[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

How so? We had no reason for being in Iraq. No humanitarian crisis other than Saddam's A Bad Guy. No near-universal appeal for US involvement. No multilateralism. The two are about as similar as poo and French Fries.

Some good analysis here, by my favorite foreign/military policy thinker.

and no national grass roots effort to remove a dictator

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Can I safely assume that everyone bashing Obama was also bashing Reagan when he was doing this (only way worse) with Nicaragua?

Irrelevant. Ad hominem. Reagan is not the president. Neither Bush nor Reagan have been president for some time now.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

PS. The hand-off did indeed come in days.

And... ?

Why again are we there? Please don't say we are there because the UN said it was a good idea. That's not really why. And it should not be why.

And so why are we leaving?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Irrelevant. Ad hominem. Reagan is not the president. Neither Bush nor Reagan have been president for some time now.

Huh? IT's not ad hominem. No one's saying you're wrong because you molest border collies. The right is being intensely hypocritical about this, because the standards being applied to this Pres. for military intervention were ignored for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. And, for that matter, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy. Bizarre. We invade three different countries in Reagan's presidency, without Congressional approval before hand, and the right is silent on it.

That's not ad hominem. That's asking for consistency. But we get it now. The Pres. says 'A' you argue for 'B.' President does 'B,' you say he should've done 'A.'

Why again are we there? Please don't say we are there because the UN said it was a good idea. That's not really why. And it should not be why.

And so why are we leaving?

Nice. You don't think we should get in, but now you don't know why we're getting out. A is B, B is A.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Huh? IT's not ad hominem. No one's saying you're wrong because you molest border collies. .

Ad hominem... "you're wrong because of what that other guy did 25 years ago..."

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

The right is being intensely hypocritical about this, because the standards being applied to this Pres. for military intervention were ignored for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. And, for that matter, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy. Bizarre. We invade three different countries in Reagan's presidency, without Congressional approval before hand, and the right is silent on it.

And those standards are?

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

That's not ad hominem. That's asking for consistency. But we get it now. The Pres. says 'A' you argue for 'B.' President does 'B,' you say he should've done 'A.'

Nice. You don't think we should get in, but now you don't know why we're getting out. A is B, B is A.

Yea, that's right actually, I don't know why the president went in, and I don't know why he is getting out.

You can stick with it if you want, but it's still irrelevant. Why are we in Libya? Is a simple question like this off limits for any reason?

I think it's completely consistent. This president has not explained why we are bombing Libya. You may disagree with past presidents, but then you'd have to disagree with this one too. And yet, all I see are arguments that he's doing it better. This is not a game or some contest about Bush (et al) versus Obama. I'll stop belaboring the point... but someone might try answering the question.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Ad hominem... "you're wrong because of what that other guy did 25 years ago..."

"You've asserted that the president has acted inappropiately on the basis of an ideology that not getting congressional approval for military actions not directly related to immenant defense is wrong. So was it wrong when Reagan did it?"

And those standards are?

"He should have gone to Congress first, and had a discussion about what our role should be, and what the end game is. " - Post #19

Yea, that's right actually, I don't know why the president went in, and I don't know why he is getting out.

He did spell out his case for intervention. You can disagree that it is sufficienct for doing so, but you seem to be disagreeing that it's accurate.

You can stick with it if you want, but it's still irrelevant. Why are we in Libya? Is a simple question like this off limits for any reason?

I'm certain there's no single answer that isn't also general.

"We knew that if we wanted — if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973." - Obama

I think it's completely consistent. This president has not explained why we are bombing Libya. You may disagree with past presidents, but then you'd have to disagree with this one too.

That would depend on *why* we disagree with a given past president.

Take Reagan and the Contras. I disagree because he was violating a specific US law forbidding aiding the contras, and because he was funnelling money from weapons sales to Iran (also illegal) to back the Contras, and because the Contras were terrorists kidnapping kids to be soldiers and targeting civillians deliberately, and because the CIA under Reagan was funnelling cocaine into the US (via Mobile AL) to aid these terrorists.

None of those are in play in Lybia now (well, Kadaffi has a history of some of that): so I can consistantly condemn one (the Contras) while neither condemning nor lauding the other (Lybian intervention)

Hopefully I have addressed my own position in regards to the action in Lybia: and why the lack of explicit congressional approval is not a problem for me and, also, how I apply the same standard elsewhere (lack of approval is different from violation of law). Would you care to comment on your position on Lybia?

Is there a problem related to the lack of direct congressional approval? If so, do you similarly condem Reagan's actions?

And yet, all I see are arguments that he's doing it better. This is not a game or some contest about Bush (et al) versus Obama. I'll stop belaboring the point... but someone might try answering the question.

Is there one I missed answering?

Text Of Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act' : NPR

[Jfool]

I haven't said anything about congress...

But Obama did. I believe it has been widely quoted in the last week or so.

My position on Libya? I am not sure we needed to be in or out of Libya. I also don't have an informed opinion on dozens of other nations around the globe. I hope I don't need to try and quickly form an opinion on all those other nations in the near future.

My point is Obama should have one. I expect my president to be able to say it, simple and clear. He has not. That's my only point. Just because he made a speech, doesn't mean he said anything.

For some reason, you still seem to want to discuss Reagan.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I haven't said anything about congress...

This thread isn't just about you.

But Obama did. I believe it has been widely quoted in the last week or so.

There is certainly no consensus here on what he meant by "unitary" 4 years ago. But you just told me you were not talking about congress. If you have no problem with Obama not getting congressional approval: why do you keep bringing it up?

My position on Libya? I am not sure we needed to be in or out of Libya. I also don't have an informed opinion on dozens of other nations around the globe. I hope I don't need to try and quickly form an opinion on all those other nations in the near future.

So you believe that Obama may have taken exactly the correct course of action? Then why have you responded to a post asking a question to those who condemn this action of Obama's?

My point is Obama should have one. I expect my president to be able to say it, simple and clear. He has not. That's my only point. Just because he made a speech, doesn't mean he said anything.

Your point is that you personally don't understand Obama's position on Lybia?

Wow. I completely didn't get that as your point. I suppose I should take who'se fault you think it is that you didn't understand Obama's position and apply the same standard.

I have no comment on you not knowing Obama's position. It's just not an interesting topic for me. Perhaps someone else.

For some reason, you still seem to want to discuss Reagan.

I thought I had explained that: complete with quotes from a post I was reponding to and everything. If you are still confused: I fear there's not much hope of clearing it up any further.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This thread isn't just about you..

I didn't say it was. Thanks for the ignorant comment though.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There is certainly no consensus here on what he meant by "unitary" 4 years ago. But you just told me you were not talking about congress. If you have no problem with Obama not getting congressional approval: why do you keep bringing it up?

Because it shows hypocracy.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Your point is that you personally don't understand Obama's position on Lybia?

Me and millions of intelligent people. Even after the Speech. Your ignorance is truly amazing... I said he didn't make his position clear.... so instead of highlighting any clarity in the plan for Libya, you call me confused?

[JerryLove]

Ridley: The right is being intensely hypocritical about this, because the standards being applied to this Pres. for military intervention were ignored for Reagan

JFool: And those standards are?

JerryLove "He should have gone to Congress first, and had a discussion about what our role should be, and what the end game is. " - Post #19

JFool: I haven't said anything about congress...

JerryLove: This thread isn't just about you.

JFool: I didn't say it was. Thanks for the ignorant comment though.

You most certainly responded as though "the right" was a comment about you. You responded to "the right is being intensely hypocritical" with "I haven't said anything about congress".

There certainly is a great deal of ignorant or misleading commentary here: but it's not from me.

JerryLove: Can I safely assume that everyone bashing Obama was also bashing Reagan when he was doing this (only way worse) with Nicaragua?

JFool: Irrelevant. Ad hominem. Reagan is not the president. Neither Bush nor Reagan have been president for some time now.

JerryLove: If you have no problem with Obama not getting congressional approval: why do you keep bringing it up?

JFool: Because it shows hypocracy.

Much like the right bashing Obama for not getting congressional consent and then not bashing Reagan shows hypocracy on this issue.

Much like your assertion that one person's allesged hypocracy (Obama from 2007) is valid, but another person's alledged hypocracy (The right) is "Irrelevant. Ad hominem." is *your* hypocracy.

Me and millions of intelligent people. Even after the Speech. Your ignorance is truly amazing... I said he didn't make his position clear.... so instead of highlighting any clarity in the plan for Libya, you call me confused?

Since my only use of the word "confused" was in regards to your understanding of *my* position: and since you are using it in response to your lack of understanding of *Obama's* position you are obviously confused as to what is being discussed at a given moment (see other examples above).

A point you seem to have agreed with... can you please point me to the study showing "millions of intelligent people" similarly confused?

[JerryLove]

To recap some of the issues of this thread:

Was involvement in a UN no-fly zone a good idea? There's no real consensus. Some seem clearly to support the cause (save innocent lives), but the long term effects are unknown.

Was the president within his powers to authorize this? Yes.

Was the president going back on statements he made in a 2007 interview discussing unitary executive action on bombing Iran? Literally: no. Ideologically: maybe.

Have the talking heads been hypocritical in their stance on this issue? Many of them: clearly yes.

*addendum*
Should congress have been consulted? Actually: congressional leaders were consulted *before* the action started.

Should congress have been informed in total? Congress was out the day the decision was discussed (Saturday) and in recess the entire next week. (http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/cong_schedule.html).