Monica Crowley

The O'Reilly Factor---TONIGHT!

I'll be on with Bill O'Reilly TONIGHT at 8pm and 11pm ET on the Fox News Channel. Please tune in.

Mr. President, A Few More Questions

Regarding the U.S. role in the military operation in Libya, a few more questions for the President:

1. He has been pathetically obsessed with being the anti-Bush, to the point of putting American national security interests at risk. Yesterday, while still on his ill-timed jaunt to South America, he made a not-so-veiled reference to the Iraq war: "In the past, there had been times when the U.S. acted unilaterally or did not have full international support," Obama said. "And as a consequence, typically it was the U.S. military that ended up bearing the entire burden."
Not true, and not true. President Bush actually had a more comprehensive list of foreign backers for the Iraq war than Obama has for the Libyan war, and the British, Poles, and others took on major combat roles there. And since the U.S. is the world's only superpower, we usually do end up "bearing the entire burden"---as we will do in Libya.

2. Obama went on to make another point about the need to respond to humanitarian crisis: "When the entire international community, almost unanimously says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place ... that a leader has turned his military on his own people, we can't simply stand by with empty words," Obama said. "We have to take some sort of action." Well, OK. "Responding to humanitarian crises" can come in many forms: economic, diplomatic, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to involve military action. But that's the route Obama has chosen to take here. Since he seems to be setting some sort of precedent with his words and actions (although he probably doesn't even know it), how---if at all---is he prepared to "respond" to the slaughters happening in Iran, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria? He says "we have to take some sort of action" in cases like these. OK---what's it going to be, sir?

3. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that Muammar Qaddafi has "lost all legitimacy" and his presence in Libya "must end." A few questions about this: a) when did Qaddafi EVER have legitimacy with his people?; b) why is the nation's top DOMESTIC law enforcement official weighing in on national security? He was asked a question about Qaddafi and could have deferred to those responsible for foreign policy; c) if Holder wanted to chime in, he could have at least opined about whether the president should be asking Congress for authorization, whether Congress should "declare war," or offered his position on the discretion afforded to the Commander in Chief under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. We got none of that, but we did get Holder's inappropriate opinion on a sensitive foreign policy issue.

4. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Russian Foreign Minister that he expects that the "significant military fighting" should "recede in the next few days." That's a dangerous prediction---the kind of prediction that haunts presidencies. Are you comfortable with that prediction, Mr. President?

5. Over the weekend, the Russians began to demand a pullback of the UN resolution. Today they are demanding an outright and immediate ceasefire. How's that Hillary Clinton Russian "reset" going?

6. Russia has now been joined by China (both abstained on the original UN vote) in calling for an immediate end to the US-led combat operations. Not to mention others who abstained, including Brazil and India, who are now saying the mission needs to stop. By the way, didn't Obama just leave Brazil glowing with what he thought was Brazilian goodwill toward him? (Note I said: "goodwill toward HIM, and not goodwill toward the United States.) And didn't he have a great trip to India a short time ago, where he also thought he felt the love? Well, not so much. Nations act in their own coldly calculated interests and will take any opportunity to screw us. Obama doesn't get that because he believes everyone sees him as a transcendent, heroic, historic figure whom they should all follow. Of course, the world doesn't work that way, but Obama does.

7. Within the military coalition, there is the predictable internal squabbling over which country has command. This is what you get when you try to run a war by committee that's justified on "feel-good" terms. Who's in charge?

Awaiting answers, still.

Twitter: @MonicaCrowley

For the time of your life, follow me on Twitter @MonicaCrowley

Some Simple Questions

Regarding our military combat role in Libya, a few simple questions:

1. One of the raps on President Bush was that he "rushed to war" in Iraq. This, of course, was not true. There had been numerous UN resolutions to constrain Saddam Hussein's brutality, all of which he cavalierly blew off over the years. Saddam had fired for many years at US and coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Bush spent countless months working diplomatic channels so war might be avoided. He also spent those months getting military advice in the event force was needed, and consulting Congress and assembling a coalition of the willing. During those many months, public debates were conducted in congressional districts and on the House and Senate floors, as well as on television, radio, and in the nation's op-ed pages. There was plenty of time to air out the issue, all of the pros and cons of going to war in Iraq. In the case of Libya, we have had none of that. The question of whether we should be intervening was not given a chance to be debated, to breathe publicly. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am: we're in combat in Libya. Rush to war?

2. Another rap on Bush in Iraq: that we did not have a clearly articulated exit strategy. Does Obama have one here?

3. More importantly: does Obama have a VICTORY strategy, and if so, what is it?

4. If Qaddafi is removed, what then? Are we then going to protect a new government (whatever that might look like) interminably? Are we going to be engaged in nation-building in Libya?

5. Whom, exactly, are we defending in Libya? So far, I've heard references to "the Libyan people" and "the opposition," also known as "the rebels." Who are they, anyway? Muammar Qaddafi's most organized opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood. Are we now intervening on behalf of this virulently Islamist, anti-American group? We also know that al Qaeda has been trying to gain a foothold in Libya for years. Are we defending them? Are we helping to open up a new territory for them to launch terrorist strikes against us?

6. Isn't Libya a sideshow? The US doesn't have any real strategic interests there. Yes, Libya is an oil producer but a relatively minor one. Isn't the real crisis in Yemen, where the government just slaughtered over 50 protesters and which is now the world's premiere locale for al Qaeda's operatives to plan and launch attacks against the United States and the West?

7. Speaking of the Libyan sideshow, what about the crisis in Bahrain, where Iran is stoking major Shia protests to overthrow the government in order to get the US Fifth Fleet out of there and to destabilize neighboring Saudi Arabia. This is an epic battle between Tehran and Riyadh. This is the war. It's not in Libya.

8. There are brutal dictators all over the world who are detaining and killing their own people: in Iran, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Russia, and China, to name but a few. If Obama's standard for intervention is the "responsibility to protect," then is he prepared to intervene in those countries to protect those peoples? Is he prepared to demand the removal of those governments? Is he ready to call for and then actively support regime change in those capitals as well?

9. Does Obama know all of this or not? If he doesn't, he's got no business being Commander-in-Chief. If he does, then he's either completely incompetent or he's up to more sinister motives. Example: he hid behind the Arab League and the UN to authorize the use of force in Libya. If Iran and Saudi Arabia blow up, he can justify not intervening there by saying, "Gosh, golly. I'd really love to help y'all, but the UN/NATO/Arab League/Congress/American people just won't let me!" Let the Middle East fall to the Islamists. So what? Who cares?

10. Related: Is there an Obama strategic doctrine, or is it an ad hoc mess? Is America's foreign policy being done on the fly, or is it all part of a deliberate grand strategy to reduce our influence in the world, take us down a notch or two, and encourage the world's dark forces to advance?

It would be helpful if Obama would address these simple questions. Unlike the nebulous "Libyan people," the American people are clearly good and decent and paying for this thing. We'd like some answers, please.

Hannity---TONIGHT!

I'll be a guest with Sean Hannity TONIGHT on Fox News at 9pm and midnight ET. Please tune in.

The McLaughlin Group

Please join us for another spirited edition of "The McLaughlin Group" this weekend. Check your local listings for time and channel, or visit www.McLaughlin.com for more information.

And Now, Back to The Middle East

Several months ago, a female police officer slapped a Tunisian fruit vendor on the street over some minor violation. The fruit vendor, having faced his final indignity at the hands of an oppressive regime, set himself on fire. The entire Middle East has been aflame ever since.

Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Libya: all, to varying degrees, in revolt. All, to varying degrees, dealing with something bigger: what, exactly, is still unclear.

The vast and often violent upheaval in the region had been the dominant story, until the earth's upheaval devastated Japan. The human, economic, material, and atomic crises there are overwhelming. Where to begin? No one knows.

The epic scale of the Japanese tragedy moved the Middle East to the back burner, until the forces smashing against each other there could no longer be ignored.

Last night, the UN Security Council approved a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized "all necessary means" to stop Muammar Qaddafi's brutal assault on the opposition. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been pushing President Obama hard to take decisive action in this regard. Obama hemmed and hawed, stalled and dithered, either didn't know what to do, couldn't decide, or was deliberately waiting it out.

Finally, Hillary broke. She did what she and Team Clinton do best: they leaked to the press. A top "Clinton insider" told The Daily:

"Obviously, she's not happy with dealing with a president who can't decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can't make his mind up. She's exhausted, tired."

Obama, in a Hillary headlock.

The "insider" went on, "If you take a look at what's on her plate as compared with what's on the plates of previous Secretary of States - there's more going on now at this particular moment, and it's like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn't have any power. She's trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding."

Obama, stung by his own SecState.

Hillary had been gunning for the UN resolution. She got it. Obama must have made it clear to her that if that happened, the United States would only provide "logistical" support for a no-fly effort, and that the bulk of the action had to be carried out by the British and the French (because, after all, Obama's been so good to them!) along with clearance from the Arab League.

So, Hillary got her "coalition of the willing." But first, she made sure she got her pre-emptive strike in against Obama. The "insider" from whom those glowing Hillary quotes came sounds an awful lot like Bill. I wouldn't be surprised if that "Clinton loyalist" was Bubba himself. Also, the quotes were designed to make her look like the only decisive member of Obama's team, the only one with a backbone, and the only competent advisor.

The truth is far from it, of course. She has been either AWOL or a disaster on every major foreign policy issue, from Iran to Russia, China, North Korea, and the Israeli-Palestinian "peace" process. And where is she on Japan? Nowhere. Oh right: she's been busy getting us hip-deep in bombing yet another Muslim country while spinning herself as a great humanitarian savior.

The chick is good. She's really good. And Obama had better check himself, because it's not too late for Madame Secretary to spin herself right into a Democratic primary.

