Like this one.
America cannot be the world’s police, but we have a unique moral obligation to prevent atrocities. It’s true there are many such events around the world. But Libya is different.
Why? The “international community” made it convenient. America will live up its high ideals when it is easy and popular.
I also thought it was striking and unsettling when I heard it that he said, “as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” He refused to wait for the bad press? Very odd terminology I would never have written for my former boss. We are talking about real, live people. Not images. Here’s the passage:
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
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.
Is our Fearless Leader making an argument for American Exceptionalism? Does Barry-O really believe it or was he just trying to protect the Al Qaida forces who were after Ghadaffi? Did Mr. Big forget to mention his partners: Germany, Italy, United Kingdom. I I I I I I refused to wait for images of weapons of mass destruction to take shape.
“It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.”
In other words, I get to look good before the people wise up to the cravenness of this approach, i.e., I can do this at little or no risk to myself and my image and get away with bragging about it to my fawning press. And, if things don’t go well, with NATO in command I get to blame someone else. What’s not to like?
“And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
But will that be his viewpoint if the slaughter and graves are in Israel? How about Iran? North Korea? Has he considered China recently? And, Syria has killed a few Americans recently; are they immune?
Well, I think I can boil that entire speech down to one sentence.
“We’re all neo-cons now.”
y10ZQK http://djUhw3m9CapHj49gLldr41b0v.com
And if all the dictators decide to treat dissent by mass murder are we going to go after all of them? As others have noted, what about North Korea? They’ve been killing their own people for decades. Or are we only going to intervene when the pictures hit the nightly news? Otherwise, see no evil, there is no evil?
And why do we have to pay for it? If it’s an international coalition, should it be an international wallet?