« | »

Hillary Hopes UN Will Let US Arm Rebels

From the UK’s Guardian:

US paves way to arm Libyan rebels

Clinton tells London conference that UN security council resolution 1973 over-rode absolute prohibition of arms to Libya

Nicholas Watt , chief political correspondent
Tuesday 29 March 2011

Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country.

As Libya’s opposition leaders called for the international community to arm them, the secretary of state indicated that the US was considering whether to meet their demands when she talked of a "work in progress".

The US indicated on Monday night that it had not ruled out arming the rebels, though it was assumed this would take some time because of a UN arms embargo which applies to all sides in Libya.

But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."

Notice that the hitch in arming the rebels is not that we don’t even know who the Libyan rebels are or what they want. (Or we pretend not to know.) No, the only problem Mrs. Clinton sees is that it might violate a United Nation’s embargo on Libya. Our own national interests be damned.

Clinton’s remarks came after the Libyan Transitional National Council used the London conference to issue a plea to be armed.

Mahmoud Shammam, the council’s head of media, told a press conference at the Foreign Office: "We asked everybody to help us in many ways. One of them is giving our youth some real weapons.

"If you look to the reports that you have from the streets of Libya or from the cities of Libya you will see that our people have very light arms. You can see that just regular cars are fighting with machine guns… [O]therwise we finish Gaddafi in a few days. But we don’t have arms…"

Yes, we must give these Muslim youths heavier weapons. Perhaps some stinger missiles. After all, what could go wrong?

Clinton cautioned that no decision had yet been made on arming the rebels as she said the first priority was to provide financial support for the Transitional National Council

If we are giving the rebels money, we are giving them arms. What else would they be doing with the money? Buying real estate?

Clinton had earlier warned that coalition military action in Libya will continue until Gaddafi complies with the terms of UN security council resolution 1973. "We have prevented a potential massacre," the secretary of state told the conference

And what better way to prevent "a potential massacre" than by arming rebels who are determined to wipe out the current government and its supporters? Rebels who have ties to Al Qaeda. Rebels from the same area that has been a pipeline for terrorists going into Iraq.

Clinton and [British foreign secretary, William] Hague also indicated that the US and Britain accept that Gaddafi may be able to escape into exile.

How kind of Mrs. Clinton to allow Mr. Gaddafi to live.

Clinton said: "As the Arab League has said, it is obvious to everyone that Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. We believe he must go … he will have to make a decision and that decision, so far as we aware, has not yet been made … a political resolution could include him leaving the country."

We realize that this is forgotten ancient history. But did Bill Clinton lose his "legitimacy to lead" with the rest of the world when he was impeached for perjury and suppressing witnesses?

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Hillary Hopes UN Will Let US Arm Rebels”

  1. Enthalpy says:

    Irrespective of outcome, Muslims win. Putting our men and women at risk to save a people who have no tolerance for us and our culture is unacceptable.

  2. River0 says:

    Hey, didn’t this happen in Afghanistan in the ’80’s and ’90’s? We gave the Mujahadeen stinger missiles and other weapons to drive out the Soviets, and then al Qaeda was formed along with the Taliban. That worked out well, didn’t it?

    • proreason says:

      Well sure it happened in Afghanistan and every other regional conflict since then, but that was under the evil regime of Ronald Reagan and later under the evil regime of bushhitler.

      Now that we have a Light Worker as president, we can be 100% assured that the rebels are freedom loving, peace loving heroes who are virtually taking their orders from our Dear Leader. Why, when they aren’t nobly struggling against the undemocratic rule of a madman who has dared to cross our Dear Leader, they baby-sit for poor mothers who depend on the kindness of strangers.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      And Dan Akroyd turns to Hillary and says, “Hillary…..you ignorant, misguided slut.”

    • Papa Louie says:

      Why not double down on a bad bet? The Pelosi Doctrine of passing a bill to find out what’s in it applies here too. You have to arm the rebels to find out who they are. We used that doctrine when Carter supported the uprising against the Shah of Iran. Then again when we armed Saddam. Then again when we helped the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. And just recently it has come to light that the ATF has been arming Mexican drug gangs in an operation called Fast and Furious at the same time the Obama administration has been complaining about American guns finding their way into Mexico. With such a long record of past successes with the Pelosi Doctrine, why would you have any cause for concern in Libya?

  3. oldpuppydixie says:

    Let’s see…will the Islam-controlled U.N allow the US to arm Muslim terrorists? Gee, that’s a TOUGHIE!!!


« Front Page | To Top
« | »