Will Anyone Drink the Koolaid this Time?
Posted: April 4, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Democratic Politics, Economy, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Gitmo, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, public education, racism, Reproductive Rights, torture, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, unemployment, WE TOLD THEM SO, Women's Rights, worker rights | Tags: Ari Berman, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jim Messina, Joan Walsh, John Phillips, Kristen Breitweiser, Max Baucus, Michelle Manning, minorities, Richard Roeper, white people, Women, young people | 23 CommentsAhh…those days of Koolaid and hope…were they really only 2-1/2 years ago?
Here is the video Michelle Manning made for Barack Obama back in February, 2008.
She was so inspired by Barack Obama that she went all out, according to Andy Ostroy at Huffpo.
Back in 2008, a very pregnant Michelle, who’s little brother was fighting in Iraq, protested the war and rallied hard for Obama. She took part in out-of-state get-out-the-vote campaigns. She produced the above video at her own $8,000 expense. And she sent the maximum contribution allowed by law. She was one of those people who were ridiculed as Obamacons. She took the Kool-Aid pitcher right up to her face and guzzled until she was drunk on “Change We Can Believe In.” No doubt about it, Michelle was hard-core.
And then something happened after the election. There was change, alright, but not the kind that Michelle, and millions like her, expected. The president they loved and fought for was letting them down. He hadn’t ended the war, as promised. He escalated the war in Afghanistan. Dropped health care reform’s public option. Didn’t support gay marriage. Took forever to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Folded like a $2 lawn chair on repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. They grew angrier as he seemed to care more about placating Republicans than the die-hard progressives who put him in office. And now they’re upset that he’s gotten the United States embroiled in a third war, in Libya.
Here is what Michelle Manning has to say in 2011 about supporting Obama for a second term as President:
I can’t anymore. I worked too hard for him. I gave too much. I stood out in the freezing rain on Super Tuesday in Union Square holding a sign seven months pregnant begging for votes all day. I knocked on doors in Pennsylvania for two days begging for votes while I was nursing my new newborn baby, taking breaks to pump milk with a portable breast pump and a cooler in my car every three hours. I was a maxed out donor. I made two videos I put up on YouTube at my own production expense. He owes me. He needs to at least keep his promises, and he hasn’t. I haven’t wanted to say anything so as not to betray my party, but I am an American first, and a Democrat second, and keeping my mouth shut is wrong. We need another option in 2012. I’m afraid Mr. Obama is a one term president, and the sooner we recognize that and start working on Plan B, the better off we will be when the time comes. Pretending he’s doing a good job isn’t helping anyone, and I’m afraid the “give him time” grace period is over. It’s reelection time already. I want another option.
Ostroy asks if Hillary might decide to run again, and claims Michelle and others like her would support Clinton this time. I’m afraid it’s too late for that, but I think Obama is going to have to deal with people in the media bringing up the possibility again and again for the next few months.
Follow me below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Saturday: Hillary, Jeannette, and Perditta
Posted: April 2, 2011 | Author: Mona (aka Wonk the Vote) | Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Human Rights, morning reads, Women's Rights | Tags: 2012, Afghanistan, Autism, Barack Obama, birthers, Black migrant workers in Libya, Donald Trump, Egypt, Islamophobia, Japan, Jeannette Rankin, Libya, Perditta Nabbous, Polling, The Onion: "The American Dream Dies", Where is Eman al Obeidi | 48 Comments
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives for the funeral mass for former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, Thursday, March 31, 2011 in New York.
Morning, news junkies. Note: You’ll have to read all the way to the bottom of this one for the tie-in to “Jeannette” and “Perditta.” There’s also some comic relief from the Onion waiting there at the end as a reward for making it through. My Saturday reads are often on the ‘heavy’ side I know, and this weekend is no exception.
