Patterico's Pontifications

2/24/2011

The Weakness of Our Response on Libya (And Other Scattered Updates on Libya)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 1:05 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

First, let me start with the most disheartening story of the day.  As you might know, Libya is on the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, and the wholesale slaughter of their citizens has presented no danger to their membership:

Libya’s seat on the U.N.’s top human rights body looks secure for now, as a Western-led initiative to condemn it for its violent response to anti-government protests stops short of calling for its expulsion.

The Geneva-based Human Rights Council will hold an emergency meeting on Libya on Friday, following a request by 21 of the council’s 47 members – more than the 16 required – for a so-called “special session.”

The request followed appeals by scores of human rights groups earlier this week, amid turmoil sparked by protests against Muammar Gaddafi’s 41-year rule, harshly suppressed at the cost of hundreds of Libyan lives.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said in Rome Wednesday credible reports put the estimated death toll at around 1,000.

Although it will be the first time in the HRC’s five-year history that a special session focuses on a sitting member, signs quickly emerged that it would fall short of the expectations of advocacy groups concerned about the killings.

A European Union-proposed draft resolution for Friday’s session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them.

It also does not call on the U.N. General Assembly to expel Libya from the HRC.

Yes, indeed.  There is an old, snide comment that democracy is like two foxes and a chicken voting on what is for dinner.  That is perhaps too harsh in many contexts, but seems exactly right when the U.N. is involved.  Will this august body also be simultaneously investigating allegations of human rights abuses nations such as Bahrain?  Will Libya’s membership on that counsel be reduced to the same stupendous hypocrisy as Iran’s dictator?  Or will they simply try to claim that none of these are human rights violations?

To get a little philosophical, this is exactly why the American constitution has what is known as the guarantee clause—a clause requiring that every state has a “republican” form of government.  Because you can’t mix republics with dictatorships in the same “representative” body.  And this is precisely why the U.N. has no legitimate say over American affairs.

And would it kill our president just to say that Libya should be removed?  Even if it is pointless, can he show us that he gets that this is a problem?

Well, we can hope this revolution is successful and the new people appointed to the council to represent Libya are better on human rights.

But then again Human Rights Watch had no problem appointing a terrorist to its Middle-East advisory board.  You think I am kidding?  God, I wish I was.

On the other hand our military is preparing options for Obama.  Which raises the question…  Why?  I mean assuming we don’t have Americans being taken hostages or anything like that, then, why?  Would some liberal who claimed that it was wrong to intervene in Iraq explain why this is different?  Why is it wrong to intervene to topple a dictator in Iraq, but okay in Libya?  And what about the phrase, “no blood for oil?”  Ring any bells?

Of course I am being facetious.  I have consistently believed that it is actually okay to expend our military resources “merely” for human rights.  It says something about the decency and honor of this country that most sane people are willing to do that now and then.  But if our planes impose a no-fly zone, or what have you, unless the liberals take to streets in protest, it will prove that their opposition to the Iraq war was always about politics and not principle.

The New York Times has coverage of what seems to be all out civil war in the country:

Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi were reported to be striking back in several cites surrounding Tripoli on Thursday, as rebellion crept closer to the capital and defections of military officers multiplied.

The minaret of a mosque in Zawiya, a city 30 miles west of Tripoli where protesters had claimed victory, was blasted by heavy weapons in a morning attack, killing or wounding protesters who had been using the building as a refuge, a witness told The Associated Press by telephone. And in Sabratha, about 50 miles west of the capital where a government crackdown has been under way for several days, gunshots rang out as military troops filled the town, a witness said. With journalists banned from the area, it was impossible to independently verify these reports.

“We are not afraid; we are watching,” said the witness in Sabratha, a doctor reached by telephone. The city was under lockdown, he said, with no stores open, and the buildings of the police and Col. Qaddafi’s revolutionary committees were in ruins, he said, burned by protesters. “What I am sure about,” he said, “is that change is coming.”

But naturally you have to wonder, just like Obama, what kind of change we are talking about.  On the other hand, Gaddafi is one of those guys who are so bad, it’s hard to imagine things getting worse.

And via Hot Air, we get this Fox News interview with one of the leaders in rebel-controlled Tobruk, Mahtoub Hussein Mahtoub:

Meanwhile Gaddafi is blaming this all on reefer madness or something:

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi on Thursday blamed the violence in his country on young people, who he said are taking some sort of pills and being exploited by Osama bin Laden.

That article also had a lot of information about what was going on, on the grounds, so I recommend reading it.  And of course they put out a threat to foreign reporters:

Senior Libyan officials are warning foreign journalists who have entered Libya without proper government accreditation to cover the violent unrest sweeping the country that they will be considered Qaeda collaborators and subject to immediate arrest, the State Department said Thursday.

In meetings with U.S. diplomats, Libyan officials said their government would not be responsible for the safety of those journalists, the department said in a statement. The officials said all journalists now in the country must be part of government approved teams and will be prosecuted on immigration charges if they are working independently, according to the department.

“Be advised, entering Libya to report on the events unfolding there is additionally hazardous with the government labeling unauthorized media as terrorist collaborators and claiming they will be arrested if caught,” the department said in a notice to news organizations.

It’s interesting that he constantly tries to demonize the opposition as members of al Qaeda, suggesting something about Gaddafi’s estimation of al Qaeda reputation.  On the other hand, its doubtful that Gaddafi really has a finger on the pulse of his people anyway, so maybe it doesn’t really tell us very much.

And meanwhile the WSJ is reporting that the rebels are getting ready to move on Tripoli.  And Strategy Page claims that Gaddafi only has about 5,000 soldiers he can actually depend on:

Out of approximately 50,000 regular troops, only a hardcore of about 5,000 soldiers and special forces can be considered reliable, and it’s simply impossible to retain dictatorial control over a population of almost 7,000,000 people with only a single brigade of soldiers. It is now out of the question as to whether the government can retake the entire country. It can only hold out for as long as possible.

Cross your fingers, folks.

Meanwhile at Commentary, Abe Greenwald asks us to “Imagine Libya with WMD.”  And if we successfully disarmed Gaddafi, of all of his WMDS, that would be a good thing and a credit to President Bush. But our government apparently doesn’t believe that to be entirely the case, because there are fears today that the regime will use poison gas to survive.  And meanwhile a former Libyan minister predicts that, like Hitler, Gaddafi will take his own life.  I am a little dubious on the sourcing of that one, but we can hope, right?

Of course, the Daily Caller asks the really, really important question in all of this: how to spell Gaddafi’s name.  Hey, with any luck the only people who will have to worry about that will be the people writing history books!

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

43 Responses to “The Weakness of Our Response on Libya (And Other Scattered Updates on Libya)”

  1. I thought the only abuses the U.N.’s Human Rights Council concerned itself with were the imaginary ones committed by Israel and the U.S. Tomorrow’s session will be a non-event.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  2. I do find it interesting that Mr. Mahtoub Hussein Mahtoub, seems extremely well spoken for a just a humble fellow citizen of Libya. He’s obviously been schooled abroad, clearly Britain. I really would like to know more about those connections and how they will translate into relationships abroad post this civil war.

    Mary G (e5033a)

  3. There is an old, snide comment that democracy is like two foxes and a chicken voting on what is for dinner.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner – liberty is an armed sheep contesting the results.”

    Also, regarding Libya…

    How many times do I have to link to this?

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  4. Would some liberal who claimed that it was wrong to intervene in Iraq explain why this is different? Why is it wrong to intervene to topple a dictator in Iraq, but okay in Libya?

    I don’t think it’s wise for us to get involved, but I think there’s a clear difference between intervening in a situation in which a popular rebellion has taken control of half the country and is fighting against a brutal dictator for the other half, and intervening a situation in which the dictator is in clear control of the country and there is no ongoing civil war.

    The latter case looks like we’re unseating a government on our own initiative without any regard for the desires of the people; the former case looks like we’re taking sides in an internal dispute. The optics, as they say, are very different. And not just the optics: I think the fact that the Libyan people are courageously standing up for themselves makes them heroes who are entitled to our respect, at the least.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  5. “The latter case looks like we’re unseating a government on our own initiative without any regard for the desires of the people”

    aphrael – In the case of Saddam where his firmly entrenched security apparatus ruthlessly suppressed any opposition in rape and torture rooms, killing by some estimates 100,000 per year, I would venture that the optics looked good given his continued defiance of U.N. resolutions even in the absence of significant street protests.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  6. I have it on excellent authority from a confidential source within the White House and the National Security Council that President Obama is about to issue an executive order appointing a new commission whose mandate will be to lay the groundwork for a coherent, non-imperialistic, non-hegemonistic strategy for Libya. He will ask Congress to appropriate $18.7 billion in annual funding for the commission for FY2011 to FY2015.

    The source specified that the commission will have a multi-part mandate. The details are still pending, but the first part — expected to be completed before the conclusion of this year — will be to recommend steps to achieve a natinal consensus on how to spell “Gaddafi” (or whatever his name is).

    Beldar (c23585)

  7. I don’t know if this is such disheartening news, AW. Did you expect the UN to do anything worthwhile anyway? No, you did not.

    So all this does is clinch (once again) the already clinched argument that the UN is good for nothing.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  8. Given that Her Regal Clintonness has been dispatched to that side of the planet, does anyone doubt that Gadaffy (intentional spelling) will be found face down, with the gun in his non-dominant hand, shot through the back of the head ?

    Or should I not Foster such suspicions ?

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  9. 1) I’ve seen at least two news reports that speak of rebel areas declaring themselves–or being declared–“Islamic emirates” and “Islamic states”. Which suggests that, if not alQaeda itself, then jihadi elements are involved, or trying to get involved, or at least in control of certain localities. So the link to Osama (may Iblis be upon him) may be more than a rhetorical ploy by G/Gh/K/Qadaf/ff/i/y. At the very least, it suggests that G/Gh/K/Qadaf/ff/i/y believes the number of Libyans who would be prone to not support the rebellion because of jihadi connections is more than the number of Libyans who would support it, which is a plus for us in the long term, if it’s true.

    However, I’m not about to suggest we base our actions on the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and start supporting G/Gh/K/Qadaf/ff/i/y.

    2)Comment by MD in Philly — 2/24/2011 @ 4:06 pm
    I second that notion. In fact, I would suggest that for many members of the UN, especially the Denounce Israel Human Rights Council, anything the United States openly supports would automatically become something to oppose.

    3) On the spelling of G/Gh/K/Qadaf/ff/i/y
    there is this:
    *Whose name is never spelled the same way twice in any Western media outlet. Qaddifiye must be the Arabic equivalent of Tiffany or Stacie, as far as spelling goes.

    kishnevi (225b9d)

  10. Let’s remember the many Iraqis who indeed were standing up to Saddam. Many of them counted on the US at the wrong time, such as when George HW Bush was president.

    I think the media does make that harder to see. For example, CNN happily covered it up.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  11. Comment by Dustin — 2/24/2011 @ 4:59 pm
    I remember a good deal of reporting on the Shi’ite rebellion at the time in the MSM, although I don’t remember in particular what CNN did or did not do.
    In fact, I remember a number of people who were happy to use our non-support at that time as one more stick to beat on President Bush, Sr.

    kishnevi (225b9d)

  12. CNN probably covered it to some extent, but they have admitted to not covering some of the Baathist atrocities against dissidents in order to please Saddam and get ‘exclusive’ access. They used this exclusive access to pretend to be the most reliable source, when in reality, they were covering up what Saddam was doing to heroes.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  13. White fellow, please. President Obama and his First Lady have a very important “Motown party” this very evening at the People’s House. Please don’t step on his buzz with this foregin policy bullshit.

    Bugg (9e308e)

  14. The jeopardy answer to the reasons for US military options on Libya would be:
    What is Tripoli features prominently in the Marine Corps battle hymn?

    We should go shores of Tripoli on some Puntlanders, but that is off topic, if not off continent.

    The UN should be unfunded, diplomats and staff deported and then the HQ should be demolished live on TLC

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  15. Ironically, ‘Three Kings’ in which George Clooney starred, gave the best representation of that event, within dramatic parameters

    narciso (bf58f6)

  16. Yeah, Mary, who is this guy? He sounds like a bloke from England! And he has a beard…hmmmm.

    Patricia (3aa1fd)

  17. SteveG–same continent, just different littoral.

    As for the UN–merely collecting their unpaid parking tickets would represent serious damage to that organization.

