Opinion Forum

Obama Takes A Stand on Libya

February 25th, 2011

Obama has finally taken a stand on the ongoing carnage in Libya. After nine days of silence, he has finally, and forcefully, condemned the “outrageous” crackdown by Libyan security forces on protesters. He also said that a unified international response was forming. Whew.

Translation: America will stand firmly behind the United Nations. We will wait and see what the global consensus and political ramifications are before taking sides against a murderous thug.

The day before Obama firmly came out on the side of world peace via Libya, his press secretary had informed the world that Obama’s nine-day silence on the Libyan inferno was due to “scheduling conflicts.” Now that Obama has made time in his schedule, he has finally made a decision. America is going to let the United Nations handle the problem.

Obama, in his best presidential voice (complete with reverb), has decided to dispatch Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the United Nations to persuade them to take the lead on the Libyan fiasco. Hillary’s job is to convince other third world dictators that hiring sociopaths to randomly shoot protesters in cold blood is just not the way to go.

No word yet if her diplomatic efforts will bear fruit. Hope, however, is still Obama’s policy. As to whether his hope will affect change, the signs are encouraging. Gadhafi took time off from killing protesters to confirm to the world that Barack is his buddy. “He is of Muslim descent, his policy should be supported, as he now leans towards peace.” There you have it.

Meanwhile, the United Nations also showed its desire for world peace by making a small concession. The U.N. Development Program has dropped Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s daughter as a goodwill ambassador.

With the United Nations firmly in charge, Americans will not be able to blame Obama. After all, Obama has been perfectly clear from day one that he favors a “global community” over an upstart and aggressive United States. What right does America have to a premier position in world affairs? Finally, Obama is standing by a position he actually took during his presidential campaign.

America, under Obama, has abdicated its leadership authority in world affairs. Instead of meddling in other countries, Obama has instead focused his power and authority here at home. His wife is conducting a war on obesity while Obama meets quietly with union leaders to figure out how to stop the anti-union protests that threaten his base. His schedule is full as he works tirelessly on behalf of some Americans.

Not to worry. The United States still has influence in the Arab world. Just yesterday, Saudi Arabia adopted one of Obama’s most visible policies for dealing with recalcitrant subjects.

Taking a cue from Obama, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah decided to quell unrest by throwing dollars on the problem. Abdullah announced that he will generously spend $36 billion bucks to increase the pay of civil servants by 15%. The King also announced a reprieve for imprisoned deadbeats and increased aid for students and the unemployed.

See, America still has influence. Now if some of those terrorists would just cut down on their carbs, we might finally be able to achieve the world peace Obama promised us.

(This article was first published in American Thinker and was also posted at Right Bias.)

Articles written by Nancy Morgan
Tags: foreign policy, Gadhafi, Libya, protests, revolution, Saudi Arabia, UN
Categories: News, Politics | Comments (3) | Home

3 Responses to “Obama Takes A Stand on Libya”

Tom Carter | February 26th, 2011 at 4:47 pm

I can agree that the Administration has not handled these crises very well. But then, what would they have done to handle them well? The most important consideration in foreign policy, always, is American interests. Was it right to withdraw support from Mubarak, for example, only to see him hang on to power and resent the U.S. for not supporting him? Was it right to support the protesters with no idea of where things would go? If Egypt ends up under the control of more or less militant islamists, which I think is the most likely outcome, that certainly isn’t good for the U.S. Libya may be a little easier to figure out, but we still face some possible outcomes that may not be in the best interests of the U.S. Personally, I wouldn’t want to have been the president who had to figure all this out.

Dan Miller | February 26th, 2011 at 7:40 pm

Tom, you say Personally, I wouldn’t want to have been the president who had to figure all this out.

That’s one of the things presidents, with a lot of help from their chosen experts, are for. Instead we got a community organizer of dubious background with no relevant experience and apparently at most slight interest in foreign policy and no better grounding or interest in economic policy. Military knowledge in the commander in chief? Might as well forget it; he has as much as a Chicago machine ~~corps~~ corpse.

One reason he is our president may be that no competent person in his right mind would want the job; the glory and the other perks perhaps, such as they are, but those are hardly a suitable inducement for someone likely to do less harm than good and therefore worth having.

Tom Carter | February 27th, 2011 at 2:35 am

No argument, Dan. I would like to believe, as I once did, that Obama is smart enough to rise to the task despite his limited experience; that would include picking the right smart people to help him. I wanted him to be a successful president. That doesn’t mean I supported all his policy preferences, but I wanted him to do well in general, particularly in foreign policy. But it didn’t happen.

Having said that, I’m still not quite sure what critics would have had him do from the beginning (and not with the advantage of hindsight).