I’d like to start with a story I touched on in a roundup about a month ago. You may recall that I linked to Glen Ford/BAR’s commentary on the pogrom-like massacre against sub-Saharan black migrant workers in Libya, at the hands of so-called anti-Gaddafi rebels. The Western media has virtually blacked this story out–or if they are covering it in any substantive or sustained way other than in passing, I must have missed it over the past month. Leave it to the WSWS (World Socialist Web Site) to have one of the few informative pieces I’ve seen covering the story at all (h/t paperdoll for pointing me to it.) The WSWS piece references a March 22nd article, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by Gunnar Heinsohn (which cites as its source a report by Zimbabwean journalist and documentary filmmaker Farai Sevenzo).
From the WSWS link:
The article states:“Because mercenaries from Chad and Mali are presumed to be fighting for him [Gaddafi], the lives of a million African refugees and thousands of African migrants are at risk. A Turkish construction worker told the British radio station BBC: ‘We had seventy to eighty people from Chad working for our company. They were massacred with pruning shears and axes, accused by the attackers of being Gaddafi’s troops. The Sudanese people were massacred. We saw it for ourselves.’ ”
The zombie in place of the fourth estate, our corporate US media, has either glossed over or omitted the massacre altogether. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera, unsurprisingly, has had more to say on the killings than I’ve seen from CNN or Fox over the last few months combined. Again, from the WSWS link:
On February 28, the Arab TV station Al Jazeera reported the racist massacre of black African workers by so-called “freedom fighters” as follows: “Dozens of workers from sub-Saharan Africa, it is feared, have been killed and hundreds are hiding because angry opponents of the government are hunting down black African mercenaries, witnesses reported…. According to official reports, about 90 Kenyans and 64 people from southern Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Zambia, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone and Burundi landed in Nairobi today.
One of them, Julius Kiluu, a 60-year-old construction manager, told Reuters: ‘We were attacked by people from the village. They accused us of being murderous mercenaries. But in reality they simply refuse to tolerate us. Our camp was burnt down. Our company and our embassy helped us get to the airport.’“Hundreds of black immigrants from the poorest African countries, who work mainly as low-wage day labourers in Libya, have been wounded by the rebels. From fear of being killed, some of them have refrained from going to a doctor.”
I went digging for the Al Jazeera report:
“But why is nobody concerned about the plight of sub-Saharan African migrants in Libya? As victims of racism and ruthless exploitation, they are Libya’s most vulnerable immigrant population, and their home country governments do not give them any support,” Hein de Haas, a senior fellow with the International Migration Institute, writes in his blog.
In clicking on the link to de Haas’ blog and perusing the comments, I stumbled upon a link to this February blog post at the Independent by Michael Mumisa: Is Al-Jazeera TV complicit in the latest vilification of Libya’s Blacks?
Mumisa wrote:
Even Al-Jazeera TV has based most of its news coverage of bands of marauding savage Africans on information posted via tweeter, facebook, and other social networks. That there may be African mercenaries operating in Libya is very possible but there are also credible reports from Serbian military sources as well as other Western agencies that Serbian mercenaries are fighting to protect Muammar Gaddafi. Yet nothing has been said about Gaddafi’s Serbian and Russian mercenaries.
Black Africans have always been a ‘visible’ and persecuted minority in Libya. By giving credence to potentially dangerous and unverified reports and rumours posted on social networks without taking into consideration the racial context of Libyan society Al-Jazeera and other foreign media outlets are complicit in the latest vilification and scapegoating of Libya’s Black minorities and its African migrant workers.
I don’t claim to be an expert on what’s happening on the ground in Libya, but I would like some answers on the deaths of these migrant workers. I would really love to hear someone put this humanitarian issue to Madame President Hillary Clinton for comment.
Switching gears now… because yep, you heard me correctly…
I just called her Madame President Hillary Clinton.
If the aliens visiting for the upcoming royal wedding were to observe what was going on right now, what else would they conclude? Hillary’s leading, Obama’s not, and everyone knows it.
Nothing new there, of course, except for the part about everyone knowing it. If Obama is the Where’s Waldo president, our media was the Where’s Waldo fourth estate in 2008, as well as during the entire past decade. That Where’s Waldo media, by the way, very much included left blogistan, guilty of its own version of the “Village” insularity and hegemony in the traditional media that the prog blogs cut their teeth railing against.
