I am not persuaded.

[cali]

not even a little bit. Sorry, Mr. President, you did not explain why we need to be bombing Libya. Not to my satisfaction.

I heard what I expected to hear. Long on high rhetoric, short on compelling reasons. I find this utterly depressing. All the more so because he isn't a cowboy.

I think he knows better.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anarch]

2. you're probably just hung up on the idea that "there must be some alternative to military force"

I mean, nobody likes Khgaddaffyie or however you spell it. Well, I give up on the whole peace thing, I guess the majority is right, and we must use violence to stop violence. And from what I heard, the U.S. is no longer going to stand by and watch injustice and oppression anywhere on the planet, so I'm expecting we'll start bombing a whole lot of other places pretty soon here. Bombing because we also don't want some protracted and costly ground invasion, so we need to enforce regime change from a stand-off position. Why can't we just nuke everyone from space? What, we don't have the technology? I don't buy it. If we don't have it already, let's invent it. If we have it, let's use it. Fuck it, let's roll. Bomb everyone.

[cali]

4. pretty discouraging shit.

what's-his-name is only one of several currently "slaughtering his own people".

[xiamiam]

29. i have no idea why that made me laugh..the whole thing is just so ridiculous

and i think you summed up the logic we'll be asked to accept.

[Zax2me]

3. Nor I.

Heard nothing that excuses spending millions on bombs to drop on people.

[Pisces]

5. The President doesn't have to persuade 100% of the population.

[abelenkpe]

9. To bomb bad guys?

no but to pass HCR with a public option, yes.

[cali]

10. He doesn't have to persuade an percentage of the population

not even Congress.

[Pisces]

21. The Senate passed a No Fly Zone resolution and he consulted with a bipartisan

commission. There are no ground troops we are not leading this campaign. He said we have accomplished our mission. We are not there to see Q ousted.

I think it wouldn't matter what the Pres. said you would still not be persuaded. This help we have given the rebels has inspired another country Syria to fight for democracy. If Libya had imploded
it would have squashed the democratic movement in the Middle East. WE have been a part of a UN coalition. We are not going it alone.

This was a well thought out plan with an easy out. The majority of the public agrees with the Pres. actions. I am sorry that you would rather have Libyans dying in the streets begging for our help.

[Exilednight]

40. The Senate alone is not Congress. Saying a bill passed the Senate is the dumbest excuse

that's been used to support his actions. It doesn't hold water.

What the president really failed to answer: On what date do we leave?

[Pisces]

41. We do not have ground troops to remove, we can stop flying over Libya anytime?

There is no leaving when you never arrived.

Leaving Afghanistan or Iraq is the better question.

[Exilednight]

42. We have planes to remove from over their airspace. What day does this end? We the people have the

right and deserve to know. This should not, and can not be an open ended mission.

[Pisces]

45. The planes can be recalled with one order, and the mission will be over. There is no equipment or

people to remove. No logistics to consider, just an order to halt the fly overs??? It could end tomorrow, If only Bush had been more pragmatic we would not be in such a quagmire.

[Exilednight]

46. But no one knows what day the order is to be given on.

It's an open ended commitment. And please don't confuse pragmatism with triangulation. This is pure triangulation, nothing pragmatic about it.

[H2O Man]

6. Recommended.

I found the speech disturbing.

[cali]

8. Me too. I feel... . unsettled.

[snappyturtle]

22. Did it bother you that he didn't name the Arab allies? I also didn't get

the it's cheaper thing to aid the rebels in getting Gadhafi out rather than directly going after him as we did in Iraq? I got sorta lost there. If that was the goal in Iraq, why didn't we leave once Saddam was captured? What's the difference Mr. President because that's our goal and now we're aiding and abetting to that end. And how do we provide search and rescue without boots on the ground? Is he setting a precedent that when a country 'asks' us directly for help, we'll go? I want to read the speech...although I don't expect to feel differently after doing so.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. In what way did you find it disturbing?

Those are strong words. What was it about the speech that disturbed you?

[H2O Man]

20. Fair question.

I'm starting an outline of an OP in my mind, which I hope to post tonight. But I'll try to give a brief version here.

First, I place the Constitution before any politician. To illustrate an example that I admired, I'm reminded of the very conservative republican Congressman Robert McClory, from Illinois. (He was elected to the House in 1963, the same as Donald Rumsfeld.) McClory, an attorney, recognized that Nixon was violating the Constitution. He believed in putting the Constitution before any politician, and spoke about the need for impeachment. (I am not suggesting impeaching President Obama.)

I expected to hear the President explain why he did not engage our country in this war in a constitutional manner. Obviously, he avoided directly commenting on that. But he did take two curiously opposing positions: that it was in our national interest, and that it was a humanitarian operation. While it is possible, in theory, for a situation to include both of these dynamics, there is no rational case to be made that this was an emergency involving our national security -- the only time a President can lawfully engage the military in foreign conflict without congressional approval beforehand.

More, I was disturbed because I could not tell if President Obama believed in all that he was saying, or if it was simply a message designed to pacify the public. Neither option is okay, in my opinion, in these circumstances.

[Autumn]

26. It seemed to me this was a speech to

deflect the criticism he has received. That's the way I saw it.:shrug:

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Excellent point about about the Libyan war and national security

I haven't had a chance to watch the speech, so I don't want to pass judgment yet. One thing is for sure, I really don't see how this war can be about national security.

[golddigger]

17. Same here. It looked to me like he didn't even believe his own BS.

[GreenArrow]

43. He doesn't. It's his job

to make US believe it.

[Blue-Jay]

7. OK.

[Ishoutandscream2]

12. Big K and R!

This is so refreshing to hear. Thank you.

[Thunderstruck]

13. I was expecting good things as he was explaining how we got to where we are.

But then he lost me on the going forward.

[catenary]

14. I must agree...I think I am actually more perplexed than anything else.

I seem to recall one of the excuses for invading Iraq sounded awfully similar - is 'nation building' suddenly okay with a Democratic president? I don't get it, sorry.
:shrug:

[elias49]

15. I think he's flat out lying myself.

And that I find very disturbing.
Time will tell. I'll do a mea culpa in two weeks if necessary.
I don't think it will.

[Autumn]

16. I was not persuaded either.

K/R

[sad sally]

18. Throwing in the word genocide didn't seem right either.

But there were the big flags and call for supporting the troops, oh, and God Bless America.

[kenny blankenship]

32. Here's the one and only use of the word "genocide" in Obama's speech

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security — responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us. They're problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

[sad sally]

37. Didn't say he used it more than once, just said he threw it in.

If it wasn't meant to imply genocide in Libya, well good. Guess actual genocide in countries like Burma, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo don't meet our value test of common humanity.

[Dj13Francis]

19. Nope. Bad idea.

Gonna take more than a moderately unpersuasive speach to get me on board. This is wrong on every level. The only winners here are the military-industrial warmongers. Everyone else loses.

[Shagbark Hickory]

23. I'm most bothered by the whole issue of cost and money. He mentioned seizing 33bln from qaddafi.

Some of that better go towards paying for our expenses but I'm sure it won't.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neverforget]

25. I haven't watched it yet. Did he mention how this ends or who the rebels

are such as their leader(s), goals, beliefs?

[PhillySane]

27. You thought he wasn't a cowboy

he may have just proven you wrong.

[Little Star]

35. I have to admit he looked pretty good in that cowboy hat picture...

that was passed around the net. If I see spurs on his golf shoes that'll be it for me! lol

[scarletwoman]

28. I pretty much feel like Ginger the dog.

"Blah, blah, blah, protect civilians..."

[dana_b]

47. perfect

that's how I felt too - sad to say.

[Tatiana]

31. All I heard was "I [this] and I [that]....."

Quite frankly, not only was I *not* convinced American intervention was necessary, but I found the speech to be quite arrogant. Like Bush being the "decider" but with much better grammar and some loftly rhetoric thrown in for good measure.

[ProSense]

33. Transcript of the

speech for those who missed it.

[Safetykitten]

34. Neither am I

[avebury]

36. The speech was nothing but BS

There are so many other places where people are being killed, mutilated, etc. and do the get world public support and assistance - I don't think so. Libya on the other hand has oil. Enough said.

[Moondog]

38. No sale.

[GreenArrow]

39. What's to be persuaded on?

The US holds NO moral high ground when prosecuting escapades of this nature. None. The hypocrisy is rank.

FWIW, Bush wasn't a cowboy either. That was simply a persona. I don't know how one would go about defining Obama's persona -- "the rational man?" -- but it's just as calculating, shallow and false as Bush's. Different styles, same intent. Both knew/know better, and each has created his own set of justifications in order to absolve himself.

[unkachuck]

44. "I am not persuaded."

....you weren't supposed to be persuaded, you were supposed to be pacified....you think too much....

"I find this utterly depressing."

....please don't feel that way....don't think of the Prez and some of us as war-mongers, we're really just anti-slaughter-mongers....seriously