E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe New York Times editorial page thanks French President Sarkozy for taking the lead last week in pushing for action on Libya, but now tells him to take a step back: “NATO leadership best serves American interests. The United States took the lead in knocking out Libyan air defenses. That made sense because it alone has the cruise missiles for the job. Now the Obama administration rightly wants to hand off military leadership to its NATO partners. Mr. Sarkozy would do himself, and the Libyan democratic cause he supports, a big favor by smoothing the path to NATO leadership.”
The Times’ Kristof makes this point: “Doubts are reverberating across America about the military intervention in Libya. Those questions are legitimate, and the uncertainties are huge. But let’s not forget that a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now and that this intervention looks much less like the 2003 invasion of Iraq than the successful 1991 gulf war to rescue Kuwait from Iraqi military occupation. This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: ‘Never again.’”
“President Obama returned to Washington and a political storm on Wednesday over the military campaign in Libya,” The Hill writes. “Five days into a mission that started while Obama was out of the country on a trip to Latin America, the criticism of the White House’s handling of the Libyan crisis reached a new peak as military leaders hedged on when the U.S. would transition leadership to its allies.”
Politico: “Returning to Washington Wednesday after a tour of South America, President Obama encountered a perhaps familiar pattern from his five days overseas: his decision to launch a ‘no-fly zone’ to protect Libya’s pro-democracy rebellion trumped the trade and diplomatic accomplishments of the trip.”
Republican criticism of President Obama as aloof and indecisive didn’t start with just Libya, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne writes. His reluctance to get into the fray of, as Dionne puts it, “Washington-style conflict,” has been the top strategy for Republicans looking to criticize the president since the 2010 elections.
The Treasury Department had said it hoped to snag $100 million or perhaps more in frozen Libyan assets. But they announced last week that the windfall was in excess of $29.7 billion, “a piece of extraordinary good fortune for the Obama administration at a crucial moment in the efforts to address the bizarre and deadly events unfolding in Libya,” according to the Washington Post.
Arriving in Cairo yesterday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sought to quell Egyptian fears that the fighting in Libya would not spill over the border, the Washington Post writes. And when asked about the military support of other Arab countries, Gates referred indirectly to Qatar, the only Arab country that has thus far committed fighter jets to the region. “’At least one country is participating, but I don’t know if they’ve announced it yet, so I’m hesitant to do so myself,’ he said in response to a reporter’s query about Arab members of the military coalition. ‘A number are providing support and assistance, for example, overflight rights and access and so on.’”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also defended the Obama administration’s actions in Libya, telling reporters in Washington, “Many, many Libyans are safer today because the international community took action,” Politico notes.
Leave a Comment:
Yeah, the Bama don't want to invade or make more grevious pain to another Muslim country. Because he is a Muslim and his sympathy lies with the Muslim world. Again, appeasement works wonderfully. The Bama don't want the world , especially the violent Islamic world and the others that America is bad. He is now pulling back American power and this is dangerous. Appeasement is. The world considers us the Big Satan. The Bama has the mentality of a school child. Down the road lies danger for America. The Bama says that he intervened in Libya because of the humanitarian needs of its people with military force for a no fly zone to aid the rebels. Okay. So what happened in Rwanda and the Sudan, weren't they humanitarian issues also? The Bama didn't intervene. So there goes his Peace Prize. It should be taken away from him. This President and govt is lying and dishonest and in deep sympathy with the Islamic world and as such places the US at grave risk. Every word that comes out of the Bama is laced with sympathy for the Arabs and their throwback cause.
Spit Ding!!!!!
"He is now pulling back American power and this is dangerous. Appeasement is. The world considers us the Big Satan."
So the world considers us the all powerful Satan..that's bad...but then you criticise the President for pulling back that very power. Humm....this sounds like ramblings of the paranoid...and the uninformed paranoid at that.
Question: do you hear Muslims in your head or something? Because you sound kinda whacky.
And...uh...the genocides in Rwanda/Sudan occured in 1994/2004. President Obama didn't even begin his legislative career until 1997. I think you probably need to take this up with Clinton/Bush.
However, in early 2010 the US House of Representatives and the Senate introduced concurrent resolutions on genocide prevention: "recognizing the United States national interest in helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and other mass atrocities against civilians." I believe this ended up in HR 2410.
Is there an echo in here? echo..echo... echo...
The liberal echo chamber...liberal MSNBC quotes the leftist NY Times, and Washington Post, and left leaning Politico...
Bob. Telling the same lie over and over will never make it true. MSNBC policy for hosts is, two conservatives for every progressive as guests, that hardly makes it liberal.
No just the echo of the same old Republican-Tea party play book. Screw the people.
Pat - what in the heck are you talking about? What policy, and where is the policy you described put into practice? Any of the prime time shows?
Oh wait - your talking Lock -Up.
Cause bro I watched Big Ed last night - nary a conservative. I've seen one or two on Maddow, in several months, and we all know Olbermann was way too scared to EVER have a conservative on his show.
So let's hear it Pat. What you got to back up that statement?
Let's be clear. Any and all events in Libya will not distract from the detestable Republican policies of obstruction and destruction and the corporate war on the poor and Labor, now in view for all to see across America.
That said, Mr. Boehner has returned from a week off from his job in Congress. Has Mr. Boehner ever heard of genocide, or Rwanda or Kosova? Does he understand what urgency means on any subject, like jobs?
Was Mr. Boehner fighting family planning or trying to defund the meagre funding of National Public Radio ~ while Obama was working around the clock on behalf of America's economic future? Was Mr. Boehner using the only SoBeIt political strategy he knows how to do, by negating the remarkable "trade and diplomatic accomplishments"(Politico) of the South American trip.
Ask Mr. Boehner what he did on his week off while President Obama was fixing muslim relations broken by the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, saving thousands of lives from slaughter in Benghazi, all the while drumming up jobs for America in South America.
From a purely political standpoint, it was rather amusing to watch the manuvering around this conflict.
Since there was no clear ideological line, partisans on both sides were left confused as to what their positions should be, including the politicians.
I think this should be a lesson to all. Do the research. Think the issues through. Form your own opinions.
And THEN watch cable news.
Let's be clear. Any and all events in Libya will not distract from the detestable Republican policies of obstruction and destruction and the corporate war on the poor and Labor, now in view for all to see across America.
That said, Mr. Boehner has returned from a week off from his job in Congress. Has Mr. Boehner ever heard of genocide, or Rwanda or Kosova? Does he understand what urgency means on any subject, like jobs?
Was Mr. Boehner fighting family planning or trying to defund the meagre funding of National Public Radio ~ while Obama was working around the clock on behalf of America's economic future? Was Mr. Boehner using the only SoBeIt political strategy he knows how to do, by negating the remarkable "trade and diplomatic accomplishments"(Politico) of the South American trip.
Ask Mr. Boehner what he did on his week off while President Obama was fixing muslim relations broken by the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, saving thousands of lives from slaughter in Benghazi, while drumming up jobs for America in South America.
And what exactly was Obama doing in South America...oh, lending billions of dollars to Brazil so they can Drill for Oil. You'd think he would allow the U.S. to drill, create jobs, lower the cost of gasoline, but noooo.
JFK.
Drilling in the U.S. will do NOTHING to lower the cost of oil, or gas.
The reason is this.
Oil in the U.S. is sold on the WORLD MARKET, ane U.S., even if we drilled everywhere, cannot put a dent in the supply of oil. We simply do not have enough oil.
So, the only way that drilling in the U.S. can lower the cost of gas in this country is if we nationalized the oil industry.
Are you suggesting we nationalize the oil industry?
Isn't that socialism?
Why is the right wing generally so ignorant? (I can answer that one...)
The live in a projection based reality, fed to them daily.
Republicants, so what your saying is if we drilled and created those jobs, sold the oil on the WORLD MARKET and used the profits to ease the taxation of fuel in the US, prices would't come down? Interesting...
JFK.
In order to take the profits from the oil sold on the world market, the U.S. governement would have to nationalize the oil industry.
Only then could they use those profits to ease the taxation of fuel.
However, if we nationalize the oil industry, why not just keep the oil in the country?
===========
But I am not yet clear.
Are you advocating for the natinoalization of the oil industry?
Or did you, like most right wing drones, simply not think any of the crap you are fed through?
Hell no, I see how well they do with the Post Office...
So you simply did not think the crap your were fed through.
Interesting.....
You mean "Think through the crap you were fed"? Oh I did... however you obviously didn't. I made reference to giving Brazil Billions of Dollars that could be used here instead. But you went on about World Markets, The Right Wing, Ignorance, etc. I was just playing along...
JFK.
You did think the crap you were fed through. Huh?
Did you, or did you not post the above?
How about this?
If you were not completely confused on the issue because of the projection based reality fed to you, why the display of ignorance, and contridictions?
Oh.
LOL!!!
Because of your condesending remarks thats why. And yes drilling for oil in America would decrease gas prices, but not by much...but again, I was more interested in giving Billions of Dollars to another country, money we don't have. But you just keep spewing whatever point your trying to make.
But my condesending remarks came after you displayed your ignorance on the drilling issue.
And no, drilling in America would not decrease the price of gas, at all.
The reason, as I pointed out before, is because we cannot possible produce enough oil, even if all was opened up today, to put a dent in the global price of oil.
=======
And obviously you are now more interested in the projections about giving money to Brazil.
I haven't called you out on this particular piece of B.S. yet.
One thing at a time.
Ok. Now's good.
We did not give Brazil billions of dollars. You have once again become a victim of the conservative game of telephone.
But, please, keep spewing the projection based reality you so desperately hope to get fed every day.
Mocking ignorance is grand amusement for me.
repulicants still eating that liberal crap, I see. So nice to see you continuing on in your efforts of misdirection by only using a portion of the truth and trying to support your claims that the libs have it right and the right doesn't. To bad you don't understand the concept of "supply and demand". If you did, then it would be a very simple matter to present your dribble into a coherent statement of fact and not political rhetoric.
And no I will not explain it to you as you seem to want to project an attitude of extensive knowledge that no one else beloieves you to have. When you are old enough may I suggest basic couses in micro and macro economics as well as public speaking/debate. Untill then have fun rolling in the hay (err, I mean straw).
american.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!
You can't explain it because you obviously do not understand the concept yourself.
In order for us to effect the supply, we have to have the oil to effect the supply.
Simply put, we don't.
I suggest you finish high school. Wow.
ROTLMAO! What does the term "untapped reserves" conjur up for you? Regardless, your argument does not reflect on what "supply and demand" really means.
Keep on thinking about it though, I am sure that if you are 1/3 as competent as you think you are, you will have an "aha" moment. The best part is that it has very little to do with political affiliation.
I believe one of the reasons Obama was so hot to get us involved in Libya was to try and quiet the people's criticism of his poor handling of domestic affairs, the Health care law, unemployment, jobs and other more important matters. It was Obama that said the U.S. should not be in the nation building business. How are we paying for all of this military action which now is well into the billions, borrowing from China again?
I believe one of the reasons Obama was so hot to get us involved in Libya was to try and quiet the people's criticism of his poor handling of domestic affairs, the Health care law, unemployment, jobs and other more important matters. It was Obama that said the U.S. should not be in the nation building business. How are we paying for all of this military action which now is well into the billions, borrowing from China again?
"I believe one of the reasons Obama was so hot to get us involved in Libya...."
You are misinformed sfcret....the President was trying to avoid our involvement and was "criticized" for not doing anything before the no-fly zone was enacted.
"It was Obama that said the U.S. should not be in the nation building business."
Correct, he did say this, however, a humanitarian effort is hardly nation building.
"How are we paying for all of this military action which now is well into the billions......"
The costs incurred by our military come out of their existing funds. Please note your source of "well into the billions". I don't believe any firm costs have been released as yet. You're not making this up are you sfcret?
Vermont Girl - I believe you are misinformed, as the President could have avoided getting involved in Libya and should have without the authorization of congress. If I remember right it was France and England that wanted the no fly zone and was willing to take responsibility for enforcing it.
This is no more of a humanitarian effort that required this much fire power and the overthrow of a Country which we don't really agree with. There have been many humanitarian efforts over the years and they never involved this type or this much military action.
The cost incurred by our military might be coming from existing funds however those funds will have to be replaced. As for the cost into the billions, The tomahawk and other missiles cost between 500 thousand to 1 million dollars each. Also add into the amount of money needed to fly all the missions, movement of the naval forces, and other cost associated with a prolonged military action and it will be easily into the billions by the time it is over. Who do you think will pay for the majority of this operation, it will be the United States.
One more point Vermont Girl - Remember Obama saying in 2007 the following: "The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." That same conclusion was later echoed by VP Biden.
Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians,
Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.
Rather than unrealiable news/opinion...how about we go right to the source...the UN. We're not overthrowing a country...we're participating with other countries to protect civilians from their crazy dictator. Remember, we ARE part of an international "community" who is trying to do the right thing. No country has been overthrown. No nation is being rebuilt. And, for once, we are not the lone nation doing all of the heavy lifting.
wouldn't it be simpler to just shoot the guy dead, and get on with capturing the oil? maybe, just maybe they can't come up with a new leader for the country?