House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) - Another Idiot
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Here is just one more reason why Speaker of The House Boehner has to go. A RINO, and a full bona fide member of the one World Order Mentality, as well as a supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, he is in full support of the intervention into Libya's internal affairs. At a huge cost to the already bankrupt American Treasury and taxpayer.
So much for conservative bona fides.
Read his statement below.
I suspect he will support American "troops on the ground", and the resulting loss of American life, when it is determined by a clueless Congress and Obama administration {and it likely will be} that it is the next appropriate yet irrational step to take in this nations alleged vital self interest.
The only justification for military action is in response to an act of aggression by one nation and it's peopkle against the people of another independent and sovereign nation by
Okay, just the belief of one. You, "We the People" of America be the judge.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Here is just one more reason why Speaker of The House Boehner has to go. A RINO, and a full bona fide member of the one World Order Mentality, as well as a supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, he is in full support of the intervention into Libya's internal affairs. At a huge cost to the already bankrupt American Treasury and taxpayer.
So much for conservative bona fides.
Read his statement below.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya:
“The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.
“The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”
I suspect he will support American "troops on the ground", and the resulting loss of American life, when it is determined by a clueless Congress and Obama administration {and it likely will be} that it is the next appropriate yet irrational step to take in this nations alleged vital self interest.
The only justification for military action is in response to an act of aggression by one nation and it's peopkle against the people of another independent and sovereign nation by
Okay, just the belief of one. You, "We the People" of America be the judge.
Via: Memeorandum
I look at this a little differently, and Boehner just isn't an important player in my view.
ReplyDeleteThis whole Odessy Dawn (Corniest.Name. Ever.) thinkg is Sarkozy's. It's France. We're just helping out. We don't have any exit strategy because we have no entry strategy. The Arab League and the UN and such wanted Khadafi out. France has a substantial North African, Muslim population, and they're feeling somewhat disaffected lately. This makes Sarkozy and France look good to these folks. I think I understand why Britian and France were so hard on Libya. It makes political sense. I also understand why Germany disgressed - their Muslims mostly come from more stable Muslim nations, like Turkey. They don't want to see that boat rocked any more than it has been lately.
Obama, on the other hand, has no serious pressure on him to act. Apparently he did act for moral and ethical reasons, and for that I applaud him. As usual, with these foreign dramas, he did it quietly and smartly.
We have no great commitment. Libya is not an important national interest. It's just not. But it is terrible what's happening over there and we should try to help any way we can, short of a ground invasion.
Obama seems to have found a way to help right now, and he's done it smartly, efficiently, and safely. He has made no commitment. So far, I like what Sarkozy is doing and I think I totally understand why he's doing it.
Screw Boehner. He's irrelevent in all this. You know he's a neocon. Call him what he is. RINO??? HELL NO! He's the panultimate Modern American REPUBLICAN.
I understand why you don't like Boehner, but when are you finally going to realize that the Grand Old Party has ALWAYS been expansionist, corporatist, colonialist, militarist and hyper-capitalist? ALWAYS!
Sure, some Republicans have done some great things, but when you look at the party over the years, in modern history, they've been NOTHING BUT expansionist, corporatist, colonialist, militarist and hyper-capitalist.
How anyone can vote for a Republican these days is beyond me. That party needs to be taught a lesson. That "big tent" of theirs can barely hold Larry Craig's "stance."
JMJ
Jersey, are we only just helping out? Seems to me like we are leading the charge.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/2011/03/to-what-degree-is-us-really-involved-in.html
The last thing that this nation needs is to be fighting in yet another theater. And I'm also worried about the what next/if scenarios (most of the carnage is currently taking place on the ground), the majorly strong possibility of civilian deaths, etc.. Yeah, Mr. Obama was deliberate here. But, once again, he basically did what the neocons asked of him.
ReplyDeleteChris, we're not "leading the charge." Read about it. Don't argue with me over facts. The US is not a determitive actor in this operation. France and Britain would have done it without us. Welcome to the fact that we've always been like them all along! LOL!
ReplyDeleteWill, you have a solid point, as does Les, of course. But can you guys just please possibly imagine that Obama is actually playing this pretty cool and smart? Can you give him that at least? He's leading us for a good cause without entangling us in a quagmire. So far, so good.
Let's hope he can keep it up.
No?
JMJ
JMJ,
ReplyDelete>>But can you guys just please possibly imagine that Obama is actually playing this pretty cool and smart? Can you give him that at least? He's leading us for a good cause without entangling us in a quagmire. So far, so good.
-----------------
My friend...I am slightly confused here..are you implying that you think it is a good idea for Obama to get us involved in any military action? I thought he was a liberal who hated the military. He says he wants us out of Afghanistan, but, hey, since we're kinda already "over there", why not get involved in another war? And you guys thought Bush was a warmonger...
I thought Obama was all about love and tolerance and apologizing to the world for America being so mean and bully-ish.
Please clarify for me if you can. I find this very hypocritical of Obama to endorse any added military actions. At all. Like I said, I am confused here. Please set me straight.
Donald in Bethel, CT
Jersey, I guess you missed this statement from US Vice Admiral Bill Gortney's press conference.
ReplyDelete"In these early days, the operation will be under the operational command of General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command. ... We anticipate the eventual transition of leadership to a coalition commander in the coming days."
Or this Q & A
Q: To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation, but in the hours leading up today there’s communications or talk to try to talk that down.
VADM GORTNEY: We are on the leading edge of coalition operations where the United States under General Ham in Africa Command is in charge. He’s in command of this at this point. And in the coming days we intend to transition it to a coalition command.
Q: Can you specify how many British ships were involved compared to the U.S. ships?
VADM GORTNEY: We had one British submarine.
Q: And the rest were all U.S.?
VADM GORTNEY: Yes, ma’am.
How's them for facts? If that's not leading the charge, I don't know what is. Sorry if they don't jive with what you wish was reality.
Obama is not running this operation and neither is the US. So Far. So Good. Get consistant.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
JMJ...seriously? Didn't you see what Chris W posted?
ReplyDeleteDo you honestly expect any of us here to believe you are that ignorant? Please tell me you aren't. Please let me know you have intelligence. Please let me know you have it in you to admit you are wrong, and no one here will beat you up about it.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/international/american-led-forces-bombard-the-libya-20110321
Donald in Bethel
Here's a substantive report about the operation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/libyan-operation-hampered-confusion-dispute
ReplyDeleteWhy the media and Gortney are portraying this as American "lead" seems to me to probably be about domestic politics. It seems sort of aimed at conservatives, though nothing they are fed will sate them. Hating Obama is their First and Only Commandment.
From the report: "The command structure is not clear. France, while accepting the US co-ordinating role, maintains its operational headquarters at Mon Verdun, near Lyon, and Britain has its own operational headquarters.
The Italian government regards the present three-way structure – US, Britain and France – as anarchic and is pushing at Nato for a proper command structure."
These are three parties acting in coordination. The Pentagon does not want this. Maybe that's why they gave it such a corny, stupid name.
Remember "Operation Odyssey Dawn" is our operation. That's not what the French or Bristish call it. They each have their own commands. This is three operations taking place at the same time, each variously coordinated with the other.
And the French are putting up their pilots and planes. And Sarkozy always lead the charge against Khadafi since the revolution. We're just lobbing missiles and coordinating with the militarily with French, and to a lesser extent with the British, who are doing something similar to what we're doing.
So, no, Donald, I'm not ignorant at all, I just abhor this simplistic, ideologically driven, unrealistic view that Obama is somehow running this whole thing. He's not. He wants to keep it limited, the Italians are with us, the French are almost all the way with us, the Brits and France seem to be tussling for control, we just want out... etc, etc. It's a complicated mess.
Whatever. When all is said and done, this odd coalition narrowly, but thoroughly and effectively, averted a slaughter in eastern Libya. Khadafis tanks and artillery were about to destroy Benghazi. Someone had to do something. France, then Britian, then finally us, decided we had to go in and stop the horror that was about to happen in Benghazi.
So far, so good. Let's hope someone does take charge of this whole affair, though. Personally, I'd rather it wasn't us. Obama is trying to accomplish that. Let's hope he can succeed.
JMJ
@ JMJ - You said, "...when are you finally going to realize that the Grand Old Party has ALWAYS been expansionist, corporatist, colonialist, militarist and hyper-capitalist? ALWAYS!
ReplyDeleteSure, some Republicans have done some great things, but when you look at the party over the years, in modern history, they've been NOTHING BUT expansionist, corporatist, colonialist, militarist..."
Wilson, Roosevelt (FDR), Truman, Johnson, Clinton, somehow they all come to mind rather quickly when you banter about the above terminology.
And now your man Obama.
But of course like a good progressive you won't talk about the progressive democratic party in the same vein now will you.
There ain't a piss hole in the snow difference between the two. Interventionist and expansionist both. And the progressives are to the core interventionist and expressionist. Just like the Neo Cons.
A good article on the subject:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance
It's all about keeping the MIC alive and robust. now ain't it. Admit it. You own progressive party is guilty as hell.
Obama had a chance to think clearly and rationally and do the right thing. I was hoping he would. he blew it. Big time IMHO.
>>Three days into the first war he's helped to start, Obama finds himself in an increasingly familiar position in relation to the Congress: detached, under fire, and going it largely alone.
ReplyDeleteLoved this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/obama-taking-heat-from-all-sides-for-libya-action
Donald