In 2008, access was more important than our country’s future to journalists and bloggers, and I have no reason to believe in 2012, the story will be any different.
Which brings me to my next set of links…
Hillary, Obama, Polls, and 2012/The Donald Goes Birther week-in-review
- Hillary’s Gallup favorables rating (March 25-27) is back to her all-time high in December of 1998 (give or take a point):
The latest results are from a March 25-27 Gallup poll conducted while the United States was actively involved in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, a policy Clinton reportedly advocated. The same poll finds Clinton rated more positively than other top administration officials. Obama receives a 54% favorable rating, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 52%, and Vice President Joe Biden, 46%.
- A CNN/Opinion research poll from March 11 to 13 yielded pretty much the same results: 2 in 3 Americans have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton, with 92% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 35% of Republicans (or 83% of liberals, 80% of moderates, and 42% of conservatives) giving her a thumbs up. (That’s nearly identical to the Gallup findings from the end of March: 92% of Dems, 62% of Indies, and 40% of Repubs.) How’s that for “likeable enough” and “polarizing”? Agree or disagree with her, what people have for Hillary–which Obama can’t win with his empty speeches and voting “present”–is respect for her substance, diligence, and commitment. You not only know where she stands on Libya, you know she won’t half-ass it, she won’t vote present like Obama and she won’t cut Bush-like corners either–it’s clear that she’s giving it her all and she’s all in, even if you disagree with her.
- Meanwhile… Quinnipiac (March 30th release): Obama Gets Lowest Approval, Reelect Score Ever.
- And, look at where Obama currently stands with Independents in this Pollster/Huffpo aggregate: as of Friday morning when I drafted this post, only 41% of Indies, on average, approve of the job Obama is doing. The Quinnipiac number there is only 39.
- The latest from PPP’s state-by-state polling shows Obama doing better with Independents in Florida, who give him a 49% approval, with 48% of ALL Floridian voters approving and 47% not so much:
It doesn’t look like Florida will be losing its status as one of the most competitive states in the country at the Presidential level next year- voters in the state are almost evenly divided on Barack Obama’s job performance and although he leads all six of the Republicans we tested him against, some of the margins are quite close. […] Mitt Romney does the best, trailing Obama 46-44. […] former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who trails Obama 48-45 in the state. Obama would start out in a slightly healthier position against four other Republicans we tested. He leads Rudy Giuliani by 6 points at 48-42, Mike Huckabee by 7 at 50-43, Newt Gingrich by 8 at 50-42, and Sarah Palin by 13 at 52-39.
- Along with the Florida snapshot above, take into account PPP’s polling release last week from Michigan:
Obama’s not likely to win Michigan by his blowout margin of 16 points in 2008 again but if the state voted today he would have an easier time taking it than either John Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 did. Mitt Romney does the best of the Republicans against Obama, but still trails 48-41. […] Obama could be vulnerable in Michigan for sure. But consider this- despite that weak 78% approval with Democrats, he gets 85-90% of the Democratic vote against each of these five Republicans. There are enough Democrats who don’t like Obama that a Republican could get the support necessary across party lines to win the state- it’s just far from clear that any of these Republicans could get the support necessary across party lines to win the state.
- And, in more “coming home to Obama” news… according to a Harvard survey, the “Waiting on the World to Change” generation has fallen back into their Obama-Hope coma (via TPM). If you read the fine print, though, the survey was taken from February 11 to March 2, i.e. before Obama’s (non-)war in Libya. Regardless, it’s not like younger voters are going to vote for whatever horrific candidate the GOP nominates anyway. But, will they show up with the enthusiasm of “being part of something historic and cool” that they did in 2008? I officially left the under 30 demographic last week, and one of the saddest things to watch about US politics over the last three years is how Obama crushed some pretty earnest, if misplaced, idealism on the part of many of my and my kid sister’s peers. I’m sure they’ll still vote for him, but it will be out of fear of the Republican being worse, not out of hope. Obama 2012 is all about cynicism. So was Obama 2008. Again, people just didn’t know it yet.
- Also buried in the Harvard survey under the headline is this finding: 42% of young voters approve of Obama on the economy, while 55% disapprove. So, it’s not like “kids today” are completely oblivious to their own destruction under this president. There’s just no meaningful alternative.
- Speaking of which.. Donald Trump on a birth certificate publicity stunt is not a meaningful anything, let alone alternative. The Root’s David Swerdlick pretty much summed it up with the following:
There’s a good chance that Trump’s flirtation with the GOP will be over as soon as this season of Celebrity Apprentice ends, and that his real motivation is jealousy that Obama is starring in what he sees as the world’s highest-rated reality-TV show: President of the United States. But if you think there’s any chance he’ll actually throw his hat in the ring, consider this: The only consistent position Trump has taken so far is that in 2011, he’s against whatever Obama is for.
Hillaryland
- This one is a bit of a ‘where foreign policy meets domestic policy’ read…[USAID’s Rajiv] Shah: GOP budget would kill 70,000 children. Josh Rogin at FP’s The Cable has the details at the link. Once again, I must point out that we have a Madame President Hillary Clinton on the global stage at a time when her strength, stature, and ‘smart’ power on the domestic stage could have been very well-utilized. (As, Jon Corzine let slip at a party in the summer of 2010… “She would have been able to handle this Congress.”) Still, Hillary and her people at the State Department are doing everything they can from within their foreign policy context to push back on the GOP’s fiscal irresponsibility.
- Check out Hillary’s statement on the bipartisan coalition of the 17 women currently in the US Senate introducing a resolution renewing the call for Women’s Rights in North Africa and the Middle East. It’s a bit short, but I understand she’s busy, and I’m glad she took the time for the show of solidarity with her former sisters in the Senate. I’d still like to hear Hillary and her State Department say something directly about the “virginity tests” and other torture/abuses of women going on in Egypt and elsewhere. I am also keeping an eye out for any comments out of Foggy Bottom specifically on Eman al-Obeidi. Hillary’s statement, while I am glad for it, seems to be an oblique sort of response to what is going on. I’m sure she has her reasons for not speaking publicly on these developments at this time, but it is frustrating as hell having to basically go by Amnesty International’s statements alone (see Amnesty International’s latest to Libya: End campaign to discredit Eman al-Obeidi), when who knows how much time Eman (and others who have been disappeared like her) have left if she/they are even still alive.
Japan
- The problems just keep piling up… Christian Science Monitor — Japan nuclear update: Where will they put the radioactive water? Peter Grier at the CSM reports:
Japanese authorities on Friday were struggling with a new problem at the devastated Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant: where to put tons of radioactive water.
Afghanistan
- The Terry Jones ugly Qur’an burning stunt coming back to haunt: ABC NEWS (video report at the link) — U.N. Staffers Killed in Afghanistan Over Terry Jones Koran Burning, U.N. Says. I remember watching this “pastor” and his psycho press conference back in September, and it was one of the creepiest live television “events” I’ve seen.
This Day in History (April 2nd)
- In 2007, the UN designated April 2nd a very special day. Four years later–today is the fourth annual World Autism Awareness Day. Here is a list of some events. I also saw this article about military families and autism, which brought up an angle that I had not thought about before:
Stressors the general public typically don’t have to deal with such as deployments, temporary duty assignments, permanent change of station assignments every few years or less, exercises and so many other requirements can take a toll on these families, since autistic kids have such a hard time adapting to change.
- 1917: Jeannette Rankin assumes office (via history.com):
Following her election as a representative, Rankin’s entrance into Congress was delayed for a month as congressmen discussed whether a woman should be admitted into the House of Representatives.
Finally, on April 2, 1917, she was introduced in Congress as its first female member. The same day, President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress and urged a declaration of war against Germany. On April 4, the Senate voted for war by a wide majority, and on April 6 the vote went to the House. Citing public opinion in Montana and her own pacifist beliefs, Jeannette Rankin was one of only 50 representatives who voted against the American declaration of war. For the remainder of her first term in Congress, she sponsored legislation to aid women and children, and advocated the passage of a federal suffrage amendment.
