PRINT

 RSS

EMAIL

President Obama made a speech to the nation on Monday night to make his case for intervention in Libya.

As speeches go, it was a good one.  He looked good, he sounded authoritative, and he made a thoughtful and sophisticated case for the unique responsibility America has in the world -- both as the world's only superpower and as the world's most successful and longest-lasting democracy.

The problem with the speech, of course, was not the speech, but the man delivering it and the policies behind it.  The man and his policies make it hard to know what to believe.  When he says something that makes sense to conservatives, conservatives wonder if he means it and liberals hope he doesn't.  Both groups have ample reason to wonder and hope.

Given that, what does the speech mean?  To help figure that out, check out Emily Belz's coverage of the speech.

A key paragraph of her story:

Some questions were left unanswered: Whether the United States would support the Libyan rebels militarily (do they count as civilians?), how the United States will pay for the cost of the ongoing military action, and what would bring the end of the United States’ military role. The president’s doctrine remained mixed, which some commentators called “pragmatic.”

To read the entire story, click here:

http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/17852

For a thoughtful analysis of the speech, check out the opinon piece, also on the WORLD site by King's College faculty members Dr. David Corbin and Dr. Matthew Parks.  They assert:  "The primary lesson former law school professor Barack Obama learned last week was how not to lead a constitutional republic into war."

To read the entire piece by Corbin and Marks, click here:

http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/29/war-and-peace-and-the-american-republic/

Taken together, they present a solid, thoughtful way of engaging President Obama's speech.  They also provide a model for how to apply a mature Christian worldview to all manner of political speech that shows up in the public square.

From where I sit, their "take-away" is this:  think deeply, historically, and biblically and you'll discover that even noble-sounding rhetoric is not what it first seems.