'Morning Joe' Pundits: Obama 'Extremely Deft in a Very Tough Situation'
During Monday's "Morning Joe," Time's Mark Halperin and co-host Mika Brzezinski helpfully provided some spin for the White House to borrow as President Obama finishes his prepared remarks for Monday evening's address to the nation on the events in Libya.
President Obama has received sharp criticism for his foreign policy concerning Egypt and Libya, but Halperin threw cold water on that, calling Obama's strategy "extremely deft in a very tough situation." Brzezinski agreed with his premise, adding that his "deft" handling is also in accord with promises he previously made.
"He's pro-democracy, right? He's anti-violence. He's anti-unilateral U.S. intervention," Halperin noted of Obama, trying to connect his current policy with the peacemaker he claimed to be as a presidential candidate.
(Video below the jump. Comments begin at the 12:30 mark.)
He also touted the White House talking points. "There's a lot of instability caused by the NATO action, but the administration's view is there would have been more instability had there not been any intervention."
Some liberals have become disenchanted with the Obama administration for making promises during the 2008 campaign it has yet to deliver on – most notably continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and now involving the U.S. in military action in yet another country. Halperin and Brzezinski argued action in Libya was necessary to maintain stability in the region.
Furthermore, Brzezinski and Halperin agreed, President Obama has exhibited impressive leadership in assembling a coalition of nations in Libya – ensuring the United States is not acting alone. Brzezinski assumed that President Obama was responsible for the coalition of the nations in Libya. "[Obama] got international support, collective action," she noted. "That would be leading."
A transcript of the segment, which aired on March 28 at 6:13 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Isn't this a reasonable amount of time, though, Mark Halperin, to actually get to the nation, to get to the nation and address these questions, given the fact that this President, as many criticized him for waiting too long, clearly tried to negotiate, clearly tried to warn Libyan leaders Quaddafi and all that this was going to be a problem if he didn't step down. They waited it out, some say waited too long, and then finally moved in – I mean if you talk about making decisions on the fly, I actually think that compared to other Presidents, this was waited out to an extent that actually now has drawn criticism from Republicans.
MARK HALPERIN: I think you can nitpick what happened in Egypt, Obama policy in Egypt, and Libya, but in general I think they've been extremely deft in a very tough situation.
BRZEZINSKI: And consistent with what this President has said he was going to do.
HALPERIN: He's pro-democracy, right? He's anti-violence. He's anti-unilateral U.S. intervention, and I think part of his problem is to be a multi-lateralist at a time when a lot of Americans still want America to be number one, and America at the lead. He doesn't want to do that, that's not his instinct on this.
BRZEZINSKI: And actually I think he is, some could argue, he is leading. But there is – the criticism is that we're not doing it alone. Do we really want to do that? Do we want another Afghanistan, Pat Buchanan?
(...)
HALPERIN: U.S. policy has to reinforce stability, because we can't just let things spiral out of control in the region. There's a lot of instability caused by the NATO action, but the administration's view is there would have been more instability had there not been any intervention, because there would have been mass slaughter and mass exodus over the borders, and this was a way to try to keep things from being a humanitarian crisis, but also from spiraling out of control. It's had that effect.
BRZEZINSKI: And he got international support, collective action, which is very different. That would be leading.
BUCHANAN: Without China, without Russia, without –
HALPERIN: They were in it enough to not (Crosstalk) –
BUCHANAN: We've got five percent of the world behind us.
(...)
BRZEZINSKI: We went out and got the support of the world community, and much of it, to go in collectively in a very short period of time.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
→ Daft?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:44pm.
I'm sure it's just a transcription typo.
Beat me to it!!
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:01pm.
Daft was the first word that came to my mind, too.
Followed by "bereft", then "adrift"...just to name a few.
He's a regular Dem(Dumb)-caused Disaster, except we're the ones that will be left to sift through the rubble of our country and to try to pick up the pieces after he stumbles out of office and crawls back into the intellectually bottomless Loony Left pit from whence he slithered.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Corrected version.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:04pm.
"extremely deft in a very tough situation."
"extremely daft in every situation."
Joe Kiernan on Squawk Box,....
Submitted by Prester John on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:47pm.
...even though he agreed with BHO on Libya, had John Harwood tap dancing pretty nicely this morning as he asked him about BHO getting a vote in Congress, the number of countries helping in Libya vs Iraq etc.
Harwood tried to point how everyone bailed on us in Iraq once things really got rough but you could tell he really didn't believe what he was saying.
But then again maybe he did. (sigh)
P.S. if BHO, being a person who is "against violence", would toss 160 cruise missiles at Libya, I wonder what he would've done if he wasn't against violence?
Do these people ever think about what they are saying??!!
These clowns are giving a future George Orwell a lot of material.
Good grief.
Harwood the Hack
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:59pm.
John Harwood is an absolute party hack. I loved seeing him on Squawk Box some weeks back constantly parroting flawed poll results in regards to the WI public unions issue. Never mind if Harwood was remotely correct is saying 77% of voters love the idea of public unions having collective bargaining rights, Gov Walker shouldn't be found anywhere near the governor's mansion. He parroted that line repeatedly anyway.
If he could never make an appearance on CNBC ever again the channel would be vastly improved. (But then, it is fun watching Joe Kernan beat him up.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So will Mika & Mark hold
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:57pm.
So will Mika & Mark hold Obama to his words since as candidate Obama blasted Bush for Iraq and stated the U.S. should never go into another country with military forces if that country poses no direct threat to the U.S.?
And will Mike & Mark hold Biden to his words when as candidate Biden proclaimed that if Bush bypassed Congress to invade another country, Biden would make it his mission to impeach Bush.
Obama and Biden set specific standards. Will Mika and Mark hold them to their stated standard?
Of course not.
[White House double-speak taught to the liberal MSM.]
Facts really are facts
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:10pm.
We would also have to ask "do they hold Gates to account when he CORRECTLY said that "Libya was not part of out vital interests"?
The way they are spinning this we WERE RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ a hundred fold because people were DYING by the thousands.
DIFFERENCE HERE PEOPLE, Oblunder went to the UN and NOT congress, Bush went to BOTH CONGRESS and the UN.
Oopsy.
When the regime itself gives
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:12pm.
When the regime itself gives conflictory statements you know there is chaos behind the scenes and most likely dissension among the troops (no pun intended).
Maybe Halperin said "deaf"
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:13pm.
...and Mika just thought he said deft.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
It's like a scene from "Being There" . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:22pm.
. . . the Peter Sellers film in which elites ascribe all kinds of "wisdom" to a simple-minded gardener.
Deft:
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:24pm.
adj. skillful in a quick, sure, and easy way.... Obama's the first thing that comes to my mind.
"Oh, by the way. I was being sarcastic."
-Homer Simpson
"Deft" as in Jimmy Carter
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:27pm.
"Deft" as in Jimmy Carter "deft!"
As a commenter on Blackfive said,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:25pm.
in referring to an unnamed officer's OER, and it applies perfectly to Oblunder, "the only reason anyone would follow this man is out of sheer curiosity".
Deft, as in daft, indeed.
"Deft Punk"?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:12pm.
"Deft Punk"?
Obama is just doing as he is told
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:29pm.
Does anyone think that he is planning all this contradictory and illogical policy ahead of time?
He is so anti-violence that he is willing to send in the US and NATO military to destroy anyone who dares use violence??!!! He throws Mubarak, a 30 year US ally, under the bus but says that Qadaffy, an international terrorist, can stay on if he wants to???!!!
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
c5then
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:17pm.
I do. Obama plays the soundbite culture like a fiddle. He takes all sides of every situation so that all Big Media can feast at his alter of articulation to suit their own ends.
Keep their heads ringin'
warning - explicit lyrics
Meanwhile, Obama parties as the bright beacon of freedom dhimmis by the day. Such is the endgame of the usurper sometimes known as Barack Obama Junior.
...would have been more instability
Submitted by MOS7532 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:30pm.
At least these morons are consistent. Just like with the stimulus (unemployment would have gone to ...), stating their case without evidence, and having no means of providing that evidence. We should just take what they say as gospel-after all they are smarter than all of us.
No matter how the Liberals
Submitted by Van Halen on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:01pm.
No matter how the Liberals try to spin this, the answer is going to have to be:
Looks like we've been lied to and rushed into an unfunded, unjust war for oil by a warmonger President where we force Democracy at the barrel of a gun. Not in our name! War is not the answer! No blood for oil!
Van, all
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:36pm.
good quotes. You left out "Obama lied, people died".
"The President does not have
Submitted by Van Halen on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:01pm.
"The President does not have 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."
- Senator Barack Hussein Obama. December 20, 2007.
1) Obama sends us to War
Submitted by Van Halen on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:03pm.
1) Obama sends us to War #3.
2) Obama then goes on vacation.
3) Obama then hands Soros-dominated Petrobas an oil rig permit. Something we're not allowed to have.
4) Petrobas can now drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Something we're not allowed to do.
5) Petrobas then will sell the oil to the US. Because we can't drill our own.
6) Obama admits the trip to Brazil is to help the economy of Brazil - while completely ignoring our ruined economy.
7) During all this, Obama almost completely ignores the earthquake/nuclear meltdown in Japan, the effects of which have now reached our shores.
8) Now we're told "Um, yeah... looks like the war is going to be a lot longer than we thought..."
I dare - DARE any Liberal to defend this.
They will. And how.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:15pm.
"I dare - DARE any Liberal to defend this."
In the immortal words of that bard Randy Bachman, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Not just deft.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:31pm.
Extremely deft.
Everything this president does, they describe in superlatives.
More of the soft bigotry of low expectations. That's why they're always amazed when he meets them.
BRZEZINSKI: And he got international support, collective action, which is very different.....
[Right, Mika, we know what you mean: Bush went all alone......]
went out and got the support of the world community, and much of it
MUCH of it, Mika??? Just how big is your world???
Good for Buchanan informing her that he got 5% of the world
And they are just in awe over his skill.
Maybe they should just call him El Presidentissimo.
The mindless cheerleading
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:48pm.
The mindless cheerleading never stops, even after the team has lost.
Halperin has it very wrong
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:54pm.
With all this mindless cheerleading that they are doing for the Chairman, they are overlooking one significant thing, especially when Halperin said that "He's anti-unilateral US Intervention" as if the US were doing the attack in cooperation with the UN. The Chairman DID act unilaterally, he chose to go it alone without any sort of consultation or warning with regards to Congress and he did it while he was on vacation.
Not only that, he put the US in a subservient mode rather than a leadership as has been done in the past.
Very impeachable offenses.
-Jon
"Very impeachable offenses."
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:50pm.
"Very impeachable offenses." Right - but who will say so where it matters? Until we get rid of the establishment, get along to go along, don't rock my boat and I won't sink yours crowd, I just don't see it.
btw - if you want the playbook, just go back and read whatever the left said about Pres. Bush ;-P
I spoke to my VERY liberal friend last night {the one who was for Hilary and is ticked off they didn't even try for the public option} and she can't understand why we are in Libya either, and how Pres. Obama went about it {but but, we got FRANCE - Pres. Bush didn't get FRANCE!!!} was thoroughly disgraceful.
The people who pay attention {on BOTH sides of the aisle} are ready for someone/anyone else - 2012 is going to be Jerry Springer on steroids!!!
Ronald Reagan
Enept is more like it
Submitted by NVRAT on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:14pm.
Obama had to wait until Hillary and the other skirts made a decision. He wanted to make sure that if things go south it would not be his fault and, then he would have someone to point the finger at. This a##hole is not fooling anybody and this goes for you to Morning Joe. I hope you have a Burma Shave moment.
Correction
Submitted by needle on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:15pm.
Obama 'Extremely Deft in getting into a Very Tough Situation'
There. Fixed it for you.
PS: I wish that I could fix NewsBuster's bug ridden "rich text editor"
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Ok ok...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 5:16pm.
So Obama is going to 'hand' the Lybia job over to NATO... So that means all the US "assets" can come home right? After all, if "NATO" is handling the job, they don't need the good ole USA getting in the way, right?
Didn't know where to put this news
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:23pm.
The 22nd MEU, Marine Expeditionary Unit, left Camp Lejeune today to board ships at the Morehead City port. They are headed to the Med to relieve the 26th. This is how our newsreader read it "they are going to give Obama options for use in Libya." He didn't use the 26th because they are flat worn out. It is time to bring them home. I know a couple guys with the air wing of the 22nd. So I have more interest in this Kinetic Military Action.
I'm telling you the Ice Cream Emperor is going to get us into another ground war. Why else would they move their deployment up. The families of these Marines and sailors are not too happy about it. They knew their regular deployment was coming up but they never expected their loved ones to going into harms way like this.
Harrriers from the 26th attacked tanks and personnel carrier over the weekend. What do these type of equipment have to do with a no fly zone? Taking out radar and anti-aircraft weapons is one thing but attacking tanks is another. He is ratcheting up.
I told everybody they would be moving up the 22nd's deployment.
I don't think Obama wants to put any Marines or . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:32pm.
. . . soldiers ashore in Libya. That's not to say he won't.
We can't rule out that SOF personnel are already in country for targeting, putting eyes on targets to mitigate strikes on civilians. Using the Administration's method of parsing words, I think when he said that he under no circumstances would he put ground troops into Libya, the verbiage deliberately excluded those that were already there.
If the conflict is protracted, there's a possibility that he'll insert 'non-combatant' personnel, and troops to provide them security -- solely for "humanitarian purposes" mind you.
But the last thing Obama wants is the image of American servicemen killed in his war, returning to loved ones for burial.
That comes with the job, and unwillingness to accept it will further plague his already weakened Presidency.
Obama is not any of the
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:41pm.
Obama is not any of the things that Halperin claims, he was only anti republican and anti Bush. Anything Bush or republicans did Obama was against prior to office. Once in office, anything that Bush or republicans previously did to strengthen presidential power, Obama suddenly found favor with. imagine that?