- “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.” –Jeannette Rankin
- Back in January, I wrote about the Jeannette Rankin Brigade, so instead of reinventing the wheel, I’ll just quote myself:
Today is January 15, 2011… Eighty-two years ago, in 1929, Martin Luther King, Jr. was born. Thirty-nine years later, in 1968, the Jeannette Rankin Brigade gathered in DC to protest the Vietnam War (links go to two great photos). At the end of the march, the 88-year old Rankin–on behalf of a delegation of women that included Coretta Scott King–presented to then-House Speaker John McCormack a petition calling for an end to the war (link takes you to another amazing photo).
Updates and Closing Thoughts on Libya
FP’s latest brief at the time of my writing this post (Friday mid-morning/noon):
A senior aide to Saif al-Qaddafi is reportedly in London for secret talks with British authorities. Following yesterday’s defection of Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, rumors have swirled of other high-profile defections from the Qaddafi regime. Ali Abdussalam el-Treki, a former U.N. envoy who had also reportedly defected on Thursday, denied the rumors, but said that he is trying to negotiate a ceasefire. Libyan officials have now posted guards to prevent other defectors from leaving.Members of NATO are warning Libya’s rebels not to attack civilians, or they will face the same airstrikes that have been directed at Qaddafi’s troops. The BBC is reporting that seven civilians were allegedly killed in a coalition airstrike near Brega.
More from the BBC link just above:
All the dead were between the ages of 12 and 20, Dr Refardi said. Nato says it is investigating the claim.
The news comes as opposition leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil said the rebels would agree to a ceasefire if Col Muammar Gaddafi’s troops withdrew from cities.
“We agree on a ceasefire on the condition that our brothers in the western cities have freedom of expression and also that the forces that are besieging the cities withdraw,” he told a news conference in the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi.
But he said the rebels would not back down on their demand that Col Gaddafi must go.
So it sounds like Gaddafi’s hold is sliding, but who knows how things will be by the time you see this post on Saturday morning.
At any rate, I wonder what Jeannette Rankin and her anti-war brigade would say to this woman (via FP/Blake Hounshell, A Bright Voice from Libya’s Darkness):
What does grief and courage sound like? It sounds a lot like the voice of Perditta Nabbous, the wife of Libyan citizen journalist Mohammed Nabbous, 27, who was shot and killed last Saturday by forces loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi. Mohammed was the charismatic voice and face of Libya al-Hurra, the online TV station he set up in the early days of the uprising. Mo, as his many fans and supporters around the world called him, was attacked while trying to record footage from Benghazi.
[…]
She is 8 months pregnant. “I want Mohamed’s child to live,” she told me.
Her voice growing stronger, she called for the U.S.-led strikes on Qaddafi’s air defenses and troops to continue. Here it is in her own words. I can’t put it any more powerfully than this:
“We started this in a pure way, but he turned it bloody. Thousands of our men, women, and children have died.
We just wanted our freedom, that’s all we wanted, we didn’t want power. Before, we could not do a single thing if it was not the way he wanted it.
All we wanted was freedom. All we wanted was to be free. We have paid with our blood, with our families, with our men, and we’re not going to give up.
We are still going to do that no matter what it takes, but we need help. We want to do this ourselves, but we don’t have the weapons, the technology, the things we need. I don’t want anyone to say that Libya got liberated by anybody else.
If NATO didn’t start moving when they did, I assure you, I assure you, half of Benghazi if not more would have been killed. If they stop helping us, we are going to be all killed because he has no mercy anymore.
Remember Rankin’s warning that “you can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.”
I’m torn between Jeannette’s voice and Perditta’s.
I find myself increasingly hoping against hope that things turn out for the best in Libya and the rest of the MENA region and for us all.
That’s pretty much it for me. What’s on your blogging list this Saturday?
If you made it to the end, here you go… as promised… The Onion: American Dream Declared Dead As Final Believer Gives Up…
[originally posted at Let Them Listen; crossposted at Taylor Marsh and Liberal Rapture]
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Tuesday Reads
Posted: March 29, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, legislation, Libya, morning reads, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics, worker rights | Tags: Donald Trump, Fareed Zackaria, Fukuskim nuclear plant, Indiana politics, Japan, Juan Cole, Libya, Moammar Gaddafi, NATO, radiation, Tom Malinowsky, Tom Ricks, unions | 92 CommentsGood morning, political junkies!! Let’s get right to the news.
President Obama gave a speech last night in which he made a pretty good case (IMO) for U.S. limited intervention in Libya. He stated that there were not going to be American boots on the ground and that the U.S. is essentially finished with its part of the operation–it will be up to the UK, France, and Italy to police the no-fly zone and to the Libyan people to depose Gaddafi and decide what comes next.
Surprisingly, Obama was a bit more animated than usual–actually emphasizing points with his voice and at times appearing almost passionate. At least the speech didn’t start to put me to sleep until the last several minutes.
Obama indicated that the U.S. will continue to support efforts to set up a functioning government in Libya, but that will be a non-military effort. If he stands strong with that, I think he’s finally done something I agree with and can support.
Obama also argued that just because we can’t intervene in every conflict doesn’t mean that we should never intervene at all. We have to choose our battles, and in the case of Libya we had a dictator who was using his military–and his air power to kill his own citizens indiscriminately. If he had managed to attack Benghazi he might have murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
Furthermore, Libyans had asked for our help, and our action was supported by other Arab countries and by the Arab League. For once the U.S. was doing something that most Arabs wanted us to do. If we had not acted, we would have seen an atrocity take place, and that would have encouraged dictators in other Arab countries to crack down violently on protesters.
Here is the full text of the speech, if you are interested. I do think Obama went on too long after making the case for Libya. The speech would have been much better if he had done that and then wrapped it up.
I must say, I do not understand the criticisms of this Libya policy that I’m seeing in the progosphere, and from some people here at Sky Dancing. Maybe I’m nuts, but I think the U.S. finally had a chance to do something good with its massive military power and at the same time we get some good PR in a part of the world that has long hated us–with justification because we have enabled most of the tyrants in the region. I’m glad Hillary was able to convince her boss to do the right thing.
I want to call attention to some very knowledgeable people who agree with my assessment–and we do appear to be in the minority.
Thomas Ricks was on Monday’s edition of NPR’s Talk of the Nation. He said that he was struck by how many people either aren’t listening to what Obama, Clinton, and Gates are saying or they are discounting it out of hand.
Ricks said that these three are saying that the U.S. goals in Libya have already been achieved. The rebel forces are knocking on the door of Tripoli, thanks to the no-fly zone and some strategic bombing by the coalition countries. As Obama said last night, it is now up to Libyans to decide what to do with Gaddafi. We aren’t going to try to take him out.
Here’s what Ricks wrote on his blog after his appearance on Meet the Press with Gates and Clinton:
I was on Meet the Press yesterday, following Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. I was struck at how frequently they emphasized the short-term, limited nature of the U.S. action in Libya, and how they used the past tense to discuss it:
Gates: “I think that the no fly zone aspect of the mission has been accomplished.”
Clinton: “I think we’ve prevented a great humanitarian disaster.”
Gates: “we see our commitment of resources actually beginning to — to decline.”
Gates: “in terms of the military commitment, the president has put some very strict limitations in terms of what we are prepared to do.”
Gates: “I don’t think it’s [Libya] a vital interest for the United States. But we clearly have interests there. And it’s a part of the region, which is a vital interest for the United States.”
I also was struck at how much more assertive Clinton seemed than Gates. A friend of mine calls this “State’s War.”
Ricks also blogged about his take on Obama’s speech: Obama on Libya: Watch out, Saudi Arabia
What we saw in the NDU speech was a logical defense of what the president has ordered the military to do and an exposition of what the limits of the action will be. The cost of inaction threatened to be greater than the cost of action, but now we have done our part. Next role for the U.S. military is best supporting actor, providing electronic jammers, combat search and rescue, logistics and intelligence. That was all necessary, and pretty much as expected.
But I was most struck by the last few minutes of the speech, when Obama sought to put the Libyan intervention in the context of the regional Arab uprising. He firmly embraced the forces of change, saying that history is on their side, not on the side of the oppressors. In doing so he deftly evoked two moments in our own history-first, explicitly, the American Revolution, and second, more slyly, abolitionism, with a reference to “the North Star,” which happened to be the name of Frederick Douglass’s newspaper. If you think that was unintentional, read this.
Hmmm…I totally missed that. Follow me below the fold…
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Libya: French Air Strikes on Tanks Near Benghazi
Posted: March 19, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Middle East, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics | Tags: air strikes, Barack Obama, French military, Hillary Clinton, Libya live blog, Muammar Gaddafi, Nichlas Sarkozy, no-fly zone, open thread | 49 CommentsEnforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya has begun, with French military jets taking the lead. According to al Jazeera breaking news, “French warplanes have destroyed four Libyan tanks near the city of Benghazi.” You can follow the al Jazeera Libya live blog here.
The BBC also has a live blog on Libya that is frequently updated. The latest update is this tweet from a Libyan opposition group:
1758: Activist group Liberty4Libya tweets: “#Libya #Zintan, heavy shelling into the city of #Zintan, #Gaddafi troops’ tanks advancing under the fire cover.”
The BBC page is also running video reports.
Voice of America has this report: Allied Warplanes Patrol Libyan Skies. According to VOA Canadian planes are also on the way to launching point in Sicily.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says allied warplanes are flying over Libya to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians in the city of Benghazi, where forces loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi have been bearing down on rebels trying to bring down his government.
U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed a short time later that the United States has joined a coalition with its European and Arab partners to take action in Libya.
Obama spoke to reporters during his visit to Brazil. He said the allied coalition’s “resolve is clear,” and that all members are “prepared to act with urgency.”
Gaddafi has already responded as follows:
Gadhafi sent urgent messages to world leaders Saturday, including U.S. President Barack Obama and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In a letter read to reporters by a government spokesman in Tripoli, Gadhafi noted the rebels had seized control of Benghazi, and asked rhetorically how Obama would “behave” if there was a similar situation in the United States.
Addressing the U.N. secretary-general, Gadhafi said the Security Council’s resolution on Libya is “invalid,” and predicted that any Western action against Libya would be seen as “clear aggression.”
Here is a report on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement last night in response to Gaddafi’s supposed “cease-fire.”
The BBC also has video of Hillary’s remarks after the Paris Summit today. You can watch it here. You can read the full text of her statement below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Libya: UN Air Strikes Coming; Gaddafi Threatens to “Get Crazy”
Posted: March 17, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, Libya, Middle East, U.S. Politics | Tags: aerial bombardments, Barack Obama, Benghazi, foreign policy, Francois Fillon, Hillary Clinton, Libya uprising, Muammar Gaddafi, no-fly zone, UN Security Council | 36 CommentsGaddafi’s radio address from earlier today:
I know you’ve all heard that the UN Security Council has approved international intervention in the Libya conflict. What does it mean? What will happen next? Your guess is as good as mine, but we might as well talk about it anyway, right? Here are a few links to get us started.
The Guardian UK: Libya: UN security council backs no-fly zone and air strikes
British and French military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after the UN security council voted in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.
With Gaddafi’s troops closing in on Benghazi, the French prime minister, François Fillon, said “time is of the essence” and that France would support military action within hours of the vote. But US sources were more cautious, speaking of action in days rather than hours.
Fighter jets and bombers could take off from French bases along the Mediterranean coast, about 750 miles from Libya. Several Arab countries have promised to join the operation. Washington supported the resolution, a complete turnaround after weeks of resisting no-fly zone proposals, but has not yet said what role, if any, it would play in military action.
The 15-member security council voted in favour of a resolution authorising all necessary measures, other than occupation, to protect civilians under threat of attack, including Benghazi. Ten members voted in favour, with five, including China, Russia and Germany, abstaining. The resolution ruled out putting troops on the ground.
Reportedly, the opposition forces were heartened by the decision. I hope it won’t be to late to make a difference.
Simon Tisdall, Guardian: Libya finally forces Barack Obama’s hand as he goes for broke
With a boldness that the world had begun to believe he lacked, Barack Obama has gone for broke. The US wants Muammar Gaddafi’s head. It will not rest until he is deposed and there is regime change in Libya. And it will fight to get it.
Obama spent weeks pondering, prevaricating and posturing, infuriating Britain and France, arch advocates of military intervention. He used public appearances to prate professorially about plans, contingencies and downsides. He allowed senior administration officials such as Pentagon chief Robert Gates to give full vent to their doubts and misgivings about a possible Libyan quagmire.
Obama finally made his mind up. The US would intervene to stop him. And there would be no half measures. All steps short of boots on the ground, as the US under-secretary of state William Burns put it are now urgently contemplated, with a view to immediate implementation.
Whatever. My hypothesis is that Obama couldn’t take the criticism or the worldwide attention that Hillary has been getting during her recent travels.
Muammar Gaddafi has pledged to retake the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and warned that any foreign attack on Libya would endanger air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean area, as the UN security council voted for military intervention.
In a defiant and menacing radio address, the Libyan leader sought to pre-empt the UN. “No more fear, no more hesitation, the moment of truth has come,” he declared. “There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.”
The defence ministry in Tripoli issued its threat of retaliation in the Mediterranean in the apparent hope of influencing deliberations in New York that approved an assault on Libya’s air defences and ground forces.
The Independent UK reports tough talk from the British and Americans:
After the vote, British Foreign Secretary William Hague reiterated the case for the resolution. “We have said all along that Gaddafi must go,” he said.
“It is necessary to take these measures to avoid greater bloodshed, to try to stop… attacks on civilians and the people of Libya.”
His US counterpart Hillary Clinton took a similar stance, speaking during a visit to Tunis. “Gaddafi must go,” she said. Calling him a “ruthless dictator,” she added: “If Gaddafi does not go, he will just make trouble. That is just his nature. There are some creatures that are like that.”
Defence sources in London meanwhile indicated that the coalition’s first targets would be the tank convoys closing on Benghazi or ships attempting to bombard the city. Arab participation is likely to be provided initially by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, although there were already reports as the resolution was passed of Egypt shipping arms to the rebels across the border.
In the wake of the UN decision, Gaddafi has stepped back a bit: After pounding rebel hub, Gaddafi calls for truce as UN action looms
Libya’s army said it would halt operations from Sunday to allow rebels to lay down their arms, softening repeated threats by Muammar Gaddafi to crush them, as world powers edged towards adopting tough measures to shut down the strongman’s military machine.
Libyan troops pushed forward towards the insurgent stronghold of Benghazi on Thursday and launched air raids on its outskirts as Washington raised the possibility of air strikes to stop the forces. The international debate on what action to take may have dragged on too long to help the anti-Gaddafi uprising, now struggling to hold its ground one month after it started.
What do you think? Is is too little, too late? Or are we getting ourselves into another Iraq?
UPDATE: Dakinikat called my attention to this article at the Foreign Policy blog: Inside classified Hill briefing, administration spells out war plan for Libya
Several administration officials held a classified briefing for all senators on Thursday afternoon in the bowels of the Capitol building, leaving lawmakers convinced President Barack Obama is ready to attack Libya but wondering if it isn’t too late to help the rebels there.
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns led the briefing and was accompanied by Alan Pino, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, Gen. John Landry, National Intelligence Officer for Military Issues, Nate Tuchrello, National Intelligence Manager for Near East, Rear Adm. Michael Rogers, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Rear Admiral Kurt Tidd, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Several senators emerged from the briefing convinced that the administration was intent on beginning military action against the forces of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi within the next few days and that such action would include both a no-fly zone as well as a “no-drive zone” to prevent Qaddafi from crushing the rebel forces, especially those now concentrated in Benghazi.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More








Recent Comments