Obama Threatens Gaddafi with “Accountability”

How do you restrain a megalomaniacal despot with unlimited funds who has a history of slaughtering innocents and could disrupt energy flows from the world’s 9th largest petroleum exporting country? President Obama took a stab at it this evening, using the threat of “accountability” repeatedly in brief remarks from the White House. But his sternly worded statement did more to show just how volatile and out-of-control Libya has become as power slips from the brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

Obama had previously said little on the deteriorating situation there, issuing only a written statement last Friday. This afternoon, with Americans making their way out of the country, he said “We strongly condemn the use of violence in Libya” and “the suffering and bloodshed is outrageous, and it is unacceptable. So are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and further punish the people of Libya. These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop.”

Washington is not close to Gaddafi, and formulaic objections like those are unlikely to influence the dictator. So the president tried to get his attention with some multilateral options that seemed to target Gaddafi himself, though the president never mentioned him by name. Obama tried to sharpen yesterday’s oblique UN Security Council threat of “accountability”, by saying it had also been made by the EU, the Arab League, the African Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. “North and south, east and west, voices are being raised together to oppose suppression and support the rights of the Libyan people,” Obama said.

He then went further, saying that every option, including presumably military ones, might be on the table should Gaddafi follow through on his threats. Said Obama, “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.” Obama then laid out the justification under international law for considering humanitarian intervention. “Like all governments, 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,” Obama said.

It is unlikely that the U.S. would lead a military intervention to Libya: American interests there are limited. Obama’s tough language is more an indication of how far outsiders will need to go to get Gaddafi’s attention.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know, until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, were the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, whom Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • nflfoghorn

    He doesn’t control much of the country outside Tripoli. His countrymen (and women) don’t respect him. And they’re not afraid of him. How much power does he really have now?
    Does BO have a Plan B/C/D up his sleeve–or hope that Libya can end like Egypt did?

  • libssd

    All options stink. The USA has zero influence over Libya, so our best hope is that the opposition can depose Qaddafi relatively quickly; otherwise, it’s civil war of uncertain duration.

    I hope it’s not wishful thinking on my part, but I see Qaddafi’s death, by bullet or at the end of a rope, as the most likely outcome. The problem is that Libya (unlike Egypt), after 40 years of paranoid dictatorship, has no political institutions, so it’s anyone’s guess as to what happens post-Qaddafi.

    It’s difficult to imagine the UN or the EC finding the political will to intervene. Libya is more within NATO’s sphere of responsibility than Afghanistan, but even NATO involvement seems a stretch, given the current military presence in Afghanistan.

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    We should just stop making announcements like this. It makes us look weak. And while we are too weak to deal with yet another war, doing this is just bad policy.

    If Obama wants to put a price on Gaddafi’s head he should do so. Let some mercs go after him on their own terms, deliver his head as it were, and let Libya settle its own situation after that.

    Otherwise, these threats of accountability are like wind against brick wall.

  • liberalmeltdown

    Obama’s threats of accountability ring hollow. I am sure Gaddafi and all his aliases, Khadafi, Qaddafi (how the heck is his name spelled??), is shaking in his robe. Obama didn’t even mention him by name, not once, like he did Murbarak. Maybe he doesn’t know how to say it?
    .
    Hillary Clinton words on the Somalia pirates are also hollow and meaningless. She talks about the international community, like who? The international community couldn’t care less about Somali pirates killing Americans, and this administration shows that it doesn’t care either.

  • afguy

    And WHAT would you have them do, meltdown… bomb the crap out of somebody?
    .
    Who did you have in mind? Anybody in particular? Or just pick a random Somali village along the coast and level it, just for the crime of being Somali and being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
    .
    Would THAT make you feel better?

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Liberal, let me get this straight. According to Republicans each of us is responsible for ourselves, our own lives and the government shouldn’t get involved. A poor person is responsible for seeing to their own needs, sans government help, as a wealthy person.
    .
    Ok. I think I got the personal responsibility thing down. This is what I don’t get:
    .
    These people who were murdered by the pirates didn’t act very responsibly in sailing that part of the world. They should have there was a chance they could be overtaken. They should have even known there was a slight chance they could suffer the fate that they had. And they decided to take that chance anyway. Its called personal responsibility if I am not mistaken.
    .
    So why are so many Republicans who advocate personal responsibility all the time suddenly screaming that the government should do something so that this doesn’t happen to anybody else? Is there really that much of a difference between a poor person who can’t afford to heat their home in the winter and thus lacks personal responsibility and those who would sail in a part of the world known for piracy??
    .
    I would wager it costs far less to provide heat to tens of thousands of poor families than it does for the navy to try to protect these nitwits who shrug at the obvious dangers of sailing that part of the world as if they believe it couldn’t happen to them or that they would want the costly rescue if it did.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    They should have KNOWN the dangers.
    .
    There fixed it, left out a word.

  • michaelfury
  • liberalmeltdown

    OK erie, the next person that is found dead on the wrong side of town is because he was stupid enough to just be there, right?
    .
    What an asinine argument. I want YOU to know erieangel that you are blaming people that were murdered. UNBELIEVABLE.
    .
    Please erie, don’t go outside. It’s dangerous out there. SO, if you get murdered, you have been warned. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

  • liberalmeltdown

    Man you people are twisted. You take accountability, the responsibly for your own actions and twist that into a justification for pirates to murder people. That’s amazing, really.
    .
    So, in you liberal twisted brains, if you sail a boat into waters that some pirates might be, you deserve what happens to you. That’s your definition of accountability?
    .
    SORRY losers, you have it exactly wrong. What if the pirates camp outside your house? It’s your fault if you go outside and they kill you, according to your grossly insane logic.
    .
    What should we do? Let’s see. We have a navy. If a pissant pirate boat gets launched from Somalia. It get a bullet right through the hull. End of pirates.
    .
    Please don’t try and define anything ever. The accountability lies with the murderer you idiots.

  • formerlyjames

    I don’t take a position on this because it doesn’t make a bit of difference what I think about it, and the decision will be made by the so called experts. I don’t know what the best course would be. What I do know is that if you are hoping for a solution from our foreign policy establishment, you may as well go out and spit against the cold wind. That is the history, that is their record.

  • freeinpa

    “It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities and face the cost of continued violations of human rights,” Obama said.”
    ..
    Gaddafi responded by saying “I am not worried I am a card carrying member of the NEA”
    .
    Obama then warned Gaddafi he would resort to his ultimate option– – - double secret probation!

    The desert filled with laughter

  • nflfoghorn

    It’s largely that, but if you take a chance and sail in that part of the world–knowing full well the dangers–then yes, it’s a sad but avoidable consequence. It has nothing to do with your definition of “liberal.”

  • Massimo Calabresi

    “The desert filled with laughter” is easily the most poetic comment I’ve read on swampland, in honor of which, “Ozymandias” by Percy Bysshe Shelley:

    I met a traveller from an antique land
    Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
    And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    `My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
    Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
    The lone and level sands stretch far away”.

  • libssd

    Khadafi, Qaddafi (how the heck is his name spelled??)
    It’s spelled: معمر القذاف. :)

    Romanization of Arabic is always iffy. His surname begins with what is normally represented with Q, but is in some dialects pronounced “G”, hence the confusion. Definitely not KH, which is a completely different consonant.

  • libssd

    “We have a navy. If a pissant pirate boat gets launched from Somalia. It get a bullet right through the hull. End of pirates.”

    Sinking the attack boats has been SOP for some time, but the number of attacks keeps going up. The area they infest is huge. If there were an easy solution, the problem would have been solved long ago. If you are ready to invade and rule Somalia for an indefinite time, we could probably get a handle on the piracy problem — but the solution is worse than the problem.

    It took 30 years and two wars to deal with the Barbary Coast pirates, 1785-1815. Starting in 1795, the U.S. government paid the Dey of Algiers $1 million for release of 115 captured sailors, and continued to pay tribute for another 15 years. In some ways, dealing with the Barbary Coast pirates was easier, because they were working for a defined government, with whom we could sign a treaty, unlike Somalia, which is essentially without government, and where piracy is basically a business enterprise.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I was never stating that I think the US Navy should let people die. In fact, I would probably be in favor of more US ships patrolling that area. What I was saying is that it seems to me that sometimes the republican meme of “personal responsibility” doesn’t make much sense. A poor person who can’t pay a huge heating bill isn’t necessarily at fault for being poor except that maybe they should have planned for that huge heating bill. People who decide to disregard an evacuation order prior to a storm and those people on a private vessel venturing into known dangerous territory hold at least some responsibility for what happens to them.

blog comments powered by Disqus