Page 1 of 2

Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:25 pm
by seemslikeadream
Barack “I’d kill for a peace prize” Obama

Is anyone keeping count?

I am. Libya makes six.



Libya, Obama, and Empire
The Anti-Empire Report
by William Blum / March 29th, 2011

Libya and The Holy Triumvirate

The words they find it very difficult to say — “civil war”.

Libya is engaged in a civil war. The United States and the European Union and NATO — The Holy Triumvirate — are intervening, bloodily, in a civil war. To overthrow Moammar Gaddafi. First The Holy Triumvirate spoke only of imposing a no-fly zone. After getting support from international bodies on that understanding, they immediately began to wage war against Libyan military forces, and whoever was nearby, on a daily basis. In the world of commerce this is called “bait and switch”.

Gaddafi’s crime? He was never respectful enough of The Holy Triumvirate, which recognizes no higher power, and maneuvers the United Nations for its own purposes, depending on China and Russia to be as spineless and hypocritical as Barack Obama. The man the Triumvirate allows to replace Gaddafi will be more respectful.

So who are the good guys? The Libyan rebels, we’re told. The ones who go around murdering and raping African blacks on the supposition that they’re all mercenaries for Gaddafi. One or more of the victims may indeed have been members of a Libyan government military battalion; or may not have been. During the 1990s, in the name of pan-African unity, Gaddafi opened the borders to tens of thousands of sub-Saharan Africans to live and work in Libya. That, along with his earlier pan-Arab vision, did not win him points with The Holy Triumvirate. Corporate bosses have the same problem about their employees forming unions. Oh, and did I mention that Gaddafi is strongly anti-Zionist?

Does anyone know what kind of government the rebels would create? The Triumvirate has no idea. To what extent will the new government embody an Islamic influence as opposed to the present secular government? What jihadi forces might they unleash? (And these forces do indeed exist in eastern Libya, where the rebels are concentrated.) Will they do away with much of the welfare state that Gaddafi used his oil money to create? Will the state-dominated economy be privatized? Who will wind up owning Libya’s oil? Will the new regime continue to invest Libyan oil revenues in sub-Saharan African development projects? Will they allow a US military base and NATO exercises? Will we find out before long that the “rebels” were instigated and armed by Holy Triumvirate intelligence services?

In the 1990s, Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia was guilty of “crimes” similar to Gaddafi’s. His country was commonly referred to as “the last communists of Europe”. The Holy Triumvirate bombed him, arrested him, and let him die in prison. The Libyan government, it should be noted, refers to itself as the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. American foreign policy is never far removed from the Cold War.

We must look closely at the no-fly zone set up for Iraq by the US and the UK (falsely claimed by them as being authorized by the United Nations) beginning in the early 1990s and lasting more than a decade. It was in actuality a license for very frequent bombing and killing of Iraqi citizens; softening up the country for the coming invasion. The no-fly zone-cum invasion force in Libya is killing people every day with no end in sight, softening up the country for regime change. Who in the universe can stand up to The Holy Triumvirate? Has the entire history of the world ever seen such power and such arrogance?

And by the way, for the 10th time, Gaddafi did not carry out the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988.1 Please enlighten your favorite progressive writers on this.

Barack “I’d kill for a peace prize” Obama

Is anyone keeping count?

I am. Libya makes six.

Six countries that Barack H. Obama has waged war against in his 26 months in office. (To anyone who disputes that dropping bombs on a populated land is act of war, I would ask what they think of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.)

America’s first black president now invades Africa.

Is there anyone left who still thinks that Barack Obama is some kind of improvement over George W. Bush?

Probably two types still think so. 1) Those to whom color matters a lot; 2) Those who are very impressed by the ability to put together grammatically correct sentences.

It certainly can’t have much otherwise to do with intellect or intelligence. Obama has said numerous things, which if uttered by Bush would have inspired lots of rolled eyeballs, snickers, and chuckling reports in the columns and broadcasts of mainstream media. Like the one the president has repeated on a number of occasions when pressed to investigate Bush and Cheney for war crimes, along the lines of “I prefer to look forward rather than backwards”. Picture a defendant before a judge asking to be found innocent on such grounds. It simply makes laws, law enforcement, crime, justice, and facts irrelevant.

There’s also the excuse given by Obama to not prosecute those engaged in torture: because they were following orders. Has this “educated” man never heard of the Nuremberg Trials, where this defense was summarily rejected? Forever, it was assumed.

Just 18 days before the Gulf oil spill Obama said: “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.”1 Picture George W. having said this, and the later reaction.

“All the forces that we’re seeing at work in Egypt are forces that naturally should be aligned with us, should be aligned with Israel,” Obama said in early March.2 Imagine if Bush had implied this — that the Arab protesters in Egypt against a man receiving billions in US aid including the means to repress and torture them, should “naturally” be aligned with the United States and — God help us — Israel.

A week later, on March 10, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told a forum in Cambridge, Mass. that Wikileaks hero Bradley Manning’s treatment by the Defense Department in a Marine prison was “ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid.” The next day our “brainy” president was asked about Crowley’s comment. Replied the Great Black Hope: “I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”

Right, George. I mean Barack. Bush should have asked Donald Rumsfeld whether anyone in US custody was being tortured anywhere in the world. He could then have held a news conference like Obama did to announce the happy news — “No torture by America!” We would still be chortling at that one.

Obama closed his remark with: “I can’t go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Pvt. Manning’s safety as well.”3

Ah yes, of course, Manning is being tortured for his own good. Someone please remind me — Did Georgieboy ever stoop to using that particular absurdity to excuse prisoner hell at Guantanamo?

Is it that Barack Obama is not bothered by the insult to Bradley Manning’s human rights, the daily wearing away of this brave young man’s mental stability?

The answer to the question is No. The president is not bothered by these things.

How do I know? Because Barack Obama is not bothered by anything as long as he can exult in being the president of the United States, eat his hamburgers, and play his basketball. Let me repeat once again what I first wrote in May 2009:

The problem, I’m increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn’t really believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy, how to express opinions without clearly taking sides, how to talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his listeners’ heads filled with stirring clichés, platitudes, and slogans. And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, having reached the presidency of the United States, to induce him to change his style?

Remember that in his own book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Obama is a product of marketing. He is the prime example of the product “As seen on TV”.

Writer Sam Smith recently wrote that Obama is the most conservative Democratic president we’ve ever had. “In an earlier time, there would have been a name for him: Republican.”

Indeed, if John McCain had won the 2008 election, and then done everything that Obama has done in exactly the same way, liberals would be raging about such awful policies.

I believe that Barack Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left. The millions of young people who jubilantly supported him in 2008, and numerous older supporters, will need a long recovery period before they’re ready to once again offer their idealism and their passion on the altar of political activism.

If you don’t like how things have turned out, next time find out exactly what your candidate means when he talks of “change”.

Dear Lord, please save us from the Holy Republican Empire

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, John Boehner, and many other Republicans often find it difficult to speak about domestic or foreign issues without bringing religion into the picture. Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, for example, in a recent talk at the National Religious Broadcasters conference stated that America’s national debt is a “moral hazard.” The Washington Post (March 5, 2011) reported, “Boehner made clear that this fiscal crisis requires people to get on their knees.”

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas justified his opposition to controlling greenhouse gases because “you can’t regulate God.”

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl accused Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of “disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians” for considering keeping Congress in session during Christmas.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa compared Democrats to Pontius Pilate, the ancient Roman official who sentenced Jesus to be crucified.4

And South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint recently declared that “the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets. … America works, freedom works, when people have that internal gyroscope that comes from a belief in God and Biblical faith. Once we push that out, you no longer have the capacity to live as a free person without the external controls of an authoritarian government. I’ve said it often and I believe it –– the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets. As people become more dependent on government, less dependent on God.”5

So, in a futile attempt to enlighten the likes of these esteemed Republican members of Congress, I feel obliged to point out the following:

On the 4th day of November 1796, a “Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary” was concluded at Tripoli [Libya]. Article 11 of the treaty begins: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion … ” Be it further noted: Article VI, Section II, of the United States Constitution states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The creed of America’s founders was neither Christianity nor secularism, but religious liberty.

After the terrorist attacks of 9-11, a Taliban leader declared that “God is on our side, and if the world’s people try to set fire to Afghanistan, God will protect us and help us.”6

“With or without religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

The Bad Guys

I’ve written on many occasions about America’s ODE — Officially Designated Enemies: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hasan Nasrallah, Moammar Gaddafi, and others. Once the government of the United States of America makes it clear that an individual foreign leader is not one of the Good Guys, that he doesn’t believe that America is God’s gift to humankind, and that he is not willing to allow his country to become an obedient client state, the US mainstream media invariably picks up on this and goes out of its way to denigrate the individual at every opportunity. (If any reader knows of any exceptions to this rule I’d be interested in hearing from them.)

Juan Forero has long been a Latin American correspondent for the Washington Post. He’s also the same for National Public Radio. I used to send letters to the Post pointing out how Forero was distorting the facts each time he wrote about Hugo Chávez, errors of omission compounded with errors of commission. None were printed, so I began to send my missives directly to Forero. He once actually replied saying that he (sort of) agreed with me on the point I had raised and implied that he would try to avoid similar errors in the future. I actually detected some improvement after that for a short period, then it was back to usual. During the current unrest in Libya he wrote: “Chavez said it ‘was a great lie’ that Gaddafi’s forces had attacked civilians.”7

Well, how stupid can Hugo Chávez think the world is? We’ve all seen and read of Gaddafi’s attacks on civilians.

But it turns out that if you find the original Spanish you get a fuller and different picture. According to the United Press International (UPI) Spanish-language report, Chávez said that the fighting in Libya was a civil war and those who were attacked were thus not simply protestors or civilians; they were on the other side of the civil war; i.e., combatants.8

Al Jazeera in America

The uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East have given a great boost to al Jazeera, the television network based in Doha, Qatar. Until recently Americans shied away from the station; it was just too easily associated with the Middle East and Muslims, which of course leads easily to thinking about terrorists and “terrorists”; and certainly any well-brought-up American knew that the station could not be as unbiased as CBS, CNN, NPR or Fox News. The station had reason to be paranoid about its office in the United States, land of ten million crazies (more than a few of them holding public office). It occupies six floors in a downtown Washington, DC office building, but its name doesn’t appear on the building directory.

But US mainstream media now quote al Jazeera English and show their news footage. Many progressives, including myself, have taken to watching the station in preference to US mainstream media. In general, the news is of more substance, the guests are mainly more or less progressive, and there are no commercials. However, the more I watch it the more I realize that the station’s presenters and correspondents are not necessarily as well imbued with the progressive perspective as they should be.

One case in point of many I could give: On March 12 al Jazeera correspondent Roger Wilkinson was reporting about the trial in Cuba of Alan Gross, the American arrested after he dispensed electronic equipment to Cuban citizens. Gross entered Cuba as a tourist but was actually there in behalf of Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a private contractor working for the Agency for International Development (AID), a division of the State Department. Gross was thus a covert unregistered agent of a foreign government. Wilkinson reported this very controversial story with all the innocence and distortion of the US mainstream media. He mentioned in passing that the Cuban government tries to control the Internet. What can one conclude from that other than that Cuban officials want to hide certain information from its citizens? Just like the US mainstream media, Wilkinson gave no examples of any Internet sites blocked by the Cuban government; for the simple reason, perhaps, that there aren’t any. What is the terrible truth that Cubans might learn if they had full access to the Internet? Ironically, it’s the US government and US multinationals who impinge upon this access, for political reasons and by pricing their services beyond Cuba’s means. This is why Cuba and Venezuela are building their own undersea cable connection.

Wilkinson spoke of AID’s program of “democracy promotion”, but gave no hint that in the world of AID and the private organizations that contract with it — including Gross’s employer — this term is code for “regime change”. AID has long played a subversive role in world affairs. Here is John Gilligan, Director of AID during the Carter administration:

“At one time, many AID field offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people. The idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas, government, volunteer, religious, every kind.”9

AID has been but one of many institutions employed by the United States for more than 50 years to subvert the Cuban revolution. It is because of this that we can formulate this equation: The United States is to the Cuban government like al Qaeda is to American government. Cuba’s laws dealing with activities typically carried out by the likes of AID and DAI reflect this history. It’s not paranoia. It’s self-preservation. In discussing a case like Alan Gross without considering this equation is a serious defect in journalism and political analysis.

Hopefully the Gross case will serve to temper the nature of US “democracy promotion” efforts in Cuba.

Washington’s policy — and therefore Britain’s policy — toward Cuba has always stemmed mainly from a desire to keep the island from becoming a good example for the Third World of an alternative to capitalism. But Western leaders actually do not, or do not dare, understand what can motivate people like the Cuban leaders and their followers. Here’s one of the Wikileaks US-Embassy cables, March 25, 2009 — William Hague, then-British Conservative MP and Shadow Foreign Secretary, giving the US embassy in London a report on his recent visit to Cuba: Hague “said that he was slightly surprised that the Cuban leadership did not appear to be moving toward more of a Chinese model of economic opening, but were rather still ‘romantic revolutionaries’.” In his conversation with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez “the discussion turned to political ideology, during which Hague commented that people in Britain were more interested in shopping than ideology.” [Oh dear, what a jolly good defense of the Western way of life. Rule Britannia! God Bless America!] Hague then reported that “Rodriguez appeared disdainful of the notion and said one needed shopping only to buy food and a few good books.”

Japan devastated by an earthquake and tsunami. America devastated by the profit motive.

Christine Todd Whitman, George W. Bush’s first Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, speaking of how the nuclear industry has learned from every previous nuclear accident or disaster: “It’s safer than working in a grocery store,” she said.

