2012ers take aim at Obama's Libya speech

‎

p0rkch0p10‎ RT @latimestot: Obama Libya Speech RT @HeyTammyBruce Glurb blah blah Me change furp Me Me pie revolution slurp Americans blah Me!

Twitter

‎

Rachhope‎ What do you think about President Obama's speech on Libya??

Twitter

Republican presidential hopefuls wasted no time in lambasting President Barack Obama's national address on Libya Monday night, taking to the airwaves to accuse him of failing to exercise American leadership or articulate a clear mission and end-game in the north African country.

Sarah Palin professed herself "profoundly disappointed" in the "dodgy and dubious" speech. John Bolton called it "pathetic." Rudy Giuliani said it only make things "murkier." Donald Trump, the ultimate presidential tease, gave Obama credit for "trying hard" — before claiming the president is "a little bit afraid of Congress, frankly. He doesn't want to go in too strongly because they'll say that he broke his constitutional law."

Taken together, the comments by them and other potential Obama opponents were just the latest example of what's been almost lockstep and fierce opposition to the president's Libya strategy. At various times, Republicans have accused him of waiting too long to intervene, intervening too cautiously, failing to explicitly state that removal of Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi is a must, and ceding American leadership to other countries on the global stage.

"He did not articulate really what our purpose was except some inconsistent humanitarian effort there," Palin said on Fox News shortly after Obama's speech. "He did not make the case for this intervention."

Bolton, one of Obama's fiercest and most consistent foreign policy critics, was particularly harsh "The speech was a dog's breakfast as far as I was concerned," he said on Fox News. "It wasn't much that was new and what was new was trivial. ... I thought it was pathetic."

Giuliani professed himself less than impressed.

"The president's speech tonight has made things even murkier than they were before," he said on CNN. "The whole purpose of this was to clarify our mission. Our mission is just internally contradictory."

And Trump voiced concerns about the rebels being aided by the allied airstrikes, raising the specter that they could have dangerous backers, but without offering any evidence.

"I really do want to know these people we're fighting for, who they are," he said on CNN. "They call them the rebels like they're these wonderful guys, but i hear they're aligned with Iran, I hear they may be aligned with Al Qaeda. ... And to be honest, wouldn't that be really very very sad if we're bombing all of these things killing all of these people one way or the other and Iran ends up taking over Libya."

Moments before the president's speech, Tim Pawlenty reiterated his contention that a no-fly zone should have been enforced much sooner.

"They could have pushed him out without much fanfare, I think, without much difficulty," Pawlenty said on CNBC. "They were indecisive and it lacked leadership in that moment."