Last night Barack Obama gave a speech on the US involvement in the Libyan conflict. The speech had good and bad points. To bring you up to to date, here is the complete video of the speech, a link to the text, excerpts from two articles, two additional videos, including one of Republicans making fools of themselves, and some commentary.
President Obama defended the American-led military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have “stained the conscience of the world.”
In his first major address since ordering American airstrikes on the forces and artillery of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi nine days ago, Mr. Obama emphasized that the United States’s role in the assault would be limited, but said that America had the responsibility and the international backing to stop what he characterized as a looming genocide in the Libyan city of Benghazi.
“I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” Mr. Obama said…
Inserted from <NY Times>
Here is the complete speech.
If you prefer, read the text here.
Immediately following the speech, Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed Rachel Maddow about the speech.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I agree that Obama’s weakest link is his failure to adequately consult with Congress. However, he did consult with the leadership of both parties in both the Senate and the House. I am certain that, had there been any objections at all, we would have heard about it by now.
I do accept Obama’s explanation about the humanitarian need for intervention. Kaddafi not only promised violence against civilians, he has a history of extreme right-wing behavior. I am convinced the threat was real, because he even equipped his troops with condoms and Viagra to assist in the rape of women in rebel areas.
Walking through the corridors of the El-Mgareaf hospital, Dr Suleiman Refadi went from sadness, to boiling fury, to unhindered joy in the space of just half an hour.
The general surgeon had stayed holed up in the hospital in east Ajdabiya for the six days Gaddafi’s forces spent in his city after retaking control last week. He and a number of his staff risked being shot by snipers in the city or being arrested and taken away like so many others during this time.
Three of his doctors had disappeared on their way to pick up injured civilians just two streets away from the hospital. Only their shot up ambulance was found.
The surgeon told me about the women he had treated who said they had been raped by government soldiers. One woman was snatched from outside her home as she called for her child to come indoors. Another was inside her own house near the west gate to the city when soldiers broke in and raped her.
His sadness turned to bewilderment when the doctor described how he believed this rape was very much pre-meditated. He described how he had personally searched the bodies of Gaddafi troops that were brought into the hospital morgue: "When they bring the cadavers to the hospital I search their pockets. I have seen Viagra and I have seen condoms."
This, he ascertained, was because they had been instructed to rape… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Common Dreams>
I do believe that, had we not intervened, there would have been a horrific massacre.
There is no humor in war, but it’s hard not to laugh at Republicans performing a double-reverse goose-step to redefine their positions. Rachel Maddow exposed them with Chris Hayes.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
In conclusion, I still hate war, but I had to ask myself one question. How often do we see the commitment of US forces to protect rebels, who want self-determination, from an autocrat? In Iraq Bush tried to install Chalabi as his puppet and failed. In Afghanistan he installed Karzai as his puppet. Historically, when US forces have been used, it has usually been to protect autocrats from rebels, who wanted self-determination. If we are going to fight, I prefer the former. Also, we should not forget that the US Senate voted unanimously in favor of establishing a no fly zone in Libya, and the Senator, who, among others, introduced that resolution, was Bernie Sanders.
10 Responses to “Obama’s Libya Speech”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think the President made his case. He, unlike his predecessor, is determined to make our involvement short and he has no designs on profit and plunder. I wish this didn’t have to happen, but Qaddafi is definitely your evil, murderous dictator who needs replacement.
That’s pretty much the way i see it, Jack.
I hate war as much as anyone but this isn’t really a war, technically speaking. A Gallup poll after his speech found that only 22% wanted the US to abandon the effort. I also noticed that in the International media Obama is receiving wide support – mainly because he is not acting unilaterally and because he’s basically taking a back seat and letting NATO forces lead the charge.
Of course the usual chorus of “it’s all about oil” or what about this country or that country has kicked in. My hunch is that if the US went into this country or that country, we would hear the same chorus.
Leslie, I don’t buy the notion that it isn’t really war. Bullets are flying and people are dying. On everything else you say, I agree.
I listened to a replay of the speech and came away feeling that the President had probably handed the 2012 election to the republicans. The one glaring hole in his explanation is the lack of action in Bahrain, Syria, or Yemen. Because Obama was not president during the worst of Sudan I will not throw that in even though other progressives have for some reason.
As for this Libya action not being a war I would rather debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I’m a vet and this easily qualifies as a war on all counts. The worst problem in all this is that this “action” can bog down into a rather nice quagmire and hang around the president’s neck like the proverbial albatross. Another issue is Khaddafy, not going after him is a HUGE mistake. Half measures in war is a recipe for disaster and as long as that man breathes he will not give up and the rebels have not shown they can fight their way out of a paper bag.
I’ve cut Obama tons of slack when many in our collective group have wanted to abandon him, so I do not write this lightly. What it all boils down for me is that yes, Khaddafy is a dirty cockroach who is evil to the core but America cannot play global cop and even worse we cannot selectively play liberator when others not under control of dictators we get along with are crushed under tanks.
Beach, I felt that he explained that. First is the scale of atrocities. Second, is opportunity. Air power is more effective in dessert than in jungle. Also, Europe wants to do this. I do agree however, that he should use all possible means to end this quickly and that means taking out Daffy. I also think that we should withhold support from dictators.
Oh, come on …
If you would just pay attention to the wacko right-wingers you’d know by now that Obama should have attacked Libya weeks and weeks ago to help the now-we-say Al Qaeda sympathizers (back then we called them “rebels”) assassinate an evil terrorist tyrant who the Bush administration actively courted. The mission should have been long ago completed, the bill sent to China and he should have moved on to Syria, Yemen and Iran.
We wacko radical right-wingers (AKA, Teapublicans) just luv us some WAR WAR WAR!
(Well, except when Obama, the Arab League, the international community and the United Nations think it’s a good idea to stop the slaughter of innocent people … then – not so much.)
Republican hypocrisy asymptotically approaches infinity.
I concur with Beach Bum on every point, and I add that a country that willingly lets its citizens suffer, and starve, while engaging in “humanitarian” cruise missile launching is a hypocritical country.
Look at what the left is NOT talking about anymore. All kinds of things. The fact that Klanbagger dictatorships now exist in several states, the still soaring unemployment rate, the Rushpubliscum wars on women, minorities, and the poor, our rotting infrastructure, the continuing free ride for billionaires courtesy of the President’s December capitulation…. I might be a cynic, but I see more than one thing in play here.
I have said it elsewhere, and been called “hard left” and a “Bolshevik,” but I say it here. As long as we are telling teachers, firefighters, children, seniors, and the unemployed that we just can’t afford to do anything for them, any military adventures we embark on (constitutional or otherwise, like this one) are a vile abomination.
JR, please see my reply to Beach.
I disagree that the left has stopped talking about other matters. The other issues you mention have been discussed on Maddow’s a d Schultz’s shows, and here as well.
I do agree with your financial analysis, but would suggest that it’s Afghanistan that we can’t afford and even more, we cannot afford welfare for millionaires, billionaires and criminal corporations. Spending for the welfare of those in need is crowded out by spending for the excess of those in greed.