Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
Jon Stewart's complete interview with Susan Rice for Feb. 14, 2013 (VIDEO)
Don't think Jon did a particularly great job with the interview (nor did he do a sucky job either), as...and this has been the key to me in the whole Benghazi mess...Susan Rice was never in the chain of command in regards to decision-making when it came to Benghazi, for good or for ill.
She was invited on Television because if you can get the most visible Foreign Policy expert on your TeeVee Show (the Secretary of State), you get the second most visible Foreign Policy expert to be on your TeeVee show (that'd be the United Nations Ambassador).
So...why are we still asking her questions??
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
She was invited on Television because if you can get the most visible Foreign Policy expert on your TeeVee Show (the Secretary of State), you get the second most visible Foreign Policy expert to be on your TeeVee show (that'd be the United Nations Ambassador).
So...why are we still asking her questions??
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Good-for-nothing Sen. Ron Johnson's awful-terrible-no-good week... (VIDEO)
Wisconsin, you should be embarrassed. Not at him, but yourselves for allowing this clown anywhere near a major legislature, State or Federal.
First, Hillary smacked him around:
And then John Kerry followed up today:
First, Hillary smacked him around:
And then John Kerry followed up today:
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The President's appearance on the Tonight Show (VIDEO)
Which I forgot to DVR last night, so here we go. (And be prepared for a lot of commericals)...
Here's the cold open, which was funny in a...ehhh, Jay Leno way (but made its point):
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Here's the cold open, which was funny in a...ehhh, Jay Leno way (but made its point):
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The quick video of Hillary learning of Gaddafi's capture (which eventually led to his death) (VIDEO)
I never though I'd say it, and it cannot be said enough: Hillary Clinton is going down as one of the great Secretaries of State in our history.
The Initial BBC Timeline of Gaddafi's death...
This is the kind of reporting I like: raw. It still hasn't been filtered or formed.. The Editors and Producers haven't gotten ahold of it to shape it and change it (usually for the worse). It's basically as close to reporters notes as you can get.
Thus, I present to you this from the BBC:
A fairly graphic video of Gaddafi being drug out of that sewer can be found here.
Thus, I present to you this from the BBC:
In the last fortnight, National Transitional Council (NTC) forces mounted a major offensive against the city and succeeded in pushing Gaddafi loyalists back towards the sea.
The last significant pocket of resistance was reported to be in District 2, in the north-west of the city.
In the early hours of Thursday it appears that some pro-Gaddafi forces attempted to break out.
An armoured convoy of vehicles, which according to some reports contained key Gaddafi loyalists and his son, Mutassim Gaddafi, attempted to fight their way through NTC lines.
It is not clear whether Col Gaddafi himself was part of this convoy or whether the convoy itself formed part of a wider diversionary plan to allow him to slip away.
Air strike
At around 0630 GMT Nato aircraft are reported to have attacked the convoy, according to Daily Telegraph reporter Ben Farmer approximately 3-4 km west of the city.
There are some reports that Col Gaddafi was then initially captured, with serious injuries, at around noon on Thursday.
Pictures circulated by Agence France-Presse showed a large concrete pipe in which the deposed leader apparently took refuge.
Arabic graffiti above the pipe reads: "This is the place of Gaddafi, the rat... God is the greatest."
A fighter loyal to Libya's interim authorities told the BBC he found Gaddafi hiding in a hole and the former leader begged him not to shoot. The fighter brandished a golden pistol he said he took from Col Gaddafi.
A man claiming to be an eyewitness told the BBC that he saw Col Gaddafi being shot with a 9mm gun in the abdomen at around 1230 local time.
A fairly graphic video of Gaddafi being drug out of that sewer can be found here.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Leading from behind, or the World Police turning into the World Police Chief?
An interesting thought from Zack Beauchamp (writing for the vacationing Andrew Sullivan):
Police forces aren't made up of one member. There's a chief, sure, but there are also detectives and uniformed officers who work with the chief. The chief guides their efforts, but each of them works on their own towards the general goal of enforcing the law.
It's better to think of the U.S. as the global police chief rather than sole policeman. We may be the strongest of our allies, but by no means do we take lead role in solving every problem. American allies work like detectives: they conduct crucial operations in support of the general task of keeping the global peace and creating a better world.
Libya demonstrates how the police chief system works. After the initial phase designed to halt Qaddafi's move into Benghazi, American forces played only a supporting role, letting NATO allies take the lead. Though our contributions (especially in terms of high-tech capabilities) were invaluable, no one would say American forces were doing most of the legwork.
That's the essence of "leading from behind:" convincing other states to shoulder some of the burden of creating a just international order. The U.S. provides limited help in areas where it has a significant advantage, but it outsources lead responsibilities to allies whenever possible. U.S. influence is exercised indirectly through bilateral contacts between states, mulitlateral organizations like NATO and the U.N., transnational networks, and "soft power" ideological and cultural means of influence. The idea is to limit U.S. involvement in order to husband the resources that America needs to lead in the first place.
Ultimately, that's why neoconservative critics of Obama's "weakness" and realist critics of American "empire" both get it wrong. "Leading from behind" isn't about abandoning American leadership - it's about exercising in a manner that's not completely self-defeating. Being a global policeman doesn't mean "wars all the time everywhere!" - it means enlisting allies to help us with global governance. Yes, that occasionally means military intervention by the U.S. and/or allies when the intervention in question passes basic just war theory tests, but doesn't mean the hallmark of the international order is perpetual use of military force. And our allies aren't limited to Old Europe - the U.S. can, with skillful diplomacy, work with rising states like India, which has demonstrated its commitment to global governance through its significant contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations.
International police work is important. Not only is it morally required for rich, powerful states, but it's good for them in the long run by limiting dangerous instability. Luckily, Americans don't have to conduct every patrol on their own.
Turns out that the President in charge while Qaddafi fell had nothing to do with Qaddafi falling...if you ask the GOP
Mea Culpa, I was wrong when I wrote this back in March:
Nope! Congressional Republicans (rather Republicans in general) aren't lining up to take credit. They're lining up to airbrush the President out of the decision.
Adam Serwer:
Fred Kaplan:
Thomas Lane (TPM):
And finally, Steve Benen, really nailing it:
One of the things that annoys me about all the Congressional demands in this matter, is that it's not about process, it's about C.Y.A., covering (your...or in this case their) ass. They're only questioning it now because the outcome is uncertain, but you can bet your ass that if the Libyan mission comes off successfully (definition of success, TBD), Congress-critters and Senators will be lining up to take credit.
Nope! Congressional Republicans (rather Republicans in general) aren't lining up to take credit. They're lining up to airbrush the President out of the decision.
Adam Serwer:
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, among the earliest voices calling for intervention in Libya, wasted little time in congratulating the rebels and slamming Obama for not intervening earlier:
The end of the Qadaffi regime in Libya is a victory for the Libyan people and for the broader cause of freedom in the Middle East and throughout the world. This achievement was made possible first and foremost by the struggle and sacrifice of countless Libyans, whose courage and perseverance we applaud. We also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.
McCain and Graham, both of whom had warm personal interactions with Gaddafi in the past, have now gotten exactly what they wanted from the administration’s decision to intervene. But GOP partisanship demands that they not acknowledge the president’s role in assembling the global coalition that aided the rebels. Indeed, with the Republican Party wedded to a contradictory image of the president as foreign policy weakling and iron-fisted domestic dictator, we’re going to see a lot of bizarre rationalizing of what happened in an attempt to preserve this narrative of the Obama presidency.
Fred Kaplan:
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a truly obnoxious statement today, congratulating "our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict," adding, almost as an afterthought, "Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."
Second, if a pair of prominent Democrats had issued such a statement after, say, President George W. Bush helped to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan, they would have been condemned as bitter partisans or worse.
Thomas Lane (TPM):
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. "Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing," he wrote. "But this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph."
...
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who condemned the Libya action from the start, issued a statement acknowledging this disagreement:
"I opposed U.S. military involvement in Libya and I am hopeful that our intervention there is about to end. I also hope the progress of events in Libya will ultimately lead to a government that honors the rule of law, respects the people of Libya and their yearning for freedom, and one that will be a good partner to the United States and the international community."
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman had also opposed getting involved in the conflict. His press release failed to mention either that or the President:
"The impending fall of Colonel Gaddafi is one chapter in the developing story of a nation in turmoil. Gaddafi has been a longtime opponent of freedom, and I am hopeful -- as the whole world should be -- that his defeat is a step toward openness, democracy and human rights for a people who greatly deserve it."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry strove for a far-sighted, statesmanlike tone:
"The crumbling of Muammar Ghadafi's reign, a violent, repressive dictatorship with a history of terrorism, is cause for cautious celebration. The lasting impact of events in Libya will depend on ensuring rebel factions form a unified, civil government that guarantees personal freedoms, and builds a new relationship with the West where we are allies instead of adversaries."
The most substantive response was perhaps that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, as befits the man who is still the GOP's frontrunner. He turned attention back to the still-oozing wound of the Lockerbie bomber, and demanded the new government extradite him (presumably to America since the Scottish government has already -- controversially -- freed him).
Still, that too contained no mention of President Obama. Just as the partisan approach to the death of bin Laden seems to be to claim the root cause (and thus praise) goes back to President George W. Bush, one wonders whether a similar thing is happening here... and just how long it will be before we're told Qaddafi's fall is all the result of the prior President's ingenious long-term thinking.
And finally, Steve Benen, really nailing it:
Remember hearing about the “blame America first” crowd? Well, say hello to the “thank America last” crowd.
McCain and Graham “commend” everyone except the United States military, and then, even while applauding the developments, take yet another shot at the Obama administration.
These two just can’t bring themselves put aside petty partisan sniping, even when they’re thrilled by the fall of a dictator.
There’s obviously a legitimate question as to whether the international offensive in Libya was a wise decision. But as the Gaddafi regime crumbles, do the conflict’s two biggest congressional cheerleaders really feel the need to complain, “Yeah, but we’re not happy with the speed with which Obama got the job done”?
Here are three things I’d encourage McCain and Graham to keep in mind. First, complaining about getting the outcome they wanted is just cheap. When the fear of Obama getting some credit for success is stronger than the satisfaction that comes with a tyrant’s fall, there’s a problem.
Second, the fact of the matter is, the efforts of U.S. forces in Libya are being cited as “a major factor in helping to tilt the balance after months of steady erosion of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s military.”
And third, if McCain and Graham really want to complain about why “this success was so long in coming,” maybe they can talk more about their trip to Tripoli two years ago, when both McCain and Graham cozied up to Gaddafi, even visiting with him at the dictator’s home, discussing delivery of American military equipment to the Libyan regime. Both senators shook Gaddafi’s hand; McCain even bowed a little.
I’m curious if McCain and Graham have simply forgotten about this, or if they’re just hoping everyone else has.
MSNBC: The President's address on the Libyan Situation (VIDEO)
For some reason, we've been waiting for hours now for the White House to release this video, and only now are we able to get it from MSNBC:
Friday, April 1, 2011
Juan Cole explains how things are going better than you think in Libya...
..and that a political solution may be coming...from inside Libya:
Like with Tunisia, Egypt and Iran (eventually), the lack of hands-on American involvement is actually a good thing. Give the Rebels a fighting chance to do it themselves. Don't arm the rebels...why? Because once you hand one of your allies a gun, that gun don't magically disappear when the mission is over. Guns don't melt into the sand by force of will. Guns, history has shown, tend to stick around. Anyone can pick up that thing, and possibly use it against you (see: Bin-Laden, Usama).
Keep Qaddafi weak. Give the Rebels their chance. Let the tribes finish him off. It won't happen overnight oh ye of convenient short-term memory loss, but it will happen.
UPDATE: 11:10am Pacific: Thomas Ricks has a quick column on why the U.S. arming the rebels is a bad idea, and I'd like to post a reminder that the Administration hasn't made up its mind yet, and it's pretty unlikely to do so as of this morning.
...the significance of [Libyan Foreign Minister] Kussa’s defection lies in its being a sign of the winds shifting against Qaddafi with his inner circle, which will affect the loyalty of his outer circle of tribal leaders. Many key members of the powerful Warfalla and Megarha tribes have already declared against Qaddafi, and Firjan and others are wavering. Tribes as loose systems of kinship politics, are volatile and fluid, and their allegiances can change rapidly. (Americans might remember that many members of the Dulaim tribe in Iraq fought tooth and nail against US troops in 2004-2005 but by 2006-2007 many were joining pro-American militias, the ‘Sons of Iraq.’) The tribes could turn on Qaddafi in a second, aside from his own and a few loyalists.
In announcing the end of US bombing raids in Libya, Gates “noted that the air attacks are a central feature of the overall military strategy; over time they could degrade Gadhafi’s firepower to a point that he would be unable to put down a renewed uprising by opposition forces…”
That is, Gates hopes that over time, Col. Muammar Qaddafi will simply have fewer and fewer tanks, artillery pieces, and armored vehicles. He has already lost the ability to bomb Benghazi and other cities from the air.
Gates’s premise seems to be that most Libyans don’t want to be under Qaddafi’s rule, and that the only way he subdued Zuara, Zawiya, Tajoura, Ra’s Lanuf, and other cities that had thrown him off was by main force. When his main force is subjected to sufficient attrition, his advantage will suddenly disappear and the opposition to him of the liberation movement will suddenly cascade. I don’t personally think that this cascade requires military means. It happened once largely peacefully, as in Egypt in Tunisia, and can happen again if Qaddafi’s heavy weapons can be neutralized.
People who want the attrition of Qaddafi’s forces to be visited in only a week or two are just being unrealistic. It would happen over weeks and maybe months.
In the meantime, the UN allies (NATO and the Arab League) have as their most urgent mission the protection of Benghazi from any major attack, which can be done aerially.
What bad thing would happen if NATO and the Arab League just proceed deliberately and with patience?
Impatience makes for bad policy. Those who urge Western military troops the ground are making a huge error– that development would never be acceptable to most of the Libyan people nor to the Arab League, nor to the majority on the UN Security Council.
Others of the tribe of the impatient want to put sophisticated weapons in rebel hands. Those who think the US or NATO should arm the rebels, however, are simply paving the way for a civil war and for a long-term cycle of violence. Having a rebel army conquer reluctant cities like Sirt, which still support Qaddafi in the main, is undesirable. Let pro-Qaddafi cities alone. The main task should be to protect the anti-Qaddafi populace from his attacks.
NATO agrees. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday that his organization differs with those who have suggested that UNSC Resolution 1973 allows the arming of the rebels.
Like with Tunisia, Egypt and Iran (eventually), the lack of hands-on American involvement is actually a good thing. Give the Rebels a fighting chance to do it themselves. Don't arm the rebels...why? Because once you hand one of your allies a gun, that gun don't magically disappear when the mission is over. Guns don't melt into the sand by force of will. Guns, history has shown, tend to stick around. Anyone can pick up that thing, and possibly use it against you (see: Bin-Laden, Usama).
Keep Qaddafi weak. Give the Rebels their chance. Let the tribes finish him off. It won't happen overnight oh ye of convenient short-term memory loss, but it will happen.
UPDATE: 11:10am Pacific: Thomas Ricks has a quick column on why the U.S. arming the rebels is a bad idea, and I'd like to post a reminder that the Administration hasn't made up its mind yet, and it's pretty unlikely to do so as of this morning.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Mighty Eagle saves the day once again... (VIDEO)
I'm afraid you're going to have to be into Angry Birds to get all the references to this, but its still pretty funny. Even though the ending suggested by the piece is stlll TBD
I myself have yet to purchase the Mighty Eagle, but looking at this, maybe its worth the extra 99 cents.
I myself have yet to purchase the Mighty Eagle, but looking at this, maybe its worth the extra 99 cents.
Busy Night Last Night (Part 3: Anthony Weiner calls bull@#$% on Dennis Kucinich) (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
For the record, I too, have called bull@#$% on Dennis Kucinich before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)