|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 9:48:55 GMT -5
*** Will Libya impact the budget debate? A question worth pondering: Will the situation in Libya play a role in the current standoff over the budget? Could it end up strengthening the Democrats’ hand (if, say, Khaddafy is ousted in the next week or so)? Or could it help House Republicans (if Khaddafy remains in power and the violence in Libya escalates)? Or more likely, does the Libya situation overshadow the Beltway debate about the budget -- making it easier for back-channel negotiations between the White House and Speaker Boehner to take place?
*** Obama to launch re-election effort in the next couple of weeks? Turning to the emerging 2012 presidential race, National Journal has some details how Obama will file for re-election. "President Obama is fewer than three weeks away from formally announcing his reelection campaign, and will make it public with an online video his aides will post on his new campaign website, Democratic sources familiar with the plans said. Obama’s team will try to keep the exact date and time a surprise, letting supporters know first by text message and e-mail. By that point, Obama would have opened his campaign account with the Federal Election Commission. But a major Democratic National Committee fundraiser is set for April 14 in Chicago, and Democratic donors are being told that it will coincide with the announcement. Obama will attend the event."
*** Barbour wooing Huck? On the GOP side, Politico writes how Haley Barbour is wooing Mike Huckabee. "Representatives of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour have been trying to set up a time with Huckabee aides for the two Southern governors and longtime friends to meet... It’s a delicate topic for the two prospective candidates. Barbour wants to be respectful of Huckabee’s decision-making process and not be seen as pressuring the 2008 winner of the Iowa caucuses. And Huckabee, despite doing little of what he himself has said would be necessary to mount a campaign, wants to keep the possibility of running open and isn’t quite ready to play kingmaker. But for all their aides’ coyness, the two principals have been openly flirting with one another in recent weeks."
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 9:52:22 GMT -5
This is a latest from the battle field and it is a example of what I posted in one of the posts above of what is really happening, the Gaddafi forces are organized , a Army, and the insurgents just can't match up with them with the training and equipement they currently have. ---------------------------------------------------------------- news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_af/af_libya------------------------------------------------------ [Click on link to read article] ------------------------------------------------------ . AP – Libyan rebels flee as shelling from Gadhafi's forces start landing on the frontline outside of Bin Jawaad, … By RYAN LUCAS, Associated Press Ryan Lucas, Associated Press – 2 mins ago BIN JAWWAD, Libya – Libyan government tanks and rockets have driven back rebels who attempted an assault on Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte. Opposition fighters fleeing in a panicked scramble pleaded for international airstrikes that never came. Gadhafi's forces drove the rebels out of Bin Jawwad, a hamlet east of Sirte, on Tuesday. Cars and trucks of the retreating rebels filled both lanes of the highway east to the oil port of Ras Lanouf. Some fleeing rebels shouted "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces. There were no international airstrikes in Bin Jawwad during the hourslong battle there, possibly because of overcast skies. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. BIN JAWWAD, Libya (AP) — "Libyan government tanks and rockets blunted a rebel assault on Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte on Tuesday and drove back the ragtag army of irregulars, even as world leaders prepared to debate the country's future in London. Rockets and tank fire sent Libya's rebel volunteers in a panicked scramble away from the front lines, before the opposition was able to bring up truck mounted rocket launchers of their own and return fire. The latest rebel setback emphasizes the see-saw nature of this conflict and how the opposition is still no match for the superior firepower and organization of Gadhafi's forces, despite an international campaign of deadly airstrikes"
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Mar 29, 2011 9:55:12 GMT -5
This is a latest from the battle field and it is a example of what I posted in one of the posts above of what is really happening, the Gaddafi forces are organized , a Army, and the insurgents just can't match up with them with the training and equipement they currently have. ---------------------------------------------------------------- news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_af/af_libyaYeah. They said the same thing about the Russians vs. the Afghans.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 10:01:51 GMT -5
This is a latest from the battle field and it is a example of what I posted in one of the posts above of what is really happening, the Gaddafi forces are organized , a Army, and the insurgents just can't match up with them with the training and equipement they currently have. ---------------------------------------------------------------- news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_af/af_libyaYeah. They said the same thing about the Russians vs. the Afghans. Different people, different terraine, and you forget , we were active there with training with the weapons we gave them, the anti aircraft and ant armor weapons and the battle was years , so training and the experience of the Afgans who were use to this type of back and forth seemed to be something they grew up with. Here , from what I understasnd, no mountains to retreat to, all basically open spaces where there is little shelter, even if gaddafi;s air force is basically gounded. They, Afgans, lost thousands and thousands in that war before the Soviets finally gave it up as a bad call on their part.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Mar 29, 2011 10:03:22 GMT -5
Yes, dez. It's different this time. ;D
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 10:04:07 GMT -5
Yeah. They said the same thing about the Russians vs. the Afghans.
Will this be a case where the increase from @ 20 to @ 100 air strikes each and every day aimed at the Khadafy ground forces to bring Khadafy to the table...something I didn't hear last night from our CIC Mr Obama..
The leading Dems out here on the far left coast, Zoe Lofgren, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsley and Pete Stark are still not happy campers and want to know how much this conflict in Libya will cost and can we pay for this with our current budget issues?? Suddenly the progressive wing of the Democratic party is getting to be fiscally conserative....must be something in the water out here and hope it is not radiation from Japan..
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 10:22:37 GMT -5
The 28 nations belonging to NATO will make a decision. The decision will not be made by any one nation.
28 nations deciding how our military assets are used is problematic to me.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 10:25:52 GMT -5
Yes, dez. It's different this time. ;D There ya go, glad you agree. ;D
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 29, 2011 10:26:32 GMT -5
There are 28 members of NATO. While we may be the largest member, and the member providing the most funding, there are still 27 other members. It is NOT a one-sided decision. You may assume the other members will go along because we're the big, bad ogre. NATO, as a military organization, I'm assuming still follows chain of command. Now, follow the chain of command. A Canadian Three Star General was selected to "run the show" in Libya. His boss is the commander of NATO'S Allied Joint Force Command Naples...an American Admiral. The American Admiral's Boss, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is an American. The Canadian General selected to run NATO operations in Libya is commanded by American military officers and and running an operation by an organization that is nearly 25% funded by the US.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 10:37:28 GMT -5
Anyone here remember why NATO was formed? Anyone know the NATO charter? Anyone evn know what NATO stands for? I'll give you a hint- it's not "North African" anything. It's a defensive organization, and no member organization was attacked. Now based upon this- I'd really like to know why NATO is taking action in Libya?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 10:40:45 GMT -5
North American Treaty Organization and formed after WW2 and chaired by some heavy weight AF Generals for a long time until they got smart and apponted General James Jones USMC a few years ago...
I believe the UN resquested that NATO assume a leadership role because our boy Barrack Obama had too many things on his plate, i.e pasta, pizza, yogurt, fruit, peanuts, and snacks while watching the final four playoffs (per Unreliable Sources)
As a point of trivia we did a lot of joint NATO exercises when I was active and got to know some awesome Canadian, British, and other country Armed Forces and exchanged a lot of good information for training purposes ..i.e weapons, equipment, and etc NATO country Armed Forces also buy our defense industry products and services and attend classes here at our military bases. Good Organization IMHO..but been a few years..
