Hard Left staggers:Obama speech solidifies support
Read Time:1 Minute, 44 Second
The Hard Left Obama haters are beside themselves once again as Barack Obama made his case to the American people. The president stressed the need to be a leader in the world, and articulated his message both looking back and going forward, all the while instilling confidence in a troubled nation and a frightened world.
President Obama made his case for the American intervention in Libya tonight at the National Defense University, reports Politico, citing the perfect storm of international support, Libyan rebels’ pleas, the US’ ability to avoid committing ground troops—and its obligation to prevent genocide. Some highlights:
- On his decision: Obama says he acted “after consulting” congressional leaders and, “Tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”
- On the US cost: “Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation—to our military, and to American taxpayers—will be reduced significantly.”
- On his urgency: “As president, I refused to wait for the images of mass slaughter before taking action.” Further, “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.”
- On North Africa and Middle East protests: “Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way.”
- On regime change: “History is not on Gadhafi’s side,” but the United States will not remove him militarily.
- On spreading democracy: “Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. … It can be tempting to turn away from the world. … But our own future is brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom.”
Hard Left Obama supporter after hearing president’s speech
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Had we turned our backs on the rebels and Gadaffi massacred them and God knows how many others, would all these people saing we shouldn’t intervene be singing a different tune.
Yes they would. I’ve had my problems with President Obama. I’ve had my agreements with his policies. I fully support this one. I don’t want ground troops in Libya. Our mission was to protect the Libyan people from a massacre.
As far as this bullshit about an “exit stratagy”, a term damn few people ever heard of until a few years ago, it will be over when it’s over.
As I see it we must always be careful about acting unilaterally and we certainly didn’t do that. We acted with the approval and cooperation of NATO, the UN and the UAE which is precedent setting.
The minute Obama ended his speech the hard-left got up on their hard pulpits. Gallop released a poll showing that only 22% supported withdrawal. It’s hard to tell what part of them are simply anti-war people but not necessarily hard-left and which part are professional Obama bashers. From what I’ve seen and heard in the foreign press, his speech (and his back seat approach) was very well received internationally.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146840/Americans-Resist-Major-Role-Libya.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics
France really wanted to get involved in this mission because of the potential refugee crisis. A protracted civil war would spill over into neighboring countries and the European end of the Mediterranean would be dealing with thousands of boat people. Italy has already had illegal visitors from the Tunisia uprising. This, I think, is why the US is willing to take a back seat and let NATO take over because of the domestic interests of the Europeans. Taking a minor role pleased most Americans except the hard-left, but they are uncompromising.
@Leslie: The ones I know appear to be professional Obama bashers. They never credit him for what he has done and always pillory him instead. He can’t do anything right for them and never will. They are the hard core haters on the left.
That was a very good speech and he came across as very intelligent. My biggest issue is not that we are there, which is ultimately a judgment call, but that we lied about our mission there.
This is not a humanitarian effort. We are assisting the rebels in military action to remove the leader of Libya from his post. We are firing on the Libyan leader’s army because he used it to stop those who were trying to kill him and/or forcibly remove him from power. I am not saying that is a good man. He has shown himself to be the exact kind of man Saddam Hussein was. If removing or helping remove one is OK, then so is it OK to remove the other. It is the same damn thing.
We are packaging our support as a humanitarian mission. Obama was a little more forthcoming now. He admitted we do what we can because we can. I appreciated that. I don’t mind slightly imperialistic missions to support democracy. I question the ultimate integrity, but I don’t mind them.
I do mind be lied to while we do it.
The question: “How can you tell if a politician is lying?” Answer: “His lips are moving” is probably always true to a degree. Another question comes to mind: “What is all this selective humanitarian concern?” Why not intervene in The Ivory Coast, where was our high-mindedness when the Rwanda massacres were happening and there are numerous other African failed states we could have stepped in for humanitarian reasons. Most of the African countries have oil or are rich in some mineral or another, so the “Libyan oil” argument doesn’t hold much water for me.
I think it boils down to North Africa and the Middle East is the chosen hot-spot for powers to flex their muscles. When I say powers, I mean the US and western powers, because Russian and China are staying away and watching our treasure erode.
I don’t agree that it’s always about oil, oil, oil. It’s also about visibility and alliances. Rwanda has always been a troubled, strife torn region. I don’t know what we could do to change that and I don’t under any circumstances think we should do anything alone. It the UN wants to initiate some sort of action that is different, but we don’t need to act unilaterally.
To think China is “staying out” of Africa is naive. They are sucking up resources better than a brand new Dyson.
Didn’t say China was not involved in Africa, not that naive, but neither they nor Russia are in on the Libya mission, and come to think of not in a shooting war anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa.
Lied? Obama has said all along that he and NATO want to remove Gadafi, there’s no hiding that. Both Clinton and Obama, and the military, have admitted that this isn’t just humanitarian, it’s in NATO’s interest and our interest for Middle East stability. We failed in Somalia, so we avoid ground wars in the Ivory Coast, et al. Yes, we are making a difference when we CAN. The other option is isolationism and not making a difference at all.
Destroying Gadafi’s military is both practical and moral when he was about to kill thousands of people with the machines NATO sold him!!! Other dictators are working with us to find enemies of our country, so we’re not bombing them (and anyway, do we really want to bomb every leader that sucks?)
I think the hard left imagined a dove and ignored (or never supported) the hawk that is Obama (and Clinton, by G-d). And they are pissed, rightfully, at our bloated military spending compared to our social spending. Yeah, that sucks, but it doesn’t make our actions in Libya unjust, and I’m actually relieved that the military had a slush fund to join NATO to bring justice to some Muslims. That’s very important, I think, to strengthen peace within the Muslim world. So I find it hard to stomach people on the left advocating that we shouldn’t have intervened here because we aren’t intervening in the Ivory Coast, and that we can’t afford any of it. This is exactly the same position as people on the right who don’t give a flop about humanitarian issues. How can they all ignore a chance to stop a massacre?
So the right (and left) are rightfully complaining that Obama should have had a debate in the House, yet every House member is untied to this action and is willing to take whatever position in the winds on this issue. But only the left really consistently demands this Constitutional process. Many on the right want and would defend the commander in chief acting unilaterally whenever he f-ing wants to bomb somebody–just not when the CIC is a Democrat. During the campaign, Obama and Clinton joined all the right wing candidates reassuring America that each had the ability to start bombing on a moment’s notice! MOST Americans wanted that comfort and now act angry that he used the power they want! COME ON!
Obama is making good decisions (except for violating the Constitutional process–but that’s arguable too) and he’s using our military wisely, and NO ONE can predict or plan for all the “WHAT IFS.” That’s a hollow criticism. The other argument on the right is that we should not be a contributing member of NATO. They really think we don’t need allies and we’ll still have influence in the world?? Illogical, irrational, unobservant, frustrating nonsense!
Urban Pink writes:
“They really think we don’t need allies and we’ll still have influence in the world?? Illogical, irrational, unobservant, frustrating nonsense!”
Yes!!! Well said UP. Well said indeed.
@John: I believe that we are so jaded we suspect everything the pols tell us, even on those rare occasions when they might be actually telling the truth.
Jaded, yes, I question the corporate influences on NPR and for the first time I seriously have problems with the survey methodology of the Pew foundation. Ugh.
Good points Anon!