UPDATE: The American Dilemma in Libya: To Bomb, Invade, Partition, Or All of the Above


by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

UPDATED: As Khadafi’s forces prepare to encircle the rebel stronghold at Benghazi, western media remain curiously unable to “provide a coherent overview of rebel politics, beyond an incandescent hatred of Khadafi.” However, the corporate press seem to have suddenly “undergone a crash course in the intractable nature of Libyan tribal politics,” an indication the U.S. is considering drawing a line in the sand to effectively partition Libya.


UPDATE: The American Dilemma in Libya: To Bomb, Invade, Partition, Or All of the Above

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

The West dearly wishes to appropriate to itself a section of the ‘Arab revolt,’ so as to bomb an evil ‘dictator’ on their behalf.”

The UN Security Council voted on Thursday to authorize a “no-fly zone” over Libya – a surprise to the author, who had predicted in the this column on Tuesday that China and/or Russia would veto the move. The measure gives the OK to “all necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces – wording the U.S. and its allies will undoubtedly treat as a mandate to apply as much force as they wish. In light of the disastrous UN action, the title of this article is even more appropriate than when it was first published.

R2P” – Responsibility to Protect – is the Obama regime’s favored formula for pouring mud in the otherwise clear waters of international law. The philosophy – actually, a political position seeking legal recognition – amounts to a kind of super-power judicial waiver couched in the language of nobles oblige, the obligation of the strong to help the weak. In the real world, the strong only help themselves – in this case, to Libya’s oil reserves, the largest in Africa.

Obama UN Ambassador Susan Rice, a far meaner junkyard dog than George Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is the administration’s loudest and most bellicose proponent of so-called “humanitarian” intervention. Even before the Democrats won the White House, Susan Rice proposed a sea and air blockade and “no-fly zone” against Sudan. Having finally succeeded in partitioning Sudan, after decades of fomenting civil war, the West is clearly considering the “option” of partitioning Libya, where most of the oil is conveniently located in the eastern part of the country, near Benghazi.

The workings of the imperial brain are plainly visible in the output of the corporate press, which act as ventriloquist dummies to power. Suddenly, the media have all undergone a crash course in the intractable nature of Libyan tribal politics – a subject until now totally unknown to the western press. After a quick education from the State Department and designated think tankers, corporate media dutifully prepare the public for the possible drawing of an American “line in the sand” somewhere before the gates of Benghazi, a town that would then be dubbed a “hero city” – the opposite of Fallujah, the demon-city leveled by the U.S. in 2004 at the cost of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, to the cheers of U.S. corporate media.

The West is clearly considering the ‘option’ of partitioning Libya.”

Western reporters, who are such quick studies when it comes to tribalisms and other perceived pathologies of exotic, non-western peoples, have not yet figured out who the rebels are, politically. This is quite strange, since corporate correspondents have for weeks spent all their waking hours among the rebels, profiling individuals and rushing to the battlefronts. Yet, they cannot – or will not – provide a coherent overview of rebel politics, beyond an incandescent hatred of Khadafi, the man. Khadafi’s narrative of the conflict, that the rebels are largely Al Qaida-type elements, is dismissed as nonsensical. But no one disputes that Benghazi was the center of an Islamic revolt in the Nineties, and that resentments from that period fester. The presence of Islamic militants among the rebels is now widely acknowledged, although corporate correspondents can’t seem to find many in the flesh to profile.

The western media, and the governments they serve, are caught in crossfire of contradictions. The U.S. wants desperately to position itself on the “right” side of some aspect of the unfolding Arab Reawakening. The West dearly wishes to appropriate to itself a section of the “Arab revolt,” so as to bomb an evil “dictator” on their behalf. The western media’s job is to do the public relations work, presenting these “pro-western” combatants in the most attractive light. However, it appears the media are having trouble packaging the Libyan rebels as sufficiently virtuous “freedom fighters” – one suspects because, on closer inspection, many turn out to be fundamentalists or tribalists.

Why is the rebellion apparently incapable of taking advantage of mass desertions from the armed forces?”

Ironically, the merest presence of Islamic fundamentalist fighters would have, in previous times, been reason for a U.S. attack and invasion – against those harboring such elements.

And, what happened to the estimated 6,000 former regime troops that deserted at the start of the rebellion? Some former Khadafi officers occupy high profile positions in the rebel ranks, but the equivalent of several brigades worth of deserters is not in evidence. This, again, raises the question of who the rebel leaders really are; why are they apparently incapable of taking advantage of mass desertions from the armed forces? One cannot help but suspect the presence of unwholesome elements around whom former soldiers and others cannot bring themselves to effectively coalesce.

The most unwholesome elements of all, of course, are the U.S. and European imperialists, whose intervention represents the overarching threat to the Libyan and Arab nation. Much is made of the Arab League’s request for a no-fly zone over Libya. But the League’s rather ambiguous proposal – it cautions against an “attack” on Libya, as if a no-fly zone can be imposed without attacking anybody – has no more force of law than a NATO no-fly decision, or an African Union decision to attack Europe!

The United States has paid no attention to countless Arab League resolutions regarding Israel’s six decades of lawless behavior in the region, or to the Jewish State’s constant violations of UN resolutions. No one in the Arab world believes the West has suddenly developed a new respect for either Arabs or the rule of law. What’s new is western fear that, at long last, the empire is finally slipping away.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].


Obama & Susan Rice - the warmongers

The Chinese and Russians probably want us to get into another possible quagmire militarily and stretch ourselves thin.


"The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China,  which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. The United States, France and Britain pushed for speedy approval.  
"In an interview broadcast just before the Security Council voted, Gadhafi  dismissed its actions. "The U.N. Security Council has no mandate. We don't acknowledge their resolutions," he told the Portuguese public Radiotelevisao Portuguesa. He pledged to respond harshly to U.N.-sponsored attacks. "If the world is crazy, we will be crazy too," he said."  
"Immediately before the vote, France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppe urged adoption of the resolution saying sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Feb. 26 aren't enough and "violence against the civilian population has been redoubled."  
"We cannot let these warmongers ... do this," he said. "We have very little time left. It's a matter of days. It's perhaps a matter of hours. We should not arrive too late."  
Russia and China had expressed doubts about the United Nations and other outside powers using force against Gadhafi, a view backed by India, Brazil and Germany who also abstained.  
Germany's U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig expressed fear that using military force could lead to "the likelihood of large-scale loss of life."  
Despite the lack of consensus, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said: "Today the Security Council has responded to the Libyan people's cry for help."  
She said "Colonel Gadhafi and those who still stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental of the human rights of his  



        “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.” - George Orwell.

The bombing of Libya will begin on or nearly to the day, of the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the destruction of Iraq, 19th March, in Europe. Libya too will be destroyed - its schools, education system, water, infrastructure, hospitals, municipal buildings. There will be numerous "tragic mistakes", "collateral damage", mothers, fathers, children, babies, grandparents, blind and deaf schools and on and on. And the wonders of the Roman remains and earlier, largely enduring and revered in all history's turmoils as Iraq, the nation's history - and humanity's, again as Iraq and Afghanistan, will be gone, for ever.

The infrastructure will be destroyed. The embargo will remain in place, thus rebuilding will be impossible. Britain, France and the US., will decide the country needs "stabilizing", "help with reconstruction." They will move in, secure the oil installations and oil fields, the Libyan people will be an incidental inconvenience and quickly become "the enemy", "insurgents", be shot, imprisoned, tortured, abused - and a US friendly puppet "government" will be installed.

The invaders will award their companies rebuilding contracts, the money - likely taken from Libya's frozen assets without accounting - will vanish and the country will remain largely in ruins.

And the loudest cheerleaders for this, as Iraq, will be running round tv and radio stations in London, Europe and the US, then returning to their safe apartments and their UK/US/Europe paid tenures, in the knowledge that no bombs will be dropping on them. Their children will not be shaking uncontrollably and soiling themselves with terror at the sound of approaching planes.

And this Libyan "Shock and Awe"?  Shame on France, shame on Britain and the US and a UN avowed: "... to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." Every shattered body, every child maimed or blown to bits, every widow, widower, orphan, will have their name of those countries, and the UN., written in their blood in their place of death.

And the public of these murderous, marauding Western ram raiders, will be told that we were bringing democracy, liberating Libya from a tyrant, from the "new Hitler", the "Butcher of Bengazi."

The countries who have ganged together these last days to overthrow a sovereign government have, again, arguably, conspired in Nuremberg's: " ... supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole", and yet again, plotted to overthrow a sovereign government, with a fig leaf of "legality" from an arm twisted UN. We have seen it all before.

In time, it will emerge, who was stirring, bribing, de-stabilizing - and likely few will be surprised at the findings. But by then, Libya will be long broken and its people, fleeing, displaced, distraught.

When it comes to dealing with the usual "liberators", be careful what you wish for. In six months or so, most Libyans, whatever the failings of the last forty years rule, will be ruing the day.

Felicity Arbuthnot is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Felicity Arbuthnot

We're going in

Inside classified Hill briefing, administration spells out war plan for Libya

Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 8:11 PM⁠


Several administration officials held a classified briefing for all senators on Thursday afternoon in the bowels of the Capitol building, leaving lawmakers convinced President Barack Obama is ready to attack Libya but wondering if it isn't too late to help the rebels there.

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns led the briefing and was accompanied by Alan Pino, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, Gen. John Landry, National Intelligence Officer for Military Issues, Nate Tuchrello, National Intelligence Manager for Near East, Rear Adm. Michael Rogers, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Rear Admiral Kurt Tidd, Vice Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Several senators emerged from the briefing convinced that the administration was intent on beginning military action against the forces of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi within the next few days and that such action would include both a no-fly zone as well as a "no-drive zone" to prevent Qaddafi from crushing the rebel forces, especially those now concentrated in Benghazi.

"It looks like we have Arab countries ready to participate in a no-fly and no-drive endeavor," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters after the briefing.

Asked what he learned from the briefing, Graham said, "I learned that it's not too late, that the opposition forces are under siege but they are holding, and that with a timely intervention, a no-fly zone and no-drive zone, we can turn this thing around."

Asked exactly what the first wave of attacks would look like, Graham said, "We ground his aircraft and some tanks start getting blown up that are headed toward the opposition forces."

As for when the attacks would start, he said "We're talking days, not weeks, and I'm hoping hours, not days," adding that he was told the U.N. Security Council resolution would be crafted to give the international community the authority to be "outcome determinant" and "do whatever's necessary."

The Security Council adopted the resolution on Thursday evening by a vote of 10-0 with 5 abstentions.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) told reporters that he expected the military operations to be run out of Sicily, where NATO Base Sigonella and U.S. Naval Air Station Sigonella are located.

"I know we have naval assets that are some distance away, so this would have to be U.S. Air Force Europe that would have the majority load for the time being, if the order is given," said Kirk.

Inside the briefing, several senators asked questions about how quickly the no-fly zone could be implemented, whether that was enough to stop Qaddafi's forces, what other military options might be used, and whether the administration had waited too long to act.

"There were concerns about the protection of civilians and one of those concerns was, is it too late," one Senate staffer who was in the meeting told The Cable.

Both Graham and Kirk said that they believed it was not too late, but that the success of the mission depended on super-quick implementation.

"It seems that the administration is moving and now the only question is time," said Kirk. "A lot still depends on the rebels at the very least holding Benghazi. If they do, there may be time for the international political system to respond. If they collapse quickly, no."

Graham and Kirk both said that they had thrown their support behind Obama's new Libya policy.

"I want to take back criticism I gave to them yesterday and say, ‘you are doing the right thing,'" said Graham. "My money is on the American Air Force, the American Navy, and our allies to contain the Libyans, and anybody on our side that says we can't contain the Libyan air threat -- I want them fired."

But Obama lost longtime supporter Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) who said in Thursday morning's hearing with Burns that any military intervention in Libya should require a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.

Lugar also opposes military intervention in Libya on the grounds that the nation can't afford it at a time of deep fiscal debt and called on Obama to explain why attacking Libya is in America's national interest. The humanitarian argument just isn't enough, he said.

"We would not like to stand by and see people being shot, but the same argument could be made in Bahrain at present and perhaps in Yemen, so if you have a civil war it's very likely people are going to be out for each other," Lugar told The Cable in an interview. "This debate cannot be totally divorced from the realities of what are the contending issues right here and now."

But Graham responded to Lugar's caution in an interview with The Cable, saying that the risk of doing nothing and allowing Qaddafi to remain in power after Obama said "he must go" is far greater than that of getting involved militarily.

"They have my authorization. You can't have 535 commander in chiefs," Graham said. "I would like to have a vote in the floor when we get back saying they did the right thing. But that shouldn't restrict the president from taking timely action."

At Thursday morning's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that Qaddafi's forces had reestablished control over large swaths of territory and that the Libyan leader had tens of planes and hundreds of helicopters in use.

He called the plan to impose a no-fly zone in a few days "overly optimistic" and said "it would take upwards of a week."

Schwartz was also clear that while the U.S. military can impose a no-fly zone, that's not likely to stop Qaddafi all by itself. He also noted that to do so effectively might require diverting some resources from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The question is, is a no-fly zone the last step or is it the first step?" Schwartz said.

Asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether a no-fly zone could turn the momentum, Scwartz replied, "A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient."

How dare they!


It gets a little surreal doesn’t it?  U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice accusing Colonel Gadhafi of violating human rights, “Mike” Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying that Julian Assuange has blood on his hands, and every hypocritical, sanctimonious word out of the vile mouth of Hilary Clinton.

It gives one the desire to put one’s hands around their reptilian necks and scream, “How dare you!  How dare you!”           


I hope the next time some angry people crash a plane into a building, it will be a cargo plane loaded with explosives and their target will be The New York Stock Exchange or Goldman Sachs.

Or The State Department.  


Treason?  Who the hell cares!

Mendacious Bastards

These assholes don't give a shit about the Libyan people, if they did they would have implemented a no-fly zone weeks ago.  The US propaganda machine is simply using the (already demonized) Colonel as a ruse to project Western military power in North Africa and beyond.   We didn't see any "humanitarian intervention" in Egypt or Tunisia did we?  And we don't see any no-fly zones in Yemem whose government is shooting live ammo at its populace, and we damn sure won't see any in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, two US puppet states.  And we damn sure didn't see any no-fly zones in Gaza where the IDF was shooting "ducks in a barrel."

My suspicions is also that the projection of US and Western military power in Libya is also designed to send a warning to Iran, don't intervene to assist your Shia brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.

Billary Clinton had the nerve to go to Tahrir Sq. in Egypt and proclaim (false) solidarity with the Egyptian people.  Only American citizens are dumb enough to believe the hype, to believe the American Exceptionalism bunk, the rest of the Middle East can see the US for the mendacious, hypocritical bastards they are. 



Bloodbath in Yemen: No UN Action for the Peace Laureate's Pal  

Oh wait, that didn't happen. The regime in Yemen will not face military intervention by the UN to stop its slaughter of unarmed civilians. There will be, at most, a few stern words from the Obama Administration urging "restraint on both sides" -- even as the Peace Laureate carries on his secret bombing campaigns and covert military operations in Yemen, with the eager cooperation of Saleh. "Restraint," in the degraded imperial parlance of our day, means that unarmed people should allow themselves to be mowed down by American-backed governments without making a big fuss about it. In exchange, Washington will then publicly urge its local client tyrant to "move" on "the reform process" -- even as it sells him more weapons and kills more of his people in its covert ops.

But as the world's attention was drawn to Libya, here's what the Peace Laureate's good buddy in Yemen has been up to today. From the NYT:

Security forces and government supporters opened fire on demonstrators on Friday as the largest protest so far in Yemen came under violent and sustained attack in the center of the capital, Sana. At least 10 people were killed and more than 100 injured, according to a doctor at a makeshift hospital near the protest. ... 



Libya finally forces Barack Obama's hand as he goes for broke

After weeks pondering, prevaricating and posturing, the US wants Muammar Gaddafi's head. And it will fight to get it

By Simon Tisdall



"With a boldness that the world had begun to believe he lacked, Barack Obama has gone for broke. The US wants Muammar Gaddafi's head. It will not rest until he is deposed and there is regime change in Libya. And it will fight to get it."


The racist arab muslims in Egypt are arming the racist arab muslims in Libya, under the direct orders of George W. Obama's massas:


The April Fools joke will be on Obama and the West

From Tisdall's article

The immediate impact may be to stop Gaddafi's advance on Benghazi in its tracks. If that happens, the revolution will have been salvaged, albeit at the very last moment. Whether it can endure is another matter entirely. 

Obama and Cameron are looking for another Kosovo or Kuwait, not another Iraq. It's a story, as they would prefer to write it, with a happy ending, producing a newly independent country, and another friend for the west. But they cannot control the outcome. Now they can only wait and hope they were right 

First of all Kosovo did not end up as rosy as the US media/propaganda machine would have one believe.  Kosovo is actually a mafia-run state, hardly the beacon of democracy and liberties envisioned by the Western synchophants.  Second, the money line in Tisdall's piece is:  "Whether it can endure is another matter entirely.... they can only hope and wait they were right."

Puhleez.  All the Colonel has to do is to call America's bluff and force it to committ to ground troops which it won't.  Obama made clear in his press conference that "clear lines were drawn" and the most clearest one was that the US would not put boots on the ground.  The Colonel doesn't need to use air superiority to crush the rebels, maybe all he has to do is encircle them and cut off their supplies, then what?

Obama is about to create a disaster of unseen proportions the typical American clusterfuck of "unintended consequences."  The US couldn't defeat the Iraqi insurgents until they were fighting a 3 front war:  battling the US, the Shia, and al Qaeda hardliners, and even then they had to buy off their loyalty, and look around Iraq and ask yourself how long did that last???  Afghanistan?  A monumental, epic disaster is the only way to describe it.  More than 2/3 of Americans want out, and out now.

I guess will have to resign ourselves to listen to more Black folk and Liberal folk lamentations:  "Poor ol Bowock, if only he got better advice."  HA Ha Ha.  This incursion is going is nothing more than a disaster in waiting.  It doesn't take CFR membership to see a royal fuck up coming down the line.  Tisdall is frankly generous in his "best case scenario" optimism.  The Colonel only has to force Obama's and NATO's hand and the coalition will come tumbling down, and once again the irrelevancy of Obama and the US will rear it's head. 

