"Score another one for U.S. Special Operations..." (VIDEO)

Once again, Navy SEALS...absolutely BADASS!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You're welcome, Denmark!

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 President's statement on Gaddafi's death... (VIDEO)

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:

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.

President Obama's salute to the people of Libya (VIDEO)

Just for laughs, how did Libya look back in March, with lots and lots of (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

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:

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:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Matthews on the Michelle Bachmann cover...(VIDEO)

The key part to me is about 5 minutes in, where Chris just tees off on Bachmann on her statement about slavery from a couple months back.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Missed Stories: Lara Logan's Interview on 60 Minutes (VIDEO)

One of the things President Obama mentioned in his speech about his long-form Birth Certificate, was the fact that the Media gets us all distracted on things (like his birth certificate) that we don't need to get distracted on.

Unfortunately, sometimes other, actually relevant events can swamp aside other, equally important stories.

One of those unfortunate circumstances took place during Sunday's announcement of the death of Osama Bin Laden. We lost track of Lara Logan's interview talking about her sexual assault while working on the Egyptian Uprising Story for CBS.

This is one of those instances for a woman in Ms. Logan's position, that's both hard and necessary. To have to relive that order is hard, but to share that experience with the world, on a major news telecast, is necessary because it helps chip away at the stigma that seems to still exist about these crimes. Still, she got up in front the camera, and broke that code of silence. I don't even know Ms. Logan, but I'm proud of her for doing this.

It's a damn shame that a proper discussion of what she said was swept aside. Well, at least here, you have a chance to see the interview in case you missed it:



And 60 Minutes Overtime:

Juan Cole explains how things are going better than you think in Libya...

..and that a political solution may be coming...from inside Libya:

...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.

Diane Sawyer's Interview with President Obama - March 29, 2011 (VIDEO)

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.

Busy Night Last Night (Part 4: Lawrence and Rachel hash it out) (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

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.

Busy Night Last Night (Part 2: Maddow discovers President being consistent) (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Busy Night Last Night (Part 1: Jon Stewart's Interview with Mansour O. El-Kikhia) (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mansour O. El-Kikhia
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The President's Speech on Libya at the National Defense University of March 28, 2011 (VIDEO)

Thomas Ricks (from Obama on Libya: Watch out, Saudi Arabia):

That's what I thought as I watched President Obama's speech on Libya. It reminded me that about three years ago, when I read a transcript of an interview Fareed Zakaria did about foreign affairs with Barack Obama, then running for the Democratic presidential nomination. The message I took away from that exchange was that if this guy is elected, he will have little time for dictators, despots and the like.

What we saw in the NDU speech was a logical defense of what the president has ordered the military to do and an exposition of what the limits of the action will be. The cost of inaction threatened to be greater than the cost of action, but now we have done our part. Next role for the U.S. military is best supporting actor, providing electronic jammers, combat search and rescue, logistics and intelligence. That was all necessary, and pretty much as expected.

But I was most struck by the last few minutes of the speech, when Obama sought to put the Libyan intervention in the context of the regional Arab uprising. He firmly embraced the forces of change, saying that history is on their side, not on the side of the oppressors.

Andrew Sullivan (from "America Is Different"):

That, it seems to me, was the core message of the president's speech on Libya. America is simply incapable of watching a slaughter take place - anywhere in the world - and not move to do what we can to prevent it. It is against our nature to let evil triumph in such a fashion. The Libyan example was particularly vital because a rare constellation of forces came together to make turning away even harder: European and Arab support for preventing mass murder; UN permission; America's "unique" capabilities; and an imminent massacre in Benghazi.

Obama the Niebuhrian put the moral in realism. Yes, we could not do this everywhere all the time; but we could do this when we did; and that was good enough. There was some sleight of hand here. Citing the UN Resolution as an external reason for war - when the US lobbied hard for it - was a touch too neat. But essentially Obama was challenging those of us who opposed this decision to ask ourselves: well, what would you do? If the US had insisted on looking away, America would have seemed morally callous, even compared with the French. The mass graves of Benghazi would take their place alongside the horrors of Srebrenica. And the impact on Arab opinion, especially on the younger generation that is so key to the future, would be fatal to America's long term interests.

I do not know whether the last is actually the case, or whether most young Arabs are understandably focused on the regimes they labor under rather than the murderous nutter in the North African desert. But secretary of state Clinton was in the region at the time and believed otherwise. And, yes, one appreciates that doing nothing represented a choice as well as doing something. And it too would have had unknowable consequences.

Was I persuaded? Not completely. The major objection - what happens now? - was not answered affirmatively by the president. It was answered negatively: there would be no military effort at regime change, as in Iraq; NATO, not the US, would soon be leading the mission; and, er, it may last a while. It is way too soon to celebrate a new model of international cooperation; but it seems striking to me that the rationale Obama invoked was very much GHW Bush in Kuwait rather than GW Bush in Iraq. That left Saddam in power for more than a decade. And yet Obama spoke as if Qaddafi's days were obviously numbered. I sure hope they are.

And yet (this from Greg Sargent):

For the past two years, the right has alleged that President Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism, which holds that America plays a unique role in the world, defined by National Review’s Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru as an “exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.”

After Obama’s speech last night justifying the intervention in Libya, anyone who alleges the president doesn’t believe this deserves to be laughed out of town.

Peter Beinart:

Obama’s is a different version of American exceptionalism. For men like Bolton, American virtue is a given. American presidents should never apologize because America never has anything to apologize for. Our mistakes are never crimes, and if others don’t see our moral greatness that just proves their moral cynicism.

Obama, by contrast, because he can see America through post-colonial eyes, knows this is a fable. He knows that in many places on earth, America has abetted dictatorship and corruption and slaughter. In some cases he has apologized, which has led men like Bolton to claim that he sees America as no different from any other great power.

But they don’t get it. For Obama, American exceptionalism is not a fact; it is a struggle. Bolton and company like to invoke World War II and the Cold War because in those conflicts we fought the evil that lay out there. Obama, by contrast, often invokes the civil-rights movement: a struggle against the evil within. That’s what makes his Libya decision powerful. He knows that there are good reasons for Middle Easterners to fear when they see American planes overhead. And yet he is acting to show that it does not have to be that way.

The complete text of the speech can be found here:

The Fireside Chat for March 26th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President says that thanks to our men and women in uniform, the military mission in Libya is succeeding even as responsibility is transferred to our NATO allies and partners.