Friday, April 1, 2011

Misrata puts Obama's foot back in his mouth over Libya.

It didn't take long for president Obama to virtually renege on and reverse most of everything he said in his speech on Libya the other night. It never does take very long. Because he never means what he says anyway. For those with memories as short as Obama hopes they have, usually those with press passes, it was only a few days ago when Obama, blowing his own horn over his "decision" to use military force in Libya said:

" I refused to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action".

That refusal, that expression of a moral imperative based on what Obama said were our values even if our imminent security was not being threatened, lasted about 8 hours. Reports of slaughter and devastation poured out of Misrata, the Libyan city held by rebels but under severe attack by Gadhafi's forces. Outnumbered and out gunned, reports coming from the city described everything Obama said he was committing U.S. military forces to prevent. Witnesses inside Misrata said that " the carnage and destruction and human suffering is beyond imagination".

It's also considerably beyond Obama's imagination since the U.S. did nothing as Misrata was being overrun by Gadhafi's forces. And for some reason the "carnage and destruction" werent an attack on our values

This is what happens when "conviction" and "principle" are just something you use for political expediency. What was going on in Misrata fulfilled the definition of everything Obama said was the reason he authorized the use of military force.

This is not necessarily to advocate for the use of US military force in Libya since there are two sides to the argument, but it is to say that if you mean what you say when you say "Gadhafi must go", if you mean what you say when you say that you refuse to allow slaughter, and if you believe what you say when you acknowledge that the rebels are fighting on the side of democracy and American values and you will defend those values, then there is a clear decision to take military action on the side of the rebels. Instead we are hearing that the US is going to dramatically scale down its military involvement in a day or two.

If its NATO cover Obama needs to support the rebels, he could get it. Everyone know the U.S.  runs NATO. But when you talk just to talk and when your talk is as empty as Obama's always is, then instead of ending up with your foot in your mouth there is another clear line of action to take, but unfortunately it is the one thing that is impossible for Obama to do -- stop talking.


sue said...

And you nail the problem w/Obama, he has no convictions what so ever.
I am really not sure how much I think we should be intervening in Libya v. any of the other middle eastern countries but I do think that the POTUS should have a sense, one way or the other and should lead.
Leadership, that woyld be nice...

Anonymous said...

Well, THAT didn't take long.

Within hours, Obama was caught with his "principles" down.

One should never use the words "courage" and "convictions" in the same sentence with Obama.