    Not that Bloomberg would ever do that. Rudy, Rudy, where are you when we need you?

    kishnevi (225b9d)

  18. BTW, Dustin, thanks for the reminder; in those days I was still in my “born a Democrat, die a Democrat” mode, and much less inclined to notice the sins of the media.

    kishnevi (225b9d)

  19. Daleyrocks: even so, I think it’s clear that the presence of a somewhat successful armed rebellion in Libya makes it a very different situation than the situation in Iraq.

    I’d also say that for me, a intervention on behalf of the people who *tried* to revolt in 1992-1993 would have been a very different matter than the invasion ten years later.

    Fundamentally, I think there’s a difference between rushing in to support people who are trying to seize power from a dictator and need help, and rushing in to overthrow a dictator without the local partners driving the process.

    aphrael (c459b0)

  20. The Army and security forces were stronger back then, they really did have functional WMD and some say they had used some, the UN resolution restricted our actions. Ironically, one of those
    who argued we could have gone further in 1991; Michael Gordon was criticizing us for a similar approach in 2003-2004

    narciso (bf58f6)

  21. aphrael – I need to remind you that a majority of the Democrats voted against the First Gulf War. They obviously saw it differently the second time around.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  22. Daleyrocks – I’m not speaking for a majority of Democrats here; i’m speaking for myself, providing a liberal argument for why Iraq in 2003 is different from Libya today. (For what it’s worth, I supported the first gulf war, while I opposed the second one).

    aphrael (c459b0)

  23. Comment by narciso — 2/24/2011 @ 7:25 pm

    from what I remember (which admittedly is not saying much) the main potential action the US could have performed would have been to prevent Saddam using his helicopters and other forces against the rebelling Shi’ites, and that could have probably been done by air power alone, without needing to directly commit ground forces.

    I do remember that Bush decided against pushing the Army all the way to Baghdad because he felt that would have gone past the authority given by the UN resolutions.

    kishnevi (225b9d)

  24. We never should have let the UN limit the war to simply freeing Kuwait.

    We should have learned this lesson by now. People like Saddam shouldn’t be left in power. Sometimes you have no choice, but in that case, we have a choice. Way more than half a million people were lost as a result.

    The world would be a better place had the UN forces, or the US forces, removed Saddam from power entirely at that point. Just think how differently such an effort would have come across in 1991 than it did in 2003. Not just worldwide, but in Iraq and the Middle East, where Saddam was seen as the instigator against an Arab country in 1991.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  25. “(For what it’s worth, I supported the first gulf war, while I opposed the second one).”

    aphrael – My earlier comments related to the 2003 invasion until others reminded me about the uprisings Saddam brutally crushed in the wake of the First Gulf War. Saddam was just as brutal a dictator in 1991 as he was in 2003, he just had not invaded an ally of the U.S. in 2003.

    How many people demonstrating in the streets does your rule require before the U.S. can support the overthrow of a government? Do you have a set number or percentage? How do you feel about exiles promoting overthrow?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  26. In the dozen years, in between, we imposed sanctions, the people suffered, then Oil for Food
    was set up, it siphoned that cash to build those
    palaces, and fill the bank accounts of allies in France and Russia, and the people still suffered, then came the invasion, and many of those who benefited from the old regime, came back to terrorize the majority as insurgents

    narciso (bf58f6)

  27. Comment by daleyrocks — 2/24/2011 @ 9:05 pm

    I think aphrael’s distinction centers on ongoing situations, not quantities. There is an ongoing rebellion against G/Gh/K/Qadaf/ff/i/y, so intervention is justified. There was not an ongoing rebellion against Saddam in 2003, so intervention is, if not justified, at least not easily justified.
    By that rule, we would have been justified if we had intervened last year in Iran or intervened on behalf of the Iraqi Shi’ites in the aftermath of Gulf War I.

    If I have aphrael’s meaning wrong, I’m sure he’ll speak up with what he really meant.

    kishnevi (225b9d)

  28. Kishnevi – you have the essence of it, yes.

    Daleyrocks – no hard numbers; I haven’t thought it through to that level, and there are other factors at play.

    For exiles, it sort of depends on the length of exile. Someone who has been out of the country for thirty years, for example, isn’t really a good barometer for what the people of the country think and feel.

    aphrael (9802d6)

  29. Hey, with any luck the only people who will have to worry about that will be the people writing history books, and people carving a tombstone.

    Fixed it for you.

    Hazy (4e0dda)

  30. If there isn’t a better example of why Obama is unfit to lead our country, I don’t know what is.
    He has been completely ineffectual on foreign policy. Small wonder that even Somali pirates thumb their noses at us. The Middle East goes up in flames, and Obama wants to intervene in Wisconsin. Once a community organizer, always a community organizer.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  31. Leader of the “free” world,’ indeed.

    Icy Texan (a57148)

  32. Presently, our present president has presented his present position to the world by voting “present”. His presence on the world stage at the present moment presents those that would squelch democratic freedoms with a most presentable present-day problem: Do they rely on Teh One having the presence of mind to actually step up and do the right thing? OR, Do they realize that with him it is all about presentation, and being on the ‘right side of history’?

    [As is usual, Monty Python has some crucial insights on this issue (from the film “Life of Brian”):
    Francis: Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire within the next twelve months.
    Reg: Twelve months?
    Francis: Yeah. Twelve months. And let’s face it… as empires go, this is the big one, so we’ve got to get up off our arses, and stop just talking about it.
    Peoples Front of Judea: Hear Hear!!!
    Loretta: I agree. It’s action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
    PFJ: Hear Hear!!!
    Reg: You’re right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolution, making clever speaches, it’s not going to shift one Roman soldier.
    Francis: So let’s just stop gabbing on about it, it’s completely pointless, and it’s getting us nowhere.
    PFJ: Right.
    Loretta: I agree. This is a complete waste of time.

    — excerpt from another part of the film —

    Francis: Now this is the palace in Caeser’s square. Our commando unit will approach from Fish Street under cover of night, and make our way to the north-western main drain. If questioned, we are sewage workers on our way to a conferance. Reg, our glorious leader, and founder of the PFJ will be co-ordinating consutant at the drain head, though he himself will not be taking part in any terrorist action as he has a bad back.
    [The PFJ enter the sewer, and Reg closes up after them.]
    Brian: Aren’t you going to come with us?
    Reg: Solidarity, brother!
    Brian (sounding deflated): Oh, yes. Solidarity, Reg.]

    Icy Texan (a57148)

  33. IMO, this is nothing like the situation in Iraq. We went into Iraq primarily to protect our interests. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator unpopular with the majority of the country meant we were not going to war with “Iraq”, but with Hussein, and innocent lives lost could be justified at least in part because many who would have died under Saddam’s continued rule would not.

    Here we have a dictator trying to cling to power in the midst of an uprising. I think it will be hard to know how much of the army is loyal to G/Gh/K/Qadaf/ff/i/y and how much have turned against him. In addition, there is the catch-22 of whoever the US supports will be looked at with suspicion by the rest of the Muslim/Arab world. It is not like Rwanda where we would have just needed to put men with assault rifles in between people with machetes and those who didn’t.

    As much as I think Obama should never have even been a US Senator, I don’t fault him too much at not being more “forceful” with this. I think (from what little I know) that the best the US could do here would be to assist other Arab states intervene. If Mubarek was still in power in Egypt, perhaps aiding them to bring a stop would have been likely. Is there a working Pan-Arab organization that would be willing to take action?
    Other than Iraq, which is not even Arab, every other country in the region is governed by a non-democratic strong central authority, and they do want to see the precedent of overthrowing dictators continue to grow.
    On the other hand, if we actively intervened primarily to stop pro-G/Gh/K/Qadaf/ff/i/y forces from slaughtering the population could we succeed and garner any good will for the US? Who knows. Intervening in a wholesale slaughter of innocents seems like a morally defensible “police action”. Getting in the middle of a civil war in this situation not so much.

    The idea of taking away air power from the govt. would seem to be a moderating action, I think it would take 2 or 3 F-22’s to do it. I would think it would be best to have some kind of “permission” or blessing” of other countries.

    Even repressive governments are usually better than civil war and anarchy, at least in the dhort term.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. Col. Patrick Lang
    “The story of Mu’mar Qathaafi’s relations with America could best be described as tragi-comedy. His wretched little coup in 1969 was nothing like a popular revolution. He and Captain Jaluus and a couple hundred men seized power in Tripoli during an absence of King Idris in Europe for a meeting. I was in in Bavaria at the time supporting with communications and intelligence a meeting of senior commanders in Europe. All the chatter on my circuit was among; these senior commanders, Washington and the CO of Wheelus AFB outside Tripoli. The military men told Washington that this little puke could be easily taken down and that he represented no one except his tribe, the “al-Khathafa.” “Bring down the brigade of paratroops at Lee Barracks at Mainz, Germany and we will set this right in an afternoon and bring back the king,” was the message. But, the US was deeply involved in VN and no more difficulties were wanted by President Johnson. So, we let it go and for forty years the Libyans have lived with this madman.”

    Read the whole thing.

    Bernard F. (d80b5a)

  35. You are a coward, Yelverton.

    JD (b98cae)

  36. Must be nice to be surrounded by people you trust completely. I mean, really, if I told my friends, acquaintances, and employees to slay all my enemies, I’d be in jail, dead, or in the looney bin. Gaddfi says slay all his enemies, and instead of shooting him on the spot, they say “yes, sir!” I can never find minions that loyal.

    tehag (dbeb3a)

  37. ” People like Saddam shouldn’t be left in power.”

    Absolutely. Since both human rights and oil are on the same side, let’s start close to home: invade Venezuela, then Cuba. After those successes, let’s take on Libya.

    Let me paraphrase the hilarious argument above: “The optics on taking out a successful, mass-murdering, warmongering Saddam are different than taking out that daffy duck of dictators, Gaddfi. We shouldn’t be involved in knocking over dictators who have killed millions; let’s reserve our power for those who have killed thousands.”

    tehag (dbeb3a)

  38. “The optics on taking out a successful, mass-murdering, warmongering Saddam are different than taking out that daffy duck of dictators, Gaddfi.”

    tehag – There have been popular demonstrations by the people against Chavez, so I don’t understand what’s stopping us under that argument, Monroe Doctrine and all.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  39. Although I agree with daleyrocks’ observation that the scale of Iraqi atrocity may exceed Libyan atrocity, there was little international support for action against Saddam Hussein because false evidence of WMD stockpiles was contradicted by U.N. inspections. On the other hand, the world is enraged by current atrocities, which makes international action easier in Libya. But what action is most appropriate?

    I am amazed by the apparent lack of any coherent conservative strategy recommendation for handling Libya. Any recommendation must be based on current information. Hindsight will validate reasonable advice, regardless of whether or not implemented.

    Willful disregard of valid advice is always worse than lacking valid advice. “I told you so” has value beyond parenting. Remember how we ignored valid reports from United Nations inspectors regarding Iraqi WMD stockpiles?

    Kaleokualoha (b38306)

  40. Icy Texan — true, but don’t forget that presently, the President presents himself as a man bearing presents; it’s just that at present such presents are not for those with the presence of mind to rebel against the present regime in Libya. Now, if he had pre-sent presents of weapons and medical supplies, the present presents would not need to be presented. But that would have required the presence of prescience.

    d. in c. (af7a3a)

  41. It appears that the international community is finally taking action, in contrast to the indecision in this forum.

    Kaleokualoha (b38306)

  42. This may not be so much a feeble response to be a non-response. It is an announcement to Qaddafi that him and i won’t even get the assistant of State moving for all 5 more days—five more days regarding likely slaughter. The verbs the president used in his remarks are toothless: we’ll “monitor” and “coordinate” and “consult. ” We’ll “speak with one voice. ” While he “strongly” condemned “the by using violence in Libya” the president would not want to bring himself to condemn that regime or its leader, the man who’s going to be imposing this reign of fright. He did say “the Libyan government carries a responsibility to refrain from physical violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to arrive those in need, and to be able to respect the rights of it has the people. It must be held accountable to its failure to meet those tasks, and face the cost regarding continued violations of human privileges. ” But at what expense? He did not say. That closest the president came to be able to speaking of action was this specific: “I’ve also asked my administration to get ready the full range of options that we will need to respond to this crisis. Takes into account those actions we may take and those we’ll coordinate with our allies in addition to partners, or those that we’ll perform through multilateral institutions. ” Use of knows what this means, nonetheless it presumably may mean sanctions. Perhaps. Next week. Because “prepare” seriously isn’t an action verb either.

    portuguese water dog (a42373)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0934 secs.