Economic Apocalypse

The Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, made a stunning comment this week that got very little attention. He said that the non-partisan number crunchers at the Congressional Budget Office have a computer model that simulates our economy going forward. The model indicates that if we keep spending as we are, without significant cuts and entitlement reform, our economy will crash in 2037. Ryan went on the say that the CBO computer model cannot conceive of any way in which the economy continues after such a collapse.

Consider this the warning of the coming economic apocalypse.

The year 2037 may appear, at first blush, to be far off. In reality, it's right around the corner. If our leaders don't lead, we will be screwed, both individually and as a nation. Say goodbye to superpower status. Say hello to China as your lord and master. Say goodbye to prosperity and wealth and hello to relative poverty and misery. Say goodbye to individual freedom and hello to working forever for the collective.

There is only one way to avert this disaster: real cuts, not cosmetic ones as seen in these ridiculous Continuing Resolutions, and true entitlement reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It also requires the full repeal of the latest and potentially biggest entitlement, ObamaCare. No more giveaways. No more "free lunches." No more big government-union sweetheart deals.

The party is over. There is no money.

It's deep cuts and reform now or face the long, dark slide toward 2037. If and when that day comes, it will make the Armageddon of the movies look like a day at the beach.

President Empty Suit Takes A Powder

Remember when it took President Obama three months to decide on the surge in Afghanistan? It took him forever, despite the fact that a military review had been ongoing, he had campaigned for two years on increasing U.S. support there, and had been president for months before he had even begun to conduct his own "review." In other words, he knew what the drill was and had stated repeatedly his support for such a surge, and yet it still took him months on end to decide.

This is what happens when the American people elect someone with NO executive experience to the top executive position in the world. This is a guy who was a community organizer (read: progressive rabble-rouser) with no real responsibilities and then a legislator: a state senator with a rep for voting "present" and then U.S. Senator, where he could hide behind 99 others. He never had to make real, difficult decisions before this latest gig. He never had to answer to voters as an executive, with whom the buck stops. That's why he's paralyzed. He can't do it. He doesn't know how to do it. He's afraid to do it.

Of course, making decisions was easy when he had full-on Democratic majorities in Congress. He could let them do the heavy-lifting on the "stimulus" and ObamaCare, let them squabble and get dirty and take the arrows from the public, and then he'd waltz in and sign what they put in front of him.

But now that there is a Republican majority in the House and a smaller Democrat majority in the Senate, he no longer has the luxury of going AWOL. He's got to actually lead: on the budget talks, on spending cuts, on entitlement reform. And yet: crickets and tumbleweeds. Even his fellow Dems are furious that he's absent. (Of course, they should have noticed that he was never present, particularly when he let them do all of his work for him on "stimulus" and ObamaCare. He used them. Duh! They're only getting on to him now.)

He's paralyzed on national security as well. The Muslim Brotherhood is now running the show in Egypt. Saudi Arabia just sent over 1000 troops into Bahrain to stave off the Iranian-stoked revolt there. (No UN resolution needed!) Muammar Qaddafi continues to slaughter his people with impunity. The Japanese are begging the U.S. for help in dealing with the post-earthquake and tsunami disaster.

The answer they're getting from the White House? "We're sorry, but the president is busy picking his NCAA brackets and packing for his trip to Rio on Friday. Please hold for some low-level nobody who will give you a bunch of platitudes about how America stands with you."

That's real hope and change.

This kind of paralysis by the American president is enormously destructive and even deadly. The lesson of history is that when the U.S president is perceived as weak and indecisive, the U.S. is considered weak and indecisive, and our friends and enemies alike go "every man for himself." When there is no American leadership, the wheels come off the world. The bad guys advance, the good guys retreat, and darkness descends.

We know how these dark chapters usually end, and it's never good.

What, Me Worry?

It's March. The world is aflame. Economic crisis. Unemployment crisis. Middle East crises. Japan earthquake/tsunami/nuclear crises. Iranian nuclear weapons crisis. Gas prices crisis. Humanitarian crises.

Good thing we've got a competent president who's on top of it all. In fact, his schedule over the past few days has revealed just how laser-focused he has been on all of these disasters. Saturday night, he donned white tie and delivered warmed-over yuks at the Gridiron Dinner. Sunday, he played yet another round of golf. Today, he's picking his NCAA college basketball brackets, to air tomorrow on ESPN. He wears the heavy responsibilities of the office well, no?

Some people think Obama is an inexperienced naif in way over his head. Others think that he knows exactly what he's doing, that he needs and stokes crises for the sinister purposes of remaking the country in a socialist model and the world in a more dangerous, anti-American way.

I think it's possible that both are true: that Obama encourages and relishes crisis (whether in Wisconsin, the deficit and debt, or Libya) as a way to destabilize the existing order and replace it with things far different---wealth-redistributing models in the U.S. and Islamist regimes in the Middle East---WHILE not having a clue what he's truly doing. It's possible he's unleashed the monster but has no idea how to ride or manage it. We've got a president with dark motivations who is in over his head. This is our biggest crisis.

But Alfred E. Newman in the White House can't be bothered with the explosions both here and abroad. Let the world sort itself out. American leadership is overrated. There are brackets to pick.