Obama on Libya: The U.S. has done what it said it would do

posted at 10:26 pm on March 28, 2011 by Allahpundit

Five and a half minutes of highlights from CNN, but somehow they missed the key part. They’ve got the bit where he says we’ve already done what we promised (as I said earlier, this speech would be about declaring victory, not urging Americans onward to it). They’ve got the bit where he justifies humanitarian intervention on grounds of American exceptionalism(!), declaring that while some countries can ignore atrocities abroad, “the United States of America is different.” But where’s the part where he announces The Obama Doctrine?

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

So if I have this straight, (1) a bloodbath was looming in Benghazi, (2) America’s role as leader of freedom-loving peoples gives it a special duty to intervene abroad to prevent bloodbaths and protect human rights, but (3) if we can’t do it as part of an international effort, too bad, so sad. Does that make sense? Especially given that the “leadership” evinced in coalition-building here wasn’t as robust as it was in Afghanistan and Iraq? In fact, here’s a quickie fact-check from the AP that scarcely needs to be written. What he means when he talks about a U.S. handover is that, essentially, we’re handing the mission from our right hand to our left.

In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.

At least he mentioned NATO tonight. Left unmentioned: Why he still hasn’t asked Congress for a resolution authorizing the mission and, more importantly, just who these rebels are who are allegedly poised to join us in the community of freedom-loving nations. Some do want democracy and a civil society. Others’ interests are … more nuanced.

Exit question for the three Obama voters among our readership: Did you ever expect that Bill Kristol would not only be praising The One’s foreign policy speeches but would actually be getting briefed by him beforehand? We’re all neocons now.


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

Obama on Libya: The U.S. has done what it said it would do.

OK. Now let’s bring the troops home. Now.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Kristol is war hawk. He loves big government and war. Obama fits both.

taney71 on March 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Yeah Kristol has jumped the shark…

sandee on March 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM

If Daffy stays, Obama goes…

d1carter on March 28, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Did you ever expect that Bill Kristol would not only be praising The One’s foreign policy speeches but would actually be getting briefed by him beforehand?

I guess Bill is now welcome to attend all the parties again so there is an upside here.

sharrukin on March 28, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Did you ever expect that Bill Kristol would not only be praising The One’s foreign policy speeches but would actually be getting briefed by him beforehand?

Sounds like Kristol is taking advice from Rush on how to pursue Operation Chaos.

Lance Murdock on March 28, 2011 at 10:31 PM

I want the old Ann Coulter back where she says we should kill their leaders and convert them. Good times.

SouthernGent on March 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM

So, the anti-war left are really really really hypocrites?

Rovin on March 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Folks, we’re bombing Libya because there’s an intern under the desk. Just trust me on this one. :-)

joejm65 on March 28, 2011 at 10:33 PM

It’s a squirmish…..

idesign on March 28, 2011 at 10:35 PM

So, the anti-war left are really really really hypocrites?

Rovin on March 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM

No, see, this is totally different from Iraq because the Arab League gave us a Hall Pass to intervene in Libya.

When asked about Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, the Arab League is strangely silent, however….

Good Solid B-Plus on March 28, 2011 at 10:36 PM

joejm65 on March 28, 2011 at 10:33 PM

I didn’t think Michelle would do that sort of thing…

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM

American exceptionalism means we can rescue the Libyans because they have a ruthless dictator, but we’ll make an exception for Saddam Hussein. That was about attacking a nation that never hurt us so that we could take their oil. Oh. Wait. That was Libya, too. So, America has this tradition and values, plus, we’re the only nation with the power to stop bloodbaths. Yes, American exceptionalism means we can save anyone, except if we don’t have the permsission of the United Nations. What’s more, we aren’t in Libya for regime change, except that Ghaddafi has to go or the bloodbath will simply be postponed. Let’s face it. Obama is a con artist, hypocrite and liar.

NNtrancer on March 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Count me as 1 of 3. It seems he’s handling a complicated situation as best as humanly possible. I’ve never respected Bill Kristol’s intelligence, and I’m not sure why he’s considered a voice worth informing behind the scenes, but he writes for a fairly well-read conservative magazine, and he’s now one less conservative voice throwing water on everything the administration does, at least in Libya. Neutering the opposition to whatever extent possible isn’t a bad thing.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Let’s face it. Obama is a con artist, hypocrite and liar

NNtrancer on March 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM

And not very good at it, either.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM

It’s a squirmish…..

idesign on March 28, 2011 at 10:35 PM

LOL…that it is. :)

Palin/West 2012

tencole on March 28, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Why he still hasn’t asked Congress for a resolution authorizing the mission and,

Where are the Repugnantcans objecting to subjecting the US Military to the whims of a corrupt UN and Arab League?

Why are they not asking for justification at least and impeachment as a matter of maintaining balance of powers. The Repugnantcans are ceding authority to King Barrack Hussein Obama by allowing him to use the military at his bidding and to ignore the Judiciaries finding of his actions as unconstitutional.

Time for a Third Party we Americans are no longer served by either of the present two!

dhunter on March 28, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Yes, Obama only acts under international authority. And in this case, it’s to suck up to the Arab league. He wouldn’t have acted without their authorization.

NNtrancer on March 28, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Red Meat. Rand Paul eviscerates Obama’s Libya speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q

Paraphrasing:

“We’re taking sides in a conflict we know nothing about … Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be fighting against them in Afghanistan and Iraq?”

“We’re waging war across the ME on a credit card”

“President Obama asked, What would have happened if we did nothing? A better question might have been, will our action end up harming U.S. national interests?”

Firefly_76 on March 28, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Firefly_76 on March 28, 2011 at 10:41 PM

If Daffy stays, Obama goes…

d1carter on March 28, 2011 at 10:31 PM

-
Please don’t make me pray for Quack-Daddy…
-

RalphyBoy on March 28, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Oh no he didn’t!!

He said,QaDaffy Duck had to go!!

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 10:42 PM

NNtrancer on March 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Your post, just about sums it all up…….to a tee.

Rovin on March 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM

So, the anti-war left are really really really hypocrites?

Rovin on March 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Let me refresh your memory

Why would the Left be outraged by this? It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM

1) Ruthless dicator
2) oppressed opposition
3) brutalized civilians

On to Teheran then?

DarthBrooks on March 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM

It’s a squirmish…..

idesign on March 28, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Palin again makes up a word to fit the narrative. The operation is a squirmish. LOL

unseen on March 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM

And remember, Benghazi is the size of Charlotte.

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Count me as 1 of 3. It seems he’s handling a complicated situation as best as humanly possible.
underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Well, it would seem that way to you, since you’re a drooling sycophant.

Anyway, I have no objection to intervention in Libya. Not sure how I feel about our shift from “Team America: World Police” to “Team America: France’s Special Oil Gathering Squad.”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 28, 2011 at 10:45 PM

So, the anti-war left are really really really hypocrites?

Rovin on March 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM

No they are simply really really really anti capitalists and anti American consititution.

unseen on March 28, 2011 at 10:45 PM

I was certainly squirmish during that speech…

d1carter on March 28, 2011 at 10:45 PM

I want the old Ann Coulter back where she says we should kill their leaders and convert them. Good times.

SouthernGent on March 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM

-
Great point… LMAO…. thinking about her doing a 5 minute tweak ’bout how Obarry not only agrees with her, but is now following her advice.
-

RalphyBoy on March 28, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Obama on Libya: The U.S. has done what it said it would do.

 
And then some:
 
“A top military official says the U.S. was striking Libyan targets with low-flying Air Force AC-130 gunships and A-10 Thunderbolts over the weekend… U.S. strikes that pummeled Gadhafi forces over the past week clearly opened the door for the rebels to regroup and take back key cities.”
 
I never imagined we’d be helping Al-Qaeda “take back key cities.”

rogerb on March 28, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Palin again makes up a word to fit the narrative. The operation is a squirmish. LOL

unseen on March 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM

It’s all over twitter……LOL

idesign on March 28, 2011 at 10:48 PM

A lot of folks on here, including AP, seem too dense to grasp nuance. Yes, we want to prevent atrocities on a large scale wherever they occur, but, given the limits on our capacity to do so, particularly in the middle of two wars and a recession, there are conditions that averting the atrocity must meet: 1. minimal threat to American lives 2. international buy-in both militarily and financially 3. limited scope 4. American interests advanced by averting the atrocity

These conditions exclude Syria, Jordan, the Congo.

This is neither contradictory nor weak. It is, however, nuanced. So your inability as conservatives to comprehend it is understandable.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Libyan Speech Transcript
March 28 2011
*************

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 28, 2011

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya
National Defense University
Washington, D.C.
7:31PM EDT
===========
===========================================================
(More…..)

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you.

END 7:58 P.M. EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Did anyone hear him mention OIL?

Jocundus on March 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

unseen on March 28, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Well, refudiate not only made the Oxford Dictionary, but was their choice for new word of the year.

So, she’s a world recognized wordsmith. Not bad for a chick from Wasilla.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

LOL. Nuance, huh?

a capella on March 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

No they are simply really really really anti capitalists and anti American consititution.

unseen on March 28, 2011 at 10:45 PM

While this statement is correct, my point was the left simply hates our military with a passion and everything they do to “make things right in the world”. They just hide their distaste…..which makes them total hypocrites.

Rovin on March 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Nuance, huh?

a capella on March 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

They just don’t get it. Real nuance is having Gadaffi removed and not having the hand of the United States seen to be involved in any of it.

Been done before.

Back when we had President’s who were not still in the OJT mode this late in their term.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM

I think Kristol is just thrilled Obama isn’t an isolationist any longer

jp on March 28, 2011 at 10:57 PM

It’s all over twitter……LOL

idesign on March 28, 2011 at 10:48 PM

So, she’s a world recognized wordsmith. Not bad for a chick from Wasilla.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM

this is what we need in a nominee. I person able to drive the narrative and take it to Obama be a simply play on words. It is new, it gets attention, it drives home the point and it gets people talking. How much is that one word worth in cmapaign advetising. How much attention did Gov Palin just bring her comments. This simple ability of hers is unerestimated over and over again.

Squirmish will stick in the mond even if it is not picked up in the press because it is aperfect explanation for the events just like death panels, blood libel, refudiate and many others were.

unseen on March 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM

And then some:

“A top military official says the U.S. was striking Libyan targets with low-flying Air Force AC-130 gunships and A-10 Thunderbolts over the weekend… U.S. strikes that pummeled Gadhafi forces over the past week clearly opened the door for the rebels to regroup and take back key cities.”

I never imagined we’d be helping Al-Qaeda “take back key cities.”

rogerb on March 28, 2011 at 10:47 PM

rogerb:Confirmed!!!
======================

Spectres and Warthogs Join Libyan Fight
March 28th, 2011
****************************************

The Pentagon briefed today that two new airplanes joined the Odyssey Dawn mix last weekend: the A-10 and the AC-130.

At this morning’s NFZ ops brief, Vice Admiral “Shortney” Gortney allowed that Spectres and Warthogs had been “employed” but only in support of the UN-backed resolutions to protect Libyan civilians.

“We’re not in direct support of the opposition, that’s not part of our mandate, and we’re not coordinating with the opposition,” he said.

So we’re peppering the Libyan desert with depleted uranium rounds at random? Heads up, rebel dudes!

(Gouge — DT tip linkster Patrick Casey, AFA cadet extraordinaire)
—————–

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1HxBmHIwh
Defense.org

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Mission Accomplished!!!

abobo on March 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Anyway, I have no objection to intervention in Libya. Not sure how I feel about our shift from “Team America: World Police” to “Team America: France’s Special Oil Gathering Squad.”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 28, 2011 at 10:45 PM

this would be an awesome sequel

jp on March 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Oh,when the Libs start having a cow,from the above link!!
========================================================

So we’re peppering the Libyan desert with depleted uranium rounds at random? Heads up, rebel dudes!

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM

A lot of folks on here, including AP, seem too dense to grasp nuance.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

No, but we know Ozone and Manure when we smell them.

F+ for effort, though.

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Nocturnal Emission Accomplished

fogw on March 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

Opps.. I thought I was listening to a Bush speech.

How’s that for nuance?

Texas Gal on March 28, 2011 at 11:01 PM

They just hide their distaste…..which makes them total hypocrites.

Rovin on March 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM

I see what you are saying and in a way I agree. But I think you are missing the point. The left does not hate military they hate the US military when it fights on the side of freedom and liberty/capitalism. If the USA fights on the side of marxism they love them…So not so much hypocrites more ideologues than anything. They hate the USa and everything it stands for so they hate those things that represent that USa. If the USa becomes Marxist they will love the USa military just like they loved the Red army. they are not anti-war. they are anti-US war.

unseen on March 28, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Is it the Teleprompter talking or the guy that won that election back in ’08 when McCain “the fighter” collapsed his campaign intentionally?

I can’t decide.

PappyD61 on March 28, 2011 at 11:03 PM

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

You forgot #5: Helping secure French oil interests with minimal cost to France.

“Allons enfants de la patrie! Le jour de gloire est arrive!”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 28, 2011 at 11:04 PM

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM

The A-10 is a close support weapon system…close-support…and it will be used as such, if not yet or already, then soon. If tac radios are given to the rebels, or worse, if FAC’s are pushed into theater it can get complicated real quick.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 11:04 PM

I may have missed it, but in the spirit of Mr. Godwin I’d like to say, Nazi Bastard! Thank you BHO.

Mason on March 28, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Thanks for the link, canopfor. I wonder how many rebels have been engaged by our A-10s to protect Libyan civilians?

rogerb on March 28, 2011 at 11:06 PM

“….He did not make the case for this intervention. U.S. interests have got to be met if we are going to intervene. And U.S. interests can’t just mean validating some kind of post-American theory of intervention wherein we wait for the Arab League and the United Nations to tell us ‘thumbs up America, you can go now, you can act’, and then we get in the back of the bus and we wait for NATO, we wait for the French to lead us. That’s not inspirational.”

“that’s not inspirational” is right.

Being a “Proud Army Mom” of 2, all I can say is that 2012 can’t come soon enough.

Palin/West 2012

tencole on March 28, 2011 at 11:07 PM

I like how clearly explained what our responsibilities will be if Quaddaffi decides to stay.

Then what Obama?

cntrlfrk on March 28, 2011 at 11:08 PM

A lot of folks on here, including AP, seem too dense to grasp nuance. Yes, we want to prevent atrocities on a large scale wherever they occur, but, given the limits on our capacity to do so, particularly in the middle of two wars and a recession, there are conditions that averting the atrocity must meet: 1. minimal threat to American lives 2. international buy-in both militarily and financially 3. limited scope 4. American interests advanced by averting the atrocity

These conditions exclude Syria, Jordan, the Congo.

This is neither contradictory nor weak. It is, however, nuanced. So your inability as conservatives to comprehend it is understandable.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Yeah, that sure does make us the world’s champion of freedom!

A pathetic attempt!

WisCon on March 28, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Count me as 1 of 3. It seems he’s handling a complicated situation as best as humanly possible.
underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Hogwash. Obama exudes weakness. Here is a leader who goes to war against Libya and is afraid to admit it. No one in the world is fooled. Everyone knows the USA and Obama started the war and they all see him trying to pretend otherwise. President Noodlespine is there for all to see.

If you are going to send a country to war, stand up tall and take responsibility for your decisions.

pearson on March 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM

This is neither contradictory nor weak. It is, however, nuanced. So your inability as conservatives to comprehend it is understandable.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

LOL. A nuanced war. So when an American dies in this nuanced war, we’ll tell his family the nuanced reason for his sacrifice?

pearson on March 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

What the HELL are you smoking? Put it down. You’ve had more than enough,

katy the mean old lady on March 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM
===================
The A-10 is a close support weapon system…close-support…and it will be used as such, if not yet or already, then soon. If tac radios are given to the rebels, or worse, if FAC’s are pushed into theater it can get complicated real quick.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 11:04 PM

coldwarrior:Yes,there both a real nasty piece of work,and
as far as depleted uranium,that ordanance saves
US Military Personnell lives,period!!!;0

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Kristol’s okay.

I like those little burgers with the pickles on them.

IndieDogg on March 28, 2011 at 11:22 PM

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM
============================================

You forgot #5: Helping secure French oil interests with minimal cost to France.

“Allons enfants de la patrie! Le jour de gloire est arrive!”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 28, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Good Solid B-Plus:Here ya go!!:)
===================================================

UPDATE: RUSH DittoCam: Libya Is All About European Energy
This entry was posted on March 28, 2011 at 7:29 pm.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************

STRATFOR Chart: Major Foreign Energy Presence in Libya
Click Image To Enlarge

http://dailyrushbo.com/update-rush-dittocam-libya-is-all-about-european-energy/

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:23 PM

This gibberish is more incoherent than usual.

novaculus on March 28, 2011 at 11:23 PM

period!!!;0
===============

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Oops,sorry,that was to be a… :)

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Obama needed to show the world that he can attack a ‘brother’, ahead of the 2012 election. He picked the weakest of them in Quaddafi.

In the meanwhile he aids the nuclear arsenal in Iran to be finished, let the revolutionaries in Iran flounder and be killed, doesn’t care about Syria, and so much more.

Obama has much bigger bad plans, none of which are good for the west, least of which for the U.S.A.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Why would the Left be outraged by this? It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Which shows you just how ignorant of the facts leftist like crr6 have been while they were yelling “no blood for oil” during the Bush Presidency.Liberals are spinning so hard to overcome the massive hypocrisy of this war Obama has started that they can’t even put forth coherent rebuttal.

It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq.

…of course it is.The Iraq war had Congressional approval and came after a decade of Saddam breaking UN sanctions,and Bush fielding a much larger coalition.The Iraq military action also was not started by a President that was whopping it up in Rio and stating emphatically that we would get to the back of the line as soon as possible.

Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation,

…not according to Obama’s defense secretary. Gates stated plainly that Libya posed no “imminent” Threat.If masses of people running for the border is considered an “imminent” threat….then why has Obama not attacked Mexico.There are masses of people all over the world running to different countries all the time.It is no where near an “imminent” threat to the US.
If the “humanitarian” massacres are considered a major “destabilizing” force for the region…than how come Obama stated that genocide was not a good enough reason to keep troops in Iraq???
How come Obama did not intervene in Iran…Darfur where the governments “in the region” were massacring people???

How come Saddam’s massacre of close to a million of his own people did not convince these same liberals that Iraq was a just war??????
….I guess to the super smart liberals…Saddam starting two wars in the region and massacring people with WMD was not a “destabilizing effect”.

and we have broad international support.

Bush had twice the coalition that Obama has right now.
…and that was with many committing troops on the ground.
I am sure the lives lost by the Dutch..Australians…Polish….and other countries really appreciate liberals saying they had no involvement in Iraq.

..Liberals have no credibility what-so-ever.They yelled and screamed about “no blood for oil”..”Iraq did not attack us”…..”stop the warmonger Bush”…..

…now only to turn around and bomb the sh!t out of an oil rich country without Congressional approval, that did not attack us, and posed no imminent threat.

Where is Osama Mr. chicken hawk President Obama!!!!!

Baxter Greene on March 28, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Donald Trump: Obama “Either Has A Birth Certificate Or He Doesn’t”
This entry was posted on March 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm.
****************************************************

Donald Trump,speaks on Libya,strange,Fox News clip,on Rush Video site,from early morning FOX!!

http://dailyrushbo.com/donald-trump-obama-either-has-a-birth-certificate-or-he-doesnt/

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Where is Osama Mr. chicken hawk President Obama!!!!!

Baxter Greene on March 28, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Baxter Greene:Another superb piece,I do like how you
organize your posts!!:)

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM

I can’t wait to see the libtards protesting Obama!

“Spreading Democracy at the barrel of a gun!”

“Libya had nothing to do with 9/11!”

“Christian Crusaders!”

“Where’s Osama?!”

“Murderer!”

OK. It will never happen, but it would be funny if the lefties actually had beliefs that they would actually stand behind instead of blind loyalty.

cntrlfrk on March 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Oh, underceij, how about #6: The war needs to be one that would be popular with a large majority of US voters, so that Obama’s poll numbers will get a bump.

Brother’s got an election to win in 2012, you know.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM

This is neither contradictory nor weak. It is, however, nuanced. So your inability as conservatives to comprehend it is understandable.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Well then…

what do you think of this?

Seven Percent Solution on March 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Otay everyone,I`m Linky`eed and Info overloaded,everyone
have a great night!!

Baxter Greene,thanks for Linkys from da other thread!!

Nite all————————————-:)

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Nite all————————————-:)

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Good night canopfor…

Seven Percent Solution on March 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

ObaMao sets bad precedents, and Congress has been derelict in its duty.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263271/obama-sets-bad-precedents-alvin-s-felzenberg

onlineanalyst on March 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Tonight 0 said Daffy had lost the confidence of his people and therefore he must step down. If that is the criteria, when is 0 stepping down?

Oleta on March 28, 2011 at 11:36 PM

It is, however, nuanced. So your inability as conservatives to comprehend it is understandable.

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Nuance? You pompous, little pr*ck. How’s that for nuanced? Learn how to be forthright, a**hole.

Vince on March 28, 2011 at 11:36 PM

What Obama has done is define to our enemies the exact circumstances in which the U.S. will act. So, if you’re a backwards country with a weakly organized military and little in the way of air defense…you have nothing to fear. If you are a strong nation with a large military and a modern air defense system, you too are out of the woods. It really is a matter of NUANCE, if your military falls into a very specific category on the military force decision tree in Obama’s office (located right next to the NCAA brackets), you could face a kinetic action.

My guess is that many countries will revert to internal police forces to eliminate potential political threats and uprisings–something that air power can do very little against.

Exit question: What will Obama do when the “rebels” win and start massacring the Gaddafi supporters?

ReaganWasRight on March 28, 2011 at 11:38 PM

How come Obama enables only the secularists’ downfall?

Why not Ahamadinejad (see 12th imam news release from Iran today), Assad, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Bahrain, Saudi Kings, and other assorted Sharia thugs?

Iran will lead the big upcoming war. How does Obama fit into it? Why does he not stop their nuclear weapons? Why? Why? Why? Ask this question over and over, while you sill can.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:41 PM

while you sill still can.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Let’s face it. Obama is a con artist, hypocrite and liar

NNtrancer on March 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM

And not very good at it, either.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM

The Lord of the Lies is very, very good at it. His plans proceed exactly as he has them layed out. He’s happier than ever.

Why is he enabling only secularist dictators to fall?

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM

How come Obama enables only the secularists’ downfall?

If I recall, on the campaign trail Obama said he voted against Bush going to war in Iraq…which was pretty darn remarkable at the time…considering he never made it to the Senate until a couple years later. /

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM

I don’t see the Libyan thing as a secularist thing.

I actually believe it was intended to bolster Obama’s limited credentials for 2012…or at least that is what Obama and his syncophants convinced themselves of. Or, George Soros wanted a real spike in oil prices so he could cash in on the short market.

In any case, the only transparency I have seen lately from Obama is his truly piss poor ability to mask lies and incompetence.

Waiting with anxious anticipation to hear from Obama and Eric Holder about “Holder’s people” and their leader Shabazz who cut Obama a new one over Libya.

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM

underceij on March 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM

A lot of folks on here, including AP, seem too dense to grasp nuance.

No…”dense” is someone who supports a President that phones in a war from the beaches in Rio without getting Congressional approval.
“dense” is supporting a President who attacks a country that did not attack us and posed no imminent threat after stating this:
“The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
…”dense” is watching the “anti-war” liberals that cried “no blood for oil” over the last few years championing and celebrating their liberal messiah bombing the sh!t out of an oil rich country while at the same time yelling “we are not in charge”…..

Yes, we want to prevent atrocities on a large scale wherever they occur, but, given the limits on our capacity to do so, particularly in the middle of two wars and a recession, there are conditions that averting the atrocity must meet: 1. minimal threat to American lives 2. international buy-in both militarily and financially 3. limited scope 4. American interests advanced by averting the atrocity

Who the he!! made up these rules…
This is simply liberals creating conditions that suit their talking points to rationalize bombing the sh!t out Libya.
Besides the fact that this litmus test is absurd when you are dealing with defeating any type of genocidal dictator…
Your rules like “minimal threat to American lives” means we should have sat out WWII and WWI.
“international buy-in”…..we have spent over 600 million so far…..for what…to help al-qaeda and other Islamist that have sworn their support for Osama to take over Libya.

Is this the best liberals can come up with to justify their chicken hawk President waging war on an oil rich country?????

These conditions exclude Syria, Jordan, the Congo.

This is neither contradictory nor weak. It is, however, nuanced. So your inability as conservatives to comprehend it is understandable.

…Of course your conditions exclude taking action anywhere else.Your conditions were created by liberals to justify Obama’s actions in Libya…they are not in any way a coherent or credible policy to determine war.

…liberals inability to abide by their own “anti-war” rhetoric and positions,blind support for waging war without Congressional approval on a country that posed no imminent threat or attacked us.Your selective moral concern for “humanitarian” causes while you cheered for the massacre of the people in Iraq with calls to withdraw has nothing to do with “nuance”….and everything to do with hypocrisy and ignorance.

Baxter Greene on March 28, 2011 at 11:54 PM

coldwarrior on March 28, 2011 at 11:48 PM

How simpatico is he to Ahmadinejad? Or better, the ones who pull Ahmi’s strings. He is just a puppet.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:55 PM

Baxter Greene,thanks for Linkys from da other thread!!

Nite all————————————-:)

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:33 PM

No problem…have a good night.

Baxter Greene on March 28, 2011 at 11:56 PM

coldwarrior, I explained Libya here – we agree.

Obama needed to show the world that he can attack a ‘brother’, ahead of the 2012 election. He picked the weakest of them in Quaddafi.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Baxter Greene:Another superb piece,I do like how you
organize your posts!!:)

canopfor on March 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Working right there with you and appreciating the info you bring.

Baxter Greene on March 28, 2011 at 11:58 PM

How simpatico is he to Ahmadinejad?

He? Obama or Soros?

Obama has allowed Iran to get away with just about everything without so much as a sternly worded letter.

Soros? He is not a political actor, he is a money actor.

If it makes him money, he’ll finance it or find someone to make it happen. Been doing that for decades. And ideology or religion has nothing to do with it. Ideology didn’t prevent him from collaborating in Hungary in his younger days.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Baxter Greene on March 28, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Can’t log off without saying you have a mastery with words. Enjoy your stuff.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Obama has allowed Iran to get away with just about everything without so much as a sternly worded letter.

The question is why? Iran will use them against the West.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 12:04 AM

The man runs on Hope…and Obama probably hopes that if he is nice enough to certain parties they will in turn be nice to him. This is all part of a childhood pattern with Obama…making nice was his ticket to get by, whether Hawaii, Indonesia or from Occidental through Harvard to Chicago.

Why dispense with a learned behaviour if it is working for you?

coldwarrior on March 29, 2011 at 12:08 AM

I like Jed Babbin’s take. He nails ObaMao pre-speech and post-speech since O is so predictable.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/28/charlie-foxtrot-over-libya

onlineanalyst on March 29, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Exit question for the three Obama voters among our readership

Only three? If true that is great news. Now who are those three?

antisocial on March 29, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Perhaps it’s just one very lucky co-inky-dink, but don’t you agree…/sarc…

that this entire Libya thing is providing a most excellent distraction from Obama’s Afghanistan “kill teams.”

marybel on March 29, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Only three? If true that is great news. Now who are those three?

antisocial on March 29, 2011 at 12:21 AM

crr6
sesqui…
Rywall, wishes he could

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 12:27 AM

*crickets chirping* from the gop elite…are they cool with all that?

cmsinaz on March 29, 2011 at 12:34 AM

from “The Washington Prowler” at The American Spectator:

With President Barack Obama scheduled to speak to the nation tonight about the role the U.S. military is playing and will play in the military action in Libya, the White House national security and communications teams continue to scramble to get their stories straight.

For example, early last week it appeared that in the days running up to the announced NATO air strikes, White House national security briefers had initially informed ranking Republicans on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees that U.S. military personnel would have no active role in enforcing a “no fly zone” unless Congress was given advanced word, even though at that time U.S. military personnel were already engaged in the “no fly zone” effort.

“It was pretty fluid from hour to hour what role we’d be playing,” says a White House communications staff source. “It may be that some Republicans and some Democrats up on the Hill weren’t getting the proper information out of those briefings.”

Further, and perhaps more troubling for the Obama Administration, White House sources confirm that in the run up to the decision to involve U.S. military personnel, President Obama was fully briefed that a large portion of the Libyan rebel forces most active in areas around such critical cities as Benghazi had ties to al Qaeda, particularly Al Qaeda in Iraq, the wing of the terrorist group that killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq.

“He was warned that should we reach a point where NATO needs to re-arm the rebels — it appears that time is coming now — we will be arming the very enemy that we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says a career employee at the State Department. “Secretary Clinton knows it, the White House knows it, but we’re working with these thugs anyway because the President thinks it’s the moral thing to do in the face of Gaddafi.”

White House sources say that any re-arming of the rebels will not come from the U.S., even though U.S. resources almost certainly will be included in any equipment provided to the rebel forces by NATO.

White House sources say they expect a major turning point in both the rebellion and U.S. attitudes toward the intervention will come early this week if the town of Sirte falls to the rebels. Sirte is the hometown of Gaddafi. “If we can make the case that rebels are controlling large segments of the country, including the hometown of Gaddafi, then we think we can dismiss any criticism from Republicans and other critics,” says a White House source. “Of course if things go south, we’re in a bit of a mess.”

The issue of re-arming rebels may come sooner than the White House wants if rebels in the city of Misurata, which is surrounded by Gaddafi forces, formally request rearmament via NATO or the UN.

“We know that the rebel forces could very well come back to haunt us, but it’s a calculated gamble,” says the White House source. “It’s no different than the gamble President Reagan made in supporting the mujahedeen or the rebels in Nicaragua.”

I spit on this administration for its duplicity and its harm to our nation.

onlineanalyst on March 29, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Can’t log off without saying you have a mastery with words. Enjoy your stuff.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Coming from you…that means a lot.

There is no doubt that your background, experience,and insight add a lot to the Hot Air Community…..

…Now if only we could get MB4 to come back.

Baxter Greene on March 29, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2