Gallup: Pres. Obama 44% Approval Rating On Libya

Ed Morrissey - Gallup polled adults over the weekend, before Barack Obama’s speech, to determine the support the President had for his adventure in Libya. He’d better hope that his speech moves the needle, because Obama only managed to eke out a tie, 44/44, on his handling of the crisis. The poll also shows a deep distaste for major involvement in military action in Libya:

Americans are evenly divided at 44% in their reaction to Obama’s handling of the situation in Libya — similar to his overall job approval rating in Gallup Daily tracking in recent days — with Democrats much more likely than Republicans to approve of how he is responding to Libya.

The “much more likely” is relative. Obama only gets a 61/28 from his own party, almost the exact opposite of the Republican 26/63. Independents split towards disapproval, 42/45. On another point, Republicans and Democrats are closer to agreement: both would prefer to see the US military remove Gaddafi from power rather than just enforce a no-fly zone (50/43 GOP, 50/37 Dems). Independents and self-described moderates and liberals prefer the no-fly zone approach.

When it comes to a preferred role in the Libyan military action, though, only Republicans favor a leading or major role over a minor role or no role at all (52/47). Among both independents (60%) and Democrats (63%), and among all ideological self-identifications, the majority want the US to only play a minor role or withdraw altogether.

Of course, that’s what Obama promised last night in his speech, but the AP points out that even relabeling the effort as a NATO mission doesn’t change who’s firing weapons into Libya:

OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

Call this a NINO operation — NATO In Name Only. As Americans learn this through observation, don’t expect a big bump for Obama in the next few iterations of this poll.

"Obama" Who Are The Lybian Rebels?

W.James Antle - Ross Douthat mostly hit it out of the park with today's column on questions the president must answer about Libya. But one question I wished he'd have lingered on longer is: Who are the rebels? Byron York writes:

Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebel forces in the fighting around Adjabiya, went to Afghanistan in 2002 to fight against the "foreign invasion" -- that is, U.S. troops who invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks. The Telegraph says al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, that he was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan. "He was later handed over to the U.S., and then held in Libya before being released in 2008," the Telegraph reports. Al-Hasidi also told the Italian paper he recruited about 25 Libyan men to fight against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Now, we don't really know how representative this is of the Libyan rebellion as a whole. Maybe it's not all. But really should know before intervening militarily on behalf of these rebels. A major flaw of U.S. military interventions from Kosovo to Iraq is that we've simply asked if the ruler we're intervening against is a bad guy, without considering what kind of guys we'd be empowering.

Hypocrite Biden Threatened Pres. Bush Impeachment Over Unconstitutional War

Kurt Nimmo - How things change. In 2007, then presidential hopeful Biden stated unequivocally that he would work to impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without first gaining congressional approval. Now Biden is dutifully ringing up the royalty in United Arab Emirates and cajoling them to support Obama’s unconstitutional war waged on Libya and kicked off without congressional approval.

Joe didn’t mean it in 2007, of course. He was running for president, after all. The hand-picked minions of the elite who are permitted to pretend they will run the country always tell lies. It’s in their job description. Most Americans understand elections are all about promising the moon and delivering nothing but an IOU. Still, they turn out to vote for these guys.

The elite and their brokers at the United Nations wanted this shabby little war waged against Libya. Biden is simply taking orders, as usual. It does not matter an iota what he said in 2007. And the corporate media, of course, will not hold him to that comment. It found the memory hole long ago, only to be relived by the alternative media, the only media telling the truth in a time of Big Lies of the sort Hitler told.