-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 3 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Tiger Woods Sinks Lower
May 12, 2013 | 20 comments
-
I Ask Anurima Bhargava for a Date
May 10, 2013 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I bow to nobody in my distaste for Barack Obama. But his speech tonight accomplished its aims. It sounded reasonable and thoughtful. Its tone was right. Yes, there was a fundamental lack of logic in it, but that’s for the intellectuals to parse. From the standpoint of an ordinary watcher, Obama came across as presidential and focused. I’m not saying it was a great speech by any means, but it was a relatively effective one.
Also, I warn conservatives not to be too quick to belittle Obama’s goal of a regime change via diplomacy. With Qaddafi, it might just work. The man is a coward. When Reagan bombed him, he stayed mostly silent for 15 years — apart from Lockerbie, which he denied having anything to do with. When we overthrew Saddam, he got so scared that he turned over all his nukes and lots of other weapons. I can EASILY see Qaddafi accepting some sort of arrangement like the shah did, as in a life in safe exile somewhere, with some of his wealth still available along with his retinue of bodyguard babes.
In short, Obama easily could get lucky, and in doing so he could suddenly appear like a sage and a diplomatic collossus. Conservatives should not separate themselves from him so much that he can rub any subsequent successes in our faces. Indeed, I would not be surprised to see Qaddafi gone within a fortnight. What comes a while down the road might turn into a horrendous disaster, but it will be a slow-developing disaster that happens mostly off the TV screens of a media that by then will have moved on to different things enough that Obama will be able to claim no responsibility for the disaster. In sum, Obama’s policies might arise from a fundamental misjudgment of America’s proper role in the world, but he might nevertheless be playing this whole thing (starting tonight) very astutely from a purely domestic political standpoint. In truth, I think he is indeed doing so — and it’s a scary thought.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/28/obama-accomplished-his-aims
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- Current Wisdom
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mark Jeffery Koch| 3.28.11 @ 10:18PM
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.
Oldefarte| 3.28.11 @ 10:30PM
I most respectfully disagree with you, my friend. This whole middle eastern uprising has suddenly occurred two years after his election, and the hairs on the back of my nick are now standing straight up. Why is this happening now, all of a sudden? These so-called/described freedom fighters are who/what? My foreign policy knowledge is limited, but I've been aware for quite some time that these middle eastern leaders' hold on power was precarious due to their surroundment by the general masses of their respective populations, all of which are highly indoctrinated into the Islamic religion. All of the radical Muslim terrorists have come from either one of these countries or the other [or others worldwide have traveled to this region for terrorist-training purposes]. Now all of these countries leaders are either in the process of being toppled or have already been so. If all of these countries end up being the second coming of Iran, control-wise, or worse yet, combined into one humongous radical Muslim territory, the western-free world will no doubt have a future unsurmountable problem to have to deal with. What if this situation evolves into Pakistan [and these freedom-fighters/terrorists gain control over same's missles]? I do not see any good coming from this situation, and again do not like it. Our political leaders of both parties would be wise to consider the possibilities of an outcome that I describe here, and to take steps to extract our country from any involvement whatsoever going forward!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quin| 3.28.11 @ 10:32PM
Oldefarte, you are not disagreeing with me. I am NOT agreeing with Obama's policies. I am merely offering an analysis of the domestic political effects of Obama's speech. I fear the long-term outcome just as you do. It's just that I think Obama accomplished HIS political aims TONIGHT. His aims are not our aims. His aims are not necessarily good for these United States. But that's beside the point I was making.
Oldefarte| 3.28.11 @ 11:37PM
There a very good editorial that just appeared on Newsmax's website, by a former CIA officer whose expertise was/is in vetting spies/company employees, etc. The questions he raises concerning the lack of proper investigating of any/all information concerning the president prior to November of 2008 is startling/frightening; and I encourage everyone to read/contemplate same. His point is that the presidency, once secured by a person of questionable intentions, could essentially destroy this country. Is this happening at present? Why are these universal revolts occurring all over the middle east all at the same time, and why just two short years after November of 2008? I do not, nor will not give this man credit for anything that he does, outside of possibly being a supposedly good husband and father to his children. We are not talking about his community organizing in Chicago here, but much more crutially THE SURVIVAL OF THIS COUNTRY. I do not give a rat's behind about his arguable speech making abilities [since to me he's an empty suit with a teleprompter]. Maybe you see the glass half full, whereas I see it as half empty; BUT MY POINT IS THAT THIS COUNTRY'S POKER CHIPS COULD ALL DISAPPEAR DUE TO HIS CONTROL OF THIS COUNTRY [not only in tthis middle eastern endeaver, but in his healthcare, energy, etc policies]. I'd agree to GIVE CREIDT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE [or where you opine that it's evident], IF THE SURVIVAL STAKES OF THE GAME WEREN'T SO DAMNED HIGH!!!!
Oldefarte| 3.28.11 @ 11:59PM
PS: As is my usual practice, I watched HGTV when old El Chosen One comes on the tube to pontificate, so I'm the least qualified to judge his speaking abilities tonight [since I don't know, and don't care what he said or didn't say]. I'm just scared EXCREMENTLESS that he's sitting there in this entire mess with THE RED TELEPHONE nearby, that's all. Cheers!!!!!!!
NoLib| 3.29.11 @ 12:21AM
I know Oldefarte, I know--I watch Glenn Beck. He and his staff research and document everything on his show and he hasn't been disproven. There's good reason George Soros is trying to destroy him.
You're not the only one who is freaked out.
Sam| 3.28.11 @ 10:46PM
The bar has been set very low and it doesn't take much to hoodwink the American public; the union run public schools have done a great job dumbing Americans down.
George S| 3.28.11 @ 11:25PM
I am sure Obama and his sidekick Teleprompter can deliver a great speech on baseball and even one on bowling. Yet we saw Obama on video throw out a first pitch and watched him roll gutter balls. That's what is known as talking a good game.
Bob White | 3.29.11 @ 12:55AM
I make no judgment on whether he was right to take us into Libya. I don't believe any of the claptrap distinctions between Libya/Iraq him/Bush.
But I could do without the incesssant war on straw men. OK?
Will| 3.29.11 @ 5:11AM
@Oldefarte, my thoughts exactly!, or, the Cairo speech worked. The Middle East/Arab world has always been a madhouse, but all of a sudden or in the past two years, "Egyptian Democracy" is spreading like something that jumped off the toilet seat. No matter what he says/said, I still want to hear the criticisms, "how many dead Mr. President?" Imagine the howling if this were a Republican president?
WeMustResist| 3.29.11 @ 7:44AM
I am deeply saddened to learn that the speech was effective, that ordinary people would be impressed, and that only intellectuals could see through it. The policy is so close to treason that he should be impeached. Surely it is common sense and common decency that you fix your own problems before butting into other peoples quarrels. Surely it is common sense that the USA has a huge financial problem. The US government is spending $175.70 for every $100.00 it receives in taxes. Only intellectuals can understand this? Surely the US needs to get its spending under control. No new spending! Common people can't understand that? Spending money on Libya means the same money cannot be spent in the USA. Anyone can understand that. There are lots of people in the USA who need that money to buy heating and clothes and prescription drugs and other things to keep them alive. The money is being spent on missiles and jets in Libya. Everyone can see that Obama cares more for the people of Libya than for the people of the USA. He wants to solve the problems of Libya and he wants to ignore the problems of the USA. He is so unpatriotic that he ought to be impeached. He is leading the West into hell.
W| 3.29.11 @ 7:48AM
"stayed silent except for Lockerbie.."
Killing 200 people was not a minor exception. We now have to kill Quadaffi, otherwise he will pay for another terrorist attack
Mimi| 3.29.11 @ 8:00AM
It would be wise to follow the founders advice and stay OUT of foriegn alliances and conflict.
Oh to live in a world where we could get our own OIL and let the Middle East do what it will. Has OBAMA just declared us PAPA PROTECTOR to the whole world ? If only he knew enough to "HIRE" the right advisors....knowing himself long ago that he could not handle the duties of the office ! He's tried " FAKE IT TIL YOU MAKE IT" and failed. It works in drug rehab but not as President of this great country. Our biggest problem number UNO, with all our troubles, is a MARKED lack of Leadership !!!
KML| 3.29.11 @ 11:16AM
Enough. Enough of this nonsense; no wonder Republicans always lose when it comes to shaping the national dialogue.
Quinn, what you write may be absolutely true, but it is also irrelevant. Articles like this one, and headlines that read, "Bill Kristol Praises Obama Speech" are why Republicans continuously lose the war of ideas and shaping public opinion. Thinking back, I am unable to count the numerous speeches made by President Bush where he convincingly justified the case for going into Iraq. And no one who has been listening to Obama and his administration can deny that President Obama's reasons for going into Libya exactly mirror several of the reasons given for invading Iraq. Yet despite all of this, where were the clear thinking Liberals praising President Bush's speeches and saying, "Well, he certainly made his point that time. Democrats better be careful they don't end up on the wrong side of history by going against this war."? Whether you liked President Bush or not, he repeatedly made the case for going into Iraq, not to mention Bush had the benefit of a broken cease fire agreement on the part of Saddam. Yet, the Liberal media and the Democrats never backed down once from their constant assaults of the Bush administration. Democrats were on the wrong side of history and their public outcry against the war only further emboldened the enemy to fight harder. The difference is, they will never pay a price for it because the Liberal media will never call them on it. Furthermore, our own conservative writers are busy praising a speech that, however well written, displays a level of shameless hypocrisy from a man who never once denied the opportunity to attack a Republican administration on Iraq.
You guys should be nailing the hypocrisy of this president to the wall. Nail it to the wall and show how past Democrat criticism of the Iraq war was not out of love for country, or the military, or even out of concern for how this country was viewed by the world. Quite the contrary, the breathless outrage and Democrat attacks were nothing more than partisan posturing to gain advantage in future elections at the expense of American military lives.
Oldefarte| 3.29.11 @ 2:30PM
You speak the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!
Bubba with a B| 3.29.11 @ 11:41AM
Well said KML. Also see Victor Davis Hanson's NRO piece today - spot on: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....vis-hanson
Probably been said already, but it was a new thought to me: HypocrObama.
JPM| 3.29.11 @ 1:26PM
So only highly sophisticated DC insiders are likely to notice that Obama is spewing nonsense? The elecorate may be stupid, but they aren't as stupid as all that. There is no possibility of a good outcome in Libya (or anywhere else in the Arab world for that matter). We will either have a quagmire in Libya or we will have a dangerous enemy in charge there. The media can try to bury the ugly facts, but the truth will out.
And I don't believe the President's speech was effective on any level. He looked and sounded like what he is -- a fool who has no clue what he is doing or why he is doing it. The Libya adventure is a political wound for Obama, and it will fester long before November of 2012.
Ever since Obama formed an exploratory committee commentators have been saying that his powerful oratory would sweep all before it. But on every issue, the more he talks the more he hurts himself. This case will prove no different.
Soljerblue| 3.29.11 @ 4:28PM
Two things seem clear to me about this whole Libya exercise. The road to the White House in 2012 leads through Tripoli. It's been nagging at me all week and Rush expressed it this morning quite clearly. The other thing is the way Obama thumbed his nose at Congress, and at the Constitution, in going to NATO, the UN, and the -- for crying out loud! -- Arab League to insert the U.S. into this thing. On both counts he is playing this according to his vision of America not as a unique nation, but as a member of world coalition with its sovereignty sublimated to a gaggle of second and third rate countries. And make no mistake, Ghaddafi is toast. He has to be, so that Obama can use this whole adventure as his ticket to reelection. He could care less about freedom for Libyans. What he cares about is power -- his.