Our nation is at war today, once again without the Constitutionally-mandated debate in Congress leading to a declaration of war

Our nation is at war today, once again without the Constitutionally-mandated debate in Congress leading to a declaration of war, because John Boehner instead chose to debate defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood, leaving the decision to President Obama. Over the weekend – more than 100 cruise missiles were launched by British and American forces into the nation of Libya – taking out crucial air defenses to pave the way for enforcement of a no-fly zone above the nation.

The military action comes just hours before Moammar Gadhafi’s military was about to move into the city of Benghazi – the last remaining stronghold of rebel forces – and put an end to the uprising that’s split his nation in two over the last month. In response to the airstrikes – Gadhafi opened up weapons depots around the nation to arm Libyans with machine guns and mortars and vowed to give coalition forces a, “long war.” There are reports that nearly 50 people have died in the airstrikes and 150 others injured. President Obama justified the military action saying, "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

While the causes for our military intervention in Libya today may be noble – it must be pointed out that this is the third military engagement with a Muslim nation in the last decade. And all it takes is one stray missile to further set back our causes to wins hearts and minds in the region.

As long as the United States is viewed as a habitual bomb dropper – then it will be very difficult to prevent another generation of radical Muslims

Comments

Sharon Hale-Jenkins's picture
Sharon Hale-Jenkins 13 years 18 weeks ago
#1

What war? do we have boots on the ground? This time slot for progressive radio is so self serving. If Tom would concentrate on educationing his listeners, as oppose to staring up hipe and assumptions, I wouldn't turn it off as I often do. Ask the question, "are we in another war?" and wait for a discussion. You guys are not always the smartest in the room. I would say less informed.

Redlocks's picture
Redlocks 13 years 18 weeks ago
#2

I have heard "right-wingers" bring up the War Powers Act, to justify why Congress is not declaring war.

Do you have any perspective on that?

silvergrl's picture
silvergrl 13 years 18 weeks ago
#3

My understanding is that this is a police action, not a war. But if you want to call it a war, then you might check with history. We did declare a war on Libya some years back and I doubt they ever undeclared it. This is the ONE time that I disagree with Dennis Kuchinic. If we didn't stop him he would have continued to slaughter the people, and the people ASKED for International help. I just wish we would have done the same for Rowanda and Darphor. Imperialist America only does it when it is in our National or Monetary interest. :-(

robar's picture
robar 13 years 18 weeks ago
#4

war tax if we are so broke is it not time to start asking those making over a mil to pay

Berry's picture
Berry 13 years 18 weeks ago
#5

I felt this in my bones. They just seem to love bombs. This is a plan that been going on for a long time just waiting for the right moment. I have notice Obama always speaks up when it comes to war, watch his eyes. Love at first sight. Anyway He hardly ever screams to help here at home. Anyway, War is insane, they won't be happy until they make this planet barren and unlivable, just to watch their man made glory. Happiness will be when this planet explodes into millions of fragments so we can have a nova to watch in the heavens. Planets do explode which we call asteroids and meterorits. To die is almost effortless but to live takes effort.

dianhow 13 years 18 weeks ago
#6

berry nonsense Recall who waged 2 long wars then dumped them in Obama's lap like the stinkin coward he is - and who led us to 2008 global crash 700 billion TARP / depression- 28 yrs of Reaganomics Bush 1-2 Cheney Goldman FED's wealth favorng policies- courts- cuts- debt- lies- fear- disaster

dianhow 13 years 18 weeks ago
#7

Yes we must have a huge war tax and let those who want more war send their kids to fight Our trooops are burnt out- some suicidal- some depressed. -some with PTSD Its in humane

dianhow 13 years 18 weeks ago
#8

War Police action ? same results Bombs killing maiming trillions gone I thought we were broke - but we always have cash for bombs and killing- not education = not poor - not teachers - just fat cat cuts and the massive war profit machine for Cheneys Halliburton Black water & Plane / bomb makers.. whats next Iran yemen ?

