Libya has been under attack by NATO forces with the United States originally at the helm of that force. The goal, at least on the surface, is to unseat Moammar Gadhafi as the dictator head of Libya. The problem with this logic is that Obama is still using US forces in an act of war. Just because we are not leading that fight technically anymore does not mean we are not fighting it. The rationale used by the White House is that, "We're not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis is considered to constitute hostilities," one official said. "We're not engaged in sustained fighting."
What is hostilities? What is sustained fighting? Our troops are not playing penuckle with Libya. Over 90 days this is considered sustained fighting. Even by their own logic they are wrong!?! At this point, all I have to say is, Obama is about to lose a very significant lawsuit by even members of his own party. Is this act in support of Libya the beginning of the end for the Obama presidency?
For someone who campaigned heavily against the Iraq war and the lack of evidence or reason to go to war in that area, Obama is about as backwards as a president can be in attacking Libya. It reminds me of the scripture in Job 27:8, "For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?" Notice the irony of the word "HOPE" an Obama campaign trigger word.
Continue reading at the original source →