President Obama, indecision, Libya, mistakes, random thoughts

[The T]

He blew it. Libya was not a threat to our Nation or the Region. It's a Civil War. There is no valid argument for bombing & killing Libyans. And he didn't even go to Congress for debate & authorization either. If there ever was a 'War for Oil',this Libyan War is it. It's very sad.

He actually DID...two days after the fact.

The Next action by Congress is defunding the action.

Don't count on them defunding the action. Most Neocon Republicans are with the Socialist/Progressive Democrats on this stuff. They both love aggressive foreign interventionism. This War makes absolutely no sense. Not to defend the Iraq Wars,but at least the supporters of those Wars had a much stronger argument than the supporters of this War do. This is a Civil War and Gaddafi has never invaded Nations in the Region. This War is blatantly all about Oil. There are no credible justifications for it. Oh well,another Day another War i guess.

Odd...you have many on the left that are just as puzzled at this action as those on the right. Some calling for impeachment.

I defer to pending Monday night's teleprompter induced performance that will create more confusion than it will tend to clear up. Just sit back and watch.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Oh man.... the irony.

Now you see why it isn't difficult for someone with principles, aka ME, to disagree with the President on this.

Which, ironically, is why I found it difficult to be overly critical of him.

I do think he's been largely wrong, after a period of unfortunate indecisiveness. Now there's a dynamic combination. But still, when there are no clear "good" resolutions, then it is pretty unfair to demand that the "proper" route be immediately identified and followed.

He is still deserving of much of the criticism he has gotten, though. That's kind of the flip side of this. He failed to adhere to his own prior statements regarding how the U.S. should behave. He did (in a twisted way) very much the same kind of things he criticized President Bush for doing. He failed to seek prior Congressional approval; and at the least he failed to even CONSULT with Congress. Therefore, he made himself a target of valid criticism from both sides. And he did so in pursuit of some half baked foreign policy that has no clear goals, objectives or end game.

He faced daunting choices. True. But he handled it all miserably. He is a failure in so many respects.

Yes just like Massive Spending,Bailouts,Raising Debt Limits,Signing Statements,Recess Appointments,and the Patriot Act. And now a stupid War. He's dong all the same exact things he ripped DA BOOOOOSH for. It really is shocking that so many get sucked in by stupid slogans like "Hope & Change." We really do have a very Dumb Electorate for the most part. Very depressing stuff for sure.

 

[Liability]

Good to see a President who finally gets it

Protect the rights of civilians
Build a global coalition
Keep the US in a support role
Don't put our soldiers at risk
Allow the EU to take the lead

Well played President Obama...well played

Except, that's largely nonsense.

Protect the rights of civilians -- arguable. So, one check mark.
Build a global coalition -- nonsense. He didn't. He didn't build anything. He was a natural follower.
Keep the US in a support role -- half truth at best. We sent in the VAST majority of the missiles. That was a lot more than mere support. And it is unclear why it is in our interest to be the support rather than the point-man.
Don't put our soldiers at risk -- our airmen are at risk. And this is the same Kaddafy-**** who has slaughtered MANY of our people. It is clearly possible, unless we do what President Obama has said we will NOT do, that left to his own devices, after this is all "over" and Kaddaffy-**** ends up retaining "power," that there will be more attacks on our interests and people supported by HIM.
Allow the EU to take the lead -- Again, it is left unexplained why this is a preferable foreign policy. Maybe it is. But it does beg the question, "Why?"

So how it can be said that President Obama deserves kudos for having "played" any of this "well" is a mystery.

 

[Trajan]

Why the 'indecision' charge?

Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.

I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

 

[Trajan]

Good to see a President who finally gets it

Protect the rights of civilians
Build a global coalition
Keep the US in a support role
Don't put our soldiers at risk
Allow the EU to take the lead

Well played President Obama...well played

gets what?



Protect the rights of civilians

hello this was a tribal war started by the east tribes, between them both, some was and will be hurt in this.........what civilians btw are we protecting? what happens if east tribes take Tripoli? You think they are just going to hug the western tribes and sing kumbaya?



Build a global coalition

this is the smallest coalition since 45....and I don't recall shedding big players like Turkey, German China or Russia in the others...your point is neutral in that it means little.

Keep the US in a support role

wrong- 80% of the sppt. and munitions are ours, incl. command and control elements etc. AND this aint over yet.



Don't put our soldiers at risk

agreed, BUT this may work against him.


Allow the EU to take the lead

you must have been in a coma RW in the 80's and 90's and hello- Turkey Germany? ...your point doesn't even make sense in historical context.


at the end, your points. IMHO, are vitiated by your partisanship and lack of intellectual curiosity, in that you don't ask or care why he apparently ignores darfur, yemen, syria, bahrain, burma.....etc etc etc ....

Why did you not mention the UN btw?

 

[Jack Fate]

Can we just imagine what the left would be saying if Bush had done this? At least Kucinich and a few others are consistent in their beliefs, while we see the Obamatrons spinning for him to make this acceptable. What a collosal glittering **** up.

 

[The T]

Why the 'indecision' charge?

Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.

I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

Who are Libya's rebels?

 

[Trajan]

Why the 'indecision' charge?

Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.

I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

Who are Libya's rebels?

Oh and just to keep track libya has twice the per capita income and live better than their brethren in Egypt at almost all levels due to a smaller pop. and loose cash Qaddafi throws around, mainly yes to his cohorts but the easterners are still better off then their like in Egypt.




thank you for the article T...I read a similar article at the start of this, speaking to the ongoing angst between the the east and west tribes, the Southerners...etc.


for those that don't care to check themselves.


The NCLO web site (Arabic) carries a document (Arabic; Google Cache; legible in automatic translation) dated February 15th (the day the protests began), which clearly spells out NCLO's objections to Qaddafi's rule. The main points of "Qaddafi: Islam's no. 1 enemy" are as follows:

* Qaddafi has closed an Islamic university and a seminary, has forbidden some Islamist publications, and has thrown thousands of Islamist activists into jail.

* Qaddafi has urged to put the Qur'an on the shelf, as no longer appropriate for this age.

* Qaddafi has made fun of the Islamic veil, calling it a "rag" and a "tent".

* Qaddafi has dared to say that Christians and Jews should be allowed to visit Mecca.

* Qaddafi has rejected the Hadith and Sunnah, and said he follows the Qur'an alone.

(The last claim involves a curious episode. At one point, Qaddafi declared himself a follower of the "Qur'an alone" movement, which rejects orthodox Muslim punishments, like stoning for adultery, death penalty for homosexuals etc. This got him into some serious trouble. An international committee of scholars went to discuss the issue with Qaddafi. After being told that "if he did not repent and take back his statement, he would fall under the law of renegades and infidels [...] which would force true Muslims to kill him", Qaddafi "repented and took back his statement".)

None of this is surprising. The leaked State Department memos describe Eastern Libya (2008) as an area of fervent Islamic sentiment, where "a number of Libyans who had fought and in some cases undergone 'religious and ideological training' in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the West Bank in the late 1970's and early 1980's had returned [...] in the mid to late 1980's". There they engaged into "a deliberate, coordinated campaign to propagate more conservative iterations of Islam, in part to prepare the ground for the eventual overthrow by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of Muammar Qadhafi's regime, which is 'hated' by conservative Islamists". While Qaddafi's position was perceived to be strong, the East Libyans sent jihadis to Iraq, where "fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers".

Who are Libya's rebels?




The leaked State Department memos describe Eastern Libya (2008) -

Passed to the Telegraph by WikiLeaks 9:36PM GMT 31 Jan 2011

Ref ID: 08TRIPOLI430

Date: 6/2/2008 16:59

Origin: Embassy Tripoli

Classification: CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN

Destination: 08TRIPOLI120

help yourselves...

