Criticism of Obama Over US Involvement in Libya Intervention

[Spiraling Leopard]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com//News/News.aspx/143033

US President Barak Obama is facing sharp bipartisan criticism over the manner in which he committed his nation's forces to the international community's intervention on behalf of Libya's rebels, with members of his own party joining his detractors in the GOP.

One liberal Democratic Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, has gone so far as to suggest Obama be impeached, according to a report in Politico. Kucinich's sentiments were shared by fellow anti-war democrats Maxine Water, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerrold Nadler, and Mike Capuano. In the past Kucinich also advocated impeaching President George W. Bush over American involvement in Iraq.

The ongoing civil war in Libya, and what action role the US should play in ending it, if any, has been hotly debated by politicians via the media, but some say there was not enough discussion in the decision making venues. The unusual addition of Obama's own party to his detractors come as US lawmakers feel Obama took it on himself to commit US forces in Libya without proper congressional participation.

Republican and Democratic Congressional lawmakers alike criticized the Obama administration for not adequately consulting with them, an issue that House Speaker John Boehner addressed over the weekend, “They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress.”

“They’re creating wreckage," Boehner continued. "And they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

Impeachment can serve purely political - or even moral - agendas, but it is unclear what grounds Obama's detractors on Libya would cite as the basis for such a move. While the exclusive power to declare war rests with the Congress of the United States, the joint War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows a President to initiate military action of no greater duration of sixty days with the caveat that he merely notify Congress within 48 hours of its inception. At the end of the 60 day period the President must obtain congressional approval to continue or withdraw for a period of thirty days.

US Presidents have traditionally consulted in-depth with Congress before taking military action, but Obama is not the first to cut Congress out of the loop. President Bill Clinton was roundly criticized for circumventing Congressional approval when he committed US troops to peace-keeping operations in Kosovo by way of Executive Order. On the other end of the spectrum, President George W. Bush presented Congress with thousands of intelligence briefs during numerous consultations and obtained a joint resolution from both houses of the legislature before taking action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Libya intervention, and criticism of it, comes during the early stages of Obama's re-election efforts for 2012. Loss of support from the liberal and anti-war Democrats could be problematic for the President, who heavily leveraged these groups in his fund-raising and election efforts in 2008.

[Spiraling Leopard]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/kucinich-obama-could-be-impeached-for-attacking-libya/

Kucinich: Obama could be impeached for attacking Libya

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Barack Obama did not have the constitutional authority to order U.S. forces to participate in an attack on Libya.

In a conference call with other liberal lawmakers Saturday, Kucinich asked why the U.S. missile strikes were not impeachable offenses, according to two Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Politico.

The U.S. unleashed a barrage of strikes against the Libyan regime's air defenses over the weekend, but ruled out using ground troops in what Obama called a "limited military action."

After taking a cautious stance on armed intervention in Libya's civil war, Obama ordered the attacks citing the threat posed to civilians by Moamer Kadhafi's forces and a UN-mandated no-fly zone endorsed by Arab countries.

"We must be clear: actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced," Obama told reporters while on an official visit to Brazil Saturday.

"We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world," he said, stressing that Washington was acting in concert "with a broad coalition."

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Mike Capuano (D-MA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions" during the conference call, a source told Politico.

Kucinich also released a statement on his website Friday questioning the constitutionality of the president's actions.

"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," he insisted.

"While the action is billed as protecting the civilians of Libya, a no-fly-zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya and Qaddafi forces. It is an act of war. The president made statements which attempt to minimize U.S. action, but U.S. planes may drop U.S. bombs and U.S. missiles may be involved in striking another sovereign nation. War from the air is still war."

"Congress should be called back into session immediately to decide whether or not to authorize the United States’ participation in a military strike. If it does not, the action of the President is contrary to U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that the United States Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not. That was the Founders’ intent," the Ohio congressman added.

"The last thing we need is to be embroiled in yet another intervention in another Muslim country. The American people have had enough. First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq. Then bombs began to fall in Pakistan, then Yemen, and soon it seems bombs could be falling in Libya. Our nation simply cannot afford another war, economically, diplomatically or spiritually," Kucinich concluded.

