Bottom line.
The President’s speech did little to convince me of anything. I remain on the fence. Initially, I supported intervention in Libya, back when Ghaddafi was attacking protesters. Obama’s speech seems to address that situation.
What I am not convinced of is if the situation that President Obama seeks to address still exists.
When protesters were being attacked in the streets, a no fly zone made some sense. This is clearly not the case anymore. I am hard pressed to see how this is anything but intervention–taking sides– in a civil war.
Let’s get a few things out of the way. There is no vital US interest. The President said so, just as much. The only enumerated interest is that we have the power and the opportunity to prevent a humanitarian atrocity. This is not to be discounted, but it is also yet to be established. I want to support the President here, but other than some references in his speech to looming atrocities, the evidence of such is still as scarce as WMDs in Iraq.
This is what I need to see. The world presumed a WMD threat from Saddam and we acted. We broke a country it has taken decade and too many American lives to fix it. So I want some proof of pending atrocities, as much proof as ever can be established.
I will not fault the President for indecisiveness here, as the right thing to do is elusive. But, one cannot help but surmise that the decision to go to war, and that is what it is, had additional sources other than those cited by the President.
Without substantive and public proof of the looming atrocities of which the President spoke, I don’t think we have the moral high ground here. Indecisiveness is appropriate when the facts do not justify action. It seems we might have acted and then thought that justification might be handy, but I don’t know this. This is the problem. The President has not told us anything until now about the need to do this.
Why now? Why so late? Why present valid reasons ten days later? If all this was the real reason, why not give this speech the night we took to the air? Why now? Why only after 10 days of criticism? Why address so much of your speech to critics? Doesn’t that undercut your noble motives?
I want more, Mr. President. I want proof that we had no choice. Otherwise it still seems like we are taking sides in a civil war and that no matter who wins, we lose.
You have said why, Mr. President. Now prove it.
March 29, 2011 at 9:46 am
There is a reason for the continued bombardment.Regime change which in turn gives the UK and USA access to Libyas' OIL. Nothing to do with protecting civilians,and ALL to do with protecting access to a steady supply of oil.
March 29, 2011 at 10:12 am
It certainly is not civil war. The rebels are looking distinctly non-national given they even have problems spelling their "tyrant's" name. It seems to me to be a nato sponsored attack on a sovereign state. Why the Arab league sat by I do not know. Maybe the other orchestrated "revolts" in egypt and bahrain frightened them. i have to say the nato alliance is looking like the school bully boys on this one. They'll have your lunch money like it or not. There was a time when they would at least try to make a case for war. Now they don't even bother. A sovereign state was attacked with no mandate whatsoever. No fly zone now means bomb what you like on the ground. It's just a total disgrace. I'm no fan of Gadaffi but on this issue I think he and his country have been the victim of multi-state sponsored terrorism in the form of nato and the "rebels" on the ground.
March 29, 2011 at 12:30 pm
After listening to liberals shout, "No blood for oil!" I am convinced that we started bombing Libya for Europe's oil interests. So, perhaps if there are any more anti-war protests (What, we haven't had any of those since Obama's inaguration?) I could join in and carry signs, "No American blood for European oil!" and "Make Quadafi irrelevant, drill right here, right now!"
March 29, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Did Congress have anything to do with this action or did the President act alone? If this was truly about being humanitarian I ask, why Libya? What about Rwanda, Darfar and a whole list of other contries where atrocities were committed? It seems every President we have had has engaged in some sort of warfare. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Clinton sent troops to Bosnia & Somolia, we all know what Bush did, now Obama with Libya. There was a difference in the amount of troops. No longer can I hear Republicans are war mongers, as I still cannot see justification for this action Obama is taking.
March 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Pet peeve-
WMD in Iraq. I rather agree, otherwise, but it's rather important to not give into popular falsehoods.
March 29, 2011 at 3:25 pm
My understanding is that the opposition/rebel forces are backed by Al Qaeda. I'm not so sure we should be involved in this. At all.
March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm
My understanding is that every badguy group in the area is streaming in because that's how they get their weapons– "help" local fighters, and make off with what you can get. They do take stuff from the main army, too, but that's not really reassuring.
If we'd done something right away, it'd make sense. Going for an illegal war, with fewer allies than we had in Iraq, just isn't cool. (Even if they did manage to find someone that both the French and English folks will follow that isn't an American… not like it'll matter, his support staff are still going to be American.)
March 29, 2011 at 3:48 pm
@CathyD: If we're not involved now Libya will become Al Qaeda's next stronghold and that will eventually pull us in – big time. But if we're there now, then we can "shape" the next regime – if our inept in not treacherous administration does not hand our heads over to the Muslim Brotherhood.
March 30, 2011 at 12:23 am
Nothing good will come from a man who supports infantcide. Mark my words, Libya will be a fiasco.
Pray for our troops, because soon no one will want to defend America, why should they?