Ok, We’re Bombing Libya

RedState Morning Briefing

For March 22, 2011
Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

 

———————————————————————-

1. Okay. We’re Bombing Libya.

Now what?

After playing Hamlet for a period of some weeks, a supremely disengaged President Obama has been nagged into action on Libya. Over the weekend, US and allied forces hit Libya with a barrage of cruise missiles which was followed up by airstrikes directed not only at infrastructure supporting the Libyan air force but also against the Libyan army

What has been more notable than what has happened is what hasn’t happened. We still have no idea of the goals or objectives of this exercise. Are we trying to topple the odious Muammar Qaddafi? Are we trying to establish a “free state of Benghazi” where his opponents, the self described mujahideen, can rule? Are we trying to moderate his use of force as he exercises the legitimate right of any sovereign to put down an armed insurrection? Are we leading this coalition? Or is Nicholas Sarkozy? Who decides when enough is enough? When, if ever, is the administration going to ask for Congressional approval to carry out this operation?

Not only do we, the American people, not know these answers it is more than a little unclear that the administration itself knows the answers or is even of one mind on the few answers it does have.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Libya is Not Our Fight

Liberals have a penchant for engaging in the wrong wars and fighting them the wrong way. They are always meek and submissive towards those who represent an existential threat to America, such as Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and Venezuela. When they finally choose to engage in military intervention, it is usually for a dubious cause or for the purpose of some humanitarian aid that lacks a clearly defined mission or end result for our troops. Unfortunately, many Bush Republicans have a predilection to automatically support any military intervention, even if it lacks a clear mission or its original purpose does not represent a substantial threat to our national security.

Somalia was a classic example of a leftist foreign policy folly. There was no reason to involve our military in a humanitarian operation in that part of the world. However, once Somalia became a magnet for terrorists, these hypocritical interventionists refused to deal with the new reality and treat the mission as a military operation. Consequently, our soldiers were unprepared for the ensuing ambush in which over a dozen American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Instead of bringing the terrorists to justice and turning the place into a waste zone, we summarily retreated. Thus, the very interventionists who were all too eager to engage in an imprudent use of our military were suddenly lacking the temerity to engage the enemy when it really mattered.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. ClaireAir Crash Lands in Missouri

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill reminds me of the Seinfeld episode “The Opposite“, where George decides that in order to succeed, he must do the opposite of every instinct he ever had. For years now, just like George Castanza, Claire McCaskill has said one thing and done the opposite.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. FAIL: Crooks and Liars Claims Evil Minnesota Republicans Are Making it Illegal for Poor People to have Cash

As part of the Left’s ongoing quest to make every attempt at welfare reform look like the opening scene from Oliver Twist, Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars has written a profoundly misleading and wrong-headed piece that might better have been entitled “Please Sir, Can I Have Some More Cash?”

Relying heavily on unimpeachable sources such as FightBack!News (”News and Views from the Peoples’ Struggle”) Ms. Madrak weaves a tale in which Minnesota has surpassed Fascist Arizona in sheer villainy with its now infamous “Show Me Your Paper Money” law. On the off-chance you haven’t heard of this law, and aren’t already vibrating with outrage, Ms. Madrak is quick to enlighten you.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Regulating The Fourth Amendment Out of Existence

The Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures and demands that judicial officers issuing search warrants do so only on a showing of probable cause, is an important guarantee of our civil liberties, designed to protect personal privacy – especially in the home – from random governmental snooping. The Fourth Amendment tends to get a lot of bad press because it is usually enforced only by the Exclusionary Rule, which keeps the government from using illegally obtained evidence; by definition, the Exclusionary Rule protects only the rights of people with incriminating evidence to hide. It’s also subject to various common-sense exceptions to allow law enforcement to operate on public streets when a warrant is impractical or public safety is imminently threatened. But whatever the misuses of the Exclusionary Rule, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures remains a core Constitutional right.

And like all such rights, it is bound to come under more pressure the larger the regulatory state grows and the further it sinks its tentacles into every avenue of our existence. The growth of the regulatory state is a much greater threat to rights like these than are ordinary law enforcement or even the national security state, both of which are much more narrowly focused in their goals and thus unlikely to expend much effort harassing ordinary citizens.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Sign Up