Obama on Libya: Oh Well, Whatever, Nevermind

Here are some things we know about President Obama’s prime-time speech tonight regarding his decision to engage U.S. forces in (ahem) “kinetic military action” in Libya.

First, it was long: At a little more than 3300 words as prepared for delivery, it was nearly half the length of this year’s State of the Union address.

Second, it didn’t address lingering questions about whether the action was constitutional, or criticism arguing that Obama should have sought Congressional approval before the strike; the word “Congress” appeared only once in the speech, when Obama alludes to having consulted “the bipartisan leadership of Congress.” Needless to say, no form of the word “Constitution” appeared at all.

Third, it was probably Obama’s worst-delivered major speech as president. At his best, he is a genuinely moving orator. But tonight, as Obama fumbled words and projected an aura of anxious, irritated certainty, he resembled—in both content and delivery—no one more than his halting, reticent predecessor, George W. Bush.

Here’s what we don’t know after tonight’s speech: why we’re at war with Libya.

Obama asserted on multiple occasions that it was in our “national interest” to intervene in Libya. Why? Well, it’s still not entirely clear. Obama warned that had we not acted, Gaddafi might have gone forth with a “massacre” that would have “stained the conscience of the world.” But massacres—terrible, tragic, and barbarous as they are—have happened before, and will almost certainly happen again, without U.S. intervention. What makes this one different? Obama never offered a convincing explanation, probably because there isn't one. Even his defense secretary, Robert Gates, admitted just a few days ago that America does not have a “vital interest” in Libya. Instead, the president fell back on assertion: “When our interests and values are at stake,” he said, “we have a responsibility to act.”

Obama may not have been able to justify the mission, but he assured Americans that it was done in cooperation the international community. And he congratulated America and the U.S.-led coalition for moving swiftly: 

To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

Kudos to you, America: Your military is able to wage war swiftly even in the absence of clear goals or anything resembling an endgame.  

And lest anyone doubt the might of the American war machine, the U.S. military is even able to conduct quick, poorly justified military actions while managing several other needless, expensive wars in the background. The president chided “those who doubted our ability to carry out this operation,” retorting that “the United States has done what we said we would do.” Which is what, exactly? Not “war,” but “time-limited, scope-limited military action,” or something. Never mind, I guess, that no one—not even the president—really seems to know just why we’re doing even that.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Meng Bomin||

    Quaddafi? That's a new one.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Obama's lack of an exit strategy is nicely matched by the absence of an entry strategy.

    Tonight's speech made that crystal clear.

  • Southerner||

    Yeah; kind of easy to say you're accomplishing your mission when you haven't specified what the mission is.

  • Team Blue||

    Well George Bush aircraft carrier Hallibuton Karl Rove.

    So there. And don't forget, WE are The Smart People.

  • JoshiNHB||

    You forgot
    Palin Kochtopus kkkorporashuns.

  • Suki||

    If he backpedals any faster he might reverse time.

  • P B||

    +1

  • ||

    My favorite was when he said "dark forces" in Iran. Some Bush speechwriter clearly stuck around for that line

  • nekoxgirl||

    Me and my husband burst out laughing when he said that. Apparently Iran is now run by Sauran?

    The threat in the East!

  • Mike M.||

    Here’s what we don’t know after tonight’s speech: why we’re at war with Libya.

    I know why. Here's a hint: think "fromage".

  • sevo||

    So one guy tells us we're at war with some portion of the Libyan population because we need Arab street cred.
    And now you're saying we're ditto so Obama doesn't get laughed at by the French?
    Oh, good.

  • .||

    Cheese?

  • Ted S.||

    What does frottage have to do with Libya?

  • Trespassers W||

    Libya rubs me the wrong way.

  • ||

    "Robert Gates, admitted just a few days ago that America has a “vital interest” in Libya."

    I think (hope) there's supposed to be a negative in there somewhere.

    Obama did a great job changing the subject by discussing what we had done and how well we had done it. No shit. US + UK + France etc vs Libya. Was there really a lot of money on Libya on this one? Or is that just a self-congratulating way of taking up time in a speech so you don't have to actually address issues that matter, like...

    WTF does this have to do with us?

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    it's like Kansas vs. VCU.
    oh wait.

  • Almanian||

    Goddamnit, I just snorted sandwich through my nose at that.

    It hurt, but it was worth it...

  • Peter Suderman||

    There is. Corrected. Thanks!

  • Southerner||

    I'm thinking it's a misplaced modifier. Take out the part about Gates and add it back on the end, change a "that" to a "what" in the Gates part, and you've got a working, if somewhat awkward and lengthy sentence:

    "Obama never explained that America has a “vital interest” in Libya, perhaps not surprising given what his defense secretary, Robert Gates, admitted just a few days ago."

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Hey, in Red Alert 2 Libya was pretty tough.

  • Achtung Baby||

    Am I supposed to read the title of this article with guitar feedback buzzing in the background?

  • Kolohe||

    And while wearing a plaid flannel shirt.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's hard to blarg nawdle zouss, with all those marbles in your mouth.

  • pradahandbags||

    Nubuck. This is another soft type of leather that is also popular among designers. Some Prada handbags, such as the Prada Nubuck Cow Leather New Style bag, are made out of this velvety leather. Nubuck leather is made by sanding the outer part of a cow’s or a lamb’s skin, producing suede-like finish that is powdery soft to the touch. Nubuck is a close prada sunglasses Prada handbags are about richness of materials. The regular used classic materials such as leather, calfskin, deerskin, fox fur, and nylon. Many new materials like crystals, woods, even tortoise shells are boldly used to make different and attractive bags. Those trendy and hot bags are most favored by fashion diva and supermodels.

    JEOxiaonie0329

  • ||

    This ad-bot gave me more info about our shiny new war in Libya then Obama's speech did.

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    Libya is a key supplier of Nubuck.

  • sevo||

    And the treasured hides of Nauga.

  • Almanian||

    Are those on the endangered list? If not, they should be...

  • ||

    As recently as 1970, great herds of nauga stretched across the plains of Libya...

  • Billy Shakespeare||

    I saw that on a nature show--they thundered across the burning sands!

  • rather||

    Did you compose a sonnet about it?

  • AU H20||

    Hey, rather... where's the post explaining your meaning of the term political isolationism and summarizing your basic arguments.

    I mean, I want to bask in your clear brilliance, but you just won't let me.

  • Devil Inchoate||

    Even Obama did not want to be shown up by the French.

  • Buck||

    We must not allow a Nubuck gap!

  • sevo||

    Hey, MNG! Tell us again how we're not "at war" with those whom we're bombing! It's *always* great!

  • ||

    Explain, also, how the air strikes are getting called in with no "boots" on the ground? The rebels sure have talent.

  • sevo||

    "The rebels sure have talent."
    Deepak Chopra will make it clear. Or make it stupid. You know; 'feelings'.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Those are Libyan boots, not American boots. American boots are made of leather, while Libyan boots are Nubuck.

  • ||

    AH!

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Almanian||

    Very stylish, the Libyan Nubuck™ boots

  • ||

    Meh, the Nubian Nubucks put them to shame.

  • ||

    Actually, semi-serious question(s) here: How are those boots (Lybian or American) communicating with the pilots who are dropping the bombs? Are we equipping them with the encryption keys for communicating with our frequency hopping, encrypted radios? That is, are we possibly giving groups that may have affiliation with Al Qaeda the encryption keys to our communications security; the same ones used around the world? Or is that just BS, and there's SF/forward observers on the ground?

  • yonemoto||

    Dude encryption doesn't work like that anymore. The days of caesar cipher are long past. Cool kids these days do things like one-way encryption and public-key encryption. Unless the muslim world is suddenly churning out math prodigies solving algebraic analysis on elliptic functions, I wouldn't be worried.

  • Mensan||

    What yonemoto said. Plus SINCGARS tend to lose the fill pretty quickly if they're not resynced. Even if the enemy managed to break our encryption, they would lose it after a day.

    However, I doubt the Libiyan rebels have competent ATCs among their ranks, so I suspect there are already some SOF on the ground.

  • ||

    Wasn't that Ken Schultz saying that we couldn't declare war because it would offend Muslims?

  • ||

    Well Ken did say we were going to war to rise our standing in the Muslim world.

    I don't l know if i should be sad or happy Ken is more knowledgeable of why we are going to war then our own fucking president.

  • Sudden||

    Both sloopyinca and I are offended at the third Ken from California being such an apologist on these matters.

  • pradahandbags||

    Without sunglasses, Ashley Greene has no dazzling image. But his plain appearance seems not very bad. Cute handbag and snug Jeans, brown hair gave us a very usual image. To some degree, we should appreciate the paparazzi as they have the real life of celebrities got to know to us. Otherwise, we always indulge into the imagination how luxurious their life is. If it were not their glasses, brand outfits, sneakers, and brand handbag, say hermes handbag, they all share the appearance of publics. prada mens wallet Prada hands on the torch of the Prada style which was initiated by Miuccia in 1970. She created a black nylon fabric waterproof backpack and its simple design, sexy look, practical versatility was followed by many other big brands. Prada hits the fashion world by basic colors such as black, browns, grays, greens, and creams; simple but looks smart, sophisticated, luxurious and extremely high quality as well. In recent decades, Prada introduced some bright colors like purple, fuchsia, pink, yellow and distinctive prints as animal patterns, however, they all are sheer, pure and earthy.

    JEOxiaonie0329

  • sevo||

    pradahandbags|3.28.11 @ 11:10PM|#
    "Without sunglasses, Ashley Greene has no dazzling image..."

    Ya know, that's Obama's problem too. Just look at Qadaffi, by comparison.
    See?

  • Almanian||

    Ray Bans solve everything. Only brand I'll wear. Ray Bans even make ME almost cool...

  • ||

    If you wear Raybans, you get a free squad of sexy Amazons willing to sleep with/die/kill for you. Just buy them each a Prada handbag, and they'll be set.

  • Denny G.||

    We are who we thought we were. And that's why we took the damn field!

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    and boom goes the dynamite

  • Almanian||

  • Nipplemancer||

    never link to shitty faux metal again, pretty please.

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    more like this

  • Rock Action ||

    That never, ever, ever fails. He's so earnest in his apologies.

    Who killed Bambi?

  • Almanian||

    By the way, good evening Reasonoids - nice to see so many out tonight. Hope all is well for everyone.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Blah, This next 6 weeks are going to have me up all the time. Can't wait till the semester is over.

  • sevo||

    "Can't wait till the semester is over."

    It WILL get better,

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Huh?

  • ||

    I always wish you the best, Almanian.

  • Almanian||

    PS lest anyone doubt the might of the American war machine

    You know who else doubted the might of the American war machine...

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    The Guess Who?

  • ||

    Would you be disgusted if I said I like the Lenny Kravitz version better?

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    philistine.
    you probably also prefer the madonna version of "Music".

  • BakedPenguin||

    Tulpa, you just like saying shit to piss people off - I'm sure of that now.

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    Lenny Kravitz version

    Mmmmm, Rollergirl.

  • ||

    Grenada?

  • ||

    "Here’s what we don’t know after tonight’s speech: why we’re at war with Libya."

    We're doing what we're doing in Libya because that's what the ummah wanted the U.S. to do in Libya--and being on the side of the ummah against the dictators is important for US security going forward.

    ...especially considering that we've been on the side of the dictators and against the ummah for so long.

    I don't know what Obama said during his speech, and I don't care.

    As long as we don't commit ground troops and don't declare war? He'll have done 100 times better on this George W. Bush did on Iraq.

    ...if you're judging by the cost/benefit analysis anyway. And that's a mighty reasonable way to look at things if you ask me.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    We're doing what we're doing in Libya because that's what the ummah wanted the U.S. to do in Libya--and being on the side of the ummah against the dictators is important for US security going forward.

    So when do bombing missions start against Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia?

  • ||

    Don't worry, they're coming. Just because Ken wants to hand our foreign policy decision-making over to the ummah doesn't mean we want to appear overeager.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Since we are apparently letting al-Qaeda dictate who we will support in the Middle East does that mean we are now in the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phase of the War on Terror?

