Libya

The U.S. government watched without interfering as the citizens of Tunisia and Egypt changed their governments. We have not dispatched troops to Yemen, Syria or Bahrain as their citizens demonstrate and die. Yet we have intervened in Libya in support of an opposition group that apparently not only is leaderless but is unable to generate support among the people in areas still under government control. Haven't our ill-advised adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan wasted enough lives and treasure?

As President Barack Obama continues to struggle with the economy, his annual budgets and his attempts to unravel the catastrophe of the terrorist attack in Banghazi, Libya where four Americans were killed, I thought examining Mr. Obama's political background before he took office could possibly provide some answers to these numerous conflicts which appear to be haunting him. On the basis of Mr. Obama's strong campaign oratory, he was elected as...

Senator Barbara Mikulski has yet to publicize or state her position on U.S. military involvement in Libya. Considering her "No" vote on use of military force in Iraq in 2002 and her reliably consistent Democratic party line voting, one can only assume she is dodging the issue. But remaining mute is not why Maryland voters pay her the big taxpayer bucks, benefits and pension. It is an insult to our armed forces that Senator Mikulski has time to publish a press release on her website glorifying taxpayer largess of $10,331 to bring broadband Internet access to an elementary school.

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference -- at this point, what difference does it make?" That was how then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously brushed off the question of when she knew that the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were, in fact, a terrorist assault and not a "protest" of an anti-Islam video that got out of hand.

Your headline the morning after the second presidential debate was a nice try, but it was our president, not Mitt Romney, who lied during the debate ("Obama takes an aggressive stand: President accuses Romney of saying things that are 'not true,'" Oct. 17). President Obama claimed to have called the attack on Libya an act of terror the day after he learned about it. Really? Then why was Susan Rice all over the airwaves claiming it was a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a YouTube video?

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.  Thankfully, Congress yesterday ended its collective denial and admitted it is completely irrelevant.  Senate leaders on Tuesday abandoned plans to force a vote on authorizing the U.S. war in Libya. You know, the war that the White House creatively calls a “kinetic military action” to avoid calling it a war. The one that’s included nearly 5,000 raids in which NATO shot missiles or dropped bombs.  “If the resolution we’re debating is debated and passed, it would not affect one iota what we’re doing in Libya,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, according to AP. The sad part is: He’s right.

A week and a half before the United States launched a war -- or whatever euphemism the administration is currently using while dropping bombs -- against Libya, General David Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates joked around about invading the country. The administration is adamant in saying the bombing isn't a war, while the military is joking around about invasions. I guess not everyone is getting the talking points memos.   

President Barack Obama's speech Tuesday night about the military action in Libya was composed of 3,362 words. But there were two words conspicuously absent from the 30-minute address: "Oil" and "energy. " Back in the day, when politicians didn't use word like "interest" -- a word that appeared six times in Obama's speech -- as a euphemism, they spoke more plainly.  A quick history lesson (I know, I know, but I promise I'll keep this short): When Europeans were divvying up the deceased Ottoman Empire after World War I, they spoke openly of the desire to control oil fields as their reason for interest in African and Middle Eastern countries.

I'm beginning to believe that Sarah Palin, who could see Russia from her doorstep, had more foreign policy savvy than Mitt Romney. With a chance to act presidential, Mr. Romney instead choose to attack President Obama ("Romney jab on response to video protests draws rebukes," Sept. 13). It seems to me that the horrific act that killed an ambassador and three other Americans is not exactly the event on which to plant a partisan political flag. Such a tragedy should, for a brief moment at the very least, be an opportunity to rally Americans against those who attacked us, not to score political points.

United Nations sanctions against Libya, limited as they are, mark the Security Council's latest imposition of mandatory sanctions against a rogue regime. It also took action against Iraq for invading Kuwait in August 1990, and Iraq's defiance led to the gulf war and the crackdown on Iraqi weapons-making that has come after.In shutting down Libya's civil aviation link with the world, the Security Council has sought a punishment to fit the crime of airliner sabotage. The world community demands that Libya produce for trial the six suspects in the destruction of an American plane over Scotland in 1988 and a French airliner over Niger the next year with a combined death toll of 441. Since the suspects are Libyan intelligence officers, the dictator Muammar el Kadafi must want to loyally protect his agents and prevent their testifying.

President Barack Obama justified targeted drone assassinations outside of U.S. war zones; where was his nerve when the American consulate in Libya was under attack last year on Sept. 11 ("U.S. diplomat details attack in Benghazi," May 9)? President Obama was inexplicably MIA. No one in the press is demanding answers to that bizarre episode. Apparently, President Obama essentially abandoned our ambassador and soldiers. To add insult to injury, President Obama failed to send troops or investigators into Benghazi immediately to recover the bodies.

"Bumps in the road. " - President Barack Obama on the unrest in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East that included the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, an information officer, and two Navy SEALS. "Crude and disgusting"… "an insult"… "blasphemy"… "[its message] must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. " - President Obama on the infamous anti-Muslim videotape that was originally blamed for the Benghazi terror attacks. Benghazi happened "a long time ago. " - White House spokesman Jay Carney on May 2, 2013.

Your view of the Bush presidency made for a nicely biased editorial ("Misoverestimating Bush," April 28). Now let's have its counterpart - "Misoverestimating Obama. " President Barack Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt with almost no results. We are still in a recession, according to many economists. Mr. Obama led a war from behind in Libya without congressional approval. He was late to get involved in the BP fiasco. The results of Hurricane Sandy are a match for Katrina.

Now that Hillary Clinton is unemployed, here is a synopsis of world situations she was engaged in and responsible for during her tenure as Secretary of State. China: Officials she upset would not even meet with her the last three years. North Korea: Our attempts to talk with them never commenced and they are now threatening to shoot long-range nuclear missiles at us. Egypt: An ally forever is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood to whom we are now selling sophisticated weaponry.

In the days of the late Mike Wallace, "60 Minutes" was known for hard-hitting, aggressive journalism that asked the questions viewers wanted answered and held the powerful accountable. The Jan. 27 program on which Steve Kroft interviewed President Obama (at his request, no less) and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fell far short of that high standard. It was the kind of softball toss you might have expected if Oprah Winfrey or Barbara Walters had conducted the interview.

The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a tragedy, and four people died. Republicans are sure that Susan Rice and the president are lying about what happened and say they are "not satisfied" with the explanations that were given. But how many American military personnel, contractors and Iraqi citizens have died, and how many more have sustained traumatic, life-changing injuries, because of the lies that got us into the Iraq War? Where is the outrage over that?

The Obama administration has made the right call on Libya. Humanitarian assistance, especially protecting rebels and civilians from outright massacre, is the right thing to do and can help improve our standing in the Muslim world. Linda K. Brown, Baltimore

The U. N. Security Council's resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya was the easy part. Now, who will direct military action? Which nations will participate? The U.S. should not be involved in directing the action. It must be a team effort with our country only helping out in the effort. Richard L. Lelonek, Baltimore

The harm and damage that President Barack Obama has imposed on the U.S. calls for impeachment proceedings. Our deficit is now reaching levels from which it will be difficult if not impossible to recover because of failed policies and an incompetent administration. Mr. Obama has made our country a lot less safe with the START treaty. His failed Mideast policy has now put Israel on the line. His muddled policies in Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually cause us to fail there as well.

I read with interest your article "Politics on back burner in aftermath of storm" (Oct. 31). It seems that politics are never on the back burner for The Sun, however. The current theme song in the media is Mitt Romney declining "to respond when reporters asked about past statements questioning the role of the federal government in disaster relief. " I agree that Mr. Romney should answer such questions. When asked he should say: "As president, I would never desert Americans who are in need of our government's help and support in a desperate situation.