dianhow 13 years 18 weeks ago
#9

so girl Do we 'rescue ' - wage war for all people in the world living under tyrany ? Then we need a draft asap since our troops are burnt out- tired- doing 3-4 tours.- many have PTSD Thats inhumane

dianhow 13 years 18 weeks ago
#10

sharon Not war ? Bombs killing maiming Thom educates AND gives his opinion War ? boots on ground ? call it what you wish It costs trillions we do not have and puts lives in danger

dianhow 13 years 18 weeks ago
#11

let the Arabs & France do it this time

Karl Smiley's picture
Karl Smiley 13 years 18 weeks ago
#12

We are being lied into another war. The "No fly zone" is BS. They are not just bombing air defenses. They are bombing all the military. They even bombed Gadhafis home. This has nothing to do with dictators killing their people. We are doing nothing in Bahrain are we?

Don't forget that the rebels started the war and control the oil rich part of the country. That's what it is about, putting neocon puppets in to control the oil.

So... Obama trashes the constitution just like Bush did. Just what good is a constitution if it can be ignored?

dianhow 13 years 18 weeks ago
#13

US SHOULD NOT BOMB LIBYA GIVE AID CASH AIRLIFT ETC NO BOMBS WE HAVE ENOUGH ENEMIES AS IT IS WITH OUR YEARS OF BAD FOREIGN POLICIES DEALING WITH AND -SELLING WEAPONS TO TYRANTS - DICTATORS LIKE SHAH OF IRAN ( BUSH SR GAVE HIM SAFE HAVEN ) THAT LED TO HOSTAGES TAKEN LATER REAGAN SOLD GUNS TO IRAN CONTRA REBELS THEN HE LIED ABOUT IT.. THEN JUST AS REGAN TOOK POWER IRAN RELEASED OUR HOSTAGES HOW COZY WAS THAT - A PAY BACK FOR GUNS ? BUSH WAGED WAR IN IRAQ BASED ON LIES- FEAR - AND MASSIVE WAR PROFITEERING

willeke's picture
willeke 13 years 18 weeks ago
#14

Why is it always the "no democracy at home, crumbling middle class USA", that has to expend more and more lives and money we don't have, anywhere else in the world but here?? On how many (oil) "fronts" are we going to "fight". The """" are for Sharon "boots on" Hale-Jenkins, above, who appears to have found a new usage for the word "war". No boots on the ground, no war; so no-one's hurt? In this age of ever more applications of computerized, unmanned killing machines, "boots" are not the qualifier for a wilful action against another country, which is not attacking us. Big brother has a firm hold on the average intelligence of many of us: war is peace, freedom is slavery (serfdom in America is growing at an alarming rate), and ignorance (no budgets for schools) is strength! Good luck to US, we are going to need it.

MrXtramean's picture
MrXtramean 13 years 18 weeks ago
#15

If the President wants to play with his balls, that's one thing, but side stepping a Congress just after they went to break is wrong. Plan wrong. Congress is clueless and that isn't the way it's supposed to be. If you have one person declaring war, then you have a dictatorship. If I were Congress, I would be change the laws so this BS crap doesn't happen again. I understand about Libya. But instead of the President warning, and warning Gaddafi and given him time to hide, run and get ready to fight back, why couldn't the President have had on the ground a sniper. 1 bullet for under $5.00 and innocent people are spared, the city is spared all the destruction. Obama failed this big time.

I really don't get it. The Whitehouse makes a statement that they are looking for ways to fire up the base. Did anyone tell them, this isn't it. This actually is turning people away from him. He lost my vote when he did "business as usual" and gave the top 2% a tax cut. What he did by not talking to Democrats before making the tax cut deal was wrong and now not talking to Congress about this war was wrong. I'm afraid, Obama is a lose cannon and he needs to go.

Gaddafi knows what happenned in Iraq. Are we really supposed to believe he wants that on his country? I honestly think we are not getting the whole story and there's more going on here. Just look at France. When France is first in line to start voilence, you know they've got to be hiding something.

Berry's picture
Berry 13 years 18 weeks ago
#16

dianhow> Sorry about your Obama, but he's the one up on that podium as of now. I was not just pointing at Obama . Its about all these warmongers we have had in the passed. Big Money to be made in wars! Yes dianhow , We should tax the war money! " Hats off ! Great Idea! Anyway ~ The use of Depleted Uranium and Nuclear power waste and waste plants with its death gases, its dust particles spreading all over the world polluting rivers, landscapes or i should say our natural environment. Climate warming maybe the first signs of a dying planet. So lets continue bombing what we can and everything will be just great! We need more WAR Like we need a hole in our head!

Bryan Hickey's picture
Bryan Hickey 13 years 18 weeks ago
#17

I think in this instance intervening is the morally correct thing to do. Each situation is different. It is not Iraq or Afghanistan or even Bahrain. This is not a situation where we are fighting principally to support the greed of the oil companies, as was the case of the travesty in Iraq. The Lybian people first rose up peacefully to demand their "human rights." They were met with ruthless brutality, even going so far, reportedly, as killing injured protesters in the hospitals, shooting their own soldiers in the back when they refused to fire upon their own citizens, and finally bombing and indiscriminately killing their own citizens. They have vowed to go house to house to kill those opposing them. They were hours away from committing an act of genocide against their citizens in Benghazi. It pains me that anyone has to be killed, be they pro or anti-Gadhafi, but I believe a time comes when hard moral choices must be made, as difficult as it is. There are not many instances when we can use our military power to save lives and to protect the actual aspirations of freedom (as opposed to the usual hypocritical use of our power to promote "free markets," at the expense of freedom). I have been bitterly disappointed at times with President Obama's reticence to fight for more progressive ideals and his willingness to compromise too easily. But in this case, I believe it was a courageous decison. The right wing as well as the left wing will surely criticize him, as they already have. I do not think the military was keen on it either. I believe he went into, as a last resort, actually opposing the military, it because it was, if nothing else, the better of two evils.

JohnPerryOnline's picture
JohnPerryOnline 13 years 18 weeks ago
#18

Nothing noble about it, Tom. Libya sports the largest oil reserves in Africa. Some are dismissing this assertion by pointing out how little oil we get from them. But the point is CONTROL of the oil, regardless of where it flows. The real goal with the attack on Libya is to ensure installation of a new puppet government for the multi-national oil barons.

mikesternqrc's picture
mikesternqrc 13 years 18 weeks ago
#19

This is not the way to right a wrong when we do not have a direct national interest at stake. We need to stop bombing people. If Americans knew the dictator could bomb us back, they would think twice. Perhaps the sanctions idea makes some sense in this case, but I am sick of us being drawn into extended wars. Let's get out of everywehere else and start caring about building a strong middle class while lifting up the poor. Let's strengthen what safetynets we have left.

jacksguitar's picture
jacksguitar 13 years 18 weeks ago
#20

Why even have a constitution including congress when Presidents bomb whomever they want. Just wrong to engage on his own like this. I'm so tired of this.

The United States has launced tomahawk cruise missiles into a Libya. Do you think Libya considers this an act of war? If one country is launching weapons of mass destuction, into another country, this is war. It doesn't matter if the force comes from the ground, sea or air. We are now at war with Libya.

making progress's picture
making progress 13 years 18 weeks ago
#21

Derrick Jensen - Endgame, have him on for a full hour, atleast!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9os1GFuWJ0

David Abbot's picture
David Abbot 13 years 18 weeks ago
#22

President Obama now has the blood of people from three sovereign nations on his hands as well as the blood of our own military. And he is personally responsible for starting this latest war. Based on how Iraq and Afghanistan have gone, do we have the slightest hope that our intervention in Libya will go well? No, we do not.

Congratulations, Mr. Obama: you are the first black man to be president of America. Unfortunately, other than the color of your skin you are exactly the same as the other armchair-hawk, old-money republicans whose own families will never fight in any of the wars that you want our families to fight and die in so your wealthy supporters can steal oil from another country. "Yes, we can." What, were you joking when you said that?

jacko9's picture
jacko9 13 years 18 weeks ago
#23

Libya has been a pain in the rumb and the President is doing the correct action. Republicans as much as they love war and war profits will condem this like they did in the Somolia action to gain political points but, they are scum and traitors to the Commander-in-Chief and our men and women in uniform!

dnarnadem 13 years 18 weeks ago
#24

Thom - Amazing how supposed VERY "intelligent people" sometimes get their predictions and comments VERY Wrong! Yourself included. Obama got this one right. And I'll let history be the ultimate judge on this one.

Wonder if you will re-blog this in a more favorable light 6 months from now? If you do, at least we'll know you can re-assess and correct your errors. If you don't I will remind you.

Berry's picture
Berry 13 years 18 weeks ago
#25

Everone is being suppressed by US government including American's , whether it be called Debt, jobs, cutting back on safety nets, Why it seems they care so much about you and I just on their behalf , they want to take away seniors social security as a gift. This will be good for their health. I often wonder why we don't see Obama speaking out against such things and to shine the light of hope and to fight against the many dischord going on here in America? . No. He seems to only worry about other coutries doings and their health. Why wasn't Obama shouting and making sense about unions rights? What " He has no time for that now , Time for war, I see-Pullution, contaminating making waste lands , burn everything in the way so it become unfit for use. I guess love is in the air once more " Bombs Away!.

dnarnadem 13 years 18 weeks ago
#26

"The United States has launced tomahawk cruise missiles into a Libya. Do you think Libya considers this an act of war?"

Kadaffy might. But you forget the Libyan People who are RISING AGAINST HIm and who want to CREATE a NEW Government So who is declaring war on whom?

This is also a NATO operation. You know France, England, Italy, United Arab League, etc.

War is not being declared on a Country but we are trying to oust a Dictator - VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!

dnarnadem 13 years 18 weeks ago
#27

"If Tom would concentrate on educationing his listeners, as oppose to staring up hipe and assumptions"

I Agree! How much different it would of been if Thom would of put his "Intelligent Hat" on and try to dissect this from what was Obama's thinking on this! Step by painful step. Put yourself in His shoes and see what BETTER solution you would of had. And I bet that at the end of the process it would devolve that this was the Correct way to proceed and you would make the same exact decisions. Try it!

But no - just Knee-Jerk Pontifications! And no one is the wiser and no one has learned anything! If anything we are all just the more ill-informed and clueless.

Thom, suggest that in one of your shows, you do just that. Bet you will even surprise yourself! And maybe in the process inform a lot of people and even help them how to think critically and correctly.

Obama is right on this one.

rickelis's picture
rickelis 13 years 18 weeks ago
#28

The U.N. Participation Act. In case you are wondering why Obama would put himself in such political danger concerning the Libya decision, it seems that he may have an obligation to the world to do so.
From the U.S. Code "generated from the most recent official version made available by the US House of Representatives."TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER XVI > § 287d Use of armed forces; limitations (pointed out in an article entitled "A Legal War: The United Nations Participation Act and Libya (updated)" Written by John Whitehouse <http://jenkinsear.com/2011/03/19/a-legal-war-the-united-nations-participation-act-and-libya/>)

"The clear legal authority for actions sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council lies within the United Nations Participation Act….The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein:"

Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43 All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Whitehouse: "What would not be legal according to the law is any escalation beyond what the UN authorized here. So, if you are worried about mission creep, unless the entire Security Council authorizes boots on the ground, it would certainly be illegal."

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 18 weeks ago
#29

Democrats are war Mongers.

David Abbott and Jack 09, with the exception of the Civil War, Iraq and Afghanistan, every war in which the US has engaged were begun by a Democrat President.

Fact is, the most peaceful times in our countries history, we had Republican Presidents. (i.e. 35 years following the civil war, with the exception of Andrew Johnson, all were Republican Presidents)

Berry's picture
Berry 13 years 18 weeks ago
#30

One has to wonder does the United Nations and its agency the IMF looking to become the one world governmet. Do they have a country or own land? Just how corrupt are they really, Some little known facts about UN and IMF. We should take a closer look at the United Nations,IMF. Just who are they and how did they get started? Whom put them in power to dominate dictate? Are they constitutional if you will. Are they about making the world safer for bankers? "Why do we need them ? Whats wrong with United States? Why not think for ourselves. ( Not Mob thinking UN that does not have a country?) Ross Perot said ~Whenever a citizen raises questions about the conduct of our government and its officials, our representatives look around for someone to blame. Question more! Agan I just wonder if science ever measured the dangers of radioactive accumulating in the upper atmosphere from bombs testing to Power plants and other things. Are radioactive particles slowly descending upon us over time? Radioactive life is about 20.000 years. Are we Still accumulating this stuff ? ( Gases too) When was the first power plant built and tests ? In just a short while what have we done?

bull's picture
bull 13 years 18 weeks ago
#31

I think when the congress requires the US to belong to the United Nation it is implied that the president will use war department at his discression UNTIL congress acts to follow his lead or change direction.

bull's picture
bull 13 years 18 weeks ago
#32

except, excpt, except, except, ect...........

dnarnadem 13 years 18 weeks ago
#33

bicyclingjroad Amazing! You forget one SMALL fact! The Democrats INHERITED the Wars! Either directly, Iran and Afganistan (Bush/Cheney), or indirectly, like the 1st and 2nd World Wars which happened due to the economic mismanagement of REPUBLICAN Presidents and administrations!

Here is a classic case in point where sweeping statements are made without the least compunction to state the facts correctly!

We are all NOT that misinformed or that stupid - sorry. Read a bit more American history, my friend.

And while we are at it, The American Revolutionary War, and The War of 1812: Started by Democrats, Republicans? The fact is that these wars of Independence were fought by all Americans who wanted Democracy and freedom from England. How about those wars?

It also amazing how most Americans are ignorant and mis-informed about their own history. But then again, this may be a case of selective editing to foster a certain point of view paid for by certain lobbyists – who knows!

But war mongers Democrats are Not! Democrats only clean up the mess left behind.

davideg231's picture
davideg231 13 years 18 weeks ago
#34

Thom,

I caught you and John Nichols briefly today. While I appreciate your defense of the US Constitution, at the time the framers created and the states approved this living document, the world of our young country was a much more isolated place.

As Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, certainly has the authority to send members of the armed forces into areas devastated by natural disasters, typically the National Guard but also other armed services members at times. And these people may be sent into harm's way, such as the personnel on US Navy ships now in or near Japan, on humanitarian missions to the people of Japan who were hammered by the recent tsunami and now face radioactive fallout from plants damaged by the natural disasters from the huge earthquake and tsunami.

At the time the Constitution was written and adopted, the framers certainly had no concept of a League of Nations or a United Nations. They were barely past the Revolutionary War, and still not out of the woods with King George and the Redcoats, who would wage war again in 1812. But now, we do have a United Nations. And the US is not only a member nation but also a permanent member of the Security Council. The vote on UN resolution 1973 S/RES/1973 (2011) was 10-0 with 5 absentions (Russia and China expected). That resolution included the following (see BBC link for details): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12783819

