Last night, Rachel strung together all the Oval Office announcements of war since 1982, starting with President Ronald Reagan and moving through President George W. Bush. It makes for an impressive list.
On Friday, President Obama warned Libyan Colonel Moammar Gadhafi that he'd face military action if he didn't comply with a UN resolution. Mr. Obama then left for his scheduled trip for Brazil, where he announced that strikes had begun. He chose not to use the Oval Office, to forgo the chest-thumping that goes along with using that setting to tell the world America's military might has gone into motion.
The difference matters, Rachel argued. Presidents like to talk about being reluctant to use force, especially when they're campaigning. Then they get into office and discover the art of converting war into political capital. They talk about force as a last result, and then the leverage the use of force for political gain. The difference with Mr. Obama, Rachel says, is that "he appears to be walking more of that walk, as well as talking that talk."
Full segment: Obama tries to change "war president" narrative
Leave a Comment:
Anyone who doesn't think that America is one of the most warlike nations in the history of the world hasn't read enough history.
Right on Uff
Thinking about my lifetime it is easier to say when we have not been at war than to attempt to remember the names of all the wars/police actions/interventions we have been in.
Oh that's easy Next..... We're at war Eurasia and teamed up with Eastasia....
Totally different from last week as you well know- back when we were at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia.....
what uffy said.
Yeah, right
You are close, but, of course, we know if today we are at war with Eurasia then we have always been at war with Eurasia
And same contrariwise
(smacking head)
You're right of course, Next!
I am such a dope!! I mean, would you believe that I actually said that 2+2=4 the other day?!!!!
Some days, I just really don't know where my brain is....
Thanks, Next (hugs).
I doubleplus unbellyfeel to doublethink with the prolefeed misprints from the minitrue.
I find it hilarious that Republicans are mad at Obama for circumventing the Constitution and Congress by bombing Libya. Yo beezies, I gots a black kettle for ya'll.
As I recall, they were screaming at him to DO SOMETHING, DO ANYTHING, to attack Gadhafi, saying he was just standing idly by. So, he does EXACTLY what they wanted, and they yell at him for doing it!
Its not the Republicans who are complaining about Obama circumventing the Constitution, its his own base on the left who is complaining:
A group of liberal Democrats, including Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Donna Edwards of Maryland, Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee of California, issued a statement over the weekend saying they "all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions."
Unfortunately for this fantasy world that the left wing is living in, it is perfectly legal (and constitutional) for the CinC to deploy troops anywhere so long as it's a police action (which Libya is). All that will end up happening is the president will request Congress fund such actions- which Congress will. So really the bitching and moaning comes from legislatures who thing it's advantageous to play the "we've had enough of war" card. Not saying I disagree w/ that sentiment, but it's rather obnoxious to me when politicians try to score political points using our military. In my mind that's the epitome of bad politics. As I recall the right wing isn't complaining that Obama acted unconstitutionally, they are complaining that he acted too slowly and is acting w/o enough force (at least the Hannity/Newt interview I saw suggested as much).
what do you mean with that statement if you mean that bush did the same thing you are wrong he went to congress to get for both wars
No he did not. War has not been declared by the United States since WWII. Every other war we have waged has been done with the CinC exercising his power over the troops and then asking Congress for funding, that is it.
Funny, I recall most people saying stay the hell out of it. Those people, both sides, hate us. Why are we policing the world? Why are we endangering American lives for the same outcome, a country of people that hate us? The thing is, if we just stay the hell out of middle east business, they will all kill each other. The only thing we get from sticking our nose in this is more people hating us. No one will like us for this. No one will be thankful. At best they will use this as an excuse for terrorism due to American "Imperialism". Can anyone tell me why the hell we are anywhere but Afghanistan?
Oh, I didn't mean *just* for the Iraq war "certification by Congress." I meant all the other accumulated Executive Power abuses that Bush racked up. That's-a one full-a kettle!
Yes, the progressive caucus has a point, but if impeaching were the case, we have a whole lot of impeaching to do for every other conflict we've been engaged in since WWII, and judging by this administration's "we're over that hill now" attitude for everything Bush did, and Congress' complete ineptness on ANYTHING, nothing is going to change, and that's the damn unfortunate part.
The Libyan rebels do not appear to be hating us. Conversely, they seem to be very happy that the UN and the League of Arab States have intervened and saved their lives. They hate Qaddafi, and have been pleading for help from the world. They want to be rid of their murderous dictator. Unfortunately, because Qaddafi was using military power to kill Libyan citizens, the world had to counteract with a mightier military power to stop him. Diplomacy and a UN resolution, requiring a cease fire on Qaddafi's part, had little effect on the crazed despot. The situation became dire and action had to be taken.
How happy will the rebels be with us if we stick to the letter of the UN resolution, and refuse to give them support in their offensives against Gadhafi?
With a more level playing field, the rebels should gain some ground and some confidence. They have certainly had the will to depose Qaddafi.
Unless the rebels get more weapons and training, they're going to find it to be pretty tough sledding unless they have active air support from the allies in the form of air strikes. And what if Gadhafi follows through on his threats to use mustard gas? It's all very romantic, helping the struggling rebels against the evil empire, a la Star Wars, but the reality is that going up against a modern military with untrain, ill-equipped forces is an iffy proposition without defections from the military, preferably with their equipment. I wish the rebels all the best, but I fear that at some point they are going to ask for more support than anyone seems comfortable in giving them, especially if they follow the language of the UN mandate.
The Jedi did eventually defeat the Evil Empire. I'm not being a romantic. I'm arguing that good people can come together to eventually defeat evil people. It usually involves personal, as well as societal, sacrifice, but it can benefit the present, as well as the future, world.
