Larry O'Donnell, Contessa Brewer Spin Libya Scrutiny Away From Obama
In discussing the present "kinetic military action" in Libya, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell and Contessa Brewer both tried to shift scrutiny away from President Obama and toward Republicans Monday afternoon, hours before the President's address to the nation on Libya.
O'Donnell tried to pinpoint the hypocrisy of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for criticizing Obama's failure to obtain authorization from Congress for military action in Libya. The liberal MSNBC host referred back to a nonbinding Senate resolution passed unanimously on March 1, calling for the U.N. Security Council to implement a no-fly zone over Libya.
Since the resolution passed unanimously, O'Donnell believed McConnell to be a hypocrite for voting for a no-fly zone and then calling out President Obama for failing to seek authorization from Congress. The nonbinding resolution, though, was effectively an opinion from the Senate on the matter. The U.S. Congress never authorized President Obama to declare war or preside over military action in Libya.
(Video after the jump.)
What O'Donnell missed was then-Senator Obama's 2007 claim that the President has no power "to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." O'Donnell never explored the underlying hypocrisy in such a comment.
Brewer, not exactly a foreign policy expert, tried to ask provocative questions concerning the history of the use of Presidential power in declaring war without Congressional consent. She also tried to make the present spat between Obama and Congress look unprecedented.
"Are there other cases in history where you've had Congress throwing such a fit over the U.N. Security Council making a resolution, the United States supporting that resolution, and our lawmakers going 'Now wait a minute, you have to come and ask us about this'?" Brewer asked O'Donnell. "Not at this stage," O'Donnell responded.
President Obama is not limited by doctrine in foreign policy, O'Donnell claimed, in order to further legitimize Obama's position. "That is a voluntary humanitarian act on the part of the United States because it can. And so this is a situation where the truth of it is, the President is doing this because we can. And that doesn't fit a doctrine, so it's an uncomfortable thing for him to say."
A transcript of the segment, which aired on March 28 at 2:29 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
CONTESSA BREWER: There's been a lot of criticism of the way President Obama has handled this. In fact, we were just watching Mitch McConnell on the floor of the Senate. He was bashing the President, saying "Look, the President should have come to Congress." Here's the live picture of him on the Senate floor – he says that the President should have come and gotten authorization for this military action.
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: It couldn't be more ironic to see Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor talking about this, because it was on the Senate floor, on March 1, in the single most ignored moment of this story that the United States Senate and Mitch McConnell voted unanimously – unanimously – for a resolution calling for a no-fly zone from the United Nations. And so the United States Senate is unanimous, on-the-record, in favor of this before the President took any action whatsoever. But the media has missed it, I mean it's one of the most ignored items that's happened here. So if this was a House member, they didn't cast that vote. You know, they can play around and spin it any way they want. But McConnell actually voted for this.
BREWER: Okay, well then let's talk about the House members. Do they have a case? Because I was looking back at the history of presidents taking the executive authority and ordering military action, and it goes way back.
O'DONNELL: Yeah, well you know what's happened it politically, the Congress surrendered war powers. It became – it became a congressional power that they didn't want. The responsibility became so heavy that they said, "You know what? We're just going to look the other way, let you presidents do whatever you want," basically from Vietnam forward. And so they then tried to codify it through this so-called "War Powers Act" where they are basically saying the President can do these things and then he has to – he can do them quickly if he has to, he has to come report to us in 48 hours. All of the requirements of the War Powers Act have been observed here, and it was the Congress that wrote the War Powers Act, not the President. I don't like it, I wish that they did have Congressional war declarations, or if it's not going to be a war, call it something else and go through the Congress first. But Congress very deliberately surrendered this power , they actually want to be able to sit back and criticize it if goes badly, and be in favor of it if it goes well.
BREWER: So nobody's calling this a war – I mean, it's called military intervention, it's called military strikes, it's called United Nations Security Council enforcement – but they're not calling it a war. Are there other cases in history where you've had Congress throwing such a fit over the U.N. Security Council making a resolution, the United States supporting that resolution, and our lawmakers going "Now wait a minute, you have to come and ask us about this"?
O'DONNELL: Not at this stage. We haven't really seen this kind of objection at this stage. This is purely political objection at this stage.
BREWER: Does the President need to get up there tonight and truly lay out "Alright, here's the goal. And if we achieve this goal, then we've accomplished it and we're out of there. And here's how we get out of there"?
O'DONNELL: Well, he's not going to be able to give a so-called exit strategy. Especially because he has cast this as a humanitarian mission, that's the way he's described it from the start. He's saying it's to avoid a bloodbath. They have done that. They have avoided the bloodbath. How long they have to stay there, to continue to avoid a bloodbath is unclear, because as soon as they leave, as soon as they stop doing this, there's no reason why Quaddafi wouldn't go and do what he was planning to do anyway.
BREWER: And what about Robert Gates saying on "Meet the Presss" well no, Libya's not really in our vital interest.
O'DONNELL: This is a semantic trick, this national interest thing. This has become the media's obsession and politicians' obsession, because what they're looking for is a doctrine. We like doctrines in foreign policy. The world is now beyond a doctrinal organization. We have a chaotic world in which there are moments where the United States can help and moments when it can't. You know, what's the doctrine that says when there's a nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, the United States navy will go and help. There is no doctrine that says that. That is a voluntary humanitarian act on the part of the United States because it can. And so this is a situation where the truth of it is, the President is doing this because we can. And that doesn't fit a doctrine, so it's an uncomfortable thing for him to say.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Job security?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:56pm.
Covering for Dear Leader keeps those talking heads busier than a 3-legged cat trying to bury a turd on an ice pond. Right, hockey players?
Anyone want to chat O's speech live?
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:21pm.
Let me know, I'll open a chat room for us.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
O Chat Room Open
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:39pm.
http://www.chatzy.com/289283718863
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Chat room for O's Libya Lies
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:48pm.
Chat room for O's Libya Lies
http://www.chatzy.com/289283718863
I have zero interest in Obama's blustering.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:25pm.
In 2007, he clearly said no president has the right to take military action as he just did. Anything else is equivocation worthy of a sociopath.
obama's criminal war
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:35pm.
Our military is engaged in an unprovoked and unauthorized regime change in Libya.
Our military has gone completly beyond the scope of the UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone. We have become the air force for the rebels by bombing armanments and fortifications for Gahdaffi's forces.
We have chosen sides in a civil war and against the current government.
obama is now guilty of all the war crimes that that were leveled at George Bush and if not for being a Liberal obama would be indicted by the World Court at the Hague.
Obama is nothing but a lying
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:41pm.
Obama is nothing but a lying commie bastard who acts like a dictator.
I hear MO's changing her
Submitted by ant on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:45pm.
I hear MO's changing her assault on the nasty Americans' dietary choices from "Let's Move!" to the "Let's Kinetic!" campaign. "Let's Move!" will be reserved for tax-payers living in blue States.
Is it just my imagination or
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:46pm.
Is it just my imagination or does this O'Donnell guy look like he is wound really tight...
It's not your just
Submitted by rockyracoon on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:53am.
It's not your just imagination I see it as well, even when flipping through the dial, as I can't stomach more than a couple of seconds of him.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
By the time this is over, the Ministry of Statist Misinformation
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:53pm.
...will be blaming Libya on George W. Bush.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
He just did
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:55pm.
Didn't you hear him say we went alone into Iraq?
Idiot.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
J,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:01pm.
Honestly, I can't even listen to him anymore, much less watch him on TV.
It sends my BP into medium Earth orbit.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I can't do either
Submitted by rockyracoon on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:56am.
So I don't. His pronunciation of the letter "S" drives me up the wall, and that's not including the rubbish he spouts from his teleprompter. Thank God for the remote control.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Que'lle Babblefest
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:58pm.
Yet another lecture.
He's so over his head.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
The Hope and Change
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:00pm.
The Hope and Change Speech.
Someone needs to set his arm; I'm pretty sure he broke patting his own back.
There is more SPINNING at MSNBC
Submitted by djwolf12 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:09pm.
than ALL GE washing machines and dryers. That is pretty sad. Only if Immelt can harness that and sell it to pay for those taxes that GE didn't pay.
preemptive war
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:32pm.
The main argument that obama has used justify invading Libya was to stop a massacre of civilians by Gadaffi. What overwhelming proof did he have? Isn't this like his created or saved jobs, completely pulled out of the air? And what makes Libyas civilians lives more valuable than civilians in Iran or Syria who are also under attack?
Just when you think obama's policies couldn't get any more disconnected he institutes his own version of Bush's doctrine of preemptive war.
Two Airheads Spinning Obama's Agenda in Lybia!
Submitted by gruyere cheese on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:30pm.
Neither one of these talking heads have political experience to give an opinion about our involvement in Lybia. Contessa should stick to make up and hair tips and Larry, well maybe he can wear Contessa's make up to cover that big forehead. There....I sound just like a Liberal nutcase, giving an opinion. Just making a point.
Contessa
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:33pm.
is one of the few people on the planet who could be used as a backdrop to make Larry look smart.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
This is charming
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:43pm.
Khadaffi's son toured US facilities as "uprising began"....apparently with the full approval of the US Government.
He said the government signed off on the itinerary, at times offering advice that affected the company's plans for Gaddafi.
The Libyan leader's sixth son is thought to have had tours and meetings with high-profile companies and U.S. military institutions in all parts of the U.S. from Houston to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington and New York.
The leader of the Libyan Army visited the Port of Houston Authority before jetting to Los Angeles for a scheduled 'exclusive' VIP tour of Universal Studios, according to travel documents obtained by ABC News.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Well, their close
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:51pm.
Very close
What's next? Obama inviting Osama to tour the Statue of Liberty?
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:15pm.
Damn, just how more FUBAR'd can things get?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
How much more?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:27pm.
Each day, the bar gets either raised or lowered, depending on which way you look at it. Both result is absolute utter disgust.
It was pretty obvious that he is answering to no one in the US, at least he feels as such. He all but admitted to helping al qaida in this thing. How Congress will proceed from here is anyone's guess because I sure as hell don't know anymore. I'm not holding my breath.
All I know is that the fit is going to hit the shan and it's going to hit hard real soon. God help us when that happens.
Not if. When.
How do I know this? If you look at how the Chairman got treated in effigy in the last few days, it's a safe bet that he's goading them into doing something.
-Jon
jon, I agree
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:58pm.
And the first feces to impact the impellor (hit the fan) should be this.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Oops! I misspelled Libya...Sorry
Submitted by gruyere cheese on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:44pm.
Then again, I am pretending to be a Liberal :-)
Maddow
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 9:16pm.
Maddow was very busy between 8 and 9, getting her head up BO's a$$. She's spliced together bits and pieces of his speech and actually found a BIG difference between the Iraq war, and Libya. No, it's not that the Iraq war had Congressional approval, and this does not. It's that we've gone in there saying Quadoffi must go, but we won't use force to get him out.
Nothing like a plan. Sure wish he had one. One besides bringing this country to it's knees.
Rad1979
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 9:52pm.
Beg your pardon! But I do believe that Madcow only removes her head 1 hour each day for oxygen intake. It is in her contract that the show must coincide with her intake period. She is a medical wonder that can survive on methane gas for 23 hours.
Can the President Declare War?
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 9:34pm.
"The U.S. Congress never authorized President Obama to declare war." It isn't clear that Congress can ever do that - that's one of the reasons Rep. Barbara Lee voted against the Iraq War resolution.
"Brewer, not exactly a foreign policy expert, tried to ask provocative questions concerning the history of the use of Presidential power in declaring war without Congressional consent." When has a US President declared war wtihout Congressional consent?
In fact, as noted above, there is a powerful argument that only Congress can declare war. After all, that is what the Constitution states:
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Frank
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 9:41pm.
If Congress doesnt approve, then they can de-fund it overnight.
We have been in more conflicts without a "Declaration of War"'s, then with.
Boudin:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:49am.
Agreed. President Clinton has been accused of cutting and running from Somalia, but as I read it Congress cut off funding and then, under the War Powers Act, ordered us out,
The whole Wars Powers issue is fascinating. Congress forced it on the President as if it didn't want the authority.
Personally, I think going to war is a big step and it should be with a declaration of war authorized by Congress. I agree with Rep. Lee - Congress should not (perhaps legally can not) delegate that.
Oh thank you for passing down wisdom from above Fwankie.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:59am.
Hear that boys and girls? Fwankie thinks going to war is a big step. Wowzees! Here we all thought it wudn't nuttin' much. Really Fwankie? Are you sure? Is it really really a big step?
Possibly the Stupidest troll evah: Personally, I think going to war is a big step...
Wowzees. The big troll with the big brain thinks going to war is a big step. We are really impressed today.
Why that compares to that whole day of infamy thing when it comes to quotes about war in this country.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy...
Private Bill Wilson: Personally, I think going to war is a big step...
Agree with Lee? As in Shirley Jackson, Puddinhead?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:04pm.
Good Lord, you are an imbecile.
MD
Agree with Lee.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:37am.
Maybe he meant Congressman Christopher Lee. Fwanki never could resist a shirtless man with a camera in his hand.
Vet---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:45am.
Whether he meant Shirley Jackson Lee, Christopher Lee, Bruce Lee, or Stagger Lee; Puddinhead is still a mook.
MD
Well, it's OK then, because
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:08pm.
Well, it's OK then, because he didn't delcare war....he declared Kinetic Military Action.
Can the President Declare War?
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:22pm.
Only if he is a democrat.
Just ask Lyndon Johnson - the "Father" of Vietnam.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Fwankie directly contradicts Lawrence O'Donnel.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:12am.
Lawrence O'Donnell: ...the Congress surrendered war powers...
j. frank wilson: ...there is a powerful argument that only Congress can declare war. After all, that is what the Constitution states:
You saying Lawrence O'Donnell lied to us Fwankie? Who is right, you or Lawrence O'Donnell?
Voluntary humanitarian action my azz
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:50pm.
Arbitrarily lobbing in $150 million of cruise missiles was neither humanitarian OR voluntary.
Now air dropping in $150 million IN SMALL BUNDLES OF CASH (say $1000 in each) would've ended this weeks ago. Both sides would have shut up immediately and retreated to their respective hovels.
Harvard Men At War
Submitted by thebardofmurdock on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:10pm.
From up upon the podium in tailored suit and tie,
Between the flags of freedom crossed, and in the public eye,
The Harvard man made his address to critics, in reply,
And laid out for the audience his modern battle cry.
Recall that other Harvard man, who at the San Juan Hill,
Did call ‘Rough Riders, follow me!’ and led the charge until
The foot soldiers and cavalry were summoned by his will,
And overcame the enemy with valor and with skill.
Not for our modern Crimson man do words like those resound,
For in their stark grave melody is heroism found.
Instead we hear of diplomats who finally come around,
And handing off the fighting with no boots upon the ground.
So rally ’round the UN flag: we fight for powder blue!
Leave well behind the stars and stripes, and patriotic hue.
We’ll fight for days or weeks for sure, and then we’ll say adieu,
And hope our allies have resolve and heart to follow through.
thebardofmurdock.com
CRAZY LARRY AND THE SORORITY GIRL....
Submitted by Herbster on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:03am.
Listening to these two is like reading a "B" movie science fiction script from the 50's. Stating that Brewer is, "Not a foreign policy expert" is like saying that Tom Thumb was not a basketball player. There is no more media in our country - only agenda driven propagandists from the left.
IMO Obama did not make his
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:02am.
IMO Obama did not make his case for War in Libya because he won't admit what he has ordered was an act of War. Obama admitted he authorized ground strikes on Libyan forces that were NOT apart of the UN No-Fly resolution. See text of speech: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/transcript-obama-speaks-natio...
We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. These actions meet the very definition of acts of War.
The claim he saved civilian lives by meddling in a civil war is debatable at best. IF the rebels and civilians opposing a murdering dictator knew the US would never intervene then their actions to defy the Libyan regime was an act of patriotism on their part and NOT victimhood. Patriotism is the selfless act of putting oneself in the position of or sacrificing ones life for the good of the whole. Up to and until that point when the rebels were loosing the civil war, they had NO expectation of not dying for their cause. IF on the other hand Obama and others instigated the revolt against Qadhafi with the explicit expectation/promise of US support, then I would accept Obama's premise. Did Obama admit to such instigation? NO.
Neither did Obama adequately differentiate why we shouldn't intervene in Syria, Iran, China, North Korea, etc. All of these regimes have slaughtered people who resisted and the threat of SLAUGHTER is well established and understood by the population, it has no need to be articulated. Qadhafi's bluster to frighten the rebels and their supporters with immenent death is a psy-ops tactic. If the pretext was humanitarian protection for defenseless citizens for other countries as a moral dictum then what can be said of Obama's arbitrary morality for the people of Iran? In fact, under this dictum Obama could also make the same case for an invasion of Israel under the pretext of protecting the Palestinians. It is no secret that the Obama administration is hostile to Israel and blames them for the continuing difficulties in that conflict.
Ron Paul on the other hand got to the crux of the matter: http://www.dailypaul.com/160588/monday-night-at-about-8-pm-eastern-rand-...
------
IMO, Obama foolishly thought Qadhafi would be stepping down any minute and thus shot off his big mouth to get the credit for Qadhafi leaving so he could claim the credit for Qadhafi leaving. Once he realized that Qadhafi wasn't leaving without being forced out via military action he was stuck with egg on his face. To save face, he eagarly went to the French whom he knew via diplomatic cables were concerned about their energy supplies. Viola, the UN No-Fly zone resolution in which they got the Russians and Chinese NOT to oppose by promising not to invade Libya. Except at this point Obama is still stuck because if Qadhafi doesn't leave then there will be ceaseless civil war taking 1000's of lives and hence he attempts to take away Qadhafi's military edge by exceeding the UN resolution but NOT breaking it. Obama may yet still have egg on his face if NATO does not aggressively target the Libyan military. I predict Qadhafi will pull his military into the cities he holds and thus due to the potential of collateral damage NATO won't be able to use their air power on behalf of the rebels creating a stalemate.
dscott...
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:22am.
...you've captured a bit of it. But not most of it.
Obama got bum-rushed into it by Hillary...the SECSTATE. Who stomped all over the SECDEF yesterday. To prove, yes...she has BALLS, and of course that Bammy has a small (very small, nay, I say it...miniscule) set, too!
I found myself being, for the first time in my life, ashamed of my country two summers ago, in Costa Rica, when I met a lovely Honduran lady, who was puzzled by our administration's support of the dictator. How to explain to a citizen of an allied nation, how our government was tossing THEIR citizens to the wind? I couldn't do it. I was humiliated. I am now totally disgusted.
Obama is attempting to "play" this whole scenario for his political advantage.
It is, in my humble opinion, far far worse than Clinton attempting to "Wag the Dog". Obama hasn't a clue. I really don't know what we do next. But this entire "cassus belli" is nothing more than a fever brained thought of a strategist to make the idiot look sane.
We are so screwed.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Cassus Belli
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:42am.
Perhaps Obama sees his more noble accomplishment as the preservation of the racial purity of Italy, a country now refusing to take in any more Libyan refugees.
Absent a coherent articulation of cassus belli, we are left to our own speculation.
That is mine.
Looking at this from
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:02am.
Looking at this from Qadhafi's point of view and also Farrakan's view. Here is a person whom he called "our son" and was praising Obama. Then the back stabbing opportunist plunges the knife in Qadhafi's back demanding he step down WITHOUT his billions.
Sept 23, 2009
http://nation.foxnews.com/international/2009/09/23/qaddafi-calls-obama-o...
March 21, 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794591
So what are we to make of these statements? Political theater? Or is Qadhafi saying wait a minute, I am your ally against al Qaeda and no worse than Mubarack of Egypt. What's Qadhafi's consistent theme about al Qaeda in Libya? Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Is Obama actually allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda? And what's in it for Obama?
Even great nations can
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:14am.
Even great nations can sometimes be--occasionally must be--helpless giants. The perils of refusing to learn from history are equally matched by the dangers of learning the wrong lessons from history--true historical parallels are exceedingly rare once superficial similiarities are peeled away. And, in the final analysis, it must be remembered that there are limits to the power of the United States to control events, or even project its power at all. It requires a galvanizing of national will, the tapping of the national treasury, and a presumption of national interests at stake.
Our record on foreign interventions since the birth of our Republic has been notable mostly for its randomness, unpredictability and inconsistency. Just in the past half century we have witessed a failure to assist the Polish freedom fighters in1956, a misreading of popular will in Cuba in 1961 and in Vietnam spanning three decades following WWII, a failure to support the Czechoslovakian democratic elements in the Prague Spring of 1968, a bungling of Iranian policy in the late 70's and again in the past couple of years, a payment of lip service only to the aspirations of Chinese dissidents in Tianamen Square in 1989, an abandonment of the Kurds after urging them to revolt in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, our tragic inaction in Rwanda,--just to list a few of the more prominent cases.
Even after 9/11 there was direct military action taken against only a single member of the Axis of Evil triad: Iraq. On the other hand, Iran was subjected to not much more than bluster and sabre rattling. And North Korea was generally ignored.
The present turbulence shaking the Mid East presents enormous challenges in fashioning an effective and cohesive response. And it must be conceded the present administration has not thus far proved particularly adroit in meeting those challenges. There has indeed been an exasperating lack of coherence. The call for Ghadafi to leave was premature and intemperate and Obama's failure to adequately consult Congress was inexplicably stupid. But, despite the assertion he cajoled the French in order to clean the egg off his face or that it was all about Hillary and her balls, the evidence suggests that neither of those theories fly. As a matter of fact, it was Sarkozy who has been jumping far out in front on the Libyan crisis, acting and speaking independently and unilaterally, and largely forcing our hand and that of our allies as well. Or, to employ another familiar metaphor, it is France which has been the tail wagging the dogs of war to actively assist the Libyan rebels.
It is regrettable Blonde decided after all these years she is finally ashamed of her country due to its support of a dictator. [Which one?] Our backing of--even alliances with--authoritarian, anti-democratic leaders in every corner of the globe over the course of many, many decades is as American as apple pie. Albeit it has generally been occasioned by the practical and strategic concerns associated with realpolitik demands rather than any inherent affinity for totalitarian rule. Still, the precedents are numerous and not always defensible.
[Finally, Cool...you are correct about policy incoherence. So I guess you are entitled to equally incoherent, yet entirely predictable, speculation: The Cool Arrow Unifying Theory of Liberal Ideology--Everything is Racial.]
Jer
An insightful post Jer and I
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:52pm.
An insightful post Jer and I appreciate your openness. From a liberal POV Obama's decisions here are extremely disappointing even to you. I suppose just as conservatives were willing to show a certain amount of leeway to Bush's decisions there comes a point when the leader strays too far from the group as Bush did with immigration and now as Obama has now done with Libya.
As you astutely surmised, Obama has failed to galvanize national opinion or make the case and hence support for "his" decision on Libya is not there. Ultimately, whether Hillary, Samantha or anyone else influenced Obama's decision, it was his to make and he is responsible.
I would point out though the some of the inconsistencies you listed were predicated on avoiding WWIII. I'm sure it took a lot of mettle for the US leadership not to militarily support the rebellions in the Communist block in those early years, however, a free Poland with all of it's citizens dead buried by the treads of Soviet tanks and a nuclear confrontation with the US was not in the national interest. Comparing the stark decisions of those days in the midst of the Cold War to Libya is just a wee bit over the top. Being vaporized in a nuclear war is not in the national interest. Obama has no such limiting consideration with Libya.
Even Tianamen Square with the Chinese would have been an extremely dangerous proposition embroiling the US in a civil war that would have killed literally millions of people. As tempting as it might be to seek regime change because it is in the national interest to see your enemies fall sometimes the stakes are just too high.
On the Kurds, I'll agree with that to a very limited extent since we supplied the Kurds with arms and a No-Fly zone in the north of Iraq which combined with their nationalist aspirations of a Kurdistan gave them the grit to fight off Saddam. Our mistake in Gulf War I was not to have finished off Saddam the first time around. HW Bush didn't have the brass as Obama does right now to exceed a UN mandate and agreements with coalition partners. Personally, I would have told the coalition partners, thanks for your help this far, you hold Kuwait and I'll go take care of the rest of Iraq. But then with 20-20 hindsight I can avoid the mistakes of the past.
Rwanda and Sudan were never in our national interest, murdering monsters aside. These were in the French interest if you were to check on the details. Should we be putting the French on our axis of evil list? They supported the group who perpetrated the mass murder in Rwanda. They supported the Sudanese government with guns and ammo for oil who then gave those weapons to the Janjaweed to slaughter all those people. In fact, the French were also arms suppliers for Iraq and Iran, conduct(ed) trade with these two countries and opposed many of the economic sanctions that would have crippled these two hateful regimes when it mattered. Oh dear, the world is a complicated place where there are bad actors, good actors and short sighted selfish actors. Shall we invade France? No, for some inexplicable reason we are taking sides in a civil war in Libya. I strongly suspect as you alluded to that France is behind that reason which Obama CANNOT or WILL NOT speak out loud because he knows it would be rejected out of hand. Thus he engages in these verbose mumbling sessions in an attempt to wear people down to get their acquiescence.
However, IMO following Hanlon's Razor the more likely explanation is Obama saving face for as you nicely put it, "The call for Ghadafi to leave was premature and intemperate and Obama's failure to adequately consult Congress was inexplicably stupid." So either Obama is covering for the French (a conspiracy theory) OR the French used Obama's intemperance to maneuver him into supporting their interests explaining his inexplicably stupid actions thus far. Let's agree it was France's fault and call it a day.
Of course, Jer's insightful post could be ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:16pm.
for future reference; as cover for the possibility that Obama once again trips over his own inept policies and falls on his ass.
Jer can say he listed many reservations about Obama's decisions or "actions".
It's like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.
How to cover yourself if you decide to make political prognostications. :o)
MD
This is only a test. Repeat. This is only a test.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:26pm.
Matthew Dean is a wonderful human being--a brilliant jewel in the NewsBusters crown.
Jer
[Just curious how he'll find fault with that comment.]
Shame on you, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:45pm.
what a paltry list of encomiums. :o)
MD
And Jer are there dots to be
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 5:21pm.
And Jer are there dots to be connected with these two stories?
2,200 Marines headed to ships off the coast of Libya. Why would that be?
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8039326
Rebels on the run
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya
It seems to me that dear leader is throwing good money after bad in an attempt to save face.
And did anyone else notice...
Submitted by falcon on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:27am.
...that the Obama speech was delivered outside of prime time? At 7:30/6:30 Central, a lot of people are still winding their way home from work. This way, Obama was guaranteed to get a smaller (read: less hostile) audience as the media did all his dirty work by spinning it for the 11pm/10pm news. Most presidents do their speeches in prime time, when their audience is guaranteed to be bigger. I guess Obama wanted the appearance of having given a "major" speech without having to actually do any work to make it "major." Voting "present" again, I see.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
The JournOList media can spin
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 8:42am.
The JournOList media can spin and obfuscate and lie all they want to cover for Obama, but the reality is that 60% of the public know full well the economy is in shambles, we're involved in three wars, our foreign policy is a joke, gas/food/clothing prices are skyrocketing, Obamacare is a disaster and the President is strangely detached from all this while he plays golf, throws parties, goes on vacations, and adjusts his NCAA brackets.
CAN ANYONE SPELL O-I-L?
Submitted by Herbster on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:14am.
Let's see.....could protecting the European oil interestrs of France, U.K., etc., have anything to do with our "Libya policy?" Nah. It's all for "Humanitarian" reasons. Soon we'll be dropping Twinkies instead of bombs. BTW, we haven't seen any "Collateral damage" from all the bombs and missiles.....no civilian casualties, no mosques destroyed, etc. Oops, sorry. I thought we were talking about Bush and Iraq. Imagine if Bush had done this.....the mediapimps would be apoplectic - 24/7, with screams for impeachment! However, "The One" can do no wrong in the eyes the MSM. On a positive note, I'm glad to see that the White House Easter Egg Roll will be using "Environmentally friendly eggs" this year....whatever that means. Also, isn't it time for another vacation for Fearless Leader?
The UN Resolution didn't pass
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:16pm.
The UN Resolution didn't pass "unanimously" there were five abstentions. Those five abstentions may come back to haunt pres. Obama.
Heads up, the Russians are
Submitted by dscott on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:03am.
Heads up, the Russians are saying we are about to get in a land war in Libya.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_re_us/libya_russia
Question: Why are we hearing about this from foreigners and not the POTUS?
Question: How many Marines are now on ships off the coast of Libya?
Question: When is Congress going to cut off funds for this ill advised operation?