The New York Times has a piece today (3/7/11) about the debate over U.S. military intervention in Libya. The paper reports that
there are persistent voices–in Congress and even inside the administration–arguing that Mr. Obama is moving too slowly.
Reporters David Sanger and Thom Shanker contend that there is too much concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too squeamish because of Iraq. And who are those persistent voices?
The most vocal camp, led by senators John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, and Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent and another hawk on Libyan intervention, say the central justification for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya is that the rebel leaders themselves are seeking military assistance to end decades of dictatorship.
As always, when it comes to calling for military force, John McCain is front and center in the TV news debate, since he is apparently an “expert.”
But the Times notes that there are others calling for a more aggressive response–including Sen. John Kerry. And that’s a problem for the White House:
For the administration, Mr. Kerry’s view is more troublesome, given that he is a normally a strong ally on foreign policy issues. He was a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, but he sees Libya as a different matter.
John Kerry was such a fierce critic of the Iraq War that he voted for it.
Just how does a nobody like Kerry even figure into this? In my opinion, he was never more than an opportunist with his eye on the future, who, as a blue-water sailor, volunteered for a little combat duty to dress up his political resume.
The usual nutcases have come out of the woodwork again! I’ll tell you what McCain and Lieberman – Ill be right behind you as you both charge into Libya!
Actually Frank it is NOT the usual nuts.Clinton(Bill) is advocating the imposition of a no fly zone .Bush and Rumsfield are against it. Palin also is against it.IM not following the voting at all.Usual hawks seem against intervention,while libs who you would never expect seem for it.
Actually Sarah posted this on her Facebook page in late Feburary: “Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people.”
——————–
Last Saturday, Sarah Palin appeared on FOX News’ Justice with Judge Jeanine and was asked if she thought Obama should send troops into Libya or at least make it a no fly zone.
“Certainly a no fly zone,” Palin said. “I hate to say, jeez, more troops on the ground. You know send more of our brave young men and women over there in Libya. When yes, 41 years of Gadhafi. He’s got to go.”
https://www.examiner.com/sarah-palin-in-national/palin-continues-to-push-no-fly-zone-over-libya
Rumsfeld was on O’Reilly Thursday night:
â┚¬Ã…“It depends on what they were doing. I don’t know that you should put in a no-fly zone at the moment,â┚¬Ã‚ he said. â┚¬Ã…“I don’t know what the aircraft are doing â┚¬“ what the Libyan aircraft are doing.â┚¬Ã‚Â
O’Reilly noted reports the Libyan air force is bombing and massacring civilians to keep Gadhafi in power and shouldn’t that justify a no-fly zone.
â┚¬Ã…“No. I think â┚¬“ I think, they ought to do the other things and be prepared to do that,â┚¬Ã‚ he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RumsfeldNo-FlyZoneOverLibyaPremature/2011/03/04/id/388305
I can’t find a recent statement from either President Bush on the subject.
Forty-two foreign-policy experts and pro-democracy advocates wrote President Barack Obama on Friday, Feburary 25th urging him to establish a no-fly zone in Libya and take other actions to prevent Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi from gunning down his own citizens.
The 42 signatories to the letter include William Kristol, historian and foreign-policy expert Robert Kagan, Middle Eastern studies senior fellow Elliott Abrams, Fox News commentator and former Defense Department spokesman Dan Senor, and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
That pretty well defines “the usual neocon nutcases.”
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-libya-gadhafi-/2011/02/25/id/387475
Thanks agian, Ms. Bedd, for your invaluable research, especially pointing out another casual lie about Ms. Palin by You Know Who. No surprise, of course, and how about Rumsfeld’s utterly incoherent remarks? Par for the course, no? And you’re right–the usual lunatic voices of the neo-con Right are of course eager for more intervention, more bloodshed–as long as it’s not theirs. And really, not a single one of these violent-minded totalitarians (especially the father-son imbecile duo, the Bushies) should be allowed in civil society to comment about anything outside of their golf handicaps, or what kind of porn they like.
P.S.: Just a minor quibble, Helen, but do you really want to refer to the rockhead Palin as “Sarah?” Really, it should be “The Simpleton Snow Queen” or even “Caribou Barbie” or possibly just “Tweeter Pee.”
