What others are saying about President Obama's Libya Speech
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
As you know, President Obama addressed the nation last night
about the strategy in Libya. The editorial boards of many
newspapers weighed in on the speech. This is a chance
to see how the speech was received across the country.
The Washington Post:
By the time President Obama addressed the country about Libya
Monday evening, the mission was nine days old - and he could point
to some clear successes. The United States, he said, "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." In
fact, there's little doubt that the first allied airstrikes stopped
an assault on the rebel-held city of Benghazi by the forces of
Moammar Gaddafi that could have killed thousands. Mr. Obama was
right to act, and he deserves the credit that he claimed.
To read more, click
here.
The New York Times:
President Obama made the right, albeit belated, decision to join
with allies and try to stop Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from
slaughtering thousands of Libyans. But he has been far too slow to
explain that decision, or his long-term strategy, to Congress and
the American people.
On Monday night, the president spoke to the nation and made a
strong case for why America needed to intervene in this fight - and
why that did not always mean it should intervene in others.
To read more, click here.
Chicago Tribune:
One of the main problems with the Obama administration's policy
on Libya has been its confusing incoherence. Americans have been
given contradictory signals about what is at stake and what
President Barack Obama is prepared to do.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned of the challenges of a no-fly
zone, only to see the president agree to impose one. Obama insisted
that other countries take the lead - but the attack started with
the United States in the chief role. He said Libyan dictator
Moammar Gadhafi "has to go," even though that goal was absent from
the U.N. resolution under which the operation took place.
Monday night, nine days after airstrikes began, the president
finally tried to lay out to the American people the full case for
war. He cleared up some of the confusion, but his presentation fell
short in many ways.
To read more, click
here.
St. Petersburg Times:
Nine days after the United States and its allies began military
operations in Libya, President Barack Obama on Monday night
delivered a compelling defense for intervening and a nuanced plan
for moving forward in a supporting role as NATO assumes command of
the operations. He persuasively argued that military action was
necessary to stop the massacre of civilians and continued to
distinguish between that humanitarian aim and ousting Moammar
Gadhafi by force. The practical reality, though, is that those
efforts are interwoven and that the rebels have little hope of
removing the tyrant without the airstrikes by coalition forces.
To read more, click
here.
New York Post:
Two-plus years into his term, Barack Obama's learning curve
continues.
The man who as a candidate warned that no president may order an
attack that "does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat
to the nation" last night asserted that military force may justly
be applied "when our safety is not directly threatened, but our
interests and values are."
Which is why, he told the nation, he followed the lead of
Britain and France and committed the US to action in Libya.
It was a fundamentally reasonable speech, convincingly
delivered. And one that Obama should have made two weeks ago.
Had he done so, much of the political controversy generated by the
US-led mission would never have risen in the first place.
To read more, click
here.
San Francisco Chronicle:
President Obama provided a clear, compelling rationale for his
decision to use U.S. military force to prevent mass slaughter in
Libya. He was more vague, and much less likely to reduce Americans'
anxiety, in describing the next steps.
The president has been walking a fine line, and a fraught one,
in using limited force to prevent Moammar Khadafy from inflicting
mass carnage on Libyans who are pressing desperately for
democracy.
Obama was most eloquent in connecting the Libya mission with
America's interests and values. He suggested a successful Khadafy
rampage could imperil an upswell of democratic movements through
the Arab world and U.S. relations with it. He spoke of the
humanitarian imperative to rescue 700,000 civilians in Benghazi who
were about to experience a massacre that "would have reverberated
across the region and stained the conscience of the world." He did
not mention Rwanda by name, but the 1994 genocide of an estimated
800,000 continues to haunt a world that failed to intervene.
To read more, click
here.
The Wall Street Journal:
President Obama made a substantial case for his Libya
intervention for the first time Monday evening, and however overdue
and self-referential ("I refused to let that happen"), we welcome
the effort. Perhaps it will give Republicans a reason to emerge as
constructive, rather than partisan, foreign-policy critics as
well.
To read more, click
here.
The LA Times:
Before President Obama's address to the nation about Libya,
three questions about U.S. involvement there loomed large: Why,
among all the places with vulnerable civilian populations, did the
U.S. and its allies choose to intervene in Libya? Was the mission
designed to prevent civilian suffering or to topple Moammar Kadafi?
How (and how quickly) would the U.S. extricate itself from this
engagement?
In his speech Monday, Obama addressed these thorny questions and
many others with cogency and clarity, though not all of the answers
were persuasive. He was at his most eloquent when he discussed the
Libyan regime's crimes against its own people, his reluctance to
put Americans in harm's way and his eagerness to work within a
multinational coalition. We were pleased to hear him reaffirm that
the U.S. has limited interests in Libya and a limited role to
play.
To read more, click
here.
The Orange County Register:
President Barack Obama, seeking to control what's happening in
Libya, tried to at least to control the message. The president said
during his speech at the National Defense University that U.S.
intervention, which began March 19, stopped a massacre, denied
Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi access to billions in assets,
assisted Libyan rebels and ultimately will hasten the day the
tyrant will leave power.
"As president I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and
mass graves before taking action," he said. When U.S. interests and
values are threatened, Mr. Obama said, "we should not be afraid to
act. But the burden ... should not be America's alone."
To read more, click
here.