Reply #5: On Crowley, there IS a problem when aspokesperson -speaking publicly

[karynnj]

takes a stand 180 degrees from his boss and does not say that he is speaking just for himself. The fact is, this was reported internationally and was reported as the State Department position or Clinton's position. On something like this, even the Secretary of Defense or State - if they disagreed would need to state that they were speaking from their own conscience because they too are spokespeople. I would agree with you if he gave the administrations policy and then gave his own opinion. As this was NOT a formal press conference, this would seem reasonable - they don't own him 100% ofthe time. but they could still fire him.

I've already disagreed on Manning. At this point, unless something happened this weekend when I was completely not on line, no official other than Kucinich has said more than Kerry. What seems clear is he did weigh in - and they were supposedly re-evaluating it. That was a week ago - there is already a change per one article, he does not sleep in the nude -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365493/Pentagon-tells-Obama-Bradley-Mannings-prison-treatment-appropriate--gets-just-hour-outside-cell.html . There is no way to say that the behind the scenes push back did not lead to this - if it's true, as the Daily Mail is not that great a source (even if "Paperback Writer had a steady job" there according to the Beatles.) Now, I don't know what the other charges were - other than near solitary confinement.

While I think Manning's treatment is wrong, I absolutely disagree with many who feel he is a hero or even just innocent.

On the no fly zone, I think had Obama done what JK did - when he did, there was some real chance it could have made a difference. If it were President Obama IMMEDIATELY speaking to top Libyan leaders trying to pull them away by pointing out they could be tried, more might have splintered off. In addition, if the US the EU, and the Arab league would have immediately started getting the approvals and developing the capabilities of a no fly zone, it likely might have prevented Gadaffi from using his planes. At this point, the Arab League now backs a no fly zone for the exact purpose JK gave - and not more.

This actually is not the simple easy answer. The two easy answers on this. One is to recommend doing nothing - saying it's not our job, it's not in our national interest, or we just don't have the resources. For a war weary country, this is likely the most popular answer. The other is a full blown commitment - that the Republicans, who are proposing it know won't happen. They can argue later that this would have been easy and the people would be free - the good thing about claiming the reward of a path not taken is that no one could prove you are wrong.

Kerry's position really is in the middle - and it is very limited. He proposed it ONLY if a massacre using planes was happening - and he made it clear that grounding the planes was the only objective. The concern was clearly coming from a moral position. As he said in his oped, just planning it and having it operational could possibly have stopped the use of planes. Now, that would STILL leave the rebels completely at a military disadvantage - so it is not choosing the winner. But, if it is true that planes bring large scale death to civilians in areas out of Qaddafi's control far beyond what tanks and other weapons would do, making it clear the world would stop this is a good idea. (I also see that this does fit exactly what JK was speaking of as a moral test - he wants the world to stop something that near universally would be considered wrong.)

The political difficulty is that if he called our bluff, we could take all the risks and have complete success in the limited mission with everything happening flawlessly AND Qaddafi could still win. I think most people here would see what did happen (Qaddafi won) rather than what didn't happen (thousands of people were not massacred - how do you even estimate the number?) So, this is clearly not a "political" position, but a moral one. As one of the people, who has spoken since at least 2004 of young people demanding better lives as a way that things change, he is clearly uncomfortable seeing them mowed down without speaking out.