The Foreign-Policy Disaster Maker

by Andrew Roman

_______________________

So, while the American left obsessively spent most of the last thirty six hours or so trying to divert attention away from the continuing disaster that is Barack Obama in the White House, my thoughts were focused on matters that are actually relevant to the real world.

Islamic rage was all the rage late last week. It continued into the weekend and right on into this week at points all across the globe. From the assault on our embassy in Cairo to the murder of four Americans in Libya, from the fires set at our embassy in Tunisia to mobs burning our flag in London, there was no respite.  We were told that an obscure video negatively depicting the Prophet Mohammed was responsible for triggering this latest edition of Muslim fury. The shock waves of this insult even found its way onto American shores when two college campuses were shut down and evacuated last Friday due to threats from some entity identifying itself as Al Qaeda. The nuclear facility at the University of Texas was also evacuated.

On Monday, we heard of new waves of protests breaking out in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Yesterday, we heard about an Iranian submarine being deployed in the Persian Gulf.

And while we were reminded by the First Lady last week that the greatest threat to national security is, in fact, obesity, anyone who may have been holding their breath waiting for the President (or anyone in this administration) to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” - or heaven forbid it, an “act of war” – regarding the attacks on our consulate and embassies has long since keeled over. (Just imagine if the terrorists had stormed the consulate brandishing twinkies and Doritos). Equally, anyone who may have been hoping for a strong showing from the leader of the free world in the wake of terrorist acts against American interests on the eleventh anniversary of the worst single act of terrorism in this country’s history had better find a new place to channel that hope.

The lamestream media did not see the immediate need, nor recognize the immediate relevance, in asking this President of the United States why security was not beefed up at American embassies in hostile territories for the 9/11 anniversary, but have had no problem utilizing every nanosecond of air time over the past day and a half to turn its collective focus on Mitt Romney and comments he made about non-income-tax-paying Americans.   (Had Obama been a Republican is there any doubt he’d have been hammered with this obvious question?) They didn’t bother to inquire as to why he, as Commander-In-Chief, did not (and still does not) feel the need to attend the majority of his own intelligence briefings. They didn’t even ask how he and fellow Democrats can claim that Mitt Romney was playing politics with the events overseas when President Obama himself flew to a Las Vegas fundraiser that same day.

Fortunately for us, the White House on Friday assured the public that the anti-American violence was not directed at the United States.

Repeat: Not directed at the United States.

It must have been the storming of the American embassies, the torching of American flags and the burning of President Obama in effigy that confused me.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, wasted no time espousing the administration’s view that the inane little anti-Mohammed YouTube video being “credited” for triggering all of this terroristic upheaval – the one unseen and unheard of by just about every living human being on earth – was officially judged to “be reprehensible and disgusting.”

Thank heaven that was cleared up.

So, in the wake of Americans being murdered and our interests remaining under assault overseas, while our embassies were being attacked, while American flags were being burned, while protests were spreading, and while the entire region teetered on the brink of full explosion, our President wanted to let the bad guys know that we think the film that supposedly made all of them mad is disgusting?

Leadership.

Meanwhile, those of us who recoil and wince at this ongoing projection of American weakness and appeasement do not give a rat’s earlobe how offended or insulted radical murderers become. The instant the decision was made  to trade insults for innocent lives, their feelings about anything became irrelevant. The fact that Americans were murdered because of an amateurish internet movie that no one saw, followed by an official stance of “I’m sorry” by our pathetic Clinton-run State Department was – and is – enough to make me sick. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to hear which adjectives the White House will muster to describe the breeches of American sovereignty through these terrorist acts overseas. Surely, Obamacrats are aware that embassies actually do represent sovereign states - that an attack on an embassy is, by definition, an attack on the country itself.

Oh wait, these events transpired last week. It's old hat. It's immaterial today because that lout Mitt Romney had the nerve – the unmitigated gall – to talk about the 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax….their fair share, to quote a phrase.

To his credit, Carney did concede that the ever-escalating acts of protest and violence overseas were “fairly volatile.”

Fairly volatile.

Yet the movie was reprehensible.

I cannot help but ponder: How many dead Americans move that word from the “fairly volatile” column to the “reprehensible” column.

Indeed, there are times when it is impossible to determine whether or not this administration is actually as incompetent and clueless as they portray themselves, or whether they are commandeering a calculated effort to make sure that no one alive (save for Christians and Republicans) is ever offended again – as if to be loved is (or should be) the United States’ purpose on this globe. On a daily basis, I watch how this President handles himself, this country and world at large, and almost daily I am astounded at the absolute ineptitude I see.

How, for instance, can the President of the United States look so ridiculously indecisive – I mean embarrassingly bad - when asked if Egypt is an American ally? 

How can he possibly say that Mitt Romney “shoots before he aims” when the President himself jumped the gun (if not the entire arsenal) when declaring the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department stupid in what was a nonexistent case of racism in the matter of Professor Henry Gates? Or commenting on the Trayvon Martin killing before knowing any of the facts (wasting no time interjecting his race into the matter).

This is the man who has, time and time again, spoke ill of his own country on foreign soil and has bowed to foreign heads of state. He has adopted an apology-first approach in dealing with the world-at-large – his I’m- sorry-we’re- so-big-and-powerful motif - that has done nothing but alienate long-time friends and allies while emboldening America’s enemies. It quite literally sickens me.

He continues his hell-bent pursuit of reducing America’s relevance and influence in the world, while proffering a position of moral equivalence – the How-can-I-ask-Iran-To-Not-Pursue-Nukes-When-We-Have-So-Many approach.  He is almost obsessed with being as inoffensive as he can to those who would – and do – commit evil acts on innocents (the “t” word), but has absolutely no problem unleashing his wrath on American entrepreneurs and innovators with his “you didn’t build that” message.

The man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing and for saying that he was uniquely qualified to bring stability to American-Muslim relations – the man who predicted that his living in a Muslim country as a boy would be a useful tool in promoting international Kumbaya, saying, “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view” – must now be wondering what has gone wrong. Everything was in place for a complete transmutation of a pre-Obama world into a post-everything age of peace, stability and fuzzy bunnies. 

Surely, this unrest cannot be because of him - the leader of a fundamentally transforming United States - or his policies. It must be - has to be - that lousy filmmaker. After all, President Obama has a half-Indonesian sister.

This is the man who apologized in Cairo for his country employing interrogation techniques that saved countless innocent lives and ultimately contributed to the killing of Osama Bin Ladin. This is the man who has called his own country arrogant and dismissive. This is the man who condemned his own nation for “too often” making decisions “based on fear rather than foresight.” This is the man who publically announced military withdrawal dates from war zones, thus lightening the load for our enemies. This is the man who said nothing while Iran’s government killed innocents during uprisings there. This is the man determined to make dangerous and drastic cuts to our defense budget.

So, in a world where angry Muslims seem to be dictating the terms – a world where French fear is prompting the closure of twenty of its embassies worldwide because of a cartoon – the President of the United States continues to believe that peace through softness is the correct course. In a world where our collapsing exit strategy in Afghanistan is making things exponentially more unstable and chaotic, the President finds time for $40,000-a-plate fundraisers in New York and fun-loving sit-downs with David Letterman. In a world where video cameras just happened to be present as police found and took into custody the two-bit movie maker in the middle of the night (for other reasons, of course), President Obama parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Meanwhile, the press continues its assault on Mitt Romney, that heartless bastard.

Welcome to the future, Mr. President.

You did build this.

-

The Current Header and our "Head" of State

Some folk might take exception to a picture of our Commander-in-Chief in his golfing clothes while our embassies were being attacked. In all fairness to the president, he was not golfing. He was at a fundraiser in Vegas.

Obama has been skipping his presidential national security briefings of late, in favor of campaigning and fundraising. The return of the bodies of our diplomats and staff from the attacks on our embassies in the Middle East caused him to take a break from his busy campaign schedule to return for a memorial service. As I not kindly noted on Twitter,

"You want the president's attention? Come home in a box!"

Harsh note to follow...

Michael Barone: "Obama is Chauncey Gardiner"

Chance? Or maybe Change?

Poor Barry can't catch a break today! Michael Barone:

Conservative critics have taken to comparing him, as you might imagine, with Jimmy Carter. The more cruel among them, like the Weekly Standard's Jay Cost, say the comparison is not to Obama's advantage.

But there is another comparison I think more appropriate for a president who, according to one of his foreign-policy staffers, prefers to "lead from behind." The man I have in mind is Chauncey Gardiner, the character played by Peter Sellers in the 1979 movie "Being There."

As you may remember, Gardiner is a clueless gardener who is mistaken for a Washington eminence and becomes a presidential adviser.

Mr. Barone goes on to detail the general cluelessness of the Gardener-in-Chief:

"...while Chauncey Gardiner, in his befuddlement, tried to answer questions squarely, Obama has seemed less interested in the substance of public policy than in framing issues for the next presidential campaign.

That was plainly the case in the decisions on Afghanistan he announced Wednesday night. Regardless of conditions on the ground, the president promised that the last of the surge troops will be removed by September 2012, the month Democrats hold their national convention.

As for Libya, Obama pretends we're not involved in "hostilities" and has been content to "lead from behind." Another sop to the antiwar left.

Sometimes it seems he's president of the AFL-CIO, not the USA. The man who said he wanted to double exports in five years has nothing to say about his National Labor Relations Board appointee's attempt to shut down a $1 billion plant being built by the nation's No. 1 exporter.

And don't forget the enviro types. Obama is releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but his appointees are barring drilling in the Gulf and Alaska and refusing approval for a natural gas pipeline from Canada.

On all these issues Obama seems oddly disengaged, aloof from the hard work of government, hesitant about making choices."

It seems that more an more people are catching onto the generally cluelessness of the Commander-in-Chief. His policies have taken the nation in exactly the wrong direction at a time when leadership was crucial. Those on both the Left and the Right are coming to realize that Barack Obama is an empty suit and that the "Hope and Change" he was peddling in 2008 was just a campaign slogan designed so that he could come down on both sides of every issue.

But, governing is a lot harder than campaigning. Which is why Obama is taking time off from his busy golf game to start campaigning again. Obama may be right in blaming Bush for all the ills of the country today, since Barry seems to have left the White House on "autopilot" ever since "W" moved out.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Hillary on Patriotic Dissent, In Her Own Words

Then and now:



Hillary:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi's side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

"It Takes a Child to Raze a Village"

"It Takes a Child to Raze a Village"

...Hillary Clinton, on Obama's firing over 100 cruise missiles into Libya.*


*Okay. It's April Fool's, but it certainly sounds like something she would say!

"No 'Obama Doctrine' in Speech"

...headline from local paper. I guess I wasn't the only one to notice! Maybe we could call it "Obama's Old Mother Hubbard* speech"? Except, what would differentiate it from all the others?

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama sent a signal to the country and the world Monday night about his decision to attack Libya: There is no "Obama doctrine" here.

Obama used his evening speech to assure skeptical Americans that he was forced to act by a madman in unique circumstances, that the U.S. role and risk would be limited, and that there is no unifying set of principles behind the Libya campaign that would guide the U.S. in other countries with similar problems.

Try as he might, Obama could not convince most people that a violation of American "values" constituted a threat to American security interests.

Ultimately, Obama said, his actions in Libya are a case study in pragmatism, not a doctrine. It depends on circumstances, he said.

"It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs," he said. "But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right."

Which is, of course, a straw man, for the opposite of not taking action in a particular case is not "never taking action".

The President set forth no governing principle to guide us, merely a string of platitudes stitched together with rhetorical sleight of hand.

*Old Mother Hubbard
Went to the cupboard
To get her poor dog a bone;
But when she got there
The cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog** had none.

**Probably a yellow dog.

Who Is the Libyan Jefferson Davis?

As bad as Mubarak and Qaddafi have been, one of the things that have bothered me about this administration's rush to remove Egyptian and Libyan dictators, is the uncertainty of who or what would be replacing them. I believe that part of the reticence to take out Saddam during the first Gulf War, was not knowing who would fill the vacuum of his passing. Better the devil you know...

And now, it appears that some of the "rebels" in Libya have Al-Qaeda connections. What's to prevent a radical Muslim takeover or either Egypt or Libya (or both)? The terrorist group Hamas was "democratically" elected to govern the Gaza strip. Merely holding an election is not enough to institute the democratic reforms needed to sustain a Jeffersonian democracy (or a democratic republic, if you will.)

What if a coalition of the great nations had intervened on behalf of our rebels a hundred and fifty years ago? Since there is a possibility of us backing the "wrong rebels", I offer the following:

Dateline Paris, 1862:

Tonight, I’d like to update the French people on the international effort that we have led in the United States –- what we’ve done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved.

Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are also fighting in Mexico. For generations, France has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in the United States over the course of these last six weeks.

The American people are been ruled by Abraham Lincoln, who has denied his people freedom and exploited their wealth. He began attacking and killing his own people. I made it clear that Lincoln had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into American waters. European allies, Britain and Spain declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. We have instituted a blockade...a "no float zone" if you will, outside northern American ports.

We struck regime forces approaching Atlanta to save that city and the people within it. We targeted military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply.

It’s true that France cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– the United States — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. More Americans have died during this conflict than at any other time in their history.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

For these reasons and more, we support Jefferson Davis and those "rebels" and their adherence to the right of self determination.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the newly formed Confederate States of America.

Oops.



Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Cost of Libya Intervention $600 Million for First Week- Pentagon

Attention: All you folk that want to carp about Bush's "unpaid for" wars, listen up!

One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon. U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have launched at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals, costing $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.

One point four million per cruise missile. They were about a million when Clinton wagged the dog over the chubby intern.

U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each. A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace. And operation of ships and aircraft, guzzling ever-more-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week, experts say.

...The three B-2 stealth bombers that flew from Missouri to Libya and back on an early bombing mission each cost an estimated $10,000 per hour to fly, a defense official said. That means the planes, each on a 25-hour round-trip flight, ran up a bill of $750,000, and the 45 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) they dropped added at least $1.3 million more.

Cruise missile? $1.4 million.

F-15? $31 Million

Mind numbing hypocrisy over intervening in a country that did not attack us nor posed no imminent threat to us?

Priceless.

H/T Memeorandum
Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Obama's Libyan Adventure - in His Own Words

President Obama, clear as mud, as to why we bombed Libya:

(Gaddafi) has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world

This makes him different from Saddam Hussein, how exactly?

...We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime's assets.

And the fact that he has 14 tons of gold at his fingertips means that the freeze would not be as crippling as one might hope.

Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

Big whoop. If any other world leader looked at Obama's poll numbers and told him the same thing, any guesses as to what his reaction would be? Where are all the "We're not the cops of the world" Leftists to protest Obama intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign country?

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. It was not in our national interest to let that happen

People dying in Dafur...does that not "stain the conscience of the world"? What does "staining the conscience of the world" have to do with the national security of the US?

...In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition.

Oh, like the one G.W. Bush build before going into Iraq? Well, his was bigger! Again, how does this differ, other than the hypocrisy of the players, between Libya and Iraq?

...in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners.

And Bush took five months after receiving Congressional approval and all the mindless minions of the Left chided him for "rushing" into war. I'm sure we'll hear the same complaint from the same voices any minute now? (Crickets chirp.)

...I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Translation from Obamaspeak: We will commit an act of war against a sovereign nation by firing missiles at them, without a proper consultation of the Congress of the United States. Plus, with the left bleating about the two wars Bush "didn't pay for", Obama launched $100+ million dollars worth of cruise missiles to begin an action AP estimates will cost upwards of one billion dollars. (That's "billion" with a "B".)

...We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.

Oh, really? Did we ever "safeguard the billions" that belonged to the Palestinian people that Arafat siphoned off? And his Constitutional authority for redistributing Libyan wealth is found where exactly? I guess when he told Joe the Plumber he would "spread the wealth", he wasn't just talking about American wealth!

In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.

Again, this differs from Iraq...how? Oh, yeah. We have a Democrat in the White House!

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. 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.

Since CNN was hiding the images of mass graves in Iraq, I guess you didn't see them? And when Saddam gassed his own people or created the horrendous ecological disaster, by draining nearly 7,000 square miles of wetlands to punish the marsh Arabs living there, I guess there were no images of that, either. Neither of those rise to the "staining the conscience of the world" status, Mr. Obama?

...There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

Our values haven't been threatened in Darfur? In Iran?? Rwanda??? Obama's rhetorical obfuscation and doublespeak did not answer any of the questions about what he and Biden (and most of the Left) articulated about the Iraqi conflict. He did not address the fact that if fighting two wars strains the military and busts the budget, how there is a compelling interest in fighting a third, where American security interests are not directly threatened?

I think the Obama Doctrine needs to be defined somewhat beyond, "Because I said so".

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Libya - "Who's on First"

From the incomparable Michael Ramirez:

Is Libya Coalition Failing Apart?

A Daily News reporter seems to think so!

*Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
*French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
*Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
*Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
*No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
*U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
*Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
*Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

"Days and not weeks", eh, Mr. Obama?

H/T Atlas Shrugs

Obama's War

Truth, they say, is stranger than fiction. Who among us could have predicted a year ago, that the man who vowed to get us out of Iraq would not only still be mucking about in Afghanistan, but launch yet another military action, without the advise or consent of Congress, against a country that had not attacked us, in a Middle Eastern nation, ostensibly to depose a dictator who abused and murdered his own people?

