawk missiles were shot into Libya for anti-war film maker and Leftist Michael Moore to rip Obama a new one. As reported at The Hill, Moore unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military’s mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan. Don Suber has much more reaction of the LEFT of Obama’s imperialism and illegal war.
It’s only cause we’re defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That’s why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy
And we always follow the French’s lead! Next thing you know, we’ll have free health care & free college! Yay war!
We’ve had a “no-fly zone” over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How’s that going? #WINNING !
Khadaffymust’ve planned 9/11! #excuses
Khadaffymust’ve had WMD! #excusesthatwork
Khadaffymust’ve threatened to kill somebody’s daddy! #daddywantedjeb
I will give Michael Moore credit, where credit is due … at least Moore is not being a hypocrit. Did I just say that? Moore’ss tirade against Obama and also stating that Obama should return his 2009 Nobel Peace prize.
From the Right Wing News, a great post dripping with sarcasm about the anti-war LEFT, ‘White House Anti-War Protesters Get To Watch Launch Of Obama’s War From Jail’. Nice.
As many have noted, Obama launched his adventurous, unnecessary, and possibly illegal war of aggression in order to steal Libya’s oil without Congressional approval* on the same date as Operation Iraqi Freedom started. And Obama wasn’t even at the White House. He was partying in Brazil. Of course, they want him to “Go home.” Though Obama is bummed that he missed Carnival.
Over at the HUFFPO, they state that Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect. Hmm, wouldn’t that mean that the LEFT would be in support of these folks? Talk about a confused message.
Not to be outdone, Louis Farrakhan tears Barack Obama a new one, “Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?” and questions Obama for calling for Qaddafi to step down. WATCH THE VIDEO HERE. Does this mean that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan no longer considers Barack Hussein Obama a Messiah? It was just 2008 that Louis Farrakhan called Obama a Messiah.
FARRAKHAN: “I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world…Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can’t order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?
EXIT QUESTION: Why the 180 degree flip by Obama on the military action against Libya? Obama claims it will be a quick war, not lead by the US, not to oust Qaddafi but to only protect citizens and the US will not commit boot on the ground. Isn’t this really more about Obama trying to not look like a military wimp in foreign policy than it is the “no fly zone”?
Over the last 48 hours, as President Obama contemplated and then authorized U.S.-led military strikes in Libya “in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians,” Fox News talking heads have attempted to foment domestic political opposition to the president by questioning his priorities and leadership. Seizing on Obama’s current five-day trip to Brazil and other Latin American countries, Fox pundits have repeatedly said he is distracted in Rio de Janeiro and not adequately focused on the military action in Libya.
“He’s going on vacation; he’s going to Rio!” an incredulous Steve Doocy commented. “He’s on vacation in Rio,” Fox contributor Ralph Peters said, echoing the network’s attack. Referencing Rio, Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt opined, “President Obama has absolutely abdicated his role as leader of the free world.” Watch a compilation:
Obama’s pre-scheduled Latin American trip is intended to strengthen the U.S.’s trading role with some of the world’s fastest growing markets. But the agenda of the trip has been overshadowed, as Obama has turned his focus to Libya.
Perhaps Fox News pundits should read Fox News’ website. Here’s how Fox’s White House reporter Eve Zibel, who is traveling with Obama on the trip, reported on the president’s priorities on his first day:
Libya Dominates President Obama’s First Day in South America
On the first day of President Obama’s first trip to South America, it was not relations with Brazil or its president that was front and center, but instead, attention was directly focused on Libya and the start of military action.
On a Fox website, a Reuters report states, “Obama’s only planned sightseeing in Rio will be to the city’s iconic Christ the Redeemer hilltop statue, and even that had to be postponed from morning until evening to give him time for early briefings on the Libyan situation.”
Despite the evidence from news reports on Fox’s own websites that Obama is focused on Libya, network pundits continue to seize on any shallow criticism of the Commander-in-Chief.
Fox News |
Saturday rewind: Recapping all the NCAA tournament action
USA Today Saturday's third-round action in the NCAA tournament brought us a little bit of everything. There were wild finishes, standout performances and even a double-overtime dogfight. Butler 71, Pittsburgh 70:Easily the day's best … Saturday's wrap: Butler-Pitt ending tourney's signature sequence Butler brings down No. 1 Pitt Butler's late free throw sinks No. 1 seed Pitt |
Fox News |
Kentucky Wildcats first to make Sweet 16 in Saturday NCAA Tournament action
SportingNews.com Call it “Sweet Saturday.” Half of the 2011 NCAA Tournament's round of 16 will be decided by the end of the day Saturday — with tickets to March Madness' region semifinals punched in Tampa, Washington, Tucson and Denver. Kentucky's Brandon Knight (12) … Knight and day: Freshman rebounds to lead Kentucky Kentucky Beats West Virginia 71-63 in NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Knight Scores 30, Kentucky Beats West Virginia |
ABC News’ Kirit Radia reports: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the international community must take swift action in Libya to prevent further civilian casualties. “We have every reason to fear that left unchecked, Col. Gadhafi will commit unspeakable atrocities,”…
Political Punch
Fox News |
Live blog: Sweet 16 spots on the line in NCAA tourney action
USA Today (blog) Whether your bracket picks are near the top of your pool's standings — or in the trash — we now turn our attention to the third round and which teams can do enough to reach the Sweet 16. The day leads off with Kentucky vs. West Virginia. … West Virginia and Kentucky open third round of NCAA Tournament Kentucky Seeking Revenge NCAA Tournament Live Blog: No. 4 Kentucky vs. No. 5 West Virginia |
UPDATE: 12:20 ET
France has officially confirmed that its military are engaged around and over Libya.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in Paris, “Our air force will oppose any aggression by Colonel Gadhafi against the population of Benghazi…As of now, our aircraft are preventing planes from attacking the town…As of now, our aircraft are prepared to intervene against tanks.”
Read More Here
===
UPDATE: 11:11 ET, March 19, 2011
The BBC reports, “French military jets over Libya”:
French military jets are preventing forces loyal to Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi from attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says.
It is believed to be the first act of intervention since the UN voted on Thursday for a no-fly zone over Libya.
::
French aircraft have also flown over “all Libyan territory” on reconnaissance missions, French military sources said earlier.
The French Rafale jets took off from their base at Saint-Dizier in eastern France, a source told the Agence France-Presse news agency.
“French reconnaissance jets are clearly scoping out targets in Libya. I would assume there have been special forces on the ground as well, assessing potential targets,” says BBC Defense correspondent, Caroline Wyatt.
Also,
The planes encountered no problems during the first few hours of their mission, the source said, and the flights would continue for the next several hours.
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told journalists at the summit in Paris that he believed British, French and Canadian aircraft would launch the first airstrikes, the BBC’s Carole Walker in Paris reports.
Asked if those strikes would take place later on Saturday, Mr Rutte said that was a possibility…
Read More Here
====
Original Post:
As Moammar Gaddafi fragrantly violates the terms of the UN Security Council resolution and his own “cease-fire” declaration by attacking the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, those countries taking part in the coalition must now decide exactly what military actions will be taken, when and who will lead the mission—among other questions.
And it won’t be a moment too soon as Libyan Government troops “in tanks and trucks entered Benghazi from the west, in the university area, and began to shell the city, including civilian areas. Intense fighting broke out in some enclaves. The city of 1 million quickly became a ghost town, with residents fleeing or seeking cover in barricaded neighborhoods,” according to the Washington Post.
Also according to the Post,
U.S. ships in the Mediterranean were preparing to bombard Libya’s air defenses and runways to clear the way for European and Arab forces to establish a no-fly zone throughout the country, according to U.S. and European officials. Fighter aircraft from France, Britain and the United Arab Emirates converged on bases in and around Italy to begin operations over Libya under the command and control of the United States at its naval base in Naples.
More specifically, Britain has already started preparations to deploy Tornados and Typhoon aircraft, as well as air-to-air refueling and surveillance aircraft.
But, according to the BBC, “It is not yet clear who the commander of the operation will be, where it will be headquartered and what [NATO] assets might be used.”
And:
The fact that the British Prime Minister is going to France on Saturday could be an indication that, having taken the diplomatic lead on recognising the rebels, France is also keen to take a military lead.
The British Prime Minister told Parliament on Friday that Britain was getting ready to move the designated aircraft “in the coming hours” to airbases from where they could start to take the necessary action.
The BBC report provides details on the aircraft and equipments to be used, types of missions they may be engaged in, possible locations from where the missions would be launched and potential targets.
Finally, the article discusses how the Libyan crisis “could call more of the strategic defence and security review’s conclusions into question, and perhaps even prompt a fresh look at the UK’s military assets” and how “a government wishing to take a leading role on the world stage can afford to lose yet more military capability and personnel at a time when world events are proving more unpredictable than ever.”
Read More Here
Image: Courtesy BBC
After months of unsuccessfully trying to channel Ronald Reagan, today when announcing the Libyan no-fly zone President Obama tried to channel George Bush. He closed his remarks today by saying, “I’ve taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused. Our cause is just. And our coalition is strong.” In 2001 when President Bush announced that U.S. forces were launching military strikes in Afghanistan, he said “To all the men and women in our military
Obama also said “The United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians. In 2001 Bush said something familiar. “We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. … We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.”
I hate to bring this up, but if Obama’s real goal is simply to minimize civilian suffering maybe we should hasten Qaddafi’s victory. A quick win by the tyrant will kill fewer Libyans (and Americans) than if there was a long civil war.
What if Quaddafi heeds Obama’s threats and stops and the rebels want some on the ground protection, will the UN provide a peacekeeping force? Will the US be part of that force?
What if the rebels attack Quadafi’s forces do we provided them cover? What if the insurgents start attacking civilians who are loyal to the despot, do we protect citizens by attacking the rebels? After all our goal is to protect citizens.
President Obama has committed American forces and possible our blood to go on a mission with vague goals not understanding the unintended consequences. It is immoral to commit human lives to battle on those half-assed terms and until thinks this action through- Congress should refuse to allow any fund to be spent to fund this action.
Please email me at [email protected] to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com![]()
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
A week ago, the Obama administration had no position on a no-fly zone over Libya. The situation changed rapidly, and by Thursday the administration was in favor, but was working behind the scenes, allowing Britain and France to take the lead. (See “18-Mar-11 News — UN declares war after Gaddafi threatens ‘moment of truth’”.)
Cheering Benghazi residents watch President Obama live on large screen
On Friday, President Obama took the international lead in advocating military action against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.
In his speech on Friday, he said the following:
“Once again, Qaddafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community. Instead, he launched a military campaign against his own people. And there should be no doubt about his intentions, because he himself has made them clear.
For decades, he has demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi — a city of roughly 700,000 people — he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity” — no mercy on his own citizens.
Now, here is why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. 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. …
Now, once more, Moammar Qaddafi has a choice. The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.
In this effort, the United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone -– it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together. …
Let me close by saying that there is no decision I face as your Commander in Chief that I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force. Particularly at a time when our military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more difficult. But the United States of America will not stand idly by in the face of actions that undermine global peace and security. So I have taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong. Thank you very much.”
Big crowds of cheering Libyans watched the speech on a huge television screen in central Benghazi. Although Obama took pains to mention that the US was not acting alone, it seemed clear to the cheering crowds this was Obama’s show.
President Obama’s speech is receiving criticism because he did not demand that Gaddafi step down.
Libya’s foreign minister announced on Friday that Libya would abide by the UN Security Council resolution, and would abide by a cease-fire. However, al-Jazeera kept reporting continuing attacks by Gaddafi’s forces on civilians. Susan Rice, America’s ambassador to the U.N., accused Gaddafi of violating the cease-fire. She told CNN that the “U.S. is ready to act” and that Gadhafi “should be under no illusions that if he doesn’t act immediately he will face swift and sure consequences, including military action.” She added, “We are focused immediately on protection of civilians, on ensuring that the march to Benghazi does not continue and that those who are most vulnerable have the rights and protections that they deserve.”
The U.S. is now fully committed to preventing a massacre, or anything that appears to be sufficiently like a massacre, against Libyan civilians. Any military action is permitted except, apparently, the use of foreign troops on the ground in Libya. British and French aircraft will participate, but it remains to be seen whether any Arab League countries will participate.
Either way, the US is now in the lead in foreign wars in three different Muslim countries.
Bloody Friday spreads to Yemen and Syria
Many of the biggest protests have occurred on Fridays, as people pour out of the mosques after midday prayers. On this Friday, violence in Yemen reached a new high, and the first large demonstration occurred in Syria.
Yemen’s president Ali Abdullah Saleh declared a nationwide state of emergency, after a violent crackdown on anti-government protests killed at least 41 people, and left scores more wounded, in the capital Sanaa, according to Al-Jazeera. This is the worst violence in Yemen in decades.
There was no indication how long the state of emergency would last.
Public protests were almost unknown in Syria, until now. On Friday in the city of Deraa in the south of Syria, near the border with Jordan, several thousand people conducted anti-government demonstrations, chanting, “God, Syria, Freedom,” according to Reuters.
Security forces were reinforced with troops flown in by helicopters. At least three people were killed, and dozens more were wounded.
So if you’re keeping score, the “Arab Revolution” has now spread to the following countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and Syria.
The U.S. is involved in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
A week ago, the Obama administration had no position on a no-fly zone over Libya. The situation changed rapidly, and by Thursday the administration was in favor, but was working behind the scenes, allowing Britain and France to take the lead. (See “18-Mar-11 News — UN declares war after Gaddafi threatens ‘moment of truth’”.)
Cheering Benghazi residents watch President Obama live on large screen
On Friday, President Obama took the international lead in advocating military action against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.
In his speech on Friday, he said the following:
“Once again, Qaddafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community. Instead, he launched a military campaign against his own people. And there should be no doubt about his intentions, because he himself has made them clear.
For decades, he has demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi — a city of roughly 700,000 people — he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity” — no mercy on his own citizens.
Now, here is why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. 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. …
Now, once more, Moammar Qaddafi has a choice. The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.
In this effort, the United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone -– it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together. …
Let me close by saying that there is no decision I face as your Commander in Chief that I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force. Particularly at a time when our military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more difficult. But the United States of America will not stand idly by in the face of actions that undermine global peace and security. So I have taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong. Thank you very much.”
Big crowds of cheering Libyans watched the speech on a huge television screen in central Benghazi. Although Obama took pains to mention that the US was not acting alone, it seemed clear to the cheering crowds this was Obama’s show.
President Obama’s speech is receiving criticism because he did not demand that Gaddafi step down.
Libya’s foreign minister announced on Friday that Libya would abide by the UN Security Council resolution, and would abide by a cease-fire. However, al-Jazeera kept reporting continuing attacks by Gaddafi’s forces on civilians. Susan Rice, America’s ambassador to the U.N., accused Gaddafi of violating the cease-fire. She told CNN that the “U.S. is ready to act” and that Gadhafi “should be under no illusions that if he doesn’t act immediately he will face swift and sure consequences, including military action.” She added, “We are focused immediately on protection of civilians, on ensuring that the march to Benghazi does not continue and that those who are most vulnerable have the rights and protections that they deserve.”
The U.S. is now fully committed to preventing a massacre, or anything that appears to be sufficiently like a massacre, against Libyan civilians. Any military action is permitted except, apparently, the use of foreign troops on the ground in Libya. British and French aircraft will participate, but it remains to be seen whether any Arab League countries will participate.
Either way, the US is now in the lead in foreign wars in three different Muslim countries.
Bloody Friday spreads to Yemen and Syria
Many of the biggest protests have occurred on Fridays, as people pour out of the mosques after midday prayers. On this Friday, violence in Yemen reached a new high, and the first large demonstration occurred in Syria.
Yemen’s president Ali Abdullah Saleh declared a nationwide state of emergency, after a violent crackdown on anti-government protests killed at least 41 people, and left scores more wounded, in the capital Sanaa, according to Al-Jazeera. This is the worst violence in Yemen in decades.
There was no indication how long the state of emergency would last.
Public protests were almost unknown in Syria, until now. On Friday in the city of Deraa in the south of Syria, near the border with Jordan, several thousand people conducted anti-government demonstrations, chanting, “God, Syria, Freedom,” according to Reuters.
Security forces were reinforced with troops flown in by helicopters. At least three people were killed, and dozens more were wounded.
So if you’re keeping score, the “Arab Revolution” has now spread to the following countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and Syria.
The U.S. is involved in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Our “World News” report: -Jake Tapper
Political Punch
Hmmmm.
What could go wrong? In his meeting with Members of Congress today, sources tell ABC News, President Obama said he expected that the period that the US would be involved in heavy kinetic activity would be “days, not weeks,” after which he said the US would then take more of a supporting role. So that […]
