The President explains the Libyan mission at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. It is a confusing speech, but no passage is more perplexing than the one below. The key word has been highlighted.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
… I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.
Advertisement
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Why did the speechwriter choose to term “historic” to characterize this particular UN resolution authorizing a “no-fly-zone”? Other zones have been established in the past, in Iraq between 1991 to 2003 and in Bosnia between 1993 and 1995. What makes this different? A clue may lie in the sources of authority that the President invokes. They are for the most part grounded in grants of authority from the “international community”. He mentions diplomatic conferences in London — “tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations” — and the United Nations. Even the Libyan opposition gets mention on several occasions. But above all, he mentions himself, as if the entire authority to undertake this operation flowed directly from Barack Obama.
I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. … I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. … I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya … I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America. … As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. …
The speech is laden with references to either distant capitals or he, him and himself. Congress, which actually has the Constitutional power to make war, is mentioned exactly once, almost as an afterthought. But once again the question is, why “historic”? A hint of why President may consider this a milestone is the casus of this non-belli. Force is being used not to overthrow an enemy king but to selectively alter one aspect of that king’s rule. Military force is being employed against a sovereign nation not in order to replace the sovereign, but change one facet of that sovereign’s rule. It’s like a line-item veto on the internal policies of other nations.
President Obama makes a great deal of the fact that he’s not out to topple Khadaffi. That was the mistake of Iraq, he says. No. Better to stop short and limit the obectives to negating one aspect of Mohammer’s rule with JDAMs, cruise missiles and other ordnance. What happens when the airplanes eventually leave and Khadaffi is still in place is not described. We are left to imagine that Khadaffi, suitably chastened, will go and lead a reformed life.
The task that I assigned our forces — to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone — carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
Whether that is at all likely the reader may determine for himself. But the object of policy as laid out in this confusing speech is apparently to tweak Khadaffi’s internal policy; to fine tune it until it comes into line with whatever standards the UN deems adequate, but not to topple the Duck of Death himself. But who sets these standards? What is the line beyond which America cannot hold back it’s hand? Who determines this? The international community, national interest? The beleaguered foreign opposition? I? The President offers to explain:
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security — responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
And herein lies the most pernicious paragraph of all. Military force against a foreign nation ceases to be war and becomes a kind of humanitarian assistance. It is on par with responding to natural disasters. It is not fundamentally different from delivering relief supplies to Japan. “War” is never once used in the entire 3,370 word speech except once — to refer to a possible “sectarian war” which the present kinetic military event is aimed at preventing. It’s amazing stuff from the man who pre-emptively won the Nobel Peace Prize.
It’s interesting to compare Obama’s speech with Ronald Reagan’s speech giving the reasons for an airstrike on Libya. Obvious differences are linguistic. Reagan has no problem using terms like “enemy” or “terrorism” and very little shame at invoking the direct national interest nor in bluntly implying the attack was in retaliation for the murder of Americans. . The other difference is the clear invocation of American sovereignty as the fundamental basis for action. Reagan declares his intention to act “alone if necessary”, unlike Obama for whom this seems to be a verboten word. Stylistically the word “I” is not much in evidence in Reagan’s speech, nor do his hands gesture much. They were different men.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
“No Way In” print edition at Amazon
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Following Obamas logic–and that of Clinton/Rice/Powers
The next action will be a No Fly Zone over Gaza and the West Bank
Supported by NATO and the Arab League
To prevent civilian casualties from the IDF.
HE did it, therefore it is historic.
Translation:
“I decided to do this, but since it really is not worth doing in the first place, I decided to do it half-assed. Besides, if I decided to do it and go all the way that would mean that The Bush Doctrine applied, and I can never admit that.”
This brings to mind Peggy Noonan’s observation about John Kerry as President. “He would surround himself with very bright people and they would study every problem very carefully and then do nothing. Because they would conclude that what they should do would be what Republicans would do and they could not do that.”
My name is Obama, King of Kings. Let’s be clear:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
- the International Community Organizer hath spoken.
yeah, Arkroyal has it – “historic” is just a noise word.
Here are my nominations for remarkable sentences du jour:
In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.
What you mean, “We”, Hawaiian man?
“We” were not faced with it because it was in Libya and “we” were not.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
OMG, Obama embraces American exceptionalism!?!?!?!?
So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
This is his big rhetorical point, unfalsifiable of course, but by that same notion irrefutable. Still, for Obambus Q. Obambamus to emit this sentence, I hope he has first sacrificed 72 virgins at the shrine of George W. Bush.
Kind of reminds me of when the Tang dynasty was falling apart, only with no poetry and far less subtlety. So clever they’ve managed an own goal. Ah yes the Emperor and his prime minister have definitely been led around by the women.
#1 Victor:
Sadly, you may be precisely right, once things get rolling around Israel.
