Rumsfeld: Leaving Gaddafi in power will 'embolden' America's enemies

Rumsfeld: Leaving Gaddafi in power will 'embolden' America's enemies

www.rawstory.com

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday that the reputation of the United States would be damaged if Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is allowed to remain in power.

"My personal view is that once you're involved, you have to recognize that the prestige of the United States is at stake," he told ABC's Jake Tapper.

"If Gaddafi stays on, he will think he fought the mother of all battles -- against the United States," Rumsfeld continued. "It will be damaging to us just as our demeanor in Somalia was damaging, the situation in Lebanon was damaging and that will embolden ot

(visit the link for the full news article)

I apologise in advance if this has been previously posted, a search has yielded no results.

There isn't to much one can say regarding to the Neo Conservatives statements regarding the U.S, European and Nato intervention in Libya. It is just another case, of American politicians being what they are so good at, war mongerers.

Rumsfeld said he agreed with former deputy at the Pentagon Paul Wolfowitz, who said last week, "If Gaddafi were to survive, it would be very much against American interests."

I wonder what he means by this. Does he mean American interests regarding Libyan resources? Or does he simply mean projecting the U.S as the world super power, a dominant figure in global politics and invunrable to challenge?
It may be a mixture of both with aditional information which hasn't been disclosed to the general public. What ever it is, it sounds extremely sinister. He in some way is hinting to the necessity of an occupational force, if an aerial opperation yields little success.
If the statement "republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin" rings true, that would mean that the people of America would be led into yet another war, in another continent, that they no little about and care little about.
The most alarming thing I have noticed is that every military and covert intervention in a foreign land, after Hawaii has been regarded as a humanitarian mission. Cuba, Nicuragua, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Iran, the Phillipenes and countless others were all regarded as humanitarian military interventions or humanitarian covert interventions. History has proven to us otherwise History has proven these missions always has national or corporate, monetary and economic interests. These were potrayed in the media, similiar to how Libya is being potrayed now. If politicians have lied to the people, since their first interventions in foreign, soveriegn states. Why would they be telling us the truth now? This is about corporate, national and economic interests. Not humanitarian intervention.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

If you look back, it was probably Rummy that armed and supported Gaddafi..
But now his usefulness has come to an end..
Like many before him he must be replaced with a new puppet so the world will "think" justice has been done..

reply to post by backinblack


One must only look at the history of American foreign policy and interventionism to see the reasons as to why, the U.S involved in Libya. You are an educated individual. What is your belief, why do you think the states are intervening? Is it corporate, national and economic interests like Cuba, Nicuragua, Iran, Hundoras and so forth. Or is this a first? A humanitarian mission with no monetary interests?

I agree, they should also hang him out in public and have all MAJOR news outlets stream it LIVE!

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

What is your belief, why do you think the states are intervening? Is it corporate, national and economic interests like Cuba, Nicuragua, Iran, Hundoras and so forth. Or is this a first? A humanitarian mission with no monetary interests?

Humanitarian..

But seriously, even Gates was quoted today as saying although the US had some interests in Libya, it's more the region that they are interested in..
The US doesn't want to lose control of any section in that region..
They are increasing their presence with Iraq and Afghanistan now under their control..
I'd be worried if I were in Syria,Lebanon,Yemen or Iran..
One of them will be next to share in the US Humanitarian cause..

So, now not only WAS it started for regime change and for the betterment of the Libyan people, NOW it seems that the war is being fought for the simple reason that America doesn't want to lose face.
How pathetic the US government is seeming these days.

reply to post by DataWraith


It is rather sad and pathetic how a mega-creep like Rumsfeld makes what was originally supposed to be all about the Lybian people all about the American people's ego and of course the fear that they have been trying to alternately create and exploit since 9-11, that the world is out to get America.

I sure would love to see Rumsfeld charged with War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

When somebody so universally disliked as Rumsfeld is, you would think he would keep his branding off of something he truly supported. Anybody else think he may be throwing in his "support" just to make Obama look like he's in the same boat as a man who helped facilitate a false war? It's obviously working, intentional or not.

It's simple, Gadaffi relinquished the use of terrorism agains the US, if he survives you can be sure they'll be more Lockerbies in the future. Just as we can expect to see terrorism acts perpetrated by Iraqi's against the US sometime in the future.

Rumy the same guy with the help of the media, induced to the american audience that saddam hussein had weapson of mass destruction and now this

like the ole saying goes if i had a nickel for every lie that comes out of these poiticians mouth's, i would be a billionare

Plenty of world leaders have done as bad (or worse) to their people than what Gaddafi has done and threatened to do - and the world has turned a blind eye to that. In many of those cases no country (including the US) lifted a finger to stop it.

So, why Libya? Clearly, TPTB want Gaddafi out of power. If the reason they went in was to "protect the people" there is a long list of countries that the UN or NATO could go into - and they don't.

At this point I'd almost just rather them come clean and tell us they want Gaddafi out and give the reason. It would be better than the hogwash we hear.

Originally posted by Frogs
So, why Libya? Clearly, TPTB want Gaddafi out of power. If the reason they went in was to "protect the people" there is a long list of countries that the UN or NATO could go into - and they don't.

Why Libya? As far as I can see there are several reasons:

1. There appears to be a popular uprising against Gaddafi
2. Libya is on NATO's doorstep
3. There is a UN resolution in place
4. Domino effect

Originally posted by Frogs
Plenty of world leaders have done as bad (or worse) to their people than what Gaddafi has done and threatened to do - and the world has turned a blind eye to that. In many of those cases no country (including the US) lifted a finger to stop it.
So, why Libya? Clearly, TPTB want Gaddafi out of power. If the reason they went in was to "protect the people" there is a long list of countries that the UN or NATO could go into - and they don't.
At this point I'd almost just rather them come clean and tell us they want Gaddafi out and give the reason. It would be better than the hogwash we hear.

Who is exactly the TPTB ? I always wondered the usage of this particular acronym on ATS.

2nd line

Originally posted by mad scientist
It's simple, Gadaffi relinquished the use of terrorism agains the US, if he survives you can be sure they'll be more Lockerbies in the future. Just as we can expect to see terrorism acts perpetrated by Iraqi's against the US sometime in the future.

Lockerbie is irrelevant to this whole article and Libya itself. Lockerbie and the Lockerbie attack had no substantial evidence to link Libya with the terrorist activity. Evidence had to be removed from the trial as it was proven to be planted. The trial was entirely un-fair and there is to this day, no substantial proof that Libya was involved. Many people to this day think it may have possibly been the Syrian terrorist orginization "the popular front for the liberation of palestine". This renders the whole issue of national security redundent.

reply to post by Frogs


I agree, Frogs. What the Iranian government has done to the Persians is far, FAR worse than anything Quadaffi or Mubarak even thought about. I'm not saying that we should have attacked Iran- in fact, absolutely not! But we couldn't come up with *anything* to help them? Bull. The US govt needs them to stay just like they are (until they are "needed").

My reaction to Rumsfeld is 'so Libya is just another ME country on the list that PNAC wants to "regime change" and Obama, like Bill Clinton (Hillary as SOS- Duh), is just another puppet/ player like the Bush cabal'.
Gad. They don't even put up a pretense anymore.

Why is this old war mongering dirt bag still allowed to even voice an opinion?

Wasnt the orchestration of 9/11 and the slaughtering of over a million Iraqi and Afghan civillians enough to appease his blood lust?


Someone should put a bullet in his diseased old brain and do the world a favor.

reply to post by BlackOps719

Someone should put a bullet in his diseased old brain and do the world a favor.

Some share the same view on many leaders and they ain't all in third world countries.

reply to post by BlackOps719



This is likely more about politics and MIC profits than any perceived "blood lust".

Obama's original statements, regarding Libya, concerned "humanitarian efforts". Although the real reasons for actions in Libya are rightfully up for debate, he stated a desire to specifically avoid "mission creeping". By neo-cons now coming out of the woodwork, in direct support of such "mission creep", it's an opportunity to attempt to take a shot at Obama by placing him in another damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't situation. If we go after Gaddafi, then Obama breaks his word and the MIC bilks the taxpayers for more millions/billions. If we leave Gaddafi to his own devices, then neo-cons paint Obama as weak and play up the fear/terror card once again. Rumsfeld's statements are a transparently political move, and politics isn't a game that ever gets any prettier.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Lockerbie is a well known attack orchestrated by Libya, hell the Libyans even paid compensation over it. I suggest you read just a little more about it and inform yourself.
Sorry but what I said holds true.