NBC's Chuck Todd Uses Reported Qadhafi Death to Bash Bush on Iraq
Early on Thursday's The Daily Rundown on MSNBC, as news was breaking of the reported death of Libyan dictator Moammar Qadhafi, host Chuck Todd used the opportunity to declare: "...a trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. lives to topple a dictator in Iraq, it's a billion dollars and no U.S. lives to topple a dictator in Libya. That's a – that's a pretty stark contrast." [Audio available here]
Todd, NBC's chief White House correspondent, made the gratuitous shot at the Bush administration while talking to Robin Wright of the liberal Woodrow Wilson Center, who proclaimed: "...this is going to be an enormous success for the Obama administration in looking at how quickly it was done, with what international cooperation....it's one where the United States changes the narrative from what happened in Iraq." [View video after the jump]
Later on the show, Todd repeated his observation to retired general and NBC military analyst Barry McCaffrey: "...a trillion dollars, thousands of U.S. lives lost in toppling a dictator in Iraq. A billion dollars, no U.S. lives lost, toppling a dictator in Libya."
At one point, Todd interviewed Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley about Qadhafi's apparent death and remarked: "...there was a lot of hand-ringing on Capital Hill when President Obama unilaterally decided to do this [aid Libyan rebels]....should Congress have given the President more authority on this or frankly deferred to him rather than publicly creating little bit of a political issue about it?"
At the end of the show, Todd discussed the news with NBC foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and asked about the U.S. role in Libya going forward. Mitchell decided to take a swipe at the Republican presidential candidates in her response: "Well, there's a financial role. And it was very interesting to watch the debate the other night because universally all of the Republican candidates were saying get rid of foreign aid....Rick Perry was saying let's get out of the United Nations and Mitt Romney as well. So there's a huge push against foreign aid....without it, they won't be able to survive."
Here are excerpts of Todd's October 20 coverage:
9:04AM ET
(...)
CHUCK TODD: If this is the case, it was a trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. lives to topple a dictator in Iraq, it's a billion dollars and no U.S. lives to topple a dictator in Libya. That's a – that's a pretty stark contrast.
ROBIN WRIGHT [WOODROW WILSON CENTER]: And which, according to one of the analysis that was done yesterday is basically three days of what Iraq cost at its height. So this is, you know, this is going to be an enormous success for the Obama administration in looking at how quickly it was done, with what international cooperation, collaboration and endorsement from the United Nations and the Arab world in general. And this is, in some ways, a model. Unfortunately, it's not one that's applicable to the other parts of the troubled Arab world, but it's one where the United States changes the narrative from what happened in Iraq.
(...)
9:34AM ET
TODD: Senator, there had – there was a lot of hand-ringing on Capital Hill when President Obama unilaterally decided to do this, not ask for congressional approval on this, but to participate in the NATO operation. Yet, in hindsight, should Congress have given the President more authority on this or frankly deferred to him rather than publicly creating little bit of a political issue about it?
CHUCK GRASSLEY: Well, you know, since the Korean War U.N. resolutions have had a lot to do with a lot of military action on the part of the United States and there was U.N. resolutions in this particular case. There was a decision by NATO to get involved and we are a signator and leading member of NATO. And also you have the War Powers Act, in which he informed Congress within the 48 hours of what he was going to do. Let me remind you, though, that most of the hand-ringing came from those of us that said we were getting involved about a month later than we should have and this probably would have been a shorter duration conflict if we'd been involved earlier on.
(...)
9:50AM ET
TODD: General McCaffrey, a trillion dollars, thousands of U.S. lives lost in toppling a dictator in Iraq. A billion dollars, no U.S. lives lost, toppling a dictator in Libya.
BARRY MCCAFFREY: Well, it's a good outcome. The Libyan people are very courageous. They rose up, thousands have been killed or injured. They destroyed a good bit of the country. They certainly blew down Qadhafi's hometown with NATO active support. So again, I think we ought to be happy for the Libyan people and concerned about the coming years of trying to build some operative state.
(...)
9:56AM ET
TODD: The importance, though, of what does come next and what does this mean – what role does the United States have to play going forward?
ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, there's a financial role. And it was very interesting to watch the debate the other night because universally all of the Republican candidates were saying get rid of foreign aid. Some were saying, you know-
TODD: Even Romney.
MITCHELL: Rick Perry was saying let's get out of the United Nations and Mitt Romney as well. So there's a huge push against foreign aid, and that is exactly what Hillary Clinton was delivering when she was in Tripoli, was the prospect of aid – significant aid for this interim government. And without it, they won't be able to survive.
(...)
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well chuckie, it won't do
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:23pm.
Well chuckie, it won't do obama much good, obama didn't kill and american don't care about the Libyan loser who will only be replace by another islamic hack.
Chuck I consider Gaddafi a
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:26pm.
Chuck I consider Gaddafi a buddy of Obama and now he's killed two of his buddies...Osama bin laden and now Gaddafi. Obama is killing his support. Obama is looking more lonely every day.
He couldn't even "fire" up a firehouse yesterday to clap for him.
Friends and enemies
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:25pm.
With friends like Soetoro, who needs enemies?
It doesn't change the fact that his actions of our military involvement has aided and abetted our enemies of this country, which was the terrorists that helped the "rebels" to lead to this point.
I don't expect Congress to do anything anymore, especially the House Republicans. Someone left the pasta spines in the water too long.
I heard about that thing with the firehouse, he actually tried to encourage people to clap for him. How pathetic was that? Have we ever had a potus ever do that?(a real one that is)
-Jon
Jon, I heard this a.m. that some missiles are missing.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:22pm.
Those would be surface to air missiles, from the Libyan inventory. It was said that they may have been seen in the Sinai, or Gaza.
I'm sure that can't be, the rebels are the guys in white hats, according to F Chuck Todd, and the others.
Now, I wonder if Chuckie could explain to us, what national interest is served by sending SOF to Africa to chase one guy around the jungles of various countries?
Heard that last week
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:30pm.
I heard about that last week, think it was Friday or something but I believe it was on Drudge where I read that.
Not surprising as there were Hezbollah terrorists that were "helping" the rebellion, too bad it just turns out they were nothing more than raiders hoping to get their hands on some stuff to use against Israel.
I don't care that the guy is dead, it doesn't change the fact that the US military was involved illegally. The ends do not justify the means in this case, and I certainly won't thank Soetoro for this. It just goes to show he follows a pattern of just ignoring the law, in this case, the Constitution. In this case, we have a dictator who went after another dictator.
-Jon
The regime that takes over
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:47pm.
The regime that takes over will be no better and likely worse than khadafi. But we won't hear about any of it.
Here's hoping
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:26pm.
Look at it this way, with all the tribes that were involved in this, and the constant in-fighting that's going on(what little we did hear of that is), it'll be a real mess in that country and hopefully the Muslim Brotherhood will have a hard time gaining a foothold there. I'd rather they just wipe each other out.
-Jon
Wow.
Submitted by mawendt on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:52pm.
Obama praised for Libya, and Bush slapped around for Iraq? Lets compare:
GWB used the international process to establish justification for the removal of Saddam; BHO did not for participating in Libya.
GWB got congressional approvalfor action in Iraq, BHO circumvented congress and repeated delayed getting any kind of approval, eventually usingNATO as a cover for participation.
The US LED (you know, was the lader) of the Iraq conflict - in Libya, the US played a bit part.
We're 10 years into Iraq, and it's a fantastic improvement over the Saddam Regime - not perfect, not peaceful yet as the Iraqi's work out how they want things to be. Lets see how Libya is in 10 years before we pass judgement, eh?
Stupid, hypocritical liberals. Talk about comparing apples to asparagus. maw
Hypocritical MSM
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:16pm.
When will the liberal left media start to lecture Libya that celebrating is not appropriate?
When will the vatican and other religious leaders remind them it's not appropriate to rejoice over a man's death?
Call up the Washington Post's Petula Dvorak. Is the sight of Libyans celebrating the death of Gaddafi "almost vulgar"?
David Sirota at Salon.com? flaunting gruesome pictures of their victims?
Glenn Greenwald? Has Libya erupted in a collective orgy of national pride and renewed faith in the efficacy and righteousness of military force? Thoughts?
Tweets?
Where are the condemnations?
-- crickets
Viva la difference
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:54pm.
Well, there is a difference, Hussein was tried and executed, Gaddafi was assassinated.
Hussein was tried and executed BY
Submitted by pockets64 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:42pm.
He was tried and executed BY his own people according to their own laws.
Gadaffi, who had shown signs of becoming a civilized member of the international community, thought he was the President's brethren.
Chuck Todd & Robin Wright/MSNBC = Obama admin mouthpieces
Submitted by greggy on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:09pm.
Absolutely hilarious to compare Libya to Iraq, especially in terms of the relative need for US troops in each conflict.
Absolutely ridiculous for Todd to compare the costs of the two conflicts - which were not comparable in the least.
Absolutely shameless for Todd to openly run interference for the administration on PBO's failure to get congressional approval..
"there was a lot of hand-ringing on Capital Hill when President Obama unilaterally decided to do this, not ask for congressional approval on this. Yet, in hindsight, should Congress have given the President more authority on this or frankly deferred to him rather than publicly creating little bit of a political issue about it?"
"Hand-wringing?" When were the complaints of Democrats against Bush's use of war powers ever described condescendingly as "hand-wringing", by the partisan Democrat-controlled media? (And Bush got congressional approval!)
Yet even Todd admits that the President acted "unilaterally"..but Todd is A-OK with that, even enthusiastic about it. But the same partisan, Democrat-controlled media were frothing at the mouth whenever they claimed Bush had acted "unilaterally". So the media lesson here is, Democrat acts unilaterally, Republicans should fall into line and "defer", Republican acts "unilaterally" (even with Congressional approval?), he should be impeached.
The blatant shamlessness of Chuck Todd, knows no boundaries whatsoever. Chuck, you are a totally corrupt propagandist.
Just consider the source....
Submitted by WarEagle66 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:33pm.
Just consider the source....
Ok then a million bucks and 1 cruse missile, on ackinadinnerjack
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:09pm.
We can wait (every few days) until he gives, one of those 3 hour O'bama like speeches.
Screw.. Executive Order 12333
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
You Didn't Build That.
how exactly is this obama's
Submitted by dzejk113 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:32pm.
how exactly is this obama's accomplishment? it was the Libyan rebels that killed qadhafi . . . the US has barely been involved in this war. we drop a few bombs, launch a few cruise missiles, and somehow the Libyan rebels killing qadhafi is a great achievement for obama? I don't buy it.
on the flip side, it was American soldiers that captured saddam, and we turned him over to his own people who tried and executed him. and I don't recall Bush trying to claim, or anyone in his administration trying to give him, personal credit for that.
this is just a sad pathetic attempt by the left to make obama somehow more appealing to right leaning moderates. it'll completely backfire on them. he's alienating his leftist base because they hate all things military and war, and the right isn't going to fall for this 'obama the war fighter' BS.
Thank the american taxpayer
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:01pm.
Almost 1 billion dollars spent. Illegally. He didn't get (nor did he bother to even seek) permission from our elected representatives.
And I still have no idea why we went. He had a rebellion but who were the rebels. What was Libya like before we bombed the crap out of it?
wag the dog
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:15pm.
nothing more, nothing less
I've been trying to figure
Submitted by dzejk113 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:21pm.
I've been trying to figure out why we went too. as far as I can tell qadhafi has pretty much sat quietly in the corner, not raising any fuss since the 80's, after Reagan bombed the crap out of him. maybe this was obama trying to channel Reagan in hopes of winning a second term?
If you go the the far left
Submitted by buddyc on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 1:42pm.
If you go the the far left message boards you will see only the extreme left making those same arguments. The tells you where Todd is comming from. His comparison is apples to oranges. Different countries, different threats, different opposition, different population, different geography and different neighbors.
For a better comparison look at Afghanistan.
From 2001 through 2008 there were roughly 1000 killed in action in Afghanistan under Bush.
From 2008 though the present there have been 1800 killed in action in Afghanistan under Obama.
Troops stationed if Afghanistan have more tripled.
War costs in Afghanistant under Obama for 3 years now exceed all the Afghan war costs under Bush for 8 years.
Iraq didn't cost a trillion. Including everything Todds figure is 30% higher than actual expenditures.
Obama has withdrawn most of our troops from Iraq and Bush would have the done the same thing after 3 more years.
Why didn't he blame Reagan?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:08pm.
Why didn't he blame Reagan? After all, Reagan was the first to try to "topple" Gaddafi.
Also, Chucky Boy isn't being honest in his comparisons. Saddam's government "toppled" quite easily within the first month, remember? It's what happened after that took so long and cost so much. It's actually taken longer to "topple" Gaddafi's government than it did to "topple" Saddam's. So, please, Chucky, TRY to be honest in your comparisons, ok? You're supposed to be a "professional."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"Also, Chucky Boy isn't being
Submitted by Mperiod on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:50pm.
"Also, Chucky Boy isn't being honest in his comparisons. Saddam's government "toppled" quite easily within the first month, remember? It's what happened after that took so long and cost so much. It's actually taken longer to "topple" Gaddafi's government than it did to "topple" Saddam's. So, please, Chucky, TRY to be honest in your comparisons, ok? You're supposed to be a "professional."
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/comment/reply/51191/1581810#ixzz1bLihUTkJ"
--that is exactly his point. It's the "go in at it alone" vs "be part of the world". Lybia is rebuilding itself, we will be involved, the UN will be involved, France will be involved, a bunch of countries will be involved both providing military support and money. Can we say the same thing about Iraq? Our "nation of the willing" were a bunch of random islands, so yes it was easy to overthrow Saddam, but because we decide to stick our middle finger up at the rest of the world and go in alone - we're stuck cleaning up the mess alone. That was Todd's point. That while the right was calling it "weakness" or a lack of leadership.. at the end of the day Obama's way was the smart way. If we'd done it in Iraq, we would have been in much better shape today.
went it alone in Iraq?
Submitted by dzejk113 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:53pm.
you seem to forget that we didn't go it alone in Iraq. just because France and Germany didn't help doesn't mean we went it alone. Bush built a coalition of roughly 50 nations, and the UK, Poland, and Australia all played significant roles during the invasion of Iraq, and have been involved the entire time. no matter how badly you want to be able to say we went it alone in Iraq so you can bash Bush, it just isn't true.
No, that wasn't his point.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:27pm.
No, that wasn't his point. He claimed that it took years, hundreds of American lives, and a trillion dollars to "topple" Saddam's government when, in fact it didn't It took less than four weeks, only a few American lives (not that I'm discounting the sacrifices those brave Americans made for people they didn't even know but cared enough about to die for), and a few tens of billions of dollars. Since then, we've be helping the Iraqi people fight an insurgency, which is someone forcibly trying to install ether another Saddam style dictatorship in place of the one they lost, or some other type of government in place of the one that formed shortly after Saddam's government fell. They are two completely different situations, but you wouldn't know that if you only relied upon Chuck's interpretation of events.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
deliberate ignorance of the facts.... surprise! NOT!
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:12pm.
Gadaffi's army was very small and split on the overthrow. The US could have swept them aside in two days. However there were sufficient rebel forces to handle it with bombing assistance from the US.
Sadam had THE FOURTH LARGEST ARMY on the planet and they were going to fight. However, after the first ass kicking by the US the conscripts figured out it would be better to hopscotch off into the sunset instead of going against us head to head again. But then thousands of them went into the insurgency forces and worked as guerrilla forces to assuage their fallen honor.
It's like comparing the celtics to a grade school team.
They didn't try very hard.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:17pm.
Saddam's army didn't try very hard, for people who supposedly "were going to fight." Saddam's government was defunct and we had control of most of the country within the first month, the Capital of Baghdad included. Saddam's government fell within a matter of weeks. That's the part most people don't remember.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Some people on here really are out there.
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:27pm.
The most imoprtant thing I take out of what Todd said, and the whole Libya situation is that not one American was killed. This is the main aspect of the republican party that I will never understand and always question. The first two wars of this decade were poorly planned and one was sold on lies and miscalculaitions and THOUSANDS of lives have been lost. Sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, etc... gone forever taken from their loved ones, and they were sent with total disregard for what their families might endure due to the administrations stupidity and ignorance. Not te mention the innocent people in Iraq that were caught in the crossfire, and NO we were not gonna be attacked by Iraq. They didn't have the money to control themselves as a country. much less attack us. Another difference is that the US got involved in Libya based on FACTS. The same cannot be said about Iraq.
Now as far as the US' role in what happened in Libya... I remember the rebels being pushed back and overwhelmed by the opposition until we started our air strikes. So yea it couldn't have been done without the US taking part, and I repeat NOT ONE AMERICAN SOLDIER HAS BEEN KILLED!!!!
I find it a little disturbing that people that claim to be "pro life" didn't hesitate to send 18yr olds to their death in war that the majority of americans don't agree with. The same goes for people that devote their life to religion. I don't belive in the bible, but I'm sure it wouldn't fall in line with what the right believes.
I also find it disturbing that the same party of people that feel that asking the wealthiest people of this country to pay a little bit more to help the land that allows them to be so rich is not tolerated, and considered "warfare" will not hesitate to ask the poor and middle class to go to war and PAY WITH THEIR LIVES. It puts the way you all think into perspective. Just saying.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
Well, that's entirely too much bullsh*t to address in one post,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:31pm.
but how about you start by presenting just one FACT on why we bombed the crap out of Libya?
