How Do You Spell W-A-R?

There are countless reasons why I will not cast a vote for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election and the reasons are multiplying by the day. Doing his best Clinton and Dubya impersonations, our current leader now is toying with the English language. He and his brain trust have decided that bombing another country for 90 continuous days and counting does not amount to war or hostilities!

According to an article by David Swanson, here is a portion of the President's recent report to Congress.

Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad. The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the Resolution's 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors. (emphasis added)

In other words, one of the points that Mr. Obama is trying to raise is that we play such a minor role in the willful destruction of Libya that it doesn't rise to a level in which anyone should get too excited.

Hmm. Constrained and supporting role, eh? According to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, in a letter to his Congressional colleagues in early June, "the US has thus far provided 93% of the cruise missiles, 66% of the personnel, 50% of the ships and 50% of the planes at an estimated cost of up to $700 million." Such figures, if accurate, constitute a major, not a supporting, role!

But it's the latter half of the quoted paragraph above that takes the cake. According to the administration's new and improved definition of war, this action cannot be described as such since we stand little chance of exchanging gunfire with the opposition or suffering causalities.

So, let's see if I understand this correctly. The US can bomb another nation back to the stone age with missiles, drones and/or manned aircraft, but it doesn't become a war UNLESS some of our personnel stand a strong chance of being killed or injured?

Come on!! How gullible do you think people are?

That's a rhetorical question. My guess is that far too many of the American sheeple will accept the president's new lexicon without spilling their lattes on the front seat of their SUVs!