Weren't we just talking about education? I find that I can't understand how our President uses some very simple words. He has said several times recently that Moammar Qaddafi "needs to go" or "has to go." So far, so good: this doesn't pretend to be much more than a meaningless statement using a vague idiom. Obviously Qaddafi has no such need and is under no such compulsion. The speaker merely describes his preference, carefully avoiding any commitment to action.
In this context, "policy" seems to mean "wish." Our actual policy, in the traditional meaning of the word, is harder to make out. It can't be to interpose ourselves between every homicidal leader and his suffering people, or we'd have a lot more hot wars going on around the world. I can see why Mr. Obama is in no rush to address Congress on this issue and ask for a vote.
Didn't the President go to one of those fancy schools? They ought to have taught him better than to sound like such an empty bumper-sticker: Visualize No Qaddafi.
Update (Clearing That Up):
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes explains:
We're clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change, that as we actually say in this readout, it’s the Libyan people who are going to make their determinations about the future . . . . We support their aspirations, their democratic aspirations, and have stated that Gadhafi should go because he’s lost their confidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment