NATO In Name Only

It seems that NATO is not pulling its weight in the big "O"'s Libyan action. American commanders have considered standing down American assets until more multinational involvement is forthcoming.

So much for the strength of Obama's multinational coalition. There seems to be a steady evaporation of support from the Arab nations, the United Nations, now NATO.

Obamas Justification Speech on Libya

 

"after bi-partisan consultation
with congress"

Tonight President Obama gave his speech justifying his bombing of Libya.  I noticed a few subtle things, the first of which was his gloating over how he didn't put ground troops on the ground yet a few sentences later emphasized that the action would use what ever means necessary.  The second was his mention that the action as of Wednesday would be a NATO action with the United States in support roles.  The "support" roles are not clearly defined.  The most glaring was his statement that he in fact did consult with congress in a bi-partisan way before taking action, a fact that's disputed by congress in a bi-partisan way.

The one thing he did admit indirectly was that he made a mess out of the country in that he acknowledged that it will take years to get a decent government in place.

Is Libya or its people better off ?  Are the interests of the United States better off by his action?  These two questions are yet to be answered.  One must not forget Oama was a protagonist in this uprising and thus one of the causes of the massacres, even if it was only through his incompetence.

****update****

After writing this I was reminded of the Obama apology tour early in his administration where he apologized for the very actions of our country through the years that he bragged about as great accomplishments tonight.

Thank you to Guido!!!!

**** 2nd update 26 nov 2012 ****

 

Benghazi !