Obama has time to attack Libya, but not Iran?

[Dr. Dan]

And how many new agencies say anything. I know that Fox ambiguously supports this strike.

I hate Qaddafi...I fine with him getting killed one way or the other.

I also couldn't care less for Muslim Nazi Libyan rebels...I prefer they just kill each other.

Iran is the real threat now...YSZ to Obama...I hope and pray for the day I get to see Gd's justice on him and all Jew haters.

[Eden Ben Yitzchak]

Why should Obama attack Iran?! They are friends, aren't they?

[Dr. Dan]

And the media says nothing

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Why should Obama attack Iran?! They are friends, aren't they?

Bingo. He is attacking Libya because he is upset at Qaddafi killing fellow Muslims.

[TruthSpreader]

Bingo. He is attacking Libya because he is upset at Qaddafi killing fellow Muslims.

 

So much for Islam being a peaceful religion when they can't get along with each other.

[syyuge]

Someone somehow has diverted the attention away from Iran.

[muman613]

Obama 'cares' more about Libyans than he does his own people. I listened to a clip of his speech where he said that we were engaged in enforcing a no-fly zone in order to protect Libyan citizens... Nobody can believe Obama, his lies are getting old..

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/2999

Tamar plays an audio clip and shows you where our leaders lie to us, and then asks, "How dumb do they think we are? " Also, Arabs are using Facebook to call for an uprising against Israel. 25,000 Jew-haters a day are joining.  How to become a 'virtual' fighter for Israel? Click here .

Plus:  The Eidelberg Report, "Nazism, Democracy, and the Murder of Reason ".

[Spiraling Leopard]

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-official-obama-administration-will.html


It's Official: The Obama Administration Will Do Zero to Criticize or Undermine the Syrian Dictatorship


It's official. The Obama Administration won't do anything at all to help the Syrian people against the Bashar al-Asad dictatorship. Libya's Muammar Qadhafi is a bad dictator, but Bashar al-Asad is a good dictator?

The great Martin Kramer puts it perfectly:

"Earlier I noted that the Arab League gave Asad a license to kill because Syria is "occupied." Now Clinton and Kerry have given him one because he's a "reformer." Asad hasn't carried out any reforms, still supports terror, has stockpiles of WMD, and even tried to build a secret nuke facility. But unlike Qaddafi, he cleans up nicely and his wife is chic. Asad gets a pass; Asads always do."

Ask yourself these simple questions: Which regime is more dangerous to U.S. interests? Which regime is sponsoring more terrorism at present? Which regime is killing Americans in Iraq? Which regime is allied with Iran and actively trying to destroy U.S. interests in the Middle East? Who is the worse dictator--more repressive; incompetent; and bad for regional stability, the United States, and the West--Egypt's Husni Mubarak or Syria's Bashar al-Asad?

Nobody is asking the U.S. government to bomb Syria or to send troops. It's just a matter of supporting those seeking democracy when it also serves U.S. interests. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seems to feel this way.

I have no idea whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supports the White House's pro-Syrian policy or not but her attempt to defend it is the most pitiful performance of her 26 months in the job. Was this because her heart isn't in it or just that the contradictions are too obvious to paper over?

Does anyone still believe that the United States is going to woo Syria away from Iran, especially now that it's handing one victory after another to Tehran? Does anyone still believe that Syria is going to make peace with Israel? I mean someone who is a rational being who has some comprehension of international affairs, in other words not Senator John Kerry.

[Spiraling Leopard]

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/war-against-libya-constitutionally-illegal-obama1/

War Against Libya Constitutionally Illegal; Obama Now Impeachable

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has just inadvertently made the case for President Obama's impeachment.  On ABC's This Week, Jake Tapper asked Gates, "Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?"  Gates responded, "No, no. It was not, it was not a vital national interest to the United States."
Now let us recall what Obama said back in 2007, when he was running for president: "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."  Obama's words in 2007 and his actions in 2011 seem rather contradictory, don't they? And in fact, noted constitutional scholar Barack Obama was correct back in 2007. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that the president can only send the armed forces into military action abroad when the Congress has authorized it or if the United States is under attack, or at serious threat of attack.
Libya was not attacking us, and was not threatening to attack us. The Congress has not declared war on Libya, nor authorized military action against Libya. Therefore, this is an illegal and unconstitutional war. Violating the Constitution by launching an illegal war surely rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is an impeachable offense.
QED.
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are right. This isn't a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It isn't a conservative issue or a liberal issue. This is a constitutional issue. Impeach Obama.
A final thought: It would be nice to see all those principled anti-war protesters demonstrating against an illegal war launched against an oil-rich Muslim country. Has anyone seen them lately? Maybe we should put them on the side of a milk carton, because they seem to be curiously missing.

[Dr. Dan]

It's obvious that this is all about oil and that's why NATO is dealing with Libya.

I consider it a good thing when the Muslim dictators kills his muslim people and has an oppressive government.  It's good that the US doesn't intervene with Syria. Let them kill each other.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-official-obama-administration-will.html


It's Official: The Obama Administration Will Do Zero to Criticize or Undermine the Syrian Dictatorship


It's official. The Obama Administration won't do anything at all to help the Syrian people against the Bashar al-Asad dictatorship. Libya's Muammar Qadhafi is a bad dictator, but Bashar al-Asad is a good dictator?

The great Martin Kramer puts it perfectly:

"Earlier I noted that the Arab League gave Asad a license to kill because Syria is "occupied." Now Clinton and Kerry have given him one because he's a "reformer." Asad hasn't carried out any reforms, still supports terror, has stockpiles of WMD, and even tried to build a secret nuke facility. But unlike Qaddafi, he cleans up nicely and his wife is chic. Asad gets a pass; Asads always do."

Ask yourself these simple questions: Which regime is more dangerous to U.S. interests? Which regime is sponsoring more terrorism at present? Which regime is killing Americans in Iraq? Which regime is allied with Iran and actively trying to destroy U.S. interests in the Middle East? Who is the worse dictator--more repressive; incompetent; and bad for regional stability, the United States, and the West--Egypt's Husni Mubarak or Syria's Bashar al-Asad?

Nobody is asking the U.S. government to bomb Syria or to send troops. It's just a matter of supporting those seeking democracy when it also serves U.S. interests. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seems to feel this way.

I have no idea whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supports the White House's pro-Syrian policy or not but her attempt to defend it is the most pitiful performance of her 26 months in the job. Was this because her heart isn't in it or just that the contradictions are too obvious to paper over?

Does anyone still believe that the United States is going to woo Syria away from Iran, especially now that it's handing one victory after another to Tehran? Does anyone still believe that Syria is going to make peace with Israel? I mean someone who is a rational being who has some comprehension of international affairs, in other words not Senator John Kerry.