Like most people, I've followed the Libya situation, but I have a problem. I've resisted analyzing the situation, and that's what I do. So when I began to get emails asking why I had not written on Libya. my initial reaction was . . . unprintable.
The reason I haven't written about Libya is that there are few facts, a lot of conjecture and an administration that can't explain what it's doing because it doesn't know. Before you accuse me of Obama Bashing, I will remind you that there have been so many contradictory explanations from the White House that there must be a super-secret "Confusion Machine" in the Oval Office programmed by the most convoluted, twisted minds in existence: lawyers.
Now the press is asking if there is (cue trumpet fanfare) an Obama Doctrine. This I can answer: No. There is no Obama Doctrine. If Vegas were giving odds on the existence of an Obama Doctrine, the odds in favor would be lower than the chances of seeing The Great Pumpkin pulled by harnessed West Texas Jackalopes hopping down New York's Fifth Avenue in the parade celebrating the selection of Joe Biden as the world's smartest man and most eloquent speaker. The only odds lower than the existence of an Obama Doctrine are the odds that Barry Bonds did not know he was a human steroid receptacle.
I can only imagine that the reason we are involved in Libya's future, is because the resistance was in the news - you know, like the resistance movements in Syria and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Tunisia and ad darn-near infinitum. So why Libya and not the others may have more to do with Europe than with the United States's best interests.
President Obama has always looked far too much to Europe for approval and not nearly enough to his own constituents. So when the UN was pushed by the Arab League and, more importantly, by countries such as France and Italy to do something about Libya, he was at their beck and call.
I don't suppose the fact that Europe gets a significant portion of its oil from Libya ever crossed President Obama's mind. It's also not occurred to the people who accused the US of being in Iraq due to American oil interests, because they would then protest us being in Libya for European oil interests. Right? No, of course not.
So our President got UN approval to launch over a hundred cruise missiles into Libya, but he was too busy with the NCAA brackets to drop by Congress to see what they thought. US Representative Austin Scott (GA-8) gave President Obama his opinion anyway. Scott pointed out that Obama waited until Congress was adjourned before he deployed US forces in Libya. Scott does not believe the timing was an accident. Neither do I.
Anyway, I can't analyze Libya because there is no logic to the decision-making process. Or perhaps there is no decision-making process, either. There is a vacuum, or perhaps even a leadership black hole. So, my advice is that if you want an explanation of President Obama's action regarding Libya that you contact Professor Stephen Hawking. Good luck, Steve.
The reason I haven't written about Libya is that there are few facts, a lot of conjecture and an administration that can't explain what it's doing because it doesn't know. Before you accuse me of Obama Bashing, I will remind you that there have been so many contradictory explanations from the White House that there must be a super-secret "Confusion Machine" in the Oval Office programmed by the most convoluted, twisted minds in existence: lawyers.
Now the press is asking if there is (cue trumpet fanfare) an Obama Doctrine. This I can answer: No. There is no Obama Doctrine. If Vegas were giving odds on the existence of an Obama Doctrine, the odds in favor would be lower than the chances of seeing The Great Pumpkin pulled by harnessed West Texas Jackalopes hopping down New York's Fifth Avenue in the parade celebrating the selection of Joe Biden as the world's smartest man and most eloquent speaker. The only odds lower than the existence of an Obama Doctrine are the odds that Barry Bonds did not know he was a human steroid receptacle.
I can only imagine that the reason we are involved in Libya's future, is because the resistance was in the news - you know, like the resistance movements in Syria and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Tunisia and ad darn-near infinitum. So why Libya and not the others may have more to do with Europe than with the United States's best interests.
President Obama has always looked far too much to Europe for approval and not nearly enough to his own constituents. So when the UN was pushed by the Arab League and, more importantly, by countries such as France and Italy to do something about Libya, he was at their beck and call.
I don't suppose the fact that Europe gets a significant portion of its oil from Libya ever crossed President Obama's mind. It's also not occurred to the people who accused the US of being in Iraq due to American oil interests, because they would then protest us being in Libya for European oil interests. Right? No, of course not.
So our President got UN approval to launch over a hundred cruise missiles into Libya, but he was too busy with the NCAA brackets to drop by Congress to see what they thought. US Representative Austin Scott (GA-8) gave President Obama his opinion anyway. Scott pointed out that Obama waited until Congress was adjourned before he deployed US forces in Libya. Scott does not believe the timing was an accident. Neither do I.
Anyway, I can't analyze Libya because there is no logic to the decision-making process. Or perhaps there is no decision-making process, either. There is a vacuum, or perhaps even a leadership black hole. So, my advice is that if you want an explanation of President Obama's action regarding Libya that you contact Professor Stephen Hawking. Good luck, Steve.
No comments:
Post a Comment