Libya Speech: Obama explains it all to you



Where is the word Victory?

 Obama’s fundamentally dishonest speech

President Obama gave an impassioned, sometimes eloquent, defense of his policies in Libya tonight. But when it came to justifying the limited goals of the military mission, HIS SPEECH WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST.  OBAMA PRESENTED HIMSELF AS STANDING BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES — those on the one hand, who want to do nothing in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe, and those on the other who want to invade Libya the way George W. Bush invaded Iraq…..

… This is a straw man, and the president knows it. No serious person is arguing that we should “repeat in Libya” what we did in Iraq….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-fundamentally-dishonest-speech/2011/03/28/AFC0NfrB_blog.html


This appears to be the technique Obama loves using. He is always setting up a straw man argument so he can knock it down.

Obama Still Murky on Libya

PRESIDENT OBAMA JUST GAVE A WEIRD SPEECH. Part George W. Bush, part trademark Obama — filled with his characteristic split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes.

His support for those “yearning for freedom all around the world” was the sort of interventionist foreign policy that a Senator Obama — if his past reaction to the removal of Saddam Hussein is any indication — WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF SENDING BOMBERS OVER AN ARAB MUSLIM OIL-EXPORTING COUNTRY. Since SADDAM WAS A FAR GREATER MONSTER (gassing thousands is far worse than turning off the water to neighborhoods) than the monsters that Obama now wishes to slay, I think he has confused rather than enlightened his audience.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE CONGRESS. Is he going to ever ask its approval? And if not, why the repeated emphasis on asking others such as the Arab League or the UN for their approval — given that their representatives, unlike ours, are largely not elected?

IN A SPEECH DEDICATED TO CLARIFYING OUR POLICY, IT LEFT IT EVEN MORE MURKY. WHAT WAS OUR OBJECTIVE, AND WHAT IS IT NOW? Obama asserted that “We have stopped his deadly advance.” But is that the aim — the status quo, and a sort of permanent safe zone for rebels in accordance with UN directives? Or are we going beyond that to eliminate Qaddafi, who is the source of the problem? THE PRESIDENT NOW SAYS HE WON’T OVERTHROW QADDAFI BY FORCE, BUT THAT IS WHAT HE HOPES, IN FACT, WILL HAPPEN as a result of our military presence:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263273/obama-still-murky-libya-victor-davis-hanson

Honesty doesn’t seem to be Obama’s strong suit.



Obama’s Libya speech

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPEECH OFFERED MORE FOR NEO-CONSERVATIVES TO CHEER THAN IT DID FOR LIBERALS. But at the heart of his speech and of his Libya policy is a fundamental and UNRESOLVED CONTRADICTION….

…. THAT LAST SENTENCE IS THE PERFECT ENCAPSULATION OF BUSH’S FREEDOM AGENDA. But Obama then runs into trouble. Obama can’t bring himself to embrace the view of those conservatives, you know the ones who pushed to liberate Iraq. (“Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”) Moreover, he won’t, he told us in no uncertain terms — despite all the interests he outlined — use our military to remove Moammar Gaddafi. And THIS IS WHERE HE BECAME, FRANKLY, INCOHERENT. Why aren’t we using our military? Ah, the price of multilateralism…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-libya-speech/2011/03/04/AFOOTDrB_blog.html

Actually for all his anti-Bush rhetoric and his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama seems to be more of a warrior than Bush was. No wonder his message was incoherent.


In fact, if you dissect Obama’s argument, we find that removing Saddam was too costly and removing Milosevic took too long, but I, Barack Hussein Obama, will get rid of this dictator wholesale!!!



White House says Libya decision based on 'best interests'

NO SENSE OF PRECEDENT GUIDED PRESIDENT OBAMA’S DECISION TO INTERVENE IN LIBYA, administration officials said Monday.

"We don’t make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "WE MAKE THEM BASED ON HOW WE CAN BEST ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS IN THE REGION."

