I did not watch it. I was preoccupied with yanking out a hang nail.
Although other people did watch, pontificate and fact check:
From the Washington Times: The President’s Speech. A dizzying dissertation of dissonance.
"All of these contradictions were of the president’s making and are the product of trying to preserve an exalted image that now only a few members of the White House inner circle still believe. The Nobel Prize-winning man of peace who expanded America’s wars; the champion of Muslims who only helps them when it’s convenient; and the great global leader who continually emphasizes America’s declining influence: What a long strange odyssey the Obama presidency has become."
Boortz said it was a well delivered speech; void of substance, but well delivered(VIDEO).
"Perhaps the one aspect of Obama's speech that bothered me the most was the realization that virtually all of the reasons Obama gave for intervening in Libya could well have been applied to Iran and several other middle-eastern countries. When the people of Iran rose up against their own Muslim dictators, Barack Obama decided we didn't have a camel in that fight. Why was it so different in Libya?Jeff Emanuel at Redstate says there was substance, but it simply highlighted our CIC's ineptitude:
Now that's what I would've liked to have heard last night ... Obama telling the American people why it was so important that we spend what will amount to over $1 billion to help the rebels in Libya when it was not important at all that we step forward to help the rebels in Iran. Perhaps the reason he didn't make a distinction between the two is because there is none."
"Even forget that this supposed “handoff to NATO” that Obama has been bragging about every chance he’s gotten is really just a handoff of Libya efforts by a coalition which is led by an American General, and whose only heavy military hitter is the US to…another coalition, which is led by an American Admiral, and whose only heavy military hitter is the US.From the UK Telegraph: Obama's muddled speech leaves Libya war aims unclear.
Concentrate, instead, on this one key fact: this American president, who ran on a platform of not being the Left’s caricature of George W. Bush (a fantasy character who ran headlong into wars with no planning, no Congressional authorization or oversight, no true mission, no exit strategy, no Plan B if things didn’t go swimmingly off the bat, and no real regard for outcomes or consequences), has run the US headlong into a war with no planning, no Congressional authorization or oversight, no true mission, no exit strategy, no Plan B if things don’t go swimmingly off the bat, and no real regard for outcomes."
"While stating that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had to go, he clung to the fiction that this action was about protecting civilians and shrunk from committing US forces to finish the job by unseating its murderous ruler."The AP fact checks Pres. Obama's speech, and it ain't pretty. When you've lost the AP....
And finally, the Progressive fascists prove they can read the writing on the wall, as they virtually ignore any reference what so ever to Pres. Obama's speech last night.
The Daily Kuss merey posted a pundit round up of opinions ( I expect such mediocrity from a no talent hack, like moi, but not from Moulitsas' monied minions).
The oddly named 'Think Progress' only mentioned some Palin gaffe about exaggerating the cost of the Libyan conflict.
And Alan Combs over in Liberaland wanted to make sure everyone understood that Obama was not the hated boooshitler.
But, what else can one expect when community organizers govern?