The US is a paper tiger and a crumbling empire, maybe we shouldn't get upset at the Harvard Law Scholar Peace Laureate's stupidity.  As Pepe Escobar said in an interview with Scott Horton at antiwar.com recently, the death of the US Empire is good for the world and Americans too.


p.s.  I wonder how the Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemens, and Shia in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are taking this all in?  Bin Laden must be laughing from his grave, the follies, arrogrance, hubris and racism of the West has succeeded in her demise beyond his wildest dreams.

p.s.s.  You know what's really said and pathetic?  When 5 Million Black Africans died in the Congo nobody said a motherfucking thing.  The same sorry Niggas giving Obama excuses for incompetence and foolishness don't even know about it, do they???

Americans blame everyone but themselves

The  United Nations? Get fucking real. Since when has the American Empire ever respected the UN? It routinely defies UN resolutions when they don't serve America's precious "national interests". 

America would have bombed Libya, regardless of whether this resolution passed. The USA had already moved its military assets in place long before this vote. The only difference with this resolution is America now has a pathetic UN figleaf to hide behind.

Ranting about China, Russia, or the UN is a pathetic attempt to divert responsibility away from America and its latest war of aggression, which is number 4 and counting.

If you want to rant about something, you should look closer to home.

The inconvenient truth is that the USA and Obama could not get away with their many war atrocities without the people that voted this guy into power and continue to support his regime—particularly African Americans.

It may be an embarrassing issue to admit, but Obama’s grassroots support is based in Black America. According to a recent Gallop Poll, African Americans support Obama at an ungodly 90%--far higher than any other group.

Despite Obama’s now routine Predator Drone attacks on children and peasants in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Black community overwhelmingly *still* supports him. 

This shows that African Americans and other Obama supporters are just as imperialistic as the pro-war “White Republicans” they whined about during the Bush regime.

The only difference is that they want their OWN war criminal in the White House. 

Taking slight issue with comment

Quote:  "The inconvenient truth is that the USA and Obama could not get away with their many war atrocities without the people that voted this guy into power and continue to support his regime—particularly African Americans. "

As Bevery states no one argues about the correctness of the statement, but I would argue about it's contexual nature.

The African American support of Obama is delusional and disproportionate to be sure.  But it is equally delusional to say that Blacks hold any paritculary sway over Obama's policies.  If that were the case, we wouldn't be in such a fucked up state of affairs, and Obama wouldn't be mimicking Ronald Reagan.

The fact of the matter is the only significance of the delusionallly high Black support of Obama is that it gives him a green light to NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT US, and to take our "voices" for granted.  Obama didn't bomb Libya because Black folks wanted it, he bombed Libya because rich, powerful White folks wanted it.  I see that Neocon godfather Wm. Kristol is asking for ground troops.   You won't hear Al Sharpton or Jesse jackson or Min. Farrakhan asking for ground troops nor bombing. 


The statement you made is technically, totally accurate, the CONTEXT IN WHICH YOU MADE IT is, on the otherhand, 100% inaccurate.  Blacks don't mean shit to Obama, nor anyone else for that matter.  Like I said, Obama wouldn't be instituting economic and military policies that rival George Bush were it up to Black folks.  Yes they stupidly cosign his dumb shit, but pushing or promulgating or instituting his policy stances and pronouncements?   "Nigga puhleez."  In simple terms, Blacks don't call any shots for Obama, they simply childishly give him a pass.  Obama could give a shit about what Blacks folks think, he takes them for granted (or as a nuisance) just like the rest of America. 

It's the White puppet masters pulling the marionettes on Obama.

Having said all that, you are correct in that there's no excuse for Blacks cosigning his dumb shit on some race loyalty bullshit.  Now where I do agree with you 100% without qualification is when you said:

This shows that African Americans and other Obama supporters are just as imperialistic as the pro-war “White Republicans” they whined about during the Bush regime.

The only difference is that they want their OWN war criminal in the White House.  

Now nobody can refute that statement, not one bit.  And truth be told this is the same argument I make myself when challenging the ignorant, unquestioning loyalty to Obama.  Nothing is more telling when it comes to comprehending the force of  your statement above than:  "What happened to the antiwar movement, particularly when Obama did a "Bushie" and escalated the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan?





Lets Not Forget the Arabs Sellout of Khadaffi - I Wonder Why...

Beverly- It was said that Russia & China were leaning toward an out-right veto of this NATO / US intervention in Libya under the guise of humanitarianism [yeah right], but that the Arab League [w the notable exceptions of Syria & Algeria] voted for & urged that the US / NATO /UN impose this so-called no-fly zone on Libya - just as Khadaffi was poised to retake Benghazi which just happens to be where much / most of Libya's oil is. This persuaded them to abstain rather than veto. This is not to make excuses for Russia & China- BUT- The Arab League sellout of Khadaffi / Libya to the US / UK / France / NATO is even more telling, especially in the wake of the US / UK lead disastrous invasion of Iraq BASED ON LIES [but word is that the Saudis & Jordan secretly sold Saddam / Iraq out to the US & UK]. PLUS- The regimes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, & Yemen are gunning down actual unarmed protesters [& ain't no one talking about imposing no-fly zones or even UN sanctions & resolutions of condemnation on them]- while the so-called civilians [actually rebels] in Libya are Armed for Civil War [apparently they even have access to fighter planes]. Its also telling that Chavez & others offered to negotiate a truce & Khadaffi said YES -but- the so-called civilian/rebels said NO out-right- while demanding that the US / NATO / UN impose a no-fly zone. This is beginning to look more & more like a SET-UP [remember that the Bush / Cheney / NeoCons had 4 so-called Mid-East Arab / Muslim nations on their {s}Hit list- Iraq, Iran, Syria, & LIBYA] . These so-called civilian/rebels are getting backing [IE: ammo & supplies] from the Saudis who are in cahoots w the US / CIA, UK, etc. So why have these Arab leaders sold Khadiffi out: 1- Most of them have traditionally been in cahoots w the US / UK / West for decades... 2- Could it be that Khadaffi is as much for Pan-Africanism as he is for Pan-Arabism?

NOW- There's been a bit of a back-lash here at BAR because Glen Ford & others ain't willing to just throw Khadaffi under the US / NATO bus & Ask the question- Just Who are these rebels anyway? Now Khadaffi may not be a Pan-African angel & I certainly don't want to see him dominate Africa [but I'm willing to give him the chance to have a seat at the Pan-African table]- but for now we're talking about Libya. And If I were a leader of an African nation, I'd take my chances w Khadiffi vis-a-vis the US / NATO / UN any day. And that also goes for these so-called civilian/rebels who've been using the Khadiffi's African mercenary hype as an excuse to have a back-lash against Black Africans in Libya. So Khadaffi falls to a coalition of US / NATO & Saudi backed rebels & this will be better for AFRICA- PLEASE. The last time the US / UK / France / NATO backed some guys no-one knew anything about as great so-called freedom fighters & champions of democracy - they gave us guys like that meglo-manic psycho Shakashvilli in Georgia who tried to provoke a war w Russia & then claimed that Russia started it- or- those mafia thugs Thaci / KLA in Kosovo who run- international dope rings, human body snatcher / body parts chop shops, & international  women & even girl slavery / forced prostitution rings [Old African Proverb: Better the {so-called} 'Devil' that you know than the {so-called} 'ANGEL' that you don't know]. 

Another possible explanation for China and Russia

First nobody defines or "gets" self-interest like the Chinese, the Chinese don't give a crap about nobody but themselves, they have no morals or principles when it comes to their self-interest.  It's called "realism" or "realpoliticks."  The Russians have a similar but slightly different agenda.  Obviously the military conflict will escalate oil prices, no one burns more oil than the US military.  As the holder of huge oil reserves, Russian benefits from spikes in oil prices.  Second, the Russians are content (as are the Chinese) to let US arrogance and hubris lead to America shooting herself in the foot, further weaking her military and politically.  The Russians should know, right?  After all the Afghanistan War bankrupted the Soviet Union before dumbass Americans jumped in.  Brezinski bragged about it.  Here's what Putin has said since the start of the war, he's clearly throwing gase on the fire, and if you were Russian, would you blame him?  God, how fucking stupid the United States is, it's stupidity is only matched by its hubris:


VOTKINSK, Russia (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Monday likened the U.N. Security Council resolution supporting military action in Libya to medieval calls for crusades.

Putin, in the first major remarks from a Russian leader since a coalition of Western countries began air strikes in Libya, said that Muammar Gaddafi's government fell short of democracy but added that did not justify military intervention.

"The resolution is defective and flawed," Putin told workers at a Russian ballistic missile factory. "It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades."

Putin said that interference in other countries' internal affairs has become a trend in U.S. foreign policy and that the events in Libya indicated that Russia should strengthen its own defense capabilities. 


All Out War on Libya, Surge in the Price of Crude Oil...

"Humanitarian Wars are Good for Business".... Speculators Applaud....


by Michel Chossudovsky 

AWARD WINNING LIE of the month(so far):"We are not

after Kaddafi, just protecting the people." U.S. gov't statement.   Heard on corporate radio news today in re missiles attacks on Libya.  (Originally posted before attack on home compound announced.)
Update: excellent article by Phyllis Bennis on Znet, dated
 Sun.,Mar 20,2011, www.zcommunications.org/znet  It's on top of home page today, Mon.  UPDATE II: Bennis is on today's DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org as well.  The segment that follows Libya coverage is DemNow's coverage of Aristide's return to Haiti and it was beautiful video and coverage.  My eyes are wet.  Nice to have some good news during all the bad. 

My Ques.:How many people have the U.S. killed today in this new war?  Rep. Rangel was said on news summaries to be against the attack: one report said he said it was because Congress was not considered and another news report only said he was against attack on Libya.  Sometimes Mr. Rangel gets it right.  And the various radio stations have made note that Americans are not in favor the the U.S. wars....but...


 On bombing Libya and other places being bombed by the U.S.: (Michael Franti,Spearhead music group) "You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb the world to peace.".

This was all planned. What a world

  Libya is a member of both the AU and Arab-league.  How the only the opinion of the Arab league influenced the decision of the security council member shows the hypocritical reasoning used to invade this country.  Libya is not in the middle east.  Libya is an African country. Let's get that clear.  The AU have their own problems but they rarely sell out their brothers as the Arabs.  But the Arab league voted for no-fly zone when most of their members were themselves commiting worse atrocites than Libya is alleged to have commited.  No evidence has been presented to prove the crimes of the Libyans. Libyan invitation for the UN to come down and verify for themselves the nature of things on the ground was turned down.  What is at play here? Saudi Arabia.  The monarch has never liked Gaddaffi and most of the other Arab dictators have never liked him.  They are helping to sell him to ensure they get protected when the people come for them.  Very sad how the game is played in this world.  But Gaddaffi is not Saddam. Gaddaffi has made some enormous mistakes but it is likely some good works of his will save him.

U.S. Government Backs Libyan Al-Qaeda While Hyping Terror Attack

By Paul Joseph Watson

Obama administration fearmongers about Libyan-backed terrorists carrying out reprisal attacks in America.


Russia “Regrets Armed Action” Killing 48 in Libya

By Kurt Nimmo

So-called coalition bombs Gaddafi’s Bab Azizia residence with human shields.


Alex Jones Played This Clip Of Farrakhan On His Radio Program

Over a million people heard this:

[Note: PrisonPlanet links to the FinalCall]

“Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?” Farrakhan Blasts Obama On Libya Bombing


Farrakhan’s Obama Revelation: ‘Before He Was Elected He Was Selected’


Farrakhan to Obama "Who the hell do you think you are?"


Protecting civilians, U.S hypocrisy know no bounds

 It is clear that the call to protect civilians by the U.S and its allies is  a camouflage for an illegal intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation.  Civilians aren't being attacked by the khadafi's  Regime, armed rebels are. There is little doubt that civilians have been in the line of fire, but, sadly, that is always a consequence of war.   The U.S however has tolerated civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and Palestine, where thousands died form Israeli bombs and missiles  at the beginning of the Obama administration.  U.S hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Without taking one side or the other, It is clearly  a civil war that is taking place in Libya and the U.S is choosing sides based on its interest in Libyan oil.  

The oil companies are demanding greater  oil reserves and a greater supply, in order to lower or stabilize oil prices in the U.S, which are headed toward 5 dollars a gallon. It is all about protecting the investment and profits of oil companies, who contribute heavily to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  Although in the past, 75 percent of the oil companies campaign contributions went to Republicans, Democrats are increasingly lobbying for their "fair share" According to the Center for Responsible politics the largest chunk of Oil giant BP campaign contributions have gone to Obama.

The Oil companies continue to manipulate the market. A gallon of gasoline  is already over 4 dollars  in parts of California where I live.  This could very well be a political disaster for the party in power. There is  nothing like a direct hit on one's pocket book to get Americans riled up about an issue, the fight over union bargaining rights and forced wage and benefit concessions in Wisconsin is a case in point.   

Libya is the third largest producer of oil on the African continent after Angola and Nigeria.  Although Libya is not the greatest supplier of U.S oil, which mostly goes to European countries like Britain and France,  an opportunity to expand and gain control of markets is what keeps capitalism alive, and profits flowing, and it is the only thing that can temper speculation in the market place, and lower gasoline prices, after the consumer has paid through the nose.  Speculation  protects investor's profits from a not so favorable market down the road, but places a heavy burden on consumers, as it results in higher prices for whatever goods and services are affected.

The Center for American progress reports that the big five oil companies, including Chevron, shell,  BP, Conoco Phillips and ExxonMobile smashed the record for the highest profits ever made by a public U.S company by posting a net profit of 40.6 billion in 2007.  

Now, the U.S and its so called Allies, as the first step in controlling Libyan oil reserves imposes a "no fly zone" which is a joke and in violation of International law. The United Nations constitution article 2/(4) prohibits acts of aggression and the use of force by one state against another.  Of course when you couch a no fly zone in the rhetoric of humanitarian aid, and to protect civilian life, then it becomes a no brainer.  

In actuality, a "No fly zone" clears the way for the aggressor to control the air space for any purpose and objective it deems necessary. 

The U.S has had a long history of playing Russian Roulette with Muammar khadafi and his influence in African politics. In 1969 after a military coup, Khadafi rationalized Libyan oil.  He used most of the oil revenue to develop the Libyan economy.  From that point on it is generally known that life improved dramatically for large sectors of the Libyan people. Khadafi;s defiance and independence eventually earned him the enmity of the Western World.

In 1986 The U.S conducted a series of air strikes on Tripoli, killing over 60 people, including Khadafi young toddler daughter. Shortly after that the United States and the U. N. imposed heavy sanctions on Tripoli, which sent the economy into a tailspin.  The West again tried to justify its attacks as a campaign to restore democracy, and topple a dictatorship, when in actuality it was an attempt to curb Khadafi's growing influence on the African continent and limited the development of an increasingly socialized economy in Libya.

In 2003, after the invasion of Iraq and the threat of further aggression against Libya, Khadafi was forced to make further economic and political concessions to the West which virtually destroyed the remains of a socialist economy.  Khadafi was forced to open the Libyan economy to foreign banks and corporations.  He was obliged to agree to International Monetary fund (IMF), "structural adjustment policies" which meant privatizing many state owned enterprises and cutting state subsidies on real necessities like food and fuel, causing the price of these commodities to skyrocket, imposing increasing hardships on the Libyan people.

The U.S and the Western Europe are partners in crime when it comes to virtually destroying a nations economy to encourage rebellion by the people and overthrow a regime it does not like and one that resists its imperialism designs. 

What is happening in Libya does not have a lot of similarities to what has been happening in other parts of the Middle East.  We know less about the intention or the ideology of the so called rebels than we do about the those anti government forces in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East. One thing is for sure though, based on history, the role of the U.S is not to protect or advance democratic ideals,  that is just a cover for it more sinister role of gaining control over the oil reserves and any other resources of sovereign nations to advance its imperialist agenda.  U.S hypocrisy knows not bounds.

Tell me why, why, why...


Ten Reasons Why The United States Is Bombing Lybia


1.  To uphold traditional American values previously manifested during the genocide of indigenous American peoples, the African slave trade, the Mexican War, the Vietnam War, the uncountable invasions and devastations of small defenseless countries, and in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.


2.  Because of Catch 22 which says they can do anything they want that we can’t stop them from doing.


3.  To justify a multi-trillion dollar “defense” budget.


4.  To get to the other side.


5.  Because they wanted to see time fly.


6.  To show that Hillary has balls.


7.  To show that Obama has tits.


8.  Because the United States is one nation under God.


9.  To ease our anxieties about Tritium, Cesium 137, Iodine 131, Strontium 90, and Plutonium.


10.  Because they wuz home.




Obama and Libya - no war because he got a nobel

I think Obama, doesn't want a war that it's started by the US because he won a Nobel award for peace and doesn't want to by an hipocrit and try to bomb Lybia.


Also, I think it's just a matter of who gets the oil here, and because US can't actually get the oil because Europe already has it's eyes set on it.

But in the end we will have to watch and see what was actually everyone after, and this will be revealed when the countries or certain companies start to make huge profits in Lybia.

jocuri 3d jocuri fotbal jocuri de gatit

Here's the calculus at work that "Smart Power" assholes forget

All the Colonel has to do is to fight the US to a STALEMENT, it's clear that the "rebels" don't have the ground forces or artillery to fight the Col. so now what?  Will the US airdrop anti-tank guns and muntions to the rebel?  What happens when a humanitarian catastrophe esclates?

In a couple of weeks it might become all to apparent that the US "Smart Power" dumbasses have bit off more than they can chew.  In asymmetrical warfare it's only necessary for the "weaker" power to fight to a draw.  Ask the "mighty" IDF in the context of their aggression against Hizbollah?

What happens when the "Coalition of Criminals" fail to unseat the Colonel?  Then what?  This has all the makings of a grand clusterfuck with the US ending up with egg on it's face.  What's the exit strategy by the way?  What happens when the conflict turns into classic urban, guerilla warfare?  The longer the Col. remains in power the more powerful he will become, he will win the "war of perceptions." Once again the sage voices at asiatimes.com offer spot on analysis:


The war over perceptions is a tricky endeavor, and the international coalition's failure to formulate realistic goals will prove costly. For now, all Gaddafi needs to do to win is survive - especially since Obama has ordered him to go. This echoes the situation in Iraq in 1991, when Saddam was perceived by many as a winner in Operation Desert Storm, simply because he beat the expectations and was able to stay in power.

As mentioned above, he has a good chance to survive anything short of a ground incursion by foreign forces. According to a separate Stratfor analysis:

Gadhafi's forces have demonstrated that they retain considerable strength and loyalty to the regime. That means that even with coalition air strikes taking out armor and artillery, there will still be forces loyal to Gadhafi inside any urban center the rebels might encounter in a westward advance, meaning that the rebels would be forced to fight a dedicated force dug into built up areas while operating on extended lines, a difficult tactical and operational challenge for even a coherent and proficient military force.

So even though the coalition air strikes have since shifted the military balance, the fundamental challenges for the rebels to organize and orchestrate a coherent military offensive remain unchanged.

At a later stage, once the civilian casualties and the costs of the foreign military campaign mount, Gaddafi would probably go on the offensive and claim that the intervention has violated its own raison d'etre - to save the lives of civilians. In this respect, Sunday's Arab League statement was a very positive sign for him.

He can play the victim by pointing out that his offers of a ceasefire was ignored. He made two such offers - one on Friday, which he claimed the rebels violated, and one on Sunday, a day after the aerial campaign started. The coalition forces promptly played into his hands by ignoring the offer and proceeding to bomb a building in his residential compound in Tripoli on Sunday night (at least 300 of his supporters, many of them women and children, were reported nearby, but early Monday morning there was no word of casualties).  

p.s.  The United States and the Coalition of Criminals frankly have no strategy, this will become obvious as the weeks progress and the Col. maintains a stalement, and the NATO gang bombs Libyan innocent civilians they are suppose to be "protecting."   By the way, the 4 largest sellers of arms to Libya in the past years were in order:  Italy, France, the U.K., and the U.S.  Talk about hypocritical bastards.

Anybody wondering why lebanon supported the UN resolution?

Well, the current Iranian regime (installed by Carter to destroy Israel) and little Iran--Hezbollah (who also wants to destroy Israel) are mad at Khadafi because of this:

'Missing cleric [Sadr] alive in Gaddafi jail'


'Israel beneficiary of Sadr abduction'


Israel provides henchmen for Gaddafi


Iran renews pledge on Sadr's fate


Libya urged to shed light on Sadr fate


Gaddafi family jet denied Lebanon landing


The Arab League supported the destruction Libya because Khadafi was for one Africa and he called them out for being the extreme puppet dictators that they are.

Goodness gracious, what a bunch of royal fuckups

"What a world" indeed.  Looks like the chickenshits at the Arab League, the Western toadies, are starting to regret their deal with the Western devils:


Arab League Slams Libya Attacks Amid Reports of Growing Civilian Toll

Amr Moussa Insists Call for 'No-Fly Zone' Didn't Mean Call for Bombardment

by Jason Ditz, March 20, 2011  


Having been instrumental in pushing the UN to approve the resolution authorizing the no-fly zone over Libya, the Arab League has found itself quickly regretting its Faustian bargain. Now, with reports of civilian casualties on the rise, they are condemning the massive air strikes by the US, France and Britain. 


What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,” insisted Arab League chief and Egyptian presidential hopeful Amr Moussa .

The split comes at a time when Western officials are trying to claim broad Arab support for the action. The escalation of the Western intervention has come much faster than anyone imagined, from a Thursday approval of a no-fly zone to mass air strikes on Saturday. Still, with Saturday also serving as the eight-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the notion that such a resolution would fall victim to “mission creep” should not come as a surprise.

In addition to the Arab League, the African Union has also called for an immediate attack on all the strikes against Libya, saying it feared “serious humanitarian consequences.” Though the figures cannot be confirmed on the ground (particularly with the US warning journalists away from Libya), the reports as of late Sunday morning are that as many as 64 people have been killed in the air strikes and hundreds wounded. US commander Admiral Michael Mullen insists he has seen no reports of any civilian casualties at all. "

HA!  Friggen Adm. "Sgt. Schultz" Mullen:  "I know nothing!!




Small wonder that Hugo Chavez described this as "sheer madness."


Royal F-Ups or Just a Bunch of Damned 2 Faced Hypocrites;

Either the Arab League [w the notable exceptions of Syria & Algeria] are a bunch of Royal Idiots & Screw-Ups -&/or- a bunch of damnedable 2 Faced Hypocrites. What did they think was going to happen when the US / UK / French / NATO gang unleashed that barrage of 110 [& counting] sub & ship based cruise missiles??!! Did they really think there would be no so-called  'Collateral Damage' [or as ex-CentCom Chief Tommy Franks said when he unleashed the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld  /  NeoCon gang's Shock & Awe on Iraq - BUG SPLAT]??!! DoD Sec Bob Gates said it straight up- 'Make no mistake about it - to impose a no-fly zone on Libya  -Means an Attack on Libya'!  Now I don't even like this SOB but I did appreciate his honesty & frankness in this case. 

Who gives a damn about the Arab Leagues crocodile tears at this point- DUH-UH, We expected the US / NATO / UN to protect civilians w the no-fly zone not kill civilians- PLEASE- Have these guys been living on another planet for the past decade or 2 [or even since the UN started doing so-called peace keeping missions]?!  If the Arab League had urged Russia & China to veto instead of the opposite- this onslaught might have been stopped in its tracks [Its Note-worthy that Putin said this US / UK / French / NATO / UN 'resolution' to attack Libya resembled "medieval calls for crusades" - Sounds a whole lot like what Khadafi calls it - don't it].

And I don't agree w the theory that Lebanon was secretly manipulated by Iran to cheer-lead for the US / UK / France / NATO gang to attack Libya [FYI: Iran is not part of the Arab League because technically Iran is Persian not Arab]- Between the US / UK / France / NATO & the Arab League spearheaded by the regimes of the Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, US controlled Iraq, etc- there's more than enough villains to go around [FYI: The pro Syrian / Iranian- Hezbollah is often at odds {at least politically but sometimes even militarily} w the pro - Western / Saudi- Christian Marionites, etc factions- in Lebanon. And that Lebanese guy pushing for this attack {in the guise of a no-fly zone for humanitarian reasons} on Libya didn't look like a Hezbollah guy to me.].  

PS: It turns out that both Iran & Hezbollah, though they don't particularly like Khadaffi, specifically criticized & warned against the US / UK / France / NATO attack on Libya & the Arab League for calling for such an attack- which the Arab League responded that Iran needs to butt-out of Arab affairs.

Pepe Escobar breaks it down over at Asiatimes.com

Pepe suggests that the war has a lot to do with the Saudi King settling old scores.  I would add, that in my humble opinion, it also has to do with the Sunn/Shia rift that the US and NATO have been exploiting for years and that sclerotic Sunni despots are willing partners too.

The reason you want see "humanitarian" intervention in Yemem, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia is because that would empower the dispossed and discriminated against Shia.  In Saudi Arabai the Shia happen to reside on lands where most of the oil reserves exist.  So the US and the Saudi puppets get a 2-fer:

1.  Maintenance of control of the oil, and

2.  A bulwark or counterweight to Shia ascendency, which also means Iranian ascendency.

Because the Iraq War turned out to be a historic strategic disaster ( see, Juan Cole, The Iraq War is Over and the Winner is Iran, and see, Martin Van Crevald, "Van Crevald calls for Bush's impeachment).



( For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.)  

 Despite the media and political classes's deification of Petreaus, the Iraq War was/is a collosal fuck up in very possible way:  strategic, economic, political and moral.  This "hidden" store shows the depths of American propaganda, political bankruptcy and cowardice, the utter stupidity of it's citizenry and the current President: "The Surge has succeeded beyond my wildest dreams." The "West" is now scrambling and doubling down to mitigate it.  Consequently, the US and its NATO and Saudi puppets are trying to create a strategic beachhead in N. Africa.  They don't give a fuck about the Libyan people, they eagerly swept Lockerbie under the rug to cozy up to the Colonel.  (Of course Libya wasn't responsible for it anway.  The CIA and Mossad planted evidence implicating Libya, the same thing they did with the Hariri assassination that Mossad was most likely responsible for)

Check out Pepe, a most sagious voice:


To have the holy grail of medievalism and repression - the House of Saud - voting in the Arab League to bring democracy to Libya while quashing any progressive moves inside the kingdom (and invading a neighbor) will forever live in infamy as the Top Hypocrisy of the Great 2011 Arab Revolt. King Abdullah's billionaire package of "reforms", ie bribes, essentially bolster the House of Saud's two strategic pillars; the security/repression establishment (60,000 new jobs for the Interior Ministry), and the religious clerics (more money to the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice). Even if they have successfully preempted the kingdom's "Day of Rage", this proves how scared they really are.  

What many don't know is that Operation Odyssey Dawn is personal - and has nothing to do with Greek heroism but Bedouin hatred. It revolves around the extremely bad blood between King Abdullah and Gaddafi since 2002, in the run-up to the war on Iraq, when Gaddafi accused Abdullah of selling out the Arab world to Washington. So this is not Operation Odyssey Dawn; it's Operation House of Saud Takes Out Gaddafi. With all the heavy lifting subcontracted to the West, of course, and the eastern Libya protesters posing as extras.

Odyssey Dawn - a "just war" - started exactly eight years after the Iraq war. In 2003, at the start of Operation Enduring Freedom - still ongoing, having "liberated" over a million Iraqis from life - George W Bush said, "American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger".

This Saturday, at the start of Operation Odyssey Dawn, Barack Obama said, "Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world."

Maybe we should call this whole thing Operation Enduring Odyssey - and send the bill to the House of Saud.  

A Couple of Note-worthy Points....

A Couple of Note-worthy Points

1: The current head of the Arab League is also the acting / current PM of Egypt- and a likely candidate for to be Egypt's Pres if & when they have their elections...

2: As Pepe Escobar noted- It just so happens that this US / UK / French / NATO attack on Libya started on the 8th anniversary of the US / UK / Aussie attack on Iraq. 

3: Japan's response after the US / UK / French / NATO bombardment of Libya leading to substantial loss of civilian life: 'It was worth it to carry out the objectives of UN Resolution 1973'...

NOW: One would think that in the immediate aftermath of that 9pt earth-quake & tsunami plus their on-going nuke catastrophe in the making- Japan would be far more humble & focused on their on-going crisis [20000 lives lost & counting - & if Fukushima goes Chernobyl on them - they might be looking at well over 100000 deaths]. This kind of unrepentant arrogance is indicative of the mind-set of the elites who basically control this current world system

Somebody's Suffering from a Severe Case of Amnesia

Perhaps the Harvard Law Scholar received an elbow to the head while playing basketball or stopped taking his meds; despite his own past words and protestations he's starting to act like the frat boy from Kennebunkport, Georgie Bush whom he heaped tons of derision on.

It's deja vu all over again.  LOL


Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. 

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. 

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Huh?   What the f***k did I just read, what did Obama say back in 2002?   Talk about abject betrayal and hypocrisy!  Somebody key up Michael Jackson, I need to hear a refrain or two of:

"I'm talking 'bout the man in the mirror." 



The Neo-Leo Straussians Who Brought Us The Controlled Demolitions On 9-11 Are Back @ It Again

The Neo-Nihilist -who want ApocalypseNOW- have a new name:

Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya:


US neo-cons urge Libya intervention

Signatories to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) demand "immediate" military action.



"The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)."


George W. Bush, at a speech given to West Point cadets:

"Our security will require … the military you will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. … to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

"We must root out terrorist cells in 60 countries or more … with our friends and allies, we have to stop their proliferation and confront regimes which harbor or support terrorism, as is required in each case."

What might Obama (and Bob Gates)think of that speech?

The Israeli-First Gang

What the PNAC doc also underscores is the notion of "the Long War," or "Perpetual War."

What we are witnessing now real time is the implementation of perpetual war.  Good God, how long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Now we've opened up new fronts:  Pakistan, Yemen, Libya.  Latin America no doubt is up next.  Al Qaeda al Qaeda, the most successful propaganda coup of ALL TIME second only to the notion that Black folks have tails.  LOL.  And Americans are okay with this, easily convinced by the propaganda machine called the "free press." The 9/11 set up was the first volley fired in the Perpetual War game.  These bastards won't be content until the last bullet is fired or the last person is dead.

We have seen the evisceration of the Constitution, left in shreds and tatters and warmongers of both parties unilaterally declare war as if they were Marc Antony or Julius Caesar.  The protection of Constitutional civil liberties has been relegated to the dustbin of history. 4th Amendment, gone; 5th Amendment gone, 6th Amendment, "bye, bye."  Habeaus Corpus, "syanora."

But hey, the "Holy Land" populated with Unholy White folks will live on.  God save the King.




Youtube censors Minister Farrakhan


I found another copy on youtube and put it up on my blog as well as my comments. I also have the link to the audio on my blog as well, as I expect the censors to take it off line wherever they find it

Hint on how pissed off this made me:
"The wanna be censors and pc types can kiss my ass. I hope I made that 

crystal clear."

Sorry for disrupting the comment flow here but Youtube using the sorry line that the video is a scam or spam etc got my blood boiling!

I applaud the minister for telling it like it is, as in doing so he is standing up for all our free speech rights, despite the risks.

Bill Mcdonald aka morongobill

Screw Youtube, go to the NOI website: Final Call

Here's the Minister on the NOI website:


My only comment (and I've only listened to about half of his remarks) is that I get tired of the Minister and all of the other "critics" of Obama soft shoe Obama's own complicity.  I am sick and tired of the "Obama Duality" exisiting in folks mind that relieves him of being an informed, individual actor:

There's always the subplot of "The (Devil) Whites and the Jews made him do it."  Yet on the otherhand, I have to listen to how "smart and intelligent" he is, how he is a role model for educational and intellectual attainment, how he is a Harvard Law Constitutional Scholar, blah, blah blah.

Goddamnit people, make up your mind.  Does Obama need a friggen binky or a MacArthur Foundation genius award?  Is he "Cicero" and Paul Robeson rolled into one or "Stepin-fetchit?"  You can't have it both ways.

Stop talking about Obama getting bad advice, or, per my father-in-law, the Jews gave him bad advice and then abandoned him.  Fuck that, Obama does shit with his eyes wide open.  He's an opportunistic bastard, face it folks.  He's a grown-ass man with the option of listening to anyone he wants, just like the rest of us.

This Fact Emphasizes How Much Of a Set-up This Was;

The fact that only half of the the Arab League was even present to make a vote as important as opening the door for a US / UK / French /NATO attack on Libya w 2 strongly dissenting votes out of the other half, shows how much of a setup this was. On such an important matter as this w all of its ramifications- you would think they would have insisted on most if not all members participating. 

Two Alternative News Orgs which I basically respect [w some caveats] namely DemocracyNow! & The Real News- have basically bought into [especially DemocracyNow!] the notion that whats going on in Libya is an extension of what happened in neighboring Tunisia & Egypt- w little questioning of how & why  the Libyan rebels have become so heavily armed for civil war [Khadaffi's son was criticized for using that term in one of his early addresses -but it turns out he knew what he was talking about].  The Real News' Paul Jay has at least posed the question of who are these rebels & are they getting backing from the CIA / Saudi's [I get the impression that Jay feels there may be more to this than meets the eye but is personally slanted against Khadaffi], never-the-less has had on 2 [or more] Arab experts on the so-called mid-east who are definitely against Khadaffi. One is also against US / UK / French / NATO military intervention of any kind; while the other [base in the UK] said he reluctantly saw the need for this 'gang' [my word not his] to impose the no-fly zone to protect civilians [IE: the Arab League's 'stated' position]. Jay posed the obvious question was the real motivation for US / UK / French / NATO action to get control of Libya's OIL [DUH] & the guy dismissed this out-right [he almost laughed it off]. But if one remembers the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / NeoCons' - mid-east {s}Hit-list [Iraq, Iran, Syria, & LIBYA] - these countries all had something in common beside being Muslim so-called mid-east nations- 1- They all are/were basically considered adversaries [if not out-right enemies] of US [&/or Israeli] interests in the region... -2- They all have OIL. Yet they always claim that OIL has nothing to w it - YEAH RIGHT. Word is that during those secret meetings Cheney had w the heads of the Oil Corps in late spring & early summer 2001 [just prior to 9-11], they divvied up Iraq's $20Trillion+ oil fields on paper [remember that notorious oil law that the Bush / Cheney regime tried to shove down Iraq's throat].  

This collection of assholes have bit off more than they can chew

As I have surmised from the beginning, all the Col. has to do is maintain the status quo at worse, and at best, continue to encircle the rebels, cutting off their supply routes, which he is doing since the no-fly crackpots took wing.

Here's an assessment from Debka files that confirms my suspicions.  I'm also listening to NPR right now as the "rebels" admit that the Col. maintains a military advantage.   The poor "rebels" are gonna find out soon that the air campaign is unsustainable and that the Arab League, the US and NATO have no cohesive plan.  Isn't Obummer talking about NATO "taking over" in a couple of days?   These ignorant, arrogant bastards don't have a clue.  John Kerry is in Tel Aviv right now, no doubt assuring his Zionist masters, but don't worry, he will prove himself to be an insufferable ass and fool as well.  I'm sick of these crackers talking about the "Arab League" when Libya is in Africa.  The conflicting messages coming out of the Arab League, the US and NATO are downright laughable, if not so lethal.  Don't be surprised if Obama and Cameron and Sarkozy look like complete assholes and dunces in 3 to 4 weeks.  Unless and until these armchair warriors and little bitches put boots on the ground, the Col. ain't going nowhere.

What a bunch of buffons parading as world leaders.


Coalition shows first cracks as Qaddafi digs in for guerrilla war


by DEBKAFile 


Sunday, March 20, the day after coalition powers pounded Libyan targets by air and sea at the outset of their operation to enforce a no-fly zone, Muammer Qaddafi announced he was arming a million Libyans to defend the country. He spoke after Libyan air defense batteries and command centers were blasted by French bombers and by 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US and British vessels and three US B-2 stealth bombers  droppepd 40 bombs on two Libyan airfields.

At the same time, debkafile's military sources term the British reports that Libya's integrated air defense systems were knocked out then as overstated. In the third week of February, Qaddafi had removed his more sophisticated weaponry from those installations and tucked them away at secret facilities on the Sahara Desert fringes of southern Libya, out of range of the British and French warplanes.

Qaddafi therefore retains intact, according our sources, his store of Russian-made SA-5 missiles which can hit medium or high-flying aircraft and his shoulder-launched K38 Igla9 (SA-18) missiles, which are launched from Italian Ivaco trucks. (This would also be consistent with comments from the rebels themselves just broadcast on NPR)

The K38 Igla is a precision weapon which is undetectable by radar and has much improved resistance to flares and jamming. Although not new, when installed in batches of 6-8 on a truck, it is highly mobile and dangerous. This advanced work was carried out secretly in Croatia and Montenegro, from which for the past two years Qaddafi has commissioned this sort of weapon adaptation in case of an attack by a Western or any other power.
Qaddafi has also purchased another type of air defense weapon in Belarus, but intelligence about it remains scrappy until it shows up on the battlefield.

After completing the first phase of the US-European-Arab offensive charted in Paris by 22 national leaders Saturday, its members have still to agree on an endgame.  (HA, there's very little they've agreed upon, end game?  Puhleeze, they don't know).

Sunday, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, commented that the military side of the operation was not designed to remove Qaddafi from power. He said the no-fly zone was effectively in place – in other words, Washington does not regard the no-fly zone as a stage on the road to Qaddafi's removal. The British and French governments think otherwise: they are bent on regime change in Tripoli, although the US and Arab participants in the coalition have strong reservations on this point. (Bitches sound confused to me???  These mofos don't even know who's in charge, where's Sgt. Schultz when you need him:  "I know nothing."  LOL)

Then, too, the head of the US Africa command Gen. Carter Ham contradicted Mullen when he said: We can't enforce a no-fly zone over all Libya, only over Benghazi. In all, the American position in military intervention in Libya remains ambivalent.

There are other gaps in the coalition consensus:

1.  The Arabs are far from united in the wish to knock Qaddafi over. The Anglo-French presentation of their operation as backed from wall to wall by the Arab world and therefore a huge diplomatic feat is misleading. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt object to outside military intervention in Libya, although they are keeping quiet for now. Most other Arab rulers are furious with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa for claiming he spoke for them all when he voiced support for the Arab Revolt.

Feeling the heat, Moussa Sunday criticized the coalition air strikes against Libya as unacceptable. they should be stopped because instead of protecting civilians as mandated by the UN they were killing civilians. This comment pulled the rug embarrassingly from under the UK-French boast of a broad European-Arab consensus for the military operation.

2.   The anti-Qaddafi alliance is short of an African partner which makes it hard to portray the offensive as a broad regional effort. Indeed the governments of Africa are against the Libyan ruler's forcible ouster.
But the inherent weakness of all air and missile campaigns is that they are unsustainable for very long unless followed by a large-scale ground operation. If not, they tend to unite the enemy they are attacking and strengthen its resolve to stand fast, especially when conducted by foreign forces.  Because none of the participants is able or willing to send to troops to Libya, and they are aware that Qaddafi is ready to trap them in a prolonged guerrilla war, the air-missile offensive launched Saturday may start running out of steam after a few bombing waves.

The American, British and French strategists who planned the offensive appear to have counted on Libya's tribal population breaking ranks with Qaddafi under sustained pounding and proliferating casualties. This tactic was tried in Afghanistan where the allies tried to detach whole tribes away from their support of Taliban and al Qaeda by impressing them with Western firepower and high technology.

It did not work there and is unlikely to work much better in Libya. Qaddafi had his answer ready Sunday when he said he would arm a million Libyans to take up arms for him. This sort of resistance will be hard to break by air or missile bombardment. 

p.s.  When the shit goes deep south as it is practically assured of, watch Obama take the bulk of the blame, watch the finger pointing and excuses galore, and watch the Obama apologists, Bots, and synchophants, say for the umpteenth damn time:  "If only Obummer got good advice?  Fuck Obama, give him a goddamn binky, take away his Peace Prize and Law Degree if he can't think for his damn self..

Quote from Black Bots:  "You know he would have been a great President, if only the Crackers and Jews didn't give him bad advice."  ROFLMAO

I want to share an "Aha" moment/ephiany

What these peckawoods--the US, NATO, and Israel-- and their Black puppet--Obama--are doing is classic divide and conquer.  The crime of "Humanitarian Intervention" is based upon one "White" lie after another.  The connecting "White" lie is: the spectre of the "failed state."

What these racist bastards are intent on doing in Libya and elsewhere around the world (they've been attempting to do it in Iran pitting Balochs against Persian, they are currently doing it in Afghanistan, pitting Pashtun against Talib) is to pick at, inflame, and open the wounds of tribal and ethnic and sectarian conflicts as a way to neutralize each countries NATIONALISTIC ASPIRATIONS. How much fucking "stability" have they brought to Pakistan??

The peckawoods could care less about "stability" indeed what they are doing in Libya, are doing in Afghanistan and Yemem, and ALREADY DID IN IRAQ, was to pit groups against each other, different tribe and different religions, different sects.  This coincides with Chris Floyd's startling piece called:  "The Pentagon's Plan to Foment Terrorism."  And in case you have any delusions about this, the peckawoods (read, elite White Supremacists vs. ordinary Whites) they are going to do THE SAME THING HERE IN AMERICA when the proverbial shit hits the fan.

It's already occuring with respect to Blacks and Hispanics (read the comments on the Georgia I.D. card push), been occuring for centuries with Whites and Blacks, and is occuring REAL TIME with Whites against Whites, Red vs. Blue, Unions vs. Non-Union, Tea Party assholes vs. the Rest of Us.

The peckawoods are intent on creating INSTABILITY in Libya contrary to the propaganda line, so the White boys with big White hats can ride in and save the savages from themselves.  They did the same shit in Bosnia-Kosovo; it worked to perfection in Rwanda.  These bastards WANT A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS, there is a shit load of money to be made, for the Red Cross and the White NGO's, all the fucking money hungry do-gooders. It's Creative Destruction writ large, all over the goddamn world.  Ask the Haitians if you don't believe me. 

Ironic how the White boys piece countries together as if they are gods and then tear them apart when convenient as if they were gods.  Sinister, evil wicked bastards they are.  No wonder Farrakhan called them "the Devil."

What yall need to understand and study is:  The failed State bullshit, coincides with the Humanitarian Intervention Lie, which props up the Perpetual War Machine.  Who the fuck is America to talk about "failed state" with its national bankruptcy, failed school systems, corrupt and kleptocratic political and business class, crumbling infrastructure, and nascent police state?? Long live Oceania!!!  The King can do no wrong, God save the King. LOL



I'm curious as to whether anyone shares this "Aha" moment with me??? 

Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor:

Benghazi link to Islamic militancy: U.S. Military Document Reveals

Thu, 2011-03-17 12:59 — editor

Daya Gamage – Foreign News Desk Asian Tribune



Well known to the United States policymakers in Obama White House and Clinton State Department along with the National Security Council but not widely known to American mainstream media, the U.S. West Point Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center document reveals that Libya sent more fighters to Iraq’s Islamic militancy on a per-capita basis than any other Muslim country, including Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps more alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi.

US history of "humanitarian intervention" & it's racist roots

As written by two White men who aren't "peckawoods." For the record "peckawood" or "cracker" shouldn't offend some of you any more than my usage of "nigga," bottom line, if the shoe fits.... wear it.


Ancient Poison Bears New Fruit: Western Frenzy Grows in Libya  

Then again, there is nothing novel about this muderous absurdity, as Arthur Silber reminds us in his latest incendiary work of outrage and insight:

There isn't any "news" in these latest events. Another day, another set of war crimes. Where's the news in that? That's what the United States does now, as it has regularly and systematically for over a century. Wait, that's not right: as it has since before it even became the United States. But hell, you don't want to think about any of that too deeply or too long. If you did, how could you continue with your lamentations about the "death" of the once-noble United States and its "true" values? What are the "true" values of a nation founded and developed in very significant part on not one, but two, genocides that lasted for centuries?

Silber has much more to say; read it all -- and the links as well. (And give him any financial support you can while you are there; he continues to be one of the brightest, deepest lights we have, even as he battles excruciating -- and expensive -- health problems.)

You can also find more insight into the deep roots of our current predicament in a remarkable book by Paul VanDevelder: Savages and Scoundrels: The Untold Story of America's Road to Empire through Indian Territory.  While the book is filled with little-known historical detail about the vast legacy of deceit and destruction in the forging of the American Empire, VanDevelder also looks deeper into history for the antecedents of the bloody actions we see across the world today. For example, he points out that "laws" used by our interventionists to justify their profitable carnage are secularized versions of the arbitrarily declared papal laws and edicts which lay behind --- what else? -- the Crusades.

VanDevelder outlines the thinking of the instigator of the Crusades, Pope Innocent III, who sought ways to "legitimize" the seizure of "the property and estate of pagans, savages and infidels" -- the land-grabbing and looting which were the essence of the Crusades. He found it in the amorphous idea of "natural law" -- whose precepts were, of course, determined by the divinely directed Church.

In his encyclical Quod super his, Innocent "had given his successors the tools with which to secure and enforce the papacy's authority over all secular powers, [Christian or pagan]. ... The pope was empowered by a universal right, one recognized in natural law, to enforce the union of Christian civilization with that of the infidel races..."

"Consequently," VanDevelder writes, "the pope not only had jurisdiction over the wandering infidels, he was also duty-bound to intervene in situations where those infidels were found to be in violation of natural and divine laws." And of course, failure to surrender to Christianity -- and its militarized elites -- was an egregious violation of "natural and divine law," punishable by death, decimation and destruction.

Building on this, Church doctine later declared that the pope had a duty to "deny that infidels had any valid legal right to own property and rule over their own lands." They could only do so on sufferance from the power that held "universal jurisdiction" over world affairs. Pope Eugenius IV "decreed that the pope could intervene in the internal affairs of foreign lands as the guardian of the wayward souls who lived there."

Reformation powers like Elizabthean England secularized these notions to justify their own conquests. As VanDevelder notes, both crown advocates and Protestant clergymen advanced the notion that "'the just quest by the sword' of savage pagans in foreign lands was the solemn duty of civilized people. ... Where the English were concerned, justifying the conquest of foreign lands was a simple matter of replacing hieratic authority with the secular crown. Lord Coke bundled all these arguments into one by telling King James I that his foremost responsibility as king was to subjugate the savages to civilized laws of natural justice and equity."

After the Revolution, the American elites adopted these by-now ancient -- and arbitrary -- principles of domination. They took on the mantle of "universal jurisdiction" -- i.e., the right to determine "the right way of life for mankind," as Innocent III had put it -- along with the solemn duty to impose civilization, by force if necessary, on all the wayward savages who lack it -- or even worse, refuse it. The end result, of course, was a relentless record of deceit (every single treaty signed with sovereign Indian nations in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries was broken), rapine and ethnic cleansing.

Today this militarized "universal jurisdiction" which sprang from the ambitions of the Crusader Pope has passed, nominally, to the United Nations (although as we have seen in recent years, our American elites still consider themselves to be the true possessors of this "right," and will eagerly use it unilaterally whenever the UN proves recalcitrant). Substitute "the will of the international community" for "Christianity" and so on, and you need hardly change a word from the historical documents reaching back centuries.

But from the horrendous atrocities of the First Crusade to the computerized carnage being wrought in Libya today, the noble rhetoric of freedom, enlightenment, protection and liberation has masked base self-interest, murderous racism, bottomless corruption, outrageous deceit and wanton destruction. As Silber notes, what we are seeing today is nothing new; it is just another deep, dirty, self-inflicted wound to the human spirit. 

Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side

By Richard Spencer



MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'

Startling revelations by French intelligence experts back David Shayler's alleged 'fantasy'about Gadaffi plot

By Martin Bright


From the article:

"British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice."


From InfoWars:

This is pretty rich considering the fact that it was British MI6 and the CIA who paid Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda $100,000 dollars to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996.

In 2002 French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell controlled directly by Bin Laden to hatch a plot to kill Gaddafi that was foiled in March 1996. The cell was led by Anas al-Liby, who was with Bin Laden in Sudan before Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan.

Indeed, it was Gaddafi’s Libya who put out the first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden’s arrest in 1998. Western intelligence agencies blocked the warrant from being pursued, and allowed Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to go on and kill more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Some of the very rebels now being funded and trained by western forces were part of the Al-Qaeda cell that tried to kill Gaddafi on behalf of the United States and Britain 15 years ago.

They don't call it "The Base" for nothing

Because it's nothing but a fucking computer base:  take a pick, hit send or delete, right click, left click and "joilla" you get either terrorist or freedom fighter or agent provocateur.

They ain't doing all this biometric shit for nothing folks.

Talking Loud and Saying Nothing: "All Options, blah, blah"

What does the US mean by "all options" are on the table?  Looks to me, as far as the Western court scribes aka media goes, Gaddafi's forces are more than holdining their own.  Take a look at the headlines over at Huffington Post.  You would think the Libyan world is coming to an end with the florid headlines blaring about Gaddafi.  I would love to contrast the headlines today with the headlines there when the IDF was shooting fish in a barrel in Gaza.  The naked propaganda of the US press is damn near hilarious.

This military operation is turning into a farce, you don't need to be a former Special Ops member to see that,  just read between the lines at HuffPosts's propaganda pieces.  The rebels haven't made any gains since the NATO air strikes, looks like Gaddafi is still having the upper hand.  Sadly, no matter how much the press tries to make Gaddafi a boogie man, it won't do the rebels one damn bit of good.  Without boots on the ground there are no "all options on the table."  Frankly, without those boots there are "no options at all."  What we're left with frankly is a bunch of arrogant, buffonish clowns scrambling for solutions when the only solution IF ANY is ground forces.  Looks like NATO  is day late and a dollar short.

U.S. Military 'Considering All Options' In Response To Libya Violence 


Neither the rebels nor Gaddafi's forces are strong enough to hold Misrata or Ajdabiya, a key city in the east that is also a daily battleground. But the airstrikes and missiles that are the weapons of choice for international forces may be of limited use.

"When there's fighting in urban areas and combatants are mixing and mingling with civilians, the options are vastly reduced," said Fred Abrahams, a special adviser at Human Rights Watch. "I can imagine the pressures and desires to protect civilians in Misrata and Ajdabiya are bumping up against the concerns about causing harms to the civilians you seek to protect."

It is all but impossible to verify accounts within the two cities, which have limited communications and are now blocked to rights monitors such as the International Committee for the Red Cross.  (i

(It's impossible to verify accounts, which means MY SPECULATIONS are just as valid as Ariannia Huffington's crew)

Most of eastern Libya is in rebel hands but the force - with more enthusiasm than discipline - has struggled to take advantage of the gains from the international air campaign, which appears to have hobbled Gaddafi's air defenses and artillery and rescued the rebels from impending defeat.

Despite the U.S. fears for Misrata, the Obama administration is eager relinquish leadership of the hurriedly assembled coalition. With NATO divided, France on Tuesday proposed the creation of a political steering committee to run the operation. If accepted, the committee's job might be to bring order to what some observers has said seems a chaotic effort by countries with differing objectives.  (A a 

Wow!!! Read that sentence again, which chaotic  conditions I've alluded to in my previous posts, and it's hard not to conclude that the "shit talkers" with "all options on the table" are scrambling to get rid of the hot potato that is Libyan "Humanitarian Intervention."  A "Steering Committee?"  Shit, I thought NATO was THE Steering Comm.?  The "Smart Power" gang don't know wtf it's doing.

Back to Arianna's rag:

In Misrata, the doctor said rebel fighters were vastly outgunned.

"The fighters are using primitive tools like swords, sticks and anything they get from the Gaddafi mercenaries," he said.

Mokhtar Ali, a Libyan dissident in exile who is still in touch which his family in Misrata, said rooftop snipers target anyone on the street, and residents trapped inside have no idea who has been killed.

"People live in total darkness in terms of communications and electricity," Ali said. "Residents live on canned food and rainwater tanks." 

But while the airstrikes can stop Gaddafi's troops from attacking rebel cities - in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians - the United States has so far been reluctant to go beyond that. The Libyan leader was a target of American air attacks in 1986.

(Pssst.. how long did Saddam stay in power after the first US airstrikes on his military???)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others said the U.S. military's role will lessen in coming days as other countries take on more missions and the need declines for large-scale offensive  

HA!  So while Clinton is talking cash shit, the US role diminishes by the day, if not the minute and hour and the hot potato gets passed to the European pussies who won't even commit troops in Afghanistan.  What a fucking laugher!!!!

I don't know about you all, but I don't need Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey coming on MSNBC or CNN or Fox Noise giving me the lowdown in his tough-guy southern drawl, laying his ass off about US and NATO options.  I haven't read Sun Tzu or Clausweitz of late nor visited West Point, but it seems to me it's only a matter of time before the "West" abandons the Libyan people.  Just like they've abandoned nations dozens of times before. The "No-Fly" charade has nothing to do with Gaddafi and everything to do with the House of Saud and Shia and Iranian containment and the flow of Mideastern crude oil, and making sure the Military Industrial Complex in the good ol USA keeps rolling.  Budget cuts, deficits??? Fuck, that's for your poor broke motherfuckers.  We got all dem threats out there in the big bad world, surely you jest when it comes to balancing the budget and helping the average American verus feeding the MIC's trough??

There!  You heard it hear first, before Fareed Zakaria could spew his bullshit lines.  What a mind fuck.  What did Pepe say, "The Libyan rebels are just "extras" in a B-flick movie or words to that effect.