“The United States views the Qaddafi regime as no longer having any legitimate authority in Libya,” [Secretary of State Hillary Rodham] Clinton said. “And so I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the United States will recognize the T.N.C. as the legitimate governing authority for Libya, and we will deal with it on that basis.”...ADDED: If you're wondering what "T.N.C." stands for I think it's The Nicaraguan Contras.
The step allows the United States to turn over to the rebel group some of the Libyan funds that have been frozen in American banks, to finance its efforts to oust Colonel Qaddafi and to administer the part of the country that the rebels control.
१५ जुलै, २०११
"The United States formally recognized the rebel leadership in Libya as the country’s legitimate government..."
NYT:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Did Momar leave yet? He might disagree.
Regime change - because Hillary said so.
We are now at war with EastAsia. We have always been at war with EastAsia.
These people are fucking jokes. What legitimacy did he have yesterday? What changed between yesterday and today?
I'll tell you who doesn't have any legitimacy: Hillary Clinton.
She's a fraud.
Is Bashar Assad legitimate? Today? Man is gunning down his own people in the streets. What about tomorrow?
Whoever this administration needs to murder to avoid the endless wars ending and all those conservative heavily armed well trained fighting Republicans coming home before the 2012 massacres ... that's who they'll target.
“And so I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, I will recognize the Tea Party as the legitimate governing authority for the United States, and I will deal with it on that basis.”
AllenS, veteran, patriot.
We've gone from Chauncey Gardner to Rufus T. Firefly.
Brought to you by the Administration that believes that press conferences change everything . . . . .
It's unfortunate that I was not recognized as Libya's legitimate government, as I could use those frozen funds too. And I would promise to kick some back to Hillary! and to BHO as well, just like the Rebel leaders undoubtedly have.
Are these the guys who are kinda sorta part of Al Quaeda?
Now, hand over the oil.
Exactly when did the US ever consider Qadaffi to be "legitimate"?
Now Qaddafi super must step down.
This whole business with Libya has been insane. Qaddafi renounced terrorism a bunch of years ago. Has there been any indication -- prior to Obama's adventurism -- that he had gone back on that? If so, shouldn't Obama have taken advantage of one of his innumerable press conferences to make that case? Following Dubya's successful invasion of Iraq and ousting of Saddam, Qaddafi renounced his efforts to acquire WMDs. Has he gone back on that? If so, why has that case not been made?
So my question is this -- shouldn't we want to encourage that behavior? The US has basically announced that as long as a dictator does not have WMD and is not committed to terrorism then we'll feel free to attack him, steal his money, etc. Is that wise?
Well, there's no going back now. We are engaging in regime change.
When is Obama going to get around to killing MQ? If he doesn't and we get bombed anywhere in the world by Libyans you can damned well be sure people are going to hang it on BO.
By the way, I bought "Being There" for my Kindle a couple of weeks ago. I read it in college but thought I'd like to go back and do a quick read. I figured it'd be more instructive as an Obama autobiography than the Ayers-penned "Dreams From My Father".
We recognized them just in time for France, whose idea this was mostly, to bail. We're still doing a lot, if not most, of the heavy lifting and the possibility of Muammar surviving this is not all that bad (for him).
And those funds? Wanna bet they don't end up in Libya?
Don't like it
And Syria???
Did they notice what the Syrians did to our EMBASY there???
Gad, Obama & Co. make Jimmy Carter look good.
It's like a board game without rules.
And in a related story Sec. Clinton vigorously wagged her finger at Bashir Assad and said
Now don't call my bluff!
Big Mike is correct.
Qaddafi has been keeping his nose clean for quite a while. There were times when he was nothing more than a terrorist. Those times ended when Reagan tossed some bombs his way.
This makes me think of someone who did his time in prison for past misdeeds, got out, and had not been causing any problems, but the powers that be, decided to go after him. Why? For what reason?
Hillary Clinton is a fucking bitch. I think she dreamed this up so she could get some hard-ass street cred.
Fucking insane. This Administration cuts Poland and Czech off at the knees but gleefully ships cash (read: guns and ammo) to a collection of "rebels" bent on installing a fundamentalist regime in Africa. He's actually worse at intl relations th*n he is at domestic policies. Didn't think that was possible.
$O$ ante$ up more $$$ to kinetic military action. I$ $he bluffing like her bo$$?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Smartest President EV-UH….h8ters!
How's our carefully arranged stalemate doing in the oil producing region of North Africa?
Got to keep the world oil prices high, you know.
Go rebels, but don't actually win...just keep up a standoff.
If you're wondering what "T.N.C." stands for I think it's The Nicaraguan Contras.
Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. Hit it again.
T.N.C stands for "Transitional National Council"
They have a twitter page set up for questions.
I find this to be a very frightening statement.
What authority allows this recognition? What is the precedent?
"T.N.C." stands for The New Clinton. That's what the country will be called when Hillary takes over.
She came up with the idea from living in New York. Eventually, they will have a major league baseball franchise called The New Clinton Yankees. She likes baseball. I saw pictures of her wearing a New York Yankees baseball cap when she ran for senator. Because of the oil revenue, TNCY will have a bigger payroll than the NYY.
If Trooper York says anything bad, she'll have his front window broken.
AllenS said...
Big Mike is correct.
Qaddafi has been keeping his nose clean for quite a while. There were times when he was nothing more than a terrorist. Those times ended when Reagan tossed some bombs his way.
Not quite in the right timeline....
Reagan Bombed Libya in 1986
Qaddafi blew up Pan Am 103 n 1988 as payback, so Reagan didn't exactly pacify Momar
Bush beat down Saddam in 2003, Qaddifi saw that and made a deal to give up his nuke program and some terrorists and the Pan Am Bomber, plus settle with the families.
so yeah, a GOP President with a big stick taught him some manners, but it was Bush 2, not Reagan...
Speaking of Which Allen,
since we're bombing the hell out of Tripoli, you'd think we could get a JDAM to malfunction and land on the Pan Am Bombers house. You know, the guy who had 90 days to live, 700 days ago?
Surprise, surprise!
As a famous blogger says, "our country is in the bast of hands."
Libyan Rebels Accused of Pillage and Beatings
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/africa/13libya.html?_r=2
Well, I was close. The bomber is probably living with Mo. Either that or Hillary can't shoot straight.
Q-Daffy called in the russians!
Which makes this "interesting," in that the russians were in egypt with Nasser. They "UGLY-FIED" Cairo. With their cement block housing.
And, they were in Libya. Where they "UGLY-FIED" Tripoli. Same crappy concrete housing bunkers ... but with wide spaces between them. No one in Libya was ever outside ... just to walk around. The "streets" were the garbage pails.
Anyway, the russians won. (For what it's worth.)
Oh, do you know how the russians got thrown out of egypt? The results of the Six-Day-War!
Russia supplied that one! "Halping" the russians to fortify the Sinai. And, build in depth field operations,to boot.
Well, it took Israel 6 days for that crap to fail. And, after it was over, egypt turned around and tossed their russian "advisers" out.
Again? Will it only be another "matter of time?" Or will the russians be a bit more cautious?
"Qaddafi renounced terrorism a bunch of years ago. Has there been any indication -- prior to Obama's adventurism -- that he had gone back on that?"
HE SHOT HIS OWN PEOPLE IN THE STREETS. He's a madman, a torturer, and a murderer. He's everything Saddam was and more. But because it's the Obama administration fighting him, cons are all cuddly with Qadaffi. Fucking ridiculous.
I would also have loved to see the con reaction if Obama had just said get lost to the British Tory goverment that was begging us to help intervene against Qadaffi to save Benghazi.
Side note: Sixty grit, HAHAHA! I get it. Obama smokes KOOLS because that's what the blacks smoke. You are fucking hilarious my man. Why don't you make the same joke in every thread, maybe there's some people who haven't made the connection yet, that Obama is a ghetto black thug who smokes Kools. Genius material.
TNC: The Next Country.
franglo,
How do you feel about the people being shot in the street in Syria? Or Iran? Or any number of other countries in Africa? Should we bomb all of them too? Tell me why or why not.
We can call this "regime changiness", by analogy with "truthiness".
"T.N.C." are the initials of the Arabic translation of "Office of the President-Elect".
Franglo...The Obama strategy of leading from behind with no reason given for the war would make a smoker out of anyone.
The question is not how bad Qadaffi is, since Bashar al Assad in Syria is so much worse.
The question is why go out and destroy Qadaffi now?
Egypt and Libya lie east of the Obama target and taking over Egypt would be worthless if Qadaffi could exert any power over Egypt. So Qadaffi must be eliminated too.
The answer may be that Samantha Power is the one leading Obama by the nose.
Isn't franglo even the slightest bit embarrassed by the fact that Obama denies that we're fighting?
Franglo, just because you have a shallow stereotype of conservatives doesn't mean you know how we think. Obama has chosen to wage war on Q-daffy and to arm a force that will certainly be anti-US. Why7 And why refuse to consult Congress? Is he stupid, evil or both?
franglo,
Should we bomb Syria? Yes or no, lady.
Franglo;
Fill in the blank:
___________SHOT HIS OWN PEOPLE IN THE STREETS. He's a madman, a torturer, and a murderer. He's everything Saddam was and more.
(hint: there's more than one right answer.)
So what happens if the Libyan regime succeeds in crushing the rebels? Or if the rebs simply reach their culmination point and fizzle away?
Do we walk that back?
How do we step down from this ridiculous position? Do we still sit around for the next 20 years pretending to deal with a "shadow government" that doesn't exist? This isn't even Charles DeGaulle or the Polish government in exile during WWII, which at least had claim to right authority.
F-ing insanity.
Another "fire, aim ready" from the Obama Administration.
WV: Bawflo. This was a bawflo decision from Obama.
And Franglo, as much as it disturbs me to see folks in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Sri Lanka....suffer (and it does disturb me)
I believe a key decision point for American military intervention is:
He shot AMERICANS
Obama has chosen to wage war on Q-daffy and to arm a force that will certainly be anti-US.
OBAMA has not chosen. NATO chose to go to war in Libya. France dropped the first bombs of the war. England, Italy, Sweeden flew the sorties. Then America, because America makes up a lot of NATO's firepower, stepped in to support. So question: should the American president have refused to work with our closest allies in the world as they begged us to participate? So that an insane dictator could conduct a rout against benghazi and kill thousands? which we had the power to prevent? with no troops on the ground?
To the second point, the Libyan rebel force is the most pro-US group in the middle east today. They wave american flags on the streets of Benghazi every day and are desperately trying to signal their gratitude. You don't know this because you don't look, don't listen and are full of preconceived notions and can't realize when the world changes in front of your eyes. Because SOME groups of Libyans fought in Iraq against the US-- who they saw as an invader killing innocent fellow muslims-- you think these rebels are all Al Qaeda. You don't know what you're talking about!
2011 is one of those years when everything changes. Get with it and stop buying every piece of negative information that shores up your preconceptions. Try to see the whole. Qadaffy won't last forever and when he goes we'll have a new ally in north africa we can buy oil from.
Pro US? Bullshit. You know who is pro US? Eastern Europe and Obama told them to fuck off. As to NATO, you have no clue what you're talking about.
I believe a key decision point for American military intervention is:
He shot AMERICANS
It's funny, I wonder if any of you were at the marches against the war in 2003? No? Maybe your feet hurt that day? Wait, what? You supported the war and the president then? That's so interesting.
Yes or no, franglo should we bomb Syria?
PRO US
PRO US
PRO US
Lincoln, since you have a short memory, why don't you study up on the start of the campaign. UN cleared the way for intervention with the Arab League. UK and France were raring to go. US was the last to sign on. So should Obama have spat in the face of Cameron and Sarkozy? And what would you have said if Obama did?
franglo said...
OBAMA has not chosen. NATO chose to go to war in Libya. France dropped the first bombs of the war. England, Italy, Sweeden flew the sorties. Then America, because America makes up a lot of NATO's firepower, stepped in to support.
a couple of points to pierce your disdirection campaign.
1. NATO=US+plus the other guys. We let the Euro's have the political titles, but the top military job is ALWAYS an American (Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)). Nothing can happen without consensus and the US has an effective Veto, so to say that NATO chose is BS to say the least.
2. as for who started bombing, your explanation there is cute as well. Yeah, the Brits and the Frogs dropped the first bombs, but you left off the 100 Tomahawk missiles from US ships that went in first to suppress enemy air defenses (SEAD). Our B-2's arrivewd from the US after the brit bombers dropped, but ours launched first. So the first and most of the strikes have been US.
As usual, Drill SGT fails to see the point. As for the point he's trying to make, I get it: OBAMA BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD.
I just laugh, when I think what he would be saying if:
-the US had refused to intervene over British and French entreaties and
-thousands had been massacred in Benghazi
I'm sure you would be praising Obama's judicious restraint in keeping America out of foreign entanglements. Right? Right?
Hahaha. I love being lectured on military realities by a civilian moonbat still clinging to the anti-Bush hypocrisy while Obama wages a shadow war with zero Congressional input. War on Terror followed a decade of UN resolutions and months of debate. Obama's African War followed 18 holes at the Congressional golf course. Where's your protest now?
Are there any other countries that you'd like to bomb, franglo?
Would franglo be considered a chickenhawk?
Caracas or Bust!
Shorter franglo: "I don't care. Obama is awesome."
War on Terror followed a decade of UN resolutions and months of debate
BWA HA HA HA HA HA. Cloin Powell and his yellow cake! I almost forgot about that stuff. What a gas.
p.s. Qadaffi actually has killed Americans. Did Saddam, other than American soldiers in battle?
let me make it a bit more concrete for you franglo--since the US recognizes whatever group is in rebellion, why dont you apply for a visa and fly to tripoli to be insolidarity with rebels?
Let me know how that works out
So I take it that franglo won't be pushing for a war crimes trial this time around? More than willing to watch Obama bomb the shit out of a foreign country for no reason that he's willing to admit. Talk about having no principles beyond self-interest. Those stupid Africans should probably thank him, right?
franglo said...
p.s. Qadaffi actually has killed Americans. Did Saddam, other than American soldiers in battle?
Qadaffi settled his Pan Am 103 liabilities. Subsequently, the O'bama administration was all lovey dovey with Qadaffi. Whether Qadaffi was a nice guy or not, once you make nice with him, you can't resurrect the crimes that you settled as a pretext for war
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, left, shakes hands with U.S. President Barack Obama during a dinner at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy on Thursday, July 9, 2009.
On the other hand, Clinton, thought that Saddam was guilty of trying to assassinate a US President. A crime which has been the basis for many a war.
1993: Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."
Obama is amazing: he can make red-blooded Americans love Moammar Qadaffi more than the bunch of businessmen, lawyers, teachers, students and teenagers that have risen up to overthrow him. You gotta hand it to him.
Roger J.: you don't need a visa to go to Libya. You can fly to Cairo, take a bus to Salloum, have the egyptians give you an exit stamp, wave at the Libyan rebels who will wave you through and hire a driver to take you all the way to Benghazi. I wouldn't go to Tripoli because it's been on lockdown for four months and they are killing rebels in the streets every night. It would be sort of suicidal, but it sounds like you might be up for it.
Shorter: I've been to Libya, asshole.
Roger J. said...
let me make it a bit more concrete for you franglo--since the US recognizes whatever group is in rebellion, why dont you apply for a visa and fly to tripoli to be insolidarity with rebels?
Make sure you where the US flag as a shoulder patch so that the local rebels will know you're one of the good guys.
However, make sure your affairs are in order before departing.
Let's not forget that Obama was so impressed with Hillary "WMD's in Iraq" Clinton that he made her SecState.
So question: should the American president have refused to work with our closest allies in the world as they begged us to participate?
Turnabout is fair play.
franglo said...
Obama is amazing: he can make red-blooded Americans love Moammar Qadaffi more than the bunch of businessmen, lawyers, teachers,
You mistake us. Roger J and I think Qadaffi is a killer, a dictator, and an all together scumbag... He however, is IMHO less of a dirtbag and less of a threat to his people than for example Assad in Syria, or Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or another dozen third world killers...
so many dirtbags, too small an army. We just don't understand why O'bama picked one over the others... aka, the Powell Doctrine:
- have a strategic reason
- go in with overwhelming force
- have a plan to get out
doesn't seem O'bama did any of that...
We don't have the forces to solve every world problem and kill every dictator. Unless we use nukes of course :)
Franglo--apparently my point was a bit too obscure for you--has to do with the things that nation states do as a matter of legalities that are recognized by other nation states
BTW when you are in Libya hope you have some luck dodging NATO or Rebel Fire
have a nice day, and namaste
-if Qadaffi crushed the rebellion it would have destroyed the momentum toward reform in the Arab world and permanently discredited the West for another generation
-we have TOTAL air superiority in Libya
-We aren't even IN Libya! Not a single soldier there! To "get out" all we have to do is stop flying! Not exactly a quagmire!
-The rebels will win eventually, sorry the revolution couldn't be accomplished in 3 months. it may take a year at least. Qadaffi's been in power for 40 years.
OF COURSE it's arguable whether it should have been done. But to chalk it up to "idiocy" or "Obama's incompetence" is pure shitheaddery.
BTW Franglo--since you have been in Libya, I would honestly appreciate your view of the situation--I spent one year among the ragheads and that was enough to convince me they should all be exterminated, but I am a live and let live kind of guy
So seriously--whats your take on Libya--and, as a matter of interest do you speak and write arabic?
"We aren't even IN Libya! Not a single soldier there!"
Hmmm.
There are no US tanks in Bagdad!
Well franglo, if you have such wonderful justifications for Obama, why won't HE make them? Because he's a coward and a fool who is in way over his head and knows that Congress would laugh his stupid little mini-war out of existence (or worse for Obama, insist that we fight to achieve a tangible goal).
New DNC platform plank: "Illegal" wars to slaughter brown-skinned people in the dark of night are awesome!!!
we have TOTAL air superiority in Libya
-We aren't even IN Libya! Not a single soldier there!
Given that our UN mission was to create a "no fly zone" time to declare mission accomplished and come home.
There may be no soldiers, but there sure have been Marines on the ground, and if the operators arn't soldiers, its because they've been sheep-dipped by the CIA.
That is another of our beefs with O'bama. When a President sends US forces into war, and the sophistry of calling it Kinetic action just reeks, those of us who have worn our country's uniform, expect the President to sit in the Oval Office and explain early and directly what the reason for the deployment and the objectives of the action. The go to Congress and explain as well. To put troops in harms way without that is just plain wrong...
Lincolntf said...
add the plank on:
Kinetic Actions for Oil :)
Qadaffy won't last forever and when he goes we'll have a new ally in north africa we can buy oil from.
Yes. Libya, like all of the newly emerging "democracies", will be pro-US. (And stable! And ethically governed! And ruled by logic rather than passion! And there will be unicorns! And oil-for-America!)
They like us! They really, really like us!!
Mhmm. Sure.
It's funny, I wonder if any of you were at the marches against the war in 2003? No? Maybe your feet hurt that day? Wait, what? You supported the war and the president then? That's so interesting.
Franglo, you bring up a good point (though I'm not sure "did you march in the street" is the best measure for opposition to a war.)
And yes there was a lot of Republican support for the war in Iraq, not 100%, but a lot.
but if your point is that support of a war is a partisan issue, your personal example isn't very good.
Why aren't you marching in the street against the efforts in Libya as you (presumably did) with the war in Iraq. I mean you're not suggesting that Saddam Hussein did not kill his own people or that the lack of American intervention (after Gulf War 1) would not lead to severe retribution (which it did) or that there wasn't multi-national support for opposing Hussein etc.
I wouldn't expect you to be pro-war or pro-foreign intervention.
I would just expect you to be
CONSISTENT
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा