E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS"Facing accusations that he has not explained the United States’ interest in Libya’s war, Obama said the nation had a responsibility to prevent a mass killing after Gaddafi pledged to carry out a brutal reprisal campaign against civilians in rebel-held territory," the Washington Post writes. "He emphasized that the mission was undertaken with the United States’ closest allies, and that command of the military operation will be transferred to NATO on Wednesday.
"‘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,’ Obama told an audience of mid-career military officers, who remained quiet during much of the 27-minute address. ‘Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.’"
The front page of the Boston Globe: "Brutality in Libya required swift action, Obama says." From the Globe’s story: "The swift Libyan intervention — which marks the first time Obama has ordered US troops into a new conflict — is considered a key test of his presidency and a moment that allowed him to delineate his most comprehensive vision yet for America’s role in the world and the role of the military abroad."
The New York Daily News over a photo of Obama: "My war is over."
The New York Post’s cover: "No Mo!"
Some of the reactions to last night’s speech. Here’s the take by Politico’s Ben Smith: "The doctrine is there is no doctrine. President Barack Obama answered questions about America’s mission in Libya Monday night with a 27-minute address that focused narrowly on "this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment" and shied away from making sweeping statements about America’s role in the world, the larger principles that guide his decisions on using force or about the U.S. response to the unfolding Arab Spring."
(But upon closer inspection of last night’s speech, the Obama Doctrine was clearly there. "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… In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -– but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well.")
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) writes in an op-ed in The Hill that President Obama needs to be clearer about the goal of the mission in Libya, how much it will cost, and bring a belated debate to Congress.
Joshua Greenman, writing the top story in the New York Daily News, picks up on Tom Ricks’ point last week of Obama’s "realistic ambiguity" vs. Bush’s "false clarity." "Just a few years ago, we had a President who valued clarity so dearly that he labeled three utterly different countries, presenting drastically different security problems, an ‘axis of evil,’" Greenman writes. "Didn't really make sense, but lumping them together was catchy and, at least as far as it went, clear. … Barack Obama isn't an all-or-nothing kind of commander in chief or an all-or-nothing kind of man. He gambled in pushing health care reform, but in his bones he's a cautious leader who overcomplicates where others oversimplify. He turns bumper stickers into dissertations, not the other way around. Those who are grousing about that fact now should count their blessings - and remember the alternative."
Politico's Roger Simon: "It was 'Mission Accomplished' but without the banner. In a strong, almost pugnacious, speech Monday night, President Barack Obama said he had achieved his initial goals in Libya. 'So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do,' he said. Slashing the air with his left hand, he used language that was not only robust, but martial: 'We struck regime forces….We hit Gaddafi’s troops….We targeted tanks.' BAM! ZAP! POW!"
Leave a Comment:
Great speech. Very Presidential
I liked how he said some countries stand by while dictators slaughter civilians, but America. Take that Vladmier Putin.
Agree. Great speech.
(Now let the shredding and parsing of the speech by the RW and media begin.)
Life and choices are much more complicated and intricate than is well-suited for today's media. It often can't be defined by sound bites or "for vs. against" framing. We, as a country, need to develop better critical thinking skills and the ability to understand complex issues.
OK, referring to this quote: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.’"
Take that Vladimir Putin!
(edited for spelling!)
Iraq 200 billion a day, Afghanistan 200 billion a day. Libya, priceless
Having the rest of NATO share in the burden is a wise move. Since the majority of the oil from Lybia is used by NATO countries, We only get 1/2 of a percent of our oil from Libya.
I love that quote. The only problem is that reality is to complicated to explain in a sound bite and beyond the intellectual capacity of many people. People either want all or nothing because it is just to difficult to think outside of a contrived black and white world. His critics complain on cable news that we should not be involved, that he acted to slowly, or that he should have the "false clarity" to make threats that would take huge amounts of blood and treasure to back up. Meanwhile, the President has prevented a massacre, boosted Americas image in the Muslim world and very possibly, if not probably, laid the ground work for Kadaffi's ouster.
Well said, Charles. Voted. But I'm afraid that your point and the point being made in the article will be too complicated and/or subtle for many on the right who post here. And, unfortunately, many on the left will also have that same problem.
"Obama’s "realistic ambiguity" vs. Bush’s "false clarity."
Agreed, this is an insightful comment. I'm surprised, though, the pundits are missing the substance of the change. They are missing the achievement of consensus from the allies, bringing in the Arab league, a coalition of equal partners, shared effort all done in record time in Obama's action in Libya. THAT is the real diffference between Obama and Bush, not their rhetoric, but their results. Obama achieved more through diplomacy that Bush never attempted.
Great Job President Obama! Keep up the good work!!
Tommy , you mean keep up the dirty work!
Now we know sansdoute
the president of the united states
is a precious decor in the white house BUT not
the decider, really.
Hillary is the one diktating Gates
what to do or not to do.
The disappointing to themax juxtapositioin
at this moment is
rewinding to campaign hope + change mode.
while tomahawks fly over libya for
humanitarian reasons.
All just a painful pose?
hopefully not.
Sounded more like a rehashed a Bush speech.
