Thread: America at the service of the UN

How do voters feel about Congress being sidelined to serve the interests of the Arab League?

March 23, 2011

America at the service of the UN

Ed Lasky
15 Comments

An excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal article on the propriety of Obama ordering military attacks on Libya: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... ed+nations

"As the President told the country, the US military operation in Libya will be limited in duration and scope, and conducted in partnership with an international coalition. It is aimed at preventing an imminent humanitarian catastrophe that directly implicates the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States," said Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman.

My comment: this is certainly an elastic definition of what constitutes the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Libya does not have nuclear weapons; has stopped its international adventurism and sponsorship of terror; opposes Al Qaeda. He is a nut but he has been contained and his focus has not been on terrorism or the development of nuclear weapons - unlike Iran.

More from the WSJ:

Mr. Obama's notification letter does not satisfy the constitutional requirement that Congress approve military action, says Lou Fisher, former researcher with the Congressional Research Service and an expert on war powers. Mr. Fisher also raised objections to Mr. Obama citing United Nations authorization in his letter.

"It's impossible for Congress to take its war powers and give it to the U.N.," Mr. Fisher said. "Other than defensive actions-and there's no defensive actions here-this has to be done by Congress."

My comment: this is the policy ramification of Obama's approach towards the rest of the world (symbolized by his penchant for bowing before Saudi Kings and Japanese emperors): outsource our foreign policy and military actions to the United Nations and the Arab League. This is John Kerry's "international test" made real. Obama does not trust or listen to our Congress but he does listen to international diplomats and an Arab League run by dictators.

How do voters feel about Congress being sidelined to serve the interests of the Arab League?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... f_the.html

Related news:

Early Polling Shows No Democratic Base Retreat Over Libya--Yet

Posted by Michael Scherer

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 11:15 am

14 Comments

Barack Obama won the Democratic primaries in 2008 largely because of his opposition to George W. Bush's war of choice in Iraq, which Obama called "a dumb war" from the beginning.

Now that Obama has claimed a war of choice as his own in Libya, President Obama will test his ties to his liberal base, which he will need to turn out for him again in 2012. The early signals--via two polls, by CBS News and CNN--show no ill effects, though it must be said that most U.S. military actions get early support from the American people. It's the long term costs--in blood and treasure--that tend to eat away at a President's approval rating.

The U.N. Security Council acted on March 17, and the first air strikes hit Libya on March 19. Both the CBS News and CNN polls were taken between March 18 and 21, so they may not fully reflect a reaction to the attacks. But there is little in the numbers to cause serious concern for Obama.

Democrats: 66% approve of Obama's handling of Libya in the CBS poll, while 73% approve in the CNN poll. The CNN poll shows slightly lower approval among self-described liberals--68%--but nothing close to a clear rejection.

Independents: 43% approve of Obama's handling of Libya in the CBS poll, while 44% approve of Obama's handling in the CNN poll. This is almost identical to the 45% of independents who generally approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president in the CNN poll.

Republicans: In the CBS poll 43% approve of how Obama is handling the situation in Libya, while 27% approve in the CNN poll. Interestingly, 35% of self-described conservatives approve of Obama's handling of Libya, eight points higher than Republicans generally.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03 ... z1HTwmdH7p