Liveblogging Obama’s Libya Speech At 7:30 PM EST
Tonight at 7:30 PM EST, I’ll be liveblogging Obama’s speech on his ill-thought-out Libyan adventure. So, rather than watch the incoherence and scream at the TV alone, head on over to RWN, where you can commiserate with other people about what an idiot we have in the White House.
7:31. Here we go.
7:32: Oh, now we’ve “led” the effort in Libya — and it’s not a good sign when you have to explain why this “matters to us.”
7:33: Our interests are at stake in Libya? That’s not what Robert Gates said.
7:35: I said Gaddaffi needed to step down from power….which is the real reason we’re there. Obama’s mouth wrote a check our military has to cash.
7:36: Once again, we’re “leading” the effort. Interesting change-up from their previous rhetoric.
7:37: Gaddaffi killed his people so we had to move….which is different from say, Syria, how?
7:38: It was not in our national interest to let Gaddafi slaughter his people….why is that? Does anyone know? Apparently Obama defines “I felt like it” as our “national interest.”
7:40: We moved really rapidly! Isn’t it great how fast we got it together? Ehr….so what.
7:41: We are putting no troops on the ground and transferring our responsibilities to other people. That’s good at least.
7:42: Were there people who doubted we were capable of kicking Gaddafi’s behind? Like who?
7:43. We continue to pursue a broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to the people. So, democracy is a goal? Ugh, ugh, ugh.
7:44: Some question why America should intervene at all. Why Libya and not zillions of other places? Good question. Survey says? That’s true, but….no real answer other than “because we could.” That’s not an answer at all. The US can’t turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries…ehr, but we can and we do and you WILL.
7:47: This is in the national interest because the UN would be embarrassed and refugees would have gone into Egypt. Pretty huge stretch.
7:48: Actually there is a BIG QUESTION about whether Libya and more importantly, our country, will be better off with the opposition in charge instead of Gaddafi.
7:49: There would be too much blood and treasure involved in getting deeply involved in Libya. True. We shouldn’t have gotten involved at all.
7:50. He seems to be going back and forth on Gaddafi. Gadaffi’s got to go, but we’re not going to insist on it. What?
7:51: We’re going after Al-Qaeda whereever they seek a foothold — well, except in the Libyan opposition. There, we’re helping Al-Qaeda gain power.
7:52: This isn’t real leadership because what happens in Libya was irrelevant to America. If we’re leading on something that’s irrelevant, who cares?
7:55: Using the exact same justification Obama used to attack Libya, we could attack Iran or Syria.
7:56: We should welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East, but we should also be aware that we have yet to realize where it’s moving to yet.
Grade: B-. Good delivery even if it didn’t make a lot of sense. Of course, this was already a horrible muddle and no speech could adequately explain what we are already doing.
Melissa Clouthier and I are rocking the video blogging – sorry about my delay. It’s ustream’s fault. Live TV :
Just around MemoGate I was an aspiring reporter who was prepping for a career in investigative journalism. In my spare