The President reaffirmed the strong commitment of the United States to Bahrain. He welcomed King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s decision to end the State of National Safety early and the announcement that the national dialogue on reform would begin in July.
“Both sides” in that conflict are encouraged to come to a compromise. In Libya, on the other hand, we are to believe that ballistics prevent bloodshed, and their leader’s call for a cease-fire is seen for what it is: A transparent attempt to hold on to power.
Gadaffi, who once overthrew a king in a bloodless coup, is a legitimate target. As are his family. A king faced with the same kind of opposition force and who responds to the protesters with the same tactics as Gadaffi has: bullets, imprisonment, torture? He’s a “long-standing partner”.
If you are a protester hoping to oust your oppressor, the placard that’ll play best at the Western Democracy Black-tie Dinner Circuit is ‘My Country for a Kingdom!’
It strikes me that big-ass FREEDOM only knows two responses to tyranny: State recognition or bombardment.
UPDATE (at least the fourth so far): Okay, I am aware that there is at least the third option of saber rattling which may include sanctions, blockades, boycotts, any combination of the above.
And as I said yesterday, money dictates the response to such matters. So what’s my point? I guess I don’t have one. Though I would rather diplomacy include none of it. But that’s a silly proposition for the biggest arms manufacturer in the world. We need manufacturing jobs, right?