Yes, they do but without the U S there is no NATO.
Retired Gen. James Jones, former Obama national security adviser, tells Christiane Amanpour on “This Week” that Libya is ‘not a vital interest, in the sense that it affects the vital security of the nation, but we are part of an alliance … It is more in the vital interest of Europeans, … when you consider the effects of massive immigration, the effects of terror, the oil market.”
“According to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the United States joint Chiefs, the airstrikes over Libya have destroyed between 20 and 25 percent of Gadhafi’s forward forces, which means at least three quarters are still intact. And Mullen says Libyan tanks and armored vehicles outnumber the opposition 10 to one.”
President Obama owns this mess.
Well, not very much.
The Saudis are spending a lot of money on defense and pleasing the masses.
Their break even point is now $88 a barrel versus $68 from two years ago.
unnamed European diplomat admitted that the no-fly zone had been nothing but a diplomatic smokescreen designed to get Arab states on board with a military operation that held regime change as the true goal.
Mr. Gates has said Libya is not in our vital interests.
NATO does not have an overall strategy for the mission.
The UN dithers on real action.
More bombs, more risk, more money and more indecision.
It is vital we have a President who has all of these things lines up before we go into a country. War is not done by community organizing.
Voters are less supportive than ever of congressional incumbents and fewer than one-out-of-three think their own representative is the best person for the job.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 16% of Likely U.S. Voters feel that, generally speaking, it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were reelected. That’s a seven-point drop from 23% last August and down from 19% in February 2010.
Fifty-six percent (56%) say it would be better if most incumbents were defeated and 28% are not sure
instead of dealing with serious issues, it seems like the IRS is going after individuals for — get this — falsifying their income on stated-income loans. Yes, they’re going after borrowers. Joe Nocera tells the story of Charlie Engle, who is going to jail because an IRS agent saw him in a movie about ultra-marathoning and wondered how he found time to train for it; because the IRS sent an “attractive female undercover agent” after Engle on suspicion of money laundering; because Engle or his broker falsified his income on a mortgage application; and because the broker testified against him and got a shorter sentence, despite pleading guilty to falsifying multiple mortgage applications (since when do you give the more senior person a plea to testify against the more junior person in the conspiracy?). The kicker is that Engle is going to have to pay $262,500 in restitution to Countrywide, the “victim” in this affair.