- Special Sections
- Public Notices
My level of disgust with the Republicans is growing. Not that I’ll start voting for “Democrats” any time soon. Republicans are still rank amateurs when it comes to being wildly irresponsible. But, they are working on that.
During the Bush administration they took some tentative steps at fiscal irresponsibility, running up deficits that set peacetime records, until Obama & Company took over and showed them how it’s really done. Now, they are fighting the president over his decision to use military force, a tactic that “Democrats” have often used against Republican presidents. Remember how they fought President Bush over the surge in Iraq? At one point they even threatened to cut off funding, just like Republicans are now doing to President Obama. Fortunately, that didn’t happen and, as we know, President Bush’s surge proved effective. That’s why President Obama was able to withdraw all but 50,000 U. S. troops, with the rest slated to leave in the near future.
Back in the ‘80s, “Democrats” did that to Ronald Reagan, cutting off funding that supported an effort to overthrow the Sandanista regime in Nicaragua. The Sandanista regime ultimately fell after the Soviet Union collapsed, but maybe it would have fallen faster if the "Democrats" hadn't chosen to play political games.
Now Republicans are doing the same thing to President Obama and it amounts to nothing more than a partisan political ploy to slap at a “Democratic” president at a point where he is vulnerable. I’ve always found the “Democrats’” willingness to play political games with national security for partisan gain to be disgusting, and I’m equally disgusted with Republicans when they do the same thing.
And yes, Libya is a national security issue. Have people forgotten that Moammar Gadhafi has been hostile to the United States since 1969? Newt Gingrich pointed this out a few months ago before the slimy little salamander decided it was politically expedient to flip flop on the issue. Then there’s Pan Am Flight 103 which was blown out of the air on Dec. 21, 1988, by Libyan agents. American citizens were killed in that terrorist attack.
Gadhafi was never taken out after what amounts to an act of war against the United States. That’s why it was important that President Obama act, and act quickly when a revolt broke out against Gadhafi in February. My only criticism of his action is that he didn’t move quickly and decisively enough. There may have been more defections, and early defections, from Gadhafi’s inner circle had President Obama done so.
No, he didn’t consult Congress first. The Constitution gives the president extensive war powers as commander in chief of our armed forces and President Obama was faced with a fast-developing situation.
Republicans have hammered him for allegedly violating the War Powers Act on 1973. This was a law that “Democrats” passed in a partisan effort to hammer President Richard Nixon. Never mind the fact that President Nixon had inherited the Vietnam War, a military action that “Democrats” in Congress had authorized eight years earlier. The constitutionality of this law has never been tested in court and it appears to be a Congressional usurpation of the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief.
Avoiding a commitment of ground troops in Libya is a good idea as they could be bogged down there for a long time. Republicans, however, need to find a way to do this without giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the process.