Thursday, March 31, 2011

Presidential Misspeak

This is what the president said in his “Libya Update” speech of 28 March delivered not in the Oval Office but in an auditorium filled with military officers down upon whom he could look from his platform position: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance.” Since then, the Libyan rebels have retreated and are in danger of losing the whole ballgame.

Qaddafi’s troops were not advancing at that point but were themselves, thanks to the mostly U.S bombers and missiles, in retreat. The prez said that NATO would take over on 30 March but that didn’t happen until 31 March. In the meantime, Qaddafi started using vehicles not easily spotted from the air as his well-trained fighters used the rebels’ own tactics (pickup trucks with machine guns, for instance) to counter-attack successfully, not even using the roads in the desert to outflank the insurgents.

Also in the meantime, NATO operations commander Admiral James Stavridis testified in a Congressional hearing that there is evidence that al Qaeda operatives are among the rebels/insurgents. Qaddafi had already asserted that the revolt was managed by al Qaeda but, of course, was pooh-poohed for saying that.

To add to the president’s disingenuousness is the fact that he said no U.S. boots would be on the ground in Libya. There are CIA operatives on the ground there now and they were likely on the ground when he made that statement. It comes to light now that he has also signed a “secret” go-ahead for possibly arming the rebels since they are in dire need of weapons. Problem: The insurgents haven’t yet been identified and have no apparent leader. So…does the president plan to send weapons to people he doesn’t know but can be certain that some if not most of them will wind up in the hands of al Qaeda.

In his speech, Obama said this: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.” He had to know that in that assemblage of military experts his words were meaningless. It’s been obvious from the get-go that the president’s objective – after he finally decided on one – is to see that the insurgents wage a war eventuating in the death or ouster of Qaddafi, although he also said that neither removal of Qaddafi nor regime change was an objective. It’s hard to imagine oxymorons of that magnitude.

During his presidential campaign, Obama said this: “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” The day before the “update” performance, defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States.” In other words, Obama committed an un-Constitutional act, by his own accounting.

The president said this: “As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe.” He also said this: “There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are.” So…which is it? Obviously, Libya has posed no threat to this country’s safety, so apparently the president has gone to war in order to protect “our values and interests.” What “values and interests” did Qaddafi threaten? None, of course! In fact, Qaddafi had been removed from the terrorist list some time ago and even turned his “nuke effort” over to the U.S.

England, France, Spain and Italy (NATO’s “big” members) import Libyan oil and it’s a leadpipe cinch that Qaddafi was extorting huge sums of money from them for the privilege. Doesn’t every dictator do that? What about the French and Saddam…or Kofi Anan’s son…in the kickbacks? So…why not just get the U.S. to finagle a stop to that? After all, to some extent (mostly slight, except perhaps for England), these countries had helped a bit in Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. spent $550 million in blasting Libya in the first 10 days or so of the action and continues to spend monstrous sums on the effort.

Or…is the consensus right in determining that Obama’s war was largely the result of the pressure brought by the president’s Amazons – State Secretary Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice and Obama’s foreign policy guru Samantha Power, whose husband, Cass Sunstein, just happens to be the prexy’s “regulation czar,” possibly the most influential voice in his regime? It would be a tragedy of immense proportions if this were the case…and it probably is. The blood and treasure of this country spent to satisfy some bureaucrats in nothing more than a civil war in a country of 6.3 million people? That would be disgusting.

During her campaign for the presidency, Secretary Clinton completely fabricated a monstrous lie and repeated it over and over regarding her running under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996. It never happened and the mystery has to do with why she made up all that. She had to know that her lie would come to light. The president in his campaign made a statement upon which he has just perjured himself through his actions. These are the people running this country. What a shame!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

No comments: