I wonder if the anyone in the White House can tell us what's going on? I know one thing, they don't want to call it a war.

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. "I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone," Rhodes said. "Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end."

Government officials sound like Beaky Buzzard, "Nope, Nope, it's not a war Nope..."

U.S. officials avoid describing the operation as a war. White house press secretary Jay Carney said it was "a time-limited, scope-limited military action."

Somewhere someone came up with the term "kinetic military action", followed by "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." Are you kidding me? The Obama White House is coming up with it's own form of political Pig Latin. We can't say "War on Terror" we have to say "Overseas Contingency Operation". Now we can't even say war at all, it's not a war it's a "kinetic military action" or a "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." We have a war being directed by individuals who are too scared to call it a war. This does not sit well with me.

The official response to the question of whether or not the action in Libya is a war begins with "I think what we are doing is..." One of the stated goals is protecting the Libyan people. Which Libyan people and protect them from what? This is absurd. We are going to kill the Libyans who are attacking the other Libyans; all of this is done to protect Libyans and avert a humanitarian crisis... Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes is not sure what we are doing! It sounds like we're intervening in a civil war, but we can't use the word war.

The confusion surrounding military intervention in Libya is amazing.

The US government, wary of getting stuck in another war in a Muslim country, would like to hand control of the mission over to NATO, but the alliance is divided. At a meeting on Monday, NATO ambassadors failed to agree on whether the alliance should take control of the mission. NATO involvement would require approval by all 28 members.

France has opposed handing control to NATO because of Arab skepticism about the alliance, which is perceived as being dominated by the US. Paris would prefer the current coalition of France, Britain and the US to keep political control of the mission, with operational support from NATO, according to sources quoted by Reuters. Turkey, an alliance member which sees itself as a bridge to the Muslim world, is opposing NATO control of the operation. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the United Nations should be in charge of an entirely humanitarian operation in Libya.

Britain and Italy want the alliance to be in charge of the operation, however. Rome has threatened to restrict access to its air bases, which are crucial to the mission, if NATO does not take over control. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Britain or France could also take control of the mission, but some NATO officials doubt if either country could handle the operation by itself, according to Reuters.

That's not what Obama told the American people last Sunday 03/19/11.

I’m also proud that we are acting as part of a coalition that includes close allies and partners who are prepared to meet their responsibility to protect the people of Libya and uphold the mandate of the international community.

I’ve acted after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. And in the coming hours and days, my administration will keep the American people fully informed. But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

I don't really know what to say at this point. "World Leaders" are so hamstrung over the political implications of their actions they are not leading.

A war is started with no clear goal and nobody wants to take responsibility for it.

WHO'S ON FIRST!

Obama has said, "It's time for Qaddafi to go." The only problem is that UN resolution 1973 (the resolution that covers this current military operation) "does not explicitly call for the removal of Col Muammar Gaddafi".
Adm. Mike Mullen: U.S. Mission In Libya 'Limited'

Still, the top U.S. military officer said the goals of the international campaign are "limited" and won't necessarily lead to the ousting of Gadhafi.

So where are we now? Our mission is to try and protect civilians... until sometime later... We aren't going to have any boots on the ground. What if ground support is needed for air attacks?

Obama once gave a speech where he referred to what previous leaders have said. He reminded people that they were "just words, just speeches" with that Obama Echo (no-matter where he is).

Saturday night at a gala for the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Obama said to frequent applause, "Don't tell me words don't matter! 'I have a dream.' Just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words, just speeches!"

Obama has now given a speech in which he said, "It's time for Qaddafi to go". The problem is that he has not taken the steps necessary for this to come to fruition. What is the world to think?

I know that this has been pointed out before, but what happens when after all of the bombing Gadaffi is still in power. Now that the UN is heading this, what direction is it going in?

March 19, 2011
Remarks by the President on Libya

I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.

We have now committed US troops to a conflict with no clear goals or real stated outcome. We have a US president who has said that we have to stop tyrants from attacking their own people. That's a pretty dangerous thing to say considering that the Middle East is filled with tyrants who kill their own people.

I'm not trying to just rail on Obama but come on; the left touted Obama as the smartest president in decades. I don't see it.

I think those on the left are like someone looking at modern art. Most modern art is not "art". I'm sorry, but if someone can make modern art by accident --it's not art. Still there are those who look at some modern art and see brilliance, even when there is none. I think Obama is the modern art president. You have a bunch of people looking at him and trying to figure out what he's thinking. He's either a genius, or he has no idea what he's doing, maybe he's just light on his feet. Judging by the way he has handled the Egypt situation and now the Libya situation; it's looking more and more like Obama doesn't know what he's doing.

Obama's stance on any given subject is "subjective" to the extent that he can't be pinned to any position on any subject. Is that really a good quality in a president?

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

If Libya is really causing oil prices to rise, why are we not doing something about it? All of the Sunday Morning talk shows are abuzz with people talking of how an increase in the price of oil could hurt our chances of recovery, as if we didn't know. If Libya is indeed the cause of high prices (as Obama suggests) why is Washington sitting on it's hands? Does anyone really think that UN sanctions are going to effect Gadaffi?

Perhaps it's our Secretary of Defense Robert Gates projecting American weakness? Robert Gates warned against a no-fly zone.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons Monday that "we are working closely with partners on a contingency basis on elements of a resolution on a no-fly zone, making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution and an appropriate legal basis."

But U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned last week that imposing a no-fly zone would amount to an act of war because "a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya" to destroy its air defenses. He also cautioned that an attack on Libya could drag the U.S. military into another conflict, even as nearly 150,000 troops continue to battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, are we waiting on the UN and the Europeans to act? The British seem worried by the lack of a UN resolution. I suppose the British want to avoid looking "Imperial". Opps the British pretty much ruled the world at one point. Come on...

It would be no different if the US were to act alone. Could anyone really mount a good argument that acting in this situation would be a bad idea? I mean really, no silly "World Court" stuff, I mean morally. It's Muammar Gaddafi we're talking about here and he's ordering the killing of his own people by air strikes!

Are we (the US) so morally defunct that we can't make a good claim for ousting Muammar Gaddafi? The rebels that we are "backing" apparently have the moral authority to try and oust Gaddafi. Think about that for a minute.

Does this mean that any US interests overseas could really be on their own? We really shouldn't be getting in their business right? Remember, Gates said as much.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The Governor of Wisconsin is attempting to do what is necessary to sustain the jobs of the union workers who are protesting him. The state of Wisconsin is spending more money than it takes in. But that's not the whole story...

It seems that unions give rather large donations to democrat candidates... story from October of 2010.

The largest labor union representing government workers has poured more money into the 2010 elections than any other outside group, providing a boon to Democratic candidates. And much of that money comes straight from taxpayers, critics allege.

Despite representing just 5 percent of the nation’s workforce, the 1.6 million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has contributed an astounding $87.5 million to help Democrats in hotly contested midterm races, according to campaign records.

This amount doesn't really mean anything unless it is compared to another amount right?

Although Democrats have been critical of Republican fundraising efforts, AFSCME has outspent both the United States Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Political Action Committee. Those GOP-centric groups have contributed $75 million and $65 million, respectively, ranking them second and third on this year’s donor list, according to the Journal.

Wait a minute here; I thought republicans were raking in all the campaign contributions!?

So far this campaign season, AFSCME, the National Education Association teachers union, and the Service Employees International Union (the second-largest public employee union) have given a combined $172 million to candidates.

The interesting thing here is that these "Public Employees" are funded by the TAXPAYERS. Another little tid-bit you might find interesting. In most states Union Dues are not taxed. In Florida there is a battle brewing over this right now.

Sen. John Thrasher, former state GOP chairman, looks like he has filed a bill (SB830) to starve unions like the Florida Education Association, SEIU, AFL-CIO, firefighters, police unions or AFSCME by banning the Democratic-leaning organizations from using salary deductions for political purposes. The legislation also says any "public employer may not deduct or collect" union dues, etc. Lastly, it says that any public employee who didn't specifically authorize the use of his money could be entitled to a partial refund.

They failed to mention in the above article that this ONLY applies to Public Sector Unions NOT Private Sector Unions.

I like how union bosses are all about "worker's rights" but when it comes to how their dues will be used politically the rank and file union members have no say. The union members have rights, just not those rights.

There is an obvious pattern here by which the taxpayers and even some union members are being misrepresented. Tax payer money is being funneled to the democrat party through Public Employee Unions. Is that legal? Yes. Should it be? I'll let you decide.

Next time you hear someone claiming "worker's rights" think about where that person's dues end up. It is no secret why democrat politicians are so, Pro Public Union.

I wonder if the democrats would support a bill that would allow for Active Military Personnel to have campaign contributions deducted from their pay before taxes?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Another G20 country is coming out publicly in support of a new global currency to replace the US dollar or (USD).

France, as current head of the Group of 20 countries, will help the transition to a global financial system based on 'several international currencies', French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said today.

Lagarde, speaking ahead of a G20 finance ministers meeting in Paris on Friday and Saturday, said the world had to move on from the 'non-monetary system' it now has to one 'based on several international currencies'.

China is also behind the move to "get off the dollar" so to speak. I chronicled this some time back. Since my last post on global currency issues; China has become the second largest economy in the world.

Japan’s gross domestic product fell less than estimated in the fourth quarter in a pullback that may prove temporary as overseas demand revives production after the nation fell behind China as the world’s second-largest economy.

This means that the country who has for the longest time been calling for a new world currency, China, now has an even better platform for their argument.

Currently the US enjoys some special perks having the USD as the world's reserve currency; because of this the US can never literally go broke. US dollars are needed to trade on the world market so the dollar's value is intrinsically protected against other currencies. That is why the rest of the world is getting so angry about QE2 or the second round of Quantitative Easing. Without getting into the specifics of QE2 the end result is a devaluing of the USD.

Let's say that you are a French company. You have just converted a large sum of French currency to the US dollars for trading on the world market. If the US government makes economic decisions which devalue the USD by 5% you immediately loose 5% of the money you have just converted. Or consider you are a nation whose currency already trades at a loss in relation to the dollar (the dollar is a stronger currency). If the USD drops in value on the world market your already weak currency becomes even weaker because your currency might be priced against the USD at the same rate as before the dollar value drop. This is in part why so many countries are getting angry about how our government is handling our economy. The USD effects the global markets. Foreign interests are at risk when they move assets to the USD, so it is more likely that they will go with another currency which has fewer fluctuations in value.

Historically the USD has been very safe because the US government has NOT played such a central role in the valuing of the dollar; the global markets have. Never before has the US government taken on such large debt and attempted to directly effect the economy the way it is doing right now.

In other words foreign interests are less willing to exchange their money for US dollars; to see the US government make arbitrary non-market-driven decisions and pull the value out from under the dollar.

If the world's reserve currency shifts from the dollar the price of everything will go up greatly here in the US. If a company in the US wants to purchase something overseas they will first have to convert their US dollars to the new world currency before purchasing on the global market. This will put the US at an immediate disadvantage. Oil will no longer be priced in US dollars. The US will effectively loose the ability to control its currency in relation to the rest of the world. There will be immediate cost increases in every sector of the economy. When energy prices go up everything else goes up.

Just pay close attention to what happens in the near future. The US might be in for a really wild ride while our economy adjusts to these changes.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"