Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Staats Calls for White House to Come Clean on Benghazi


Brad Staats
Brad Staats, Republican candidate for Tennessee’s 5th District House Seat, today urged President Obama to stop stonewalling the information related to the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the American Ambassador to Libya, Andrew Stevens.   “There are too many unanswered questions that have been raised about the handling of this horrific attack.   As the Commander-in-Chief, Obama is responsible for what happens relative to the defense of the nation.  If someone else dropped the ball, then that information needs to be immediately made known.”

 “Though the mainstream news media is giving Obama a pass on this, our Representative, Jim Cooper, needs to be front-and-center demanding an answer from the President.  When it comes to demanding accountability for the attack on American soil and the loss of American life, there are no political parties.  Remember, it was Republicans, including Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, who called upon Richard Nixon to come clean during the Watergate scandal and ultimately forced him from office.  Jim Cooper owes the citizens of District 5 an answer to why he is, once again, “missing in action” on this matter of high national security.”

Staats had previously called on Cooper to come on local radio with him and discuss these issues.  Staats appeared Monday morning on the Steve Gill Show with the intent of engaging Congressman Cooper on his record.  Cooper declined the invitation.  “The Benghazi event may be a political “hot potato”, but Tennesseans deserve to know what their elected Representatives are doing to get to the truth about the deaths of their fellow citizens,” said Staats.

Brad Staats is a private businessman in Nashville and the Republican candidate for the 5th District Congressional Seat including Davidson County, Dickson County and southern Cheatham County.  You can find out more about Brad Staats at www.bradstaats.com or on Facebook. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Debate moderator Candy Crowley: Romney was right in main Libya argument, but ...

Debate moderator Candy Crowley admitted that Romney was right to address the president’s response to the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but he “picked the wrong world.”
 
Crowley explained that she re-read Obama’s Rose Garden speech transcript before the debate, noting that the president referred to “acts of terror.”

Romney insisted that the President refused to call the attacks an “act of terror” which Obama countered with the transcript of his Rose Garden speech.

But Crowley admitted that she also agreed with Romney during the debate, when he said that the Obama administration spent two weeks telling Americans the attacks were about “a tape and this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t.”

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley concluded. (Read more).

My Comment: I am glad she is sitting the record straight but after the fact it does little good. The debate moderator should not interject herself in the debate and and challenge the accuracy of a statement made by a debate participant.  See the below piece from the Wall Street Journal to see the context of what the President said in the Rose Garden.


Replay: Obama’s Rose Garden Remarks on Libya

The Wall Street Journal, Oct.17, 2012

In Tuesday’s debate, President Barack Obama for the first time accepted responsibility for the security lapses that contributed to the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya. He sought to turn the issue against Mr. Romney, accusing him of playing politics with a national-security crisis.
 
Mr. Obama said he called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror” during a statement in the Rose Garden the day after it occurred, challenging Republican accusations that the administration had been misleading when it described the attack as a demonstration sparked by an anti-Muslim video.

“I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,” Mr. Romney said.
“Get the transcript,” the president replied.

Mr. Obama did make reference to the fact that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” but his comments that day also appeared to reference the video, when he said, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” The administration changed its description of the attack, eventually describing it as a terror attack linked to al Qaeda sympathizers. Read more and see video here.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Monday, October 15, 2012

Bob Woodward: There Are A Lot Of Unanswered Questions From White House On Libya


 This we do know:

  • Despite requests submitted to the State Department, the administration failed to provide additional security for the U.S. Consulate

  • The President engaged in a cover up, repeatedly blaming the events in Libya on a spontaneous uprising resulting from that YouTube video which we now know had nothing to do with this planned attack.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, September 13, 2012

I'm sorry, so sorry, please accept my apology....

This is the statement issued by the embassy in Egypt in response to the deadly attacks on the American embassies in  Egypt and Libya:   “The Embassy of the  United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn  efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

What an outrage! The message should have been something along the lines of,  "Stop the attacks or we will but a boot up your ass, it's the American way. We will light up your world like the 4th of July." 

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Obama is aleep at the wheel and in over his head.

Media and Obama out to lunch — Romney had it right
By , Washington Post, 09/13/2012

....So what exactly was the problem? As far as we can see, Romney, the Near East desk and Clinton were in sync. Ah, but where was the president? He apparently had gone to bed and so the day passed without comment from him.(link)

My Comment

We all now know the story of the attack on our embassies in Egypt and Libya, the death of Americans, the apology from our embassy in Cairo, an entire day without an adequate response from Washington, Romney's denunciation of Washington' inaction and the delayed denunciation of the attack from Secretary of State Clinton and the President.

When we needed strong leadership and some sabre rattling, what we got was an apology that some low- budget movie had offended the sensibilities of Muslims.  If someone makes a movie critical or even blasphemous of another religion, that is not an official American position.  We can not apologize for the actions of another. We owe no one an apology.  Muslims need to learn that in the rest of the world where people have various degrees of freedom of expression, that offensive things are often said or done. Get over it! We will not let your offense be justifications for attacks on America.

What is clear from this incident is that the President is not up to the job. He is "out to lunch" or "asleep at the wheel."  This is not new, people just did not know it.

This week I watched the Charlie Rose show and he interviewed author Bob Woodward. Woodward is not some right-winger out to get the President. You remember Woodward?  He was the journalist who in the 70's brought down Nixon with the Watergate expo. He is a journalist with the liberal Washington Post.

Woodward was the only guest and Woodward and Rose spoke at length. Woodward was discussing his new book,"The Price of Politics." In the interview, Woodward exposes the Presidents' lack of leadership, his disinterest in working with Congress, his unwillingness to do the heavy lifting to get things accomplished, his lack of diplomacy, and his unwillingness to compromise. The President is presented as arrogant and inept and a poor negotiator.

Woodward reveals how the White House has no organization of any consequence, never has a plan B for any issue, and how Obama fails to nurture alliances in Congress.  Woodward tells how Reagan and a Democratic Congress led by Speaker Tip O'Neill solved difficult problems by working through ideological difference to find solutions. He compares Obama to Clinton, the Bushes and Reagan and other Presidents and Obama comes off very badly.

I have never liked Obama's politics but for a while thought he was personally likable.  That did not last long however. During the early days of his administration, during the financial crisis, I watched a televised meeting of the President and handful of Congressional leaders. All of the members of Congress, addressed the President as "Mr. President" and he addressed members of Congress by their first name, and he spoke in a manner as if he was talking down to them. He lectured.  I remember Representative Marsha Blackburn was one of the people at the table. He called her "Marsha."  The protocol should be that if Obama is "Mr. President," then Marsha is "Representative Blackburn."  That was when I knew I did not like Obama's policies or Obama the person. He is simply arrogant and thinks he should not have to deal with lesser human beings.

Having watched the Charlie Rose show and since read several reviews and excepts from the book, I don't feel compelled to purchase the book and read it, I have been exposed to enough of it to get the point.  If you are flipping channels and come across Woodward being interviewed, stop and watch. After watching Woodward talk about Obama, you will realize what peril our nation is in, how in over his head our president really is, and why it is so important that he not be reelected.

To read more about the Woodward book on Obama follow these links: here, here, and here.


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Friday, June 10, 2011

Sen. Corker sponsors resolution requiring authorization for war in Libya

Sen. Corker introduced a joint resolution of Congress this week requiring the Obama administration to provide a detailed justification of U.S. operations in Libya and prohibiting the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground there. It further calls on the president to request authorization for the continuation of U.S. involvement in NATO activities and states that Congress should fully debate such a request expediently. Nearly 90 days after the initiation of force in Libya, no debate has occurred.
 
“It has now been more than 80 days since the United States first launched military action in Libya in what was supposed to be only a very limited operation, but neither the Congress nor the American people have any clearer view of the administration’s stated mission or end game for our military involvement in Libya. Having been denied answers, repeatedly, to these fundamental questions or even a comprehensive debate to consider the merits of U.S. involvement in such an engagement, it’s long past time to set a final deadline to get the information every man and woman who puts on a uniform and every taxpayer who funds the operation deserves,” Sen. Corker said.

 
***Click image to view video***
 

The joint resolution, which would have the force of law, requires the Administration to publicly answer a detailed series of questions about the Libya operation within 14 days of enactment.  Parts of the resolution mirror bills passed in the House of Representatives.

Comment: It is appalling that the President of the United States can take the nation to war without consultation with Congress. It is appalling that we will go to war on the authorization of the United Nations. What about the War Powers Act?  It is very specific about when the President may commit the nation to war. Why has this president not been impeached? I applaud Senator Corker for his leadership. Please watch this video. Regardless of how one feels about the merits of the war in Libya, surely one cannot think the President should unilaterally commit this nation to war.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Corker Calls for Hearing on War Powers and War on Libya

Thank God for Bob Corker.  Someone does care about the Constitution. U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter yesterday to Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., asking him “to hold a series of hearings to examine the division of war powers as outlined by the Constitution, reexamine the provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and consider recommendations to amend or clarify the conditions required for the employment of US forces.”

Full text of Senator Corker’s letter to Chairman Kerry is included below.

Dear Senator Kerry,

On March 19, 2011, the United States engaged in military operations over Libya "to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution," namely for the enforcement of a no-fly zone. Questions have been raised about the constitutionality of this engagement and what authorities govern this employment of forces.

To that end, I call on the committee to hold a series of hearings to examine the division of war powers as outlined by the Constitution, reexamine the provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and consider recommendations to amend or clarify the conditions required for the employment of US forces.
We owe it to every man and woman who puts on a uniform to serve our country, and every taxpayer who funds the operations, to be clear that our entry into any conflict - whether in response to an attack on the homeland or a threat to our broader national security - has been entered into in a lawful and appropriate manner.

I look forward to the scheduling of these hearings in the very near future.

Sincerely,

BOB CORKER
United States Senator

In a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on March 17, prior to the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing U.S. and coalition airstrikes in Libya, Corker questioned Undersecretary of State William Burns about the need for a congressional authorization and the goals for a U.S. military operation in Libya. Corker also issued a statement on March 28 reiterating his call for clarity on the United States’ interests and role in Libya.

I am appalled that members of Congress and the public who vehemently opposed our war on Iraq, which was authorized by Congress, are totally unconcerned about our war on Libya which has not been authorized and when there was no imminent threat. They are totally devoid of any consistency. I suspect many of them would grant President Obama dictatorial powers on the slightest of pretense. Obama has committed an impeachable offense and should be removed from office.

Senator Corker, Please do not back down. Keep pushing and demand these hearings. Where are the other members of Congress who care about the Constitution?

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

"I don't care, Obama is Awsome."


What more can I say. This explains the mind of a liberal. "Obama is cool and awesome."

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Rand Paul on President Obama's war on Libya

On Wednesday March 30, Senator Rand Paul spoke on the Senate floor concerning his objections to the president's actions in Libya and the executive's lack of regard for the Constitution.



I think Rand Paul has it exactly right. President Obama has taken us to war without a Congressional Declaration of war, when there was no imminent threat to the United States or our allies. He is in clear violation of the War Powers Act. He is acting as if he were King.

The United States has no vital interest in this conflict. We know Qaddafi is a madman and maybe mentally deranged, but we have no clue who the rebels are.  Are they seeking to establish a Democracy or a radial Islamic Republic? Are we fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda in the war? We don't know.


I opposed President Bush's decision to take us to war in Iraq, but at least President Bush got approval of Congress. I am appalled at the liberals  who can support this act of war in clear violation of the War Powers Act yet were vehement in their denunciation of President Bush's actions taking us to war in Iraq. Have they no principles? President Obama has committed an impeachable offense and should be removed from office


Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The President does not have power under the Constitution.......

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
            Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories