For a guy who hates war BO sure is eager to fight ‘em. Third times a charm big guy!

this isn’t going to sit too well with the base or with Rev Wright. Uh oh Obowmao

So the UN approves what Palin brought up in her Libya facebook response? HA!

Why would Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany abstain.
Are they hedging their bets? Good to see things never change.

WCinWI said:
So the UN approves what Palin brought up in her Libya facebook response? HA!

I don’t follow Palin’s Facebook, but as the post noted, the concept has been under consideration for weeks and I even brought up the idea in a wayback Mediaite comment, so you can’t really credit her for the original thought.

PS) My thoughts are with the brave men and women, both those enforcing the no-fly and/or no-drive zone and those they’ll be trying to protect.

Magister said:
I don’t follow Palin’s Facebook, but as the post noted, the concept has been under consideration for weeks and I even brought up the idea in a wayback Mediaite comment, so you can’t really credit her for the original thought.

Yes, I’m sure Sarah Palin spends her time reading YOUR mediaite comments. Do you know how silly you sound?

It’s a little perplexing looking at the White House today. There was a statement on the horrible earthquake in New Zealand, and certainly our hearts go out to all those affected by this horrible natural disaster. But nothing on the slaughter in Libya? The protests in many places in the Middle East affect regimes that have cooperated with the U.S. on issues from peace with Israel, fighting al Qaeda, hosting our military forces, or cooperating against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gaddafi’s Libya is different. For four decades, this tyrant has held power. Gaddafi was Osama before Osama hit the scene. He ordered the bombing of a disco in Germany to kill Americans. When he paid the price for that – after President Reagan rightly ordered retaliation – he directed his agents to blow up Pan Am Flight 103. They did, and more than 250 innocent people died. Gaddafi tried to come in from the cold in 2003 – scared by the demonstration effect of Iraq. But we should have no illusions. Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya.

– Sarah Palin

That sounds like someone that wishes to wait weeks on declaring a statement. NOT.

WCinWI said:
Yes, I’m sure Sarah Palin spends her time reading YOUR mediaite comments. Do you know how silly you sound?

It’s a little perplexing looking at the White House today. There was a statement on the horrible earthquake in New Zealand, and certainly our hearts go out to all those affected by this horrible natural disaster. But nothing on the slaughter in Libya? The protests in many places in the Middle East affect regimes that have cooperated with the U.S. on issues from peace with Israel, fighting al Qaeda, hosting our military forces, or cooperating against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gaddafi’s Libya is different. For four decades, this tyrant has held power. Gaddafi was Osama before Osama hit the scene. He ordered the bombing of a disco in Germany to kill Americans. When he paid the price for that – after President Reagan rightly ordered retaliation – he directed his agents to blow up Pan Am Flight 103. They did, and more than 250 innocent people died. Gaddafi tried to come in from the cold in 2003 – scared by the demonstration effect of Iraq. But we should have no illusions. Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya.

– Sarah Palin

That sounds like someone that wishes to wait weeks on declaring a statement. NOT.

And I’m sure the UN Security Council spends their time reading Palin’s Facebook page…hahahaha.

Kvon says:

And I’m sure the UN Security Council spends their time reading Palin’s Facebook page…hahahaha.

It would appear Obama does. Regardless, I hear Hill has been really PO’d that he wouldn’t do anything but vote present AGAIN, so she’s probably happy.

+++ ( http://u.ly/73I ) ++++++++++

+++ ( http://u.ly/73I ) ++++++++++

WCinWI said:
Yes, I’m sure Sarah Palin spends her time reading YOUR mediaite comments. Do you know how silly you sound?

My point wasn’t so much that I had inquired about the legal implications in a couple of comments three and a half weeks ago, it was that Sarah Palin wasn’t the only one to suggest, consider or even discuss the idea.

(Oh, and though I’m sure Ms. Palin (or anyone else) would be well served if they read my comments across any number of platforms, I don’t read her Facebook wall, so we’re even on that count.)

As for her statement (which I assume you quoted), I obviously agree with the idea of installing a no-fly zone, but as I theorized back in February and today’s vote showed, several permanent members of the Security Council had to agree they wouldn’t veto.

We couldn’t do it alone. There’s a question of sovereignty and we needed the UN.

Magister says:

Oh, and though I’m sure Ms. Palin (or anyone else) would be well served if they read my comments across any number of platforms,

Dude, how do you fit that head through the door. Your inflated sense of self reminds me of the late Keith Olbermann.

Magister said:
I don’t follow Palin’s Facebook, but as the post noted, the concept has been under consideration for weeks and I even brought up the idea in a wayback Mediaite comment, so you can’t really credit her for the original thought.

Maybe you can take Clinton’s job after she resigns.

Magister said:
My point wasn’t so much that I had inquired about the legal implications in a couple of comments three and a half weeks ago, it was that Sarah Palin wasn’t the only one to suggest, consider or even discuss the idea.

(Oh, and though I’m sure Ms. Palin (or anyone else) would be well served if they read my comments across any number of platforms, I don’t read her Facebook wall, so we’re even on that count.)

As for her statement (which I assume you quoted), I obviously agree with the idea of installing a no-fly zone, but as I theorized back in February and today’s vote showed, several permanent members of the Security Council had to agree they wouldn’t veto.

We couldn’t do it alone. There’s a question of sovereignty and we needed the UN.

Rubio and I tend to disagree with the importance of the UN. From what I know (which isn’t much) about the UN, it’s a joke organization.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/17/rubio-to-state-dept-spokesman-why-did-we-wait-for-the-un-to-act-against-qaddafi/

kvon said:
And I’m sure the UN Security Council spends their time reading Palin’s Facebook page…hahahaha.

Your post made no sense. Or at least the point it was trying to make was nonexistent. :)

WCinWI said:
So the UN approves what Palin brought up in her Libya facebook response? HA!

You can’t be seriously saying that Palin influenced this? hahaha. I wonder if you’re just another one of Palin’s secret accounts.

WCinWI said:
Rubio and I tend to disagree with the importance of the UN. From what I know (which isn’t much) about the UN, it’s a joke organization.

Libya is a sovereign nation, so any type of assault or protective action by the United States or NATO would be an act of war and an interference in their sovereignty. In advance of the second Gulf War, Bush and Blair both pointed toward previous UN resolutions as their legal authority. Whether or not those resolutions were sufficient is still under debate in some quarters, but we had no such authority in regards to Libya.

Cain, I think it’s pretty obvious that while Kadafi feared Bush and backed down when he was in office, he didn’t this time because he wasn’t threatened by BO AT ALL! You libs made fun of Bush the Cowboy, but at least our enemies feared him. BO just bows to them.

CAINtheBULL said:
You can’t be seriously saying that Palin influenced this? hahaha. I wonder if you’re just another one of Palin’s secret accounts.

The fact that liberals can’t understand sarcasm is just a hoot.

Magister said:
Libya is a sovereign nation, so any type of assault or protective action by the United States or NATO would be an act of war and an interference in their sovereignty. In advance of the second Gulf War, Bush and Blair both pointed toward previous UN resolutions as their legal authority. Whether or not those resolutions were sufficient is still under debate in some quarters, but we had no such authority in regards to Libya.

That’s fine. But we also have an ineffective leader in the WH that has been more worried with brackets and playing golf instead of having more forceful statements.

After weeks of hearing from this Admin about the time, difficulty and danger in establishing a No Fly Zone over Libya UN Ambassador Susan Rice said several days ago:

“”The US view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond a no-fly zone, at this point, as the situation on the ground has evolved and as a no-fly zone has inherent limitations in terms of protection of civilians at immediate risk.”"

Let’s see:

“We need to be PREPARED to CONTEMPLATE STEPS”. Such decisiveness takes my breath away.

I’m so glad she ended on this note of “inherent LIMITATIONS” to soften that near belligerent beginning.

This Admin wouldn’t even give moral support or any aid to the rebels by simply talking about any consequences Gadafi could face.

BTW, what do you think the odds are that teir will be anyone left in Libya to benefit from whatever we do now?

CAINtheBULL said:
You can’t be seriously saying that Palin influenced this?

As I previously stated, I wasn’t familiar with Ms. Palin’s comments prior to this thread and of course, I’m not privy to internal White House discussions, but one could argue that she may have given them cover from the right.

If you recall, George W. Bush ran against nation-building and since Reagan, the Republican Party has shied away from the US acting as the “world’s policeman”. So, if politically there wasn’t sufficient support from those seeking a more inward gaze, it may have been a more difficult sell to both the American people and the UN.

Grammie said:
After weeks of hearing from this Admin about the time, difficulty and danger in establishing a No Fly Zone over Libya UN Ambassador Susan Rice said several days ago:

“”The US view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond a no-fly zone, at this point, as the situation on the ground has evolved and as a no-fly zone has inherent limitations in terms of protection of civilians at immediate risk.””

Let’s see:

“We need to be PREPARED to CONTEMPLATE STEPS”. Such decisiveness takes my breath away.

I’m so glad she ended on this note of “inherent LIMITATIONS” to soften that near belligerent beginning.

I can’t recall if it’s the CNN link above or the one from the Times, but fast-moving, high-flying fighter jets (which are most protective of our troops) have limited effect on helicopters, tanks and troops on the ground. This is why the UN resolution goes further than simply installing a no-fly zone and it gives us the legal authority to establish a no-drive too, plus there’s talk of providing advisory support.

Magister said:
I can’t recall if it’s the CNN link above or the one from the Times, but fast-moving, high-flying fighter jets (which are most protective of our troops) have limited effect on helicopters, tanks and troops on the ground. This is why the UN resolution goes further than simply installing a no-fly zone and it gives us the legal authority to establish a no-drive too, plus there’s talk of providing advisory support.

Surely we have some military guys around who know if we have air to air capability against helicopters

We own the skies with our aerial radar systems. Can that be used to direct something other than high speed high altitude ordinance against helicopters etc.

If the problems are insurmountable what has changed in the last month especially since this will very likely be too little far far too late?

You didn’t mention our total lack of even rhetoric that might have given Gadafi pause before implementing the worst upon his country. My guess is he would have shown far more restraint under any of the four (Reagan thru GWB) Presidents then he did now.

So the UN voted for Military action against Libya.. Why doesn’t the US sit this one out and let one of the other UN countries take care of this. We cannot afford this, we already have loads of debt now we’re going to spend more on a country we have no business getting involved with. This country just isn’t happy unless we are out there fucking with someone.. Am I to believe we really care about the well being of the rebel fighters?? really?

Liberal Tormentor said:
Cain, I think it’s pretty obvious that while Kadafi feared Bush and backed down when he was in office, he didn’t this time because he wasn’t threatened by BO AT ALL! You libs made fun of Bush the Cowboy, but at least our enemies feared him. BO just bows to them.

Right.. they feared him so much they boarded planes on one morning and flew them into buildings killing thousands of people going to work.

@Grammie: By pointing toward the “inherent limitations”, I was just pointing out why there needed to be “contemplate(d) steps”. As for the rhetoric, there have been public discussions, comments from the administration and others (apparently, including Sarah Palin), so I’m sure Gaddaffi was just trying to get what he could before all hell broke loose.

From his standpoint, there wouldn’t have been any appeasing the protesters and it’s unlikely that he’s going to find any safe havens. If I were him (and I’m not an evil dictator), I probably would’ve also tried to quell the uprising before the UN could attack because if there are no protesters, there’d be no one to protect.

jooce81 said:
Right.. they feared him so much they boarded planes on one morning and flew them into buildings killing thousands of people going to work.

Uh, al-Qaeda is not KaDaffy. He fessed up and surrendered his clandestine nuclear program because he didn’t want to become the next Saddam Hussein. Can you begin to imagine the implications of Libya with nukes right now?

Pablo said:
Uh, al-Qaeda is not KaDaffy. He fessed up and surrendered his clandestine nuclear program because he didn’t want to become the next Saddam Hussein. Can you begin to imagine the implications of Libya with nukes right now?

.
I would think not even now that you’ve brought it up.

Pablo said:
Uh, al-Qaeda is not KaDaffy. He fessed up and surrendered his clandestine nuclear program because he didn’t want to become the next Saddam Hussein. Can you begin to imagine the implications of Libya with nukes right now?

I’m just saying this whole thing is so phony. We have American politicians sitting up there acting like they really care about these Rebels, no they are just the lesser of 2 evils in their minds, they Hate gadaffi and this is their chance to see him go so they play it off like these people are innocent citizens and we have to go in and stop them.. I mean cmon its a fucking CIVIL WAR, these rebels are not innocent, they have weapons too, they are shooting at people too. Are we really that naive to think a Leader of a country is just going to sit back and let an armed rebel group try and take over.. This is Libya’s civil war, we have no place in it, we have 2 decade long wars going on and still think we have to police every conflict that happens anywhere on the globe. It’s bleeding us dry, a few weeks back everyone one was shouting about the deficit and how we have to cut this and cut that, now we’re going to throw more american tax dollars over seas for some bullshit country we care nothing about. oh wait they have oil dont they….So now here comes America riding in to help the poor out numbered rebels.. sorry but I’ve heard this story before.. Remember the rebels in Afgahistan in the 70′s, remember the rebels in Iran.. We need to sit this one out

Magister said:
@Grammie: By pointing toward the “inherent limitations”, I was just pointing out why there needed to be “contemplate(d) steps”. As for the rhetoric, there have been public discussions, comments from the administration and others (apparently, including Sarah Palin), so I’m sure Gaddaffi was just trying to get what he could before all hell broke loose.

From his standpoint, there wouldn’t have been any appeasing the protesters and it’s unlikely that he’s going to find any safe havens. If I were him (and I’m not an evil dictator), I probably would’ve also tried to quell the uprising before the UN could attack because if there are no protesters, there’d be no one to protect.

You cannot possibly say that there has been strong rhetoric from the WH. HAHAHAHAHA

Certainly hope the U.S. will not enforce the no-fly zone.

It’s generally unwise to get involved in Muslim scrapes.

Eagles (symbol of this country) v. Doves (symbol of appeasement)… no fly zone = NO FLY zone… go Repubs.!!!!!!!!!! Hold true to strong military might to set the world Right.

WCinWI said:
You cannot possibly say that there has been strong rhetoric from the WH. HAHAHAHAHA

I didn’t say there has been strong rhetoric, but there has been rhetoric, nonetheless.

As for whether “cowboy language” emanating from the White House in front of cameras would’ve caused a different result, it may (or may not) have helped bully the Security Council holdouts, but without a carrot or a stick, I don’t know that it would’ve had an effect on Gaddaffi.

His people are going to kill him, either in their rebellion or after a trial. Without having the cover of a UN resolution and the backing of the Arab League, if we were to have gone it alone and risked pissing-off the other Security Council members, we would’ve been left with where would it stop and what would our obligations be down the road.