Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second Rule

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22465
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second Rule

Post by Mr Bean »

Don't have a TV show anymore and a major thing is going down?

Screw you! I've still got a blog says one Keith Olbermann

FOK's News
Internets wrote:Special Comment: Libya, Obama, and the Five-Second Rule
Posted on March 23, 2011

We all know “the five second rule.” Drop food on the floor and if you pick it up before that span of time elapses, and it’ll still be “good.” There is also a life-and-death version of this: the five-day rule, by which we have surrendered to any U.S. President the right to kill people in our name, provided he only does it for a couple of days.

I’m not defending this policy, I am simply stating that at some point in the last 60 years it has been established. And from the Bay of Pigs, to Reagan’s Trophy War in Granada, to President Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, to President Clinton’s bombing of Sudan, to President Clinton’s bombing of Libya — “the horse of undeclared war” has pretty much left the barn.

Nevertheless. After that Imperial period of a few days, a President – this one included – is required to either call it off, or justify why it must continue, or maybe even follow the Constitution and get approval from Congress by explaining the threat to this country that rationalizes the continuing action. Especially when we now have American pilots bailing out over hostile territory.

Not only have not yet we gotten this from President Obama about Libya, but five days into our involvement in bombing, what we are getting is a series of extraordinarily mixed messages. And none could be more stark than what he said, compared to what his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said:

From the President, Monday — quoting: “It is U-S Policy that Qaddafi needs to go.”

From the Chairman, Sunday — quoting. “It’s not about seeing him go,” unquote. He added that the mission might be accomplished even if Qaddafi stays in power.

And from the President’s War Powers letter to Congress… quoting: “United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas.”

So. This is about making sure Qaddafi goes. Except, it’s not about making sure he goes. Except it’s about making sure he can’t attack his own civilians.

If, Mr. President, you some day want to announce “Mission Accomplished” about this, there is no easier route than to identify two mutually exclusive outcomes as the Mission.

I wish the conflict in goals ended there, but it does not.

Your War Powers Message also included the news that “we will seek a rapid, but responsible transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives…”

Except this seems to be news to those “coalition, regional, or international organizations.” The British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, said responsibility would be transferred to NATO. The French Foreign Minister, M’sieu Juppe, said the Arab League would not accept control of the operation being given to NATO. But Turkey opposed the use of force by NATO and was promptly excluded from a NATO meeting to plan that use of force. In case the situation is not confused enough, the Turkish Prime Minister Mr. Erdogan said Turkey did not object to NATO’s participation, providing the organization could assure him the action would be brief and there would be no occupation – which simply seems to send us right back to where we were earlier with the “five-second rule” of when and for how long it’s ok to kill people.

The metaphorical five seconds has expired, Mr. President. We are not clear why we are fighting, who exactly we are fighting with, who the ‘rebels’ are that we’re fighting for, what a No-Fly Zone accomplishes with a dictator who has ground troops, how long we are to be there, to whom we are to “hand-off,” and why, Sir, if we are intervening on behalf of civilians at risk, why we did not do so in Egypt, why we are not doing so in places like Bahrain, and – if the local government were to somehow screw-up the containment at the Dai-Ichi nuclear plant, if this new doctrine would somehow permit us to go in and try to take over Japan.

The longer we go, President Obama, without a clear and compelling argument for why we are doing whatever we are doing, and how soon you are going to stop doing it, the more room there will be for explanations such as those provided by Congressman Ed Markey, and by the Dictator Qaddafi himself.

The latter, Mr. President, said “We will not leave our oil to America or France or Britain or the enemy Christian states that are aligned now against us.” The Brookings Institution helpfully translated this phrase tersely. It means either he intends to blow up Libya’s oil infra-structure, or he intends to wait us out, and then if he prevails, to give all his nation’s oil business to countries who stayed out of this, like, say…China.

The less crazy summary of this came from Congressman Markey. Seven words: Quote: “We are in Libya because of oil.”

This, Mr. President, is not the impression you want to leave with the people of this country.

Mike Lupica in the New York Daily News – of all of those people – just recounted the story of how a previous President vowed to handle Qaddafi after a previous external outrage – and at just about the same time of year. He bombed Tripoli, then went off to throw out a first pitch at the opening game of the baseball season. One of the players at the game told that President that he was worried about Qaddafi and the Libyans. That President told the athlete not to be worried. He supposedly pointed to the bench in the dugout and said of Qaddafi, quote, “We ought to nail his (privates) to that log over there and push him over.”

That President was Ronald Reagan, and this was after the Berlin Disco bombing, and thus the 25th anniversary of empty, vague, and unfulfilled threats against Qaddafi happens next month. Qaddafi has outlasted four presidents, going so far as to con the last of them, George W. Bush, into actually saying that Qaddafi had ‘renounced terrorism’ and merited immunity from the lawsuits over the Lockerbie bombing, plus a visit from Condi Rice, and the home version of the “Play the U.S. like a two-dollar banjo” Game.

Now — as ever — Libya is enticing yet a fifth U-S President to try to have his cake and eat it, too – before he drops it and the five-second rule applies. He will not commit to war, he will stand as far back from war-like actions as he can, and he believes it’s about Qaddafi “going” while his Joint Chiefs Chair says it isn’t.

Chairman Mullen said something else which kind of sums this quagmire up. Quoting again: “The goals are limited.” This is the fifth Administration for which that’s been true. Once again, it’s just too bad that we don’t really know…. what the goals are.

Mr. President, it’s time you made those goals clear… and then let us decide whether or not we agree with you.
The main takeaway is this, hey if your the America President your totally allowed to bomb foreign countries on your own will alone as long as you only bomb them for a few days. Back in the day bombing of a foreign country was typically considered an "act of war" and aside from Dictators I don't know of any current world leaders who could bomb a foreign nation on their own willpower without having to consult their parliament.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by MKSheppard »

I'll give keefums credit -- he's not being totally hypocritical, unlike a lot of other liberals, who saw the Iraq war as just a handy way to delegimitize the Bush presidency.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by Simon_Jester »

Speaking for myself, I criticize the Iraq War not for being illegitimate, but for being a waste of blood- a way to get a lot of people killed, in very expensive ways, when they didn't urgently need killing.

I imagine a lot of other non-cartoon liberals feel the same way.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
TheHammer
Jedi Master
Posts: 1472
Joined: 2011-02-15 04:16pm

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by TheHammer »

Honestly, I don't understand why I keep hearing people say they "don't understand what we're doing". And that there are "mixed messages".

So I'm going to break it down:
From the President, Monday — quoting: “It is U-S Policy that Qaddafi needs to go.”
Correct, it is US policy that Qaddafi needs to go. We were putting pressure on him via sanctions, etc. As well as by encouraging the opposition.
From the Chairman, Sunday — quoting. “It’s not about seeing him go,” unquote. He added that the mission might be accomplished even if Qaddafi stays in power.
Correct, it is NOT the military's mission to defeat Qaddafi. If it was, then we'd have a much bigger investment, and bigger responsibility. The Military's mission was to prevent the advance of Qaddafi forces, to stop him from steam rolling civilians and using their guts to grease the treads of his tanks.
And from the President’s War Powers letter to Congress… quoting: “United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas.”

So. This is about making sure Qaddafi goes. Except, it’s not about making sure he goes. Except it’s about making sure he can’t attack his own civilians.
To Keith and anyone else who doesn't get it, there are TWO seperate "missions" going on. One of them Military, one of them foreign policy.

The military mission is about making sure Qaddafi can't attack his own civilians. This mission can be accomplished without removing Qaddafi.

The foreign policy mission is about making sure he leaves, but not via US Military invasion - No occupation by US forces such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead Obama is utilizing his original plan of sanctions from the international community, along with internal actions by the Libyan people to pressure Qaddafi into leaving.

Those goals do not conflict.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22465
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by Mr Bean »

TheHammer wrote:
The military mission is about making sure Qaddafi can't attack his own civilians. This mission can be accomplished without removing Qaddafi.
Bwhahahha! Seriously?
Please explain to me how "TheHammer" how we can prevent Qaddafi from murdering his own civilians in job lots for the past thirty years under real or fake proof that they were conspiring against him via blowing up his tanks and shooting down his airforce?

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
TheHammer
Jedi Master
Posts: 1472
Joined: 2011-02-15 04:16pm

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by TheHammer »

Mr Bean wrote:
TheHammer wrote:
The military mission is about making sure Qaddafi can't attack his own civilians. This mission can be accomplished without removing Qaddafi.
Bwhahahha! Seriously?
Please explain to me how "TheHammer" how we can prevent Qaddafi from murdering his own civilians in job lots for the past thirty years under real or fake proof that they were conspiring against him via blowing up his tanks and shooting down his airforce?
Time travel?

The point I'm trying to make, is that the military mission isn't so much to win through direct military force, rather its to prevent Qaddafi from winning through military force.

Obama would much rather this thing play out by a combination of sanctions, international pressure, and the opposition toppling Qaddafi. But that wouldn't have happened if he'd been allowed to steam roll everyone in his country who openly opposed him.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by Simon_Jester »

Let me see if I understand Hammer.

If I get what he's saying, his argument is that, while the US military is perfectly willing to blow up everything Gaddafi owns with an internal combustion engine, they aren't going to physically evict him from his palace at bayonet-point. And thus, "evict Gaddafi" is not actually one of their objectives; blowing up his tanks is.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
TheHammer
Jedi Master
Posts: 1472
Joined: 2011-02-15 04:16pm

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by TheHammer »

I'm saying the military objective is not to remove Qaddafi, at least not directly. We want the opposition to do that. Or his own military in a coup. If we remove Qaddafis advantages in air power and armor then we make that more viable to happen, while not entangling the United States in another nation building effort. To put a different spin on an old Colon Powell quote, "We don't want to own the place" when the dust settles.
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

MKSheppard wrote:I'll give keefums credit -- he's not being totally hypocritical, unlike a lot of other liberals, who saw the Iraq war as just a handy way to delegimitize the Bush presidency.
Turns out lying about WMDs that don't exist, thus dragging thousands of troopers to die for a lie, is pretty much more illegitimate than getting a dick sucked in the Oval Office? Or maybe the gun is good and the penis is evil, so lying and getting people shot and killed is still good, but lying about cocks is bad?

Turns out Obamamang and the rest of the world also went "blah blah blah, Libyan people, blah blah blah Gaddaffi". Maybe the Obama presidency can be deligmitized if it turns out the Libyan people don't exist, or Gaddaffi wasn't real, just like Iraq's WMDs? lolwhoknewamiright? :lol:
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7583
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by PainRack »

I seriously don't understand how anyone can cry foul over Libya being an illegal war on the scale of Iraq. Or afghanistan even.

The colonel was actively killing his people, including sending in foreign press-ganged mercenaries. He had a popular revolution against him that was legitimised by defecting members of the military and civilian ministers. They controlled large swathes of the country that was being reoccupied by Gadaffi with his military force and more importantly, in the process of doing so, large numbers of Libyans are being massacared.

The international community, the local opposition movement has all wished for and requested and endorsed a no-fly zone including air and missile strikes. What they STOP at is C&C and ground invasion.

How on god green earth is this comparable to Iraq? Afghanistan, yeah, I can see the similarities there but the difference is that the level of support the US had going into afghanistan was MUCH greater.


What are you going to do? Claim that there was no coup against a dictator? Or huge amount of violent force wasn't being used?

Is it about oil? So....... every single datum of US foreign policy for the last 20 years have been about oil, trade and money. What's the diff?
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by Vympel »

I seriously don't understand how anyone can cry foul over Libya being an illegal war on the scale of Iraq. Or afghanistan even.

The colonel was actively killing his people, including sending in foreign press-ganged mercenaries. He had a popular revolution against him that was legitimised by defecting members of the military and civilian ministers. They controlled large swathes of the country that was being reoccupied by Gadaffi with his military force and more importantly, in the process of doing so, large numbers of Libyans are being massacared.
Lots of dictators actively kill their own people, its nothing new. I'm firmly of the view that Libya is none of anyone's damn business but the Libyans. Indeed, the whole "killing his own people" thing bothers the shit out of me. It's a full blown civil war, for fuck's sake.

Oh well - another pointless war, more money wasted that nobody has. Yay.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7583
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by PainRack »

TheHammer wrote:I'm saying the military objective is not to remove Qaddafi, at least not directly. We want the opposition to do that. Or his own military in a coup. If we remove Qaddafis advantages in air power and armor then we make that more viable to happen, while not entangling the United States in another nation building effort. To put a different spin on an old Colon Powell quote, "We don't want to own the place" when the dust settles.
Or just another spin on American isolationist style to nation building. We blow up the opposition, give you aid and relief supplies, hold an election and presto! Mission accomplished
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7583
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by PainRack »

Vympel wrote: Lots of dictators actively kill their own people, its nothing new. I'm firmly of the view that Libya is none of anyone's damn business but the Libyans. Indeed, the whole "killing his own people" thing bothers the shit out of me. It's a full blown civil war, for fuck's sake.

Oh well - another pointless war, more money wasted that nobody has. Yay.
So, that's attacking the justification for involving oneself in Libya.

That has absolutely nothing to do with dubious comparison between Libya and Iraq.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by Vympel »

PainRack wrote: That has absolutely nothing to do with dubious comparison between Libya and Iraq.
Its purely a question of scale. On that basis, its clearly not "as bad" as Iraq, but its just as much of a pointless military adventure that will waste blood and treasure.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
TheHammer
Jedi Master
Posts: 1472
Joined: 2011-02-15 04:16pm

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by TheHammer »

Vympel wrote:
PainRack wrote: That has absolutely nothing to do with dubious comparison between Libya and Iraq.
Its purely a question of scale. On that basis, its clearly not "as bad" as Iraq, but its just as much of a pointless military adventure that will waste blood and treasure.
I'd classify Vietnam as a "pointless military adventure", because in the end it was all wasted effort. But I'd say that regardless of the reasons and legitimacy by which the US went into Iraq, you can at least agree that things have significantly changed in that country. It seems to me to be on the right track at this point, not that it doesn't still have a long way to go.
User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7583
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Re: Keith Special Comment Libya, Obama and the Five-Second R

Post by PainRack »

Vympel wrote: Its purely a question of scale. On that basis, its clearly not "as bad" as Iraq, but its just as much of a pointless military adventure that will waste blood and treasure.
So, what would qualify as a justfiable operation other than war?
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Post Reply