The American Spectator : Mission Unaccomplished

Text Size

Mission Unaccomplished

By Ross Kaminsky on 3.29.11 @ 6:09AM

The kindest thing that can be said about last night is that our president showed he can be budget-conscious.

Before President Obama’s Monday evening Libya speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell posed four questions he hoped the president would answer. Obama gave partial and unconvincing answers to two and left the other two unaddressed.

Instead, the president spent nearly half an hour trying — and failing — to make a cogent argument for U.S. military action for humanitarian purposes and presenting the Obama Doctrine justifying risking American blood and treasure “when our safety is not directly threatened.”

McConnell’s questions were ones which many, not least many members of Congress in both political parties, want answers to:

• Will America’s commitment end in days, not weeks, as the president promised?

• What will be the duration of the non-combat operation, and what will be the cost?

• What national security interest of the United States justified the risk of American life?

• What is the role of our country in Libya’s ongoing civil war?

Regarding U.S. involvement in military operations, the president offered only a rehashing of his prior statements and re-emphasizing his desire to turn America from leader to equal-at-best participant in most ongoing combat:

I said that America’s role would be limited and that we would not put ground troops into Libya. That we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation. And that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight we are fulfilling that pledge.

NATO has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday.

UPDATE: In a sign of NATO’s view of Obama’s vaunted leadership, a NATO diplomat announced on Tuesday morning that the alliance’s takeover of Libyan operations would be delayed until Thursday, in part so allies might modify their levels of participation based on a Tuesday conference about Libya.

Obama said that the U.S. will “play a supporting role” in ongoing operations and that the “risk and cost of this operation to our military and taxpayers will be reduced significantly.” He neglected to explain, however, how this transfer furthers the military mission, focusing instead on “international partners,” “a broad coalition,” and an “international mandate,” as if ensuring that a few diplomats getting along for an extra week is more important than secondary considerations such as winning.

In other words, America’s commitment remains undefined in both time and cost despite Obama’s hiding behind NATO’s skirt.

The answer to a question of the length and cost of non-combat operations was even more evasive: “While our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya which belongs not to a dictator but to its people.” Obama explained what he expects the U.S. to do following combat operations:

We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to cling on to power…history is not on Gaddafi’s side.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (94) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Lawrence Boccardi| 3.29.11 @ 6:40AM

I just cannot look at him, anymore!

The Bishop| 3.29.11 @ 8:35AM

My wife and I have the same reaction. Even hearing his voice on the radio in some nondescript public service announcement is a major irritant.

Vern Crisler | 3.29.11 @ 9:40AM

So what would you have done faced with a similar situation in Libya?

W| 3.29.11 @ 9:52AM

we should have done what the Democrats, such as obama, all said for Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama,Vietnam, etc.: STAY OUT

Vern Crisler | 3.29.11 @ 10:14AM

So allow the opposition to be massacred? That's your presidential decision?

JP| 3.29.11 @ 11:33AM

We're doing that in Syria, Somalia, Iran, and Bahrain. Why Lybia?

W| 3.29.11 @ 11:40AM

My presidential decision is not to have American soldiers die in wars that are not approved by the American congress, whether that approval is by a declaration of war, resolution, authorization, etc, not by some UN resolution.
It is a civil war. civilians get killed in civil wars. look at the Congo, 5 million dead,Sudan,etc. By your logic we should depose Castro, Chavez, Kym in North Korea, all the African dictators. We could be in perpetual wars to stop what you call massacres. Where do you draw the line? Will you serve in Libya, or will you have your son or daughter serve in Libya? You can volunteer and join the rebel forces, if you know who they are.

Habu| 3.29.11 @ 12:14PM

W,
First things first. Obama is a dedicated socialist/communist anti American poltroon.

Secondly, superpower nations don't stay superpowers if they don't lead. Who would do that and keep the world marginally free of chaos, dictators,gulags , and a return to theSpanish Inquisitions?..Belgium?
Sorry but your
solution " is that of one who can't handle the responsibilities of leadership. Peace and freedom comat the price of having tough countries sometimes do unpleasant things. Peace and freedom come at the price of remaining the baddest military on the planet and hoping you never have to use it because other are too afraid to challenge what you have....freedom.
Yes, you have a constitutency, the American Firsters of pre WWII, the Jenette Rankins of WWI and WWII, but you can't defend freedom with a fly swatter.
The world powers will not allow any void to go unfilled for any length of time and we can not afford to dig our own grave, creating a void in the ground, which they would gladly bury us in if given the chance.
You can affford to have your opinion because most likely you are too shallow to accept reality.

