23
Mar
11

‘obama’s cautious approach is perfectly sensible’

UK Independent: …Think what would have happened if Washington had taken the lead in declaring a no-fly-zone over Libya without UN agreement or Arab backing. The people now criticising President Obama for dilatoriness would be accusing him of being another Bush. And if he’d refused to have anything to do with the no-fly-zone, commentators in Europe and the Middle East would be saying that it was because, at the end of the day, America doesn’t want democracy in the Arab world, that it prefers the rulers of Bahrain and Yemen to suppress revolt than bow before it….

…Obama’s cautious approach is perfectly sensible. Libya is not America’s dogfight. Thanks in large part to Lockerbie, Washington has never favoured Gaddafi. It is, in US eyes, and rightly, a European problem. It was France and Britain – Sarkozy and Blair – who spent their time sucking up so obscenely to the Libyan dictator, just as Silvio Berlusconi embraced him in a Faustian pact to stop illegal migration from Africa. Washington under President George W Bush certainly welcomed Gaddafi’s dramatic (and largely meaningless) gesture of giving up nuclear ambitions – but they didn’t sell their souls to him in the way we (the British), and the French, did.

Nor can Washington be blamed for being forced into military command of the first phase of the Libyan operation by the simple fact that it is only the US that has the hardware and control systems to do it. French objections to this becoming a Nato exercise are just so much hot air. They can’t do it, nor can the British in alliance with them.

Obama is also right to spell out, as he did this week, a clear separation between the objectives of the UN resolution, which is to protect Libyan civilians, and the objectives of American policy, which is to see the back of the Colonel.

…Once Gaddafi had turned the military tide and was openly threatening, by word as well as deed, to wreak his wrath on the rebels in Benghazi, the world couldn’t stand by and watch a massacre. Memories of Srebrenica and Rwanda are too raw for western politicians to allow it to happen again….

Full article here


11 Responses to “‘obama’s cautious approach is perfectly sensible’”


  1. 1 anniebella
    March 23, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Although I am not fun of another war, I support the President. I know how people are, they will complain if he did nothing, and they would complain if he did something. I don’t think it was a easy choice for him to make. It pisses me off how the liberals or PL, whatever you call them claims to be so upset with him. They are dragging his name through the mud, and I don’t like it either. Barack Obama is not some triger happy cowboy who only seek to get us into another war, far from it.

  2. 2 Dorothy Rissman
    March 24, 2011 at 12:02 am

    Thank you UK Independent. This is a terrific piece Chipsticks. Too bad the American press does not understand what Obama is trying to do. I think people in this country may be more skeptical than all of Europe. I want to scream. What is wrong with all of you ahats? And thank you Chipsticks for providing such incredible information.

  3. 3 Sonjia Duncan
    March 24, 2011 at 12:16 am

    I found the article quite logical to what the President has already said. Those who object are not stupid people so I can only assume they have other motives for their outcries of wrong doings. These so call anti-war zealots would think it is ok to see a population of innocents murdered rather than see our government take action to protect them. They have no place in making any kind of decision in this country. That is not what this country is supposed to stand up for as a nation of justice and freedom.

  4. 4 barb
    March 24, 2011 at 1:03 am

    Thank Chipsticks for this article.

    I have not watched TV since any of this started. I am intune with the BBC, Independent and AlJazeera. TOD, and BWD.
    There may be a few positive intelligent opinions coming out of the US media but I doubt it. The American media, spokepersons and so called experts all have a hand in this according to their goals of money, opposing our President or just to be on TV and spout their mouths off.

    From the beginning we knew this wasn’t our baby and had no ties to Libya. Britian-Cameran and France-Sarkozy were taking the lead. Germany had a warship off shore of Libya but I think their objective was to remove all Germans from Libya. They are staying out of this to not anger China or Russia because of some future oil lines.

    American MSM is just one talking machine. People get on there to give their opinion to gain power or are considering a 2012 Run. It aggrevates me so much that they aren’t even studied in the reasons for our Presidents actions and nonactions.

    I hate to say this but hopefully most Americans aren’t even paying attention. That’s where we come in by blasting the media with e-mails, phonecalls,in the editorial section of our newspapers and internet comment sections. Then we get out the vote. The entire world love President Obama while we are subjected to those who cry wolf.

  5. 6 Eleroy
    March 24, 2011 at 2:33 am

    But of course!!! This President knows what he is doing and I trust him completely!!! Rock on President Obama, rock on!!! We love you and we stand proudly and solidly behind you!!! You RULE great man, you RULE!!!

  6. 7 Andogriff
    March 24, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Thanks for the excellent articles Ms Chips, and jaleh… I passed them on.

  7. 8 lilaf1
    March 24, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Isn’t it sad that an editorial/opinion piece from the UK has more facts and information than any American so called “straight” journalistic report on the situation? We need to start pressuring the cable companies and satellite providers to add AlJazeera and BBC to basic channel lineups so that the people of this country can begin to stand a chance at being informed instead of being spun all day. I think there is a real hunger out there for a straight news channel and if one were actually available it would get decent ratings that just might cut into the bottom lines of our current “news” providers enough to influence them to change their ways a bit too.

  8. March 24, 2011 at 10:27 am

    I quit the MSM during the President’s campaign and only occasionally break my own rule to tune into Rachel Maddow. I am much happier getting my news from here, BWD, ProPresObama.org and the BBC. And since the tsunami in Japan and now Libya, I have become a fan of AlJazeera. If everyone else would do the same, we would not be so divided here in the states.

  9. March 24, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Thought I would share the link from AlJazeera I got from Meta’s post on OFA. Scroll down to 1:52 and see a map released by the US Naval Institute showing the locations and international forces participating in the effort in Libya.

    http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-24

    • 11 meta
      March 24, 2011 at 10:53 am

      Thanks, JB!

      I recommend that folks get their news about these conflicts from Al Jazeera English and The Guardian UK live blogs. These are real journalists who are reporting what they see and hear, period. The American MSM is a pathetic joke.


Comments are currently closed.

@POTUS

@BarackObama

@WhiteHouse

@FLOTUS

@MichelleObama

@PeteSouza

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

@TheObamaDiary

@NerdyWonka

RSS Obama White House.gov

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS WH Tumblr

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Steve Benen

  • Trump's legal team tried to convince Pence on decertifying results, book finds
  • We have a way out of pandemic but percentage of population is saying no, says doctor
  • Covid has killed more Americans than the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic
  • Music's brightest stars gear up for Global Citizen Live
  • 'We have deliberately been kept outside' of negotiations, says French Amb. to U.S.

Categories

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 43,102,164 hits

%d bloggers like this: