...   
      
    TR> Here's a few things to add.....Klahn ought to turn   
    TR> red-face3d over this:   
      
    ...   
      
    TR> Commander in chief?Consistent with his socialist,   
    TR> we-are-all-one agenda, Barack Obama used a non-unanimous   
    TR> 10-vote nod from the United Nations Security Council to   
    TR> justify commencing hostilities against Libya, bypassing   
      
    If unanimous was your requirement we would not be in Iraq now.   
    Which would be a good thing, come to think of it.   
      
    Oh, and the UN vote was not the justification, but a procedural   
    point.   
      
    TR> Congress, the Constitution, the will of the American public   
    TR> and a couple hundred years' worth of precedents. Since none   
      
    Bush sent them down the garbage chute in 2003. OTOH, Reagan's   
    invasion of Grenada also qualifies.   
      
    TR> of these have mattered in the past, why should they now?   
      
    They stopped mattering when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.   
      
    ...   
      
    TR> recently -- UN authority supersedes U.S. constitutional   
    TR> authority and sovereignty.   
      
    Ah, you made that one up out of the whole cloth. Bush, OTOH, did   
    claim his authority of commander in chief superceded the   
    constitution. By which standard Obama could claim the same   
    thing.   
      
    ...   
      
    TR> state-sponsored terrorism. It was Gadhafi that ordered the   
    TR> 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland,   
    TR> which killed 270, most of whom were Americans. That said, a   
      
    That alone justifies action against Gadhafi.   
      
    TR> number of countervailing arguments counsel against   
    TR> intervening in Libya's civil war with this, as Deputy   
      
    Much more conseled against invading Iraq, but that didn't stop   
    Bush from doing it, or you supporting it.   
      
    TR> For one, it is a civil war. U.S. policy -- at least   
    TR> ostensibly -- has been to refrain from engaging in   
    TR> conflicts where U.S. vital national interests are not at   
    TR> stake.   
      
    Those two points are not connected in any realistic way.   
      
    And there is and was no such policy in any real world.   
      
    TR> Whatever interests the U.S. has in Libya, the term   
    TR> "vital" certainly does not apply.   
      
    Lockerbie says it does.   
      
    TR> Second, as a sovereign nation, the U.S. neither seeks nor   
    TR> is granted authority from a supra-national organization   
    TR> such as the UN to use American instruments of national   
    TR> power, including military force.   
      
    Doesn't change the desirability of getting international   
    support.   
      
    TR> Such authority must vest   
    TR> from within, and in the U.S. that mechanism is the   
    TR> Constitution. While the president has both the authority   
    TR> and duty to use force in protection of the United States   
    TR> from an actual or imminent attack, that is the extent of   
    TR> his unilateral authority.   
      
    Didn't make any difference to you when Bush invaded Iraq. Why is   
    it different now?   
      
    TR> Congress alone has the authority to approve the use of   
    TR> military force in all other circumstances as it did in the   
    TR> wake of 9/11. In the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq,   
    TR> President George W. Bush specifically approached Congress,   
    TR> asked for and was granted a resolution authorizing the use   
    TR> of military force.   
      
    Not for the invasion of Iraq. Bush was granted a conditional   
    resolution authorizing action. Since the conditions were not   
    there the invasion was not legal. Yet you didn't complain about   
    that.   
      
    TR> His successor -- not so much.   
      
    Just as much so. Lockerbie alone is reason enough.   
      
    TR> Next, we have no idea whether the regime that replaces   
    TR> Gadhafi (if that happens) will actually be a change for the   
    TR> better.   
      
    That is true in every place in the world every single day. It   
    seems the government in power in Iraq is *WORSE* for US   
    interests than Saddam was.   
      
    TR> While the words "democracy" and "freedom" are   
    TR> bandied about indiscriminately, no one knows what Libya   
    TR> will look like post-Gadhafi.   
      
    No one knows what America will look like post 2012.   
      
    TR> In fact, the rebels are   
    TR> self-described Islamic "holy warriors" who have at least   
    TR> the verbal backing of al-Qa'ida. This fact alone should   
    TR> advocate for restraint.   
      
    Do they?   
      
    TR> Moreover, as America nears the tenth anniversary of 9/11,   
    TR> we should pause to reflect upon the fact that our nation   
    TR> has been at war continuously for almost a decade. Should we   
      
    Yes, it has. And that is because the Bush Administration took us   
    into war in Iraq for oil. Gen Jay Garner, the first   
    administrator the administration sent to Iraq wanted to have   
    elections immediately, so the administration fired him.   
      
    As a result, the US has been in Iraq for nearly 8 years, and in   
    Afghanistan for almost 10 years.   
      
    You didn't complain when Bush kept us there.   
      
    TR> -- or can we even afford to -- embark on a third commitment   
    TR> of manpower and resources, much less one that is undefined   
    TR> and open-ended?   
      
    Funny, you didn't ask if we could afford Iraq. Get our troops   
    ouot of Iraq and we have the means to deal with Libya.   
      
    TR> Supposedly, no "boots on the ground" were to be committed,   
    TR> but as we go to press 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine   
    TR> Expeditionary Unit are stationed just off the Libyan coast.   
      
    There is a fleet there, isn't there? And Marines on the fleet.   
      
    TR> In the first few days of this conflict alone, we have   
    TR> already lost a plane and spent hundreds of Tomahawk   
    TR> missiles -- are we prepared to commit to this effort to the   
    TR> point that we're willing to sacrifice American lives as   
    TR> well?   
      
    We lost American lives at Lockerbie.   
      
    We lost over 4500 American lives in Iraq, with far less   
    justification, and on the basis of lies from the administration.   
      
    TR> In 2007, both Barack Obama and his levelheaded sidekick Joe   
    TR> Biden believed that the president's authority to use   
    TR> military force is limited to repelling an imminent or   
    TR> ongoing attack on the U.S., and that Congress alone has the   
    TR> authority to authorize the use of military force in all   
    TR> other circumstances.   
      
    He has learned, hasn't he.   
      
    TR> "The president does not have power under the Constitution   
    TR> to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation   
    TR> that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat   
    TR> to the nation," said Barack Obama then. Likewise, Joe Biden   
    TR> chimed in, "I made it clear to the president that if he   
    TR> takes this nation to war without congressional approval, I   
    TR> will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact."   
      
    For some reason you did not object when he invaded Iraq.   
      
    TR> These claims were made when they were "Candidate Obama" and   
    TR> "Senator Biden," respectively -- that is, before either   
    TR> decided that their heartfelt words on the campaign trail or   
    TR> a TV talk show were never meant to be applied to themselves   
    TR> at some future point.   
      
    Didn't bother you in Iraq.   
      
    TR> Finally, it's worth highlighting how utterly disagreeable   
    TR> is the military operation label "Odyssey Dawn." An odyssey   
    TR> is a very long, convoluted saga -- not an event wrapped up   
    TR> in a few days, as this effort has been promoted, thus far.   
    TR> We're hoping that the Pentagon has a good sense of humor   
    TR> and irony.   
      
    Or just bad literary judgement.   
      
    TR> Otherwise and unwittingly, it may have aptly coined the   
    TR> beginning of yet another endless military journey. It might   
    TR> be nice to rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi.   
      
    Another? You admit Bush was guilty of reckless military   
    judgement? Amen amen amen!   
      
    TR> But before we commit American lives and resources toward   
    TR> doing so, shouldn't we first pause to ask the question: At   
    TR> what cost?   
      
    You didn't do that for Iraq.   
      
    TR> Quote of the Week   
    TR> "We don't know whether the current U.S. president is   
    TR> mindful of what he is uttering, or if he is unconscious and   
    TR> confused." --Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei   
      
    He said a lot worse about Bush, but you feel that was worth   
    quoting.   
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)