On March 18th this year, Obama gave a rousing speech justifying his stilted approach to the struggling Libyan revolution. In this monologue, Obama indicated that "as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." Obama chose the moral high road, and his acolytes held their chests out with pride at having such a great humanitarian as their Party Leader.
Tom Thomas, one of our intrepid reporters, recently interviewed a senior Democratic National Committee official as a follow-up to this speech and subsequent US actions in Libya. What follows is a partial transcript of this inteview.
TT: A civil war is raging in the Ivory Coast, with supporters of presidential claimant Alassane Ouattara massacring substantial numbers of civilians — including one massacre of up to 1,000 people in a single village. Civilians were killed by a combination of small arms fire and being hacked to pieces by machetes. In other areas, people have had their throats slit and been set on fire. A similar conflict is raging in Syria. According to CBC News reports, Syrian government forces, having already slaughtered plenty of rebels, are now "firing on people trying to retrieve the bodies of anti-government protesters and even shooting holes in rooftop water tanks in a region parched by drought."
DNC: Ivory Coast, is that in South America?
TT: No, it's in Africa.
DNC: Oh, that's right! Why are we talking about Africa?
TT: Well, can you please reconcile the White House's position on the Libyan conflict relative to those in the Ivory Coast and Syria?
DNC: Well, I'm not sure there's anything to "reconcile," Tom. The White House's position is entirely consistent. The President will not countenance crimes against humanity wherever they occur, and has acted accordingly.
TT: Well, the US has provided military support to the Libyan rebels, but has done nothing in the Ivory Coast or Syria. There seems to be a difference between the former and latter.
DNC: Not at all, my dear fellow! [chuckles] Clearly, our President's comments must be considered in the context in which they were delivered. The President stands against the slaughter of innocent civilians, wherever that may occur. That's an entirely consistent position, whether applied to the situation in Libya or elsewhere.
TT: So, you're saying all the President meant was that he stands against war crimes.
TT: Not that he intervened in Libya because he wanted to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians?
DNC: Yes, I think it would be completely illogical to conclude that was the purpose of the President's speech. Besides which, the situations in the Ivory Coast and Syria are nothing like that in Libya.
TT: How do you mean? In all three situations, civilians are being savagely brutalized.
DNC: Listen, Tom, the President saw an opportunity to send a few planes to Libya, drop a few bombs, and end the whole conflict in a few days. So, that's what he did. Syria is too much work. And, the Ivory Coast is in Africa. 'Nuff said.
At this point, the official cited another commitment and ended the interview. "We did not get a chance to explore how Obama's plan with the planes and bombs didn't exactly pan out," Tom sighed. "However, I think the DNC official is correct in one sense," he continued. "Obama's position is consistently inconsistent."