Whitman is now co-chairwoman of the nuclear industry’s Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.10

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:26 am
by smiths
people have been mistaking what kind of intervention Operation Odyssey dawn is,

it is in fact charity work, philanthropy if you will, and we should all be feeling grateful and appreciative of the money they are donating on this one

We knew that if we waited one more day Benghazi … could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world," Obama declared.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... ns-cameron

Military operations in Libya have cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" so far, Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, Admiral James Stavridis, said yesterday in evidence to the US Senate.
American officials said the military intervention has cost the Pentagon an extra $550m with bombs and missiles accounting for most. Of the additional spending, about 60% was "for munitions, the remaining costs are for higher operating tempo" of US forces and of getting them there, Commander Kathleen Kesler, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... -says-nato

they are not sure yet whether the resolution they wrote to sort this all out contains the things they want it to contain
and they are not sure who exactly they are doing all this charity work for
Hillary Clinton and William Hague claim arming rebel groups may be legal under the recent UN resolution
But Clinton admitted the Americans "do not know as much as we would like to" about the interim national council (INC). In Washington, Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, told the Senate that intelligence analysis had revealed "flickers" of al-Qaida or Hezbollah presence inside the movement, and argued it required further study.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... d-by-us-uk

though vague on who the rebels are, they are they are no doubt relieved that the rebels seem to have similar visions for running the new Libya as the americans would have
The new Libya, the declaration proclaims, will have a new constitution that (surprise, surprise) "separates and balances the three branches of legislative, executive and judicial power" ...
Libya, it seems, is now pledged to "the development of genuine economic partnerships between a strong and productive public sector, a free private sector, and a supportive and effective civil society which overstands [sic] corruption and waste".
"The interests and rights of foreign nationals and companies will be protected," in the new Libya
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... asterpiece

love the misstatement at the end "overstands corruption and waste"

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:22 am
by Occult Means Hidden
The narratives surrounding this are all wrong. I think liberals have it the most askew, now.



Gaddafi’s crime? He was never respectful enough of The Holy Triumvirate, which recognizes no higher power, and maneuvers the United Nations for its own purposes, depending on China and Russia to be as spineless and hypocritical as Barack Obama. The man the Triumvirate allows to replace Gaddafi will be more respectful.

So who are the good guys? The Libyan rebels, we’re told. The ones who go around murdering and raping African blacks on the supposition that they’re all mercenaries for Gaddafi. One or more of the victims may indeed have been members of a Libyan government military battalion; or may not have been. During the 1990s, in the name of pan-African unity, Gaddafi opened the borders to tens of thousands of sub-Saharan Africans to live and work in Libya. That, along with his earlier pan-Arab vision, did not win him points with The Holy Triumvirate. Corporate bosses have the same problem about their employees forming unions. Oh, and did I mention that Gaddafi is strongly anti-Zionist?


These paragraphs by William Blum especially.

I understand where he's coming from. He's trying to use a Chomskyist approach toward an idea of "rogue nations" and such. I'm a far radical liberal as they come, sure. But none of this makes any sense because there is no consistency toward a common "liberal" philosophy of foreign policy. This is a further symptom of the steady demise of liberalism the past several decades.

"Gaddafi's crime?..." Really? This statement opens up sympathy. I'm personally such an liberal-anarchist that I believe one should never suffer a dictator to live. No matter who they are. If they are a hierarchist, monarch, white collar thief or national tyrant. Kill them all. Especially so, if they are actively engaging in the killing of innocent people.

Blum makes mention of this as a civil war. Once upon a time, conservatives argued the point of non-intervention and liberals argued the need for intervention, "for humanitarian reasons.". Also vice-versa depending on the M.O.

Comes down to an analogy. Suppose you are walking down a street. One man is beating the shit out of an innocent man with a crow bar. You are armed with a gun and protective equipment. Do you ignore the innocent man being beaten up? Afterall, it's none of your business...

I'm surprised by the lack of proper context.

Yes. The American military has certainly been used for evil. Yes it is still being used for evil. Yes it is being used for evil by Barack Obama still... but never suffer a tyrant to live. They deserve to die or to be apprehended as quickly as possible.

Blum also makes a blanket statement about the Libyan rebels in the second paragraph. A statement that is unacceptable - given improper context for a few to apply to many.

The refuge of sub-saharan Africans into Libya isn't necessarily frowned upon at all by the "Holy Triumvirate". It's no different then the US letting in immigrants for the express purpose of utilizing a cheaper workforce. Exploiting people. This would then be something the "Holy Triumvirate" would then support if in proper context. Although it isn't ONLY the Holy Triumvirate that is interested in exploiting people. The absolutist style of the writing sets himself up for failure.

Also, of course Gaddafi is anti-zionist. You kind of have to be, in order to be a populist in that part of the world. Also he probably is pro-islam, like how Obama is a Christian. So what? He's still swallowed and played along with the West's version of Lockerbie - as a willing adversary. Necessary opposition.

I just think the narratives - like Blum's - aren't based on a sense of absolute justice sometimes and opens up "the movement" to grave mistakes...

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:21 am
by Occult Means Hidden
This is what is concerning me, as its implicit and subtle nature is very worrying for all the wrong reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42334803/ns/world_news/

More at link. Fair use quote:

LONDON — A U.S.-born al-Qaida preacher believes revolts sweeping the Arab world will help rather than harm the Islamist cause by giving its supporters greater scope to speak out after they are freed from tyranny.

