I skipped over Barack Obama's actual speech because I had a hamburger with my name on it waiting in the dining room, but I have since read the text. One safely assumes I have the substance down, but if I have missed anything by not watching Obam-uh live, blame the hamburger. It was tasty.
The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.
There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.
Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?
The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.
Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.
The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.
Showing posts with label Obamapocalypse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamapocalypse. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Case for War in Libya: Nine Days Late and a Case for War Short
I skipped over Barack Obama's actual speech because I had a hamburger with my name on it waiting in the dining room, but I have since read the text. One safely assumes I have the substance down, but if I have missed anything by not watching Obam-uh live, blame the hamburger. It was tasty.
The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.
There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.
Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?
The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.
Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.
The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.
The main thing I notice is how similar the argument for Obama’s fighting Muammar Qaddafi are to Bush 43’s mission to oust Saddam Hussein, save for Obama’s false comparison that we are not going it alone in Libya like Iraq. Progressives have repeated that “going it alone” line about Iraq so often, they genuinely believe it. The coalition for libya is smaller than that of Operation Iraqi Freedom with no clear leadership. Obama essentially said in his speech that America was leading by following. At least we have finally settled on following the Canadians into war.
There are a few other differences with Libya besides a smaller coalition and a game of hot potato for which country is going to take responsibility. Most notably, there was not months of lead up to convince the American people the war was a good idea, Congress was not consulted before the attack, and Obama fumbled around for nine days before addressing the nation in this lackluster, clear as mud speech.
Oh, and Europe is far more heavily dependent on Libyan oil than the United States, so this really is a war for oil--on behalf of European people who are protesting war mongering Americans for fighting it. As an added bonus, many of the Libyan rebels are al Qaeda operatives, so at least European peacenikds can take some solace we have found common cause with the enemy, even if it is due to Obama’s profound lack of leadership skills and savvy in international affairs. Maybe he is creating another junior year abroad for radical Muslim freedom fighters like Afghanistan in the ‘80’s. That eventually worked out swell for us, did it not?
The administration cannot even decide if there are American interests at stake. Clinton says there are; Gates retorts no, there are not. You can debate whether the free flow of oil from Libya to Europe is in America’s best interest as adamantly as you can debate whether france blowing up tanks ought to be part of a no fly zone mission. What you cannot debate is Obama’s one track mind. In his speech, he used the word ’hope” four times and “change’ a whopping nine. You see how well that turned out for the united States. Maybe Libya will fare better with it.
Let us not even get started on what kind of regime may replace Qaddafi when he is finally dislodged. Since Obama has set forth no discernable goals for the kinetic military action which looks suspiciously like a war to force regime change, much less a timeline to achieve said goals, I think we are playing this one by ear. Or waiting for the Canadians to come up with something. I am not really sure.
The sad bottom line here is that elitist progressives, generally deadest against military campaigns and incompetent in how to either sell or fight them, start them, anyway. No leadership. No clue objectives. No interest in the American peopled approval. Really no interest in fighting it at all. What is this, then? You cannot be a real president, even the most progressive one in history, without launching a war of your own? Hope and change for Libya, indeed.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Jay Carney: "Japan is Like, Way Over There and Stuff."
White House Press Secretary jay Carney dismissed a question from ABC's Jake Tapper about the latest developments in the Japanese nuclear plant crisis by snapping tapper should ask his own reporters on the ground. carney attempted to clean up his statement by then directing tapper to several government agencies who ought to be on top of the issue, but the revelation is clear--this White House is not engaged in foreign affairs.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
Jay Carney: "Japan is Like, Way Over There and Stuff."
White House Press Secretary jay Carney dismissed a question from ABC's Jake Tapper about the latest developments in the Japanese nuclear plant crisis by snapping tapper should ask his own reporters on the ground. carney attempted to clean up his statement by then directing tapper to several government agencies who ought to be on top of the issue, but the revelation is clear--this White House is not engaged in foreign affairs.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
It is ironic on the surface. One of the rationales for electing Barack Obama president was to repair the alleged damaged done by George W. Bush’s battle against western Civilization destroying militant Islam. Since his election, Obama has smacked our allies at every turn, coddled our enemies, and generally demeaned his own country across the planet.
This is, I am afraid, what progressives mean by improving American image overseas. Historically speaking, American isolationism has been characterized as the belief America is too good for the rest of the world. These days, isolationism has shifted to the idea the world is too good for America. The philosophy has been fully embraced by the (self-appointed?) intellectual left.
Do not believe it? Obama has specifically bowed before the Japanese emperor and set in church while rev. Jeremiah Wright specifically said God should damn America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He is more than happy to humble himself and the united states before Japan, either in recognizing their superiority or in atoning for past “sins,” but not to engage with the Japanese as a longtime ally.
I suspect the bottom line to Obama’s behavior towards japan, cowering in the past and disinterest now, is the fear of American arrogance in dealing with other countries. Obama certainly has no belief in American exceptionalism. But it looks like he has no belief in America having anything valuable to offer whatsoever period.
As I am not inclined to believe Hillary Clinton will run for president again, I suspect her decision to not serve a second term as Secretary of State is motivated by the tepid foreign policy she has been forced to promote. Say what you will about her being progressive, both she and her husband have a better grip on how the united states should conduct itself internationally. She is going to can what is most certainly the pinnacle of her political career so she does not have to be a part of Obama’s foreign policy. Now if the rest of us could opt out of it.
UPDATE: Obama will have a statement on Japan at 3;30 PM. I bet he will say, "Present."
UPDATE II: It only took 31 days for the United States to go, hat in hand, to the United Nations for authorization to use force against genocidal acts in Libya. How is that NCAA bracket turning out, Mr. President?
UPDATE III: Confirmation on Clinton fustration: foot dragging on Libya prompted her to not seek second stint at State.
UPDATE IV: Five Ways the US is Better Prepared for a Nuclear Disaster. We have expertise to offer.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Who is Jon Huntsman and Why is He Running for President?
I ask the question in all honesty. A reporter asked former Barack Obama adviser David Plouffe who he anticipated would be the toughest Republican opponent to face in 2012. He named then governor of Utah Jon Huntsman. Even the most politically astute observers responded, “Who? What?” Huntsman was shortly thereafter appointed ambassador to china by Obama, presumably to get a major potential opponent for 2012 out of the way.
Huntsman’s appointment as Ambassador to china does make some sense. He speaks fluent Mandarin because he spent time in Taiwan as a Mormon missionary after college. One wonders how the Chinese feel about a representative who has spent time in Taiwan, but that apparently has not caused any tension. What is puzzling is the assumption Huntsman is such strong presidential material. He obviously believes it himself. He will resign effective April in order to lay groundwork for a 2012 bid.
Huntsman was not a particular shining star in Utah.. He deliberately separated himself from the conservative wing of the Republican party and especially the tea Party on a number of key issues. He was for the stimulus and supports cap and trade. One suspects he is actually more comfortable as a centrist Democrat, but could not have gotten elected as one in Utah.
Obviously, Ploiffe was trying to puff up a weak opponent for 2012, one whom he knew must have had a wild hair to run anyway. Daddy huntsman is a billionaire, so he has the cash to blow on a long shot White House bid. Is there supposed to be some added drama that he is a former ambassador in the Obama administration? Beats me, but that angle has not really taken hold if so.
Here is the kicker--his nascent campaign is loaded with former John McCain staffers from 2008. As far as Republican circles go, I hope that is enough for everyone to dismiss him, but one wonders if the cocktail party conservatives of New York and DC find that as much of a detriment as the rest of us do. Nevertyheless, it looks like Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy is to run against McCain again if at all possible. We do not need to accommodate!
Huntsman’s appointment as Ambassador to china does make some sense. He speaks fluent Mandarin because he spent time in Taiwan as a Mormon missionary after college. One wonders how the Chinese feel about a representative who has spent time in Taiwan, but that apparently has not caused any tension. What is puzzling is the assumption Huntsman is such strong presidential material. He obviously believes it himself. He will resign effective April in order to lay groundwork for a 2012 bid.
Huntsman was not a particular shining star in Utah.. He deliberately separated himself from the conservative wing of the Republican party and especially the tea Party on a number of key issues. He was for the stimulus and supports cap and trade. One suspects he is actually more comfortable as a centrist Democrat, but could not have gotten elected as one in Utah.
Obviously, Ploiffe was trying to puff up a weak opponent for 2012, one whom he knew must have had a wild hair to run anyway. Daddy huntsman is a billionaire, so he has the cash to blow on a long shot White House bid. Is there supposed to be some added drama that he is a former ambassador in the Obama administration? Beats me, but that angle has not really taken hold if so.
Here is the kicker--his nascent campaign is loaded with former John McCain staffers from 2008. As far as Republican circles go, I hope that is enough for everyone to dismiss him, but one wonders if the cocktail party conservatives of New York and DC find that as much of a detriment as the rest of us do. Nevertyheless, it looks like Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy is to run against McCain again if at all possible. We do not need to accommodate!
Who is Jon Huntsman and Why is He Running for President?
I ask the question in all honesty. A reporter asked former Barack Obama adviser David Plouffe who he anticipated would be the toughest Republican opponent to face in 2012. He named then governor of Utah Jon Huntsman. Even the most politically astute observers responded, “Who? What?” Huntsman was shortly thereafter appointed ambassador to china by Obama, presumably to get a major potential opponent for 2012 out of the way.
Huntsman’s appointment as Ambassador to china does make some sense. He speaks fluent Mandarin because he spent time in Taiwan as a Mormon missionary after college. One wonders how the Chinese feel about a representative who has spent time in Taiwan, but that apparently has not caused any tension. What is puzzling is the assumption Huntsman is such strong presidential material. He obviously believes it himself. He will resign effective April in order to lay groundwork for a 2012 bid.
Huntsman was not a particular shining star in Utah.. He deliberately separated himself from the conservative wing of the Republican party and especially the tea Party on a number of key issues. He was for the stimulus and supports cap and trade. One suspects he is actually more comfortable as a centrist Democrat, but could not have gotten elected as one in Utah.
Obviously, Ploiffe was trying to puff up a weak opponent for 2012, one whom he knew must have had a wild hair to run anyway. Daddy huntsman is a billionaire, so he has the cash to blow on a long shot White House bid. Is there supposed to be some added drama that he is a former ambassador in the Obama administration? Beats me, but that angle has not really taken hold if so.
Here is the kicker--his nascent campaign is loaded with former John McCain staffers from 2008. As far as Republican circles go, I hope that is enough for everyone to dismiss him, but one wonders if the cocktail party conservatives of New York and DC find that as much of a detriment as the rest of us do. Nevertyheless, it looks like Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy is to run against McCain again if at all possible. We do not need to accommodate!
Huntsman’s appointment as Ambassador to china does make some sense. He speaks fluent Mandarin because he spent time in Taiwan as a Mormon missionary after college. One wonders how the Chinese feel about a representative who has spent time in Taiwan, but that apparently has not caused any tension. What is puzzling is the assumption Huntsman is such strong presidential material. He obviously believes it himself. He will resign effective April in order to lay groundwork for a 2012 bid.
Huntsman was not a particular shining star in Utah.. He deliberately separated himself from the conservative wing of the Republican party and especially the tea Party on a number of key issues. He was for the stimulus and supports cap and trade. One suspects he is actually more comfortable as a centrist Democrat, but could not have gotten elected as one in Utah.
Obviously, Ploiffe was trying to puff up a weak opponent for 2012, one whom he knew must have had a wild hair to run anyway. Daddy huntsman is a billionaire, so he has the cash to blow on a long shot White House bid. Is there supposed to be some added drama that he is a former ambassador in the Obama administration? Beats me, but that angle has not really taken hold if so.
Here is the kicker--his nascent campaign is loaded with former John McCain staffers from 2008. As far as Republican circles go, I hope that is enough for everyone to dismiss him, but one wonders if the cocktail party conservatives of New York and DC find that as much of a detriment as the rest of us do. Nevertyheless, it looks like Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy is to run against McCain again if at all possible. We do not need to accommodate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)