Defense Secretary: Libya Did Not Pose Threat to U.S., Was Not 'Vital National Interest' to Intervene (President, Congress)

[sailordave]

Obama's war for oil?

[sanrene]

So, we went to war in Libya to pay back France and Italy?


So says Hillary;

When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the UK, France, Italy, other of our NATO allies…This was in their vital national interest…"

[skoro]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I understood it quite well.. I even bolded the relevant parts..

Like I said.. incompetence doesnt = legal..

Look, I completely understand where you're coming from. And you're angry that Obama won't be impeached over this little kerfuffle. You've been angry for over two years on a daily basis.

And you think this somehow brightens your hopes for Obama being tossed from office.

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Personally, I would have preferred that we'd stayed out of it. I'm glad that NATO is taking over after a week and that we're standing down. I think the Arab nations should have been MUCH more involved in this affair. Qadaffi and Libya are part of their world. But, as always, they just blow a lot of hot air and gripe about anything the rest of the world does.

And, as I originally said in my first post in this thread, America would be better off today if the previous Secretary of Defense eight years ago had been as honest as Gates is now.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by skoro

Look, I completely understand where you're coming from.

no you dont.. as evidence you go on to post this babble

Originally Posted by skoro

And you're angry that Obama won't be impeached over this little kerfuffle. You've been angry for over two years on a daily basis.

Actually I'm not. This would mean we'd end up with Biden as President.. Why would I want that

Originally Posted by skoro

And you think this somehow brightens your hopes for Obama being tossed from office.

Actually it doesnt.. I've got no hopes for Obama being tosd from office.. Continue to pretend if you wish but pretend doesnt mean its true..

Originally Posted by skoro

I seriously doubt that will happen.

I doubt it as well because Democrats have shown their inability to follow the laws. Not fufilling the obligations they were sworn to uphold, doesnt mean I want him thrown out of office.. Maybe the better choice would be to STOP illegal actions from taking place..

Originally Posted by skoro

IPersonally, I would have preferred that we'd stayed out of it.

I've actually got no opinion one way or another.. I dont know enough about the topic to determine if it was a good or bad move.. But what I do want is presidents to comply with the laws that they are trusted to enforce. NO ONE is above the law.. And there are very clear steps put into place before we can take action, and those steps were not taken..

Originally Posted by skoro

I'm glad that NATO is taking over after a week and that we're standing down.

We arent standing down.. WE ARE NATO.. its a shell game to make people BELIEVE we arent attacking someone that we very clearly are..

Originally Posted by skoro

I think the Arab nations should have been MUCH more involved in this affair. Qadaffi and Libya are part of their world. But, as always, they just blow a lot of hot air and gripe about anything the rest of the world does.

What part of the Arab nation is in a position to take care of this? I dont think many of them have strong military strengths enough to attack another nation without starting a huge military war in the middle east with nations just attacking one another..

Originally Posted by skoro

And, as I originally said in my first post in this thread, America would be better off today if the previous Secretary of Defense eight years ago had been as honest as Gates is now.

The Secretary of Defense 8 years ago followed the legal steps and you complain while you defend the illegal actions of the current administration.

[bluesjuke]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Isnt Obama supposed to tell us today why he intervened?

The UN also intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan.. So according to you, thats ok as well right?

Just because one does not support Libya does not automatically mean that they did support Iraq.

[Rick Roma]

Originally Posted by skoro

How many would you like?

deflection again I see......swing and a miss. Steeeeerike two.

[Rick Roma]

Originally Posted by skoro

You can breathe easier until the 60 days are up.

and....yet again Steeeeeerike 3! You're out.

[d4g4m]

What you are now seeing in Libya is 'mission creep'. What was first a 'no fly zone' has become shooting tanks on the ground that have wings. Don't want those flying tanks to get in the air.
What was first said to be 'a few days' is now 'a few months'.
And by the way, how do those pilots know where the tanks are located? Couldn't possibly be 'boots on the ground' special forces, could it?

[skoro]

Please enjoy your phony outrage over Libya as long as it lasts.

[Rick Roma]

Originally Posted by skoro

I see...

You didn't want to understand the part that doesn't justify your anti-Obama sentiments.

Like I said, enjoy the impeachment proceedings.

For example, in 2007 Barack Obama told The Boston Globe: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Obama?s Hypocrisy: Violation of War Powers Act (http://www.theknoxvillejournal.com/content/stories/news/Obamas-Hypocrisy-Violation-of-War-Powers-Act.html - broken link)