Contradictory issues on Libya

Well, so far, it looks like Libya has already been mismanaged from the top down. The United Nations imposed a "no fly zone" this weekend, and then backtracked saying air strikes were not necessary. President Obama, right before his vacation to South America, supported the air strikes and engaged military intervention without Congressional approval. Something that Congressman Dennis Kucinich calls an impeachable offense.

However, nothing is more mismanaged on Libya then this breathtaking contradictory statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While President Obama was hoping all over South America, Secretary of State Clinton was in Tunis, Tunisia and told ABC News in an interview "The UN Security Council resolution was very broad but explicit about what was legally authorized by the international community. There is nothing in there about getting rid of anybody."

So why is Secretary Clinton and President Obama going on and on for the last week and a half that Moammar Gaddafi must leave immediately?

If the UN Security Council specifically says nothing about removing Gaddafi from power, then it seems necessary to perhaps call this action on Libya nothing more than a war crime. Wow! Obama and Clinton are war criminals, just like Bush and Cheney. I guess history does repeat itself.

Of course, Secretary Clinton calls this as nothing more than an act to protect civilians. Yet, the role of the so-called "Rebel allies" in Libya has not even been clearly identified. Gaddafi is no cake walk, everyone can attest to that. However one has to ask themselves about how democracy can be established in the Middle East. We already saw what happened in Iraq. Free the people. Well, Iraq is probably just as much of a disaster area now, as it was under the reign of Saddam Hussein.

If Gaddafi leaves power or is killed in the war, most likely the entire country will become more of a mess than it already is. Something I'm sure, the Muslim Brotherhood is waiting silently for.

Libya becoming Obama's Iraq?

You remember when Bush had pleaded to the United Nations asking for Saddam Hussein to either disarm or disclose his so-called weapons of mass destruction or face serious consequences? And when Hussein didn't, it gave an indicator to the United States to invade Iraq, without Congressional approval?

The same thing may end up happening to Obama over the situation in Libya.

When British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya, many countries including France and Italy supported the notion and the United Nations felt it was a good idea.

Now it seems there is a great deal of hypocrisy within the United Nations over the so-called "no fly zone". Critics say members of the UN call it unnecessary for any air strikes launched by Britain, France and the United States, even after Defense Secretary Robert Gates had informed Congress that air strikes would be necessary, if a no-fly zone were to be imposed.

Even with international attention from countries supporting the UN resolution and participating in air strikes, there appears to be little determent from Moammar Gaddafi and his regime who are vowing a long and bloody fight against the rebel opposition.

But perhaps most surprising of all is the hypocrisy of the liberal left in America, now angry at President Obama for supporting the UN resolution and to support the military intervention in Libya. So after weeks of supporting the so called "protesters overthrowing the dictator", now critics are saying we should say out of Libya and avoid another mismanaged catastrophe like we had in Iraq.

Like Bush, Obama called for military intervention without the approval of Congress. The difference is that weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, and with Libya, you have a dictator slaughtering his own people.

As usual though, the liberal left and mainstream news media are silent on this particular issue.