Video: Andrea Mitchell explains “the Obama Doctrine”

posted at 9:27 pm on March 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, it’s simple as can be. If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.” Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die, then? I can understand France using that calculus since they’re incapable of mounting a humanitarian intervention without international (i.e. American) support. It’s a necessary precondition, as it is for every other country in the world — except us. If we’re using it as a precondition too, it can only be because we’re so worried about a backlash on the “Arab street” to America intervening to save tens of thousands of Arab lives that we’d rather preserve what little goodwill we still have by letting Qaddafi kill people willy nilly. And of course, if we refused to intervene and stood by and let it happen, we’d be blamed for that too, which exposes the “international support” criterion for the fraud that it is. Essentially, if you take Mitchell seriously, the question of whether the U.S. should act to prevent mass bloodlettings in the Middle East should be left up to the opportunistic Islamists who now run Turkey and the cretinous dictator salon we know as the Arab League. In fact, this formulation doesn’t make sense on its own terms: “International opinion” is something that should fall under cost/benefit analysis, one of many factors to be weighed alongside things like the risk that the mission would present to U.S. servicemen, the financial expense incurred by the operation, etc. Why split it off and make it a standalone requirement? If Omar al-Bashir decides he’s going to liquidate the population of Sudan and the Arab League decides that’s A-OK, is Obama really going to let their disapproval stop him from acting? Please.

Incidentally, apart from military action, is there any “Obama Doctrine” for issuing statements of condemnation? I know they put one out a few days ago about the violence in Syria, but things have escalated dramatically and it sounds like Assad might be ready to go berserk. The international community’s cool with that, I’m sure, so we don’t even need to consider the costs and benefits of military action, but how about something a little more forceful than this weak tea?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Great. Preventable humanitarian crisis. We’ll be intervening in every country in the world before we know it.

Sounds a lot like Obama’s doctrine against the U.S. private sector.

John the Libertarian on March 23, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I eagerly await the lefts soon to be discovered support for military contractors as a deft way for Obama to influence events that will limit America’s actual exposure.

rob verdi on March 23, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Its emerging…………….

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:32 PM

We could her “logic” on Obamacare then.

SouthernGent on March 23, 2011 at 9:32 PM

if you take Mitchell seriously

There’s your mistake, right there.

percival on March 23, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Shouldn’t she be rubbing the lotion on Alan’s skin?

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Maybe we need Brian Williams to explain it too. Cause it seems that only NBC News personalities understand it.

Lance Murdock on March 23, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Also, what does “international support” mean?

If it’s, say, just the U.S. and Israel, that’s international, right?

malclave on March 23, 2011 at 9:35 PM

“Essentially, if you take Mitchell seriously,…”

Meh…

Sometimes Allah, you crack me up…

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Damn, she’s stupid.

trapeze on March 23, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I’ll explain the Obama Doctrine right here, right now:

If you are 150 yards out, all things being equal, use a 7 iron.

turfmann on March 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Hopey is trying to avert a Rwanda!!!!!
=======================================
Libya Intervention

The US refused to label what was about to happen, as genocide. Everyone in the Dom Bosco Technical School school was massacred by Hutu militants. The UN and the international community were useless. The Rwandan genocide is a skeleton in the UN’s closet. The very existence of the UN is to prevent such atrocities. We can argue US interventionism all day long, and probably come to some sort of consensus (if by “we” I exclude hard core right winged Americans) that American imperialism is a very real evil. But this, like Rwanda, is not about American imperialism.

This was cemented in U.N Resolution 1674 of 2006.
The conflict in Libya, I believe warrants international action rather than mere condemnation and sanctions. The UN should have acted in a similar capacity toward Rwanda, it didn’t.

Libya cannot be allowed to become another Rwanda.

http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/the-libyan-intervention/

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Shouldn’t she be rubbing the lotion on Alan’s skin?

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 9:33 PM

I think Alan does the lotion-rubbing and Trandrea does the basket-lowering.

Missy on March 23, 2011 at 9:37 PM

What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die,

Consensus is for the weak.

Mitchell in the video essentially admits you cannot stand idly by if all 3 requirements are met but you can stand idly and let the massacres happen if your friends don’t go with you.
Wow. I suspect Obama is the type who stands on the side of the street while a woman gets mugged and everyone gawks. No one moves so he does not move.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 9:39 PM

This is a wee bit juicy,in regards to Cuda’s MSM
Ambush,on the Bush Doctrine!!

And yet,NOBODY has a clue,what the Hopey
Doctrine is is!!

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM

When did she become the spokeshole for the WH?

Isn’t working for MSNBC at her age a real step down?

Blake on March 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM

GW had more international support for IRAQ. Hmmm the liberals still were not happy.

CWforFreedom on March 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM

I think Alan does the lotion-rubbing and Trandrea does the basket-lowering.

Missy on March 23, 2011 at 9:37 PM

.
Good point but what’s in the basket?
.
Lotion
or
Auto Trader?

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 9:41 PM

I think Alan does the lotion-rubbing and Trandrea does the basket-lowering.

Missy on March 23, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Pass the brain bleach, please.

ericdijon on March 23, 2011 at 9:42 PM

The Gates Doctrine
By lex, on March 23rd, 2011
******************************

As he prepares to ride off into the sunset his tell-all book-publishing tour, SecDef Robert Gates feels sufficiently liberated from beltway political breezes to speak candidly about the unrest sweeping across the Middle East: He hasn’t a clue how it will all unfold, and says “I think we should be alert to the fact that outcomes are not predetermined, and that it’s not necessarily the case that everything has a happy ending. . . . We are in dark territory and nobody knows what the outcome will be.”

Which set of affairs he boils down to a simple formula on US use of military force:

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/03/23/the-gates-doctrine/

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:43 PM

This too will change as needed to fit the scenario and protect PBHO.

Bishop on March 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM

The next time anyone asks Sarah Palin about “Her Doctrine”…

… “It’s evolving” will be an acceptable answer.

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Hey Andrea, your president thinks a doctrine is part of his health care reform.

Rovin on March 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM

I think Alan does the lotion-rubbing and Trandrea does the basket-lowering.

Missy on March 23, 2011 at 9:37 PM

O.K. I have to ask…

a capella on March 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Obama Doctrine = Community Organizing, World Edition

faraway on March 23, 2011 at 9:47 PM

If the rebels win, and the 20 different tribes start massacring each other like it’s cool or something – who will we bomb then?

Rebar on March 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM

O.K. I have to ask…

a capella on March 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrwDFgEeFCE

Silence of the Lambs.

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM

I’d love to see Obama try to explain the Obama Doctrine without TOTUS helping him.

That would certainly be interesting to watch.

teke184 on March 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Actually, the Obama Doctrine is pretty simple. If he uses “I”, then he wants the credit. If he uses “we” then he wants someone else to take the blame. I doubt if he differentiates between foreign policy, domestic policy, or even ordering lunch. It’s all about blame and credit.

JavelinaBomb on March 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Good point but what’s in the basket?

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Depending on where you go….aaaaantything you want.

Alden Pyle on March 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM

March 23, 2011
Dick Morris Op-Ed: Libya Fails Powell Doctrine
***********************************************

Gen. Colin Powell’s enduring contribution to American foreign policy is the Powell Doctrine, defining when and how American military power should be used. The doctrine has three main precepts: Avoid mission creep, clearly define your goals, and plan an exit strategy before you go in. Obama’s Libya intervention flunks on all three counts.

Avoid mission creep? It’s too late. The mission has already crept. It was sold to us as a no-fly zone, designed to stop Moammar Gadhafi’s air force from pounding rebel positions, evening the odds in the conflict. Of course, there would be a need to neutralize Gadhafi’s air defenses to protect our planes as they patrolled the skies. But already it is clear that we are bombing everything in sight, crippling Gadhafi’s armor, forcing his withdrawal from key cities and crippling his command and control structure. It is not a no-fly zone. It is full aerial warfare.

Defined war goals? The only one stated is to protect innocent civilians from Gadhafi’s forces. How we are going to do this from the air is a question that remains unanswered. In any event, we are clearly confused between the goal of regime change on the one hand and protecting civilians on the other. Our aerial attacks have little to do with protecting anyone and everything to do with killing as many of Gadhafi’s soldiers and disabling as much of his army as possible.
(More….)

http://nation.foxnews.com/libya-war/2011/03/23/dick-morris-op-ed-libya-fails-powell-doctrine

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:50 PM

This too will change as needed to fit the scenario and protect PBHO.

Bishop on March 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Libya will disappear from the news…

… faster than the Gulf oil spill did when people started to call it “Obowma’s Katrina“.

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Obama Doctrine = Community Organizing, World Edition

faraway on March 23, 2011 at 9:47 PM

faraway:*Ding-Ding*,yup!:)

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:50 PM

This too will change as needed to fit the scenario and protect PBHO.

Bishop on March 23, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Bishop:Thats Pure Crazy Delusional Talk!!:)

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Is the Mitchell Doctrine to watch Duh One actually do all of the horrible things that the left pretended W did?

I would think that these people would actually explode from spewing forth such hypocrisy.

America has been without any leadership for over 2 years now, and as a result the West is drifting aimlessly.

I think it’s time to take another look at the CIC title that is also bestowed upon POTUS.

Obowma never, ever wastes an opportunity to shrink from any chance to actually lead.

History will judge whether Obowma is the worst POTUS ever, but he is certainly the most cowardly.

reaganaut on March 23, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Since Hillary forced Obama into this war (the bus is idling) then shouldn’t it be called the Hillary Doctrine?

JavelinaBomb on March 23, 2011 at 9:52 PM

This woman is one dumb, obnoxious buffoon.

rplat on March 23, 2011 at 9:53 PM

She’s NOTHING but an administration spokesperson.

ronsfi on March 23, 2011 at 9:54 PM

So, are we going to Syria? Ivory Coast? Sudan? How humanitarian are we? We are clueless about Libya and all this spinning won’t be good when other people are being slaughtered. But, make your case Dems and then try to defend us NOT getting involved in other places. I’m popping popcorn for the fun to follow!

hboulware on March 23, 2011 at 9:54 PM

John Bolton on Obama Doctrine!(Video)
==================================

http://www.wejew.com/media/2142/John_Bolton_on_Obama_Doctrine/

canopfor on March 23, 2011 at 9:55 PM

I’m really hoping that OBarry doesn’t suddenly decided that being horrible CiC is better than being a lousy golfer. If he gets trigger happy the left will suddenly become the goose-stepping pricks they always wanted to be; solving everybody else’s problems at the point of a gun…
-
Don’t get me wrong, a single well placed cruze-missile would be a nice present for Quack-a-ddafi… pretty much any day of the week. I just prefer that Barry not play with the ‘weapons’ of the most powerful nation in history.
-

RalphyBoy on March 23, 2011 at 9:56 PM

So how is cost measured against the benefits, a body count, what exactly?

Bishop on March 23, 2011 at 9:56 PM

LOL, these libtards are twisting like pretzels to justify this Libyan war.

I can’t wait to hear what they say when Ogabe starts throwing people into Gitmo.

Caper29 on March 23, 2011 at 9:56 PM

and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs

Who is in charge of doing this cost/benefit analysis and who sets the price of the costs and benefits?

Andrea Mitchell = shallow idiot.

Dreadnought on March 23, 2011 at 10:00 PM

If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.”

Okay, let’s pretend I agree (which I don’t). Then WTF are we doing there? Not “1″, nor “2″, nor “3″ is conclusive in any form whatsoever.

Saltysam on March 23, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Libya will disappear from the news…

… faster than the Gulf oil spill did when people started to call it “Obowma’s Katrina“.

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 9:50 PM

… faster than the Tucson shooting when he media realized they couldn’t blame it on conservatives.

malclave on March 23, 2011 at 10:03 PM

I’ll explain the Obama Doctrine right here, right now:

If you are 150 yards out, all things being equal, use a 7 iron.

turfmann on March 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Obviously you’ve never seen Obama’s swing.

If he hits a 7-iron 150 yards……I’m Nick Faldo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m3GyDh6M8

Dreadnought on March 23, 2011 at 10:03 PM

We aren’t putting anyone in Gitmo. We now kill them instead. O solved that problem. Rendition is so yesterday.

hboulware on March 23, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Good try Andrea but it doesn’t quite capture it. Here’s another version of the Obama Doctrine.

Attack everything the Republican president does and vilify him at every turn. When elected do everything your predecessor did but do it less competently. Count on the media not to draw attention to your hypocrisy.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Who want to bet the Marines will be once again on the shores of Tripoli before this is over.

I guarantee you that Marine Recon, Navy Seals and Army spec ops is crawling all over that place.

esnap on March 23, 2011 at 10:04 PM

The next time anyone asks Sarah Palin about “Her Doctrine”…

… “It’s evolving” will be an acceptable answer.

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM

sure it is:

We call it the Palin Doctrine. It’s based on the principles that allies should be supported, dictators reviled, terrorists hunted down and enemies defeated. It also means the western world will not stand by at the bloody repression of a democratic revolution.

These notions might be self-evident to some, but they’re not to President Obama, who cannot bring himself even to utter the words “Islamist” and “terrorist” in the same sentence. One of his top intelligence officials actually told Congress last month that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization. Ms. Palin, by contrast, denounced as a “shame” the administration’s offer to the Brotherhood of a seat at the table of power in Egypt’s newly evolving system.

Last week Governor and Mr. Palin were in New Delhi where she delivered the keynote address at a high-level political conclave. As the first visit to south Asia by a potential 2012 GOP contender, her attention was welcomed in a democracy justifiably concerned about the unstable behavior of Pakistan, its nuclear-armed neighbor to the northwest, and a China rapidly arming, under a regime where state capitalism and rigid control of political power go hand-in-hand.

The Palins’ stopover in Israel likewise came at a critical moment. In the wake of the Itamar massacre and the renewed rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, Gov. Palin expressed only solidarity, even wearing a Star of David during her tours. She promised to return soon for a longer visit.

Contrast that with the behavior of Mr. Obama, who has yet, as President, even to visit the Jewish state, pays only lip service to the threat of ceaseless Palestinian incitement, and has returned to carping about the “illegitimacy” of Jews building houses where they already live.

Most important for the long term, Mrs. Palin has extensive experience administering energy policy, and proven success in tough negotiations with the giant energy firms, and the former Alaska governor always links U.S. security interests with “responsible development” of America’s abundant fuel resources.

The president’s most effective critic recently declared that his “war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.” In her India address Mrs. Palin chastised the White House aversion to energy development as a form of “social engineering.”

Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy was marked by indecision, weakness, and a the abandonment of long-standing U.S. Allies. The resolute Reagan Doctrine of peace through strength restored America’s standing in the world and brought down the Soviet empire without firing a shot. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is looking more like Carter’s every day. And Sarah Palin’s looks more and more like Reagan’s.

-Benyamin Korn

http://jewsforsarah.com/?p=8121

unseen on March 23, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Who is in charge of doing this cost/benefit analysis and who sets the price of the costs and benefits?
Dreadnought on March 23, 2011 at 10:00 PM

A panel of experts drawn from the same pool of experts who will decide who gets what under ObamaCare.

They get a nice Excel file, do some cross-referencing, and boom, there’s the answer.

Bishop on March 23, 2011 at 10:06 PM

O.K. I have to ask…

a capella on March 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrwDFgEeFCE

Silence of the Lambs.

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3aYZSAyEuM
.
Let’s not forget Joe Dirt

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 10:06 PM

The real Obama Doctrine which covers both domestic and foreign policy:

America is too strong and powerful. Never miss a chance to knock us down a few pegs.

LakeLevel on March 23, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Mitchell – another elite intellectual liberal – AKA idiot.

GarandFan on March 23, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Obviously you’ve never seen Obama’s swing.
If he hits a 7-iron 150 yards……I’m Nick Faldo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m3GyDh6M8
Dreadnought on March 23, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Good one. He’d need a Driver to hit the ball 150 yards.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Hey Andrea, does this fit your meme?

lol Stupid progressives.

csdeven on March 23, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Blake on March 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM

msdnc is the spokesman for dear leader…the whole lot of them…

cmsinaz on March 23, 2011 at 10:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3aYZSAyEuM
.
Let’s not forget Joe Dirt

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 10:06 PM

I must have missed that classic!

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Good one. He’d need a Driver to hit the ball 150 yards.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2011 at 10:07 PM

I think you’re right!

Dreadnought on March 23, 2011 at 10:13 PM

JavelinaBomb on March 23, 2011 at 9:48 PM

great explanation…easy peasy

cmsinaz on March 23, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Obama Doctrine=Do whatever takes America down a notch or two fastest.

Christien on March 23, 2011 at 10:14 PM

..deer in the headlights; like the old Honeymooners’ skit, “..hummina..hummina..hummina..I core a apple..”

The War Planner on March 23, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Essentially, if you take Mitchell seriously

I don’t. She’s scum. Really the only thing I like about her is when Rush mocks her.

maineconservative on March 23, 2011 at 10:19 PM

I must have missed that classic!

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 10:12 PM

.
Nurse this patient needs Netflix online stat!
Joe Dirt is somewhere between Cabin Boy and Airplane, with the drama of the colorized, 30 minute version of, The Malteese Falcon.

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Obama Doctrine aka MSNBC Indoctrination.

redridinghood on March 23, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Obama Doctrine:

1. Weaken US power and influence internationally

2. Retract the US economy

3. Convince the welfare class that they are the middle class

4. Enslave the middle income earners with taxes, fees regulation, and usurped property rights

5. Subordinate the US government to UN authority

Saltysam on March 23, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Joe Dirt is somewhere between Cabin Boy and Airplane, with the drama of the colorized, 30 minute version of, The Malteese Falcon.

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 10:20 PM

The colorized 30 minute version?

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Great. Preventable humanitarian crisis. We’ll be intervening in every country in the world before we know it.

Sounds a lot like Obama’s doctrine against the U.S. private sector.

John the Libertarian on March 23, 2011 at 9:31 PM

True, but it still doesn’t explain Obama’s policy in regard to Arizona…

landlines on March 23, 2011 at 10:31 PM

The colorized 30 minute version?

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 10:26 PM

.
Classic. Like A Tale of One City, or The Witch of Eastwick, or The Stooge (just Moe).
Good times

LincolntheHun on March 23, 2011 at 10:33 PM

she is such an idiot. frank rizzo used to shtupp her back in the day you know.

sbvft contributor on March 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM

As with anything else, any ‘Doctrine’ of the Left:

Democrats = Good

Republicans = Evil

Simple.

catmman on March 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM

So Charles Krauthammer defined the President George W. Bush doctrine, and now Andrea Mitchell defines the Bamster doctrine. Appropriate matching up of intellects there.

slickwillie2001 on March 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM

Say what you will about Allah’s politics — his sense of comedic timing is impeccable. The video of Mark McAllister in full meltdown suggests a man measurably more thoughtful and articulate than either the unintelligible Chris Matthews or the brain-dead Andrea Mitchell.

A split screen comparison of the three of them would inspire most people to call for three ambulances.

Jaibones on March 23, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Somebody put me some effin knowledge:

Libya isn’t a ME country, right? It’s in Africa, though they are predominantly Muslim. Are they Arabs or Africans? Why are they Arabs? Because they are Muslims?

We don’t make the same distinction with, say, Somalia where a predominant portion of the population is Muslim, but they aren’t Arabs.

I guess I’m wondering why we keep referring to Libyans as Arabs. Same thing with Egypt, I suppose especially considering Libya is further away from the ME than Egypt.

Is it simply religion or genealogy?

catmman on March 23, 2011 at 10:45 PM

I’ll explain the Obama Doctrine right here, right now: If you are 150 yards out, all things being equal, use a 7 iron.

turfmann on March 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Obviously you’ve never seen Obama’s swing. If he hits a 7-iron 150 yards……I’m Nick Faldo.

Dreadnought on March 23, 2011 at 10:03 PM

LMAO. Bingo — I don’t know if this dorkwad can hit a driver 150 yards. Mr. MomJeans…

Jaibones on March 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM

The Obama Doctrine is evolving?

No. It seems fixed in concrete. Making the world safe for jihad. That’s Obama’s “doctrine” in a nutshell.

Yemen, to cite one example: After a difficult stretch of quiet difficult diplomacy and hands on in the intelligence realm, and the expense of a lot of energy working mid and upper level Yemeni authorities for several years, Yemen stepped out to try to root out AQ in Yemen…mostly at our behest. A daunting task. Lot of support for AQ, and for the bin Ladin family all over Yemen going back to the 50′s, if not earlier. The Yemeni President is being confronted by the mob mentality…and while we are seemingly eager to take out Gadaffi, we let Ali Abdullah Saleh twist in the wind as he (and the Yemeni Parliament) ratchet up the Yemeni response to the lawlessness all over Yemen, the same lawlessness that offers all sorts of advantages to AQ in Yemen, among other Islamist groups.

And Syria, just hours away from unleashing the Syrian Army and the General Intelligence Directorate to kill any and all who are opposed to the current Assad regime. Like father, like son. And Washington says? Yep. Nothing.

We know Syria has a long history with Iran, North Korea and a lot of pre-AQ terrorist outfits, and there is their continued involvement in keeping Lebanon as unstable as possible. Yet, we do what? Nothing. Not even a strongly worded letter to be read at the UN.

Egypt? Mubarak is gone, and Egypt is in the throes of being pummeled by dissident voices, from the Ikhwan to others more fundamentalist…and at a time when we could have surely used Egypt’s support (and insider intelligence) to neutralize or take out Gadaffi, Cairo is hard-pressed and occupied in trying to hold the country together…a matter of life and death, to be certain. We applauded the forced removal of Mubarak, instigated it, actually, if you look at Obama’s Cairo speech as a catalyst. But then what? No longer on the front page of the New York Times, so it is no longer important?

Bahrain and the Emirates are not immune to the rise in opposition to the current rulers. Chaos prevails on the streets still, even if it is not on CNN nightly. Nor is Saudi Arabia safe.

Yet, as the Middle East burns, we focus on Gadaffi.

To what end?

There is reporting going back months showing that Gadaffi’s claim that the Benghazi revolt was in part orchestrated by factions loyal to AQ or the Ikhwan and others who view the United States as a Great Satan, may not be an exageration.

These groups see the United States as solely responsible for all the troubles in the Middle East….yet we are about to risk American lives (should we actually land Marines on the shores of Tripoli, to try to install these same anti-American people in Tripoli and expect a friendly, pro-American government to emerge?

Seems the only folks who are deriving direct benefit from Obama Doctrine are those forces who would happily destroy us, or at least see us removed from a vast swath of the world as a major player.

Nice doctrine there, Barack.

Sure you are not really a Moslem? /

Is this intentional? No proof of that to be found…yet.

But, even if it is accidental, the ramifications are staggering.

A weak horse is a weak horse. Trying to get a major part of the world to “love” us when that same part of the world is dogmatically conditioned to hate us, who we are and what we once stood for is a fool’s errand.

Guess such is to be expected from having fools in charge.

I can’t wait until real adults are in charge once again.

coldwarrior on March 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM

You know, Allah, you really should have headlined this story:
“Not again: Another reporter lapses into gibberish on the air”

jon1979 on March 23, 2011 at 10:48 PM

catmman on March 23, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Libyans are Arabs. Have been for centuries. Same as Algerians and Moroccans or Tunisians. Same stock that once occupied Spain. Not all Moslems are Arabs…but an overwhelming proportion of Arabs are Moslems.

coldwarrior on March 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Andrea Mitchell… serious journalist…
/s

Khun Joe on March 23, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Obama Doctrine = Community Organizing, World Edition

faraway on March 23, 2011 at 9:47 PM

This may very be the quote of the year. And not just on HA.

But of Obama’s Presidency.

Seriously.

Well said faraway, well said.

pain train on March 23, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Maybe we need Brian Williams to explain it too. Cause it seems that only NBC News personalities understand it.

Lance Murdock on March 23, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I saw that earlier. According to Brian Williams, Obama was apparently..personally… targeting and launching cruise missiles at targets in Libya from his mobile HQ in South America.

Oh, and they cost millions of dollars too!!!!

Seriously, if you haven’t seen this video…you should.

Content warning….if you have more common sense than a horse $urd…this will pi$$ you off.

BigWyo on March 23, 2011 at 11:03 PM

As a child of the 80s, I was hooked to music videos; way before I care about US politics. That doesn’t matter to a teenager.

Remember the music video “Land Of The Confusion” by Genesis?

I found it but with Disturbed’s lyrics embedded on the video. Lyrics of the song could not fit better nowadays. Thing is, Genesis wanted to make a political statement, and well, the video’s focuses on Ronald Reagan. Reagan was not the only source for a music video back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFDNZ24eo8s

Of course, Khadaffi is represented in the video as well; the end, predictable. But it’s stuff like this that raised the libs that focused on more on what they saw, or saw the music and movie industries as “people who know more than us.”

I was ill yesterday and today; to the point where I called Jury Duty. In order to get my brain kicking to where I was, I came here and visited Drudge. Found about Liz Taylor’s death…meh. She had borrowed time and Larry King outlived her. SP seems not much but I am behind on Israel on my blogs.

Still with headache and sick stomach, I did my best to try and figure this Libya mess. I thought I was the one confused, not a ton of people all over the place! I thought that I was off by a day or so, but no, got that right. Listened to El Rushbo.

Now here I am late at night almost 100% OK and still no definite answers. I thought all along that we were gonna drop some bombs and get the heck outta there. If you all missed Levin, go to his site and listen to his podcast. Rumsfeld was in it.

ProudPalinFan on March 23, 2011 at 11:08 PM

BigWyo on March 23, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Got to wonder if Obama doesn’t at least leave a fifty on the nightstand for Williams to pick up in wee hours as Williams dresses and heads out the door. /

Carter had this proclivity to micro-manage…as does Obama.

And guys like Williams would sooner sell their own mother to a Brighton Beach sex-trade trafficker than admit, even for a moment, that Obama is not infallible.

coldwarrior on March 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM

The Canadian gibberish reporter made much more sense!

rhbandsp on March 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM

coldwarrior on March 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM

That was what I was wondering.

I keep hearing and seeing Libya referred to as ME, which it clearly isn’t.

Kinda figured it was simply genealogy. thanks.

catmman on March 23, 2011 at 11:10 PM

coldwarrior on March 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Seriously….did you see the video??? Good Christ!!

BigWyo on March 23, 2011 at 11:14 PM

catmman on March 23, 2011 at 11:10 PM

The “Middle East” is seen as North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, across the Arab peninsula, up to Turkey and Syria, and south to Somalia and Sudan and Djibouti, and eastward to Iran. “Africa” in its normal context is sub-Saharan…but more recently a number of sub-Saharan nations have become more in tune with the Middle East than what would traditionally be considered “Africa,” both ethnically and through Islam. Dar Es Salam, the capital of Tanzania, for example, is both Arab and Moslem in origin.

BTW, never call an Egyptian an Arab and never call an Ethiopian an African. Both are well aware of their long long long cultural heritage and a bit protective of their unique identities.

coldwarrior on March 23, 2011 at 11:20 PM

BigWyo on March 23, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Yes, I saw the video. And Williams is still one of those who would never admit truly that Obama is not The One we’ve been waiting for. Have more faith in Jimmy Fallon than I do with the likes of Williams and company. That Obama was targeting things personally…this is a good thing? That Obama was involved in every step of the process is a good thing? The role of the President is not to get into tactical details about anything. Might as well eliminate the entire DoD and run things from a room in the basement of the White House.

Management, micro-management at that, is not the same thing as leadership.

coldwarrior on March 23, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Essentially, if you take Mitchell seriously

Thanks for the smirks.

coldwarrior, so glad that you are here.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2011 at 11:41 PM

When national leaders are making battlefield decisions, the nation is screwed.

Slowburn on March 23, 2011 at 11:48 PM

The “Obama Doctrine” is obviously at too high of an intellectual level and much too nuanced for all you teabaggers to understand. /snark

OxyCon on March 24, 2011 at 12:06 AM

If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.”

Accept 1 as given, 3 has been covered. But does 2 make any sense at all? Benefits to whom? Costs to whom? Financial cost? PR cost? Political cost? As determined by whom? This is abject nonsense.

Say the benefits to the Libyan rebels are great – they don’t get killed, maybe. The costs to the US are great. Who gets to decide which outweighs the other? The UN?

jodetoad on March 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die, then?

Then he picks Ohio State.

Ronnie on March 24, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Is it any wonder Obama’s coalition has fallen apart in 96 hours?

DSchoen on March 24, 2011 at 1:23 AM

If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.”

…The fact that Obama’s liberal cheerleaders like Andrea are having to spin what they think “obama’s doctrine” is shows how ineptly this administration has handled this.
It is Obama’s responsibility to define this “before” sending our troops into battle.

The term of “benefits outweighing the cost” is so ambiguous that it’s interpretation would vary wildly according to who was doing the “interpreting”…..

…if this doctrine would have been applied in WWI and WWII….the Germans/nazi’s would have won…..

The US paid an unbelievable price in helping allies on another continent defeat an enemy that poised no real serious threat to our homeland.Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack that we would have prepared our defenses to keep from happening again. There were no serious attacks on our homeland in WWI….
The fight with Japan in the pacific certainly had serious trade/economic implications….after defeating them in the pacific….we could have easily considered our work done.
The German’s showed no interest in “taking over America”….
If Germany had won…does anyone believe that we would not eventually set up relations of trade and other economic measures with them.We trade and participate economically with our enemies on a regular basis.

Someone could easily assess that losing hundreds of thousands of Americans would outweigh the “benefits” of helping allies on other continents…..

…and how big of an “international coalition” has to exist to be considered legitimate??????

Bush had twice the coalition in Iraq and it was derided by liberals on a daily basis as “insufficient” to put it mildly.

I would love to see how liberals square the circle that Libya meets this criteria but the genocide in Iraq accompanied by a mad dictator that had started two major wars does not……

The bottom line is America has stood with allies and fought on the side of Freedom because it was the human and right thing to do.We helped face down murderous,genocidal dictators and terrorist without benchmarks of “cost to benefit” ratio’s because their defeat was the only option…..you can’t defeat dedicated sadist like the hitler’s and Saddam’s by waiting on “International compliance” or seeing if the numbers add up.

This spin coming from Obama’s cheerleaders like Andrea is really pathetic.

Baxter Greene on March 24, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Liberalism will never make sense to people with morals.

It is the antithesis of what is right.

It masquerades as compassionate, but it is truly not.

scotash on March 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM

Why does a reporter sound like a WH Staff member??????
Ah yes silly me

Wood Dragon on March 24, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2