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader also said the president was committing "war crimes" in the attack against Libya.

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader told Democracy Now! Thursday.

[Spiraling Leopard]

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/sky_s_evidence_of_massacre_by_gaddafi_forces

Sky's Evidence Of Massacre By Gaddafi Forces

The Gaddafi regime continues to deny any massacre took place in the Libyan town of Zawiyah.

Instead the government spokesman in Tripoli has asked Britain to produce "evidence" of any civilians dying at the hands of Gaddafi forces there.

Well, Dr Moussa Ibrahim, Sky News has that evidence. A Sky News team of three was trapped in Zawiyah as Gaddafi unleashed the might of his toughest brigade on the town - for days and days.

We saw civilians battling for their lives and we saw far too many of them dying. We saw the regime's soldiers firing on ambulances (including one we were travelling in).

We saw the colonel's men shelling residential apartments and firing so close to the main hospital that the windows rattled and the nurses were barricading the windows. We saw wounded children and women who had been shot in the head.

We were inside the town as Gaddafi's military attempted to strangle it to death, encircling it with tanks and other military vehicles and cutting off the internet, the mobile phone network and eventually power and water supplies.

The British Ministry of Defence's strategic communications officer Major-General John Lorimer has used an aerial photograph of the town's mosque, in Martyrs Square where most of the battle took place, to demonstrate how the landscape of this town changed.

One photograph showed the town with its mosque intact, the other with the mosque destroyed, its dome collapsed.

"This shows just what Gaddafi is capable of," said Major-General Lorimer. Not even a sacred holy place was considered off-limits to Col Gaddafi's men.

We cowered in a storeroom in the mosque with half a dozen other civilians as we witnessed the bombing and constant fighting outside.

My colleagues, Sky's deputy foreign editor Tim Miller and cameraman Martin Smith, and I were there from Friday, March 4 until Sunday, March 6.

We moved from the main hospital to the mosque to the square a number of times whenever the firing and fighting died down. With the help of people who put their lives at risk for us, we somehow managed to smuggle the pictures out.

We were told over and over again how important it was for us to deliver the pictures and show what had happened.

"They will try to stop you broadcasting these pictures," they told us. "They will lie and deny it happened."

From the government-controlled hotel which houses most of the Western journalists, they did just that. And they are still saying that.

Dr Ibrahim told my colleague Lisa Holland in Tripoli that the military would never fire upon its own people because they are "Libyan children" and the soldiers could not even if they wanted to.

Well, they did.

Tim, Martin and I were there when one wounded soldier from the Kharmis brigade was brought in with both his ankles blown away. He had ID which showed his brigade unit and his nationality. He was Libyan and he was a tank commander.

He was also conscious and able to answer my questions. I asked how many military vehicles he had come into the town with. He said 25 to 30.

He went onto say - as his wounds were being tended to - that he never expected to be treated so humanely.

"We were told you were all al Qaeda terrorists," he said. "But you are good people."

[Spiraling Leopard]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart


    * Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
    * French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
    * Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
    * Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
    * No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
    * U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
    * Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
    * Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.

U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

Gaddafi's forces have taken a pounding from allied air offensives. The news comes as Italy has warned it may withdraw use of its military bases if no NATO agreement is reached

President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces within days, handing the reins over to NATO.

But Germany and European allies remain unwilling to have NATO take on a military operation that theoretically has nothing to do with the defence of Europe.

Today the German defence ministry announced Berlin had pulled out of any military operations in the Mediterranean.

A ministry spokesman said two frigates and two other ships with a crew of 550 would be reverted to German command.

Some 60 to 70 German troops participating in NATO-operated AWACS surveillance operations in the Mediterranean would also be withdrawn, according to the ministry.

Berlin isn't participating in the operation to impose a no-fly zone in Libya and abstained on the U.N. resolution authorising it.


France, which launched the initial air strikes on Libya on Saturday, has argued against giving the U.S.-led NATO political control over an operation in an Arab country, while Turkey has called for limits to any alliance involvement.

In a bid to halt the embarrassing bickering, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe today proposed a new war committee to oversee operations.

The new body, Mr Juppe said, would bring together foreign ministers of participating states - such as Britain, France and the U.S. - as well as the Arab League.

Meanwhile the head of the Italian Senate's defence affairs committee, Gianpiero Cantoni, said the original French anti-NATO stance was motivated by a desire to secure oil contracts with a future Libyan government.

Some allies are even questioning whether a no-fly zone is still necessary, given the damage already done by air strikes to Gaddafi's military capabilities.

Speaking about yesterday's hastily arranged meeting of NATO allies, one diplomat said: 'The meeting became a little bit emotional,' before adding that France had argued that the coalition led by Britain, the United States and France should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.

'Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn't make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,' the diplomat added.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

'There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,' he told news channel CNN Turk.

Adding pressure to the already fractured alliance, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has also reiterated a warning that Italy would take back control of airbases it has authorised for use by allies for operations over Libya unless a NATO coordination structure was agreed.

In a shock admission, U.K. ministers have admitted the intervention in Libya could last for up to '30 years'.

Asked for an estimate, British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey said: 'How long is a piece of string? We don't know how long this is going to go on.

'We don't know if this is going to result in a stalemate. We don't know if his capabilities are going to be degraded quickly. Ask me again in a week.'

In the U.S., Obama has made it clear he wants no part of any leadership role in Libya.

The President has already been criticised for continuing with a tour of Latin America as the military operation over Libya began. And yesterday he insisted again that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. is not prepared to remove him by force, but merely to enforce the no-fly zone.

Even that hesitant stance, which has already earned him the title of the Great Vacillator, left him criticised for not seeking proper approval from Congress before sending the American military in.

And after reports emerged that Gaddafi's son had been killed in a kamikaze strike yesterday, fresh questions over what exactly the U.S. intends to achieve in Libya emerged.

With Turkey digging its heels in and the Arab League suspicious, it has been pointed out that Mr Obama has fewer coalition partners in Libya than George Bush did at the start of the Iraq war.

He was criticised by both Republicans and Democrats over his decision to commit the U.S. military before going to Congress.

Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California, Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland all complained that Mr Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without Congressional permission.

The President hit back in a two-page letter to Congress and again reiterated his claim that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. was only in Libya to enforce the no-fly zone for the protection of civilians.

France has already taken a leading role in the conflict, with President Nicolas Sarkozy hosting a summit in Paris over the weekend and French bombers being the first to enforce the no-fly zone.

Last night Britain's top general was embroiled in an extraordinary clash with Downing Street over the legality of a strike to kill Gaddafi.

No 10 slapped down Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards after he flatly rejected ministers’ suggestions that the Libyan dictator was a legitimate target for assassination.

Downing Street and Foreign Office officials were quick to dispute that – saying assassinating Gaddafi would be legal because it would preserve civilian lives in Libya.

But U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates quickly dismissed the suggestion, describing the calls for Gaddafi’s killing ‘unwise’.

Desperately trying to keep the mission on track, he warned that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.

‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,’ he said.  ‘I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.’

Mr Obama has not directly discussed the military action with British Prime Minister David Cameron since it began on Saturday – an omission that would have been unthinkable under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The public spat just days into the operation highlighted growing tensions about ‘mission creep’ in the assault on Gaddafi.

Meanwhle, the coalition abandoned a further raid by Tornado bombers when SAS soldiers on the ground warned that civilians and journalists were being used as human shields.

And Russian premier Vladimir Putin provocatively likened the UN-backed mission to the medieval crusades.

On Saturday Gaddafi's son was said to have been killed in a Tomahawk missile strike on the dictator's compound carried out by the British submarine HMS Triumph.

And soon afterwards, it was reduced to rubble by a precision strike from the 1,000lb weapons. The block was about 150 yards from the tents which the Libyan leader uses as his official residence.

It is not known where the dictator was at the time of the bombing but he has not been seen or heard since the attack. He may have fled into the desert. Senior government sources described the hugely symbolic strike at the heart of his regime as a ‘shot across his bows’.

But there was outright condemnation from Russian premier Vladimir Putin, who gave fuel to Muslim critics of the attacks by branding the UN resolution backing the use of force – a resolution on which Russia abstained – a return to the Crusades.

‘The resolution is defective and flawed,’ said Mr Putin. ‘It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades.’

Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League said that while he supports a no-fly zone, ‘the Arab League was against aerial bombing in principle’.

The North Atlantic Council will meet today to thrash out the differences as every Nato country must agree the plans.

Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan called for air strikes to end ‘as soon as possible’.

‘If Nato is going into operation we have some conditions,’ Mr Erdogan said. ‘Nato should go in with the recognition and acknowledgement that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth.’

Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said legal procedures for establishing a coalition ‘were not sufficiently respected’ by the West.

Mr Cameron responded: ‘There are millions in the Arab world who frankly want to know that the UN, the U.S., the UK, the French [and] the international community care about their suffering and their oppression.’

Defence officials say Qatari war planes are to join the no-fly zone operation and the United Arab Emirates is being pressured to help too.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Honestly, I'm going to laugh when qaddafi wipes the floor with Obama.  In fact, I think it's already starting to happen.

[Spiraling Leopard]

Audio's in the link.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278105

GLOBAL JIHAD
Look who's in line to replace Gadhafi
'At the right time they will make the move, and we will see Shariah'


British cleric Anjem Choudary says al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood have assets on the ground in Libya and are ready to take control if Moammar Gadhafi is removed from power.

The top Muslim cleric accuses the U. S. and French-led coalition trying to topple Gadhafi of working to install a puppet regime, but he says there are al-Qaida operatives in Libya who will stop the West from installing a friendly government.

"Al-Qaida has their own agents and their own people in the region who are propagating their own Islamic ideas and their agenda. At the right time they will make the move, and we will see the emergence of Islam and Shariah in that particular region," Choudary said.

Read "The Stoning of Soraya M." – the true story that inspired the movie

"The power vacuum is very useful for anyone who has an agenda and an alternative system to put in its place," he said.

"Al-Qaida is in fact a philosophy and an idea which is franchised now all around the world. You don't necessarily have to be a member of al-Qaida. If you believe in the Shariah and if you believe in the concept of jihad, and you want Islam to be implemented, then you are adhering to the same ideas as the people of al-Qaida," said Choudary.


"This is widespread throughout Africa and the more these people resist against oppression, the more they see the Americans, the British and the French bombing Muslims, the more they will be drawn towards Shariah as an alternative," Choudary said.

Florida Security Council President Tom Trento agrees.

"He is telling the truth, because North Africa from Cairo going West has deep penetration by the Muslim Brotherhood. We also know that Gadhafi is hated by and hates the Brotherhood and al-Qaida," Trento said.

"We also know that al-Qaida has their heart set on controlling petroleum. Libya is the No. 4 producer. There is no bigger prize in northern Africa than Libya right now," Trento said.

He said Choudary is in a position to know if the Brotherhood or al-Qaida is poised to move if Gadhafi is removed.

"Choudary has deep analytical connections to a variety of organizations. He is the sort of philosophical mind for al-Qaida. He is a confidante of Osama bin Laden," Trento said.

Trento is certain that these connections give Choudary inside information on whether al-Qaida is able to make such a power play if Gadhafi is gone from Libya.

Choudary's comments came after he and other leaders of the outlawed Al-Muhajiroun organization gathered in front of the prime minister's residence at No. 10 Downing Street in London to protest the British and American actions in Libya.

The press release for the protest said the operation is the latest example of American and British opposition to Islam.

"Under the guise of helping the people, once again we see the full might of the U.S. and its stooges, i.e. the British and French, murdering Muslim men, women and children in cold blood," Choudary's statement read.

"Yet again we see the fig-leaf excuse of defending democracy and freedom being used to justify atrocities against Muslims. The reality is that the Americans and the institutions that they control, such as the U.N. and Security Council, will do everything in their power to ensure that the Muslims do not rise to implement the Shariah and threaten their military and economic interests in the region," Choudary's statement said.

Choudary's statement also claims that the military action is to cover up how the U. S. has benefitted from Gadhafi's rule over the years.

"The clear truth is that the U.S., British and French have benefited from their puppets like Gadhafi and Mubarak for decades, they have been complicit in their torture of Muslims, they have even rendered Muslims to such countries to be tortured, all in order to stop the spread of Islam and for Muslims not to rise to establish the Islamic state which would spell the end of their hegemony," Choudary's statement asserted.

Jihad Watch publisher and Islam analyst Robert Spencer says that Choudary's accusation that the U. S. and French-led coalition plans to install a puppet regime is giving the coalition way too much credit.

"Anjem Choudary is being a bit fanciful in suggesting the coalition that is attacking Gadhafi now from the West is going to install some Western puppet government," Spencer analyzed.

"The glaring omission in this whole enterprise has been any discussion or any hint that anyone in this coalition has any idea of what's going to follow Gadhafi at all or has made any provision for a post-Gadhafi Libya," he observed.

But Spencer supports the analysts who say that radical Islam groups are on the ground in Libya and are prepared to take control.

"That's the big problem with it, that the largest organized forces in Libya opposing Gadhafi are Islamic supremacist, pro-Shariah groups, including al-Qaida. So they're most likely to be the beneficiaries of this intervention," Spencer said.

Spencer added that because al-Qaida is in Libya, even if the Western coalition removes Gadhafi, the civil war will continue until the jihadi forces prevail.

Trento added that the U.S. is making it safe for jihad in North Africa and that the administration is making a tactical error by supporting the removal of Gadhafi.

"I regard very highly Ambassador John Bolton, but this morning he made the statement that, 'Whoever comes next,' with the assumption that, 'I don't know who's coming next,' can't be as bad and as anti-American as Moammar Gadhafi," he said.

"I thought, 'How can you base national policy in the hope that the next isn't as bad as the man in power and a man that we can manage to some extent?'" Trento added.

Choudary seems to echo that thought, because he says that the West's intervention to topple Gadhafi wasn't necessary. He says that Gadhafi's days were already numbered.

"The Muslims in Libya are rising against oppression and calling for Islam and the Shariah. This is evident in the chants of the people. Many people believe that they're fighting in jihad against Gadhafi and his own regime," Choudary claimed.

"The removal of Gadhafi was something that was going to be done anyway by the people in Libya. The removal of all dictators is on our agenda. We do not need the Americans, the British and French to come in and bomb Baghdad, and bomb Kabul and bomb Tripoli in order to remove leaders," Choudary added.

Choudary and his supporters took their cause to the British prime minister's residence. The demonstration followed what Choudary called an urgent weekend conference on the status of the worldwide Muslim Ummah.

The Paltalk-hosted Web conference was a forum for some of the British Commonwealth's most radical clerics to take shots at British and American foreign policy and to talk up Islamic law, or Shariah.

Choudary associate Abu Izzadeen was at the protest and a speaker at the conference, and he says that both events are commentaries on the anti-Islamic West.

"It was a commentary on the rise of Muslims around the world and the awareness of the need for change. That change is not hearkening back to the same promises we've had broken for many years of freedom and democracy and liberty, etc.," Izzadeen asserted.

"Those slogans only brought to us humiliation and subjugation. What we need is an independent system where we are free from Western domination. It's not about changing a particular person or an individual. It's about changing a whole system," he said.

Choudary's openness about his intentions has created controversy during his American media appearances. MSNBC TV host Elliot Spitzer has said Choudary should be in prison, and Fox News Channel and nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity has called Choudary evil.

Spencer said that Choudary attracts attention because he's open about his intentions.

"He attracts so much attention among such people (the pro-freedom and anti-Shariah groups) because he is so forthright about these objectives of Islamic jihad where most Islamic spokesmen dissemble about them. He is easy to point to and say, 'This is the real agenda here,' because he's the one who's being honest about it," Spencer explained.

Spencer adds that Choudary is this open about his intentions because the British imam knows most Americans don't take him seriously.

"He knows that most Americans don't care, won't pay attention and won't take him seriously and don't realize that what he's expressing is the broad mainstream of Islamic teaching and not some radical offshoot like the KKK or something like that," Spencer said.

"He knows that most Americans won't realize the implications of what they're hearing and he feels free to say what he wishes."