Apparently Americans are split regarding U.S. military intervention in Libya. Then there's Libya's foreign minister, a longtime Gaddafi loyalist who has now defected to Britain. Bookeristas ain't done talking about U.S. President Barack Obama's "kinetic military action" in Libya. Especially since in 2007, then-Senator Obama said, "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":
Larry Walker Jr.: "Obama's Unauthorized War In Libya"
Says the conservative blogger and Amerca's Independent Party supporter in Atlanta, Ga. He argues that President Obama should be delivered to the International Criminal Court, especially since he didn't get Congressional approval for his actions: "No matter what justification you may wish to apply to this action, taken solely by the order of Barack Obama, it is a blatant abuse of power for which he should pay the ultimate price. How dare you even mention the words, 'the American people'. Neither the American people, nor their representatives have authorized any such involvement in Libya. Obama has murdered thousands of Libyan soldiers on the ground, without authorization from the American people, thus setting us all up for retaliation, by God knows who, at some future date. When it's all over, and the number of Libyan casualties have been tallied, somebody needs to be held to account by the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
Constructive Feedback: "How Black Progressive-Fundamentalists Cope With Obama's War"
The conservative blogger in Atlanta metro sees inconsistently among many black liberal supporters of President Obama's actions in Libya: "'I was one of the many who believed that your opposition to war was rooted in your prioritization for other's right to live. This was more important than the projection of American military power into a corner of the world that 95% of other Americans will never set foot upon. With this core standard having been violated by 'your guy' you are forced to shift from moralization into PROCESS.
- An assembly of valid 'Coalition Partners' (all of them Western European) lend this action the credibility that the other guy did not have
- The fact that your guy went through the United Nations but, unlike the other guy - got an affirmative ruling - without having the Secretary of State to 'lie' on behalf of the war action.
- Even though evidence in both cases showed that the brutal dictator had been oppressing and killing his people - only 'your dictator' was sufficiently oppressing and killing his people in Libya to justify the war that you actively supported
Samuel Gonzalez: "How The Media Is Making Sure That Obama Wins The PR War In Libya"The conservative Republican blogger in New York City writes: "I find it very interesting how the Obama lovin’ media is really quick to report successes of coalition forces in Libya. Do you recall that kind of reporting when the U.S. first went into Iraq? Let me save you some brain cells. Hell no! Even before American forces were fully deployed in Iraq, the media was quick to cry out 'quagmire!' Have you noticed how the media has forgotten how to say the word, quagmire, since Barack Obama has become president and the U.S. is still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for over eight years?"
More: "I’m very skeptical of reports coming out of Libya, not because our forces aren’t capable, but because the media has a vested interested only to report Charlie Sheen like 'winning' when indications are that this conflict can be just as protracted as the wars we’re already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe even more so!"
Clifton Bazar: "Kinetic Military Action - A War By Any Other Name" The conservative Republican blogger in New Jersey writes: " Euphemisms are one of my biggest pet peeves about politics. Cute or obscure words and phrase are used to paper over very serious things because politicians are too often afraid engage the public honestly. The Obama administration is a great lover of euphemisms. The administration has given us silly terms like 'Overseas Contingency Operations' and 'Man-Caused Disasters' to obscure the true meaning of Global War on Terror and Terrorism. Now the administration is trying to obscure the meaning of 'war' with the new euphemism of 'Kinetic Military Action'."
He continues: "These verbal gymnastics should not fly with anyone else. Our 'kinetic military action' in Libya is very confusing to say the least. Why then must we add to the confusion by using silly euphemisms? I really do look forward to the day when America finally rids itself of cowardly politicians and all their ridiculous double speak."
Kenneth Durden: "Mission Creep In Libya" The libertarian-conservative blogger writes: "President Obama spoke to the nation about US involvement in Libya. He still maintains that our involvement was limited to a no-fly zone. Somehow the US military didn't get the memo. We now have A-10 Warthog "tank killers" and C-130 gunships, for close-air support targeting enemy ground troops, being deployed to Libya. So, we've not involved ourselves even deeper into Libya's civil war. Still, the Congress has not been asked to approve anything. Where are the anti-war protesters? Where are the people who screamed about the 'illegal' war in Iraq? Why aren't the media talking heads challenging the Obama administration the way they did George W. Bush?"
Ron Miller: "The Hypocrisy Of Obama's War"The conservative Republican blogger in Maryland writes: "What I'm looking for, from the press, our elected officials and the public, is consistency. If President Bush's actions were deserving of public scorn, then so are Obama's and, conversely, if Obama is praised for his boldness and leadership of the ship of state in this circumstance, then Bush should be treated more fairly in the post-mortems and history books than he has been to date. Even Obama couldn't resist getting in a dig at Bush during his speech, crediting our military and our diplomats, but not their leaders, with our success in Iraq."
