So Obama’s women wanted war against Libya.

Yep, it is all about OIL :sarcasm:

k&r

Libya Is a Problem from Hell

These arguments are not new. They have been brought forth time and again when the United States and the international community debated whether to intervene in order to halt state-sponsored attacks on civilians. What's more, one of the most eloquent rebuttals to these recurring claims for nonintervention was penned by none other than an official currently serving in the Obama administration. Senior National Security Council official Samantha Power, in her 2002 Pulitzer Prize-winning book A Problem from Hell, identified several reasons behind the United States' repeated failure to prevent genocide.

The first reason for U.S. inaction to prevent the mass killing of civilians is supposed lack of knowledge. In many cases, Power notes:

The most common response is, "We didn't know." This is not true. To be sure, the information emanating from countries victimized by genocide was imperfect. Embassy personnel were withdrawn, intelligence assets on the ground were scarce, editors were typically reluctant to assign their reporters to places where neither U.S. interests nor American readers were engaged, and journalists who attempted to report the atrocities were limited in their mobility. As a result, refugee claims were difficult to confirm and body counts notoriously hard to establish. Because genocide is usually veiled under the cover of war, some U.S. officials at first had genuine difficulty distinguishing deliberate atrocities against civilians from conventional conflict.

Despite these difficulties, it is clear that the violence being deployed by the Libyan regime is indiscriminate and not solely directed at the poorly armed rebels. Qaddafi expressed his intention early in the conflict to "cleanse Libya house by house," and as government forces attempt to retake towns controlled by the rebels, reports of shelling of civilian areas and firing on civilian and humanitarian vehicles have increased. Refugees fleeing the initial outbreak of violence described a brutal scene of bodies hanging from electricity poles and militia trucks loaded with the dead.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/16/libya_is_a_problem_from_hell

"Power opposed the Iraq war and has called for a troop withdrawal. She has said military intervention should be considered only when there is an immediate threat of large-scale loss of life, and that this was not the case in 2003. Instead, she said the Bush administration has relied on a selective use of international law to justify its actions."
from:
http://www.whorunsgov.com/index.php?title=Profiles/Samantha_Power&revision=23

Seems to me, she must have felt very strongly that something terrible was about to happen in Libya if this is true. Her involvement with fighting genocide and human rights abuses isn't something new or superfical.

All the while talking about 'genocide.'

She's uber creepy

:scared:

she hardly "ignored Darfur and Sudan"-

She was there-

I suggest you read this:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/08/30/040830fa_fact1?currentPage=all

There shouldn't even BE such a term

:puke:

More confirmation that Gates opposed this:

lovely

'House Wives' series (or for that matter anyone whose co-workers are majority women) has to know that the claims that women are far more rational and anti-conflict is complete nonsense.

Might it not be that a few males pushed for war as well? But that wouldn't make for such a catchy title.

Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya

and also b.s., I suspect.

'Did the UNSC resolution that passed demand that Muammar Qaddafi step down? No, it didn’t. While it gave open-ended permission to the United States, the UK, France, and other powers to attack Libya (short of an invasion), it has nothing whatsoever to say about regime change. (Go ahead, read the whole text.) It calls for “the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians,” demands “ a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people,” and “demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law.” That, however, hasn’t stopped President Obama from acting like he has a mandate for regime change, and US officials are making it clear that even if Qaddafi accepts the UN's terms, he can't survive. And Susan Rice says that the United States is prepared to go beyond the UN resolution, by arming the anti-Qaddafi forces.'

Obama 'acting like?' WTH? 'Go beyond' by 'arming?'

And praises Qaddafi?

'Meanwhile, Qaddafi is making some good points. According to CNN, Qaddafi “called the UN moves ‘invalid’ because the resolution does not permit intervention in the internal affairs of other countries,” adding: "Libya is not yours.'

Sounds like Nation's Dreyfuss has a something up his something against the U.S. Or is it just against Obama?
Does he know ANYTHING about Samantha Power?

'I do not question the integrity of the process that led to this fateful decision, or the good intentions of those, from Samantha Power to Susan Rice, who pushed for it. I know there is no clear linear path through this riveting and unnerving period in Arab history.'

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/this-is-not-a-war.html

'Canadian Senator Romeo Dallaire, who ran the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, is reportedly calling for military intervention on the ground in Libya:

"When you got the Libyan leader calling his own people 'cockroaches' and saying 'I'm gonna wipe them all out', those are the exact same terms as the Rwandan genocide," Dallaire said.

This is interesting in part because Dallaire was the hero of Samantha Power's influential book on genocide.'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Dallaire_on_Libya.html?showall

However, it was interesting to read about Samantha Power in both articles - one from the left and one from the right - supporting intervention for humanitarian reasons. I believe the intervention was for that - humanitarian reasons and not oil.

Thanks for your links.

and upsets and angers me that an otherwise reputable source would link S Powers with anything but.

Could barely move on to reading the content after trying to digest that title. I kept wondering who they were talking about. His wife and daughters were the first to come to mind? So I looked to see if the title was The Nation's or OPs. This is The Nation's headline:

Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya

subject line! :argh:

He was persuaded, but it is still his decision.

What a pathetic load of crap. If you really thought it was HIS decision, why mention Clinton, Power, and Rice at ALL? If the buck stops with him, it doesn't MATTER who "persuaded" him.

Some people will take ANY excuse to deflect blame from the President and put it on the shoulders of the people around him. But this attack on his female advisors--as if there were no MEN around him saying the same damned things--is certainly a new low.

What about Michelle? She's intelligent and informed. I'm sure he takes her opinions into consideration too. Why not throw her into the "Blame the Women" dogpile?

:eyes:

That is their role.

Btw, I did not write that article. I provided links to two articles that talked about Samantha Power. The second one asks why Obama does not listen to Samantha Power.

:shrug:

Apparently, Obama's technique, which many including Republicans have admired, is to listen to everyone in the room, and then make his own decision. I guess he is persuaded by whatever arguments make the most sense, much as a judge is persuaded by the arguments of lawyers.

Our legal system is adversarial. There are always two sides to every case, and those sides are always in opposition to each other. They deliberately try to make their own argument look good while making their opponent's argument look bad. And most importantly--none of those lawyers WORK for the judge. They work for their clients--the defendant, or the state/government. In the end, the judge has to choose one of two sides--either the plaintiff, or the defendant. He can't, for example, decide that NEITHER of them is right and impose an entirely new charge and sentence.

Presidential advising is completely different. They respectfully offer information and (if asked for) opinions; they don't try to wheedle, trick, or cajole the President into following their plans, because if they did, they'd be FIRED. Within the White House, there is an ENORMOUS amount of respect for the person holding that office. Frankly, that kind of behavior would be unseemly, and since everyone there is a professional, it's VERY unlikely that any of them would do something like that. Snotty Congressional representatives and Senators might try it, but they don't work for the President. His advisors DO.

Oh, and your last sentence begs the question. He might LISTEN to everyone in the room, but he doesn't necessarily weigh every opinion equally and then choose one. Unlike a judge, Obama can disregard every opinion he hears and choose to do something entirely different. It's the difference between having two constrained choices, and having a thousand nuanced choices. He doesn't HAVE to listen to ANY of them. There is no law that says he has to listen to his advisors. That's what makes him 100% responsible for every decision he makes--and him ALONE.

He and he alone is responsible for his decision.

But I have read and heard that he listens to all points of view and weighs them.

One of the books that Obama read was "Team of Rivals".

It seems that Samantha Power's point of view is at odds with Bob Gates'.

Power would argue on behalf of her "clients", the Libyans.

Bob Gates would argue on behalf of his "client", the military.

And I would hope that all of them and all lawyers would present valid arguments or be kicked out.

I'm kinda awed by the endless oceans of hypocrisy.

...women were homo sapiens, therefore part of a peace-loving species with a violent streak.

But Clinton and Power both have a problem in their past.

Hilary was in the White House when the Rwanda incident happened. It's not by accident that she mentioned Rwanda. Kosovo was an echo, an absolution for screwing up on Rwanda. A weak one, at that, as history undid many of the harshest claims and the sainted rabble turned out to have their own demons. So now Clinton wants to stop what she fears Gaddhafi will do, while those supporting the intervention cite what Gaddhafi has done.

Power made genocide her big topic. Yet for years she ignored what was happening in S. Sudan. It didn't register. She was slow to Darfur, too. In believing herself at the forefront of advocating against genocide, well, oops. Just oops. So now she wants to be more righteous than the Pope in preventing a genocide that hasn't happened but--I'm sure she fears--will.

Lots of militarism based on fears. At least "concerns" might be reasoned.

She doesn't strike me as someone who jumps to military action lightly.

she (like all of the Dems and thugs) is concerned about genocide when there is a financial or resource concern for someone with lots of money.

I agree there have been years of what-ifs since the Rwanda disaster. I, personally, believe that the Taliban would have allowed and maybe half-heartedly assisted in the pursuit of OBL if either Rwanda hadn't happened, or if the result of the massacre of US forces had been an extreme and absolute response...as it turned out much of the Middle East believed the US street didn't have the stomach for an actual war and would run upon the death of a few US citizens...we lost credibility that later cost even more lives...IMHO

Commenter: Nation

"Rice has been MI6 agent since here college days and takes her orders directly from the Fabian leadership of that covert agency and the Fabian leaders Tony Blair & the revanchist Obama guru Zbigniew Brzezinski." :eyes:

What kind of leader gets "pushed" into war?

It's as if Gaddafi's PR firm is making its money.

she's not interested in being SOS in next admin. I thought it was odd that after she made that statement Obama shifted his position and have been wondering if Clinton might have threatened to resign if the US didn't significantly help the rebels. I had a strong hunch that she was a strong backer a military intervention in Libya which this article suggests is correct. I wonder what sort of pressure was applied to shift Obama's clear hestitancy to get involved in a significant way.

She apparently wants to be a grandmother.

for good, or ill he owns it.

bunch of fucking traitors to humanity