That lack of explanation doesn’t appear to reach only to the American people themselves. Based on the statements of Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman, and of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen (whom you’d think would be a fairly important player in this action), Obama hasn’t bothered to tell the Senate or his highest military brass what the actual goal of our action in Libya is. http://www.redstate.com/users/jeff_emanuel/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Right Scoop writes: West says that as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and considering his lengthy military background he should have been consulted before we started a new combat front with Libya. Instead, he says, Congress was sent home to their districts and the next thing you know is that the US is engaged militarily with Libya. He says he’s not even sure what the mission is: http://www.therightscoop.com/allen-west-very-concerned-about-military-mission-in-libya/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall St. Journal online writes: U.S. intelligence agencies are watching for signs that a desperate Col. Moammar Gadhafi, under attack from a coalition air assault, could resort to acts of terrorism against Western targets.
Col. Gadhafi has extensive stockpiles of mustard gas and high explosives at his disposal that could be used in attacks against targets in Europe or against his own people. He also has a documented history of orchestrating strikes against civilians and other world leaders.
"U.S. officials are keeping an eye on that possibility," one U.S. official said. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703292304576212893002664106.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times Now reveals this from Gaddafi: "Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans," he said.
Details of Gaddafi's letters were released by the Libyan government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli. Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, "Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example."
Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, "To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed." http://www.timesnow.tv/Gaddafi-defends-attack-on-rebels/articleshow/4368205.cms
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ineffectual, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’..."
Express.co.UK opines: Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.
Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“
Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Post writes: A whopping 78 percent of New York City voters said teacher layoffs should be based on performance, not the seniority-based "last-in, first out" law, a poll released today found.
Even 63 percent of voters in union households agree that layoffs should be based on merit, not LIFO, according to the Quinnipiac College survey.
Meanwhile 73 percent of voters said layoffs of cops, firefighters and other government workers should be determined by performance, not seniority. And a majority of voters in union households agree.
The results mirror the findings of a statewide poll released last month, which found that 85 percent of voters backed the elimination of LIFO.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment