A brave, truth-telling whistleblower has emerged to tell the White House’s side of the story in the Libya War. The inside scoop appears in a Los Angeles Times article by Christi Parsons (4/2/11) headlined, “For Obama, a Carefully Calculated Delay on Justifying Libya Airstrikes.”
Are you confused by the White House’s decision-making on Libya? Fear not–everything has gone according to plan. Like, for instance, the delay in public explaining the decision to bomb:
The timing was deeply controversial, but was designed to be a major part of the message itself, unfolding as the U.S. chalked up a measure of achievement in Libya and appeared to back away from lead management of the international military effort there.
The delay helped to underscore the key ideas Obama wants to drive home: that the commitment differs dramatically from the deep investment of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars he inherited, largely because the U.S. shares responsibility for it with a broad coalition of international and regional partners.
To an American audience weary and skeptical after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama wanted to explain his reasoning when he could also demonstrate some closure.
“Instead of saying, ‘I promise this is the way it’s going to be,’ he was able to go before the American people and say, ‘Here’s what I said I would do, and I did it,'” said one senior administration official, who requested anonymity to discuss the deliberations….
Some liberals joined with conservatives in objecting that Obama owed the country an explanation right away–if not before the attack.
But Obama’s advisers said they wanted to break out of past practice on messaging, much like the president was breaking with the foreign policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
“We wanted to make the point that this was not an Iraq-like war engagement,” said the official. “The commitment was limited in duration and scope, and so the ways in which you deliver that message help convey it. It’s not just what you say but how you say it.”
Got it?
The Times also notes that some of Obama’s left critics were miffed by the delay in explaining the purpose of the war: “Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) questioned a commitment to act without debate in Congress.” To which the paper responded:
But steering clear of the trappings of wartime gravity could help Obama counter skeptical public perceptions.
Did that analysis come from the anonymous White House official, or is that Parsons’ own contribution? Whatever the case, if ignoring the constitutional requirement that Congress authorize all wars can help us steer clear of the “trappings of wartime gravity” and “counter skeptical public perceptions,” perhaps it’s all worth it.
I know nothing assuages my skepticism like doing something before telling me, then lying about it.
How about you?
Obama’s messaging: just as sloppy and non-existent as his
“breaking with the foreign policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.”
Gee, I’m still struggling with understanding those folks who are in the upper stratosphere in deep, deep thinking–it’s that eleven-level chess thing again. The President is just a huge genius, as are his handlers and studiers of our sacred Constitution. Who could have imagined that that rigid document was so malleable?
IN A PIGS EYE…….
Jesus Tim i think i am board with you
Devil is always in the details.Word is the “war”is stalemated after NATOs takeover.Heard a General say we “may under certain conditions have boots on the ground in a coalition configuration.”Uh-oh.Here we go again.Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy….Obama prefers crow.
Seriously….Anybody catch Colonel Khadafi’s(how do you stay a colonel all these years)open letter to President Obama?He is a crazier shit house rat than Sadam was.All that aside I truly hope this was thought out more that it would appear.And he is every bit as bad ,or worse….yeah worse at walking past the constitution than Bush.
Tim….I meant ON board with you
NATO and US bombing hospitals in Libya.