Maddow Notices Similarity Between Obama's Libya Address and Nobel Peace Prize Speech - But Not The Irony
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday went to great pains illustrating the similarities between President Obama's Libya address to the nation and his December 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Not surprisingly, the devout dove suddenly turned hawk chose not to discuss the irony (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
RACHEL MADDOW: Whether or not you like this intervention in Libya, it is clear that the President's explanation for why it is justified matches what he said he would do with military force, what he would see as the justifiable use of the U.S. military. It is clear that it matches what he said about that issue at the very start of his presidency, when in his first year as president he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.
Maddow then played a clip from that acceptance speech back in December 2009, and a part of Monday’s address containing some similar language and concepts, after which she continued:
MADDOW: 2009, “America cannot act alone.” 2011, “The burden of action should not be America’s alone.” Whether you are for or against American participation in an international intervention like this war in Libya, it is the type of intervention that this president said at the outset he would favor as president. As for the differences between him and the previous guy, as for the differences between him and George W. Bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq.
So, rather than point out the hypocrisy not only in Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize months before he expanded the war in Afghanistan and started a new one in Libya, but also in these speeches having any similarity at all, she instead made the case that such likeness was a good thing while taking the opportunity to bash Bush.
Truth be told, we have entered a new era in liberal media bias when doves are growing talons before our very eyes.
Let's understand that we have absolutely no idea how this incursion is going to turn out for America, Libya, or this region. This is complicated by our very involvement in humanitarian military missions in the past being by no means without their disappointments and casualties.
Despite this, devout, military-hating leftists have lost the ability and/or the desire to express any skepticism concerning this legislatively un-sanctioned mission.
Like her colleague Ed Schultz, it appears Maddow's devotion to Obama has trumped all her natural, lifelong anti-war instincts. Between the two of them, the past ten days have been like watching Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders root for the New York Giants.
I can't wait to see what color her pom poms will be tomorrow.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Did Obama pull a Biden?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:34am.
Did he plagiarize? Himself??
--Mike
That's too much thinking for
Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:41am.
That's too much thinking for her.
I have only one question for
Submitted by ant on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:59am.
I have only one question for Mr. Sheppard..How much Lithium do you have to take in order to tolerate Maddow's voice on a regular basis?
Obama speaks for Both parties
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:01am.
The blaring admission from fearless leader is that Republicans and Democrats alike, will go to war for oil.
This had nothing to do with any humanitarian effort, else we'd be involved elsewhere. That is, unless the Obama Doctrine is to involve us from above while the neighbors do the grunt work.
Don't look for Russia and China to think kindly of such a concept.
A slight tweak, there....
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:40am.
"the Obama Doctrine is to involve us from above while the neighbors do the grunt work."
...as long as it makes the USA look bad and BHO look good.
Rush was quite correct to point out... any and all things having to do with BHO and the statists -must- be looked at through the filter of a impending 2012 ouster.
Look for more fun and games from this unprincipled crew. ('Fun and games' for them; the idea of statist show of hawkishness with those in the military as pawns is nauseating, repulsive, despicable, and therefore every bit a staist ploy.)
BHO would kiss Hillary square on the mouth in front of a national audience, did he think it would assure him two terms.
NVCon
European oil, Congressional idiots go to war for European oili
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 8:23am.
Libyan Oil Facts:
1. 17th largest world producer, 17th.
2. 85% of oil exports go to Europe. (Italy 32%/ Germany 14%)
3. 13% goes to Asia.
4. FIVE PERCENT of the oil that the 17th largest producer of oil produces goes to the U.S.
5. Quote: "While Libya itself does not produce enough oil to significantly disrupt world supplies, concern has grown that political unrest could continue to spread, specifically to Saudi Arabia. The Gulf state supplies around 10 percent of the world's oil and also holds most of the world's spare capacity at around 3-4 million barrels a day. It is the only producer able to respond quickly with large volumes of oil to compensate for a serious outage."
Time for a war here on environmental Kooks and drill everywhere there is oil in this country.
Seems like the Europeans owe the U.S. a billion dollars for our costs so far for their oil.
Quote and facts from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/us-libya-oil-factbox-idUSTRE71...
The irony
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:23am.
The Irony is that both are based on lies.
-Jon
"As for the differences
Submitted by VBaxter on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:37am.
"As for the differences between him and George W. Bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq."
So, Obama's war is better because we're not going to topple the dictator? Someone explain that one to me.
Ron Paul 2012
VB....
Submitted by Unsilent_Minority on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:22am.
..I wondered the same thing. Obama said just a few weeks ago that the US policy in Libya was the removal of Qaddafi. Perhaps not by force, initially, but now that the war has begun, how else? By "protecting the citizens"? Please. IF we are to remove Qaddafi, then admit it, Mr. President. Don't hide behind the "we will assist the rebels in any way possible" and "we must protect the citizens" nonsense. And we are to believe, now that the war is in NATO's hands, that we are not in charge? More nonsense. The power of NATO lies in the US, but will allow Obama to exonerate himself if/when this drags on.
their mighty unicorn's
Submitted by Injest on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:14pm.
..I wondered the same thing. Obama said just a few weeks ago that the US policy in Libya was the removal of Qaddafi. Perhaps not by force, initially, but now that the war has begun, how else?
By the charge of the Pixi Dust Brigade on their mighty unicorn's!
"All Obama is saying is give war a chance"
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:50am.
.. In the words of a certain Pulitzer Prize-winning Iraq war critic Tom Ricks
It's got a ring.
(;~/ gary
It's clear...
Submitted by Truestar on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:41am.
Our Libya intervention is because of oil, period. It's no different than Iraq. The notion the US can intervene and not topple a murdering terrorist dictator, was also the strategerie of GB 1. GB 2 had the balls to finish the job. NObama/Hillary are doing nothing other than securing oil resources, while they are trying to leave themselves blameless if Daffy survives. It's entirely politically motivated, and has ZERO to do with saving the lives of ordinary Libyans. It's unendingly disgusting to witness this joke of a President try to present himself as some sort of humanitarian. Nobel Peace Prize my ass. As for Madcow and the rest of her brethren, it appears they're content to twist themselves into pretzels to defend their ideology, and their fake President. Shameless.
Have Gun, Will Travel
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:38am.
Sooooo.......
invading and bombing a country is OK as long as it doesn't directly disrupt the ruling government?
Following logically...
Submitted by Truestar on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:19am.
That appears to be the case, Mid. Utopia on planet earth---just as long as the flow of oil isn't disturbed. The humanitarian explanation is just so unbelievably galling. And this after Bush 2 was lambasted by the likes of Madcow for doing the very same??? I've never witnessed anything so hypocritical in my life. Someone help me here, Bush 2 was regularly and reliably criticized for being a war monger for "lying us into a war", for oil, for Halliburton, and who knows what else. And now NObama skates while not even consulting Congress??? My god, Bush had the actual approval of Congress, including Hillary, for invading Iraq!! Good grief, the likes of Madcow are truly a disgrace to this country.
Where's her
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:20am.
"smart guy" glasses? We'd take him SOOOOO much more seriously if he'd just put his "smart guy" glasses" on!
I don't think Maddow recognizes irony
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:53am.
I suspect that it's a defense mechanism that she has developed over all these years of trying to reconcile her extreme liberal views to reality.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
The most satisfying thing is that...
Submitted by ChrisNH on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:54am.
...MadCow recognizes that her lust and love for all things Obamo isn't shared by anyone else. He is the most reviled and despised president in our modern times and there's not a thing she can do about it. That must make the little shrew seethe with rage; she convinces NO ONE with her propagandist blabbering. Why else host a show if she can't 'convert' the haters into lovers of Obamo? It's no big deal to lust about Obamo before an audience of NYT 'faculty lounge' tweed-jacket pipe smokers who already think like you do. And that's really all MadCow has.
For the next two weeks,
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 8:21am.
For the next two weeks, Maddow needs to open every segment of her largely ignored show with this quote:
"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.
Rachel the story-teller
Submitted by paragrouper on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 8:41am.
A European coalition, unwillingly led by the US (or is it NATO now?), picked sides in a civil war and is providing cloase-air support to rebel factions under the guise of a UN sanctioned no-fly zone--all to protect European oil interests.
Rachel, and others of her ilk, they picked sides too.
"America cannot act
Submitted by Jerry on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 8:43am.
"America cannot act alone"
Like Irony, the ability to count also eludes Rachael. W's 30+ country coalition seems to befuddle anyone with a (D) moniker."
"the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq"
Then why in the heck go to war??? Just to blow stuff up? Should we have left Hitler in power after WWII?
Pay attention
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:30am.
Did you miss the part where Gaddafi was waging war on his own people? This intervention is focused towards the prevention of LIbyan genocide by a fascist dictator, not just to blow stuff up.
Shut up, Zippers.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:35am.
.
Moron
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:46am.
No...idiot.
Rush to Judgement
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:55am.
Did you miss the part where the so called "civilians" are in reality Al Qaeda???? The rebel leader was captured in Peshwar, in Pakistan. Now he is in Libya? Doing what? Learning needle print? And you morons want to stop Gaddafi from killing Al Qaeda?
And just what makes you so sure that, if the rebels win, they will not be just as bad, or worse? The innocent civilians your so worried about are Al Qaeda and Taliban and their supporters. I am telling you right now, if Gaddafi is forced out, his rein will look like Disneyland when the rebels get done.
We should not be involved at all. We should set up bleachers and just watch the show while they kill each other.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Such passion!
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:00am.
Which is why we did not invade Libya and why we did not declare war on Libya and why we are refraining from removing Gaddafi from power.
Humanitarian effort. Say it...calmly. And what on earth is needle print?
RtJ, your nuts. Dropping
Submitted by bassndude on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:05am.
RtJ, your nuts. Dropping bombs, firing cruise missiles(162 American and 2 British) is not an act of war??? Who cares if Gaddafi kills Al Qaeda? Or how many are killed? You want to stop killing them in the Afgan theater also? Or Iraq? You just want to sit there and hand Libya over to Iranian control?
Where do you get these ideas at?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
'Needle print' = the crude markings you make with
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:08am.
your pointy little needle-like member, Zippers.
Is this your big comeback day we've all been awaiting?
OH, that's right!! We
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:45am.
OH, that's right!!
We didn't declare war on Libya. We declared Kinetic Military Action!!
Are you SURE we're refraining from removing Gadhafi from power???
This is as good a summation of Obama's plan as I have found:
President Obama Orders Bombing of Libya to Remove Gaddafi but Mainly for Humanitarian Reasons Though Getting Rid of Gaddafi is Our Goal if It Doesn’t Conflict With Our Goal of Humanitarian Assistance While We Get Rid of Gaddafi
As Rush says, for something to be funny, it has to have a kernel of truth in it.
Sisterhood of the Unraveling Muslims
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:26pm.
In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood is pressing to introduce MODESTY PATROLS to make sure females are all dressed up to the slit in the Burka.
You remember the Muslim Botherhood? It;s that SECULAR ORGANIZATION we don't have to worry about, according to the deluded nutjobs in the US State Department.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
This intervention is focused
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:20pm.
This intervention is focused towards the prevention of LIbyan genocide
You mean like in Syria, Yemen, the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Lebanon, Iran?
You wanna talk "genocide"?
I suspect you don't know what the word means. You may care to ask the people of Rwanda though.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
I find it most interesting
Submitted by Free Thinker on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:18am.
I find it most interesting that in trying to explain why we are acting in Libya Obama destroyed years of branding by the democrat party by totally validating the Iraq war. You gotta belive a man in Dallas is smiling right now. It is clear Obama has no idea what he is doing and has no foreign policy to guide his decisions.
Black Sabbath
Submitted by Diesel on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:24am.
Hey, alright!!! I can finally listen to the song "War Pigs" again!!!
Thanks liberals!!!!
Translation...
Submitted by Dave81 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:32am.
"It doesn't matter if this war is right or wrong...the point is he's being consistent! And thank God he didn't say we're actually going to help remove this tyrant from power, since his position of power is such a threat to the US that it warrants us helping the rebels in the first place."
"legislatively un-sanctioned mission"
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:47am.
Now, that is well said! That is 100% accurate and absent coloring or spin. Good job there Noel.
I was reading elsewhere this morning about another certain set of words.
Kinetic Military Action.
KMA.
As Noel puts it, so too does Obama.
Noel told everybody the truth.
Obama told everybody to "Kiss My Ass".
dumbest schmuck on TV
Submitted by Injest on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:12pm.
"As for the differences between him and the previous guy, as for the differences between him and George W. Bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq."
Ray Ray has to be the dumbest schmuck on TV.
“topple the dictator there, a la Iraq.”
LaLaLaLa Iraq, It was US policy since 1998, when President Clinton pushed and passed the “Iraq liberation act” that “regime change” was the goal you stupid twit!
she instead made the case that such likeness was a good thing while taking the opportunity to bash Bush.
As for “regime change” she missed the target as it was President Clinton who made “regime change” in Iraq US policy!
People need to rise themselves in these nations if they are
Submitted by VanPastorMan on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:26pm.
serious about freedom. It is not our responsibility to free everyone. The preamble says freedom is our yearning, but that doesn't mean we go to all the other nations and force it on them. What I am worried about is that we don't know for sure who these rebels are in Libya. Are they part of the Islamic Brotherhood or Al Qaeda? If we free these people from Ghadaffi then what will we end up with? We might find out that we want Mommar back, that he was the lesser of two evils.
Obama Loses Nobel Peace Prize!!!
Submitted by ToonTheNews on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:08pm.
Obama Loses Nobel Peace Prize!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWmVKnYFodg
Hey ChickenSquawk Maddow why
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Mon, 04/04/2011 - 5:21pm.
Hey ChickenSquawk Maddow why don't you join the military seeing you're so gung-ho for military invasions?
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL... It's the way Liberals like to be genuflected to.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.