Still beating that "poor and middle class" horse to death
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:35pm.
are we? You troll around, yet learn nothing.
"When comparing these wartime recruits (2003- 2005) to the resident population ages 18-24 (as recorded in Census 2000), areas with median household income levels between $35,000 and $79,999 were overrepresented, along with income categories between $85,000 and $94,999. (See Chart 2.) Though the mainstream media continue to portray the war in Iraq as unpopular, this evidence suggests that the United States is not sending the poor to die for the interests of the rich.". See the full report.
Until you do some research, why don't you stay over at Du or KOS?
LOL
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:03pm.
How silly it is that you think I come to this site to learn something. Well just to correct you real quick...I never said the poor were sent to die for the rich. What I said was that it's sad when people won't hesitate to ask others to go die to defend this country, but those same people wont dare to ask the most fortunate in this country to be patriotic and help it out in it's time of need. Especially when they have a big part in why the country is in the situation it is in. Sad stuff to be honest with you.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
Really?
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:08pm.
You're going with a Bidenism? Be patriotic and pay more taxes? You beclown yourself, troll.
But, I agree with your statement, that the libs have played a big part in why the country is in the situation it is in.
That's obviosu
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:30pm.
"How silly it is that you think I come to this site to learn something.
It's obvious that you haven't come here to learn anything, as all you've done to date is lecture.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
*sniff*sniff* New troll
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:37pm.
Hey guys, we got a new troll here, complete with talking points, including those used by the OWS types.
As for not being attacked by Iraq, we already have been, ever heard of the no-fly zone? When our jets patrolled those, they would send up rockets to our jets, I'm almost positive it wasn't to say hi or anything.
And Saddam Hussein was helping the families of those martyrs who blew themselves up in Israel, gave them 20,000 bucks per head....so to speak(I do know one incident had one suicide bomber's head end up in a plate of spaghetti at one bombing, don't remember if meatballs were ordered).
And as for our military, did you know that our military is actually a volunteer force? *GASP* We haven't had the draft since the 70s, so that means all the men and women in the armed forces all signed up......WILLINGLY!
And as for what you said about not believing in the bible but trying to make an interpretation.....say no more. I mean it, just say no more, you know not of what you speak. Say no more or look foolish....oops. Too late.
-Jon
Hilarious
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:58pm.
"HEY GUYS WE GOT A NEW TROLL HERE." Get a new line buddy cause that one is tired and old, and if you check my profile you'll notice I've been here for well over a year. I remember when some moron said I wouldn't last over 6 weeks.
"AS FOR NOT BEING ATTACKED BY IRAQ, WE ALREADY HAVE BEEN, EVER HEARD OF THE NO-FLY-ZONE?" Show me where the no-fly-zone was mentioned in the means to start a war and maybe you might make some sense on this one.
"AND AS FOR OUR MILITARY, DID YOU KNOW THAT OUR MILITARY IS ACTUALLY A VOLUNTEER FORCE?" Did you know that most "volunteer" because they dont have the opportunity to go to college or have trust funds to fall back on? Let me give you a perfect example of why you're wrong on this cause I have a personal experience with it. A cousin of mine literally gets up and joins the army in the days after 911 because he wanted to get the ones that attacked us. Needles to say he was more than pissed when he found out he was goin to Iraq instead. He knew it was an unjust war, and had nothing to do with why he decided to "volunteer." Should he have been allowed to un-volunteer himself?
As for the comment on the bible...would you care to tell me what the good book says should be done to your enemies? Good luck! ;)
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
The Good Book tells
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:15pm.
The Good Book tells individuals to forgive their enemies.
It has on several occaassions told governments to wipe out whole nations.
But, as you said, you didn't come here to learn anything. Clearly you haven't learned anything except how to regurgitate the latest agitprop talking points.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Do YOU know what it says?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:55pm.
Do YOU known what the Good Book says? Part of it says that Jesus himself told his followers "those who do not have swords should go out and buy them." Now why would he tell them that?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I think he's long gone
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:11pm.
his bio has him as a self-admitted fire starter.
All the facts scared
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:40pm.
All the facts scared nocommonsense away.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
By far the funniest statement of the day.
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:55pm.
How funny are you? It's called a life buddy! Now back to it.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
man with very boring life
Submitted by jetsgiants on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 6:29pm.
i guess mlk visited Trenton nj then came up with slogan that u keep boring the crap of everyone and we dont believe the story of your cousin
afanofcommonsense
Submitted by dzejk113 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:09pm.
"Did you know that most "volunteer" because they dont [sic] have the opportunity to go to college or have trust funds to fall back on?"
I take it your cousin is the only servicemember you have had any significant contact with. Let me explain to you why YOU'RE wrong. I currently serve in the military, so I think I have a little more personal experience in this matter. We didn't "volunteer" because we have no opportunity to go to college, there are many people who join after college. We didn't "volunteer" just because we don't have some trust fund. Most of us VOLUNTEERED because of a DESIRE to SERVE our country. Admittedly, there are a few who join for the wrong reasons, like it seems your cousin did, but they are by far the minority. People don't join the military because they are poor and have no better opportunities, they join because they are patriots that believe in defending freedom.
Good evening dezjk
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:22pm.
There are still many {a ----load of us} that respect and appreciate you and all who serve. I pray for all of you, not enough, but some. Thank you and God bless.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
dzejk113 , Thank You for your Service.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:41pm.
That's a great post to our house troll. (one of many). If afanofcommonsense had any sense He'd get his cousin to sign up here and discuss it.
NO just a cut N paste lib crock story we have heard so many times before.
You Didn't Build That.
True, not a single American casualty
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:38pm.
True, there wasn't a single American casualty. But we don't know how many innocent Libyan civilians died in our bombing raids. Why? Because Obama won't tell us, unlike Bush who was completely open and honest about things like that. So, go ahead and bash Republicans for their honesty if you wish. It just shows you how "informed" you really are.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Nice try.
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:45pm.
I'm informed enough to know that Bush did no such thing. He responded to it I'm sure, but the cameras and reporters on the ground were the ones that showed the innocent being killed in the crossfire...crossfire that we started. Libya was already a war zone when we got involved.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
You're informed?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:25pm.
Let me get this straight, you're sure that Bush responded to questions, yet you're "informed" that he did no such thing? Yea, that makes perfect liberal sense.
By the way, Libya was NOT already a war zone before we got involved. The bombings occurred a week or more before the first rebel group formed and started fighting the Libyan Army. The bombings PRECEDED the war. Obama CAUSED the war. His actions turned public demonstrations into armed rebellion. He even went as far as to send American military "advisers" to train the rebels in how to conduct an armed rebellion while giving them billions of dollars of "frozen" Libyan assets in which to pay for that rebellion. He did all this without any Congressional approval. The Libyan civil war is Obama's war, start to finish. He, like you, just doesn't want to admit it.
We can debate all you like about if that war was justified, if the citizens of Libya are better off with or without a dictator, but we can not deny the fact that, yes, Obama, on his own, without any Congressional approval, actually started a civil war in Libya!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Good evening ---no-commonsense
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:39pm.
Will you still be worshipping Obabble when the muslim brotherhood rules Libya? They are already taking over Egypt. Tete d'merde.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Just another beautiful
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:59pm.
Just another beautiful morning in the Islamic...oops, I mean Arab Spring....
Granted, he was a bad guy, but who's to say whoever takes over won't be worse?
mr. boring
Submitted by jetsgiants on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 6:33pm.
get a life , nobody cares what u have 2 say
you're clueless
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:47pm.
But hey if we can do that in Libya lets bomb Afghanistan, and then Iran, into oblivion. No American lives lost. Just pull out soldiers out now and bomb the bejeezus out of the entire Middle East and Africa. Throw a dart at the map. Let's get started.
Clueless will continue to spout those points.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:58pm.
At least until someone points how embarrassingly wrong he is, then he'll just ignore that and move on to the next talking point that the Flea Baggers give him.
I'd bet he got all quivery and excited when 0 decided to commit ground troops to sub-Saharan Africa, even though no one yet can find any compelling national interest for the U.S. there.
You're crazy
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:10pm.
Good lord you took that one in a whole other direction. There isn't much of a revolution going on in Iran is there? These people were being slaughtered at the time we got involved, and I mean literally killed in the streets. I'm sure if it meant putting troops on the ground it would've taken a bit longer to plan out.
And if I should dare ask, what does "ABO in 2012" mean?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
It seemed the logical direction
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:18pm.
Your only criteria was "no american lives lost". Taken to it's logical end it certainly does seem crazy doesn't it? But you stressed that we pay attention to that fact. You even repeated it in ALL CAPS. First the military were baby killers now we kill our babies. It seems we can't win, can we.
I don't bite, Afan. There is no reason to feel daring. ABO is "anyone but Obama" in 2012.
Iranian revolution
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:26pm.
Yes - there has actually been two. One supported weakly by President Bush and one completely ignored by President Obama.
You mean like Syria?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:45pm.
These people were being slaughtered at the time we got involved, and I mean literally killed in the streets.
Bashar Assad. Also Iran. But The Won won't touch that, will he....not even after Iranian agents have been caught planning to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador on our soil! That's not an act of war?
I thought you liberals hated being the world's cop. Now it's cool bro, because The Won kicked off the wars?
As for your "being sure" about the military.....JUST STOP. You haven't a clue. Dude, there are warplans in the drawer to invade ENGLAND! The world didn't start the day Obama got elected.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Actually I think you're
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:06pm.
Actually I think you're helping me make my point. When it comes to a country like Iran there has to be some real thinking and planning on how to approach it. The same goes for Iraq, but we were'nt fortunate enough to have actual planning for that war were we? If Libya would have rquired an invasion I'm sure it would have taken a bit more to make happen.
Who knew you all referred to Bush as "The Won" on this site?
And yes I have a few clues. "DUDE THERE ARE WARPLANES IN THE DRAWER TO INVADE ENGLAND!" Have we attacked England? I don't think so.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
WAR PLANS, NOT PLANES
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:16pm.
Kind of reading impaired, aren't ya little fella?
Contingency plans....can you look that up by yourself or shall I explain it for you?
Rest assured, there are war plans in the drawer for IRAN.....one's that go BOOM! But The Won has no stones.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thank you nocommonsense
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:23pm.
Thanks for using that tag line to warn us about your mental shortcomings.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Great catch, Coco
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:29pm.
I think you just pinned the tail on the Donkey.
:)
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Did Obama have a plan, afanofcommonsense?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:58pm.
Did Obama have a plan, afanofcommonsense? Did he plan on the protest turning into a full blown civil war because of the "humanitarian" protection he was providing them? Did he plan to turn full operational control away from himself and to NATO after less than a few weeks after instigating his "plan," thus removing himself from any further "planning?" According to him, his "plan" was to protect the protesters from being attacked simply because they were peacefully assembled. That "plan" turned out to be totally wrong.
It's obvious that Obama really didn't have a plan at all. He merely reacted to what was happening, none of which was actually planned for, not by the Obama administration anyways. Now, after starting something that went way beyond what he planned, and after washing his hands of the entire situation by turning over control to NATO, Obama wants us all to believe that HE is responsible for the toppling of a dictator? Don't ask me to believe it. I know that's just a lie. Obama is responsible for starting a civil war in Libya, something he just won;t admit. Beyond that, Obama has forfeited all personal responsibility. It's a little too late to claim credit now.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Careful Blonde.....
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:09pm.
You know that old saying about arguing with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level easily due to experience on their part.
-Jon
Got to love that liberal logic
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:18pm.
"These people were being slaughtered at the time we got involved, and I mean literally killed in the streets."
Got to love that liberal logic. Let's turn peaceful demonstrations into a bloody civil war that killed untold numbers of people because the peaceful protesters were being "slaughtered in the streets." Let's start a civil war in a foreign country for "humanitarian" reasons. Hay, how many more people were slaughtered in that civil war?
It's funny that, after more than 8 years of hearing liberals like yourself talk about the "human costs" of wars that Bush started in Iraq and Afghanistan, very few of you are willing to even mention, let alone discuss, the "human cost" of the war in Libya that Obama started.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
It's relative, Cobra
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:20pm.
Particularly for someone who believes war PLANES reside in drawers.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Or, conversely..
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:32pm.
Or, conversely, that "war plans" is a single word.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Thank you afanofcommonsense,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:12pm.
your post shows why the left and right have no capability left to work for the common good - there truly is no understanding of another viewpoint left.
I have never agreed with the Iraq war entirely except in that if war was going to be waged it was the correct location for many reasons. But to say that Libya was better planned is just idealistically flawed. Libya has left a power vacuum with the most likely leaders to come from groups violently hostile to the Western Civilization and Israel. The military leaders of the rebels were and are mostly unknown and the ones that are have been openly hostile to the US. What this means is that we participated in an event that removed from power an evil regime that had backed off the world stage and withdrew their support of terrorism; while putting in place a regime that not only is likely to support terrorism but will most likely be manned by people who are terrorist or participated in terrorist activities. Libya started with a lie and an illegal Executive move - the stated time the US would be involved and not going through Congress. Libya was waged on poor intelligence or good intelligence that was ignored in that little was known of the rebels. Weapons from Libya are now in Palestinian and al Qaeda hands and that doesn't seem to bother you.
The military was sent into Libya - The military was sent into Iraq - so, using your phrase, they were both sent to their deaths. The fact that none were killed in Libya is due to the ability to allow factions within Libya to do the dirty work. Personally, that is not a problem for me but does outline the issue that the two campaigns were not the same. This could not have happened in Iraq because the oppression of their society was too great and the terrorist that ebbed and flowed were well trained and supported by Syria and Iran. This situation did not occur in Libya because their government had turned their back on terrorism in an effort to save themselves.
Your comment about the rich paying a little more is economically juvenile and I mean that as no insult as it seems it was just a thrown in talking point.
I'm not religious either but I have read and the Christian religion does fall in line with the beliefs of Conservatives except perhaps the Death Penalty (not sure how the NT changes the views on that one). Just because you can't expand your understanding of their beliefs beyond the scope of your talking points and the stereotypes formulated by the left doesn't make you right.
Start with these:
only a fringe few are ever in favor of war and they come from both sides of the political aisle
Economic activities always have multiple consequences and outside of the creation and maintenance of a level playing field the economy is always endangered when it is manipulated.
Federal government does not have the right to grant special rights to individuals or groups within a nation because they are supposed to work for the entire nation - most 'Civil Rights' fall in this category. Prevention of a state from denying a person or group their rights is the territory for the Executive branch which can not make laws.
People must be responsible custodians of their own lives and live as an example to those around them. This is why you see orderly, law abiding and clean protest from the right and not so much from others.
Before getting too holier than thou on the subject of life please look at the ideas of the left and what they have led to in the way of the number of dead due to social oppression and assassination.
Pro-life: There are only two policies in America that don't come down on the side of favoring the sanctity of life. 1) Abortion 2) Death Penalty
You're welcome
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 3:56pm.
As far as the right war at the right time, you have to remember that some would argue that already being tied up with a war that had been going on for close to two years is more than a good reason to not start something else. Now as far as being better planned, yes I do think that, but I dont think this method of war would always work. What I was trying to put out was that when it comes to putting our most precious asset (our troops) on the line things should be planned out better. I totally agree with you about the rebels, but we don't know what direction that is going to go though. We have to make sure we don't make the same mistakes we made with the Afghans and the russians.
Now as far as what you think about my comment on the rich...it is just your opinion and that is fine, but the tax rates have been the same for about ten years now and they have done no good at all so something different has to be done. The right has had its way for awhile now and it hasn't helped one bit.
Now for my "talking points" on religion, you can say what you want, but the truth is the truth. There is no one stereotype that fits all on one side of the issue. Your point on abortion and the death penalty is spot on and a perfect example of that. Most peoples religous beliefs only allow them to become hypocrites and they would be better off with out them.
Now to the social oppression and assasination carried out by the left...I would love some examples of this, and this is not a joke. I like to read about the shortcomings of some in society to learn how not to be. Both political parties have people that are in the wrong and I have said that many times on this site. Now with what I disagree with most is with how you started your comment. I read your post and I disagree with almost everything you say, and yet I dont think you're a nazi,communist, satanist, etc...This nation needs to learn that it is diverse and we will crumble together if we don't learn to stay open minded and compromise.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
afanofcommonsense, you said...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 4:23pm.
The right has had its way for awhile now and it hasn't helped one bit.png
WRONG
The debt rathole of an additional 4 TRILLION from 2007 was caused by the TAX AND SPEND EVEN MORE demorats.
You Didn't Build That.
Religions and hypocrites
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 8:31am.
I'll do my best to keep this brief:
Religions and hypocrites: It is the acknowledgement of failure and the goals of being better people (in Christians case - Christ like) that allow for the opportunity of growth - something poorly lacking in many societies either by the political class or religion. If not living up to ideal standards is hypocritical than the term hypocrite losses all meaning.
Crimes of social oppression and assassination: Start by looking at the list of major assassinations that took place during the 60s and you will see that most were carried out by people who believed in the social/political structure of the left including the assassinations of JFK & RFK - conspiracy theories not withstanding. The social oppressions of Stalin and Mao would apply to the ideas of social oppression and death caused by adherents to policies of the left and then the list of lessor despots who aspired to the social structures demanded by the ideas of the left.
I never said the war was at the right time but if you start at the assumption you are going to war then Iraq was the correct choice. Afghanistan was and to a certain degree is a dead issue militarily. The terrain, the broken factions, the finances through drug crops and the political implications all make Afghanistan the wrong place. From a completely strategic point of view the strike against Afghanistan was correct but maintaining a long term military operation in that region would have been next to impossible - ask the Russians. It is mostly the terrain, location, population dispersion, and political considerations that made Iraq the correct decision if a true invasion was going to take place. Notice not a word about WMD - though I still believe the defected Syrian general that said that Syria now controls the WNDs of Iraq.
Taxes and economy - it is not my opinion. I'll give you that Conservatives are wrong when they say that tax cuts pay for themselves or that tax cuts always spark economic growth. It is wrong only in that it requires more than just tax cuts to create economic growth and economic growth can occur without tax cuts. The best thing for economic growth, and this has been proven repeatedly, is long term commitments to stable economic conditions. Now to reach a point you want to be stable for our current level of economic malaise the idea of lowering taxes should be at the top of the list with plans on using restructuring government programs and the tax code to generate the appropriate needs for federal revenue (similar to occurrences in the 80s and 90s). To complete the response to this would take pages and get increasingly boring. Tax rates by themselves mean absolutely nothing but since both sides do this let me warn you about economic articles written for political reasons, most are published for political purposes, their assumptions are almost never spelled out and to economist and statisticians it is clear that they freeze certain dynamic portions of the economy in order to make their point. In other words they make certain characteristics static while varying a select group of statistics, such as tax rates, to create a political point.
You must be reading one of those new-fangled history books
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:20am.
1. The first two wars of this decade were NOT poorly planned. You are dealing with religious fanatics that don't act rationally. You're dealing with insurgents being supported, funded, and encouraged by terrorists and America-haters in foreign lands. You're dealing with an attempt to cobble together different factions of the population of a country that have hated each other for centuries. The planning that went into Iraq and Afghanistan was on a level equivalent to three dimensional chess . . . the "planning" that Barry the HO is using is little more than tic-tac-toe.
2. How many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan since January 20, 2008? Hell, Congress was controlled by the LiboCommies since January 1, 2006. The ROE's in Afghanistan are ridiculous and stem from the Manchurian Kenyan Marxist wanting to protect his "pals." You remember those "pals," don't you? Just 2 years ago, among them were Hasni Mubarak and . . . TA-DA .. . Mumble-bar Q'addafi. How quickly things change.
3. Comparing Iraq or Afghanistan to Libya is like comparing the D-Day invasion to Grenada. The Muslim Brotherhood turned on Q'addafi. They helped incite others in Libya. I forget . . . did the people of Iraq rise up against Hussein, who had the 4th or 5th largest land army in the world? Whose planes were bombing in Libya? British and French, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#September
So how does Barry the Marxist get "credit" for what everyone else did? And I guess saying nary an American died in Libya is like saying nary an American died in Argentina during the Bush administration . . . since they didn't put boots on the ground in either place.
4. Since when do you socialists GAFF about what the "majority of Americans" want? Every person who VOLUNTEERS to join the military knows full well that they put their lives on the line. They do it knowingly. Do fetuses have the same option? Do they agree, when the sperm hits the egg, that they might succumb to a vacuum cleaner or some forceps? Using your "logic," we'd still be a British colony . . . or we'd be speaking German and saluting a swastika.
5. This "ask the rich to pay a little more" is yet another deflection. How about asking the freeloaders, of whom I am sure you are one, to pay SOMETHING? How about asking the unions and the government workers to take a pay cut? How about asking women to cross their legs if they can't support a child and/or can't have sex with a father willing to support a child? But you .. . and others like you . . . think it's "unfair" for those who decided not to learn a skill, decided not to listen and learn in school, decided not to prepare themselves to be CONTRIBUTING members of society . . . to have to suffer because they made their own damn beds. Or sleeping bags. Or whatever.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
Zero is their Hero!
Submitted by swim-r-sink on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:56pm.
Both Chuckie and Andrea have Obama pillows that they like to bite and snuggle with when nightie night time comes. What are these clowns to do when Zero is Frog marched to testify for what he knew about Fast and Furious and his crony Green scams? This won`t be pretty.
You know, it's funny
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:04pm.
You know, its funny how the liberals are portraying the Libyan war as opposed to the Iraq war. First they tell us that, despite Bush having Congressional approval for commencing combat operations in Iraq, something he's required to do by law and the Constitution, Bush started "illegal wars" and this isn't how it's supposed to be done. Now the same liberals claim that Obama, after commencing combat operations in Libya without Congressional approve, which is what he is NOT supposed to do by law and the Constitution, tell us that "this is how wars should be fought." Ok, I'll remember that if a Republican ever does what Obama has done, and I'll remind those now furious liberals that they, themselves, told us that "this is how wars should be fought."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The GOP leadership in Washington handed this one to Obama
Submitted by lrgon on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:13pm.
They had their chance to do as a few congressmen asked by shutting down Obama's illegal war on Libya but the GOP majority tucked their tails between their legs and now Obama, the war lover is using this dictator kill to get points at the polls.
Stupidity on the part of the GOP false leaders or are they just following the same polices set down by the think tank that Hillary Clinton praises for directing our foreign policy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyVZjNYK1Ok
Oh look boys and girls. lrgon lies again.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:51pm.
conspirocrank loon lrgon: ...Obama's illegal war on Libya...
Prove it conspirocrank loon. Cite the specific law in the United States Code. Here you go loon, here is a link the the full set of United States law.
Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Go for it loon. Title. Chapter. Section.
Lying little loon.
What "law?"
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:25am.
Gee, how about the US Constitution and the War Powers Act? Only to lefty loons does the US Constitution seem meaningless.
Article I, Section 8: Congress shall have power . . . "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Of course, I guess it depends on your definition of "war," right Mr. Clinton?
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
First time talking to The Vet? Yeah, me, Mr. Lefty.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 2:57am.
Let's remember that. OK? You and I have never so much as passed word one between us and you think it is perfectly acceptable to insult a fellow righty. Why? Because you disagree.
