• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The President's Speech on Libya

Ron Mars

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
170
Location
Central Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
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.
 
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:

"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.

"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."




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

Bashing 0bama? I'm criticizing his decisions and statements with valid points.

I'm supporting 0bama in Libya and that has not changed despite this tepid speech.

And yes, 0bama's past statements and those of his mentors are absolutely relevant today.

Candidate 0bama would have lots of problems with President 0bama's speech on Libya. So would his pastor. I wonder if Wright will surface soon to give us another kernel of his wisdom about Libya.
 
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!
 
Bashing 0bama? I'm criticizing his decisions and statements with valid points.

I'm supporting 0bama in Libya and that has not changed despite this tepid speech.

And yes, 0bama's past statements and those of his mentors are absolutely relevant today.

Candidate 0bama would have lots of problems with President 0bama's speech on Libya. So would his pastor. I wonder if Wright will surface soon to give us another kernel of his wisdom about Libya.

Bringing up his pastor on this particular issue is relevant and valid?

Referring to him as "candidate" is valid? (Also, I didn't realize that the whole voting process of him getting elected was in question...unless you are a birther or something.)
 
Given the political pressures coming from either side (those who were clamoring for us to do something, and those who said we should stay out of it), I think in terms of his actions he pretty much did the sensible thing. I am still not in favor of intervention however, and I am still hung up on Congress not having voted on a declaration of war, when are we going to start taking that seriously?
 
Given the political pressures coming from either side (those who were clamoring for us to do something, and those who said we should stay out of it), I think in terms of his actions he pretty much did the sensible thing. I am still not in favor of intervention however, and I am still hung up on Congress not having voted on a declaration of war, when are we going to start taking that seriously?

Honestly, I don't think there is a single decision he could have made that wouldn't have resulted in plenty of criticism.
 
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!
I see, so all criticism of Obama is just invalid partisanship?
 
Honestly, I don't think there is a single decision he could have made that wouldn't have resulted in plenty of criticism.

I agree. He was pretty much between a rock and a hard place, screwed if he did and screwed if he didn't. The more I read and listen to the reports coming out of Libya however, the more I feel that this might not be a rebellion worth supporting. Actually I kinda felt that way from the beginning.
 
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.

Dang! I wish Obama would give my great-great-great grandchildren their money back. It doesn't belong to him, it belongs to them.

garrison-bho-deficits.jpg



BTW. Why would he even say the money doesn't belong to us? Who would ever think the money belonged to us?
 
Not at all.

But he was ****ed if he did, and was ****ed if he didn't.

Is it at all possible in your mind that there might be some validity in criticizing the way he went about it or what he says now to justify it, especially in light of contradictory things he said about Iraq when he was a senator?
 
I thought the speech was effective in communicating the reasons for the intervention in Libya, the limits on that intervention and perhaps most important how Obama views American leadership within the world.

“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; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.”

— President Barack H. Obama, speech to the nation, March 28, 2011
 
Is it at all possible in your mind that there might be some validity in criticizing the way he went about it or what he says now to justify it, especially in light of contradictory things he said about Iraq when he was a senator?

It certainly isn't the first campaign promise he's gone back on, but is definitely worth of criticism. Though, you must admit that no matter what he would have done on this issue, he would have received criticism for it. If he would have sat on his hands and done nothing, people would be giving him criticism for being weak (especially since the French kind of led the charge with this whole thing...)
 
By not seeking congressional approval he proved to be a huge hypocrite. Why should anyone take anything he promises seriously?
 
Is it at all possible in your mind that there might be some validity in criticizing the way he went about it or what he says now to justify it, especially in light of contradictory things he said about Iraq when he was a senator?

Ah X.

I'm not saying the critisism is invalid or whatever it is you're arguing.

The issue is.

Had he done nothing.

People would have bitched.

He's done something.

People have bitched.

That's my point.
 
I thought the speech was effective in communicating the reasons for the intervention in Libya, the limits on that intervention and perhaps most important how Obama views American leadership within the world.

“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; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.”

— President Barack H. Obama, speech to the nation, March 28, 2011

You do understand that we are running the NATO operation and virtually paying for it by ourselves, right?
 
It certainly isn't the first campaign promise he's gone back on, but is definitely worth of criticism. Though, you must admit that no matter what he would have done on this issue, he would have received criticism for it. If he would have sat on his hands and done nothing, people would be giving him criticism for being weak (especially since the French kind of led the charge with this whole thing...)
Yes, of course you're right, no matter how he handled this, he would be criticized. That would be true of any president.
 
By not seeking congressional approval he proved to be a huge hypocrite. Why should anyone take anything he promises seriously?

I thought the speech described chaos. He said he consulted with Congressional leaders. Who? Congressional leaders on both sides are piffed off that they were not consulted and not even informed until 90 minutes before it happened even though he had had a meeting with them earlier and he knew at the time what he was going to do.

I think Obama doesn't want to be involved in this at all for many, many reasons from ideological to political, maybe even spiritual.
 
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:

"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.

"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."


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

First off, I agree with those who consider pulling the President's foremore Paster into the debate is a low blow.

Second, I think most people (Republicans) who denounce Rev. Wright's words fail to comprehend what he's saying. Instead of reading his words in their full and proper context, most people instead stop at the "attention getter" line..."America's chickens are coming home to roost", a clear reference (I believe) to Muslim extremist's retaliatory assault on U.S. soil on 9/11. But what people fail to read is Rev. Wright's closing statement which are requoted below for emphasis:

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."

In effect, Rev. Wright was echoing the exact same sentiments others have espoused cautioning against military (or political) intervention using actions that do more harm than good in those regions of the world where we have long feared the spread of terrorist aggression much as this nation once feared the spread of Communism. In essence, what Rev. Wright was trying to say is if America doesn't pay very close attention to the decisions it makes regarding foreign affairs in the Middle-East, any and all "wrong-headed, aggressive military actions" we take will only cause more harm than good and we could very well face serious backlash from the very people we claim to be helping. But if you stop at "America's chickens are coming home to roost," and allow your bigotry and partisanship blind you to what's really taking place abroad, it's real easy to miss his message of "take caustion and tread lightly, but make smart decisions when making foreign policy decisions concerning the Middle-East".

And that's all I'm going to say about that. On the issue of the President's speech, I think he did very well. Still, for those who disagree with his decision to take this bold step, let me ask you this:

As a nation who speaks so highly of sound moral values, claims to be staunce defenders for the preservation of human life, believes strongly in democracy, cautions against tyranny and oppressive dictators and supports the right for a nation's people to bear arms in defense against such oppression, how then can you denounce the actions President Obama has taken?

Think long and hard about that...
 
Last edited:
Ah X.

I'm not saying the critisism is invalid or whatever it is you're arguing.

The issue is.

Had he done nothing.

People would have bitched.

He's done something.

People have bitched.

That's my point.

So when do we go help the people of Darfur? Syria? Rwanda? Iran? Ivory Coast?

Why are Libyans so special?

He *****-footed around the issue. He knows what has to be done, but he's scared of following Bush's footsteps, which he's done since the day he took office, and now he has no idea what to do?

He's finding out the world is a big, mean place, not the kumbaya acid trip his liberalism wants it to be.
 
Ah X.

I'm not saying the critisism is invalid or whatever it is you're arguing.

The issue is.

Had he done nothing.

People would have bitched.

He's done something.

People have bitched.

That's my point.
Of course, as I just said, that would be true of any president. Bitching about the bitching is dismissive of anything potentially valid within...well...the bitching.
 
what i still don't understand is the doctrine being followed

we have established a current administration precedent, by aiding the opposition to the government of libya
would we do the same if the masses of saudi arabia wanted a new, less repressive government
i'm thinking 'no'

one poster took exception to these statements of Obama's former pastor:
"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.

"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."
what about those statements is found to be in error?
 
Back
Top Bottom