The Sanchez Report

The Libya Quagmire

So here we go again! The US has initiated another Middle East war in the name of democracy and national self interest. The stench of hypocrisy stinks to high heaven! It's been a week since we launched attacks against Libya and I'm still waiting for the mainstream media and liberals to rise up against this Administration. I know, excuse my english, but it ain't going to happen! This Administration and its media allies have ben selling this as a military conflict needed to support freedom fighters and that unlike the Iraq War, this war has broad international support with the backing of the UN and Arab League. What a crock! Let's begin with President Obama's justification for taking action.

President Obama on Libya:

Now, here’s why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.
The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.
The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.
Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

President Bush on Iraq:

Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Sound familiar? The fact is we have no national interest in Libya other than oil. Muammar Qaddafi poses no threat to the United States. Unlike Saddam Hussein, he actually welcomed the UN and the US into his country to oversee the dismantling of his WMD program several years ago. This led President Bush to restore official diplomatic relations with the Libyan government.

So now that we've started this war we need to ask ourselves some important questions.

Why did we wait almost 30 days to offer military support to the rebels? Was this done to gain the support of the UN, Arab League and Europeans? Great, we go their support after one month of trying, but in the meantime, the rebels have lost their momentum and will not succeed without our help in providing ground troops.

Why does the President feel that he didn't need the support of Congress? He waited on the UN and Arab League, but yet he has refused to go to Congress to get their approval. It wasn't long ago that VP Biden, while a Senator, suggested that President Bush could be impeached if he launched an attack against Iran without Congressional approval.

Why is it okay to bomb Libya, but not Iran? We have a much more compelling vested interest to help the opposition forces in Iran.

What is the mission? Are we looking to remove Qaddafi? Are we trying to help protect the civilians or help the rebel ground forces? Who are the rebels? Are they pro-US? Are there any Al-Qaeda influences within their ranks? Are we prepared to impose a no fly zone for the next 12 years like Iraq? What's the end game?

Who is in charge?The UN, NATO, French or British? Where are the coalition forces that have been promised? We 122 of the 124 Cruise Missiles during the opening night of the war. The British fired 2. We have supplied almost all of the aircraft thus far. For all of the criticism of President Bush's coalition during the Iraq War, this effort looks much more unilateral than anything we saw during the Iraq War.

 

Bush/Cheney Favorability Numbers Rising

This should not come as a surprise, but the latest CNN/Opinion Research poll has some good news for the former administration. The findings show that former Vice President Cheney has seen his favorability numbers rise eight points since leaving office in January. At first glance one might conclude that this is due to his visible opposition to the White House, but even President Bush has seen his numbers rise six points and he hasn't been seen since leaving office. I suspect that as time goes by more Americans will have a favorable view of the former administration.

From the CNN Political Ticker:

As Dick Cheney prepares to give a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say they have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president. Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.

In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.

“Is Cheney’s uptick due to his visibility as one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration?  Almost certainly not,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.”

The poll suggests that 41 percent of Americans hold a favorable opinion of the former president, with 57 percent viewing him unfavorably.

The Far Left Is Beginning To Sour On Obama

It looks like the honeymoon is officially over between the far left and President Obama. On issue after issue, Obama has validated the Bush administration and the left is not happy. This disappointment has been kept under wraps for most of the past hundred days, but now they're beginning to voice their displeasure openly. These strains are not gaining much attention with the media, but this development could make it easier for the GOP to pick up seats in the 2010 elections. The President will need to excite his base in order to build upon their majorities in Congress next year, but with each tack to the center, he runs the risk of dampening that same energy that propelled him into the White House.

From Politico.com:

Barely four months into his presidency, Obama is confronting growing dissatisfaction among members of his liberal base, who feel spurned by a series of his early decisions on issues ranging from guns to torture to immigration

to gay rights.

The list got longer last week as Obama reversed his earlier decision to release photos of detaineesmilitary

A few, like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, have even hurled the left’s ultimate epithet – suggesting that Obama’s turning into George W. Bush.

The building anger comes at a critical moment – just as Obama’s about to announce his choice for the Supreme Court. Fulfill their dreams of a “liberal Scalia,” a firebrand from the left, and much would be forgiven.

But if Obama opts instead for a decidedly centrist nominee aimed at winning a large number of Republican votes in the Senate, the growing concern could develop into something more politically dangerous.

Fact Or Fiction: The Rich Paid Greater Share Of Taxes Under Bush Than Under Clinton; The Poor Paid Less

For the past several years Americans have been subjected to an argument that the Bush tax cuts benefited only the rich. The underlying point is that these tax cuts need to be reversed because they're not fair and more importantly, the economy performed better under Clinton and therefore we should turn back the clock and put in place the same tax scheme in order to mimic the Clinton economy. Well, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released the official numbers that thoroughly and utterly blow that argument out of the water. Clearly, the Bush tax cuts helped lower-income earners most.

They report the following:

According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton’s final year in office.

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high. This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

• The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from –1.6 percent in 2000 to –2.8 percent in 2006;
• The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to –0.8 percent;
• The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
• The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Each of these four quintiles' shares was an all-time low.

 

Read the post from Political Crunch