Boots on the ground in Libya [Reader Post]


You are an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.

Over and over we have been told

We are not putting any ground forces into Libya.

Last night we learn

The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials.

There are American boots on the ground in Libya. Read this carefully:

While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.

Which means Obama has been lying through his teeth to America all this time.

Despite the assurance

Broadening military mission in Libya to include regime change would be a mistake, U.S. President Barack Obama said in a nationally televised speech at the National Defense University.

“If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air,” Obama argued.

Barack Obama seeks regime change in Libya.

Obama Signed Secret Libya Order Authorizing Support For Rebels

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Now we have American operatives working side by side with Al Qaida to overthrow a government.

Nothing Obama says can be trusted or believed.


You are an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Blake, hi, I think that is the best comparison, anyone can understand now.
thank you

I’ve tried to stay away from this debate, for selfish reasons. No matter what, I support our forces and I can’t fathom saying you support them and not their mission. I’m not saying you can’t call into question the reasoning behind the mission though.

Dr. J, I don’t think you can call CIA “boots on the ground.” You may say I’m parsing words but “boots on the ground” means combat operations. If we count SF and Spooks as “boots on the ground,” we have “boots on the ground” just about everywhere.
Rich, I reject your premise of anyone being a hypocrite for saying Iraq was justified and Libya is not. Bush made his case before Congress. Whether you believe that information was trumped up or not, Congress had an opportunity to look at the same intelligence. Obama did none of this. No modern Republican President would go into Libya that way because they would be crucified. The same democrats that are praising this action would be drafing impeachment resolutions if a republican had done this.
Greg, you are delusional.
Mata, I assure you we have military on the ground in Libya. At the very least AF Combat Controllers are in country and they rarely go in without support of other SF operators, be they Rangers, Seals, or Force Recon. I don’t count them as “boots on the ground” though, for the reasons I gave Dr. J.
I admit I have to swallow hard to say the part in emphasis, but…our Commander in Chief has called our military to action. They have my total support and my prayers.

Aqua, wow, please don’t stay away from us, as your opinion is so valuable.
yes we support the TROOPS OF COURSE, no matter where they go,
that is why talking for myself, I question the real reason, and under which real command are they taking orders from, and I suspect it is from the WORLD ORGANISATION UNDER THE UN COMMAND, and their goal are to take command of the world including AMERICA, take control of the money, the wealth of the world and redistribute it as they see fit, no matter how hard you work to acquire it, they will take it and by the same token profit immensly themself as our richs get poorer, they have their own CONSTITUTION BY NULLIFYING OUR OWN CONSTITUTION AND WILL INSTALL IT WITH THE HELP OF THEIR AGENTS IN POSITION ALREADY STRATEGICLY
WHY can’t we finish our own present WAR in AFGHANISTAN, where for years our soldier got blown up with their roadside bombs, EIDS LOOK PROPER AND MORE ACCEPTABLE BY MEDIA, BUT THEY ARE BOMBS THAT EXPLODE AND SHRED TO PIECES OUR OWN PEOPLE, THE BRAVES OF THIS COUNTRY,

Aqua, yes I must say, I have selfish reason too for being agressive, toward this war.

Dr J, I didn’t see this coming: you and John Stewart are on the same page. It must be the End of Days.—libyan-rebel-forces?xrs=share_copy

You make some good points Ms. Bees.

First, I am not now or will I ever be in favor of allowing our military to fall under the command of the UN. NATO is a little different. We have joint allied commands all during WWII and for the most part they worked rather well. Granted, the U.S. was in charge most of the time. However, we wield enough influence within NATO that no matter who is in command, the U.S. maintains primary control.
I think we can all challenge the wisdom of going into Libya, but the fact is that is water under the bridge now. We’re there. Elections have consequences
As for Afghanistan, I actaully like Obama’s call for increased drone attacks. I think it takes some pressure off the guys on the ground. I also believe Pakistan is a “paper ally” and not really worth the paper they are written on. Fact is, if we pull our aid from Pakistan, they will become part of India faster than Bill Clinton on an intern. I can’t hold a candle to OT and Randy’s input on Afghanistan, it’s just my observations. I don’t like the war there because it is so hard to prosecute with the terrain. I personally would like to see a C-130 with a Fuel Air Bomb fly over the mountains that border Afghanistan and Pakistan for a daily bomb run. Nothing cleans out caves like a good ole MOAB.
Well that ought to piss off the liberals for a while. I’ll get back to my day off. 🙂


You have one statement in your response that I agree with. “If nothing is done, there will be hell to pay.

Other than that, your response is filled with BS

It is hilarious to now call for a “balanced approach” to balancing the budget, when the amount of spending has gone up so significantly under Obama.
-In 2008, Bush’s last full fiscal year, the budget was $2.9Trillion.
-In 2009, with a partial year for both, the budget was$3.2Trillion.
-In 2010, Obama’s first full fiscal year, the budget was $3.55Trillion.
-In 2011, another full year for Obama, the estimated budget will be $3.82Trillion.

In Bush’s first full fiscal year, 2002, spending was $2.3Trillion, with modest increases throughout his term, including a decrease in fed spending from fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2007. Bush’s first partial year was $2.03Trillion. Bush took 8, that is EIGHT, years to increase federal spending the same amount it has taken Obama to do in 3. And what’s more, Bush’s increases happened under times of economic prosperity, where federal revenues increased from $2.4Trillion in his first full year to a max of $2.7Trillion in 2007, before falling slightly in 2008 to just under $2.7Trillion.

Tax cuts are not included in spending, but rather, come down on the side of federal revenues, either decreases or increases. Bush’s tax cuts helped increase federal revenue during his time in office. Obama, though, has already instituted several tax increases during his time in office, including taxes on those making less than $250,000, and none have increased federal revenues. The cigarette tax of 2009, for example, has ended up increasing the spending due to cigarette smuggling and the resultant increase in fed enforcement required to combat it. Add in several tax increases implemented thus far in Obamacare, including the 10% tax on indoor tanning.

Under Bush, revenues dropped, and he cut taxes to help spur the economy. Under Obama, revenues have dropped, and he increases spending by hundreds and hundreds of billions.

I have talked before about the Bush tax cuts, and the one point you, and others have had, about letting the highest marginal rates increase, but apparently that hasn’t sunk in yet. $60Billion a year. That is the amount that the liberals claim the high income earners tax cuts have cost the feds. $60Billion. How much has spending increased? About $300Billion a year during Obama’s tenure thus far? And how much in spending cuts are the liberals willing to go for? Somewhere south of $30Billion is all I’ve heard.

So, what were you saying about a “balanced approach” to balancing the budget? The Bush tax cuts have shown that when they were implemented, they increased federal revenues. Wouldn’t the opposite, then, be true as well. If the tax cuts were allowed to expire, as you liberals wished, wouldn’t that decrease federal revenues even more? Remember, the economy isn’t static, and any influence on it can and will be felt throughout.

To sum, what you would have us believe is that spending cuts and tax increases should be equal, in order to balance the budget, correct? Yet, the tax increases you, and your liberal pals, have wanted will in no way come close to making up for the spending hikes during Obama’s tenure thus far, and you all whine and cry about the smallest spending cuts. Example, your statements:

If you focused only on spending cuts, the poor, the working class, and the middle class would all see their standard of living and long-term security progressively erroded. The social safety net would become a thing of the past. Public education would become a joke and higher education would be affordable only for a very few. The long-ignored national infrastructure would continue its decline to the point where it could no longer meet the demands of an industrial society. At some point social unrest would set in and anger would likely be directed at those who seemed to have profited the most from the dysfunction. The turbulence that would follow wouldn’t likely resolve into changes that those who have done well would benefit from.

Explain to me how nearly $1Trillion in spending increases over Obama’s presidency has helped these people, and why cutting back on even part of that would hurt them. Granted, it goes well into state spending as well, with some states using Stimulus dollars to increase spending instead of paying debts, leading to the states themselves being in even further financial difficulty. Kinda like when you give a beggar $10, and he spends it on more booze, rather than take him to a restaurant to make sure he’s fed.

Your “balanced approach” will not work, considering:
-Increased taxes impact the economy negatively, with less dollars spent in the free market either through investment or purchases.
-Growth in spending has far outstripped the growth in GDP, and yes, I will admit it did during the Bush years as well(which is just one of the many reasons for the birth of the TEA Party).
-Even with federal spending being “targeted” to help the economy, it hasn’t, mainly due to federal spending through the Stimulus targeting businesses that need subsidies to stay alive, as opposed to spending within established markets.
-The tax increases Obama has put through, such as the cigarette tax and Obamacare taxes, have not increased federal revenues.
-Obama’s own policies, like that of limiting drilling for oil on public lands, have only hurt the economy, and the resultant federal revenues one could see from a true economic turnaround.

Leave taxation the way it is, remove government hindrances to improve the economy, and cut back big time on federal spending. That is what needs to happen.


I apologize for hijacking your posted article comment thread here, but Greg’s comments needed to be addressed.

Aqua, I would put you in command, because I like the way you would end the WAR,
how long she’s been 10 long years now, and the troops have many recalls, so they haven’t no relief,
we need to finish this one, so to give them some rest with their loved one,they deserve it, and what would we do without them, they are the best of this AMERICA, THEY ARE THE ONE WHO MADE IT BEAUTIFULL, while the citizens are trashing it in our days,with the most disrespect of the law,

Aqua #55 Very well written.I said one is NOT necessarily a hypocrite if ( like MATA and others here) you believe in Iraq incursion but are against Libyan action.I believe the same holds true if like Obama and others you’re thumbs down Iraq thumbs up Libya. We could argue the merits of each but this is not the forum.Reasoned people can reach different decisions on these two different engagements.
Obama is neither a liar nor a hypocrite when it comes to his beliefs and actions re. Iraq and Libya.
I used to question those with BDS(Bush derangement syndrome).For some he was wrong all the time. Ridiculous and not even statistically possible. ” a broken clock—” We are now dealing with ODS syndrome.Equally absurd and irrational.Unfortunately,both syndromes appear incurable.

@rich wheeler:

Rich, it has nothing to do with having a thumbs up on one war and thumbs down on another. It also has nothing to do with “Obama Derangement Syndrome”. That is just you switching the topic. He stated one thing, earlier in his career, not necessarily about Iraq in particular, but about his beliefs and ideals on war specifically. Now, with Libya, he has disregarded all his previous statements, and we are left wondering if he’s a hypocrite or a liar. Mistakes are one thing. Backing off your stated principles is quite another.

It is all political posturing with him, and nothing of real substance at all. He doesn’t admit he was wrong back in 2002, or 2007 with his stated comments, and goes on to do the opposite of what he said back then. Are you that blind that you cannot see it?

As I said, it has nothing to do with his actions in Libya taken by themselves, but when coupled with his stated views on war, he proves himself a hypocrite, or a liar, depending on whether you believe in his previous statements, or support his actions in Libya.

Lest you have forgotten, a reminder:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

And this:

preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

And this:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Either way you look at it, regarding his past statements and his current actions and words, he is either a hypocrite, or a liar.

An interesting CRS report on the War Powers Act, and past Presidential compliance, that was published in Feb 2011… before Libya.

Reading thru historical use of the WPR (War Powers Resolution), and sundry Congressional actions following either consultation (a vague criteria in the Act), or reporting requirements, we walk away with a good handle on how often this has been used, and Congressional response. This is not a new beef with Congress, and their worry this is an infringment on the separation of powers.

Also what has been questioned is whether action under a UN resolution can be exempt. According to this report, it is not.

Also within this report is the revelation that the State Dept is also required to give 15 days notice toboth chambers Appropriation Committees. Ironically enough, this mandate was signed by the current SOS’s hubby, Teflon Bill.


Along similar lines, the conference report accompanying the Department of State Appropriations Act for FY1994, H.R. 2519 (P.L. 103-121, signed October 27, 1993), called for the Secretary of State to notify both Appropriations Committees 15 days in advance, where practicable, of a vote by the U.N. Security Council to establish any new or expanded peacekeeping mission. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, P.L. 103-236, signed April 30, 1994, established new requirements for consultation with Congress on U.S. Participation in U.N. Peacekeeping Operations. Section 407 required monthly consultations on the status of peacekeeping operations and advance reports on resolutions that would authorize a new U.N. peacekeeping operation. It also required 15 days’ advance notice of any U.S. assistance to support U.N. peacekeeping operations and a quarterly report on all assistance that had been provided to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations. To permit presidential flexibility, conferees explained, the quarterly report need not include temporary duty assignments of U.S. personnel in support of peacekeeping operations of less than 20 personnel in any one case.

But one thing is very notable… in all the circumstances noted, Congress has, indeed, been consulted, debated, and sometimes defied (by Clinton) and usually followed up with either an endorsement, or condemnation of the military action. Attempts, for example, to remove US troops fromYugoslavia went down to defeat, but at least was addressed by Congress.

The only one who actually sought, and obtained, escalating Iraq military action from the original WPR ongoing involvement in Iraq (from Bush the elder thru Clinton’s terms following… including not only Iraq, but Kosovo, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Haiti and Somalia), was Bush the younger. He obtained the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) in Iraq from Congress prior to beginning OIF.

Depending upon what Congress does in the aftermath of Libya, and whether Obama’s letter and meetings with Congressional members actually stands up to scrutiny of what is considered “consultation”, we’ll have to see whether Obama acted within the scope of the WPR… especially when compared to the attempts of prior Presidents to engage Congress.

From what we know now, Obama has set a new precedent of little to no consulation with Congress before acting. Legal? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Chutzpah? Absolutely.

MATA that is interesting to learn, and this is the first scrutiny you touch on

@ Rich Wheeler
Don’t think we’re quite on the same page here Rich. I have seen, on this very forum, people rip GWB to shreds. I have been one of them. Some of his domestic policies were horrendous. For you guys, Obama has done nothing wrong. The man could walk up and slap the Pope and you guys would say the Pope deserved it. Obama bombs a country with no notice to Congress, most of you guys, with the exception of blast and maybe liberal1 are all for it. Bush would have been crucified and you very well know it.

Any final conclusions about what Bush did with regard to Iraq ultimately have to come down to an estimation of the dangers that were actually posed by Saddam Hussein. Similarly, any final conclusion about Obama’s actions has to come down to an estimation of the actual dangers posed by Muammar Gaddafi.

Does anybody think this guy doesn’t represent a serious long-term danger to America and its interests? I see very little about his past to suggest otherwise. There would be no end to the opportunities the political destabilization sweeping across the Islamic world would afford him.

I suppose we could just wait for 5 or 10 years to see what he’ll do.

@ Greg
And the sad thing about this is, you’re serious. You, most of all crucified Bush for going into Iraq. And he did it with Congressional Approval. Incredible.


Does anybody think this guy doesn’t represent a serious long-term danger to America and its interests? I see very little about his past to suggest otherwise. There would be no end to the opportunities the political destabilization sweeping across the Islamic world would afford him.

That sounds suspiciously similar to arguing for preemptive action. Isn’t that one of the points of contention that the anti-war crowd had with Bush and Iraq? Funny how I haven’t heard any of the anti-war crowd speaking out against Obama on this.

@Greg: Any final conclusion about what Bush did with regard to Iraq ultimately have to come down to an estimation of the dangers that were actually posed by Saddam Hussein. Similarly, any final conclusion about Obama’s actions has to come down to an estimation of the actual dangers posed by Muammar Gaddafi.

Apparently, Greg, the majority of bipartisans in Congress had a better handle on Saddam’s dangers than you… hence the AUMF. When they saw it wasnt going to be a Clinton quickie, however, they attempted to walk away from it, saying they didn’t really believe we’d use force.

uh… the name of the resolution in question was called “Authorization to Use Military Force”. Only the lib/prog faithful can be that gullible, swallowing political sidling.

Does anybody think this guy doesn’t represent a serious long-term danger to America and its interests? I see very little about his past to suggest otherwise. There would be no end to the opportunities the political destabilization sweeping across the Islamic world would afford him.

I warned you about alternative universe truths and keeping your day job, Greg. But you step in your own excrement yet again.

Ponder this one, genius…. while Gaddafi was no good guy, he did yield his WMD program, and was cooperating with the US on intel and counter terrorism.

I’d say Obama has now put us in the pickle that if he he successfully stays, we’re in a world of sheeeeet for revenge (I do believe that Reagan figured that out with his bomb, followed by the Lockerbie and Berlin bombings…). And I’m pretty darned sure that any future counterintelligence will not be forthcoming.

If he’s ousted, who knows what replaces it. Not looking so good in Egypt, where we also had another cooperative Muslim nation for coutner intelligence.

Lastly, genius… one more thing to ponder. Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt and Libya were cooperating with “the great Satan”. In all instances, this POTUS has thrown them under the bus, or increased bombing in their territory.

Meanwhile, state sponsors of terror, Syria and Iran, get the thumbs up and a pass for US intervention.

So… if you’re a newly created Muslim nation, think you want to want to work with the US? Odds ain’t good….

MATA you can say that way better than me, I was going to say,
GREG, what about his replacement, you think they’r safe,
If we look at the spread of revolution in there all around, I dont think they are safe enough,
because once they are finish to replace the leaders with their own, they are coming further creating chaos
all over, and we will feel the HUMAN TSUMANI TOO.

To all here who believe that Quaddafi was a threat, I say no- just as a rattlesnake is no threat until you whack him with a stick- he CLAIMED to have given up his WMDs, but Moussa Koussa, one of the defectors of his regime, says that he still has mustard gaas, among other things, (which, i believe, is classified as a WMD). But Quaddafi was not threatening us, and while he defied UN resolutions, he has defied less that Hussein, who the UN claimed could have been kept in check by resolutions. What a laugh- that said, this is a CIVIL WAR, which, last time Ichecked, DID NOT POSE AN “IMMINENT DANGER”- whereas EVERY intel agency thought Hussein had WMDs,(probably because Hussein told them himself, in a “reverse psychology ploy that backfired on him).
This is a war of distraction, with NATO providing “political cover’ for Obama’s butt- nothing more or less.
If this “war” was for the reasons stated, we would be in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, AND we would have helped the Iranians after their rigged election.

@Greg: Greg, it is likely possible that even with Obama’s tepid response, Quaddafi will last another 5- 10 years, only NOW we have pissed him off.
Unless an “errant” cruise missle just “happens” to blast him into virgin territory, we have stirred up a hornet’s nest for political uses. (hint: WE don’t use Libya’s oil- Nato countries do).

Just in case there’s doubt as to who Obama’s new war is helping, . . . “Bahrain’s news agency says the Gulf bloc expressed its deep concern ‘over the continuing Iranian intervention in the internal matters of GCC countries by conspiring against their national security.’ “

It’s so gratifying to see the CiC make such “humanitarian” decisions. Bombing Gaddafi was evidently the fireworks his highness desired for the Launch of his 2012 Presidential campaign. . . . . His handlers are doing such a great job to protect America. Well done!

James Raider, can you tell me what the GCC stand for what name,
thank you

@ Bees, #75

They’re the illustrious Gulf Cooperation Council.

The term “cooperation” is rather misplaced when applied to these absurd dictators running their countries into the ground.

James Raider, thank you, are they the 1/3rd of the UN REPRESENTING 57 OF THEIR COUNTRYS?