What Meade noticed was the failure to talk about Congress. Searching the text, I see he said Congress once:
[N]ine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.So... the leadership. Who, exactly? Boehner and Reid?
What I noticed was the implicit disrespect for George Bush:
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone....When did we act alone? Is he trying to make us misremember what Bush did?
Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces....How clean and breezy, compared to what Bush did to Saddam.
And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and — more importantly — a task for the Libyan people themselves....
We .. had the ability to stop Gadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground....
Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — will be better off with Gadhafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake....
If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.The implicit comparison is to what Bush did in Iraq.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.Now, it's explicit.
We have intervened to stop a massacre... We will... work with other nations to hasten the day when Gadhafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gadhafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.Isn't that what the United States said to the Iraqi people after the Gulf War?
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
BTW, Did you know he was born in the USA?
Some still dispue that.
I hope that President's change in 2012.
WV: "Bible"
First time I've gotten a real word. Ironic, no?
Is it trying to prompt me to start brushing up on my End Times prophesies?
The best take on the speech is at Vodkapundit as always.
My bad.
I hope the President changes in 2012.
So where is the drunkblogging taking place?
He consulted the UN--a kind of international Congress to whom we should defer.
What's new????the constitution authority/process for declaring war has been ignored in a bi-partisan fashion for seventy years.
So they aren't using force to overthrow Gaddafi? Interesting.
The relevant bit is that we support Qaffafi's removal, but neither we nor our allies are are going to take action to remove him.
I'm not clear on whether the Obama plan calls for waiting for Qaddafi AND his son to die of old age, or just Qaddafi himself. I guess we need another speech to clarify that point.
"...if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
Charlotte...what is happening in Charlotte in 2012 again? I sense he is building a campaign theme. At the DNC Convention: "If you sit this election out, we will suffer a massacre that will reverberate across the region and stain the conscience of the world." Why else compare Benghazi to effing Charlotte?
And I cringe everytime he said, "Let me be clear." Just because he says he's being clear doesn't mean he's being clear. Typically, it's just a pretense to obfuscate.
Obama, the anti-matter version of John Kerry - "I was against the Kinetic Military Action, before I was for the Kinetic Military Action."
I think he spoke at least twice to long - 3 times really - and I still don't think this crew knows exactly why they did this, or even exactly how they did it, and has very little idea of what to do next.
And still quite incoherent with all that talk about international cooperation, etc, and then that he will not hesitate to use the American unilaterally whenever he feels like it.
George McGovern, meet George Bush III!
After watching this and then Bush when he announced the start of hostilities in Iraq I'm struck by the contrast. You knew Bush believed what he said and meant it and was prepared to see it through. Obama you are left with a sense he's feeding you a line and has no committment. Bush said we're leading; Obama said we're part of group.
Whether you agree with either decision, the difference is striking.
2012 can't come soon enough!
I wonder how the people of Libya feel about being props in his reelection campaign.
We have intervened to stop a massacre
Bullshit.
Moreover, where was Obama when people were being massacred in Iran and Syria. The idiotic policies of Kim Jong-Il in North Korea have killed more people than Gaddaffi would, so why not intervene there?
This isn't about humanitarianism, this is about Obama trying to prove he's a man. He's so tied up in his own ego, he didn't go to congress because he didn't want to share the gory of being a savior to democracy! (Never mind that this thing will go to hell in a hand basket sooner rather than later; just about the time the French leave and/or a plane goes down and one of our pilots gets dragged through the streets.)
Did it bother any of his supporters that he put himself in the leadership position of getting the UN Security council, NATO, and the Arab league on board, without mentioning Sarkozy by name (and France only as one country among many)?
If we believe Obama was the leader in pushing the UN and Arab League to support this, can he really claim he decided to do this because there was a coalition?
Wouldn't it have been better for him to admit Sarkozy's leadership-- then he could have better made the case that we did this because the world asked us to.
Isn't that what the United States said to the Iraqi people after the Gulf War?
Yes, essentially it's what we said. We could ask the Iraqi people who tried for "self-determination" how that worked out, except they've all been dead for nearly 20 years now.
wv: bleakin, a Dickensian be-in.
With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Not really. Without a neutral third party to guarantee the security of elections (the way that the US Army did for the Iraqis) then the destiny of the Libyan people will be determined by the guys with the guns.
It's good to be on the bus, even though I didn't vote for him, and feel the bumpity bump over those who did.
Shorter Obama: We wanted to stop a massacre and thought we could do it without getting hurt.
I can live with that, but the desperate search for additional justification after the fact is just ... well... Obamanian?, Obamaist?, Obamalicious. Yea that it.
He's got to lie about what George W. Bush did to feel better.
Pathetic.
At this point in time I have to say with no reservation I truly, completely, dislike this President from the tip of my toes to the top of my head! (Which may explode at any moment now!)
Shorter Obama: We wanted to stop a massacre and thought we could do it without getting hurt.
I can live with that, but the desperate search for additional justification after the fact is just ... well... Obamanian?, Obamaist?, Obamalicious. Yea that it.
There you go.
How rude of you, Ms. Althouse, to ask that we compare history to Obama's words.
Weird venue for that type of speech.
Watching Erkle on TV at this point is nothing but a huge face-palm. Fuck, double face palm.
Obama:
To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.
I'm confused when and when not is Obama the international community?
You know some Euro Socialist would say Bosnia didn't have oil...
Ann, I watched as much of your recent interview on Bloggingheads TV as I could stomach. The interviewer was an insufferable lout. My God, does he actually assume that tea partiers are the mirror image of Wisconsin's union thugs?
My agnosticism as to your post-Obama vote credibility is assuaged by respect for the calm responses to his overbearing stupidity. I swear, more than once he appeared to dismiss your answers with a frustrated "whatever!" Having gone through that, nothing I say will chide you with meaningful effect. I give up.
This conservative is furious that this President consulted foreign leaders and not the Congress of the United States, violating his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. He has embarrassed us all in front of the world with his arrogant disregard for the American Congress, the people's democratically elected representatives.
Impeach this boy in a man's job now! America will not survive the the slippery slope his illegal and poorly considered decisions lead to.
At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Do you all think Sarkozy just hates Obama?
One of the more amazing things about Obama's rhetoric (and that of his supporters) is that he is killing civilians to save them. Or does he really believe that the armed forces can carry out such perfectly surgical military strikes at his direction that only active military will be killed?
"After watching this and then Bush when he announced the start of hostilities in Iraq I'm struck by the contrast."
Bush was a leader explaining his decision. Obama comes off like a boy who got caught in a lie. He needs to abandon the Obama that campaigned, because that guy was an idiot and now he knows it.
This UN approval route is what Obama and other libs have dreamed about for years. To Obama, it's a huge hugs feather in his cap.
Obama's rhetoric (and that of his supporters) is that he is killing civilians to save them.
Not only that.. Obama is killing fellow Muslims.
Actually I think Sakozy is getting the Le Pen triangulation-the influx of refugees on the horizon and the Euro/ and Euro economy on dire straits probably has more to do with it.
What got me in all this is how on display a Democrat's view of military action works: bloodless battle because you have the planes and they do not. Easy: no troops needed. Translation: war can be made safe for cowards. If you don't believe me, watch me do it: whoosh, goes the rocket.
Well, I'd like a bloodless war if we could have one, just as I wouldn't mind death if I could just avoid dying.
Fundamentally, not only a twit, but a cowardly twit.
*in* dire straits.
Where is the "Obama is like Patton" tag?
Obama is not a very compelling speaker. Listening to him speak, I find myself drifting more and more. It is all about him, with one empty phrase after another.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt..
Google rules!!
Voltimand
I don't buy your argument if it was you on the line given that assignment I'm pretty sure you would prefer your odds in the air.
Actually I think Sakozy is getting the Le Pen triangulation-the influx of refugees on the horizon and the Euro/ and Euro economy on dire straits probably has more to do with it.
Hmmm...
Well, I meant Obama taking credit for leading the UN Security counsel toward this, when all contemporaneous reporting put Sarkozy in the leader position.
Obama's criticism would fit the last sitting President to receive a Noble Peace Prize. President Wilson unilaterally invade Mexico twice, plus five other Latin American Countries for a total nine kinetic military actions. He then assisted in attacking Russia while also involving us in WWI.
MayBee
Ah gotcha.
Well Sarkozy knows a power vacuum when he sees one.....heh.
Oh yes and because Voltimand Kadafi is so -
*honorable.*
To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.
I went to war quicker than Clinton?
Whatever happened to 'give diplomacy a chance'?
Thomas Paine had the Calvinism of his fellow patriots to appeal to when he wrote Common Sense. He said the road ahead would be hard, but they shouldn't shrink from it. When Bush was in he could still appeal to the Calvinism of his party members.
I'm not sure what if anything Obama can appeal to, except, we're not like those Republicans. We're not like Bush. I guess he can appeal to their sense of superiority that they're not dumb yokels like Bush who did things the hard way.
They're going to bomb from 30,000 feet, leave it to the Libyans and the allies, and yet take all kinds of credit for succeeding where those who tried to do things the hard way failed.
Those dumb ass Republicans. They always do things the hard way. They got us into the Civil War when we were Copperheads, and didn't care about the south or their darned slaves.
Now we don't really care about the Libyans, but I guess we have to do something, so we dropped a bunch of bombs, ok, don't ask me for leadership, or vision, or even get me to kill Gaddafi. I wash my hands of all of it.
History will take care of this, not me. I'll just take the credit.
The speech he should have given:
Make no mistake, keeping me in office or getting rid of me is a false choice between horror and pure joy. I reject both of these extremes. Let me be clear, there is another way. In the coming weeks, I will be meeting with my top advisors to put together a plan to make Joe Biden the next President of the United States. Only then will you miss me.
I went to war quicker than Clinton?
Whatever happened to 'give diplomacy a chance'?
Lem-
Well I guess this time he didn't have the "smart" diplomacy.
See Liberals only have the "smart" diplomacy when they are sitting on the sidelines.
**********
OK Cripes I guess we are just going to have to rain on the US Air Force because somehow if our own kid was over there we would want to have him parachute in and take the tanks out with a machine gun.
Handicap our troops.
He says he stopped the slaughter of thousands. Why do I hear the phrase, "jobs created or saved"?
"the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners"
Little Zero, the Christian, obviously never heard of Pontius Pilate. All he needed was a bowl of water and a towel.
And, if we lose people, it won't work any better for Zero.
"We .. had the ability to stop Gadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground"
He needs to read a little history regarding ground forces. This is a long way from over.
"If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next."
I can hear Dwight Eisenhower using the same rationale for calling off the Normandy landings, can't you?
At the risk of being repetitive, "My God, what drivel".
OK. I've gone over it twice now. I watched it and then listened to it again while reading the transcript.
I still don't know two things.
What is the mission?
Who is in charge?
WV:einguncu
Albert's Copper Pistol
January 20, 2013. Our country's hope for change comes true.
I just heard the speech on CSPAN.org and I'm more confused than before I heard it.
The speech meandered back and forth like a kite with a very very very long tail.
The Obama doctrine might be impossible to pin down in a napkin.. too many loopholes.
Apart from the usual straw men and the wandering around in the last third of the speech, it was not a bad justification of what he has done. I think mainly he did it because (1) he actually wanted to prevent a massacre and (2) he did not want to look weak and useless. There's a decent chance Gadaffi will be forced out, and that probably won't cause any more chaos than civil war.
What bothers me most is not the path he took. It's justifiable, especially on moral grounds. The problem is that this was not a particularly hard decision, as such decisions go, but the Prez. and his Secretaries of State and Defense were (and still are) wandering all over the place in explaining and justifying things. I doubt this speech will remedy that.
What will he do when he gets to some really tough decisions? I hope he's more ready and more clear about things than he was on this one.
"the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners"
If its worth doing is worth doing.. by someone else?
Are we (Obama) calling in sick?
The Obama doctrine might be impossible to pin down in a napkin.. too many loopholes.
Well yes because now you end up with what I think is the Obama Doctrine:
You stop massacres when they are easy, and get bonus points when they are between Tunisia and Egypt, also you have to get the UN on board and the Arab League. (paraphrased.)
And, if Bob Wright is to be believed when the massacres happen with machetes-it's too hard.
Bob Wright while remembering to tell us all that he's "met Clinton-once!" forgets that for some reason Clinton felt the need to apologize later.
Why?
Clinton also slowed down the UN process because he wanted to prevent the use of a word to spare the Jewish people retro-actively.
But of course when remembering Bill Clinton-Bob Wright's memory is selective.
It's a "gift" most Liberals have.
Ah, cut the guy some slack.
He's the President of the United States. He's the MAN.
Start a war, go on TV. He's done his job. Hey, after the first billion or two, we're done man. Except for the next billions.
Watch. Next White House Press Room briefing, the Enabling Crew will be referred to NATO... because that's who we put in charge of our military where Libya is concerned.
Good thing we don't have all those cruise missiles any more. We might have used them if somebody invaded Taiwan. Or Georgia.
Our remaining allies have got to be pretty well bummed.
We are in a lot of trouble.
Lem said...
"the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners"
If its worth doing is worth doing.. by someone else?
Are we (Obama) calling in sick?
I believe the phrase is, "Voting present".
Shooting fish in a barrel now:
Since this, I won't even blog about it, it's so easy.
Let's just hope that the Libyans are worthy of this great leader. He has given them the chance to achieve democracy and freedom. If they fail, it is on them, not on Obama who has done everything possible to assist them in their quest.
Random says:
We still don't know two things.
What is the mission?
Who is in charge?
Bingo. Anyone who studies military history knows either not having an articulated objective or not having a coherent chain of command has always led to disastrous results.
OMG another Obama-bashing post as red-meat for the Althouse hillbillies!
/L.E. Lee
If the Mad Man of Tripoli and his mercenaries had undertaken a slaughter of unarmed, defenseless civilians, then an intervention by outside powers (with or without a UN blessing) might reasonably have been characterized as a humanitarian action. But once the rebels took up arms in a civil war against the authorities, the intervention by NATO forces is nothing less than an act of war against a sovereign nation. It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to know that the involvement of the US in Libya's internal struggle is illegal and shameful. There may not be boots on the ground, but an undeclared air war is still a war. As far as I'm concerned, Obama's willing complicity in this charade by the Europeans to dress up their military campaign as some high-minded humanitarian effort makes him a war criminal as evil as the dictator he is trying to eliminate.
Maybe Obama means that Libya is a one time, unique war that only he could do.. because it would entail something he would "not allow to happen".
In other words.. Obama v Libya (like Bush v Gore) cannot be used as a precedent.
Bush v Gore had to be rushed.
Obama v Libya had to be rushed.
Did the Florida Supremes violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?
Did Daffy chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air?
The evidence is clear.. Obama has attacked Libya in retaliation for the Bush v Gore decision.
I challenge any of you to come up with a more plausible casus belli ;)
Why are we supposed to be happy that "leadership" is transitioning to foreigners when it is still American aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone?
I would rather have an American general bossing around a bunch of Italian fighter pilots than vice-versa.
"Don't worry. Nothing's gonna go wrong.
It'll all be taken care of.
You have nothing to worry about.
Your name [oil] was not mentioned."
The Kid Stays In The Picture .
We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
Charlotte is wiser than Obama.
2012 can't come soon enough!
First, we can't seat a new President until 2013. Second, it'll be far too late by then to do anything about Libya, Syria, or Egypt. The situation throughout the region will change dramatically, and the new President will need a very insightful and dynamic policy in order to have any positive effect. Right now I don't see anyone, Democrat or Republican, who fits that bill.
Word to the wise. Unless Obama has repented and changed his ways, it is 99% likely that every word he speaks is a lie. But this time he is not lying to fool the GOP guys, he is lying to fool the Progressive Dem guys. That makes Obama's message a whirlwind of feints avoiding straight talk and has everyone confounded. I still favor the French Military are doing the fighting story. That could make some great Hollywood scripts with Sarkozi's wife as the love interest.
*Ugh*
Two comments from a thread at Patterico's.
********
bumble said this was about American “values” but bumble isn’t trying to promote democracy at all at all or even civil rights… he’s just saying that America’s (very expensive) military makes a handy dandy humanitarian ladies’ auxiliary for our international partners to use – partners like the UN and the Arab League and also the French people what fought so hard for Mr. Saddam’s right to gas his people like vermin.
If our cowardly douchebag president wanted to do something humanitarian he would have given a speech about how Americans need to reach into their hearts and wallets for our Japanese friends and allies what are suffering very badly and he would have had his precious humanitarian huggy wuggy Army Navy Air Force Marines doing a hell of a lot more for Japan and a hell of a lot faster.
The man is a disgrace to an America what herself ain’t exactly a prize anymores.
Disgusting.
Comment by happyfeet
******************************
Then this:
I don’t know how it happened, but I seem to have missed the multi-hour, prime time, all-network, celebrity telethon for helping out Japan’s victims.
Comment by elissa
Patterico.com
Just think of this as the "Boxers or Briefs Rebellion."
For show only. Film at eleven.
Ok.. forget Charlotte.
Its like CBS's Survivor Redemption Island. (Redemption over Bush's Iraq)
bear with me ;)
Obama is Libya's immunity idol.. that, of course, they could loose.. that, they will loose, do to some strategy that has yet to surface between the players involved.
Obama said that in order for them (Libyans) to keep him as an immunity idol they need to get Daffy themselves.. The Libyans in the other hand say what good is an immunity idol if w have to play harder than any of the other players?
So then immunity idol Obama said that's what NATO is for.
Did anyone ask him whether the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Queada will fill the vacuum left by Khaddafy? Did he even take questions?
If you topple the government then you have a responsibility to see to it that one even more inimical to us does not arise to take its place. That is why we are still in Iraq killing terrorists. If you break it you have to fix it.
What will be his excuse for not taking action when the next president of Libya is a former resident of Guantanimo?
Speaking of boxers, and/or briefs-
I think Obama's immunity panty shield is the Canadians.
..the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Queada will fill the vacuum left by Khaddafy?
Obama's answer to that is if the Libyans can survive his leadership vacuum they will be just fine.. or something.. don't quote me.
Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — will be better off with Gadhafi out of power.
"No question"? Well, I question it, Mister President.
If Gadhafi leaves and the Muslim Brotherhood takes control or al-Qaeda sympathizers take control or some other hard-core Islamist faction takes control, then I say Libya and the world will not be better off.
What -- if anything -- are you doing to ensure that none of those possible outcomes happens? Anything at all?
In one breath Obama says "I refused to let that happen" and in the next breath the responsibility of keeping that from happening is not mine alone. While that might be true.. Why personalise it? Why must Obama say "I refused to let that happen" if he is not going to follow thru?
I mean the words "I refused to let that happen" presupposes a desired outcome.. specially when you are the president of the United States.
I remember Bush got some flack when within days after 9/11 he said he wanted Osama Dead or Alive.
I know Obama has avoided saying anything like that about Daffy but the implication of the verbiage "I refused to let that happen" cannot be minimized out of some consequence.. and thats exactly what Obama seems to be doing.
Boy, did I get sidetracked tonight. I used to be able to walk and chew gum (indeed, like every female good at multi-tasking), but perhaps I have to admit that if there's a choice between commenting on blogs, texting, and tweeting, something has got to give. :-/
Peter (Hoh), should you read this, I will be replying to you in the "liberal conservative" thread. Seems rude to leave people hanging.
Cheers,
Victoria
It's too bad he never used the word "victory". What would be really nice is if we could come up with a political class that realised that guns are serious business.
vbspurs said...
Boy, did I get sidetracked tonight. I used to be able to walk and chew gum (indeed, like every female good at multi-tasking)
Egad, mum, was that sexist?
PS What did you think of "Mildred Pierce"?
I saw a couple of reviews saying all the women end up naked (NTTAWWT), so I passed on it for a WWI-athon on History, but I was curious about your thoughts.
From now on American forces will be available for rent...correction, for free to "The International Community." Make your blood boil? Well it should!
Has he explained why Congress should give a dime to this project? I don't see Libya as a vital interest, but Obama just got the latest Call of Duty for his 360 and wants to blow stuff up good.
There is no misremembering, there is lying. The Iraq 2 coalition had more countries than the Libya coalition, yet the Ds insist on lying and saying that this one is a REAL coalition.
Right. More lies.
And what is up with getting the approval or the UN and the Arab League and not Congress? Remember the whining threats concerning the war powers of the President when Bush was in office?
These people are without honor and Godless. They are a plague upon us.
Trey
This obama character is the product of affirmative action. You can ask all you want, why he didn't go through the normal channels like talking to the whole of Congress, and the reason is that he's never had to proceed through life doing what everyone else is required to do. He isn't about to change either.
go to Congress Obama.
lasckbounce said...
What's new????the constitution authority/process for declaring war has been ignored in a bi-partisan fashion for seventy years.
who else didn't get Congressional authorization?
This is the "International Test" Kerry spoke of. We are just the hired muscle for the EU.
This is what smart diplomacy looks like, volunteering our military for operations driven by other entities like NATO and the U.N.
Don't worry about the cost, since we already owe so much that this is just a drop in the bucket.
I didn't watch the speech.
The action in Libya IS confused. Having said that, American Presidents have a tendency to get caught up in international interventions in Middle East civil strife. Not surprising, and in spite of the best intentions, they can often end poorly
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा