↓
 
Home » Obama’s lips are sealed on Libya

Obama’s lips are sealed on Libya

The New Neo Posted on by

But why?

The most benign interpretation is that he’s learned that anything he does is criticized as well as ineffectual, and so he’s keeping his mouth shut.

The in-between interpretation is that he has no idea what would be best to say, and so he’s keeping his mouth shut.

The least benign interpretation is that Egypt was an ally and Libya is not, so it was a no-brainer to support the opposition in the first case and somewhat more difficult to choose sides in the second.

Comments

Obama’s lips are sealed on Libya — 42 Comments

  1. Or maybe Soros is vacationing somewhere he can’t get any bars, and Barry is waiting for his orders.

  4. Maybe he’s pondering the voters’ reaction to gas lines, rationing, or $5/gal prices on Election Day.

    Maybe he’s preparing a call for aggressive drilling in the US. (Fat chance.)

    The political class has messed things up to the point where there’s little safety margin left, but most of them still don’t get it.

  5. Yes, I was kidding. Kinda.

    But we have another data point: Iran.

    Iran – enemy – mum.
    Egypt – friend – undermines the government.
    Libya – enemy – mum.

  6. I’ve read that Obama is keeping mum because of fear that hostages will be taken. I’m not sure that makes any sense, but it’s the closest thing to an explanation I’ve seen.

  8. I think it’s the 2nd option – he has no idea what would be best to say – and he learned with Egypt that saying different things on different days didn’t work out too well (go figure!).

    And Occam’s Beard, don’t forget:

    Israel – friend – condemn, undermine, snub

  10. AOS suggests the possibility that Obama is keeping quiet for fear of endangering the Americans still in Libya. From what we know of Obama past behavior Neo’s observation seems far more realistic.

  12. Libby and Bob, thanks for adducing further evidence. We now have an appreciable data set, comprising both positive and negative controls. The working hypothesis now has to be, effectively, Treason Lite.

  15. Anybody remember when Psycho Boy (Qadafi or is the monicker self-explanatory?) came to the UN, maybe early 2010, and kept referring to Obama as his brother, and basically gave a fawning speech that seemed to be his interpretation of courting?

    “Qadafi in Love” – perhaps no longer unrequited?

  16. My guess, he is completely disoriented and simply does not know what to do. He found that he is now in situation he never expected to be, and his brittle ego does not know how to cope with. Torpor and desperation, paralysis of will.

  17. All we have to do is wait for Qaddafi’s demise to become imminent then the President will come out four square for Qaddafi’s removal and show solid support for the revolution.

  19. I think Obama is hiding out in the bathroom, and doing a little smack, deep “in conference” and getting his latest orders from Trumka and Andy Stern, or perhaps he is out golfing for the ninetieth time and can’t be disturbed, .

    However–in answer to the question of why there has as yet been no statement from Obama about Libya–Obama’s new Press Secretary said today that Obama hasn”t spoken because of “a scheduling issue,” whatever the hell that means in this context (see http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/02/white-house-press-secretary-jay-carney-obamas-silent-on-libya-because-of-scheduling-issue-video/) .

  21. The Bush foreign policy that Mr. Obama bad mouths so often is the policy he returns to once his policies are in tatters. Bush had no policy to cover these situations because he did not face them.

    Obama is lost, so he dithers hoping the situation will resolve in a positive manner. If it does he will take credit, if not he will blame Bush.

    Perhaps it is time to make a phone call Mr. Obama.

  22. Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » NEO-NEOCON: Why isn’t Obama talking about Libya?…

  23. Pingback:Post Western Middle East « Newsbeat1

  24. While I am on the subject of Trumka and Stern, how about the fact that Trumka has racked up something like 48 in person visits and Stern 58 visits to the White House through January 2011 (we aren’t counting the likely thousands of phone calls)–and those are probably lowball estimates, yet it has been reported that at least six of his Cabinet officers have not been contacted by him or met with him at all during the first two years of Obama’s administration (see http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/25/obama-cabinet/) .

    So, if the question is, who is running the government?, I’d say it wasn’t Skippy–although there is a possibility that it is mostly Michelle (when she takes time off from practicing nasty, “evil,” “hell to pay” expressions in the mirror, hectoring us, working on her wardrobe, Jet-setting, and stuffing her face)–but my money is on the triumvirate of Soros–primus inter pares–Trumka, and Stern, but then again–given the amount of potential consultation time involved, it could actually be Obama’s caddy.

  25. Well, if K-Daffy has to go into exile, given his certain bravura flare for it, he can always get a job as Michelle’s “fashion designer” or, come to think of it, perhaps he already is.

  26. The answer is simple. He is “voting present”. No one can say you made the wrong decision if you never make one. Obama needs to RTFU, and side with those who are fighting to overthrow tyrannical dictatorships.

  27. He has no influence on Libya or Iran so he keeps mum. He does have influence on Egypt and Israel so he injects himself into their affairs. He’s like a man that gets bullied at work, but won’t stand up for himself, so he goes home and screams at the kids and kicks the dog.

  28. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359894/Libya-protests-Unarmed-showdown-Gaddafis-mercenaries.html

    THE HIRED KILLERS ON £18,000 A MAN LED BY GADDAFI’S SON

    Gaddafi is employing Russian and Eastern European ‘white mercenaries’ at £18,000 a head to brutally crush protests in his desperate attempt to cling to power.

    The hired guns, some paid thousands of dollars a day, are fighting alongside special forces still loyal to the embattled Libyan leader. They have been spotted in Tripoli, along with black African mercenaries recruited from neighbouring countries.

    All face being shot or hung if they are captured by the increasingly large number of armed protesters on the streets.

    One pro-democracy demonstrator said: ‘They easily stand out among the black African mercenaries from French-speaking places such as Chad. All are clearly experienced in warfare and being paid huge sums of dollars to uphold Gaddafi’s regime.

    ‘French-speaking Africans who are caught are being hung and machine-gunned and the same will happen to the white mercenaries.

    ‘Because of this there is huge distrust of any kind of foreigners. They should leave as soon as they can.

    ‘Arabs are united by their language, and by Islam, but those from abroad stand out straight away. They will be targeted.’

    Most of the ‘white mercenaries’ are believed to be from former Soviet Union countries, including the Ukraine, and have been identified by their language and by those captured and interrogated before being killed.

    Many carry passports and identification papers from the armies for which they were once regular soldiers.

    Gaddafi’s son and heir Saif is understood to be co-ordinating the mercenaries’ operations.

  30. Haven’t you heard, we hit a ‘reset’ button (sort of)… they are handling this, and so there is no reason to say anything, as anything said, will be twisted to a negative.

    most cant remember the news they read when later related things happen… they only tend to pay attention to what the media ‘refrshes’ or like neo in this case, plays fill in the gaps with something made up that seems rational

    i would say crack a look at the new information as to how the six day war occurred…
    http://www.nysun.com/foreign/soviets-six-day-war/55348/
    they make the case that the states around isreal were pushed into a situation where they would attack. the idea is that it would be an excuse for their ‘friends’ in Moscow to send troops, and so forth. according to Ginor and Remez, Israel smashed the others, and the conflict ended in 6 days and so the rest of the idea had to be scuttled…

    you can go to national review to read Pacepa
    [heck while your looking read Sejna and Golytsin too, and mitrokhen]

    Khaddafi’S “Conversion”
    Has the Libyan leopard changed his spots?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/208989/khaddafi-146-s-147-conversion-148/ion-mihai-pacepa

    As chief of Romanian foreign intelligence, I worked closely with Libya’s Muammar Khaddafi before I defected, in 1978, to the West. I was Khaddafi’s handler as he geared up the weapons programs he now is so eager to disclose to the U.N. In 1972 Moscow decided to deploy three leftist Arab governments—Libya, Iraq, and Syria—as well as terror groups like the PLO, against our mutual enemy, “American imperial-Zionism.” Yuri Andropov, then head of the KGB, assigned Libya to Romania.

    So the idea of ex soviet mercenaries means who showed up? and if they show up, guess who clams up?

    want to get an idea of what kinds of things the muslim brotherhood can get playing the game of grab bag? from the same article…

    ight after my own defection, he announced with fanfare the destruction of the Rabta chemical complex Romania had just helped him build. Of course, since I had just compromised the site, this was hardly the noble blow for peace he tried to make it seem. Later it was found that he had only staged a fire at Rabta, painting scorch marks on the buildings, and burning truckloads of tires to create smoke. He then built a second chemical-weapons facility hidden 100-feet underground in the hollowed-out Tarhunah Mountain, south of Tripoli. In 1992, the CIA estimated that Libya had produced 100 tons of chemical warfare agents and that some of those materials were being used to fill aerial bombs.

    so libya falling is more serious than most would say and most dont remember. remember that we did try to bomb and kill him at one point..

    Reagan@100: He Knew How to Deal with Dictators
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259038/reagan100-he-knew-how-deal-dictators-ion-mihai-pacepa

    Israel humbled by arms from Iran
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526407/Israel-humbled-by-arms-from-Iran.html
    Written underneath a contract number on each casing were the words: “Customer: Ministry of Defence of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia.”
    The discovery of the origin of the weapons proved to the Israelis that their enemy was not a ragged and lightly armed militia but a semi-professional army equipped by Syria and Iran to take on Israel.

    there is a lot more and you can find stuff that happened recently, and we ‘forgot’, and stuff that goes all the way back to plane hijackings back in the 60s…

  31. Artfldgr,

    Let me reframe my question: What do the neo-neocons wish Obama was capable of saying about the situation in Libya? I’m not asking what inane platitudes he will actually mumble, but what any-everyone here would ideally have him say (and do) were he not a narcissistic, left wing running dog lackey. And if it could be kept to a five sentence paragraph I would be delighted.

  32. Well, I watched Obama’s “statement,” and what to came to mind was the phrase “more mush from the Wimp.”

    It was “coordination with the international community” (i.e. the current crowd of mad men, tinhorn dictators and kleptocrats, failed states and international welfare queens in the Muslim dominated UN) this, and consultation with our Allies and “partners” that–after Obama’s run through the China shop do we have any partners, much less Allies, left?–and Secretary Clinton is going to have discussions and coordinate in Geneva next week so that “we speak with one voice” and “such violence and repressoin is “unacceptable?

    More mush from the Wimp, indeed and about as useful as a fart in a high wind.

  33. From Ace of Spades:

    …Although I should be fair: I don’t think I want tangible American action here. Arabs have enormous chips on their shoulders about the West and like slightly-demented loser little brothers they sort of need to make their own way, even it it’s a bit pathetic. American involvement gives them what they most need — a scapegoat, someone to blame their failures on.

    I could be wrong.

    On CNN… A guy is saying that Libya, the state, may not survive Qadhafi’s ouster; the state may split into tribe-controlled regions.

    Does anyone care about this? Is there a single good reason to champion these arbitrary lines and larger-than-needed-or-wanted states which unite tribes that don’t want to be under a single authority?

    Do we have some sentimentalism about our old maps? Do we fear having to draw new ones?

    This expert wasn’t necessarily against Libya splitting into smaller states, but his general tone was one of alarm.

    I don’t get that. Why do we care if Libya splits into seven more homogeneous tribal regions?

    Given the huge amount of trouble in this part of the world, and their inability to run functional modern-style governments, shouldn’t we be in favor of smaller states?

    Oh, right, the dream of multiculturalism. We have to champion multiculturalism not only in our own peaceful country but in barbaric tribal semi-states.

  34. RE: Ace of Spades

    Sometimes, in the dark of night after a couple of glasses of wine, I think about how beneficial it might be if the USA splits into 5 or 6 largely autonomous regions. I love living in ‘fly over country’ (Iowa) and there are days when I wish what happens in Chicago, Detroit, NYC, LA, DC had nothing to do with me and mine. And then I sober up and realize it is but a dream.

  35. Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Libya.

    Search NewZeal blog, or just do a bing search. This story made the blogs during the 2008 election, but MSM never touched it.

    This just gets worse with every passing day.

  36. Pingback:Braaaiiiinns… | Mister Pterodactyl

  37. Why wouldn’t the US jump on the chance to undermine “enemies”? It has been slow to react to all of these movements. I would argue that’s because the United States administrations no longer operate under a paradigm that can recognize populist democracy in the Arab world. It flies in the face of their portrayal of Muslims as the enemy. It’s a sensitive situation for the country that masquerades as a democracy and acts like a global empire. The Arab world does not trust our government and is beginning to create a democratic and updated style of 21st century democracy that undermines the assumption that only US capitalist, or European socialist, democracies are the viable models.

  38. And if it could be kept to a five sentence paragraph I would be delighted.

    the truth…

    you should be orgasmic by now… 🙂

  39. Texas was an appropriate place for Panarin to visit. He has said that he views Republican Gov. Rick Perry’s talk of secession, Chuck Norris’ offer to run for president of Texas, and the country’s political battles over immigration as evidence for his thesis. And it certainly doesn’t hurt Panarin’s appeal to the far right that he is deeply critical of President Obama, whom he has compared to Mikhail Gorbachev. Obama, he says, “likes to talk but hasn’t really managed to do anything.” Panarin also talks about America’s “moral” collapse–a theme popular among social conservatives.

  40. Parker,

    Sometimes, in the dark of night after a couple of glasses of wine, I think about how beneficial it might be if the USA splits into 5 or 6 largely autonomous regions. I love living in ‘fly over country’ (Iowa) and there are days when I wish what happens in Chicago, Detroit, NYC, LA, DC had nothing to do with me and mine. And then I sober up and realize it is but a dream.

    Noooo…we’re already screwed here in CA; if the rest of the country dumped us, we’d be truly doomed.

  41. Over at Drudge there are some articles relating to the nice things Dafi said about Dear Leader. Considering Obama’s narcissism one wonders whether Obama won’t comment on Libya because he needs Gaddaffi’s love.

    Here’s a tragic thought; if you had to choose which “leader” is more capable of defending his country’s interest, Obama or Gaddafi, the latter would be a clear winner.

  42. Bob from VA,

    I checked back on this conversation to see if any additional, interesting comments had been made and noticed your tail end comment…..

    The answer is neither. Neither Obama or Qaddafi is interested in defending their country’s interest. Each is equally intent upon defending their own selfish interest. That is what dictators and dictator wannbes do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