Obama Strong And True

Perhaps the silence of President Obama is its own statement of his devotion to ideology.  By speaking not a word, once again Obama aligns himself with the autocrat. 

During an appearance in Cleveland on Tuesday, Obama kept his comments focused on the economy and did not mention the events in North Africa, which appear to threaten the regime of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi, who has ruled that country since 1969.

On Monday, Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) released a joint statement calling on Obama to take a firmer public line.

"The United States should not remain silent in the face of Gadhafi's egregious violations of human rights," the Republican senators wrote. "We urge the President to speak out clearly in support of the Libyan people in their struggle against the Gadhafi dictatorship."

Obama has a penchant for sucking up to anti-American governments and their thuggish dictators.  Protesters shot down in the streets of Tehran and Tripoli get nothing from Obama when they should be getting material support.  Sacrifice and death might get them a UN resolution.

So what does the Obama Administration mean to do at this moment of crisis and decision? It's talking things over at the U.N. Security Council. Maybe Russia and China—whose authoritarian political systems have much in common with Gadhafi's—will agree to a resolution condemning the regime's use of force. But suspending Libya from its seat on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council is probably a bridge too far.

We suspect this isn't the kind of international assistance the Libyan people desperately want right now. Wounded civilians in the country's liberated cities need access to medical supplies only the West can provide. Opposition forces need to be able to communicate with each other and the outside world without having their signals jammed, and here too the U.S. can help. And while the U.S. and its allies may not be prepared to intervene militarily, merely the threat of destroying the Libyan air force if it continues to bombard civilians might persuade its airmen to defect to the opposition, thereby hastening the regime's demise and bringing the killing to a halt.

None of that will be accomplished through a feckless U.N. resolution. On the contrary, the Administration's resort to diplomacy only compounds the impression in Arab minds that President Obama refuses to take sides against a despot even as Libyans are dying for their freedom. This from the President whose stated aim for U.S. policy in the Middle East is to win over Arab hearts and minds.

Bill Kristol said it best:  Pathetic.

Comments

[Jane]

Over at JOM someone mentioned that when Obama was involved with Jeremiah Wright, Wright took a trip to Libya with Farrakhan to meet with Kaddaffi. Maybe that explains Obama's silence.

[Tom Bowler]

I never heard that, Jane, but since you mention it, googling "Jeremiah Wright Khadafi" brings up this from National Review.

Obama is not the same as Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah Wright traveled to Libya with Louis Farrakhan to meet Muammar Khadafi, when Khadafi was one of the most important rogue-state leaders and terror-supporters in the world. I don’t think Obama would travel on his own, with Louis Farrakhan, to meet Ahmadinejad today. But Obama’s willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad and Asad without preconditions, as president, shows that Wright’s more radical impulse survives in Obama, in an only slightly more moderate form.

By meeting Ahmadinejad without preconditions, Obama would risk giving away the store. With so much riding on his unconditional pledge to meet, Obama would need to show something for his efforts, while Ahmadinejad could just walk away. America would likely get the short end of any deal. But Obama would use his every rhetorical gift to convince us that, whatever our differences, it was right and wise to reconcile with, or at least “understand” where Iran was coming from. Obama’s gushing fans would eat it up, and all under the guise of “bringing together” America and its erstwhile enemy. That is what Obama does. He “unifies.” He’ll find out too late that the world — and especially an Iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons–doesn’t work that way. Meantime the media and liberal elites will fall for the new president’s silver-tongued tale. It’s what they want to believe anyway.

That was March 9, 2008, sometime before Obama locked up the nomination. And look how much has come true. As you say, it explains a lot. Ever loyal Obama, so reluctant to betray a kindred spirit like Khadafi.

[eyelift]

I think so. He is a brave man. His decision or quotes are very neutral. Few days ago he say something against Mubarak. He was absolutely right.

[Tummy tuck]

Obama is one of the my most favorite personality. I Love his attitude and His nature, Here I read all this information about him and Yes He is strong and true.