Ordering a major military strike is a daunting task for any American president. Doing it between diplomatic and economic meetings in a foreign capital over 4,000 miles from Washington is even more complex.
After striding down the stairs of the presidential aircraft with first lady Michelle Obama and daughters Malia and Sasha, Obama headed to his quarters in a Brasilia hotel, where he received another briefing and spoke briefly with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, the White House said. Then, it was on to review the ceremonial guard at the Brazilian presidential palace and meet with President Dilma Vana Rousseff.
A joint statement with Rousseff, however, fell more than an hour behind schedule — largely because Obama joined a secure call about the Libyan situation with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also on the call, briefed the group about international talks she attended in Paris on Saturday about enforcing the U.N. resolution.
After the first fusillade of U.S. cruise missiles slammed into Libyan air defense installations just after 3 P.M. Eastern time, Obama headed to a scheduled meeting with Brazilian and American business executives. But he also managed to squeeze in an unscheduled statement to the media about the attack.
I am having a hard time accepting that it was necessary for the United States to enter into yet ANOTHER military action in an Arab country. I want desperately to have confidence in this President but it is very difficult when I see that we are once again headed down a path very similar to the one we found ourselves on during the Bush years.
Having said that I have been very impressed with how Obama handled the delicate situation that arose in Egypt, and he has demonstrated a great deal of restraint when it came to other potential quagmires as well.
So if the President felt he had no other choice but to engage in military action this time I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. At least for a little while.
However if this turns out to be yet another incident where we were initially supposed to support the citizens of a nation while they stood up for themselves against a dictator, only to find ourselves in a month's time with pictures of dead Americans on CNN and no exit strategy, I am going to have to start going after THIS president much like I did the last president.
Of course there are already numerous signs that President Obama and George "My daddy bought this presidency for me" Bush are light years apart.
Such as pictures of our President connecting in a very natural way with the children of Brazil, while all of this is going on. (You can find more amazing pictures over at The Only Adult in the Room.)
The ability to do difficult things while remembering that you are the face of America in a foreign country is a skill that is completely beyond the reach of some wannabe politicians who shall remain nameless.
And Obama's ability to multi-task, as evidenced by his ability to handle a national crisis while engaging in, what appears to be, seamless diplomacy is a talent that certainly should earn him some respect from BOTH sides of the aisle.
Especially since his predecessor was unable to even eat pretzels and watch television at the same time. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
President Obama is the president and not a candidate any longer. Look out the window. The world makes no sense at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but you can't have a no-fly zone without taking military action, which means war. Americans were up in arms for weeks, wondering why the president didn't do something for the Libyan people. Guess what. He's done it. And we're now in our third war in the Middle East.
An aside: Americans need to do a little reading about our long, tawdry relationship with the Middle East. And George H. W. Bush and his idiot son have their fingerprints everywhere.
Please, get the story right, Gryph. W was "eating pretzels, watching TV" and DRINKING all at the same time. Now THAT is what repubs. call "multi-tasking".
ReplyDeleteI see the difference. We went into Afghanistan because bin Laden was there and while the Afghans were willing to surrender him, they conditioned that there be no potential death penalty for him. That was unacceptable, and so we invaded.
ReplyDeleteWhen we got anywhere near bin Laden, at Tora Bora, Bush, who had started his presidency wanting a war with Iraq, dropped his interest in bin Laden and went for the oil, with what results you know.
Libya- we didn't ask to do anything with Libya. The Libyans were appealing to the U.N. As a member nation we're required to cooperate with U.N. resolutions (although I realize we don't, always.)
From Politico:
ReplyDelete"The (Brazil) trip is a rare one for the first daughters. "Usually when the president and I travel, these two are in school -- where they need to be," she said to laughter.
But Obama said her daughters were able to make the trip because "they're on a break now."
After her remarks, the first lady and her party took in a cultural performance."
What? They didn't head right to an air-conditioned mall? What kind of outing is that?
That would be Multi-tasker-in-chief. And yes, he's good at it, unlike certain people who only claim to be good at it. We could call her the resume-padder-in-chief.
ReplyDeleteHave you noticed that the bots are trying to call the no-fly zone the "Palin Doctrine" as many times as possible? Perhaps saying it enough times makes wishes come true...
ReplyDeleteI also trust him and I believe in Humanitarian interventions.
ReplyDeleteI am also conflicted with our involvement in Libya. I'm so afraid we are going to be in another long drawn out war with no end. I was also upset with Gaddafi slaughtering his own people. I do not understand the intricacies of the Middle East. It is a very very tangled complicated culture with thousands of years of conflict. We are in a no win situation I fear.
ReplyDeleteMr. Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but I find it completely astounding that decisions are quickly made to either support President Obama or not based on the "news" we receive. Having supported C-Level executives my whole life (decision makers and check writers), "public" news equals to about 10% of what has really transpired. It's the best summarized version that can be delivered in a short amount of time to a whole lot of people at once. It is right or fair? Depends on what it is. Does it always work? No, but it's why soundbites were created and are used to this day.
Now, this President's mannerism says that he has weighed all of options and after careful consideration made the best decision possible. He has not wavered from that since Day 1. As a former soldier, I understand the weight of his decision because I have lived and served under the same circumstance. Only because he has shown me how he handles a crisis -- behind the scenes with deliberate actions and a strategic thought process -- I trust that he made the most out of a horrific situation. So, in short, screw your impatience and decision to go after President Obama simply because you are operating off of limited knowledge and an unrealistic expectation for immediate answers and resolve. I do strongly suggest in the future, when it comes to President Obama's decisions, come up with your immediate conclusion and then wait, think, go deeper, think some more, wait, think, go just a bit deeper, think some more, get some paper to write down how you connect your thoughts and discoveries, draw your conclusion and THEN share. No offense though.
"So if the President felt he had no other choice but to engage in military action this time I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. At least for a little while."
ReplyDeleteMe too. While this news is discouraging, I believe that our Pres does nothing without careful thought and consideration beforehand (as opposed to...well, you know). However, if this latest conflict does drag on with no end in sight, we have a responsibility as progressive citizens to stand up and speak out.
Watch this man 'DITHER'! It's boggling what he gets done while he's just 'playing with kids'...
ReplyDeleteBrazil and the U.S. Saturday on occasion of U.S. President Barack Obama's first official visit to South America unveiled a series of accords on trade and investment aimed at reducing barriers for bilateral commerce and supporting local Brazilian economic development.
The agreements signed include expansion of passenger air service between the two countries, cooperation on large upcoming local sporting events, cooperation on biofuels, environment, and labor regulations, space program development, and creation of a joint U.S.-Brazil panel to identify new trade and investment opportunities.
According to official documents, the air service accord will allow increased reciprocal access of Brazilian and U.S. companies to the countries' respective domestic destinations, as well as expanded sales, marketing and aircraft maintenance options.
The space cooperation accord sets forth "guidelines" for possible future joint operations between the Brazilian Space Agency, AEB, and Nasa, allowing for joint research and operation of facilities and equipment.
Additionally, a sporting event cooperation accord will focus on "planning and strategic development, infrastructure, security, tourism and hospitality support, and commercial enterprise" for major international sporting events planned in Brazil in coming years.
Brazil is scheduled to host the 2014 World Cup soccer championship and the 2016 Olympics.
During his visit to the Brazilian capital, Brasilia, Obama is scheduled to hold meetings with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and later attend a conference of CEOs from top Brazilian and U.S. companies.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110319-700897.html
Obama charms Brazilians during two-day visit, observers say
ReplyDeleteSustained applause echoed through Rio de Janeiro's Municipal Theatre as Obama spoke a few words in Portuguese, made allusions to Brazilian culture and drew parallels to U.S. history.
"Our journeys began in similar ways," Obama said during the televised speech.
"We became colonies claimed for distant crowns, but soon declared our independence. We welcomed waves of immigrants to our shores, and eventually cleansed the stain of slavery from our land," he said.
"It was an historic speech," said Eduardo Eugenio Gouvea Viera, who represents FIRJAN, Brazil's leading industry federation.
"The message he gave was that the most worthy value to Brazilians and Americans is freedom," Viera told Brazil's official Agencia Brasil.
Abdias Nascimento, a representative of Brazil's Movimento Negro, said Obama's speech was "profound."
"Obama succeeded in striking the most sensitive chords in the souls of Brazil and Americans," Nascimento told Agencia Brasil.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/03/20/brazil..obama/index.html?hpt=T2
He's so good with kids!
ReplyDeletehttp://blackwaterdog.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/5491/
What a gorgeous family!
ReplyDeletehttp://blackwaterdog.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/5491/
President Obama on Brazil: “Blessed by God and beautiful by nature” (‘Abencoado por Deus e bonito por natureza’)
ReplyDeleteThose lovely Obama girls are growing up right before our eyes, they are just precious!
http://theobamadiary.com
Hahahahahaha, I never heard that story about the pretzels.
ReplyDeleteI think the most disappointing thing to me is the 'fool me twice' BS that we always seem to be suckers for when it comes to the Arab League. They pushed for this intervention, signaled they would be the primary responsible party and then turned around and condemned it. At some point we are going to have to call their bluff--like immediately ceasing all military actions they requested when they pull this kind of shit and letting them deal with the fallout from Arab citizens.
ReplyDeleteWHile I may not be condone the US participation in bombing yest another Muslim nation, I must remind myself that the US is participating in a UN action. The US was not the first nation to move on Lybia: France took the lead.
ReplyDeleteThe right is having a fit, because this is what they do everytime President Obama breaths. Last week, they were screaming because he had not intervened. This week it is because the UN did intervene and the US was not leading the charge.
Do not forget the Omara Gadafi is one of "ours" just like Sadam was. Do not forget how much oil we get from Lybia. If we only knew the sweet deal that Gadafi was given by the "oil power brokers." WHich Bush signed off on that deal?
I agree with you, Gryphen. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I want to make sure we keep to our withdrawal schedule for Afghanistan and see even less involvement in Iraq. He's apparently kept his promise in Iraq.
That said, I am still very upset about Guantanamo. Why we haven't closed that down or given more attention to civilian trials is beyond me. We need to shut it down or explain why not.
From HuffPo:
ReplyDelete"U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said late Sunday that the U.S. expects turn over control of the operation to a coalition headed by France, Britain or NATO 'in a matter of days,' reflecting concern that the U.S. military was stretched thin by its current missions. Turkey was blocking NATO action, which requires agreement by all 28 members of the alliance."
When Shrub was our first special-needs president (shudder) the GOPers insisted that, as a wartime leader he should never be criticized. And the obsequious Dems obeyed for 6 years. In contrast, President Obama is the leader of the same wars, is basically following the Shrub playbook and is relentlessly hounded by the same critics who let Shrub get away with murder (literally). Obama cant do anything right in their eyes except pass the tax-cut extension.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, it's very troubling to see us walk again thru the well-worn door marked "WAR". There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the rebels in Libya are, if successful, unlikely to establish a US-friendly regime. Yet I want very very much to discover that our president has done the right thing and that we don't become mired in another unending cesspool of middle east warfare.
‘The Un-Bush’
ReplyDeleteWhat’s increasingly clear watching the play of events over the past week is that Obama really does want to change the narrative about America and the Arab world – even at the cost of being criticized as vacillating and weak-willed. He senses (rightly, in my view) that over the past several decades America, without really intending to, became a post-colonial power in the Middle East. The narrative of American military intervention stretches from Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan, with the ghastly interlude of Sept. 11, 2001. Obama seems determined to break with it. He really is the un-Bush.
http://theobamadiary.com/2011/03/21/turning-a-page/
Bottom line is we don't have the money.
ReplyDeleteLibya is Europe's neighbor this is their game to play with their own money and own lives.
We are in fact already in three illegal wars. We have invaded Pakistani soil and airspace and perpetrated acts of war on their soil and their people. It is the third war.
We were already bankrupt from the crash of 2000-2003 before we got into the first war. We simply cannot do this.
But Duhbya, whether is was from pretzels or booze was really good at the passing out part.
ReplyDeleteI too am conflicted at this action. On the one hand, a part of me wants the U.S. to stand up for freedom fighters in search of democracy, but I'm not sure these particular rebels are indeed searching for democracy. They may be just wanting to depose the current Suni dictator and replace him with a new Shi'ite dictator. I think that's why President Obama waited and evaluated this situation instead of acting "decisively" as Snowdrift Snooki says (what she really means is "shoot from the hip" and ask questions later). This situation is complex and required thought, negotiation and cooperation of others to make this a UN effort not strictly a US one. I will give this president the benefit of the doubt and hope that we will be able to turn the fight back over to the parties involved.
ReplyDeleteOne commenter said that the Arab League is now denouncing the air cover. Can you provide a link for that? I haven't seen that anywhere. Rather, on CNN last night I heard that the AL was directing some hardware - tanks and guns - to the rebels in Banghazi.
~physicsmom
"The president does not have 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." - Sen. Barack Hussein Obama
ReplyDeleteDecember 20, 2007.
This is just going to turn out like another Iraq or Afghanistan. We've been lied to:
ReplyDeletehttp://free-the-truth.blogspot.com/2011/03/another-war-another-lie.html
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/21/arab-league-denounces-military-strikes-by-u-s-and-allies-on-libya/
ReplyDelete