–JC
Without ground troops there will be no settling of the issues; east and west Libya will continue fighting, whether there is no-fly or not. Should Khaddifi leave, then the various sects and tribes will fight to keep the others from gaining control. Another potential tar baby.
There is no explanation why this particular place required us to act and what’s in it for us, no way anyone else can see how this would apply to a similar locale in the future. It’s incoherent.
Bad Karma coming out of the Obama Admin. He is lurching and stumbling… “He” couldn’t let this happen? Hell, it was Sarkozy that made the case and then MQ’s folks almost succeeded before “He”, kicking and screaming, allowed the US military to arrest the advance.
Where has “His” facility with nuance gone? The Libyan people are split on this one, MQ’s tribes are Libyan too – who will triumph? Our “smart” bombs are not smart enough to distinguish native Libyan from African mercenary – so we are killing Libyans to save them? Someone was right, under Obama’s construction Libya will again be ruled by the guys with the best guns, hired or otherwise. Feckless NATO or whoever their “designated driver” is and Pres. Obama will not patrol the sands of Libya to allow elections as we know them here (outside of Chicago that is).
Obama is such a mess and his mendacity in the Iraq comparison is deserving of ridicule. And really, at this point, that is all one is left with – ridicule. When I see an Obama bumper sticker I picture the driver as an unserious rube. They clearly have no idea. If I had put one on my car I would have at least taken it off by now. That they haven’t means they are doubling down in their support and don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Hope he enjoyed that trip to Rio – he (and we) have paid dearly for it…
At least Obama still has his NCAA picks, oops… like I said, bad karma at the White House.
There’s a corny old joke that has bandit talking to an acquaintance.
Normally the goals of war are solemn and serious. Like destroying an enemy. Or overthrowing a tyrant. The reason is that objects of war must be proportionate to the means. After all, you’re going to kill, mutilate and wound people so the goals of these violent acts had better be worth it.
What is objectionable about the present policy is not that the US is bombing Libya, but doing so in order to further some kind of humanitarian cause without even having for its object the overthrow of the tyrant. In order to hide the absurdity of this process, the word “war” is carefully avoided, and all kinds of euphemisms are used in its place.
George H.W. Bush invaded Iraq in 1991 and did not have regime change in the mission.
Ten years later we were back to finish the job.
cough
But I’m not worried, because of the emissions of purple politicians world wide there has been such a trend of increasing global hypocrisy for the last twenty years that it will melt Gaddafi into a small and possibly not even radioactive puddle, if he doesn’t run sooner, which I still think he will.
In a far ranging conversation about the meaning of the words “community organizer”, Obama explains:
To me the words are simply this
A Marxist organizer
Is one who thinks it not amiss
To act like he’s the Kaiser
And do by fiat what one might
Think highly most imprudent
So aid we must a neighbor’s plight
And more if he’s a student
Rebelling ‘gainst a Kaiser say
Or ‘gainst a foul dictator
Abandon him? There is no way
That we’ll say see you later
And so “community” includes
The very earth we stand on
That’s why we say to all bad dudes
Abandon what you planned on
Do not annoy me lest I be
Inclined to use my forces
Surrender now and best I be
Inclined to hold my horses
As president I know my role
Is organizer chiefly
Despite the fact the latest poll
Says I’m here only briefly
I, The Great Jubliation T. Obama have historically deflowered 72 Virgins in less than one hour, thereby leaving each one a little bit preganant.
File this one under F for Fantasy.
Only comment of any value was the bit about a pending massacre. We should never
stand by and let such happen when the tactical sitatuion makes a preemptive counterattack as easily accomplishable as this one was. BUT Obama jolly well was going to do just that until that French fellow forced his hand. Merci, Sarko, Merci.
And even then Hilary had to almost hit Obama upside the head with a 2×4 to get hime to cooperate.
Was this a preview of the Royal Obama?
About now the slow motion train-wreck is starting to play out frame-by-frame. State, the Executive, and the Legislative are all lying askew across the rails. NATO members have been playing hot potato with command. “Historic” describes the flimsy nature of the rationale for this intervention. Now that this has been done, what can’t an executive do?
Interesting. My understanding (which may be wrong) is that he gave up command to NATO and NATO says it will only do the no fly zone “command and control,” but will not order attacks against ground targets (Turkey insisted). And yet attacks against armor and artillery are happening. In fact the “coalition” is actively fighting on one side of the Civil war, supporting their advance — which would not happen without that support. So, who ordered those attacks? Obama? Some committee? Sarko? Cameron? Hugo Chavez? Who is giving the commands? That Canadian Chap? How was it all decided, and by who?
Europe needs to secure the oil and gas in Libya. It will be very hard to influence the political developments in that country without boots on the ground.
Also, there is not much by way of WMD in Libya (mustard gas, maybe). But Syria has a sophisticated program (Sarin gas, I believe).
The language of this thing is so mucked up I can’t follow it. The problem is I don’t know which absurdity we’re supposed to believe. My guess is that they have to say that they do not want to remove the Duck, because to do so would be impolitic over here, but then they try to add another “layer” and say that they really do want to remove him because not do so would be impolitic over there. The humanitarian angle is an obvious smokescreen, because they cannot say the vital interest is Libyan light, sweet crude for Southern Europe. That’d be blood-for-oil, and we can’t have that, worse, it would blood-for-somebody-else’s-oil, and we doubly can’t have that.
Usually the Left is pretty good about signaling which thing is to be privately understood as a lie, and the alert observer from outside can pick up on it. These would be things such as “Safe, Legal and Rare”, or Democrat opposition to gay marriage. Usually the ideological windvanes point quite clearly for the liberal vulgus, too, on where to stand on things. Today in the WSJ, for instance, was the story of the famed raging liberal activist gone tragically wrong, ie., he looked into it and found out that plastic ought to win the “Paper or plastic?” debate. And said so. For this he’s become a Latter-Day Hester Prynne, an instant pariah, an excommunicado who cannot walk thru the streets of San Francisco bereft of contumely.
This is a rare time when the intra-liberal semaphores are sputtering, and every one of their absurd takes is not only equally in play but also competing with each other.
Even their statist totems are off and misplaced. We got the Oval Office for Iraq pull out announcement, and to be comforted that they had their “boots on the throat” of BP. You, all the really presidential and important stuff. We got NCAA bracket pre-emption and Ft. McNair for Libya. One is not reassured that, with the Middle East bursting at the seams, this crew has a serious direction.
So do you send AC130 gun ships and A-10 Warthogs to enforce a no fly zone or to blow up things on the ground? Is it now a no fly, no drive, no walk, and no flatulence at night zone?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/29/3176341.htm
“Tang dynasty”
Is that the orange flavored one?
No Annoy Mouse, no. It comes from the Clinton Adminsitration
and is properly known by its full name: The Poontang Dynasty.
Okay folks, this is what OUGHT to be done. Finish off Quack A Daffy
and restore the monarchy he overthrew. Kings are a good symbol of national unity.
The put the spooks and Sneaky Petes to work converting things to a constitutional monarchy with a federal instead of a unitary structure. (and FULL freedom of religion shall be mandated).
Since the French and Italians helped to avoid a state of nature
they get Libyan oil an not more than $60 a barrel for 30 years
with Uncle Sam collecting 15 to 25% of the sales price in order to
receive adequate recompensation.
Basics quick and easy to implement and not to costly. Followup low profile
and with a decent return on capital to boot.
James K Polk would heartily agree.
Josh 11 is right. The least BHO can do is say something nice about GHW Bush 41. Look how well that turned out.
With the world getting hongrier, is there any question what the massively-arming other two nuclear superpowers are massively arming fer? Check the food map below.
And all we gotta do to off-foot all their expense is simply outlaw the democrats befo they trow away all our dee-terrent! better hurry tho.
http://yargb.blogspot.com/2011/03/way-to-mans-heart.html
Hiya Buddy. Off topic. Was just over by Boron. Rio Tinto continues to
operate borax mine. Have 30 to 40 years to go if extraction rate maximized.
70 year stockpile. Soon as other portions of economy pick up, their revenue should markedly increase with little or no addition of operating costs.
Now back to the subject: WE need to learn how to practice our imperilaism in an astute manner, thereby converting liabilities to assets, Libya would have been an outstanding opportunity. Might still be if we get a little Divine Intervention going.
Trouble with this adminsitration is that Hilary has a larger pair of balls than does Obama. The latter reminds me of a certain Moses Rose.
To Obama’s voting demographic of young YouTwitFace’rs, history began somewhere around 2006. They can’t remember much farther back than their last hash-tag parry on Twitter. Social forums form their history, their world view, and thus form whatever they are going to support.
Obama is never speaking to the grown ups because the entirety of what we are facing today was built one public school student at a time for the last 40 years.
A hard habit to break, he and Michelle continue to “educate” according to what they want to see formed in young minds. He re-writes history with every phrase because. . . well, he Won.
“In order to hide the absurdity of this process, the word ‘war’ is carefully avoided, and all kinds of euphemisms are used in its place.”
When has Obama advocated for war, as you understand the term, Wretchard? It is not so absurd if your goal is to subjugate the traditional aims of warfare to internationally accepted legal norms and institutions charged with their enforcement. The Libyan intervention is a crudely crafted case to advance this goal. To Obama and to those closest to him who have advocated for the US involvement this is not a war, despite the acts of war committed, and therefore not to be named as such.
It was said long ago that things should be properly named or that bad things will follow. We shall see about that.
Well more than once the ‘tang caused problems in the various Chinese dynasties.
The Emperor would become infatuated with a wife or concubine and promote a male relative of hers to a high position such as prime minister. If the Emperor had the “mandate of heaven” he was never wrong in his decisions. His prime minister would be his appointment and Since the Emperor was never wrong then the prime minister was never wrong. The power inherent in the prime ministers position could go to a weak man’s head and he would make hasty moves, piss off someone important and start a civil war. More than once some slick chicks cousin, brother, or special someone would get in over the head and mess it up for everyone. The civil service test did much to get competent people into the Emperor’s administration but as Tom Kratman say’s on a related issue, “Mars always ends up as Eros bitch.”
OBL is doing more moving around in the last couple weeks in the Hindu Kush than he has in the last couple years. Apparently he feels that the events in the middle east are a vindication of his efforts and he wants to be a part of the great events lest they pass him by.
http://bit.ly/hcuRr1
He’s really asking to get whacked but it imho it doesn’t really matter now if he gets whacked. he has won his point in the middle east. for that part of moslem opinion that he represents–his job is done.
#13 Dave
“BUT Obama jolly well was going to do just that until that French fellow forced his hand. Merci, Sarko, Merci.”
Sarko didn’t force his hand, just that big America didn’t like the idea that a French would have the guts to go for it alone, or fast, with the Brits ! Though I read that that was Cameron that lobbied for a America participation, there are some uterin ties that are difficult to cut !
MC: Obama wanted no intervention at all. Was in denial about the
bloodshed that was about to occur. Then Sarko said he would go it alone.
The Obamaroids could not stand the thought that they were not in charge so
Cameron had an easy time invoking what is left of the Special RElationship.
BUT other parts of the Obama political base cannot stand the thought of America ever being the hero so Obama has tried to mollify them by pulling his punches—–something he likes to do anyway. We were about to see a symbolic waste of good Tomahawks when DE Gaulle’s force du intervencion went to work. Glad it was around.
I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.
Was that before or after he ordered the warships out of the Mediterranean?
He ordered the seas to lower and the Earth to heal too.
We can see it. The Left never will.
I put on my (rusty) Democrat tinfoil hat, and looked at the current state of affairs. Through their eyes –
– Obamacare? Great! Free health insurance! what can go wrong? Bitchin’.
– Humanitarian intervention in Libya? SO much nicer than that creep Bush with his corporate pals, lying us into a War for Oil.
– Multicultural/multigenderal everything? Rainbow coalition, baby. Anything else is “racist.”
– Redistribution of wealth? Only fair, folks! only fair. And about time. Rich people (except OUR rich people, who are philanthropists!) are such pigs.
– Bypassing the Constitution? Man, that rag is SO five minutes ago. Like, from the Dark Ages. And it was written by slave owning honkies anyway.
– Patriotism? to hell with it. It’s so Jingoistic, you know. Warmongers use it as an excuse. It’s the last refuge of scoundrels — some Dead White Male said so.
– Christianity? A honky trip, dude, that denigrates all the cool and colorful, exotic religions that are So much more interesting than my old Sunday School, man. Besides, they let you have all the sex you want, without strings. Look at the Kama Sutra! How can you prefer that uptight morality shite to the Kama Sutra — are you crazy?
– Women’s Studies and Black Studies, etc.? Enriching our lives in every way! and white men are such pigs, you know. It’s their turn to take it up the chute.
– Masculine virtues? what, do you mean that all women are cowards and chattel? weaklings to be protected? with the legal status of idiots and minors?
– Marriage? why, that’s just a piece of paper. People who really love each other don’t need no chains, man. We only need to stay together as long as we Feel Good about it. Bad feelings? outta there, dude.
– Children? their horizons are Broadened by having blended families. Makes them more tolerant, evolved, Ascended beings. Flexible, open-minded, not narrow-minded gits who only care about their birth families.
– Standards of achievement? what tripe. Making humans feel Bad about themselves is cruel and discriminatory.
– Judgement? well, who are We to judge anybody? The height of arrogance! besides, you are using Old School standards to judge these new, breakthrough styles of art. Why, you sound like that arrogant old fossil Hilton Kramer.
– Shakespeare? Oh, please. He’s so 400 years ago. A pet, a fossil, a fetish of the arrogant class who like him because only they can understand him. Besides, he was SO Establishment. And who can understand that Elizabethan tripe anymore anyway? Same goes for all the Dead White Men of the Western Canon. Time to throw them All OUT, and get fresh multicultural, nonwhite voices in there.
– Military strength? NOOOO — it only makes the weakies hate us. And nothing is worse than being Hated. Besides, our big-footing around the world, our Cultural Imperialism, is a bullying way to be in the world. We deserved the September 11th attacks: it’s no surprise that the Muslims, who are an authentic Rouseauvian noble-savage culture, struck back at us the only way they can, the poor dears.
– Fighting the jihadis? They’re freedom fighters! Michael Moore said so! We are the Evil Empire, and they’re the Jedi Rebels.
There is NO PROBLEM HERE: this is ALL GOOD, folks. All morally superior, in a way that only a Garrison Keillor can understand.
/endit
That’s the mindset we’re up against. For all the things we spot as Bugs, they regard as Features. I can’t emphasize this enough. There’s a GRand Canyon between their belief system and ours. Not even Evil Knievel can jump it.
So pointing out the horrors only cements their adherence to their Doctrine. Their moral world is inverted, in many ways. They truly are on The Other Side.
The problem as I see it, given the foregoing collection of beliefs, is how to poison their well. How to make those same ideas either distasteful or repulsive to them, or to at least crack the case so they see virtues on the other side.
Any ideas?
Speaking of retaliation for the murder of Americans…whatever happened to those Somalian pirates that killed those four people they plucked from the yacht?
A brief google search tells me nothing was done to retaliate, and also that the pirate mother ship involved was allowed to sail away unmolested.
It says something about how far off the rails American governance has run that pirates can kill Americans without consequence, but a country that had decent relations with the US of late is under attack.
Amazing, except it’s not. For a long time we’ve had an army that somehow can’t protect the US border, although it protects many borders elsewhere. Now, we’ve got a navy that can’t protect Americans at sea, but it’s quite handy if Europe needs it to keep Libyan oil flowing.
Why the hell are Americans paying for this military, anyway? It never seems to be there for us, when we really need it.
Obama and his speech? Just another shining example of this insanity, mixed in with a heaping helping of narcissism.
32/33 Beverly:
That looks like a pretty comprehensive list of prevailing sentiment amongst our youth (I think that extends to the mid twenties now).
How to combat it? I don’t think you can do it through argument, as I think these attitudes are more a part of their shared, conformist identity than a thought out critique of the world, and our place in it. It’s why they tend to shout down opposing arguments: those might make them think, and they can’t have that.
I recognize some of the attitudes I had as a very young man, and the thing that changed me is reality. I’d guess many of them are about to undergo that transformation as well, as we’re about to get a large dose of that good and hard.
The true believers are few in number, or at least I think so. They can be bypassed or rooted out of the system, given enough time. They’re pretty entrenched, so it won’t happen overnight, and it won’t happen until those on this side take up the challenge, instead of accomodating their worldview. Our real enemies aren’t hoary old leftist professors and brain dead student “radicals”, but those who purport to be our friends. You can’t beat something with nothing, and the GOP is living proof of that.
Our biggest problem is with the muddled middle; the type of people who will vote for Scott Walker to take care of the budget, then cry that they didn’t want the “radical” solutions and union busting he proposed. There’s a lot who want to have their cake and eat it too, or who truly believe that our problems can be solved by half steps, and these people vote. Once they are forced to stand on one side or the other we shall see what this country will become.
Big O’s response to events in Libya strikes me as Clintonian triangulation at it’s finest. Let France and the UK take the lead. If it goes sour he can say “Wasn’t my idea”. And if by some chance things turn out well, then he can claim “I had to act in the name of humanity” etc etc. and lap up the resulting accolades. Not bad for an amateur.
Historic for a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
I take my cue from Villary – the Libyan adventure is a reason to smirk.
Marie Claude: Do you think that Sarkozy would have gone it alone without cover of a UN Resolution in support? If so, what was holding him and his government back all those weeks? They waited an awfully long time to launch all those French cruise missiles to take down the Libyan air defense systems. Those were French cruise missiles, right?
@ Beverly re: poisoning the well.
The pro-life crowd has a deft hand for that: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/irony-new-pro-life-billboards-feature-president-obama/
I spy, with my little eye, the following discrepancy. In an address, to either congress or the nation, a legitimate president would state what actions he has undertaken (for congress to evaluate, as regards their authority thereof), and why, as opposed to a speech, in which case the purpose of a speech is to make a point or points, argue them, and try to persuade others as to why that point of view reflects what would make the best or most appropriate leadership.
That such a conflation took place in a setting otherwise more suited for a speech, as opposed to an address, went completely unnoticed by the punditry which evaluated it, anxious as they were for something of rhetoric to evaluate post haste, and by their complicity, makes it neither a speech nor an address, but a hustle.
Europe needs Libyan oil, and thanks to the media, the place is unstable, and on it’s way to insanity due to the strategic importance of the Suez canal (regarding oil elsewhere), which is almost in the hands of the muslim “brotherhood” as it is, so they need a supply of oil that can be transported without the need of a Suez canal.
He cites the fallacy that if we did not act now, or should I say, hadn’t acted already (without the backing of congress) the flow of blood would have been much worse in future (notice the ripsaw/whiplash jumping of tenses), but it’s the flow of oil that he and europeons have been worried about since the beginning, and that flow has been slowing down from Libya since this started, and he and they want to make a deal with whomever a power vacuum awards the Libyan lottery to.
Congress is mentioned but once, and oil not at all. It’s the flow of oil the europeans want to keep flowing, and not spill.
As to the “historic” UN resolution, he’s saying that U.S. foreign policy is decided by the U.N., and that any national security interests or threats to us are to be conflated with “humanitarian” interests as well.
Or, more bluntly, he’s saying he’s stabbed us in the back again, but because he’s in such a generous mood to begin with, he’ll show us the knife with our blood dripping from it this time, as it’s the U.N. as pimp, and the U.S. as it’s bee*otch, and just look how his hands are wiped clean in the transbargain.
Impeachable? I say yes. Conviction or removal from office in the senate? Conventional wisdom says “…of course not!” But there are 24 dems in senate who face re-election next year, so let’s see who, for the record mind, let’s see just who they support and/or don’t support when issue brought before them is clarified as to threats to national security or not- their constituency or the U.N., by obamas deft and conflated default amendments.
I see this whole affair as just another effort in the continuing dismantling of the United States as a wealthy, powerful sovereign nation.
We are being stripped and looted from the inside, and the “international community” is scavenging through our belongings that were tossed to the curb as we self-evict ourselves. So far their favorite American belongings are our vaunted military assets.
Congress continues to abdicate ever more of its responsibilities despite the 2010 results.
DR@42: So far their favorite American belongings are our vaunted military assets.
Warren Buffett Fears Foreign Ownership …
He foresees that eventually foreigners will “sell most of [the U.S. debt they hold] to Squanderville [i.e., American] residents for Squanderbucks [i.e., U.S. dollars] and use the proceeds to buy Squanderville [i.e., U.S.] land. And eventually the [foreigners will] own all of Squanderville [i.e., the United States].
Who Owns the World?
………..
She [QEII] is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres[.]
Largest five personal landowners on Ear[t]h:
Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres
…….
# 33 Beverly said:
“The problem as I see it, given the foregoing collection of beliefs, is how to poison their well. How to make those same ideas either distasteful or repulsive to them, or to at least crack the case so they see virtues on the other side.”
Since the extreme left cannot be turned, your challenge involves only those on the near left. The demographics of that group should provide the issues that can be reframed from virtues into vices.
Gee, I dunno bout our historic humanitarian kinetic military action. Seems our rebels ain’t doin too well if we don’t bomb and strafe daffy’s forces
.http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/29/reports-libyan-rebels-retreating-in-disarray/
If our Dear Leader don’t want to win this thing, I kinda think Daffy will, and then there will be one hell of a mess. No oil for Yerp, and an enraged Daffy as well.
Some Smart diplomacy.
Also, eleven days into this thing, our Admiral in charge of NATO kinda thinks there could be some “flickers” of Al Qaeda among the rebels. Now ya tell us. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/29/nato-commander-hey-lets-take-a-closer-look-at-the-rebels/
“…And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people….”
I suspect that the word Wretchard highlighted catches Obama’s intent. The highlighted word makes an otherwise incomplete speech both meaningful and memorable for those attuned to hear the wolfwhistle (and for future historians, of course):
I think Obama used much more violent and graphic language, including ‘war’, describing his enemies and the actions he intended to use on them – those people who are not his supporters.
Now we know, the one thing worse than the ‘cowboy warmonger’ is the desperate (smart) weasel playing man-up purely for political expediency. At this point, nothing this president says (or does) will convince me that he has America’s best interests in mind. Good luck for them to continue trying to fool their intended audience.
Of course it’s historic for several reasons:
1) Obama’s Black. His no-fly zone is the first Black no-fly zone, just as Obama’s mistaking a window in the White House for door when trying to push his way in was his historic first pratfall which revealed his intellectual abilities.
2) Obama’s the second Nobel Peace Prize winner with a Muslim name to start a war in the Middle East (Arafat was the first). Being deferential to Arafat (and the Saudi monarch) is historic. He let them do their evil first. Obama is very considerate that way. Oh, and did I mention Obama’s Black?
3. History began with the year zero on day zero, the day the big zero, umm, I mean Obama, was inaugurated. Only events that take place after that day and which involve Obama are historic. Oh, and did I mention Obama’s Black?
4. Obama is the first important American president to vow not to overthrow a jew-hating, mass-murdering tyrant, unlike FDR and Bush, who did overthrow jew-hating, mass-murdering tyrants. Obama knows whose side is right and whose side he is on, unlike past presidents. Oh, and did I mention Obama’s Black?
I could go on, but why bother? Commandante Zero is historic. His telepromptr readings are historic. His attendance at the Jew-hating church is historic. The Lightbringer strides through history with the confidence of a sleepwalker, his every step accomplishing his historic mission.
34. Xennady
This is just a guess…
But very shortly after the pirates murdered our fellow Americans the Indian Navy captured a pirate mothership in those same waters. 61 pirates were on board. They’d captured a fishing boat, IIRC, and were using its identity as a shield.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15briefs-ART-India.html?src=twrhp
The pirates had been running operations off of this particular mothership for weeks.
Fishing must be prohibited in those waters: too many victims vs the value of the catch. The motherships are always found to be fishing vessels — they’re so slow and have the loiter profile the pirates desperately need.
———–
41. Gaffe Price
The Suez Canal has completely lost its strategic significance to the oil trade. It only has tactical value, now.
VLCCs and ULCCs are now available in such numbers — and they can’t use the canal — that it’s cheaper to ship oil the long way.
East Africa does get its refined products via the canal from Europe — but these can swing the other way with minimal effort.
The war is for oil. Period.
Europe is specifically addicted to the sweet, light crude that Libya has.
The MSM has deliberately faded the pronouncements from the Duck of Death that he was so offended by the Euros that he was cutting them off — totally and permanently — from his exports.
Within hours all the soft power was dropped and hard power invoked.
So its Libyan blood for European oil.
It is physically impossible for the European refineries to substitute other oil imports on short notice. Light, sweet crude supply is as tight as a drum. The only slack is in sour, heavy oils. It costs a lot of money to build a refinery that can process the heavy stuff — and the techniques are trade secrets held by Big Oil.
Buying the cheaper, heavy oil is how the majors are still making money. ( The technical history goes back to Kern County oil which is very heavy and sour — but right next door to Los Angeles. )
Brutal pricing in the market — panic buying — is absolutely killing the weaker economies of Europe. Hence, they are defaulting on their debts. What cash they’ve got HAS to go to buy oil right now.
Portugal has already blown up. Next in line is Greece; then Spain; then Italy. These sovereign defaults will destroy the major banks of Europe. Paris and London figured that out before the first bombs dropped. They were getting phone calls from both bankers and oil men.
The Resident should have come clean and admitted that we’re involved to save Europe from itself.
Their hardship has just begun.
The specter of European muslim riots is close at hand. London and Paris are ‘all-in.’
——–
The reason NATO is so slow to take over American anti-tank operations is that the Euros want to distance themselves from ANY fiasco/ PR disaster that could occur while America plinks at Daffy’s tank farce.
The bulk of the effective military action is entirely American. The idea that the French or British are significant players against tanks is pure propaganda/ dis-information. Which is why what few strikes they hit are instantly given great publicity by the BBC — owned and controlled by the UK.
——–
The other day I posted that the Revolution would have to be stupid to attack Sirte. Well, they ARE idiots. They bravely attacked it. And now they are bravely running away.
Rommel vs Wavel was tragic. This time, Daffy vs Rebels is pure farce.
——–
Cyrenaica should probably be severed from Tripolitania. That’s the quickest path to normal living. London already is talking along such lines.
Campaign weather will not last much longer. In a month it will be too hot to fight. As it stands all hands should jump to repairs while they can.
——–
The AC-130 is NOT using ground spotters. It’s using Vietnam era tactics: plinking tanks and artillery that are out in the open — and in use or transport.
Ditto the A-10. A single sortie by an A-10 — the unloved aircraft — can wipe out a tank company. A gaggle of A-10s can wipe out a battalion in short order.
NATO/ OTAN is not going to ‘take charge’ until the USAF cripples Daffy’s tanks and artillery. Then the conflict can proceed with camel vs camel.
It’s very difficult to interpret Obama using English; “historic” is pure Newspeak. Leftists believe that they are on the side of history (or history is on theirs; details differ), so “historic” means “things have successfully ratcheted in our favor and will never be allowed to change back.” You just have to know which language you’re listening to.
39. Odysseus
“Do you think that Sarkozy would have gone it alone without cover of a UN Resolution in support? If so, what was holding him and his government back all those weeks? They waited an awfully long time to launch all those French cruise missiles to take down the Libyan air defense systems. Those were French cruise missiles, right?”
Unlike the US we need a UN resolution to make it, and in this context, the green light of the Arab league too, et hop jumped Hilary on the process !
Though I have the sentiment that you are very proud that that the American armada was there, to show to the world how mighty it is still ! hey, may-be Libya war will finally be a victory fer ya
and, look, Blert said it all !
The bulk of the effective military action is entirely American. The idea that the French or British are significant players against tanks is pure propaganda/ dis-information. Which is why what few strikes they hit are instantly given great publicity by the BBC — owned and controlled by the UK.
Blert
“The MSM has deliberately faded the pronouncements from the Duck of Death that he was so offended by the Euros that he was cutting them off — totally and permanently — from his exports.”
hmm then why the UN and the EU pronounced a ban over Libyan oil ?
@#49 blert, much obliged for the clarifications.
Marie Claude: Proud? No. Simply noting that Sarkozy and Cameron would not have gone it alone, or together alone, as you suggested in your original post. Obama was not motivated by the fear you assert in #29. That was my only point – with a playful tease (note the wink, my dear).
Neither Cameron or Sarkozy had the military assets to clear the air defense systems as easily, and risk-free, as was done with a fusillade of Tomahawks. It would have been a great risk to try to enforce a no-fly zone against a functioning air-defense system. By your own admission, they would not proceed without UN approval: hardly a go-it-alone attitude. You would agree? Whether you think that Sarkozy would go-it-alone, or think that Obama was motivated to action by that thought, Sarkozy would not have gone-it-alone: the facts speak for themselves. And if that is apparent to me, it certainly would have been apparent to someone in the White House.
but Odysseus
their ambition would have been more limited : to protect the Benghazi population and its aera !
This is another one of those ‘Hundred Roses” deals, folks. Whatever else the liar-in-chief is trying to pull, most of his shenanigans are intended to smoke out his opposition. Make people lose their tempers and say intemperate things that can be used to identify’em later at the denunciation show trials.
I don’t believe that crap about 2Billion dollars being spent on 3-tiered modern rail cars with welded shackles. Certainly not enough to hold 15 million prisoners. When the government is that far gone, believe me, they will not be spending all that money on high-class transportation. They’ll be spending a whole lot less on digging mass graves. “You guys over there… yeah, YOU lot. Line up in a row, so we can save on bullets.”
Obama does not give a flying fig about the people dying under the U.S. and allied bombs and rockets, any more than he cares about those being murdered by Ghaddafi’s troops.
Does anyone really believe he gives a crap about the Black Africans being murdered by the Arab janjaweed jihadists sponsored by the Sudanese Government, just one member state of the benevolent ARAB LEAGUE he claims appealed to his conscience about Ghaddafi’s excesses?
He is a liar, and that’s the least of his sins. It is a central feature of his psyche. You can depend upon this: whatever he is saying at any moment, you can be certain it is a lie.
I’m starting a letter-writing campaign to my congresscritter to initiate impeachment. If that doesn’t get a response, i’ll print T-Shirts, and if that doesn’t scare’em, I’m letting out the stops and having a rally on the Mall. All six or seven people who are concerned enough to care.
Seriously folks. This exercise is intended mainly to bleed the military’s resources. If he can kill off some troops, all the better. His whole administration is a congeries of demons who see patriots as the enemy.
#52“hmm then why the UN and the EU pronounced a ban over Libyan oil?”
**
“A correction was introduced, stipulating the prohibition applies only to those supplies from which Gaddafi regime is directly benefiting. However, the EU leaders have promised the New Libya a comprehensive political and economic support.”
http://bnn-news.com/2011/03/25/world/es-introduces-ban-libya%E2%80%99s-oil-gas-imports
The problem is I don’t know which absurdity we’re supposed to believe.
Cowboy, I think the answer at this point is “whichever one is easiest for you to swallow.” The Left has been lying to so many people (to it’s rank and file most of all), about so many things, for such a long time, the paint strokes have finally converged and the Left in trapped in a corner.
But the Activists and Glorious Leaders don’t care any more. They are so used to lying, and assume their followers are so used to being lied to, that offering up some absurd spiel is all they need to do any more. They don’t even try to make it coherent any longer (not that they still could, the inherent contradictions are too big and obvious at this point). They rely on the useful dolts (who would have to raise their IQ a dozen points to qualify as idiots) to hamster together a rationalization out of magic words like “historic” and “international” or “humanitarian.” Or “rights” and “fairness” in Wisconsin.
Leftists listen to Obama giving a speech like an American Catholic listens to a prayer given in Latin – they don’t understand the words themselves, which no longer have meaning other than as the decorative wrapping around the idea of the prayer. What the invokation itself stands for is something they already learned as part of their faith, and trying to haggle with them over the words isn’t going to shake their faith.
What might however, are actions by their leadership that are inconsistent with the flock’s understanding of things. Like a preacher who’s caught molesting the choir or selling grace to the highest bidder, Obama is losing the faithful because he can’t live the faith as they’ve been sold it.
The Protestant Reformation was a reaction by the faithful to the inability of the Catholic leadership to run a worldly empire without transgressing on important moral issues. We might want to imagine what a Reformation of modern liberalism might look like, and if there are any directions we could or should encourage it to go in.
(NB: for anyone worried about comparing liberalism to Christianity, please remember we are discussing form, not substance. The Catholic Church adopted many pre-existing forms for itself, the better to help people accept the faith. It should be no surprise that a challenger faith arisen in the last century or so should do the same. Both – all – faiths work with the same raw material – human nature. So there are commonalities).