Oh, and Mark Levin disagrees with you and shocka, agrees with me.
“You know, some of you aren’t going to like what I have to say because I don’t believe in politicizing the Constitution,” Levin said. “I believe the Constitution is the rock of the society. All this talk about the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional because we don’t have a declaration of war – that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous. There are many occasions where we don’t have a declaration of war because a declaration of war would require that we use all of our might to destroy our enemy. So you can be involved in certain battles or military activities that would not require a declaration of war. You can look throughout American history to prove the point. You can actually look at the conduct of the Founders when they were in government, soon after the establishment of our government. Just be very careful about your arguments and think them through for a principled point of view. Don’t listen to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, unless you want to be entertained. Stick with the Constitution.”
More Mark Levin.
Why didn’t the Framers explicitly require the president to seek approval from Congress before engaging in all acts of war, and enumerate such power in Congress? If they granted the president, as commander-in-chief, the power to only repel military acts against the nation without congressional authority, why did they not enumerate that? What of offensive military actions taken to prevent imminent threats? What of covert operations for that matter, or extended wars fought over decades but mostly through surrogates (such as the Cold War)? What must be declared and when?
– I repeat, the Congress — has funded every kind of military and covert operation — untold numbers of them — without issuing a formal declaration of war in the vast majority of cases. What stops it? It does not need permission or a request from a president to issue a formal proclamation. It issues proclamations about meaningless things all the time without being asked. The Constitution says Congress shall have the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water …”
When members of Congress vote to fund these activities, they are giving their formal, official consent to the operations. More than voting to declare war, they are actually voting to fund war — all kinds of war. Interestingly, in most of the cases in which Congress has formally declared — which is World War II — there was never any doubt that the president would use all possible military force to protect the nation, and Congress would fund it, even without any declarations. The declarations were not used as constitutional requisites for war, but to rally the nation and assert our resolve. But once Congress has funded a military operation, and it funds virtually all of them, it is undoubtedly helping to make war for without the funds there can be no war. Thus, in each instance, it is declaring war its support for the military actions
What of military operations launched by a president where the president uses funds already appropriated by Congress before the operations began, but which were approved for general national security purposes — that is, where Congress has not actually voted on funding a particular operation? Without question Congress has the power to withhold appropriations or defund operations, if it can muster enough votes to overcome a presidential veto. Congress rarely does so, although most notably in ending the Vietnam War. Congress has the power to enforce its decisions by impeaching a president and removing him from office should he continue to prosecute military operations after it has formally acted to end them. Hence, comparisons between the president and a monarch are ridiculous. These are very powerful tools, should Congress decide to use them. However, even now, when the president has directed military operations in Libya, is Congress even considering cutting off funding? What about the Republican majority in the House? No. But there is no question that congressional authority respecting war powers is significant, which distinguishes our system from many, including a monarchy. But make no mistake, it is not significant enough for the neo-anarchists, who cherry-pick their way through history to promote a dogma.
“But Mark,” asks the outlier professor, “here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article – whatever.”
Consulting Congress? Now, notice how the outlier professor changes the subject. I’ve been at this now for the better part of a week. I’ve explained my position on radio, on Fox, and on this site. I think it is extremely wise for a president to consult with Congress (well, not all 535 members but members in leadership positions) before launching non-defensive military actions for both policy and political reasons. In fact, most presidents claim to have done so in one form or another respecting most military operations. I cannot imagine any Federalist would have argued against a president consulting with Congress. Why would they? But that was not the issue. Consulting Congress is a far cry from arguing that a president is required, as a constitutional requisite to military operations, to secure a declaration of war. So, the outlier professor would be misstating what I said and dodging the issue, apparently something he has been accused of before by another professor, Ronald Radosh http://hnn.us/articles/10493.html You don’t have to agree with Professor Radosh’s views, but he raises a serious concern.
Anyway, there you have it folks. Either you are convinced or you are not. If not, then you have to conclude, as they do here, that Ronald Reagan was a neo-con, monarch, warmonger, or whatever. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html I have to move on, but I am sure the Paulite dead-enders will carry on.
Litte tip for ya - Next time you want to pick a fight with someone and start mouthing off about how liberal they are, check their tracking page and make sure you are not setting yourself up to look the fool.
Aw hell, you did not even have to do that. You could checked the guy I was replying to. Your first tip, his INSULTING REPUBLICANS - ...GOP majority tucked their tails between their legs... Stupidity on the part of the GOP false leaders... Yeah, kinda missed that huh?
But whatever, thanks for insulting me. Yeah, I am the problem here not the conspirocrank loon that has made 50 posts insulting everything on the right. Yeah, it is me.
Point - Mark Levin and The Vet.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 12:15pm.
Nothing like being insulted and told you are wrong, posting the truth in reply, and then the opposition goes silent only to post somewhere else days later.
Conservaserb wants to insult me, then forfeits the argument by running off to post elsewhere rather than prove his point, fine. I am used to it. Welcome to the Tenebrous club.
Yeah, turns out toppling the dictator is the easy part.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 5:47pm.
It's dealing with the aftermath that's the real challenge. Qadaffi may be dead, but this is far from over. Now, there's a power vacuum in a large, oil-rich country. Stabilizing it and trying to build it into a democracy is far more difficult than simply tearing down the existing gov't.
Oh, and this is always made much harder when the media enthusiastically sabotages your efforts, e.g. repeating the far-left's false accusation that Bush lied to get us to invade Iraq. That accusation inspired the insurgency and got thousands of our troops killed, exactly what the far-left hoped would happen.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
One question
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:25pm.
Did Todd get the stain out of his blue dress?He might want to.I want to say it but I better not.yutts
Is'nt the WMD thing getting a bit tired ???
Submitted by creekrat on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 8:58am.
We know Saddam had them ! It troubles me we DID NOT find more, where are they ? Just like the weapons missing in Libya, we may never know, and pray we never see them used.
WMD
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 9:13am.
One opinion - Syria has them
Okay - two opinions - same result