Liberals Among Fiercest Libya Critics

[Catherina]

Liberals Among Fiercest Libya Critics
by Mike Lillis
As President Obama struggles to sell a contentious Libya strategy to a skeptical Congress, Capitol Hill's most liberal voices have emerged as some of the fiercest critics.


"In two years we have moved from President Bush's doctrine of preventive war to President Obama's assertion of the right to go to war without even the pretext of a threat to our nation," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal, said Thursday during a House floor speech. "This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution. Even a war launched for humanitarian reasons is still a war -- and only Congress can declare war." (UPI Photo/Kevin Dietsch)

...


"This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution," he added. "Even a war launched for humanitarian reasons is still a war — and only Congress can declare war."

Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, agrees. Conyers conceded that Congress and the White House "have long grappled over the exact division of powers in times of war." But, he added, "the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance."

"That decision is one of the most serious that we are called upon to make," Conyers said last week, "and we should never abdicate this responsibility to the president."

...

"How premeditated, and how irresponsible, I believe the current course of events to be," Kaptur said.

...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/153217-some-of-the-loudest-libya-criticism-coming-from-the-left[/div

[elleng]

1. These so-called 'liberals' oppose this. I disagree with them.

'The United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. . .

In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.'

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

[EFerrari]

4. If this president were truly so moved by atrocities

he wouldn't have backed the coup in Honduras and his government wouldn't be blocking the investigation of Uribe and his death squads.

And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.'

Here's an image for Obama:



He sent the perps, the Colombian military, $30 million dollars AFTER the discovery of their handiwork.

[Catherina]

13. So much for that then. I have entire drives of photos, the same photos

they've had for years but it's clear they don't care. Honduras is just one of many recent examples, thanks for mentioning it. That was the first hard clue for many people in Latin America who thought Obama was ushering in some new era.

[Xicano]

16. +100

Tell it like it is EFerrari..

[readmoreoften]

17. Yeah but THIS TIME in this ONE INSTANCE we like, suddenly, care an' stuff!

It's not that you love the Hondurans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Palestinians, Yemenis, and Bahrainis whose slaughters we thumbs up. It must be that you hate the Libyan people.

[Arkana]

22. Yep, you're right.

We should totally ignore Libya's suffering. You know, out of RESPECT for the suffering of people in all those other countries.

[EFerrari]

34. Not at all. But when our government says they MUST do anything

for humanitarian purposes, we should know they are being less than truthful because humanitarian purposes alone never has moved them to do anything.

[PufPuf23]

25. Agree. I see lack of integrity and consistency and pre-meditation and lies.

Barf.

I would rather not have lived my life during such treason to the raison d'etre of the USA that has been institutionalized during life as an adult.

Warning for the younger DU's here; there will be many lies, don't buy them and don't compromise.

Neo-liberals and neo-cons are Machivellian and only care about votes from special interests not policy to benefit the People.

[slay]

9. I'm one of your "so-called liberals" and I oppose it.

what's with you calling us "so-called liberals"? pfft - whatever. anyways - i'm against war - especially when we ONLY do it in countries where there is OIL, and also when we are already involved in TWO OTHER POINTLESS WARS - both for profit and oil. this isn't about humanitarian shit - it's about profit, and oil - and besides isn't it time some other country take up being the world police?

also - citing an official WH press release is just parroting the administrations talking points. Got any thoughts of - your own - about this whole situation?

[markpkessinger]

35. Agreed. ...

The utter hypocrisy of declaring this to be a "humanitarian" intervention when we routinely turn a blind eye to atrocities taking place in other parts of the world, or when they are carried out by strategic allies, is simply breathtaking. What is even more so is tge willful refusal by so many Democrats so call out that hypocrisy for what it is.

[slay]

57. It's the kind of thing that makes you go - huh?

yeah i don't get it. i guess party loyalty comes before principle to some. seems like - well it's ok if a Dem does it, just not a republican. well not to me. people need to go with their values - your values won't betray you. a leader with a (D) by their name easily can - and often does these days unfortunately. :( i wish more people could see it as well.

[sabrina 1]

21. Obama has changed his mind on 'Humanitarian Intervention'

since he was asked about it in 2007:

Obama says don't stay in Iraq over genocide

SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.


"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

He sounds just like those of us who wonder why one country (oil producing in that case) and not another.

I wonder what happened to him? It sounds like he was aware of the false use of 'humanitarianism' to invade and occupy an oil-producing country and he wasn't buying it, pointing out the hypocrisy of ignoring far bigger humanitarian crises around the world.

Whenever I do that, I get attacked by people who support this President. I wonder, were they attacking him back then? Something tells me 'no'.

[ProSense]

30. Deleted n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

37. Translation: Europe didn't want a bunch of refugees.

[Karenina]

49. Too late!

[ReggieVeggie]

41. "so-called" liberals??

nice :crazy:

[grahamhgreen]

42. How we gonna pay for it?

[meow mix]

45. +rec

recommended

[elleng]

55. Thanks, meow. Good to see.

[bullwinkle428]

48. "So-called liberals"? Could you get any more "with us or against us"?

[krabigirl]

50. Wow. Obama has turned a lot of people into neocons.

[krabigirl]

51. Dupe.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Liberals tend to have some respect for sovereignty

Revolutions have questionable validity if they can't even get CLOSE to being successful; it raises questions about the true level of the unpleasantness of the current regime AND the attractiveness of the alternative. If they can't make it on their own, maybe not enough people really want them.

Showing up for protests is one thing, demonstrating after protests have been suppressed is another, but those are a far cry from demanding overthrowing the government by force of arms.

It's also interesting to look at who's being oppressed. The groups that keep cropping up in conversation are theocratic extremists. Frankly, being a left liberal pluralist type, I am against intervention and against suppressing any popular movement, but I make exceptions to the latter when it comes to religion. Religion does NOT play fair, and often the true reality of these situations is that the theocrats demand the right to totally control society, and anyone standing in their way is an oppressor.

The argument that the rebels must be "right" because the government is so bad really only holds water if they can get enough of their fellow citizens to side with them, and that does not seem to be the case. How could small Government military units sweep through occupied territory and be able to maintain their lines of communications and logistics if the people REALLY were totally against them? They'd have an unsustainable partisan problem.

This doesn't pass the sniff test in so many ways.

[joshcryer]

3. Sovereignty ceases to be when a state goes after its own.

Or so this liberal believes.

Tyrannical states exist for so long because they're extremely effective at keeping people oppressed and making sure any dissidence is silenced. Granted, a lot of "liberals" are also supporters of those states (and I can name at least one whose "sovereignty" is considered paramount).

So when you have people rising up in Tripoli and they're quickly sequestered away and disappeared, along with their families, you can see why people have no political will to rise up against the tyrants which have kept them suppressed for so long.

When, in the end, the regime is ousted, and it will come, you'll see that the evil dirty theocratic rebels actually do have popular support.

What will remain to be seen is if Gaddafi can leave behind a large enough element that fosters division within the Libyan people.

That, I honestly doubt.

[sabrina 1]

23. Tyrannical states exist because we support them.

There is hardly an oppressive dictatorship in the world, that the U.S. and its European allies are not backing. Millions eg, going to one of the worst dictators in the world, Karamov of Uzbekistan. And according to the Wikileaks Cables, we KNOW how bad he is, but to paraphrase one of our diplomats 'yes, but he lets us build our bases in his country'.

Left to their own devices, many of those dictators would be toppled, not all, but many. Eg, Saudi Arabia has gone into Bahrain to help the government there against its own people. The U.S. has been virtually silent on the brutality there. So, the people are not only fighting their own oppressive government against which they might be successful.

Saudi Arabia also advised Mubarak to 'crack down hard' on the protesters. He tried, but things only got worse. In that case the opposition to the regime was so popular that it overcame it and the Western powers, initially supportive of their 'longtime friend and ally' had no choice but to accept the will of the people. Not that they will not try to influence how things turn out, something the Egyptians and Tunisians are well aware of.

[joshcryer]

24. Yes, indeed, US foreign policy is backfiring. The Arab Spring is testimony to that.

Tyrannical states in the end cannot survive. If we'd let Benghazi be razed (something you have admitted would have happened if the international community didn't intervene), it would've only been a matter of time before Gaddafi was ousted or one of his sons (in the event Gaddafi died and one of his sons took over). A matter of time.

Saudi Arabia will be next, this shit isn't over by a long shot.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. You possess a much greater intimate knowledge of the future than most mere mortals

If the resultant fighting devours many, many lives, will you take responsibility for that, or will those actual deaths be offset by the theoretical deaths had we not intervened? If the ensuing government is a suppressive and/or theocratic one, will you take responsibility for that? If the new government is relatively decent to its people's daily lives but gives away its precious resources and dooms them to future penury, will you take responsibility for that?