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 10:41:31 GMT -5
North Atlantic
Oil
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 29, 2011 12:03:36 GMT -5
What gets me is that during the last administration, Bush was a called a cowboy, a renegade, warmonger..but he had congressional approval for his wars, but Obama the hope and change man of peace did not, and for that matter neither did Clinton for kosovo.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 12:39:21 GMT -5
Look the bottom line is that NATO's charter has expired. Mission accomplished. There's no Soviet threat anymore, but like every government inspired bureaucracy, it's the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see in this life. It won't be disbanded, oh no- but EXPANDED.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 12:40:21 GMT -5
And like our country- NATO should never be offensive, or interventionist. It's a defensive alliance.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 12:41:02 GMT -5
What gets me is that during the last administration, Bush was a called a cowboy, a renegade, warmonger..but he had congressional approval for his wars, but Obama the hope and change man of peace did not, and for that matter neither did Clinton for kosovo. To say nothing of the HUGE international alliance Bush had with him.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 12:47:41 GMT -5
And we can argue strategy, and tactics all day-- and we have-- but Iraq and Afghanistan were in direct response to 9.11.01. It was a defensive move to take out a dictator who had invaded his neighbors, funded terrorism outside his country, had in his possession weapons of mass destruction, had convinced the world he had active WMD programs, and who had worked with al qaeda, funded al qaeda, hosted al qaeda training camps and had openly threatened us with attacks. In Afghanistan, that was a direct attack on the hornet's nest-- the home of al qaeda's base of operations.
Now, we can-- and should-- have a serious discussion of the missions there; and in my opinion we ought not to be "establishing democracy" or "nation building" but we can and should root out our enemies wherever we find them, and disrupt their operations, and hopefully-- KILL a whole bunch of them at a time while doing the best job we can of not killing innocents or civilians.
The war in Libya meets NONE of the defensive criteria, it doesn't even meet the loosest definition of "in our national interest", and it ends up actually adopting the worst of the Iraq and Afganistan war's operational objectives-- regime change AND, make no mistake about it: establishing democracy- nation building. Oh, yes. It's coming.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 12:50:09 GMT -5
The 28 nations belonging to NATO will make a decision. The decision will not be made by any one nation. 28 nations deciding how our military assets are used is problematic to me. In this case, it isn't problematic to me. However, if we decide we don't like it, we can always withdraw. We've not done so.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 14:56:04 GMT -5
What gets me is that during the last administration, Bush was a called a cowboy, a renegade, warmonger..but he had congressional approval for his wars, but Obama the hope and change man of peace did not, and for that matter neither did Clinton for kosovo. So many called Clinton a woos yet under his administration, he did stop the genocide in that country, did not commit any ground forces beyond possible some special units which we haven heard about but am sure were there in places, and basically forced their, Serbs President, Morosivitz, to stand down. Difference from this event in Libya we did hit where his forces were, country side and his own homes and in the cities. They don't want to do that here, Tripoli and other cities. I am not sure we can do it the same way.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 15:05:30 GMT -5
And we can argue strategy, and tactics all day-- and we have-- but Iraq and Afghanistan were in direct response to 9.11.01. It was a defensive move to take out a dictator who had invaded his neighbors, funded terrorism outside his country, had in his possession weapons of mass destruction, had convinced the world he had active WMD programs, and who had worked with al qaeda, funded al qaeda, hosted al qaeda training camps and had openly threatened us with attacks. In Afghanistan, that was a direct attack on the hornet's nest-- the home of al qaeda's base of operations. Now, we can-- and should-- have a serious discussion of the missions there; and in my opinion we ought not to be "establishing democracy" or "nation building" but we can and should root out our enemies wherever we find them, and disrupt their operations, and hopefully-- KILL a whole bunch of them at a time while doing the best job we can of not killing innocents or civilians. The war in Libya meets NONE of the defensive criteria, it doesn't even meet the loosest definition of "in our national interest", and it ends up actually adopting the worst of the Iraq and Afghanistan war's operational objectives-- regime change AND, make no mistake about it: establishing democracy- nation building. Oh, yes. It's coming. It meets the stopping of a slaughter of the Libyan civilians, besides the insurgents. I know other places, some of that is going on , but in this case , it seems it is , was, would be carried out at a much higher level, and possible is a doable , if the will is there. In this Potus mind , he doesn't want that to happen on his watch, as it did under Clintons, when he took no action, so he proposed , or they proposed , but what ever the exact scenario as to how it came about, there are 28 countries, many large ones, all allies of ours over the decades, many who have fought with us over time, France, Turkey, UK, and others , all who felt the same, to take a quote from another put upon group, "Never Again " I guess if you were in the position of being able to make such a decision, convince others, offer support, you might have stepped back and allowed the event, the slaughter , to take place, no real threat directly to us, why get involved. For me and some others, I am glad he did what he did. Now how the outcome will come about, I don't know, have my fingers crossed, the man and his family get the message, better to be filthy rich on some beach some where rather to haver nothing and family gone as well as he as they would be just broke and dead.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 29, 2011 16:52:28 GMT -5
dictator who had invaded his neighbors, funded terrorism outside his country, had in his possession weapons of mass destruction, had convinced the world he had active WMD programs, and who had worked with al qaeda, funded al qaeda, hosted al qaeda training camps and had openly threatened us with attacks.
Not. All Boooosh/Cheney lies. Tried to kill Daddy...maybe...The French were right. And had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Macho cowboy thing. A catastrophe.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 17:08:17 GMT -5
Not. All Boooosh/Cheney lies. Tried to kill Daddy...maybe...The French were right. And had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Macho cowboy thing. A catastrophe.
Bill and Hilary Clinton believed it.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 29, 2011 17:31:34 GMT -5
Dems always have a hard time believing how evil some Pubs are. I'm going with Cheney
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 20:09:13 GMT -5
How would you figure it to be best done, if the goal was to enforce a no-fly zone? Do we wait until the planes get in the air and start firing, or do we take them out on the ground, while nobody is in them, flying them? Do we sit around with our fingers in our ears waiting while the Gadhafi kill teams plan their next slaughter, or do we take out the planning hide-outs, and the leader's compound? Personally, I think things are going pretty much as one could expect them to go, considering the UNs resolution.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 20:37:30 GMT -5
I think that , and I am going with that thought , that they, we, definitly, know a lot of his , Gaddafi's hide outs, bunkers if he is using them. There would have been acctivity in building them , I think we would have watched frm the sky as it was done, remeber this was a real enemy of ours for thirty years. If we did not, some one fell asleep at the switch years ago. I don't see him hiding in holes and houses as Saddam did, me thinks bunkers as he still is in command of forces, have to impress his commanders, and has to show he is not just running but has a plan, otherwise most will bug out or even possible attempt to remove him from the picture. I am hoping they THINK he's some place the coalation or we , send a missle to the spot. If it misses him so be it, he wll know we are seriouse about a change here even if we say that's not the plan.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 29, 2011 21:25:58 GMT -5
I guess we all think Gaddifi is a bad dude and of course Bush lied and fabricated all the intelligence so that Congress and the other nations would go along, but that still doesn't explain why Obama didn't get Congressional authority or even consult with Congress.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 21:47:06 GMT -5
I guess we all think Gaddifi is a bad dude and of course Bush lied and fabricated all the intelligence so that Congress and the other nations would go along, but that still doesn't explain why Obama didn't get Congressional authority or even consult with Congress. Who says he didn't. According to media sources he bnotified both sides of Congress both House and Senate his decision , Friday. Consult with? These are politicals, if your consulting with anyone it's your advisers, military and naturally leaders of the other nations that will be involved. Are you saying the leader of the house , his sworn foe on the political, is going to give him advice that wouldn't better be served by his own trusted advisor's and military and intelligence people? He is the commander in chief and none of those politicals are expert in these fields and I am sure he knew the flack he was going to get from all sides, all political, and just to hear more of that when he knew the slaughter of civilians were not going to happen on his watch if there was anything he could do to mitigate that happening if at all possible. If he gets political fall out from his decision, then he will get political fallout, so be it. Right or wrong on his decisions, he makes decisions, and I feel not off the cuff , but thought out decisions. As he said, they got this going in nine days , pretty impressive by my outlook, not six months or more as most of these type of decisions are done. Forgetting those who just are not comfortable as one posted a while ago with the man, the guy does have it together , is a leader, and definitely is the POTUS, no question about it. One can fault some of his ideas and on some possible have a point though not really have all the information, but to say he is not a leader, that is a falsehood.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 21:55:05 GMT -5
You can't please everyone. And President Obama really can't please his potential 2012 challengers. Republicans looking to succeed the President blasted his Libya policy shortly after Obama delivered his speech Monday night. They insisted the commander-in-chief still hasn't laid out a clear case for intervention or detailed what the endgame there would be. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called Obama's address "profoundly disappointing." "It proved that the 'Obama Doctrine' is still full of chaos and questions," Palin told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "It's dodgy, it's dubious. We're not hearing from our president what is the endgame here." The former vice presidential nominee added, "and with Khadafy still in power - if we are not going to oust him via killing or capturing - then there is no acceptable end state." Ex-GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani echoed those sentiments to CNN, arguing Obama "made things even murkier than they were before." "The president says our mission is to protect the people of Libya," the former New York Mayor added. "Well, how do you protect the people of Libya and not be for regime change in Libya? Isn't the danger for the people of Libya Khadafy?" During the speech, Obama defended military action in Libya, arguing the U.S. has "stopped Khadafy's deadly advance." He said America will hand control of the operation to NATO on Wednesday - 11 days after the U.S. and allied strikes began. He also said the U.S. mission would not be broadened to include regime change. Tea Party favorite and potential 2012 candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued action in Libya isn't in America's national interest. Former Minnesota Gov. and possible nominee Tim Pawlenty weighed in on Tuesday's Morning Joe on MSNBC. "It's not appropriate to be sitting on the sidelines and just watch history unfold without exerting leadership. This president I thought was belated and timid in that regard." And billionaire business magnate Donald Trump said it made "no sense" that Obama wants to get rid of Khadafy but doesn't want regime change. Trump said he feared Libyan rebels could be linked to Iran. "I do really want to know who these people we're fighting for, who they are. They call them the rebels like their these wonderful guys, but I hear their aligned with Iran, I hear they may be aligned with Al-Qaeda," he told CNN's Piers Morgan. "Wouldn't it really be very, very sad if we're bombing all of these tanks, killing all of these people one way or the other and Iran ends up taking over Libya?" ashahid@nydailynews.com www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/03/29/2011-03-29_potential_2012_gop_candidates_palin_trump_paul_giuliani_rip_president_obamas_lib.html
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 29, 2011 22:05:11 GMT -5
I guess we all think Gaddifi is a bad dude and of course Bush lied and fabricated all the intelligence so that Congress and the other nations would go along, but that still doesn't explain why Obama didn't get Congressional authority or even consult with Congress. Who says he didn't. According to media sources he bnotified both sides of Congress both House and Senate his decision , Friday. Consult with? These are politicals, if your consulting with anyone it's your advisers, military and naturally leaders of the other nations that will be involved. Are you saying the leader of the house , his sworn foe on the political, is going to give him advice that wouldn't better be served by his own trusted advisor's and military and intelligence people? He is the commander in chief and none of those politicals are expert in these fields and I am sure he knew the flack he was going to get from all sides, all political, and just to hear more of that when he knew the slaughter of civilians were not going to happen on his watch if there was anything he could do to mitigate that happening if at all possible. If he gets political fall out from his decision, then he will get political fallout, so be it. Right or wrong on his decisions, he makes decisions, and I feel not off the cuff , but thought out decisions. As he said, they got this going in nine days , pretty impressive by my outlook, not six months or more as most of these type of decisions are done. Forgetting those who just are not comfortable as one posted a while ago with the man, the guy does have it together , is a leader, and definitely is the POTUS, no question about it. One can fault some of his ideas and on some possible have a point though not really have all the information, but to say he is not a leader, that is a falsehood. Whether the members of Congress are experts at anything is not what my point is, Libya did not pose any threat whatever to the USA and yet the POTUS unilaterally decided to commit US forces in an offensive act against a foreign government.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 29, 2011 22:31:11 GMT -5
It was the perfect situation: FRIENDLESS monster proudly attacking his own people with the army, all along the sea geography, important economy.
|
|