And well they should be concerned about potentially putting boots on the ground in Libya. But, it is how the Editorial Board get to this that is hilarious and deluded
Opening a New Front Against ISIS in Libya
The Pentagon is ramping up intelligence-gathering in Libya as the Obama administration draws up plans to open a third front in the war against the Islamic State. This significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.
Would it surprise you that the word “Obama” appears just once in the entire editorial? It’s almost as if the guy isn’t president. Why would Congress have a debate over something that most likely hasn’t been brought to their attention? Why would they want to take responsibility for trying to save face for an administration that didn’t bother consulting Congress prior to the initial Libyan airstrikes?
Administration officials say the campaign in Libya could begin in a matter of weeks. They anticipate it would be conducted with the help of a handful of European allies, including Britain, France and Italy. The planning is unfolding amid political chaos in Libya, which continues to reel from the aftermath of the 2011 civil war that ended with the killing of the country’s longtime dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The article fails to discuss the overthrow of Qaddafi due to intervention of military forces including those of the United States, as implemented by whoever the hell was president at the time. What was his/her name? Nor that the Unknown President failed to bring Congress into the discussion during the initial conflict. Nor that the failure to secure Libya post-deposal lies in the hands of the Unknown President and a bored grandma running for president.
There seems to be little interest in Congress to authorize the campaign against the Islamic State, which is predicated, preposterously, on the 2001 law passed to take action against the culprits of the Sept. 11 attacks. The prospect of a new front in the war should spur lawmakers to revisit the issue.
The White House has said it would be nice, but not necessary, for Congress to pass a new authorization for the use of military force. That stance has allowed Congress — which has primary responsibility under the Constitution to declare war — to sidestep an important war vote.
Isn’t it great how the Times’ Editorial Board is seemingly blaming Congress, rather than the administration of the Unknown President who helped create this mess in the first place?
Perhaps the Unknown President could actually go to Congress and ask for their input and blessing.
Heard about this as well. Also take note that Russia and the USA are building air bases in Northern Syria. Russia is there to protect Syria and its oil and gas supplies. Why is America there? Why are our soldiers there? There is talk of putting more boots on the ground there to go up against Russia.
Time is growing short folks.
Meanwhile, our economy is on the verge of collapsing once again. good thing we have invited ISIS to come live with us.
The editors don’t want to dwell too much on who was President at the time due to who was Secretary of State at the time. Surprisingly enough, they do mention Benghazi, but simply as a city, with no mention of the Obama Administration’s failure there.