Western and Arab officials say the example set by young Arabs seeking peaceful political change is a counterweight to al-Qaida's push for violent militancy and weakens its argument that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

But Anwar al-Awlaki, in an article published online Tuesday, said the removal of anti-Islamist autocrats meant Islamic fighters and scholars had greater freedom to discuss and organize.
"Our mujahedeen brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation," he wrote, using a term that refers generally to Islamic guerrilla groups or holy warriors.
"For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahedeen," wrote al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and is now believed to be hiding in southern Yemen.
He said it did not matter what sort of government succeeded Arab autocrats, as these were unlikely to be as repressive.


Gadhafi a 'lunatic'
Imagining that only a Taliban-style regime would benefit al-Qaida was "a too short-term way" of looking at events.

"We do not know yet what the outcome would be (in any given country), and we do not have to. The outcome doesn't have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction," he said.
"In Libya, no matter how bad the situation gets and no matter how pro-Western or oppressive the next government proves to be, we do not see it possible for the world to produce another lunatic of the same caliber of the Colonel (Gadhafi)," he added.

(Are Libyan rebels al-Qaida sympathizers?)

Al-Awlaki, regarded as al-Qaida's most influential English-language preacher, said the revolts had broken "the barriers of fear" among Muslims whose "defeatism" under tyranny had deepened after Algeria's crushing of an Islamist uprising in the 1990s.
Al-Awlaki made his remarks in the fifth edition of "Inspire", an online al-Qaida magazine aimed at Muslims in the West.

The publication is produced by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, known as AQAP, an arm of al-Qaida responsible for the group's most spectacular attempted attacks in recent years.
Another writer, called Yahya Ibrahim, said al-Qaida was not against regime changes through protests, but was against the idea that the change should be only through peaceful means to the exclusion of the use of force.
...

I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. I'll just say the subtlety of this is disturbing. If you need explaining as to why, point-for-point, then you don't get it.

Those with the mental illness of thinking, "I support your tyranny if it ensures my democracy", may find fault and confusion in this. But they are unreconcilable to begin with.

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:35 am
by Hammer of Los
OMH wrote:I just think the narratives - like Blum's - aren't based on a sense of absolute justice sometimes and opens up "the movement" to grave mistakes.


On the other hand, I doubt we should take at face value the charge sheet against Muammar Gaddafi.

I have a rule of thumb; the monster du jour is never quite as bad as they make him out to be. It is self-evident that when the West wants to make war, it's media organs set out to villify the victim in the worst possible way. I am not disputing that Gaddafi is a violent dictator, by the way, nor am I suggesting that I think his rule is good for the Libyan people.

If I can afford compassion* and sympathy for G W Bush, I can also afford it for Gaddafi.

What's the worst thing he's ever done? He has arranged the assassination of some Libyan dissidents, (likely ones working with the West towards the violent overthrow of the Gaddafi regime), and sponsored some terrorist organisations in their actions against Western countries. He has made some reparations and apologies for the latter in later years I believe. He did sponsor and support the IRA and others, quite a few years ago, that's true. My family used to sing Irish rebel songs, you know?

But all these unconfirmed reports of indescriminate large scale attacks upon peaceful Libyan civilians by a deranged and psychopathic Gaddafi, I take with a large pinch of my chef's Malden Sea Salt. The BBC and others are peddling them like crazy, of course, its to be expected. They can get anyone to say anything they like and then just report it. They admit later, there is no confirmation, and they are reporting the account of a single individual, unchecked and unverified in any way.

The double standards are of course, appalling. The crimes of Bush and Blair, and their counterparts who follow those same policies today, might well exceed those of Gaddafi. They have certainly sponsored assasinations and terrorism. They don't dispute it, they just use different words. The regimes of the West use bombs and guns and poisons whenever they can, and whatever else their unending ingenuity can invent towards the end of more efficient violence against the human person. They use violence against their enemies to a greater degree than anyone, they are just good at cloaking it, and making it all somehow sound reasonable. The corporate media helps a great deal in this respect. To some, the fact I make these statements indicates that I am some sort of extremist. They say I am guilty of moral relativism. Well, the opposite is the case. A crime of violence is a crime. The moral status does not depend on whether the acting state is a so-called democracy or not.

I never understood the argument that we are allowed to bomb and murder with impunity because we are a democracy, so that makes us the good guys. Can anyone make head or tail of that one? Of course the UK is not a democracy. It is a monarchy.

Personally, I favour the non-violent overthrow of violent regimes. And all regimes are violent.

The violent overthrow of Gadaffi will not help anyone, except perhaps for those who profit directly from violence. Professional soldiers maybe, and those who make money from military and security corporations, like say 99% of the politicians in the USA. They love their violence and also love to profit from it.

*Strangely enough, when it comes to Tony Blair, my compassion mysteriously runs dry. The fault is altogether mine.

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:14 am
by Hammer of Los
Reagan also bombed Libya and tried to kill Gaddafi. They were testing out their fancy stealth aircraft. Flew right over the country before Libyan air defenses could even respond. The Libyans alleged that Gadaffi's adopted daughter was killed in the attacks, although I believe that has been disputed, so perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it.

All of this in violation of international law, as determined at the time by the United Nations. They tried to assassinate a head of state; a cowardly surprise attack, like Pearl Harbour. A war crime as clear as day.

I just refreshed my memory with a glance at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon

Who is the rogue state again?

I don't believe Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerbie either. I couldn't exactly say who was, though.

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:15 am
by seemslikeadream
Occult Means Hidden wrote:


Comes down to an analogy. Suppose you are walking down a street. One man is beating the shit out of an innocent man with a crow bar. You are armed with a gun and protective equipment. Do you ignore the innocent man being beaten up? Afterall, it's none of your business...

I'm surprised by the lack of proper context.



You forgot to mention in your analogy....

the man beating the shit out of an innocent man was being banked rolled by me for the last forty years....

anyway I've never touched a gun in my life and I don't prop up murderers, so sorry charlie does not commute


I'm surprised by the lack of proper context.





oh and there's the fact if I had a gun I'd be persuaded to give it to (or better yet sell it to) the victim

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:16 am
by seemslikeadream
Hammer of Los wrote:Reagan also bombed Libya and tried to kill Gaddafi. They were testing out their fancy stealth aircraft. Flew right over the country before Libyan air defenses could even respond. The Libyans alleged that Gadaffi's adopted daughter was killed in the attacks, although I believe that has been disputed, so perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it.

All of this in violation of international law, as determined at the time by the United Nations. They tried to assassinate a head of state; a cowardly surprise attack, like Pearl Harbour. A war crime as clear as day.

I just refreshed my memory with a glance at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon

Who is the rogue state again?

I don't believe Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerbie either. I couldn't exactly say who was, though.



AND bush took him off the list......




Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow.

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:55 am
by seemslikeadream
Occult Means Hidden wrote:
I'm surprised by the lack of proper context.


Proper context... Happy Anniversary


A Hundred Years of Rain: Air War Comes Full Circle in Libya

WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD
MONDAY, 21 MARCH 2011 14:54
Ian Patterson notes that the air war unleashed on Libya by the Western powers last week coincides very neatly with the 100th anniversary of the first military air strike -- which was launched by a Western power against ... Libya. From The London Review of Books:

The world’s first aerial bombing mission took place 100 years ago, over Libya. It was an attack on Turkish positions in Tripoli. On 1 November 1911, Lieutenant Cavotti of the Italian Air Fleet dropped four two-kilogramme bombs, by hand, over the side of his aeroplane. In the days that followed, several more attacks took place on nearby Arab bases. Some of them, inaugurating a pattern all too familiar in the century since then, fell on a field hospital, at Ain Zara, provoking heated argument in the international press about the ethics of dropping bombs from the air, and what is now known as ‘collateral damage’. (In those days it was called ‘frightfulness’.) The Italians, however, were much cheered by the ‘wonderful moral effect’ of bombing, its capacity to demoralise and panic those on the receiving end.

A hundred years on, as missiles rain down on Gaddafi’s defences and sleeping Libyan soldiers are blasted and burned, we hear claims of a similar kind: the might of the western onslaught will dissipate all support for Gaddafi’s regime and usher in a new golden age for everyone. Just as Shock and Awe were meant to in Iraq. Or bombing and defoliation were meant to in in Vietnam. Or as the London Blitz was meant to break Britain’s spirit. Yet all the evidence suggests that dropping high explosive on places where people live increases their opposition, their solidarity and their resolve. Happy Anniversary.



AND let us all thank BP for this one also.......proper context and all :|

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:11 am
by seemslikeadream
Libya & ‘The War You Don’t See’ documentary

It bears repeating that the mainstream news we’re being fed on Libya is almost certainly inaccurate and skewed toward U.S. economic interests. In sum, it’s propaganda; the probable intent of the propaganda, whether reporters know it or not, is U.S. military intervention. Just like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on and yada yada stretching back more than a century. (Afghanistan propaganda headlines, for example, are a constant part of the ‘news’; here are two from today: Gates observes US progress in southern Afghanistan (AP), Obama thanks PM for Afghanistan role (The Age (Australia)).)
We know U.S. reporting on international wars is propaganda because of a history stretching back to the dawn of our mass media. John Pilger‘s recently released documentary, ‘The War You Don’t See’, begins with the Wikileaks-released video of a U.S. helicopter gunship murdering civilians in 2007 (btw, that video is why Bradley Manning is a hero and in solitary confinement (seven months so far)), and then tells the sleazy history back to World War II. A Guardian (UK) reviewer describes Pilger’s film as his J’accuse, in which he indicts “UK and US media for allowing itself to be manipulated by governments into misreporting or ignoring every global conflict since the second world war.”
It’s free to view, and well worth 96 minutes of your time: Watch ‘The War You Don’t See’.




John Pilger - The War You Don't See








Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:10 pm
by American Dream
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC30Ak01.html

There's no business like war business
By Pepe Escobar




Lies, hypocrisy and hidden agendas. This is what United States President Barack Obama did not dwell on when explaining his Libya doctrine to America and the world. The mind boggles with so many black holes engulfing this splendid little war that is not a war (a "time-limited, scope-limited military action", as per the White House) - compounded with the inability of progressive thinking to condemn, at the same time, the ruthlessness of the Muammar Gaddafi regime and the Anglo-French-American United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 has worked like a Trojan horse, allowing the Anglo-French-American consortium - and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - to become the UN's air force in its support of an armed uprising. Apart from having nothing to do with protecting civilians, this arrangement is absolutely illegal in terms of international law. The inbuilt endgame, as even malnourished African kids know by now, but has never been acknowledged, is regime change.

Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard of Canada, NATO's commander for Libya, may insist all he wants that the mission is purely designed to protect civilians. Yet those "innocent civilians" operating tanks and firing Kalashnikovs as part of a rag-tag wild bunch are in fact soldiers in a civil war - and the focus should be on whether NATO from now on will remain their air force, following the steps of the Anglo-French-American consortium. Incidentally, the "coalition of the wiling" fighting Libya consists of only 12 NATO members (out of 28) plus Qatar. This has absolutely nothing to do with an "international community".

The full verdict on the UN-mandated no-fly zone will have to wait for the emergence of a "rebel" government and the end of the civil war (if it ends soon). Then it will be possible to analyze how Tomahawking and bombing was ever justified; why civilians in Cyrenaica were "protected" while those in Tripoli were Tomahawked; what sort of "rebel" motley crew was "saved"; whether this whole thing was legal in the first place; how the resolution was a cover for regime change; how the love affair between the Libyan "revolutionaries" and the West may end in bloody divorce (remember Afghanistan); and which Western players stand to immensely profit from the wealth of a new, unified (or balkanized) Libya.

For the moment at least, it's quite easy to identify the profiteers.

The Pentagon
Pentagon supremo Robert Gates said this weekend, with a straight face, there are only three repressive regimes in the whole Middle East: Iran, Syria and Libya. The Pentagon is taking out the weak link - Libya. The others were always key features of the neo-conservative take-out/evil list. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, etc are model democracies.

As for this "now you see it, now you don't" war, the Pentagon is managing to fight it not once, but twice. It started with Africom - established under the George W Bush administration, beefed up under Obama, and rejected by scores of African governments, scholars and human rights organizations. Now the war is transitioning to NATO, which is essentially Pentagon rule over its European minions.

This is Africom's first African war, conducted up to now by General Carter Ham out of his headquarters in un-African Stuttgart. Africom, as Horace Campbell, professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University puts it, is a scam; "fundamentally a front for US military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. US military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give Africom credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention."

Africom's Tomahawks also hit - metaphorically - the African Union (AU), which, unlike the Arab League, cannot be easily bought by the West. The Arab Gulf petro-monarchies all cheered the bombing - but not Egypt and Tunisia. Only five African countries are not subordinated to Africom; Libya is one of them, along with Sudan, Ivory Coast, Eritrea and Zimbabwe.

NATO
NATO's master plan is to rule the Mediterranean as a NATO lake. Under these "optics" (Pentagon speak) the Mediterranean is infinitely more important nowadays as a theater of war than AfPak.

There are only three out of 20 nations on or in the Mediterranean that are not full members of NATO or allied with its "partnership" programs: Libya, Lebanon and Syria. Make no mistake; Syria is next. Lebanon is already under a NATO blockade since 2006. Now a blockade also applies to Libya. The US - via NATO - is just about to square the circle.

Saudi Arabia
What a deal. King Abdullah gets rid of his eternal foe Gaddafi. The House of Saud - in trademark abject fashion - bends over backwards for the West's benefit. The attention of world public opinion is diverted from the Saudis invading Bahrain to smash a legitimate, peaceful, pro-democracy protest movement.

The House of Saud sold the fiction that "the Arab League" as a whole voted for a no-fly zone. That is a lie; out of 22 members, only 11 were present at the vote; six are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. The House of Saud just needed to twist the arms of three more. Syria and Algeria were against it. Translation; only nine out of 22 Arab countries voted for the no-fly zone.

