103 Comments

  1. I just hope this third war being conducted under Obama’s “leadership” doesn’t spoil the lovely spring break trip he is taking with his wife, his mother-in-law, and his daughters in Brazil….along with the fleet of limos and the fleet of aircraft that always accompany the newly crowned warmonger-in-chief.

    Don’t believe for an instant, though, that Obama doesn’t care about what is happening in Libya–or Iraq or Afghanistan (or, the undeclared fourth war front, Madison, Wisconsin.) As the AP Live Blog posted on Huffington Post earlier today:

    Today 11:15 AM Obama On Libya
    Obama barely mentioned Libya while speaking in Brazil. Midway through his comments, he said that “consensus is strong and resolve is clear” and that the coalition will “act with urgency.” He added, “The people of Libya must be protected.”

    Warplane Shot Down Over Rebel Stronghold#liveblog?utm_source=aolhp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=aolhp2&icid=main%7Chtmlws-m

    We can just hope that the shiny new war in Libya doesn’t spoil the Obama family’s sightseeing and shopping in Brazil. As was announced on the radio this morning, several blocks in the prime shopping area of Rio de Janeiro have been secured so Michelle and her mama and her girls can shop in peace. (So to speak.)

  2. Mr Hitchcock wrote:

    As usual, murderous tyrants ignore the worthless UN and the equally inept Obumbler.

    They don’t even have a choice, now. Our esteemed President said that the Libyan government leaders would be “held accountable” for their actions, which means, if they believe Mr Obama, that they can’t quit now. If they give up, they’ll go to the dock in The Hague to be tried for war crimes, and get thrown in jail.

    Now we’re hearing that anti-government protests have begun in Syria, and President Bashir al-Assad, having learned the lessons of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, responded with gunfire.

    With the governments firing on their own people in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, just how many countries can the United Nations/ NATO/ whomever declare and enforce no fly zones in? One of the lessons of Libya was that the governments have to react swiftly and decisively, to put down the rebellions harshly, and do so before the democratic West can take any decisions to stop them.

    And, Colonel Qaddafi, lie about a cease fire? Surely he wouldn’t do such a thing!

  3. Forget about a cease fire, Obama has ordered the US military to attack Libya’s integrated air defenses. Phase one of a multiphase attack, using over 100 Tomahawks in the initial salvo, has been completed. It’s now night in North Africa so damage assessments and subsequent efforts must wait for daylight hours. Stay tuned, tape soon.

  4. I guess it’s ok to attack an oil rich Muslim country that mistreats its own people … when a Democrat is in the White House.

  5. Hube says:
    19 March 2011 at 16:15
    I guess it’s ok to attack an oil rich Muslim country that mistreats its own people … when a Democrat is in the White House.

    Technically, Hube, that particular Democrat is in Brazil right now–not the White House–as military attacks in Libya are proceeding. That way, he can separate himself from any blame for any inconveniences the military attacks might cause Mr. Gaddafi, the man who called President Obama “a friend” and a “blessing to the Muslim world” and who said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.”

    http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/chris-matthews-discredits-obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Carabist%E2%80%9D-statement-on-libya-%E2%80%99doesn%E2%80%98t-have-any-dignity%E2%80%99/

  6. Well … I take some comfort in believing that attacking Libya wasn’t the =first= thing Obama thought to do about it.

    If we were comparing to the previous admin, then we’d know that Obama and Biden had been planning this even before they were elected, and by now we’d have seen Hillary tell a pack of lies to the UN.

    It’s hardly the same thing.

  7. Except that, of course, the previous administration did not tell a pack of lies. That is, unless untold numbers of the previous party did as well, including members of the administration before that.

  8. The US are presently engaged in operations on Libya. Gonna be really awesome watching CSPT & the rest of the right-leaning blogworld spending all its energy ranting about how they hate the President instead of supporting the US.

  9. Yeah. Sure would be nice if the Righties supported our troops, instead of trying to drag the U.S.A. down.

  10. As usual, murderous tyrants ignore the worthless UN

    Indeed they do.

    It may be unfair to compare Reagan to Gaddafi (or however he’s spelling his name this week). After all, Gaddafi attacked three other countries in 42 years – Reagan managed to attack four in only eight years.

  11. Kinda damages the Rights artfully unstated argument about black people, doesn’t it?

    More like it unartfully argues about your brain damaged “argument,” Nag.

  12. Obama during the 2008 campaign:

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

    What say you, “progressives?”

  13. My question is: what is the goal of the American/ European strikes? We were first told that it was to protect the Libyan people from Colonel Qaddafi’s military efforts to defeat the rebels:

    Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. . . . Even yesterday, the international community offered Muammar Qaddafi the opportunity to pursue an immediate cease-fire, one that stopped the violence against civilians and the advances of Qaddafi’s forces. But despite the hollow words of his government, he has ignored that opportunity. His attacks on his own people have continued. His forces have been on the move. And the danger faced by the people of Libya has grown.

    I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.

    How dropping ordinance from B-2 Stealth bombers and firing 114 cruise missiles, with many of the targets being in areas already secured by Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, contributes to the stated goal is beyond me.

    Is the goal now to depose the Qaddafi regime? Looking at the admittedly sketchy information about just what military action has been taken, that would be my conclusion, but if that is the goal, our President has not told us so. It should be pointed out, however, that Security Council Resolution 1973, the action for which the British and French requested and President Obama only recently supported, authorizes the imposition of a no-fly zone, demands a cease-fire, imposes an arms embargo on all sides, and authorizes the freezing of Libyan assets, but does not authorize deposing the government, nor providing assistance to the rebels to overthrow the government.

    If President Obama believed that he was constrained by “international law” and could not provide military or humanitarian assistance, nor impose a no fly zone, before the Security Council authorized such, then he must similarly believe that he is not allowed to exceed the authorization of that resolution.

  14. It has been and is quite obvious that whatever Obama does, you Righties condemn it. Yet whatever your beloved Bush-43 did, including deficit and off-budget spending, you defended it.

    Moreover, about half of you people are still birthers! Do you think racism might have something to do with that?

    Progressives are more interested in the issues than they are in the man/woman and the party. Some of the Obama/Dem policies have come under stern criticism!

  15. What say you, “progressives?”

    “Obama has turned out to be what was once known as a moderate Republican”

  16. Hube: “…unilaterally…”

    It was a U.N. mandate. He’s responsible for observing our international treaties.

    Dana, please explain to us how you would enforce a no-fly zone without suppressing anti-air capabilities first.

  17. My question is: what is the goal of the American/ European strikes?

    Weel, each and every time Bush got America involved in another war, you idiots rushed to reward him in the polls and ballot box. Maybe Obama is planning on winning in 2012 by sacrificing a few hundred American troops in a foreign country – just like Bush did in 2004.

  18. “More like it unartfully argues about your brain damaged “argument,” Nag.”

    It is well understood on here, Hube, that those not agreeing with you or your counterpart, John Hitchcock, they are brain damaged, or worse! You two deceive yourselves with your overarching egos!!!

  19. Yet whatever your beloved Bush-43 did, including deficit and off-budget spending, you defended it.

    Speak for yourself, Idiot Perry. I was, and am, against the Iraq campaign, just as I believe we should get the f*** out of Afghanistan and not waste our time with Libya, now. I want us to concentrate on our own problems. Isn’t that lovingly patriotic, hmm?

    Moreover, about half of you people are still birthers! Do you think racism might have something to do with that?

    35% of you people are 9/11 Truthers. Do you think idiocy and lunacy might have something to do with that?

  20. You two deceive yourselves with your overarching egos!!!

    On the contrary. When dealing with the likes of you, Anti-Semite Perry, it is mere catharsis.

  21. It was a U.N. mandate. He’s responsible for observing our international treaties.

    How many UN mandates did Saddam Hussein break, Nang?

  22. “If President Obama believed that he was constrained by “international law” and could not provide military or humanitarian assistance, nor impose a no fly zone, before the Security Council authorized such, then he must similarly believe that he is not allowed to exceed the authorization of that resolution.”

    At this stage the tactical situation is so confusing as not to be able to discern the overall goals being either in line with or exceeding the SCR 1973 guidelines. This is not surprising, in light of the fact that Qadhafi is behaving in a most erratic and unpredictable manner.

    In taking this action short of a Congressional declaration of war, Obama is merely following the precedent of Repub and Dem Presidents from Truman through Bush-43. This is both illegal and unfortunate, unfortunate because it grants our Presidents power that can be abused and has been abused, as with Johnson/Vietnam, and Bush-43/Iraq.

    A two powerful executive branch, combined with a dysfunctional legislative branch, combined with a politicized supreme court, together with massive fiscal problems, severe job shortages, and a fast sinking middle class, where does this leave America?

  23. Perry: “where does this leave America?”

    Sadly apposite post and question. I suspect it leaves us with Zombie America. It looks like America. Pretends to be America. Tries to act like America. But the motions are wrong. The motivations are wrong. And it stinks.

  24. Perry, this statement is incorrect: “In taking this action short of a Congressional declaration of war, Obama is merely following the precedent of Repub and Dem Presidents from Truman through Bush-43. This is both illegal and unfortunate, unfortunate because it grants our Presidents power that can be abused and has been abused, as with Johnson/Vietnam, and Bush-43/”

    In each case the use of American military was brought before Congress as required by the Constitution OR the War Powers act for both support and funding. Treaty or not, mandate or not no President has the right to deploy US troops without consulting Congress ( the People’s Representatives). Neither the UN nor NATO can deploy our troops.

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that it is the Congress that has the power to declare war. United States Code (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), the War Powers Act, specifically states that the president may undertake the use of military force only in the case of “… a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” It further states that the President must consult with Congress, “…in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities …”

  25. cbmc says:
    19 March 2011 at 23:44 (Edit)
    The US are presently engaged in operations on Libya. Gonna be really awesome watching CSPT & the rest of the right-leaning blogworld spending all its energy ranting about how they hate the President instead of supporting the US.

    If so, we learned it from the left for seven years.

  26. Eric, you’re correct, the aircraft was either a Mig-23 Flogger, or possibly the Mig-27 variant which was optimized for ground attack. But, for a number of reasons, most likely it was the export version of the Mig-23.

    When the Flogger was introduced in 1967 it was a major advance in fighter aircraft. It featured variable-sweep wings and variable engine air inlets which substantially improved engine efficiency. It was considered a pilot’s aircraft, reliable, and very responsive. Over 3000 were built.

    The USSR constructed a simplified version of the Mig-23 for export, most of which were sold to Middle East nations. Although the Mig-23 was cutting edge when it was introduced, it was clearly outmatched against first world airpower by the late 1980s. Israeli F-15s shot them down in droves during the Lebanon conflict. The Flogger was phased out of Russian military service in the mid 90s, although the aircraft remains in service in many Middle Eastern countries.

  27. “Perry, this statement is incorrect:”

    No, John, my statement is correct, and your post demonstrates that it is. None of the post WWII actions were national emergencies since our land was never under attack. And please don’t tell me that our invasion of Iraq was due to the 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda, because Iraq had nothing to do with that attack.

    Therefore, every single post WWII President, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Bush-41, Bush-43 and Obama have acted against the war declaration requirement which you recited in your post.

  28. Therefore, every single post WWII President, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Bush-41, Bush-43 and Obama have acted against the war declaration requirement which you recited in your post.

    Stop the presses! I agree with Idiot Perry!

  29. “Perry, this statement is incorrect:”

    You are correct about my forgetting Clinton, as I meant to include him on the list; but I’m not recalling what Reagan did to have him on the list.

    [Added: Reagan did support Iraq in their war against Iran. I don't know if we entered into combat against Iran, however.]

  30. Dana asked the key question, “Is the goal now to depose the Qaddafi regime?”

    Now that Obama’s taken military action in Libya, he’s responsible for the results of his intervention (in Libya’s civil war). He may not want to talk about regime change just yet, but that’s the hidden agenda, as sure as day follows night. It can not be otherwise, or we risk another episode of the genocide Saddam unleashed in Iraq following the first Gulf War.

  31. I, for one, have no particular objection to what Obama is doing in Libya (thus refuting claims that some of us are selective in the wars we support, favoring those featuring Republican presidents over Democrat ones, but I digress). Problem, is, he acted about two weeks too late, back when the rebels seemed to have the upper hand. Back then, the sensible plan would have been to provide modern weapons to the rebels, but it may well be too late now. Indeed, unless we are willing to commit ground troops, we may not be able to really influence the outcome of this war.

  32. Great points, Rope!

    Still, I wonder, being a swing wing design, did that add a lot of extra weight to the aircraft, thus degrading performance? Compare the F-14 to the Air Force’s F-15. The former has swing wings while the latter does not, and the F-14, while roughly the same size of the F-15, weighs quite a bit more, negatively affecting the power to weight ratio when compared to the latter. I believe this problem was partly solved by upgrading the Tomcat’s engines from 20,000 lbs thrust to 28,000 but I believe the F-15 maintained its edge by going to 29,000 lb thrust engines over the original 23,500.

  33. “Problem, is, he acted about two weeks too late, ….”

    So you wanted Obama to behave recklessly and go in unilaterally, without due diligent planning, and without the UN Resolution and NATO, and without the Arab League support, is that it Eric? I think you need to give this a little more thought!

  34. Perry, you are correct. I misread the war Powers act and under further scrutany the President can only act in a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. I had foolishly read it to mean as longa as he presents it to Congress. Since our interests or territories were not attacked in Lybia, nor our armed forces sending in our forces would be illegal. Also the U.N. nor treaties negates the reruirements under our law. Sorry, my mis-read again.

    And Hube is also right; Ganada and perhaps Panama for Reagan.

  35. I’d like you to know Perry, I was not for going in in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The difference is I really believe that once we are engaged, we must fight to win whether or not I agreed with going in in the first place. Same if we go into Lybia. I just hope we don’t.

  36. So you wanted Obama to behave recklessly and go in unilaterally, without due diligent planning, and without the UN Resolution and NATO, and without the Arab League support, is that it Eric? I think you need to give this a little more thought!

    Which was more important – helping the rebels when they needed it most, or waiting till the UN gave its stamp of approval? Leaders lead, Perry, and Obama has been a mere follower (of France and Britain) on this issue.

  37. “Which was more important – helping the rebels when they needed it most, or waiting till the UN gave its stamp of approval? Leaders lead, Perry, and Obama has been a mere follower (of France and Britain) on this issue.”

    It was more important, in my view Eric, to have our collective act together before jumping in too quickly as you would foolishly have us have done. Moreover, I have no problem following the lead of Britain, France, and Lebanon; I don’t think we have a monopoly on leadership, nor do I think that we have always led appropriately. The result: We went in with a plan, in an organized fashion, and having taken into account the delicate but critically important political considerations, such as the UN stamp as well as that of the Arab League.

    I fully realize that there are no guaranteed outcomes in a case like this.

    By the way, Eric, would you also have us go into Bahrain, and Yemen, where there are ongoing violent crackdowns on protesters by autocratic, unelected regimes?

    [Added: Add Syria to the list.]

  38. “I’d like you to know Perry, I was not for going in in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The difference is I really believe that once we are engaged, we must fight to win whether or not I agreed with going in in the first place. Same if we go into Lybia. I just hope we don’t.”

    I also know we don’t go in on the ground, as that would be politically counterproductive as well as tying us up into an Iraq/Afghanistan-like quagmire.

    This move is a gamble. If it works, that is, Qadhafi backs down and we get a real cease fire, this will then send a message to the other Middle Eastern countries which are now in a situation similar to Libya, like Yemen and Bahrain [and Syria], the message being that we (and France, Great Britain, Lebanon, and the Arab League) support popular moves for democracy. If it doesn’t work, the Middle East will continue to erupt on a path of self-destruction, not to mention what this will do to world oil supplies. If we had only listened to Jimmy Carter’s proposals for energy independence in the late ’70′s, we would be in much better shape today, possibly something like Samso, Denmark.

  39. Perry wrote:

    “If President Obama believed that he was constrained by “international law” and could not provide military or humanitarian assistance, nor impose a no fly zone, before the Security Council authorized such, then he must similarly believe that he is not allowed to exceed the authorization of that resolution.”

    At this stage the tactical situation is so confusing as not to be able to discern the overall goals being either in line with or exceeding the SCR 1973 guidelines. This is not surprising, in light of the fact that Qadhafi is behaving in a most erratic and unpredictable manner.

    Huh? Perhaps it might be argued that the situation on the ground is so confusing that we cannot discern what the goals are, but I would hope that the President who authorized the action would know what his goals are, and would tell us what they are.

    In taking this action short of a Congressional declaration of war, Obama is merely following the precedent of Repub and Dem Presidents from Truman through Bush-43. This is both illegal and unfortunate, unfortunate because it grants our Presidents power that can be abused and has been abused, as with Johnson/Vietnam, and Bush-43/Iraq.

    Does this mean that you disapprove?

    Interestingly enough, if President Obama sought a declaration of war against Libya at this point, to satisfy the objection you made above, he would be seeking something far in excess of what the Security Council authorized, which you would also call illegal. The Security Council resolution does not authorize war against the government of Libya, nor the overthrow of that government.

    Given the objections you have made, I don’t see under what circumstances you could ever approve the action against Libya.

  40. Perry wrote:

    “Problem, is, he acted about two weeks too late, ….”

    So you wanted Obama to behave recklessly and go in unilaterally, without due diligent planning, and without the UN Resolution and NATO, and without the Arab League support, is that it Eric? I think you need to give this a little more thought!

    By waiting three weeks beyond the first proposals for a no-fly zone, President Obama waited until many thousands more Libyans, both rebel and non-combatant civilians, were killed. Further, with that delay, he waited until Colonel Qaddafi had time to bring in mercenary forces and regain the upper hand in the fighting. The cost of the delay is measured in lives lost, at the very least, plus the opportunity to have the rebels bring down the government of Muammar Qaddafi may also have been lost. Perhaps it isn’t Eric who needs to give this a little more thought.

  41. It’s been pointed out that this is a good lesson for Iran – Libya gave up its nuclear program to avoid being attacked by the US. It has now been attacked by the US. NK, a worse regime, has not been attacked – because they have nukes.

    The lesson for Iran is to develop nukes as fast as possible. And who can blame them?

  42. So, Phoe, are you telling us that you disapprove of the United Nations authorized action, regardless of what the government had been doing to put down the rebellion?

  43. So, Dana, still attempting to put words in other people’s mouths?

  44. Perry wrote:

    This move is a gamble. If it works, that is, Qadhafi backs down and we get a real cease fire, this will then send a message to the other Middle Eastern countries which are now in a situation similar to Libya, like Yemen and Bahrain [and Syria], the message being that we (and France, Great Britain, Lebanon, and the Arab League) support popular moves for democracy

    What would a “real cease fire” do? At best, it would divide Libya into two countries, with part held by the rebels and a part held by Colonel Qaddafi and his forces. Of course, the part held by the rebels would be unsustainable in the long run, due to a lack of resources. But it still leaves Colonel Qaddafi in power in most of Libya, at any rate. How that sends “the message being that we (and France, Great Britain, Lebanon, and the Arab League) support popular moves for democracy” is beyond me. And considering that the Arab League is composed primarily of countries which are not democratic, the notion that they support popular moves for democracy is specious.

  45. Perhaps you can explain to us how asking you a direct question constitutes “attempting to put words in other people’s mouths,” along with answering the original question.

  46. Perhaps you can explain to us how asking you a direct question constitutes “attempting to put words in other people’s mouths,”

    Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    That’s a direct question, Dana – yes or no, since we don’t want any namby-pamby explanations, or whining about me putting assumptions forward that you don’t consider truthful.

    Yes or no, please.

  47. Here’s another clue, you moron.

    That latter goal is the declaratory policy of the United States. But it’s nowhere to be found in Obama’s conditions laying the groundwork for U.S. participation in a military campaign against Gadhafi. Yet just hours before Obama spoke, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that beyond seeking an end to the violence in Libya, “a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Colonel Gadhafi to leave.”

    Where exactly, dimwit, was regime change authorised by the UN?

    The US is using the UN resolution as a fig-leaf for whatever the fuck it wants to do. I predict that that will include troops on the ground – probably with Obama weasel-wording that they’re not “an occupation” but rather “there to protect” or to “liase with the new government”.

    Consider this for a moment, you silly fucker – imagine Gadhafi leaves, and a fundamentalist Islamic movement looks likely to take over instead. Is the US going to sit by – or is this going to involve more troops, more bombing of Arab civilians and yet more money?

    Oh, and anthor thing, you lying sack of shit – remember how you were so gung-ho about reducing the deficit before? So where exactly is the funding for things like those Tomahawk strikes coming from?

  48. Gaddafi (or however he’s spelling his name this week)

    I’m sure he spells it in Arabic! In the meantime, people using Latin alphabets have to transliterate it. (Hat tip to Gretchen)


    How Many Different Ways Can You Spell ‘Gaddafi’?

    But politics aside, we’ve come across a list of the many different English spellings of Gaddafi’s name. Because of the difficulty translating Arabic to English, there are several different translations — the Library of Congress lists 72 alternate spellings, and the New York times, Associated Press and Xinhua news sources used 40 additional spellings between 1998 and 2008.