Why am I having this odd sense of déjà vu? There are differences, of course. The delays with Bush were in consensus building, not dithering. And Bush led the coalition to depose Saddam, while Obama had to be led to even take a supporting role.

Political campaigns are supposed to be an indication of who a man is and what he will do when elected to office. Wouldn't you think that before taking an action like this, however justified, that was 180 degrees off of his campaign promises, Obama should have at least advised Congress as to what he was about to do, if not put it up for a vote?

It used to be, that whenever a Democrat president fired missiles into a Middle Eastern country, that there was at least a chubby intern involved somehow. Two years into his first, and hopefully only term, people were starting to call Afghanistan "Obama's war". But, now, he has one of his very own.

Michelle must be so proud!

Obama Launches Military Offensive -Anti-War Left: "Ooh, look! Shiny!"

Characterize it however you like, but Barack Obama just launched a military offensive against the sovereign state of Libya. Without a declaration of war from Congress.

Let me say up front, I don't have a problem with that. He is the President. Sometimes, Presidents must take swift and decisive action (stop laughing!). And though Obama's actions here have not been all that swift, or all that decisive, at least he has finally done something!

Side note: When the French are leading the military action and America is providing only support, who looks more like the leader of the Free World? Barack Obama or Nicolas Sarkozy?

What I'm wondering now, is whether or not the hypocritical Left (but I repeat myself) will denounce Obama for this in the same way they denounced Bush. They have pretty much given Obama a pass on the continuing war in Afghanistan, even as American casualties rise. (Whatever happened to reciting the names of fallen soldiers on TV, printing them in Doonesbury?) Obama has given de facto blessing to George Bush's Gitmo policy and now, launches a military offense against yet another nation that has, as the Left is wont to say, "not attacked us". (At least, not lately!)

I sincerely hope that the French and the British, with our help, can bring peace and stability to Libya. Maybe even plant the seeds for a fledgling democracy.

And I'd also like to see whether or not all the criticism of George W. Bush was just window dressing, as a means of gaining power for the Left or if there is anyone who will stand on principle on the Left, no matter how misguided.

Cross posted at LCR, Lady Cincinnatus , Say Anything.

Breaking News: US Missiles Fired Against Libya

TRIPOLI, Libya -- The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces

TRIPOLI, Libya (CNN) -- The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, a senior Defense Department official said Saturday.

Earlier, French fighter jets deployed over Libya fired at a military vehicle on Saturday, the country's first strike against Moammar Gadhafi's military forces who earlier attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

The French Defense Ministry, which confirmed the strike, said its attack aircraft being used to take out tanks and artillery have deemed Benghazi and the surrounding area an "exclusion zone."

The French are using surveillance aircraft and two frigates in the operation to protect civilians. The aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle will soon depart Toulon, France.

"Our air force will oppose any aggression by Colonel Gadhafi against the population of Benghazi," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking after an international, top-level meeting in Paris over the Libyan crisis.

Look for Code Pink to toss bricks through DNC headquarters windows and Cindy Sheehan to camp outside Obama's golf course, if she can ever figure out which one. Yeah. Right.

Cross posted at Say Anything, LCR.

Obama's Magical Misdirection Tour

The big story today is about the Obama administration's turn about on defending the Defense of Marriage Act. In my opinion, this is little more than misdirection.

In a week where Obama's strongest union allies have not only been exposed as busting the budgets through outrageous salaries and benefits, but also their ugly intransigence over the prospect of having to share even the merest fraction of the suffering of the taxpayers who support them, has not put liberals in a good light. Add to this the continuing debacle of Obama's foreign policy (or lack thereof), in being AWOL on Libya, the murder of American citizens on the high seas, (two years after Obama became keenly aware of the problem), the rising cost of energy, high levels of unemployment, and what do you have from the White House to show the smallest modicum of leadership?

Ooh! Look over there! Gay marriage!

Regardless of what Obama does or does not think about the merits or Constitutionality of either gay marriage or the DOMA, with all the things on his plate, on what planet does opening up a new can of worms show leadership? I think that this is nothing more than a smoke screen to stir up the social conservatives with an issue they feel more strongly about than some of the others*.

The Supreme Court can determine the Constitutionality of DOMA. The Leader of the Free World needs to exhibit some leadership. Sooner, rather than later.

*Update: It is also a sop to certain segments of his own base, which I gather are none too pleased with the overall performance of Team Obama to date, either.

Cross posted at Say Anything, Left Coast Rebel