VoteVets: Seeing the unseen
VoteVets sees an Obama Doctrine:
Last night, the Commander-in-Chief spoke to the American people regarding are current operations in Libya. The President gave an eloquent, Wilsonian speech that may come to be known in as the “Obama doctrine” (humanitarian intervention, even when our security is not threatened). President Obama made a clear case that intervention in Libya is morally justified.
Olbyfriend Dana Milbank doesn’t really see one defined:
So it was noteworthy that Obama chose the same location for his speech to the nation justifying the U.S. military action in Libya. After ten days of confusion about America’s role in Libya – and in the world – Obama finally was prepared to articulate his “doctrine.”
But those who were hoping for a rejoinder to “bring it on” will be disappointed: The Obama doctrine he presented Wednesday night was frustratingly nondoctrinal. Where Bush was all bright lines and absolute morality, Obama dwelled in the gray area, outlining a foreign policy that is ad hoc and situational….
Obama, by contrast, has been so subtle in his doctrine that he’s baffling Americans.
President Barack Obama sent a signal to the country and the world Monday night about his decision to attack Libya: There is no “Obama doctrine” here.
Obama used his evening speech to assure skeptical Americans that he was forced to act by a madman in unique circumstances, that the U.S. role and risk would be limited, and that there is no unifying set of principles behind the Libya campaign that would guide the U.S. in other countries with similar problems.
The doctrine is there is no doctrine.
President Barack Obama answered questions about America’s mission in Libya Monday night with a 27-minute address that focused narrowly on “this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment” and shied away from making sweeping statements about America’s role in the world, the larger principles that guide his decisions on using force or about the U.S. response to the unfolding Arab Spring.
“We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people,” Obama said.
Which you could call the Obama Doctrine, except we hold so few countries to it, including dictatorships that we not only do business with, but whom we also call friends and allies, that it doesn’t deserve that title.
(NOTE: those passages all appear in a piece by Ed Morrissey at HotAir.)
OK, so if I get this straight, there is an Obama Doctrine, but it is whatever VoteVets insists it is. I feel a bit like the kid in Sixth Sense: I see dumb people.
Category: Politics
So, leaders in other countries dealing with the US are in the same boat as the kid with schizophrenic parents, they aren’t sure if or when they will cross the line and have the heavy hand of the Obama doctrine fall on their heads.
I guess that’s a foreign policy.
The Carter Doctrine was the defense of the free flow of Persian Gulf oil at market prices.
The Reagan Doctrine was opposition to global influence of the Soviet Union.
The Bush Doctrine was that of pre-emptive war.
The Obama Doctrine is “we only fight when the French give us permission”.
I think its a setup to give them justification to hit Israel in “defence” of the palastiniens (or however you spell it).
Ever since VoteVet endorsed NON-vet Patty Murray for re-election, they’ve just been a bunch of turds floating around the punch bowl to me.
Wilsonian?
The Obama Doctrine, if the actions of himself and his administration are evidence, is not one of humanitarian intervention (Making the World Safe for Democracy! redux).
This administration has repeatedly lent support to governments that are inimical to America. In deposing tyrants such as Mubarak and Khaddafy, the ensuing vacuum is filled with the Muslim Brotherhood. So, from going to a pain in America’s tuckus to a genuine honest-to-goodness irrationally anti-America government.
Not once since January 2009 has President Obama supported a pro-America government. Our #1 ally in Libya? Osama bin Laden. That ought to hurt, but the irony is lost on this regime.
UK? Piss on ’em every chance he gets. Japan? Good luck getting your nation and your way of life back together. His only failure was not getting the legitimate government of Honduras overthrown. He did manage to break their trust in us.
“are current operations in Libya.”
OUR, it’s OUR!!!!!!!!
Ugh.
“His only failure was not getting the legitimate government of Honduras overthrown”. And, he’ll try as hard as he can to rectify that failure.
And, this is a way for Ears to justify intervention on behalf of the Pally’s somewhere down the road. What do you hear about Syria, Bahrain, Yemen? Crickets, or the disclaimer that those situations “aren’t the same thing”.
So, the Ears Doctrine would seem to be, it is what it is, except when it isn’t.
So, the Ears Doctrine would seem to be, it is what it is, except when it isn’t. UpNorth that is classic! HEHEHE
Uggh! I can’t believe the hoops the left are retroactively jumping through to imply an “Obama” doctrine. HINT THERE AIN’T ONE. This is a lie so glairing even the press hesitates to accept it.
Hey VoteVets got away.
Spoken like a true Progressive Liberal Leftist moonbat.
Situational ethics, whatever they can justify (even if it’s only in their own minds) for their own power and pleasure.