    We’ve posted all 112 of them below…

    Qaddafi, Muammar
    Al-Gathafi, Muammar
    al-Qadhafi, Muammar
    Al Qathafi, Mu’ammar
    Al Qathafi, Muammar
    El Gaddafi, Moamar
    El Kadhafi, Moammar
    El Kazzafi, Moamer
    El Qathafi, Mu’Ammar
    Gadafi, Muammar
    Gaddafi, Moamar
    Gadhafi, Mo’ammar
    Gathafi, Muammar
    Ghadafi, Muammar
    Ghaddafi, Muammar
    Ghaddafy, Muammar
    Gheddafi, Muammar
    Gheddafi, Muhammar
    Kadaffi, Momar
    Kad’afi, Mu`amar al- 20
    Kaddafi, Muamar
    Kaddafi, Muammar
    Kadhafi, Moammar
    Kadhafi, Mouammar
    Kazzafi, Moammar
    Khadafy, Moammar
    Khaddafi, Muammar
    Moamar al-Gaddafi
    Moamar el Gaddafi
    Moamar El Kadhafi
    Moamar Gaddafi
    Moamer El Kazzafi
    Mo’ammar el-Gadhafi
    Moammar El Kadhafi
    Mo’ammar Gadhafi
    Moammar Kadhafi
    Moammar Khadafy
    Moammar Qudhafi
    Mu`amar al-Kad’afi
    Mu’amar al-Kadafi
    Muamar Al-Kaddafi
    Muamar Kaddafi
    Muamer Gadafi
    Muammar Al-Gathafi
    Muammar al-Khaddafi
    Mu’ammar al-Qadafi
    Mu’ammar al-Qaddafi
    Muammar al-Qadhafi
    Mu’ammar al-Qadhdhafi
    Mu`ammar al-Qadhdh?f? 50
    Mu’ammar Al Qathafi
    Muammar Al Qathafi
    Muammar Gadafi
    Muammar Gaddafi
    Muammar Ghadafi
    Muammar Ghaddafi
    Muammar Ghaddafy
    Muammar Gheddafi
    Muammar Kaddafi
    Muammar Khaddafi
    Mu’ammar Qadafi
    Muammar Qaddafi
    Muammar Qadhafi
    Mu’ammar Qadhdhafi
    Muammar Quathafi
    Mulazim Awwal Mu’ammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi
    Qadafi, Mu’ammar
    Qadhafi, Muammar
    Qadhdh?f?, Mu`ammar
    Qathafi, Mu’Ammar el 70
    Quathafi, Muammar
    Qudhafi, Moammar
    Moamar AI Kadafi
    Maummar Gaddafi
    Moamar Gadhafi
    Moamer Gaddafi
    Moamer Kadhafi
    Moamma Gaddafi
    Moammar Gaddafi
    Moammar Gadhafi
    Moammar Ghadafi
    Moammar Khadaffy
    Moammar Khaddafi
    Moammar el Gadhafi
    Moammer Gaddafi
    Mouammer al Gaddafi
    Muamar Gaddafi
    Muammar Al Ghaddafi
    Muammar Al Qaddafi
    Muammar Al Qaddafi
    Muammar El Qaddafi
    Muammar Gadaffi
    Muammar Gadafy
    Muammar Gaddhafi
    Muammar Gadhafi
    Muammar Ghadaffi
    Muammar Qadthafi
    Muammar al Gaddafi
    Muammar el Gaddafy
    Muammar el Gaddafi
    Muammar el Qaddafi
    Muammer Gadaffi
    Muammer Gaddafi
    Mummar Gaddafi
    Omar Al Qathafi
    Omar Mouammer Al Gaddafi
    Omar Muammar Al Ghaddafi
    Omar Muammar Al Qaddafi
    Omar Muammar Al Qathafi
    Omar Muammar Gaddafi
    Omar Muammar Ghaddafi
    Omar al Ghaddafi

  49. The Phoenician finally tells us what I guessed all along:

    Here’s another clue, you moron.

    That latter goal is the declaratory policy of the United States. But it’s nowhere to be found in Obama’s conditions laying the groundwork for U.S. participation in a military campaign against Gadhafi. Yet just hours before Obama spoke, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that beyond seeking an end to the violence in Libya, “a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Colonel Gadhafi to leave.”

    Where exactly, dimwit, was regime change authorised by the UN?

    If you had actually read this post, something you should have done given that you commented upon it several times, you’d have seen that I wrote:

    It would have been perfectly reasonable for President Obama to have stepped forward in February and imposed a no fly zone; it would also have been perfectly reasonable for him to have said, in late February, no, even though we don’t like what’s going on in Libya, we are not going to use any military force there. Instead, he straddled the fence, offered the rebels words of support, but only that, and blustered and fussed a bit, and wound up actually doing nothing. It was remarkably comparable to the elder President Bush encouraging the Iraqi people to rebel in 1991, then failing to offer them any real support when they did, and watched them get slaughtered.

    As well as:

    This wasn’t advocacy for the imposition of a no fly zone or direct military involvement; it is a criticism of President Obama’s lack of leadership. He did nothing when American action might have made a difference, and now that it probably couldn’t, now he wants to take action. Not even you could call that good leadership.

    As for “Where exactly, dimwit, was regime change authorised by the UN?” had you read this comment, in this very thread, you’d have noted that I linked the text of the resolution, asked just what the policy was, and said:

    Is the goal now to depose the Qaddafi regime? Looking at the admittedly sketchy information about just what military action has been taken, that would be my conclusion, but if that is the goal, our President has not told us so. It should be pointed out, however, that Security Council Resolution 1973, the action for which the British and French requested and President Obama only recently supported, authorizes the imposition of a no-fly zone, demands a cease-fire, imposes an arms embargo on all sides, and authorizes the freezing of Libyan assets, but does not authorize deposing the government, nor providing assistance to the rebels to overthrow the government.

    If President Obama believed that he was constrained by “international law” and could not provide military or humanitarian assistance, nor impose a no fly zone, before the Security Council authorized such, then he must similarly believe that he is not allowed to exceed the authorization of that resolution.

    You again:

    Oh, and anthor thing, you lying sack of shit – remember how you were so gung-ho about reducing the deficit before? So where exactly is the funding for things like those Tomahawk strikes coming from?

    I also noted that:

    but if they had taken quicker action, three weeks ago, when less intensive action would probably have achieved their aims with far less bloodshed, a few thousand more Libyans would probably not have been killed, and perhaps President Saleh might not have resorted to the actions he has now taken.

    Less intensive action also means less costly action, though I admit that I failed to consider your inability to understand that such is implied, and has to be directly stated. I said that if we were going to do this, we should have taken action much sooner, though I’m actually a bit surprised that we are doing this at all.

    Wanting to cut the deficit and balance the budget does not mean that we cannot spend any money on any thing; no one here has ever said that the budget has to be reduced to zero. Some things have to be done, and that does mean spending money; I have argued for cutting spending on things which don’t have to be done, though, admittedly, I have a much broader list of things that don’t have to be done than you seem to have.

    However, you have finally made yourself clear, not that no one had failed to guess your concerns before: it has nothing to do with the Qaddafi regime or civilians being killed or United Nations authorizations or the British and French actually taking the lead on this one. No, your problem with the action going on is very simple: it’s we dirty Americans who are taking action again, we imperialist pigs who are doing something. You’d be perfectly fine with seeing Colonel Qaddafi having his own people slaughtered as long as the evil Yankees were sitting on the sidelines.

    Heck, you even told us yourself that:

    You also seem to be forgetting the teeny tiny minor point that, absent a decision by the Security Council or a self defence justification, using force against another nation is, um, illegal.

    You had several other comments telling us how, if we didn’t wait for a UN resolution authorizing the imposition of a no fly zone, we’d be breaking international law, yet now that President Obama actually waited for such a resolution before taking any action, you’re still pissed off that we took any action because we’re, you know, Americans!

    Oh, wait, of course, your objection is that the resolution doesn’t authorize regime change, which is a point several of us have noted here already. But just what do you think should be done? If a cease-fire is ordered, but nothing more, than Colonel Qaddafi, a brutal dictator who now has a history of slaughtering his own people to stay in power, remains in power. Since the resolution explicitly prohibits a ground based occupation, there’s no provision for any long-term enforcement of a cease-fire even if Mr Qaddafi agrees to one; he just has to wait a few weeks until the heat is off to resume military action to finish off the rebels.

    Some people might find it interesting that a safe and secure member of a free society like you are would be so much more in favor of letting dictators remain in power than for their people to have freedom and democracy, if the cost of them obtaining democracy is the lifting of a single finger by the evil Americans.

  50. How Many Different Ways Can You Spell ‘Gaddafi’?But politics aside, we’ve come across a list of the many different English spellings of Gaddafi’s name. Because of the difficulty translating Arabic to English, there are several different translations — the Library of Congress lists 72 alternate spellings, and the New York times, Associated Press and Xinhua news sources used 40 additional spellings between 1998 and 2008.

    We’ve posted all 112 of them below…

    Qaddafi, Muammar

    You don’t have 113 Kdaffy Kduck

  51. Oh, wait, of course, your objection is that the resolution doesn’t authorize regime change, which is a point several of us have noted here already.

    Well DONE on evading all the questions raised, weasel.

    You asked: “So, Phoe, are you telling us that you disapprove of the United Nations authorized action, regardless of what the government had been doing to put down the rebellion?”

    I pointed out that your question was bullshit, because the US is already going beyond the US authorisation.

    So you got up and did your little dance to avoid dealing with that point.

    Oh, wait, of course, your objection is that the resolution doesn’t authorize regime change, which is a point several of us have noted here already. But just what do you think should be done?

    I think we should send your kid into Libya. Since you obviously support the long slide into another occupation (“But just what do you think should be done?”), let’s cut to the chase and send American troops in as cannon fodder now. And surely it is better that said cannon fodder come from the families of war mongers rather than notrmal Americans, yes?

    And taxes on said war mongers only should be raised to pay for the war.

    My prediction is that we’re going to see yet another cycle of mission creep, with Dana and co supporting escalating force every step of the way, provided they can square it with their loathing for the ni-usurper in the White House.

    It’s March. I expect American troops in Libya by the end of the year – maybe they’ll be called “advisors” or “humanitarian peacekeepers”, but they’ll be there.

  52. [Guffaws!] President Obama has already said that there wouldn’t be any American soldiers on the ground, and I posted here the link to the PuffHo article in which Secretary of Defense Gates said that we’d be handing off leadership and most of the military action to the UK and France, in just a few more days.

    I pointed out that your question was bullshit, because the US is already going beyond the US authorisation.

    Some people’s words have gone further than that, but our actions haven’t even had time to do so.

    It’s March. I expect American troops in Libya by the end of the year – maybe they’ll be called “advisors” or “humanitarian peacekeepers”, but they’ll be there.

    If there are any “peacekeeping” troops there, they’ll almost certainly be wearing the blue helmets of the United Nations, which seems to have, in your worldview, the legal authority to approve military action in a sovereign state, so one would have to think that you’d approve.

    It is amusing that you are so obviously angry that military force is being used to stop a dictator from killing his own subjects to hang on to power. Why is it that you love these dictators so much?

  53. Hey! Where’s Perry to complain about Phoney’s degradation of the conversation due to his profanity and personal attacks?

  54. The Wellington whiner wrote:

    Oh, wait, of course, your objection is that the resolution doesn’t authorize regime change, which is a point several of us have noted here already. But just what do you think should be done?

    I think we should send your kid into Libya. Since you obviously support the long slide into another occupation (“But just what do you think should be done?”), let’s cut to the chase and send American troops in as cannon fodder now. And surely it is better that said cannon fodder come from the families of war mongers rather than notrmal Americans, yes?

    And taxes on said war mongers only should be raised to pay for the war.

    It’s always amusing to see you foaming at the mouth when you type.

    The only thing anyone here has said was that if we were going to use military force to impose a no-fly zone, it should have been done three weeks ago, when it would have cost less, in both lives and treasure, and would have had more of a chance at helping the rebels win. No one seems particularly interested in American troops on the ground there.

    Given that the United Nations Security Council has thus far authorized the actions which have been taken, and you seem to think that the UN has the authority to do so, it would seem as though you’d approve if they voted to authorize UN peacekeeping troops, though. perhaps your monitor might get a little less spittle-flecked if there aren’t any American troops involved in it.

    2340 Eastern Daylight Time Sunday night would be what, 1640 Monday afternoon in Wellington? Were you still in the library, frothing on a government computer, or were you at home by then? :)

  55. Here’s the new CSPT Poll:

    pollcode.com free polls
    The intervention in Libya will result in:
    The Qaddafi regime falling, the rebels winning, and no UN peacekeeping troops on the ground The Qaddafi regime will remain in power, but have to accept UN peacekeepers Colonel Qaddafi will remain in power, no UN peacekeeping troops The Qaddafi regime falling, the rebels winning, with UN peacekeeping troops The United States trying to bring Libya under Crusader American imperialist control   
  56. Guess it’s time for Obama to get another Peace Prize. Seeing as how he did such a great job of closing GITMO, ending the Patriot Act, getting our troops out of Afghanistan and closing the war in Iraq let alone sending preaditor drones into Pakistan and now attacking Lybia. Yeah, he’s everything a real liberal wants in a Dear Leader. Better yet, how about the Nobel Prize in Economics this year? After all he’s done a bang up job in that area.

    At least the UN finally dumped Lybia from their human rights council or whatever the sham is called.

  57. I had checked to see if New Zealand was on the Security Council this year, ’cause it would have really tweaked the Wewwington Wibwawian’s nose if they had been, and voted for the resolution, but they’re not on it this term.

  58. But, Hoagie, Obama’s record isn’t entirely devoid of accomplishments, he’s shaved 2 strokes off his handicap since he took office.

  59. “The only thing anyone here has said was that if we were going to use military force to impose a no-fly zone, it should have been done three weeks ago, when it would have cost less, in both lives and treasure, and would have had more of a chance at helping the rebels win.”

    Dana, you are undervaluing the importance of the political side of this decision. Getting the UN Resolution with Russia and China abstaining and getting the approval of the Arab League were critical, without which we may not have been able to launch the operation let alone making it a success, without adverse repercussions in the very fragile Middle East. Look to Kosovo as being an analogous challenge to reference.

    So far, this operation is going as well as can be expected, in my view.

    Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made an excellent point this morning on the Diane Rehm’s show, that the changes currently going on in the Middle East are, in her view, on a par with other recent game changing moments in history like WWII and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I agree. We must be extremely careful not to interfere in any significant manner, so that the Arabs and other residents in the area can work out their revolutions in their own manner in their own time. In my view, the Qadahafi’s genocidal behavior required outside action on behalf of victims and potential victims, similar to Slobadan Milosevic in Kosovo.

  60. “Guess it’s time for Obama to get another Peace Prize. Seeing as how he did such a great job of closing GITMO, ending the Patriot Act, getting our troops out of Afghanistan and closing the war in Iraq let alone sending preaditor drones into Pakistan and now attacking Lybia. Yeah, he’s everything a real liberal wants in a Dear Leader. Better yet, how about the Nobel Prize in Economics this year? After all he’s done a bang up job in that area.

    At least the UN finally dumped Lybia from their human rights council or whatever the sham is called.”

    Obama himself stated that he did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and he was indeed correct about that.

    Your list is a valid statement of campaign promises which Obama did not keep, when reality hit him in the snout. On your list, however, it must be stated that he did try to close Gitmo, but did not persist. He is also supposedly sticking to his commitment to start withdrawal from Afghanistan; if he withdraws one soldier, can we then conclude that he has then met his commitment? :)

  61. Dana Pico says:
    21 March 2011 at 10:42
    I had checked to see if New Zealand was on the Security Council this year, ’cause it would have really tweaked the Wewwington Wibwawian’s nose if they had been, and voted for the resolution, but they’re not on it this term

    Dana, Not to worry. New Zealand is playing a key role in the Libyan situation–sorta, kinda, not really. According to today’s news, New Zealand is supporting sanctions (by other nations) on the export of goods to Libya…but, it seems, New Zealand won’t be participating in the sanctions it “officially” supports.

    A clip from today’s news:

    New Zealand sanctions on Libya to exclude dairy exports

    Mar 21, 2011, 5:09 GMT

    Wellington – The New Zealand cabinet adopted UN sanctions on Libya on Monday but would still allow dairy products to be exported to Moamer Gaddafi’s regime, Prime Minister John Key told reporters.

    Sales of dairy products worth 51 million New Zealand dollars (37 million US dollars) accounted for virtually all New Zealand’s trade with Libya last year, ‘and we don’t believe they are part of the sanctions,’ he told a news conference.

    http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1627528.php/New-Zealand-sanctions-on-Libya-to-exclude-dairy-exports

    What a powerful statement New Zealand is sending to the world.

  62. Look to Kosovo as being an analogous challenge to reference.

    Wrong. The UN never approved action against Kosovo; that was a NATO operation and in direct violation of the NATO Charter. Even Wesley Clark once admitted that the whole operation was “probably illegal.”

  63. Gretchen, I think you are being a little hard on New Zealand. As I read it, NZ supports the sanctions, but is making an exception regarding milk. This exception makes sense to me, because children are the segment of the population who both need and consume milk, therefore does not that exception make sense? Moreover, $37 million is hardly a drop in the bucket, therefore will hardly bolster Qadhafi.

  64. “however, it must be stated that he did try to close Gitmo, but did not persist.” So that falls into the “failed” category!

    “He is also supposedly sticking to his commitment to start withdrawal from Afghanistan; if he withdraws one soldier, can we then conclude that he has then met his commitment?”

    Ahh, the PPM school I see. Go to the lowest denominator, “one soldier”. You have learned well from your mentor, Grasshopper.

    now I really gotta go.

  65. Hube says:
    21 March 2011 at 07:55

    “Hey! Where’s Perry to complain about Phoney’s degradation of the conversation due to his profanity and personal attacks?”

    It’s been amusing to watch it decay as it bounced between the depression of its own blog and the abusive mania it delivers here. Especially comical is the vulgar abuse it directs at Dana – who has been an extremely forbearing host – from all hours of the Oceanic day and night.

    Another funny aspect to this is the New Zealand Troll’s passion for American style invective. Why, the way it compulsively apes American locutions, you would think this library dwelling government clerk with bad feet and a puss filled backside, was raised in some town in Missouri; playing baseball and hunting deer in the Ozarks. Next thing you know it’ll be talking about “commencing” to “put the quietus on American policy”, and daring Dana to spit over a stick …

  66. “Perry says:
    21 March 2011 at 12:29

    Gretchen, I think you are being a little hard on New Zealand. As I read it, NZ supports the sanctions, but is making an exception regarding milk. This exception makes sense to me, because children are the segment of the population who both need and consume milk, therefore does not that exception make sense? Moreover, $37 million is hardly a drop in the bucket, therefore will hardly bolster Qadhafi.”

    Since it it just a drop in the bucket, maybe they are probably donating it.

  67. No real argument about New Zealand’s role in maintaining the milk supply in Libya, Perry. The real intent of the statement is to underline the hypocrisy of the blog’s representative from New Zealand, who has ridiculed and demeaned virtually everything about the United States, even as our country has supported virtually every nation–friend or foe–during times–to the point of describing the US as the “laughingstock of the world.” If the government of New Zealand wants to voice its quiet support of the sanctions in Libya, while continuing its own singular export of what we agree is a commodity that will aid children, especially, fine and good. But Phoe’s never ending denigration of the US, even as New Zealand is the beneficiary of US earthquake aid and relief, is not fine.

    I agree with almost none of your political statements, Perry, but as a US citizen and (I am sure) a US taxpayer, your statements, even your obviously confused and Daily Kos-ish opinions, are the opinions of an American about America. Phoe has a right to his opinions, of course, but he crosses the line when he talks about our country and our government in a non-stop derogatory way, knowing full well that no one will reciprocate with denigrations about his country–mostly because–well, why bother?

  68. “As usual, murderous tyrants ignore the worthless UN and the equally inept Obumbler.”

    I had been wondering, a little, just what kind of response the lefties who regularly visit Dana’s blog would have to say about the missile strikes and whether they would come out with clear and unambiguous statements concerning the sacredness of Libyan sovereignty, and the duty of other countries to refrain from meddling in internal Libyan social matters no matter what the outcome.

    As I don’t have a dog in this fight – since Ghaddafi Duck caved on the nuclear issue after seeing his coeval evil Saddam go down – I thought it might be interesting to witness the discussion from a purely logical point of view.

    Never one to disappoint a low expectation, Perry came across with this:

    “In my view, the Qadahafi’s genocidal behavior required outside action on behalf of victims and potential victims, similar to Slobadan Milosevic in Kosovo.”

    but … but … Iraq …

  69. Gretchen says:
    21 March 2011 at 13:01

    No real argument about New Zealand’s role in maintaining the milk supply in Libya, Perry. The real intent of the statement is to underline the hypocrisy of the blog’s representative from New Zealand, who has ridiculed and demeaned virtually everything about the United States, even as our country has supported virtually every nation–friend or foe–during times–to the point of describing the US as the “laughingstock of the world.” If the government of New Zealand wants to voice its quiet support of the sanctions in Libya, while continuing its own singular export of what we agree is a commodity that will aid children, especially, fine and good. But Phoe’s never ending denigration of the US, even as New Zealand is the beneficiary of US earthquake aid and relief, is not fine.

    I agree with almost none of your political statements, Perry, but as a US citizen and (I am sure) a US taxpayer, your statements, even your obviously confused and Daily Kos-ish opinions, are the opinions of an American about America. Phoe has a right to his opinions, of course, but he crosses the line when he talks about our country and our government in a non-stop derogatory way, knowing full well that no one will reciprocate with denigrations about his country–mostly because–well, why bother?”

    It’s a small country, unwilling to expend the resources on, and probably incapable of, defending itself; and so a certain amount of official hypocrisy is to be expected and shrugged off.

  70. Perry wrote:

    Your list is a valid statement of campaign promises which Obama did not keep, when reality hit him in the snout. On your list, however, it must be stated that he did try to close Gitmo, but did not persist. He is also supposedly sticking to his commitment to start withdrawal from Afghanistan; if he withdraws one soldier, can we then conclude that he has then met his commitment? :)

    The foundation behind all of that is the part Perry would least like to admit: President Bush was right all along! :)

    President Obama didn’t close the detainment camp at Guantanamo because he discovered, by trying to keep his campaign promise, that his campaign promise could not work. President Obama didn’t flee Iraq because he discovered that we really were there for a purpose, and we needed to be, and we needed to stay and finish the job.

    Senator Barack Obama had no real responsibility for anything, so he could make any promise he liked; President Barack Obama now is responsible for many things, and has learned, whether he likes it or not, some things have to be done.

  71. “but … but … Iraq …”

    But Iraq was intended to be an invasion, followed by occupation, control of Iraqi Oil, and a key military base in Baghdad (to the tune of at least $60 million). It was sold primarily on the WMD lie. Thus, there is no intelligent comparison between our Iraq policy and our Libya policy (so far). The low expectation is yours, DNW, for committing once more one of your usual sins of omission!

  72. It was sold primarily on the WMD lie.

    Why do idiots such as Perry continue to peddle this drivel? Once again, if Bush forwarded this “lie,” please enlighten us as to why he then didn’t just plant some WMDs to make sure he didn’t come off like the jackass that he did, based on that stated rationale.

    Thus, there is no intelligent comparison between our Iraq policy and our Libya policy

    One who has very little intelligence shouldn’t make such statements, idiot.

    The best comparisons are pointing out Obama’s LIES about his stated campaign goals and his current actions.

  73. Dana said: ” President Barack Obama now is responsible for many things, and has learned, whether he likes it or not, some things have to be done.” Yes Dana, like playing golf and leaving the real decisions to the Grown -Ups.

    Obama is now an Official Looser. Domestic, foreign, spiritual, cultural…LOOOSEERRR! Empty suit is now a complement. He really, really fooled you assholes, didn’t he? However, I know he is everything PPM hoped he’d be: THE WORST FOR AMERICA!

  74. BTW Perry, if there were no WMD’s how’d Saddam gas to death between 5 and 50 thousand Kurd men, women and children? Did he stick his ugly, very ugly ass out of a plane and fart, or what?

  75. Although, there’s this:

    Who do you suppose said this in 2007:

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

    Liar, liar pants on fire. Hypocrite extroadinare! Course, that was said about Bush, but Dictator Obama is exempt!

  76. Perry says:
    21 March 2011 at 16:04

    “but … but … Iraq …”

    But Iraq was intended to be an invasion, followed by occupation, control of Iraqi Oil, and a key military base in Baghdad (to the tune of at least $60 million). It was sold primarily on the WMD lie. Thus, there is no intelligent comparison between our Iraq policy and our Libya policy (so far). The low expectation is yours, DNW, for committing once more one of your usual sins of omission!”

    As Hoagie just noted, the moral omission is yours: “Kurds” and “No Fly Zone”.

    “In my view, the Qadahafi’s genocidal behavior required outside action on behalf of victims and potential victims, similar to Slobadan Milosevic in Kosovo …”

    But of course, genocide only justifies intervention to your way of thinking if there is an accompanying Security Council resolution …

    By the way, how exactly, is Ghaddafi Duck committing “genocide”?

  77. It was sold primarily on the WMD lie.

    Why do idiots such as Perry continue to peddle this drivel?

    Because, unlike, wingnuts, we can remember the past? Like, oh, the State of the Union Address…

    “25,000 liters of anthrax … 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin … materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent … upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents … several mobile biological weapons labs … thousands of Iraqi security personnel … at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors.”
    - George Bush, 28 Jan 2003

    So tell us, you ignorant fuckwit, where WAS the stuff Bush was lying about there?

  78. Phoe has a right to his opinions, of course, but he crosses the line when he talks about our country and our government in a non-stop derogatory way, knowing full well that no one will reciprocate with denigrations about his country–mostly because–well, why bother?

    Save of course, shit for brains, wingnut morons on this blog to attempt to attck NZ in order to get a rise out of me.

    It doesn’t work because I have nothing but contempt for your lies, hypocrisy, and willful ignorance – why should I give a shit about your opinions?

  79. Speaking about wingnuts trying to change the past:

    C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    Downing Street Memo, 23 July 2002.

    Any comment, you ignorant fuckwit?

  80. Perry wrote:

    In my view, the Qadahafi’s genocidal behavior required outside action on behalf of victims and potential victims, similar to Slobadan Milosevic in Kosovo.

    An odd statement, given that you told us that President Obama had to wait for Security Council authorization, since President Clinton began the bombing campaign without getting such authorization.

    What if Russia or China had decided to veto the Security Council resolution? Would you say, at that point, oh well, too bad, but there’s nothing we can do to help the Libyan civilians?

    You see, if “Qadahafi’s genocidal behavior required outside action on behalf of victims and potential victims,” wouldn’t that mean that such outside action was required, to use your word, regardless of whether the Security Council had passed the resolution or not? More, since those actions were going on for a good two weeks before the resolution was passed, was not waiting until the resolution was obtained an unconscionable avoidance of the required action, a delay which got a lot of people killed?

  81. And exactly where did you get that snippet? Wikileaks? Of course. And that couldn’t just be a persons opinion? Or even an outright lie? Or just made up after the fact? Or an opinoin memo? Nooooo of course not. If it’s bad for America it MUST be the truth. More psycho paranoia, no doubt. Crazy left wing nut job.

    And I do love the way you throw it in completly out of any context.

    BTW, who says everything released by Wikileaks is authentic, and if so verify it with just ONE OTHER SOURCE.

    So far the only crazy left wing conspiracy you haven’t fallen for is the 9/11 Truth crap. And I’m not so sure about that. Are you secretly posting as both blubonnet and yourself so as not to be so crazy you’re flagged from the site?

  82. And exactly where did you get that snippet? Wikileaks?

    Christ, you’re an ignorant fuckwit.

    The Downing Street “Memo” is actually the minutes of a meeting, transcribed during a gathering of many of the British Prime Minister’s senior ministers on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 this document was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.

  83. So tell us, you ignorant fuckwit, where WAS the stuff Bush was lying about there?

    The same stuff, apparently, that Bill Clinton was, not to mention myriad other Democrats, not to mention various other intel agencies, you Kiwi Pussy.

    Downing Street Memo, 23 July 2002.

    No shit? Certain facts were highlighted to make the invasion more “palatable?” What a fucking idiot — WTF do you think leaders do all the fucking time? Concentrate on the aspects that the public WON’T appreciate, or at least appreciate LESS?

    Save of course, shit for brains, wingnut morons on this blog to attempt to attck NZ in order to get a rise out of me. It doesn’t work because I have nothing but contempt for your lies, hypocrisy, and willful ignorance – why should I give a shit about your opinions?

    LMAO!! It does indeed work. All. The. Fucking. Time with you because you’re in here every day reacting and replying to those to whom you supposedly hold in contempt. Because you yell and scream and use profanity all the fucking time. Because you KNOW the FACT is that your country is populated by people just like you — a bunch of gutless pussies who, if not for people like US, would be cleaning the boots of the Japanese, among others, right now.

    Pussy.

  84. Actually, I think we ought to cut Perry some slack here, because he really doesn’t know what he favors. He wrote:

    In taking this action short of a Congressional declaration of war, Obama is merely following the precedent of Repub and Dem Presidents from Truman through Bush-43. This is both illegal and unfortunate, unfortunate because it grants our Presidents power that can be abused and has been abused, as with Johnson/Vietnam, and Bush-43/Iraq.

    The action was “both illegal and unfortunate,” which one would think means he thinks President Obama shouldn’t have done it. Yet he also wrote:

    So you wanted Obama to behave recklessly and go in unilaterally, without due diligent planning, and without the UN Resolution and NATO, and without the Arab League support, is that it Eric? I think you need to give this a little more thought!

    That makes it sound like he approves of President Obama taking action, once he got permission from the Security Council. He later called it a gamble:

    This move is a gamble. If it works, that is, Qadhafi backs down and we get a real cease fire, this will then send a message to the other Middle Eastern countries which are now in a situation similar to Libya, like Yemen and Bahrain [and Syria], the message being that we (and France, Great Britain, Lebanon, and the Arab League) support popular moves for democracy. If it doesn’t work, the Middle East will continue to erupt on a path of self-destruction, not to mention what this will do to world oil supplies.

    Yet he also called it a requirement!

    Perry, you need to take a deep breath on this subject, and figure out what your position is; I don’t think you’ve done that yet!

  85. Hube engaged the Kiwi:

    So tell us, you ignorant fuckwit, where WAS the stuff Bush was lying about there?

    The same stuff, apparently, that Bill Clinton was, not to mention myriad other Democrats, not to mention various other intel agencies, you Kiwi Pussy.

    President Bush was, as all Presidents are, a consumer of intelligence from the various intelligence agencies, not a producer of it. I noted, when I reviewed Valerie Plame Wilson’s book, that an agent who had absolutely no reason to give President Bush any cover, who actually hated his guts, and who worked in the counterproliferation division of the CIA and was in a position to know what the evidence and analysis was, said that while there may have been a few differences on the interpretation of specific information, neither her group nor she had any doubts that Iraq under Saddam Hussein currently had, and was working to build more, WMD. Nowhere in her book did she ever state that the evidence was fabricated or ordered produced by the Administration or anything like that. More, she stated that it wasn’t just American intelligence agencies which were concerned about Iraq’s WMD programs.

    President Bush believed that Iraq had WMDs, because the various intelligence agencies which worked for him told him that they did.

    In the end, though, it doesn’t matter: Iraq has been liberated, and Saddam Hussein and his sons are roasting marshmallows over a fire in Hell. For everyone but our Phoenician friend, that’s a good thing.

  86. Here’s a quote from an email to me from Alan Grayson. It makes more sense than anything that’s been done so far. See if it doesn’t make sense to you:

    …it’s likely that an oil embargo/asset freeze will work. Oil is 95% of Libya’s exports, and 25% of GNP. Libya has about four years of oil revenue in the bank, but with an asset freeze and economic sanctions, that becomes meaningless. Whatever the result in the streets, as soon as Gaddafi runs out of money, he’s gone.

    But a no-fly zone? In the case of Libya, that’s a tactic in search of a strategy. The Yiddish word for it is “shmei,” roughly translated as aimless strolling around. A no-fly zone is basically just looking like you’re doing something to remove Gaddafi, at the cost of $60 million in a day (which was the cost of the first day’s worth of cruise missiles launched).

    The last time we tried this, in Iraq, we had to sustain it for 12 years. At enormous effort and expense. And it didn’t bring down Saddam at all.

    More fundamentally, a no-fly zone in Libya feeds the dangerous fantasy that every problem has a military solution. That the answer to the use of force is the use of more force. That if a hammer doesn’t drive that nail in, try a howitzer.

    It was Mao Tse-Tung who said that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Do we really want Mao’s principles running our foreign policy?

  87. Alan Greyson might be right, today, but a no-fly order might have been enough to topple Colonel Qaddafi three weeks ago, when the rebels had the advantage.

    I don’t think that President Obama was wrong to use force here to impose the no-fly zone, but I do think he was way too late, and in being late has cost a lot in lives and treasure. More, like Mr Greyson, I have serious doubts that it will work to topple Mr Qaddafi, now that his forces have regained the initiative.

    But it also doesn’t seem to me that President Obama really has this thought out well. I heard somewhere that he has said that toppling the Qaddafi government is now our goal, but, if so, that is both something beyond the scope of the SC resolution he waited until he got to take action, and something that the current strategy — as far as we can see it — hardly guarantees.

    I don’t see this as a quagmire, because a “no boots on the ground” policy doesn’t really risk one, but I also don’t see how achieving the goal is done with the methods selected so far.

  88. “I don’t think that President Obama was wrong to use force here to impose the no-fly zone, but I do think he was way too late, and in being late has cost a lot in lives and treasure.”

    Better a little late, in order to get both the military and political issues in order, which you are unable to understand, as per your recent statements.Dana.

    If successful, meaning a cease fire with fewer lives lost than otherwise would have been, then this is a good move, even better if Qadhafi is driven from power. Moreover, other despots in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and even Saudia Arabia, may be less inclined to use violence against their people, and more inclined to let a representative democracy form. Finally, were Qadhafi to succeed unheeded, what kind of a message would that send to Tunisia and Egypt?

    Thus, this is a gamble, but due to the above considerations, I support it. I would have thought you would as well, but no, again, that is a difficult thing for you to do.

  89. Thus, this is a gamble, but due to the above considerations, I support it. I would have thought you would as well, but no, again, that is a difficult thing for you to do.

    What a hypocrite. (Old news, I know.)

  90. Naggy, is the Alan Grayson who emailed you the same disgraced Alan Grayson who previously represented Florida’s 8th Congressional District till he was rejected in the 2010 mid-term elections for his insane proclamations? Or is your correspondent some other banana with the same name?

  91. Pingback: Now we know from where the Phoenician gets his talking points! « Common Sense Political Thought

Comments are closed.