How can anybody keep up with the Republican stance on our involvement in Libya?

Mr Wolf (I block no one): How can anybody keep up with the Republican stance on our involvement in Libya?
First Republicans criticized Obama for doing nothing in Libya.
Then they said he took too long to get involved.
Then they criticized him for turning over the lead to a French General/NATO.
Now they are saying he is leading an illegal military operation.

Answers and Views:

Answer by Bachmann 2012
Republicans differ on the issue, that’s why. You’re trying to look at it as if all republicans agree on this and they do not. The extreme peace by strength republicans are for it but some others (including those on the intelligence committee like Bachmann) no that it is useless for the U.S. and are against it.

Answer by Susan
Yeah, and I remember in 1986 when Quadaffi was on the front cover of time as a menace to the world. Here’s the truth, Libya is giving the US what it wants, and as a result the GOP doesn’t care if they butcher and murder and rape their own people till they turn blue. US intervention has never ever been based on what’s best for the inhabitants of that nation we destroyed.

Answer by Islam Delenda Est
I can’t speak for my party leadership, but this Republican has been asking the same question since day 1: “What exactly is the vital US national interest which predicates our involvement in a foreign civil war?”

Answer by Barry’s Change
If i could find my first answer to this kind of question you’d see i’m still saying the USA has no business there and it’s all about obama helping his terrorist brothers.

Answer by Alf Hollenhawk
0bama the Emperor Septimus Severus want to restore his hometown Leptis Magna !

Answer by ruth
I’ll type slowly for you: O B A M A N E E D S
C O N G R E S S I O N A L A U T H O R I Z A T I O N.

I don’t care what cricitism you’ve seen from people, either. The law is the law.

Answer by Bulwinkle Moose
There is always someone criticizing someone. You need to specify which particular Republican flip-flopped. In other words, if Republican #1 said we were not doing enough in Libya then later Republican #2 says we never should have gone, there is no hypocrisy here. All Republicans are different.

On the other hand if Obama #1 says he will end the wars and not start new ones and then Obama #2 says we need to go into Libya and stay in Afghanistan and Iraq, then we have a consistency problem. Also if Democrats 1-100 vote for the war in Iraq then later say we should never have gone, then don’t point to Democrats 100-150.

Answer by Bob G…The return of
You shouldn’t try. Just like you shouldn’t try to figure out the democrat positions on things. Instead of attacking people all the time, try to do something right by making up your mind based on what you believe is right.

Speaking as a conservative, I am strongly against us being in any of the middle eastern countries. The issue you seem to have is that the republicans are not all in lockstep. That’s because the republicans, unlike the left wing loons, are free to think for themselves. They do not have to agree on everything or be ridiculed.

Spewing hatred like you do day after day is a waste of time.

Answer by tblbaby
There are many Republicans with many differing takes on this. It’s not like one guy changing his mind all the time, lol. Are you actually taking seriously any idiots on your tube that put it out like that?

It’s like saying How can anybody keep up with the Democrat stance on Color, first they like green, then they like Blue, then they dig purple … why can’t these democrats make up their minds!

That’s stupid man, just sayin

Answer by teagan
Its not that difficult, please learn to keep up. He went against the War Powers Act all over a civil war we have no business being in. If Libya was such a problem then what about Syria who is killing their people in the streets daily. He failed to get Congressional approval in the 90 day time frame. He is sending in troops and has yet to classify it as a war. NATO is not a controlling factor with the US and we have no vested interest in getting involved in a war that served as no imment treat to the US or our Allies. Why are liberals against one war and for another? Bush had Congressional support and had intellegence not only from the US yet from our Allies that their was WMD- thus not only did the US go in yet our Allies went in with us. The left are the ones who can’t keep their stories straight nor can they stay on topic.

Answer by FrederickS
First of all, Republicans are far from unified on this issue, so there is no “Republican” stance. From the start, some thought the US should act quickly and aggressively, take a leadership role, and abide by the war powers act. Obama hasn’t done any of those things, so he has been criticized on various aspects of his Libya policy. It isn’t just Republicans though.

Answer by Don’t tweet your meat
If a republican says it you can rest pretty well knowing that is BS. That is how you keep up. You should know this.

Answer by jec0620
I don’t know….if you can manage to keep up with a Democrat’s stance on anything at all during a political election, then this should be easy to figure out.

Answer by Paul Grass™℠
The 0bama is in violation of the War Powers act and the Constitution has not changed. involvement is debatable, and in my opinion Libya is not our business, they do not pose a threat to us, and we have enough wars going on now, if you really took the oath to uphold support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic when you entered the Marine Corps you would understand this principal