Another cold, calculating rendition speech from an aloof and unemotional sycophantic elite from the pages of the Progressive book. He broke the law and trampled on the Constitution and now he is trying to find excuses about using arms to protect the people of Libya as he puts it. Bush must be turning in his bed. If I remember rightly Obama was a fiercely anti-war Progressive when he jumped into the political ring. But me think something is stirring in the pot. His poll numbers are down, he perceives that he is already rejected by the American people and somebody has advised him to make himself a war president. Others mostly have done it and their popularity rose as well as their polls. Obama is now running that gauntlet in a bid to win the next election. This is sheer political opportunism. Knowing what way the political wind is blowing across America, I doubt if Obama will be elected again. Right now he is not a favorite with the electorate. A select few are more favored. Obama has not granted the American people what they most wanted. Free market enterprise and the opening up of millions of jobs since he came into power. Instead, they got a heavy financial burden that killed the economy. Obamacare. The result is a ruined economy, with no tax incentives but higher taxes, a communistic healthcare that has failed in other countries, a run on the banks and a host of others failed initiatives such as the stimulus. The American people do not want another four years of this because they are hurting. Thus, the candidate with the most exciting and innovative political ideas will be the next President.
wow, juvenBachman, you must be one of those war mongering republicans who have been brained wash by fox news, joing the ranks of soldiers to carry the message of the ultra wealthy? when will you stand up for the humanitarian relief needed in this country? why don't you think every human being in this country should have the right to purchase health insurance? why don't you think that people have the right to organize? why don't you think about your fellow man? why don' t you think, instead of allowing others to think for you?
Juven has to grow up before he can achieve any of those things, kr. Take a look at the archive of his comments and you will see a child lashing out at things he does not like because he does not understand them.
Its the truth my Lefty friends. The economy has crashed but you don't want to say so. The man doesn't stand a fool's chance to be re-elected again. He has broken the piggy bank of the American people. They are hurting.
kr, @!$%# your fellow man, you sound like an obama colon licker
If you are an Obama lover, anything the man says is agreeable to you. If you dislike the man, then you will agree that he talked, talked, and talked with little of substance.
Have you ever wondered why these politicians, from each party, talk down to the masses knowing that the lies are everywhere. Don't politicians know their response can be tracked today?
If you actually believe you can make a difference against the politican machines of both parties, you are only fooling yourself.
The speech last night wasn't bad, but didn't answer a couple of key questions. Mr. President why Lybia? Okay you stated for humanitarian reasons. I am fine with that, infact I believe we should send troops to Africa to stop the genocide that happens there. But my LIB/DEM friends want to call me a war monger. (go figure)
So what criteria of a death toll has to occur in a country, by thier own government before Obama and UN enforce a no Fly Zone? I can name off other countries that this happens currently, so why Lybia? Then you have Obama in 2007 saying a president shouldnt do exactly what he did in regards to Lybia. Yes that is politics, I get it, but come on!
Also, what is the end result for Lybia? How long does this No Fly Zone go on for? Again, overall Obama did okay with his speech, but lacked some information.
I approved the action well before with the President's speech. I continue to support the President's actions and feel it was necessary and metered in its application in Lybia. keep up the good work Mr. President.
Obama has done a good job navigating this slippery slope. He has shown through his actions that there can be another role for the USA in conflicts, and we can no longer afford to police the planet, but we can lead and work with NATO to do more of the long term work. This is a great blueprint for future situations that will arise. The problem is that other US leaders besides Obama probably won't be able to thread this needle. McCain has made it clear that if he were in charge, he would have used the nothing he learned from the Iraq fiasco and created another Iraq situation in Libya by putting, "boots on the ground," and trying to nation build with all the tinker toys at his disposal.
I question why we responded in Libya when all we were acting on accoring to Hillary was the potential prospects of killing his people. The man was crazy and always talked, look at how long he kept threatening. While he is threatening other countries are actually killing their people yet we do nothing. I don't think that the justification is the real reason. Also, has anyone noticed that Obama keeps comparing hisself to Bush. Can't President Obama do something and either take credit or responsibility without bringing up his predecessor? After all he has been in office over 2 years. Lastly, why are we considered Global Security? Even though we are supposedly turning the conflict over to NATO why are we still involved and there. Big coverup.
Kr , You talk about ultra wealthy? You as a Dem should be the last to talk about ultra wealthy people What about Mr. Immelt the CEO of GE who has made $14 billion and has not paid the IRS one single red cent. And to make it worse his close confidant and buddy , buddy friend is President Obamba. Why hasn't Obamba asked him to pay those taxes? Why has the IRS gone after him? Ultra Wealthy eh? You speak of wealth?THAT is WEALTH. But no my Progressive friend you wouldn't broadcast that to the world. I haven't seen that on MSNBC, CNN or NBC, and I wonder why. No I shouldn't wonder. I should be amazed and astonished. That a man as wealthy as Immelt walking in step with Obamba, the very man who has the destiny of the American people in his scrawny long fingers never break a word with Immelt as to why no taxes has been paid. But let me only decide not to pay a rusted penny to the IRS. You know what will happen to me. I don't have to explain. The Repubs will have to teach you Dems about the value of money like how most parents do to their children. You've broken the piggybank and the robber barons of the Progressive movement are having a field day.
This has got to be one of the most stunningly stupid rants I have seen in quite some time.
Well done, Juven, well done.