The Case for Stiff-Arming Congress on Libya

[stilltrucking]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ya/240605/

[stilltrucking]

A midshipman asks: Before it is too late, should I refuse orders to continue the unconstitutional attack on Libya?
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... e_the_unco

[mnaz]

i don't know.
just seems a little late for these volunteer soldiers to be asking these sort of questions.

then again, trying to bring "justice and freedom" never goes out of style..

[stilltrucking]

At least we will be on the right side of history. Not on the sidelines like Rwanda, hard for me to argue with that. We are humanitarians preventing a blood bath. I wonder did Rwanda have any oil? Nah, that probably had nothing to do with it.

Oh well,
It is not really a war because there are no boots on the ground. Step on a crack break your... step on the ground and start a war.
.

random links

Pentagon Spokesman Col. Dave Lapan says the U.S. will remain part of the mission in Libya "until the objectives are complete."

On Wednesday NATO sent out a one-line press release announcing "NATO and partners have just decided to extend our mission for Libya for another 90 days."
Invoking words similar to those used in discussions of Iraq and Afghanistan,

Lapan said the timeline is not limited to that 90 days and U.S. involvement "depends on conditions on the ground."

A NATO official reiterated the mission could go beyond that 90-day extension, but said it's also possible the mission could end sooner. The 90-day extension technically begins on June 27, when the original 90-day time limit established by NATO on March 27th expires.

Who is selling Gadaffi weapons?

http://www.wri-irg.org/node/12350

Obama decided that protection of Libyan civilians was in America’s “national interest.” But it’s not obvious that it is.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issu ... -Interest-