A novice in the White House, his inexperience shows.
Obama's brief statement on Libya says as much in what it didn't say, as what it did. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
President Obama's brief statement last night, concerning deployment of US Armed Forces to attack targets in Libya said much in what in didn't say, and a few things in what it did.
First, President Obama did not go to the Congress of the People of the United States to ask for belated approval for the use of force. In his comments he did not specifically state why we were there, and what conditions would warrant an end to our actions. Are the Democrats trumping Bush's claim to the right for pre-emptory attacks by saying that the President has the right to use US force without even seeking Congressional approval?
Have the claims of the Democrats through the Bush Presidency actually been what Rush Limbaugh has said all along, merely a treasonous assault on US policy because a Republican held the Oval office?
What President Obama did say is troubling also. For one, though he did not seek US Congressional approval, he clearly said the international community had spoken: " ..this same message, by the way, has been delivered by the European Union, the Arab League, the African Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and many individual nations. North and south, east and west, voices are being raised together to oppose suppression and support the rights of the Libyan people."
Obama seems to be saying, Americans can participate in this action, engage targets and kill because of the general consensus of the international community. He didn't mention that China, Russia and German do not support these actions, and actually mislead consensus. But also, and more importantly, he has unilaterally deployed US military force without Congressional approval. Is this an impeachable offense? I suggest that it is important to get the Democrats on the recordis this use of force Constitutional?
As for the reason we are there, President Obama said; "The United States also strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people. That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. They are not negotiable. They must be respected in every country. And they cannot be denied through violence or suppression."
Is this now the universal justification for the use of American military might? Again, its important to get the Democrats on record as supporting this. If the US is now becoming a global Crusader for Liberty, democracy, and freedom, it would seem that a policy decision of that magnitude should deserve both Congressional consideration and approval.
President Obama said: "Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people." Has approval of a UN Security Council Resolution taken the place of Congressional approval for the use of force?
Lastly, has Obama withdrawn the United States from shaping events. In his comment about the events occurring in Libya, he seemed to be distancing the US from the actions occurring within that nation. " The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn't represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life."
If the people opposing Kadhafi do represent the will of the people of Libya, and if that will asserts a more aggressive tone against Israel, will the US stand by endorsing the idea as a reflection of Arab will?
When you, as a citizen, elect a novice to the White House, you get what you elect. Like so many other policy choices, one has to wonder, how will we pay for this choice.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
