Obama administration invites Libyan opposition to White House for meetings Friday

[alp227]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is stepping up its engagement with forces fighting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, inviting opposition leaders to meet with U.S. officials at the White House Friday, while stopping short of recognizing their council as Libya’s legitimate government.

The White House said Mahmoud Jibril, a representative of the Libyan Transitional National Council, would meet with senior administration officials, including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, as well as members of Congress. But there were no plans for President Barack Obama to meet with Jibril and his delegation.

France and Italy are among the nations that recognize the Council as Libya’s legitimate government. But White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that while the U.S. would continue consulting and assisting the opposition, giving the Council political legitimacy would be “premature.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama_administration_invites_libyan_opposition_to_white_house_for_meetings_friday/2011/05/12/AFSy4HzG_story.html

[Proletariatprincess]

1. I really hate this news......

the USA has no business fomenting revolution in another country. I know that the USA does this all the time but it is usually more clandestine. Not this time. Because
Nato countries are on board doesn't make it any more legitimate. It just makes it more visable and in your face.
Since nations do not have permanent friends, just permanent interests, there may be a day when other nations decide that the USA needs regime change too. When the rule of international law is so blantantly flaunted, any and every country is at risk.

[razorman]

2. Judging from the way the Libyan opposition has handled things so far,

I suspect that they will have to arrive at the White House on a short bus.

[EFerrari]

3. Tradition.

President Reagan meets with Contra leaders in the Oval Office. Oliver North is at far right. When this photo was officially released North's image was cut out.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/

[al bupp]

4. Comparing the Libyan TNC to the Nicaraguan Contras is misleading and facetious

The circumstances in Libya have little in common w/ what happened in Central America in the 80s. Gaddafi was never elected by anybody to anything. He has ruled by thuggery for 40 years, including political assignations, sponsorship of terrorists, and public executions of dissidents rebroadcast on state television channels. Not exactly the paradise of free expression which leftists typically agitate for. Go to the Wikipedia entry for much more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

In terms of the revolt, unlike the Contras, it enjoys is a wide-spread across the country, has been almost entirely homegrown, although many ex-pats have left comfortable lives abroad to return to join a popular rebellion that will likely topple Daffi's regime w/in weeks, if not days. Many of us on the left consider this a positive development.

[EFerrari]

5. Speak for yourself, Miles Standish. n/t

[al bupp]

6. Does this response mean that you dispute the points I made...

or simply that you disagree w/ my assertion that not all of us on the left-side of the political spectrum are blinded by 30-year-old anti-imperialist dogma?

[ClarkUSA]

7. +1

:applause:

[ozone_man]

8. But we have overthrown many elected governments before.

For example Iran, or Chile, Guatemala, ... So whether a government is elected or not is not really the issue. It's that we should not be meddling with other sovereign countries, and the CIA should not be fomenting these uprisings. We see what happens when we overthrow democratically elected government like Iran in 1953 to install the Shah, or arm the Taliban in Afghanistan. We should never have gone to Afghanistan or Iraq and should not be in Libya. That simple. It never really was about OBL or WMDs now was it? Of course not. It has always been about securing foreign economic interests and allowing safe entry of U.S. multinationals to control resource wealth.

[al bupp]

9. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the CIA fomented events in Libya?

Or is it just a conditioned response? Bringing up past instances does not constitute such evidence in my book. In fact, it borders on the delusional to think that the CIA is somehow behind the Arab spring which has caused all sorts of headaches for US Mid-east policy. Do you really believe that they wanted to topple a long-time ally in Egypt and would like to see another (yet to) go in Yemen? The events in Libya follow the pattern of people across the region taking to the streets.

As for so-called meddling in a sovereign country, I hardly think Libya's government qualifies as such. Its ruler took power in a coup and has held onto it for 40 years by means of vicious thuggery, including brutal repression of internal opposition via the summary arrest and execution of dissidents (at home and abroad), an utter lack of free speech, state control of all large businesses, media and the educational system. There is no right to strike or form political parties. It's essentially a Stalinist system of government, and strange thing for self-professed progressives to support.

The intervention in Libya has been approved by the UN and has wide support among both European and Arab countries. Comparing it to Iraq, Chile or Guatemala (what no mention of Nicaragua or El Salvador?) reveals many more differences than similarities. In the former, there is a wide-spread popular uprising that basically begged for international assistance in order level the considerable heavy weapons advantage enjoyed by Gaddafi. They have all along clearly insisted on no foreign troops being placed on the ground somehow on their behalf. In fact, according to many reports, the foreign troops in Libya have been mercenaries from Chad, Mali, Sudan, Belarus, Syria and Serbia recruited by Gaddafi.

The refrain about it all being about multinational resource control, doesn't stand-up to much scrutiny in this case. They already had very comfortable arrangements w/ the dictator before all this messiness started. Nothing that has happened in Libya in the last few months has been very good for the Western companies doing business there. Refineries are shutdown and almost all trade has stopped. I think the Transitional National Council has made reasonable efforts at being transparent and certainly said all the right things about the type of country and government they envision. I suppose one could say it's all just talk, and that deals are being cut behind the scenes, but I think that's pure speculation at this point.

[ozone_man]

10. Here's an article from NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html

Of course, it's way beyond the CIA in Libya now. I'm sure the CIA is in Syria too.

I brought up past instances to your remark about elected governments. It makes no difference to the U.S. whether a government is elected, such as Venezuela, which we have tried to overthrow (recently) and keep trying.

And does this mean that all unelected governments such as monarchies should be overthrown? We don't have that right, to bring "democracy" everywhere we go, but with the underlying purpose of making the world safe for multinational corporate control.

I think it would be naive to think that U.S. policy is directed by humanitarian interests and not financial interests. Of course if both can be achieved at the same time, than sure, it's good PR. But if it was just humanitarian interests, why for example did we not try to stop the genocidal civil war in Rwanda or Sudan until very late?

I'm not suggesting that Gaddafi stay in power, but we don't need to be sucked into another ground war, and occupation, and shouldn't be arming anyone. We did this with the Taliban, who we are now fighting, and why when Al Queda is not in Afghanistan? Why Iraq? It's not for humanitarian reasons (or WMD's). If it were, how could we justify killing over 100,000 Iraqis and destroying their country? The fast that previously nationalize Iraqis oil is firmly controlled by multinational corporation should tell you the answer. OBL was just a useful bogeyman, enabler of the neocon agenda, which Obama seems OK with continuing.

[al bupp]

12. I don't think the article demonstrates CIa "meddling"...

merely intelligence gathering, and coordination w/ the TNC which they would be remiss if they neglected to do pretty much all over the region, including Syria.

I am not advocating the overthrowing of all unelected governments, simply the support of the rebellion in Libya (and Syria, if it comes to it, which I doubt it will). We are not bringing democracy to Libya, the Libyans are doing that, thank you very much. Check out the events of the last few days. It's Libyan "boots on the ground" which are advancing on every front of the country.

There may be ulterior motives to NATO's support of the rebellion in Libya, to be sure, but I think it has less to do w/ the interests of multi-nationals than it does w/ stemming a large flux of migrants north into Europe. I am not suggesting that US and NATO have only humanitarian interests at heart.

Of course, when critical resources have not been at stake in the past, such as in Rwanda or the Sudan (where Gaddafi funded the Janjaweed, BTW) then western powers have certainly been too slow to respond, and have been roundly and rightly criticized for that slow or largely non-existent response. But you seem to be arguing both sides by saying we should have intervened to prevent slaughter in other African locales but were wrong to have done so in Libya.

I think it extremely unlikely that the US will be sucked into any ground war or occupation in Libya (or Syria or Yemen, for that matter). I completely opposed the fiasco in Iraq, and have has deep reservations about Afghanistan. I simply think that in Libya, for once we got it right. For the first time in my adult life (closing in on 50 years) I support a military action of my government.

Had not France, England and the US acted so quickly, I think it likely that Gaddafi would have crushed the rebellion. The NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya (which includes forces from renowned imperialists such as Norway and Sweden, as well as the Arab countries of Qatar, UAE, and Jordan) has not caused anything like the level casualties seen in Iraq, nor is it destroying the country. To suggest that it is or will, well, to me that's the boogie man in this argument.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Inviting them to meet at the White House ...

gives them political legitimacy. :Phucktard:

[The abyss]

13. Obama White House does face time with CIA 3 stooges.

All for a US taxpayer pony show.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/hift-m30.shtml

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html

Wake up critters!

Or perhaps go to sleep... whatever is best :)