Representative Jerrold Nadler attacked the President’s go-it-alone policy the other day and now Virginia Senator Jim Webb has attacked the President, too.
George Bush made his case to the Congress and got two – count ‘em, two – resolutions approving our invasion of Iraq. Yet the same leftists who roundly condemned him for conducting “an illegal war” applaud our current Nobel Peace Prize-winning President and ignore his unilateral action in Libya.
Unfortunately, members of his own party in Congress are starting to peel away. Representative Jerrold Nadler attacked the President’s go-it-alone policy the other day and now Virginia Senator Jim Webb has attacked the President, too.
“The president did not come to congress…We weren’t under attack. We weren’t under an imminent attack. We weren’t honoring treaty commitments. We weren’t rescuing anyone.”
We think more condemnation will be forthcoming in a matter of days, not weeks.
(Just in case you didn’t get it, that last line was really clever, because it used the President’s prediction that the Libyan action would last “days, not weeks” against him. Move over, Will Rogers. IHTM is here.)
Rep Jerrold Nadler, whose name is followed by D-NY, sounds more like a R-AL in this clip. He is not happy with President Obama’s excellent Libyan adventure. Not happy at all.
Rep Jerrold Nadler, whose name is followed by D-NY, sounds more like a R-AL in this clip. He is not happy with President Obama’s excellent Libyan adventure. Not happy at all.
Nadler, a usually reliable liberal voice in the House, blasts the President as very few Democrats are willing to do:
“We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch,” he said. “And we must put a stop to that right now, if we don’t want to become an empire instead of a republic … I think that the nation’s credibility, that is to say its promise to go to war as backed by the president, not by the Congress, ought to be damaged … We have to put our foot down and say no. And if foreign countries learn that they cannot depend on American military intervention unless Congress is aboard for the ride, good. That’s a good thing.”
Oh, settle down, Jerry. The United States became a monarchy two-and-a-half years ago. You must have been out of town during the coronation. Didn’t you hear about it? It was in all the papers and most of the TV networks. Especially CNN and MSNBC.
There’s good news for those of you who worry that America can’t carry on three simultaneous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: Whatever that thing in Libya is, it’s not a war.
There’s good news for those of you who worry that America can’t carry on three simultaneous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: Whatever that thing in Libya is, it’s not a war.
We know this because President Obama searched high and low in his administration until he found two lawyers who valued their jobs enough to tell him what he wanted to hear.
Liberals are so anti-war that they are no longer using the w-word
The New York Times has the decidedly dovish details:
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
Liberals used to say, “Make love, not war.” That has now been amended to “Make up new definitions, not war.”
Now it’s being reported that Mexico has sent advisors to help train the rebels. Don’t worry, President Obama, things are sure to turn around in Libya any day now.
A Congressman from California suggested that the administration isn’t being, shall we say, truthful about the cost of its current kinetic military action.
Brad Sherman is a Congressman from California. That fact alone tells you that he’s a liberal kook.
Nevertheless, he emerged from hibernation like Punxsutawney Phil, but instead of predicting that winter was about to end, predicted that the end of the unpleasantries in Libya weren’t and suggested that the administration isn’t being, shall we say, truthful about the cost of its current kinetic military action.
Liberal Democrat Brad Sherman may be ostracized by his own party for demanding full-cost accounting on anything
The Washington Times has the desultory details:
A Democratic lawmaker said Thursday that the White House is “dramatically underestimating” the cost of the nation’s military involvement in Libya by relying on misleading accounting.
“That effort is costing us billions a week,” Rep. Brad Sherman, California Democrat and a certified public accountant, said in his opening remarks at a House Foreign Relations Committee hearing on reforming the United Nations with Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates testified that the nation’s initial involvement in establishing a no-fly zone over the skies of Libya carried a $550 million price tag and that the cost going forward would be about $40 million a month. He also assured lawmakers he had enough money in his budget to absorb the costs without asking Congress for new funding — though he wasn’t ready to say where exactly the money would come from.
But Mr. Sherman on Thursday said the estimates are based on what’s known as “marginal-cost accounting,” which doesn’t include costs for things such as overhead from the development of the weapons systems and equipment being used, or the salaries of the people involved in the effort.
“We need to use full-cost accounting,” Mr. Sherman said.
Full-cost accounting? We’ll get to full-cost accounting on Libya after we get it on TARP and the $timulus and Fannie and Freddie and a dozen other fiscal fiascos.
Feel free to go back into hibernation, Congressman Sherman, but don’t hold your breath.
The Libyan rebels live public lives on Facebook and Twitter, love rap music, “Dancing With the Stars” and “American Idol.”
President Obama assured us that the Libyan rebels were doctors and lawyers and professionals, which must have seemed preposterous even to him as the words exited his mouth.
Turns out doctors and lawyers and professionals probably wouldn’t be caught dead with this band of effete “warriors.” At least that’s how the Los Angeles Times tells the story:
Young Libyan rebels would rather shoot videos than guns
Mostly in their 20s and 30s, they have known nothing but Kadafi, who has held power for more than four decades…
They live public lives on Facebook and Twitter, love rap music, “Dancing With the Stars” and “American Idol.” They communicate by text message — at least they did until Kadafi family members who own Libya’s cell networks cut most service to eastern Libya.
Too bad about that cell network being down. That undoubtedly hampers the rebels’ efforts to vote for their favorite American Idol. Please do not call until the show is over.
When they should be shooting at the enemy, they shoot souvenir photos and videos on cellphones and point-and-shoot pocket cameras. Many of them commute to the front, driving their dusty cars back home to rest and freshen up…
They drive home to freshen up? Oh, yeah, this war is going to go well.
Most of the fighters know nothing of guns because the weapons were banned under Kadafi. Getting caught with a gun meant prison or, in some cases, death.
Illicit but alluring, guns are objects of mystery and fascination for the men and boys of eastern Libya. Now that they at last own firearms — looted from government garrisons overrun by protesters in February — the would-be soldiers fire them randomly and wildly. They have wasted thousands of rounds, prompting commanders to begin charging one Libyan dinar (about 80 cents) per bullet.
“For so long, we wanted guns but could never touch one,” said Ibrahim Ahmad, a 20-year-old who said his mother urged him to find a gun and fight. “Now we want to shoot them all day because it feels so good.”
This is no way to maintain liberal support in America, Ibrahim.
The approved quote was supposed to be, “I don’t kill people. Guns kill people. Shooting this implement of death feels terrible, but I only do it to rid the world of a dictator and for the glory of Barack Obama.”
There. That’s more like it. The check is in the mail.
Libyan rebels have accused NATO of being too slow to act – and asked them to suspend operations unless they “do the job properly.”
We’re not embarrassed to admit that we can’t make up our minds about the war in Libya.
One one hand, we’re tempted to say, “Screw you and the camel you rode in on” to the leader of the Libyan rebels. On the other hand, we’re tempted to say the same thing to President Obama for getting us involved in this fiasco.
Libyan rebels are upset that NATO isn't deploying cans of spray paint rapidly enough
Sky News has the inflammatory information:
Libyan rebels have accused NATO of being too slow to act – and asked them to suspend operations unless they “do the job properly”.
Rebel leader Abdel Fattah Younes has complained the alliance takes hours to respond to events on the battlefield because of an overly bureaucratic process.
He claimed the alliance’s inaction was allowing Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces to advance and was letting them kill people in the rebel-held city of Misrata “everyday”.
He said: “NATO is moving very slowly, allowing Gaddafi forces to advance. NATO has become our problem.”
Mr Younes also said if NATO wanted to lift Col Gaddafi’s weeks-long siege in Misrata, it could have done it weeks ago.
NATO took over from a coalition led by the United States, Britain and France on March 31.
So let’s see if we can follow this. First, the Arab League begged NATO to help the Libyan rebels. Then the Arab League condemned NATO for getting involved. Now the leader of the Libyan rebels is complaining that NATO has become the problem instead of the solution.
From 30,000 feet, everybody down there kind of looks alike what with all the women in burkas, all the men in keffiyehs, and all the goats in fear.
It’s a tragedy, but what’s a NATO pilot supposed to do? From 30,000 feet, everybody down there kind of looks alike what with all the women in burkas, all the men in keffiyehs, and all the goats in fear.
Reuters has details of NATO’s mission gone wrong:
Defining the mission: We had to kill the civilians to save the civilians
At least 40 civilians have been killed in air strikes by Western forces on Tripoli, the top Vatican official in the Libyan capital told a Catholic news agency on Thursday, quoting witnesses.
“The so-called humanitarian raids have killed dozens of civilian victims in some neighborhoods of Tripoli,” said Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli.
“I have collected several witness accounts from reliable people. In particular, in the Buslim neighborhood, due to the bombardments, a civilian building collapsed, causing the death of 40 people,” he told Fides, the news agency of the Vatican missionary arm.
Libyan officials have taken foreign reporters to the sites of what they say were the aftermath of Western air strikes on Tripoli but evidence of civilian casualties has been inconclusive.
Western powers say they have no confirmed evidence of civilian casualties from air strikes, which they have carried out under a U.N. mandate to protect civilians caught in conflict between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s forces and rebels.
“It’s true that the bombardments seem pretty much on target, but it is also true that when they hit military targets, which are in the middle of civilian neighborhoods, the population is also involved,” Martinelli said.
Translation: Shit happens.
Is it just us or does this sound suspiciously like “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
You can’t watch this CBS News story from the sands of Libya without rolling your eyes and asking yourself, “What the hell are we doing supporting this band of morons?”
You can’t watch this CBS News story from the sands of Libya without rolling your eyes and asking yourself, “What the hell are we doing supporting this band of morons?”
It’s not the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. It’s the gang that shoots at random.
According to President Obama, a Libyan rebel war council is virtually indistinguishable from a local Rotary Club meeting. If you could just learn to ignore the rocket propelled grenades, you couldn’t tell one meeting from another.
According to President Obama, a Libyan rebel war council is virtually indistinguishable from a local Rotary Club meeting. If you could just learn to ignore the rocket propelled grenades, you couldn’t tell one meeting from another.
From left to right: Professional (with knife), lawyer, doctor, rocket propelled grenade
The Australian has details of the President’s description:
The US is considering giving weapons to rebels battling Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, despite concerns that some could have terrorist links to al-Qa’ida and Hezbollah.
“We are examining all options to support the opposition,” President Barack Obama said yesterday. His comments, a day after his nationally televised address on the reasons for US military involvement in Libya, came as leaders from countries involved in the military operation now under NATO leadership met in London to co-ordinate efforts against the Gaddafi regime
US officials also appear unclear about the allegiances of rebel groups and what sort of governmental system might replace the dictator’s rule after 41 years.
In one of three interviews yesterday, Mr Obama said the rebels were “saying the right things” so far. “Most of them are professionals, lawyers, doctors, people who appear to be credible,” he told CBS.
“That doesn’t mean that among all the people who oppose Gaddafi, there might not be elements that are unfriendly to the United States and our interests.”
“This week’s meeting of the Benghazi Rotary Club is now called to order. First item on the agenda is a report on this weekend’s al Qaeda bake sale.”
According to the Obama administration, acts of terrorism are now “man-caused disasters.” The global war on terror is now “overseas contingency operations.” Taxes are now “investments.” And wars are “kinetic military actions.”
According to the Obama administration, acts of terrorism are now “man-caused disasters.” The global war on terror is now “overseas contingency operations.” Taxes are now “investments.” And wars are “kinetic military actions.”
In this clip, an unidentified representative from the Obama administration explains exactly what a kinetic military action is.
As he says at the very end, “It’s not cheap, but I’m sure the government will buy it.”
One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.
Remember back in the 1980s when we armed both sides of the Iran-Iraq War and then sat back and watched them kill each other? Ahhh, those were the days. We could have done the same thing in Libya and watched al Qaeda madmen and Kadhafi henchmen eliminate each other but no. Not with military genius Barack Obama at the helm.
Simultaneously bombing Kadhafi's fragile army and America's fragile economy
CBS News details the President’s expensive expedition:
One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.
U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have launched at least 191Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals, costing $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.
U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.
A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.
And operation of ships and aircraft, guzzling ever-more-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week, experts say.
“Each sortie, even if it drops no munitions, is very pricey,” said Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information. “These airplanes cost us tens of thousands of dollars to operate per hour, and the fancier you get in terms of planes, the costs get truly astounding.”
Nearly $100 million a day. Just imagine how many bloated public employee pensions that could have paid.
Wait. That may not have been the best example we could have come up with. Give us a couple minutes. Check back later. We’ll do better.
Lieberman thinks we should attack Syria next because he thinks it will win over the “Arab people.” You know, much like our invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have won over the Arab people.
Independent Senator Joe Liebermann, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, just lost us. We’ve always kind of liked the guy, but those days are over as of Sunday.
Lieberman thinks we should attack Syria next because he thinks it will win over the “Arab people.” You know, much like our invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have won over the Arab people.
Our suggestion for Joe: Never overdose of prescription pain killers before appearing on a Sunday morning interview program.
Hillary Clinton kneecapped the Defense Secretary Robert Gates when he started going off the reservation and admitting that Libya is not a “vital interest” for the United States.
Sunday was a great day on the network news programs. You had Joe Lieberman proposing that we invade Syria next and Chris Wallace chastising the President for boycotting Fox News, but the highlight of the morning was the moment that Hillary Clinton kneecapped her own Secretary of Defense live on Meet the Press.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates started things by going off the reservation and admitting that Libya is not a “vital interest” for the United States.
You could almost see a thought balloon forming over Hillary’s head that said, “WTF?” She cut Gates off faster than she cut Bill off during the Lewinsky scandal and attemped to justify whatever it is we’re doing in Libya.
Wouldn’t you have loved to be in the limo with those two after the show was over?
Don’t know about you, but we loved the President’s Cairo speech. You know, the one where he wowed the Muslim world with his personal charisma and made them love us again. Wait…
Don’t know about you, but we loved the President’s Cairo speech. You know, the one where he wowed the Muslim world with his personal charisma and made them love us again.
Wait. What’s that? They hate us as much as ever? And Sri Lankan Muslims whipped the putty out of an Obama effigy on Friday because they’re pissed off about air strikes in Libya.
Looks like a Sri Lankan speech is in order, Mr President, sir.
If you ever find yourself fighting for your life in sands of Libya, you may want to make sure your air support comes from somewhere other than Qatar.
A suggestion from IHateTheMedia.com: If you ever find yourself fighting for your life in sands of Libya, you may want to make sure your air support comes from somewhere other than Qatar.
Helpful hint #37: Always check your fuel gauge before you go to war
The Daily Mail UK has the full story on the empty tanks:
Arab involvement in the Libya operation began amid farce yesterday when the first jets from Qatar came close to ditching in the sea.
The four warplanes were blown off course and then nearly ran out of fuel.
The Qataris were initially refused permission to land in Cyprus, which opposed the military action, but touched down at the island’s Larnaca Airport after the pilots declared a ‘fuel emergency and demanded the right to land.
The planes then flew on to the Greek island of Crete to join the air armada patrolling the no-fly zone.
The incident strengthens the fear that the Arab support which will boost the legitimacy of the conflict which has been slow to materialise.
Operation Odyssey Dawn: The Keystone Kops go to war.
Is whatever we’re doing in Libya a war? Everyone in the Obama administration answers that question with an emphatic no. But if it’s not a war, what the hell is it?
Is whatever we’re doing in Libya a war? Everyone in the Obama administration answers that question with an emphatic no. But if it’s not a war, what the hell is it?
In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said. “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”
At some point, President Obama will need to ask Congress for a Declaration of Community Disorganizing
C’mon, President Obama. Surely the best and the brightest in your administration do better than “kinetic military action.”
But just in case you can’t, please allow us. Here are President Obama’s Top 25 Euphemisms For War:
Potential Peace Between Two Potentially Friendly Nations
Teachable Moments
Stimulating Production of Vital National Industries Through Organised Disposal of Acquired Defense Surplus
Community Disorganizing
Nation Building for al Qaeda
Freedom Inaction
Passive Restraint Through Blowing Shit Up
Military Hardware Environmental Recycling Effort
Active Ordinance Reduction
Passive Aggressive Corrective Measures With Emphasis on Aggressive
The unabashedly liberal magazine admits that President Obama and his minions “exaggerated” a detail or two in order to bolster their case for going into Libya
Time Magazine just ran a story titled “Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya.”
It’s remarkable only in that the unabashedly liberal magazine admits that President Obama and his minions “exaggerated” a detail or two in order to bolster their case for going into Libya:
President Obama in Rio, praying that no one notices his Libyan "exaggerations"
President Barack Obama says he’s intervening to prevent atrocities in Libya. But details of behind-the-scenes debates at the White House show he’s going to war in part to rehabilitate an idea … the president and some of his advisers are so eager to rehabilitate the idea of preventive intervention that they’re exaggerating the violence they say they are intervening to prevent in Libya. “The effort to shoe-horn this into an imminent genocide model is strained,” says one senior administration official. That’s dangerous. Americans deserve an honest explanation when their leaders take them to war.
Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It’s a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi.
Bush lied and people died, but Obama exaggerated and people were exterminated. Probably too long for a bumper sticker, huh?
The notification was part of the president’s “efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” but it had the effect of a rather discomforting “While You Were Out…” note.
Damn, we love Jake Tapper. Day in and day out, he’s the most honest reporter in Washington, DC. Far as we can tell, he was never swept up in the Cult of Obama and continues to nail the administration whenever necessary.
Tapper’s blog offers the ABC White House Correspondent’s take on the war in Libya:
ABC's Jake Tapper asks President Obama, "How do you cross your legs like that?"
Amidst claims by members of Congress that they were insufficiently consulted, and ensuing White House pushback, President Obama Monday officially notified congressional leaders that at “approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”
The notification was part of the president’s “efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” but given complaints from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the fact that the war started two days ago, it had the effect of a rather discomforting “While You Were Out…” note.
In this interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Joe Biden clearly states his position that a President should be impeached for launching an attack on a nation that hasn’t attacked the United States.
In this interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Joe Biden clearly states his position that a President should be impeached for launching an attack on a nation that hasn’t attacked the United States.
Of course, the tough-talking Biden was only a Senator when this interview took place and he was speaking of President Bush, but one would hope that his argument remains consistent.
“I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole Unites States Senate pointing out the President has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, and I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly….”
Perhaps the three words no American wants to hear: President Joe Biden.
Ralph Nader wanted to impeach George Bush for the Iraq War and now you can add his name to the list of libs who want to impeach Barack Obama for the Libyan War
Ralph Nader wanted to impeach George Bush for the Iraq War and now you can add his name to the list of libs who want to impeach Barack Obama for the Libyan War … or incursion … or situation … or whatever we’re calling it.
You’re forgiven if you think that’s a joke headline. Unfortunately, it’s not. The Arab League, which begged for NATO intervention in Libya now objects to NATO intervention in Libya.
You’re forgiven if you think that’s a joke headline. Unfortunately, it’s not. The Arab League, which begged for NATO intervention in Libya now objects to NATO intervention in Libya.
Libyan rebels are slightly more excited about NATO intervention than the Arab League is
The Associated Press describes the ol’ switcheroo:
The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.
The Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.
Moussa has told reporters Sunday that “what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives.” He says “what we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.”
Sad, but true. Minister Louis Farrakhan, the racist nutcase who runs the Nation of Islam, has turned on Brother Obama. What caused this family tiff? Obama’s rather tepid support for the Libyan no-fly zone.
Sad, but true. Minister Louis Farrakhan, the racist nutcase who runs the Nation of Islam, has turned on Brother Obama. What caused this family tiff? Obama’s rather tepid support for the Libyan no-fly zone.
The Final Call has the Nation of Islam information:
To President Obama, Minister Farrakhan delivered a pointed warning: “Don’t let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world. They don’t like the way you handled (former Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak! They don‘t like the way you’re handling the situation in the Arab world! So I would advise you to be careful-and move with wisdom and skill.”
And then, Minister Farrakhan offered President Obama some divine advice.
“Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans, and ask for a meeting with Gadhafi? You can’t order him to step down, and get out-who the hell do you think you are, that you can talk to a man that built a country over 42 years, and ask him step down and get out? Can anybody ask you? Well, well there’s a lot, now, [that are] going to ask you to step out of the White House, because they don’t want a Black face in the White House,” said Minister Farrakhan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ruxMhgEpsY
Don’t know what we like most about this clip. Is it Farrakhan ranting about Muammar GadHafi’s munificent nature? Is it the silly-looking host of the program nodding in agreement, but never saying a word? Is it the Nation of Islam bodyguard trying to look imposing as he stands behind Farrakhan? Or is it the announcer at the very end of the clip saying, “More intelligent conversation….”
Who the hell do you think you are, indeed. Reminds us of Jean Knight’s big 1971 hit, “Mr. Big Stuff.”
Conservatives howled when Libya was placed on the UN Human Rights Commission, now Libya kills hundreds of their citizens.
The latest news reports say that Muammar Gaddafi’s military minions are now slaughtering people in the streets in an effort to keep the lunatic Libyan in power.
Let’s jump in Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine and see how the United Nations dealt with the Libyan dictator just last year:
LIBYA was elected overnight to the United Nations Human Rights Council despite numerous complaints that the country was unfit to serve on the international rights body… But the appeal fell on deaf ears, and a General Assembly secret ballot produced 155 votes in favor of adding Libya to the council, significantly more than the 97 votes needed.
Of course, conservatives howled at the time and said that putting Libya on the Human Rights Commission only proved that the United Nations concept is corrupt from top to bottom.
Liberals scoffed and said, “Rogue nations must be engaged. Putting Libya on the Human Rights Council will help them understand their role in the world.”
You might ask ordinary Libyans how that’s working out.
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya. Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
Muammar Ghaddafi greets the Lockerbie bomber after they were set up by matchmaker Barack Obama
Most. Transparent. Administration. In. History.
We ran a story at the time of the Lockerbie bomber’s release in which British officials basically said, “Obama and Clinton are lying sacks of…uhhhh…let’s just leave it at liars.”
We remember seeing an article at the time – but can’t find it now – in which a British official cryptically noted something to the effect that “They know what they said secretly.” We always wondered what that comment meant, but now its meaning has been revealed.
The Australian reports the administration’s disgraceful deception:
THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.
Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.
The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.
The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.
Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as “half-hearted” and a sign it would be accepted.
The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future “frank and open communications” with other governments.
Got that? Communications are to remain frank and open. Unless they prove embarrassing to Barack Obama, in which case they can be dishonest and secret.
