Tuesday, March 29, 2011

A Quick Thought...

I haven't watched the State of the Union in a while. I just can't stand to hear that guy talk. I guess it's how liberals felt when "W" was in the White House. When it's your guy, and he is a bumbler, he's still spouting your values for the most part.

But...Libya is an interesting, and difficult topic. The uproar that caused this bumbler (I love watching him get lost on the teleprompter) to give a speech last night, was partly by MEMBERS OF CONGRESS on both sides. They, like several Sunday morning talk show hosts, wanted to know why he hasn't addressed Congress. Even if he was afraid to get a "no," and just wanted to check a box, why didn't he invite leaders of both parties (both chambers) to the White House, and tell them what he was going to do.

And...they wanted to know what the "endgame" was. And therein lies the answer.

Just like in Iraq...just like in Afghanistan, the endgame might not look like what he said it would. Even with our massive superior military and technological capabilities, war has risk.

I'm torn on Libya. I support the President's action. I think it was late. Or if not the action, his words are late. I think he is STILL being indecisive. He is gambling on Gaddafi going the way of Mubarak...although being pushed by a couple hundred Tomahawks. If Gaddafi stays, and the battle goes on-and-on...what then? We'll see. I support the action, because I believe that Gaddafi is evil (and clearly demented), and that others in the Middle East were paying close attention.  And we got their attention.  But I don't support going half-way. This is a war - ask the people in Libya. If you are going to take out military installations, tanks and planes...take them out - all of them, or until it is over.  Not just until NATO takes over (yes, we are NATO). 

(NATO being told to take over something)

What is most upsetting - is Obama's open and obvious hypocrisy. All the teleprompter reading and ("finally" the leftists are saying) change in 'intonation' and 'emotion' in his reading, can't hide the fact that he is doing exactly what he campaigned against.

This is a war for oil, that can't be denied. That is why France and the rest of Europe jumped on it, and that is why Russia doesn't mind ripping us about it. But it is in the context of the upheaval in the Middle East. In the totality of the circumstances - Gaddafi had to be stopped. But just like in Egypt, we don't know what we are going to get. In the totality of the circumstances, Saddam had to be stopped. What happened, what Iraq turned into, was not what Bush and the "neo-cons" would have wanted, but I'm sure it resembles at least one possible outcome that is described in some analyst's report.
BTW - I forced myself to watch the speech, then I forced myself to watch the lefty channels' analysis (so I get double points).  It seemed like they all got that tingle up their leg...yet they all mentioned 'no endgame', 'no strategy.'  We'll see how events play out, and we'll see how the analysis plays out...


LL said...

What we see is an America that is allowing itself to be acted upon rather than being a proactive actor. This is the result of the Obama Administration driving the best and brightest from US State and elsewhere. We now see people to drive the bus based on their slavish partisan pandering.

Obama gets caught with is pants down (again) because he and his cronies drove the intelligence professionals out of the business...the same way he is trying to do now at FBI.

Coherent strategy is based on the long view and that doesn't exist in the Obama White House. It's geared for the next election and no further. And it shows.

innominatus said...

>>>I guess it's how liberals felt when "W" was in the White House

At least Dubya doesn't speak with hisssy, whisssstly ssssibilant esssses that make me want to jab an icepick in my ear.