How is it that we have the money to attack Libya?
Each Tomahawk missile we have launched on Libya cost $569,000 in 1999 dollars.
Then there are all the costs of fuel and manpower and whatever else involved.
Britain has a big austerity program going on.—Still, the U.K. also found the resources for war.
How much will this all cost American taxpayers?
I don’t know.
But given that the President has said we must cut even programs that help the poor, whatever the Libya mission costs would seem to be more than we have.
Or at least more than we told we have by both major political parties.
The full term is Tomahawk Land Attack Missile. The Tomahawk name is trademarked.
(Above–A Tomahawk missile product.)
Just because your tax dollars bought the things, does not mean you can call the missile you build in your garage a Tomahawk.
I support the Libya mission. I think we need to act to prevent a massacre of Libyan dissidents and rebels by Colonel Gaddafi.
Hopefully, I’d see the question the same way if a Republican President had ordered the attack.
It should be noted though, as pointed out already here at The Daily Hurricane,that President Obama does not see the authority of a President to order combat without the approval of Congress in quite the same way candidate Obama saw the question.
How do Republicans feel about the Libya mission?
It is hard to view Republicans as credible on this question.
In the years since 9/11, Democrats and liberals have often been attacked for being soft of terrorism and for not supporting our troops.
This despite the fact that draft-dodger George W. Bush and draft-dodger Dick Cheney did not provide proper body armour to protect our troops fighting in our wars.
“A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.”
I recall how back in 2002 Democratic Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, a triple amputee from combat in Vietnam, lost his seat after being attacked by his Republican opponent as weak on national security. Television ads were run in that campaign picturing Mr. Cleland with Osama and Saddam.
In regards to Libya, I imagine Republicans believe we should support a sitting President at a time of conflict. I’m sure they feel that to believe otherwise would be to put our troops at risk.
Right? Did I get the standard Republican line correct here? Or does it only apply when we have a Republican President?
I’m concerned the allied troops fighting for a better future in Libya. I’m concerned for people in Libya. I hope rebel forces in Libya have democratic aspirations.
It seems sometimes the best you can hope for on these type issues is that you get at least some measure of truth from people in power.
It does not have to be this way. People do not need to be helpless.
Our leaders from both parties know that often what we appear to want most is to avoid military service, avoid taxes, get cheap gas, and to blame Muslims for our problems.
We always have the ability to expect more of ourselves.
If we asked more from ourselves, we would get more from our leaders.
( Below–Senator Cleland in Crawford, Texas in 2004. Mr. Cleland was attempting to deliver a letter to George W. Bush asking that attack ads on John Kerry’s Vietnam service be stopped.)