Posted on 03/21/2011 12:55:43 PM PDT by kristinn
Well, that didn't take long. A "senior Obama administration official" is breaking ranks to call out his boss in Time magazine about Libya.
In an article published online Sunday night, Time writer Massimo Calabresi buries the lede by holding the bombshell quotes until the fourth paragraph, preferring to write about himself the first three.
The quotes have the official all but calling Obama a liar over his stated reasons for going to war in Libya. The article also has the official saying Obama is knowingly taking a "huge gamble" because al Qaeda has cells in Libya that could benefit from the the assault on Qaddafi's regime.
The ability for the U.S. to muster international force to prevent thugs from killing innocent people is important. But the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they're exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That's dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war. Moreover, the rhetorical focus on the crazy things Gaddafi might do obscures the debate America should have before intervening: does the value of preventing possible war crimes against Libyans outweigh the risks to America's national security that come with intervening?
Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It's a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi. They also know that the U.S. will have to rely on other countries for the crucial task of rebuilding Libya and that the region may in fact be further destabilized by intervention. Outweighing that, the National Security Council's Ben Rhodes says, are the long-term benefits of saving lives, protecting the possibility of democratic change elsewhere in the region and—tellingly—ensuring “the ability of collective action to be a tool in circumstances like this.”
The thrust of the article is that the war in Libya will help the view of proponents in the administration to lay the predicate for future 'humanitarian' wars. However the important part is that the administration is knowingly risking aiding al Qaeda while 'straining' the truth about explaining the intervention to the American people.
...considering his track record, it will be another failure.
Everything this clown touches turns to kaka...
Imminent... there's that word again.
The Left went after Bush because the WMD threat wasn't "imminent" in their eyes.
-PJ
This WH is filled with Code Pinko types. Obama won the nomination as an anti war leftist.
They can only put on a facade for so long until they crack.
As soon as “days” turn into weeks, and God forbid if boots hit the ground, the push back will be ugly.
So, what IS the reason? They say he is stretching the truth, trying to justify it I guess, but what is the REAL reason??? Does anyone have a clue? I’m truly confused.
I suspect the term "imminent genocide" is going to be his defense.
“If Gaddafi were not stopped, he said, “the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.”
Apparently that logic was impermissible when a Republican president elected to apply it to a dictator who had thumbed his nose at UN sanctions and a no-fly zone for roughly a decade.
O hearts W.
I have yet to figure out why we are in Libya.
I also think it’s interesting that Obama overrode the opposition of all his military advisors—quite in contrast to Bush in his decision to go to war.
....3 years ago, people said he intends to make America “pay” for pass “injustices”....he is well on his way.
Code Pink, A.N.S.W.E.R. and other assorted hippie freaks have no problem with war, just war that furthers United States interests. Their silence is deafening.
So far, Crazy Louie Farrakhan is the only voice on the left which I've heard speaking out.
Remember when Bush was Prez? Media whackjobs screamed from the rooftops whenever they found a dissenter....but with Hussein, they keep it on the downlow.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
...because Dumbo opened his yap and said, Daffy has to step down,........and because the free world looks upon the US as "enforcer", they expected US leadership....WRONG!~....there's nothing there, the bowing clown couldn't lead a kindergarten assault on a bag of M&M's
(0dumb0 strikes again)
This senior official actually understates the danger. By undermining Mubarak and attacking Kaddafi, Obama is helping al Qaeda and associates in EVERY Muslim state where these “popular” revolts are taking place.
And he’s damaging black Africa as well. He already pushed for sharia law and abortion in Kenya, which was strongly resisting both, until he worked his church-burning cousin Railla Odinga in there.
Kaddafi was a friend to Africa. He gave them jobs and helped them with development projects. He may have been motivated more by egoism than anything else, but never mind, he was doing a lot of good. That’s why the African nations strongly oppose this so-called “no fly” scam.
Never let a good crisis go to waste!
IOW, 0bama is up to something, and you can bet it's bad for America)
The jerks just torque me off to no end with their smarmy intellectual dishonesty.
If you close your eyes and have someone read this to you out loud, it sounds an awful lot like Hillary or Bill.
Let the games begin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.