February 28th, 2011
01:05 PM ET

Hillary Clinton to Libya: "Nothing is off the table"

WASHINGTON (CNN)–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Monday speaking in Geneva, Switzerland said  "nothing is off the table" as the United States works with allies to stop the bloodshed in Libya where embattled leader Moammar Gadhafi struggles to remain in power.  But as the Pentagon confirms that the United States is "repositioning" naval and air forces to be prepared for any option with Libya, Secretary Clinton said there is no pending U.S. naval actions planned against Libya. "We do believe that there will be the need for support for humanitarian intervention," she said when asked about the reports.

Clinton called again for Gadhafi's ouster and said she is in "intense discussions" with friends and allies of the United States and that the world will hold the Libyan leader and his regime accountable for human rights abuses.

Clinton's remarks come as she meets with European Union ministers.  Monday the EU agreed to impose economic sanctions on Libya, including an arms embargo, freezing Ghadaffi's assets and banning travel to Libya. This is the latest action after the United States announced similar sanctions Friday.

Speaking to reporters, Clinton said that U.S. humanitarian teams have been sent to Libya's borders of Tunisia and Egypt.   Clinton said USAID has set aside an additional $10 million for humanitarian aid including much needed medical supplies.  Saying the United States is very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Libya. 

Clinton told the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva the world's eyes are fixed on Libya.  "Mercenaries and thugs have been turned loose to attack demonstrators. There are reports of soldiers executed for refusing to turn their guns on their fellow citizens, of indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, and torture."

President Obama will meet with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later today at the White House.

Topics: Hillary Clinton • Libya • The News

soundoff (17 Responses)
  1. Don Alex

    I always laugh when administrations use the cliche phrase "nothing is off the table" (it was one of Bush Jr's favorite terms). So dropping a nuclear bomb on Tripoli is "on the table"? Do us a favor, Obama administration, at least TRY to be different than the last regime in this country, k? At the very least, try to be a little original. You can start by strapping this vapid mannequin to a bomb and dropping her Dr Strangelove style on Kadaffi's palace. "Yeeee hawwww!!" 😀

    February 28, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
  2. jonny

    Nutty Nutty Khadafi!!!

    February 28, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
  3. Dave

    If she was the SOS under a Republican president, there would already be demonstrations in front of the White House and across the nations proclaiming, 'No Blood For Oil' (and, I do think we need to help these people but just saying...)

    February 28, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
  4. Bruce

    Funny isn't it. The libtards for years villified Bush for getting us involved in a war (which most people supported except the ectreme left). Now that "all options are on the table" when it comes to Libya and using force, the left nutjobs are errily quiet. Seems like a double standartd to me. Either you believe we shoudl interfere with another countries issues or we don't. Seems like we caught the left not knowing what they believe in. Oh well, that's the Dummycrats for you. they talk out both sides of their mouths.

    February 28, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • Mike in WA

      Does it surprise anyone all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth.

      February 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • Quannum326

      There is a great difference between responding to a civil war that may destabilize the entire region and starting a preemptive war with a nation under false pretenses, who never attacked anyone in the first place. With that said I didn't support the war in Iraq and I don't support the use of military force in Libya. Qaddafi WILL get what's coming to him sooner or later even if he successfully defeats the opposition. He has absolutely no popular support and many of his old allies have condemned his use of violence.

      I think you're a little out of touch if you honestly believe "most people supported" the war. The largest anti-war protests before and after the invasion of Iraq occurred in European nations. Nations where their citizens weren't spoon fed nationalistic propaganda. They could see for themselves that preemptive war was a bad idea and spoke out freely.

      The difference in the US is that anyone who didn't support the war was labeled anti-American and unpatriotic. You may find this hard to believe but the Nazi propaganda machine in the 1930s and 40s used this same tactic to silence dissenters opposed to the various European invasions by the Nazi regime.

      February 28, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
      • Jay in NC

        "who never attacked anyone in the first place" tell that to the dead Iraq people that Saddam killed. Saddam said. "But even with all of his bombs and missiles and Marines, he [President Bush] has not even come close to killing as many Iraqis as I did."

        February 28, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
      • James Kruk

        I'm not quite sure whom your post is referring to, but both Libya and Iraq attacked other countries, killing civilians. Libya, as you may recall, blew up a civilian airliner of Scotland and bombed discos in Germany. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds, in outright genocidal fashion, while also launched a war of aggression against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, even firing SCUDs are neutral Israel during the First Gulf War. Are these situations where military force is unjustified?

        February 28, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • James Kruk

      I agree that there is a double-standard. But don't say it is simply a "liberal" thing. Republicans also have interventionist and non-interventionist branches. Whether we should interfere in the affairs of other countries is not something that is split easily along party lines. Some Republicans support US isolationism, some liberals support funding socialist revolutions abroad. It's not so black-and-white.

      February 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  5. luishhernandezjr

    Here we go flip flop time

    February 28, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  6. jane

    You Republicans want to invade Libya! You talk about extremism! Another Iraq,oh boy.dah,Thats the ticket???????

    February 28, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
  7. Amar

    The difference between both is the aim. Bush did for oil prices speculators. These guys are doing for democracy and save people from sufferings given by an autocratic dictator and a"corrupt nexus".If US did nothing the EU'll be sole "decisive factor"

    February 28, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • Jay in NC

      Amar, you not only drink the cool-aid you eat it for breakfast too. The Iraq people were also suffering by an autocratic dictator and a "corrupt nexus."

      Hilly Bob's cowboy attitude is going to cost us more lives and trillions of dollars. This is for Oil. Barry did not give a darn about Libya or its people until last week.

      February 28, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
  8. Ryan

    Both the Republicans and Democrats work for the same people – the globalists. The entire Republican/Democrat thing is a big stage-managed performance with minor, cosmetic differences between the two, but in the "essentials" they are the same. These Middle Eastern revolutions are also being provoked by the globalists. Ordo Ab Chao!

    February 28, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • James Kruk

      And who exactly are the "globalists?" Freemasons? New World Order? Subterranean reptiles? I think you need to lay off the X-Files and actually look at the situation on the ground. How is it technically (logistically) possible for somebody to masterminding dozens of protests around the world and the bulk ward of US politics? Please, I honestly want to know how you can explain the mechanisms of this "globalist" conspiracy.

      March 1, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  9. Liz Carter in Georgia

    @Quannum326; Good comment. I agree.@Bruce; do you really believe that the IRAQ WAR was a legitimate war, and was one 'which most people supported except the extreme left'? 'EXTREME LEFT' of WHAT? There were people all over this country against that decision; and demonstrations were raised AGAINST IT! There were millions of liberals, even some conservatives, as well as indepedents against the BUSH/CHENEY/RUMSFELD DECISION! The problem was they were the 'deciders'; AND WITH ALL THAT OIL, they didn't care!!

    March 1, 2011 at 2:36 am |
  10. wollo

    From the Halls of Monty Python

    To the shores of Tripoli;

    We fight ANY country's battles

    In the air, on land, and sea;

    March 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm |