E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Lauren Stephenson
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has expressed concern with arming the rebels in Libya. Appearing on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" yesterday, Feinstein said: "I think the question of arming the rebels is one that we harken back to Afghanistan where we arm the Mujahadin and then found those weapons later on used against us."
Feinstein said her main concern is Khaddafy himself. "Khaddafy has shown every sign of recalcitrance. He's not going to quit. He's going to stay the course. And therefore it begins with Khaddafy and it ends with Khaddafy."
Although Feinstein said there "is an enormous amount of firepower, of tomahawk missiles being used," she told Mitchell it will not stop Khaddafy. "I think, at the head of the snake here. And the snake, in this case, is Moammar Khaddafy. And he's got to go."
When asked how to take Khaddafy out of power, Feinstein cited three options: using the International Court, moving the ruler out of the country by offering him some incentives, or having him meet "the same fate as Saddam Hussein met."
Feinstein said she hoped some questions would be answered in the briefing by Secretaries Clinton and Gates and Admiral Mullen, including what the coalition will do about Khaddafy. The senator made clear the sense of urgency that characterizes international involvement in Libya. "There is an immense gathering of forces of many nations out there. This is not a minor exercise. And if it doesn't work, we need to know that. And we need to change direction."
Leave a Comment:
Rubio vs Feinstein...Gotta go with Mario on this one, seeing as we already ARE arming some of the "rebels" anyway....
This is fascinating. Women in positions of power were what we fought for in the 70's. I'm with Feinstein. Use the International Court to remove Khaddafy. Threaten him with execution by his opponents if he doesn't go. Make leaving more appealing than staying. Reach out to Libyan generals to make a deal. (The tide turned in Eqypt when the military refused to turn on their own people.)
Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are women too, if memory serves, so what is your point? They are in favor of arming the rebels....This isn't about gender, it's about strategic thinking...and you can't negotiate with a crazy man who's been backed into a corner...
Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are women too,
It's great! These women were responsible for coordinating the international agreement to protect civilians in Libya. I don't see Feinstein as being in opposition to Clinton or Rice, but adding to the conversation. Sorry if I sound sexist, but this is what the feminists were fighting for back in the "Mad Men" days.
So Amy - are the covert ops teams in there to protect civilians? Do you really believe that?
Amy - who or what comes after Gaddafi? And just for fun what jurisdiction would an international court have over him, and what enforcement mechanisms could be used to foster his actual removal? And would that court have the same powers to "remove" the US president if it saw fit?
Does that present a problem to you?
It's like the old saying "when you see a snake, you kill the snake." In other words when you see a problem don't leave it for someone else to take care of it you take care of it then. If Gadhafi isn't going to go peacefully then maybe he has to be removed forcefully. Time for him to go. I personally would like to see him on trial for Lockerbie and the rest of the crimes he has sanctioned. We have let this guy get away with terrorism for too long. Again, he has got to go!
If that President was Sarah Palin - Does that present a problem to you? nope!
Thank you for your honesty Amy.
But it is a little troubling to me that your position is as long as it's Obama lying, you're ok with it.
Lies are lies, right? Doesn't make it less of a lie if it comes from Obama, just more palatable to you. Yikes!
Gee, are both groups of independent thinkers waiting for their marching orders, before commenting?
So are the CIA and other covert ops in Libya right now, pursuant to the President's order authorizing such from weeks ago, not wearing boots?
Maybe they walk on their hands?
Cause I thought Obama said there would be no "boots on the ground."
Tap shoes maybe?
Do you agree with Mario or Michelle? You didn't say....
that's what this is about....see you on the Rubio thread If you actually have an opinion other than "I snark Obama"
That was "I snark First Read." Just enough news that libbies can handle.
My position is the same as always - it is absolutely insane to engage in another tribal war. We are up to $600 million, to protect 1,000 rebels. And for what? No end game in sight, and from our other wars, there will be no good end result.
And you bet I "snark" Obama on this. If it's regime change, which it clearly is, then say so and act and fight, accordingly.
But Obama can't really do that, now can he?
$.40 cents of each of the dallars spent so far is borrowed. The next article we will get will be about the budget - Dems want to cut $30billion, Repubs $60billion.
We add $150 billion to the debt in monthly finance charges.
All right Danger - how much needs to be cut, and how long can we sustain this massive insolvency?
You think Rubio is wrong?
So you agree with Feinstein and Bachmann? That is what this thread is about, no?
We can debate YOUR issue on the appropriate thread, which this ain't...:)
Funny Danger because those issues are of course inter-related. Unless those arms are coming from the magic munitions fairy, they are going to cost money. Money like the entire war is costing.
I do have to wonder why you re-ask my position. You really couldn't glean it from my above comment? Huh.
And Danger I'm curious to know why you feel this is an appropriate thread to discuss Rubio. Is his position noted in this article Danger?
So you disagree with Rubio, thanks...
So you could figure it out from the first post. Good for you.
But I wonder why you refuse to respond - why was it ok for you to talk Rubio?
Good only for the goose, Danger? Too bad.
Dangerfield - I support Feinstein over Marco Rubio. In addition I give her credit for taking a stance and questioning the further escalatiion and involvement in libya; contrary to what many other democrats are saying.
As I said in the Rubio Thread...
Drum beats are sounding.
Then - Only will provide humanitarian bombardment to protect civilians.
Now providing cover for armed rebels.
Then - Not willing to get engaged in civil war.
Now - Discussing arming rebels.
Then - No boots on the ground
Now - Administration admits that CIA agents on the ground.
Next - Trainers and military advisors.
Starting to look a lot like the Afganistan model. If I remember that was a quick three week operation with the Northern Alliance but has turned into a 9 plus year conflict of continuing evolution.
Why are Liberals waiting to comment on Senator Feinstein's position? It would appear that Senator Rubio is closer to the administration's position now, wouldn't it? Who do you agree with?
dangerfield
who are you talking to?
Amy
Whatever do you mean?
Whatever do you mean? I don't know, what do you mean?
What do you mean "What do I mean?"...:)
ha ha!
hey, just what we need, war mongering republicans seeking war in the middle east, waiting for the day they can involve Iran. arm them all and then draw a line in the sand, and when the whistle blows everyone starts shotting, and the last one standing wins! hurray for war! hurray for killing! horray for oil!!!