E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Courtney Kube
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton renewed the United States' call for Khaddafy to step down and to leave Libya.
Clinton said the U.S. believes "there needs to be a transition that reflects the will of the Libyan people and the departure of Khaddafy from power and from Libya."
Speaking after a meeting with Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, Clinton said the U.S. has "made it very clear that we want to see a ceasefire; we want to see the Libyan regime forces pull back from the areas they have forcibly entered; we want to see resumption of water and electricity and other services to cities that have been brutalized by the Khaddafy forces; we want to see humanitarian assistance reach the people of Libya. These terms are non-negotiable."
Asked about a possible deal in Libya brokered by the African Union, Clinton said that she is still "waiting to get a full read out from the various participants," and that "we'll wait to get the full briefing as to what the African Union delegation determined."
Foreign Minister Stubb said he thinks the European Union should be involved in the future of Libya, especially with respect to the political dialogue. "There is going to be life after Khaddafy," he said, "and the European Union should prepare for that."
Leave a Comment:
No argument on wanting qaddafi to leave, but does obama and company have the wherewithal or even will to accomplish it.
I suppose he can contract out hit squads like clinton said he did for obama.
Not a chance.
Funny how there is no news on this, or more importantly what is happening in other areas. Obama's foreign policy is an absolute disaster.
Saudis are livid with Obama over everything, they think he is a joke. The game in Bahrain is ratcheting up with talk of a full blown confrontation with Iran.
Israel is getting pounded everyday with Grad rockets and mortars - that is looking like a new war.
Al Qaeda has pillaged Gadhafi's depots for everything they need. The rebels have sold 3,200 artillery shells with mustard and nerve gas to Iran / Hezbo. The Israelis (probably them - who else has a set anymore?) have killed the leaders handling the transfer, but no word on the actual shells.
Did Hillary ever figure out who the rebels are? Whoever they are - they are calling us dogs now.
And Hillary talks about what she would like to see......... and the Lion would like a ....... and the Scarecrow would like ........
And don't even ask about Afghanistan.
bob-1805084,
What's even funnier is that I read statements like this.
I thought you guys were calling the president the great appeaser... what happened? do you want him to appease or try to remove someone from power, who actually actually plotted and killed over 100 Americans. I don't have any intel, but I guarantee you the US is working on removing Gadhafi - gut feeling - hopefully the removal will be the right way though...and it wont come back to bite us in the behind.
Although, I'm the biggest appeaser in the room (and a bleeding heart liberal as you'll probably call it)... I don't think the US had an option but to go into Libya with a coalition effort (after-all there would be 1000's if not hundreds of 1000s dead, if we had just sat on the side lines)... where would the US moral compass be if that had happened? Common, we have to be the adults in the room.
I don't know where the situation is Libya is heading, but I liked that it started right.... and yes, I "hope" that it ends well.
General Obama thinks flowery rhetoric along with wishes and dreams will make Khaddafy leave. Obama doesn't understand he's dealing with a hardened dictator/terrorist that knows his way around Middle-East and Arab politics. Khaddafy isn't going anywhere unless NATO gets serious about prosecuting this war Obama started, but apparently someone else will have to end.
Understandable since NATO attacked the rebels tanks, and NATO attacked them because they didn't know the rebels had tanks. NATO just assumed any tank they saw belonged to Khaddafy.
Tunde,
The Saudi / Iran situation over Bahrain could spark a Sunni / Shiite war that could envelope the Middle East. Sorry you are clueless (the medis's fault), but this is no laughing matter.
Israel was pounded by 24 Grad rockets and 50 mortars on Saturday alone. Egypt has sided with the bad guys. This no laughing matter, either.
Obama is gutless. He doesn't touch the tough important stuff like the above, or like Syria now shooting protestors in 25 different cities, or Iran. Gadhafi was low hanging fruit, easy little domestic issue that he blew.
There are hunaitarian disasters happening everywhere, check out the Ivory Coast, Sudan......