  • ||

    Maybe. Of course the phase we need to get in as soon as possible is the "take my ball and go home" part.

  • ||

    "So when do bombing missions start against Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia?"

    Flunks the cost/benefit analysis.

    Plus, the ummah doesn't want our help anywhere near Mecca.

    Hey, I don't make the rules! I just point out how they work.

    It's nowhere near as mysterious as some people want to make it seem--and it's a lot more complicated than people want it to be.

    If we attack someone, then there has to be a stated purpose, a declaration of war by congress, and the American people united behind that?

    Why?

    The real world's more complicated than that.

    I think this is the first thing Obama's done right. I know it's probably controversial to suggest that Obama may have done anything right, but it's been two and a half years--it had to happen eventually!

    I'm still looking forward to the last day of his presidency. ...it just turns out that he wasn't always completely wrong about everything...

    And I guess that's about the nicest thing I can say about him!

  • ||

    the ummah doesn't want our help anywhere near Mecca.

    If we attack someone, then there has to be a stated purpose, a declaration of war by congress, and the American people united behind that?

    Why?

    It's like the neoconservative wing of the GOP and a grotesque caricature of the antiwar left copulated and gave life to this unholy spawn.

  • ||

    ---"If we attack someone, then there has to be a stated purpose, a declaration of war by congress, and the American people united behind that?"---

    Fucking Republic, how does that work?

  • ||

    "So when do bombing missions start against Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia?"

    P.S. Obama's not a judge, and this isn't a legal case. ...the suggestion that different situations should all be treated exactly the same is...um...silly.

  • ||

    It's called being guided by principles, Ken. A concept you seem more and more distant from on every thread on this topic.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    the suggestion that different situations should all be treated exactly the same is...um...silly consistency

    FTFY.

  • ||

    Really?!

  • ||

    "the suggestion that different situations should all be treated exactly the same is...um...silly consistency"

    So do you at least differentiate between men and women?

  • Terr||

    Sexist!!!!

  • ||

    And Bush did 100x better in Iraq than Johnson did in Nam, so I guess Iraq was a good idea too.

  • ||

    Well, I guess we have to admire your persistence in being concerned about the PR effects of preceding our killing of a bunch of Libyan civilians with a declaration of war.

    Sort of like a guy who beats the shit out of his wife has to be careful not to say she's ugly before doing so, lest he make her angry.

  • Obama||

    But, but, FRANCE approves. What else matters?

  • ||

    You forgot Poland.

  • Obama||

    Hey, because of you, I inherited two wars. Wait a minute, it's now three wars. Maybe, if this goes badly, I can merge my "non-war" with Lybia into the wars you started, and dodge blame. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    Thanks, George, you really were the best thing to happen in my career.

  • Kolohe||

    Created or saved two wars

  • Trespassers W||

    *spits coffee all over monitor*

  • blackfish||

    How did Pink Floyd get into this?

  • ||

    As long as we don't commit ground troops and don't declare war

    So if American ground troops are committed will you turn against this war?

  • Mensan||

    Do the SOF troops already on the ground in Libya not count?

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    and being on the side of the ummah against the dictators is important for US security going forward

    Hearts and minds, eh Ken? It's a sure winner!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Obama in 2002:

    "Now let me be clear (ed. : WTF is it with this verbal tic of his?) — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
    He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Perhaps he changed his mind based on how the Iraq war went?

  • ||

    Past tense?

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Well that was a typo, but presumably he's in some alternate reality...

  • BushPig Obama's Handlers||

    We wanted to show that he is a strong and decisive leader.

  • ||

    "...in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

    Actually, SH kinda fell through the trapdoor on a gallows.

  • Overt||

    In Obama's defense (oh crap I never thought I'd say that), His statement was made at a time when the us was enforcing a no fly zone. I'm not saying I agree with his contention that an endless military operation over foreign lands is preferrable, but it isn't as inconsistent as people want to make it. In that speech his argument was that the no-fly and sanctions regime were as far as the US needed to go...today he is basically SAYING the same...except that what he is calling a no fly is actually an air war specifically designed to enable the conquest of new land by rebels.

    IOW: He isn't a hypocrit...just a liar.

  • ||

    This is not the speech one gives when one is planning to run for reelection in just over a year. It is the speech one gives to prepare for the distinguished guest speaker circuit in two years.

    And to think you all called me crazy to say he ain't running in '12.

  • Rock Action ||

    You are not letting this one go, are you?

  • ||

    I'm all about staying the course!

  • The Kurdish People ||

    Even imprudently?

  • ||

    Especially impudently!

  • yonemoto||

    you're probably right, but not about the hilary part.

  • Light sweet crude||

    the stuff that dreams are made of

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Also: you guys have taken to flooding the morning links with embedded video, but you don't do that with the speech you're commenting on?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Just be thankful they didn't liveblog it.

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    this was operation Odyssey Dawn.
    I once danced under that name.

  • I have a Honda called that.||

  • LarryA||

    stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre

    Because we know that the other advancing army won’t stage a massacre?

  • Hobie Hanson||

    He said prevent *a* massacre, not *all* massacres.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Apparently some massacres are more equal than others.

  • Trespassers W||

    In fairness, he didn't say it wouldn't be substituted with a completely different massacre.

  • adam||

    I'm waiting until reports start coming about how the rebels tied up a bunch of Gaddafi soldiers or loyalists and executed them. Now that they're back on the offensive this is bound to happen. I guess then we'll have to start bombing them too?

  • Mensan||

    I'm waiting until reports start coming about how the rebels tied up a bunch of Gaddafi soldiers or loyalists and executed them.

    I heard a report on the radio this morning that it is has already happened. However, I haven't yet been able to find any other source to verify that.

  • A Serious Man||

    You hear that freedom loving people around the world? The United States will only interevne to help if the task is quick and easy for our military and we get to look cool doing it! Yeah, USA USA USA!!!

    I think Obama deserves credit for simultaneously pissing off the anti-war liberals AND the neocons. Very impressive.

  • Snobbit||

    He pissed them off? When was that, I missed it.

  • ||

    The United States will only interevne to help if the task is quick and easy for our military and we get to look cool doing it!

    Except for Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe.

  • johnl||

    I see *someone* is trying to look like Julian Sanchez, as in the Lauren Shipley photo at the top of http://www.juliansanchez.com/.

  • ||

    It is in the nation's best interest because it is an international coalition of international partners and community and international allies. Did I mention that it is international?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    But is the Coalition willing? Meaning is it comprised of willing members? Members willing to do what must be done in Libya?

    Is it...a coalition of the willing?

  • Snobbit||

    All are willing that the US do the job they don't want (or can't afford to do) themselves.

    "All" consists of a select few western European countries.

  • johnl||

    Speaking of a “massacre” that would have “stained the conscience of the world”, guess what's going to happen if the USA bombing campaign manages to create the opportunity for the boys from Benghazi to take Sirte? And who will be blamed?

  • .||

    Nato? Certainly not The One - he's relinquishing US responsibility in the near future.

  • hmm||

    I'm not the smartest light bulb in the knife drawer, can someone explain to me what the fuck a "kinetic military action" is?

  • Matt Perry's 2nd Chin||

    a war

  • ||

    Close.

    More precisely: "We shot first."

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Rods from god?

  • ||

    A military action with movement.

    As opposed to a military action without movement, which would be called "French".

  • Nicolas Sarkozy||

    Je vous remercie de m'avoir aidé à remuer le chien.

  • Mensan||

    Wait, who's the dog?

  • Scooby||

    Retreating is a movement.

  • Geoff||

    'Kinetic' is a euphemism for things that go 'boom'.
    It's as opposed to 'electronic attack vectors' (i.e. electronic warfare--use your superpowerful AESA radars to blow the transistors off anti-aircraft tracking radars, or break into their computers and screw up their aiming systems.) It also contrasts with laser attack weapons, which don't actually work yet, but they're trying...

  • .||

    can someone explain to me what the fuck a "kinetic military action" is?

    A euphemism.

  • ||

    Isn't that when you play Call of Duty on your XBox without using a controller?

  • db||

    Instead of watching Obama, I brewed a nice robust porter. Now fermenting at 62 degF. Should be tasty in about 3 weeks.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Jealous. I can't brew till I leave this apartment this summer. How are you keeping it chilled?

  • db||

    I have a chest freezer that I outfitted with a new temperature controller and a reptile heater inside that maintains temperature to within +- 1 degF.

  • ||

    Turns out he was trying something similar.

    Only his recipe may brew for months before fully developing into a bitter concoction we'll wish we hadn't made. We may deal with the nasty aftertaste for years, but we'll feel obligated to finish it off ourselves since, after all, we're the ones who started it.

  • rather||

    did you check the water for radioactive iodine? ;-)

  • Trespassers W||

    It's like watching an AI trying to make its first joke.

    "But I was just... learning... to laugh... *sparks*"

  • rather||

    Electrosex? lol

  • Chony||

    " he assured Americans that it was done in cooperation the international community."

    As long as there's international consensus, that's all I care about. There is no other criteria that I know of when it comes to waging war. If France approves, I approve.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    My favorite part:

    In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing.

    Compare and contrast with this story from last year:

    President Obama approves assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki: An American citizen

  • ||

    It's likely he wasn't innocent, so they're not really comparable in that respect. (I do think Obama overstepped his authority in that drone hit, though)

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I guess we'll never know, will we?

  • ||

    I think Sherriff Joe Arpaio would be onside with that.

  • rather ||

    Gaddafi might have gone forth with a “massacre” that would have “stained the conscience of the world.” But massacres—terrible, tragic, and barbarous as they are—have happened before, and will almost certainly happen again, without U.S. intervention. What makes this one different? Obama never offered a convincing explanation, probably because there isn't one.

    What makes this one different? The whole point is that it isn't different. Hecatombs take place all over this world, and we have no financial interest in Libya, nor any strategic purpose to make them behave.

    So if it wasn't for us, and though it has a made a difference for preventing a massacre, it may be we are looking at it from our American sensibilities.

    IOW, it was done for neither Libyans, nor Americans but to tell the other homicidal dictators you could be next.

  • asdf||

    I remember Neocons making this exact same point about Iraq.

  • ||

    Big O attempted to put lipstick on a pig, by telling the story of the downed US pilot and the poor, helpless Libyans who glowing ran to his aid.

    Conveniently, he left out the part where we shot six of them during the rescue.

    Details.

  • rather||

    He had his Precog tell him the future, and saved their lives with his international Obamacare-don't be so faithless

  • ||

    Wait, what? The farmer who was helping him got injured by shrapnel from a 500 lb bomb, but no one was killed.

  • rather||

    six were wounded; unless it was a mistake in reporting

  • ||

    Think he/she's confusing two separate events.

  • rather||

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Libyan rebel leader admits he fought against the US and allies in Afghanistan. I wonder where this fits on the cost benefit analysis metric.

  • ||

    If we fight them in Libya we won't have to fight them in Afghanistan.

  • Billy Shakespeare||

    Kudos to you, America: Your military is able to wage war swiftly even in the absence of clear goals or anything resembling an endgame.

    Who needs goals or an endgame when you have rainbows and unicorns?

  • Beezard||

    We should invade Abyssinia and Albania, too. Only then can we achieve the military prowess and dizzying global-political heights of the Italian Empire.

  • ||

    Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance."
    The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

  • ||

    I thought that the Scots were used on the front lines of the British army because their normal state was simply "pissed".

  • Ghost of George Carlin||

    We can't make a decent television anymore, but we can bomb the shit out of your country!

  • Bob White||

    Of course we can make a decent television, we just can't manufacture them cheaply.

  • Bob White||

    Of course there is a national interest! Libya is a major supplier of petroleum. Duh!

    Obama did not want to say that, because of the whole "blood for oil" meme that helped get him elected, but that is a legitimate national interest.

  • David||

    It seems to me that the most favorite ways of all politicians to gain more support among the voters is either to diffuse nationalistic ideas or bring their countries into wars.

  • ||

    That observation dates back at least 2,500 years, probably more.

    The policy itself was followed by Rameses II and the Yellow Emperor Huang Di.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement