Setting aside the swipes at his predecessors . . .
From a communications standpoint, I think Obama’s speech tonight fell short of its needs and expectations. I know he reads a speech well, but the cadence is always the same — it’s as if you could take any of his major addresses and guess exactly how they are going to go. And the sentences often lead to head-scratching: the mind wanders — thinking, did he really just say that? Do they really believe those words?
I agree strongly that people who long to be free will look to the United States, and I’m glad he gave voice to that sentiment. I don’t think I heard a clear distinction about why we need to protect Libyans but not others — but perhaps reporting on the speech will make that clear.
Alas, this speech is like others the president has given that call to mind the old saw about Chinese take-out: at first you’re full — but an hour later you’re thinking, I’m still hungry.
Dana - Does he not practice these speeches beforehand with his communications professionals?
I have noticed he has different tones he takes with different audiences -- for example, he has a condescending, professorial tone which he took, for example in the O'Reilly interview, he has a sing-songy black preacher tone he tends to take with urban base audiences in campaign mode, etc.
But here, he seemed to me to be, as I mentioned on another post, taking a tone of hectoring and belligerence. Perhaps he was trying to seem outraged, but he seemed angry, and, strangely, his anger seemed directed more towards the viewer than towards Qaddafi, whom he is supposedly outraged at.
Especially in those moments when he looked directly into the camera, my impression was that rather than conveying humanitarian outrage and determination, he just seemed petulantly peeved at those who dare question his actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I don’t think I heard a clear distinction about why we need to protect Libyans but not others"
I actually think he was fairly clear on this point. Essentially, he said that though there are any number of brutal regimes in the world, the actions of which run counter to our nation's values and ideals, when we have the means to stop one of them we are morally obligated to intervene when we can.
In Obama's framing of the issue, because we have the support of the UN and an international coalition, we have the ability to intervene and make a difference in this case (where in other cases, intervention would be infeasible for political and economic reasons). Obviously, this is not a satisfying answer for anyone who is disinclined to trust this administration's judgment as to what is realistic and achievable, but it does present a rational that is fairly clear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have the means to stop a lot of problems...for a while.
Sorry, don't buy it.
As for the idea Obama is the great communicator...he isn't. He can read a teleprompter...so can a lot of Hollywood actors.
Dismal speech, but it's a dismal policy...not that the apologists won't be out tomorrow praising it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe met my basic expectations, you can't deny QuackDaffy was about to steamroll Benghazi, and that would have been a shame to look back on and know it could have been prevented. I've seen first hand what took place in Kuwait and the aftermath of the Highway of Death and I wasn't looking forward to seeing Benghazi after a door to door sweep.
Having said that, what is it with this nut case President and putting down previous Presidents? His Secretary of State is the wife of the guy he slammed in Bosnia. Both Clinton's have helped Barry Soreto and the guy just trashed them both this week, especially Bill tonight. Talk about no class, if I were Bill and Hill I wouldn't cover this hacks back again, as he has a very strange way of showing appreciation.
We can expect him to slam Bush, I mean I can even appreciate it, as Bush had total class at all times, unless he was joking, which he did so often. Barry the Obama is incapable of humor unless it is condescending, and he is shrill and short tempered with his ever present need to attempt to make himself look good by making others look bad, but it always makes him look like a whiner.
Lastly, Obama lost all respect of the Black Panthers as he messed with one of their fellow dirtbags in QuackDaffy. It will be interesting to see how that whole scene plays out during the election, as that was his uber left base lol.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI missed the speech, but he seriously is not still going after Bush is he? I know he's a stubborn old ox, but after the last election...does he think that still plays anywhere that helps him? Meaning, outside of San Fran and New York City?
I'm just so embarrassed that this guy is president. He's a grade A goon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Merthin
"We have the means to stop a lot of problems...for a while."
I think that is precisely Obama's point, that while there are any number of different conflicts we could wade into, in this case we had the ability to definitively stop a specific massacre from occurring,and in so doing reset the board in a way that would be definitive (or so the argument goes).
I want to be clear, I'm not suggesting that his analysis of this situation is correct, but the rational is not incoherent. The criteria is clearly stated, (we should do what is within our means to do definitively, provided the cost is not prohibitive) he just might be wrong in his judgment of this as a solvable situation. And by the way, I happen to think he is wrong. I don't believe that any successful closed ended military engagement is possible in the Middle East under any circumstances.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get the argument that it's better to go into conflicts where we're going to have "help" or "consensus" from other nations or international bodies.
BUT, shouldn't he have then addressed why those nations/international bodies have decided THIS TIME to go into some "kinetic action"? Why didn't we go into Darfur or Sudan or Iran or whereever else, where people were being pushed around/killed/etc? I just wasn't sold on an explanation for WHY we're doing Libya.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOBAMA willing to go to war for people we don't know,and don't understand.Last I understood, the Libyans don't like Americans. Remember the released Libyan Lockerbee Bomber, dancing in the streets. Now he wants to arm them. Thats crazy. What if BUSH did this? Obama thinks he's ruler of the world. THIS WILL COME BACK TO BITE US AGAIN.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse