Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Libya is in our National Disinterest

Many were waiting with bated breath for President Obama's speech last night. Dying to hear what the carefully considered, nuanced, multinational logic would be for sending American forces to Libya.

And it came down to this...
Qaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi — a city nearly the size of Charlotte — could suffer a massacre - it was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.
Does our law professor president understand that his rationale is flawed? Where is the school girl cheerleader clique ridicule that was so often tossed at George W Bush for his pronunciation of the word "nuclear"? When George Bush misspoke it was considered a direct reflection of his lack of intelligence.

But I don't think this is the case here. Our law professor super genius president surely knows that just because something is not in your national interest necessarily means that it is in your national interest. These are not positions or states that are mutually exclusive. No, this was what he and his elitist administration considered a clever trick of wordsmith meant to convince their logic lacking lackeys that what the president was doing in Libya is in America's best interest. So this is not a reflection on the presidents intellect, but it is a reflection of what he thinks about the "we're so smart and superior that we make fun of the way people pronounce the word 'nuclear'" left. The "I get my news from John Stewart" crowd does not like to do their own logic math, and they sure don't know what mutually exclusive means, so you have nothing to worry about Mr. President. In fact you probably accomplished your goal of appeasing the violently anti-war wing of your party by convincing them that we had to go to Libya.

But for the rest of us the President did not come anywhere close to making a convincing argument that didn't leave more questions than it answered. Will the U.S. come to the aid of any country where a dictator might "kill over a thousand people in a single day"? or does it only matter if they produce a rare type of crude used by the continentals?
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone...
So what? We run NATO! The supreme commander of NATO is always an American! It's still 90% U.S. blood and treasure that will be doing the heavy lifting. Here is another example of the president pulling the wool over the eyes of his easy amused admirers. This is the "I am not" Bush pose. I do not act in the unilateral way that George W. Bush did. Sorry Charlie. Fact: more countries were involved in the invasion of Iraq than are involved with the Libya operation. But it's easier for the left to sleep at night by believing what they want to believe.
blog comments powered by Disqus