Shnesh Sarah Hnesh
Obama...u are a such a disappointment on so many levels.
http://tiny.cc/r4kpj #Libya #Feb17
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply
MARCH 6, 2011, 7:57 P.M. ET
Obama's Libyan Abdication
Will the U.S. let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power? Will the U.S. let Gadhafi slaughter his way back to power?
The battle for Libya has reached a bloody impasse. Moammar Gadhafi continues to hold Tripoli, but his sons and mercenaries have been unable to break the uprising or retake the country's east. Having loudly declared that Gadhafi "needs to step down from power and leave," President Obama now seems to have retreated into a bizarre but all too typical passivity.
We say bizarre because the U.S. has already announced its preferred outcome, yet it is doing little to achieve this end. The greatest danger now to U.S. interests—and to Mr. Obama's political standing—would be for Gadhafi to regain control. A Libya in part or whole under the Gadhafi clan would be a failed, isolated and dangerous place ruled by a vengeful tyrant and a likely abettor of terrorists. We presume that's what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meant the other day when she said that "one of our biggest concerns is Libya . . . becoming a giant Somalia."
Ghadafi can also only prevail at this stage through a murderous campaign that will make U.S. passivity complicit in a bloodbath. Media reports relate stories of his secret police terrorizing Tripoli's population and killing indiscriminately. Al Jazeera is already comparing the West's failure to act in Libya to the slaughter of Iraq's marsh Arabs in 1991 and of the Bosnian Muslims by Serbs later that decade.
The Administration is explaining its reluctance to act by exaggerating the costs and the risks. It rolled out Pentagon chief Robert Gates last week to mock "loose talk" of military options. "It's a big operation in a big country," he said. "We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East." Centcom Commander James Mattis offered a similar warning.
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704005404576176861610325024.htmlThis is a terrible article! Blatantly unfair too.