Obama on Libya: Facts vs. reality and bipartisan hypocrisy

Contrary to President Obama's speech tonight, we have NO "responsibility to act" in Libya. We have no need to act, either.

And, in his speech, he failed to make his case. Didn't come close. Beyond the lack of need and responsibility to act, he didn't address a number of other issues.

Those include:
1. Mission creep, which has already happening and could gain a whole new phase with discussion of arming the Libyan rebels.
2. Why Libya and not, say, Yemen? (More on this below.)
3. What happens if the rebels, at current empowerment, can't dethrone Gadhafi?
4. What if the "days" stretch into "weeks"?
5. Will he ask, or does he think he will need to ask, for a supplemental funding appropriation? (And wouldn't the GOP like to attach that to the ongoing budget fight?)

That said, the GOP is already going partisan. Here's Texas Sejavascript:void(0)n. John Cornyn, saying what he never said in six years of Bush wars:

"When our men and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, Americans and troops deserve a clear mission from our commander in chief, not a speech nine days late," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee and head of the Senate Republicans' political arm.

So, while Obama may be a hypocrite (more on that below), your average GOPer has already demonstrated himself to be a bigger one.

Further analysis?

This AP fact check analysis has several good points, including and starting with the idea we're not likely to take a back seat within NATO. And, right, mission creep means our mission already isn't as narrow as Obama claimed in his speech. And, it's a flat lie from where I sit to claim this is a vital strategic interest. Finally, it's true that, contra Preznit Kumbaya, we've taken a blind eye to plenty of other countries' nefarrious actions against their own citizens, including ones like Ivory Coast on his watch.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

Now, such questions are coming at him.

Petard is cranking up.