President Obama's Libyan adventurism, an American embarrassment

I was born in the first half of the last century, four years after the end of World War Two, while Harry Truman was president. During these past sixty-two years whenever an America president has committed American troops to a war, conflict, or hostilities, he has addressed the nation from The White House. President Obama, the 44^th president, the 12^th in my lifetime, committed troops to a Libyan war and he was on Spring Break in Brazil.

Did this American president enter the Libyan war for oil as President Bush was accused of? There is absolutely no American interest to be involved in Libya. The United States entry into the war in Libya conflicts with Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 10 – 15 of the United States Constitution.

This war is going to cost the USA well over one-billion dollars. Thank you China! The Europeans and NATO are doing what they do best, squabbling – such unity.

The American news media is dutifully falling lock-step behind support President Obama’s adventurism in Libya.

What is Obama’s exit strategy? Is this blood for oil? Did Obama lie and people die? Is Democrat Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois going to call our troops off the Libyan coast as being Nazi like or Soviet style in their behavior? Oh that’s right, this all only said when there is a Republican in The White House. A Democrat can go marching through Georgia and the Democrats, anti-war crowd will be silent while the news media will justify it. These bums are so transparent.

When the empty suit President Obama was running for president of the United States he claimed he would reduce American involvement in the two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. Pledging to pull the USA out of Iraq and set a time-table to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Two and a half years later, the USA is still involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, now Obama has taken America into a third war in Libya.

Interesting related articles:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/24/president-obama-has-lost-his-legitimacy-to-remain-/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Americans-Approve-Military-Action-Against-Libya.aspx

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5igpoXAngT8scsMjiAbsAmc_3MY0Q?docId=6287380

Libya, USA involvement Constitutional? Exit strategy?

A question to President Barak Obama (Democrat and head of the regime) in reference to American’s involvement in Libya: What is the exit strategy for the United States?” Hmmmm?

According to Gallup (see second link below) the approval for the President at the outset of America hostilities in Libya was a low 47%. The lowest any American president enjoyed in the last 28 years at the outbreak of 10 wars and/or conflicts involving the American forces.

Of those ten, Democrat presidents initiated six. How is that when Republicans are labeled “hawks” and “war mongers” while the Democrats claim to be the party of “peace.” Or is that the party of “piece” as in a “piece” of Libya?

Four of the ten conflicts / wars did not involve any threat to American interest, citizens or terrortories. They were all initiated once again by Democrat presidents. Proving they use the military not for defense of the United States (as is constitutional) but for humanitarin reasons totally void of any threat to the USA.

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 10-16, of the United States Constitution indicate taking the nation to war is in the sphere of the United States Congress, the legistative branch, not the executive. Here is a link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

The 10^th and 14^th clauses:

10) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

14) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The American news media is dutifully falling lock-step behind support President Obama’s adventurism in Libya. Saturday morning (March 26^th) on NBC with a commentator from msnbc, reasons were given in an attempt to legitimize Obama’s Libyan hostilities:

1 – Gadhafi is not popular? (What about the uprisings and demonstrations in Jordan, Syria, and Yemen? Are those regimes popular?)

2 – Civilian deaths in Libya. (Can be said about Syria and Yemen.)

3 - Coalition formed for Libya. (Could not the cowards of Europe [NATO] form similar coalitions for Jordan, Syria, and Yemen?)

The American news media in their bias toward the Democratic Party is an affront their Constitutional mandate. Can you say “Constitutional malfeasance?”

Interesting related articles:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/24/president-obama-has-lost-his-legitimacy-to-remain-/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Americans-Approve-Military-Action-Against-Libya.aspx