Predictions: What will Obama say tonight re: the Libya situation?


I can’t take seriously nor believe anything this administration says regarding the US “combat mission” in Libya. Tonight at 7:30 ET, the President plans to give a speech to the nation that will supposedly address the concerns many have about why we are there, what the objectives are, etc. From Fox News:

President Obama on Monday prepared to make his case to the nation about why he ordered U.S. forces to Libya in an address that gives him an opportunity to answer mounting questions about how long the conflict could last and under what conditions the United States would depart.

A senior administration official told Fox News the speech will effectively serve two purposes — to outline the mission going forward and explain “how our efforts in Libya have advanced our interests and averted a catastrophe.”

Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough said later that an upcoming conference in London on Libya will also give allies an opportunity to work jointly on an end vision for the Arab nation.

“We do think it’s very important to spell out an end state — a vision of where this goes,” he said in a briefing to reporters.

The Western alliance on Sunday agreed that NATO would take control of air operations, a mission that has been U.S.-led since last weekend.

That agreement will help bolster the administration’s argument that U.S. involvement is limited, a point the president repeated when he was asked a question about war spending Monday morning during a town hall meeting at a high school in Washington, D.C. “Our involvement there is going to be limited, both in time and in scope,” Obama said.

But the president still faces questions about how long U.S. forces could be committed to a conflict that, in the eyes of some policymakers, already qualifies as civil war.

The administration’s recent Libya actions kinda remind me of the assertion then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made in early March 2009 on the issue of the potential passage of ObamaCare: “… [W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Same same with the air campaign in Libya, apparently: We have to go to war in Libya, before we know why we’re there.

Oh, and speaking of combat operations, NRO’s Byron York hints that it might not just be an air campaign anymore:

Per military guys: Presence of A-10s and AC-130s virtually guarantees there are Special Ops forces on ground in Libya.

Thoughts on what you think the President will say tonight?

“We will promote free choice by limiting free choice!”


**Posted by Phineas

If that doesn’t make sense to you, well, it doesn’t to me, either. It apparently makes some sort of sense to LA City Councilman Bernard Parks, however, who helped push through a ban on new fast-food businesses in two districts of south Los Angeles. Why? Well because there are too many fast-food places in that area already (in Parks’ view) and, by limiting the “overabundance,” they’ll encourage more sit-down restaurants with healthier food.

Yeah, that sounds like nanny-stater nonsense to me, too. And it did to the crew at Reason.TV, who went out and shot this short documentary:

Parks’ logic fall apart on several grounds. First, if he wants more sit-down restaurants in those districts, then create the conditions that will encourage them to set up shop. They’re not staying away because there are too many McDonalds; they’re staying away because it’s a low-income area with a high crime rate, so the cost of business is too high for these chains. Improve the local economy, improve public safety, and you’ll find more “nice” places.

Second, what has Parks got against small business? These aren’t all McDonalds and Taco Bell. Many of the small fast-food joints are individual Mom-and-Pop small businesses that provide cheap, quick food at affordable prices to the locals. They also provide jobs for the down-on-their-luck who might not get hired by the chains. By blocking any more small fast-food businesses, Parks and the Council cut off a source of jobs for an area already suffering from at least 14% unemployment.

Finally, the nutrition angle is bunk. As the video shows, the “junk count” at chain sit-down restaurants can be as bad or worse than a fast food place. Conversely, fast-food operations like McDonalds have responded to free-market pressure and customer demand to offer healthier options. City intervention is heavy-handed, unneeded, and counterproductive.

The bottom line is that this is another case of some nannystater thinking he knows your business better than you yourself do.

With Los Angeles facing a fiscal train wreck and a sour economy, perhaps Councilman Parks should spend more time on things like the budget and public pensions reform, and less on what we Angelenos get to eat for lunch.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)