Editor's Note: Stewart Patrick is a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats, and International Security.
By Stewart Patrick, Foreign Affairs
The fall of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is a significant foreign policy triumph for U.S. President Barack Obama. By setting overall strategy while allowing others to shoulder the burden of implementing it, the Obama administration achieved its short-term objective of stopping Gadhafi's atrocities and its long-term one of removing him from power. This was all done at a modest financial cost, with no U.S. troops on the ground, and zero U.S. casualties. Meanwhile, as the first unambiguous military enforcement of the Responsibility to Protect norm, Gadhafi's utter defeat seemingly put new wind in the sails of humanitarian intervention.
One must be careful, however, not to overdraw lessons from the Libyan experience. It was a unique case and is unlikely to be repeated.
For one, Libya had Gadhafi, a villain straight from central casting, who had managed to alienate nearly all UN member states, including his erstwhile Arab and African allies.
The timing was also perfect. As the UN, NATO, and United States debated intervention, leaders in the Middle East were still reeling from the Arab Spring. Acutely aware of the vulnerability of their own regimes, the members of the Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Conference, and Gulf Cooperation Council all endorsed the UN's declaration of a no-fly zone over Libya, including the use of "all necessary means" to prevent mass atrocities.
In addition, China and Russia, the two permanent members of the Security Council (UNSC) most averse to authorizing military intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, had no special relationship with, or interests in, Libya. So, they had no reason to veto a collective action. Moreover, Libya is a small country, with a population of only 6.4 million, which is concentrated along a fairly narrow strip of land by the Mediterranean. Thus, the logistics of military intervention promised to be less daunting there than it would have in Sudan, for example, which is fifty percent larger, almost seven times as populous, and has hundreds of thousands soldiers under arms. And since Libya is situated on Europe's doorstep, NATO and the EU were more motivated to provide aerial power and political support for the mission, since regional instability and a wave of refugees would effect them. The country also possessed a credible, fairly cohesive, and increasingly capable opposition movement, which provided the ground force that casualty-averse Western governments would not. These rebels ultimately proved able to defeat Gadhafi's military machine.
Finally, Libya was an unambiguous case for applying the RtoP doctrine. To be sure, the atrocities Gadhafi orchestrated in Libya prior to the intervention pale in comparison to those committed during the course of other recent violent conflicts. In Sri Lanka, for example, the government killed thousands of civilians while finishing off the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 2009. And forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have raped tens - or perhaps hundreds – of thousands of women over the past decade to sow terror. Gadhafi's violent crackdown on this spring's protests and his explicit promise to "have no mercy and pity" on residents of Benghazi, the opposition stronghold, also left little ambiguity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted in March, "left unchecked, Gadhafi will commit unspeakable atrocities."
Read: Obama's Options in Damascus
Gadhafi's ouster may vindicate the RtoP idea, but the application of the norm will inevitably remain selective and highly contingent on the political context. The humanitarian imperative is a strong and growing global impulse, but statecraft is still subject to constraints of geopolitics, resources and political will.
What has been most striking in the Libyan case is the Obama administration's vocal leadership in seeking to consolidate RtoP as a vital global norm - a stark contrast to the lukewarm attitude of the Bush administration. Washington's embrace of RtoP is critical, because the United States is the only country with the power and the credibility to actually enforce it.
Lest one imagine that the Libyan case is a one-off, on August 4 the Obama administration released the Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities (PSD-10). The directive defines the prevention of mass atrocities as both "a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States." PSD-10 is a groundbreaking document and represents a huge victory for National Security Council Senior Director Samantha Power, a leading administration hawk on Libya.
The PSD-10 recognizes a simple truth: The United States will inevitably confront atrocities that cannot be ignored. The directive expands the menu of policy options available in such cases, which should range from complete inaction to sending in the marines. This escalatory ladder is meant to encompass preventive diplomacy, economic and financial sanctions, arms embargoes, and ultimately coercive action.
Realist critics have bemoaned it as a blueprint for interventionism run amok, anticipating meddling in foreign conflicts on a grand Wilsonian scale. But an honest evaluation of the directive should be informed by the United States' previous experience with RtoP; given the country's sorry record in actually confronting mass atrocities - in the killing fields of Cambodia and the bloody hills of Rwanda, to name just two - the realist critique seems off base. Indeed, the far greater risk is that the directive will gather dust on a shelf, while the United States and the international community ignore the victims of atrocities.
Read: Libyan Nation Building After Gadhafi.
Ultimately, the fate of the PSD-10, and perhaps of the RtoP norm itself, will depend on the attitudes of future U.S. presidents and the American people. Will they be willing to devote resources, and potentially lives, to address the suffering of strangers? The question is, in part, a moral one: What obligations does the United States have to those living beyond its borders? It is also a strategic one: How does a policymaker weigh the potential benefits of an intervention (in terms of lives saved) against the costs to the United States (including in the lives of its own soldiers).
There is no easy answer to this question. In the late nineteenth century, Bismarck famously remarked that the entirety of the Balkans was not worth the bones of a single "Pomeranian grenadier." A century later, NATO dithered before summoning the will to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the United States pulled out of Somalia after the deaths of eighteen U.S. Army Rangers.
Now, two decades later, no senior official in the Obama administration nor member of Congress has issued a call for intervention in Somalia to assist the delivery of emergency food aid, as that country faces its worst famine in decades. Al Shabaab, a U.S. designated terrorist organization, controls the vast majority of drought-affected areas and is obstructing the delivery of foreign aid. Without assistance, 3.2 million Somalis will likely die. The United States' silence on Somalia contrasts starkly with its policy on Libya.
The United States will remain selective about humanitarian intervention, because it must balance the goal of preventing suffering with other interests and commitments, and because some conflicts, such as anarchic Somalia, are dauntingly complex and would impose unacceptable burdens on well-meaning intervenors.
As Obama has noted, however, that is no excuse for inaction everywhere. Although rigid criteria for involvement are unrealistic, the U.S policy on armed humanitarian intervention should be guided by several principles, which I first outlined in 2004 when I was on the State Department policy planning staff.
First, the United States should set the bar for intervention high. It should be limited to stopping or preventing egregious atrocities –situations in which governments or insurgents are targeting large numbers of civilians with genocide, systematic rape, mass murder, expulsion or other crimes against humanity. There are prudent reasons for this limitation. Sovereignty remains the stabilizing force of the world order - a barrier to global anarchy. In addition, U.S. capacities are finite. Without discipline, its resources could be quickly exhausted.
Second, armed intervention should be an option of last resort. Given the costs, risks, and the unpredictable consequences, it should be employed only when other measures fail or when the speed and scale of atrocities outpaces slower instruments. And then, the mission should be undertaken using means proportional to the conflict, and should be coupled with a realistic long-term political strategy to address the violence's root cause.
Third, multilateral interventions are vastly preferable to unilateral ones. They offer both increased legitimacy and the promise that others will share the load.
Finally, the United States should undertake armed humanitarian intervention only if its leaders are committed to marshaling and sustaining the domestic support required to stay the course even if the going gets rough. Absent enthusiastic public or congressional sentiment in favor of intervention, the president must be ready to lead on his own.
Read: How Iran Keeps Assad in Power in Syria.
When it came to authorizing and conducting the Libya intervention, the Obama administration checked all these boxes. It set the bar high; moved to military force after other expedients had failed; designed a military strategy with good prospects of success, using proportional means; and it forged a broad coalition, legitimated by the UN Security Council. Finally, Obama displayed the political courage to do what was right, sticking with the campaign even as U.S. public support flagged from lukewarm 43 percent in late March to a dangerously low 24 percent by July.
Libya has demonstrated the viability of a well-implemented RtoP intervention. Yet just because the doctrine has survived a significant test, one should not assume that the United States and its allies will apply it universally. As atrocities emerge in other contexts, the international community will need to cultivate and weigh other policy options against armed intervention, so it is not faced with stark choice of military action or inaction. The Obama administration's PSD-10 is a step in that direction.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Stewart Patrick.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
The R2P – Responsibility to Protect – norm has been arbitrarily applied. Gaddafi has been toppled because he was an easy target – wayward and isolated. The others, who commit similar atrocities get away with murder. Has Gaddafi's fall got to do with the fact that his good fortune has come to an end? If so, maybe a tarot reader could advise who's next?
About to say: what the HECK is RtoP. Zero showed up in Google. Thanks for that. Must say, that is a pretty bad editorial gaff.
@coodav – RtoP or R2P stands for Responsibility to Protect, a norm which enabled the Western forces to interfere in Libya, as Gaddafi threatened to take vengeance on the rebels in Benghazi in March. This intervention turned out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Under the pretext of protecting the civilians in Libya against Gaddafi , NATO and its allies aimed at toppling his regime.
Paragraph 1:
"Meanwhile, as the first unambiguous military enforcement of the Responsibility to Protect norm, Gadhafi's utter defeat seemingly put new wind in the sails of humanitarian intervention."
If you read that and then couldn't figure out what RtoP meant...
Normally it is proper writing practice to put an acronymn in parentheses after the first usage of the term to which it applies, ie, responsibility to protect (RtP). Just poor writing and/or poor editing.
RtoP is explained in the very first paragraph of the article.
Makes you look quite foolish when you comment without even reading it.
I personally think the media is getting quite lazy with all these acronyms.
Contrary to the other posters who belittle you for not seeing the connection in the first paragraph, I fault the editor for this confustion. This article was written from the perspective of a professional who should have been more clear what the acronyms neams by writing something like "enforcement of the Responsibility to Protect norm (RtoP) " instead of making one have to "figure it out" by combing up and down to see the connection. I am highly educated and I did not see the connection. That is the fault of the writer and editor, not the public.
Agreed, acronyms – no matter how "common" the writer perceives them to be – should always be expanded in their first use, that's one of the most basic rules of writing.
@coodav, You should try this thing called Google, I did: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/the-un-and-rtop
The Right to Protect was mentioned in the first paragraph. This word has been used so often in regard to the Libyan conflict, that maybe it seemed O.K. for the writer to shorten it back into it's acronym in the following paragraphs.
google cite, fyi:
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop
Good job CNN, put up some CFR propoganda, like we don't know what you're all about. Rah Rah, yeah great, we have been funding and training Al-Qaeda (which the mainstream media likes to call "the rebels" like they're good), and now there is a vacuum where Al-Qaeda will take over that country. What a brilliant foriegn policy. And we have had boots on the ground, in the form of special ops and intel, who have now fought side-by-side with the same people who killed US soldiers. What a joyous day. These "rebels" have also been murdering and raping, but you won't here about that from the big 3 networks. It's all propoganda – open your eyes and do some research. Well it's not the first time we funded and supported Al-Qaeda (muhajadeen), so here we go again I suppose. Let's all celebrate!
Read the article. The makes the point that this was a unique case, exactly because of Ghaddafi's isolation, and because China and Russia had no interests there, and because other OPEC nations were withdrawn due the Arab Spring. The author's point is exactly that- that this case was the first unambiguous application of RtoP, mostly BECAUSE it was unique. Other examples have always been more complicated, messy to get and out of, and have not involved unanimous consent in the UN.
This touchy-feely RtP protocol does not mean the USA has to intervene.
If America cannot be "touchy feely" in regards to human rights and the right to speak out against tyrannts and others what should American be "touchy feely" about? The last POTUS found that America needed to be Touchy Feely with Oil Companies and that has cost us Trillions of dollars thousands of U.S. Solidiers lives as well as the invasion of two countries that will likely (Afghanistan for sure) fall back in to Chaos as we draw down our troop support. I will take Obama's (and the UN's) R2P any day thank you.
Russia and China did have interests in libya its about loan and Oil hmm i could say then america has no interests in afghanistan to
getreal – so are you saying that Libya will not fall into chaos once we withdraw support? Right on!
@Pete: what 'American support' are you referring to? We have no troops on the ground. We have no occupying force. The only thing we have to do now to 'pull out' is stop bombing. Quite a bit unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, huh?
Yeah, yeah and yeah . . . don't forget Obama's leadership is what this article is about. now repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President"
Gosh! How could we possibly forget?
Talking about leadership remember when the left-wing media tore-up Papa Bush in Read My Lips about raising taxes and son Bush constant charaterization in the media now you can enjoy the same guy who did son Bush about Obama. Steve Bridges is the guy who imitated George Bush on the Jay Leno Show. He has now started imitating Obama and does it well. Just Google Steve Bridges imitating Obama. It is just a start! Great Job Mr. President!
@GGOPA: are you actually saying that Obama is like Bush because they are imitated by the same comedian? Really?
Well Obumble got one to put on his little lapel finally. He sat there and let his own country down day after day with indecisive leadership, bad ideas and general inability to do his job but his people got Libya settled. We had no interest in Libya and this was pure waste but hey he got a win somehow. Still is the worst President ever but hey he got one.
Go back to Fox inbred.
No one cares what you've been told to think.
Obama sent in a few dozen Navy Seals and Mission Accomplished – something that you know who failed to accomplished for 8 years.
you're an idiot... He also got Bin Laden and his number two, and is wiping out AlQaeda by the minute... For those of us who voted for him, he has done a remarkable job considering the dixiefascist ring wing like you are doing everything you can to stop progress... it treason really... remember: "American First".. jack a$$
S are you for real? You think Obama made the killing of OBL possible??? Give me a break. That was our fine Americans at the CIA and in the military. You loonies need to get off of Obamas d***! He is just as bad as Bush was, and he'll just as bad as the next clown that takes office (Unless Bachman wins, then we are really screwed). Obama probably never even made the call to go in with Seal Team 6. The CIA chief probably saw the window open and took the chance. Then after it was all done, they called Obama to tell him it was done so he could get his cronies together and take the now famous photo of those clowns sitting in the op room. They were really watching Oprah.
Al Queda is not Americas enemy....Our own politicians are!
@Politician Hater: you're an even bigger idiot! Obama is commander and chief, dufas! He is the one who not only had the authority to order the operation... but, and here's where I'm gonna lose you, moron, the courage to make the strike. Mission Accomplished! Go back into your cave neanderthal....
Got one? Maybe you should give him at least credit for two or three, He has eliminated more in his term then Jethro did in the 8 yrs he was in office regarding terrrorist leadership , Mission accomplished take two..... blame him for everything, credited him for nothing, that is the way of the right!
Biggy – Alot of courage was needed to make a phone call half way around the world to send others into the line of fire....
Its just laughable how you clowns eat up the crap they say on TV. Keep on following your sheppard you damn sheep.
Timmy,
You must be a tea bag since they're always good at misrepresenting facts. The worst President was "W" and all Americans will be paying for it for years. Admit it Timmy you just don' like his shade of skin.
Then there is Osama's demise and ending the war in Iraq and pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Health Care Insurance for all Americans and stabilizing the economy...in addition to solving a humanitarian problem in Libya without American bloodshed and money. All in all quite a good record for a president who took office during a financial crisis. A good man for a bad time in our history. Keep up the good work Mr President, you have my vote.
Al Queda is not Americas enemy....Our own politicians are!
Just repeating this makes the auther sound stupid! By the way Gadhafi is not Al Queda,, I know they all look alike to you.
Joe – Sorry I'll clarify, you're right...Gadhafi is not Al Queda....the rebels are. Look it up jack a$$. Soon enough this will be a terrorist country.
Tim, if this is the way you think, I have to say you're not in Kansas anymore.
"Ptrika
Then there is Osama's demise and ending the war in Iraq and pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Health Care Insurance for all Americans and stabilizing the economy...in addition to solving a humanitarian problem in Libya without American bloodshed and money. All in all quite a good record for a president who took office during a financial crisis. A good man for a bad time in our history. Keep up the good work Mr President, you have my vote."
I'm pretty sure the war in Iraq is still going on...There are still troops in Afghanistan (my buddy was just sent there), Healthcare will be a flop, all they did was sign a bill for it to go in effect 2014. They haven't worked out how they will pay for it....and it sounds like it will be more expensive than what we already have. And what economy are you talking about? By the looks of it, our economy is still in the gutter. Gitmo is still open and will remain open. And libya will be a giant flop...give it time.
All in all, typical politician....lie, lie, lie and lie some more on the campain trail until you get elected then re-nig (no pun intended) on everything you said.
@PoliticianHater:
You said your buddy was just send to Afganistan? So why is your yellow belly still here?
I'm neither a dem or repub and most of the comments I've made under this section are to get a rise out of you clowns.
But on a serious note, it amazes me that you people can be sooo caught up in the media BS.
The war in Libia is not over, its not even close to being over. How can you guys give Obama credit for nothing. Gadhafi is still in power, their country is still in ruins, and it will take billions and billions of dollars to rebuild and help stabilize the country. Where is that money coming from? Whos going to be putting their dollars in for that?
And on a side note: Obama broke the law by involving us in the Libian War. He did not get permission from Congress, therefore...he broke the law...But for some reason all you folks overlook that. At least Bush had the blessing of Congress to go and invade 2 countries. Again, you people forget that.
We are still engaged in 2 wars overseas. I don't know why you people think we aren't...
The healthcare reform bill isn't worth the paper it is written on. We don't even know what it involves. Just that there is a bill...Woo Hoo. Who pays for it, how is it paid for??? No one knows.
Our economy is still in shambles. You all are blaming Bush, and I was jokenly blaming Obama, but the reality is...Its neither of their faults, but the Governments as a whole. We just had a very good insight on how the economy problems don't lay with the President, but with the senate and congress. Or did you people already forget about the Budget Defecit circus a few weeks ago.
And we are now basically working with a group of 'rebels' that have aligned themselves with Al Queda. Who, let me remind you, were responsible for killing 3000+ Americans on 9/11/01 ten years ago.
But Obama is ok with the 'rebels' working with this group of people.
Its funny to me that they are calling these people 'rebels', depending on who they are fighting and the interests of the American Government they are either classified as 'rebels' or 'terrorists'.
If this turned out badly you would have been standing in line waiting to complain. Give the guy credit when he gets it right.
Tim – you strike me as the kind of kid that fills in his answer sheet before he gets the questions. (ideologue)
Roger – Why aren't you over there?
I give all the credit in the world for the soldiers that are over seas fighting or that have been over and are back or the ones that never made it back.
I was in a car accident in highschool and shattered my pelvis and thighbone. Got metal and pins all over. They wouldn't take me.
I have a job, pay my taxes and am not on any government aid. That is how I do my part.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country" – JFK
The people who downgrade Obama's part in handling Libya are the sort who wouldn't give credit to Eisenhower because he didn't personally build the interstate highway system with a pick and shovel. In other words, Obama does what a President does; Navy Seals do what Navy Seals do and Right Wing Wackos get on the internet and whine!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!! Cause that's what they do.
Hey "Politician Hater". Obama did make the call. He was informed there was 50/50 chance Bin Laden was at the compound, and Obama made the call to go in- this is well known and verifiable.
Tim, get over it. Take a deep breath & ask yourself, "Why do I pick this place to pout?" And Politician Hater, you are off your rocker. You probably believe the moon landing was filmed on a sound stage.
Not only is he the worst President(Carter has got to be thirlled to be rid of that moniker) but his followers are simple liars who are clueless about anything that goes on around them. They are so busy hanging on this guys jock they have no clue what is going on around them they are just glad to have an idiot who is as stupid as them to follow off the cliff.
Pol. Hater, you are right on the money and the guy who called ou a dufus is hilarious because he spelled it wrong and that pretty much shows how stupid he is along with the fact he is gargling Obama juice.
@Tim: "We had no interest in Libya and this was pure waste"
The fact that the US had no interest in Libya is exactly what made this a good mission. The mission was to save lives, not to profit. This is why it was labelled a RtoP (Responsibility to Protect) mission, and this label was accurate. I know how you Republicans hate thinking about others, though, so this will probably not make a difference to you.
Skarphace – You're right, we don't have a major interest in Libya, but Europe does. That is why we're involved.
Europe gets alot of oil from them and its close to their doorstep.
Look at Mexico, 30000+ have been killed over this drug war. But the US government does nothing of serious nature about that.
If Mexico had oil, you can bet your a$$ we'd be in there cleaning up the rift raft. Its a joke.
Can't you people see through the smoke and mirrors?
@PH: that makes no sense whatsoever. Before Gadhafi started killing unarmed protesters he was already selling most of his oil to Europe and France and Italy and they were his best buddies. Therefore, if this were just for profit, then they had absolutely nothing to gain by intervening.
In fact, when the rebels take over the Gadhafi contracts will be null and void. Therefore, the European countries had everything to lose by taking the rebels' side over Gadhafi.
What was that about smoke and mirrors again? Perhaps you are seeing your own reflection.
Perhaps I am naive. At this moment who is in control of Libya? Do they even know how a democracy functions? Will this turn into a Pot Pol debacle? Democracy takes a vast socialization process. A few days ain't going to cut it.
Things could go from one level of hell to a worse level.
I wonder the same thing. So these 'rebels' are taking over the government, whose in charge? Did they elect someone or did someone just take power? How are these people going to go on with a demorcratic government when they probably don't even know what one is.
I have a feeling this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. We'll end up giving them aid money to rebuild, and help starting their government.
And you got this wacko columnist and all the fruitcakes in America praising Obama on how good of a job he has done. It ain't over people....not by a long shot.
Give it time, we'll soon be sending aid to them to help them rebuild and support their country. 5-10 years down the road they will turn on us and we'll have another war on our hands.
History repeats itself. Look at the middle east, we have been giving our enemies money for decades if not longer. And we keep getting the same results. They all end up wanting to kill us.
You think our pathetic politicians would catch on sooner rather than later. You can't make friends by buying them.
This is a reasonable and valid concern. I am happy how THIS was handled, especially since it was as a joint action with the UN. Now we just have to see exactly how reconstruction is handled. I'm hoping the trend continues to show Republicans and their allies exactly what they did wrong regarding the Iraq War. (aside from starting it base don lies and misinformation, of coourse.)
That being said, i'm sure next week Obama will let me down and be on an aircraft Carrier with a "Mission accomplished" banner.
The rebels have a political infrastructure, based in Benghazi. Many of the rebel leaders are western educated professionals who returned to Libya to help with the uprising. At least one prominent member of their leadership was a professor at my university here in the US. I don't think they'll have a problem establishing a democracy if that's what the Libyan people decide they want. None of this information is secret and you could have easily found this out if you look to sources beyond CNN. CNN's coverage is pretty atrocious. They can (and should!) do better.
Should we expect an overthrow of a dictatorship and as quick transition to a democratic government? Russia is still in transition. Give it time, sheesh.
This intervention is different than any others in the Middle East in recent memory. Instead of bankrolling autocrats, we sided with the Libyan people in a fight for change that they started. If anything, it has the potential to show Arabs that, despite its pathetic history in the region, it can actually do something in line with it's values.
Your point that we don't know how this will turn out is analogous to saying that no one knew how the American Revolution would turn out, so it's better not to take the chance in the first place. You raise a valid point, but it can't be used to support inaction.
Spin it anyway you want. Obama still screwed this up.
We could say the same thing about your parents, but they already know that.
Right. Let the first "Mission Accomplished".
Obama sent in a few dozen Navy Seals, Mission truly Accomplished! How fast we forget!
Pretty funny - Norm got that right.
@ j. von hettlingen ... of course, R2P is arbitrary, or selective, if you would accept a less pejorative word. Only a fool would argue that R2P should be invoked anywhere and everywhere without regard for the domestic or international consequences. However desirable it might have been for the international community to intervene in Chechnia, surely no one needs to have it pointed out that the oppressor is the 2nd most heavily armed nuclear power in the world. At the same time, not being able to intervene everywhere does not justify not intervening anywhere.
Obama started the Lybian war to help protect the Italian, French and British oil interests. And what was behind the "we are not interested in regime change"?
If R2P is so sacrosanct, why are we not bombing Syria – OH that's right, no oil.
And what goes on all over the world as we speak ? What a bunch of bull pucky R2P is. Nothing more than a selective method of applying force as a means to an end. NATO bombs another country into submission, thats all.
And because Libya is an oil rich country which the west would like to control. I can assure you the "RtoP" doctrine really stands for "Right to Protect our interests" . It has nothing to do with protecting citizens of any particular country. Atrocities occur every single day in some part of the world. We only go in when the country in question has mineral/and or strategic intesests for the U.S.
And because Libya is an oil rich country which the west would like to control. I can assure you the "RtoP" doctrine really stands for "Right to Protect our interests" . It has nothing to do with protecting citizens of any particular country. Atrocities occur every single day in some part of the world. We only go in when the country in question has mineral/and or strategic interests for the U.S
Why can we not protect civilians AND our national interests at the same time? Why is being efficient a bad thing?
@Justin – It's not that we can't. It's that we don't. Almost zero presidents are going to spend political capital, and risk lives to save people when there's no interests for the U.S. – and I don't think we should. We are not the world's policemen.
You say it has been arbitrarily applied, and then say Libya was selected because it was an easy target. Sounds like they had criteria to me, as in they preferred an easy target... And why aren't we fine with that? Our country and our military are finite, and I'd rather them topple "easy targets" that are committing atrocities than get bogged down for a decade spending trillions of dollars TRYING to topple a "hard target"... Picking your battles seems wise regardless of your underlying strategy...
samantha power has some very skewed and curious ideas about the middle east..she has largely been kept out of view these last 2 yrs because of these views as it doesn't help obama's position that he is pro israel. dig a little deeper on ms. power and you will see what she advocates for israel's "unshakeable" ally.
It's silly to say Obama isn't pro Israel when EVERY SINGLE UN VOTE by the U.S. has been pro Israel under him. Some of you need to stop wearing tinfoil hats and beliving the polarized politics that is used to manipulate you into voting for wheover is manipulating you. Just look at facts and stop believing all the speculation.
Dude!
Then you should LOVE Samantha Power. Nobody is as fashionably more Pro-arab then she is. Not to mention an advocate of Agenda 21. The president likes the idea as well.
USA pro-Israel votes has zilch....zero....nada......to do with President Obama's foreign policy predilections, likes/dislikes or personal choices. This is a long-standing, enduring United States government policy....regardless of the president....or the party in power at the time.
Talk to your congressman.
She is the very scary part of r2p. By the way, what does National Security have to do with r2p anyway ?
The fat lady still hasn't sung a tune! Let's call this a victory or vindication or whatever after the country is stablized. If Obamas media machine doesn't hold off on all this victorious leader (from behind) it will bit him next year right around election.
Let the "Obama gets no credit for anything" spin begin!!!
Mark, repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President"
First, Obama never stated he wanted to topple the regime. They were only to stop the threatened bloodshed in the oppositions stronghold. Because of that, Obama by passed the US Congress for any authorization and went to the UN. Since its still peoples right to have questions about this admins policies: because of the indifference of the Russians and the Chinese, and Libya's small size wouldn't it have cost far fewer opposition and civilian lives if we just stated in the beginning thatw e wanted regime change, brought the full force of military assets we had and ended this thing months ago ???
Nice try, Rob.....that is, if you like futile gestures.
Yes! Prostrate yourself to our dear leader, Mark!
ctssn
Sorry to tell you, Mark, but your president just scored again! America's coming back strong and shaking off the dubya daze.
Oh don't waste your time with these Fox retards.
They could never see past the color of his skin.
Idiotic article, pure filler
Big fan of Cheney?
I congralulate President Obama for this great victory. What is history making is that his strategy has accomplished this victory with least cost and not a single drop of American bloodshed. America celebrates this victory against a brutal regime's fall.
You ever heard of "blowback"? Many Americans will pay for this war, just like any other war. And people thought Obama was the peaceful president that would "end all wars". What a load of hooey!
Gaddhafi's fall vindicates Obama no more than Hussein's fall vindicated Bush.
Dennis, repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President"
The people who thought Obama would end all wars, also though that Jesus would bring peace forever, that the world would end last May, that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe, that diseases were caused by hexes, spells and curses,t hat man would never fly, and that the moon was made of green cheese.
Yes, they are still among us, sad to say.
It is amazing how war mongering this noble peace prize winner is. First one that I've heard of that order an executive kill instead of capture order, then goes and bombs another country and call it a non-hostile act.
I'm not sure if looking glass is being sarcastic or he's actually has his lips stuck on obama's sack.
Judging by these comments, I'd say it's also a huge and decisive blow against conservatives. Every one of them has come here and whined about how they really hate to see Obama get credit. Would it help if he dressed up like an airman and posed on a carrier next to a banner saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Actually, I hope he gets full credit and thrown out of office for going to war without the approval of Congress.
The Navy probably wouldn't have him.
The USA has no more responsibility to protect people in other nations than anyone else. This was not our issue, not our business. We ahould not have had any involvement what so ever in Libya. We are not the nannies of the world. Heck our govt isn't even supposed to be the nanny of the US citizen, although Obama and his ilk seem to think so.
So you are saying that the right-wing would not have blamed Obama if he had ignored the Libyan crisis, tens of thousands of civilians had died, the price of oil had skyrocketted, and the violence from Libya had spilled over into Egypt and Tunisia making the entire region become even more unstable?
If so, I call a big B.S. on that one. Give Obama all the blame for everything that happens wrong and no credit for anything that happens right: this is the right-wing agenda.
Obama did as little as possible to not look totally off the case, and only did what he did when he looked bad compared to what other world leaders were doing. If there had been better leadership from the US, the episode wouldn't have dragged on as long as it has and fewer innocent people would have been sacrificed. This has clearly identified that the US is the only force capable of making things happen; the rest of NATO reaallly strugged on this adventure and several NATO members did not contribute anything, because they couldn't – they've cut defense budgets so much the don't have any real capability. Obama's "leadership" is more like abandonment.
Denny, repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President"
Wipe your chin already, it's revolting!
The worst part of our Libyan involvement, in my opinion, was the totally boldfaced lie of the logic behind it. We were there to provide "humanitarian support" only in that we had picked our side in the revolution and were doing everything possible to help them win quickly. Yes, it's an accomplishment for us that the rebels have had major military successes, and we can now hope for a stable and friendly Libya to come out of this, but nobody should kid themselves about the true reasons for this military involvement.
While you can say this obvious lie (or,at least, false pretext) was necessary to accomplish our goals in a easier way, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. There are many governments out there (North Korea, the former USSR, just to name a few) who have no second thoughts about using ridiculous false logic to justify their actions – we've just taken an action towards being like them!
Agree.
Yes this is a great win for Obama and his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood who now control Egypt, Libya and soon Syria as well!
Israel’s days are numbered!
Yes He can!
That is just ridiculous.
Rex, you know better.
No......he doesn't.
Rex, you're really just Glenn Beck, aren't you? Tell the truth.
I have a dog named Rex...who appears brighter than you.
Not to mention the ones in the State Department, FBI, Military etc.
Ok, Rex, I will enlighten you a bit. Syria's ruling class is Shiite (like Iran, which is why Syria is Iran's biggest ally in the region). The Muslim Brotherhood is Shiite.
You see where I am leading you here? That's right, the Shiites have nothing to gain from a revolution in Syria. In fact, they have everything to lose.
Do you see yet why falling for the Fox propaganda makes you look ignorant?
Mission accomplished – where have we heard that before.
From an idiotic, caricature of a man, your previous choice for a 'decider'.
Mr. Obama has not once crowed about anything he had a hand in accomplishing.
*like*
Well said, ib42.
The author asks, "What obligations does the United States have to those living beyond its borders?" The answer: NONE. We should only act when OUR interests are at stake. Our interests were not at stake in Libya.
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that we had no interest in the conflict is exactly why it was our responsibility to get involved. This was not about oil (as was the case in both Iraq wars). This was purely about saving lives. And since we are all humans on this planet, saving lives should be our number one priority regardless of the country in which those lives were saved. I know you hate our President, but he did absolutely the right thing in this case.
Intervention for stopping or avoiding humanitarian atrocity is definitely the right action. Yet great care has to be taken to not causing tragedy afterwrads. Worrying about the future of Libya, Egypt and Tunisia by looking at today's Iraq. Innocent people are killed nearly everyday.
He broke the law, If he was a republican yall would have fried him, But now yall claim a victory, what a bunch of Hippocrates!
How did he break the law? We have treaties with NATO, the POTUS is sworn to uphold those treaties. Are we no longer a part of NATO? If he hadn't then you would scream impeach him because he didn't up hold the treaties with NATO. The guy can never get it right.
Greg, What law did he break? Just repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President"
Sluurrrp! War Powers Act Slurrrp!
@Big Bob: slurrp War Powers Act, War Powers Resolution, what is the difference slurrp
Hippocrates? Thanks! That's very nice of you, but I think you're being overly generous. He was an extremely important figure.
Greg. Where you from, "yall"? Tells the whole story.
Are you trying to say, in your charmingly insane way, that you think President Obama is guilty of medical malpractice against Libya? It's amazing how stupid some people are, and what fantastic delusions they can have. The president is not a doctor and has never taken the Hippocratic Oath.
"yall"???How far did you go in school? First grade? Just because you say that doesn't mean you write it. Actually "You" can be a plural. Did you know that?
The ONLY success that the Obama administration has had is because of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta (former head of CIA and who also served in the Clinton Administration.) and General David Petraeus ( led both wars and is the new head of the CIA) It has EVERYHING to do with their skills and NOTHING at all to do with Obama. Without their skills it would be another typical Obama failure.
More pure spin.
Lynn, stop your nonsense, you know better, She, Hillary, gets her orders from Obama . . . Mr. President to you. Now repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President"
Lynn, you're talking like an ignorant illiterate.
We've really got the conservatives on the run today! Admit it, this is a victory for America and for our president, and you hate to see it.
Yep......they really do hate to see it!
Lynn......just who do you think placed Clinton, Pinetta and Patreaus into their current positions in the Administration?
Yep....that's right....the PRESIDENT!!!
You see.....when you surround yourself with the right people, and those people perform their job with expertise (at your behest) then their successes ARE YOUR successes.
You'd have to be very nearly an idiot to try to argue otherwise.......aw.....the hell with it.....you ARE an idiot!!
Just because "our side" may have won (wait, I thought we didn't take sides?) does not at all mean that our policy was vindicated. Remember when this was sold to us as a humanitarian intervention? Remember when we were told it would be "days, not weeks"? Remember when Obama waited until Congress was on it's break so he could bypass them? Winning a war against an African country with 6 million people in 5 months is not something I would brag about.
Well.......what about.......winning a war against an African country with 6 million people in 5 monthsell......eithout a single U.S. casualty.....or.....for that matter.....not putting a single troop on the ground in that country?!?!?
Very odd article...to discuss the "success" (we'll see!) of this doctrine in Libya, and then go on to the situation in Somalia as if it was anywhere near the same while ignoring the obviously very comparable situation in Syria was ridiculous. I/m not advocating NATO involvement in Syria, but to ignore the whole issue trashes the article (and author's) credibility on an intellectual argument basis.
Here's the reality (which to the author's credit, they paritally acknowledge) – the Libya situation was politically easy because Gaddafi's Libya no longer had any friends left who were willing to raise objections politically to what was being done. Even in this "perfect storm" case with no outside allies, a fairly weak military, and an on-the-ground insurgency in progress, the political will of the NATO alliance barely held together long enough to accomplish its goals (assuming no reversal of rebel gains). It is very unlikely that this type of action is likely to work again in the future, and it's extremely dangerous that people (especially politicians and activists) will assume that it will based on the positive result in Libya.
They also seem to forget that we intervened in Somalia during the reign of William Jefferson Clinton and lost to mission creep. We're not the world police, and need to stay out of other's business.
Even though oblamo completely bypassed congress in this decision , this writer says he's vindicated . Yeah , right .
blah blah blame Obama blah blah. This is getting old.
You on the far-right just can't stand it that our President was involved in a successful regime change in less than 6 months, less than a billion dollars, and no loss of American lives. Had your hero Bush done this in Iraq our economy would not be nearly in the shambles it is in right now.
I feel sorry for you Teavangelists. You have less and less reason to critisize our President each and every day. I am sure that will not stop you from trying, though.
@ Dennis, Dennie, Julnor, glu, and j. Von: Hating Obama much? Whatever he did, it beat the h.e.l.l out of "Shock and Awe" (SaA), now didn't it? Aside to Palin: hey Sarah...SARAH! SARAH PALIN!! How's that MOVIE thingy goin'?
Let's face it, president Obama has been experiencing significant triumps after significant triumps since he has taken office but of course, those to the right would have you believe otherwise. You see, those to the right believe that a win for president Obama is not a win for America. To the right it's just more political points scored for the president. But if the president succeeds, doesn't America succeed?
I just can't help but reflect every so often when during the heated healthcare debate a year ago, those to the right charged that president Obama and Speaker Nancy Polosi were obsessed over passage of the healthcare legislation not because they were concerned about Americans but because they were only concerned with setting a legacy for themselves. Well, how stupid an assessment. And when "Obama got Osama" I guess the president was just setting another legacy for himself. And I guess when the president passed the economic recovery legislation, he was just trying to set a legacy for himself. And when he started bringing our troops home from Iraq a few months ago, he was just trying to set a legacy for himself. And when he signed the anti nuclear non profileration threaty with Russia and put his name to so many other legislations he has signed since taking office, he is not trying to lead America forward and serve the American people and continue our position as leader of the free and democratic world. And I guess when the president avoided a government shotdown twice, he was just concerned about his own political endeavors rather than being concerned that important checks would not reach the elderly and out troops around the globe. And if the president is just trying to set a legacy for himself then what may such a legacy accomplish for the president? Perhaps another Noble peace Prize?
So one of the most brutal and fearsome dictators in Moammar Ghadaffi falls and president Obama rakes up more points and sets a legacy for himself? So when is this administration's leadership in the interest of the American people? As a concerned American, I just wish that those to the right who have for two and a half years given me a severe migrane would just stop the game playing once and for all and start working with this administration for the benefit of America and the free world. Well, I'll keep praying on it.
Joe, there's so many directions to go with this, but I'll simply ask one question. In the eight years prior to the coming of your messiah to the White House, did you give President Bush credit for anything he did? I doubt it. I don't really care to debate Bush's legacy – there were some obvious things done wrong, some obvious things done right, and (I personally believe) a lot of things that happened in the 2nd term that were more the fault of the Democratic Congress than of our former President. However, what is undebateable is the fact that President Bush faced a much more virulent hatred, shown be a disgusting lack of respect and personal attacks, from those on the left than anything that has ever been directed at President Obama, and I'm sick of hearing you and your left-wing buddies act like this type of thing just started when Obama took office.
So you are angry because the liberals didn't like Bush and you are now determined to pay them back. Mr. Objectivity you are not. If you want to be taken seriously, get over your mad.
sure, we gave bush credit for taking a 250 billion dollar surplus and 22 million jobs created and turning our economy into a lost jobs seven trillion dollar deficit and an near depression. We also rightly gave him all the credit for starting a war on a pack of fascist lies, killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, over 5000 soldiers, and the life long maiming injuries over over 50,000 additional soldiers, and oh yes, trillions of additional dollars of borrowed money from China to pay for it... What would you YOU like to give him credit for?... well, we're all listening......
Joe, I stand with you . . . we are many and we will move forward.
