Posted on 03/30/2011 9:26:35 AM PDT by Nachum
In my latest column for The Week today, I use the Academy Award-winning film The King’s Speech to bookend my point about the incoherence of the Obama administration on its Libyan adventure. Like King George VI, Barack Obama needed to demonstrate leadership, inspire a nation, and give a clear account of why the nation’s forces had been sent to war after ten days of contradictions, incoherence, and silence from the administration. Unfortunately, Obama turned out to be no more coherent on Monday than George VI before his speech therapy:
Later in the same speech, though, the president then said that the United States couldn’t intervene to stop every government that threatened massacres and genocides. So why pick Libya? The president never answered that question. The “international community” was “mobilized,” Obama explained near the end of the address. The international community has certainly been mobilized over Sudan, which has conducted a years-long genocide — long enough for then-candidate Barack Obama to pledge American action to stop the massacre of civilians. Sudan didn’t get a no-fly zone, nor did Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain, whose governments have all attacked and killed dissenters in large numbers.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Obama seems mighty comfortable being a sock puppet for his masters.
Just sayin’.
If his speech had him say, “I only speek when the hand up my rump makes me.” it would have gone a long way towards explaining his incoherence.
The King's thinking was quite coherent ... his speech was unintelligible.
BHO’s speech is quite intelligible ... his thinking is incoherent.
Nailed it!
Obama doesn’t stutter, he has a nervous tendency to keep looking right and left and right and left and right and left...
He needed to show leadership and decisiveness, something he is viewed as lacking. Egypt where he took a political beating taught him that inaction also has a price. In that case he came out with his diversion, the anti-bullying campaign, a pre packaged issue that has faded as quickly as it came on the political radar when Egypt was burning Obama’s feet. Polls and focus groups showed that action would be seen favorable by the American people regards Libya. Of course the real threat politically is if you become involved on the ground, that gets messy and the long term outcome is uncertain. Furthermore by standing out front only in the initial stages he gains political capital, but whatever comes of the operations in Libya will be shouldered in responsibility by NATO and he can disperse responsibility among many, i.e. Arab League, NATO, UN.
His course of action is 100% in line with:
Maximizing political capital gained
Minimizing political capital lost
His political interest = strategic national security interest (at least in his mind)
Why this mission will fail, and I said this right from day one. Intervention came to late and we refused any significant ground involvement. The rebellion was heavily damaged and Qadaffi had time to shore up support by the time we began getting involved and even if we were to win, we have already tied our own hands in so far that we will have little influence on a post Qaddafi Libya (no ground troops). We have by the very nature of how we framed this intervention set us up for a “likely” failure in the long run, one way or the other.
Framing military intervention to maximize political benefits and minimize political risks/exposure does not necessarily design the operation to give one the greatest likelihood of a positive outcome in a military or national security perspective.
Intervention was good, how we went about it, bad.
You used a lot of words but the simple truth is any Obama action is not in the interest of this country. He must go ASAP!
Did anyone ever get the feeling that he was yelling at us?
It’s only fair, I suppose — I was yelling at him.
2. Some people have good intentions but deliver horrible outcomes. Unintended outcomes that are based on an evil philosophy even though they think they are doing good.
3. Some people don't care. The complete nihilist, much of secular European society is like this.
4. Some people have good intentions and are heading in the right direction guided by virtuous principals.
Obama is #2.
(Philosophy) He's not intentionally evil, he's just the product of his environment. Think of him as coming from a broken and dysfunctional family, a community that was largely in decline (black families are shattered, the once hard work ethic is gone.......), an era where an American version of Euro style socialism took hold and was proselytized in academia. A time where secularism was on the rise. He's a lawyer, and near all of them are moral relativists. The study of the law nowadays simply further obfuscates the minds of the already in shades of gray thinking folks that feel attracted to this career. He's never belonged to a church for a long time except when he was running for the Illinois Senate and was using a South Chicago church and it's pastor to advance his political career. His childhood isn't one of memories tied to the US, it's values etc. He's never served his nation in any capacity other than political offices. There is nothing in his life that is concrete and rooted in values or even American in identity. He is HIMSELF a product of government cheese may it be his mother or him. His fathers didn't identify themselves as American, and his mother even though living on the governments dole, loathed this nation. His mother was loose, and the naked pictures of her are still floating around on the web...... He was largely raised abroad, much of his family still lives abroad, Kenya, Germany, elsewhere.
(Experiences) He had near zero experience in intelligence, law enforcement, defense, business, economics, trade, acting as an executive and he was a junior Senator when he began his quest for the Presidency. He's one of the younger Presidents ever (Little life experience) and his formal education is in law, a degree that does not address any of the areas in which he has little to no experience. Nothing in his experience or education put him into a job where there is a tangible or physical outcome. Never was he held to some sort of quantitative and qualitative output standards outside of his formal education. His entire life has been about writing nice speeches.
What is the outcome of such an upbringing/social influences and life experiences in career and education? Look at him and the decisions he makes through the perspective of where he came from, his family, education and experiences and nothing should be surprising.
He'll give nice speeches- not make good or principled (In the Judea Christian value system) decisions.
Thanks for taking the time to expound on Obama, it makes a lot of sense. He is what he is and probably in the longer run the results may be better than a McCain presidency...that is my hope. I think a better approach for 2012 would be a diminished presidency. A President that understands and supports our constitution, a divided Congress (Conservative super majority House & split Senate). Anyone that comes to mind for President?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.