So I turned on the speech. A minute and a half later, I turned it off, choosing to read the transcript for both expediency and the retention of my dinner.
So as far as I can tell, we started blowing shit up because
Which brings me to the logical points:
1. Obama laid out no actual compelling national interest. Agree or disagree, I can't think of any other president who didn't lay out some compelling national interest. And as I laid out in my post defending Obama's power to launch such an attack as he did, one requirement is that any military action must have a compelling national interest.
2. The mission is to stop the killing? To last for how long? And what are the conditions for victory? Or is this an open-ended non-commitment for no other reason than it was a popular bad guy to bust the balls of? The word for this is nebulous. As many have said, we can't be the world's policemen. Which appears to be our exact mission.
3. As I noted above with excessive use of the strikeout tag, there are plenty of hot zones all over the Middle East where the same problem is playing out. Yet we haven't intervened in any of them. We've barely gotten a strongly-worded (for Obama) teleprompter speech for most of them. A lack of consistency plays here. That, or Gaddafi did something to piss off the UN, which is why they decided to jump into the fray. And I'm not going to pass judgement on why other countries have taken action. I assume they're involved for some compelling national interest. Which brings us back to point number one.
So, having analyzed why Obama took this action, we return to the Obama Doctrine: WTF!
4 comments:
You make some good points. Particularly, I like the "compelling national interest". Sure, maybe it is good to play humanitarian, but come on, we cannot police the world...and I don't buy the humanitarian argument.
Are U stll around? I thought that by now you'd get the hint that you republicans are full of it and that no one believes you BS any longer.
So stop bashing the president already, it's getting to be boring, you a-hole.
Anonydolt: Need to correct you on a few things.
Of course I'm still around. Like luggage. Or herpes. Your preference.
I'm not a Republican. I support people I agree with on a particular issue. Being a libertarian and the fact that the economy is the biggest issue, that means I tend to favor the GOP when they actually practice what they preach.
BASH? Are you fucking 5 years old? Because if that's the best you got, you are a sad bastard.
Plus, you missed the prior post where I defended Obama's constitutional power to launch the very attack I'm now criticizing him for.
So in reality, I'm only responding because your non-comment amuses me and reminds me I'm still doing things right. Thanks for the unintentional support.
Also, you can say asshole.
Patrick, that 2nd comment that was a blast of incoherent rage makes me wonder if Howard Dean is again commenting on your blog.
Yeah, the "it's in our national national interest" is kind of weak. Gadaffi had gotten out of the terrorism and WMD business many years before, unlike Saddam Hussein.
Post a Comment