Obama’s speech included these three sentences, and it is revealing that no one within the White House found them contradictory:
“I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.”
“Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”
“We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power.”
He must step down. We are working to drive him from power. But we are not pursuing regime change.
Present!
it was our generations Gutlessburg Address ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can see your general formulation in this post forming the basis for a Convention speech by the eventual Republican nominee. The nominee goes through a list of things Obama effectively acted "present" on during his first term with the crowd going wild shouting "Present!" after each one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe will do our moral duty and stand up for American ideals as long as the international community, the UN and the Arab League signs off on our plans to not overthrow any regime thru invasion but thru no-fly zones and the occasional stray close air support for rebel forces of unknown origin or motivation who will overthrow said regime but not IN OUR NAME ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresentdent Obama, 28 March 2011
Pres. Obama reminds me of Dr. Evil when he catches Austin Powers and leaves his henchmen to kill him using sea bass with lasers tied to their heads.
Dr. Evil: Scott, I want you to meet daddy's nemesis, Austin Powers
Scott Evil: What? Are you feeding him? Why don't you just kill him?
Dr. Evil: I have an even better idea. I'm going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death.
...
Scott Evil: Wait, aren't you even going to watch them? They could get away!
Dr. Evil: No no no, I'm going to leave them alone and not actually witness them dying, I'm just gonna assume it all went to plan. What?
Scott Evil: I have a gun, in my room, you give me five seconds, I'll get it, I'll come back down here, BOOM, I'll blow their brains out!
Dr. Evil: Scott, you just don't get it, do ya? You don't.
Likewise, Pres. Obama, hearing many people wonder why we don't commit ourselves to finishing off our nemesis if he really is such a bad guy, seems pretty committed to tell us, "you just don't get it, do ya?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince Obama managed to be on all sides of the issue, you'd think this speech wouldn't have and expiration date, but somehow, I think the Smartest Guy in the Room® will manage to find one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGee, maybe it's because I've read all too many governmental policy statements but those three sentences are rather clear: We hate the guy but will do nothing meaningful to get rid of him.
Isn't that standard left-wind foreign policy? As in: anything that might actual advance American interests (e.g., getting rid of an enemy like Gaddafi) cannot be pursued, whereas anything that involves totally irrelevant national interests but has engendered some level of outrage on the left (e.g., rapes in Bosnia, Darfur) are perfectly actionable issues... what I call the Left wing's "Save the Baby Bunnies" policy.
The American left is still hung up over learning the completely-wrong lesson of Vietnam: that (somehow) US Military policy is morally corrupt and therefore the (innocent) world needs to be isolated from it and any other American national interest. Only the purest of the pure (e.g., saving Baby Bunnies) can be tolerated.
Obama is probably feeling good about trying to save the Libyan bunnies, and vomiting up his lunch over the possibility our actions there might actually achieve an American national interest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a fan of the man, his (lack of) foreign policy, or his speech. Having said that, I think those three excerpts from his speech are not at all contradictory.
Obama's point is that he wants to use *non-military* means to force Gaddafi to step down. Thus he feels that our *military* mission should not include regime change, but that we should try to force Gaddafi out via sanctions and general "international disapproval". (ANd Obama appears to sincerely believe that this sort of non-military pressure can cause a guy like Gaddafi to just "step down" voluntarily.)
Again, I disagree with his position. I think it's terribly naive. But it's not contradictory.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not a big fan of Obama, but I do think that he deserves some credit for building an international military coalition, along with fairly clear and aggressive UN resolutions, in time to save Bengazhi.
It sure beats having 80% of Europe hate us, as occurred under Bush's Iraqi Freedom.
The nature of the Libyan intervention should also prove to be a lot less costly, in both blood and treasure, for the U.S., by virtue of not putting U.S. boots on the ground.
Furthermore, empowering the rebels for their own revolution, rather than putting US boots on the ground, gives them a sense of ownership in the outcome. The whole operation will feel more like their own revolution that way, and we don't get labelled as imperialist invaders.
As soon as we put boots on the ground, it feels more like a US invasion and we open ourselves up to the imperialist invader label, which disenchants many people in the region and hurts the cause of winning the hearts and minds of the People.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that what he is saying is that we will protect and morally support the Libyan rebels in their overthrow of Ghaddaffi, but we won't do the hands-on, boots-on-the-ground dirty work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePutting boots on the ground risks alienating public opinion in the Arab world, not to mention the lives of the US troops.
Better to let the Libyans lead the charge, providing air cover, arms, moral and humanitarian support to the cause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe first of these statements to me is the most troubling. How and when did Qaddafi ever qualify as a legitimate leader who had the confidence of his people? He had security thugs to ensure he remained in power. Qaddafi has not changed; US attitude toward him has.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse