Libya

I wish I had more time, but I don't ... despite how critical this issue is.

First nomenclature -

Bob, Robert, Rob are all the same name.  Anyone who goes by Bob is still Robert and vice versa.  Same person, different name.

ISIS - Al Qaida = same ideology, intention, desire, and purpose, comprise of many of the same people who float from one cause to another and the names change.  Same people, same purpose and they are NOT JAYCEE.

An airbase fell in Syria to these barbarians, with our help (you will recall we supported the 'rebels' at the time, against the 'mean and cruel and evil' dictator Assad.  He was sooooo mean, Mr Obama would not stand for any more of his bad behavior.  So, he helped weaken him, to the point where the 'rebels' aka as ISIS or Al Qaida have slaughtered tens of thousands and created a new caliphate or rather, restored the first Umayya caliphate under ... how original ... Abu Bakr.

They took an airbase some time ago - out of which they could fly airplanes that would hurtle toward any European country, thus providing them with something much worse then 9/11.  Why worse?  Because Europeans tend to seek compromise before they are attacked, so imagine if they are attacked .... they would surrender.  In any case, a base taken by these ideologically driven barbarians from which to launch air attacks.  With, in part, the assistance of the US.

Something Obama can be proud of.

Then there is the case of Tripoli.

Over a dozen planes captured by their equivalent of ISIS - a group we armed and trained to topple Khadafi - because he was a "mean and cruel and evil" dictator, and Obama and Cameron had had enough!

In any case, he is gone and al qaida (or whatever name they go by in Libya) have taken control of the Tripoli International Airport along with over a dozen planes.

These planes, from what we have been told are of the Airbus variety, which means they are failure driven even at their best, but ... they have a range between them of 3700 to 6400 miles.  More than enough to fly into all the major European cities and make it to the Eastern coast of the US almost.  Doubtful they could make it to the US because of fuel use and the lack of knowledge concerning flight paths to reduce fuel use .... but they can all certainly make it to Europe ... where our 'allies' would be nearly apoplectic with fear.  I would not be surprised if, at this moment, the European nations have all sent 20+ fighters up to scour their skies, and all radar and air traffic control systems are monitoring any and all movement in the skies.  I am sure many of the leadership class in Europe will, until those 12+ planes are located and destroyed, sleep very uncomfortably.  From Parliament building in London to Buckingham Palace to the Versailles, and the Bundestag ... Europe is littered with targets and ISIS/Al Qaida/ al shabaab are planning.

And ... they have still never found that plane from Malaysia.   It does not look good for Europe.  They lack the will but I suspect when the evil doers finish with their warped plans, Europe will be ready for a new Crusade.


Update:  "Rough men ... visit(ed) violence on those (individuals) and in the dark of night destroyed many of those aircraft. 

Befuddled and Confused: Obama Administration on Parade

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. American Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

_________________________________________________________

So what this woman would have youi believe is -
- all the protests in the Arab world, and in fact, everywhere, are spontaneous.  People in regions without internet or phones, somehow know.  That everyone just plugs into the atmosphere some how and knows. 
- that when people protest in Libya they carry rpg's with them. 
- that trucks of men with weapons routinely show up to protest

And that when the Libyan President said:


"The way these perpetrators acted and moved -- I think we, and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined," Magariaf said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"And you believe that this was the work of Al Qaeda, and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that what you’re telling us?" CBS host Bob Schieffer asked.
"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.

Apparently he didn't know what he was talking about.

And that when US diplomats were warned several days before, the threats were ignored:

 

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

 

and when al-qaida says it carried out the attack in Libya

 

Al-Qaeda said the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was in revenge for the killing of the network’s number two Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi, SITE Intelligence Group reported Saturday, as Libyan authorities have identified 50 people who were involved in the attack.

 

 

Does Obama know how foolish he looks.  Does he realize how much respect is lost when his administration stares into the face of al-qaida and denies it was responsible.

 

All we need is Biden prancing about.

 

 

 

 

The Thing About Liberals ...

Wherever they may live - liberals want change, now, immediate, and without hesitation.  They want good things - end of dictators and tyrants, the right of people to speak and scream, the rights of women and children, pro choice on all issues (except in the US where pro choice does not include the right to choose life based upon Biblical traditions).

Liberals want good things, there is no doubt.  They want it now and some, a few, will even march in protests and risk their very lives in cities like New York and Washington.  Set aside how asinine that image is, those same few would not march in protests against Mubarek or Khadafi.  Yet some liberal minded people did march in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iran.  Some did and some risked everything to march for freedom.  The world media caught them on video, and showed us their heroic efforts to end the rule of tyrants and dictators - sadly, they were not the real protesters.

Sadly the world was mistaken.  But that's another thing about liberals, a slip here and there, a few mistakes along the way, and things are still fine, no apologies.  Like the t-shirt company in the 90's - No Fear.  This one for liberals - No Apologies.  Could be something George Clooney sets up, maybe even Kofi Annan. 

It's alright, they care, and that is all that matters whereas the heartless greedy conservatives hate everyone - unlike Kofi who presided over two genocides (or attempted), and Clooney who is a clueless as Anna, but he cares.

Yet back to the 'liberal protestors' shown on TV in Tunisia and Libya and Egypt, and Syria ... the face of a revolution.  Behind the face are very dark shadows that have seized control in Tunisia and Libya, and are on the edge of control in Egypt.  The liberal protesters sit back and wonder what happened - they are slightly dazed and certainly confused, wondering aloud what happened to all their candidates who promised them a yellow brick road and sunshine. 

"Young liberal and left-wing revolutionaries who led last year's uprising were dismayed when their own candidates lost the first round of the presidential election last month."

Dismayed?  Ha.  Anyone with half a wit, which discounts Obama, understood the 'revolution' was not the Arab Spring of Democracy Obama was touting, as were so many other quagga's in the media.  As if every quean on earth got in line to drink that cool-aid, and boy did they.  The jubilant support for the 'liberal' protesters in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt ... heck, we even put the liberal protesters in power in Libya, and are on the verge of doing the same in Syria.

What havoc we wreak in doing good, promoting good.  And they condemned Bush for Iraq.  Ha. 

Mubarek sentenced to life in prison for the few deaths in Tahir Square a little more than a year ago.  The funny part, 10X that many have died since, hundreds more have disappeared.  Thousands have been beaten and arrested and tried for crimes against the state.    Who now will be held responsible or is that ok with liberals - bloodshed to cleanse the palate.  The French believed that was the way to do it, until they ate their own and the blood ran freely for years.  Insanity.

But never apologize - not for any of your actions, a sure sign of sincerity and caring.


Quagga and quean are words.  They are not pulled out of my ass as some people are prone to doing!
Kofi is mentioned in regard to his passionate work on behalf of ton he Tutsi and Bosnians.







egypt

NATO failed to protect weapons in Libya

Mr. Obama was so buisy helping the 'rebels' defeat Kadaffi and take control in Libya, he forgot to ensure the safety of the weapons caches.  A small detail I assume but one that will have terribly painful consequences years from now.



Looters Steal Gadhafi's weapons, including surface-to-air missiles


Posted 9/9/11 8:21 a.m.

TRIPOLI, Libya (WLS) - It seems everyone in Libya has a gun these days.

Defeated in battle, Moammar Gadhafi's army left behind armories brimming with weapons, and the rebels have helped themselves. It's not just guns that have been plundered. Almost every outpost captured by opposition forces has yielded weapons -- everything from AK-47 assault rifles to grenades to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). And the rebels tell ABC News that they don't have enough resources to safeguard them all -- which means they may wind up in the hands of people who have other agendas than defeating Gadhafi.

According to Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, the weapons the looters want most, and take first, are the SAMs.

HRW estimates there are 20,000 surface-to-air missiles in Libya, and many of those are now missing. Some are recent Russian-made SAMs, capable of shooting down aircraft flying as high as 11,000 feet.

"They have no military use in this war," said Bouckaert. "Gadhafi is not flying any airplanes, he's not flying any helicopters. So why are people looting these very powerful and dangerous missiles?"

Bouckaert suggested that some of the looters might have other targets in mind. "They can be used to shoot down a civilian plane. That's what al Qaeda tried to do in Mombasa a few years ago."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged the Libyan rebels to protect Gadhafi's weapons stockpiles "to ensure that weapons from Qaddafi's stockpiles do not threaten Libya's neighbors and the world." It may be too late. Bouckaert of HRW warns that they are now "in the hands of unknown people."





 
 
 
 
 
 
libya

Libya and the Left: Peace, Democracy and all that crap

The Lefty Loons are out and will be out in the scores today, tomorrow, and in the following days and weeks smiling, laughing, and generally ecstatic over Obama's success in Libya.

There are several facts we conveniently 'forget', but then again, intellectual honesty is not trademarked by any ideology -

The US did not want to be involved and we resisted, even after the UN voted for a no-fly zone.  A curious thing that UN vote.  How do they go from a no-fly zone to supporting regime change?  A better question - how does the UN and US go from a no-fly zone to regime change?  Wasn't regime change bad in Iraq where a madman was not so mad, but in Libya where the bad man was never bad, just an annoyance - not like Kim or Amindinejad or Hussain.  Bad unless its good. 

So the US resisted and France took the lead.  The US waited.  France and Germany and England pressed ahead and the US waited.  Only when Europe made the US look weak and wilted did Obama step in and when he did he said our involvement would be 'hours' not 'days, or weeks' and when we enjoined the fight he again told us it was hours and days not weeks and months.  Over and over we heard that mantra.  Almost as often as we heard 'Get over it, we won'. 

And now, many many months later, hundreds of millions and several billions later, we come to an end.

And so we return to the cry of the left - how successful it has been.  The fact Obama sent in US special forces (against the law), spent billions on a war not supported or agreed to by congress (the only arm able to authorize war as we were told during the Iraq and Afghanistan action).  Liberals repeated the mantra that Bush was operating by fiat in waging war (despite the fact that from 2006 through 2008, a Democratic congress authorized the wars) unlike Obama (to be honest the Constitution does authorize the president to send troops into an action for a specified period of time, after which he must receive Congressional authorization to continue with the conflict).

So the left is ecstatic.  I am sure Jeanne Garofalo is in an orgasmic state - waiting for the sweets to be passed out on the streets of a now Democratic Libya.  Keith Obermann will probably look very seriously into the camera and give his top ten list with Libya being on the success side of the equation for Obama.  Liberals are usually driven by emotion and somewhat unstable (while on the other side Retardicans are simply incapable of tying a shoelace without instructions). 

I hate to interrupt their orgasmic orgy of joy, but I don't see or read much 'democracy' ...

Libyan Draft Constitution: Sharia is ‘Principal Source of Legislation’

Lachlan Markay

August 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm

The dust has not yet settled over the Libyan capital of Tripoli since rebels took control over the weekend. But already, a draft constitutional charter for the transitional state has appeared online (embedded below). It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult. There is also no way to know whether this draft or something similar will emerge as the final governing document for a new Libyan regime.


As both the Morning Bell and Washington in a Flash noted today, Heritage Fellow Jim Phillips recently pointed out that Islamist forces “appear to make up a small but not insignificant part of the opposition coalition,” and must be prevented “from hijacking Libya’s future.” Parts of the draft Constitution allay those fears, while others exacerbate them.


Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.

The entire DRAFT Constitution is available for reading here.

Libya

European governments “completely puzzled” about U.S. position on Libya

Admittedly this headline is a bit old, but still accurate.  Even more puzzling is Obama telling the world that the US would be involved for hours not days or weeks, and that gave way to days not weeks or months and now, we are several months into a war in Libya - a war that is costing us billions for some unknown reason that is even more obscure and convoluted than any action taken by the previous five presidents combined.

European governments “completely puzzled” about U.S. position on Libya

Posted By Josh Rogin Wednesday, March 16, 2011 -

Foreign Policy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's meetings in Paris with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday left her European interlocutors with more questions than answers about the Obama administration's stance on intervention in Libya.

Inside the foreign ministers' meeting, a loud and contentious debate erupted about whether to move forward with stronger action to halt Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi's campaign against the Libyan rebels and the violence being perpetrated against civilians. Britain and France argued for immediate action while Germany and Russia opposed such a move, according to two European diplomats who were briefed on the meeting.

Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

On the same day, Clinton had a short meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in which Sarkozy pressed Clinton to come out more forcefully in favor of action in Libya. She declined Sarkozy's request, according to a government source familiar with the meeting.

Sarkozy told Clinton that "we need action now" and she responded to him, "there are difficulties," the source said, explaining that Clinton was referring to China and Russia's opposition to intervention at the United Nations. Sarkozy replied that the United States should at least try to overcome the difficulties by leading a strong push at the U.N., but Clinton simply repeated, "There are difficulties."

One diplomat, who supports stronger action in Libya, contended that the United States' lack of clarity on this issue is only strengthening those who oppose action.

"The risk we run is to look weak because we've asked him to leave and we aren't taking any action to support our rhetoric and that has consequences on the ground and in the region," said the European diplomat.

British and French frustration with the lack of international will to intervene in Libya is growing. British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday that Arab sentiment was, "if you don't show your support for the Libyan people and for democracy at this time, you are saying you will intervene only when it's about your security, but you won't help when it's about our democracy."

France sent letters on Wednesday to all the members of the U.N. Security Council, which is discussing a Lebanon-sponsored resolution to implement a no-fly zone, calling on them to support the resolution, as has been requested by the Arab League.

"Together, we can save the martyred people of Libya. It is now a matter of days, if not hours. The worst would be that the appeal of the League of the Arab States and the Security Council decisions be overruled by the force of arms," the letter stated.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe wrote on his blog, "It is not enough to proclaim, as did almost all of the major democracies that ‘Qaddafi must go.' We must give ourselves the means to effectively assist those who took up arms against his dictatorship."

In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday in Cairo, Clinton pointed to the U.N. Security Council as the proper venue for any decision to be made and she pushed back at the contention by the British and the French that the U.S. was dragging its feet.

"I don't think that is fair. I think, based on my conversations in Paris with the G-8 ministers, which, of course, included those two countries, I think we all agree that given the Arab League statement, it was time to move to the Security Council to see what was possible," Clinton said. I don't want to prejudge it because countries are still very concerned about it. And I know how anxious the British and the French and the Lebanese are, and they have taken a big step in presenting something. But we want to get something that will do what needs to be done and can be passed."

"It won't do us any good to consult, negotiate, and then have something vetoed or not have enough votes to pass it," Clinton added.

Clinton met with Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril in Paris as well, but declined to make any promises on specific actions to support the Libyan opposition.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) also doubled down on his call for a no-fly zone over Libya in a speech on Wednesday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"The international community cannot simply watch from the sidelines as this quest for democracy is met with violence," he said. "The Arab League's call for a U.N. no-fly zone over Libya is an unprecedented signal that the old rules of impunity for autocratic leaders no longer stand... The world needs to respond immediately to avert a humanitarian disaster."

And Clinton's former top aide Anne-Marie Slaughter accused the Obama administration of prioritizing oil over the human rights of the people of Libya.

"U.S. is defining ‘vital strategic interest' in terms of oil and geography, not universal values. Wrong call that will come back to haunt us," she wrote on Wednesday on her Twitter page.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Libya

Whose side are you on? With us or against us.

Wait, for over five years we were under a constant barrage of insults from liberals about how Bush qualified his war on terror - you are with us or against us, which liberals boiled down to an attack on the patriotism of Americans.  This was intolerable everywhere - on college campuses, Jon Stewart, Bill Mahrer, MSNBC, and everywhere else ...



Clinton asks Congress, whose side are you on?





Jun 22, 10:16 PM (ET)
By BRADLEY KLAPPER

MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya.

She's asking bluntly, "Whose side are you on?"

Setting up a showdown on Libya, House Republicans agreed Wednesday to vote on dueling measures, one to give President Barack Obama limited authority to continue U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi and the other to cut off funds for military hostilities.

The measures reflect widespread dissatisfaction with Obama's decision not to seek congressional consent for the 3-month-old war.

Clinton says Congress is free to raise objections but questions the priorities of the critics. She says the Obama administration and its partners are rightly siding with the Libyan people.

She spoke about Libya during a brief stop in Jamaica.

















 
 
 
 
 
 
libya

War is ...

According to Mr. Obama, when Americans die.

Otherwise, war is not war, it is a conflict.


-  Libya isn’t war because it doesn’t “involve the presence of US ground troops, US casualties, or a serious threat thereof.”


Amazing from a man who was all over Bush for 'torture' and American values.

Who are the men on the ground n Libya directing those missiles that strike at or near Kaddafi ?   They are not simply missiles flying from ships without guidance.  Nor are the missiles off aircraft sent randomly into hit whatever they see.  Someone is on the ground using technology to direct the attacks!  Now, maybe they are not 'US ground troops' but they are American and there is a possibility they are captured and or killed.

So is it war?


Not to Obama.  War is not war unless he says it is, but torture is torture whenever he says it is, unless he is still doing it in which case it isn't torture.

I love liberal hypocrisy.  Conservatives may well be hypocrites but they do not take such a long and tangled route to reach a conclusion that is logically unsupportable. 











obama

Obama: There he goes again, deciding what is and is not Constitutional

We had this discussion for seven years - and Libya is no where near as big of a problem as Iran or North Korea or Syria or Nigeria, or Sudan or Somalia or Yemen or Congo or Uganda or ... and yet, we have become embroiled in a  war that truly, with no question, is so unimportant as to be unworthy of mention but for the fact we have spent a billion dollars dealing with this wholly contrived event that is not relevant to anyone on earth but for some Libyans - and they managed pretty well for 30 years.

Unlike Iraq - who had nuclear materials and had tried to assassinate a US president and was a threat to its neighbors and a majority of the population within its borders.

Unlike Afghanistan - where a sunni sect decided it would interpret the Koran and sharia law as strictly as possible, including when necessary shooting women on the streets if they had fingernail polish on, or were not covered completely.  A group of pedophiles barbarians who abused little boys as earnestly as they abused little girls and older women - all in the name of their religion.  Stopping men on the street to measure their beards, and beating anyone who did not have a beard the correct length.   A group of barbaric men who decided to destroy 5,000 year old monuments because they somehow offended their sensibilities (probably just before they all jumped back in their trucks and went back to town to molest little boys).  An extremist sect who gave refuge, support, aid, and comfort to the world's most sought after terrorist, and in the process brought ruin upon what was left in Afghanistan - often shooting children or teachers if they were in a school, burning down schools, killing anyone and everyone who opposed them.  A group who provided a state for any and all terrorists from which they might plan and carry out attacks against the United States or Germany, or England, or ... any country.

Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is a model student.  In 2003, when George W Bush said we would go after anyone and everyone who had WMDs and otherwise anyone who aided terrorism - Kaddafhi called up Bush and asked him to come to Libya and take away his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons because he no longer wanted them.  Kadaffi has always been a pain but it never bothered Bush, Clinton, Bush enough to act.  Reagan tried to dissuade him from the dark side, only to push him over the edge, and we were not there to ensure he didn't climb back up because by then it was H. Bush and he was not Reagan.

Suddenly Libya is worth a billion dollars.  No.  They are not.  Egypt is not worth $3 billion.  Pakistan is not worth $5 billion.  No.  Not any amount.

Shame on Obama.






2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate


By CHARLIE SAVAGE
The New York Times

June 17, 2011




WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.



Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, said there had been “a full airing of views within the administration and a robust process” that led Mr. Obama to his view that the Libya campaign was not covered by a provision of the War Powers Resolution that requires presidents to halt unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

“It should come as no surprise that there would be some disagreements, even within an administration, regarding the application of a statute that is nearly 40 years old to a unique and evolving conflict,” Mr. Schultz said. “Those disagreements are ordinary and healthy.”

Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.”

The White House unveiled its interpretation of the War Powers Resolution in a package about Libya it sent to Congress late Wednesday. On Thursday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, demanded to know whether the Office of Legal Counsel had agreed.

“The administration gave its opinion on the War Powers Resolution, but it didn’t answer the questions in my letter as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel agrees with them,” he said. “The White House says there are no hostilities taking place. Yet we’ve got drone attacks under way. We’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s compounds. It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

A sticking point for some skeptics was whether any mission that included firing missiles from drone aircraft could be portrayed as not amounting to hostilities.

As the May 20 deadline approached, Mr. Johnson advocated stopping the drone strikes as a way to bolster the view that the remaining activities in support of NATO allies were not subject to the deadline, officials said. But Mr. Obama ultimately decided that there was no legal requirement to change anything about the military mission.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the internal deliberations, said the process was “legitimate” because “everyone knew at the end of the day this was a decision the president had to make” and the competing views were given a full airing before Mr. Obama.

[to read the rest of the article, click on the link]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Potpourri of Random Stuff

A sign things are getting bad - eagles, protected birds, and in California, the animal rights protection people, guard the safety of these birds vociferously.  Except from wind turbines - those eco-friendly things that save the world.  The eagles are being killed off, soon to go on the near extinct list.

In England - the IMF has told the government, CUT TAXES.  Amazing.  An outside entity telling a government to lower taxes (or raise them).  It 1) tells us how high they are in Britain (very), 2) how bad off Britain is financially.   Greece and Ireland took the plunge, Portugal followed, Austria is following up, Spain is about to fall over, and apparently ... England is on the horizon.

Libya - remember when it all started.  Obama told us 'days, not weeks' and weeks have turned into months and we are still there, for what reason I seriously do not know.  I supported Iraq and Afghanistan because there were serious issues in both.  Kadahfi had given up his nuclear and biological weapons to George W Bush after Bush told the world we would come and find you wherever you hid (if you had weapons of mass destruction), and Kadaffi called Bush up and asked him to come by and take his WMDs.  So why we are in Libya is truly beyond me.  It isn't that Kadaffi is a bad man, for all we need do is look at Robert Mugabe for a BAD man, and we are not invading Botswana or Congo or ...   And the cost is now hundreds of millions.

Why?

And health coverage - Firms to cut health plans as reform starts - 30% of companies say they’ll stop offering coverage. 

Brilliant.  More unemployed and more uninsured.

Bigger and bigger government health care. 



I am at a loss.


















loss

Obama and his Incoherent Foreign Policy

Again, an over educated twit does not a good president make.  For all his education, he is still incoherent in defining a policy and deciding upon a policy.  Talk about how grandiose Bush was ... Obama makes Bush look downright bi-partisan.

This magazine is not known for being conservative nor even centrist.  It is far more often labeled as left or far left ...



Togetherness in Libya




Barack Obama’s awfully big change in America’s use of force



Mar 31st 2011
The Economist


IT IS Pavlovian. As soon as a president does something new in foreign policy, the world wants to know whether he has invented a new “doctrine”. The short answer in the case of Libya is that Barack Obama has not invented a new doctrine so much as repudiated an old one. What he is also doing, however, is challenging an American habit of mind.

The doctrine Mr Obama has repudiated is the one attributed to Colin Powell, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and George W. Bush’s transparently miserable secretary of state when America invaded Iraq in 2003. That held, among other things, that America ought to go to war only when its vital interests are threatened, when the exit strategy is clear, and when it can apply overwhelming force to ensure that its aims are achieved. Nothing could be more different from the account Mr Obama gave Americans on March 28th of his reasons for using military force in Libya. He does not believe that America’s vital interests are at stake (though some “important” ones are); the exit strategy is not entirely clear (Colonel Qaddafi must go, but who knows when, and not as a direct result of American military action); and the force America is willing to apply (no boots on the ground) is strictly limited.

None of this should be a surprise. In “The Audacity of Hope”, the bestseller Mr Obama wrote as a senator in 2006, he set out a theory of military intervention. Like all sovereign nations, he argued, America has the unilateral right to defend itself from attack, and to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat. But beyond matters of clear self-defence, it would “almost always” be in its interest to use force multilaterally. This would not mean giving the UN Security Council a veto over its actions, or rounding up Britain and Togo and doing as it pleased. It would mean following the example of the first President Bush in the first Gulf war—“engaging in the hard diplomatic work of obtaining most of the world’s support for our actions”.

The virtue of such an approach was that America had much to gain in a world that lived by rules. By upholding such rules itself, it could encourage others to do so too. A multilateral approach would also lighten America’s burden at times of war. This might be “a bit of an illusion”, given the modest power of most American allies. But in many future conflicts the military operation was likely to cost less than the aftermath: training police, switching the lights back on, building democracy and so forth.

The president, it now emerges, remembers exactly what he wrote. He hesitated about whether to act in Libya (just ask the French and British, who egged him on but came close to losing hope), but he was always clear about how. All the conditions he wished for in that book five years ago have come to pass. In this week’s speech he ticked them methodically off: “an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.” Under such circumstances, he said, for America to turn a blind eye to the fate of Benghazi would have been “a betrayal of who we are”.

Why does this theory of intervention, and the noble sentiment attached to it, fail to qualify as a “doctrine”? Because it is too elastic to provide a guide to future action. Would America “betray” itself by turning a blind eye to atrocities under different, less favourable, circumstances? So it seems. It has, after all, done so before, in Rwanda and Darfur—and Mr Obama appears to accept that it might have to do so again when, say, an alliance would be damaged, as in Bahrain, or the job is too hot to handle, as in Syria or Iran. Also unclear is whether an American interest must also be at stake before Mr Obama invokes the moral case for action. Conveniently (for the purpose of selling this particular war), the president detects a “strategic interest” in preventing Colonel Qaddafi from chilling the wider Arab spring, so nobody knows.

In fairness, elasticity is not a sin; and Mr Obama does not claim to have invented anything he calls a “doctrine”. The worst you can say about his approach is that it is merely commonsensical: decide the issues case-by-case while holding some idea of values and interests in mind. Many who say they want more consistency than this (typically by asking some variant of “What about Zimbabwe?”) do so not because they really believe that foreign policy can be run by an algorithm but in order to embarrass Mr Obama in any way they can. Prize chump in the case of Libya this past fortnight has been Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential hopeful who demanded consistency, called for intervention and turned on a dime the instant Mr Obama answered.

After you, Sarko

More significant, however, is that habit of mind. In Libya Mr Obama is challenging the assumption of global leadership America has taken for granted ever since the second world war. America has joined coalitions before, but never under a president quite so adamant that America is not in charge—even if the military burden-sharing is indeed a bit of an illusion.

Most Republicans and quite a few Democrats hate this. Mr Obama’s hope is that America’s low profile will make the war more palatable not only to the Muslim world but also to the economy-fixated voters at home who question whether America can still afford to play its traditional leadership role. What he may soon discover is that modesty extracts a price of its own. By sharing the leadership with others, he has made his policy hostage to the limited mandate (no use of force for regime change) imposed by the United Nations and the limited means of his allies in Europe and the Middle East. It may not be a doctrine, it should not be a surprise, but nobody can deny that it is a gamble.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Obama and Libya: Now he is sending in US forces

Yesterday it was the revelation that the US was arming the opposition to Kaddafi.  Today, US forces are on the ground in Libya.  Whether it is 3 or 30 - US forces are on the ground in Libya, involved in an internal issue unrelated to our national interests or security.  And the authorization for this is?   The dictator of this sandbox has wmd nor does he want them.  He did not pay a hit team to try to assassinate a former president, he did not use biological weapons on his people ... he was a dictator - a common variety, of which most of the Middle East has an oversupply. 

The Libyans did not attack us, did not send killers in planes, did not fund terrorism, did not provide aid and comfort to terrorists who had attacked the US ... Kaddafi did NOTHING.    He wasn't even the worst member of OPEC.  Now we are pulled into something we must either push through and ensure Kaddafi is gone or it blowsback on us, and Europe, in a very unflattering manner.






Libya rebels glad and wary of U.S. support, defection


By Alexander Dziadosz and Angus MacSwan
Reuters
March 31, 2011

NEAR BREGA/BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) - Rebels massed for a counter-attack against Muammar Gaddafi's forces in eastern Libya on Thursday, both encouraged by and wary of news of covert U.S. support and his foreign minister's defection.

"We are beginning to see the Gaddafi regime crumble," rebel spokesman Mustafa Gheriani said in the eastern town of Benghazi, while stopping short of welcoming fugitive foreign minister Moussa Koussa, a former spy chief, into the rebel fold.

Analysts agreed the defection of Koussa, who flew to London on Wednesday, was a blow to Gaddafi whose forces have gained ground in recent days. It did not, however, reduce the risk of greater government violence.

Despite almost two weeks of Western air strikes, Gaddafi's troops have used superior arms and tactics to push back rebels trying to edge westward along the coast from their eastern stronghold of Benghazi toward the capital Tripoli.

News that U.S. officials told Reuters that President Barack Obama had authorized covert operations in Libya raised the prospect of wider support for the rebels.

Experts assume special forces are on the ground "spotting" targets for air strikes. Public confirmation from Washington may indicate a willingness for greater involvement.

The rebels, whose main call is for weapons -- not authorized yet by Washington because of a U.N. arms embargo which NATO says it is enforcing -- said they knew nothing about Western troops in Libya and that too big a foreign role could be damaging.

"It would undermine our credibility," Gheriani said.

U.N. RESOLUTION

Obama's order is likely to further alarm countries already concerned that air strikes on infrastructure and ground troops by the United States, Britain and France go beyond a U.N. resolution with the expressed aim only of protecting civilians.

"I can't speak to any CIA activities but I will tell you that the president has been quite clear that in terms of the United States military there will be no boots on the ground," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

The top Vatican official in the Libyan capital cited witnesses on Thursday saying at least 40 civilians had been killed in Western air strikes on Tripoli.

NATO said it was investigating but had no confirmation of the report. Libya's state news agency, citing military sources, said Western air strikes had hit a civilian area in the capital overnight, but did not mention casualties.

Rebels said Gaddafi loyalists had killed 38 civilians over the past two days alone in Misrata, the only town in western Libya still under rebel control. "Massacres are taking place in Misrata," a rebel spokesman called Sami said by telephone.

Britain said it was focusing air strikes around Misrata, which has been under siege from government forces for weeks. Rebels say snipers and tank fire have killed dozens of people.

About 1,000 people are believed to have been killed in clashes between supporters and opponents of Gaddafi since the uprising against his 41-year-old rule began on February 17, the British government said.

The rag-tag forces fighting Gaddafi say they desperately need more arms and ammunition to supplement supplies grabbed from government depots. The United States, France and Britain have raised the possibility, but say no decision has been taken.

NATO, which took over formal command of the air campaign on Thursday, said it would enforce a U.N. arms embargo on all sides: "We are there to protect the Libyan people, not to arm the people," NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Stockholm.

More Western military help may strengthen the rebels on the battlefield but at the price of a propaganda boost for Gaddafi, quick to portray his foes as lackeys of the West.

Rebels driven back by a hail of rocket fire to a spot outside the eastern oil town of Brega, where there were clashes at dawn, were keen to stress they would fight on with or without Western help, despite their military setback this week.

"God willing there will be more air strikes today, but we will advance no matter what," said Muneim Mustafa, a fighter with an AK-47 rifle slung over his shoulder.

DEFECTION

They were also wary of any attempt by Koussa to negotiate immunity, saying Gaddafi and his entourage must be held accountable: "We want to see them brought to justice," senior rebel national council official Abdel Hameed Ghoga told Reuters.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Koussa was not being offered immunity but encouraged others around Gaddafi to follow suit. "Gaddafi must be asking himself who will be the next to abandon him," he told a news conference.

That question was answered soon afterwards when former Libyan foreign minister Ali Abdussalam Treki -- appointed by Gaddafi to replace his U.N. ambassador, who defected in February -- refused to take up the job.

Treki condemned the "spilling of blood," his nephew said in a statement send to Reuters.

While British officials hope Koussa will provide military and diplomatic intelligence, Scottish officials and campaigners want him to shed light on the 1988 Pan Am airliner bombing over Lockerbie in Scotland, which killed 259 people, mostly Americans, on the plane and 11 on the ground.

Pamela Dix, whose brother was among those killed said if Libya was responsible for Lockerbie then Koussa was too, adding: "he should not be a free man in this country.

Analysts agree Koussa's defection is significant but note Gaddafi's inner circle consists of family members who may resort to more violence to stay in power.

A government spokesman said Gaddafi and all his sons would stay "until the end."

Libya's top oil official said on Thursday he remained in Tripoli and the country was continuing to produce some oil, although output was much reduced. Shipping industry sources say oil shipments from Libya are at a standstill.

Gates said Gaddafi's removal was "not part of the military mission" by coalition forces and Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Western military action would not oust him.

"It is not through actions of war that we can make Gaddafi leave, but rather through strong international pressure to encourage defections by people close to him," Frattini said.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
libya

Obama - We will not arm the rebels. Hillary - We will not arm the rebels. Obama - arms the rebels

Regime change?  For over five years we heard this idiotic chant from the fringe left and fringe right - that we couldn't and that Bush did not have the authority for war, let alone regime change. 

Libya is not and was not a national concern for the US - not in our security interests nor even on our horizon as a threat.  After Bush invaded Iraq, Kaddafi called Bush up and told him he was renouncing the use and possession of all bad things and to come and get them.  We did.  Yet Obama is pretending he can manage something bigger than his family dinner - and it is failing due to the messages coming from our government.

Messages like - we will not arm the rebels (who are, in part, al qaida and when they finish with Kaddafi, will turn on us).

Hillary just got through saying NO! we will not arm the rebels.  And Obama had all along been planning on it - even while he told the American people otherwise.



Clinton says "no decision" on arming Libyan rebels



Reuters – March 30, 2011




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that no decision had been made by the Obama administration on whether to arm rebels fighting Muammar Gaddafi's forces in Libya.


"No decision," Clinton said to reporters at the Capitol after one of them asked her whether any decision had been made to arm Libyan rebels. She spoke as she was leaving a briefing on Libya that she and other senior U.S. officials provided to members of the House of Representatives.






Talk about conflicting statements.  I would not be surprised if Hillary quits.




Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels





By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON
Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:08pm EDT



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.

In interviews with American TV networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.

Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.

U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say that at present, neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, appear able to make decisive gains.

While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.

SPECIFIC OPERATIONS

People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.

In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.

Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies still have many questions about the identities and leadership of anti-Gaddafi forces, any covert U.S. activities are likely to proceed cautiously until more information about the rebels can be collected and analyzed, officials said.
 
"The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.


Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.

According to an article speculating on possible U.S. covert actions in Libya published early in March on the website of the Voice of America, the U.S. government's broadcasting service, a covert action is "any U.S. government effort to change the economic, military, or political situation overseas in a hidden way."

ARMS SUPPLIES

The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."

U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.

Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."

"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.






 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
idiots

China: Force is never the answer (unless we are the ones using force)

Hu is so right.  History has shown that force ... is very often the answer Mr. Hu.  That point aside, China operates on the same premise - force is necessary to hold on to what it has.  If you didn't use force Mr. Hu, you would be in prison, China would not be raping Africa nor South America, China would not be instigating Middle East problems, and China would be democratic.  And Mr. Hu, when you are in a quiet place, alone, thinking about how things could be different - you know I am right.




China's Hu tells Sarkozy dialogue way out of Libya crisis



Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:35am EDT

BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese President Hu Jintao told visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday that the crisis in Libya can be solved only through dialogue, not force.

"History has repeatedly proved that the use of force is not an answer to problems," Hu told Sarkozy in Beijing, according to Chinese state television news.

"Dialogue and other peaceful means are the ultimate solution to problems," said Hu in their talks about Libya.

China abstained from the United Nations Security Council vote that authorized a no-fly zone in Libya and military action against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi. But since then Beijing has accused Western countries of overreaching in their campaign against Gaddafi.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
china

Arabs: Implement a No Fly Zone, quickly. Obama: I will take it under consideration but it doesn't seem useful. Lets keep with the sanctions.

