Changing The Narrative: Rachel Maddow Praises Obama On Diplomacy In Libya (VIDEO)

Changing The Narrative: Rachel Maddow Praises Obama On Diplomacy In Libya

American intervention in the Libyan conflict appears to have many on all parts of the political spectrum feeling slightly queasy– after all, it is the nation’s third military front in the Middle East. But while some on the left are disappointed with President Obama’s decision to send military force there, Rachel Maddow argues that his talks with other nations and attempts to keep the Arab world at the forefront of the struggle are a sign he intends to keep his campaign promises.
“America as a country fights a lot of wars,” Maddow explained at the beginning of the segment, playing a montage of Oval Office speeches by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush announcing wars (“and those are just the ones they announced”). The significance of the profound Oval Office talk struck Maddow particularly– it’s a speech President Obama has yet to give, and this, she argues, was a deliberate choice. “He pointedly declined to do that in a way that presidents usually do,” she notes. While most presidents campaign on policies of peace– particularly jarring is footage of Governor George W. Bush proposing a “humble” foreign policy– President Obama, Maddow concludes, is giving it a shot: “The difference with Mr. Obama as president is that he appears to be walking more of that walk than just talking the talk.”

His talks with the United Nations and wait for “a clear international consensus” differ starkly from some of the more aggressive work Americans have seen from their presidents in the past. “The fact that he’s actually doing it as president is freaking out all corners of the political world that kind of liked the chest-thumping,” Maddow concludes. The idea behind President Obama’s insistence on talking to other nations, Maddow notes, is to “change the narrative.” “Do you want the narrative of America’s role in the world to be ‘America leads Western aggression against Arab countries?” she asks rhetorically. “President Obama wants the narrative to be something different” by showing reluctance to partake in the struggle, she continues. “H wants everybody to know how reluctant he was,” she concludes, while “trying to force to the forefront the Arab world.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/changing-the-narrative-rachel-maddow-praises-obama-on-diplomacy-in-libya/

tough for the "24/7 no matter what the facts are" Obama haters to watch....at least it did not last that long....right?

and I heard that Big Ed defended Obama as well....the Obama hating DUers are not too happy...hahaha!

A lot of knee jerk reactions and name calling today.

Shocka!

(well, not really anymore)

:crazy:

It was SOOO refreshing to watch her supporting Obama!

she's what we used to call a Journalist.

In otherwords, she tells the truth, even when it hurts!

that her competition can't hope to achieve. She's the real thing.


-

“President Obama wants the narrative to be something different” by showing reluctance to partake in the struggle, she continues. “H wants everybody to know how reluctant he was,”

Yes, he does. However there was no real reluctance. That is truly a narrative (as in story).
This is an Oil Company war.

Think not? BP had enough influence to make the UK gov normalize relations with Qadafi.
Then when he tries to get another billion and a half dollars from them (as per wikileaks),
they decide they better get some Brit special ops on the ground. and so it goes

I find no reason to think that beyond speculation you know anything more than anyone else
here.

But thank you for your very own thoughts backed by no evidence cited whatsoever.

yes, oil companies are not involved ......

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/6863374

******Libya's 93% tax rate on oil production makes production not especially profitable**********, Gheit said, estimating that the unit profit/barrel of production was well below the company's average at about $6-$7/b.

did you catch that about the tax rate on oil production?


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/gaddafi-oilcompanies-wikileaks-idUSLDE71M12A20110223

The amount was the initial payment in a planned $1.8 billion fund. The cable suggests Gaddafi intended foreign oil companies to provide full funding for the scheme, which at the time was a key factor in improving ties between Libya and the United States.

Even before Libya paid into the fund, Gaddafi, "who prides himself on being a shrewd bargainer, made it clear that he intended to extract contributions from foreign companies to cover the ... initial outlay," according to the April 2009 cable titled "GOL ratchets up pressure on oil companies to contribute to U.S.-Libya claims fund".

Senior Libyan officials met representatives of 15 oil producing and service companies -- including Marathon (MRO.N), ConocoPhillips (COP.N), Occidental (OXY.N), ENI (ENI.MI), Total (TOTF.PA) , Wintershall, PetroCanada, Repsol (REP.MC) and StatoilHydro -- to say they must contribute or Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC) would be compelled to "reconsider our relationship with you", the cable says


I guess Im just a paranoid, like him--

'Ed Markey (D-MA) said on MSNBC today that "we're in Libya because of oil". '

Richard Engle's reporting toward the end was disturbing.
I support Pres.Obama and he went about it in the right way but that may change in the next few weeks depending on how it goes.

took the day off and stayed home and many of the rebels can't even load their guns.
You should watch it. I still think they were worth saving but we need to stick to the original hand off plans.

The only consensus there is "not Qaddafi." I'm sorry, Rachel, but that's just not a plan. That's a stupid grasp at hoping to glom onto something that hopefully, maybe, MIGHT be a good thing. Some day. The problem is that there's VASTLY too much possibility that what we've gotten ourselves into is something much worse than what we have now with Qaddafi. That is not the smart way to use the armed forces of the United States.

I support my President and I support the troops and I don't like Qaddafi one bit, but this misadventure was a BAD idea, and just because Obama is the one sitting in the big chair on Pennsylvania Avenue doesn't mean that I'm going to just throw everything to the wind and say "well, it's a good thing because Obama's doing it." Unfortunately, it certainly looks like Maddow is doing exactly that.

It's the functional equivalent of Mr. Garrison standing in the middle of downtown Tripoli and saying "murdering your own citizens is bad, mmkay?"

Great. So lots of UNSC members agree that Qaddafi wasting his own people is a bad thing. How wonderful that they were able to agree on that. And they agreed that Libyans shouldn't be able to fly airplanes over the country. And then they agreed that they weren't going to actually enact regime change, but they were going to support the rebels, about whom nothing is known, other than that they want ... you guessed it: regime change!

It's nonsense. It's stupid. It has no teeth and has no end-game. We haven't the foggiest of ideas who it is that we're fighting for over there, but by God, some windbags in a building on the Upper East Side got together and agreed on something, so at least there is consensus, which makes it all better.


How ridiculous.


We have no business being there whatsoever. We have no business blowing up a bunch of shit over there. We have no idea who it is we're fighting for. This was a bad, BAD idea from the start.

It doesn't matter whether a POTUS has an international consensus or not, the U.S. is going to do whatever it wants to militarily. The U.S. will set up torture camps, hold no one accountable and move on to yet another war regardless.

SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES ‘NO-FLY ZONE’ OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING ‘ALL NECESSARY

MEASURES’ TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOUR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Comment from all the council at that link.