Is Libyan Intervention an Apology for Rwanda?

[BigRob]

It seems almost laughable to me watching the Obama Administration tap dance their way around the Libya action:

From the Washington Times:

News reports first disclosed in the New York Times said that Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Col. Gadhafi’s forces under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces.

Mrs. Clinton on Sunday defended the Libyan intervention on ABC, stating that “we learned a lot” from not doing enough to stop genocide in Rwanda and ethnic killings in the Balkans in the 1990s.

Keep in mind:
Ambassador Rice was on the NSC during the Clinton Administration.
Samantha Power began her career covering the Yugoslavian wars.
Secretary Clinton was obviously involved in the Clinton Administration.

If true that these three really pushed the President to intervene, over the objections, or reluctance, of the military side of the cabinet, it is starting to seem like intervention in Libya is an apology by certain people in the Administration for not acting in Rwanda.

Already Secretary Gates has admitted we have no real vital interest in intervention and the double talk from President Obama is staggering:

From the Washington Times:

* Mr. Obama has started a war that is not a war.

* Mr. Obama is using military force, but his secretary of defense says there is no vital American interest involved.

* Mr. Obama sold the country and the United Nations on a no-fly zone, but coalition forces are targeting Libyan ground troops.

* Mr. Obama’s mandate was to protect civilian lives, but he is actively siding with the rebellion.

* Mr. Obama has praised the “legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people,” but many of the rebels are Islamist radicals and even members of al Qaeda.

* Mr. Obama has gone to war to prevent a “bloodbath” in Libya but only offers empty words to innocent Syrians being gunned down by the Assad dictatorship.

* Mr. Obama has said the United States is not seeking to force regime change but believes that Moammar Gadhafi “has to go.”

* Mr. Obama said there would be no “boots on the ground” in Libya but reports are emerging that some boots have landed.

* Mr. Obama said the operation would be handed over to NATO but the United States will still be doing the heavy lifting.

* Mr. Obama said Operation Odyssey Dawn would be limited to “days, not weeks,” but now it is projected to go on for months, or longer.

* Mr. Obama denounced his predecessor President George W. Bush for unilateralism but the O Force has gone to war with no congressional authorization, fewer coalition partners and weaker support from the Arab world.

Even after hearing the President speak on the matter last night..nothing seems to be settled..we have apparently established a doctrine of getting involved to stop abuses to our "common humanity" (whatever that means), and are now involved in a situation with no clear goals, and no clear plan for a good outcome.

Do we even know what the rebels want, or who they are? It does not seem like it, yet we seem to be actively supporting them. Why?

It is hard to look at this situation as anything other than a poor foreign policy choice pressed by Clinton Administration holdovers who still harbor guilt from staying out of Rwanda.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is hard to look at this situation as anything other than a poor foreign policy choice pressed by Clinton Administration holdovers who still harbor guilt from staying out of Rwanda.

Maybe Clinton wants to be on the ticket in an upcoming election for President?

 

[TruthSeeker]

It seems almost laughable to me watching the Obama Administration tap dance their way around the Libya action:

Keep in mind:
Ambassador Rice was on the NSC during the Clinton Administration.
Samantha Power began her career covering the Yugoslavian wars.
Secretary Clinton was obviously involved in the Clinton Administration.

If true that these three really pushed the President to intervene, over the objections, or reluctance, of the military side of the cabinet, it is starting to seem like intervention in Libya is an apology by certain people in the Administration for not acting in Rwanda.

Already Secretary Gates has admitted we have no real vital interest in intervention and the double talk from President Obama is staggering:

Even after hearing the President speak on the matter last night..nothing seems to be settled..we have apparently established a doctrine of getting involved to stop abuses to our "common humanity" (whatever that means), and are now involved in a situation with no clear goals, and no clear plan for a good outcome.

Do we even know what the rebels want, or who they are? It does not seem like it, yet we seem to be actively supporting them. Why?

It is hard to look at this situation as anything other than a poor foreign policy choice pressed by Clinton Administration holdovers who still harbor guilt from staying out of Rwanda.

Anybody taking bets that Obama's little war will last less than 90 days (60 days of military action plus 30 more days to withdraw)? After that, Obama has to get authorization to use force or a declaration of war from Congress.

I believe that Al Qaeda and other Islamo-terrorist organizations are pulling off the biggest coup in the history of the world, by toppling Middle-eastern countries, one-by-one, and creating an Islamo-terrorist super state. And Barack Obama and the U.N. are unknowing (?) participants in the whole thing.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Maybe Clinton wants to be on the ticket in an upcoming election for President?

Maybe Billary is going to challenge Obama in the Democrat primaries next year? She's been laying the groundwork since Obama took office.

 

[BigRob]

Anybody taking bets that Obama's little war will last less than 90 days (60 days of military action plus 30 more days to withdraw)? After that, Obama has to get authorization to use force or a declaration of war from Congress.

I believe that Al Qaeda and other Islamo-terrorist organizations are pulling off the biggest coup in the history of the world, by toppling Middle-eastern countries, one-by-one, and creating an Islamo-terrorist super state. And Barack Obama and the U.N. are unknowing (?) participants in the whole thing.

I think it depends on how it gets structured at the end of 90 days to determine if he could get Congressional approval for it or not. I think Congress could be convinced to continue the no-fly zone depending on how he tries to sell it at that point.

I am not sure I would totally rule out the prospect that the United States will in some form be military involved in Libya for far more than 90 days.

 

[BigRob]

Maybe Clinton wants to be on the ticket in an upcoming election for President?

She wouldn't accept anything other than the top of the ticket, if that is what she wants at all... I tend to doubt she will do that.

 

[BigRob]

Maybe Billary is going to challenge Obama in the Democrat primaries next year? She's been laying the groundwork since Obama took office.

Maybe, but I don't see it. I would love to watch it play out, but their are simply too many cons to pursuing that path for Hillary.

A few off the top of my head:
1) How can she really run against his Administration after being a leading figure in it?

2) What would this scenario do to the Democratic party?

3) Can she win? And by win, that means can she beat both Obama and a Republican? That is a huge question, especially given the political climate.

4) Maybe most importantly, can she raise the money to do it...if she has not already started, my guess would be she will struggle to do so.

 

[Rick]

Re the title: THAT'S PRICELESS!! A war as an apology tour!

BLAHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

 

[Dr.Who]

She wouldn't accept anything other than the top of the ticket, if that is what she wants at all... I tend to doubt she will do that.

I sure hope she would never win. She is more competent than President Obama. She is more likely to pass laws and to have them stick.

 

[dogtowner]

I suspect it has a lot more to do with Europe's need for stability of Libya's oil supply. Thats why the euro's are driving this bus. Also why they dithered so long as they really don't want Mo-uh-mar out as the replacements may be less controllable.

 

[Gipper]

I suspect it has a lot more to do with Europe's need for stability of Libya's oil supply. Thats why the euro's are driving this bus. Also why they dithered so long as they really don't want Mo-uh-mar out as the replacements may be less controllable.

I do not believe the Euros are driving the bus on this military operation. I suspect it is the US running the operation and doubt that will change anytime soon.

NATO is run by the US as AP points out in this unusual fact check of BO's disappointing speech.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/aps-fact-check-hammers-obamas-speech/

 

[dogtowner]

I do not believe the Euros are driving the bus on this military operation. I suspect it is the US running the operation and doubt that will change anytime soon.

NATO is run by the US as AP points out in this unusual fact check of BO's disappointing speech.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/aps-fact-check-hammers-obamas-speech/

I HOPE the Pentagon will not cede control over our assets but i was referring to the whole shebang. Sarkosy et al were the ones behind doing anything at all. Main thing is, its all about the oil.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I HOPE the Pentagon will not cede control over our assets but i was referring to the whole shebang. Sarkosy et al were the ones behind doing anything at all. Main thing is, its all about the oil.

I just think it's great that the French are actually engaging in protecting their own interests, for a change.

French history in the last 200 years usually involves surrendering, abandoning their positions, consorting with the enemy, expecting other countries to liberate France or bail them out of tough situations on foreign soil, not allowing their allies to fly over France airspace during military missions, etc. Sarkozy apparently has testicles.

 

[dogtowner]

I just think it's great that the French are actually engaging in protecting their own interests, for a change.

French history in the last 200 years usually involves surrendering, abandoning their positions, consorting with the enemy, expecting other countries to liberate France or bail them out of tough situations on foreign soil, not allowing their allies to fly over France airspace during military missions, etc. Sarkozy apparently has testicles.

Cetrtainly a turn in the right direction for them