Saving the World

Tonight, President Obama will address the nation — perchance to explain the parameters, if there be any, to our nation’s military intervention in Libya. Certainly, no one else in his administration has yet successfully done so, and not for lack of babbling on.

“The bottom line and the president’s view on this,” explained Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough on CNN, “is it’s important to bring the country along.” (Gee, thanks.) “Obviously the president, ah, is solely, ah, has this, ah, responsibility to deploy our troops overseas. . . .”

“We would welcome congressional support,” offered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on ABC’s This Week, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention . . . is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama were speaking of several years ago.”

A long, long time ago, there were no “humanitarian bombing” campaigns. Had such a cause been proposed, it would have been called war. Our president would have had to not only phone a couple congressmen to chat them up, but actually secure their votes on a declaration of war.

As we wade into our third war in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, “No, I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the United States.”

Whether you are a dove or a hawk, Republican or Democrat or sane, how is it working out for us that one man can so easily decide to embroil 300 million Americans in war?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

4 Comments so far ↓

  1. Mar
    28
    8:43
    AM
    Howard Bernbaum PE

    I’m not exactly sure the meaning of what you have written. However, I am positive right down to my blue socks that America has not the right to intervene in the affairs of any sovereign nation. Our criminal politicians have made a war mongering nation of us and are leading us down the road to Hell.

  2. Mar
    28
    8:51
    AM
    Gramma

    One arrogant, narcissistic man, controlled by the puppeteer, George Soros, believes he can do whatever he wants without any explanation to the people whom he is supposed to be leading in our free country.

  3. Mar
    28
    9:24
    AM
    Drik

    Under the federated republic concept envisioned by our founders, this would never have been an issue as the concieved republic would never have agreed to such an exercise. The only reason to federate the states was to provide for the common defense against a larger foe.

    But of course, under the concept of a federated republic of individual states, we would never have had the obomination of Obamination-care, either.

    Clever people, those founders.

  4. Mar
    29
    1:19
    PM
    Linda

    IMPEACH THE COMMIE

Spruce up your comments with
<a href="" title=""><abbr title=""><acronym title=""><b><blockquote cite=""><cite><code><del datetime=""><em><i><q cite=""><strike><strong>
New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field Be sure to answer the simple math problem below to help demonstrate that you are a human rather than a spambot.

Leave a Comment






+ 4 = eleven

1 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Common Sense with Paul Jacob » Archive » Emperor Obama