|
 |
Townhall...
‘No Blood for Oil’ Is
for Sale!
By Debra J. Saunders
“No blood for oil” was a popular slogan chanted by the left in
opposition to President George W. Bush’s push to send U.S. forces into
Iraq. Now that President Obama authorized Operation Odyssey Dawn in
Libya, I have been waiting to hear chants of “no blood for oil.” I am
happy to report, I don’t hear them.
I went to the nobloodforoil.org website; its lead item opposes efforts
to strike wolves from the endangered species list. In fact, as NATO
forces are lobbing missiles to enforce a no-fly zone over the country
with Africa’s largest oil and gas reserves, the nobloodforoil.org
domain name is for sale.
With a Democrat in the White House, the anti-war corner has a much more
civil tone. Anti-war House members have asked the GOP leadership to
schedule an up-or-down congressional floor vote on the use of military
force in Libya. A perfectly reasonable proposal. Congress should take
its constitutional responsibilities seriously.
Now the Obama administration is in the hot seat -- crushed between
critics who charge the White House was too slow to authorize a no-fly
zone and those who claim it was too rash in authorizing cruise missile
strikes before notifying Congress. Hawks fear that Obama’s promise not
to put “boots on the ground” will embolden strongman Moammar Gadhafi to
fight to retain power. Doves believe that Obama went back on his
no-boots-on-the-ground promise by authorizing a CIA presence in Libya.
Now, there are some smart questions to be asking the Obama
administration: Who are the Libyan rebels? Are al-Qaida operatives or
other extremists members in their ranks? Can they win? Without answers,
it is impossible to support any call to provide them with arms. NATO
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen opposes such a move; Obama said
he wouldn’t rule it in or out.
What happens if NATO wants to bomb rebel forces to protect civilians?
But the Obama administration isn’t going to answer every question.
What’s the endgame? Obama says Gadhafi must go and that the military
mission is not Gadhafi’s ouster.
What’s the exit strategy? Answer: the endgame.
As Obamaland has discovered once again: It’s a lot easier to be asking
questions than it is to answer them. On the same day that White House
Press Secretary Jay Carney assured reporters that the U.S. military
role would be of limited duration, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told
Congress “no one can predict” how long it will take before NATO’s
Operation Unified Protector will shut down.
Some Republicans have used Libya to score easy points against Obama --
Newt Gingrich was for the no-fly zone before he was against it.
Florida’s new GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, however, has shown an adult
conservative way to push for the necessary outcome -- regime change --
without tying Obama’s hands. Last week, Rubio proposed a resolution to
back the allied mission in Libya, to state that removing Gadhafi from
power is in the national interest and to authorize that Obama act
accordingly.
So there is reason to hope that the debate on Libya can focus on
questions of principle, and Obama won’t have to contend with the sort
of cheap shots hurled against Bush as he won congressional
authorization for the war in 2002. Why, one little-known state lawmaker
charged that the Iraq War was an “attempt by political hacks” to
distract the public “from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the
poverty rate, a drop in the median income,” corporate scandals and “a
stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great
Depression.” His name, as you’ve no doubt surmised, is Barack Obama.
Read it at Townhall
|
|
|
|
