I have absolutely no idea the purpose of these remarks on ABC from Sec. Clinton, beyond covering for a commander in chief making his way home as a crisis escalates, this time politically. They make absolutely no sense to me at all at this point, but nothing the Obama administration is doing or saying on Libya makes sense, which now includes Sec. Clinton.
Not only does she admit she’s not aware “personally” of what she went on to tell Diane Sawyer, but she goes on to say some of what she’s imparting is “theater,” while throwing out the possibility that one of Col. Gadhafi’s sons was killed as she simultaneously admits the “evidence is not sufficient” for her to confirm the information she just imparted.
It’s like the world edition of As Libya Turns, with Clinton offering up sound bites that sound like a foreign policy soap opera, as she in the next breath proclaimed to be “very relaxed about it” all in an effort to obviously shore up Pres. Obama, as criticism at home escalated exponentially.
“We’ve heard about other people close to him reaching out to people that they know around the world — Africa, the Middle East, Europe, North America, beyond — saying what do we do? How do we get out of this? What happens next?” Clinton said in an exclusive interview. “I’m not aware that he personally has reached out, but I do know that people allegedly on his behalf have been reaching out.”
“Some of it is theater. Some of it is, you know, kind of, shall we say game playing, to try to do one message to one group, another message to somebody else,” she added. “A lot of it is just the way he behaves. It’s somewhat unpredictable. But some of it, we think, is exploring. You know, what are my options, where could I go, what could I do. And we would encourage that.”
Clinton said she’s also heard reports that one of Gadhafi’s sons may have been killed in the air strikes. But she added that the “evidence is not sufficient” to confirm.
Fox reports Obama has canceled public events for Wednesday, with the White House press corp coming home before the President, his own plans reportedly to include cutting his trip short by “hours.” However, no other outlet has offered a similar report, though this is not all that surprising to hear at this point.
Then there is Pres. Obama finally coming to grips that Gadhafi is very likely to stay in power, something that was clear from the top for anyone whose studied foreign policy.
“As long as Qadhafi remains in power — unless he changes his approach provides the Libyan people the opportunity to express themselves freely and there are significant reforms by the Libyan government, and he steps down — there’s still going to be a potential threat to the Libyan people,” Obama told reporters at a news conference here, his final stop on a five-day tour of Latin America. “We will continue to support the efforts to protect the Libyan people, but we will not be in the lead.” – Barack Obama: Libyan air campaign could last
It must be very ugly in our President’s brain right now as he tries to reconcile what he wants to happen with the realities of war and the U.S.’s role in it, which cannot be changed simply because Obama has deemed it must.
Pres. Obama is operating his Libya policy, such as there is one, under the assumption that because his plan is to remove the United States from the narrative of the no-fly action by handing over duties to the coalition or NATO immediately, that this is as easy as it sounds and can be done on his word. What this ignores is U.S. history, our role as leader of the free world and in taking the helm on every military intervention in modern times, not to mention what is expected of the American President at home.
The good news so far is that the American public haven’t caught up with the reality the Obama administration is facing and all the President and his team can hope is that they’ll get lucky or something will break, it may take both, before the public gets wind of the facts, which are ugly all around.
Obama’s policy also ignores what happened under Bush, as well as what Obama’s done in the region since becoming president. Pres. Obama believes his Cairo speech wiped out what has happened in Pakistan, but especially in Afghanistan, including the multitude of drone attacks, civilian deaths, and troops deployed, while his Administration has failed utterly on any coherent (there’s that word again) Middle East policy that deals effectively with the Palestinian and Israeli challenge.
Rachel Maddow once again tried to make the argument for Obama on her show last night, pressing her narrative of the President’s reluctance and also his willingness to change the U.S. interventionist narrative, this time emphasizing Obama’s Cairo speech, and once again, as with last night, her guests, Al Jazeera English’s Ayman Mohyeldin and Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs, quickly blew her theory out of the water. Obama wanting to turn the page from what came before is simply not enough given the history of the U.S. in the region, which now includes Pres. Obama’s own presidential footprint.
No matter what his intentions, humanitarian and that “Gadhafi must go,” the fact remains Pres. Obama has started a war in Libya and nothing he can say can change this reality or his role in initiating Operation Odyssey Dawn. The fact that Obama did this “on the fly,” to quote Sec. Gates, without thinking through the consequences of military action and the ramification of war becomes more apparent by the day.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters Tuesday that plan to transfer command of the mission in Libya to coalition forces is “complicated.” “We haven’t done something like this on the fly before,” Gates, who is currently overseas on a diplomatic trip to Russia, said. Added Gates, “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.” – Talk Radio News
taylor0 the clip from maddow tonight with the reporter from al jezeera is fantastic maybe u can post it? basically he took apart the attempted weak maddow thesis. its quit grim on top of so many other grim t hings.a war we cant afford and do not need.
and- on your question of where is biden in this. i can tifnd a thing except he is fundraising for the dnc etc. they got biden fudnrasing with thsi going on? had biden and o fallen out bad over this? hm
the big problem here is there is no clear goal with 20 statement sout there on what we are to do there. this is derelect. the wh has abdicated its mind here it seems.
on matthews he brought up a fact that left me wondering how accurate it si- that when the usa ratified the un treay 60 yrs ago a senator tried ot amend it requiring the congress to approve any mil action taken by the usa even if the un sec council says yes to action. the amend was struck down by the sneate by 65 votes. i dont get this- the sen ceded its auth on war when the un is involved?
obama’s notion of no ground troops doesnt uh quite right. i guess he, like cliton in kosovo, is not being upfont bc it looks to me its real that we may need ops ont he ground there no? after all we cant afford to lose this now most are saying.
Hey t4h. Biden was at the Japanese embassy, I believe.
I’ve link both Rachel Maddow videos of Al Jazeera English’s Ayman Mohyeldin and Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs in the column above. (Had trouble loading so a couple of things didn’t get in the first round, including the Gates quote, which is a must see.)
I think it’s about Obama believing that he could change the narrative by simply intent, ignoring history & our role in conflicts, as well as that politics doesn’t change because you say so. You may choose to call it naivete or optimism, I’ll let you decide.
As for ground troops, we already had to have them in Libya to get the pilots out. That’s just a fact, so that statement is out the window.
I notice you’re ignoring Clinton’s role. You really can’t if you’re going to be honest, t4h, no matter how you come down on it.
on hillary- what really prompted her to push to jump into libya? ive read she is worried about another rwanda. really? i have seen no genocide in Libya. some say its bc ghadaffi has killed hundreds of women and children brutally etc.. the answers ive read so far for her major role in this dont make alot of sense to me.
Maddow valiantly tried to “explain” that Obama’s actions were “different” because he didn’t “hold a chest thumping speech in the Oval Office” or “dress in a flight suit.” She didnt’ seem to realize that what she was saying was that this is only different COSMETICALLY. And seriously, if it’s only different cosmetically, who the hell cares?
“I think it’s about Obama believing that he could change the narrative by simply intent,ignoring history & our role in conflicts, as well as that politics doesn’t change because you say so.” — TM
That very apt description can be applied to so much of Obama’s decision making. The Libya situation isn’t just the latest, it seems to me to be even worse than other “give a speech” and “look forward” moments. If nothing else, the scrambling, incoherent remarks by Obama administration members (including Clinton), and by people like Maddow … “on the fly” is also, unfortunately, another apt description.
It seems as if the efforts to deal with the multitude of what surely are very serious problems, from domestic to international, are revealing a still inexperienced president who doesn’t seem to be learning that just because he says something “is” doesn’t make it so. And the words of the people in his administration reflect the same “on the fly” way to do business.
“Lack of clarity,” I’m hearing, about the “mission” in Libya. They started this without knowing who was going to be in charge once the no fly zone was enforced. Just drop the bombs, we’ll figure out what to do and who will do it later.
A “no on the fly zone” should be imposed on DC.
The quote & delivery when I saw Gates make the statement was rather chilling, Joyce.
Yep, chilling. I find myself trying to figure out if things (in general) really are getting worse faster, or if I’m just reflecting the years of accumulated “getting worse.”
Howard Dean made a full throated defense of Obama’s actions this morning on MJ.
For some context I was not clued into here is an interesting blog piece.
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/keeping_libya_in_context
This new mission should have been titled OIL (Oil In Libya). I would like to know, to whom, changed Obama’s mind on Libya. Someone sold him this bill of goods. I think the following two quotes are closer *to the truth* on Libya:
“Under Bill Clinton they bombed Yugoslavia and Belgrade. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and under completely false pretenses, they sent troops to Iraq and liquidated the entire Iraqi leadership,” Putin said on a visit to Votkinsk in central Russia. “Now it’s Libya’s turn, under the pretext of protecting the civilian population.”
“Well, we’re in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward,” Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said today on MSNBC.
Taylor,
I believe Madame Secretary sold this “war on Libya” to Obama. All indicators pointed that he was against it. However, as you reported, Hillary’s former aide went on “Meet The Press” to demand a no-fly zone. Same with Mrs. Clinton’s husband.
To your credit, you reported both comments as “inappropriate” Why is it so hard to connect these Libyan dots back to Hillary? Or on Biden? Both are war hawks.
As far as Biden, perhaps I am being too unfair. After all he was against the SURGE in Afghanistan. And has made clear in public view that he was for removing our troops.
Is is such a *leap of faith* now to assume we have a military junta running our government. I’ve never trusted Gates and was furious for Obama keeping him on as SECDEF. One of tons of his continuous errors.
Two weeks ago, President, er, General Petraeus testified to Congress WHY we should remain in Afghanistan. Even the Republicans were not buying his *schtick* When he felt he was losing the battle, he invoked his son’s name as serving secretly in Afghanistan. Even further, he said his son personally now believes in the mission there. A weak defense, but it went unchallenged.
Someone is in charge of America’s foreign policy and I no longer believe it is Obama administration. I had these same doubts on Bush’s administration. Remove the curtain and I bet we’d all be shocked.
As far as blaming Hillary’s boss for her remarks on anything, I think cheapens Mrs. Clinton’s resolve. If Obama was doing something she was truly against, she’s an insider. She would know HOW to inform us. I think she’s squarely on Obama’s perceived LOSING train. I think you are disrespecting her by claiming, otherwise.
How did Taylor throw in the Palestinian/Israeli issue? Yet no mention of the terrorism against by the Palestinians….a bus bombing, the family of 5 murdered, the mortars and attacks into Israel….all of this ignored….The real issue is the Arab world….it is a mess…and Israel has nothing to do with it….except for being a convenient excuse….Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, the only place where women and gays have equality…..So what is wrong with the Muslim world? Willful blindness does nothing for the debate…nor willful ignorance. The real question is why are we going anywhere as the world’s policeman and not being compensated? Why is the U.S. taxpayer paying for this instead of the countries we are protecting? Europe pays virtually nothing for defense and relies on the U.S. for its interests to be protected. So let them pay for this. They are afraid of all the immigrants pouring in over their borders. We shouldn’t be doing this for free. If we provide the military capital, then we should get something back instead of more debt.