President Obama's flawed address casts shadow over noble action

Let's be clear from the beginning. Yes, stopping a murderous tyrant like Qaddafi is the right thing to do. It is in the interest of free world to prevent genocide and the potential displacement of millions of people. If it must come by force, than so be it. What I can't understand is why Barack Obama continues to be so condescending, contradictory and almost comically illogical when he explains his actions. Last night's televised speech is his latest exercise in this endeavor.

Problem number one is that no matter what, President Obama will use terrible logic to insulate himself from criticism. Eliot Spitzer's article "Last Chance for Libya," summarized quite well that the Libyan rebels had nearly been quashed in Benghazi--and waiting any longer would have enabled Qaddafi to extinguish the torch of freedom. In making his case for intervention, Obama himself spelled out the disaster that was unfolding in human terms:

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Pretty terrible, huh? I guess waiting for a month before acting was a failure that you should own up to, eh Mr. President?

Not exactly. Demonstrating that his arrogance knows no bounds, Obama congratulated himself for acting so quickly. "When people were being brutalized in Bosnia," he reasoned, "it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us only 31 days."

Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had waited until February 7th, 1942, to declare war on Germany and Japan. Extrapolating on Obama's timeframe, Roosevelt could have reasoned, "It took Woodrow Wilson two years after the sinking of the Lusitania to confront the German Menace. I only waited two months!"

Perhaps more important was Obama's omission of Congressional approval. If we take him at his word that he "consulted with bipartisan members of Congress," why didn't he follow Constitutional procedure and schedule a vote? It took George W. Bush less than one hour to get Congressional approval concerning Terri Schiavo. No approval after 31 days for a noble cause such as this is nothing to boast about.

Why was a vote in Congress not necessary? And if it wasn't necessary in the case of establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone, why should the President ask for Congressional approval for upgrading our dilapidated infrastructure? Or funding our public schools? Or hiring more police officers in high-crime areas? These are are all noble goals as well, eh, Mr President? The same president who refuses to sign virtually anything into law unless he has 60 Senate votes--regardless as to how popular the legislation is with the general public.

And he didn't bother to mention any sort of exit strategy. It's not like the general public has over 100,000 reasons to be skeptical on that one.


I wish I had some sort of witty punch line to sign out, but I don't. I guess the take-away is that doing the job poorly is better than utter failure. I'm glad he's not Donald Trump, but the President needs to understand that he's not Abraham Lincoln either.