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.
“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.
#15 Ditto best concise statement on this.
#24 What a fiasco…we arm Al Qaeda, great.
Anyone with CEO experience would have foresaw what was needed, and declined to participate.
The argument we had to go because France and Britain demanded it, isn’t convincing.
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.
#19 Oh, great conFused. Still seeing thing to fit your agenda and twisting facts as they go. Then tell me, oh great conFused one, what is Peanut Butter Carter doing in cuba, one of the best allies of Lybia, saying that cuba should be taken out of the terrorist sponsoring states’ list when we all know cuba and Lybia have 50+ years destabilizing the world?
Who is right then, your Messiah in Chief or your Peanut-Butter-Jelly-Time wacko?
#23 Is the state conFusion gets in when his meds start to wear off.
#27 Affirmative action. Good one. I’ll be laughing all day with that.
#28 Your explanation is better than mine.
Don’t blame me if this lefty-loon conundrum leaves you even more conFused.
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.
#32 Waiting for your answer about who’s right, your Messiah in Chief or Mr. Peanut.
#32 To regress back to constitutional government is a compliment.
AND your other items certainly fit me.
Thanks.
In other words, your premise “progression good, regression bad,” certainly doesn’t fit this case, or others. Progress in cancer isn’t good, regression is. There are other examples.
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?
Mr Confusion, some of your statements regarding Kosovo are actually about dropping bombs on Iraq. Could you also pull Bill Clinton’s statements from the time, and tell us whether you believe Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he said Saddam Hussein was a threat?
So it’s not OK to depose a ruler who paid money to Palestinian families of suicide bombers, hosted terrorists on his soil, and was pursuing WMD programs, but it’s OK to depose a ruler who agreed to give up his WMD programs, including nuclear centrifuges, and paid $8 million per family to the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as well as paid up millions more for other terror attacks, because for the former a Republican is president.
Interesting that no one commented on the gist of the article, that we seem to be at war in Libya because of the rants of one person: Samantha Power.
“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.”