The Nation is not happy with Obama:

The following is an advance text of President Obama's what President Obama should say in his speech to the nation, to be delivered at 7:30 pm tonight.

My fellow Americans, my predecessor in the White House never admitted that he made any mistakes, but I have come before you tonight to admit that I have erred in intervening in Libya, and I ask your forgiveness.

When I announced that I was planning to intervene, by imposing a no-fly zone and by attacking Muammar Qaddafi’s forces on the ground, my intention was to protect and defend civilians who were under attack. That was, and is, a laudable goal. And perhaps we did prevent many deaths in Benghazi, the Libyan city held by rebels. But the cost is too high, and though it’s too late to undo what’s already been done, I want to speak to you tonight about how to make this right.

I gave in, too soon, to those in my administration who argued that the United States has to enforce what’s called the “responsibility to protect.” That responsibility is a sacred one, indeed. But in this case, there’s simply too much evidence that we overreached.

By mobilizing our military against Libya, we unleashed the dogs of war in a way whose future is simply unpredictable. None of my advisers or our intelligence community can tell me what will happen next, so I’ve decided to end our involvement tonight. It’s one thing to say that we’ll bomb armored columns loyal to Qaddafi in defense of Benghazi, but what next? Do we expand the war? Do we provide air cover for the rebels’ offensive as it moves west toward Tripoli, the Libyan capital? Do we bomb Tripoli, if Qaddafi fails to surrender or flee? Do we arm the rebels? With tanks? Heavy weapons? Do we send advisers? No one has been able to answer these key questions for me...

Nope, no problems for Obama if this Libya foray doesn't turn out like we want.\

link

Mar 27, 2011 -- 10:25PM, jonny42 wrote:

Mar 27, 2011 -- 8:47PM, fodaoson wrote:

Has anyone noticed the Anti-Obama-ites keep changing their mind?   They were  yelling do something, do something.   An when he does something they yell wrong , wrong!

The Commander in Chief deployed US forces in an UN Security council  action.  We are member of UN  and NATO by treaty and the  constitution  article  VI  says “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”  Therefore that  action is constitutional

What did the D's want him to do?  Attack Libya, or stay out of it? 

I think there were D's on both sides.  

I think there were R's on both sides.

 

Right, jonny.  That's what I was about to say to fodaoson.  Fodaoson and vra are both correct about the many so-called conservatives who were all over Obama for not rushing into Libya, and then turned on him like a mad dog when he did.

But their posts seem to ignore others (like myself, for one) who objected immediately and strenuously to such an enterprise, and do still.

Also, specifically to vra:

I admit I'm reading these posts amidst a whole lot of noise because of what time of day it is, but it seems to me that you are "looking to like" as Shakespeare once wrote.  IOW, you like Obama and although you have some reservations about this latest step from the PNAC plan, you seem to be in a search for justifications for it. 

Just look at your last one (in your second to most recent post):

>>BTW, just a comment on the cost.  According to the DoD estimate, our  action will cost us about $1 billion overall, but let's assume that this  figure is low, which it probably will be, and the actual cost comes out  to $2 billion.  Well, $2 billion is what we spend per week in Afghanistan alone, and then if we add what we're still spending in Iraq... >>

Look at what you're doing there; correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it sort of like "Well, at least this isn't as bad as the others". 

IOW, do you agree with the spending of trillions** of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq ?  If not - and I certainly hope not - then how can you utilize that insanity to excuse the folly of additional "war" spending ?

**I might be getting that wrong; I'm bad with numbers once they get past 'hundreds of billions'.  But I know ...and you know ...that it's huge.

Mar 28, 2011 -- 2:32PM, vra wrote:

There is absolutely no indication that what Obama did was illegal, especially since it's been done by many Presidents previously and Congress always complains, which I can't blame them for btw.

Secondly, there's been a great deal of reason to believe that Bush & Co. was not forthright with the intel since DoD and State Department intel may have been manipulated and possibly some withheld (just ask Colin Powell about that), plus there was an ignoring of those who had some info that contradicted that Iraq had WMDs beyond the old ones (just ask Joe Miller and some of the U.N. investigators about that). 

BTW, does anyone here remember about the Patriot Act?  Do they remember that part of that was eventually recinded by the administration because the Ashcroft felt it probably was unconstitutional, and yet it stood for several years?  Do they remember that there was demands that were ignored to seek a SCOTUS decision on its constitutionality just before and after its passage?

Why do so many on the right seemingly have such short memories?   

Probably the same problem that so many on the left has with a unilateral declaration by the President that we will engage in war activities, something that they would be screaming for Dick Cheney's head (as well as war crimes trials) if the previous admin did this.

Also Obama's non support of civilian killings in Syria and other areas should lead everyone to question if Obama actually has a policy, or if like the Batman villian Two Face, he flips a coin.

Mar 28, 2011 -- 4:01PM, Welle wrote:

Aarroot, I suspect that there is very little upon which you and I would agree, but I do agree with you that mainstream liberals would be screaming (and rightly so) for Bush/Cheney's heads if this were aggression in Libya were their doing.

On Syria:  I believe that might be one which will trigger action, though certainly not for the reasons which will be claimed.  Let me come back with a short video.

 

Frankly I doubt that most mainstream liberals would have been upset if Bush was the one who sent us in on a limited response largely because humanitarian causes have long tended to be something liberals have traditionally championed.  I'm sure there would have been questions asked about what exactly our commitment was and how long it would likely take, and as long as it wasn't viewed as an open-ended commitment like we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think most liberals probably would have went along with it, although some grumbling is to be expected.

As far as Syria is concerned, it is pretty much common knowledge that we simply cannot solve all problems in all areas at all times, so some selection process logically is in order as it always has been with every President/Congress.  And one factor that has been different with Libya is Khadhafy's statement about a bloodbath, plus the willingness to form a coalition that we didn't precipitate. 

And here's where there's sort of a sad comentary with some on the right in labeling it "Obama's war", whereas it is not a legal "war", but also the fact that we were, by all indications, not the one's who started this process of forming the coalition, so how could it logixcally be viewed as "Obama's"?  If we look at the situation in Syria, it's different in that, if we were to go in at this point, it would be unilateral.  Obviously, if things were to get terribly gnarly there action might be taken, but there's clearly going to be a reluctance on our part to do so and for very good reasons. 

When Reagan attacked Khadhafy did he also attack some other countries as well?  No, of course he didn't and this is why what some of the things that have thrown up by the right are terribly illogical.

Anyhow, I know you have had reservations about this whole thing, and I have mentioned that I have as well, although I do think we did have to take action under the circumstances because inaction actually would have had even worse consequences, imo.