Is the Obama Administration Soft on Gaddafi?

[tekisui]

Source: Washington Post

For the Obama administration, Libya ought to be the easy case in the Middle East's turmoil. Dictator Moammar Gaddafi, aptly labeled a "mad dog" by Ronald Reagan 25 years ago, is no friend of the United States, unlike Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. And he has launched a shocking war against his own people, killing at least hundreds and probably thousands in attacks by warplanes and foreign mercenaries. On Tuesday he gave a bloodcurdling speech in which he vowed to fight to the last drop of blood and cited the Tiananmen square massacre as an example.

Yet the administration so far has declined to directly condemn Gaddafi, call for his ouster, or threaten sanctions. Instead, it has repeated the same bland language about restraint and "universal rights" that it has used to respond to the uprisings in Egypt, Bahrain, and other countries with pro-U.S. regimes.

(snip)

"Again, you know, this ultimately and fundamentally an issue between, you know, the Libyan government, its leader, and the Libyan people," Crowley replied. Noting that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had expressed "grave concerns about the Libyan response to these protesters," he added, "We want to see universal rights respected and we want to see the government respond to the aspirations of its people."

Really? Given that massacres on the scale of Tiananmen may well be taking place in Tripoli and other cities, this response was flabbergasting. Does the United States really believe that crimes against humanity are "an issue between the Libyan government...and the Libyan people?" Does it seriously believe that Gaddafi will respond to "the aspiration of people" after his chilling rant?

more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/is_the_obama_administration_so.html

[Gman]

1. Have you noticed what's going on in Wisconsin?

Then why are you posting this shit here?

[tekisui]

3. This is GD:P isn't it???

Are we only allowed on subject at a time?

[ReggieVeggie]

4. what are you talking about?

what does one have to do with the other?

[truedelphi]

70. I think that their point is that if the Adminstration starts saying it is okay-dokey

For the unwashed rabble to mob the government buildings and take apart the corrupt power structure, over in Libya, then the Administration might have to defend all of us when the economy collapses in a month or two and the White House is besieged by the sort of trouble makers that are now in the streets of Madison WI.

I don't know for sure that is the intended meaning, but that is how I read the comment.

[truedelphi]

2. The only time that the Obama Administration steps forward to

Side with"the People" is when it is the Ultra Rich people demanding the extension of their tax cuts.

Or with other tyrannical groups, like Monsanto Corporation. "Those who control food control the world." So he supports Monsanto with his appointments of people like Valseck and Mike Taylor.

And then there are the eleven to thirty trillion dollar give aways to those on Wall Street, with the moves orchestrated by Bernanke and his "good Buddy" Tim Geithner.

Whenever it is anyone in the unwashed masses, he is not so willing to step up
to the plate.

[TheWraith]

18. When you can't even spell Tom Vilsack's name, why should anyone take you seriously?

Really, if you're going to claim all this nonsense that's completely unsupported by fact, the least you could do is try to look like you understand the situation. Like, say, the awareness that there WAS no "eleven to thirty trillion dollar give aways to those on Wall Street," and the fact that that amount of money would be more cash than the entire US government has brought in since Obama took office. :eyes:

[truedelphi]

48. Maybe you should realize what the Federal Reserve Audit

Discovered.

[truedelphi]

50. What is very important is that people understand one

Very important thing: Yes, the fact is that in a good year, the USA's economy is around thirteen to fourteen trillion dollars. In total. However just as a secretary making 27 K could have a credit card bill of 65 K back when credit was easy, so too can our estimable Chairman at the Federal Reserve offer their buddies huge amounts of money, without taking into account how much the nation is good for.

Yes, unfortuantely there was nothing in the world that stopped
the Paulson/Bernanke/Geithenr trio from offering up trillions of dollars to the Biggest Banks and Wall Street firms during the Fall 2008 financial crisis and the months afterwards.

From CNN Money: (Dec 1st 2010)

The Federal Reserve made some nine trillion dollars in overnight emergency loans to major banks and to Wall Street firms, according to newly released data discussed last Wednesday.

Federal reserve made 2 trillion dollars in overnight emergency loans to Merrill Lynch,
CitiGroup, and Morgan Stanley, while Bear Stearns received roughly 950 billion dollars, and Bank of America received some 600 billion, and Goldman Sachs received some 550 Billion dollars.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who had authored the provision of the financial reform law that required Wednesday’s disclosure, called the data that was released incredible and jaw-dropping.

“The $700 billion Wall Street bailout turned out to be pocket change compared to trillions and trillions of dollars in near zero interest loans and other financial arrangements that the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution,” Sanders said.

[truedelphi]

52. Octafish points this all out in a past post:

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x45488

NINE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS that we don't even have!

[Ikonoklast]

58. You have no clue as to how the Fed lends out 'overnight' loans.

Please tell me, how many times that money was lent out to banks and paid back.


The Fed's job is to create liquidity in an emergency, and that is exactly what they are supposed to do.


If I lend you a dollar today, and you pay it back tomorrow, and we do this ten million times, have I loaned you one doller, or ten million dollars?

[truedelphi]

69. Here 's the problem you are refusing to see:

In the past, when the Federal Reserve lent out money to entities involved in Wall Street maneuvers or to banks, it did so with the total certainty that there was collateral for the loans.

it also did not do this with the huge ratio of loan to entity worth that occurred during this time period of the Fall 2008 Financial Collapse.

If you' re telling me that there is nothing wrong with a two trillion dollar loan being made out to the entity Merrill Lynch, at a point in time when its value is falling, such that it is acquired for less than 53 billion dollars during this time period, and if you also examine the fact that the collateral on this two trillion was such things as CDO's, these other derivatives and credit swaps on such things as the sliced up mortgages of the lower middle class who were all defaulting, and you see nothing wrong with these maneuvers, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

But don't take it from me - but from an expert. It is “specifically impossible” to know how much risk taxpayers were taking by looking at pools of collateral grouped by asset class and rating, said Sylvain Raynes, a principal at R&R Consulting in New York and co-author of “Elements of Structured Finance,” published in May by Oxford University Press.

[ProSense]

5. "Dictator Moammar Gaddafi, aptly labeled a "mad dog" by Ronald Reagan 25 years ago

...is no friend of the United States, unlike Egypt's Hosni Mubarak."

Huh?


"And he has launched a shocking war against his own people, killing at least hundreds and probably thousands in attacks by warplanes and foreign mercenaries."


Yeah, let's start making the Saddam argument for invading Libya.

[tekisui]

7. Yeah, let's just let despots kill thousands without doing a thing.

Good questions here:

What could explain this weak response? Is the administration worried about U.S. energy companies that recently began operating in Libya, or the safety of American citizens it is now seeking to evacuate? Does it imagine that it needs to preserve a relationship with Gaddafi, in case he kills enough of his people to survive?

Whatever the reason, the administration's response to the Libyan bloodshed lacks a sense of morality as well as common sense. If Gaddafi continues to strafe and slaughter civilians in the streets of Tripoli, Crowley's words could come back to haunt him.

[ProSense]

11. Actually,

I prefer Senator Kerry's approach.

[tekisui]

15. I like what Kerry has said as well, but it is time for rubber to meet road.

Kerry's plans need to be implemented now. The longer we dither and debate the more people will die.

[karynnj]

59. I agree with you that Kerry's suggestions, or something similar, should

be the American and International response. According to CNN this morning, American citizens will shortly be ferried out of Libya - this article suggests that that concern for those Americans could be the reason for the incredibly bland official response. Given the fact that Gadhafi is brutally killing his own people, targeting Americans seems very likely. Imagine the uproar if the administration made a strong statement and Americans were systematically massacred. (I am not saying an American life is worth more - it isn't, but our government does have more responsibility to protect them.)

[polmaven]

63. +++++to infinity!

As long as these Americans are still in the country, a stronger reaction by our government will endanger them more than they are now endangered. Once they have left, more pressure can be applied. Rushing in is not always the most prudent policy.

I just can't imagine what the reaction would be here if he had stood and forcefully condemned Kahdaffi, and the many American citizens there had been slaughtered!

[tekisui]

65. And herein lies the problem with lifting sanctions on Libya.

The US's hands are tied because American oil companies will get in bed with any despot in the name of profit.

[jaxx]

6. Sour grapes? He misses the dead or alive stuff?

As an editor and columnist, Diehl advocated the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the Post's early tenor of approval for the war has been attributed to his influence.<2>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Diehl

[tekisui]

9. So, we should do nothing? Just watch thousands of innocents get

mowed down?

I though we supported democratic movements? Or is that only when it's the easy thing to do?

[ProSense]

12. "I though we supported democratic movements? "

You supported the Iraq war? Freedom is on the march?

[tekisui]

16. Not at all, thanks for playing straw man.

[babylonsister]

13. What should we do, and would it make matters better or worse? nt

[tekisui]

19. At least make clear that Gaddafi is not an honest broker, and condemn him.

Not just 'behaviors', or muddy the condemnation by focusing on the people pulling the trigger. Remove any and all support for him. Say it is time for him to step down. Follow Kerry's plan and enforce a no-fly zone.

[karynnj]

61. I think many are creating a false set of just 2 choices - Emmulate W

or do nothing. As you suggest, there are many things in the middle. Everything Kerry suggested is completely within the sphere of international diplomacy - just as everything he advised Bush to do was. For all we know, the US could be pushing each of his steps behind closed doors with the intention of being more public after Americans are out.

I have looked at some of the foreign accounts and some are taking Kerry's comments as a signal for where Obama might being going - one spoke of the administration having used Kerry to float ideas and another just mentioning that he was an Obama ally. The first is not true - Kerry's opinions are Kerry's opinions, that he as a Senator has every right to articulate. The latter is more accurate - even if makes the connection between them weaker. What it suggests is that this is what Senator Kerry is privately advising. (Kerry was one of the few who Wikileaks made look good - his public statements match his comments to leaders behind closed doors.)

A no fly zone, though more aggressive, seems like a good idea - but that needs to be something approved by some of the international organizations.

[jaxx]

21. We support them through diplomatic ways.

The last thing we should have is another Iraq. None of us know what is working behind the scenes, not out there to be picked apart by the media and the watchers. The snide bloggers who want a dubya type moment are not doing the US, or the people of Libya, any good with their whines.

[tekisui]

26. Who is calling for a dubya moment???

Trying to equate what is happening in Libya right now to bush's march to war in Iraq is absurd. \

There is no correlation whatsoever. No one is talking about an invasion of a country with 300,000 troops for mythical WMDs. The argument is nonsensical.

[jaxx]

29. Calling to enforce a no fly zone is a start.

Let the UN handle this, it's explosive. We cannot control the situation without getting deeply involved.

[tekisui]

30. How about AT LEAST providing humanitarian relief?

Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, now in a rebel area, is running out of medical supplies, and yet Benghazi has both a fine port and an airport. According to some reports, the Benghazi airport has been wrecked so it cannot be used for landings.

But the American military has long used airborne pallets of supplies LAPS delivered from air transport planes like the C 130. A plane, flying just a few feet off the ground, is more than adequate to deliver the medical supplies desperately needed. Aircraft skim the surface of the ground and crews on board use parachutes to jerk cushioned pallets loaded with supplies out the back of the plane. Our airlift planes don't need to land. They can airdrop all the supplies needed on the airstrip at Benghazi and other locations as needed.

With the tactical air bases in Italy, it is easy to give those humanitarian transports whatever air cover they may need in the confused situation they may find in Libyan air space.

And the U.S. has access to its own military air facilities at dozens of locations in Italy as well as a huge warehousing facility with port access near Pisa. And there are prepositioned supplies of medical equipment and food immediately available all over NATO home bases in Europe that could be moving towards Libya within 24 hours.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-lipscomb/the-us-should-immediately_1_b_826810.html

There is SO MUCH more we could be doing for the people being killed by Gaddafi. The US hasn't even condemned him by name yet. Weak fucking leadership on this.

[jaxx]

32. I'm all for humanitarian relief.

The UN or NATO can set it up and get food and supplies to the people. We do not know what has been said behind the scenes. Leadership isn't being mouthy, it's assessing the time bombs of too much rhetoric at the wrong moment.

[tekisui]

33. They won't even call the killer by his name.

How weak and callous does a world leader have to be to stand by and not condemn the person responsible? The silence is shameful.

But, once Gaddafi falls, I am sure we will see Obama's Cairo speech pop up again.

This isn't a time for diplomatic, finger in the wind, wait and see timidity.

[jaxx]

34. Maybe he doesn't deserve to be called by name.

There isn't silence, the Secretary of State spoke today. She speaks for the administration. Senator Kerry spoke.

This isn't a time for being foolish either. People are being killed, a dictator is failing, and unless we butt in and go in there and take over it's not going to stop on a dime...and it wouldn't then either. Let the diplomats work. Everything isn't a right now or else time. Everyone feels helpless when something like this happens, but reacting in the wrong way won't help.

[tekisui]

35. He deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms.

Nothing foolish about that. Sanctions need to be re-instated, nothing foolish about that. The comment from Clinton were pitifully weak. Kerry at least offered some ideas, hope they are implemented soon.

And, no it isn't right now or else. But, we could show support and leadership and ameliorate some of the tragedy.

[Enrique]

8. possibly, but this columnist doesn't seem reliable to me

glancing through the titles of his columns, his foreign policy views seem to center around criticizing Obama.

[tekisui]

10. I think the criticism is valid in this case.

[jody]

14. Why question "Soft on Gaddafi?" I care not one whit about Gaddafi! I care only about doing what's

right for these United States and We the People.

[tekisui]

17. Only the US people, got it.

[jody]

23. Got what? Recent governments have bankrupt our nation and presidents can't squat without China's

permission.

[Jakes Progress]

20. When the dust clears, and the polls are in...he will decide how he feels.

[tekisui]

22. I think that's it. He's waiting to see if the war criminal will hang on to

power. We have a lot of oil interests there that will need our support after the mass graves are filled.

[jody]

25. LOL determine which way the herd is running, get in front and shout "FOLLOW ME". n/t

[Jakes Progress]

27. Actually it's more waiting until the herd has stopped

or dispersed, then saying "Thanks for following me".

[Uzybone]

24. an idiotic column

so what should we do? Attack Libya?

[tekisui]

28. An actual condemnation of war crimes would be a good start.

Re-instating the sanctions would be another. Encourage oil companies to suspend operations. I'd go so far as to enforce a no-fly zone.

[TheKentuckian]

54. Taking out Libya's air force, heavy equipment, and perhaps some key supply chain lines

to soften Qaddafi up some and letting the people have even ground should absolutely be on the table.

All use of force is not an invasion. We have air and sea superiority for a reason. We can deal damage pretty efficiently, it is occupation that we are not made for.

[yourout]

31. Is the Obama Administration Soft......period.

[jenmito]

36. According to MSNBC today, the reason is because the admin. is first trying to get all Americans out

of there. They don't want to exacerbate the situation 'til after they do that.

[These Eyes]

No, no. Don't do that...

Don't make sense. Knee-jerk reactions are so much better. :eyes:

[tekisui]

38. Yeah. How dare anyone seek action against the murder of thousands of innocents.

Some are even starting to call it genocide. But, no, we mustn't 'knee-jerk'.

:eyes: right back at ya.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RollWithIt]

55. Are you suggesting that an Obama speech would save Libyan lives?

Or are you suggesting that the US should send troops into Libya? Or enforce a no fly zone? Confused as to what you are looking for.

[tekisui]

67. Clear condemnation of Gaddafi would be a start, calling for his removal.

Yes to a no-fly zone and reenacting sanctions. There is much that could and should be done.

No to troops on the ground.

[jenmito]

39. True...

what was I thinking?

[tekisui]

40. It sucks we have to stand by and watch thousands be killed because we

opened it up to US oil interests. There are about 35 in the embassy to evacuate and around 600 US energy workers to worry about. We never should have opened Libya for business as long as Gaddafi was still there.

[jenmito]

41. Do you know that they're not working behind the scenes to help the protesters while

they're getting the Americans out?

[tekisui]

42. I've seen nothing that suggests that, have you?

I don't go on blind faith. I go on evidence.

[jenmito]

44. "Behind the scenes" means we wouldn't see it, but maybe Obama had something

to do with all the ambassadors and military people who quit.

[tekisui]

45. Could be. It will be interesting to hear when all the dust settles and the

bodies are buried.

[jenmito]

46. Yup. It could be. This admin. does things a lot differently than the Bush admin. n/t

[Raine1967]

47. Diplomacy sometimes requires you not know what

is going on.

That's reality. This is the same BS I heard about Egypt and Mubarack. Remember one thing, this president has far different motives than the last person in office. I don;t want Obama acting like a damn cowboy. This is a very precarious situation.

Right now there is no unified movement behind Gaddafi's ouster. The tribes in Libya are not unified. With Gaddafi gone, there is NO unification. That is a real problem.

This could very easily turn into a civil war. There is evidence to prove that. You can look it up. Do you want this country to support a civil war with no side to defend? I don't.

When you hear that Obama and his administration is following the situation closely, take them at their word. This is NOT Egypt.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amandabeech]

49. Absolutely right. No one wants another Iranian embassy hostage situation.

I think that it says a lot about the situation on the ground by the fact that we apparently have not yet evacuated unnecessary people from our embassy.

There are about 600 American passport holders working in the Libyan oil and gas fields. We can't leave them there.

This isn't Egypt or Bahrain, where we have good relations with the dictators and would probably receive help in evacuations.

A cornered Qaddafi is not our friend and could end up doing some really bad stuff to Americans in Libya.

On Edit: The Iranian hostage situation killed Carter's presidency and gave us Reagan. I have been very critical of Obama's economic policies, but there is no way that I want a Libyan hostage situation to end up putting some Tea Party nut job in the White House in 2012.

After we get our people out, we can do something, and not before.

[golfguru]

37. Qaddafi is murdering 1000's of his own people

where is the outrage?

[backscatter712]

51. I'm hoping a no-fly zone is in the works. Sooner rather than later.

One of our carriers in the Sixth Fleet can launch a few F/A-18s, and ensure that any of Gaddafi's pip-squeak MiGs sent up to attack civilians get shot down in a spectacular fireball long before they reach their targets.

[RollWithIt]

53. RIDICULOUS

The reason Obama hasn't said anything is because he doesn't want his comments to be used as ammunition by a longtime (pre GWB) US enemy.

[Dash87]

60. +1

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

62. BP

BP got the hands off approach in the Gulf of Mexico, and they are getting it now in Libya.

2 weeks ago BP arranged for the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Well, it was alleged by no less than BBC that they had a huge hand in that action.

And now profits for the oil companies are higher than ever.

You can just imagine the den of thieves Gaddafi was a part of that the people of Libya are now trying to be free from.

And when you do imagine BP at the head of the table.

[whistler162]

64. Looks like the author never study history!

[ncteechur]

68. Please give me a freaking break. This is not only wrong, but just stupid.

[PVnRT]

71. Certainly no worse than Bush was

In fact Bush reopened diplomatic relations with Libya in 2006. If anyone was coddling Qadaffi, it was him.