What authority does the UN have in this instance?Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of... aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".
Chapter VII also gives the Military Staff Committee responsibility for strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the UN Security Council. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.There is nothing in this Chapter which says that any member nation must provide resources to take any action from air, land or sea. Nor is there any reason for any member nation to issue a formal Declaration of War in order to provide those resources to enforce a UN resolution. Yes, the Congress should probably have been advised, and their consent given, but THIS Congress, in particular, is so dysfuntional that by the time that consent had been given, all those in Lybia who actively opposed the regime, one of the most repressive in the world whose leader had said in no uncertain terms that he would seek out those who opposed him and show them no mercy, as well as any other civilians in Lybia from whatever their country of origin would have been slaughtered. That could not be allowed to happen as has happened before in the Balkans, and yes, in several places on the African continent. Timely actions were needed. You yourself made the case for the lack of real significant focus in the Congress when you pointed out the GOP-led House was much more interested in removing a pittance from NPR than in taking an active role in this discussion - wherein in 2 days well over $100M of armaments in the form of missles had been expended.
For me the answer is simple: Muammar al-Gaddafi had to be stopped. His refusal to comply with an earlier UN resolution S/RES/1970 (2011) to among other things implement and honor an immediate cease fire compelled the UN to act. The fact that 5 Security Council members abstained only highlights that they do not want to be involved. That no permanent member vetoed the resolution sends a pretty strong message that they too, knew he had to go.Limited involvement of US forces, notably air and naval (Tomahawks) is all I would support. But, with the support of NATO and Arab League countries who sought a no-fly zone (did anyone think this could be done without military actions?) limited and limited duration engagement of US forces is all that should be needed. That is clearly President Obama's and Secretary Gates' intent, and why they insist that the leadership of the UN actions be undertaken by other member nations. Our extended presence could do more harm than good. The real problem will likely soon become: "who succeeds al-Gaddafi?" And what type of UN Security force will be needed on the ground to provide some stability to give the Libyan people a chance to create their own government and move forward.

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 18 weeks ago
#35

Well, Mr or Miss dnamadem,

war of 1812, democrat pres, Mexican American war, democrat president, Spanish American war, democrat president, WW I, democrat president, WWII democrat president, Korean War, democrat president, Vietnam war, democrat president. Now you are no longer misinformed.

dnarnadem 13 years 18 weeks ago
#36

Who were the presidents before these Democratic presidents? I assume they were Republican ones.

And the Democrats have cleaned up the mess after every last one of them.

If you are going to name all these wars which you state ALL DEMOCRATS started, let’s have the correct information.

War of 1812 - this should not count as this was a war for liberation unless the Republicans were siding with the British! God forbid!

Mexican-American War - Tyler was a Whig - and he saw the annexation of Texas - which was why Polk went to war because Mexico wanted it back. Spanish American War - Mcklinly was a Republican. WW I - Taft a Republican was the previous president to Woodrow Wilson and an ardent Imperialist which contributed a lot to the start WW I. WW I started in 1814 - the US entered in 1918 when the Germans advanced into Western Europe. WW II - started in 1939 by the Germans - Roosevelt declared war after Pearl Harbor was attacked. The cause of WW II again the end result of Republican imperialistic politics begun decades earlier by Republicans Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Korea - this was a United Nations effort after North Korea and Soviet Russia attacked South Korea. Since the US was part of United Nations, it had to enter the war, not because a Democrat president Started it as you state. Vietnam - Initially supported for 8 years under Eisenhower, a Republican.

Now you are no longer misinformed! Democrats clean up the mess that Republicans start!

Cheek's picture
Cheek 13 years 18 weeks ago
#37

Barack Obama is guilty of the same crime as Scott Walker. Both forced legislature thru the government without first consulting congress. They should both be recalled.

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 18 weeks ago
#38

Mr or Miss dnarnadem

It’s no wonder you’re misinformed, all your “facts” are wrong. The war of 1812 began, when the US, under James Madison (democrat) invaded Canada to acquire land, and cut off British supply lines. The Canadians easily defeated the US soldiers and pushed them back. Yes we did fight the British, but the war began with the US invasion of Canada.

The Mexican-American War, started during the presidency of James K. Polk, the leader of the Democrat Party. Polk wanted to expand the US to the Pacific coast. The Whigs and Anti-slavery forces very much opposed the war.

The modern day Republican Party began with Abraham Lincoln.

History according to dnarnadem, blames WW I, WW II, Korea and Vietnam on a variety of schizoid reasons, none of which address the FACT that democrat presidents started these wars. Roosevelt became president in 1932. Roosevelt had been president of the United States for almost 10 years, when Japan perceived the US as weak and attacked Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was also responsible for the incarceration of millions of Japanese/Americans in POW camps.

Truman, a democrat, authorized the use of Nuclear weapons against Japan. He also bears the responsibly for the war in Korea.

The war in Vietnam began by Kennedy, democrat, escalated by Johnson, democrat, was ended by Nixon, republican.

Get your head out of the sand Miss dnarnadem. No one is buying any of the revisionist BS you are trying to sell. You and Hartman are destroying any creditability the progressive movement has.

dnarnadem 13 years 18 weeks ago
#39

I believe you got your history lessons from rep bachmann of minn!!!

None of your statements are correct. Suggest readers don't take it from me but get a GOOD American History book and read up the FACTS for themselves.

But I know what will happen when you challenge bicyclingjroad - he'll just state you read a commie liberal History book! And that Reagan never tried to kill gadaffy with one of our 1 miilion dollar missiles (hey wasn't he a republican?) that directly led to the Lokabeee terroist bombing that killed close to 300 people!

Selective history is NO history. Just Bunk.

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 18 weeks ago
#40

Miss dnarndem:

It’s apparent to me I’m having a discussion with an uneducated buffoon. You would rather change the subject, attack me and avoid a discussion of facts. Eleanor Roosevelt stated, “Great minds discuss ideas. Average mind discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” I’m sorry to say Miss dnarndem, you fit in the latter category.

I welcome any reader to pick up any history book to verify the facts I’ve written. Unlike you, I’m more interested in the truth than trying to win an argument.

dnarnadem 13 years 17 weeks ago
#41

Yes pick up any Good American History Book and do get the correct facts. DEMOCRATIC presidents are NOT all WAR MONGERS! They only clean up the mess that republican presidents and administrations leave behind. Fact. Any reasonable person can come up with the same conclusion using simple logic and the facts of history. (It is no surprise to anyone that President Obama INHERITED 2 wars begun by a REPUBLICAN president, Bush the Younger, and now has to clean the mess that that republican president left behind). Unless, of course, that FACT escapes bicyclingjroad completely or that it disproves his statement that ALL DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS ARE WAR MONGERS. Facts do Matter.

I don't want to win the discussion; I just want to make sure that seeming categorical statements as stated by bicyclingjroad are correct and true, not just demagoguery.

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 17 weeks ago
#42

There you go again, changing the subject, twisting my words. I never said all democrats were war mongers. You did. But I guess you see what you want to see. This is a simple fix though. Reread the statements I've written here. Show the quote where I stated all democrat presidents are war mongers.

Speaking of demagoguery, you are the perfect example of a demagogue. A buffoon with a thesaurus.

dnarnadem 13 years 17 weeks ago
#43

bicyclingjroad Democrats are war

Democrats are war Mongers.

YOUR WORDS NOT MINE!!! Can't believe you don't even know what you wrote!!! Especially

when all you have to do is SCROLL UP!!!!!

dnarnadem 13 years 17 weeks ago
#44

And you should be emabarrassed! If you don't even remember what you YOURSELF STATED or wrote, how is anyone to believe ANY of your statements you wrote maybe hours previously!!!

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 17 weeks ago
#45

You are a fool. I DENIED WRITING ALL DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS ARE WAR MONGERS. Which is what you stated I said. Go back and finish high school.

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 17 weeks ago
#46

Miss dnarnadem:

I'm typing this real slow hoping you can understand what nuance is. If I make a statement such as "People are Black." That statement is considerably different than "All people are Black". Do you get it? Or do you just want to argue?

dnarnadem 13 years 17 weeks ago
#47

I knew you's be pulling a Clinton! I won't respond - I'll let the readers figure this one one out by themselves!

This one should be an easy one of them! Have a good day sir - and there is no nuance!

bicyclingjroad's picture
bicyclingjroad 13 years 17 weeks ago
#48

To Summarize what is written in my many posts above:

With about an equal number of Republican and Democrat presidents. Democrat Presidents have stared more wars than Republican Presidents (Democrats 7, Republicans 2)

dnarnadem 13 years 17 weeks ago
#49

So now WE all know that "War Monger" is NOT solely a Democrate Vice!

And for the record: Whenever you are debating a certain issue, you know you are Right when sleezy ad hominems are being slung at you: when the debate turns from the issue at hand to insults being leveled at you!

My argument stills stands: not all Democratic Presidents are/were War Mongers: They just clean the mess that Repubublicans have left behind. Though a war is going on while a Democrat sits in office, it does not follow that a Democrat started it because he/she likes war, or is a War Monger! This is what is called in logic a non sequitur.

JmsThoughts 13 years 17 weeks ago
#50

I seem to remember something about Clinton sending troops into Somalia under ]special executive order which allowed him a set timeframe, something like 39 days, in order to accomplish a specific goal. If memory serves this was when the Blackhawk helicopter was brought down which was jumped on by Hollywood of course as well as the Right wing who thought the loss of those military members and how their remains were trwated was the worst thing ever to have happened, odd how few of them spoke up about the hundreds dying in Iraq since.

Obama seems to be using the same tactics to wage a very limited defensive maneuver in order to accomplish a specific goal and be finished within that timeframe.

I disagree with arming the rebels, if they had no chance of winning without help, they should not have stood so highly and shouted so loudly, expecting the world to step in and do your bidding just because it happened elsewhere is a bad war strategy. Removing credible threats to the populace is usually accepted but prosecuting the battle into bases that are not engaged in war efforts may be seen as an act of agression and allow the opposition to claim this as a reason for their actions. Arming a population to remove a leader you do not like is simply war by proxy and that is how Iran ended up with a Shah and I do not think we want such happening in Libya.

How many knew that the IRA were reported to have gotten most of their weapons, American made Armalites and C-4, through Libya in the bad old days? Ghadaffi was happy to send weapons over to kill English soldiers and politicians while the US was happy to make money on the sales which were used to murder their so-called closest allies. Most Europeans expected a Noriega moment for Ghaddafi quite some years ago.

If Obama is going to support and arm the rebels in Libya and possibly Yemen and elsewhere, I hope the next group of down trodden people he arms and helps to rise up against oppressors are the people in Saudi Arabia who rose up not long ago and were bought off by the royal family with a massive cash injection, stimulus, for am agreement not to cause trouble again. Of course, this will lead to some demanding an arming of the down trodden in Palestine and such places which will not occur. Some would say the voters in the US rose up 2 years ago and got change to occur and Obama has not done much to support those either but that would be a talking point lie, still does not stop it being touted.

It is always better to win friends than to buy allies

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Right through the worst of the Bush years and into the present, Thom Hartmann has been one of the very few voices constantly willing to tell the truth. Rank him up there with Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Paul Krugman for having the sheer persistent courage of his convictions."
Bill McKibben, author of Eaarth
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
From Cracking the Code:
"In Cracking the Code, Thom Hartmann, America’s most popular, informed, and articulate progressive talk show host and political analyst, tells us what makes humans vulnerable to unscrupulous propagandists and what we can do about it. It is essential reading for all Americans who are fed up with right-wing extremists manipulating our minds and politics to promote agendas contrary to our core values and interests."
David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community and When Corporations Rule the World and board chair of YES! magazine