I Guess They Wear Sneakers

President Obama has secretly sent the CIA into Libya. Apparently, they aren’t covered by his promise not to have any “boots on the ground” in the non-enemy-country we face in the not-war.

The Daily Mail — The President has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The revelation comes as Obama and allies talked openly of arming the rebels who, despite the UN-backed no-fly zone, are on the verge of being overrun by Gaddafi’s superior military force. It is not clear what covert operations the CIA will carry out in Libya. The White House and the agency have refused to confirm it will take a role in the revolution, and Obama has insisted the U.S. will not attempt regime change in the country, but will merely support the rebels in their battle. … Obama signed the order within the last two or three weeks, four U.S. government sources told Reuters. (H/T: GatewayPundit)

The last two or three weeks? That could be before he even authorized the no-fly zone and the bombings. Well, we already know that Obama had absolutely no legal or Constitutional authority to send in the military – but what about the CIA?

Foreign Policy — Responding to reports President Barack Obama secretly authorized covert action to support the Libyan rebels, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said that actually arming the Libyan rebels would require his approval and he hasn’t given it. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said in a late Wednesday interview that the Obama administration’s top national security officials were deeply split on whether arming the rebels was a good idea. … Rogers wouldn’t confirm or deny the report that Obama issued what’s known as a “presidential finding” authorizing the intelligence community to begin broadly supporting the Libyan rebels, because such findings are sensitive and classified. But he said that if Obama wanted to arm the rebels, the president would need Rogers’ support, which he doesn’t yet have. “Any covert action that happens would have to get the sign off of the intelligence chairmen, by statute. You won’t get a sign off from me,” Rogers said referring to National Security Act 47. “I still think arming the rebels is a horrible idea. We don’t know who they are, we only know who they are against but we don’t really who they are for. We don’t have a good picture of who’s really in charge.” … (H/T: AllahPundit)

I’ve been saying for some time now that simply deposing Gaddafi is insane without having a clear idea of who will take his place. This is something the media and Administration aren’t talking about; but the last thing we want to do is see Gaddafi replaced by someone even worse. (The example I use is comparing Gaddafi to the Shah of Iran – certainly no saint, but infinitely preferable to the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Republic of Iran which followed.) However, as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, it appears as though the destabilizing of secular Middle Eastern leaders is almost guaranteed to put jihadis in power in their place: al-Qaeda is part of the rebellion in Libya.

In any event, there is a UN arms embargo in effect on Libya which would prohibit the US from supplying arms to the rebels. We can all rest assured that Obama won’t break yet another restriction upon his imperial ambitions, right?

Advertisements

Tags:


%d bloggers like this: