Keith Olbermann special comment: Libya and the five-second rule

[pink-o]

Run time: 06:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX0gNFVdZco   Posted on YouTube: March 23, 2011 By YouTube Member: ProgressiveMukraker Views on YouTube: 192   Posted on DU: March 24, 2011 By DU Member: pink-o Views on DU: 3502

 
So great that Keith still has a voice--and in unrestricted media!

[dennis4868]

1. Obama's policy is very clear....

The miliary action has one purpose - humanitarian - save people from being slaughtered.

The U.S. policy regarding Qhaddafii himself - he needs to go (but not by U.S. military involvement)

WHY DO PEOPLE NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS? Even Al Franken understands this. The policy is as clear as snow is white....what is the problem?

I think there are a certain segment of liberals who are against war no matter what the purpose is - even if it was the 1940s and jews were being put in ovens, this segment of people would be against military involvement by the USA.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. The rebels, having taken up arms against the government have

made their choice. They must of known going into this thing that they stood a good chance of being slaughtered, or are they completely cluesless? Or did they just assume or were told that the US would bail their ass out?

[90-percent]

5. gulf war 1

Didn't we kind of make a deal with Iraqi's back in GW 1 that we would support them in overthrowing Saddam after our invasion goals were met?

Didn't said Iraqi's take GHW Bush at his word?

And, lastly, weren't said Iraqi's slaughtered by the thousands by Saddam and nobody from the USA lifted a finger to help them?

There were many WTF kinds of things in that War. AT LEAST AMERICA LOST LESS THAN 500 brave young souls that gave their lives for their country that time. The Powell Doctrine should be mandatory for all future conflicts. I would also love to hear a current interview with April Glaspie and her thoughts about that era. I think she was Ambassador to Iraq at the time and Saddam asked her if going into Kuwait was OK with the USA and she said the USA was not concerned about Iraq's "internal affairs"?

-90% Jimmy

[The_Casual_Observer]

20. You figure Obama has made some kind of a promise to these rebels?

That we are commited to bailing them out?

[90-percent]

37. Obama's promise to rebels

I have no clue.

My point is the United States may tell you they have your back for overthrowing your Dictator, but when you start your Revolution the USA may find it "has other priorities".

Sometimes the USA can be less than honorable when dealing with other countries that have mean Totalitarian Dictators that the people want to get rid of.

-90% Jimmy

[liberalmike27]

42. I ask Again

Why is it OUR job in the US to interviene? Why do we have to shoulder all this profound guilt for Rwanda, or any other country, when Europe completely ignores it, when the French were actually there in Rwanda, and did nothing but withdraw all the white Europeans and a few Rwandans they could get to tag along for the ride?

I don't think we need to find ourselves guilty, to take on this fictional guilt for not further bankrupting our country, for killing off the poor, using our military in both our own, and in any country in which we interviene.

It is just another con, like Vietnam, like Irai-nam, like Afganhni-nam, now Libya. It's a repeating attempt to justify the fact that we are spending 1.2 Trillion a year of our budget on military "needs." (all inclusive) I suggested on FB that we need to start collecting some protection money from whomever wants our intervention, or just say fugiddaboutit.

[DutchLiberal]

9. Wow. To read something like that on a 'progressive/liberal forum'...

:puke:

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. It's liberal to promote and encourage a barbaric roman circus?

Waving & shooting AK-47s & RPGs in defiance is great way to get your head blown off, no matter what country you are in or who the ruler is.

[DutchLiberal]

19. I thought liberals were supposed to encourage democracy and liberty...

But not by you. It's disgusting. Shame on you.

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. There are other ways to promote democracy other than bombs

and encouraging a civil war. It's been done before, but that do you care, you are all about the old fashioned roman circus reagan doctrine
method.

[DutchLiberal]

26. Oh, you know me *so* well. I'm indeed a blood-thirsty warmonger...

:eyes:

I recall the Libyan people asking for this. My only regret is that we didn't act sooner, like when the rebels had control over almost all of Libya and when Libyan diplomats were quickly turning on Qaddafi.

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. "control over almost all of Libya"

Your response has no merit. Forget it.

[DutchLiberal]

33. It's true. They did. Not my fault you don't watch the news. (Or think it's a conspiracy.)

Keep up with the facts, my friend.

[The_Casual_Observer]

35. You have a very happy face narrative going for you here. Go with it.

[DutchLiberal]

36. Just stating what BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN and Dutch tv are reporting...

[liberalmike27]

43. Well Dutch

The Republi-cons have moved so incredibly far to the right, dropping off non-cooperative passengers along the way, the only place for them to go being the democratic vehicle, it's left us with a vast chasm of difference from the most liberal, to the most conservative democrat.

Then there are the "defend everything the democrat does no matter how much I'd have disagreed with it if Bush had done it," types. Plenty of that going on, for sure.

