I am not criticizing the administration on int military strike against Libya ... yet. I do not understand it well enough.
Mr. Obama has not explained his rationale. Where is the address to the nation? I personally am holding off judgement until I have more facts. From the fact I have so far, I do not understand the appropriateness of our intervention.
I do understand this. Mr. Obama won the Nobel Peace prize before he had done anything as president, but based upon what the Nobel committee expected him to do. Will they take it away now? If not, why not?
For years after we militarily conquered the country of Iraq, the news media continued to claim we were still at war, when in fact we were in a period of (violent, perhaps) occupation. The last two years, the news media has been awfully silent about Iraq. Yet, we are still there. Why? Why the silence? Why are we still in Iraq? The President has not been a model of consistency.
During his campaign, the President talked of nuking Pakistan. I suppose drones are a lesser evil that nuclear weapons. Not much hubbub in the news over America's drone attacks.
When you get right down to it, how is an anti-war Obama administration any different, really, that the Texas cowboy hawkish administration? At least when it comes to attacking other countries.
I will once again emphasize that I do not necessarily oppose the President's actions. I don't understand them yet. I certainly believe the President's interventionist approach to be antithetical to his campaign (except as to Pakistan).
I have learned that you should regard Republican politicians's words with great suspicion, but you can never believe a Democrat politician. Sad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Entertaining. Sophomoric, maybe. But it is satirical commentary by two Washington Post political commentators, Dana Milbank and Chris Cill...
-
What is the truth behind the shooting of Erik Scott at a Costco in Las Vegas on July 10, 2010?. So far, the best that can be said is that w...
2 comments:
In my opinion, the biggest crime here is that President Obama came out and said, "Qaddahfi must go" and then sat on his hands for weeks. When the President of the United States makes public pronouncements like that, people listen. It's my belief that at least some people joined the rebels because they assumed--on the basis of President Obama's own words--that the U.S. was going to get involved and help oust their dictator.
If the President didn't want to get involved, fine...but he shouldn't go around shooting off his mouth. People got themselves killed because they (mistakenly) thought the President's words meant something.
That's why they call it Obamateurism.
Post a Comment