W| 3.29.11 @ 12:46PM

The Spanish Inquisition? you are not a serious person, you are a fool. of all the examples for intervention, you pick the Spanish Inquistion? You cite no facts, just pompous opinions. You criticize Obama but you sound pompous like him.
We have a constitution and rule of law. Obama should follow it, it Congress approves the war, then do it quickly and win. None of your pompous windbag rant about great powers having a military.
You do not understand the difference between following the constituion and following a UN resolution.
We are not defending freedom. We are defending muslim terrorists in a civil war. Libya is not a threat to us. We intervened for 'humanitarian reasons" according to Hillary/Obama. There was no freedom in Libya before our intervention and there will be no freedom after.
Skip the idiotic speeches and focus on reality.

timmah| 3.29.11 @ 1:24PM

Here, here!

Michael Tomlinson| 3.30.11 @ 6:09AM

Habu, what a useless canard to defend intervention on the side of potential American enemies. I hope you supported OEF and OIF under President Bush. If not then you're nothing more than a Obama/Democrat drone.

G. Field| 7.8.11 @ 12:53PM

Does anyone yet know who these Libyan rebels are for sure? No?

Then one can only suspect the worst, they're terrorist groups.

GavInTucson| 3.29.11 @ 12:21PM

Vern, that opposition is composed of fundamentalists with ties to AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood. We've been fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, yes, let them be massacred. And now there are whispers that we'll be putting arms into their hands -- to the very people that would turn around and use them on us.

Vern Crisler | 3.29.11 @ 10:48PM

Arming the opposition would be up to Congress to decide, not the President. Congress has to think very carefully about who they are giving arms to.

G. Field| 7.8.11 @ 12:55PM

This sounds a little like the U.S. program for supplying arms to drug gangs.

Why are we arming our enemies?

Is this pure stupidity or is it on purpose?

Wayne | 3.29.11 @ 1:02PM

So Vern, would you have us attack North Korea also? They are starving their people. How about Iran, who has been killing its people. Lets attack Iran, and how about Syria. Get real!

Vern Crisler | 3.29.11 @ 6:30PM

When it comes to our national interest, the calculations have to be very precise. Libyan oil is more important to our national interest than is N. Korea, despite humanitarian considerations. So we have to make tough decisions, because ya'll are right -- we can't do everything.

Obama does not have the power to go into Libya as Bush went into Iraq. He does not have the power to declare war. That's also why Bush received approval from Congress before going into Iraq.

But the President has the prerogative power to react temporarily to emergencies involving our national interest. He does not have the power to do anything beyond that without authorization from Congress.

President Washington's neutrality proclamation did not have the force of law because Washington did not have the power to declare war or peace. But Congress later ratified his proclamation in the Neutrality Act of 1794.

Obama's reasons or justifications for the no-fly zone may be poppycock, but he surely had the natural right to exercise his temporary and limited prerogative in reacting to an immediate threat to our national interest.

W| 3.29.11 @ 8:24PM

Vern, we do not get oil from Libya, the french and chinese and italians get Libya's oil. So you approve of spending our money and American lives to protect oil for the chinese and french? We do not have a national interest that you can classify as an emergency. Can you state what the national interest is that required getting the approval from the UN but not from Congress? If there was time to go to the UN there was time to go to Congress. Instead of jetting around europe hillary could have testified before congress about our national interest. How long would it have taken for hillary/obama to state the national interest to congress? after all, they are the two smartest people in the country, they surely could have explained it to us.
What was the immediate threat to the US?

Vern Crisler | 3.29.11 @ 10:45PM

We do get oil from Libya, though not as much as other countries. We have a national interest in keeping oil flowing, as restrictions on supply raise prices. We also have a national interest in bringing the murdering thug Qadhafi to justice.

The emergency was the eminent massacre of Qadhafi's opponents and the consolidation of his tyrannical reign for years to come. That result would have a very negative impact on our national interest.

Obama acted in an emergency situation while Congress had gone home for its recess. Getting authorization from the UN was just cover for what we were going to do anyway. The UN is a joke, has been from the start and always will be. Anybody with a brain knows that we use the UN for PR purposes only, not because we care a fig about whether they "authorize" an actions or not.

Now that Congress is in session, Obama has to go to Congress for ratification of his past actions with respect to Libya and authorization for any future actions.

Since the emergency is over, he cannot use that to justify any future actions. Congress must now decide what to do about Libya.

W| 3.30.11 @ 10:03AM

We need oil, but we can drill offshore and in anwar, which has been denied by obama and the democrats.
the problem with you argument is that obama did not go to war for oil.
as for the massacre of quadaffi's opponents, we do not even know who they are. since they all are armed and were ready to fight, i doubt they were students. they are probably the muslim brotherhood, and the volunteers who went to iraq. over 20% of the muslim "insurgents" in iraq were from libya.
further, we are bombing to kill and massacre the conscripts in quadaffi's army. according to obama/hillary we are not trying to kill quadaffi, who should be targeted and killed for the lockerbie and other terrorrist attacks.
there was no emergency to a vital interest of the US. there should have been congrssional debates, as there was for iraq. then we would have seen all the democrats in their hypocrisy defending this war while previously opposing the iraq war.

Kishego| 3.29.11 @ 3:49PM

Allow me to ask a question. If say, a very large (100K +), well organized, well armed militia were to attack washington d.c. with the message that Obama is an illigitimate leader (the birther thing you know), do you think the military National Guard units would be sent out to stop the uprising ? And probably shoot and kill American citizens . Or, would Obama recongnize their rights and step aside ? Why should it be any different for Gadhaffi ? Like him or not Libya is a sovereign state. We have inserted ourselves into a civil war, and we should not be there.

Vern Crisler | 3.29.11 @ 7:27PM

If our military were killing civilians en masse, it would be legitimate for other nations to step in and stop it (if they had the power). It is a matter of natural law and right. (Cf., Nazi Germany, also a sovereign state.)

Ammo Guy| 3.29.11 @ 10:07AM

Well, I suppose the same thing we did in 1953 in support of the East Germans or in 1956 in support of the Hungarians or in 1968 in support of the Czechs or in the late 1970s in support of the Cambodians or in 1989 in support of the Chinese at Tiananmen Square or in 1994 in support of the Rwandans or in support of the Iranians in 2009 or now in support of protestors in more countries than I can name…

Bill| 3.29.11 @ 11:02AM

Or we could send U.S. troops in under the U.N. aegis like we did to Kosovo in 1999 and Bosnia in 1995 (Bill Clinton told us they'd only be there for one year and told us they'd be home the following November, remember? I know, it was a very long time ago). They're still there, eh? Could Libya be our new decade-long commitment?

Ammo Guy| 3.29.11 @ 12:15PM

Yeah, I was on the first C-130 into Taszar, Hungary, in Dec 95 and we were told we could not make any permanent improvements to the staging base we set up there because we were only going to be there for one year. From that point on, we used to repeat that phrase whenever we needed a good laugh because we knew it wasn’t even close to the truth. In fact, at one point during a video teleconference with USAREUR HQ in Heidelberg, BB Bell had to tell us to cool it since we were getting borderline disrespectful of POTUS. Some things never change…

David Dennis | 3.29.11 @ 5:00PM

Good question. When I first heard about this, my plan would have been:

1 Arm the rebels with generous financial support and armaments;

2 Provide them with limited air support

3 Let them quash Quadaffi
.
My justification for doing this instead of, say, invading North Korea, is that the Libyans had a genuine rebel movement and the North Koreans do not.

I would have done the same for the Iranians during their rebellion. Much cheaper than fighting ourselves, and we look less like imperialist invaders.

The only catch is the rebels now being identified with Al Queda. That would force me to make a public statement about them and explain that because they are not our friends, we will not take action in support of them. But I would have to be absolutely certain they were to take this course instead of what I described earlier.

emo| 3.29.11 @ 8:08PM

absolutely. To allow an islamist opposition to be massacred by a fading 1960s Nasser socialist. So what?

Teabagger | 3.29.11 @ 1:06PM

This article (and blog) is misinforming and pointless.

The points you've make in your article are irrelevant, and moreover, do not offer in *any* way whatsoever a sensible solution to such a problem. Do you just let thousands of people die?

It is too early to serve a prognosis of the current administration's actions, but progress is evident, and everything points that so far we are headed in the right direction.

The situation in Libya is extremely complex. In this post you have done nothing more than complain about a president that you obviously dislike, but no real meat to back your claims.

Your argument that the phrase "I want to be clear" suddenly makes you a great analysts is a childish one.

I cannot say that you, in the president's shoes, would have done any better. If you think you would you might be thinking too highly of yourself.

The only thing this blog does do is continue to misinform and promote what I'll call *severe ignorance* amongst your readers.

I'd suggest renaming this blog to something that more accurately describes it's purpose, such as "I don't like Obama and I have a lot of time to rant about it".

Keep up the impeccable work!

idalily| 3.29.11 @ 2:37PM

Enlighten us, then. What justifies war in Libya that does not also justify war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or, if you support our action in all three, then make the case for which country we should go to war with next. Syria? Yemen? Iran? The Congo? How far do you want to go? How many wars? How many soldiers? How much more funding for the military will you need to accomplish this? And by what standard do you judge which countries deserve our intervention and which ones don't?

Since we're so ignorant and you're so smart, educate us about the finer points of war-mongering, since you're so in favor of it.

Drunken Sailor| 3.29.11 @ 3:37PM

"Keep up the impeccable work!"

Ahh, I see, but using a derogatory moniker to disguise your liberal agenda is "Impeccable" in your eyes? Is that you JP?

Drunken Sailor| 3.29.11 @ 3:40PM

Correction: Is that you Jharp?

Kishego| 3.29.11 @ 3:59PM

"I cannot say that you, in the presidents shoes, would have done any better. If you think you would you might be thinking too highly of yourself"

Indeed, how dare we think of ourselves equal to, or better than "The One". His thought process is so far ahead of us, that's why he looks so inept, now I get it !!

Wayne | 3.29.11 @ 5:17PM

Troll, do you realize how insulting the term Teabagger is. I find its use insulting, bigoted and profane.

emo| 3.29.11 @ 8:10PM

Wow. longest nonsequitor Ive ever read at this site. Youre just like your hero Obama, absolutely nothing was said.

BTW where was this genocide threatening to occur? Who was going to be victimized? In the 100s, 1000s, 10,000s, 100,000s etc?

W| 3.29.11 @ 8:26PM

teaman, you are another pompous lefty windbag. whenever you lefties cannot explain, you use the word "complex" because you do not know the reasons and cannot make a coherent defense of this war.

Dee See| 3.29.11 @ 6:49AM

BTW ---stay awake to the VAST ongoing cover-up of the extent, effects, implications etc. of the
GE involved, perhaps HAARP 'enhanced' Fukishima catastrophe.

NOTE the earlier unprecedentedly horrific tsunami of 2005 is NEVER referenced ----or
the FACT that it occurred on MAO's Birthday
(Dec 26, 2005).

NOT even mentioned -----------------------once.

Mike W| 3.29.11 @ 10:02AM

I'm not sure what you are talking about but the tsunami happened in 2004.

Drunken Sailor| 3.29.11 @ 3:38PM

I think Dee See's aluminum hat is on a little tight.

Appleby| 3.29.11 @ 7:05AM

I spent a cozy evening with H&R Block;missed the whole thing.

Michael Tomlinson| 3.29.11 @ 7:58AM

It is an outrage that Americans are having to hire tax consultants to do their taxes. A simple 10% income and 5% FICA flat tax would be more than enough for the gov't. You could even double it for everyone over a million dollars and it would be fairer than letting Obama cronies make billions and pay no taxes.

The Bishop| 3.29.11 @ 8:36AM

You're a good American, Appleby.

davelnaf| 3.29.11 @ 7:23AM

The three presidents prior to Obama had a ‘credibility’ problem. One, in particular, would say whatever it took to help him slide by. Obama will say something on any given day that turns out later to be an evasion of the truth, sometimes an outright lie, and he could care less. Apparently, he thinks this kind of behavior is par for the presidential course. He probably fudges his golf score, too.

Clint| 3.29.11 @ 7:26AM

Chickenhawk-in-Chief Obama attempts to Shuck & Jive his way past The American Voters to get Re-elected in 2012.

This Neo-Colonial Socialist Bait& Switch Artist thinks He can Fool The Voters a Second Time.

Had Enough Yet?

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Amanda| 3.29.11 @ 7:29AM

In my opinion Libya is another "Wag The Dog"
incident (remember Clinton bombing the aspirin factory while Monica was testifying?)

We have the best military in the world and we are loaning out our troops under command of the
UN, NATO (Bolton says this isn't so bad because
the head of it is an American - however, what about in the future?), France, etc.? Something
about this doesn't pass the smell test. Is this part of the New World Order everyone talks about?

We also all realize that this Libya situation from the perspective of France and Great Britan is about the oil. Didn't they release the Lockerbie
bomber because of an oil deal?

Teaghan| 3.29.11 @ 7:44AM

I'm with you Amanda. This whole thing isn't about Libya. Something else is going on here and I bet you Soros is involved. If it's about humanitarian issues, then why did barry sit on his hands when the Iranians were asking for "democracy"? why has he not gotten involved in other countries where human rights are an issue? Wouldn't it be sweet if this was indeed about oil and GE's Emelt making money? What would Ayers and Mikey Moore say then! What would all those fools that voted for this poser say then!

Michael Tomlinson| 3.29.11 @ 7:56AM

Amanda and Teaghan you're spot on! Even worse we may be wagging the dog for al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood allies.

SUB_VET| 3.29.11 @ 11:48AM

TEA, and the rest.......it's all smoke old George is licking is chops. Under a "humanitarian" effort we commit our blood and $$$$$. Our dollar is being devaluated hourly this is George's plan. Break the bank and control the world......... NWO.

Prester John| 3.29.11 @ 9:00AM

I wonder how much oil China gets from Libya, and what did Russia get for abstaining on the UN resolution authorizing this?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Herman Cain 2012

Kishego| 3.29.11 @ 4:05PM

This is designed to chip away at our sovereignty. NWO, Open Society et al....

Hillel| 3.29.11 @ 7:52AM

I recall the "Congo" crisis about 48 years agao. A liberal professor a leading Africanist (who did very valuable research as a matter of fact) was terribly unhappy about what was happening but obviously was clueless as what to do. Academics are good at explaining what happened but are not necessarily policy wonks. "I think the UN should handle the matter" he said. NOBODY asked him what he would suggest the UN do. Except that he's not a distinguished scholar who has made a real contribution, Obama is clueless too.

dennisl59| 3.29.11 @ 8:01AM

The Apostate Muslim Dictator is using the American Military and Taxpayer money to foment the Islamist Revolution across North Africa, from Tunisia to Iran, to create the New Caliphate. The ultimate prize is Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca. And the destruction of Israel.

Maddox| 3.29.11 @ 10:28AM

It is becoming clearer every day that this is the case.

Mimi| 3.29.11 @ 8:26AM

Only OBAMA knew what his capabilities were, he also must have been aware of his weakness and lack of strength of character before he became the LEADER of the free world. Why oh WHY did he not have the Humility to HIRE the best advisors????? Therin lies the biggest problem this country has......MARKED & SEVERE ... Lack of LEADERSHIP !!!

WeMustResist| 3.29.11 @ 8:34AM

We cannot tell what does motivate Obama, but we can see that patriotism is not his motivation. If the president loved the USA he would have stayed out of Libya. He sent in the US Armed Forces to help the Libyans at the expense of the Americans. The USA does not benefit. The USA pays and pays. The money is flowing out of America like a mighty river and evaporating in the Libyan desert. What a waste! It is criminal. The USA needs a balanced budget, not a war fought for the benefit of foreigners living far away. Congress needs to impeach him so he gets the message: "Put the USA first!"

The Bishop| 3.29.11 @ 8:44AM

Amazing that, at just the right moment, the Chosen One saved the world from witnessing another massive slaughter (on the order of Pol Pot or Darfur). Aren't we blessed to be led by one so prescient?

Anthony| 3.29.11 @ 9:00AM

Now, now, we must be patient with our Muslim leader of the world president. Tom Brokaw himself on MSLSD said this morning that he could not remember a time when so many things were happening at once.
Why poor Obozo has had to deal with Japan, he did know something happened in Japan right? or was that right in the middle of his final four picks? Ohio State beats Duke.
And then there's Lybia, a Bush recession, a trip to Rio, his final four picks all out and on and on....
How many things can one man multi-task, I mean ever for a super man?
I can see 2012 from my house!!!!

Louis Jenkins| 3.29.11 @ 9:09AM

President Obama's message: blah, blah, blah. Didn't watch him, can't stand him. Went to sleep without even turning on the tellie.

Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 9:24AM

I watched the entire speech & I can guarantee you 1 thing. At the conclusion, Gaddafy took a deep sigh of relief & started clapping.

JeffT| 3.29.11 @ 9:38AM

Best of all, he followed Michelle's dictate and finished exactly as Dancing With the Has Bins started at 8:00. Who makes an address to the nation at 7:30?

Mark Jeffery Koch| 3.29.11 @ 9:40AM

Very strange way for the only superpower in the world to behave. It's wrong for Ghadaffi to murder his own people but it's okay for Syria to murder theirs? Secretary of State Clinton's absurd "clarity" on this issue today stating that "we have to intervene in Libya because Ghadaffi is sending his planes and helicopters to slaughter his own people while Syria is only using guns firing at the protesters" is a shameful, immoral, dereliction of duty by the one country the world looks up as a bullwark against oppression, brutality, and genocide.

If the way a terrorist and police State like Syria murders its own people is looked upon as not as bad or as reprehensible as another dictatorship does because the weapons it uses then we have very sadly driven off the moral cliff of decency and humanity.

Ken in Tyler| 3.29.11 @ 10:02AM

Here are our "moral responsibilities" to the world:
1. Remain an example of the Blessings of Liberty to any people.
2. If in doubt, see #1. That's it. No more.
Military interventions in nations which have not attacked us are like government bailouts which insulate those involved from the consequences of their risky and unwise decisions. We were once warned against "foreign entanglements"; another bit of sage advice we choose to ignore at our own peril.

David| 3.29.11 @ 10:03AM

Poor republicans! They are soooooooo upset! Obama has done exactly the right thing in Libya but not for oil or for revenge (like Dubya's adventure in Iraq) - he has done it for humanitarian reasons. It is like Obamacare all over again.

Ken in Tyler| 3.29.11 @ 10:50AM

If obamacare is "humanitarian" we should apologise to the Germans for disagreeing with their use of ovens.
And just which article of the Constitution, pray tell, gave any President the authority to intervene in another nation's civil war? Or is this question another which should be answered by the tools in black robes who think they can redefine the meaning of words in a contract? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that "doing the right thing" does not put YOUR son or daughter at risk- it only contributes to their future under a bankrupt tyranny which has wiped the Constitutional slate completely clean.

Teaghan| 3.29.11 @ 10:59AM

Oh David, how do you KNOW that this isn't for oil and for GE's Emelt to make billions that he doesn't have to pay taxes on? Where is your leftist outrage on that boneheaded move by our brilliant America-hater-in-chief? So bringing up Iraq will be the left's defense of this war? We don't even know who these "rebels" are! But knowing obama, the muslim sympathizer, they are probably the muslim brotherhood and will take over Libya as they are doing in Egypt.
Wake up, ye blind followers of obama.

JP| 3.29.11 @ 11:47AM

And what is that "right" thing, pray tell?

Mimi| 3.29.11 @ 2:32PM

WAS IT HUMANITARIAN .....OIL ?????

emo| 3.29.11 @ 8:14PM

David:

It is indeed for oil. Oil for Europe. Perhaps that is more noble than Oil for ourselves in your book

Mike W| 3.29.11 @ 10:05AM

So would Gadhafi be more tolerable if he was murdering someone else's people?

Replace Assad in Syria and you get the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you suppose Israel would prefer that?

Abe Lincoln killed "his own people". Killed lots of 'em.

JP| 3.29.11 @ 11:44AM

Ahhhh, so it is not "Humanitarinism" that guides our decision vis-a-vis Lybia. There is more proof that the Lybian rebels are proxies for the Brotherhood and Iran than the dissidents in Syria. Either way, we have Realpolitk on the one hand, or Jihadists on the other. Seems to me our options have always been few.

I believe it was FDR who, when reminded about the blood thirsty habits of the Shah, retorted by this infamous quip, "The Shah may be a SOB, but he is our SOB."

And gone from discussions of supporting insurgencies is the Colin Powell quote of, "You break it; you fix it." If our tactical bombings in support of the "rebels" fails to achieve the proper policy outcome (well, that is also up in the air), do we then bomb strategic targets (bridges, highway interchanges, rail line, communication centers, water purification plants, public utilities, harbor and dock infrastructure, etc...)? And if that doesn't work? Do we send in Spec Ops like we did in Vietnam? Do we land the Marines?

According to the President, all options are on the table. And as long as it is NATO calling the shots, he is off the hook. And just think, Congress refuses to do a thing about it.

Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 10:08AM

He David, Put on your super genius thinking cap there buddy & riddle me this one. If we went to Iraq for Oil & revenge, then why in the hell am I paying $4.00 for diesel?? Did we forget to bring the oil back to the states??

Maddox| 3.29.11 @ 10:34AM

Careful now, you might cause a fact to get in the way of David's tribute to our Dear Leader.

Habu| 3.29.11 @ 12:16PM

W| 3.29.11 @ 11:40AM

W,
First things first. Obama is a dedicated socialist/communist anti American poltroon.

ABNCP| 3.29.11 @ 12:17PM

Every time this horrible man we have put in the office of the President of the United States makes any kind of important or semi-important political statement it is:
1. Misleading.
2. A misrepresentation.
3. A half truth.
4. A damm lie.
I agree with some of the earlier posts. I have reached the point where I have a very difficult time even watching this incompetant boob.

DaveS| 3.29.11 @ 12:23PM

What do you mean 'we,' Kimosabe?

Kishego| 3.29.11 @ 4:10PM

LOL

DaveS| 3.29.11 @ 12:22PM

First, it's good to be back on the AS comment line.

Only a dunce would fail to recognize that the Executive branch is being run by an association of former student union officers and wannabees. And what little used to occasionally separate Hillary from Barrack no longer exists.

The lessons for other despots desiring to stay in power or save their skins are: 1) Do NOT give up your weapons of mass destruction; 2) Imply you might have such weapons; 3) Hit harder than 'ole Quaddafi. There's no good end to this: reprisals, a possibly victorious al Queda (thanks to USA/NATO - isn't that a paradox?), Egypt sinking assuredly into Iranian oligarchy, Syria blugeoning its people, a surviving libyan dictator looking to take aim in a big way at Europeans and Americans anywhere, etc.

Obama acts like King George.

DaveS| 3.29.11 @ 12:29PM

I nominate, on the basis of good intentions and the claimed respect of the Arab in the street, Barrack Hussein Obama for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.

P.S. Was last night's speech a 'King's Speech?'

Wayne | 3.29.11 @ 1:06PM

More like a Queen's Speech.

George True| 3.29.11 @ 1:34PM

I believe it was Napoleon who originally said, "Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." But a little known factoid is that he supposedly went on to say, "But do not rule out malice".

As I know most of you have done many times, I have often asked myself can Obama really be this stupid and this incompetent? Or do his actions have some kind of malevolent logic and purpose.
I have come to the conclusion that in his case, it is probably incompetence AND malice. Yes, he is an unlearned, unwise, inexperienced, narcissistic boob who really doesn't know how to run anything.....AND he is a lying, prevaricating, leftist-Marxist, one-worldist, Islam sympathizing, would-be autocrat who is purposely subverting the Constitution, sabotaging our economy, and engaging in a foreign policy designed and intended to make things worse, not better, for America and American interests.

The evidence is plain for anyone who is willing to believe their own eyes. First, we have the matter of Honduras. When an outgoing leftist-Marxist president of Honduras, with the direct support of Hugo Chavez, attempted to have himself illegally and unconstitutionally installed as president-for-life, who did Obama support? The Marxist of course. Who did he oppose? The lawfully and constitutionally elected congress and supreme court of Honduras, and the vast majority of the people of Honduras who clearly opposed the attempted Marxist takeover of their government. And yet, in his usual prevaricating, bald-faced lying style, Obama kept referring to the lawful, constitutional actions of the democratic Honduran government as an "attempted coup".

Next, we have the green uprising in Iran two years ago where literally millions of Iranians marched in the streets, protesting the blatantly stolen "election", and demanding an end to the murderous, despotic, totalitarian rule of the mullahs. The US would not even have had to intervene there militarily. The regime was ripe for being pushed over. All it would have required on our part was the right clandestine involvement, and getting relatively modest quantities of small arms into the hands of the opposition. If we had seen fit to intervene militarily, all that would have been required was a few surgical air strikes on the Republican Guard barracks, the National Assembly building, and some command and control centers. That would have stamped "finished" on that evil regime.

And we know that the great majority of the Iranian population is pro-Western and pro-democracy, so there would have been no Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah types taking over. This would have also solved the problem of Iran getting nuclear bombs, for the new pro-Western government would have no interest in using them for nefarious purposes. Yet Obama sat on his hands while many thousands of these pro-America, pro-democracy advocates were killed in the streets or imprisoned and tortured.

Next, we have Egypt, where we helped to push out Mubarak, and where it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood will succeed in setting up an Iran-style theocratic regime that is virulently anti-American and an existential threat to Israel.

And now Libya. sure, Q-Daffy is a mass-murdering tyrant who should have been taken out a long time ago. But for the US to intervene against him militarily at just this particular time, and on the side of the Al Qaida led rebels, can only result in yet another middle eastern country with hard-line anti-American, anti-Israel Islamists in charge.

Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times or more can only be ascribed to a purposeful strategy of pushing over regimes friendly to the US, and allowing them to be replaced by regimes unfriendly to the US and our long term interests.

Why would Obama do this? There are any number of reasons possible, or more likely a combination of reasons. But while the exact reason why he is doing this may never be known, the fact THAT he is doing this is no longer in doubt.

Steve A| 3.29.11 @ 2:45PM

George, You make some excellent points. I have a hard time believing Obama is intentional in his destructive path though. This guy was raised to believe that the Progressive path would actually lead to success. I mean, he actually, in his heart, believes that massive Government, higher taxes, redistribution & social justice is the answer. His ego will simply not permit himself to admit he has believed a lie for all these years.

He is clearly frustrated that his stimulus policies have not resulted in a reduction of unemployment. He is shocked & therefore lashes out at business "sitting on $$."

As for foreign policy, he is not proactive enough to have a master plan. Look at his history in terms of his failure to communicate with the CO in Afghanistan but 1 X in his first year in office. He had to be shamed into meeting with McCrystal. Same with Egypt, we heard nothing until the dye was cast, same with Lybia. This guuy is bumbling & bluffing his way through. He is incompetent.

Michael Tomlinson| 3.30.11 @ 6:21AM

Obama America's first vaginal President.

Mike Walsh, MM| 3.29.11 @ 1:53PM

Looks like it's a foregone conclusion: KaDaffy's a goner, leaving his fembot entourage leaderless. Is there anyone else in the world that even comes close to having the Bond-villain panache of the louche Libyan? Putin? Mugabe? A phalanx of purple-camo-clad amazon bodyguards is good for tons of style points.

handsome| 3.29.11 @ 2:49PM

If Khadafy goes and is replaced by an Islamist regime hostile to the US, then what, post 9/11?

Gretchen| 3.29.11 @ 2:58PM

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Trip . . . . Oh. Never mind.

Jehu| 3.29.11 @ 3:29PM

Obama is just an empty suit. He was recruited, after his embarrassing first foray into elected politics, to be a new face and voice for the Democratic Party. He is an unremarkable person otherwise and certainly not the driving force behind policy decisions in Washington.

We don't really have a President. We have committees of clueless academics who are motivated by ideology and emotion rather than reason. The results should not be very surprising.

DaveS| 3.29.11 @ 4:05PM

He's the hand-picked front man for dollar-bashing, short selling, and later dollar re-buying George Soros. He did the same with the British pound.

Merle T | 3.29.11 @ 5:16PM

I enjoyed the comment about Obama slaying straw men because he consistently sets up straw men to slay. It makes it almost impossible to listen to his speeches. The straw man that really caught my attention was the one saying that opponents were saying the US military couldn't impose a no fly zone, but no one was saying we couldn't do it. It was a question of if we should.

Brewster| 3.29.11 @ 6:32PM

@0801: Correct. Barry X was groomed by the marxist/islamic axis for many years to be placed in power at such a time as to wreak havoc and usher in a Caliphate. Notice Ayers is in Lebanon today speaking? No coincidence. Amazing. A man with no verifiable history is president, a man who in all probablility is a "Manchurian Candidate," an agent of the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11, and the American people don't demand his resignation. These events are going to spiral into a wider war with attacks on the US. Count on it. While we are dealing with WMD attacks, Islam will take Europe and wage war in the American street. Get Ready.

Who Knows?| 3.29.11 @ 7:19PM

Mission UN-accomplished?

Our pretender president has to be STILL feeling his power, even more than two years since being able to con a majority of living and dead voters to choose him as Maximum Leader.

Within the constraints of American law, don't for a minute think he wouldn't do a once and for all coup, if he COULD!

I remember back when Japan was starting to become more than the maker of tacky do-dads, and American news paid some attention to their opaque political dance.

CW was that the pyramidical power structure was different than what we have in the USA, in that when a prime minister quit, he would still pull the strings from behind the scene.

I posit that the American dumbed down citizenry is approaching what could be called the "Oh my God!" epiphany---

What with Carter, Clinton, and soon to be Obama as ex-presidents, pretty soon critical mass in the noosphere could be reached, as more than enough of us get finally and forever repulsed by such leftwing traitors.

I'm trying to imagine how the future will play out for the still young Obama, when he's tossed on that garbage heap of useless politicians.

Would he resemble Carter, or Clinton, or?

There's no doubt in my mind he won't go dark, like the Bush's have done.

Maybe he'll set up in Nigeria, and become THEIR "president" for life, when he finally produces his birth certificate from THAT country.

Wouldn't THAT be a hoot!

bigfoot9p6| 3.29.11 @ 8:58PM

Hmm, I wonder how many pH D's I could earn simply by studying modern GOP hypocrisy. Honestly guys, do you even take yourselves seriously anymore? God knows the rest of the country doesn't.

ABNCP| 3.29.11 @ 9:11PM

To Bigfoot9p6. "God knows the rest of the country doesn't". What part of November 2010 don't you understand Bigmouth?

bigfoot9p6| 3.29.11 @ 9:29PM

ABNCP: Apparently the part where independents were calling for the following (sole) accomplishments of the 112th congress: "No taxpayer funding for abortion act" "Protect life act" "Repealing Job-killing health care law act" and "continuing appropriations." Maybe I missed the nations clear message dictating that our government must focus all of its energy on ridiculous Jerry Fallwell legislation. Good luck running on "jobs" in 2012 with that record and with Hicklebilly and whatever dimwit diva you drag out of Hooked on Phonics at the top 0f your ticket.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:09AM

Instead, the president spent nearly half an hour trying -- and failing -- to make a cogent argument for U.S. military action for humanitarian purposes and presenting the Obama Doctrine justifying risking American blood and treasure "when our safety is not directly threatened."

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:14PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|53 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|67 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|16 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|20 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6:13PM

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?