Yup. Joe is right. JS is wrong...tough luck JS
looking glass you forgot to say Now repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President" I am assuming that you and your left-wing buddies out number all the Americans that does not stand by you. Let me see a bunch of Americans got together and called themselvs the Tea Party and took the House I know they are racist and terrorist and not too bright like the elitist left. Now repeat after me . . . "Good Job Mr. President"
Let's wait and see who replaces Gadhafi before we start the accolades for Obama. Also, for those who think this will help Obama next year, take a look at our killing of Bin Laden. Americans were far more interested in Bin Laden than Gadhafi, and despite that, Obama's favorability is below 40%. Foreign policy doesn't matter right now to Americans.
what poll are we looking at? lol
This article is sheer, blatant nonsense. Hype and propaganda from the left it is.
Were nearing election season, the democrats will be trying to get credit for anything and everything good for the next year. Same old MO for them, nothing to see here, move along.......
are you kidding? People on the right have already begun blaming the way Obama handled this. Would they have preferred the other 2 prolonged wars Bush got us into?
Saddam,s fall was quick, it's what comes next that is hard to predict or conrtol.
Sure R2P is being arbitrarily applied. However the fact that it exists is itself a big 'overarching vision of the world'. The UN never had any balls to do sh!t for the world. Maybe, the US is growing up? Maybe the policy-making Americans can no longer delude themselves with isolationist/profiteering points-of-view? Maybe they just realized that evil is evil no matter how far away it occurs and it always comes back to haunt Iowa? Sure, but that's probably a naive way of looking at it. Libya was a one-off. I remember the Lankan/Tamil tragedy. It was brutal like you can't imagine (Libya is cake compared to Lanka). The Tamils in Lanka had no one but Indians and the LTTE to turn to, and the Indians botched it (The Sri Lankan army was being supplied by the Chinese, and the Chinese did not desire to lose that source of revenue). Prabhakaran was declared a terrorist by the Americans and Indians didn't want to touch him after that. It was a massacre and an effin tragedy. I just hope R2P becomes a major foreign policy initiative for the US and succeeds in preventing such scenarios in the future. Sure, it will promote American defense related spending, but at least it will be for a reason – the greater good for mankind (Yes, I understand how it could be screwed up to keep brutal regimes in power as well). I just choose to be an optimist. Yay for R2P!
Gaddafi might have been a bit of a looney case, but it is our very own western governments that reach out and extrajudicially kill people all over the entire globe. No arrests. No courts. No evidence. Just ordered execution. Or they are kidnapped (redered) and placed (without trial) into a modern dungeon (complete with torture) at Guantanamo Bay.
'We will not call for the axe as the ultima ratio so long as there remains one vestige of reasonable hope for a solution without the axe. The further I look into the western world, into the chain of events which brought Europe to us Russians, the more there arises in me a disgust for all bloody revolutions.' – Alexander Herzen
Gaddafi and other mid east dictators killed tens of thousands of people over the years and you say that he is a "bit of a looney case" and then point the finger at the west. Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes to what has happened to the world the last 20 years. It is easy to blame the west but the rest of the world is just as guilty.
What an idiotic comment this is!!! Come on Demsareidiots, you know better than that!
Yep...when an organization conducts an undeclared war on you, and hides behind governments throughout the world, there's a need for a different kind of defense. A solution based totally on military, or one based totally on law enforcement, is doomed to failure. It's a messy kind of war, and our defense against it is necessarily messy at times. It's easy to criticize from the outside, but Obama learned when he became President that theoretical rhetoric and actually policy actions don't always agree. There's a reason that GB is still open...it serves an important purpose.
You can't have it both ways – people want to criticize Afghanistan as an example of a military "overreaction" to 9/11 that has involved us in a lengthy war, but then want to criticize selective strikes against our enemies, such as the killing of OBL, as illegal. Any suggestions for what our country is supposed to do against Terrorists planning abroad to destroy our country that don't involve strictly law enforcement measures that can be successful 100 times, but only have to fail once before a major disaster hits our country?
You have it wrong again. NO ONE claims the war in "Afghanistan" is an over-reaction. It was the war with Iraq. Get it right. Is that asking too much? Guess so.
Ed, you obviously aren't a deep thinker...even puttign aside the vocal minority on the left who were protesting right at the time of the invasion, everyone who is complaining about Bush's "warmongering" and pointing to Afghanistan as an example of this is guilty of second-guessing the decision itself to invade. Sorry – it just isn't possible to envision every outcome when you make a decision to invade a country – at that point, you've made the decision to put soldiers lives on the line, and you plan for the outcome you want. Unfortunately wars are messy, and usually don't turn out exactly the way you want them to. When this happens, you can't just pack up and leave a mess behind....oh sorry, I forgot Obama and pals believe wars can be fought according to a schedule!
@ JS: so how'd you feel about that whole "WMD" thingy?
Mr. Patrick, all you need now is an aircraft carrier and a big banner behind you saying "Mission accomplished!"
For Mr. Patrick, that would be acceptable. For our President, that would not. It would be immature, disrespectful, and most of all premature. It is a good thing we have Obama as President now instead of Bush, or that would have already happened.
I suppose that after Libya, we Americans will now jump up on our high horses and go galloping around the world "liberating" people from themselves! How so high and mighty we've become!!!
The "Liberation" of Libya: NATO Special Forces and Al Qaeda Join Hands
"Former Terrorists" Join the "Pro-democracy" Bandwagon
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26255
Thank you Mr President! I wish Bush/Cheney could have done something similar and most importantly saved a lot of US Soldiers lives. You can not put a price on that.
Libya is a much, much smaller country. It's comparing apples and oranges. Not to take anything away from the administration, though...
We also ended up with a somewhat friendly functioning democracy on display for the Arab world to see in Iraq and will likely end up with an anti-American (already refusing to extradite Lockerbie bomber), Sharia law, Islamist state in Libya. Yes, great job BO!
A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable shows that Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain promised to help Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi obtain U.S. military hardware in 2009.
The cable, released by the open information group WikiLeaks, reveals the pledge came at meeting that was attended by other prominent members of Congress, including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).
In the meeting, Muatassim Qadhafi, the Libyan leader’s fifth son and national security adviser, requested U.S. assistance in obtaining military supplies, both lethal and non-lethal.
The cable indicates that McCain was the dominant voice among the congressional delegation in a push for military hardware for Qadhafi.
“Sen. McCain assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its … security,” according to the cable.
Under the Presidential Study Directives (PSD-10), the Obama administrations conducting the War in Libiya very carefully.
But, can he do it the same way against Syria and Iran? Where Intervention Iran is more challenge?
Even during the Two Bushes Administrations, Psychological War against Iraq and Afghanistan were designed without Militarily, but failed quickly.
In order to do the same thing in Syria and Iran, there would have to be an organized opposition that consisted of a large number of civilians and military, a plea from the AL to get involved, and a UN mandate to NATO that would not be vetoed by Russia or China.
This has not, and most likely will not, happen. Therefore, the Libyan situation will remain unlike the Syrian, and most especially the Iranian, situation
There's a saying, there's two sides to a story but the reality is that when it comes to the political issues of the day, you cannot vote both ways or support two differen positions of an issue. For example, you can't say that you want president Obama to end the Iraq war and when the president sets a deadline to bring our troops home, you turn around and say that the president is sending the wrong message to the enemy by bring our troops home. No, it don't work that way. Likewise, you can't accuse the president of not doing anything to help those calling for democratic change in Egypy and when the president calls on Hosni Mubarak to cater to the protester's demands for a speedy transition of democratic change, you do like Newt Gingrich and accused the president of "batraying an old friend in Hosni Mubarak and supporting a terrorist group in the Muslim Brotherhood." And you can't accuse the president of standing on the sidelines and not intervening in the Libyan crisis and when the president responds with a coalition of world leaders, you accuse the president of "rushing to war and then asking what is the mission. You just can't have it both ways. It's either or but not both ways. You just cannot have a choice of two when you are only alotted one choice. The world doesn't workd that way. Or unless your flip flopping is designed to appease your ignorent and complacent republican base. And remember the oil spill desaster in the Gulf of Mexico? Well, you cannot accuse the president of not doing anything to help local businesses affected by the spill and of not holding BP accountable and when the president got BP to appropriate a 20 billion dollar fund to compensate those businesses affected, you do like Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas and accuse the president of " a shakedown of BP." No, that type of dirty politics is wrong and it is un-American. And if you were president, then just ask yourself this one simple question. If you were president, what would you have done different in the two and a half years of this administration? That is to lead America forward and beyond the eight year failure of the previous administration domesticall and abroad. If you were president, what would you have done differently? Just ponder this question before you begin to criticize, accuse and lay blame.
Well, Joe, you certainly can do those things you described as contradictory. The far-right has been doing this throughout the Obama term. What you cannot do is be contradictory and not expect people to call you on it and label you a hypocrite. Which they most certainly are.
vindicated?
big word from a small biased liberal mind.
did you say the same nice thing about Bush after the fall of Saddan, or the taliban?
You think this situation in Libya is over? You think there will be peace and prosperity for all, now that gaddafi is gone?
This is the EASY part.
took bush 3 weeks to get rid of saddam. [well you know what iraq is like today].
took bush 3 to 4 weeks to topple the Taliban...
You really don't see the differences between the Afghanistan situation, the Iraq situation, and the Libyan situation? All three situations are completely unique. All of these types of situations are.
Therefore, let me tell you why the Libyan situation, going forward, is quite unlike either the Afghanistan or Iraq situation: the US is not an occupying force. That, in itself, is enough. In order to 'pull out', all we have to do is stop bombing and call our ships and planes back to base. That is it.
Will Libya have complications in it's democratic movement? Of course. Is it guaranteed to fail, as the right-wingers would have us believe? Of course not.
Give peace a chance. I know that is a Liberal mantra, but it works for me.
Stupid article. Explain why Obama has not implemented this "successful foreign doctrine" on Syria? Syria is committing more violent atrocities than Libya. Could it be that Syria does not export oil to European nations? Could it be that Libya was/is an easier fight? Bottom line is this; CNN is a political arm and media outlet for the Obama administration. Bias journalism at its best.
Because Syria is a huge can of worms. They have weapons and they have weapons that will reach far beyond their borders. They do have chemical and biological weapons there and just think about how bad that would look for the looney left when it comes out into the open since they were never supposed to exist in the first place.
Oh boy, the WMDs are back and this guy's going to tell us where they are! Get ready, everyone, this will be good. OK Tim, where are they?
Gee, isn't it treason to not be a complete shill for the White House? When Cheney was president, you didn't dare be critical of him. I guess you are some kind of foreign agitator or something. How about just saying NICE things?
LoL! it's so funny when some rube tries the whole when bush/cheney were in the whitehouse you couldn't say anything about them yet the left couldn't shut up. Now they try this reversal of some nonexistent thing that didn't happen to try to shut up the other side. The left and how they love the first Amendment as long as they agree with it thing is the stuff comedy writers live for.
"some nonexistent thing that didn't happen" December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."
@ Donald who stated: "Stupid article. Explain why Obama has not implemented this "successful foreign doctrine" on Syria?"
Donald......FACT......the Syrian rebels absolutely does NOT want the US or NATO to assist them with troops or with bombing raids. They want NOTHING MORE (other than their own victory) than for the U.S. and the Europeans to stay out of the way!
If you'd bother to pull your head out of your butt once in awhile, maybe.....just maybe.....you'd know this!
Bad Job Mr. President. You have done a terrible job at every turn. You have bankrupted our country, tried to socialize our industries, scared business from hiring people and basically killed the economy. You allow people to blatantly run across our border like it doesn't exist, you have lied to the American People and you have failed at your job miserably. You were a small part of helping get Gadaffi tho except your drones kept killing the wrong people but I am sure you will somehow your minions will call that a good thing. Glad to see you will be a one term President tho you don't deserve the retirement benefits you get along with the job since they should be subject to you actually doing your job worth a crap and you didn't.
Actually he hasn't done any of those things; your man Bush wrecked the economy on his way out the door and we're still stuck with his wars. No one's tried to socialize anything, and Obama's going to be easily re-elected since no one is going to run against him. Nice rant, though; I bet your head's about to explode right now.
You're wrong but I am sure you will try to argue no matter how futile.
Ostupid tanked the economy. he has tried to socialize car companies, wall street and healthcare. We are never giong to get that money back. GM is losing big, Chrysler has always lost and BofA will go down since Warren Buffet I bet won't take anymore emergency calls from Obama to try to save him.
He won't be re-elected he's a complete failure. My head isn't about to explode but it seems your is still firmly planted in your nether region.
You have nothing other than "Bush did it ! " ? It's getting kind of stale don't you think.
That's not what Fox News says and we know they would very purport oipinion to be fact. Like EVER!!!!
"It's getting kind of stale don't you think." What, the truth is getting stale? Oh, you want some NEW TRUTH to replace the old truth? Sorry, this ain't FOX.
How does the Libya War vindicate obama? We sat on the sidelines
We didn't spend trillions and lose thousands of men and women fighting Libya. Compare that to the Bush Wars.
Much smaller country. Also, it took 225 years and 43 presidents to run up a $7 trillion deficit (rememeber when dems used to care about that?) and the current president doubled it in less then 6 months.
Bob, are you on the wrong page or something? We didn't lose a man and our part of this is over. We aren't going to fight them inch by inch and leave a dead man on every acre, Cheney-style.
Aren't these the same people who said 'toppling Hussein' was not justification for the IRAQ war? Hyprocrites all, political idealogues. YELLOW Jane Fonda types.
Right. However, there is a slight difference in the meaning of the words 'vindication' and 'justification'. Use a dictionary sometime and look it up.
Here's my prediction: Rush and Beck will attempt to offer Gadhafi asylum in the US. Beck will weep when it doesn't happen.
After all the practice Gadhafi got with Libyan State TV, he would be a great asset for Fox News.
The author stated it quite clearly. We got into this because it was perceived as easy. If it succeeds, Obama says look at me the great military leader. If it fails, he says it's not my fault as we were only leading from behind. But as to whether or not this turns out to be a long term success remains be be seen as we have little idea about who will be replacing the dear deposed leader. As the old tale of the farmer's son says, Maybe so. Maybe not. We'll see.
First, when has Obama ever said, "look at me the great military leader"?
Second, if Obama had failed in the original mission to gain air control and protect civilians, and Gadhafi had still levelled Benghazi and killed tens of thousands of Libyan civilians, then he would have definitely taken alot of flack. From both sides.
Third, it may not be over, but it is now the Libyan civilians who have control over their own future. Will there be continued bloodshed and terrorist attacks on the new government? Probably. Does this mean they should not be given a chance to govern their own country? Most definitely not.
JS,
George W. Bush was my president too and I respected him as my president until he lied and misled the American people, the UN and the world community about false WMD's in Iraq, a lie that led to the deaths of thousands of our troops in Iraq even today as we speak. And I may add that when GWB went into Iraq, he abandoned and prolonged the Afghan war and that is why we are still suffering casualties in Afghanistan today. Let's face it JS, regardless of our political affiliation, unless we hold our elected officials accountable for their actions or inaction, they would continue to abuse their authority and put Americans in harm's way.
And make no mistake, if president Obama was to govern in ways that are detrimental to our safety and well being, I would speak out and say something about it. Let's face it, we're all Americans and when one hurts, all hurt.
Now, as far as your assumption that GWB is being disrected and mistreated, let me say that you should tell that to that little ten year old boy who was just told that his heroic Navy Seal's dad is not coming home anymore. And speaking of disrecpect, what American president has been disrecpected more than president Obama? I don't have to explain because you read it, you see it and hear it in the media and in your base everyday. But I'd say this, I neither consider myself a Democratic, a Republican or an Independent because I just consider myself an everyday American and whether a red or blue president is moving America forward, that's is good enough for me JS.
Obummer should go run for President of Libya where he will be appreciated!
Or maybe all the Tea Party freaks should move to Libya and reinstate Gadhafi as President so they can be appreciated.
Let's not make the same mistake the Bush administration did, and declare victory too soon. Ghadaffi hasn't been caught and his loyal troops are still fighting. Once that is ultimately complete, we still have to participate in the rebuilding of Lybia's government, infrastructure, and cultural centers. There are no guarantees that the man who replaces Ghadaffi is going to be any better than Ghadaffi, and there are no guarantees that people loyal to Ghadaffi won't continue to snipe, plant bombs, and perform suicide bombings, just has been going on for years in Iraq. While Obama has managed to pull this off so far, if I were one of his advisors, I'd be cautioning him to move carefully here.
This is comical. This dumb azz niiigger had nothing to do with this outcome. Hussein Obama is just a dumb thug niiigger who like them all has no clue about reality and loves to take credit for things they had nothing to do with. Thank the lord his time is almost over, not soon enough, but close.
Your mom's calling you, hillbilly.
Come back to bed, sugar pie.
Hey Matt, can you please lie face down on the floor for me? My shoes are dirty.
And yet the far right critisizes Liberals for calling them racists. Go figure.
So why are you idiots mentioning Saddam hussein? No, mission was not accomplished in Iraq because we didn't go into Iraq to change regime. No, we went there looking for WMD's that GWB and cabinet knew didn't exist at all. But yet, GWB was VINDICATED because despite thousands of dead American troops in Iraq, thousands dead in Afghanistan because we abandoned and prolonged that war to go into Iraq and half a million dead Iraqi civilians from the bombings and the insurgency as a result of us destabilizing that country, George W Bush has not been sent to the ICC in the Hague for war crimes.
because he didn't commit war crimes.
BE SMARTER!
You ar eso gullible. The weapons existed, they just changed ownership. Just as Gadhafi gave up what was supposedly his nuke program, was actually Iaqs program
Joe, boychic!
I have a feeling that you are a young man. The US and UN drew line after line in the sand with Saddam. After you've told him no so many times, when do you finally stand up and say STOP. Look up resolution 1441. Or look up quotes of Democratic politicians, including the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Durbin, Pelosi etc. They all were quoted as saying Saddam had WMD's and that Regime change was the optimal solution.
DRAT! Logic and facts, a liberals worst nightmare.
Go back and read the newspapers. It was nothing like that. After we unloaded on Afghanistan for perfectly good reasons, Cheney decided to take us into Iraq so he could get the oil for Halliburton. The CIA "proved" there were WMDs, and Colin Powell threw away his reputation by lying to Congress about them. Ask Powell about the WMDs? He knew they were a lie when he went there.
We went to Iraq to make Halliburton the richest corporation in the world. Mission accomplished!
can you say Apple or will it confuse you to much with your fantasy?
Matt,
What pie hole you exited?
What a load of dung from an author whose main accomplishment in life has been to lick the crotch of Obama. Where will those dung heap of an "author" be when Libya becomes a safe haven for terrorists? Right where he belongs, buried face deep in Obama's buttcrack.
You conservative traitors are SO angry, and I love it. Your weenie little tears make me laugh out loud. Good work, Obama.
Next week Obama will pass gas and save the planetary atmosphere but at the moment he is still dropping bombs on sand, when did it become the measure of a president on how many bombs are dropped. I would think that measure would be better made in the quality of life in the country he is president of. Do we have better health care, schools. roads. jobs. power infrastructure or perhaps are we less dependent on Libyan oil. Where are the green jobs or any job for that matter, when is the brown paper coming off the glass in the zombie malls???? We are a breath away from default and when we go all of the rest of the world will go and it will make the great depression look like a test for the real one. Millions will starve even here.
"Millions will starve even here." Don't worry, FOX news will save you. What a hysterical fool . . .
This article is nothing more than partisan cheer leading. Obama isn't vindicated for anything. This is a European oil war disguised as a revolution. The humanitarian angle is the excuse, not the reason, for NATO involvement.
Kudos to the President and his accomplishments with regard to Libya. I remember well the voices of the Libyan people shouting for America to help. I am proud we did. Anyone who would not have done the same should be embarassed.
uh the People of Libya toppled GadHafi (with the help of NATO)
Right. All we did was interdict Gadhafi's air power. We didn't lose a man, and Gadhafi's in hiding. Pure, cheap victory.
R2P? Somolia? Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Yemen? 15 Trillion dollar debt. R2P is a lie. Who do you think you are fooling?
Ok, then what exactly did we have to gain from removing Gadhafi? The west was already getting his oil. The far right claims we had no interest in this war and therefore should have stayed out of it.
So which is it? Did we do it for humanitarian reasons or did we do it for profit? If you claim the latter, then by all means back up your claim. Otherwise, you are just blathering.
It's funny how those on the left like Samantha Power are all for intervention unless of course it for our REAL national security or under Republican presidents. They never would have supported R2P against the East Bloc during the Cold War (Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968), just like they opposed Reagan preventing communist takeovers of El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980's.
The effort to oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 almost failed in the Senate against party lines. Yet the same people jumped to support Clinton in Kosovo. Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia and all Serbia did was try to stem a rebellion. Our intervention there would have been like France bombing us to support the Confederacy as a response to Sherman's burning of Atlanta.
Ms. Power is sure to oppose any nuclear disarmament of Iran or protection of Taiwan from Chinese invasion. Where was she when Mugabe pillaged Zimbabwe after he lost re-election? Clearly this policy has no coherence and is not in the national interest of the United States.
Shouldn't we be doing something about the drug cartels south of the border then ?
They are even more brutal than Gadhafi.
Trust me, we are. Covertly. To do anything more would be to undermine the Mexican government, who are our allies at present. It is in our national interest to keep it that way.
In the Brave, Old World of the Tea Party, NOTHING Obama did, does or will do matters since Obama is EVIL INCARNATE. Uh, the rebels could NEVER had toppled Qaddafi without "the help of NATO."
can it Matt.
Patrick and some of you "posters" need to stop drinking President NObama's spiked KoolAid. Otherwise, you are going to overdose! And worst of all, NObamacare may not cover your medical bills.
Wow, a very intelligent, meaningful, and insightful comment. Please, enlighten us some more.
Kudos to President Obama. and Kudos on capturing Bin Laden too. Bush was there EIGHT years and couldnt' get him.
Dead ? Hardly, look hard, I am on the US Government Payroll now.
This is KILLING the conservative weenies today. They all have nosebleeds.
Er .. I don't think 'capturing' is the right word. However, you are right. Obama deserves credit for the way he handled both of these situations.
Not that the far-right is about to admit it. That would be contrary to their primary agenda, which is to make our President fail at all costs.
Hey Señor Joe, you seem to be holding President Bush for things he did and some, obviously, that he did not do. When are you going to hold President NObama accountable. Will you and his supporters ever be able to stop all his lies and those of his administration. You know the old saying: "people that live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones."
America, remember 2012!
I would alter your last comment a bit: America, remember 2010 in 2012.
We cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
Let's face it, if you people to the right were true patriotic Americans, you would be applauding our success in a Libyan mission where no American lives were lost. But to just criticize success everyday and wish the president of the United States failure on a daily basis is just outrageous and beyond me. Are we still living in the Jim Crow era of the 1950's and 60's where some just couldn't stand the site or existent of people who didn't look like they did? What is God's name is wrong with you people to the right? What do you people really accomplish through your self righteous bigotry and hate? Does the color of a person's skin really bother you that much?
Is the American government about scoring political points or about moving our country forward and keeping us ahead of every other country in the world? Let's face it, when our Founding Fathers created our system of "Checks and Balances" and a Two Party system, the objective here was not to have one Party PREVENT the other Party from moving the country forward but rather for both sides to find common ground that's in the best interest of our Union. So I wish you people to the right would just put your bigotry, racism and hatred aside for once and just give credit where credit is due.
Come back in 5 or 10 years and show me what Libya has become. No rose-colored glasses, please. At this point, there is no precedent in the Arab world for a government overthrow, whether from inside or out, that results in a true democracy. Instead, we see the anarcy of Afghanistan, the puppet regime of Iraq, or the Islamic "Republic" of Iran. The Western world may say it's rid the world of a dictator, but the daily lives of the citizens of these countries are no better, and in some cases, they're worse. Instead of stable, relatively-contained dictatorships, we now have the possibility of Islamic troublemaker states like Iran, or breeding grounds for terrorists.
This is the exact kind of article I've been looking for about Libya. It did a wonderful job of explaining some of the complexities when describing which country to help over another and breaking down foreign aid policies. Very well done.
And noe we have spent another billion that we had to borrow from the Chinese...so far!
I take it you wish this would have rather taken 10 years, and cost 1.5 trillion dollars and 5,000 American lives.
Oh, that's right. So far.
It's about high time that CNN reflect on President Obamas successes. This mission is one of many that the media all but seems to haveover looked, and unfortunantly the President isn't one that toots his own horn. Let's see more of the same, as the right and the teatards are hammering him continuously and are seemingly clueless as to the good this man has done.
He has no successes to go on.
Everyone else just looks at his failure since there is nothing else to gauge him on, sad thing is his little lemming followers are just as clueless. It's the worthless leading the extremely stupid and gullible right now.
He spends a lot of time tooting his horn with his "I won" crap which just shows what a complete waste he truly is. he didn't win he was elected granted he had to lie a lot and pull some shennanigans to get there but that is how he always got elected. His first election came way of getting everyone else thrown off the ballot.
"teatards are hammering him continuously and are seemingly clueless" See Tim below . . .
It's pretty sae when someone(you) tried to insult the intelligence of another(me) and end up showing how smart you really aren't by making such a simple minded mistake. Go back to trying to hammer round pegs into square holes because this was a complete fail on your part.
That was funny. You said 'see Tim below' and then he responded. Priceless.
Obama's true believers are no different than any other blind zealots. Irrelevant, though – Black Jesus is finished next year.
Gee, I thought the Marlboro Man died of cancer long ago? All the crazies are out today. Nobody except conservatives thinks Obama is Jesus. He's a black lawyer from Chicago that we all voted in to get rid of Cheney and Bush. Did you sleep through the election? He's done a good job and will be easily re-elected.
Once again, the only people I have ever seen refer to Obama as 'the Messiah' or 'Jesus' or 'our Savior' have been those from the far-right. I thought you guys didn't like him?
I'm sorry but how does all this reduce the debt problem we have?
When you grow up, you will see how some days are spent doing one thing, and some spent on doing another. Grownups have many problems to concern us, and national security is not the same as debt. Go take your nap now.
Someday when you grow up you will learn it's often better to clean up your own backyard instead of just playing in someone elses. That person had a good point you just lack the ability to comprehend we had no business in Libya and it was basically nothing more than a wag the dog scenario which blew up in his face in the first place. Supposed to last a month. hahahahahahahaha Keep on riding obama **** it's good for laughs. When you grow up maybe someone will explain to you why it's bad to spend a billion dollars bombing some other country when the retarded leader hasn't been able to handle his business in this country.
"This was all done at a modest financial cost" --- Modest cost? So, if it is not costly, he// America needs to overthrow more. Maybe we can get a volume discount?
Yeah.. It's BARELY over.. WMDs are up for grabs. NO idea who is going to run the country. Thousands dead. Sure.. the left will praise Obama for this even though he did basically nothing and paid ZERO attention to the aftermath.
The president made a big deal about not being in charge and letting NATO lead. Therefore it is unfair to claim that this is an Obama policy victory as much as a NATO victory.
But in reality, this sixth month messy effort with an unclear end in my opinion weakened NATO and the US and cost many more lives over a shorter six week affair using greater airpower and only a few thousand NATO troops. When we
talk about no US boots on the ground we really mean who cares how many Libyan lives are lost and how much grief and destruction as long as Mr. Obama cannot be blamed for US caualties. How cynical is that?
'Cynical' would be if we said, well, it's going to happen with or without us and just stayed out. The people on the ground know that we were up there stopping Gadhafi from bombing them, and they will remember, and yeah, that's kinda cynical too. I'd rather make friends than enemies for my country.
I have to agree with Buster here. Cynical would be if we said, 'well, the US has no security interest in Libya, so they can just take care of this themselves', knowing full well that Gadhafi would have slaughtered them by the tens of thousands.
To the other extreme, cynical would have been if we said, 'who cares what the rebels want. We are America and we can go in and remove Gadafi ourselves without their help'.
Either way would have been a big foreign policy blunder. Obama did the right thing by finding the middle ground between these two approaches.
Soetoero had no choice after sitting out the Iranian protests of 2009.
Did the Iranian opposition call on the US for help? Did the AL and the GC ask the UN to issue a mandate to NATO for military intervention? Did the UN pass said resolution without a veto from Russia, Germany, or China?
The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. Therefore, you cannot compare the two situations in any way shape or form.
Europe gets Libyan oil as a trophy. Search Eni of Italy and Libya.. We got nothing but at-least we got to pay back for EU's sacrifice to the same in Iraq.. Hopefully the next one would be ours and EU would help the same way..
If liberals topple a Middle Eastern country it's in the name of justice. If conservatives do it it's in the name of oil and evil. What hypocrites.
Conservatives have consistently laid the blame for anything that has gone wrong on Obama but refused to give him a shred of credit for anything that has gone right. And yet Liberals are the hypocrites?
Given that Obama is responsible for the overthrow of Kadhafi, he is also responsible for the policies of the "rebels." It will be interesting to see what those policies are. Forced burqas on women, girls kicked out of schools? We shall see.
Probably, because both sides are Muslims and the rebels are calling for a return to conservative values. But all we did was join with the UN to stop Gadhafi from bombing the rebels, so we're hardly responsible for their politics.
hillarious... this will be obama's "all major operations are overwith" deal. we don't even know who is in charge or what political and or religous ideology will take hold and we're saying good job mr. president? good GOD americans are so DUMBED DOWN!!! especially the left... OBAMANOS!!!
Aw, you and Gadhafi were buddies? All the Republicans turn out to have been closet Libya-simps all along. No wonder we couldn't defeat him ourselves.
There are Republicans who have been screaming for the President to make the first move to place US military troops in Libya. We can't afford the Defense Dept. to run up another bill worth $751,000,000.00 in penalties because they didn't return the units used to transport materials to soldiers. Yeah, $751 MILLION in fees that tax payers have to pay. The DoD says that American taxpayers have deep pockets, and it's only a billion dollars.
Bold Lie; Repubs have not clamored for ground troops in Libya. We have no vested interest there. Obama helped hand this country over to radical muslims who will hate us more so than Ghaddfi did.
Wrong. McCain and other neocons were yelling quite loudly for the US to send in the military and topple Gadhafi with our own troops. Perhaps you had wool in your ears?
The only thing the "Pretender" and chief accomplished is the introduction of extreme radical islam in Libya and Egypt..."his" victory rings hollow.....
Oh, so now Obama will be to blame if terrorist groups take control not only of Libya but of Egypt as well? Ok, to be fair then, do you think Obama should get the credit if these two countries turn out to be stable democracies?
Didn't think so. All the blame and none of the credit. That is the Republican mantra concerning Obama.
Barrack "Yo Mama" Obama dusts another creep...who's next?
Mitt Romney will be the next little dictator to end up lying on his back with his head ringing and a tooth gone.
Interesting how many people focused on the used of acronyms, grammar, etc. - anything to avoid acknowledging the content of an article giving President Obama credit for anything. And as usual the people calling him various derogatory names ("Obumble" and the like) reveal their racism. Rage all you want about the "race card." Your hate is visible for all to see.
They're so mad they're using the n-word today. What will they do now? First Osama, now Gadhafi; they are lost without their terrorists!
LOL So calling names that are not even remotely racist are now racist? Good grief you people are nuts.
So anyone that called Clinton Slick Willy, or called Bush Shrub they are racist took, going by your standards.
This from Matt: "Hussein Obama is just a dumb thug niiigger"
Kind of refutes your 'not even remotely racist' claim, huh?
Unfortunately, this is very mild compared to the racist comments you get from the Fox News blogs. I don't even go there anymore because it makes my blood pressure rise.
Republicans are war mongers and would rather flex our military muscle and declare war on everyone, thank goodness for this president.
And obama isn't doing the same?????
Ernest, did you read the article?
Repeating my post.... obama took this action supposedly because Ghadaffi was killing his own people... Aside from the WMD reason bush gave for invading Iraq did he not also say Hussein was killing his own people and isn't it true that Hussein was killing his own people... therefore if obama is justified in taking military action based on "he's killing his own people" wouldn't bush be justified also no matter how he got thto that point.... or if bush is wrong in going to war isn't obama also wrong...
obama took this action supposedly because Ghadaffi was killing his own people... Aside from the WMD reason bush gave for invading Iraq did he not also say Hussein was killing his own people and isn't it true that Hussein was killing his own people... therefore if obama is jsutified in taking military action based on "he's killing his own people" wouldn't bush be justified also no matter how he got thto that point.... or if bush is wrong in going to war isn't obama also wrong...
Obama wars are ok, Bush's wars are not
Hussein gassing the Kurds and slaughtering the southern Shiites after the Kuwait invasion is an "inconvenient truth" the Bush haters either dismiss or ignore.
Ok, I will rise to the bait (again - I have the day off).
When Bush Jr. went into Iraq, the reason he gave was WMDs.
When Obama went into Libya, the reason he gave was RtoP (Responsibility to Protect).
If Bush had used the RtoP as a reason to intervene in Iraq at a time when Saddam was killing his own civilians (the Kurd thing was not during the Iraq War), then he would have been more justified. However, this is clearly not the case.
Therefore, your effort to link the two situations is preposterous.
Nothing can vidicate Obama's appalling "leadership"! He came from nowhere and hopefully will return to nowhere
!
HOW could this be viewed as a victory for the President...we sent money to a foreign country, as well as manpower and equipment, to assist in the overthrow of a foreign government, to rebels that weren't even identified...this is not a victory..this is lunacy...while Libya was not always in our corner, they were not the largest threat to this country...we need the resources for our own people and our own economy...this was a war where congress was not even consulted...we may now have a government that is worst than what we overthrew...hello????? how about taking care of one's own first...
"Libya was not always in our corner" They wanted us dead and were a haven for terrorists. They were one of our biggest enemies. Another Libya-lover.
so is obama going to take credit for this too and blame the economy on Irene, probably, because all obama knows how to do is be like the normal trash and cannot accept responsibility for anything, down with obama, make him fall and fail like the rest.
"down with obama, make him fall and fail like the rest." Gee, what a loyal American YOU are. Get out of my country.
They sound more loyal to this country than you do. Why don't you Get Out.
I love my country, even when a clown like Dubya is propped up on Washington's chair. You, on the other hand, are willing to sell us out because your candidate didn't win and you don't like the man our country selected.
Our country selected the worst choice. The one good thing is now Carter isn't the worst President because OhDummy beat him hands down.
Go back to your own country, we have enough losers here with this retard in the whitehouse and his idiots following him.
Saying we have a President that is spending out of control, is telling the truth and loving your country. To pretend everything is find is not. Even the Russian papers are complaining about Michelle Obama's 10 million spending on vacations.
I really can't imagine why you Tea Party folk are called traitors by the rest of the country. I guess you consider it patriotic to hope that our President fails. Pathetic.
Obama had close to nothing to do with taking Gadhafi down. It was a NATO operation with the US standing around at the rear handing out ammo when NATO ran out (something that makes NATO look kinda paper-tigerish, by the way.)
In this, as in the death of bin Laden, Obama's spin-meisters and sycophants are doing all the glory-grabbing than can when the fact of the matter is that, in both cases, the inspiration and planning was done by others while Obama stood there mumbling, "Yeah, I guess..." when asked about the plans. For anyone to claim that "The fall of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is a significant foreign policy triumph for U.S. President Barack Obama" is a lot like claiming US victory in WWII was a triumph for Harry Truman.
It is kind making me wonder if what is being circulated about the whole OBL take down is true. What is being circulated is that Petreus made the call about OBL not Obama. Obama was hesitant, and Petreus said let's do it.
Things have not been turning out as the repubs and tea party hoped for. First in Egypt, no hostage crisis, and no bloody quagmire where U.S. troops were being killed. Now Libya, where the president's "lead from behind" strategy worked, no hostages, no troops killed. So what's the TP to do? Oh yeah manufacture something to bash Pres Obama on in this Arab Spring.
So what do we have now, Janice?
Egypt is anything but free, being run by the same military junta as before, performing virginity tests on female dissidents and generally suppressing opposition. The only real difference is Obama either gave or forgave them over 2 billion of our dollars.
The Libyan war is an oil war for the Europeans where we are supporting a long-standing anti-Gaddafi fundamentalist opposition group with strong Al Qaeda ties. The country is in chaos and you sound like GWB. "Mission Accomplished"?? Oh, Please!
It almost sounds as if Janice is really just saying, Mubarak is gone, we gave them money that should appease all, of course the actual hard part of it all is ignored.
I mean it is like hey Qaddafi is gone, all is right with the world, again reality is ignored.
It seems as if reality is truly ignored.
A couple of weeks back, there were a series of incursions into Israel from Gaza, where numerous Israeli citizens were killed. These insurgents crossed through areas controlled by Egypt, which has reduced its military patrols in the area, and generally moved closer to the Hamas factions of the Palestinians in Gaza. If the fragile peace between Israel and Egypt breaks down, Obama's "victory" in the Arab Spring could prove to be even more of a disaster than Jimmy Carter's abandonment of the Shah of Iran.
Ok, let me try to summarize for you:
the international community (mainly the US and western Europe) normally don't do much in preventing mass atrocities committed by dictators/despots. Gadhafi was like the perfect opportunity for the west to score some PR points since Gadhafi is the loner that everyone loves to hate and it was a piece of cake to get rid of him. Just spend some money on bombs and send them back to stone age.
I'm trying to think what message this sends to the other dictators. I guess what this means is never be a loner, band together and make friends, especially with China & Russia
Good point.....kind of like the guy in Venezuala is doing.
That is actually really good comprehensive thinking.
Janice, you really are trying to say that the Republicans and TeaParty wants dead troops and all that turmoil?
I take it you either lack an education or just decided it wasn't worth retaining.
President OBOMA has done not one item of good while president unless you consider making a monkey fool of himself while the ignorant country he is president over makes fools of themselves! That is all the news fit to PRINT!
It really bothers you that previous President's bombed Libya and couldn't get Ghadafi to leave and further getting bin Laden. This POTUS has directed the end of 2 very menacing terrorist and the anti-American in you is really upset.
President Obama did not double the debt in three years. The Bush administration did not include the costs of the wars in the national debt. When Obama became President, the administration started including those costs in the national debt and naturally, the national debt increased.
He doubled the deficit. Go to treasury dot gov. That is the money we are short every year. Bush 600 Billion, Obama 1.25 Trillion with 500 more billion to kick in with Obama Care. Stop being a sheep.
look, u got pleny of black sheep in this room that keep on praising the anointed on just because he is the color sheep that they are! They are all alike! You cannot tell a black sheep to badmouth another black sheep whether he is a murderer, pimp, or wears his pantz down below his knees with his a-ss hanging out! All black sheep are SAINTS!
let me see , a billion dollar plus price tag for vindication. And we don't have him yet. and the country will need another 40 billion to re-build. And , Islam will own that place in 2 years. And , if we turned our back there is not many lybians who wouldn't stick a knife in it. And , there will be cival war for years to come. And , now we are going to have to help Syria and that my friends is a horse of a different color. That is a multi trillion dollar , 10 to 12 year party to go to , where there will be many casualties on both sides. Iran and russia will load them up with all the weapons they need. It will be an excellent excuse to take pot shots at Isreal as well. There is no end to this
I could care less what this CFR piece of trash says. The bottom line is Obama broke the law. By the way Gadhaffi has not been killed or captured yet so I don't see what the celebration is all about.
So basically as long as you win any use of military force is ok.............
You're all sheep!
Bah ahhhh, bah
At what a cost-largest debt-highest taxes and no relief in sight-now who cares about Gadhfi-Obama's follies and we he tax payers keep paying
LOL So then if all goes to h**l in a hand basket is Obama still vindicated? LOL. I love how people before the dust even settles instantly say OOOO vindicated all because it is Obama. But hey with the pro-Al Qaeda sympathizers and Islamic Militants being released from prison, and Qaddafi's weapons unaccounted for, mainly the Man-Pad weapons, congrats Obama, job well done. LOL. Even though of course he simply stood in the back of the pack, went over Congress, and decided on his own what do to about another country. So I guess Bush was vindicated for Iraq then eh. Nope, he is still hung in effigy.
American support of these "Arab Spring" uprisings led to the overthrow of the Mubarik regime in Egypt. Like it or not, Mubarik was our friend, and he has kept Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, generally out of the conflicts that have plagued the rest of that region. Egypt is at peace with Israel, but that peace is much more fragile now. The Muslim Brotherhood has been quietly building strength in Egypt, and if there are truly "open" elections there, it's likely that this religious party will hold significant power, if not an outright majority.
Egypt, Tunesia, Libya and Syria are not models of modern democracy. However, they are self-contained problems. I worry that the next governments will not be as benign.
Thank you Barrack for putting Alquada in power with the muslem brotherhood we are gratefull for you forever
Aw, did America succeed without your permission? Libya can have alqueda, alqauda, or even go all out and get Al-Qaeda for all I care. We kept Gadhafi from dropping nerve gas on them, whoever they were, and I'm down with that. Nobody deserves to have nerve gas dropped on them.
The GOP is already calling the VICTORY a DEFEAT as noted by Slick Rick Perry saying that U.S Generals should lead in place like Libya and not the NATO. Hmm, his party was questioning why we would intervene at all. It goes to show that nothing this POTUS does especially when it's good they cry foul. The GOP since getting their marching order from Rush has proven time and again they are Un-American.
What did he do besides sit back spend a bunch of money and kill people on both sides of the fight, continue to crap on our country financially.
Why are you angry? I sought by this time conservatives would get tired to pretend like they care?
Americans are not paying attention to Libyan war "because" (there were no American casualties).
They will foam at the mouth like rabid dogs, and then run Mitt Romney as being "Presidential." Half the GOP will vote for Obama to keep Mitt away from the White House.
What a self-serving load of garbage from Mr. Patrick. Obama has done nothing short of working to destroy this country. The sooner he is voted out of office the better things will become. I hope that Mr. Patrick didn't suffer too much pain patting himself on his back. CNN is a waste of time.
Obama cures cancer: Neocons decry Obama's "job destroying" actions. How dare he cure cancer and put all those hard working drug company employees out of work!
Obama rescues kitten from drowning: Neocons outraged that he didn't consult congress before taking such "reckless" actions.
Obama stops GM from going out of business: Neocons cry foul at Obama's "socialist" policies for propping them up and saving american jobs.
Obama solves national debt problem: Neocons "disgusted" by Obama's interfering God's plan to bankrupt America.
Lets' face it; he could do ALL of the above in the space of a week and STILL the Neocon/fascist/Bible Thumpers would find a way to try an belittle his accomplishments.
WoW, spoken like a true libtard. You do the name a lot of justice.
spoken like a true teabagging dixiefascist.....
Nice going Tim.. Your well reasoned and obviously intelligent response, including insulting someone's Mother is exactly what the World needs to see; another "intellectual" argument from the far right. It's so nice to know that you people can't help but show your ignorance and fear.
couldn't have said it better myself... repubs are today like they have also been:... absolutely, utterly, totally desperate for absolute power, regardless of what it takes... even treason...
and another libtard jumps in with his nonsensical addition which holds about as much intelligence as a siv.
Your mom like it when the teabaggin was being done to her.
MISSION ACCOMPLSIHED
This is exactly why Bush will be remembered by logical people as doing a good job, while those who just read newspapers will be the ones with no brain cells calling him a bad President. Obama looked at his options and chose the correct one. Yay for him! Bush looked at his options and chose the correct ones...but boo for him, because the media says so. What Bush did had to be done, even though it was not the popular thing to do. THAT is what makes a good President. Obama doesn't get kudos or complaints from me. He didn't really do anything. Bush does what needed to be done regardless of an ignorant public opinion of the situation based off of little fact and mostly media hype. That makes a good President. It doesn't make a popular one, but it does make a good one. If only Obama could learn this little tidbit instead of trying to please everyone, which in turn just makes him look like a puppet of the Republicans. Unfortunately, being well liked doesn't mean being a good President. Now, had Bush made really bad decisions or if Obama were to make really bad decisions, that makes them bad Presidents. But, Bush made good decisions and Obama has made no decisions (he's let the Reps make all of the decisions)...yet, when he makes the decision to do nothing then everyone heralds him for it? He will always be considered the second coming of Jesus to many people regardless what he does, it appears.
No, not Obama, but David Cameron and Nick Sarkozy. Stop pumping up your favorite.
CNN is always kissing Obama's A**, you are truly a onsided news service, this president has done NOTHING RIGHT since he came to office except run this country into the ground.
Agreed. These so called news organizations should be shut down. We have no news in this country, just propaganda that is much much worse than Al Jazeera. Compared to American so called media Al Jazeera is downright objective.
The liberals in the media are so desperate to find anything positive to say about Obama. The fact is Libya is just the beginning. The governments in Afghanistan and Iraq toppled in a few days, much much less time than it took Libya to fall. As we now know, the real challenge is ahead, trying to bring a reasonable stable government to Libya, and that will take many many years, or the alternative is that it will turn in to big pile of manure and a breeding ground for terrorists and muslim extremists.
RtP? Protect us from WHAT???? Qadaffi was no threat to us whatsoever. In fact he was much less of a threat than Iraq. WMD's aside, there were 19 UN resolutions that Hussein had violated. There was still the question of whether he had WMD's and might use them so something had to eventually be done. Qadaffi had done none of that
Responsibility to protect mass atrocities in other countries from happening, but if you read the article you knew that, so you are either being a dumb @zs or you are just being an @zs.
Saddam might have committed atrocities in the past, but he was under wraps with inspections for a decade and no WMD. Rumsfeld demanded Clinton attack Iraq while Clinton was in office. The evidence was fabricated. Bush intentionally lied to us and the world to get his war for his and Cheney's buddy's at Haliburton and US oil companies who are pumping oil out of Iraq as we speak.
No WMD and no mass atrocities.
after readin your post there are more No's to put in there.
No honesty on your part.
No intelligence on your part
No idea what you are talking about.
No conscience because you lied freely or you are stupid, whichever it is that's a shame for you.
Bury this all you want in RtoP lingo, I still find it uncomfortable that the US government and the President is basically engaging in an assasination plot. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Gadhafi, but when did western nations gain the moral right to say the leader of this country can stay, the leader of this country has to go – and if they don't we're going to bomb them? Who gives us the moral authority? And if we have it, why did we let Gadhafi stay in power for 40 years? If I were a kid in an arab country, the attacks on Gadhafi, telling Assaud in Syria he has to go, supporting Mubarouk and then not supporting him – this would drive me nuts and most likely to terrorism.
The answer to your question is George W. Bush. When he made the decision to invade Iraq, he set a permanent policy precedent. Those of us who opposed it at the time did so because we knew that a giant can of worms was being opened, not because we loved Sadaam Hussein. The Bush administration decided to tell the public that those of us who opposed the policy were supporting dictators and terrorists, which we certainly were not. We now have no choice but to support this because policy because, for better or worse, we are now a nation that has a doctrine of invasion of countries to remove dictatorships who are in human rights violation.
Obama does deserve some credit. We should give him a Nobel Prize maybe in chemistry or physics this time.
Obama has done nothing but meddle in foreign affairs that were none of our business. All those in Libya that supported Ghadaffi now HATE the United States. We will now call them terrorists because they hate us for bombing their country. What a ridiculous cycle. RON PAUL 2012!!!
Obama was absolutely right in toppling Gadhaffi. I well remember seeing the parents in New York waiting for their students to come home that December that Lockerbie occurred. Gadahffi was responsible for murdering all of them. Getting rid of him was long overdue and I applaud this President for doing it. He's earned his Nobel Prize.
Nobel Peace prize for bombing people? Are you kidding? I think Obama got the Nobel peace prize for calling for Peace not war? Hmmm.
He got a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing. just more political b.s.
I do not give Obama much credit for this. NATO handled the affair from the beginning. We are not even sure what kind of government will be created in Lybia? It was not really a quick resolution to a small conflict. So why did it take so long and so many Lybian's had to die? The mighty NATO with the US in tow could not end this sooner? I am one who see several similar conflicts that have gone on for years without US becoming involved. Why Lybia?
First the Republicans complained that Obama wasn't putting enough effort into the Libyan mission. Then, when it began to look like the policy might work, they tried to stop it by claiming it was a violation of the War Powers Act. Now they're saying he doesn't deserve to get any credit at all for it's sucess. There is nothing consistent about their message other than opposing anything the President does, blaming him for problems of their own making, and making sure he is not perceived as having anything sucessful occur under his administration.
The Republicans just hate Obama because he is half black.
Some just may, I hate him because he's a terrible president, he has done absolutely nothing to the betterment of this country, he seems to be a terrorists best friend, money means nothing to him as long as he's spending other peoples, he spends more time talking about him getting his job than actually doing it, he lies, he doesn't know what he's doing, he is not business friendly which has hurt our country tremendously and all in all is just the worst President ever. I am sure tho some people just hate him for his skin color, that's sad tho given all the other things he has done for anyone with an ounce to hate him.
1. "he has done absolutely nothing to the betterment of this country", he helped keep hundreds of auto workers from being layed off and he helped prevent an implosion on economic Wall Street. A Republican President would have taken the same action
2. "he seems to be a terrorists best friend", I haven't seen anything he has done that seems even remotely supportive of any terrorist organization. Is it his name that makes him "seem" as such?
3. "money means nothing to him as long as he's spending other peoples", yes, the President sets the budget, it's what Presidents do.
4. "he spends more time talking about him getting his job than actually doing it, " I don't see that at all. I know he just did that stupid bus tour thing, but that was two weeks out of three years.
5. "he lies". Example?
6. " he doesn't know what he's doing", a purely subjective observation on your part. I think he has seemed very decisive, although the results have not always been as favorable as he would like.
7."he is not business friendly which has hurt our country tremendously" How was the auto industry bailout not business friendly? He saved a bunch of jobs and prevented at least one major bankruptcy. Ih he wasn't business friendly he would have just let them go out of business, and you would be blaming him now for that. I think he's TOO pro business personally.
8." all in all is just the worst President ever." No, that was Franklin Pierce. You can't compare anything now to that total disaster.
Ooops..."economic implosion on Wall Street". Actually Economic Wall Street sounds pretty cool...
He brought me Bin Ladin's head for murdering 3000 of my people. In my book he is doing a fine. Hopefully now he can bring Gaddaffi Duck's head for murdering 178 more of my people.
Vindication will come when Gaddaffi duck's head is taken for having 178 of our people murdered. Eye for an eye an a tooth for a tooth. Trust me there are 150 families back in Libya who were burned alive by Daffi duck's boys who also need to burn in hell as well. Obama has taken care of business by knocking off Bin Ladin and many of his animals. The problems with our economy, illegal immigration, healthcare, ss, and so many other issues have always existed and have been swept under the carpet by every administration since Kennedy. For now Obama needs to keep his eyes on the goal and that is to protect the US and its interest. The other issues are not going to be an easy fix nor corrected for many years to come if ever.
All this means is that Obama does what he does best – lets others attempt to solve the problem and blame them if they fail or take credit if they succeed. That's not leadership. But that has always been the Obama way. He never led anything in Congress as a Senator and hasn't done much of anything as President- just blaming Republicans for everything. Although at least its a step in the right direction. FOreign policy Inaction is better than head strong in the wrong direction like Bush usually did.
Vindication will come when Gaddaffi duck's head is taken for having 178 of our people murdered. Eye for an eye an a tooth for a tooth. Trust me there are 150 families back in Libya who were burned alive by Daffi duck's boys who also need to burn in hell as well. Obama has taken care of business by knocking off Bin Ladin and many of his animals. The problems with our economy, illegal immigration, healthcare, ss, and so many other issues have always existed and have been swept under the carpet by every administration since Kennedy. For now Obama needs to keep his eyes on the goal and that is to protect the US and its interest. The other issues are not going to be an easy fix nor corrected for many years to come if ever.
"For great justice! All your base are belong to us!"
Seriously, though...
We must think critically, speak responsibly and true to our real hearts, question the outcome but allow others to succeed.
Bravo to Obama for making the right call and managing the intervention so adroitly. And bravo even more to Samantha Power for showing how America the best way to be a force for good in the world.!
There is absolutely NO benefit for any citizen in the United States (when the president is bashed by ideologically constipated individuals with closed minds, anonymous names, and keyboards).
Allow the "aweome" of the United States to be a priority – and be what we help and promote.
And if things go wrong from here, it's Bush's fault.
Obama will get no credit! Republicans will say that George Bush and Dick Cheney were in Libya fighting with the rebels to ensure that he would not be in power any longer. Hell, they would say Dick Cheney drove drove him to Algeria just to have to give Obama any sort of accolades.
Most of the comments here are ridiculous and inaccurate and from Republicans who never bother with facts.
Republicans wanted another full-blown ground war both in Egypt and Libya and even in Syria. President Obama was not going to engage the U.S. in any more Bush-type wars where we go in uninvited, murder our soldiers for the Bush lie, and stay for a decade and add trillions to our debt and accomplish NOTHING.
President Obama handled Egypt, Libya and now Syria in a very intelligent and well-thought-out manner. He did not commit the U.S. to more endless war. He gathered support from our Allies, from the UN, and even from the Arab League. We went in first for humanitarian reasons to stop genocide. We then, at the request of the PEOPLE, formed a NATO coalition to help the rebels gain freedom from these Arab dictators. Mubarak and Ghadafi are now both GONE – not one U.S. soldier was killed or in harm's way; it was all done in 6 months time; the cost was minimal and shared among many nations; and these Arab nations are grateful to the U.S. – even flying banners saying "Thank you Obama".
President Obama is an outstanding leader and has accomplished many great things in his first term. Republicans are so desperate and petty they refuse to give President Obama credit for ANYTHING. He could cure cancer and Republicans would find fault with it. Republicans are ridiculous and their constant slander and unending criticism of President Obama is old, tiresome and shows a total lack of character, maturity or leadership.
Thank you President Obama. There are real Americans who appreciate your hard work for ALL Americans and for the betterment of foreign relations and intelligent actions we have not seen by a President in a long time. You will be re-elected and we will get rid of all Republicans so we can stop playing their absurd obstruction extremist games and actually do real work in creating jobs and restoring our economy. Republicans will just keep destroying our country until we get them out of office and out of the way of our recovery.
Well Said!
The republican party has been hijacked by the kkk and the Koch Brothers. Their vision is to see the South Rise Again. If you don't stop them. You can't clean out the garbage in our local, state and federal Gov't. The Koch Brothers are spending millions of $$$$ to make sure that Obama is not president a second term. If the koch Brothers get the White House we will be in a heap of trouble.
The reference to the killing of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka's final battle with the terrorists Tamil Tigers vastly overestimates the number killed (a common mistake by western media). Such references conveniently miss noting that the Tiger terrorists were holding the civilians hostage and as a human shield behind which the coward terrorists hid. Sri Lanka is the ONLY nation to have completely defeated a terrorist group in the age of 9/11. If you need to refer to Sri Lanka as an example, give the public the correct picture - not a heavily biased one.
I can't imagine what Michele Bachmann would have done... or Sarah Palin... even John McCain...
President Obama may read from a teleprompter just like any CEO reading from his notes(better than winging it and making Bachmann errors or forgetting quotes like Bush)
President Obama can't create jobs out of thin air just ask your mayor or your governor... but Obama's accomplishments are much better than whatever Bush tried to achieve. Obama is still cleaning up 8 years of Bush(really people want to make Obama a one term president but gave idiotic Bush two terms) the same people that don't heed evacuation warnings, the same people Jerry Springer would have on his show, Joe Dirt and Ricky Bobby and Sarah Palin types...
It is 2011 those older than 55 have been through segregation, women's right to vote, B&W tv, typewriters, cash vs direct deposit... but you still want that mentality in the White House?
"Don't heed evacuation warnings"? So all the people stranded on Hatteras are Joe Dirt/Ricky Bobby ignorant type people? When you can afford houses like that, then maybe you've got some credibility to fling the mud. At least Bachmann was joking. You are using people's misfortune to namecall and be spteful.
Looks like Boehner and his Tea Baggers were wrong......AGAIN!
Also, remember no American Military have been killed there either. I bet that breaks Dick Cheney's black heart!
The worst part is there hasn't been a $17 Billion contract for Halliburton to build a road or something!
NATO has handed over power in Libya to Al Qaeda/ex mujahadeen rebels. This is a spit in the face to 9/11 victims, Afghanistan/Iraq families, and basically all Americans who have been played. Google "libya al qaeda." If you think CNN keeps you well informed, you are sorely mistaken. Oh by the way, 9/11 first responders are not invited to the 9/11 ten year anniversary at ground zero. Why not?
How tremendously naive. I just heard GW Bush saying: Mission Accomplished. Libya produced a large percentage of the suicide bombers in Iraq. Do you think the bombers are Khadafi Loyalist? Or the same discontented rebels who are throwing out their government today? Just because Saddam and Khadafi are evil, doesn't mean they aren't the lesser of two evils. As for Obama being justified? No one person has the moral authority to order the death of hundreds of others whether they are deserving or not. That is why the Founders saw fit to empower CONGRESS with the power to declare war.
I don’t dismiss your point, Jim, but it’s hard to feel comfortable with today’s congress trying to make a decision about anything.
Yeah, the ends always justify the means when CNN is writing about a Democrat.
Democrats or Republicans are all the same. They are one notch below child molesters. So stop crying foul play.
Just another example of our failing foreign policy. We are broke, yet we find a way to make more enemies worldwide. I don't see the news talking about Gadhafi's supporters or the innocent people that had their neighborhoods bombed. America's actions are Al Qaida's best recruiting tool. Once again the imperialistic American empire oversteps it's authority. Stop this madness and fix the problems at home. RON PAUL 2012!!! Before it is too late to save America.
Ron Paul or John Paul II can't do a single thing without the senate and congress doing who love to get kick backs from lobbyist. Our Gov't is so corrupted that no president can get anything done.
Then we vote them out too! This is our country! It is a matter of time that we either take it back in the ballot box or by a much more undesireable means. The government has become RULERS rather than representatives. We have tried to go with the GOP or DNC establishment puppet and look where we are. If Faux News or the Clinton News Network is continueing to push certain candidates, you can guarantee there is big money telling them to do it! THOSE CANDIDATES DON'T WORK FOR YOU!!!
Our troops support Ron Paul. Support our troops. Stop the warmongering.
OK, I know to some people these thngs don't matter, but writers who will reach a big audience should get their English right. "...a wave of refugees would effect them" – that's AFFECT – and in a post here "..editorial gaff" – that was a writing gaffe! (A GAFF is a pole either on a sailboat at the upper edge of the sail, , or with a hook on the end for lifting big fish. )
headline – "Obama walks on water, Republicans decry president's inability to swim"
With Gadhafi still on the loose, ragtag disorganized rebel forces of unknown composition, and no clue of what a Libyan government, if any, might look like in 12-18 months, it's far too early to declare "Mission Accomplished!". Even if you intensely dislike G W Bush, you should learn from his mistakes.
No one is saying mission accomplish.
Headline, "Obam walks down sidewalk, trips and breaks foot" Democrats decry it's Bush's fault.
Why do you hate half black people?
well at least you are proof as to why siblings sould not reproduce.
He's half white, einstein.
Not all libtards are dumb a new CNN poll shows 27% of them want a diff. candidate than Odummy for President. There is some hope for that side of the fence.
Headline: “Bush was worst president ever and it will take time to recover.” It’s amazing to me how badly all the former Bush/Cheney disciples now what to pretend that their presidency never happened.
Is English your second langauge or are you just an Obama follower? hahahahahahahahahaha
Touche!!!!!
You still did not answer my question. It was a simple question. Let me give you another simple question. Do listen a lot to the banjo playing from the movie deliverence?
It's looking at lot like it wasn't just siblings who did some breeding in your family, was gandpa involved too and this is how you act out according to your counselor? LOL!
You do listen to the Banjos.
I’m glad you have such a good sense of humor, Tim. And I’m grateful for your expertise in the English language and incest. Perhaps you can tell me the meaning of these words that you use: “Obam,” “sould,” “langauge,” “gandpa.” Really, your retorts are, well, um… oh, never mind.
How appropriate to say what a good job our Nobel PEACE Prize winning president has done at leading the charge to bomb and kill more innocent people in the name of spreading democracy in yet ANOTHER country. USA USA USA!!!!
Surely these Arab Spring matters are complicated, and the future of Libya is hard to predict. But you have to say so far, so good. Let us not forget that the Teapublicans were quite vocal in their demands for Obama to “quit dithering.” It’s never been clear to me what their plan is, but God forbid one of these reactionaries ever gets in charge of anything important.
Interesting. It's a significant triumph of foreign policy, yet it's a unique case and unlikely to be repeated. Then the author goes on to explain that the conditions were perfect for the foreign policy. Personally, I wouldn't be touting a triumph of policy if all these conditions had to be perfect for it to succeed.
it seems to me that the whole Libya thing was/is about oil – pure and simple. But is European oil – we protected France's butt once again. Why did we do this? To keep the Euro economy from tanking and have a negative impact on the US – right before the subtle re-election activities start. Like Obama's BS visit to the Midwest – that was a campaign counter move pure and simple. It was postured as get out and talk to the people exercise so that the taxpayers would have to cover the cost – which was in the $30+M range for 3 days.
Attacking Libya was a move to save Europe – nuff' said !!
R2P – Right 2 Pry into other countries affairs because we are the big bad Americans and the people making the decision to attack will NEVER have to risk life or limb for their decisions! Stop the madness. RON PAUL 2012!!! Semper Fidelis.
This editorial strikes me as pure political spin doctoring. 1. How do we know Obama and his NATO allies haven't just helped hand Libya to Islamic extremists, maybe even Al Qaeda? 2. Why Libya and not Syria or Somalia? Where is the moral and strategic imperative here? Patrick never explaiins.
there has been a lot of speculation from outside the US that our involvement in the Libya fiasco was part of an agreement with Germany, France and England to save the euro based economy – which is more fragile then most really understand.
Cut off the supply of Libyan oil and there could have been dire consequences in Europe that would have a substantial negative impact on our economy. Check some other news sources other then BS we are fed in this country.
Syria has a whole bunch of WMD's the can of worms that would open would be a mess bgb which is why nobody is touching it and they are killing people left and right. Their situation is much worse than Libya but they aren't going to just be punk'd out of power.
I've wanted his head since discotech bombing in Germany. Remember when he took credit for live on national TV, and Reagan was like "Well...", and bombed him? Blew his up his dog house even.
Obama finished Reagans job, even if none of you chuckle-head supported him, I sure did because I remember. And it only cost $1 billion dollars and zero American lives. Score!
Exactly. Funny how Obama kills Bin Laden and gets rid of Gadhafi when previous presidents failed. Yet all the critics can do is second guess Obama’s tactics. They have no sense of history. It's like they can’t remember anything past 2009.
Okay, Obama removed a despot, just like Bush did in Iraq. Egypt is brewing in the Sinai. Does this mean this administration therefore also subscribes to NEOCON values? I say this because this administration, and its principal leaders, are following the same principles established in 1997 by NEOCONs. Wonder where I'm coming from? Check out http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm .
When a fair and just government stands, then there is something to talk about. It's easy to topple a government, harder to build one.
Cheers, http://www.swothunter.com
Here's a related piece just published by the Heritage Foundation.... http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/08/A-Counterterrorism-Strategy-for-the-Next-Wave
Cheers, http://www.swothunters.com
We helped Catro in Cuba too and look how that turned out. All Obama has done in Libya is either paved the way for a new dictator or started a long period of civil war like in Somalia. This story is not going to have a happy ending and Obama is a fool.
What is this nut job Samantha Power talking about? We need to apologize? For what?? We didn't kill 3,000 people on 9/11, Muslims did. We didn't kill 3,000 helpless unarmed protesters in Syria in the last 4 months, Muslims did! We didn't gas 10,000 Kurds in northern Iraq, Muslims did. The U.N estimates over 300,000 people killed in Darfur. We didn't kill those people, Muslims did! We didn't kill 200 people in the Mumbai India attack, Muslims did! We didn't kill the people in the 2002 & 2005 Bali bombings, Muslims did. Muslims bombed the USS Cole, London Bus bombing, bombing in Kenya, Subway bombing in Madrid killing 191 innocent people. America didn't threaten to wipe another country of the map, Muslims did. Muslims have killed more of their own than any other race of people on Earth. Yet this stupid commie broad thinks we owe these people an apology! It's no wonder she's part of Obama's cabinet. Anti-Americans flourish in the commie Obama administration.
Please Samantha, do us all a favor and change your name to Samantha Putz. Stay off the crack cocaine lady. You're a pathetic Anti-American, Anti-Semetic leftist apologetic moron and everyone knows it!
I'd need to examine with you here. Which isn't something I often do! I enjoy studying a submit that can make people think. Additionally, thanks for permitting me to remark!
Dave, Thank you for the insights you have shared with me regarding the Conservative way. Warm regards, Julian
I've been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or weblog posts on this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this site. Reading this info So i am happy to express that I've an incredibly excellent uncanny feeling I found out exactly what I needed. I most surely will make certain to do not fail to remember this site and provides it a glance regularly.