Clinton: Fears of Libyan `unspeakable atrocities'

[JanDutchy]

Source: AP

March 19, 2011, 1:13PM

PARIS — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that the U.S. will bring "unique capabilities to bear" in Libya as a global coalition began enforcing a U.N.-authorized no-fly zone to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

The world will not "sit idly by," she said at a news conference, amid fears that Gadhafi will commit "unspeakable atrocities" against his people.

"We have every reason to fear that left unchecked Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities," she told reporters after an international conference at which world powers launched enforcement of the no-fly zone.

Clinton said there was no evidence that Gadhafi's forces were respecting an alleged cease-fire they proclaimed and the time for action was now


Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7480752.html

[faz]

1. Yep we heard that line before the Iraq war

Who said history didn't just repeat itself?

[DURHAM D]

3. what line?

[AlphaCentauri]

8. Sadam was hang for 150 people he murdered

Since his death more than 100 000 people have die

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[faz]

9. The line was "Saddam Hussein has committed unspeakable atrocities"

same excuse for war.

[Igel]

40. Well, this is a completely different line.

This one is "will commit unspeakable atrocities."

The difference is that "has committed" allows verification. The "will commit" line doesn't admit verification. We're bombing to forestall actions yet future, not punish him for deeds past.

Note: Gaddafi certainly hasn't been a good boy, to be sure. Yet "will commit" is the justification cited, citing Rwanda and what Saddam did in 1991. I'm not going to bother to adduce justifications that the people involved themselves think aren't sufficient or necessary.

[faz]

42. It's like saying "Guilty until proven innocent"

No she doesn't make sense.

[JanDutchy]

7. Depends on who tolerate it.

[David__77]

2. Only some "atrocities" count to this person.

People mowed down in an instant by a "US ally," and she could care less. The US bombs women and children in Afghanistan - "oops!"

[faz]

5. A tool for the Military Industrial Complex

That's all.

[DURHAM D]

6. Your response shows limited capacity to analysis foreign policy.

[faz]

11. LOL

Like your one liner a great analysis

[David__77]

14. Not at all. I just have a different "foreign policy" than the US.

I don't support the bloody hyenas at the state department, that's for sure.

[sabrina 1]

34. Why don't you explain it to us ignorami so we don't all embarrass

ourselves anymore by standing up for human rights or anything else of so little importance?

I always enjoy being lectured to by war supporters who believe that the U.S. is the most special country in the world and as such, is perfectly justified in slaughtering civilians in other countries who have the nerve to be sitting on OUR much needed resources, while at the same time attempting to portray themselves as the world's moral authority on exactly what they themselves are doing.

I will await your wisdom on 'foreign policy' o wise one!

[AndyTiedye]

27. I Don't Think We're Bombing Women and Children On Purpose

Qaddafi has threatened to destroy a city of about a million people
and is in fact now attacking the city.

[gmaki]

35. Evidence?

Footage? Got any?

[ananda]

4. "unspeakable atrocities"

Does that include the CIA and Black Ops torture, secret prisons, and
manipulation of events to install hardline dictators?

Does that include our own political entities, national, state, and local,
which are committing horrible atrocities and crimes against our own
people and those abroad who are trying to preserve our rights and
freedoms, including unions, and people like Julian Assange and Bradley
Manning?

And what about the horrible atrocities that have occurred, and are now
occurring, in other countries in the ME and around the world? Hmm???

[sabrina 1]

16. Her comments are not going down very well in other parts of the

world either. As YOU pointed out, the total disconnect about the unspeakable horrors being perpetrated against the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan with her full support, has not gone unnoticed around the world.

As she said herself recently 'we can no longer control the message' thanks to some real news media in other parts of the world and the revelations of Wikileaks.

I would like to ask her about the unspeakable horrors by the Bahrainian Government and the Yemen Govt against the protesters in their countries. Will the world 'stand by' and watch them even as the people cry out for help?

How about the protesters in Iraq, did she call out the puppet government there for mowing them down? Unarmed, peaceful protests demanding the democracy they were promised?

How about the Ivory Coast where truly unspeakable horrors against the protesters are taking place?

Does she really think the world can be fooled any longer by these lies?

I wish they would just tell the truth. And then defend it honestly, but this attempt to paint the Colonialists as altruistic humanitarians is beyond belief at this point in time.

I would love to proven wrong and see them do the job of protecting the Libyan people and then leave. But does anyone in their right mind believe that is what will happen?

[Catherina]

43. Hillary's trip to Egypt didn't go very well. Nor Tunisia. The charade is over

Let's not forget Gaza. Their cries have been worse than unheard for 60 years.

The charade is over. I'm delighted.

Hillary Clinton on democracy, Egypt, military tribunals and the torture of detainees

Hillary listens: “Gamila Ismail, a prominent politician who joined the protest movement, opened the meeting with a pointed critique of American support for Mr. Mubarak, which continued until the eve of his departure. As much as the administration eventually pushed for Mr. Mubarak to step aside, many Egyptians remember more vividly Mrs. Clinton’s remarks on Jan. 25, as street protests boiled over into an uprising. “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” she said then. Hossam Bahgat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, who also attended the meeting with Mrs. Clinton, said Wednesday that those remarks were “a cause for widespread disappointment and criticism in Egypt.” At the meeting here, he said, she spoke of the “difficult balance” of the American role as a result of decades of diplomacy. “She acknowledged the legitimacy of this concern,” he added, referring to the support for Mr. Mubarak, “but she stressed that the U.S. has done more to promote democracy in Egypt than any other country.” Those in the meeting also raised the subjects of American support for other autocratic rulers in the region, the violence in Libya and Bahrain and the perception that the United States had failed to press for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Bahgat said he urged Mrs. Clinton to use the United States’ “unparalleled access” to Egyptian military leaders to bring an end to military tribunals and the torture of detainees in the country.“

Posted by As’ad AbuKhalil at 8:09 AM

Those in the meeting also raised the subjects of American support for other autocratic rulers in the region, the violence in Libya and Bahrain and the perception that the United States had failed to press for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Bahgat said he urged Mrs. Clinton to use the United States’ “unparalleled access” to Egyptian military leaders to bring an end to military tribunals and the torture of detainees in the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/middleeast/17clinton.html

Hillary in Arab lands

"Demonstrators chanted: "No to normalisation, Tunisia is free and not for sale" or "Tunisia is an Arab country, neither imperialist nor Zionist." It was the second demonstration in two days in the capital against her visit, after a similar number protested on Tuesday. And in Egypt Wednesday, she was snubbed by one of the main youth groups that spearheaded the uprising there. Clinton made no statements to reporters on the flight from Cairo to Tunis."
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 4:56 AM

...

When she announced her plans to visit Egypt and Tunisia last week, she said she would convey the US intention to be "a partner in the important work that lies ahead as they embark on a transition to a genuine democracy."

...

But a group that played a key role in the uprising, The Coalition of the Youth of the Revolution, refused an invitation to meet her.

In a statement posted on its website, the group denounced Washinton's "weak position at the start of the revolution" and its "close relationship" with the ousted president Hosni Mubarak.

It also expressed anger at "the help and support offered by the American administration to many of the oppressive and undemocratic regimes in the region."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ibDVhzo8KbVixAMOb4ebFVua04Cw?docId=CNG.9c024f6975002ea374ae27d6ace48f81.91

Egypt youth refuse to meet U.S. Sec of State

Mar 15th, 2011 | By Mohamed Abdel Salam | Category: Egypt, United States

CAIRO: The Coalition of the Youth of the 25 January Revolution rejected an invitation to attend a meeting with U.S. Secretary of the State Hillary Clinton, who is beginning a two-day visit to Egypt and Tunisia Tuesday, announced the coalition on its Facebook page on Monday.

“As we are keen on working in a transparent manner, with the masses of the revolution, the Coalition announces that it has received an invitation to meet with the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and due to her negative stance towards the revolution during its inception and the approach of the US Administration towards the Middle East Region, we decided to refuse this invitation,” the statement of the Coalition said, without clarifying any other reasons for turning down the invitation.

...

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=30571

[sabrina 1]

46. Excellent post, you should make it an OP.

I am so glad to see that the people are letting her know they are not stupid.

Her hypocrisy is stunning. And they are so right that this administration struggled for so long in the beginning to keep those two dictators in power and only stopped when they were given no choice.

Good for those people. It must hard trying to deal with a democracy after how easy it was dealing with a traitor to his own country, willing to sell it to the highest bidder.

And I wouldn't be surprised if that realization, how hard it will be when all these countries are free, for the Empire to do business as usual, brought about the decision to go to war in Libya. To end the spirit of revolution sweeping the region by establishing a presence in the richest oil producing country in the region.

Things were slipping away from them. They had to do somethign.

I love your post, thank you. I was afraid they might feel obliged to be polite, but glad to see they decided honesty is the best policy.

[Catherina]

47. "Things were slipping away from them. They had to do something"

And that right there sums it up.

...

It wasn't all fun and games this time around. Egypt, once one of our busom buddies in the Middle East, now has an entirely different view on United States foreign policy. To them, the US took too long to support the protests, effectively making them Mubarak supporters in democracy's clothing. If we want the Pharonic love, we better be ready to say sorry and play nice.

"There was an invitation for members of the coalition to meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," the January 25 Revolution Youth Coalition issued in a statement on their Facebook page, "but based on her negative position from the beginning of the revolution and the position of the US administration in the Middle East, we reject this invitation."

In a separate statement released to an Egyptian newspaper, the coalition, made up of six youth activist groups, also said, "the US administration took Egypt's revolution lightly and supported the old regime while Egyptian blood was being spilled." They went on to elaborate that Clinton was not welcome in Egypt "because the U.S. administration long supported Mubarak's corrupt, dictatorial regime financially, politically, and morally." They expressed no interest in meeting with her until the United States makes a formal apology to the Egyptian people for their support of Mubarak's regime. "The Egyptian people are the masters of their own land and destiny and will only accept equal relations of friendship and respect between the people of Egypt and the people of America."

A spokesman for Clinton had no immediate response.

...

http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/hillary-clinton-visits-egypt-snubbed-by-youth-activist-coalition/

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll include it as part of a broader OP later on.

[sabrina 1]

48. I wonder how long before Egypt and Tunisia become the

Venezuela of the Arab world? Those revolutionaries sound a lot like Chavez. Telling the truth to Western Powers. And we know that this is not acceptable.

They will learn that you don't point out the hypocrisy of the U.S. and expect them to lie down and take it.

I think the U.S. and their Colonial allies from Europe, are remembering Latin America and how they succeeded in overthrowing our Dictator allies there while the U.S. was busy in Iraq. This time they may have decided on a pre-emptive strike, in Libya, to up a stop to all this Latin America style democracy.

If those Tunisian and Egyptian revolutionaries keep talking like that, how long before we see former cheer-leaders for the Revolution, turn into anti-Chavez style anti-revolutionaries here in the U.S.? I wonder if the smear campaign against them is already included in the budget along with Chavez propaganda budget?

[Catherina]

50. Probably so. One reason I'm extremely supportive of the Egyptian revolution

is because it was organized by the Left with great support from Labor groups. It pushed a progressive socialists agenda focusing on labor, equal rights for women, economic reform, etc...

The Libyans aren't pushing any such agenda and according to the wikileaks cable, Eastern Libya, Derna and Benghazi in particular, is a hotbed of religious fundamentalism that spent years whipping young men up for suicide missions. You don't see any labor groups involved, no mention of the poor, of women, of the working class.

When it comes to Libya, here's part of an e-mail I got from a friend whose political astuteness is remarkable.

Consider the following:

1) the leaders of the National Transition Council, that is the leaders of the rebellion or the ones who are filling the political vacuum in the absence of Gaddafi are former regime officials;

(2) the NTC has been colluding with the West. This ought to sound alarms that this isn't a revolution but a regime change; that the U.S. is in effect getting a client regime. The NTC has been saying they have "western values" and want a no-fly zone and military attacks and that if they gain power they will honor foreign oil contracts and will "remember" their "friends";

(3) the plight of black africans is again ignored by the "liberal left." Black Africans in Libya, both citizens and immigrant workers, are the most oppressed group in the country. They make up more than 1/3 of the country, but they are not present in this revolution. Why? Apparently that is because this is an "Arab revolt" and blacks are fleeing the revolution in terror, which is also attacking them;

(4) it is awfully strange that the NTC adopted the Kingdom of Libya flag and that the "heir to the throne" is pleased by that and is saying he is ready to return to the country to "be a servant to the people."

Important bits of information to consider, no?--and are consistently missing in left media outlets--in order to understand what is going on. Former government officials colluding with the U.S. and the West to gain power while the most oppressed social group flees in terror and the heir to the throne is talking about returning is not symbolic of a progressive revolution the left should be supporting.

timeoutcorner Andrew McInnes
@
@ceoDanya I see you're using the royal crest. Monarchist? Just curious.
56 minutes ago

ceoDanya Danya B Mohammed
@
@timeoutcorner all i will say is i want the best for my people and country, when we had the ruling royal family they did an amazing job
54 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

HUH?

I'm still supportive that Gaddafi needs to go because what he's done is unforgivable and intolerable. It's quite strange there was such an outcry over Chavez' suggestion of a Peace Commission in favor of a war that's killing and wounding even more innocent civilians. Tomahawk missiles? Have the western powers lost their damn minds?

[bread_and_roses]

10. Cluster Bomb Clinton ought to look in the mirror (n/t)

[plumbob]

12. Time to cue the "babies in incubators being murdered"

corps?

Paging Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ and Hill & Knowlton!! Please report to the Lies for Why We Fight room immediately!!

That is all.

[dipsydoodle]

19. Was that that lying cow's name

Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ - nurse aka The Kuwaiti Ambassador to the USA's daughter.

When interviewed on the subject she said "the lie served it purpose"

[plumbob]

21. Yep. It's hell being old enough to remember seeing shit with your

own eyes, isn't it? Lots of people try to convince my students that this sort of thing never happens, not here, not by "us".

[dipsydoodle]

22. We had an entire documentary

here in the UK on TV on that subject alone. Hence my knowledge of it.

:hi:

[plumbob]

25. I notice you collect fretted instruments. That MUST be more

satisfying than fretting over tools elected to office here.

I don't what would happen if anyone attempted to run a documentary like that on TV here. But it WOULD be fun to watch some of the politicos shit all over themselves!

[dipsydoodle]

32. Broadly speaking

I think the UK public considered your Congress to be completely daft in head falling for that one - mugs.

Not that one but many others we've had on both BBC and Channel4 can be watched here :
http://www.thedossier.info/ Enjoy when you have the time.

I doubt that few if any of them have been broadcast in the US.

:hi:

[plumbob]

37. Thanks for the link - it will be handy during class!

:toast:

[DURHAM D]

13. Several black and whiters and non US nationals are posting here.

[faz]

15. How do you know that?

X-ray eyes?

[JanDutchy]

20. Question; does etnic counts or is it just a average US-approach?

[AlphaCentauri]

29. and several UnAmerican Americans too n/t

jeezzz

[former9thward]

17. Where have we heard this war mongering before?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[dipsydoodle]

18. She's a fine one to talk

given she represents the USA and that Egypt and other countries were used by the US for the purpose of rendition.

Exactly what is worse than torture ?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. in this speach when she said "we stand with the People of Libya" she lost me...why didn't she stand

with "the people" of the WI and Solidarity here at home?

[DURHAM D]

26. Hello - she can only speak on foreign policy. gheez

Who are you people?

[plumbob]

28. Really? The law prevents her from making any personal comments about

anything at all?

Wow.

Certainly not surprised someone from Durham would use the phrase "you people."

[DURHAM D]

30. It is not the law. It is long standing tradition .

The WH/President (SOS does work for the President) does not want State to comment on domestic policy.

Where are you from if you don't already know this?

[plumbob]

31. I didn't see the poster asking for a comment on domestic policy.

I saw the poster asking Clinton to support American workers.

Any evidence that the current administration HAS a domestic policy on what's happening in Wisconsin? They're pretty much AWOL on that.

See? There goes that scoldy tone again - you must really be a native of that area and totally tone deaf to it. That's okay, it's just an observation from nobody who counts.

[DURHAM D]

33. I'm not. Where are you from?

[plumbob]

36. I'm from the empty quarter of Texas, where nuclear waste is being

stored on top of our drinking water, and where folks from the side of Texas that counts (east of I35) remind us often of our nonexistence.

You?

[totodeinhere]

41. The people of Wisconsin were not being submitted to genocide.

What was done in Wisconsin can be undone after the next election after the voters of Wisconsin throw the bums out. On the other hand, the people of Libya don't have that opportunity.

[Poll_Blind]

24. Like torture, mock executions, extra-judicial executions, disregard for civilian casualties?

Stuff like that?

Stuff like that?

PB

[jakeXT]

38. looks like this is the plan

Airstrikes: If the U.S. really wants to do something about the Libyan Air Force (LAF), airstrikes to obliterate the LAF actually might make more sense. It means a bigger commitment of force up front, but the U.S. would basically be done in a week or so. Moreover, because it is a far more aggressive approach, it would put far more pressure on the regime and might help topple Qaddafi in a way that NFZs probably would not. The Allied air campaign against Iraq in 1998, Operation Desert Fox, was not meant to overthrow Saddam, but it terrified him far more than the No-Fly Zones ever did—and caused him to take missteps that actually undermined his control for some time.

Ordering an air campaign to cripple the LAF would mean bringing one or more carriers into the Med, plus basing Air Force assets in Malta and/or Italy, and going after the LAF at their airfields. It would mean suppressing (not destroying) Libya’s second-rate air defense network, and destroying as many LAF planes on the ground—or in the air, if they come up while we are attacking—as we can. In 2-6 days of strikes, Western air forces would probably destroy much of the LAF and make it extremely difficult for the rest to operate (by smashing command and control and logistical facilities). Thus, this option should have most of the same impact of a NFZ, but in a more compressed period of time.

The Afghan Option: If our goal is really to topple Qaddafi, this is one way we could try to do it on the cheap. It would mean following the playbook we used to topple the Taliban in 2001. We would send large numbers of Special Forces (SF) and CIA paramilitary operatives into Libya to organize, train and equip the opposition forces and mold them into a cohesive, moderately capable force. Then, we would provide lots of air power to enable the opposition to drive on Tripoli and crush Qaddafi’s loyal military forces. This represents a much more active American role than any in Washington seems to want to contemplate right now. It is also going to be a challenging undertaking—more challenging than Afghanistan in some ways—if only because in Afghanistan we already had a cohesive, capable opposition in the Northern Alliance, whereas in Libya we will have to create one.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0309_libya_pollack.aspx

[Critters2]

39. Blah blah blah. Any excuse for a war.

:banghead:

[Fool Count]

44. And I "have every reason to fear" that US after getting rid of Gaddafi will

install Al-Maliki-like puppet regime and proceed to rob the country of its natural resources and to
inflict incalculable misery on the Libyan people. What are we going to do about that?

[sabrina 1]

49. Yes, I would say that is definitely the plan.

Last week, the Iraqi people went out to protest against their government and were met with live fire, over 29 were shot dead. More were rounded up and thrown in prison, no doubt subjected to the torture Bradley Manning tried to stop.

What did the U.S. have to say about our puppet government's treatment of their own people, peacefully protesting? Nothing from the WH as far as I know, so I guess they WILL stand by and watch SOME brutality against civilians.

But the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq tried to dismiss the slaughter when asked about it, he claimed that Al Maliki is not in the habit of shooting his own people who are peacefully demonstrating, so we shouldn't be too concerned, I guess. He went on to utter platitudes about how the U.S. supports the Iraqi people's right to demonstrate freely. Sounded pretty empty since we are not interested in the Iraqi police torturing people nor Makili's govt. shooting them down in the streets.

This may be what Libya has to look forward to. Even though this is exactly what they said they did not want.

[Vinee]

45. But it has nothing to do with the sweet light crude oil. we swear.

give me a fucking break.