It's not that simple, and continually tugging on heartstrings and amplifying any whiff of danger or injustice to justify a clear hand in other people's business crosses the line of decency.

You don't know. I don't know. I DO KNOW THAT FINANCIAL INTERESTS ARE AT PLAY, THOUGH, WHICH YOU COMPLETELY DENY.

My world is a complex, opaque and dangerous one, whereas you seem to inhabit a very obvious, clearly delineated one.

Personally, I feel that you and our President are now completely responsible for the ensuing deaths. You claim AS FACT that he would have exterminated as many as tens of thousands of people upon taking Benghazi; I contend that he would have pushed on quickly to retake the whole country and would have been so paranoid about international scrutiny that he would have stepped very, very lightly. By dint of some kind of moral superiority, you expect recognition of your opinion as unquestionable truth, and feel free to be as shrill as necessary to drown out fiends like me who don't like waging war.

Time will tell. Will you listen to it?

[joshcryer]

29. I post hundreds of posts a day on this, I am not going to hide from the ultimate outcome.

Now, others, I expect to be largely silent.

When that day comes it'll be a good day indeed. :hi:

I'll even let them go on with their conspiracy talk occasionally. :rofl:

Like, you know, saying things like "gives away its precious resources and dooms them to future penury," which is what Gaddafi was doing (33% unemployment, denied the nationalization reforms that the people wanted, almost at the top of any corruption lists, Saif himself funneling oil profits directly into his own coffers, the list goes on and on).

[_ed_]

44. You sound like the neocons during the first months of Iraq

.

[EFerrari]

5. It really doesn't.

And it won't more and more as time drags on.

Meanwhile, the Libyan populace will be having to deal with this escalation every day.

[joshcryer]

7. I don't like the implication that if you kill protesters you get support from liberals.

I suppose if Syria or Yemen both escalate to the level Libya has, many people here will be saying that those protesters don't "pass the sniff test."

Meanwhile in the Ivory Coast the people have taken up arms against Gbagbo's very armed militant security forces, and I support their revolution.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. Yet, if revolutionaries fuck up and don't have enough support, it's time for massive, full-on war

We wanted other people to secure "our" oil for us (and by us, I mean also the French and other Europeans) and when they couldn't get it together, we had to tug on the emotions and justify humanitarian aggression.

[Marblehead]

6. Ya!

Go Constitution! :kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. At least there are a few anti-war liberals left to fight the MIC and neo-cons/neo-libs. K&R

Of course, "our" version of neo-con/neo-lib policies is praiseworthy when alleged liberals are in charge of the killing. See Vietnam and Afghanistan for the precedent.

[slay]

10. +1

sucks there aren't more of us - we could end these fucking wars once and for all. :(

[krabigirl]

52. Yep, there are plenty.

[bvar22]

11. Once again, The "Centrist" Democrats join with ther friends (The Republicans)...

...to advance the agenda of the Republican Party.

[bvar22]

12. Once again, I'm PROUD to STAND with the Democratic Wing...

...of the Democratic Party.

This NEW WAR has smelled like bad fish from the git-Go.


---bvar22
A Very PROUD FDR/LBJ Working Class LIBERAL!


Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Broken Promises, and Excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[Vattel]

14. We need to gradually downsize the mic

the recognition that there are many, many ways to help innocent people that are almost always more cost effective than the use of military force. Obama has done nothing to move the nation away from militarism. He even claimed in his Libya speech that the US has been reluctant to use military force. Reluctant? What a pile of shit. God I'd to see us become enthusiastic about it.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Kucinich, Conyers, Woolsey, Honda and Kaptur....LOVE them all!

Thank G-d someone is speaking out on Capitol Hill.

THIS caught my eye!

<snip>Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) characterized Obama's speech as "more eloquent than persuasive," while Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) accused the president of sidestepping Congress by waiting until lawmakers left town to launch the attacks.


They ALWAYS speak truth to power. :loveya:

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Kucinich, Conyers, Woolsey, Honda and Kaptur....LOVE them all!

Thank G-d someone is speaking out on Capitol Hill.

THIS caught my eye!

<snip>Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) characterized Obama's speech as "more eloquent than persuasive," while Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) accused the president of sidestepping Congress by waiting until lawmakers left town to launch the attacks.