I'm not saying that can't happen, but what I am saying is that it may not be possible unless the allies are willing to go beyond the UN mandate, or read its restrictions very, very loosely.
I think that the French may be the most willing to read it loosely. Time will tell.
I am wondering exactly when Mormar Ghadafi is going to speak the word 'oops'.
The problem with military aggression in Libya is Arab participation and not legal authority within the United States.
The Arab League needs to move Libya toward a legitimate government. George Bush Sr. and Jr. blew any United States credibility. All we can do now is drop bombs because nobody believes anything the United States says about the middle east.
Since September 25, 2001 there has been no limit on warfare conducted by the United States when intelligence indicates terrorism impacts the national security of the United States (following is from Department of Justice web site).
Note the conspicuous absence of the name of a country and time limit. This declaration of war applies anywhere in the world for as long as the CIA says that there is a terrorism threat to United States National Security interests.
The 90 day limit and requirement to notify congress mentioned in U.S.C. Title 50; Chapter 33 (War Powers Resolution) and U.S.C. Title 10 Section 111 do not apply to situations that involve terrorism.
This situation would seem to be a problem for Libya and fot those that are criticizing President Obama.
When the Europeans came to the New World as ILLEGAL immigrants they stole land from the indigenous tribes using all means foul -- including murder. Even when the Cherokees won Supreme Court rulings, they were still forced off their land. While the colonists were still killing the natives, they decided to throw off GB and fought a war for independence; the new country of America continued to kill off natives until the late 1800s (if my memory serves me right); America had the war of 1812; the war against Mexico, the Civil War (when is war EVER civil), the Spanish American War, WW 1 & WW 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, a little war in Grenada, the more recent wars in the Balkans and the Middle East....
The only time we don't make war is when we're gearing up for the next one....
Forgive me as I quote a general:
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.
Omar N. Bradley, Gen. in WW2
And let us not forget the economic benefits to "Big Business" of being at war. We're at war, therefore, we can't possible cut the "defense" budget! War is BIG business; lots of money to be made in always having a war going on somewhere. Even if we don't actively - or we don't know about it - participate, we can supply one side or the other or both. Lots of money to be made. And then money is to be made putting those defeated war-torn countries back together. Ask Haliburton how it's done.
Which is why I believe the President did make a deliberate effort to be clear that he did not "declare war" but rather the USA participated in an action at the request of the international community and the people of Lybia. Only time will tell if once the no fly zone is created that is the end of our participation. I have a real problem with "non-wars" you know, police actions like Vietnam. Because it is not a "war" we don't fight it like a war. So, I would prefer that if (God forbid) we ever have a war that it is a "WAR" and we fight it like we mean to end it.
Also, the President stated the first order of business was to see to the safety of American citizens in Libya to avoid a hostage situation. While he didn't say it, I feel this explains his "delay" in taking action. Personally, I would hope that were I ever in another country during an uprising that John McCain would not be in a position to start bombing the hell out of the country before I could get to safety!
So Rachel even on this subject Obama is right? So your onboard with this military intervention. Hmmm...I doubt many MSNBC viewers are onboard.
Days and not weeks...ho ho ha ha! So, if it does not end in days (and how many days?) when is Obama still simply just another military interventionist despite his campaign promises.
Wow to try to paint Obama as a hero on his foreign policy being different in some ways is weak bias journalism. But the again your not really a journalist are you.
Agreed Pete. I've lauged out loud these past couple of days watching the news on Libya. Now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office, war (and firing cruise missiles and sending stealth bombers AND B-52s is definitely war) it seems justifiable. I mean, come on folks, he is a brutal dictator. And of course Saddam Hussein was not - at least in the left's eyes. Can you imagine if Bush or any Republican was in office and did this? Rachel and the rest would be howling.
Oh and BTW - what is going on in Eygpt. Last I heard the military was still in charge. But no reporters there. They have to ALL go to Libya to report on how the rebels are doing there. Do we even know what will happen when Khaddfi leaves. Watch Eygpt and Libya carefully. Carter tried to do the same kinda revolution in Iran and look what happened there.
The complaint from the left was never that Saddam didn't need to be removed or that he was a tyrant killing his own people. The complaint was about the WMD lie. If the administration had argued going in on humanitarian grounds you likely would've had left wing support. This is not what the administration did (at least not initially) and even to this day the administration is still insisting that the WMD myth was truthful. We know now that there was no widespread agreement that Saddam had WMDs, we know now that many defectors working w/in the CIA and DOD came forward about their concerns about there being no WMDs, we know now that the information presented before the UN was fabricated, etc. That is what has liberals panties in a bunch regarding the Iraq war.
Ok Mickey - you're right he didn't have WMDs ANYMORE. He used them against Iran during the Iran - Iraq war and again on his own people after the first Gulf war (in fact they just executed "Chemical Ali" not too long ago for the gassing of Kurds in Iraq). I would say that falls under your comment "he was a tryant killing his own people". But you are technically correct. So I guess if a guy uses "regular" weapons to kill his own we have to bomb. At least Bush did have "hearings" in front of Congress before he pulled the trigger....
Why can't you Repugs understand the Dems postion on the Iraq war. Bin Laden in Afghanistan arranged for terrorists to fly planes into the towers and kill 3000 people. Every American was mad and ready and willing to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Then all of the sudden we had to go to Iraq and get HUSSEIN? Why? because of WMDs that did not exist. Why? because Bush wanted his daddy to be proud of him. He specifically stated this is a man who tried to kill my dad. Then it went into Iraqi freedom we have to save the Iraqi people from hussein NOT Bin Laden anymore. Now we are saving the people who yes were being ruled by a tyrant a horrible person, but they weren't uprising over it. Now the deaths of 3000 Americans has turned into a humanitarian aid war for oil. Remember oil for food what happeded with that anyway. So the war turned into all about Iraq and Hussein with a second war no one ever talked about that we are STILL involved in in Afghanistan that we can't win. Every single soldier should have been sent into Afghanistan it should have been all about Afghanistan and BIN LADEN and the terrorist organization there. When was the last time you even heard mention of Bin Laden. Would Hussein got involved maybe, but then the attack would have been justified. What part of this do you not understand and why you are not angry about it too is my question.
First mellow I am not a Republican (can we stop with the 3rd grade name calling like Repugs - seriously), I am Libertarian leaning. Second, your point is that Libya is different because the people are uprising. Look at my post above - the Kurds were gassed/slaugtered to the tune of 100k + because they were UPRISING. No one, including us helped them back then. So what changed? Now we help internal uprisings. Yes, the Iraq war was started for dubious reasons,but Saddam did have an uprising and I would venture to say he was killing his own all along before we invaded. Your agurment is weak. Following your logic I guess we won't be hearing about BIN LADEN for a while again since we are busy liberating another country that did nothing to us. Why? Why?
Arguing that it was OK to invade Iraq because at one point in time Saddam had WMDs is about as absurd as arguing it's OK to invade Germany because at one point in time it was under Nazi rule. You can't say that it was justified to go into Iraq in 2003 based on intelligence and premises that were only valid back in 1993. The actions of Saddam you're referring to justified us invading in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I believe Saddam should have been overthrown during that operation, but the fact that he was not is not a valid reason to go into the country 10 years later (that is to say unless he is repeating the same actions that prompted the first invasion, which he was not). With that said you are hard pressed to find liberals who believe Saddam was a good guy (as you incorrectly put it earlier) or that he should have stayed in power. What liberals argue is that there has to be a reason to go to war w/ a nation other than you don't like the leader. Humanitarian aid can be a reason to invade and is one that usually liberals support.
Again Mickey - killing more than 100,000 people is not humanitarian enough for you? You Geman analogy is flawed. IF Hitler was still in power NOW I would imagine the world would do something. Hussein was still in power (unlike your Hitler/Gemany example)after the Gulf war and killed many Kurds and others - I'm sure it didn't happen just for a few weeks after the end of that war - and brutalized his people for those years after we liberated Kuwait. I think you are just trying to justify this Libyan action for Obama. I see no difference. And you stated we need a reason to invade a country besides we don't like the leader. What reason for Libya then? If you say humanitarian again - tell it to the thousands AND thousands AND thousands of Kurds (and others) killed over the past decade by Saddam. And remember they too staged an uprising....
I was not in favor of a no fly zone at the start, because it's so tough to draw the line at how far you will go. That now seems to be the heart of the discussion, as it is a very fuzzy line as to what can be considered necessary to stop a humanitarian disaster. Already, we have seen examples where Libyan government ground forces have been destroyed by air strikes outside Benghazi. OK, those forces were attempting to attack Benghazi, so I give you that one. But where do you stop? Forces are active in other areas, urban areas that are not easy to operate against using air power. So, does the UN mandate speaking about using all necessary means allow ground forces to go in to provide aid to the rebels in those areas? If so, who is stepping up to do that? I suppose you could even argue that the entire Gadhafi family must be killed, as the orders they are giving is leading to the deaths of civilians, and they may use mustard gas on their own people. So, kill them in order to bring peace?
Finally, we are told the no fly zone in its present form is costing $100 million a week. In other words, during a time of the far right yipping and yapping about budget deficits and massive cuts to social spending, we are spending at the rate of $5.2 billion per year to now be part of this no fly zone. Where are the vaunted budget hawks now? Oh, yeah, they're still busy boosting Pentagon spending, cutting education and healthcare spending, trying to pass anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage bills, complaining that Obama is moving too fast on Libya, complaining that Obama is moving too slow on Libya, busting unions, cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, and making sure NPR and Planned Parenthood don't get the equivalent of a few days of money to support the no fly zone. Glad they're focus on jobs and spending is so strong, and they have abandoned their hypocritical ways......NOT.
Well now SKIP I don't remember singling you out or mentioning your name for that matter. As far as a Libertarian leaning is it backward, forwards, left, right? I also never mentioned Libya one time not one time in my post. Point in blank 9/11 had absolutely positively NOTHING to do with Iraq Nothing, and for you or any other republican (is that nicer), democrat, libertarian, tea nutter I mean partier or any other make believe party to say that it did is completely untrue.
My position on Libya by the way. We shouldn't be there either, we have to many issues here at home to be fighting another war we have nothing to do with. I also think khaddafi is a nut job, and a tyrant. I feel for the people in Libya as well. Maybe they should have planned out their revolution a little better than just to say hey Cairo did it (peacefully) by the way so hey let's do it to. Then when it goes bad they want America to come and help, but every country complains when we get involved they want our help then complain about us..Yes those people are being ruled by a dictator, they what don't have proper housing, food, medical care..Well a whole lot of people here doesn't either, and according to the Repuglican we are ran by a Dictator too :)..We need to just stay at home for awhile and take care of our issues here.
Again you are saying we should have taken Saddam out for actions that he did in the past; NOT actions he was doing at the moment. And again had that been the argument- had the administration tried to present facts showing that Saddam was behaving in the same way- that would have been an entirely different premise for going to war. You are complaining that in 1993 we didn't do the right thing by forcing Saddam's ouster, but instead signed a resolution w/ him that basically said as long as he w/drew we would let him stay in power. Please also remember that we are the nation that rigged the election that put Saddam into power, we are the nation that armed Saddam's army, and we are the nation that assisted him in imposing a dictatorship in a country that had been a democracy prior. We did not want to remove Saddam because we liked the guy up until Kuwait. He then gave all sorts of apologies and said he would stop and apparently the US was content w/ that answer. I do not know why we allowed him to walk away, but we did. If we allow someone to walk away from that situation we cannot, then, years later go back and say we're invading you for what you did 10 years ago. That is double-jeopardy in a military and legal sense and it's absolutely insane. So yes if I want to justify my Germany statement that would be like the EU facilitating the Nazi party's power grab up until Germany invaded other countries. We then went in, broke the army up, and told Hitler "as long as you stop this behavior we will let you stay in power and leave you alone." And then left. Then someone came into power in the US 10 years later and said "Ya know I never liked him; let's invade his country." It's absurd. You can't punish someone for something you screwed up in the first place and then forgave. You seem to be completely ignoring that. If you want to get angry about Saddam Hussein your anger should be at the first President Bush for allowing Saddam to walk away (as is my anger). And I never stated that I liked us being in Libya- thank you for putting words in my mouth and assuming my motives. In fact I have voiced openly that I do not like us being in Libya and I am worried what this is all going to lead to, but please ignore all of that and make presumptions on my character. All I am trying to do is correct your absurd arguments. There is no comparison between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Libya. I do not like our presence in this country. I do not like that the US is now involved in military campaigns in more than 5 countries and I especially do not like that the media is ignoring those other campaigns for this one. But I also am not going to make ridiculous and hyperbolic statements based on my annoyances w/ the Obama administration.
OK everyone - let's agree that we shoud corral most of our military forays in the world. We can't help everyone. Many good points on the post above Mickey...
who was in charge of the food for oil that is right the united nations and now all you liberals find out that your guy in charge is just like all the other politicians when are you going to learn that all of them tell you what you want to hear to get elected both parties do it
Pete, that would be,"you're not really a journalist."
Thanks, I do know the difference but was typing in a hurry so made the mistake. As to grammer, not in she's not a journalist.
Rachel again demonstrated her naivete last night in cheerleading the Spectator in Chief when there is no one happy (Rachel excepted) with how Obama has lurched around on responding to the civil war in Libya. You have peaceniks liberal dems on the left led by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich upset that Obama has led the US into an unconstitutional third war with another muslim nation to the hawks, McCain and Lieberman (rememeber when he was a good behaving dem?) who never see a war they didn't like say he dawdled too long. And there goes Rachel saying isn't "neat" that Obama went assbackwards into this declaration of war against a country which has not attacked the US or its interests?
First he demands that Kadafi has to go, then inacts for a couple of weeks and fills out and televises both his Men's and Women's NCAA brackets - really??? especially women's brackets??? The fact that he even cares and has opinions on Baylor, Stanford, UCONN and the Lady Vols is mind boggling while the rest of the world watches a rag tag rebel civilian force who have to read owners manuals to fire a weapon get shellacked by Kadafi's regulars.
His reluctance to lead the war effort is rolled by Hillary and Rice who give his green light to Sarkozy in France to start the war on our behalf. Although Obama is trying to hide behind the skirt of multi-lateralism and the Arab League's pleas, make no mistake that the over 100 cruise missiles launched are American. The Arab world knows its the US behind this war and it will be American boots that will be on Libyan soil to clean up the mess and take out Kadafi. Now the Arab League is complaining that Obama has overreached. They asked for a no fly zone, not sanctioning the assassination of Kadafi by bombing his home.
But there goes Rachel, complimenting Obama on his style in how he started this war by using Sarkozy as our proxy and partying in Rio vs. his predecessors who sternly declared war in White House. Yes its a different style, but unfortunately the substance and result will be the same.
Yeah really - the women's bracket?? :)
Seriously, declaring war from a different "venue" makes it more palatable? Un - effing - believable Rachel.
Pete, Hank and Skip: are you charter members of Misogynists Anonymous?
UConn: Where men play basketball and women are champions.
Touche Eileen. I actually am rooting for Depaul's womens team in the tourney. Still the POTUS doing brackets on TV??? Bush stopped golfing after the Iraq war started. Whether you agreed with the war or not, President Bush took the CinC job seriously when American lives were on the line.
Oh paleeeeeease skip....spare me...spare us all.
OK maggie - no dissing the POTUS her at the Maddow blog. What was I thinking. I'm sure you never said anything critical about Bush. Go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la" when anybody disagrees with the current man in charge. Everything is perfect here now...
Skip I am referring to the following:
So what are you saying there skip? When lives were not on the line he was what? Are you really suggesting Obama does not take it seriously? Please...
You can diss the POTUS all ya want...I'm just sayin' Dubya was no freakin' hero and while he may have been trying to take his job seriously, he was just too stupid at the end of the day to do anything but let the puppet masters make him dance.
OK Maggie - I understand you opinion now. But that is your opinion. It's funny you mention puppet masters - I kinda think that is what is going on presently with Obama. I still think Rachel trying to justify the way President Obama told us about the new "war" was really sorta funny. It really doesn't matter to the people on the other end of the cruise missles or bombs how the message is delivered. And I still think that with Obama the media (and maybe the publc) is trying to make the President a little like a celebrity. Just my opinion.
Honestly, I can't tell what's going on with Obama. He's between a rock and a hard place so to speak. I would like to see him settle into himself instead of trying to please someone else.
As for Libya...I wish we ...NONE of us had to be there. Having said that, it may feel like a war...but certainly at this point, is not. It's like a detail in a larger picture that I am not sure any of us can truly see. It's not good. Not good at all...
Sending over 100 cruise missles as well as bombers dropping a boatload of bombs? When does it become war?
That's a very good question skip. Technically speaking Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars. Neither are the operations we're conducting in Yemen, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Yet I'm pretty sure to the person who is killed or injured by our missiles, bombs, and bullets they see it as a war and an occupation.
@ maggie
I never said anything about the NCAA Women's bracket. That Rachel is not a journalist is clear from the type of show she has. Plenty of fine women journalists, she's just not one them, she's an entertainer with a talk radio show that happens to be on TV. (Given MSNBC's ratings one could argue about whether or not its actually TV)
@ pete Huh? I never said anything to you about the NCAA anything bracket. Mostly I ignore your posts.
The fact that you are of the opinion that Dr. Maddow is not a journalist means nothing to me.
RM has a degree in public policy from Stanford University and upon graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She then went on to win a Rhodes Scholarship (hello? know what that is?) and earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics from Oxford University. Dr. Maddow has hosted radio shows and has had numerous TV and news guests and panelist spots. You are typing your crap here on THE RACHEL MADDOW BLOG...what have you done lately there petey?
I don't care what you think of her or what anyone else chooses to think about her. I like her....and appreciate what she has to say and how she chooses to say it. You don't? Go the heck someplace else then eh? Easy eh?
I got the above information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow.
I'm a conservative but I don't like going to war. At least Europe is involved to so we don't get all the blame. I would like us to not be involved with other countries business. Why is it our responsibility?
TRMS has always had a hard time criticizing the President.
.....And yet last week Rachel was being harped on for criticizing the president too much. I guess if it doesn't appear today on Maddowblog that means in the history of forever it never ever happened. #objectpermanencefail
Jeez, half the table says Rachel Maddow is an Obama apologist and the other half says she's too hard on him. Sometimes this blog feels just like Thanksgiving only without the football games droning on in the background.
Huh? On last night's TRMS, Maddow provided her analysis regarding how Obama was portraying this new engagement differently than his predecessors, in particular observng how Obama's decision
She acknowledged that Obama was treating this differently, trying to change the narrative, but definitely was not a cheerleader for him. In fact, at one point she made a critical snark at his expense,
*Begin snark*
Phew - I'm glad some other folks obviously watched the same Rachel I watched last night! Listening to some of the folks on here I thought for sure I'd been watching some strange Rachel Maddow clone show.
*End snark*
in other words: Mickey, Dutchie, and Mightbe - I'm with y'all :)
Just like you Rachael, to keep blabbing about the republicans stupidity and not seeing that this so-called president is a full-blown lying moronic puppet! Tripling troops in Afghanistan, stepping up drone attacks in Pakistan, NOT closing Gitmo, folding on tax breaks for millionares, NOT stepping up in Wisconsin. Im sure you know that federal emplyees dont have any bargaining rights, but thats never protested or spoken out from you! Quit always worrying about the repubs and Fox news. Maybe you should focus on your terrible ratings and terrible president!
Federal employees do have bargaining rights. I don't know why people can't look this stuff up and fact check the media when they misrepresent. The scope in which federal employees bargain is far more limited than state employees, but there are federal unions and you can collectively bargain as a federal employee. Of course from the nature of this post I am assuming you just posted to insult Rachel. Her ratings have nothing to do w/ anything and your belief that Obama is a terrible president is an opinion, not a fact. Not exactly sure why you want Rachel to report on your feelings as opposed to what is factually true, but I guess you feel entitled to tell her and other people what to do???
Mickey Mouser, I agree with your comment.
I know, the non-Americans in the world (myself included) have noticed the consensus building President and for once this is not plain old American self-interest.
Everyone will look back and say WOW what a change of tone from the Cowboy Diplomacy of the Bush Years. The world will trust Americans a little more after this.
SoAl, I agree.
I second that. Obama is being portrayed as wishy-washy, indecisive, distracted by his South America trip, and cowardly. He is none of those. He has a plan for America, and he is carefully unrolling it. He did not engage in military action in Libya until a world coalition was formed. That prevents the USA from being seen as imperialistic, and also prevents us from bearing the full cost of this military action. The world needs to step up and stop relying upon the USA to clean up all of the messes. Obama is also asserting that the US military will play a very limited, and time-condensed role. We get in, make strategic surgical strikes, and step back. We then turn the matter over to the coalition for further action.
Can someone help me find a segment from Rachel's show about 2 weeks ago?
It was about a TV ad, maybe by Rove & Co, that said "You've had enough" -- the point was the ad couldn't say "We've had enough" ( as in... "the public") because only a few people, probably billionaires, have donated to the front group.
Thanks
Obama has an image problem with respect to this war. He failed to address the people about our actions which he could have done without the usual blustering that previous presidents have done. It would have been appropriate to give a quick speech telling the people what he was doing, why he was doing it and his expectations about the future of our military involvement. An address to the people would have reinforced his image as a president taking a decisive action. The Libya situation was badly mishandled.
Didn't Obama do that last week??
It's not only about America's involvement, it's a UN resolution, for once. All your questions were answered last week in a quick speech, I guess Obama is not all about the drama?
The speech should have been a nighttime address talking directly to the country. Daytime speeches do not convey the gravity of the situation. Look back at how previous presidents handled the speech. It was always at night and carried on all the networks at the same time during prime time hours.
Mike, that was exactly the point Maddow made last night. This is being handled differently, and with a purpose for doing so.
F-15 downed in Libya. After looking at the wreckage on TV I have to say it probably was mechanical. It looks pretty much intact. If it was shot down it would be a pile of rubble with nothing that could be identified. Looks like the bombs and missiles were still on in. It almost looks like a controlled landing. It's sitting up on it's belly.
Anyways, I thought we didn't have any aircraft over Libya?
No, I don't think we ever said that we didn't have aircraft over Libya, just that France and the UK had been taking the lead. It was reported over the weekend that B-2s were lobbing cruise missiles at targets in Libya.
Yes you do, 120 strikes by Americans so far.
#libya.. pentagon says NO us aircraft over libya at this time
12:30 PM Mar 19th via web
Retweeted by 20 people
.richardengelnbc
richard engel
Richard Engel tweeted just 3 days ago we didn't have aircraft over Libya.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t/pentagon-says-no-us-aircr_49206101597618176.html
So the first sorties ended in a F-15 going down? Doesn't look good if you ask me. Those aircraft maintenence folks are overworked also. They probably doing 12 on 12 off right now.
I guess it depends on what we mean by OVER Libya. Those bombers usually have escorts and high cover.
The B-2s that launched cruise missiles almost certainly didn't need to overfly Libya to deliver their payloads, but they certainly did participate.
A no-fly-zone requires a mobile radar system with communication links for enforcement. There are two kinds.
If an aircraft is detected in the air over a no-fly-zone then a fighter aircraft will be directed to engage that aircraft as assumed hostile and that fighter aircraft will force aircraft down if confirmed hostile by visual contact.
"Gandhi said flatly that if a madman is raging through a village with a sword (read: assault rifle — or Glock Automatic) he who “dispatches the lunatic” will have done the community (and even the poor lunatic) a favor.
Open warfare has already broken out: the scale and stage of the violence are extreme. Yet there is still a way to respond that, while extremely difficult to pull off, could be called nonviolent. We in the nonviolence field will recognize this as a “madman with a sword” analogy. Gandhi said flatly that if a madman is raging through a village with a sword (read: assault rifle — or Glock Automatic) he who “dispatches the lunatic” will have done the community (and even the poor lunatic) a favor. Here are Gandhi’s exact words, from The Hindu, 1926:
Taking life may be a duty…. Suppose a man runs amok and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man.
From other sources, however, we see that to use lethal force without actually being violent is extremely tricky. Remember always, by the way, that we are talking about an extreme emergency. One cannot prepare to use lethal force against such a situation because if one has time to prepare one can prepare nonviolence. Arming airline pilots in case there are hijackers does not count. That understood, several other conditions must be met:
One must act as far as possible without anger or fear. One must harbor no hatred of the deranged party. Even lunatics are people.
One must not complain if one is injured in the process. Life will not always appear fair to our limited vision.
And by far the most important condition: One must not feel that s/he has solved the problem once the maddened person is successfully stopped and innocents protected. Instead, one must dedicate some serious time and effort, to asking how we have created a world where this can happen — and how to change it.
This last, crucial point brings us squarely to the second question. As things are, we have very few options that are not military. Conceivably, the Arab League or some other trusted party could offer to mediate; if the tension were to somehow subside a superb mediation agency like TRANSCEND could also be used. But hatreds are so high now that neither side is likely to call in such a resource. If, or to the extent that, one could intervene with force in the spirit described above and, for example, impose a ceasefire, it could be considered a nonviolent act. Remember that the literal meaning of ahiṃsā (nonviolence) is actually “the absence of the desire to injure.” In other words, if one really acts to protect and not to punish, one is being nonviolent even while using coercive force. But how many of our military personnel are trained not to hate and dehumanize their intended victims? Alas, their training is precisely the reverse. It’s as bad as the “training” young people get from video games — but that must be the subject of another article."
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/libya-acid-test-for-nonviolence
It's very true we live in a military option free world. It's not like we can ask folks nicely to stop slaughtering their people and sponsoring terrorism.
That option is not available to us.
I am not at all sure what RM is talking about. The difference is that Obama had every reason to believe, right up until the last minute, that either the Chinese or the Russians would veto the resolution. He probably didn't postpone his trip on that likelihood and then found himself, because of Amr Moussa's involvement, faced with abstentions instead of veto. So he was already on the move and there was nothing to be done about it. What was he going to do at that point?
The fact that the resolution went through was almost a joke on him and I am surprised that all these friendly-to-Obama pundits and hosts don't see that or mention it. The resolution put Obama (and us) in an extremely awkward position where we were damned either way. President Obama did the right thing and the truth is the right thing doesn't always mean things will go your way. If we had done nothing in the face of that resolution we look like a second rate power, we act and we look like war mongers. I for one am happy to accept the latter moniker in the current instance.
Agreed, he was damned no matter what he did in this instance, so I guess it is better to err on the side of saving the lives of civilians. However, I don't want to hear a peep from deficit hawks about how we need to make more cuts to social services when they support spending what will probably amount to several billion dollars on Libya. We always seem to find money to kill people, but precious little to save lives or improve them. As Spock famously said, "Historically, it has always been easier to destroy than to create". You said a mouthful, my greenblooded friend.
Well said, Uffdaguy! And let me say that I love it when people quote Star Trek! That was always my favorite show, though I think the quote is from one of them films. You do have to keep in mind that the money was already applied and spent for what is happening now. The missiles were paid for, the ships on active service. It will be replenishment of the stockpile that will be a very fair issue to argue over.
Have a great day!
Yes, Peter, the quote was from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Great film, lots of fun.
Yes, the Pentagon has enough money in various areas that they can afford to finance an operation like this without requesting extra money. That just confirms the fact that there is tremendous wastage in slush funds all through out the Pentagon. If you can afford to fund a mini-war without asking Congress for the money to do so, you've got too much money laying around.
LOL! Love that flick! It isn't so much slush funds as there is a ready stockpile already paid for which will need to be replenished and they almost certainly will go to Congress (in their budget request) and ask for the amount covering replacements for the stockpile lost. No point in having guided missile cruisers if you aren't going to pay for the guided missiles!
I have to say that I find myself lately in the odd position of defending (not against you) President Obama on a whole host of issues. I didn't vote for him and it really shocks me how his own supporters (again, not you) are just bashing the guy regularly. The job is very, very difficult and he can't make everyone happy.
Yes, Obama inherited a lot of crap to begin with, especially with the economy and two ongoing wars, not to mention new crises like Libya and Japan. It's times like these that make me wonder why any sane, rational human being would want the job. I know that I would walk quickly in the other direction!
There is plenty of wastage in the Pentagon budget, and it is frustrating that this is the one place that deficit hawks not only decline to look at, but actually decide to hand them a budget increase. I know I posted last month about a failed recon sat program that was awarded to Boeing a few years ago. They spent something like $15 billion on it, and after several years, never came up with a single piece of flight hardware, forcing the military to go back to Lockmart to build a few more of the model they were supposedly replacing, which of course added up to a lot more money as it was done on a hurry-up emergency basis. And now, Lockmart is building another stopgap satellite while they also work on a new contract to do what Boeing failed to do. Tens of billions spent for nothing, and that is not an abberation, but a common occurence in the Pentagon. It is absolutely unconscionable that we are talking about cutting programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare because of cost while still allowing things like that to go on.
if bush did what obama is doing all of the liberal media would be all over him because he is your guy it is fine seems like a double standard to me
if it is okay to do this in libya why not in the other countries that are facing the same thing
We are now at the beginning of a war about which their was no internal debate. Regime change seems to be the goal but the means to that end seem murky and gruesome, at best. If the UN does establish a no-fly zone and "protect civilian lives," what will the ultimate mark of success then be? A stalemate? Is that acceptable. If we are going to choose sides and support the cause of the rebels and their push for new leadership, will we protect them with strafing gunships on their way to Tripoli? Are we going to fight the civil war for them? Who are these rebels anyway? There are a number of questions that were simply never asked. And, the long-term strategy behind these actions seems, in the best case scenario, flawed. Absurdity at its finest. Where are the war protests? Where are the pacifists in the streets? If it were a Republican in office right now, the media would be calling these actions war crimes. Instead, talking heads like Rachel kick off their show yesterday with a 7 minute segment about how bad of a president Bush was and how his statements regarding international affairs changed between the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. She never, however, mentioned 9-11 during that segment. Interesting omission, in my mind. There is no intellectual consistency here. Where are the rebukes of violent action? Obviously, Maddow is far more concerned about pandering to the few people who watch her show. She lost me as a viewer last night. Truly sad.
Obama needs to realize something. He can't do what other Presidents have done and expect the people to get behind him. Has he not figured that out yet? When other Presidents do it then it's an American thing. If he does it then it's an Muslim Manchurian Candidate Socialist thing.
Having said that...Obama had no choice. I don't like getting involved all the time but that Libyan madman was marching on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. He had no time to engage with the party of no even though they were the party of yes on previous military actions.
So if we made the right decision, what's the endgame? And, shouldn't we have a sense of an endgame before we start firing cruise missiles into a country? See recent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan for context.
The end game should become obvious within 30 days.
If the remaining Libyan rebels can overrun the country then they will most likely kill Ghadafi within a month or so.
If not, then the remaining members of the Arab League need to make a decision about whether they approve of a government in the Middle East that fosters terrorism.
In either case, there should be a new government in Libya by June and Ghadafi should leave the area for his own safety before that happens.
PS...12 on 12 off includes the weekend. It's day in and day out.
I have many thoughts about global corporatism, imperialism, racism and about a dozen other things. However, at this point, I think military action is perhaps the least worst choice out of a quiver of bad choices. It is possible that fewer Libyans will die, and possible that Libyan freedom will encourage protestors in nations where the US will definitely not intervene. There is no way for we the people to stop U.S. imperialism in the pursuit of resources, at least not in ways that will have an effect on this situation. I think the next best thing is to hope that lives will be saved, even if those lives are incidental to the U.S.'s real motivation to protect its economic interests.
Personally I am afraid this is the start of a push into Africa for the point of opening up future global markets....sighs. I guess you're right the most you can do is close your eyes and pray that at the very least someone's daughter or son will live to see another day. =/
Also is anyone besides me having a hard time navigating Newsvine today? I keep getting error messages when I go to post.
Well said...
I have my doubts but then again...it's time we did something about Momar[sic]. I actually do think he sponsors terrorism. So do other countries but when that pops off its gonna pop off huge.
MM, I've been having difficulties with newsvine on and off today too.
So I quess Miss Rachel will be on board with going into Iran and Yemen. What a JOKE !!! She was sooo busy talking about Sharon Engle and her pottery she forgot the community organizer was going to WAR !!! Now it's all O.K. - Sadam Hussain was murdering his people a million or more and Bush was a THUG !!! Why aren't you out there protesting Miss Rachel - Oh yeah it's the right thing to do and it's a humaritarian effort now -Lead by the Nobel Peace Prize winner !!! This is why MSNBC ratings are in the tank !!
Clare, if you recall, Bush had a million excuses...ummmmm, make that justifications, for attacking Iraq, but none of them mentioned stopping Saddam from killing his own people. If he had been worried about that, his daddy missed the boat on that after the Gulf War, when he basically promised he would protect the southern Shia if they went after Saddam, then sat back and did nothing when they followed his encouragement and got slaughtered for their troubles.
If we went into Iran, I'd think that repubs would be jumping for joy....until they realized that it wasn't their boy Crash McCain who was doing it. Because a guy who crashes 3 or 4 fighter planes before getting shot down is certainly qualified to figure out who to attack, and how to do it.
What does McCain have to do with this issue outside of the fact that he supported the resolution? Uff, obviously you have a difficult time separating your personal emotional attachment to the issues in the past and its clouding your logic regarding the present crisis. The "excuse" for this action is the "protection of civilian lives." Why then aren't we in Yemen and Bahrain? Why aren't we protecting the innocent people striving for freedom there? Why? Because the leaders in those countries are considered "allies in the War on Terror."
The US has always been pretty selective and hypocritical when it comes to choosing who to "protect" and who not to "protect". The justifications that Bush used to go into Iraq could more accurately been used to justify attacking North Korea, China, any number of "-stans", Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria or any of probably a couple of dozen other places. Why Libya? We both can think of a couple of reasons pretty quickly...Libya has oil, and the US has never had any love for Gadhafi. If there were no oil there, or if Gadhafi had been a little more "accomodating" to US interests over the years, nothing would ever have happened.
As for McCain and Iran, it was Ol' Crash who sang "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, and thought it very witty.
So...this selectivity regarding "protection" is justified in this case...because there's oil? Is that what you're saying? That because of our past entanglements and Libya's resources, picking sides in a civil war is justified? The past entanglements with Iraq and their resources should then have been sufficient for invasion. WMDs should've been disregarded based upon your logic. Am I incorrect in this reasoning?
Caesar, I was absolutely NOT justifying any of it, nor condoning it. I was simply explaining WHY it works the way it does. I also hate this selective outrage displayed by the US, (and to be fair, many other nations), in who they help, and who they ignore. Remember, we, along with the rest of the world, completely ignored the genocide in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge, the genocide in Rwanda, the genocide in Darfur, to name a few. Few, if any nations, have a sterling reputation in that regard. If Libya didn't have oil, you can bet that the world community would ignore events there right now also.
Let me play devils advocate for a second. First, none of us know if this involves a long term plan of action. Second, what if this military action gives us yet another ally in the region? What if this action is for the greater good on the war on terrorism?
Terrorism is a real threat to our safety foks.
I submit what if this military action gives us yet another Muslim nation that will stand up to Iran and N. Korea when the time comes? And it will come in our lifetime folks. With or without Libya....it's coming.
And that will be the big one.
I think you are being a bit pessimistic in regard to North Korea and Iran. I see the real possibility of revolution in Iran, and as for North Korea, a nation like that can only hang together for so long when its people are starving, its economy is in the toilet, and it is surrounded by well-fed, prosperous nations. When Kim dies, there's going to be a power struggle between Kim's chosen successor and the military, and I'm not counting the military out on this one. Having Libya on our side in either situation is immaterial, as they were militarily weak even before we attacked them, and they are in much worse shape now than they were before the weekend started.
They tried that in Iran. They were squashed. That lets me know the polls in Iran and N. Korea lean REGIME instead of DEMOCRACY. That's fine on it's face. But when they revolt against the regime then we should AT LEAST look into helping them under our constitution. Provided they are not marching on Innocent civilians in an effort to wipe them off the face of the planet. Then a President doesn't have the time to deal with Congress and their motives of getting re-elected into office. We vote Presidents in to make the hard choices when others won't.
ps....I'm being bi-pessimistic. I like to err on the side of caution and not exceptionalism.
Exceptionalism has never won a war. A bankrupt England won our very first war. Easy to beat a country that is bankrupt fighting multiple wars (protecting us along the way) when you yourself collects no taxes or owes no debt. Hard to fight a country that takes in taxes for everyone against a country that doesn't take taxes from anyone. Even today we refuse to tax Americans their fair share.
Sam, I don't believe we have a Constitutional obligation to help rebels that are rising up against their leaders in other countries; in fact, I think the Founding Fathers would have been quite opposed to such a thing. As for Iran, yes, the revolution was squashed....for now. But, if you look at the internal dynamics of the country, you will see that the young people are very westernized, and the economy of the country is in shambles. Put those two things together, and you eventually end up with the regime going down. It may not be this year, maybe not next year, but the Iranian government in its current form is simply not stable. No one ever imagined Egypt would fall, nor see Libya tearing itself apart in civil war. Iran's time will come, and it's closer than you think.
President Obama is way smarter than most people on the planet! He know's exactly what is doing to the middle-east; it is giving them hope that they can break free of the dictators that rule. We don't need to step foot on their land and he know's this is what the want. We wouldn't want any country standing on our land and saying, "This is the way you do it" They are and want to be in control of their own destiny! That's where bush n cheney's cronies went wrong but I also think they wanted the kick-backs from the contractors like "HALIBURTON" etc...
But isn't that the difference though? Bush did it for selfish reasons while Obama did it because we actually might put a crimp in state sponsored terrorism?
I don't like being the world's police but in this case it might be worth it in the long run.
Truly informed post. Are we not saying to the Libyans "This is the way you WILL do it?" Are we not deciding the destiny of Libya? We have clearly chosen sides.
These actions are also about kick-backs and the ugly relationship between elected officials and defense contractors. They need each other for their power. It doesn't matter who's in the White House. When will some of you people get that through your thick skulls? Party affiliation doesn't matter in these cases. However, the media and the political parties have so thoroughly convinced you that these "differences" do matter that we are blinded to our actual plight.