Obama's bombing of Libya is aiding the jihadists. Confirmation from an unlikely source of what I wrote here. "U.S. Bombs Libya, Helps... Jihadists?!," by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone (of all places), March 21:
America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.
By imposing a no-fly zone over Eastern Libya, the U.S. and its coalition partners have effectively embraced the breakaway republic of Cyrenaica. As you can see on the map above, Libya is a mashup of three historically distinct provinces. As recently as the 1940s, Cyrenaica was an independent emirate, with its capital in Benghazi. [...]
Flash forward to 2008: A West Point analysis of a cache of al Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya nearly doubled Saudi Arabia as the top source of foreign fighters.
The word "fighter" here is misleading. For the most part, Libyans didn't go to Iraq to fight; they went to blow themselves up — along with American G.I.'s. (Among those whose "work" was detailed in the al Qaeda records, 85 percent of the Libyans were listed as suicide bombers.) Overwhelmingly, these militants came "from cities in North‐East Libya, an area long known for Jihadi‐linked militancy."
A WikiLeaked cable from 2008 explained that Cyrenaicans were waging jihad against U.S. troops as "a last act of defiance against the Qadhafi regime." After the U.S. normalized relations with Qaddaffi in 2006, Cyrenacians believed they no longer had any shot at toppling him:
Many easterners feared the U.S. would not allow Qadhafi's regime to fall and therefore viewed direct confrontation with the GOL [Government of Libya] in the near-term as a fool's errand.... Fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers.
The epicenter of Libyan jihadism is the city of Derna — the hometown of more than half of Libya's foreign fighters, according the West Point analysis. The city of 80,000 has a history of violent resistance to occupying powers — including Americans, who captured the city in the First Barbary War.
A surprisingly readable cable titled "Die Hard in Derna" makes clear that the city "takes great pride" in having sent so many of its sons to kill American soldiers in Iraq, quoting one resident as saying: "It's jihad — it's our duty, and you're talking about people who don't have much else to be proud of."
Maybe Hillary thinks that these jihadists will " like us, and take us off of their hit lists ", by saving their bacon - pun intended.
The Obama Administration and it's foreign policy goals, are all over the map, and difficult to understand at times.
Our US involvement here is a mistake, on a lot of different levels.
Well, it's Spring, and the swallows have returned to Capistrano. Will the ex-pat Libyans who, along with other countries' jihadists, went out seeking death in Osama's foreign legion, return home now to open another front of World Jihad?
I think this whole thing in Libya is just a ruse to get us involved in yet another military action on Islamic soil. It would not be a surprise to me to find out Qaddafi and his forces are in cohorts with the Rebels to draw western military into yet another fight. This whole thing stinks of "BAD" all around.
Obama is a piece of crap for getting us into this without congressional approval. Now when he or the left speak of our actions in Iraq (which had congressional approval) I will simply call them hypocrits for conducting a war without congressional approval.
"Britain could soon be dangerously exposed. We must leave the Arabs to sort out Libya"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1368645/Libya-UK-dangerously-exposed-leave-Arabs-sort-out.html#ixzz1HLESz0cK
I was just watching FOXNews, and saw two brief but profoundly disturbing segments.
The first is that an American plane has reportedly gone down there—the first. No report yet on the fate of the crew. How will Americans in Libya be treated—*even by those we are aiding*? This does not bode well. I will keep that crew in my prayers.
The other was some footage of fighting on the ground in Libya. I'm not sure where the footage was gotten, what region it was from, or even exactly who was fighting. The host didn't appear to know, either. The video was poorly shot, unfocused, and confused.
The one thing that *did* come through loud and clear? The only things you could hear on the audio was the sound of gunfire and the constant chant from many voices of "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!" Chilling stuff.
I suspect our unconstitutional president just can't stand the idea of so many anti-America fellow Muslims getting massacred.
Does anyone in Washington bother to stop and THINK before they act? While I know Qadhafi is evil, he was pretty docile in recent years and had given up his nuclear program. So now America is going to war to remove him and help install Sunni jihadists that are even more rabid than Qadhafi. This is madness. If this is about the flow of oil than start drilling in the US and let Europe worry about where there oil comes from.
The bottom line in Libya is that bad guys are fighting bad guys. America and other free nations got involved here because they have concluded, wrongly, that one set of these bad guys are good guys. Not good. When your premise for engaging in a fight is faulty, getting involved in the fight is surely folly.
Deeply ironic though that Obama, who criticized Bush on innumerable occasions for getting involved in Iraq, is now kinda' "pulling a Bush" and with far fewer allies than Bush had when he went into Iraq. This is one of the most instructive things about studying history---all the irony one comes across in its pages time and time again.
Thinking about it, I can see only one possible reason for the madness of getting involved in a rebellion in Libya whose sides we know very little about.
I suspect that the countries in Europe are terrified at the prospect of more immigrants washing onto their shores, immigrants from backwards Muslim countries who will obviously destabilize European societies even further.
The European governments are unwilling to go against the human rights branch of the European Union, which will condemn any country using force to protect its borders from refugees.
Therefore, the European governments see the intervention in Libya as their hope of avoiding the issue of either admitting backward Muslim refugees, or else actually taking a hard stand, and risk being condemned as human rights violators.
There is only one logical reason to be involved in the Libyan war, in this case helping the same rag headed, bug riddled, sand Arabs laughing in their beards, is to get at their oil. Europe is a large consumer of Libyan natural gas, so they too have a stake in this. Anything else is fluff for mass consumption. Oil politics rules this one. Saudi knows it, Qatar know it, Bahrain knows it, and all the other emirates with oil and gas. There is not other worldly reason to be there.
The Obama thinking process that decided that it was the right thing to do to start a 3rd war in the Middle East (with our extremely overstressed military) under the pretense that the "UN made us do it", cannot really be called a thinking process. What it is, I don't know. I might also add that our Constitution does not allow the President to attack another country without Congressional approval unless we have an urgent strategic interest at stake. What is our strategic interest in Libya? Maybe someone, a troll, or anybody out there could explain this to me.
A West Point analysis of a cache of al Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans.
Why isn't this eyebrow raising info from the cables mentioned in the coverage of the Libyan War now underway on our news entertainment networks?
But then again, it took them almost a week of news entertainment of the Japan disaster to finally realize that the Tokyo Electric Power Company had been written up multiple times for filing false safety reports, so maybe the nature of Eastern Libya will finally get mentioned.
"Obama is a piece of crap for getting us into this without congressional approval."
I didn't think it was possible. Sorry to be so selfish at a time like this (but maybe it's understandable), but when I was contemplating the various options for actions the world might take against Israel I ruled out the possibility of a NATO strike, unless the media successfuly fabricate evidence of death camps (this is not a crazy idea, they've already done such things before). France, Britain, Spain and, of course, Turkey might joyfully support such a strike if the UN decided to do so, hell even the Swedes might be more than delighted to send some symbolic number of troops, but I thought the Obamadmin can't send the American army because it will never pass through congress. Now I see they don't need the congress. It doesn't matter what the congress think or what the American people think, they don't have a say in it anymore. So Obama and co. might decide on their on to put the American army in the service of the jihad against Israel, and the media will support Obama no matter what, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
"It's jihad — it's our duty, and you're talking about people who don't have much else to be proud of."
This creature has succintly described his entire ummah.
Even Barry Rubin noticed, I don't think I've ever read him say something that extreme (relatively) about the Obamadmin:
Give him a few months more and he'll be talking like a Tea Partyist. I sure hope the American people are noticing. 4 more years of this administration and I doubt you'll recognize your country.
So this is what 'hope and change' looks like...
The newest headline...The goal of Libya operation: install a democratic system...
Why is this America's job? Why is this America's business...Why are we risking American lives and money in more nation building...Is not Iraq and Afghanistan proof enough that these people do not want what Rasool Obama is selling...What happens if the new regime is worse than Gadaffi's? What happens if Libya becomes a sharia state and an incubator for world jihad?
Wellington, four ringing cheers for your post. I, for one, am sick to the stomach of this Libyan adventure. Maybe it will be less costly than the Iraqi or Afghan misadventures, but it remains a mistake.
My own guess is that Obama, whose caution in foreign affairs probably served him well up to now, has decided he needs to look like a tough, decisive, pro-military president in the run up to Campaign '012. Possibly, he may even want a venue in which he and his GLBT clients can trot out a few of their own genuine "war heroes" as well, But, whatever is the case, we've committed ourselves to a dogfight in which two rabid, mangy, flea-bitten curs are tearing each other to death.
Battle of Tours, I think there's an easier way to get at Libyan oil: wait to see who wins, and deal with him. The Libyan rebels are no more capable of eating and drinking petroleum than Qaddafi is, and Libya has almost no domestic industry to speak of. Even America-baiting Hugo Chavez finds us a handy customer.
Still, NOBAMA '012!
In the end it'll turn out that the one thing Qadafi didn't lie about in his entire life was fighting Al Qaeda, but by that time nobody believed him. This war might redefine the term 'useful idiots'.
And duh_swami, I agree with you. What did you sell all these weapons to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan for? Let them take care of their own mess. They're not going to be grateful in any case. No matter what they say, in the end they'll always describe you as imperialists and it'll always be used as an excuse to attack Americans. They just don't think in terms of one global village and all that nonsense. To them they are one village and you are another village and you shouldn't stick your noses in their business, particularly if you don't know who the players are.
If Obama was intent on going into Libya to establish his toughness, he could at least have been smart about it. He went into Libya prematurely. He should have let Qaddafi decimate the Eastern Libyan jihadists. It would have been at least possible for him to get both UN and congressional backing to go after Qaddafi at that time. Kill two birds with one stone.
ANYTHING to evade facing up to real, intolerable threat: Iran, about to go nuclear. Cowards-cowards-cowards, English, French and American! Total degeneration of the Western democracies!
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Thanks for your comment, Kepha. Obama is Mr. Wrong again and again. He ordinarily says the wrong thing at the wrong time (e.g., the fiasco with the black Harvard professor who dissed the police when they had cause for what they did---and Obama opened his mouth calling the police "stupid" without knowing all the facts in the case and, what is worse, prejudicing any trial that might have been necessary). Worst of all, he is full of wrong ideas (e.g., ObamaCare).
The only place where I'll defend him on the Libyan endeavor is that I don't think the American executive needs Congressional approval before acting militarily. Virtually ever. I know that the Constitution says that only the legislative branch can declare war but there have been over 200 military conflicts where America has been involved since the Constitution went into effect and in only five of these conflicts has war been declared by Congress. The Constitution can be stretched in many ways and I would argue it should be stretched as much as possible to give any President the leeway to use force as he sees fit. BTW, I think the War Powers Act of 1975, which restricts the executive in military actions, is unconstitutional. Reagan thought so and ignored it. Sometimes, not often but sometimes, it's OK if a President ignores a particular law. But again when this happens it's imperative that the President be a man of sound judgmnent. Obama ain't.
Hope you and yours are well. NOBAMA'012!
Some of the relief organizations here in Scandinavia are complaining that rape of unaccompanied and unprotected women in the refugee camps along the Libyan border is becoming far too frequent. A nasty development.
IMPEACH OBAMA! IMPEACH OBAMA!
On what specific charges, Bob Gill? Look, I didn't vote for him. I think he oozes weakness and indecision. I certainly hope that he's a one-termer. But I know of no solid legal reason why he should or could be impeached. Not one. In fact, I would argue that arguing for Obama's impeachment is an argument that will lead to nowhere. Guaranteed.
The truth is Wellington, Congress may impeach Obama for any purely political reason.. high crimes and misdemeanors, in my reading, is meant to be a range of choices...
it's not like felonies are left out..
Obama could actually commit murder and Congress would be powerless without popular support..
67 anti-Obama Senators is the real pipedream.. besides, Obama will lose in 2012..
If Obama somehow wins or ceases elections, either way, 67 anti-Obama Senators will not possibly be sworn into office to convict Obama..
Like the Presidential term limits needed to guard against another FDR, an amendment or several will need to be enacted to guard against the next tyrant Obama is now..
He took us to war without congressional approval- and now his ass should be kicked out.
Bush lied and everyone ignored it.
I don't care who's president or what shithole Muslims country they want to waste American treasure and lives in, these people need to be punished and held accountable even if justice is a pipe dream.
Both Bush and Obama.
The stratagists, any any, in the Obama Administration please peruse the Sun Tze's Art of War, in which it says that " of The 36 Stratagems, the BEST is to get the hell out of there!" Haha,instead they got in Lybia!
Thanks, Wellington, for your response.
BTW, Wellington is right about how the CinC (numerous ones) have gotten us into many a conflict with a Congressional Declaration of War. Still, I believe and originalist reading of the document would support the idea that war was too important to be left to the Chief Executive--especially when it's considered that the Founders did not provide for much of a standing army, and envisioned the nation in arms as a collection of rapidly mustered state militias. And, I also note that while the Afghan and Iraqi interventions were not really declarations of war, Bush did consult with a special session of Congress following 9/11. That much he did right.
But I am definitely of the mind that the Libyan civil war was a good time to dust off John Adams' belief that the USA should be a well-wisher to liberty everywhere, but a champion only of its own--alas, too late now.
Too many American international interventions have ended badly, even when we did declare war. World War One changed nothing, turned central Europe into a mess of weak states waiting for a great power to gobble them up anew, and set the stage for countless European revanchisms, which totalitarians merrily exploited. They say World War II was "the good war", but it made the world safe for Stalinism (although I agree that it was good for Hitler to go down--even though a might-have-been would have been Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia bleeding each other dry in a no-win situation across historical Lithuania and the Ukraine, and discrediting the totalitarian model in the process). We did not dare win, and probably didn't have the will to do so in Korea and Viet Nam.
Well, so much for my grumping.
Why is Baraq H. Obama always seem to be found backing the radical Islamists ? He was vehement when it came to supporting the " rebels" in Egypt with his henchmen Code Pink and Bill Ayers/Dorn even being on the scne stirring the pot there. All these "democrat" loving rebels hidden under the veil of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda . Yet he was sorely silent when the "rebels" in Iran wanted to oust the mad mullahs. Frankly BHO was a stealth mole put in place to do as much damage to the US as quickly as he could and while weakening her (finacially, militarily, morally etc.) to strengthen her enemies. He wants to get rid of our nukes and vastly cut the US military budget, yet puts in place forces that will strengthen out Jihadists enemies who seek to bring the west for Allah. Who IS this man and why are all his records sealed ? Those who think him just some bumbling inept fool fall right into his game plan. If his "policy" is to bomb those who kill and roust their people why isn't he bombing the Islamists in Darfur who have spilled thousands of gallons of Christian blood of their soil---oh that's right--wrong "victim".
Bush didn't lie, Bob Gill. To assert that he did is itself a great lie. Bush acted upon the most up-to-date intelligence he had. Not a single major intelligence agency on the planet maintained, before Bush went into Iraq in March of 2003, that Saddam Hussein no longer possessed WMDs. Quite the contray, every major intelligence agency thought that he did and that SH was lying. Moreover, Saddam was firing upon British and American jets over the no-fly-zones on a daily basis and avoiding many of the other conditions he agreed to in the truce which brought the Gulf War of 1991 to an end.
It's certainaly arguable that Bush should have never gone into Iraq. Bush certainly didn't know enough about Islam (still doesn't most likely). But Bush didn't lie about anything respecting the Iraq War. Facts are important and, quite frankly, you're rather sloppy in this area. Otherwise you wouldn't still be hauling out the old lie that Bush lied. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Name specifically what he lied about. And remember, Bush, unlike Obama, did have congressional approval for doing anything he thought necessary to protect American interests where Iraq was concerned, though I would argue legally and constitutionally that he didn't need such approval.
Actually, Gaddafi had been keeping immigrants from fleeing the country, since this whole uprising started more people have gotten in boats and fled to europe than in a long time. The island of Lampedusa now holds more irefugees than it does original inhabitants. One thing is for sure though: Europe can't absorb every human being on the planet that is from a second or third world country, and currently they'd all qualify as immigrant because they have worse economic situations and less freedom where they live than in Europe. It's simply untenable. Our economy can't support it already at this point, let alone in the future, and with the lack of integration it also doesn't work on a social level. At some point we're gonna have to say "We're full, try elsewhere." Except ofcourse there is no such thing as elsewhere.
Your reply, grungyoldvan, not a bad one, reminded me of what Gerald Ford said when still a Congressman from Michigan and that is that an impeachable offense is anything that Congress says it is. There's a lot of truth in this statement even though it is an abstract assessment.
Fact of the matter, though, is that Congress has been loathe for over two hundred years to invoke impeachment proceedings against any government official, especially the President. When this occurred in 1868 against Andrew Johnson (admittedly not a very diplomatic fellow), it was done mostly out of spite and revolved principally around Johnson's violation of the Tenure of Office Act, an act of Congress which was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
As for Bill Clinton, I would argue that he deserved to be impeached and then tried by an intrepid Senate and removed from office. Here's why: Clinton was impeached on two articles, one was obstruction of justice and the other perjury. The obstruction of justice article was strong enough, though I think it could be argued that he didn't obstruct justice (I wouldn't argue this but I concede it is arguable), but the perjury charge was dead on accurate. Clinton lied under oath and should have been removed. A cowardly Senate (including some Republicans and all Democrats) simply didn't do its job.
As for Obama, I know of no solid reason, no high crime or misdemeanor, that any reputable lawyer, regardless of his or her political persuasion, would say that Obama is guilty of. Committing America's armed forces to a conflict without Congressional approval is a non-starter. Many American Presidents have done this and there's no way, short of a horribly biased Congress which would be out to get a President for personal reasons, that any President, having sent American troops into a combat situation, will ever be impeached because he didn't get a declaration of war from Congress first or at least a joint resolution authorizing such (the latter is nothing but frosting on a legal cake and means didly squat).
In fact, even though I think Obama a terrible President, I would, since I am a lawyer, offer to be part of his defense team on an impeachment charge, were the opportunity to present itself. To date, Obama has done nothing which constitutes an impeachable offense unless one wants to enter into a legal land of OZ.
//(of all places)//
I never thought that I would live to see the day when a Rolling Stones article might get it.
And behold!! No anti-war sentiment seems to be the motivation! Just a pure truthful analysis! Maybe there's hope!!!
Ground forces in Libya are being moved into the citys, and once this is complete the airstrikes on his entrenched forces will be brought to a end. Also, any operational anti-aircraft site will most likely be flooded with human shields, and a number of cameras, and that will end the attacks on these as well.
At that point, you can send in our ground forces to fight a ground war, or try and take Gaddafi out with a strike, not a easy task given the U.N. mandate.
Obama better not leave him be, he will be looking for revenge. This is his war, unless Obama takes control and fights like he means it, it will fail.
I see a solution above - since the Cyrenaica rebels are said to be Democrats and not Jihadis, and the new order in Egypt is said to be Democrat and not Jihadi, just annex Cyrenaica (and Northern Sudan) to Egypt, make it a big country and let them expand their elections to cover all these places. Have Omar al Bashir and Amir Moussa and Mohammed el Baredei face off in an election
Icing on the cake - if Libya then consists of just Tripolitania and Fezzan, Gadaffi will look genuinely humiliated.
The other option - have different parts of the 'coalition' arm both sides. Have the US arm, say, the rebels and have the Chinese arm Gadaffi. Something along those lines.
Ironically, Russia & China, who are always wrong diplomatically whenever it comes to issues of the Middle East, happen to be correct on this one!
I just picked it up from www.amnation.com/vfr post "Fighting for our enemies":
"On "Fresh Air” show on NPR, which focused on Libya, host Terry Gross said that a Western journalist asked one of the rebels why he was fighting Khadafi. “Because he’s a Jew,” the freedom-fighter answered."
Maybe Obama should start looking for possibility of imposing "no-talk zone" on journalists whose reporting make one question the wisdom of "no-fly zone" and even suggest the idiocy of militarily supporting "democratic" uprising in a moslem country.
"As for Obama, I know of no solid reason, no high crime or misdemeanor, that any reputable lawyer, regardless of his or her political persuasion, would say that Obama is guilty of." Wellington
I agree with you except for one little thing. It may be hard to find many "reputable" lawyers Congress.
On the bright side, NATO have announced they'll be " taking control of the attacks". So soon we'll see a sudden disappearance of 100's of Infidels women, kids and elderly and a commensurate increase in the availability of transplant organs on the black market.
So it's not all doom and gloom.
Wellington:
What about the outting of Valerie Plame because her husband found the yellowcake from Niger to Iraq to be false?
Done by Richard Armitage, one of the more Left leaning members of the Administration, and the deputy head of the State Department. Interestingly, none of the Dems ever bayed for his blood, even after he admitted that he was the one who leaked it.
Joe Wilson was the liar in that case, pokermutt, and his wife, Valerie Plame played the victim card to the hilt. More important, however, all Bush did was repeat a British intelligence report that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellow cake. What Bush said was absolutely true and he lied about nothing. Infidel Pride has already correctly identified the leaker, yet it was Scooter Libby who had to face jail time. The whole tale is one of farce and false finger-pointing.
Although the details of this story scream out, the more important revelation for Me is another Barack Hussein Obama coupe.
If he can strengthen yet another of our enemies [in this case jihadis' of Cyrenaica] base and operational capabilities, it further diminishes the USA.. in the sense that we are becoming diluted in our offensive quotient.
Death by a thousand cuts. We can not continue to underestimate his loathing for our country!!!
I see a solution above - since the Cyrenaica rebels are said to be Democrats and not Jihadis, and the new order in Egypt is said to be Democrat and not Jihadi, just annex Cyrenaica (and Northern Sudan) to Egypt, make it a big country and let them expand their elections to cover all these places. Have Omar al Bashir and Amir Moussa and Mohammed el Baredei face off in an election
Didn't Gadaffi once declare that it was okay to split Nigeria into North (Muslim) and South (Christian)? Then he can have no objection to splitting Libya into West (Gadaffi) and East (Democratic/qua Jihad), and giving those provinces to Egypt (Democratic/qua Sharia). Then "everybody happy!" ... even Hussein Obama. - LOL
Precisely!!! Since Gadaffi was so good @ coming up w/ these suggestions, as well as the 'Isratine' one, as well as intervening in Chad for so long, maybe it's poetic justice (our objections about intervention notwithstanding) that others butt into Libyan affairs. And I'd love the way Libya would be partitioned into half (see above map), if the above was followed - Cyrenaica going to Egypt (and even letting some of Egypt's 70m people have Libya's oil), and Gadaffi keeping Tripolitania and Fezzan, as well as his Great Manmade River.