Too bad we don't have IRV, so we could run several candidates, and still end up with a guy getting 50 percent plus of the vote to get elected. We've got too damn many ideologies in our blue party.

[Charleston Chew]

31. a great place to draw the line

democrat or progressive?

If you support this act of aggression then you file underneath the column to the right/opposite of mine.


Do you care about America or do you succumb to propaganda?

[DutchLiberal]

8. Because framing it like "it's about oil" gives them an excuse to not having to think this through,,,

They don't have to weigh the pro's and the con's, they can just keep being stuck in 2003 and declare everything the US is doing as baaaaaaaaad!

[Dookiestix]

11. Then why aren't we in...

...oh, say, Darfur? North Korea? Or any number of other countries with dictatorial regimes hell bent on killing their own people?

This is about oil. That's also why France has their own fighter jets enforcing the no-fly zone, because they also have a large economic stake. It's just like Iraq and Afghanistan, and any other countries we deem fit to intervene with for economic stability. I don't give a damn WHO'S in office, be it a Republican or a Democrat. This is how America rolls.

[DutchLiberal]

17. No popular uprisings, no rebels, no request for intervention, no prospect for victory...

Once in there, there's no way out. Comparing it to Libya is cheap and lazy.

[guruoo]

23. So, you're with Keith in proposing that we do this in Darfur, Korea, etc.

[dennis4868]

25. Every country is different....

can's always do the same thing in every country....also, if this was about oil for the USA, then why is Obama doing everything he can to hand everything over to NATO in a matter of days....people here make bullshit statements without any proof....all to make Obama look bad...really sad....god forbid a U.S. president may be doing something to prevent the slaughter of innocents....that can never be the reason....

[Plucketeer]

12. LOL!

The "policy" may be clear - as vocalized anyway. But the execution is murky depths. "Protecting people from being slaughtered." With a NO-FLY zone only??? Or is there "fine print" that makes this apply to bullets, artillery rounds and mortars? After all - those things fly too, as they speed towards their targets!
Simply denying Ka-Daffy's aircraft their missions is not gonna protect innocents from being slaughtered.

[chillspike]

30. Where's the intro music and cool graphics?

I hope he does the Current Tv news show with that backdrop!

[On the Road]

dupe

Run time: 06:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX0gNFVdZco   Posted on YouTube: March 23, 2011 By YouTube Member: ProgressiveMukraker Views on YouTube: 192   Posted on DU: March 24, 2011 By DU Member: On the Road Views on DU: 3502

 

[On the Road]

24. I Like KO,

and I agree with him that there are some disconnects among statements from different administration figures.

But that is to be expected in a fast-moving crisis like this, when positions are changing day to day. It's also a function of a less controlled administration that does not distribute talking points for everyone to adhere to. On the whole, the administration does not seem to be working at cross-purposes, and as long as the intervention goes well and ground troops are not involved, it's likely it continue to have moderately good popular support and not be damaging for any of the parties involved.

[chervilant]

38. hmm...

Drinking the M/I kool-aide much?

[chervilant]

39. Step away from the Kool-Aide, dennis4868...

By all accounts, one of the prime administration advocates for this war was Hillary Clinton; she's the same person who, just two years ago, said this about the torture-loving Egyptian dictator: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family." They're the same people overseeing multiple wars that routinely result in all sorts of atrocities. They are winking and nodding to their Yemeni, Bahrani and Saudi friends who are doing very similar things to what Gadaffi is doing, albeit (for now) on a smaller scale. They just all suddenly woke up one day and decided to wage war in an oil-rich Muslim nation because they just can't stand idly by and tolerate internal repression and violence against civilians? Please.

(from Glenn Greenwald, posted herein on March 23.)

Anyone looking for principle and logic in the attack on Moammar Gaddafi's tyrannical regime will be disappointed. . . . Why is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter -- are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not. . . .

Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn’t going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn’t about justice, it's about power.

(from Eugene Robinson, in a Wapo article published March 21, and summarized in Greenwald's OP posted herein on March 23.)

[MrMickeysMom]

45. "WHY DO PEOPLE NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS?"

There are people who do and people who don't think there is a mission or plan.

I'm one that thinks there is no mission consistent with any humanitarian goal. But, there sure is a lot of positioning internationally on this 3rd war we've gotten ourselves into and who gets to put things back in order all acknowledged, Qhaddafii, the friendly dictator, shows he's come of his leash.

What a crock of shit to say this military action has even ONE purpose. We waver on purposeful military action with each new presidency, it seems each operation has merit by conventional wisdom, international style.

We make shit up and then get other countries with similar interests to act like they go along because there is one thing those countries have in common with us... their greed. But, when other people in our world are not fed, go on living in hopeless poverty, when their women are repeatedly raped and abused, we simply don't get as excited about those countries if they contain non-fossil fuel reservoirs.

If anything is true, it's the absolute LIE that continues with each presidency... ad nauseam knee jerk forward action with military components where oil fields are concerned. It's repeated history, and I think we've had enough bad examples of it over time. Most disgusting is what "the Untied States" is quick to forgive when in the last presidency, that same dictator came out against what then was our latest and greatest enemy. So Qhaddafii gets a hall pass, then.

Brilliant.

What you have written ... not so brilliant. It isn't that simple. If it smells like blood for oil, then we'll spill a little of our own for the sake of the oil. We always have.

When enough "liberals" make their voice heard on this matter, you'll see less reason for springing into military action.

Even Al Franken understands that.

[jillan]

2. That was great! Love hearing his voice of reason once again.

[spooked911]

4. In one sense, kind of cool-- like a powerful voice in exile.

On the other hand, a little sad he has to do this.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. A voice from the wilderness....

[DutchLiberal]

10. Let's just hope he stays there. And let him take Jon Stewart with him.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

14. wow ..I disagree with you

[Plucketeer]

29. Some folks find delight

in stomping in puddles. They bask in the attention it garners.

[DutchLiberal]

32. I remember when DU was a place where critical thinking was going on...

I'm sorry for reminding you all of those days.

"I disagree" is obviously a GREAT and well thought-out response. :eyes:

[DutchLiberal]

7. Wow. Now I'm GLAD he's gone from MSNBC. He's turned into a dumbass...

1. It's disgusting to call this operation in Libya "killing people". We are not killing people. Qaddafi is killing people and we are trying to stop that, just like the people of Libya have begged us to do.

2. Why not Tunisia and Egypt you ask, Mr Olbermann? Are you really that clueless or do you pose those questions to fit your ideological narrative? Somehow I don't recall the people of Tunisia and Egypt pleading for the help of the international community. Mubarak and Ben Ali weren't slaughtering their own people. The army was on the side of the protesters in both of those countries. Some hundreds of people died throughout, but not the 6,000 that Qaddafi had murdered in just one month.

The situations are very different. To compare them would be stupid, but Mr Olbermann is not stupid, so he must be deliberately omitting these facts to fit his ideological point of view, probably some kooky isolationist or outdated pacifist ideal that says war is never an option. Or maybe, like most of DU, Mr Olbermann is still stuck in 2003 and what the US does is always baaaaaaaaad.

Mr Olbermann, healthy criticism and critical questioning is good. Playing dumb and asking questions you know the answers to perfectly well, and framing the intervention in such a disgusting way is the wrong thing to do. Something they would do over at that other network. I guess Stewart was right with his comparison at his rally after all...

[Plucketeer]

13. When do you suppose

Holland will lift a finger? Besides the one you lifted towards Keith???

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. ^^what he said

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[liberalmike27]

44. Dude

Just because you don't see them on TV, it doesn't mean our bombs don't splatter people. Believe me, they spend a lot of money to figure out how to make them fragment into more pieces, to develop ever more explosive varieties to kill people. We are killing people.

Seems to me you are the one that doesn't want to hear alternative viewpoints. Even if you discount the fact we're killing people, because of oil, not the stupid media spin, we clearly can't afford the two raging wars we're in now, much less another one.

It is not the US's sole responsibility to guard each and every country, nor to shoulder all the guilt for not doing anything about every conflict or death or pogrom in the world. That "shoulder the guilt" thing is a media invention, a brainwashing device.

[guruoo]

21. Yes, I find it good to hear from Keith, even

when I disagree with him.

[FirstLight]

34. good stuff

All his points are so fucking valid...wish sometimes the PTB would fucking listen and act appropriately. But who am I kidding?

ETA: I am not 'obama bashing' i am against ALL US Military actions, regardless of the reason. we need to bring our troops HOME and if we still need to have them 'doing' something, maybe rebuilding the inner cities, highways, etc could be paid for by defense dollars. The amount of money and skills we re-direct toward destruction of others is what's asinine.
Not saying i am a total pacifist either...just that we all know that our adventures in Iraq and Afganistan have sucked us dry and should have been over years ago. Getting into another quagmire (as Keith so eloquently phrased it) is just plain stupid when we have the debt and issues we have right here at home. we should be fighting the 'war on unemployment' or the 'war for the middle class'
:rofl: again, who am I fucking kidding?

[AsahinaKimi]

40. Its so nice to see KO again

Even if its just a Video, and not a live News Cast.

[McCamy Taylor]

41. K&R Goal in 6 words or less. "Gas prices 2 dollars a gallon."

The rise in gas prices makes the economy worse, and that makes Obama's job in 2012 (getting re-elected) that much harder. Sadly, if he got on TV and said "We are investing a few hundred million in cruise missiles so that the economy can reap a few billion in increased productivity and jobs", middle and right wing America woiuld nod its head and say "Damn straight!"