"welcoming her attendance at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva," where the Sec. of State declared that the "United States supports orderly, peaceful, and irreversible transitions..."
"Democratic change must grow from within." she said at the Geneva meeting. "It cannot be implanted from the outside. And let me be among the first of many to say the West certainly does not have all of the answers. The first steps of change have come quickly and dramatically. It is, however, proving tragically difficult in Libya. In other nations, change is likely to be more deliberate and methodical. In all cases, the United States will support citizens and governments as they work for progress." Clinton told the Council.
Sen. Sanders should have known that the resolution he co-sponsored was a green light to the administration which had already begun to get commitments from allies for a military response. The Vermont senator has already demonstrated in this campaign that he understands the consequences of committing to a no-fly zone in areas of civil conflict in his rejection of a no-fly zone in Syria...consistent with the actions of the UN Security Council to contain Gaddafi. Is that consistent with the guidelines in the
Senate resolution he cosponsored with 10 others and voted for which includes a 'no-fly zone' and an 'urging' of the UN Security Council to "take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack?"
He should also have known well well that the UN Security Council relies on NATO to enforce its sanctions when they decide to employ military force. The non-binding resolution he voted for isn't some benign peace treaty. It's a precipice for military action, especially prescient and hawkish in its intent with regard to Libya.
What Sanders should have know well was that his resolution mirrored the desires and intentions of the Obama administration in almost every way. There's the support expressed for a 'peaceful' transition of power in both the resolution and in her address to the Council, and, they both employ hawkish descriptions of Gaddafi's brutality against his citizens - evidently designed to provide the background for forceful action.
There's no room to defend Sen. Sanders' support of this resolution by pointing to skepticism, at the time, about the veracity of the claims of Libyan military abuses. Those claims are right there in the bill he sponsored.
We know that, in interviews, Sen. Sanders spoke out against the U.S. role in bombing Libya. I think that's a correct stance. Yet, the senator is in the awkward position of having petitioned for official approval of an almost certain military response to, what his resolution had already proclaimed were, horrific abuses by the Libyan military against civilians.
Basically, the Obama administration and Sen. Sanders were on the same page regarding Libya; at least that's the consequence of the legislation he co-sponsored and voted for. Was he really naive about the support his resolution provided for an escalation of the U.S. response to Gaddafi - support which encouraged precisely the type of military response Pres. Obama approved and executed?
here's the resolution:
= new reply since forum marked as read
