revelarts
01-28-2012, 11:16 AM
former House Speaker Newton Gingrich
“[e]xercise a no-fly zone this evening” ...then later... “I would not have intervened.”
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/03/23/newt-gingrich-for-libyan-intervention-before-he-was-against-it/#ixzz1klQO5Tpm
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/64beH96LAnE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>
"Gingrich said in his Facebook post that prior to the March 3 statement "there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve this result without United States military forces. … The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement. From the moment of the president’s declaration, he put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line. After March 3, anything short of a successful, public campaign for regime change would have been seen as a defeat for the United States.
"That’s why during a March 7th Greta van Susteren interview, I asserted that the president should establish a no-fly zone ‘this evening.’ After March 3rd, the President should have moved immediately to consult with Congress to implement a no-fly zone, while also making it clear the U.S. would welcome involvement from other nations."
Gingrich concluded the post by reinforcing his support for the mission. "Now that we have U.S. forces engaged, any result less than the removal of Gadhafi from power will be considered a defeat," he said. "For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through."...
....So where does this leave us? Gingrich has a point that Obama’s March 3 declaration about Gadhafi had consequences, and if Gingrich had provided that context of his thinking in both interviews, he could have made a reasonable argument that the two statements were consistent. However, Gingrich didn’t clarify his comments in that way until after he started taking heat for having flip-flopped. Because he didn’t, we give him a Full Flop.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/24/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-accused-flip-flop-libyan-no-fly-zone/
Mitt Romney
"Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said on the Hugh Hewitt Show (http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/03/21/hugh-hewitt-asks-mitt-romney-about-obamas-libyan-policy-presidential-plans/)Monday that he supports military action in Libya, but criticized the administration's multilateral approach, deferring to European allies and the Arab League before ultimately deciding to use force. Romney also said that he believes Obama should have intervened earlier, but he hasn’t said explicitly that he would have moved unilaterally with military action or what that would have involved....
...
"I support military action in Libya. I support our troops there and the mission that they've been given. But let me also note that thus far, the President has been unable to construct a foreign policy, any foreign policy," Romney said. "And I believe that it flows from his fundamental disbelief in American exceptionalism."
He then referred back to the Lockerbie bombing, not the rebel uprising, as the apparent justification for getting rid of Gaddafi. He suggested he would have moved unilaterally but did not say so explicitly. Nor did he outline the steps that should be followed now to oust the Libyan dictator. Aides said his comments spoke for themselves...."
Rick Santorum
"Senator Santorum supported military intervention into Libya, but opposed the timing and method of President Obama. In March of 2011, Senator Santorum stated that he believed that President Obama had hesitated too much and missed an opportunity to be a positive force in Libya early on in the rebellion when Ghaddaffi's army was on the run and was confused. He added that the situation in Libya was nothing like the one in Iraq or Afghanistan and that the US could simply go in at the tipping point and assist the rebel forces. He stated that the President should have done something to help the rebels other than verbally state that he agreed with their cause.
Senator Santorum continued his criticism of President Obama's policies in the Reagan debate by stating that the President missed an opportunity to be a force for good in Libya by being indecisive.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Libya/
Ron Paul
"As bad as these dictators are ..they don't allow AlQueda and other radicals.
...We may be delivering Libya to AlQueda."
" Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. ...
In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. ...It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. ... This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed....
Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States...
How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. ....
Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas...."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-17/ron-paul-libya-is-not-the-american-peoples-fight/
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tmnr0vcwk4I" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xrRIpx8cKqA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
----------------------------------------------
NEWS
The Arab spring could turn into a fiery Arab summer as a result of NATO actions, the Russian envoy to the alliance says.
*“NATO’s political and military interference in the Arab spring may bring about a ‘hot Arab summer’, with a whole range of consequences for neighboring regions,” Dmitry Rogozin told Interfax ahead of Thursday’s Russia-NATO Council ministerial meeting.
He added that as a result of NATO’s interference, “Sharia law is coming to previously relatively secular states”.
At the December 8 meeting in Brussels, Russia wants to find out “to what extent NATO is aware of the fact that the coming of radical Islam to all the regions where it ‘projected its force’ is a result of its actions”, the envoy insisted.
The diplomat went on to say that during the military operation in Libya, the NATO-led international coalition “revamped” the relevant UN Security Council resolution.
"It said: no bombing – and they were bombing. It said: no arms deliveries to any party – and they were delivering arms. It said: no land operation – and they conducted special forces operations. It said: do not intervene in the domestic political situation – and they changed it,” Rogozin stressed.
The Russian envoy to NATO also pointed out that Moscow “insists on confirming the basic principles of international law” and wants NATO to “return to the legal field and recognize its subordinate role to the United Nations”.
-----
....Despite the changes sweeping Libya, violence and bloodshed have not stopped. In shocking revelations, military and security forces stand accused of torturing detainees to death. Rights groups say Libya's new rulers have not addressed the problem.
*Amnesty International says in recent weeks, it met with detainees in Tripoli, Misrata and Gharyan who showed visible signs of torture – open wounds to the head, limbs, back and other parts of the body.
"Several detainees have died after being subjected to torture in Libya in recent weeks and months amid widespread torture and ill-treatment of suspected pro-Gaddafi fighters and loyalists," Amnesty said.
"The torture is being carried out by officially recognized military and security entities, as well as by a multitude of armed militias operating outside any legal framework," the statement reads.
Medecins Sans Frontieres has suspended its work (http://rt.com/news/libya-prison-torture-doctors-807/)in Libya’s third-largest city Misrata over similar claims.
The group says it encountered formidable obstacles it could not overcome. Burns from electric shocks and cigarettes, heavy bruising and renal failure – all this, evidence of continuing torture of prisoners, the organization says.
When two more inmates died after beatings, the international group halted its mission in protest.
“Patients were brought to us in the middle of interrogation for medical care, in order to make them fit for further interrogation. This is unacceptable. Our role is to provide medical care to war casualties and sick detainees, not to repeatedly treat the same patients between torture sessions,” the group’s General Director Christopher Stokes said in a statement.
The news comes amidst rising frustration with Libya’s interim government.
Demonstrations in Benghazi last week ended with the resignation of a high-ranking member of the National Transitional Council (NTC).
In the former Gaddafi stronghold of Bani Walid, locals pushed out the NTC’s forces, claiming systematic abuse.
“It started with the very beginning of the rebellion, […] the second day of the rebellion. On the 18th of February, 50 African migrants were rounded up, locked in the detention center and burnt to death. And the NTC expressed their support for this kind of behavior. This is part of the strategy of the West. You know, divide and rule. That was giving the green light to torture and execution – what we are seeing now. This is a clear recipe for civil war,” says Middle East political analyst Dan Glazebrook.
Meanwhile, the behavior of the NATO forces that brought the NTC to power has also raised questions. Last year, a high-profile team of human rights activists went to Libya to investigate alleged international law violations in the country. The group examined the actions of NATO, former government and insurgents.
The Arab Organization for Human Rights together with two other organizations released the final report.
The document suggests “NATO classified civilian sites as military ones for attacks, including homes, schools, colleges.”...
http://rt.com/news/gaddafi-militia-society-unity-893/0
“[e]xercise a no-fly zone this evening” ...then later... “I would not have intervened.”
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/03/23/newt-gingrich-for-libyan-intervention-before-he-was-against-it/#ixzz1klQO5Tpm
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/64beH96LAnE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>
"Gingrich said in his Facebook post that prior to the March 3 statement "there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve this result without United States military forces. … The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement. From the moment of the president’s declaration, he put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line. After March 3, anything short of a successful, public campaign for regime change would have been seen as a defeat for the United States.
"That’s why during a March 7th Greta van Susteren interview, I asserted that the president should establish a no-fly zone ‘this evening.’ After March 3rd, the President should have moved immediately to consult with Congress to implement a no-fly zone, while also making it clear the U.S. would welcome involvement from other nations."
Gingrich concluded the post by reinforcing his support for the mission. "Now that we have U.S. forces engaged, any result less than the removal of Gadhafi from power will be considered a defeat," he said. "For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through."...
....So where does this leave us? Gingrich has a point that Obama’s March 3 declaration about Gadhafi had consequences, and if Gingrich had provided that context of his thinking in both interviews, he could have made a reasonable argument that the two statements were consistent. However, Gingrich didn’t clarify his comments in that way until after he started taking heat for having flip-flopped. Because he didn’t, we give him a Full Flop.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/24/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-accused-flip-flop-libyan-no-fly-zone/
Mitt Romney
"Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said on the Hugh Hewitt Show (http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/03/21/hugh-hewitt-asks-mitt-romney-about-obamas-libyan-policy-presidential-plans/)Monday that he supports military action in Libya, but criticized the administration's multilateral approach, deferring to European allies and the Arab League before ultimately deciding to use force. Romney also said that he believes Obama should have intervened earlier, but he hasn’t said explicitly that he would have moved unilaterally with military action or what that would have involved....
...
"I support military action in Libya. I support our troops there and the mission that they've been given. But let me also note that thus far, the President has been unable to construct a foreign policy, any foreign policy," Romney said. "And I believe that it flows from his fundamental disbelief in American exceptionalism."
He then referred back to the Lockerbie bombing, not the rebel uprising, as the apparent justification for getting rid of Gaddafi. He suggested he would have moved unilaterally but did not say so explicitly. Nor did he outline the steps that should be followed now to oust the Libyan dictator. Aides said his comments spoke for themselves...."
Rick Santorum
"Senator Santorum supported military intervention into Libya, but opposed the timing and method of President Obama. In March of 2011, Senator Santorum stated that he believed that President Obama had hesitated too much and missed an opportunity to be a positive force in Libya early on in the rebellion when Ghaddaffi's army was on the run and was confused. He added that the situation in Libya was nothing like the one in Iraq or Afghanistan and that the US could simply go in at the tipping point and assist the rebel forces. He stated that the President should have done something to help the rebels other than verbally state that he agreed with their cause.
Senator Santorum continued his criticism of President Obama's policies in the Reagan debate by stating that the President missed an opportunity to be a force for good in Libya by being indecisive.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Libya/
Ron Paul
"As bad as these dictators are ..they don't allow AlQueda and other radicals.
...We may be delivering Libya to AlQueda."
" Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. ...
In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. ...It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. ... This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed....
Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States...
How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. ....
Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas...."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-17/ron-paul-libya-is-not-the-american-peoples-fight/
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tmnr0vcwk4I" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xrRIpx8cKqA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>
----------------------------------------------
NEWS
The Arab spring could turn into a fiery Arab summer as a result of NATO actions, the Russian envoy to the alliance says.
*“NATO’s political and military interference in the Arab spring may bring about a ‘hot Arab summer’, with a whole range of consequences for neighboring regions,” Dmitry Rogozin told Interfax ahead of Thursday’s Russia-NATO Council ministerial meeting.
He added that as a result of NATO’s interference, “Sharia law is coming to previously relatively secular states”.
At the December 8 meeting in Brussels, Russia wants to find out “to what extent NATO is aware of the fact that the coming of radical Islam to all the regions where it ‘projected its force’ is a result of its actions”, the envoy insisted.
The diplomat went on to say that during the military operation in Libya, the NATO-led international coalition “revamped” the relevant UN Security Council resolution.
"It said: no bombing – and they were bombing. It said: no arms deliveries to any party – and they were delivering arms. It said: no land operation – and they conducted special forces operations. It said: do not intervene in the domestic political situation – and they changed it,” Rogozin stressed.
The Russian envoy to NATO also pointed out that Moscow “insists on confirming the basic principles of international law” and wants NATO to “return to the legal field and recognize its subordinate role to the United Nations”.
-----
....Despite the changes sweeping Libya, violence and bloodshed have not stopped. In shocking revelations, military and security forces stand accused of torturing detainees to death. Rights groups say Libya's new rulers have not addressed the problem.
*Amnesty International says in recent weeks, it met with detainees in Tripoli, Misrata and Gharyan who showed visible signs of torture – open wounds to the head, limbs, back and other parts of the body.
"Several detainees have died after being subjected to torture in Libya in recent weeks and months amid widespread torture and ill-treatment of suspected pro-Gaddafi fighters and loyalists," Amnesty said.
"The torture is being carried out by officially recognized military and security entities, as well as by a multitude of armed militias operating outside any legal framework," the statement reads.
Medecins Sans Frontieres has suspended its work (http://rt.com/news/libya-prison-torture-doctors-807/)in Libya’s third-largest city Misrata over similar claims.
The group says it encountered formidable obstacles it could not overcome. Burns from electric shocks and cigarettes, heavy bruising and renal failure – all this, evidence of continuing torture of prisoners, the organization says.
When two more inmates died after beatings, the international group halted its mission in protest.
“Patients were brought to us in the middle of interrogation for medical care, in order to make them fit for further interrogation. This is unacceptable. Our role is to provide medical care to war casualties and sick detainees, not to repeatedly treat the same patients between torture sessions,” the group’s General Director Christopher Stokes said in a statement.
The news comes amidst rising frustration with Libya’s interim government.
Demonstrations in Benghazi last week ended with the resignation of a high-ranking member of the National Transitional Council (NTC).
In the former Gaddafi stronghold of Bani Walid, locals pushed out the NTC’s forces, claiming systematic abuse.
“It started with the very beginning of the rebellion, […] the second day of the rebellion. On the 18th of February, 50 African migrants were rounded up, locked in the detention center and burnt to death. And the NTC expressed their support for this kind of behavior. This is part of the strategy of the West. You know, divide and rule. That was giving the green light to torture and execution – what we are seeing now. This is a clear recipe for civil war,” says Middle East political analyst Dan Glazebrook.
Meanwhile, the behavior of the NATO forces that brought the NTC to power has also raised questions. Last year, a high-profile team of human rights activists went to Libya to investigate alleged international law violations in the country. The group examined the actions of NATO, former government and insurgents.
The Arab Organization for Human Rights together with two other organizations released the final report.
The document suggests “NATO classified civilian sites as military ones for attacks, including homes, schools, colleges.”...
http://rt.com/news/gaddafi-militia-society-unity-893/0