Mission creep?

[jonjel]

Well, from protecting civilians to regime change is really only a short step.

From the Guardian:

Nearly two months ago Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and William Hague, the foreign secretary, said Gaddafi was a "legitimate target". Intercepted by a BBC reporter after a meeting at No 10, Richards insisted Gaddafi was "absolutely not" a target for military action. He added: "It's not allowed under the UN resolution and it's not something I want to discuss any further." Downing Street "sources" were quickly quoted as saying that Richards was "simply wrong" to suggest a UN resolution would not allow Gaddafi to be targeted.

Now Richards appears to have joined those who have made plain all along that, despite official denials, regime change is indeed the aim. "We now have to tighten the vice to demonstrate to Gaddafi that the game is up and he must go," he told the Sunday Telegraph. "If we do not up the ante now there is a risk that the conflict could result in Gaddafi clinging to power," Richards said.


Pity that they could not have come clean in the first place

[speakertoanimals]

Pity that they could not have come clean in the first place

I would have thought it was totally bleedin' obvious all along what people wanted, just not necessarily the case that they could say that officially. Usual politics. Plus there is a difference when all you have are protests, compared to later situation when you have lots of defections, possible alternative administration to talk to, and of course, examples of a concerted effort to massacre your own population....................

Targeting gaddafi and regime change are not quite the same either.

I dunno why anyone with even a brief acquaintance with history would be at all surprised by any of this, nor why the official position can change as it did.

Plus regime change, it is clear, becomes pretty soon the only feasible way to protect civilians when gaddafi acted as he did. But I guess we had to hope that perhaps he would have gone at some earlier point.

[StuartG]

I took it that this was the article You are referring to:
* Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 April 2011 23.36 BST
Much the same as StA in opinion, this article just highlights politics and how a politician can handle hypocrisy.
''Vladimir Putin, Russia's prime minister, made the claim after Nato forces bombed Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli on Monday. Putin, on a visit to Denmark, said: "They said they didn't want to kill Gaddafi. Now some officials say: 'Yes, we are trying to kill Gaddafi'. Who permitted this, was there any trial? Who took on the right to execute this man, no matter who he is?" ''

"Putin joined the KGB in 1975 upon graduation from university,"

''Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, accused Fox of causing confusion and concern. "These inflammatory comments need clarification," he said. "We support action in Libya within the UN mandate, but we need clarity on the scope and ultimate aim of UK military action." ''

'During Murphy's presidency in 1995, the NUS dropped its opposition to the abolition of the student grant in line with the Labour Party's policies.'

"Gates was speaking after a meeting at the Pentagon with British defence secretary Liam Fox, who also distanced himself from the accusation. Fox has in recent days has been edging towards declaring Gaddafi a legitimate target."
"ditto"

'Our side' just trying to deny/soften the facts of life to their electorate. Look at the handling of the 'Bin Laden' shooting, first they said one thing and then another, must better to have done it and forget the bragging, but no, must have the ad' breaks.
StuartG

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/26/libya-us-british-putin-gaddafi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

"Hypocrite: the man who murdered both his parents... pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan. ~Abraham Lincoln "
and a good one for a civil servant losing some data...
“Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds.” ~John Perry Barlow
www.quotegarden.com/ nice site, good to make a point.

[jonjel]

STA

I would have thought it was totally bleedin' obvious all along what people wanted, just not necessarily the case that they could say that officially.

I agree, but was simply highlighting the bloody lies we are told on most matters by our esteemed leaders.

Can we trust them, with the economy or anything else. I doubt that very much.

[speakertoanimals]

Can we trust them, with the economy or anything else. I doubt that very much.

I don't know why everyone acts so surprised -- it's just politics, always was like that always will be. At least we get to kick one lot out occassionally, but complaining continually as if politicians are some sort of unique, hypocritical individuals is just naive. Its the nature of the system, and the basic nature of humans. Not perfect, but better than any other system I can think of.

Can we trust them? I'm afraid enough people decided we could, even if what we ended up with as a government wasn't quite what some people expected. Clegg, for example, hasn't turned out as people hoped he might, but that's politics. Whereas the tories, to be frank, are doing pretty much what we always knew they would, not many surprises there.

[mak2]

Talking of leaders who did not turn out as people hoped, I think it is clear now that Labour chose the wrong brother.