"Obama as Hardheaded Liberal"

[Cha]

"The president was accused of neglecting alliances and ceding too much ground to allies in Libya, but this week’s successes in Tripoli prove he’s heir to Roosevelt and Truman."

Quote: Conservative commentators have mocked Obama’s belief in the efficacy of international rules. Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope that “nobody benefits more than we do from the observance of the international ‘rules of the road.’” Many of these rules were established by Roosevelt and Truman, who believed that a rule-based system amplified U.S. power rather than constraining it. And it was the propensity of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to break international rules and agreements that hardened those two presidents’ determination to contain and defeat them.

Quote:Events this week indicate that Obama’s approach in Libya has managed to cripple the Gaddafi regime in a way that maximizes the Libyan people's ownership of the victory and minimizes the risks and costs to the United States. The contrast with George W. Bush’s approach in Iraq is stunning.

>much more<
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...libya.html

[Peadar O Suileabhain]

Bravo!

This is an area where the kncklehead right and vaporhead left make the same mistake. They both believed that, since Obama has a funny name and culturally exotic background, must be a naive lefty radical at heart. The truth is, he is basically a Democrat in the JFK mold. He has an idealistic committment to human rights and liberties, but he pursues those ideals using a smart, clear-headed approach that places an emphasis on international cooperation, vigorous diplomacy, and the use of soft as well as hard power.

The knckleheads can't bring themselves to accept the fact that Obama got rid of bin Laden AND Qaddaffi in the span of three months. The vaporheads resent the fact that he isn't prancing around promoting nonsense like a Department of Peace or engaging in Henry Walalce-style kumbaya isolationism.

[Cha]

Well stated, Peadar. I like that description "Vigorous Diplomacy" Very!

His critics.. "We could have done it faster!" "We shouldn't have helped a all!"

And, President Obama does what he thinks is the right thing to do after compelling facts are brought to him. We're living in reality now..that's one of the best things I like about the Obama Presidency.

I do not want that taken away.

[Number23]

(08-28-2011 01:36 PM)Cha Wrote:  

Quote:Events this week indicate that Obama’s approach in Libya has managed to cripple the Gaddafi regime in a way that maximizes the Libyan people's ownership of the victory and minimizes the risks and costs to the United States. The contrast with George W. Bush’s approach in Iraq is stunning.

>much more<
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...libya.html

Exactly. I was just about to say something similar. That this should have been the policy (if any) in Iraq. The Iraqi people needed help, but what they damn sure didn't need was an invasion which eventually led to an unhinged insurgency that turned on its own brothers as quickly as it turned on the enemy.

I find it interesting that many are now taking the tack that Obama "bombed" or "invaded" Libya. Which is of course the complete opposite of what happened.

His critics are hilarious in their impotent rage. McCain and the Repubs criticize him for doing "too little too late" and the "left" criticizes him for "invading Libya." In a competition to decide who is the most wrong, it's hard to tell the winner here.

[Cha]

(08-28-2011 07:34 PM)Number23 Wrote:  

(08-28-2011 01:36 PM)Cha Wrote:  >much more<
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...libya.html

Exactly. I was just about to say something similar. That this should have been the policy (if any) in Iraq. The Iraqi people needed help, but what they damn sure didn't need was an invasion which eventually led to an unhinged insurgency that turned on its own brothers as quickly as it turned on the enemy.

I find it interesting that many are now taking the tack that Obama "bombed" or "invaded" Libya. Which is of course the complete opposite of what happened.

His critics are hilarious in their impotent rage. McCain and the Repubs criticize him for doing "too little too late" and the "left" criticizes him for "invading Libya." In a competition to decide who is the most wrong, it's hard to tell the winner here.

It's a big contest between the neo-cons and the professional whiners' club as to who can tell the biggest lies to fit their latest "Obama was mean to me!", scenario

Right...Iraq didn't need to get bombed to smithereens, their treasures in their museums looted, "over a Million dead Iraqis", over 4, 000 American Soldiers dead, and a cost of over 8 Billion $$$.

[Eponine]

That's a terrific article. I agree with the author100 percent