That argument is full of flaws, but I don't debate with articles. Make your case. Be prepared to explain a number of things. 1. The War Powers Act gives a President the authority to conduct limited war for a limited timeframe. Other Presidents have set precedents for this. 2. Our NATO allies were going to war over Libya. We have treaty obligations to NATO that we must respect if we are to expect them to follow us to places like Kuwait and Afghanistan, like they have done. Likewise there are precedents for US assistance in NATO military affairs, as in Kosovo. 3. Our involvement in Libya consisted entirely of intelligence, reconnaissance, and airpower. No US troops were on the ground. No US casualties were suffered. In fact, the entire coalition's casualties consisted of a British airman who was killed in a traffic accident in Italy while part of a logistical convoy transferring supplies from the UK to NATO bases in the south of Italy from which air strikes were being conducted against Libya. It's difficult to call our involvement a "war" at all. Two more comments. 1. The Libya affair exposed the Republicans for being politically partisan, duplicitous, and obstructionist. While Obama was assessing the situation, they criticized him for being soft and unwilling to step up and help the Libyan revolution. After Obama took action, they totally reversed themselves and criticised him for stepping up and helping the Libyan revolution. It was completely transparent and shameful. 2. I assume you are a Moammar Quadaffi supporter. Why do you object to Obama taking the limited action that he did?
If you are going to place all blame for a recovery that does not meet your expectations solely on the President and the Democrats, then you cannot insist that blame for the disastrous crash that happened before he took office must be "shared". It is hypocrisy to do so. Because economies have peaks and dips and do not track straight lines. The economic crisis in Europe is the main reason that our economy is sluggish. It is an international monetary system and until Europe gets straightened out, it will impact our economy. The important point here is that you are complaining about POSITIVE GDP as opposed to the NEGATIVE GDP that the Republicans left us the last time they were in power. A repeated question, so I'll repeat the answer. The European economic crisis is an anchor on our economy and the US President can do little about that. I blame Bush for his contributions. I blame Obama for his contributions. Tell me, if Romney was to be elected and we have another $5 Trillion added to the debt are you going to place all blame on Romney? Still job GROWTH has been positive for two years, versus the huge job losses happening under the last Republicans. And unemployment is going down as well. It seems that your case against Obama is built on "tepid" recovery and "slow" growth that does not meet your expectations. Perhaps you have been too optimistic, considering the world economic situation since 2008. Did you really expect that we would climb out of that deep rut as quickly as we plunged? It seems to have come to this. Without compromise, there is only payback to be considered and the nation loses. Only when the Republicans screw up, apparently. Democrats must bear sole responsibility when they are in office. Another good reason NOT to return republicans to office. The are irresponsible and unwilling to shoulder culpability for their own programs.
moammar should've had his ass capped a long time ago but he wasn't as big of a threat as hussein and yet democrats were largely against that.
Before Romney came on, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney and his wife made a contribution of $1 million to the Olympics, and he also donated to charity the salary and severance pay he received for the three years as President and CEO, to a tune of $1.4 million. Yea, guess the guy is a cheapskate. Didn't care about the 1.4?
Iraq had not attacked us and had nothing to do with 9/11. 10 years of sanctions and no-fly had defanged Saddam. Yet his people were too cowardly to overthrow him. Anyone with good sense was against the Iraq War, it was stupid from the get-go. But Libya is far different. Libya bombed one of our airliners and bombed US troops in Germany. And in this case the Libyan people had the balls to start a revolution to overthrow the tyrant themselves. That effort deserved our support, cost us little money, and no casualties at all. You criticism of Obama for doing exactly what a Republican President would do is just another example of obstructionism. And a lack of patriotism, too.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/145636 "Most notably, zero Democrats voted for President Obama's budget, which was defeated 0 to 97."
