From the Weekly Standard:
Obama's Pathetic Response to Libya
7:26 PM, FEB 23, 2011 • BY ELLIOTT ABRAMSWith a thousand Libyans (and perhaps many more) dead already from the Qaddafi regime’s attacks on its own population, and with reports of thousands of mercenaries and militiamen streaming toward Tripoli, President Obama finally spoke to the nation about this violence on Wednesday afternoon. He announced solemnly that he was sending Secretary of State Clinton to Geneva to visit the U.N. Human Rights Council and “hold consultations”—next Monday! But fear not: Undersecretary of State Bill Burns is apparently traveling sooner than that to “several stops in Europe” and then even in the actual Middle East, to “intensify our>consultations.”
This is not so much a feeble response as a non-response. It is an announcement to Qaddafi that we won’t even get the secretary of State moving for five more days—five more days of likely slaughter. The verbs the president employed in his remarks are toothless: we will “monitor” and “coordinate” and “consult.” We will “speak with one voice.” While he “strongly” condemned “the use of violence in Libya” the president could not bring himself to condemn the regime or its leader, the man who is imposing this reign of terror. He did say “the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.” But at what cost? He did not say. The closest the president came to speaking of action was this: “I’ve also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners, or those that we’ll carry out through multilateral institutions.” No one knows what this means, but it presumably may mean sanctions. Maybe. Next week. Because "prepare" is not an action verb either.
Some parts of the world are way ahead of us. Denunciations came faster and have been stronger in Europe, and yesterday Amre Moussa suspended Libya from the Arab League. That’s a good test. When Amre Moussa, the long-time secretary general of the Arab League, is ahead of you in denouncing human rights violations, you are reacting a bit slowly. ... see more
and, from Israel Matzav, Carl in Jerusalem, there is the overuse of a word by Obama's administration:
"That's unacceptable!"
On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said,“The government of Libya has a responsibility to respect the universal rights of the people, including the right to free expression and assembly. Now is the time to stop this unacceptable bloodshed. We are working urgently with friends and partners around the world to convey this message to the Libyan government.”Danielle Pletka comments:
Her statement, which might have be called tough if it were followed by any sort of action—which it was not—got me to thinking about what is “unacceptable.” Turns out, most of what senior U.S. officials find “unacceptable,” they’re really willing to, you know, accept. Thanks to our rapid reaction research intern Alex Della Rochetta, here is a quick, short list of recent “unacceptable” actions.Read the whole thing. I shudder to think what else will be 'acceptable' in the future.
By the way, only about half the quotes are from Clinton (who really needs to stop using that word).
and, from the Tennessean, in its title we find Obama using the same word as Hillary, "unacceptable" .. I think Carl in Jerusalem is on to something - the Obama administration should check the dictionary and come up with a few stronger words, even if action is weak:
