« | »

Obama Didn’t Mention ‘Rebels’ – Or ‘War’

From a surprisingly critical Associated Press:

Analysis: Obama doesn’t mention Libyan rebels

By Anne Gearan, AP National Security Writer
March 29, 2011

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wanted to tell a hesitant America why he launched a military assault in Libya, and he wanted to describe it on his terms — limited, sensible, moral and backed by international partners with the shared goal of protecting Libyans from a ruthless despot.

Trouble is, the war he described Monday doesn’t quite match the fight the United States is in.

It also doesn’t line up with the conflict Obama himself had seemed to presage, when he expressly called for Moammar Gadhafi’s overthrow or resignation. Obama’s stated goals stop well short of that. And although Obama talked of the risks of a long war, he did not say just when or on what terms the United States would leave Libya.

Obama never directly mention [sic] the Libyan rebels seeking Gadhafi’s overthrow, even though the heavy U.S.-led firepower trained on Gadhafi’s forces has allowed those rebels to regain momentum and push toward Gadhafi’s territory.

Mind you, this is coming from the Associated Press.

"We have intervened to stop a massacre," Obama said.

Isn’t it odd how the rebels don’t "massacre" people when they kill Gaddafi supporters?

Ten days into a conflict many Americans say they do not understand, Obama laid out a moral imperative for intervening against a murderous tyrant, and doing so without the lengthy international dithering that allowed so much blood to be spilled in Bosnia. His address at the National Defense University echoed campaign rhetoric about restoring U.S. moral pride of place after squandering it in Iraq.

Would that be pride of second place? Since Mr. Obama has insisted that the US play second fiddle to first the UN and then to NATO.

And, for that matter, why shouldn’t we have moral pride over what we did in Iraq?

"Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges," Obama said. "But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."

Of course "our interests and values" were not at stake in Libya. But if we went to war every time our interests and values were at stake, we would never stop going to war. Indeed, there is not a country in the Middle East we would not attack.

Moreover, that sad truth is Mr. Obama has never shown any interest in defending our interest and values either at home or abroad. Just ask the people of Arizona.

If the purpose of the U.N.-sanctioned military action is to protect civilians, does that include pro-Gadhafi civilians who are likely to be endangered in places like Sirte that are in the rebels’ crosshairs? If not, it is difficult to see the Western intervention as a neutral humanitarian act not aligned with the rebels

The lack of logic here is so glaring that even the reporters at the Associated Press can see it.

"Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," Obama said…

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq," Obama said, where thousands of U.S. forces remain eight years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya," Obama said…

Mr. Obama is obsessed with Iraq and President Bush. There is no similarity between Iraq and Libya, except that in Iraq our nation’s vital interests were at risk.

Moreover, we had imposed a ‘no fly zone’ in Iraq for ten years — which accomplished exactly nothing.

Getting rid of Gadhafi "may not happen overnight," Obama warned, in his first acknowledgement of the stalemate with the rebels that many analysts and some of his own military advisers suspect is coming. Gadhafi, Obama said, might well cling to power for some time

And how many more Lockerbie bombings will he carry out while he clings to power?

The United States is considering arming the rebels, directly or indirectly, and U.S. officials say the U.N. resolution would allow that

Which is, of course, completely untrue.

Obama mentioned nothing about the possibility of civil war in Libya, or what the U.S. might do if the war grinds on for months.

"The possibility of civil war in Libya"? The AP doesn’t think there is a civil war going on in Libya already?

Obama still faces questions about why Libya and not Yemen, or not Syria. One of his closest national security advisers, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the administration doesn’t "get very hung up on this question of precedent."

"We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," McDonough said

And how can deny that this is true? There is no consistency to this administration’s actions. And they are often unprecedented in their foolishness.

Throughout his address, Obama seemed to be answering his own criticism of past wars and past leaders who committed military force too hastily or too hesitantly.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner never used the word "war" to describe what’s happening in Libya, but made a point of addressing what the conflict he chose "says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency."

Why should Mr. Obama call this a war? War is hell. ‘Kinetic military action’ is cool.

His book "The Audacity of Hope" and his Nobel speech established the same predicates for U.S. military intervention — an allied coalition and use of multinational power.

