The President's Speech on Libya

Gill said:

Were you talking to Jet or Justabubba ???? :lol:

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

i refuse to remove my helen thomas avatar

Click to expand...

Chappy said:

Rachel Maddow pointed out last night's presidential address echoes one he made late in his first year in office.

“More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

“I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

“America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace.”

— Barack H. Obama, Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, December 10, 2009​

It is striking how that speech over a year ago laid the foundations for this month's intervention in Libya.

Click to expand...

Marshabar said:

President Obama:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom.


President Obama's mentor and spiritual advisor for 20 years: ...

Click to expand...

Chappy said:

Rachel Maddow pointed out last night's presidential address echoes one he made late in his first year in office.

“More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

“I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

“America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace.”

— Barack H. Obama, Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, December 10, 2009​

It is striking how that speech over a year ago laid the foundations for this month's intervention in Libya.

Click to expand...

Ron Mars said:

That's nice.

Candidate 0bama and his mentor would disagree with President 0bama today.

Click to expand...

Chappy said:

Rachel Maddow pointed out last night's presidential address echoes one he made late in his first year in office.

“More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

“I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

“America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace.”

— Barack H. Obama, Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, December 10, 2009​

It is striking how that speech over a year ago laid the foundations for this month's intervention in Libya.

Click to expand...

Ron Mars said:

I didn’t watch the President’s speech last night I read a copy of the text today. IMO he adequately explained the reasons for intervention.

This is a link to the text of the President's speech. I don't vouch for the website.
Text Of President Obama's Speech On The Situation In Libya | TPM LiveWire


I have some comments to make about the substance of that speech. There was lip service given to his stated policy of removing Gaddafi and there was no mention of the jihadi presence amongst the rebels. The following statements by the President were notable:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom.

That would be news to Candidate 0bama and his pastor of 20 years.

As one Libyan said, "For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over."

Many Iraqis and Afghans said the same thing.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone.

Why is NATO enforcing UN resolutions? Where the hell is the UN?

We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us - it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.

Well done Mr. President.

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.

That would be news to Candidate 0bama and his pastor of 20 years.

The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.

The UN has been irrelevant for some years now. It’s the reason they are now expecting NATO to enforce their own resolutions.

If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter.

This explains his walking back the “Gaddafi must leave” rhetoric.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.

And to be blunt Mr. President we tried diplomatic pressure and a NFZ in Iraq. It didn’t work. He never passes up an opportunity to slander his predecessor.

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.

You inherited a coalition of nations in both Iraq and Afghanistan Mr. President.

Click to expand...

Chappy said:

I think you misread the 2009 quote: it is actually very consistent with the president's speech last night; and, of course, at no time in 2009 was Barack Obama a candidate: he was either president or president-elect.

The point is that the president had established the guidelines for military intervention on the basis of “humanitarian grounds” over a year ago; indeed announced them at the Nobel Peace Price acceptance ceremony and, now, case in point: a broad military coalition has acted on a United Nations Security Council resolution and intervened in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think it is quite impressive.

Click to expand...

Chappy said:

Rachel Maddow pointed out last night's presidential address echoes one he made late in his first year in office.

“More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

“I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

“America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace.”

— Barack H. Obama, Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, December 10, 2009​

It is striking how that speech over a year ago laid the foundations for this month's intervention in Libya.

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

There is a big difference. In Iraq, The US did the heavy lifting, to the tune of a trillion dollars. In Libya, we stepped into the leadership for a few days, and are now functioning only as support for NATO, which are now the main load bearers.

Click to expand...

However, I do NOT believe that we had any business getting involved with Libya, and am opposed to our involvement there. This is consistent with my belief that we should not have gone into Iraq either, and I was also opposed to that. However, I did support the Afghan war, because it was the nation that provided a base of operations, and also a shelter, to those who attacked us on 9/11, and I saw war there as vital to US interests.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

i refuse to remove my helen thomas avatar

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

There is a big difference. In Iraq, The US did the heavy lifting, to the tune of a trillion dollars. In Libya, we stepped into the leadership for a few days, and are now functioning only as support for NATO, which are now the main load bearers.

However, I do NOT believe that we had any business getting involved with Libya, and am opposed to our involvement there. This is consistent with my belief that we should not have gone into Iraq either, and I was also opposed to that. However, I did support the Afghan war, because it was the nation that provided a base of operations, and also a shelter, to those who attacked us on 9/11, and I saw war there as vital to US interests.

Click to expand...

Marshabar said:

President Obama:

Pretty strange departure from twenty years of spiritual guidance I'd say.

Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:

Name these leaders... (hint, ze r Americanos!)





I don't know why lybia is a yes, and all these other places are a no.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Boy, it's almost like President Obama is a separate person who actually has managed to form his own opinion. Weird.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Boy, it's almost like President Obama is a separate person who actually has managed to form his own opinion. Weird.

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

Um.. Where in my post did I say Libya was a yes? Nowhere. I clearly said Libya was a no.

Click to expand...

Dr_Patrick said:

Your analysis contains some valid points, but then you kind of screw it all up by bashing Obama for everything under the sun and even bringing up the pastor issue (which is not only way outdated, but has nothing to do with the topic at hand). Many liberals had the same problem when it came to Bush. When you have legitimate arguments against someone and then mix it in with partisan rhetoric, the legitimate arguments kind of get lost in the noise.

Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:

I was talking about The O man....

Click to expand...

Jetboogieman said:

Meh.

If he hadn't of done anything...

:2mad: He's not a leader, rah rah rah rah rah rah!

He did do something

:2mad: he's not a leader rah rah rah rah rah rah rah! :spin:

Rah rah rah pastors,! Rah rah rha rah rah!

Click to expand...

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Sen. Barack Obama December 20, 2007.

Click to expand...

George Friedman

A declaration of war, I am arguing, is an essential aspect of war fighting particularly for the republic when engaged in frequent wars. It achieves a number of things. First, it holds both Congress and the president equally responsible for the decision, and does so unambiguously. Second, it affirms to the people that their lives have now changed and that they will be bearing burdens. Third, it gives the president the political and moral authority he needs to wage war on their behalf and forces everyone to share in the moral responsibility of war. And finally, by submitting it to a political process, many wars might be avoided. When we look at some of our wars after World War II it is not clear they had to be fought in the national interest, nor is it clear that the presidents would not have been better remembered if they had been restrained. A declaration of war both frees and restrains the president, as it was meant to do.

[...]

My readers will know that I am far from squeamish about war. I have questions about Libya, for example, but I am open to the idea that it is a low-cost, politically appropriate measure. But I am not open to the possibility that quickly after the commencement of hostilities the president need not receive authority to wage war from Congress. And I am arguing that neither the Congress nor the president have the authority to substitute resolutions for declarations of war. Nor should either want to. Politically, this has too often led to disaster for presidents. Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties.

As our international power and interests surge, it would seem reasonable that our commitment to republican principles would surge. These commitments appear inconvenient. They are meant to be. War is a serious matter, and presidents and particularly Congresses should be inconvenienced on the road to war. Members of Congress should not be able to hide behind ambiguous resolutions only to turn on the president during difficult times, claiming that they did not mean what they voted for. A vote on a declaration of war ends that. It also prevents a president from acting as king by default. Above all, it prevents the public from pretending to be victims when their leaders take them to war. The possibility of war will concentrate the mind of a distracted public like nothing else. It turns voting into a life-or-death matter, a tonic for our adolescent body politic.



Read more: What Happened to the American Declaration of War? | STRATFOR

Click to expand...

Robert Kagan

With his speech tonight, President Obama placed himself in a great tradition of American presidents who have understood America’s special role in the world. He thoroughly rejected the so-called realist approach, extolled American exceptionalism, spoke of universal values and insisted that American power should be used, when appropriate, on behalf of those values. I was particularly pleased to see him place Libya in the context of the Arab Spring. This is the part of the equation that the self-described realists have missed. While in isolation acting to defend the people of Libya against Moammar Gaddafi might not seem imperative, it is in the broader context of the revolutionary moment in the Middle East that U.S. actions take on greater significance. Tonight the president began to place the United States on the right side of the unfolding history in the region.

The president also deserves credit for showing, once again, how bold and effective U.S. leadership can pave the way for multilateral efforts. He has been right to insist that others take their fair share of the burden, but he has also made clear that American leadership was essential, even indispensable.

This was a Kennedy-esque speech.

Click to expand...

William Kristol

I knew pretty early on during tonight’s speech that President Obama had rejoined—or joined—the historical American foreign policy mainstream. It was when he mentioned Charlotte (the city, not the spider):

''At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. 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.''

When American presidents want to justify foreign interventions, and are worried the American people aren’t quite with them, they often reach for a strained analogy or comparison that will bring the situation abroad home to their fellow Americans watching on the tube. Obama’s awkward interjection explaining that Benghazi is “a city nearly the size of Charlotte” is a classic of the genre. As Obama said it, I recalled Reagan explaining Nicaragua was as near to Texas as Texas to Washington, D.C., or some such thing, and similar clunky and earnest attempts at homespun appeals by George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. I found this reassuring.

As I found the rest of the speech. The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force or from appealing to American values and interests. Furthermore, the president seems to understand we have to win in Libya. I think we will.

Click to expand...

David Horowitz

It looks like we are headed for the same result in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to win the September elections. The reality is that a totalitarian Islam is the vibrant and increasingly dominant movement in the Arab world. Any elections likely to take place will be on the order of one man, one vote, one time. Neo-conservatives are now cheering on the Obama administration’s reckless intervention in Libya, as though the past ten years have taught them nothing. The nation building effort in Iraq led to a squandering of American resources and a weakening of American power. Putting a man who is hostile to American power in the White House is not the least aspect of this American decline. Because of these nation-building delusions we are still mired in Afghanistan — now the longest war in American history. And now we have been plunged into the Middle Eastern maelstrom with no clear agenda or objective.
The Obama Administration, in my view, is the most dangerous administration in American history, and conservatives need to be very clear about the limits and objectives of American power so that they can lead the battle to restore our government to health. To accomplish this, neo-conservatives need to admit they were wrong, and return to the drawing board. They should give up the “neo” and become conservatives again.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

What makes you think it laid any foundation for killing Libyans?

Click to expand...