Thursday, March 31, 2011

Libya Follow-Up

Now that a bit more time has passed, let's take another look at the Libya situation. In particular, let's examine how Barack Obama has continued to bungle it.

Libya's dictator-for-life, Moammar Gadhafi (or however you want to spell it), is gaining back ground, prompting the U.S. and a coalition of international forces to intervene. Barack Obama finally gave a speech to the American public explaining his policy on Libya. This seemed to be the theme of that speech:
“We should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America’s alone,” ...

“American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone,” Obama said. “Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well.”
In other words, he's trying to do as little as possible while looking like he's doing as much as possible. Of course, this message was so critical that he shuffled his speech around Dancing With The Stars. Interesting sense of priorities, if you ask me. Anyway, there are just a few problems with the whole idea...

Using the same rationale George W. Bush used to go into Iraq, Barack Obama has now gone into Libya.

It seems that the world is upside down. Suddenly Republicans are concerned about going into a Middle Eastern country and Democrats are gung-ho neocon warmongers.

The situation, of course, is not that simple.

Whether you think he lied, was misled, or was right, George W. Bush did make a case to Congress and the American people prior to going into Iraq that Iraq was training Al Qaeda and, given its weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, was an imminent threat to the United States.

Again, you can think he lied. You can think he was misled. You can think he was right.

But Bush went to the United Nations, got the appropriate resolutions, went before the American people to make his case, and before going into Iraq received Congressional approval. In fact, it took him a year and a half to make his case. When he went in, he had 80% public approval and a much larger international coalition than Obama is taking with him.

He also could articulate an idea for an endpoint, whether you liked it or not.

Obama has failed at each of these things. Approval for our action in Libya is less than 50%. Obama never addressed Congress for approval. There is no clearly defined endpoint or strategic exit. To top it all off, the very same rebels he is aiding are the same people who were attacking American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hm, can't imagine why so few Americans think this is a good idea...

Oh, and speaking of George W. Bush, the coalition he formed before we went into Iraq was four times bigger than the coalition Barack Obama -- the great uniter, remember -- managed to slap together.

Anyway, after Obama's big speech, in which he supposedly laid out his reasoning and mission (the 'Obama Doctrine'), there's only more confusion. The Right is having a field day with it...

Dan Nexon has pretty effectively summed up the “Obama Doctrine” as the “Humanitarian-intervention-against-militarily-weak-fossil-fuel-producing-countries-in-strategically-important-regions-that-are-also-located-near-many-large-NATO-military-bases-and-are-run-by-dictators-who-kind-of-piss-us-off-and-have-no-powerful-allies Doctrine.”

Concentrate, instead, on this one key fact: this American president, who ran on a platform of not being the Left’s caricature of George W. Bush (a fantasy character who ran headlong into wars with no planning, no Congressional authorization or oversight, no true mission, no exit strategy, no Plan B if things didn’t go swimmingly off the bat, and no real regard for outcomes or consequences), has run the US headlong into a war with no planning, no Congressional authorization or oversight, no true mission, no exit strategy, no Plan B if things don’t go swimmingly off the bat, and no real regard for outcomes.
Over three weeks ago, I asked whether anyone could identify an “Obama Doctrine” in foreign policy that covered the triggers and limits for American intervention. One intervention and a prime-time speech later, most of us are still wondering. If Barack Obama hoped to clarify why the US decided to attack Libya while ignoring similar scenes of oppression in nations like Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain, he left the issue muddier than ever, and not just among conservatives. Dana Milbank, for instance, tries to argue that the lack of a doctrine is somehow a sign of brilliance, but even he admits that Obama’s losing Americans between Bush-like soundbites and opacity ...

Why Libya and not Syria, where the US actually has significant security concerns in its alliance with Iran, and a track record given Syria’s support for terrorists and insurgents in Iraq over the last several years? Syria also helps prop up Hezbollah in Lebanon, which provides a direct threat to our ally Israel, where Libya had been mostly rendered toothless.
The doctrine is there is no doctrine.

President Barack Obama answered questions about America’s mission in Libya Monday night with a 27-minute address that focused narrowly on “this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment” and shied away from making sweeping statements about America’s role in the world, the larger principles that guide his decisions on using force or about the U.S. response to the unfolding Arab Spring.

For those at home wondering, would U.S. forces be deployed in Syria or Yemen or Saudi Arabia or even Iran, the answer was … . well, probably not, but hard to say for absolutely sure.
“We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people,” Obama said.

Which you could call the Obama Doctrine, except we hold so few countries to it, including dictatorships that we not only do business with, but whom we also call friends and allies, that it doesn’t deserve that title.

But Libya is the right enemy at the right time because we think we can defeat Moammar Qadhafi on the cheap – - that is by using air power alone – - and supporting rebel forces.
Isn't it amazing that he seems to approach every foreign policy problem with an almost total lack of spine, principle, and consistency?

Jim Geraghty has a terrific roundup of some of the most salient commentary in his most recent newsletter:

I'll let the Ace of Spades lead the critique of Obama's big, almost-prime-time speech:

"We Took A Series of Swift Steps: "Oh, you mean after you dithered around with the same basic facts for three weeks.

You mean after all that delay, you finally made a decision, and then themilitary acted swiftly.

"I Refused to Let That Happen: "Ah, okay, just as long as I know who the hero is here.

By the way, he's super-proud that he waited until the last possible moment to save Benghazi (but none of the towns and cities along the decimated way to Benghazi). Apparently those other towns he let be demolished as he dithered didn't count.

Only the dramatic, last-second decision to spare Benghazi specifically should matter.

He says that he's all about getting other countries to bear the burdens. He says, to that end, that he's transferred command to NATO.

Um, so, if I'm getting this right, our pilots and seamen are still fighting this war, they're just being bossed around by a foreign general, right?

And that general isn't actually in the fight, right?

Seems to me that all Obama is doing is distancing himself from any possible failure while keeping our troops in harm's way.

Many on the Right agreed with Ace that the speech had some big tasks before it, and Obama whiffed big-time.

It's somewhat nice to know that when you watch our president step up to the plate, tap his cleats, call his shot, and then promptly go down swinging on three pitches, there are a lot of like-minded folks on Twitter who can find something to laugh about in the whole mess.

Caleb Howe
offered perhaps the most succinct summary: "Obama: I authorized this war that is not a war, which is narrowly focused but broad in scope, so we could lead. As helpers."

Jeff Emanuel
notices, "For a supposed history savant, Obama misstated the amount of time it took to effect regime change in Iraq by about 7 yrs, 11 months."

Brian Lehman
: "The Nobel Peace Prize winning President just made the case for invading almost anywhere."

Greg Pollowitz watched MSNBC so we wouldn't have to, and said that Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell sounded ready to give Obama "another Nobel for bombing Libya." To which Kevin Binversie
responds, "Ah, yes, the Nobel War Prize. Rarely given!"

Josh TreviƱo
: "The President's war metrics rely on projections of Libyans created or saved." He also noted, "This is the first time in American history that a President has simultaneously set a war aim and disavowed means to obtain it."

Jim Treacher
: "It was almost as good as the first time I heard this speech, when Bush gave it."

John Ondrasik
-- you know, the guy from Five for Fighting who's known for the Superman song and "One Hundred Years" -- offers one of the night's key observations: "Wonder how candidate Obama (07-08) would react to Pres Obama speech on today's war." Heck, the Barack Obama from 2003 probably would have heckled him.

Of course, some of the post-speech observations took a more ominous tone.
Patrick Ruffini: "The only thing more dangerous than sending our sons and daughters into harm[']s way is sending them without meaning it."

Hugh Hewitt show producer Duane Patterson
wondered, "So if you're Gaddafi and you hear Obama promise he will not force you out militarily, doesn't that encourage you to dig in?"

Ultimately, it boils down to a disturbing lack of leadership. So why the reluctance to lead? Well, it all comes back to that thing we've talked about before, where Obama truly believes that America is the source of the greatest evil in the world. The Wall Street Journal also offers the following reason:
Mr. Obama won't lead the world because he truly seems to believe that U.S. leadership is morally suspect. But if Mr. Obama thinks George W. Bush was unpopular in the Arab world, he should contemplate the standing of America—and the world reputation of Barack Obama—if Gadhafi and his sons slaughter their way back to power.
Sadly, isn't that how it always works? When liberals get their way, tyranny wins.

Rush Limbaugh had a slightly different take on it, kind of a broad-scope view:
Now, Obama is setting in place a new precedent all of a sudden, respecting our foreign policy and our military. And I don't mean he respects them. He's setting a new place, new terms, if you will: All roads first go through the UN. That's another reason to wait nine days. All roads go through the UN, NATO, what have you. Look for more of this. And then you turn the operations over to another coalition. What Obama is doing here is multitasking. He is undoing our sovereignty while at the same time setting up the table to take personal credit for the eventual overthrow of Khadafy.

Never forget -- never forget, folks -- Barack Obama has always held himself out as a global citizen, bigger than the mere boundaries of our own country. All this stuff about American exceptionalism? That's no different than all the BS that he talked about free markets in the campaign while simultaneously spreading socialism here. So while he's talking about American exceptionalism, he is empowering the United Nations. It's the United Nations and NATO and all these other organizations. Have you noticed Mrs. Clinton's language? "We're not... We're not... We're not... We're not arming the rebels. We are not getting rid of Khadafy. We're not... We're not... We're not..." meaning the United States.

"They are... They are... They are..." the UN. Not us. Notice Obama got his moral sanction from the United Nations, not the United States Congress. Obama did not go to the Congress on this operation -- on purpose. He went to the UN. He side-stepped Congress. This is Obama seeking his dream, to not be held prisoner by the boundaries of this country. He's a citizen of the world. He is undoing our sovereignty right in front of our eyes here.
Based on the facts of the last couple years and Obama's actions while in office, I can't find any fault in the logic there. Can you?

Some final commentary worth seeing:

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Speaking Of Time Warner Cable...

The New Yorker explains...brilliantly:


$17.23 — Basic service

$37.35 — Standard service

$40.81 — Actual service

$12.50 — Federal taxes

$11.75 — Federal taxes, part two

$6.85 — New York City taxes

$5.35 — Fort Wayne, Indiana, city taxes

$3.45 — Singapore Nuclear Defense Fund

$16.30 — Twenty-five-per-cent gratuity

$13.99 — DVR (disabled video recorder)

$11.45 — HDTV you forget to use because it's Channel 700-something

$8.12 — Color TV

$4.75 — Right to use that stylish e-mail address

$14.32 — Landline you promised your parents you would keep as an "emergency backup" and now you only use to order Thai food

$1.35 — Random charge that's too small to waste your time contesting

$7.25 — Remembrance Fee, for when you forgot your seventeen-digit Internet password and we had to remind you

$1.82 — Time Warner Appreciation Fee

$1.35 — Somehow this goes to Goldman Sachs

$0.32 — Part of the remaining balance on the cable box you purchased in 1993. Number of remaining payments: ∞

$14.95 — HBO you purchased just to watch reruns of "The Sopranos"

$12.50 — Mandatory purchase of HBO's "Behind the Scenes: Marmaduke"

$8.40 — Mandatory purchase of HBO's "First Look" at "Marmaduke 3"

$12.95 — Showtime you forgot you ordered

$12.95 — Cinemax you forgot you ordered

$9.95 — Starz you forgot was a channel

$6.95 — Moonz*

$0.02 — Internal joke

$40.20 — Watching a Non-New York Football Game Betrayal Surcharge

$3.95 — Your girlfriend's niece's friend somehow voted for "American Idol" through your cable box

$3.75 — What Ever Happened to "My Name Is Earl"? Fee

$11.45 — Your child watched the same episode of "Yo Gabba Gabba!" four hundred times

$1.18 — You cried during "Megamind"

-$4.95 — Credit for watching the film "Old Dogs" in its entirety

$2.10 — It's a secret

$2.15 — Piers Morgan's dental plan

$5.43 — Some junk

$0.99/day — Adoption of Eritrean boy named Kulu (photo attached)

$10.95 — That time you stole your neighbor's Wi-Fi

$15.99 — People Get All Their Porn from the Internet Surcharge

$2.35 — This is a scam

$7.08 — Time Warner keychain

$53.71 — Shipping and handling for Time Warner keychain

$82.40 — Keychain Misdelivery Fee

$53.71 — Second attempt at delivering keychain

$12.71 — Oops, we had the wrong address

$104.23 — Keychain Restocking Fee

-$5.95 — Credit for improper charges on previous bill

$5.95 — Psych!

$120.32 — Residuals owed to composer of "Please hold" music

$12.99 — We're going to Hell 



All true, of course, except for the fact that this example really isn't comprehensive - I think my actual bill is quite a bit more expensive than this.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Rather than hit a single topic in this post, I thought I'd circle around and touch on a bunch of things that really help illustrate just how far apart Barack Obama and radical leftist liberals like him are from most normal Americans. Take a look for yourself, first in some major policy areas.

When Barack Obama took office on the mantle of Hope and Change, one of the first moves he and his Democratic allies in Congress made was to shut down the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program to new students. Despite a track record of sterling success in moving children in low-income families from failing public schools and giving them a chance at academic success — and a brighter future — Democrats cut funding to the DCOSP and consigned the children of the District of Columbia to the public-school monopoly. ... the office of Speaker John Boehner reminds us that the budget passed by House GOP will restore the program in the SOAR Act, and that Senator Joe Lieberman has a similar provision in the upper chamber ... [and] as happened before Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid pulled the plug on actual Hope and Change.


Two years into its pledge to improve government transparency, the Obama administration took action on fewer requests for federal records from citizens, journalists, companies and others last year even as significantly more people asked for information. The administration disclosed at least some of what people wanted at about the same rate as the previous year.

People requested information 544,360 times last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act from the 35 largest agencies, up nearly 41,000 more than the previous year, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of new federal data. But the government responded to nearly 12,400 fewer requests.

The administration refused to release any sought-after materials in more than 1-in-3 information requests, including cases when it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was determined to be improper under the law. It refused more often to quickly consider information requests about subjects described as urgent or especially newsworthy. And nearly half the agencies that AP examined took longer — weeks more, in some cases — to give out records last year than during the previous year.

The government's responsiveness under the Freedom of Information Act is widely considered a barometer of how transparent federal offices are.

Now that's hope and change!

For the second time in eighteen months, the Obama administration has been caught making a $2-trillion error in its deficit projections, this time attached to its latest budget proposal. The CBO yesterday released a report showing that the White House far overstated economic growth and blew the whistle yet again on ObamaCare projections ...

The findings in this puncture two myths perpetrated by Barack Obama. First, ObamaCare is not “deficit neutral” in the first ten years, let alone constitutes a savings over the decade. That was true even before the “doctor fix,” but the suspension of reductions in payments that came later sends ObamaCare well into red ink. Next, the White House is inflating future revenue projections in order to protect its plans for expanded federal spending. The difference in this case comes to $400 billion in year 10 of the projections, a difference that almost equals the worst total budget deficit under George W. Bush.

The first $2 trillion math error in the summer of 2009 was extraordinary enough. No administration in my recollection has ever had to issue a $2 trillion correction to its fiscal projections, and that should have resulted in resignations at the time from Obama’s economic team. A second such “error” in less than two years either indicates extraordinary incompetence, or something more deliberate in action at the White House.

Unfortunately for him, Americans know it. Less than a third of likely American voters now give Barack Obama good marks on the economy, and almost half say the opposite.

Now let's look at Obama's philosophy. What drives him? Is it the same thing that drives you and me?

Teleology is a world view that says that the world makes sense, and must work in a way which is intellectually and esthetically pleasing to humans. It assumes a mind-body duality and places the mind, the spiritual, above the body and the physical. If an idea is pleasing then it must be true, for ultimate truth will always be pleasing.

That isn’t really how teleology began, but that’s what it’s become in the modern era. Modern transnational progressivism is, at its core, based on that rather warped and degenerate version of teleology at a deep, a priori level. It may seem strange to talk about the “spiritual” when talking about a movement which prides itself in being secular, but progressivism embraces many contradictions.

To a teleologist, the way you stop war is to put a sticker on your car that says “Imagine world peace”. If enough people just want it enough, it’ll happen. Indeed, anything is possible if you just want it enough. You can power modern industrial civilization exclusively using “green” energy, for instance. If it isn’t happening, it’s the fault of all the people who refuse to get on board to help with the wanting.

To a teleologist, socialism is obviously the way things should be. The ideal socialist utopia is such a pleasing image that it must be the way to go. Never mind that every time socialism has been tried, it has always failed badly; empirical results don’t matter to a teleologist.

As a true man of the left, our president is fundamentally teleological, and this is the explanation for a lot of things about him that people find puzzling. Again and again, Obama makes speeches about how important some thing is, but doesn’t seem to do anything about them. But that’s not puzzling if you realize that to a teleologist,wanting something is doing something.

This can be seen in essentially every policy initiative. Global warming? He wants 'green' measures to be effective and change it, so therefore...they do. He wants peace in the Middle East, so therefore...there will be. He wants redistribution of wealth to make a nation more wealthy overall, so does. Never mind that reality says precisely the opposite. He's a teleologist, so all he needs to do is want it badly enough...and it'll magically happen.

It explains a heckuva alot, doesn't it? And yes, it is completely frightening that these people are in charge.

In Barack Obama's economy, it appears as if making a philosophical point is worth the loss of American lives. For example, in an appeal to the gay lobby, Obama mandated that, in the midst of war, our military be purposely distracted from the pressing issue of defeating the Taliban by giving precedence to gay sensitivity training on the battlefield.

In addition, the President of the United States seems committed to strengthening America's enemies by ignoring the true motives of those whose intent is to do us harm. On more than one occasion, after military personnel were murdered in cold blood by "Allahu Akbar"-screaming terrorists, Obama -- careful not to be offensive to Islam -- refused to refer to terrorism as such. Instead, rather than condemn the obvious, an emotionless Obama called an act of holy war a "horrific outburst of violence," leaving the judgment of jihadists to formal inquiry.

North Korea and Pakistan are nuked up. Iran and even Venezuela are careening in that direction. China and Russia, try as they might to pretend otherwise, are poised for military alliance, while Obama's "world without nuclear weapons" national security policy is at work undermining America's ability to defend itself.

In the hopes of spurring a "denuclearization discipleship" in an increasingly dangerous world, Obama decided to emasculate the United States through disarmament. Barack's nuclear-free world mantra is devoid of "Peace through but verify and beware of evil in the modern world." In a schoolyard full of bullies dying to take a shot at America's skull with a baseball bat, little Barry has chosen to come to the fight with a water pistol.
No, it's his teleology becoming a frightful reality in an increasing number of policy areas. It's why he's constantly bowing and scraping to our enemies, and poking a proverbial finger in the eye of our allies - he wants to be a hero, and considered the first American President that is a friend of our enemies...therefore, it shall be so. Never mind that there is absolutely no indication that that will ever be the case, and certainly not with the complete lack of leverage or even basic understanding found in our President. Teleology. Is this all making some more sense? I'm certainly illuminated. So what's the logical end result of this philosophy?
If common sense demands a logical policy decision, Barack Obama chooses the opposite. The pattern is this: In a quest to attain an ideological goal, the president ties the nation's hands behind its back in an intentional contribution to America's weakened condition. Whether at the treaty table or making policy decisions that affect everything from the American economy to a porous border, Obama seems willing to sacrifice lives and our way of life to promote a liberal ideology that looks increasingly as though its end goal includes the destruction of America.

We have a closing window of time to stop this radical Leftist liberal agenda, and it's going to take an enormous amount of pressure from the voting public on elected representatives. Personally, I don't find any use in contacting any elected Democrat -- over the past two years and many issues like Obamacare, the stimulus, etc., they've proven they're worthlessness in terms of standing on any principle whatsoever -- but go ahead if you're so inclined. Where it really counts is the pressure on Republicans.

They won a historical landslide election, and many of the junior members of their ranks are chomping at the bit to follow through with their campaign promises. But the leadership is entrenched in big government ways. They're really not much better than most of the Democrats. They need...persuasion. In the form of an avalanche of calls, e-mails, and visits. They need a constant drumbeat of smaller government and spending, less regulation and government meddling, stronger foreign policy. They need to fear the American people more than their friends, the Democrats.

It's going to take effort from you and me, the America people, to save America from our President. This is a good place to start.

Monday, March 28, 2011


You'd really have to be living under a rock to not know that there's another major conflict going in the Middle East, this time in Libya. Don't call it a war around President Obama, though. They much prefer the term 'kinetic military action'. Yes, leave it to a bunch of liberals to avoid using the word 'war'. After all, that's what Bush did, not them. Anyway, the Right is, unsurprisingly, having a field day with it:

Defense Secretary Gates himself said that if our ad hoc cobbling together of largely unrelated objectives and media-friendly visuals plan works then “the level of kinetic activity should decline.”

You are about to see why Rush Limbaugh has a multimillion dollar talk radio empire that dominates its particular market, and I am an admittedly-amiable and reasonably creative guy blogging from home. Because this is prime stuff here (via Hot Air) coming from Rush:

RUSH: I swear, this is surreal. KMA, kinetic military activity has replaced WTF, (laughing) which is winning the future. I’m sure you thought it was something else. (laughing) Kick my — has replaced what the — Okay, so I guess we’re to assume it’s not a protest anymore. It’s a kinetic assembling action. It’s not a riot. It’s kinetic thuggery action. It’s not a vacation. It’s kinetic leisure action. It’s not golf. It’s kinetic ball striking action. It’s not dancing. It’s kinetic foot action. It’s not sex. It’s kinetic Lewinsky. (laughing) I’m not drunk. I’ve been engaging in kinetic adult beverage action. It’s not an election. It’s kinetic voting action. It’s not radio. It’s kinetic Limbaugh action. Whatever. Kinetic means motion. Military means armed forces. Action means motion. Kinetic action, moving motion. And these are the smartest people in the world.

That last sentence is obviously sarcasm, because it’s just as obviously not true.

You know it's a bad sign when the SecDef -- the guy running the show -- isn't sure of the timeline, but he thinks the KMA will 'recede' soon. And no one apparently knows what the end goal is. But never mind that little, inconsequential thing. The Canadians commanding the NATO forces there are charging ahead. Yes, the Canadians. Amazing, isn't it? Does anyone else see a leadership vacuum when the Canadians are running military operations? Don't get me wrong, I love Canadians, and what they're doing is admirable...but they can't even hold together the coalition forces! No one but the U.S. has the guts or the hardware to run this kind of op effectively. Ah, excuse me, I misspoke. No one else has the hardware, but apparently Obama doesn't have the guts.

Of course, you may have caught one odd little phrase in that last paragraph. Why is the SecDef running the show? Isn't the President the Commander-in-Chief? Yes, is he? Not here.

Ah, there he is! We found him:

These days, not so much. While America sent its men and women into battle over the skies and off the coast of Libya, its Commander in Chief spent his day ... in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The AP does its best to spin as adeptly as Obama plays with his soccer ball:

Meanwhile, U.S. warplanes pounded faraway Libya.

It was all summed up by one image: Obama, adeptly juggling a soccer ball, as his aides helped him juggle his agenda.

Well, I agree the image sums things up nicely.

But don't worry. Even though he's out playing soccer with children while sending American men and women into war, he's got an exit strategy...kind of:
In an interview with Univision Tuesday, President Obama re-defined the term “exit strategy,” and said our exit strategy in Libya would begin this week.

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us.”

Planes in the air? Ships in the Mediterranean? Intelligence being provided? Doesn’t sound like an exit strategy at all.

What it does recall is Lewis Carroll.

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
And this report was coming from a member of the mainstream media. If they're skeptical, you know it's a story so transparent it makes thin air look like a brick wall.

It remains to be seen what will happen in Libya and how the Obama administration will continue to screw up handle it. Of course, it's always entertaining to cross-check what liberals are saying today with what they said yesterday. It should be noted that, if a President commits American troops to military action without Congressional approval, Vice President Joe Biden has pledged to make it his personal mission to impeach that President. At least, that's what he promised in 2007, when Bush was President. Now? Apparently not so much, since there's not a peep from him about leading the impeachment charge of Barack Obama. Oh, and we can't forget the words of Barack Obama himself, either:

Huh. How about that?

For a couple of really good analysis pieces about the overall scope of U.S. military action in Libya, check out these links and teasers...

Consistent with his socialist, we-are-all-one agenda, Barack Obama used a non-unanimous 10-vote nod from the United Nations Security Council to justify commencing hostilities against Libya, bypassing Congress, the Constitution, the will of the American public and a couple hundred years' worth of precedents. Since none of these have mattered in the past, why should they now? After all, in the mind of Obama -- or "Our Son, His Excellency" as his erstwhile pal Moammar Gadhafi called him recently -- UN authority supersedes U.S. constitutional authority and sovereignty.
"The expectation of the world's lone superpower in a major military operation is 'stalemate.' Welcome to the era of the Obama 'smart war.' Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has been warning that he is unclear of the 'endgame,' as the Daily Telegraph describes it, in Libya. The outcome of Operation Odyssey Dawn is 'very uncertain' and could end up as a stalemate that keeps Col. Moammar Gadhafi in power. Appearing Sunday on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' Mullen said U.S. force will mean that Gadhafi is 'going to have to make some choices about his own future.' Sounds like we're sending Dr. Phil over to Tripoli to give the longtime tyrant some tough love. ... The president says our military operations were 'authorized' by the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League. He didn't give the U.S. Congress -- the Constitution's authorizers -- even one of those bows he likes to perform in the presence of foreign gentry.
Liberals have a penchant for engaging in the wrong wars and fighting them the wrong way. They are always meek and submissive towards those who represent an existential threat to America, such as Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and Venezuela. When they finally choose to engage in military intervention, it is usually for a dubious cause or for the purpose of some humanitarian aid that lacks a clearly defined mission or end result for our troops. Unfortunately, many Bush Republicans have a predilection to automatically support any military intervention, even if it lacks a clear mission or its original purpose does not represent a substantial threat to our national security. ...

The most unfortunate aspect of Obama’s Libya campaign is that he appears to be exacerbating a wrongheaded intervention with classic liberal tepidness for decisive action. While any Libyan campaign would gratuitously cost us money and potential lives for a fight that is not our own, the one ancillary benefit of such an intervention would be the ouster of Quaddafi. Yet, that is the one goal which the Obama administration seems to be abdicating up front.
Welcome to the Obama era. God help us to survive it.