For Kaddafi, Chavez, Amindinejad, and other despotic tyrants - reality never sits well.  Within the West, we can probably locate people who live well and free, yet believe the idiotic nonsense that flows from the mouths of these imbeciles - that the US or Britain or The West is behind all the unrest.

If so, then the US is behind convincing the Arab league to request the West implement a no-fly zone over Libya.  Mighty powerful we are.  Except we can't seem to convince the Arab states, several of whom have control of much of the worlds oil - to lower their prices.

Can't do that, but we can convince them to allow the West to provide a no-fly zone.



Arab League asks for no-fly zone over Libya




By DIAA HADID, Associated Press
March 12, 2011


.CAIRO – The Arab League asked the U.N. Security Council Saturday to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians from air attack by forces of Moammar Gadhafi's embattled government, giving crucial backing to a key demand of the rebel forces battling to oust the Libyan leader.

Foreign ministers from the 22-member Arab bloc, meeting in Cairo, also left the Libyan leader of more than 40 years increasingly isolated, declaring his government had "lost its sovereignty."

They also appeared to confer legitimacy on the rebel's interim government, the National Libyan Council, saying they would establish contacts with it and calling on nations to provide it with "urgent help."

"The Arab League asks the United Nations to shoulder its responsibility ... to impose a no-fly zone over the movement of Libyan military planes and to create safe zones in the places vulnerable to airstrikes," said a League statement released after the emergency session.

The unusually rapid and bold action for a bloc of nations known for lengthy and acrimonious deliberations appeared to reflect the shifting currents of a Middle East in tumult. Many other Arab governments are facing street protests and rumblings of dissent stirred by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, and their leaders may have felt compelled to act in favor of Libya's rebellion.

League Secretary-General Amr Moussa stressed in remarks afterward that a no-fly zone was intended as a humanitarian measure to protect Libyan civilians and foreigners in the country and not as a military intervention.

That stance appeared meant to win over the deeply Arab nationalist government of Syria, which has smarted against foreign intervention into Arab affairs.

The statement said the Arab League rejected "all kinds of foreign intervention" in Libya but warned that "not taking the necessary action to end the crisis will lead to intervention in Libya's foreign affairs."

The Arab League cannot impose a no-fly zone itself. But the approval of the key regional Arab body gives the U.S. and other Western powers crucial regional backing they say they need before doing so. Many were weary that Western powers would be seen as intervening in the affairs of an Arab country if they began a no-fly zone without Arab approval.

Still, the Obama administration has said a no-fly zone may have limited impact, and the international community is divided over the issue. 

(Versus sanctions which accomplish: NOTHING against Iran, NOTHING against Iraq, and NOTHING against North Korea, but otherwise they kust work well for Obama to prefer them.)

Moussa said the League would immediately inform the U.N. of its call.

Backing the rebel's political leadership, the League statement said it had faced "grievous violations and serious crimes by the Libyan authorities, which have lost their sovereignty."

It remained to be seen if any Arab forces would participate in air patrols in support of a no-fly zone.

The League's decision comes hours before the European Union's policy chief is set to arrive in Cairo to meet with the Arab bloc's leaders to discuss the situation in Libya.

Catherine Ashton said she hoped to discuss a "collaborative approach" with Arab League chief Moussa on Libya and the rest of the region.

Ashton said it was necessary to evaluate how effective economic sanctions imposed on Gadhafi's regime had been so far and that she was "keeping all options moving forward" regarding any additional measures.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle welcomed the EU's "very cautious" stance on possible military intervention.

"We do not want to be drawn into a war in north Africa — we should have learned from the events in and surrounding Iraq," Westerwelle said.

"It is very important that the impression doesn't arise that this is a conflict of the West against the Arab world or a Christian crusade against people of Muslim faith."

France: Sarkozy has made a decision, taken leadership on Libya (Obama still not sure what to do)

France formally recognises Libyan rebels' authority


By News Wires the 10/03/2011 - 12:15


AP - Libya’s opposition battled for military and diplomatic advantage against Moammar Gadhafi’s embattled regime on Thursday, winning official recognition from France and hitting government forces with heavy weapons on the road to the capital.

France became the first country to formally recognize the rebels’ newly created Interim Governing Council, saying it planned to exchange ambassadors after President Nicolas Sarkozy met with two representatives of the group based in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

The international Red Cross said dozens of civilians have been wounded or killed in recent days in grueling battles between Gadhafi’s army and the opposition movement trying to oust him.

The fighting intensified on the main front line between the Mediterranean oil port of Ras Lanouf and the city of Bin Jawwad, where the rebels appeared to be have established better supply lines bringing heavy weapons like multiple-rocket launcher trucks and small tanks to the battle.

Youssef Fittori, a major in the opposition force, said a mix of defectors from Gadhafi’s special forces and civilain rebels were fighting government forces about 12 miles west of Ras Lanouf on the main coastal road to Bin Jawwad.

“Today, God willing, we will take Bin Jawwad. We are moving forward,” he said.

Red Cross President Jakob Kellenberger said local doctors over the past few days saw a sharp increase in casualties arriving at hospitals in Ajdabiya, in the rebel-held east, and Misrata, in government territory.

Both places saw heavy fighting and air strikes, he said.

Kellenberger said 40 patients were treated for serious injuries in Misrata and 22 dead were taken there.

He said the Red Cross surgical team in Ajdabiya operated on 55 wounded over the past week and “civilians are bearing the brunt of the violence.”

He said the aid organization is cut off from access in western areas including Tripoli but believes those are “even more severely affected by the fighting” than eastern rebel-held territories.

Brazilian newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo reported Thursday that it lost direct contact a week ago with its correspondent who was covering the unrest in Libya, and the paper said it feared he had been taken prisoner along with another unnamed journalist and a Libyan guide.

The newspaper, one of Brazil’s largest, said it had been receiving until Sunday what it characterized as “indirect information” indicating Andrei Netto was alright in the region of Zawiya.

But on Wednesday the newspaper said it received information suggesting Netto had been taken prisoner by Libyan government forces, and that a Libyan official said the information was “probably correct.”

Netto entered Libya on Feb. 19 from the border with Tunisia and worked his way toward Zawiya, the newspaper said. He is the publication’s Paris correspondent.

Brazil’s government, its embassy in Libya, the Red Cross and other groups are trying to find out more about Netto and to determine he is safe, the newspaper said.













 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Libya: To decide or not to decide - will have to wait until he is finished fiddling.

The President of the United States needs to make a decision.  The office requires it, the job demands it - the world expects it.  You do not have time to sit back and allow the world to act and the US to react.  We all know the views of this president toward the US global position - he believes we should not lead, we should walk together.  Unfortunately bad things happen and walking together is not always possible - you must act.  Obama is not capable of acting decisively.  He never has.  He acts in unison with others which is not what a president does much of the time.

The fact the Secretary of State indicates to the world that a no-fl;y zone must be a world action, not a US action in order that it be a Libyan decision not an American decision ... is gobbledygook for not much.  The US abdicates its role as a leader to fit in with the community of nations.

Unfortunately, the US will still be accused of doing the no-fly zone, we will still be accused of every possible slander ... regardless.  And the people of Libya, have called on the US to act.  Obama has resisted thus far ... preferring to wait.  If he waits long enough there won't be any rebellion - Kaddafi will kill them all, and Obama will be able to say he was strongly in favor of something.

I wonder if Obama knows how to fiddle.





Obama's Libya conference today 'not a decision meeting'



March 9, 2011
03:28 PM
By Kevin Frayer, AP

President Obama discussed possible ways to respond to Libya with national security aides today, but spokesman Jay Carney cautioned that it was not "a decision meeting."


These types of national security meetings "happen with some regularity," Carney said.

"We are continuing to review options," Carney said. "We are obviously aware of the suffering in Libya, and the violence there."

Options range from establishing a no-fly zone over Libya to providing arms to rebels who are fighting the forces of dictator Moammar Gadhafi; the U.S. is also examining contingencies as well as the need for humanitarian aid to the war-torn nation.

"We are not at a decision point," Carney said. "We are considering these options. We are actively considering a no-fly zone."

Carney noted that the battles between the Gadhafi and the rebel forces are less than three weeks old, yet the United States and its global allies have agreed on stiff sanctions for the Libyan regime and delivered humanitarian assistance to rebels and refugees.

"I think it is very important for people to understand the kind of dramatic action that has been taken with the leadership of this president," Carney said.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Libya: Yet another nut believes it is a conspiracy

Everything that happened in Tunisia must have been inspired by the US and Jews, to spill over into Egypt, in order that it catch fire in Libya - all a plot to invade.

We have been told how our leaders, particularly in the past, have always been eager for war - yet what evidence is provided - the word of various despots and dictators.  Who better to listen to.  Yet, if one believes what these loons have to say, you MUST to be intellectually honest, evaluate what they say and what must be accepted as preconditions to whatever rubbish may spill from their mouths.

The above first sentence, must precede what is to follow or it does not make sense.  The best airing of the following proposition would be the US is exaggerating the death claims (UN and Amnesty NOT the US).  The US is exaggerating what Kaddafi is doing, not Al Jazxeerra with a camera on 24/7.  These despots need to go back on their meds and the loyal subjects who elected them need to once more retrurn to staring at images of their dear leader.



Chavez: U.S. distorting situation in Libya 'to justify an invasion'
By Catherine E. Shoichet
CNN
March 1, 2011 9:52 a.m. EST



(CNN) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claims U.S. criticism of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has a clear aim: military invasion.


"Let's not get carried away by the drums of war, because the United States, I am sure that they are exaggerating and distorting things to justify an invasion," Chavez said Monday, according to Venezuelan state media.


...

"Instead of sending Marines and tanks and planes, why don't we send a goodwill commission to try to help so that they do not continue killing in Libya? They are our brothers," he said in a speech televised on the government-run network.


The only brothers you have in Libya Hugo, are the ones named Kaddafi - and their presence on this earth is limited.  As Vladimir Putin stated Moammar is a 'living corpse'.

I understand it is disappointing to you Hugo, to lose such a close ally and another, Iran - facing the likelihood of ever increasing protests that may topple your ally and friend (one of very few you have among the nations on earth).  It must be bothersome to you Hugo.  Worrisome.  The protests could spread to your despotic rule. 








 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
hugo

Libya: It's the Jews, no it's the Americans, no it's the Libyans nor its the Arabs no ....

A coalition of Libyan rebels has urged the US and its allies to bomb mercenary forces supporting Muammer Gaddafi and to impose a no-fly zone as the opposition repelled a fierce assault by pro-regime troops.
Financial Times
By Andrew England in Benghazi, Michael Peel in Tripoli, Heba Saleh in Cairo and Daniel Dombey in Washington
March 1 2011 22:54


Meanwhile, Kaddafi is certain it is a conspiracy -
 
'There is a conspiracy to control the Libyan oil and to control the Libyan land, to colonise Libya once again,' he said in a televised speech before a loyal audience.

Daily Mail
March 2, 2011


And in the US, Louis 'UFO' Farrakhan is certain it is a conspiracy also -

“President Obama,” Farrakhan said, “if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons, as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons... I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.”


The conspiracy for Louis is the Jews.  The Jews are behind the conspiracy.  Kaddafi saw the conspiracy as one intended to take the oil, but rather, according to Louis, it is the Jews, trying to cause war and division.  You may ask why?  And Louis has an answer ....

The Nation of Islam leader also accused American Zionists of attempting to push Israel into war with Iran, stating that “Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system.”

And before you go and call Louis antisemitic and stupid ...

“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people,” Farrakhan said. “You’re stupid.

So why is he speaking out now, why is he saying what he is saying?
"My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.”

And there you have it - Jews are either Satanic or controlled by Satan, and in turn seek to control everyone else.  Except Louis and Moammar, who happens to be, according to Louis “my brother and my friend.”


I suppose we should let the rebels / opposition in Libya know they are pawns of the Jews and are really not upset by what Kaddafi has done to them for over 30 years, they are being manipulated by the Jews.  The fact Louis walked away from Libya with suitcases full of cash and loans equally more than the GNP of most small countries ... none of that is relevant.















 
 
 
 
librya