Courtesy Daily Mail
|
Did you watch the speech?
Samantha Power took the podium at Columbia University on Monday night sounding hoarse and looking uncomfortable. In two hours, President Obama would address the nation on Libya and Ms. Power, the fiery human rights crusader who now advises Mr. Obama on foreign policy, did not want to get out in front of the boss.
“I’m not going to talk much about Libya,” she began, though when it came time for questions she could not help herself. “Our best judgment,” she said, defending the decision to establish a no-fly zone to prevent atrocities, was that failure to do so would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.”
That the president used almost precisely the same language was hardly a surprise. For nearly 20 years, since her days as a young war correspondent in Bosnia, Ms. Power has championed the idea that nations have a moral obligation to prevent genocide. Now, from her perch on the National Security Council, she is in a position to make that case to the commander in chief — and to watch him translate her ideas into action.
“She is clearly the foremost voice for human rights within the White House,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, “and she has Obama’s ear.”
Are we in Libya because of Gaddafi’s atrocities? Still the world’s policeman? The Arab League? Oil? Power pressed in recent weeks for military intervention in Libya in the face of misgivings voiced by her superiors on the president’s National Security Council.
If it was for oil, we already failed. Libyan oil production is down 80% since the start of the Libyan Civil War (may as well call it what it is), and the remaining 20% is being used by Libya.
Regardless of the outcome, Libya will never produce enough oil to export ever again. Even though Libya only supplied 1% of the worlds oil exports, that 1% is gone for good.
weren’t there like, a hundred comments posted to this article yesterday?
#3, yes, the article disappeared along with comments on every other article.
Well KD your upgrade missed the auto-erotic comments of Alfie on some other posts. Now, none of us are for censorship, but can’t you hand Alfie a towel?
[See my previous comment #4. Ed.]
Was it the same speech as the energy independence speech? Shoot was that Carter or Obama or Ford. Crap I have a program and I still can’t tell the players.
The U.S.A. is at war with Libya because popstars are not doing enough nasty stuff to distract the populace from the impending economical depression looming in the horizon.
[Hey, Sheen did his best – ed. McCullough]
We are there because the stability of governments in Spain, France and Italy depend on the supply of petroleum. Most of Libya’s production goes to those countries.
Spain is on the bubble economically and any stress might tip the balance. French workers are always on the verge of striking and Italy is also over extended. Fuel shortages would cause major outbursts of popular dissent and threaten to topple the governments and also cause severe economic dislocation . The masters of Europe can not risk the consequences.
They have coerced the US into getting involved so the petroleum can flow again through the pipelines from Libya to Sicily. We can’t afford Europe to be in the crapper since they are our biggest trade partner. Once again we do Europe’s heavy lifting.
As I’ve said before, if Libya’s main export was potatoes do you think we’d be involved?
You couldn’t have two more different presidents, and yet they do the same things. It’s almost as if someone was behind the scene pulling their strings.
So let’s say the Libyan rebels are successful – and they overthrow Gaddafi.
Then they go on a wild killing spree – killing all former Gaddafi supporters (he’s been in power 40 years, so he must have had some support). Is that considered genocide?
Will we then run a no-fly zone to protect Gaddafi supporters?
Or if the rebels decide to impose strict Sharia law – and proceed to start killing anyone (including muslims) who do not agree. What then?
There’s a reason we should not interfere with the affairs of a sovereign country – even when we don’t like it.
$100 million dollars per day.
It was apparent from the start that Obama did not want this . But he was pressured into it. Obama is an extremely weak president who takes his orders, and executes them.
With the likes of Kissinger, Clinton and Brzezinski as your New World Order advisers, what more would you expect?
The man has no balls whatsoever. It’s going to take a huge pair to stand up to motherfuckers like that. I have no idea who is up for the job….whoever it is, he’ll probably be killed quickly.
Well the first time America went to war in Libya, it was to stop pirate forces along the Barbary Coast.
That was 1804 in the Battle of Derne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Derne
My God, she is smug.
Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi is winning. We are now committed to yet another war against a dictator asshole that posed no threat to us. Heckuva job, Barry.
#8, “We are there because the stability of governments in Spain, France and Italy depend on the supply of petroleum. Most of Libya’s production goes to those countries.”
Hey, that I could understand. If Barry had said, “We are going to war because this Jerri-curled, fashion-challenged asshole is gonna blow up oil wells and throw the world into an economic tailspin”, it would be a logical reason.
End that warmonger Obama’s illegal war in Libya. He should be impeached because he did not get approval from Congress.
Bush did get Congress’s approval to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Besides, the rebels Obama wants to arm are Al Queda. Not a good idea.
I recommend that Obama read, The Art of War, the teachings of Confucius, and the Prince.
Since Obama claims to be a Christian he might also benefit by going back and reading the teachings of Jesus while side stepping the interpretations of those who have twisted what the good teacher said out of all recognition.
In all cases it is important to get the most accurate translation one can.
Not that it matters it is curious to note that in modern English the letter X is pronounced like Z while in old Latin it was pronounced Chris and meant annotated if I recall correctly. In the context in which it was used that would have meant annotated/selected to do something.
When Clinton committed to Kosovo, the Regressives cried about how he was taking them to war. Then a few years later they were backing Bush full tilt to invade Iraq. Now, those same Regressives are crying again about how we shouldn’t become embroiled ion another war.
Regressives never change.
Some Republican comments from Kosovo. Except for the date, they sound pretty familiar.
“I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”
– former GOP Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott
“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a
foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
–Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the
administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
–Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
–Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
–Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
The foregoing review of the Clinton Administration’s prevarications on
Kosovo would not be complete without a brief look at one other possible
factor in the deepening morass. Consider the following fictional situation: A president embroiled in a sex scandal that threatens to bring down his administration. He sees the only way out in distracting the nation and the world with a foreign military adventure. So, he orders his spin-doctors and media wizards to get to work. They survey the options, push a few buttons, and decide upon a suitable locale: Albania.
– Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton’s decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote “is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.”
Rep. Dick Armey, GOP Majority Leader
“The suspicion some people have about the president’s motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment,” Armey said in a statement. “After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”
Byron York, National Review
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton’s motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton’s critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called “wag the dog” strategy.
Wall St. Journal Editorial Board
“It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment”
http://tinyurl.com/6k25cwf
“When Clinton committed to Kosovo, the Regressives cried about how he was taking them to war.”
Wow. Bombing a country that presented no threat to the US and killing thousands of people is being “committed”. Very Orwellian.
This country has been at war with just about everybody since its foundation.
Americans love war.
They used to be so good at it too.
But evert since the end of WWII they’ve only been engaged in piddling conflicts and diplomatic pissing contests.
They ended up invading Haiti in 1994 because they doubted they could win any conflict after the shellacking they took in Vietnam and the succession of military failures since then.
But they didn’t stay there…
There’s no more commitment to war.
Everything is being done, poorly, by remote control.
There are no more super powers until China get its act together.
What is a ‘regressive’?
“The shift in momentum back to the government’s side is hardening a U.S. view that the poorly equipped opposition is probably incapable of prevailing without decisive Western intervention — either an all-out U.S.-led military assault on regime forces or a decision to arm the rebels.”
Great. Whats next? U.S. ground troops?
Why is the US at war with Libya? Because every US President needs to be a war with an evil, brown, Muslim dictator to win reelection.
If the Muslim dictators happen to be both evil and brown, should we not oppose them? or are we doing affirmative action with dictators now?
#23, “What is a ‘regressive’?”
A warmongering “progressive” who only works for the government class and selective big businesses such as GE.
We should create a line of smart weapons specifically to give to insurgents we wish to support that includes a “kill code” to prevent them from using the weapons against us at a later date. We don’t need to worry about firearms, but any missile we give anybody we don’t completely trust should have an RF-switched “off”.
[quote=”#30-samrtalix”]We should create a line of smart weapons specifically to give to insurgents we wish to support that includes a “kill code” to prevent them from using the weapons against us at a later date. We don’t need to worry about firearms, but any missile we give anybody we don’t completely trust should have an RF-switched “off”.[/quote]A new line of weapons should make contractors happy..again. But it sounds like a hackers wet dream project. And a switch would be very handy on the battlefield, for either side. We also could give them to groups we really don’t like and, well, ..
#23,
A “Regressive” is anyone who wants to take us back in the direction of 1775 America.
They can usually be identified by the loud cries of being over taxed and calling for the impeachment of the Kenyan imposter. Generally, they hate science and go out of their way to deny settled science such as evolution, the “big bang”, and global climate change. They prefer we all hang a picture of Jesus on every public building and burn every building used to worship a god they disagree with and deny employment to those denying the existence of a god.
The easiest way to identify a “Regressive” is just to look at what channel their TV is turned to. It won’t be PBS.
On our border right now, a real war rages with more than 30,000 dead. And it’s crossed over the boarder. That is more of a threat to US interests than anything Libya has ever done.
Where are the calls for helping to end the slaughter of innocents?
This war is Bullshit.
Libya is #1 in Africa in HDI. Europe doesn’t want those countries to challenge them. So they went to war in Libya, asking the US to do it for them. Obama sad yes. Any more questions?