Why No Military Intervention in Libya?

When Osama bin Laden launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan, Republicans called for military intervention to give them “freedom”, and sadly, we’re still there.  When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tennant and more lied about WMD, Republicans called for military intervention to give them “freedom”.  When Iran demonstrated the ability to enrich uranium, Republicans called for military intervention to give them “freedom”.  Why aren’t Republicans calling for military intervention in Libya?  Here’s the situation.

The United Nation’s top human rights official says reports of mass killings in Libya should spur world leaders to “step in vigorously” to end the violent crackdown in Libya, and that the 47-nation body should use “all means possible”.

Friday’s session is the first time that the UN Human Rights Council has held a special session to discuss actions against one of its members, with Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner on Human Right, giving support for an independent panel to investigate the alleged abuses by Libyan security forces.

“Today’s brutal and shocking situation is the direct outcome of a callous disregard for the rights and freedom of Libyans that has marked the almost four-decade long grip on power by the current ruler,” she said.

Her comments came just hours before a UN Security Council in New York meeting that will consider actions against the government of Muammar Gaddafi, which could include sanctions.

France has already urged the body to approve a draft resolution that calls for a “total arms embargo, sanctions and asking the International Criminal Court to proceed over crimes against humanity”.

Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, said his country was also preparing sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes on Gaddafi’s family, but dismissed economic sanctions on the country as a whole.

Britain’s prime minister has also discussed the possibility of “multilateral measures” against Libya with Barack Obama, the US president.

China and Russia, traditionally reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, have supported a statement from the security council issued on Tuesday that condemned “the repression against peaceful demonstrators,” and demanded an “immediate end to the violence”.

Possible next steps

Mark Lyall Grant, Britain’s UN ambassador, said on Thursday that members must look at possible next steps because Gaddafi had failed to heed the Security Council’s demand to end the violence, diplomats reported.

They said possible sanctions likely to be put on the table include travel bans and asset freezes against Gaddafi and top officials in his government, an arms embargo against the government, and imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.

Nato’s main decision-making body is also holding an emergency session on Friday to consider a response to the situation in Libya…

Inserted from <Aljazeera>

Coups like the ones in Tunisia and Egypt are not possible in Libya, because  Gaddafi is a madman who will do anything to hang onto power.  Rachel Maddow explores the depths of Gaddafi’s madness.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Daffy Gaddafi is clearly as loony as a Teabagger, but we still haven’t answered the initial question.

I’m not sure why Republicans aren’t calling for military intervention.  Perhaps they don’t want to go after an autocrat pronounced a holy ally by GW ChickenHawk.  Or perhaps they fear that a stray bullet might hit Karl Rove.  Gaddafi is far too dumb to come up with so many BS lies on his own, and since Rove is the highest practitioner of that art, perhaps he’s in Libya lending his buddy a hand.  Or perhaps even Republicans know that, between Afghanistan, Iraq and our commitments to station troops all over the world, all we have left to send is the Brownie Scouts.