3 Reasons Obama Should Keep His Libya Speech Brief

March 28, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

President Obama announced late on Friday that he’d be addressing the nation tonight about the situation in Libya. The last time he gave a major speech was the State of the Union address, in which he spoke for over an hour, and before that, at the memorial service in Tucson, for over half an hour—a record as far as eulogies by presidents go. (Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all spoke to our country for an average of six to nine minutes during times of national tragedy, and the gold standard of elegies, the Gettysburg Address, clocked in at only two minutes.) You can see why I think there’s a good chance his speech tonight will go too long. Here are three reasons why he should keep it short:

[Vote now: Was Obama right on Libya’s no-fly zone?]

  1. Last week, the White House said that they were avoiding a national address on Libya because it would elevate the situation there and put it on a par with previous addresses by presidents justifying war. Since they were very careful all week to avoid the use of the word “war” —one national security staffer actually called it a “kinetic military action,” which was immediately ridiculed by many, for good reason—then, the thinking went, don’t address the nation in a way that reminds Americans of previous declarations of war. Fine. The best thing the president can do is to succinctly and authoritatively address Americans in a way that answers House Speaker John Boehner’s very reasonable list of questions—especially the ones regarding how much this is all going to cost—and then say good night. [See photos of the unrest in Libya.]
  2. If the president goes on too long—he can’t appear like the three-handed economist in the old joke—he’ll risk looking like he’s got qualms about American policy. He needs to explain what our objectives are and why we’re there. Period. Rather than taking on the broader question about what our Middle East policy is going to be moving forward, he should announce a strategic review and give a date certain for reporting back to the American people what the big picture will be. Everyone knows he’s been out of town and disengaged on this. If he tries to disseminate a long-winded, comprehensive policy, no one will take him seriously. Keeping it short will actually make him look more thoughtful and engaged. 
  3. The president will be speaking tonight from the National Defense University rather than the Oval Office. Not a great move, if you’re trying to avoid the widespread criticism voiced by Charles Krauthammer last week: “It’s a war as designed by an Ivy League professor.” I would keep shots of the university to a minimum and not remind people that he’s at a school, rather than addressing members of Congress directly. One more reason to keep it short. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the Middle East uprisings.]

And if he can keep it to 29 minutes or less, he’ll be able to watch himself on NBC at 8:00 EST, when he leads a great tribute to the Points of Light movement’s 20th anniversary with all the former presidents. In an opening video, President Obama makes a moving statement about the power of voluntary service in an era of limited government—and celebrates the millions of ordinary Americans who are solving our nation’s biggest challenges in their communities. Let’s just hope he keeps his Libya remarks concise enough that we can all watch the tribute with our kids. To me, in the long run, talking with the next generation about giving back to our country is more important than another presidential statement about a frustrating overseas situation that could change by next week. Yet another reason to keep it short.

Tags:
Barack Obama,
Libya,
Congress,
John Boehner,
deficit and national debt,
national security terrorism and the military,
White House

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I know liberals are not noted for checking links, I spent the time to find the text. The video is :

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/25/difference_between_libya_and_iraq_explained.html

You can not tell a liberal Clinton left no surplus or Bush tax cuts does not cost treasury money. To the contrary adds 4.06 %. I can quote the CBO numbers and shut them up for awhile, then they go back to their false beliefs.

I will keep the text handle for the facts, looking up links to go with.

One only had to listen to barry tonight about Libya and then watch the video. Bush did much more to stay out of Iraq and war. In UN resolutions plus Bush had nearly twice the coalition as barry. Dictator in Iraq killed 100,000’s. With both Clintons, Gore, Pelosi, and others thinking Iraq had WMD before Bush was President.

University of Maryland knows which side of their bread is buttered. Democrats live for buying votes.

Too bad we do not know who we are backing in Libya !!!

NATO Nations must all agree. Things can go wrong so easily...

Bill Hedges of MO 9:08PM March 28, 2011

Given that we're the world's largest debtor nation ($14 trillion and rising), spend more than the rest of the world COMBINED on National Security ($1 trillion a year and rising) and find ourselves yet again cost-inefficiently involved in an "intervention" (Libya) while still juggling others, the President has an important opportunity right now to tell the world:

(1) We will be cutting spending dramatically.

(2) We will be calling "Time Out!" indefinitely on future interventions

and wars.

(3) We will gladly rent out, to selected others, our unique military

assets and leadership.

The President recognizes, as all Americans should, that we either change our ways until the national debt is paid off and a surplus begun or we risk sinking rapidly into fiscal chaos and international uselessness. A time out while we cut spending sufficiently and for long enough to eliminate the $14+ trillion dollar debt will be widely accepted by all who are not only wise but who see benefit to keeping our military and assets well fed and exercised at others' expense (renters). The more money we have coming in , the less going out the better. People who have been unwilling to see cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Infrastructure, and so on will be more than willing to see equitable cuts inb them when they see the ax being taken to formerly untouchable National Security, where all outgo has been the case in an exhibition of too easily undertaken military engagements around the world at too great cost in treasure AND blood.

Recognizing our commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya, the President will explain that the way he has engaged other countries in paying for and executing the Libyan intervention will hereafter be the model: All in or No go. And for us, the President will say, the costs for anything at all currently under way or to be undertaken militarily will be on a PayGo basis starting right away. No paygo, no go. It's that simple.

The president will recognize, of course, and you should as well, that all Hell will break loose on Capitol Hill and among Military Contractors and their subcontractors the minute all of the foregoing is understood not to be an April Fool's joke. The money, the jobs, the two parties' solvency--an overload of issues and fright for our poor representatives and senators, let alone for those in the industrial-military complex.

Mr. President, I say throw caution to the wind and go for it. Today is the first day of the rest of your life, too, and being the very best president ever is still, in reach!

Ron W. Smith of UT 4:12PM March 28, 2011

I just linked with your source and while reading through it, I laughed until I nearly cried! But after reading, I sat for a moment and simply shook my head as the realization hit me that this truly is what the liberal democrat is all about.

It has been my hypothesis that there is no reasoning with these people at any political level, or in any political arena. This article and articles like it has been, and continues to, prove my hypothesis to thesis.

This would be an excellent essay topic for a college or university student for their Politcal Science class. That is, any typical campus with the exception of a "left-handed" higher education facility like the University of Maryland, where they would, most assuredly, and quite sadly, receive a failing grade!

Good stuff!

Haberdashery of ID 4:07PM March 28, 2011

Mary Kate Cary

Mary Kate Cary

Mary Kate Cary is a former White House speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush. She currently writes speeches for political and business leaders.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement