Thoughts on the Day
After reading a bunch of blogs / news articles on Libya, I'm starting to get confused. What is our mission there? Are we just protecting the rebellion? Or are we going to try and install a democracy? Nation building? Which means ousting Gaddafi?
Why hasn't the President told the American people (via a televised address) what his plans are? Why did he not consult with Congress before hand? Politically, what is he thinking? Leadership wise, what is he thinking?
Politically, I believe the following theory: irritate the base for the benefit of appealing to the independents in 2012. The base hates this action in Libya. I'm not sure what polling says about Independents, but they'd have to be more amenable than his base. Weren't they more hawkish in 2004 which is how W got re-elected? Kerry seemed weak on foreign policy? Bush looked strong?
I think his advisors are underestimating the mood of the country. The massive debt that we're acquiring daily, a budget that Congress still can't cut anything substantial out of ... and then the President executive orders another war in Libya?
And I say that as a person that thinks the American military should go where they are called. And help when we can.
Leadership wise, I think he believes that we have a duty to protect people? Or that people should protect people. And that humanitarian intervention is okay.
But he did all of this without Congressional approval. They are sending Marines into Libya now.
Can you IMAGINE if President Bush had done that in Iraq without Congressional approval?
There are people calling for the President to lose his Nobel Peace Prize because of this action.
Then there's this (from the Hill article):
That "strategist" has no idea how the Middle East works. They will not ever cheer us. Ever. They will take our guns, our help, our aid, but they will never cheer us. They can't. It's against their religion to wish anything but death for us. Unless we convert.
President Bush made that mistake in Iraq. He thought he would be greeted as a liberator, as a hero. Instead the people formed an insurgancy with roadside bombs and IEDs.
President Obama, and that Steve Murphy guy, need to read Fiasco.
I don't understand what's taking place at this moment. And I think it's pretty arrogant of President Obama to think that Congress would just blindly agree with him on this venture. And I think it's pretty arrogant (and not very understanding to military families) for the President to send the troops, and then not personally tell the public what the plan is. And because he's done this without talking to Congress, he is alone in defending this.
Not a place I'd want to be.
Especially with the "coalition" wavering, the French not wanting to take the lead, and basically a leadership VACUUM right now.
Why hasn't the President told the American people (via a televised address) what his plans are? Why did he not consult with Congress before hand? Politically, what is he thinking? Leadership wise, what is he thinking?
Politically, I believe the following theory: irritate the base for the benefit of appealing to the independents in 2012. The base hates this action in Libya. I'm not sure what polling says about Independents, but they'd have to be more amenable than his base. Weren't they more hawkish in 2004 which is how W got re-elected? Kerry seemed weak on foreign policy? Bush looked strong?
I think his advisors are underestimating the mood of the country. The massive debt that we're acquiring daily, a budget that Congress still can't cut anything substantial out of ... and then the President executive orders another war in Libya?
And I say that as a person that thinks the American military should go where they are called. And help when we can.
Leadership wise, I think he believes that we have a duty to protect people? Or that people should protect people. And that humanitarian intervention is okay.
But he did all of this without Congressional approval. They are sending Marines into Libya now.
Can you IMAGINE if President Bush had done that in Iraq without Congressional approval?
There are people calling for the President to lose his Nobel Peace Prize because of this action.
Then there's this (from the Hill article):
“Sure, there’s a risk to this,” said Democratic strategist Steve Murphy. “The optics were off, all the cable nets had their fun. But if the rebels win, think of the strategic and, yes, atmospheric element of having Arabs cheering us.”
That "strategist" has no idea how the Middle East works. They will not ever cheer us. Ever. They will take our guns, our help, our aid, but they will never cheer us. They can't. It's against their religion to wish anything but death for us. Unless we convert.
President Bush made that mistake in Iraq. He thought he would be greeted as a liberator, as a hero. Instead the people formed an insurgancy with roadside bombs and IEDs.
President Obama, and that Steve Murphy guy, need to read Fiasco.
I don't understand what's taking place at this moment. And I think it's pretty arrogant of President Obama to think that Congress would just blindly agree with him on this venture. And I think it's pretty arrogant (and not very understanding to military families) for the President to send the troops, and then not personally tell the public what the plan is. And because he's done this without talking to Congress, he is alone in defending this.
Not a place I'd want to be.
Especially with the "coalition" wavering, the French not wanting to take the lead, and basically a leadership VACUUM right now.
Comments
I found it to be very interesting. It would be something if we could see how things would have been if the left leaners had not behaved the way they did.