521.) President Obama authorized military action without the consent of congress to support the Libyan rebels in their fight against Qadaffi. What I find interesting about these actions is that no one asked who these fighters were. Well the truth, as it always does, has found its way to the surface. One of the rebel commanders Abdel Hakim al-Hasidi reported to an Italian news paper that Jihadists who fought against the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan are now being supported by the United States government in Libya. He himself fought against coalition forces in the early days of Iraq. This man actually recruited at least 25 individuals to fight against the coalition in Iraq. Some of these individuals are now on the front lines of the Libyan conflict. So we are now supporting the same people, not the same groups, but the same individuals who actually tried to kill United States soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is even more interesting are some of the comments made by al-Hasidi. The Daily Telegraph reports that al-Hasidi said that the Libyan rebels “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists.” what could have prompted this comment? I think it probably has something to do with the ties these rebels have with Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group that is responsible for two attacks on the world trade center, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the bombings of several U.S. embassies. Al Qaeda has openly voiced its support for the Libyan rebels because this rebellion could lead to the imposition of “the stage of Islam” in the country. The proof that members of Al-Qaeda are now fighting on the front lines in Libya, and are now enjoying the support of the United States, comes in the form of al-Hasidi’s own words, “members of Al-Qaeda are good Muslims and are fighting against the invader. So President Obama has decided to support a rebellion that he claims is fighting for democracy. A rebellion being fought by people who stood against democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just another example of the President’s incompetency.
522.) President Obama gave a speech on Monday March 28, 2011 the purpose of which was to explain why he took actions in Libya that directly contradicted his own words on the campaign trail. I noticed several things in his speech that must be addressed.
a.) One of President Obama’s key talking points dealt with the United States role in the conflict. Public opinion is set against opening a third war in another Arab country, especially sense President Obama told us many times during the campaign that our military is stretched too thin. To address these concerns President Obama said, “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role” President Obama is trying to play a very clever political trick. A slid of hand if you will. Saying that the United States is handing over control to NATO basically means the United States is handing over control to itself. Yes we will lose control of our armed forces in the region because all the member nations must agree upon actions to be taken. But the financial responsibility for the war will still be ours. The United States funds 22% of NATO’s budget, that is more than the next two largest contributors, France and Great Brittan, combined. The same unique capabilities that made the United States the logical spear head will still be needed. Our various attack aircrafts, long range refueling tankers, and surveillance equipment will be needed, and keep us involved. Only now President Obama has given control of the situation over to a group of various nations, and he still has yet to bother getting congressional approval.
B.) To actually justify his actions President Obama turned to the conscience of the American People. He started outlining the atrocities that Gaddafi had committed. “Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.” he then said, “Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” he then said, “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” Once the atrocities of Qadaffi had been thoroughly explained President Obama added “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates does not think that that Libya was as crucial as the President is trying to make it out to be. Mr. Gates said that Libya was not a vital interest to the country. But even so the horrors that Qadaffi had inflicted on his people must be al the justification that is needed for the United States and NATO to step in. Let us crack open the history books I have a feeling a contradiction is coming up. Starting in 1979 Saddam Hussein unleashed a wave of terror against the people of Iraq, a rule brought to an end in 2003. During his rule Sadam Hussien is responsible anywhere from 800,000 to 1,000,000 deaths, not counting the Iran Iraq war. Estimates of the number of people executed under his brutal rule range from 300,000 up to 600,000. He massacred over 200,000 Kurds. He killed anywhere from 60,000 to 200,000 people to put down the 1991 rebellion. Saddam did not hesitate to turn poison gases on his own people, it didn’t matter if they were civilians or not. With all of these atrocities in place, the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the harboring of Al-Qaeda operatives in place, clearly President Obama supports the invasion of Iraq. The truth though is that he didn’t and doesn’t. In 2008 then Senator Obama said in a speech “Five years ago, my friends warned me not to speak up against the war. Going to war was popular. So was President Bush. You’ll be putting your political career on the line, they said. But I just didn’t see how Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat. I was convinced that a war would distract us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and fan the flames of extremism and terrorism” He could not see how Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States, so clearly we should not have gone to war. He called the war in Iraq a war based on politics not reason. How is that any different than what he is doing in Libya? Atrocities are no reason to go to war, he has made that clear with his criticism of the Iraq War, so with any imminent threat posed by Qadaffi there is any justification for his actions.
c.) President Obama said, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” Again, I have to ask, why Libya? Why not Iraq? Why not Darfur? If you are so against seeing mass graves then why are we only acting in Libya? The President says that Libya is unique. We had a chance to work with a collalition of other nations to bring down Qadaffi. Why are they there? What is driving their interest in helping the Rebels? Many of these same nations turned a blind eye to the horrors in Iraq, much as President Obama did, why is Libya so important? Hundreds of people are being slaughtered on the African continent every day, yet no action is taken to prevent this bloodshed. Why are our allies so eager to jump at the opportunity to help people who call for the end of the western way of life? At the risk of sounding like a leftist loon I have to ask could it have anything to do with the large amounts of money European nations have invested in Libyan oil?
d.) Of course President Obama could not resist this chance to bash former President Bush. “The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change their took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.” In March of 2003 the United Nation Security council announced that Diplomacy had failed and it would proceed with the coalition of the willing to rid Iraq of Sadam Hussien. It is a common tactic of progressives to try to rewrite history to make it work better for their political goals. President Obama has been consistent against the war in Iraq, but he refuses to admit that what he is doing is almost exactly the same. The only difference here is that President Bush had the authorization of congress, President Obama does not. What if FDR had taken the same stance with Germany that President Obama is taking with Libya? We are only going to provide air support so that the British and French could retake their country. Do you think that World War II would have ended the way it did? Coalitions splinter when they lose track of their goals. When the propaganda media starts trying to use military conflicts for political gains and breaks the will of the people to support the cause. President Obama talks about how long it took to change the regime in Iraq, eight long years. What does he think is going to happen in Libya once the Al-Qaeda backed fighters topple Qadaffi? Does he think that just over night a new government would appear? It took the United States of America from 1776-1786 to successfully overthrow the rule of Great Brittan and set up a successful government. Ten years to go from colonies of a super power to an independent nation. It took even longer than that for the United States to be able to stand and truly call itself a success. It takes time to build a nation. To simply remove Qadaffi from power requires nothing more than blunt force. We could do much like the allies did in WWI. Go in, defeat the enemy, destroy their country, slap them with a huge debt, then roll on out. The problem with that is when you do that, it creates an opportunity for people like Adolf Hitler to come to power. Once started there is no going back. President Bush understood this, but apparently President Obama and the rest of the progressive left do not. Cut and run that is the progressive motto. President Obama also took this time to point out how irresponsible President Bush had been with money. The Iraq war cost almost a trillion dollars, over 8 whole years. President Obama spent that much in one year, in the first couple of months of his Presidency. While it is true we cannot afford another war, this reference is nothing more than an attempt to further smear President Bush. While the subject of Iraq is open, I would like to point out that the progressives constantly compared Iraq to Vietnam. If this Libya situation is allowed to continue, I think we will find a better comparison. No reason to go to war, supporting people who shouldn’t be supported, bailing out the French, sounds eerily familiar. President Obama is completely incapable of standing on his own two feet. He has to constantly shove George W. Bush into the dirt and mud. If he had the balls to stand on his principles, the same princibles that he used to attack Bush for the war in Iraq than this issue would never have come up.