GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Log Cabin criticizes Obama for failing to explain Libya Operation

by

How times have changed.  It’s now becoming an almost common practice for Log Cabin to do what Republican organizations are wont to do:  criticize a Democratic office holder — and with good conservative reason.

Just received this statement in my in-box:

Log Cabin Republicans call into question the mission and purpose of a United States role in coalition operations to secure the United Nations mandated No-fly Zone over Libya.  There remains no clear objective to Operation Odyssey Dawn, Congress was consulted late in the process and now President Obama has relinquished command and control.

“It is not clear if the United States mission is to liberate the Libyan people from the shackles of the deranged dictator, Moammar Gaddafi.  What is clear to foreign governments President Obama often lies prostrate before is that military actions are secondary to diplomatic perceptions. Noting such dithering and weakness, Americans should not be surprised to learn Brazil concurred with China to call for a cease fire instead of supporting the United Nations Security Council resolution for a No-fly Zone.  This occurred within hours of Obama’s ballyhooed state visit to Brazil.  Further, Russian officials are calling the cobbled together operation ‘a medieval crusade.’  Without a clear mission and objective, Libya will likely devolve into another Somalia where United Nations presence remains to this day.  The Commander-in-Chief owes an explanation to the American people, especially our service members, of what our role is in Libya,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director.

Nice to see Log Cabin sounding like other right-of-center outfits.

Comments

  1. The Libyan operation is full of sad ironies.

    – Candidate Obama implied that even the War Powers Act is unconstitutional; that any military operation abroad must be authorized by Congress. President Bush got that authorization (including from Congressional Democrats, who simply pivoted a couple years later to stab him in the back). President Obama doesn’t bother.
    – Democrats lectured everyone on how military operations abroad must have clear goals. President Bush set clear goals for Iraq and explained them over and over (while Democrats simply ignored him, or pretended he hadn’t). President Obama sets no clear goals for Libya.
    – Likewise with exit strategy. Democrats lecture about it, President Bush had it (even if it didn’t work for a few years there) and explained it (even if the media pretended he hadn’t). President Obama’s is nowhere in sight.
    – Democracy/Nation building. Democrats lecture us what a bad goal it is, it can’t be done with brown people. When Obama’s White House mentions anything at all about having a Libya strategy, they mention putting in a democracy.
    – U.S. security interests. Democrats claimed that Iraq was either only about Israel, only about oil, or totally unconnected to U.S. security interests – (wrong on all 3 points) – so why are we wasting blood and treasure there? But what is the U.S. security interest in Libya?
    – The deficit. Democrats said, Look what the war is doing to the deficit! The deficit hit a whopping 500 billion this year! (before it dropped quickly 100 billion in the years after) Now Obama runs $1.5 trillion deficits and they couldn’t care less.

    I could go on.

  5. Interesting topic Dan. Thank you.

    If indeed, they are being influenced by GOProud, perhaps Target (French-owned) can have the same effect on Tres (stupide) Watson and Company.

  7. Thanks, ILC. Here’s another one from that funny anti-academic site I found: http://tinyurl.com/4dnhm67 . Note that even the Army and Navy journals are running embarrassing stories about this, which makes me think Obama didn’t consult military command or else told Adm. Mullen to go ahead without actually knowing whether NATO or the UN would want to get involved. It seems part of the failure is also Hillary Clinton, who seems to have implied that the NATO allies had committed far more than they actually did. This is way worse than what Bush supposedly did in Iraq because Libya didn’t attack us, Congress had no say, the military was overridden, and there is no clear ally on the ground we can trust. Probably the worst military decision I’ve seen since some of Clinton’s blunders with Haiti, Somalia and Israel.

    Speaking of Israel, notice that in the midst of all this 400 or so Western academics thought the most pressing matter was to try to put Jewish professors out of work through collaboration with South African whites: http://tinyurl.com/4jytbaz The ironies are painful.