White House fires back at Boehner; Libya delay would have 'cost lives'

[babylonsister]

White House fires back at Boehner; Libya delay would have 'cost lives'
By Sam Youngman - 03/24/11 04:07 PM ET


The White House fired back Thursday at criticism over the Libya military mission, saying lawmakers were briefed and consulted at length before air strikes began.

White House press secretary Jay Carney read off a list of dates when administration officials briefed members or testified on the Hill during an off-camera briefing held the day after President Obama returned from a trip to South and Central America.

The press secretary also said the U.S. had to act quickly when air strikes began Saturday because further delay would have “cost lives.”

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/151719-white-house-says-waiting-for-congress-would-have-cost-lives-in-libya

[dennis4868]

1. The repubs would have fillubustered the issue

until it would be too late to act....

[Atman]

2. ...and then they would have blamed Obama for not doing anything.

.

[catgirl]

3. K & R

[wisteria]

4. Yes, a lot of people seem to not care that lives were in the balance here. n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. Those %$%%$((#$*!!! Republicans are always for something

until President Obama is for it---then they're squarely against it. I wonder if, since Boehner suddenly seems so *concerned* about the cost of the Libyan NFZ that that means that military spending elsewhere may be on the table for spending cuts? Maybe? :shrug: Nah.....I doubt it. :eyes: :puke: Where were all of these cost-conscious Republicans from 2003-2008?

[Historic NY]

7. Spitzer interviewed the ambassador tonight of the Liberation Front...

its appears their goals are a government that doesn't supress its people.

[babylonsister]

8. Lofty; sounds like something worth defending. nt

[ClarkUSA]

9. Opponents of President Obama's recent actions seem to care less about stopping genocide.

Either that, or they're more interested in attacking President Obama to score political points than stopping genocide.

I don't know which is worse, but it sure reveals the depth of the ignorant animosity that animates his critics on both sides of the aisle.

[ReggieVeggie]

14. HAHA! Obama's motivation was to "stop the genocide"

You people really are a pip.

[Robbins]

10. Libya

Obama Is damned If he Intervenes and Damned If he doesn't.First Republicans complain he took too long to decide to Intervine and
then complain that he did.It's the Obama disese.Whatever he IS for Is wrong.Example Republicans have long wanted mandates for health reform and then after he adopts that to get reform passed they decry what they used to be for.

[Top Cat]

11. K&R

[Ramulux]

12. Absurd

I love how its automatically our responsibility when people are killed in another country. So if people are being killed anywhere in the world, we must immediately intervene because if we don't, any deaths are automatically our fault.

[ReggieVeggie]

13. weren't there deaths in Egypt?

what about that inaction?