For all his talk about cutting deficits, President Barack Obama seems strangely unconcerned about the massive amount of money his unconstitutional war on Libya is costing the American taxpayer. How massive, you ask? Try $600 million for just the first week.
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla., pictured left), the Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced Monday she will introduce legislation that makes U.S. funding for the United Nations contingent on reform. It also calls for the U.S. to withdraw from the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.
In an address to the nation delivered from the National Defense University in Washington, on Monday, March 28, President Obama made statements regarding American military action in Libya, and declared that NATO would be taking the lead from the United States. Obama also claimed that the United States’ role in Libya is simply to defend those under attack Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. Unfortunately, President Obama’s remarks may not have been entirely truthful.
America has a dismal track record in imposing its values upon the rest of the world — as demonstrated most recently during the massive eruptions in the Arab world. President Obama declared on March 3 of the Libyan dictator, “Let me be very unambiguous about this. Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power and leave.” Whatever moral persuasion the President assumed he had gained by genuflecting to Islam and the Muslim world, it was far too little to affect the aging dictator of the sparsely populated nation of Libya. Not only is Gadhafi not out of power, but he may succeed in the military re-conquest of the rebel parts of his land although the outcome will depend upon our decision to send military forces to oppose his old regime.
President Obama’s actions in Libya were already suspicious for a number of reasons. First, during Obama’s presidential campaign, he asserted that his priority was to get America out of the two wars it was already fighting. Second, Obama was a staunch critic of the Bush administration for unconstitutionally embarking on a war without congressional approval — an action of which President Obama is now guilty. Finally, as the economy is teetering on collapse, one would assume the last thing the President would want is to have to fund a third war.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is regarded as one of the most principled noninterventionists in Congress, as he has consistently supported the Founding Fathers’ opposition to entangling alliances, meddling in the affairs of other nations, and swaying internal politics in foreign governments.
Add Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to the list of those who think President Barack Obama’s imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya is deserving of impeachment. Last weekend Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio, picture left) said that he believes Obama’s war is “an impeachable offense” because, as he wrote in a letter to colleagues, “the President committed the U.S. to military intervention without consulting Congress, in clear subversion of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war.” Paul’s spokesperson, Rachel Mills, confirmed to the Daily Caller that Paul agrees with Kucinich on this point.
Governments are notorious for pretending to be fiscally responsible while in actuality engaging in all sorts of trickery to disguise their free-spending ways. The United Nations being an assemblage of governments, and one with next to no accountability at that, it is hardly surprising that such chicanery runs rampant there as well.
Despite President Obama’s present flip-flopping stance on issues that were critical during his campaign, including the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison and embarking on illegal wars, the media and Democrats had been relatively silent. Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich broke the silence on Monday, however, when he declared that President Obama’s approval of air strikes against Libya is an “impeachable offense.”
What a difference an election makes. The man who just singlehandedly committed the United States to war against Libya, President Barack Obama, told the Boston Globe in 2007:
In all the major media coverage of the UN-sanctioned assault on Libya beginning March 19, one thing was conspicuously missing: questions as to why the U.S. had insinuated itself in the fight, and by what authority it had done so. The answer to the second question was clear to literally everyone writing and talking about the assault: Members of the UN Security Council had signed off on a plan to bomb Gaddafi’s defenses and installations for the stated purpose of protecting Libya’s citizens, as well as the rebel forces opposing the ruthless dictator.