McDonough was speaking hours before President Obama’s speech Monday night on Libya. He explained that there were compelling reasons to get involved in Libya as opposed to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, four other countries in the Middle East where pro-democracy crowds have battled authoritarian governments.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/152181-white-house-says-libya-decision-based-on-best-interests-in-region

Makes you wonder if we are trading blood for oil. Nah, that couldn’t be the case since Obama is in office.



His lips were moving, but nothing was really said

….IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME. In his last remarks before hostilities commenced, Obama announced that he was sending Secretary Clinton to Geneva for consultations with our allies. Tonight Obama announced: "Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations."

OBAMA IDENTIFIED NO AMERICAN INTEREST AT ISSUE IN OUR LIBYAN VENTURE. Obama did say that it was not in the American national interest to permit Qaddafi's intended massacre of Libyans in Benghazi ("It was not in our national interest to let that happen"), but one could just as well say that it was not in the American national interest to prevent it either. HIS ASSERTION IS A VACUOUS VERBAL FORMULATION. He's moving his lips, but he's not saying anything. There may be an American national interest involved, even if not a vital one, as Secretary Gates asserts, BUT IT PLAYS NO ROLE IN OBAMA'S STATED RATIONALE…

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028704.php

While attacking Libya may be the “right and humanitarian” thing to do, it certainly isn’t the “smart” thing to do or even the “logical” thing to do.

Obama vs Bush

“We believe that people across the Middle East and across the world are weary of poverty, weary of oppression, and YEARN TO BE FREE. And all who know that hope, all who will work and sacrifice for freedom, HAVE A FRIEND IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” – George W. Bush in 2006

“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. Because WHEREVER PEOPLE LONG TO BE FREE, THEY WILL FIND A FRIEND IN THE UNITED STATES.” – Obama 3/28/2011.

Perhaps we should change Barack Obama’s name to Barack W. Obama.



Reid vows to stop any tinkering with Social Security

ANY LAWMAKER WHO SO MUCH AS THINKS ABOUT TINKERING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY ANYTIME IN THE NEXT DECADE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH HARRY REID (AND A FEW OF HIS FRIENDS) FIRST.

A handful of liberal Democratic senators pushed back against calls from Republicans and even fellow Democrats to reform the national pension system during a rally on Capitol Hill Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada joined Sens. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, and Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, at a “Hands Off Social Security” rally where all of them insisted that Social Security — THE NATION’S LARGEST PROGRAM THAT COSTS ABOUT $700 BILLION A YEAR — adds nothing to the deficit or debt.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/29/reid-vows-to-stand-in-the-way-of-any-efforts-to-reform-social-security/#ixzz1HzEbtJeN

Reid has shown that he and the democrats aren’t serious about deficit reform and that they plan to use this issue politically. It might work, but it might not as well. The democrats are playing a dangerous game of “chicken” with our country.



Obama votes “Present” on deficit

There’s a well-worn aphorism in politics that getting U.S. senators to agree on anything is as easy as herding cats. In today’s bitterly partisan atmosphere, that maxim is especially apt. So when 64 SENATORS SIGNED A LETTER RECENTLY THAT URGED PRESIDENT OBAMA TO GET INVOLVED ON DEVELOPING A “COMPREHENSIVE” DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE, IT APPEARED TO BE A BIG DEAL.

But even though Obama has expressed grave concern about the country’s ocean of red ink, HE HAS REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE SENATORS’ LETTER, HIS FISCAL COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR $4 TRILLION OF DEFICIT REDUCTION IN THE COMING DECADE, OR EMBRACE ANY OTHER APPROACH.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/03/29/Senators-Toss-Budget-Ball-to-Obama-Who-Fumbles.aspx

If anyone has any sense of Presidential leadership, this should help dispel them. We must address the deficit and it appears Obama, Reid, and Pelosi (the democratic leadership) refuse to.



NPR Ekes Out A Surplus and Hosts Make Out Like Bandits

NPR, which has been under attack after video footage from James O’Keefe showed a now former network executive saying that NPR would be just fine without federal funding, is going to run a surplus or “modest margin,” this year.

Daily Finance reports on the network’s financial turnaround:

AS A WHOLE, NPR — AS IS COMMON FOR A NONPROFIT — USUALLY RUNS A DEFICIT. According to audited financial statements, NPR’s revenue ran a $8.3 million deficit in the 2010 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30. Revenues rose to $184.3 million from $148.7 million a year earlier, while expenses jumped to $192.5 last year from $166.6 million in 2009. But after cutting staff and scaling back benefits in 2008, NPR EXPECTS TO MAKE A “MODEST MARGIN” THIS YEAR, ACCORDING TO SPOKESWOMAN DANA DAVIS REHM.

This would normally be good news, except that NPR IS LOCKED IN A BATTLE OVER FUTURE GOVERNMENT FUNDING, RUNNING A SURPLUS SHOWS GOOD FISCAL MANAGEMENT BUT MAY ALSO LEND CREDENCE TO THE IDEA THAT THEY DON’T NEED MORE TAXPAYER MONEY.

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/npr-ekes-out-a-surplus-and-hosts-make-out-like-bandits/


Makes sense to me. In an age of Obama sized deficits, NPR must be allowed to fend for itself.



Voting With Their Feet

The latest published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, PEOPLE ARE VOTING WITH THEIR FEET AGAINST PLACES WHERE THE LIBERAL, WELFARE-STATE POLICIES FAVORED BY THE INTELLIGENTSIA ARE MOST DEEPLY ENTRENCHED.

When you break it down by race and ethnicity, it is all too painfully clear what is happening. BOTH WHITES AND BLACKS ARE LEAVING CALIFORNIA, THE POSTER STATE FOR THE LIBERAL, WELFARE-STATE AND NANNY-STATE PHILOSOPHY….

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/29/voting_with_their_feet_109369.html

This phenomenon has mixed messages. The red states they are fleeing to are picking up congressional seats, but will they bring the liberal policies they are fleeing with them? Will they “Californicate” Texas, etc?

AT&T merger could swell ranks of union that backs Democrats

The merger of AT&T and T-Mobile COULD SWELL THE RANKS OF A UNION WITH CLOSE TIES TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Analysts predict that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to try to block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. But in certain districts, the merger could carry political costs for GOP candidates.

That's because thousands of T-Mobile USA's employees — who are not unionized — will become part of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) if AT&T is permitted to buy up the company. CWA almost uniformly endorses Democrats.

"CWA IS VERY INFLUENTIAL IN CERTAIN STATES, AND THIS MIGHT INCREASE THEIR POLITICAL MUSCLE IN CERTAIN PLACES WHERE THEY ARE POWERFUL, LIKE NEW JERSEY," said Daniel DiSalvo, a political science professor at the City College of New York.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/152221-atat-merger-could-hurt-republican-candidates

It easy to see this merger should get quick approval by a Democrat administration. I guess all corporations are equal in Obama’s eyes, but some are more equal than others.

Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout

Rex Weyler announces to Patrick Moore that he is about to come out publicly with a critique of Patrick’s new book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.

RW: You portray yourself as “sensible” and disparage all non-corporate environmentalists, but you don’t act scientific. You employ rhetorical devices such as: “There is no alarm about climate change,” since “the climate is always changing….”

PM: I hardly think Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, is a corporate environmentalist, more of a loveable hippie with a big brain. Do you think Bjorn Lomborg is “corporate”. I DON’T AGREE WITH EITHER BRAND OR LOMBORG ON EVERYTHING BUT AT LEAST THEY CAUSE ME TO THINK RATHER THAN PEOPLE WHO REPEAT A MEMORIZED PARTY-LINE. I also admire James Lovelock even though I find him enigmatic. All three of these environmentalists that I admire are non-corporate. Which “corporate environmentalists” am I allegedly admiring?

I believe I am sensible and have been all my life, as in common sense. But I suppose that is a matter of opinion….

http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/moore-weyler-exchange/

An interesting conversation (debate?) that highlights the differences between the environalarmists and those who take a more sensible approach.