America at the service of the UN

An excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal article on the propriety of Obama ordering military attacks on Libya:

"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?


An excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal article on the propriety of Obama ordering military attacks on Libya:

"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?


RECENT VIDEOS