" . . . the campaign against Libya’s most densely populated areas raised new questions about how broadly NATO is interpreting its United Nations mandate to protect civilians."Apparently winning a war (or kinetic military action) is more important than protection of civilians.
Yesterday we learned it's now okay to use information gained from enhanced interrogation techniques for important military projects--like finding and killing bin Laden. President Obama originally said such "torture" techniques were not necessary because the information could be gotten "in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values".
Also from the President's statement last night, the "T" word (terrorist) seems to be back in fashion and "overseas contingency operations" is on hold, if not out.
It looks like President Obama is turning out to be more like President Bush than Candidate Obama as regards use of war tools. As Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out liberal regard for "civil liberties" supposedly violated under George W. Bush, was a liberal talking point not meant to be taken seriously as government policy.
"Likewise, the notion that “civil liberties” were sacrificed in the effort to stop Islamist terrorism increasingly is shown to be a liberal talking point, not a serious criticism of responsible wartime government. Barack Obama conceded that argument when he flipped on every pre-presidential critique he had made of George W. Bush’s protocols. At one time or another, Obama, as law professor, state legislator, senator, and presidential candidate, had ridiculed the Patriot Act, wiretaps, renditions, military tribunals, the Iraq War, Predator strikes, and Guantanamo.Except for the hypocrisy factor, this is a strengthening of U.S. military posture.
"He ended up as president embracing them all, and even expanding some. I think he was quite confident that his liberal base, outraged by Bush’s supposed trashing of constitutional protections, would not much mind his own, inasmuch as civil-libertarian nitpicking was privately acknowledged as being as much of an advantage for outsiders as it was a liability for insiders. "
Wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize committee is thinking now.
H/T Tom Blumer - Newsbusters