Timeline of Obama/Libya cover-up

Wait…did I say “cover-up”?  That’s such a harsh term and an inflammatory charge, no?  Yes…but you tell me.

Feckless Obama administration blasted for disgusting reaction to Libyan embassy massacre

Video link here, partial transcript here:

These optics suck, White House! I mean we have 4 Americans who are dead who were butchered and slaughtered because this administration did not have the foresight to fortify these embassies on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. And there he is with all of his fanbois and fangirls in Vegas raising money while they scream ‘I love you!’ in the middle of an international crisis.

But hey, it’s ROMNEY’S STATEMENT that is drawing MSM scrutiny, right?  Effin’ lapdog media.

Gaddafi dead

He’s dead, Jim.

In other news, Obama still sucks.

 

Former CIA agent calls out CNN anchor for her Obama love…on the air!

I’m loving this!  Video clip at Newsbusters (which, if you do nothing else, forward to the last part of the clip to see what he says and how she, in a huff, abruptly wraps up the interview).  Partial transcript:

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN ANCHOR: I think it’s very clear, Michael Scheuer, that you are no fan of this policy and this administration. I think calling Ambassador Rice crazed is certainly a significant charge.

SCHEUER: Well, I don’t know. I’ve just listened to her. You know, that’s only my impression.

And I have to say, this is not a Democratic problem, this is a Republican problem, too. Both parties love to intervene in other people’s business where there are no U.S. interests at stake and where we spend enormous amounts of money that when we’re nearly bankrupt. That doesn’t seem to be a wise practice of American statesmanship.

ROMANS: And that’s another story, to call the United States bankrupt. The United States is running huge deficits, yes, but the economy and this mission in Libya are two separate issues.

SCHEUER: They’re not separate issues, ma’am. You’re just carrying the water for Mr. Obama.

ROMANS: I’m certainly not carrying anyone’s water. And I will assure you of that. (Oh. Well, I guess her assurance settles THAT issue, doesn’t it? – CL)

Michael Scheuer, thank you so much for your time. You know, we had a very long exhaustive interview. You had plenty of time to give your point on that.

Heh.

I’m sure both of CNN’s viewers felt sorry for Romans.  But nope…no liberal media bias!

Remember when Democrats were anti-preemptive wars?

Good times, good times.  From Matt Welch:

“We knew that…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,” the president said last night. “It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen….Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Do you remember when Democrats recoiled at the doctrine of preemptive war? Last night was the final reminder that, with the exception of some diehards like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Democrats when wielding power are only against Republican preemptive war. If anything, they are more promiscuous in choosing conflicts than their warmaking brethren on the other side of the aisle; just less likely to go all-in with ground troops. Does it satisfy the consciences of Bush-hating interventionists merely that Obama made more nice-sounding comments about subsuming America’s lead role within a United Nations-blessed coalition? And have they thought through even for one moment the kind of bar-lowering precedent they’re setting for the next Republican president to send ground troops into wherever the hell?

You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Democrats where more interested in the party label of the Commander-in-Chief than they were in actual military objectives or national interest!

Welch finishes off the illogical imbeciles of the left thusly:

And for those Democrats who are either cheering on or grimly supporting the president’s actions, just remember this: Unless a Ron Paul-type miraculously emerges from the GOP field, the next Republican president now has an even lower bar than before when it comes to launching a preemptive war. There’s a reason why the biggest fans of last night’s speech were hawks like William Kristol: If you didn’t like Iraq, you really won’t like Iran. And when that day comes, please don’t debase yourselves by crying crocodile tears over the Constitution, or pretending for even one second you are anti-war.

I don’t know what Welch is worried about. It’s not like the left is a gang of hypocrites or inconsistent cretins, right? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was an example of sarcasm.

Hillary: Obama didn’t need Congressional approval to attack Libya, since we had the international community on board.

Her Highness, telling us that we passed John Kerry’s “global test”:

Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not got to Congress?”

“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

Three things here:

1.  OK, could someone show me where the Constitution requires the president to declare war only with Congressional approval except in cases of other countries joining in the attack on another country?  I must have slept through that in history class, because I don’t see such an exception anywhere!

2.  Why is the Hilldawg talking about “unilateral” action by the U.S. in the case of Iraq, when the international coalition we had back then is twice the size of the international coalition we have in Libya right now?  The fact is that Oba-Mao authorized an attack on Libya without Congressional consultation or approval, and he has less assistance there than we had in Iraq in 2003.

3. This is quite the reversal of stances for Shrillary, which I’m guessing has nothing to do with the fact that the Commie in Chief is a fellow Democrat!

Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any — any — use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

Oh, and how’s about this bit of inspiration from the administration?

“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

“Limited”, huh?  Defense Secretary Gates doesn’t share that sentiment:

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.

“Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked

“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.

Glad to see the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.  Friggin’ wonderful.

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell helpfully defines “Obama Doctrine”

Mitchell, referred to by Ace as the “executive fellatrix”, gives us some insight as to why Obama attacking Libya without Congressional approval is way different (and more proper) than Bush attacking Iraq with Congressional approval.

You know who doesn’t define the Obama Doctrine?  The Obama administration.  Nope, they allow this fellatrix to “report” that for them.

Anywho, here’s her summary, along with my notes:

1.  “When you have a catastrophe you can avert”.  That pretty much exists anywhere at any time, right?

2. “The benefits outweigh the costs”.  That pretty much governs every decision a human makes, no?  Duh.

3. “You have an international or multilateral support”.  You know what she means, right?  She means “the French support it.”  Because to the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy), the Frogs are the object of their affection.  After all, Bush had international and multilateral support in Iraq, except the Frogs were against it (probably a good thing, since it would have been embarrassing to see them surrendering to an Australian camera crew in Fallujah, wouldn’t it?).  But hey, now the Frogs are helping in Libya, so it’s all good, right?

4) “Go for it.”

Apparently, if the first three conditions are met, then the president can “go for it” without Congressional approval, the Constitution be damned.  Because the French are on board.  So we’re good, thanks.

As for Mitchell: nope, no liberal media bias!

Night and Day, “Howard Dean and military intervention in the Middle East” edition

What a difference a president’s party makes, huh?  Turns out you can crap on the Constitution and get defended by many in your party, even if they look like the brazen, shameless, hypocritical scumbags that they are.

Here’s Howard Scream in 2003, when a Republican was looking to launch a military operation in the Middle East:

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
…
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

Here’s Deano now, in 2011, with his bud Oba-Mao calling the shots (good stuff at the 7:18 mark of the video clip, with Klein calling him out on his hypocrisy at the 7:30 mark):

“I don’t think you stay out of these things”…”We have an interest in Libya.”

Funny that Dean whips out the discredited leftist talking points about “being lied to” with regards to Iraq.  You know why that’s funny?  Because Dean was leading the anti-war charge before military action began in Iraq, before he knew whether or not Saddam had any WMD’s, etc.  in other words, he was a peacenik up front, but now he’s trying to say his 2003 opposition was based on errors/lies about WMD’s after the war began?  That’s a damned lie, and Dean knows it.  Luckily for Dean, it was on MSDNC, so only two people saw his lie as it happened.

Surreal, no?

Biden: Obama should be impeached for attacking Libya without Congressional approval

Well, that’s the logical extension of what he said in 2007.  Observe:

Partial transcript:

Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits [garbled] have on the President with the War Clause. I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.

Minor technicality: only the House can impeach a president, not the Senate (in which Biden was at the time of this statement).  The Senate then votes on whether to remove the impeached president.  Come on, Joe, Bubba’s Senate trial wasn’t that long ago, was it?

Let’s see: in 2007, Biden was still in the Senate and a Republican was in the White House.  Biden thought, for some weird reason, that we might attack Iran, and if that attack were to come, it would come via the Republican president not consulting with Congress.

Fast forward to 2011.  The Democrat president launched an attack on Libya without Congressional approval.  So I’m sure that the Vice Plagiarist feels the exact same way, in order to remain consistent with his words from four years ago, right?  Right?

Congressional moonbats want to impeach Obama?

Pass the popcorn!  😆  From Politico:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

However, as Ed points out:

Traditionally, though, consultations with Congress have sufficed in the past. For instance, Congress didn’t specifically authorize Ronald Reagan to attack Libya in 1986 in Operation El Dorado Canyon, a retaliation for a terrorist bombing that killed American troops in Germany at a nightclub. Reagan consulted Congressional leadership before ordering the attack, an act of war by any definition. Presidents have conducted similar military actions without formal acts of Congress to authorize them, meaning it has a long precedent, even if it’s not necessarily a good idea. According to the report and Kucinich’s own objection, Obama did consult Congress before engaging in Operation Odyssey Dawn.

This will lead to nothing, of course, but I do enjoy some blue-on-blue action to start my week off right!  🙂

Obama’s leadership in Libya and Japan

Well, at at least it isn’t golf, right?