●And SO Is OBAMA! His Reelection Gets More Remote By the Day_自考专本|专升本|高升专|高升本|在职研究生-学历教育网

Message from discussion

View parsed - Show only message text

Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!k13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Tush Limbaugh <clitte...@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,us.military,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats Subject: Surprise! NATO Is INOPERATIVE -- And SO Is OBAMA! His Reelection Gets More Remote By the Day! Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Lines: 109 Message-ID: <42ad1026-61cc-4dcc-b671-eba074ce32b9@k13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.21.226.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1308680503 20129 127.0.0.1 (21 Jun 2011 18:21:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:21:43 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.21.226.121; posting-account=1lazlAkAAAA_U3GHG0oM_7wcZm08UZUb User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0,gzip(gfe) Eugene Robinson's is the best exposition we've read of why Obama's refusal to call a war a war is probably the president's worst mistake to date. In the end, will Libya and Afghanistan bring the U.S. president down? -------------------------------- "Obama=92s novel definition of =91hostilities=92" Op-Ed By Eugene Robinson June 20, 2011 LET'S BE HONEST: President Obama=92s claim that U.S. military action in Libya doesn=92t constitute =93hostilities=94 is nonsense, and Congress is right to call him on it. Blasting dictator Moammar Gaddafi=92s troops and installations from above with unmanned drone aircraft may or may not be the right thing to do, but it=92s clearly a hostile act. Likewise, providing intelligence, surveillance and logistical support that enable allied planes to attack Gaddafi=92s military =97 and, increasingly, to target Gaddafi himself =97 can only be considered hostile. These are acts of war. Yet Obama, with uncommon disregard for both language and logic, takes the position that what we are doing in Libya does not reach the =93hostilities=94 threshold for triggering the War Powers Act, under which presidents must seek congressional approval for any military campaign lasting more than 90 days. House Speaker John Boehner said Obama=92s claim doesn=92t meet the =93straight-face test,=94 and he=92s right. To be sure, Boehner is also playing politics. In the past, he has argued that the War Powers Act is =93constitutionally suspect=94 because it seeks to tie the hands of the commander in chief. I don=92t believe it=92s accidental that Boehner=92s newfound respect for the much-disputed law coincides with the Republican Party=92s electoral stance, which is that every single thing Obama has ever done is wrong. But the law remains in force and, while presidents of both parties routinely find ways around it, they usually find a more credible dodge than asking, =93War? What war?=94 When he authorized the Libya campaign, Obama said U.S. involvement would last =93days, not weeks.=94 He got the =93not weeks=94 part right, at least: The military effort to oust Gaddafi is entering its fourth month, with no end in sight. It=92s no surprise that progressives in Congress, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), would cite the War Powers Act to challenge a sitting president who made the unilateral decision to wage war. What=92s new is the significant antiwar sentiment we=92ve heard from Republicans, especially those identified with the Tea Party movement. For decades, the GOP has favored a robust, interventionist foreign policy that relies heavily on a willingness to use military power. This may be changing, as contrarian Republican voices =97 call them neo- isolationists, constitutionalists or even peaceniks =97 demand to be heard. Despite taking the ridiculous position that bombing is not a hostile act, Obama is likely to win this tug of war with Capitol Hill. Boehner has been cool to the idea of deploying Congress=92s only real weapon, the power of the purse; any attempt to block funding of the Libya operation could be portrayed as abandonment of =93the troops.=94 And whatever happens in the House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that he backs Obama=92s view. We=92ll probably hear a lot of sound and fury but see little impact. But I hope I=92m wrong. The nation=92s interests would be much better served if we had an open debate about the Libya campaign =97 and, by extension, the proper use of U.S. military power in a fast-changing world. Do we use military force to protect civilians who are in imminent danger of being massacred by forces loyal to a despotic regime? That was the rationale for intervening in Libya. But what about Syria, where a massacre of freedom-seeking civilians has been underway for weeks? What about Yemen, where civilians have been dying in the streets? And what about the civilians who are being killed accidentally, such as the nine who reportedly died Sunday when an errant NATO missile strayed into a residential neighborhood of Tripoli? Is there a point at which the death and destruction of a drawn-out civil war surpass anything Gaddafi=92s forces might have done had they rolled unopposed into rebel-held Benghazi? Most important, what are we doing there? Are we in Libya for altruistic or selfish reasons? Principles or oil? Assuming Gaddafi is eventually deposed or killed, then what? Do we just sail away? Or will we be stuck with yet another ruinously expensive exercise in nation building? There=92s also a moral question to consider. The advent of robotic drone aircraft makes it easier to wage war without suffering casualties. But without risk, can military action even be called war? Or is it really just slaughter? An intellectual president such as Obama should be able to lead a search for answers to these tough questions. As soon as he gets a better grasp on the definition of =93hostilities.=94 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-novel-definition-of-hostiliti= es/2011/06/20/AGrFhVdH_story.html 专科

【免费咨询报名电话：010-6801 7975】

咨询报名MSN:xueliedu@hotmail.com
试一试网上报名
咨询报名QQ：