See if you can follow the logic of the Obama administration's meandering qualifications of our great Libyan adventure over the weekend.....
Obama promised a limited engagement of "days, not weeks" and that our interests there are of vital national importance.
SecDef Gates said that of course we have no vital national interests in Libya.
SecState Clinton said that while the US has no vital national interests, that they are of vital national interest to our Euro-trash allies qualifies them as our national interests.
I haven't seen any polling yet, but I'll bet less than 10% of Americans imagine they have a clue as to what we're doing in Libya, the rest know that we're in a quagmire already. And where are the howling republicans demanding from Obama a thorough explanation of what the mission is? What defines success? On whose behalf are we really fighting if Al Qaida is present with the rebels? Will we leave Qaddafi in power? If so, then what was the point of all this?
Without loudly questioning the wisdom and logic of this politically expedient attack on Libya, republicans validate their reputation as the party that loves to go to war any time, any place. If there's shooting to be done and hapless, third-world militaries to decimate....then we're all for it, no questions asked. That's the image of the modern republican party if Boehner and the boys don't stand up and demand some answers.
4 comments:
I think I read that the US had to intervene to prevent a massacre and that was in the US interests. What/Why? And why aren't we intervening all over the world with this logic. Or is that merely what is to come?
We chose Libya because it was a clear-cut and easy operation and France was desperate to keep Libya's oil flowing, far more than we were. We couldn't do anything in Darfur, Chad, Somalia, or any other place for that matter....too messy. Plus, there's no UN mandate by which to abide in those other places. I'm not defending Obama. I don't think we should have done anything in Libya. While tragic, the massacre of his own people by the tens of thousands is a problem for other mideast countries and possibly Europe to handle. I was just explaining Obama's amateur-hour thinking.
Thank you. Now I do see some semblance of logic here.
America's Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya
By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, March 30, 2011
A war on Libya has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 20 years.
On April 14th 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered a series of bombings directed against Libya under "Operation El Dorado Canyon", in reprisal for an alleged Libya sponsored terrorist bombing of a Berlin discotheque. The pretext was fabricated. During these air raids, which were condemned by both France and Italy, Qadhafi's residence was bombed killing his younger daughter.
Barely acknowledged by the Western media, a planned attack on Libya using nuclear weapons, had been contemplated by the Clinton Administration in 1997, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
(Complete story: globalresearchDOTca/index.php?context=va&aid=24049)
Post a Comment