Obama has no compass - moral or otherwise. He is simply a great campaigner who is absolutely out of his depth. Many of the innocent rebels he is helping are the very guys who have been in Afghanistan and Iraq killing American soldiers for years. East Libya has provided 20% of the foreign fighters, and Benghazi is the world leader in per capita volunteers to kill Americans.
Obama is a joke.
So the strategy is to Hope for a Change?
Huh. Seems like maybe this might just call for an actual strategy, not just wishful thinking.
American and Spanky, key words to remember:
International coalition....United Nations, NATO, Arab League....multi-lateral....no unilateral decision or strategy.
And yes the people of Middle East and North Africa are hoping like hell for Change.
Spanky... I was gonna respond... but there's no need to; read my post above #1.2.
Thanks :)
backhouse, UN was for humanitarian protection only, or did you forget? Spin it any way you like, but the US continues to interfer in the sovereign rights of other nations. One can't cry foul for one without crying foul for all.
Tunde Obama is not helping the situation.
The Saudi thing is very , very bad.
And come on, we both know that thousands will be dead regardless, or perhaps because of our involvement.
Wars in this part of the world are just bad ideas.
Spanky...we don't know if thousands will die for sure if we went in... but we do know they it will be the case if we had stayed on the side lines... at least if 1000s die fighting Gadhafi, it will be because they died fighting for their country, not that they got slaughtered in their sleep - which is what Gadhafi promised... remember "no mercy" (translation, this slaughter will include women & children).
I was for the president staying out of it, because it initially looked like a civil war, then I realized it was people's uprising vs a tyrant hell bent on holding on to power. Hey, I don't mind the friendly nudge US is providing Gadhafi in his ousting. I think we should do a little bit more. But I can only hope the country moves in the right direction - we will never know, i.e. until the dust has settled. Anything else is speculation.
American, in the your very first line at the top of the page:
You say, "No argument on wanting Qaddafi to leave" and you are in favor. Then you say the UN is interfering in sovereign rights.
Isn't this conundrum precisely what the UN, along with a broad coalition, has been trying to resolve?
backhouse - I said the US not UN, If I read more into your comment about unilateral actions, my apologies. Just consider our plate to be full and that the US never has had any type of consistant foreign policy concerning the middle east.
The UN stated goal was to protect the humanitarian rights of the libyans. My personal opinion of wanting qaddafi out, is just that. While obama and company has a higher standard to uphold
American ~ Well, tens of thousands of people in Benghazi weren't massacred because NATO turned up just before the Qaddafi tanks were about to roll in.
So after that was done, what was the 'higher standard' for NATO's next action, in your estimation? Asking out of sincere interest ~
The Strategy they will come out with is that its Bush's fault and the Republicans..
This is going to sound really naive, but I don't understand why Khaddafy clings to power? Presumably he could get a deal where he keeps the money he's stolen over the years and leaves the country for some luxurious retirement so why doesn't he? I guess I get it if the answer is "he's nuts" but if there is a rational reason, I'm not seeing it.
Who said he was playing with a full deck of cards?
Flip flop, flip flop....why did the cons first say we shouldn't get involved.....then we waited too long to get involved and now we shouldn't be involved again,,,,
I'm following Steeler fan - I may be naive - but why do we need to stick our noses in everybody else's business? I think we did what we thought was right and got an International coalition to take over - What's wrong with that?
After all - we got stuck on Viet Nam, we are stuck in Afghanistan, we are stuck in Iraq. Maybe it's time to unstuck ourselves. OOOOhhhhh that's right how could I forget - we need to keep Big Oil fat, dumb and happy so they can record record profits and little or no taxes.....DUH!
I'd like to extend a big "Thank You" for all the usual suspects for providing nothing of any value to this issue.
You know, any action we take in Libya is going to cost money so it's either he does nothing and gets yelled at for it or he does something and he gets yelled at for it. But that's the way you guys want it, right?