|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 28, 2011 13:27:23 GMT -5
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning Warmonger in Chief is at it again! BTW, this is from the lefty website Salon: The Obama administration is now openly talking about arming the rebels in Libya, raising the question of whether such a move would be legal given that there is a U.N. arms embargo covering all of the country. The answer: it depends on who you ask. The possibility of giving weapons to the rebels -- who, by all accounts, have mostly relied on small arms and American bombing in the fight against Gadhafi -- also shows that the mission in Libya may end up going far beyond the original concept of a no-fly zone.Some observers, like the Atlantic's Max Fisher, have already pointed to the troubled history of the U.S. arming rebels in Afghanistan and Central America, places where rebel elements later turned on the U.S. or committed war crimes. That history is particularly relevant today given reports that there are Islamic extremist elements among the Libyan rebel coalition.www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/28/obama_libya_arming_rebels
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 28, 2011 13:35:34 GMT -5
The possibility of giving weapons to the rebels -- who, by all accounts, have mostly relied on small arms and American bombing in the fight against Gadhafi -- also shows that the mission in Libya may end up going far beyond the original concept of a no-fly zone. IMHO, hitting ground targets, which they have been doing since day 1, other than perhaps runways and fighter jets goes way beyond the original concept of a no-fly zone.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 28, 2011 15:00:49 GMT -5
I believe tonight he will say to the effect that that Gaddafi's has to go, but will not be unequivocal in that the full resources of the US will be thrown into that endeavor, which they shouldn't.
A decision is going to have to be made as the insurgents get close to tripoli where his strongest forces will be concentrated.
A major city and out skirts, artillery, armor , much fire power. If they retreat into the city, the coalition will be hard pressed to really damage his heavy equipment with out destroying the city, causing numerous heavy casualties, even though many might be supporters of his , but civilian never the less, and I am not sure the insurgents are sufficiently trained to take on that job.
If , as has been suggested in the debka article, he, Gaddafi's calls into his terrorist net work to attack European and even US interest in a renewed war of terror, then all will turn against him, even th Chinese, Russians, and in time he is finished.
His own commanders seeing the hand writing on the wall and might remove him.
It has been suggested by "defka " that Gaddafi might fall back to the wilderness , under one of the tribes loyal to him, however, if so, he leaves his heavy weapons behind, Armor , his artillery, a old man living in a tent but with out the air conditioning and luxury that he enjoys now on the Palace grounds, and I wonder how many of his troops , commanders remain loyal, and want to join him in his endeavor to wage a guerrilla war to recover his power.
a Osama he is not with that Philosophy of fighting the infidels that is their, alQuida , mantra. He is just a tyrant with great asserts.
Possible, take his money and run to some haven, I am sure he has already been granted a place in the sun some where safe, or as safe as one can be in todays world for ones with great wealth to buy protection.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 15:03:03 GMT -5
Don't worry too much, the rabid "attack Obama in every way and from every angle" Conservatives have lost credibility a while ago.
Right and did you know the Dems are doing the same thing?
Ever hear of Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, Pete Stark, Mike Honda, or Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, or Sheila Jackson Lee.. They are not only attacking Obama but think he may have violated the War Powers Act...can you imagine Obama doing something that serious?? Pelosi is sick over this and wondering why Obama doesn't consult with her more often to prevent these things from happening.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 28, 2011 15:04:43 GMT -5
Don't worry too much, the rabid "attack Obama in every way and from every angle" Conservatives have lost credibility a while ago. Actually, they are gaining credibility and picking up steam. We're gonna have a referrendum on Obama in November 2012 anyway, so bookmark this post and let's see where we're at then...
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 15:14:52 GMT -5
Actually, they are gaining credibility and picking up steam. We're gonna have a referrendum on Obama in November 2012 anyway, so bookmark this post and let's see where we're at then...[/quote][/color]
Do you honestly think many of us wil still be here in 2012?? By then this message board's name will be changed to Home of the MSN Money Board Liberals..
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 28, 2011 17:50:10 GMT -5
On to Tripoli, moaners-no-matter-what. Vive la France et OTAN!!
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 28, 2011 18:05:27 GMT -5
Interesting post here '
"Do you honestly think many of us wil still be here in 2012?? By then this message board's name will be changed to Home of the MSN Money Board Liberals.. "
I did a quick count and find Palm Beach, P.I., Florida, ED. Krickett, Burns , and Henry off the top of my head as leaning{ or all the way super right } toward the right and Hello, mkitty , demine to the left and of course myself, middle to the left.
Now there might be a few more off and on and for those I neglected to mention or if one has a rroblem with my classification of, I apologize, but the point I am makeing, the post above, makes no sense , unless just the presence of some from the left is making the poster uncomfortable and if so, well, there is one's ability to set up ones own clubhouse with ones own rules for admittance, because the #'s don't lie and 2012 is coming up pretty quickly.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 28, 2011 18:06:13 GMT -5
Do to the proboard problems, had a double post
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Mar 28, 2011 20:13:05 GMT -5
How does one "double down"? And the best you have is "weighing in"? I'm weighing in buying the Moon, think I'll do it? You know, "if'n ifs and buts were candy and nuts..." So Obama has the power to do so. He also has the power to jog around the White House every day. For a change a pace, have a "coulda woulda shoulda ain't gonna do ya." Here, since you're in dire need of assistance, let me help: Go to your internet browser and type the words: gitmo prisoner tried I know it's hard, but you may have to scroll down. On the first page, I got articles like this: "First Gitmo Detainee Tried In Real Court Not Guilty On 284 of 285 Counts" wonkette.com/430578/whoops-first-guantanamo-detainee-tried-in-real-court-not-guilty-on-284-of-285-counts"First Gitmo prison tried in civilian court cleared of terrorism charges" www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/first-gitmo-prison-tried-in-civilian-court-cleared-of-terrorism-charges-1.2472172It's kind of sad that you pointedly ignore or don't even look for the obvious and have to go way out of your way to find "dirt" on Obama that doesn't disprove that there wasn't at least one trial (so how am I misinformed?), and all you have are "well, uh, he could do this, and he's, uh thinking of that." Don't worry too much, the rabid "attack Obama in every way and from every angle" Conservatives have lost credibility a while ago. Kitty: I was reading a book the other day. Carlotta: Reading a book? Kitty: Yes. It's all about civilization or something. A nutty kind of a book. Do you know that the guy says that machinery is going to take the place of every profession? Carlotta: Oh, my dear, that's something you need never worry about. "Dinner At Eight"
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 28, 2011 21:41:21 GMT -5
Actually, Des, We're centrists and THEY're wacky righties. The rest of the world, save some unreconstructed "Empire" Tories, is aghast at their fundie/"common sense"/Voodoo/chickenhawk boich about everything BS. LOL!
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 28, 2011 21:42:26 GMT -5
On to Tripoli!! Vive la France and the New Libya.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 28, 2011 21:45:17 GMT -5
Actually, Des, We're centrists and THEY're wacky righties. The rest of the world, save some unreconstructed "Empire" Tories, is aghast at their fundie/"common sense"/Voodoo/chickenhawk boich about everything BS. LOL! Nine Mein Herr!! Ich bien en Reagan Demokrat...danke sehr. Aber deutschsprachig..
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 28, 2011 22:45:05 GMT -5
Actually, Des, We're centrists and THEY're wacky righties. The rest of the world, save some unreconstructed "Empire" Tories, is aghast at their fundie/"common sense"/Voodoo/chickenhawk boich about everything BS. LOL!
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 28, 2011 22:57:11 GMT -5
"Dinner At Eight" Jean Harlow and Marie Dressler
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 7:25:04 GMT -5
Re: Obama's New Mission in Lybia: Install Democratic
I thought Obama made a good case for the attacks by the UN in Libya for humanitarian purposes and to prevent a lot of loss of life. However I thought he was very vague and and didn't reduce at all Americans anxiety in describing the next steps or a new lexicon " Mission Anxiety" I guess....I would like to know if we are arming the rebels and who are they? al Qaeda? Iranians? Muslim Brotherhood? Who is their leader and is he pro-american?? What about Irag, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and the other hot spots in that region of the globe and what is our mission there? Does the UN or NATO have the lead role and what role do we play now on the world stage because Obama wants us to take a back seat because we cannot afford another Iraq.. Ok I can live with that but what is our mission??
Hey but what do I know?? Not much!!! Thanx to Obama, I guess? But then again in my prior career I was more worried about staying alive for just one more day, so now life is good and my time now is just icing on the cake , but am concerned about my two grand kids lives in @ 15 years or so??..IMHO
Now time to sit back and await all the cheap shots by the Obama fan club here...go for it..and give it your best shot.. But post something worth responding to if you want my responses and not your usual dribble, profanity, and tauntings
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 7:53:59 GMT -5
I felt as though the president did a pretty good job of explaining what's happened. As to what's going to happen, since control is being ceded to NATO, I'd say that's their baby. We're stepping back, not forward, so it isn't any longer our place to make the plans. I hope we stick to that. The decisions we'll have to make will come as a result of decisions NATO and the UN make. As someone else pointed out, with all that's going on, it probably isn't a good idea to start announcing possible alternatives at this point. Lay low and STFU is most likely the best course to take. At least, that's how it seems to me.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 8:04:42 GMT -5
I felt as though the president did a pretty good job of explaining what's happened. As to what's going to happen, since control is being ceded to NATO, I'd say that's their baby. We're stepping back, not forward, so it isn't any longer our place to make the plans. I hope we stick to that. The decisions we'll have to make will come as a result of decisions NATO and the UN make. As someone else pointed out, with all that's going on, it probably isn't a good idea to start announcing possible alternatives at this point. Lay low and STFU is most likely the best course to take. At least, that's how it seems to me. Apparently NATO doesn't want it.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 8:41:00 GMT -5
Lay low and STFU is most likely the best course to take. At least, that's how it seems to me.
We call that running scared Ma'am..
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 29, 2011 8:46:26 GMT -5
I felt as though the president did a pretty good job of explaining what's happened. As to what's going to happen, since control is being ceded to NATO, I'd say that's their baby. We're stepping back, not forward, so it isn't any longer our place to make the plans. You do realize that nearly 25% of NATO funding and control comes from the US, don't you? We provide nearly as much support as the next two largest players combined. The top dog at NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples is Admiral Samuel Locklear, an American. This "NATO takeover" is simply going to be smoke and mirrors.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 8:51:03 GMT -5
I really don't care where the funding comes from, floridayankee. It's not the funding we're discussing here. It's the actions being taken, and to be taken with regard to Libya. The point is, as I see it, this is now a NATO-run action. Whether some of the leaders are American, or Slobovian, is not the issue. Our president should not be announcing decisions with regard to an issue that is in the hands of NATO. That would be up to NATO, regardless of who makes up NATO.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 8:53:14 GMT -5
I felt as though the president did a pretty good job of explaining what's happened. As to what's going to happen, since control is being ceded to NATO, I'd say that's their baby. We're stepping back, not forward, so it isn't any longer our place to make the plans. I hope we stick to that. The decisions we'll have to make will come as a result of decisions NATO and the UN make. As someone else pointed out, with all that's going on, it probably isn't a good idea to start announcing possible alternatives at this point. Lay low and STFU is most likely the best course to take. At least, that's how it seems to me. Apparently NATO doesn't want it. Whether they want it, or not, control is being ceded to NATO. There are a lot of things I don't want, but they tend to come my way despite my wishes.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 9:02:56 GMT -5
Apparently NATO doesn't want it. Whether they want it, or not, control is being ceded to NATO. There are a lot of things I don't want, but they tend to come my way despite my wishes. NATO is reportedly delaying its planned takeover of military command in Libya as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice says the Obama administration has not ruled out arming Libyan rebels in their fight against Muammar al-Qaddafi. Read more: www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/29/considering-arming-libyan-rebels-fight-qaddafi/#ixzz1HzsmnOEb
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 9:07:26 GMT -5
Of course they haven't ruled out arming Libyan rebels. To do so would be in line with the current UN directive. I wouldn't expect anything that is in line with that directive to be ruled out at this point.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 29, 2011 9:20:11 GMT -5
Whether they want it, or not, control is being ceded to NATO. There are a lot of things I don't want, but they tend to come my way despite my wishes. Do the math mmhmm...this is likely nothing more than a name change. NATO is a US led military alliance. We're simply rearranging the deck chairs and handing control over to ourselves.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 29, 2011 9:26:00 GMT -5
I felt as though the president did a pretty good job of explaining what's happened. As to what's going to happen, since control is being ceded to NATO, I'd say that's their baby. We're stepping back, not forward, so it isn't any longer our place to make the plans. I hope we stick to that. The decisions we'll have to make will come as a result of decisions NATO and the UN make. As someone else pointed out, with all that's going on, it probably isn't a good idea to start announcing possible alternatives at this point. Lay low and STFU is most likely the best course to take. At least, that's how it seems to me. And who runs Nato? Who's fighter jets, and missles will be used in future attacks. Incidentlly, in Iraq, when using laser attack technology, weren't ground troops on the scene to guide the missles home? I am wondering if special ops are on the ground now in Libya. Now that would be interesting if they are, and the President failed to mention it. I believe "war" was mentioned once in the speech last night, and "Libyan guerrillas" were not mentioned. I guess they are all Patriots and freedom fighters, but that was not mentioned either.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 29, 2011 9:37:48 GMT -5
I to thought he gave a good explanation last night, especially the fact that it is so hard for America to stand by when possible mass murder most likely will take place, even though he said we just don't have the capability;ity to step in every time this horrible event seems to take place somewhere in the world.
Here it was possible to stop that because of the way so many countries were on the same wave length, including some in the Arab world, Arab League, though granted, not sure if they were ready for what that means, action against Gaddafi's forces, really meant, the consequences.
I want us in a support role, but I wonder how committed the NATO and other coalition are to continuing this action, if they can afford it, and I just don't see how the insurgents can actually take the next step, going after Gaddafi's forces with what they have now, with out coalition forces on the ground and better weaponry to combat Gaddafi's Armor, personnel carriers, artillery plus the better lead, granted not class A troops, Qaddafi ground troops.
They, insurgents, need anti armor weaponry, but with the armor of today, even the older soviet tanks that Qaddafi has, long ranging cannon, better armor, the old 3.5 bazooka won't do it, it there are any left anywhere, and the new anti armor of today for ground troops, is expensive, training needed, and most likely if given, if they did get a tank , I wouldn't be surprised to see another shot off in the air in celebration.
These are not trained troops, insurgents, who know how to fire and maneuver, get into position, take care of their weaponry and it would take time to so train them, and I doubt if there are any officers, non com's of quality and #'s in their ranks so who is to train and lead them.
I grant you they , insurgents, are brave and many are willing to give their lives to topple this regime , but I am afraid that is not enough.
In my opinion, unless the coalition leaders are willing to sit down and come to terms of what to do to really diminish and discourage Gaddafi's forces, and that would be , IMHO, to put some boots on the ground, if not battle units, then the special troops armed with these anti armor weapons, people to direct the aircraft so that Gaddafi's forces can be hurt thus discouraging his, Gaddafi's, troops and getting them to melt away, it seems Qaddafi is in a strong position to hang around and actually stay in power in his own area.
He, Obama , mentioned we are holding 33 Billion of Lybia's $ 's , to be returned to the he people.
I realize the in a politically correct world he has to say that, you don't want the opposition of nations who are not on board to say that we are in this for their , Lybians, resources, oil , or their wealth in $, but the reality is, to conduct these campaigns is to costly today. Countries taking part for the most part can't afford them, and since the sacrifices are for the majority of the Libyans , why not have them pay for those costs, especially those costs that would not be done, over salary's and normal training and patrolling of planes and ships, and say so, let the UN be the custodians of the Lybia money, the one to make out the checks once this is done , from those Lybian funds. Return whats left.
If NATO and coalition forces , governments knew a good amount of their costs would be reimbursed possible they would feel better of continuing the course.
I just don't think they can really afford it for long, war has become to expensive to wage and to me, when their is fighting between forces, they can call it anything they want to, it's still war in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 9:44:02 GMT -5
First thoughts: Necessary, realistic, and unsatisfactory Summing up Obama’s speech in three words: necessary, realistic, and unsatisfactory… Obama’s answers (or non-answers) on the endgame, the cost, the Libyan opposition, and future humanitarian crises… The president, in New York today, sits down for an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams… Also in New York, he speaks at a dedication and attends two DNC events… Will Libya impact the budget debate?... Report: Obama will file for re-election less than three weeks for now… Is Barbour wooing Huckabee?... Santorum remains in New Hampshire, while Newt is in Wisconsin… And "Daily Rundown" interviews Stephen Hadley and Martin O’Malley, while "Andrea Mitchell Reports" has Susan Rice, Joe Lieberman, and Amy Klobuchar. From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg *** Necessary, realistic, and unsatisfactory: President Obama's speech on Libya last night was necessary, realistic, and unsatisfactory. NECESSARY because, nine days after the military campaign began there, he needed to update the American public on its status, aims, and future (arguably this should have happened at the start). REALISTIC because while he said U.S. intervention was needed to avert a humanitarian crisis, it had to be limited and multinational to avoid repeating the mistake of Iraq. And UNSATISFACTORY because it pleased very few, which in retrospect shouldn’t be too surprising given how complex and fluid the Middle East is right now. Despite all the backseat driving (Obama should have acted earlier! He shouldn't have acted at all! He should have gotten Congress' approval first!), the president will ultimately be judged by voters how he's navigating these difficult waters -- not by every paddle stroke, but rather by if the boat eventually gets to shore safely. *** On the endgame: Yesterday, we said we were looking for Obama to answer four questions in his speech. Here are his responses (or lack thereof). Our first question: What's the end game for U.S. involvement? What happens if Khaddafy's forces and the rebels are locked in a months-long stalemate? Will the U.S. continue to intervene? The president’s answer: "Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Khaddafy’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role -- including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications." *** On the cost: Our second question: How much has the mission cost, and how much will it cost? His answer: "Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation - to our military, and to American taxpayers - will be reduced significantly." Bottom line: He didn’t fully answer that question. firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/29/6367597-first-thoughts-necessary-realistic-and-unsatisfactory
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Mar 29, 2011 9:46:05 GMT -5
*** On the Libyan opposition: Our third question: If the rebels triumph, what kind of governing order would they bring to Libya? His answer: "[Today], Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Khaddafy, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve -- because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people." He avoided showing direct support for the opposition, even as U.S. actions clearly show the administration taking sides.
*** On future humanitarian crises: Our fourth question: What happens the next time there's a humanitarian crisis and the international community supports an intervention? What does that mean for Syria? What about Iran? His answer: "In this particular country - Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves." This, as we’ve said before, is the Obama Doctrine: The U.S. will take military action to avert a humanitarian crisis if its scope is limited and if it has the backing of the world community.
*** Start spreading the news… : President Obama’s answers to those questions -- or the lack thereof -- will be fodder when he sits down for an interview this afternoon in New York City with NBC’s Brian Williams, which will air on "Nightly News" tonight. Also in New York, Obama delivers remarks at the dedication of the Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building at 4:45 pm ET. And then he hits two DNC events in the Big Apple. The first is a fundraiser at the Red Rooster Restaurant with roughly 50 supporters, a DNC official tells First Read. The cost is $30,800 a plate, and it will raise $1.5 million for the DNC. The second event is a "thank you" event with about 250 supporters at the Studio Museum. (Most of March has been about other Democratic committees getting the president's help to raise money, because once the calendar turns to April, the president's fundraising focus will be mostly trained on himself and 2012.)
*** The surprisingly partisan reaction: Here’s a final thought on Obama’s speech last night: The congressional reaction was surprisingly partisan, especially for a foreign policy speech. A typical Republican response: "When our men and women in uniform are sent into harm’s way, Americans and troops deserve a clear mission from our commander-in-chief, not a speech nine days late," said GOP Sen. John Cornyn. "President Obama failed to explain why he unilaterally took our nation to war without bothering to make the case to the U.S. Congress." Meanwhile, the Dem responses largely backed the speech, albeit unenthusiastically. "I support this lifesaving effort, which has been authorized by the United Nations and backed by our European allies and the Arab League," said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. "I also applaud the service and courage of the American troops who are helping to carry it out. It is essential, however, that the president continue to inform and consult with Congress." The GOP reaction confirms the White House view that most of the criticism coming from Congress is political in nature, which may explain why they seem so uninterested in responding to it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 29, 2011 9:46:51 GMT -5
There are 28 members of NATO. While we may be the largest member, and the member providing the most funding, there are still 27 other members. It is NOT a one-sided decision. You may assume the other members will go along because we're the big, bad ogre. I'm not going to make any assumptions, as I find that a worthless passtime. Turkey, at this point, is edgy about the whole thing because they don't want to be involved against a fellow Muslim nation. There may be others who are conflicted. I don't know. What I do know is: The 28 nations belonging to NATO will make a decision. The decision will not be made by any one nation. If you wish to see that as cosmetic, fine. At least, we're not wading into this one all alone!
|
|