Sorry, Mr. President...I am not on board with your Libya adventure.
I have not posted for over a month, and I am weary of criticizing this president. He is what he is, and I don't think he is on our side. Or my side, anyway. He is Joe Lieberman - liberal on one or two social issues, and pretty (even massively) conservative on most of domestic and foreign policy.
And give him credit. His handling of Libya is vastly superior to what we could have expected of George W. Bush. He managed a real coalition, for largely humanitarian reasons (and CREDIBLE humanitarian reasons), with a clear plan of action, and explained his policy eloquently to the American People just a few nights ago. He is taking a risk - because by limiting America's involvement, success (from an American viewpoint) is questionable and criticism almost guaranteed. We saw bold leadership, and decisive action to avert a humanitarian disaster, and nuanced policy. It is times like this that I am glad we elected the smart guy.
But I am still NOT on board with Obama's Libya policy. I know...when will leftist whiners EVER be satisfied with the President? How about when he fights as hard for the average American as he is for the Libyan opposition!
I am not on board because this is a military adventure that extends, not retracts, America's imperial adventurism in the Middle East. I am not on board because this president, like his predecessors, has flouted the role of Congress as the funders and approvers of US military action. I am not on board because this military adventure is expensive, and we keep hearing from politicians and media that we are "broke!" And, I am not on board because this is one more example of President Obama acting more like a Republican that the Democrat I helped elect.
Dropping bombs on a Muslim nation in North Africa is not, no matter how you frame our humanitarian intentions, an act of peace. It is war. W - A - R, no matter how many times Obama refuses to say it. We are killing Muslims in a THIRD country in that part of the world. We are not, currently, sending our army to kill any other people, not since Bosnia. There was no threat to America, or its interests in Libya. If you want to count Beirut, or Locharbie, well...we've had decades to settle those scores. You say that innocent people are being killed by a tyrant? Welcome to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Ivory Coast...the list goes on. No, no...I fear that our President is doing this because he feels it is politically expedient and advantageous. And, in the Islamic world, we will continue to be seen as imperialist and anti-Muslim.
Dennis Kucinich was the most vocal Democrat in opposition to the President. He claimed that the President had so grossly exceeded his war-powers authority that it invited impeachment. Kucinich was derided for that comment in the liberal blogosphere and talk radio media. "Can you imagine, after all the war crimes of Bush, a Democratic president being impeached by his own party?!?" The derision and mocking were fierce. Here's what I have a hard time imagining:
That there weren't at least 100 other Democratic members of Congress (and all the Republicans) with him.
Dennis Kucinich is a pain in the ass, and way more talk than action. But he's right. The President most likely did exceed his authority. Shit, Bush strong-armed Congress into giving him authorization (even though it was based on lies, and treason)...Obama just ignored it. Jesus Christ you guys, you spineless Congress Critters...YOU have the ultimate responsibility for the nation being at war, AND you have to find a way to pay for it. This is Kucinich's point. Presidents are not supposed to be able to go off on random military adventures without getting congressional approval and paying for them. So much for checks and balances.
This President has capitulated on heating assistance for the poor, because spending must be cut. He is going to cave in on WIC, and cut food stamps to women and children by 400 million dollars. In fact, if the 20 billion in spending concessions go through, Dems will have cut over 70 billion from the budget - all effecting middle income families and the poor. Yet he seems to have no qualms at all about launching cruise missiles on Libya at the cost of 1.5 million dollars each? Over 200 of them by the time of this writing.
C'mon man...Obama appointed a deficit commission, headed by Alan Simpson, who called us all "tit-suckers" for expecting the Social Security we all paid into for decades. He calls on us for "shared sacrifice" while giving tax cuts to the rich. We are going to lose pensions, pay and benefits, yet military contractors who sell cruise missiles will send massive bills to the US taxpayer and pay themselves huge bonuses - 40% of this borrowed from the Chinese, which my kids will work all their lives to pay the interest.
Our president is not fighting to stop this robbery of our, and our kids' futures. If he would send a few figurative cruise missiles to the big banks, to the Republicans, and to the blue dog Dems who sell us out I might get on board for the total fighting package. But as it is, I'm off the bus. This president is fighting harder for the Libyan working class, than for the average American. I mean, I wish the best for our troops, and for the Libyan people. But I do not support the bypassing of Congress for military adventures in the Middle East at great cost to the treasury while my benefits and services are being slashed by those who pillage with impunity while this President fiddles.
No comments:
Post a Comment