I heard the clip from Wolf Blitzer's interview with Hillary about her future ambitions along with her assessment of the Libyan situation. Her emphatic and unembellished "no" to whether she wanted to continue in her present position or move to Defense or the Vice Presidency. "No." The Presidency? "No." Her tone and her demeanor preceding this interview made me begin to wonder if all was still sweetness and light between she and Obama. I think she's been the good soldier too long. Hub and I had been debating if she'll stick out this term or quit beforehand. We'll see, but at least we know there will be a new Secretary of State no matter who wins in 2012.
Now, this is strictly speculation, but I have a feeling Hillary had a dutch uncle talk with Obama and told him in no uncertain terms the U.S. had to act or she was out of there. After all, for a Democrat she has been hawkish in the past. More importantly she remembers the stinging criticism the U.S. got over not acting on the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Bill finally told the U.N. enough is enough. The slaughter had to end. If this is what happened I have high praise for her. No matter, she is the one instrumental in moving it forward. Not the President. Again, I have high praise for her.
In Libya, Gaddafi is slaughtering the people to retain power pure and simple. When your own people become your enemy you have to wonder if you're doing something wrong if your people and your country mean anything to you. In Gaddafi's case the answer is obvious. It's all about him and the power. I understand the lust for power. What escapes me is why such brutality always seems to accompany it. What manner of men are these? I guess we know.
If we had acted sooner perhaps the media wouldn't be speculating whether or not Gaddafi will remain in power. If he does it will be a bad reflection on the United States whether or not we think it justified. Not that other countries weren't willing to take the lead. France in particular. But we are the ones with the necessary assets to make intervention not only possible but workable. Other countries do not have our military might nor the caliber of leadership.
I've said it before and I no doubt will keep harping on it. The world expects the U.S. to lead. That doesn't mean we have to police the world but when blatant atrocities occur against civilians it is the world's responsibility to act. They aren't used to the idea that we have a President who is not inclined to do so. Neither am I. I expect they remain hopeful that this moment in history will pass and the United States will elect a leader who will take the country back to where it belongs. The leader of the free world. So do I.
5 comments:
The US stayed out of this mess as long as possible waiting for the UN to act. Already the Muslum world thinks we are trying to take over all their countries for the oil. They hate us and with good reason.
Think of it this way, if Libya sent planes over here to establish a "no fly" zone, would we be happy?
We need to just admit that we do not have all the world's answers and stop interfering in everyone else's business. We can't "fix" the entire world.
We fought for our own independence.
Amen!
Margie, I don't understand where you're coming from. It would depend on why someone would want to impose a no fly zone here. And yes, we fought for our independence. That's what the Libyan people are trying to do too; get out from under a tyrant's rule. We had an army. Libyan civilians do not.
We aren't trying to fix their business. The west, the coalition, is trying to prevent further slaughter of civilians by controlling an unfair advantage. We were late coming to the party but at least we came.
You sound like an isolationist who doesn't want to consider that circumstances from situation to situation differ. Some we should stay away from, others we should not. This is one where we've done what we should.
Actually during the revolutionary war, we didn't have an army. We had a militia...made up of concerned citizens.
Post a Comment