Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

June 15th, 2011
06:05 PM ET

Rep. Frank 'disappointed' in Obama

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, says that the U.S. involvement in Libya is an "embarrassing degree of evasion."

RELATED: House members sue Obama administration over Libya mission

Filed under: Libya • President Obama • Rep. Barney Frank
soundoff (5 Responses)
  1. Nate (Seattle, WA)

    I am too, Barney. But, I'm also disappointed in you for caving on financial regulatory reform, and pushing through an extremely weak bill.

    Do your job well before criticizing your colleagues.

    July 12, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
  2. Don Gallant

    Now our president is calling us encouraging war in Libya? I have always tried to think the best of our Presidents, no matter who they are I pray for them and will continue to do so. However, I am compelled to speak out at this time. Here’s why. As I continue to watch the direction the current president is going, I cannot help but feel that this is going to devastate our nation. Even though many in his own party are opposing his spreading our military too thin in countries that oppose our ideals, he moves forward in this pursuit. Remember, this is the man who campaigned by saying; that we should get out of Iraq because we don’t belong there and they really didn’t attack us in the first place. Despite that, he chooses to fight 4 wars in places where the govt. didn’t attack us, while at the same time we can no longer properly feed the poor, provide medical care, and have sufficient police and firemen in our own cities. As a result of our president’s policies, his ideas have caused me to see the horrific possibility that perhaps President Obama's reason for, choosing to spread our military so thin fighting wars in 4 countries, is because he wants to weaken us militarily, by causing many of the young men and women of our country to be psychology damaged from war, physically maimed for life, or dead in wars that should not be our concern. If this is not the case, then the only other alternative is that the president is simply so inept and incapable of seeing the truly devastating long term results of his war policies, in which our young are being maimed, psychologically affected, or dying.

    In addition to the losses our young Americans are experiencing, his foolish involvement in trying to police other governments, at the expense of meeting the needs of our own country, is causing a daily weakening of our strength at home by pushing us further into a hole of debt, that is currently destroying the lives of the greater populous here and now.

    In addition his current policies of spending money on wars, that do not really have any national interests at heart, though claims this to also be in his reasoning, will leave future generations with no way out if he continues in this foolishness. What he continues to do under the guise of "spreading democracy" or “national interest” in sections of the world that are not willing to lift a finger to help us financially in these efforts, with money they get from their countries oil supplies. On the contrary, these countries choose to make things even more difficult, for the average American, by raising the cost of oil per barrel, this is another means in which President Obama is helping to further weaken us at home. Please do not vote this man in again. He is either incapable of making healthy long term decisions for our country, or he has an ulterior motive to weaken us at home. I can see no other reason for his actions than wanting to undermine our nations strength, or his inablility make wise decisions.

    June 15, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
    • Larry L

      You're calling for isolationism in a world of complex economic, social, and diplomatic consequences. The President is faced with a fragile economic scenario, with a potential of losing access to that imported oil we've become addicted to. He has a totally incompetent Congress, with one side (his own) unwilling to face the realities of deficit spending and the other only serving the special interests of the corporate elite. He has a population unwilling to make any sacrifices and only 1% patriotic enough to even serve their time in the military. Everybody has an opinion but nobody wants to share the pain – and certainly not the risk of defending our national interests. If you want isolationalism, be prepared to give up your gas-guzzling car, that air conditioned home, and possibly your retirement account. It's a house of cards and the balance could mean collaspe of the American economy as we know it.

      June 23, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
      • EG


        It's upsetting to me how twisted you have it. Let's start by differentiating "isolationism" and "non-intervention." These are two completely different things. Unless you enjoy sounding like Mr. John McCain, i'd google both terms and make adjustments. To give you a hint, isolationism is closing your markets to the world. Non-intervention is where we would stop our out of control foreign policy where we police the world. If you crack open a history book, you'll see that every empire in the past has collapsed by spreading itself too thin. Next, please understand that Obama has unilaterally entered us into a war with Libya without the approval of congress. This is illegal and unconstitutional and stands against everything he said that would get him elected. If you don't see the hypocracy here its time to wipe your glasses clean. Finally, the system as we know it is a house of cards. But it's not as complex as you're making it out to be. We are completely overextended on credit and want to raise our spending limit further. That's exactly how you build your house of cards taller. You sound like an intelligent person – stop getting your news from CNN and the mainstream media and their subtle suggestions. Research Ron Paul for a crash course.


        June 30, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
      • rep

        @ Don & EG
        First. 3 wars. (What's the 4th? Pakistan? Because we're not at war with them.) There haven't been combat troops in Iraq since Aug 2010. The (significant) Afghanistan drawdown is beginning and is slated to be complete in 2014. (This is the primary current conflict.) The Libyan conflict is controversial but it's relatively cheap and painless by war standards (i.e., zero casualties) ; we're basically providing support for NATO there now. While I'd certainly prefer it had ended already, I'm probably OK with the whole 'preventing a massacre of innocent ppl' part. I guess you're OK with watching more of that on TV?

        @ EG
        The whole congressional approval thing is a distraction for political purposes mostly. Congressional approval in this case was clearly tacit and essentially given–informally. No secrets were kept; everyone knew the whens, wheres, hows and whys. And many were encouraging it before Obama intervened. And, again, the costs are relatively small and no lives are being lost. The fact that Obama actually didn't have a "hall pass" in hand while taking care of an emergency everyone acknowledged shouldn't be cause for much excitement.

        So basically, we're wrapping up the big 3. Almost all of our troops are will home soon. We're regrouping, not "spreading." Relax.

        July 1, 2011 at 6:05 pm |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.