Yeah Helen your right.Sarah started out sounding against it but now has joined Bill Clinton in wanting this.For my money they both are wrong.Im wondering what the” rockhead…simpleton snow queen”…..or even the “Wellesley barbie” or possible just the IT takes an outhouse(Hillary R Clinton)thinks about this.Todays breaking news says she is moving in the intervention direction.And that means the other simpleton(BAM)is also moving that way.Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. Rummy I heard this morning on a show is against it.IM not seeing an overwhelming right side left side on this. More of a smattering of both.IM looking at a list now.36 left……41 right.BIgger names all in all on the left. Talking heads on the right against it.ON the left half and half.IN the end only one one man counts of course. Everybody else is pissing in the wind.It really is a stark example of how the paradox has shifted.Do we have the ability…the checkbook…. to help Libia…or Japan…..or ourselves?
@TimN: you’re welcome…My Google-Fu is strong.
I THINK Rummy was saying “We should try diplomacy first, but leave the no-fly option on the table, just in case.”
@ Micheal: We certainly have the checkbook….. the GOP will always fully fund action that results in bombing brown people. The question should be “Do we have the military resources?”
Since we’re already fighting two pointless, unwinnable Bu$hCo wars in the mideast we’re stretched pretty thin.
By the way those wars are now Obamas “pointless” wars(and I think we won in Iraq last I looked).
If he thought them as wrong as you do ,he could pull out pretty quick. You probably thought he was gonna close Gitmo,pull all US troops home,and try Bush,Cheney and Rummy on war crimes right?See this is one case where you and I switched places. You thought him dumb enough to actually do it.I thought him smart enough to understand his top secret briefings that proved (even to him), the lefts rhetoric was empty headed, unfounded- bull bleep. .He has obviously used his massive intellect and decided to side with Bush on most things.Go figure right.It must have you very confused.
I have to tell you Helen that we DONT have the checkbook,though we do have the resources. Our air force and naval air arm is basically standing down at this point. And I agree with Rummy that we should never take our capabilities off the table BUT……….This middle east merry go round is such a lose lose situation.I am not optimistic .The people, on up to their leaders- just seem unwilling to embrace peace as we understand it. Historically the record is not promising going back thousands of years. I recently heard one of Obama’s middle east experts say something very profound.He said “I have been studying middle eastern governments for 35 years. When I started I did not understand them. Now after so long….I still don’t”
We’re not broke.
“We have a $15 trillion economy, yet we pretend to be an impoverished nation with no room for public investments in our future or efforts to ease the pain of a deep recession on those Americans who didn’t profit from it or cause it in the first place.”
From your lips to Gods ears.I only wish we were in as good shape as you seem to think.It is bad Helen.Real bad.If we were as well off as you believe there would never be reason to print a dimes worth.If fact we are living on phony money and loans. Speculation and worse.
Back to the story…….US is getting UN approval to attack Libyan forces on land sea and air,just as the old colonel mo mo is winning.What a poor fake to show as it all comes to an end that we did have the balls to do something ……..really we did.WE just decided to fight for freedom a wee bit late.See I actually agree with Bam this time.It is just he is so wishy washy he is a poof.As much as i was no Bush fan….Obama could not hold a candle to him .Bush made mistakes….Obama stands still.He is a do nothing nothing.A furious Hilary was shunned by the opposition fighters. They thought her useless as tits on a bull.And why not?She has made it clear the directions from on high were irresolute at best.She is said to be angry at Obama’s do nothing presidency.Listen to her interview.When asked will you serve under Obama again it was NO NO NO.
Republicans have taken to declaring the country “broke” as justification for draconian cuts in social spending. It’s a nice bit of rhetoric, but the evidence — according to Bloomberg’s David Lynch — points to the opposite:
The U.S. today is able to borrow at historically low interest rates, paying 0.68 percent on a two-year note that it had to offer at 5.1 percent before the financial crisis began in 2007. Financial products that pay off if Uncle Sam defaults aren’t attracting unusual investor demand. And tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low, meaning if the government needs to raise cash and can summon the political will, it could do so.[â┚¬Ã‚¦]
Financial markets dispute the political world’s conclusion. The cost of insuring for five years a notional $10 million in U.S. government debt is $45,830, less than half the cost in February 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, according to data provider CMA data. That makes U.S. government debt the fifth safest of 156 countries rated and less likely to suffer default than any major economy, including every member of the G20.
Moreover, the United States can (to a point) print money to cover its debts and still rely on global investors, who are still willing to buy U.S debt and lend money for longer periods at historically low interest rates. As Lynch notes, “ten-year bonds carry a rate of 3.5 percent, compared with an average 5.4 percent since 1990.” Even with its large projected deficits, odds for U.S default are incredibly slim.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/bonds-show-why-boehner-saying-we-re-broke-is-figure-of-speech.html