They ALWAYS speak truth to power. :loveya:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shanti]

26. as it should be n/t

[xchrom]

27. This and the thread re: makes me think we need a DU

Definition of the word 'liberal'.

I think it's being confused and accidentally abused.

[Fuzz]

31. We don't need no consistency in our foreign policy.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Modern_Matthew]

32. I propose a tax on sheep's clothing. The pro-war wing of the Democratic Party is a disgrace. nt

[ProSense]

33. At least Woolsey, Grijalva, Honda and Lee agree that there

is a "serious humanitarian crisis."

WOOLSEY JOINS STATEMENT ON LIBYA

Rep. Lynn Woolsey has joined Reps. Raul Grijalva, Mike Honda, and Barbara Lee to issue the following statement on Libya:

“The decision for the United States to engage militarily in Libya is one that should have been debated and approved by Congress.

“We have serious concerns about whether or not an effective and thorough case for military intervention in Libya was made. Too many questions remain. What is our responsibility now? Do we own the situation in Libya and for how long? Where does this dramatic acceleration of military intervention end?

“There is a serious humanitarian crisis in Libya, and Gaddafi’s reckless, indiscriminate use of force on his own people in response to grassroots calls for change is unacceptable. But there are serious consequences for rushing to war with a limited understanding of the situation on the ground and no exit strategy or plan – we learned this lesson through two ill-advised wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“With the potential for protracted civil war in Libya, and similar circumstances of unrest and violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Yemen, and elsewhere, we cannot afford to sidestep critical diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to rely solely upon the deployment of more guns, bombs, and troops. This represents a dangerous path toward perpetual U.S. military engagement around the world.

“The United States must immediately shift to end the bombing in Libya. Rest assured we will fight in Congress to ensure the United States does not become embroiled in yet another destabilizing military quagmire in Libya with no clear exit plan or diplomatic strategy for peace.”

[_ed_]

36. Real liberals oppose wars

Funny how now that Obama is starting wars, "Democrats" support him. If Bush was bombing Libya, people would be in the streets protesting. Since it's Obama, Democrats don't care. It's sickening. It's the worst of the Bush era: blind obedience to political leaders of your party.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. real liberals oppose judging people by anything other than

their own individual actions.

"Real" liberals understand that people can hold opposing views without being "the enemy".

"Real" liberals don't seek popularity.

"Real" liberals don't hold themselves up as the "epitome" of what people "should" be.

Everyone thinks that they are among the few "real" liberals.

"Real" liberals are everywhere and nowhere, all of us, and none of us.

:shrug:

[_ed_]

40. No, sorry, words have meanings

They can't just mean whatever you want them to.

In the abstract, how would you describe a politician who:

- starts a war against a country that did not attack us
- continues two other wars, surges in one of them (592 dead due to surge)
- drone attacks in other soveriegn nations
- supports tax cuts for wealthiest 1%
- supports cuts for poor, children, weakest among us
- goes after medical marijuana in states where it is legal
- claims power to assassinate Americans with no due process of law
- claims vast executive powers to start wars without Congress

and on and on and on

What would you call this politician? A liberal? Please. Words have meanings. If you support those policies, you are NOT A LIBERAL.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. words have meanings, and words are interpreted differently

by different individuals:

" "I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
...............

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy
....full text of his speech "On Being a Liberal" at:http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=539

Are you familiar with JFK's involvement and actions concerning the Bay of Pigs?

[Shagbark Hickory]

38. +1 for dennis the menace.

[grahamhgreen]

43. The greater humanitarian crisis: the 45,000 who die in this country every year from no health care.

[ReggieVeggie]

46. kick

[highplainsdem]

53. I'm a liberal, and I believe in the Responsibility to Protect, and so do 70% of DUers,

according to Josh Cryer's polls on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x694407

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x701030

You can be liberal and support this intervention.

Which Human Rights Watch also supports:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x706216

And people can be conservative and criticize it. That headline would have been equally true if it had read, "Conservatives Among Fiercest Libya Critics."

This intervention isn't any type of litmus test for whether you're liberal or conservative.

[Bluerthanblue]

54. very well said-

:hi:

[Upton]

56. Nice job cherry picking polls..

a poll on R2P in general is one thing, but lets get a little bit more specific....here's a poll showing 57% of DUers opposed to the Libyan intervention..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x693256

[EFerrari]

59. Human Rights Watch discredits itself by weighing in on this issue.

It's mission is to watch human rights, not to render opinions on military matters.

But that's par for the course of this politiized NGO.