President Obama, clear as mud, as to why we bombed Libya:
(Gaddafi) has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world
This makes him different from Saddam Hussein, how exactly?
And the fact that he has 14 tons of gold at his fingertips means that the freeze would not be as crippling as one might hope.
...We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime's assets.
Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
Big whoop. If any other world leader looked at Obama's poll numbers and told him the same thing, any guesses as to what his reaction would be? Where are all the "We're not the cops of the world" Leftists to protest Obama intervening in the internal affairs of a sovereign country?
We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen
People dying in Dafur...does that not "stain the conscience of the world"? What does "staining the conscience of the world" have to do with the national security of the US?
Oh, like the one G.W. Bush build before going into Iraq? Well, his was bigger! Again, how does this differ, other than the hypocrisy of the players, between Libya and Iraq?
...In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition.
...in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners.
And Bush took five months after receiving Congressional approval and all the mindless minions of the Left chided him for "rushing" into war. I'm sure we'll hear the same complaint from the same voices any minute now? (Crickets chirp.)
...I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Translation from Obamaspeak: We will commit an act of war against a sovereign nation by firing missiles at them, without a proper consultation of the Congress of the United States. Plus, with the left bleating about the two wars Bush "didn't pay for", Obama launched $100+ million dollars worth of cruise missiles to begin an action AP estimates will cost upwards of one billion dollars. (That's "billion" with a "B".)
...We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.Oh, really? Did we ever "safeguard the billions" that belonged to the Palestinian people that Arafat siphoned off? And his Constitutional authority for redistributing Libyan wealth is found where exactly? I guess when he told Joe the Plumber he would "spread the wealth", he wasn't just talking about American wealth!
In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.Again, this differs from Iraq...how? Oh, yeah. We have a Democrat in the White House!
To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Since CNN was hiding the images of mass graves in Iraq, I guess you didn't see them? And when Saddam gassed his own people or created the horrendous ecological disaster, by draining nearly 7,000 square miles of wetlands to punish the marsh Arabs living there, I guess there were no images of that, either. Neither of those rise to the "staining the conscience of the world" status, Mr. Obama?
...There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.Our values haven't been threatened in Darfur? In Iran?? Rwanda??? Obama's rhetorical obfuscation and doublespeak did not answer any of the questions about what he and Biden (and most of the Left) articulated about the Iraqi conflict. He did not address the fact that if fighting two wars strains the military and busts the budget, how there is a compelling interest in fighting a third, where American security interests are not directly threatened?
I think the Obama Doctrine needs to be defined somewhat beyond, "Because I said so".
Cross posted at Proof Positive