I was not impressed by President Obama's speech last night. To be fair, I am a serious three issues voter, finance, foreign policy and civil rights. Now considering we are broke, and war has broken out in Libya, this speech was right up my alley. I should also note I have been on President Obama's newsletter since that speech he gave in 2002 and have been a well-wisher, even today.
With that in mind, here are parts of the speech that stuck in my gaw a little awkward.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Okay, for generations we have been knocking off legitimate democracies and installing our own puppets who always come back to haunt as frankenstein monsters. The list is rather long here, but since we fought the great evil of the Nazis in WW2, it is debatable we have ever fought against a country or group that we did not have a direct hand in creating.
Yes, mindful of the public backlash of military action, the government no longer uses the draft to enforce American corporate interests aboard. To add values to the mix is laughable, otherwise we would be in the Ivory Coast yesterday, or countless other countries that have no resources that match our "interests" on Wall Street.
President Obama goes on to tell us why Gaddafi is basically a dick, which he is. But there are a lot of dicks running a lot of countries right now. I mean, just a few months ago, one of the biggest dicks in the region, Mubarack of Egypt, was our boy. Across Africa alone, there are countless dicks doing countless dickish things that doesn't even get a rise out of our state department.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
What about Bahrain? Or Syria? These countries too are facing brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis. For the record, the Ivory Coast now has 1 million refugees fleeing the iron hand of their leader who is openly cutting down civilians in the streets with heavy weapons. Other parts of Africa have been in humanitarian crisis mode for a decade now, and let's not even get started on situations like Burma or East Timor, which always get quietly swept under the rug.
The West only acts when it is in their economic interests, wrapping themselves in the flag of human rights to justify it to the public. This is becoming painfully obvious to all the protesters around the globe who are doing exactly what the people of Libya have done, yet the West does nothing.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
You mean like in Rwanda? Or the Democratic Republic of Congo, where pygmies where all hunted down because they were viewed as "sub-human"? What is reverberating around the world is how we only seem to get involved when resources are involved.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
There better not be boots on the ground without Congressional approval. This is not in our security interests, this is in our corporate interests, this war for resource control. I would rather not have our men and women of the armed forces fighting for the bottom line for shareholders of the oligarchy.
I'm funny like that.
In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
Good, because we're broke. As Jon Stewart said, "You can't fire teachers and tomahawk missiles at the same time."
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Are we really nation-building again? We're so good at this, don't see why we shouldn't give it another go.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.
Oh, I am making a false choice, am I? Go on....
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
Again, there is currently a whole scale slaughter occurring right now in the Ivory Coast, and brutal repressions occurring daily in Syria. Here, the US is measuring its corporate interests against the need for actions. This has no bearing on our national security, this is about securing oil resources for our partners in NATO.
I am also having a hard time not believing we didn't have the best damn fighting units in the world, our special forces, painting up targets for smart bombs. I find this really, really hard to believe. That requires boots on the ground, but boots that move so quickly and quietly that they pass through the enemy like ships in the night. Love those guys, modern day vikings crossed with ninjas.
To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
http://www.latimes.com/...
Here's a mass grave from last year in Nigeria. They are still waiting for you to take action. I guess you missed those images of slaughter in Iran during their "Twitter Revolution", as the current ones coming out of countless countries daily.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Again, 1 MILLION REFUGEES CURRENTLY IN THE IVORY COAST, fleeing to countries who aren't set up for humanitarian crisis of that level. 1,000,000 > 1,000s.
To be blunt, we went down that road in 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.
Thousands of Iraqi lives? Only a trillion dollars? Who gave you these numbers. But we both agree, let's not repeat that madness in Libya. Let's secure their oil on the cheap, that's the game plan.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests.
I think you are confusing the public interests with corporate interests, because this has nothing to do with defending our homeland or allies, but go on...
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
We will help when we can help ourselves, basically. Great.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one's own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Then why aren't we standing with the countless other revolutions currently under way? Again, when we only selective help in a country that has resource dear to our oligarchy's heart, this rhetoric about letting freedom ring rings hallow.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Wait, where you going President Obama? What is the end game? What are the conditions for withdrawal? How long will we be there if Gaddafi bunkers down and doesn't leave the country? How much will of this cost? Who is picking up the bill for all this?
What about all the other humans on the globe who see us protecting Libya just because they have oil?
What do we say to them?