Is taking out Gaddafi a goal?:
Cameron told MPs: “The UN resolution is limited in its scope and explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal by military means. We will help fulfil the security council aims, and leave it to the Libyan people to determine their government and their destiny, but our view is clear that there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power.”
Later Cameron’s spokesman argued that it was lawful to target Gaddafi if he was seen as organising the threat to Libyan civilians, pointing out that the security council’s objective was to protect civilians.
It will be very interesting if Gaddafi is hit during these attacks.. Cameron had very strong (and smart) words about it…
Barack Obama… echoed the dispute in London, saying there was no contradiction between the Pentagon saying removal of Gaddafi was not a goal and the White House saying it was.
Well, actually sir I believe there is a direct contradiction being made by you who isn’t even authorized to be taking such aggressive action!
And for kicks here’s an article on our economy and the actions being taken in Libya:
The really, really troubling thing about this is that Washington will almost certainly ignore the inconsistency. I doubt any pundits will take the opportunity to observe that Washington leaders apparently don’t actually believe that America faces immediate fiscal constraints…
word. And if we aren’t in as much of a crisis as they want us to believe.. why would they be slashing programs left and right? Class… Warfare?
We need a revolution.