Reactions have poured in:

It was a beautiful speech, especially the end. But I still don’t know how long we’re going to be in Libya. Or what we ultimately want to see there, aside from Qaddafi leaving, somehow. Or what we’re obligated to do, now that we’ve done what we said we were going to do, but not really. It was vintage Obama: I’m moved but unconvinced.

I’m torn.  The president’s speech was a sweeping ode to American exceptionalism, and the need for American intervention to clamp down on  the scurrilous reach of the unjust and wicked.  I got that message loud and clear.  What I didn’t get loud and clear, was the implicit directive, or the direction our new engagement will take us.  How will we achieve our aims if the resistance steps up their attacks and drives the rebels back?  How entrenched will our involvement get?

I’m not sure the president himself truly knows these answers.  I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t.  But I would surmise that this is precisely what make people leery of his policy and direction a tad bit nervous.  Committing to yet another engagement without a clear, concise directive in a time of economic uncertainty and war fatigue is a dangerous political calculation.  And this one will be owned solely by him.

Then again, maybe the answer lay in America’s ability to exert our exceptionalism as I’ve stated.  Maybe this president–giving a turn as the unapologetic freedom fighter–has one true aim:  to defend liberty.  That can never be bad can it?  Let’s hope it is not.

I suppose I’ll have to see the Obama Doctrine on Libya as one of American moral relativism– and democratic righteousness in the face of callous, cruel and despotic behavior.  And while it does not answer the questions I posed above– or deal with the real possibility of a continuing Qaddafi regime– it is what we have.  I hope we can all live with the consequences.

Related posts:

1. When Will Someone Do The Really Hard Work? Alan Simpson is on point.  When will someone be the...
2. Thank You Rush Limbaugh… …For giving us a snapshot of the only possible direction...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

We have now tread precipitously into radical Islamist territory–you know, the ones who believe America is the “Great Satan,”and Christianity is of the devil.  This is coming from conservatives’ most intellectual leader– the man who aspires to the presidency.  He’s proving himself to be nothing more than a fringe partisan hack.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Commander David Petraeus

General David Petraeus– the top commander of American military forces in Afghanistan– has a message for the good Christians of Dove World Church who plan to hold a Quran burning rally September 11th, 2010: Don’t do it.

Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians.

“It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort,” Gen. Petraeus said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here [in Afghanistan], but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”

Rational, forward thinking people would already know this.  The true aim of the war hawks in conservative circles is not to point out the evils of radical Islamists. The real purpose is to gin up and foment hatred toward Muslims any way possible.  These people want to continue to exploit any chasm between America and the Muslim world for the sole purpose of justifying war.

The poor, misguided soles of Dove World Church are caught in the neoconservatives‘ war narrative– in which they use religion to validate hatred.  It’s not the first time this has happened, and it won’t be the last.  It is just so very tragic– and it makes America no better than Islamist radicals.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Photo courtesy of Reuters

“Now, the president, with all the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer and as a part-time senator, and as a full-time candidate, all that experience, still no accomplishment to date with North Korea and Iran.”  Sarah Palin, speaking at SRLC, April 9th, 2010

President Obama is hosting 47 world leaders in Washington, D.C. for a two day summit on nuclear non-proliferation and terrorism.  It is the first summit of its kind in more than 50 years, and it has already borne fruit.  The Ukraine has decided to eliminate its nuclear material.  This is a real policy victory.  Former Soviet republics like the Ukraine, have an abundance of enriched uranium, shining like a beacon to terrorist organizations seeking such to craft a weapon.  The crux of the summit is to secure world cooperation in eliminating the threat of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists–and ultimately reducing the threat of nuclear warfare.

This is most admirable, even if it may not be totally achievable.  Does the president have the will and experience to tackle such a difficult subject? Let’s take a closer look into the president’s work on nuclear non-proliferation. While doing so, please keep the above quote from Sarah Palin in mind.

The Obama administration has negotiated its first major arms control treaty: a new pact between the U.S. and Russia that would cut by 30 percent the number of strategic nuclear warheads each country is permitted to deploy.

In 2005, in his first foreign trip as a U.S. senator, Obama traveled to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The purpose of the trip was to examine facilities for the storage and destruction of conventional, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Obama and Lugar subsequently co-wrote a December 2005 Washington Post op-ed on the issue and appeared together in a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations on “Challenges Ahead For Cooperative Threat Reduction,” in which Obama detailed ways to improve the U.S. program to control, secure, and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.

Obama and Lugar co-authored the “Lugar-Obama non-proliferation initiative,” which “enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world.” The legislation was signed into law by President Bush in January 2007. According to a June 28, 2007, press release from Lugar, he and Obama subsequently secured “$36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies.”

Obama introduced the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977), with then-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as an original co-sponsor, which would “provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.”

Obama reportedly authored his college thesis on “Soviet nuclear disarmament.” Moreover, Washington Monthly reported in September 2006: “On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons. Lugar took note, as ‘nonproliferation’ is about as common a campaign sound-bite for aspiring senators as ‘exchange-rate policy’ or ‘export-import bank oversight.’”

Moving beyond the red-meat rhetoric and empty firebrand talking points, one gets the sense that the president’s credibility on this issue is nuanced, iron-clad and genuine.  It comes from a position of strength and knowledge.   His efforts will result in a more secure world, where all nations–even nations in which Sarah Palin is a part– will play a role in being accountable for nuclear security and non-proliferation.  Does this mean we’re all safe from nuclear holocaust?  No, but the path is more clear, and the foundation has been laid to advance the summit’s goal. 

Nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism pose the greatest threat to the collective security of all nations, and it’s time someone led the charge against it.  And those that question the president’s initiatives– without full knowledge of his experience on them– should be advised to think before they speak.  Bravo Mr. President.

HT: Media Matters

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Why does she even bother to speak?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is from Daniel Pipes, National Review Online columnist:

I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work against. But here is an idea for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects the United States and its allies….

…This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama’s attempts to “reset” his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players.

He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

…He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign-policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and Japan).

Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.

This is how Pipes begins his column.  And while I’m sure the president appreciates his advice, and the backhanded manner in which it was given, I don’t believe Pipes’ wet dream of going to war with Iran will happen–at least not for the lame-ass reasoning Mr. Pipes gives.  But let’s not just use extemporaneous thinking here.  Let’s tackle some of Mr. Pipes’ assertions head on with a few facts.

Let’s talk about foreign relations with the Chinese.  President Obama, eager to provide a new form of global leadership– that relies more on partnership than bluntness– met serious resistance from a new Chinese government.  One that is a newly recognized economic power, making its own demands.  It is the Chinese, buoyed by their status in the global economy– who want to know why America’s economy is in tatters– and why we can’t seem to clean up our government finances.  President Obama’s lone position of strength was the office he holds, and even that has been diminished by the putrid display of presidential authority by President George W. Bush.

While no concessions were won by this administration, I would hardly call his first foray into the foreign policy spotlight a failure– especially so early in his presidency.  To this point Mr. Pipes, I consider you just another conservative ideologue, beating the drum for the failed policies of old.  Which leads me into point two.

Pipes must surely recognize the term ideologue because that’s what he and his party currently are.  For the past year, conservatives’ best (and only) strategy on policy issues important to Americans was to saying no.  It was not in their best interests politically, to vote for any piece of legislation coming through the Washington pipeline.  That’s pretty sound political strategy, but it’s not leadership.  In fact, it’s a dereliction of duty.  It’s a deliberate slap in the face of American voters, who voted to send them to Washington to bring about a change in Washington politics.  And why?  Simply because they could.

If voters empower their elected officials to enact policies they deem appropriate, what are we to do?  This is the nature of democracy.  One party wins, one party does not.  To hold up legislation just to spite the opposition is petty.  It’s the true definition of an ideologue, and you and your conservative brethren Mr. Pipes have come to define the term.  Not the president.

Point three is health care, and while I could write a novel discussing the nuances of the health care reform debate, I won’t.  I’ll just simply refer you to the previous paragraph, and add one additional caveat:  Demagoguery and obstruction created a hostile, poisonous atmosphere this past year.  It held us all captive not just over the substance of the bills debated, but the process of the debate.  And while I am on record as saying the president’s handling of the legislative process was wrong here, and here– the fundamental principle does not change:  GOP obstinance was real because they had no intention of reforming our health care system.  They never have, and they never will.

To illustrate my point:  Congressman Mike Pence, (R-IN) asked the president at the house GOP retreat last Friday whether or not he would support a GOP initiative to include consumers buying insurance across state lines.  The president, almost incredulously, told the congressman that that piece of language was already in the senate bill.  Why is this important?  Because it plainly shows that no member of the house republican leadership bothered to do their research, and read the damn bill!  Ignorance and obstinance is appalling.  They have indeed put party before country.

So you see Mr. Pipes, I don’t believe the administration is tottering.  I don’t feel they need to start a disingenuous war just to shore up lagging poll numbers.  We’ve already been down that road.  I know it’s one you are intimately familiar with, but the people are done with the “bombs for polling” approach.  If you had any common sense yourself, you would be too.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

2009

(Editor’s note:  This is the first of a three part arc on the tenets of happiness)

We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.  There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified… For make no mistake:  Evil does exist in the world.  A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.? — Barack Obama

Our world is impossibly tragic.  If 2009 proved anything, it’s that terrible things happen to good people.  I don’t know how many people were laid off or foreclosed upon, but the numbers prop up my theory.  In a time of war– tragedy and hopelessness are magnified– unless we allow ourselves to believe in something.  We must allow ourselves to subscribe to hope, and make it our choice.  The President’s quite apt “audacity of hope” mantra, rings more true now than ever before.  How can one be so bold as to believe in hope, when the American dream seems to be slipping beyond our grasp?  How can we sustain hope, when our fears and insecurities bubble to the surface in the face of religious extremism and evil fanaticism?  This seems like an unachievable notion.

But it’s a notion worth believing in. Hope is the engine necessary to power our beliefs and strength.  Andrew Sullivan wrote that “Hope is a choice. As much a choice as faith and love.”  I believe that more now than ever.  It is a necessity to have hope.  It is audacious, but that is the point.  Audacity strengthens us to be what we otherwise would not.  That is how we will prevail in these tragic times.   Rienhold Niebuhr wrote:

Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; there we must be saved by hope.

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; there we must be saved by faith.

Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.

No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our own standpoint.

Therefore we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

wrightandleftreport showcases the faces of the year.

The symbol of a revolution...

...the brutality of oppresion

A fallen hero, not forgotten

Playgirl model, and father

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In discussing Dick Cheney’s latest knife twist in the president’s back, everyone’s favorite nutty congressman Alan Grayson says what most Americans are thinking around the country.  He even elucidates his point for the spitter, Chris Matthews:

Grayson: I don’t know. You know, on the Internet there’s an acronym that’s used to apply to situations like this. It’s called “STFU.” I don’t think I can say that on the air, but I think you know what that means.

Matthews: Well, give me the first part.

Grayson: “Shut.”

Matthews: Oh! I got you. Stop talking, in crude language. Well, I don’t think you’re gonna get him to do that.

I only pray that Cheney takes this advice.  Sadly, that will be a prayer unanswered.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.