President Obama's Weekly Address - September 15, 2012

Carrying on the Work of Our Fallen Heroes

Study Something!

I'm trying to digest Herman Cain's latest, and probably biggest, misstep on the campaign trail.



I don't know about you, but I know I was riveted to the goings on in Libya and even I could probably answer some questions on the subject, the U.S. response and our country's air and intelligence support in the NATO operation. But it seems that Herman Cain didn't have the intellectual curiosity to understand what was happening in Libya, the role of the Obama administraion and the NATO operation that took place. All he had to do was read the newspaper to give a coherent answer to the questions he was asked. And he didn't even do that. And he's running for President of the United States.

Can we say we're done with him now?

NEXT!

President Obama on The Tonight Show

In case you missed it, like I did.

President Obama's Weekly Address - October 22, 2011

Bringing Home Our Troops

He Can Do No Right

Look, I know that if you're a Republican, to agree with anything that President Obama has to offer is a political risk. I know that everyone in the GOP has pretty much taken the Mitch McConnell tact of making President Obama a one-term president as its main and major goal, even at the risk of US economic collapse. I know that the Republican Party likes to tout itself as the party of national security. But these latest comments from Republican Senator John McCain and his personal Renfield, Senator Lindsey Graham are absolutely laughable.

"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi," their statement reads, "but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

This statement comes from the same two Senators that were part of a delegation that considered selling nonlethal defense equipment to Gaddafi's Libya (with a little McCain bow to boot in his meeting with Gaddafi).

McCain wanted the US's "full weight" of the military airpower, and yet his own members of Congress were losing their shit just a few weeks ago, stomping their feet with a House vote to admonish the President for continuing America's role in the NATO operation and claiming a violation of the War Powers Act, and threatened to cut off funding for the operation. Does that mean that McCain and Graham would have been fine with a unilateral US strike against Libya with the "full weight" of our airpower had it only taken 89 days?

The bottom line is that the Republican Party has lost their "strong on defense" moniker and they don't like it.

The Obama administration was successful in taking out the Somali pirates that captured Captain Richard Phillips and held him hostage, but immediately afterward came the email smear campaign that the President was hesitant in authorizing lethal force.

President Obama made capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden a top priority as soon as he was sworn into  office and said so during the campaign. This was something George W. "Wanted Dead Or Alive" Bush couldn't bother with just six months after 9/11. Yet again, right wingers went to the Internet and created another smear email to claim something about which they knew nothing.

And now, with a war in Afghanistan and in the process of a methodical withdrawal from Iraq, and the President deciding to honor the US's obligation to NATO and the UN in the Libya conflict, and here are the Republicans making sure to criticize the widest range possible just to confirm they cover everything, from acting without Congressional authority, or berating Obama for letting France and England take the lead in the action, to now McCain and Graham whining about not acting quickly enough and that it took six months to ouster a dictator who held power for 42 years. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page is praising the efforts while criticizing the the naysaying GOP.

The fighting continues in Tripoli, and Moammar Gadhafi still hasn't been captured, but the triumph of the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels seems to be only a matter of time. Though you wouldn't know it from the reaction at the Council on Foreign Relations or among some GOP Presidential candidates, this is a victory for freedom and U.S. national interests.

A dictator with American blood on his hands is about to be overthrown by a popular revolt invoking democratic principles. Not a single American has died in the effort, and the victory would not have been possible without U.S. air power, intelligence and targeting as part of NATO. A long-oppressed people now has a chance to chart a freer future, a fact that is clear from the rejoicing in Benghazi.

What would we prefer: That Gadhafi stay in power?

...Yet some of the same people who said we shouldn't help the rebels now want the U.N. to send "boots on the ground," including U.S. troops. It's not clear that the Libyans want or even need such help, especially from Americans, which could complicate their own nascent attempts at self-government.

...President Obama was right yesterday to urge the rebels to pursue "reconciliation." But America's foreign policy elites have also so far misjudged the rebels, who have shown impressive persistence and coordination in maintaining a six-month military campaign.

...One disappointment is the reluctance among Republicans to praise the rebel success, perhaps for fear it will somehow help Mr. Obama.

...U.S. intervention has succeeded in preventing a bloodbath in Benghazi and soon in deposing a long-time U.S. enemy who could have re-emerged as a terrorist sponsor.

Michele Bachmann, who played the al Qaeda tune, now looks partisan to a fault.

...The U.S. military is stretched at the current moment and we can't take sides in every civil war. But the Libyan intervention shows that when the cause is just and the means are available, the U.S. can make a moral and strategic difference.

U.S. support for the rebels won't be lost on a Middle East still undergoing its own upheavals, not least on the people and governments of Syria and Iran. NATO showed it will finish a military task it started, and soon Gadhafi will take his place with Saddam in the ranks of Arab despots who will terrorize their people no more.

I believe everyone has forgotten (including Michael Steele and the Morning Joe pundits this morning) that the initial intervention is Libya was a humanitarian one, with NATO acting on the information that Gaddafi was about to unleash hell on his own people in Benghazi.

And yet, President Obama can do no right. He doesn't even read the right books on vacation. I suppose he would have gotten a reprieve on the reading list criticism if he'd included Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED and Rick Perry's FED UP!, both also works of fiction, by the way.

Rep. Tom Marino, Just Resign

... it would be a lot easier than trying to explain yourself.

"The bottom line is I wish the president would have told us, talked to Congress about what is the plan. Is there a plan? Is the mission to take Gadhafi out?" Mr. Marino asked.... "Where does it stop?" he said. "Do we go into Africa next? I don't want to sound callous or cold, but this could go on indefinitely around the world."

For those of you who read this blog or happen upon it by circumstance, here's a little geography lesson: Libya is a country...in the CONTINENT OF AFRICA.

I just wanted to clarify it for anyone who may be confused.

Of course, it's time for the spokesman du jour to polish the turd.

Marino’s spokeswoman Renita Fennick said Thursday the congressman was quoted correctly, but readers, including those at the Inquirer, apparently misunderstood his comment.

“We are not in Africa. There were missile strikes, but many of those missiles were launched from Missouri,” Fennick said. “The congressman’s position is that we don’t want to go into Africa, (but) a few days of missile strikes does not put us on a continent.”

Fennick said Marino’s office was “baffled” about how the quote could have been misunderstood.

Very simple, Renita Fennick. All Rep. Marino had to say was "Libya" instead of "Africa." That's how he was misunderstood. If that "baffles" you, perhaps you should resign as well.

Just say "oops" and get out.

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 25, 2011

The Military Mission in Libya

Newt Was For It Before He Was Against It PART 2

Rachel Maddow explains my previous post in 2 minutes. That's why she gets paid the big bucks while I... do not. I ♥ Rachel Maddow.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Newt Was For It Before He Was Against It... - UPDATED

...and it was only a matter of days before Gingrich decided to switch policy positions for the sole purpose of criticizing President Obama on Libya... whatever the stance happened to be at the time, consistency be damned.

Gingrich on Van Susteren's show, March 7th:

VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … It’s also an ideological problem. The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.

March 20th from Politico:

“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said in a statement to POLITICO, his first public comments since President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead order on Saturday.

March 23rd on The Today Show:

GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to, of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. This isn't a serious standard, this is a public relations conversation. The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Does your neck hurt from the whiplash yet? Within a matter of 13 days, Gingrich went from "exercise a no-fly zone now" to "intervention makes no sense"; from "intervene because slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable" to "I would not have intervened."

In less than two weeks, Gingrich went from "The United States doesn't need anybody's permission" to "I would not have used American and European forces." Apparently Matt Lauer didn't challenge him on his previous statement supporting a no-fly zone led by the U.S. Good job, Matt. Do your homework next time.

And this lying, hypocritical rat bastard wants to run for president. This fickle fuck wants to be the leader of the free world. But what else can you expect from a jackass who used hard work and patriotism as an excuse to reason away philandering on two of his three wives? I'd watch my back if I were you, Callista.

(H/T Think Progress)

UPDATE (3:30pm): Pathetic backtracking begins.

This is such a sorry attempt to redefine his stance, but the timeline still doesn't add up. If Newt thought allies should have been used and not American forces, why did he initially say that we didn't need permission from the UN and didn't need NATO "who frankly wouldn't bring much to the fight"? If not NATO, what allies is he talking about? The French? The British?

And trying to blame is flip-flopping mind on Obama's statement of March 3rd doesn't make sense when Newt made his statement on March 7th. Of course, since every right wing nut has to oppose everything Obama says and does, we know the real reason he flip-flopped was because Obama actually did commit to a no-fly zone, something Newt was on board with... until Obama agreed. He can never be seen concurring with the President, so just say the opposite. No one will notice, right?

UPDATE II (3/24/11, 11:15am): Newt goes the Sarah Palin route. Enough with the lamestream gotcha media, I'll just post on Facebook!

Fair and Balanced: Fox Gets Outfoxed

Via TPM:

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't - UPDATED

Is it me, or had the majority of the media and opposition political leaders been critical of President Obama for not leading in Libya for the last month?

Of course, I expected nothing but negative comments from the usual suspects. After all, they must oppose all things Obama to appease their radical base, therefore, no matter how the situation was handled, they had to express their disapproval ("Obama is weak, why is he waffling on Libya?"). But we also heard the same thing from the mainstream media which I found a little odd. I mean, aren't they all in Obama's pocket?

Then there's a UN resolution for a no fly zone and France takes military action first and we hear idiotic criticisms like "We are no longer leading in the world, even France beat us to the punch!" Well, you know what? I'm glad someone else took the lead for once. Why does it fall to the U.S. to police the world every time? At least now it looks like there's a coalition backed by the U.N., the Arab League and led by the French and British. Good for them!

And finally, the U.S. launches missiles taking out pro-Gaddafi communications and air defense in support of the U.N. resolution and to protect French and British allies, and now the criticism is how we're in a third war and everyone is acting as if it's unilateral (See MSNBC "How dare he go to Latin America looking to create jobs via exports during this time. Libya! Japan! IEEEE!"). Rep. Dennis Kucinich wanted Obama to approach Congress for permission when A) war was not declared and B) is he talking about the same Congress that can't get together on a budget? And Ralph "Uncle Tom" Nader crawled out from under his rock to say the President should be impeached for his action. Kucinich wondered about that action as well.

Does the cognitive dissonance not compute in these peoples' addled brains, or are they purposely looking for cooked up controversy to boost ratings and/or satisfy their ideological bases? This is obviously a rhetorical question.

And there's Obama thinking, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

UPDATE (3/22/11 11:45am): I've posted this as a comment but would like to add it here with a little embellishment.

Look, I'm not happy about using force in Libya. I don't think anyone should be happy about it. The U.S. military is already spread thin and spending billions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the budget balancing Republican hacks who are in favor of our involvement in Libya don't bat an eye at those costs while attempting to cut education and medical assistance at home in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Yes, there are critical questions to be asked. If we're there in a humanitarian capacity then why didn't we engage in Darfur or Sudan? Or why don't we use force in Yemen now? I get that going into Libya may be an excuse because of strategic interests rather than humanitarian ones, and those are fair questions and thoughts.

But spare me the Obama bashing about whether he went in too soon, or too late, or didn't lead or that we're taking a back seat to France. Stop interviewing John McCain and Lindsey Graham for bashing from the right, and Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader for bashing from the left just to get a soundbite outside the norm to play on a loop. It just makes it seem all the more partisan and therefore completely disengaging.

UPDATE II (3/22/11 3:15pm): Here's Rachel Maddow's analysis on "Obama's war."

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 19, 2011

American Jobs Through Exports to Latin America