DIE HARD IN DERNA - Telegraph

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why the 'indecision' charge?

Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.

I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

So 6 months of dithering on Bush's part was insignificant because Saddam was not an imminent threat?

lol, good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why the 'indecision' charge?

Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.

I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

Since we have no business there in the first place, the 1 or 2 week delay is immaterial.

Even for those who otherwise support this, going in earlier would have required a unilateral or nearly so action, which would have given the rest of the current coalition a golden opportunity to leave us with the whole mess, or most of it, in other words the same old story.

The criticism of Obama's 'dithering' and 'indecisiveness' is merely a last ditch effort by one set Obama haters (the ones who otherwise support going after Khadaffi) to find fault with Obama somehow.

 

[The T]

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

Who are Libya's rebels?

Oh and just to keep track libya has twice the per capita income and live better than their brethren in Egypt at almost all levels due to a smaller pop. and loose cash Qaddafi throws around, mainly yes to his cohorts but the easterners are still better off then their like in Egypt.




thank you for the article T...I read a similar article at the start of this, speaking to the ongoing angst between the the east and west tribes, the Southerners...etc.


for those that don't care to check themselves.


The NCLO web site (Arabic) carries a document (Arabic; Google Cache; legible in automatic translation) dated February 15th (the day the protests began), which clearly spells out NCLO's objections to Qaddafi's rule. The main points of "Qaddafi: Islam's no. 1 enemy" are as follows:

* Qaddafi has closed an Islamic university and a seminary, has forbidden some Islamist publications, and has thrown thousands of Islamist activists into jail.

* Qaddafi has urged to put the Qur'an on the shelf, as no longer appropriate for this age.

* Qaddafi has made fun of the Islamic veil, calling it a "rag" and a "tent".

* Qaddafi has dared to say that Christians and Jews should be allowed to visit Mecca.

* Qaddafi has rejected the Hadith and Sunnah, and said he follows the Qur'an alone.

(The last claim involves a curious episode. At one point, Qaddafi declared himself a follower of the "Qur'an alone" movement, which rejects orthodox Muslim punishments, like stoning for adultery, death penalty for homosexuals etc. This got him into some serious trouble. An international committee of scholars went to discuss the issue with Qaddafi. After being told that "if he did not repent and take back his statement, he would fall under the law of renegades and infidels [...] which would force true Muslims to kill him", Qaddafi "repented and took back his statement".)

None of this is surprising. The leaked State Department memos describe Eastern Libya (2008) as an area of fervent Islamic sentiment, where "a number of Libyans who had fought and in some cases undergone 'religious and ideological training' in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the West Bank in the late 1970's and early 1980's had returned [...] in the mid to late 1980's". There they engaged into "a deliberate, coordinated campaign to propagate more conservative iterations of Islam, in part to prepare the ground for the eventual overthrow by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of Muammar Qadhafi's regime, which is 'hated' by conservative Islamists". While Qaddafi's position was perceived to be strong, the East Libyans sent jihadis to Iraq, where "fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers".

Who are Libya's rebels?




The leaked State Department memos describe Eastern Libya (2008) -

Passed to the Telegraph by WikiLeaks 9:36PM GMT 31 Jan 2011

Ref ID: 08TRIPOLI430

Date: 6/2/2008 16:59

Origin: Embassy Tripoli

Classification: CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN

Destination: 08TRIPOLI120

help yourselves...

DIE HARD IN DERNA - Telegraph

A thank you for your links...Obama didn't study this it appears...and his dithering has created confusion...and his address come Monday is going to create more confusion.

It's inevitable since both sides of the aisle are up in arms about this.

I'm with the OP. I would Love to see an amendment that could portend to recall a current Regime for incompetance...some would cite Impeachment...but even that doesn't go far enough.

 

[Jack Fate]

Why the 'indecision' charge?

Bush took 6 MONTHS from the time he got the Iraq authorization until he finally invaded Iraq.

I don't recall any of his cheerleaders then or now labeling that as 'indecision'.

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

Since we have no business there in the first place, the 1 or 2 week delay is immaterial.

Even for those who otherwise support this, going in earlier would have required a unilateral or nearly so action, which would have given the rest of the current coalition a golden opportunity to leave us with the whole mess, or most of it, in other words the same old story.

The criticism of Obama's 'dithering' and 'indecisiveness' is merely a last ditch effort by one set Obama haters (the ones who otherwise support going after Khadaffi) to find fault with Obama somehow.

The fault we are finding is Obama says one thing and does the exact opposit. We remember what he said. He said keeping Gitmo open and bombing a nation that was not a direct threat was failed policy. Well, wonder of wonders. What do you suppose we have right here? Duh.

 

[The T]

because the tactical situations are entirely different, Libya ala the relative positions of the rebels and force that would have been required a month ago, had flipped. The situation in Iraq was not getting any better or any worse, the situation was not near as fluid.

Since we have no business there in the first place, the 1 or 2 week delay is immaterial.

Even for those who otherwise support this, going in earlier would have required a unilateral or nearly so action, which would have given the rest of the current coalition a golden opportunity to leave us with the whole mess, or most of it, in other words the same old story.

The criticism of Obama's 'dithering' and 'indecisiveness' is merely a last ditch effort by one set Obama haters (the ones who otherwise support going after Khadaffi) to find fault with Obama somehow.

The fault we are finding is Obama says one thing and does the exact opposit. We remember what he said. He said keeping Gitmo open and bombing a nation that was not a direct threat was failed policy. Well, wonder of wonders. What do you suppose we have right here? Duh.

But this is presupposing that WE confer Citizens RIGHTS upon enemy combatants.

 

[Flopper]

In an effort to keep the OP here a little bit brief, here's the disclaimer. I don't know what my policy would be in the matter of the Middle East uprisings and with regard to Libya (and Egypt, etc). In fairness, therefor, before I discuss what President Obama has been doing and not doing, I confess I do not see any good solutions, either.

The trouble is: we the People elected HIM to be President and he's supposed to chart the course. He could chart a great course (or at least the course that's least bad). Or he could chart a piss-poor course. Either way, at least our foreign policy wouldn't be simply "adrift." At present, I submit we are adrift. And we are adrift because this President lets events (and the U.N.) decide things FOR him rather than trying to take the reins.

In terms of Libya (and this applies to Egypt, too): the problem is very complicated. I don't think there IS a good choice to be made. If we support the people who are rising up against that brutal ****, Mohammar Kadaffy-****, we are essentially providing aid (and munitions?) to a bunch of Muslim "brotherhood" scumbags who will turn out to be al qaeda supported bastards. That does not strike me as sound U.S. foreign policy.

On the other hand, what are we supposed to do? Support that evil prick, Kaddafy-****? He murdered lots of our people. He is a low rent monster. If we supported HIM out of fear of who is behind this uprising stuff, the people there would have pretty clear reason to hate our ******* guts. Well, hate us even more, that is. And that could blow up on us, too.

Third option is to be "neutral." But that will only make us look weak and indecisive in the eyes of the leaders of the other nations on our little blue planet. And it will be said (with some justification) that our inaction HELPS the dictator.

Since I can't see a good course to follow, I have some trouble being overly critical of President Obama in this. And yet, it seems to also be true that he wanted the job. He is the one who is supposed to be making these tough choices. And he is doing what? He initially waited for the UN to "act." We then become one of the followers, relinquishing our role as a "leader." And this creates world-wide perceptions. And those perceptions have consequences.

And now he is weakly contemplating arming the rebels even as we learn that they have direct support (including fighting forces) from al qaeda. In short, he seems waffling and weak and indecisive, but when he does finally make a choice, he seems to be making serious mistakes.

I wish we could demand a recall referendum. He and Vice President Biden need to go.

What we should do, militarily in regard to civil uprisings and civil war in these Arab countries is stay the **** out of it. Don't we have enough problems here at home without getting involved in another war. If the UN or NATO wants to get involved, fine as long as we don't have a major role.

 

[kaz]

Obama's policies are random thoughts

 

[rightwinger]

In an effort to keep the OP here a little bit brief, here's the disclaimer. I don't know what my policy would be in the matter of the Middle East uprisings and with regard to Libya (and Egypt, etc). In fairness, therefor, before I discuss what President Obama has been doing and not doing, I confess I do not see any good solutions, either.

The trouble is: we the People elected HIM to be President and he's supposed to chart the course. He could chart a great course (or at least the course that's least bad). Or he could chart a piss-poor course. Either way, at least our foreign policy wouldn't be simply "adrift." At present, I submit we are adrift. And we are adrift because this President lets events (and the U.N.) decide things FOR him rather than trying to take the reins.

In terms of Libya (and this applies to Egypt, too): the problem is very complicated. I don't think there IS a good choice to be made. If we support the people who are rising up against that brutal ****, Mohammar Kadaffy-****, we are essentially providing aid (and munitions?) to a bunch of Muslim "brotherhood" scumbags who will turn out to be al qaeda supported bastards. That does not strike me as sound U.S. foreign policy.

On the other hand, what are we supposed to do? Support that evil prick, Kaddafy-****? He murdered lots of our people. He is a low rent monster. If we supported HIM out of fear of who is behind this uprising stuff, the people there would have pretty clear reason to hate our ******* guts. Well, hate us even more, that is. And that could blow up on us, too.

Third option is to be "neutral." But that will only make us look weak and indecisive in the eyes of the leaders of the other nations on our little blue planet. And it will be said (with some justification) that our inaction HELPS the dictator.

Since I can't see a good course to follow, I have some trouble being overly critical of President Obama in this. And yet, it seems to also be true that he wanted the job. He is the one who is supposed to be making these tough choices. And he is doing what? He initially waited for the UN to "act." We then become one of the followers, relinquishing our role as a "leader." And this creates world-wide perceptions. And those perceptions have consequences.

And now he is weakly contemplating arming the rebels even as we learn that they have direct support (including fighting forces) from al qaeda. In short, he seems waffling and weak and indecisive, but when he does finally make a choice, he seems to be making serious mistakes.

I wish we could demand a recall referendum. He and Vice President Biden need to go.

What we should do, militarily in regard to civil uprisings and civil war in these Arab countries is stay the **** out of it. Don't we have enough problems here at home without getting involved in another war. If the UN or NATO wants to get involved, fine as long as we don't have a major role.

Exactly how Obama is playing it

Why does the US always have to carry the water in UN military actions?

Let France do the heavy work while we provide oversight

 

[Dr.House]

Obama's policies are random thoughts

related to golf, vacationing in Rio, and the NCAA basketball tournament

 

[kaz]

Exactly how Obama is playing it

Why does the US always have to carry the water in UN military actions?

Let France do the heavy work while we provide oversight

Actually isn't Hussein doing it the other way around? France leads, we do the work?

 

[Dot Com]

Good to see a President who finally gets it

Protect the rights of civilians
Build a global coalition
Keep the US in a support role
Don't put our soldiers at risk
Allow the EU to take the lead

Well played President Obama...well played

Exactly. We went to the U.N. on purpose. Whats so hard to understand about that.
It gives our actions legitimacy having the U.N. AND the Arab League behind the decision. U.S. goes in 1st w/ the precision bombing/softening-up Gaddafi then we turn it over to the French/U.K. to enforce the no-fly zone.

 

[The T]

Obama's policies are random thoughts

he's disconnect from the very Country that voted him into power and the principles that got him there.

For a so-called Constitutional Scholar? Obama is a dumbass and a Criminal.

if he doesn't want the job? Why doesn't he just say so?