Monday, March 28, 2011

Why are we Offering Humanitarian aid to Libya?


When we couldn'be be bothered to help in China (Tienamen Square, albeit a long time ago), Darfur, the Congo, the Sudan...everywhere that's got no oil, we're not doing a lot to help...

Rush shared some soundbytes from Obama at Youtube:
RUSH: Saturday, White House YouTube Channel, President Obama: Libya mission is succeeding.

OBAMA: We're succeeding in our mission. We've taken out Libya's air defenses. Khadafy's forces are no longer advancing across Libya.

RUSH: Wrong.

OBAMA: In places like Benghazi, a city of some 700,000 that Khadafy threatened to show "no mercy," his forces have been pushed back. So make no mistake: Because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided, and the lives of countless civilians -- innocent men, women, and children -- have been saved.

RUSH: This just adds to the confusion of what this is all about. Khadafy's still there. This is really hard. We're dealing with somebody who's not ground in reality on this in any way, shape, manner, or form. This is... My gosh, folks, it's embarrassing. It's worse than embarrassing. Also Saturday, White House YouTube Channel.

OBAMA: When someone like Khadafy threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives, then it's in our national interests to act, and it's our responsibility. This is one of those times.

RUSH: Khadafy threatens a bloodbath. Well, here we go. And a lot of other people now are picking up this refrain that we offered last week: "Well, there's a lot of bloodbaths around the world. Darfur. North Korea. Syria. Why aren't we there?" It was fascinating on Meet the Press yesterday. The audio is coming up here, but this was a stunning power play. On Meet the Press yesterday, after Defense Secretary Robert Gates conceded that Libya is not a vital interest of the United States... Stop and think of that. He conceded, the Secretary of Defense, that the action in Libya is not rooted in a vital national interest of ours. Before he could complete his comments, Mrs. Clinton cut him off, and she launched into a minute-and-40-second monologue seeking to justify US military involvement in Libya.

Then he points out the number of European countries that have energy interests in Libya, and that's why we're there, to help out Europe.
RUSH: Here is why we're in Libya. There's the chart. This chart shows every energy and oil installation in Libya, offshore and on, every one of them is a European owned entity. You got BP, you've got ExxonMobil. This chart is from STRATFOR, Stratfor.com. We will put this at RushLimbaugh.com. Sarkozy and Cameron today have come out and are urging Libyans to oppose Khadafy. This is no more a humanitarian mission than a mission to save the animals and the pets of Libya. This is about European energy, pure and simple, and who was there first? Who didn't wait for us? The Europeans. We were stragglers, were we not? We were the last there. There are no vital US interests, we're told. Gates says, "No vital US interests." That's not true and Mrs. Clinton interrupts him and goes on a minute and 40 second monologue on Meet the Press yesterday to suggest that there might be some vital US interests. Well, that's a pretty big chunk of that country, particularly on the northeastern coast of this country that's got a lot of energy installations. Now, in the lower-left hand corner as you're looking at it, the lower-left hand corner lists by color-code every country that owns one of those installations.

I wonder if the European countries will reimburse us for the effort we're making on their behalf?

_______
In the interests of Order and Method: My Schedule of Regular Posts
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomats
*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday througout the day - My posts on anything that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.

No comments:

Post a Comment