"We know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help," Obama said Monday. "In such cases, we should not be afraid to act, but the burden of action should not be America’s alone."

In "The Audacity of Hope" (page 178) Mr. Obama also wrote that the US would lack international legitimacy if it ever intervened militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

But we now know that he doesn’t make decisions based on consistency or precedent.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, March 29th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

29 Responses to “Obama Didn’t Mention ‘Rebels’ – Or ‘War’”

  1. canary says:

    Obama didn’t explain why the U.S. focused on bombing Gaddafi’s mandatory military instead of going after Gaddafi.

    Now NATO just announced they are not prepared to take over the war fare. So, why did Obama act without Congress, and why continue to act without Congress, now that he’s talking about giving muslim infidels weapons.

    Obama didn’t answer questions Monday’s speech on Libya, because he’s back on AF1 making at least 2 campaign raising trips today. One at NYC.

    Democracy? All the rebels say Islam Sharia law will run the government. There will remain no freedom in any country that practices Islam and uses Sharia Law. These countries are communists. Nothing but Hitlers going after others one by one. Islam is a worse threat than today than Hitler ever was to the world.

    If Obama told our own troops to kill us, it would be like Libya. There would those that follow orders, and those that would get killed by the others for not following. Target was missed when Gaddafi should have been the first target. I can see Obama and Gaddafi ruling Africa. Obama will convince them that Mohammad said that Obama is the 12th Iman and the new prophet to follow. Those barbaric backward Africans would buy it in a heartbeat. All will move to Africa and make slaves of the impoverished uneducated people. Obama just has to get with that muslm that says he’s going to blow up water holes in Africa with Obama. The people will call them his savior.

    Gaddafi will probably offer one of his sons hands to Obama in marriage. After all, he Obama saved his life. New law. You can have many wives and husbands. Isn’t that what the gays want. Isn’t it a NY commercial You should be able to marry who ever you love.

    I hope Obama trips or falls today. Breaks a fingernail, or something.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Who is this “Obama” fellow the article keeps referencing?

    • canary says:

      The guy who wooed Gaddafi at a summit not to long ago; in spite of his knowing Gaddafi was a monster.
      Obama wants the hand of Gaddafi’s son in marriage for not taking care of problem.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      He’s the one with his fingers in his ears, yelling, “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA”.

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    I thought we as a nation was only going to provide a “NO FLY” zone.
    Holy sweet Jesus…….we are bombing their asses back to the stone age.
    NATO couldn’t lead an old lady across the street properly.
    If we are not going to have any boots on Libyan soil, what pray tell are the 2,300 U.S. Marines going to do? They left Camp Lejeune this past weekend headed that way.
    This stumbling, bumbling, idiot president of ours is a dangerous fool and America may well see more blood on his hands!!

  4. Petronius says:

    What madness. Sheer madness.

    One particular passage in Nerobama’s Libya speech that grabbed my attention :

    “we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies — nations like the United Kingdom….”


    Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that Nerobama would utter the words “closest allies” and “United Kingdom” in the same breath.

    For over two years now, the American policy toward Britain has been one of insults, injuries, and betrayals. For over two years now, American foreign policy has generally been characterized by confusion, dithering, fumbling, apologies, opportunism, incoherence, weakness, and vacillation. By not rushing to judgment. Not jumping to conclusions. Of waiting until all the facts are in. Of keeping those glistening pectorals safely tucked in, out of harm’s way. Of playing possum. Until now, that is. Now we are suddenly become reckless. Yet insofar as there has been any consistency to American foreign policy, Nerobama has been singularly consistent in his mistreatment of old allies, especially the British.

    So does this new utterance (“closest allies”) by Nerobama signal a reversal in his foreign policy? Is the US embarking on an era of détente with the British? Or is it just another instance of his dissembling? Of his manipulation and amateur opportunism? And of his unflinching inconsistency?

    Oh, if only that sagacious master of foreign affairs, Lunch-bucket Joe Biden, were here to explain the hidden meaning of it all !

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Does this mean he asked for the Churchill bust back?

    • untrainable says:

      The thing in the bumbler’s speech that caught my attention was that he claimed to have, before any action was taken, spoken to the “bipartisan leadership of congress”. When was that exactly? Which people were in the room for this confab? You’d think we would have heard something about a meeting between the president and the “bipartisan leadership” of congress. I mean, it would be the first bipartisan meeting of his presidency. And if this alleged meeting actually took place, then where is this bipartisan coalition that he met with? Why aren’t they standing beside him? Where was the photo op? As Oblamer is more concerned with “optics” than substance, there surely would be some evidence beyond his claim during this speech. Who is the fall guy for this one? I would expect that he would have some republican lined up to blame all this on when it finally goes pear shaped.

      How long did it take for the word “quagmire” to become prevalent in the discussion during the Iraq kinetic military action? 2, maybe 3 days? Certainly less than the 10 days we have waited for this rambling attempt at an explaination.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Jeez, UT, haven’t you been following along? It happened because he said it happened. To think otherwise is to be a racist. Now, go over there, sit down, shut up and color.

    • untrainable says:

      OK Rusty. You’re right… I’ll color in my “Bipartisan Leadership Coloring Book” I’m up to the picture of John Boehner. Where’s my orange crayon?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Sorry, there is no orange. Only “solar energy yellow”. Use that.

      Other colors in the box are:

      “deep democrat blue”
      “collectivist red”
      “ever eternal green” (which you can also get using the blue and yellow. The blue and red one give you “power of the worker puple”)

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “Waiter? I’ll have a double of whatever Rusty’s drinking.”
      You’re on a roll today and damn funny!

  5. proreason says:

    Minds are wondrous but limiting things. For most of humanity, we feel a need to connect our actions and words to actions and words we did or said yesterday, the day before and even further in the past. Beyond that, most human beings feel like they exist within communities to which they are connected and which in turn place limits on our words and deeds, and in return, connect us into a fabric of life. In general, we feel like these connections, even with the limitations they impose on us, are good things. We don’t want to feel alone.

    The boy king has a different kind of brain and lives in a different kind of world.

    His words and actions today have no connection whatsoever to what he said or did yesterday or any time in the past. He has no connections to any other human beings and isn’t limited in any way by what they want or say, or the history of humanity or life.

    When you understand that you understand why he can lie without the slightest hesitation and say things that would make anybody else faint with shame.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I’m starting to give a lot more credence to the argument that he he is not only evil, but also brain-damaged from drug use. It would explain a great deal.

    • proreason says:

      “more credence to the argument that he he is not only evil, but also brain-damaged from drug use”

      You could be right about that.

      I never cease to be amazed that he can lie as effortlessly and as outrageously as he does. He really doesn’t seem to have any limits whatsover on what he is willing to say. A few years ago, I couldn’t have imagined in my wildest dreams that a president could do it. But he does, without the slightest indication of shame, or concern that somebody might eventually call him out for it. It’s the most brazen thing I’ve ever seen in real life.

      The only types of people I’m aware of that can do that are psychopaths and malignant narcissists, both of which seem to fit…but a drug-addled brain might be another possiblity. If I was one of his controllers, I would be certainly be thrilled to have an agent who was incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction.

    • tranquil.night says:

      You might very well be right Rusty but it is also deeper than that. A long road of cowardice and hatred, through which advancement and power comes at the increasing cost of his soul.

      This man, his heroes and acolytes are outside the bounds of reasonable explanation. He and everything about his governing ideology are simply That Which Must Be Repealed.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Well, certainly he’s got a whole package of mental problems to begin with but only in the most extreme cases, have drugs every helped. I have only seen peoples’ mental problems intensify under drug abuse. Hitler is always a good example…and I’ve also been noting that “leaders” of totalitarian states seem to have mental disorders as part of their “whole-person” package. I mean, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, Mao, Ach-I-Need-A-Job, and on and on. Freakshow nutjobs all of them. Wouldn’t even want to be on the same planet as them, let alone the same room. They are dangerous, unpredictable, impulsive and insane. What’s very interesting is that hollywood had spent several decades painting these very characters on film and yet when they actually exist, they cannot even seem to recognize them.

      Dumbass Sean Penn goes and visits Chavez: http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/03/clueless-marxist-sympathizer-sean-penn-visits-venezuela-as-chavez-sends-support-to-gaddafi/

      “Avatar” heralds socialism: http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/going_traitor_avatar_versus_imperialism_01954.html

      It’s all very strange to me. I feel like I and my friends at AT and S&L, MM and the like are the only sane people in the asylum, yet we get accused of insanity by the left with ridiculous pretzel logic and ad hominem attacks.

  6. artboyusa says:

    Well said, petronius. There’s a strong feeling in the UK that their efforts in support of America, which are costly in both blood and money, aren’t appreciated or acknowledged and that Obama is biased against the British on account of the “torture” his Mau Mau granddaddy may or may not have experienced in Kenya back in the 50s. Boo hoo hoo…

    • Liberals Demise says:

      You and I know BoBo head is a effing liar and anything
      else is also a effing lie!!!!

  7. tranquil.night says:


    We’ve just got a request in along with this message:

    “Dear My Immortal; you were right. I was a jerk. Will never doubt your transcendent ‘above the fray’ brilliance again. Yours truly, ‘Tingles'”

    Currently #1 on Billboard, it’s Katy Perry and Kanye West with “E.T.” – the remix!

    You’re so hypnotizing – Could you be the devil? Could you be an angel?
    Your touch, magnetizing – Feels like I am floating. Leaves my body glowing.

    Your so supersonic – Wanna feel your powers, stun me with your lasers.
    Your kiss is cosmic – Every move is magic.

    They say “be afraid,” you’re not like the others;
    Futuristic lover – Different DNA.
    They don’t understand you.

    Your from a whole other world – A different dimension.
    You open my eyes – And I’m ready to go, lead me into the light!

    [Kanye West]

    I know a bar out in Mars!
    Where they driving spaceships instead of cars!
    Cop a prada space suit about the stars!
    Getting high hah straight up out the jars!
    Pockets on shrek, rockets on deck.
    Tell me whats next? Alien sex!
    Imma disrobe you, then Imma probe you.
    See, I abducted you – So I tell you what to do!

    [Katy Perry]

    Kiss me, ki-ki-kiss me.
    Infect me with your love and fill me with your poison.
    Take me, ta-ta-take me.
    Wanna be a victim, ready for abduction!

    Boy, you’re an alien; your touch so foreign!
    It’s supernatural. Extraterrestrial!

  8. Tater Salad says:

    First the President took weeks to make a decision then He decided to use cruise missles attacking Libya. Then he said it was kinetic actions and not a war. Whatever that means?? A No-Fly Zone means that tanks and personell carriers are fair game now. Then he tells us that the war was a “humanitarian”event. What are we dropping from the sky? Bread and sacks of wheat? Then he tells us that he is NOT taking sides. Yeah right! Al-Qaeda is licking their chops. NOW, we are going to attack “ground forces”. This is what we get when a community organizer is elected president.


    The doctrine under which Hillary Clinton persuaded Obama to invade a sovereign country and thereby to disregard his Secretary of Defense (an actual pragmatist on Obama’s ship of state) is called “Responsibility to Protect.” It is the invention of NSC adviser Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Soros describes the doctrine like this:

    “If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.”

    • Liberals Demise says:

      That being said, who will help us? We are under attack from within!

    • tranquil.night says:

      Dictated from on high, King Barry descended from the mountain, chiseled tablet in hand:

      “Thou shalt be allowed to lob holy bombs of justice on thine enemy should it improve thy chance of four more years of thy messianic Change in America.”

      Edict in hand, he reembarked on his divine mandate to lead the oppressed victims of the world out of the desert and into the freedom of Shariah Law, solar energy lifestyles, and government-run Health Care.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      I’ll bet they stop off at a KFC along the way!

  9. TerryAnne says:

    First…score one for Rusty with the crayon colors. That cracks me up!!

    Second…remember the President never writes his own speeches. That translates to: there’s someone else out there who’s dumb and cowed enough to have written that drivel.

    My favorite: when he talked about giving the seized assets of Qadhaffi back to the people of Libya because that money “belongs to them”. Since when did he ever give two s*its about giving money back to people as a whole? Jaw. Floor.

    • TerryAnne says:

      Yay! Finally figured out how to get an avatar. :)

      Yes…I know. I’m a righty and I love John Lennon. It really does work out.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »