Opinion: Libya success won’t help Obama win reelection
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
With success in Libya within reach, opinionators are weighing in on how to handle post-revolution Libya. In his Thursday column, Doyle McManus asked whether the outcome in Africa would help boost President Obama’s chance at reelection. The short answer is no. He elaborates by reminding us of single-term President George H. W. Bush:
Twenty years ago this summer, American cities staged noisy, flag-waving parades to celebrate the U.S. victory in a war we’ve almost forgotten: the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. The president at the time, George H.W. Bush, saw his poll ratings soar in the war’s afterglow. But 18 months later, on election day in 1992, the victory parades were ancient history. The voters, impatient with the economy’s slow recovery from a recession, turned Bush out of office after a single term.
In response, the majority of readers in our discussion board have left comments answering the question posed in the column’s headline: Will there be a Libya bounce for Obama? Here are a few of their answers.
A different bounce
Yes, a bounce right out of office!!!
--coondog69
Obama needs focus on the domestic front
President Obama deserves high marks for his deft handling of the NATO operation in Libya. Unlike George W. Bush’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq, Obama allowed the Libyan people to determine the ultimate outcome. With the exception of Afghanistan, Obama has handled foreign affairs very well. One important factor here is the excellent job that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has done.
Having said that, as a supporter of the President I have to say that his performance on the domestic side has been a huge disappointment thus far. The problems that we face with our economy require bold leadership and a willingness to constantly communicate with the American people. Obama has been far too timid and conciliatory to the extreme views of Republicans in Congress. You can’t help but think how FDR would handle the current mess that we find ourselves in with the illegal behavior of the banks causing the housing mess that still lingers...unemployment....etc. This is the worst mess we’ve been in since the Great Depression. The President needs to now lead on the domestic front as well.
--BartA58
Obama doesn’t deserve praise
The only bounce Obama should get for this cruel despicable inhumane ‘humanitarian intervention’ is to be bounced on his head. This action was in total violation of Libya’s national sovereignty. Analyses of Libya’s 148 main tribes showed that well over 60 percent of Libya’s population supported Gaddafi. How ridiculous to violate the desire of a nation’s majority in removing a regime that is supported by the nation’s majority. Isn’t democracy the rule by a nation’s people - or should a nation’s regime be determined by powerful foreign countries who want better positioning with regard to its vast oil reserves - and who remove the govt. supported by a nation’s majority? - This was an insidious power grab for Libyan oil, as all the All African Union (organization of all Africa’s nations) have been stating for many weeks as they demanded - to non listening NATO ears - that the bombing of Libya by NATO be stopped. The US and France and UK have lost much respect in the eyes of African nations as well as such nations as Brazil and India (not to mention Russia and China) who were demanding the bombing to stop for months. But no, the West knew it could not get sufficient clout with Kadafi’s regime regarding Libyan oil - so removed it so it could deal with a weak NTC government which would not exist apart from NATO’s involvement. How shameful has this been and embarrassing to me.
--JamesPadgett
Was this really a humanitarian mission?
No. Because we shouldn’t be there, period.
It makes no sense to topple one dictator so we can put fundamentalists in power to impose their own tyranny.
A rebellion is a civil war. Other countries should not intervene in civil wars. If the English and the French had intervened in ours, the outcome would have been much different.
The truth is, we went in for one thing: Oil.
Just as we did in Afghanistan, where Big Oil has been trying to put in pipelines for 15 years.
Just as we did in Iraq, where the US Army protect the Ministry of Oil while rioters sacked Baghdad after Saddam’s fall.
Just as we back Saudi Arabia, the Big Daddy of Oil Dictatorships-- from whence all the 9/11 hijackers came.
Want to know the big dirty about America’s wars? They are resource wars.
We trade blood for oil. And we don’t give a hoot for the lives of our dead.
We have become so greedy, that like Midas, our touch turns others to stone, for our hearts have long ago turned to stone.
--pahartnett
*Spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected.
RELATED:
Libya’s problems are far from over
After Libya, the question: To protect or depose?
The conversation: Planning for post-revolution Libya