Now Saudi Arabia can even order GCC head Abdulrahman al-Attiyah to say, with a straight face, "the Libyan system has lost its legitimacy." As for the "legitimate" House of Saud and the al-Khalifas in Bahrain, someone should induct them into the Humanitarian Hall of Fame.

Qatar
The hosts of the 2022 soccer World Cup sure know how to clinch a deal. Their Mirages are helping to bomb Libya while Doha gets ready to market eastern Libya oil. Qatar promptly became the first Arab nation to recognize the Libyan "rebels" as the only legitimate government of the country only one day after securing the oil marketing deal.

The 'rebels'
All the worthy democratic aspirations of the Libyan youth movement notwithstanding, the most organized opposition group happens to be the National Front for the Salvation of Libya - financed for years by the House of Saud, the CIA and French intelligence. The rebel "Interim Transitional National Council" is little else than the good ol' National Front, plus a few military defectors. This is the elite of the "innocent civilians" the "coalition" is "protecting".

Right on cue, the "Interim Transitional National Council" has got a new finance minister, US-educated economist Ali Tarhouni. He disclosed that a bunch of Western countries gave them credit backed by Libya's sovereign fund, and the British allowed them to access $1.1 billion of Gaddafi's funds. This means the Anglo-French-American consortium - and now NATO - will only pay for the bombs. As war scams go this one is priceless; the West uses Libya's own cash to finance a bunch of opportunists Libyan rebels to fight the Libyan government. And on top of it the Americans, the Brits and the French feel the love for all that bombing. Neo-cons must be kicking themselves; why couldn't former US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz come up with something like this for Iraq 2003?

The French
Oh la la, this could be material for a Proustian novel. The top spring collection in Paris catwalks is the President Nicolas Sarkozy fashion show - a no-fly zone model with Mirage/Rafale air strike accessories. This fashion show was masterminded by Nouri Mesmari, Gaddafi's chief of protocol, who defected to France in October 2010. The Italian secret service leaked to selected media outlets how he did it. The role of the DGSE, the French secret service, has been more or less explained on paid website Maghreb Confidential.

Essentially, the Benghazi revolt coq au vin had been simmering since November 2010. The cooks were Mesmari, air force colonel Abdullah Gehani, and the French secret service. Mesmari was called "Libyan WikiLeak", because he spilled over virtually every one of Gaddafi's military secrets. Sarkozy loved it - furious because Gaddafi had cancelled juicy contracts to buy Rafales (to replace his Mirages now being bombed) and French-built nuclear power plants.

That explains why Sarkozy has been so gung ho into posing as the new Arab liberator, was the first leader of a European power to recognize the "rebels" (to the disgust of many at the European Union), and was the first to bomb Gaddafi's forces.

This busts open the role of shameless self-promoting philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, who's now frantically milking in the world's media that he phoned Sarkozy from Benghazi and awakened his humanitarian streak. Either Levy is a patsy, or a convenient "intellectual" cherry added to the already-prepared bombing cake.

Terminator Sarkozy is unstoppable. He has just warned every single Arab ruler that they face Libya-style bombing if they crack down on protesters. He even said that the Ivory Coast was "next". Bahrain and Yemen, of course, are exempt. As for the US, it is once again supporting a military coup (it didn't work with Omar "Sheikh al-Torture" Suleiman in Egypt; maybe it will work in Libya).

Al-Qaeda
The oh so convenient bogeyman resurfaces. The Anglo-French-American consortium - and now NATO - are (again) fighting alongside al-Qaeda, represented by al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQM).

Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi - who has fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan - extensively confirmed to Italian media that he had personally recruited "around 25" jihadis from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against the US in Iraq; now "they are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

This after Chad's president Idriss Deby stressed that AQM had raided military arsenals in Cyrenaica and may be now holding quite a few surface-to-air missiles. In early March, AQM publicly supported the "rebels". The ghost of Osama bin Laden must be pulling a Cheshire cat; once again he gets the Pentagon to work for him.

The water privatizers

Few in the West may know that Libya - along with Egypt - sits over the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer; that is, an ocean of extremely valuable fresh water. So yes, this "now you see it, now you don't" war is a crucial water war. Control of the aquifer is priceless - as in "rescuing" valuable natural resources from the "savages".

This Water Pipelineistan - buried underground deep in the desert along 4,000 km - is the Great Man-Made River Project (GMMRP), which Gaddafi built for $25 billion without borrowing a single cent from the IMF or the World Bank (what a bad example for the developing world). The GMMRP supplies Tripoli, Benghazi and the whole Libyan coastline. The amount of water is estimated by scientists to be the equivalent to 200 years of water flowing down the Nile.

Compare this to the so-called three sisters - Veolia (formerly Vivendi), Suez Ondeo (formerly Generale des Eaux) and Saur - the French companies that control over 40% of the global water market. All eyes must imperatively focus on whether these pipelines are bombed. An extremely possible scenario is that if they are, juicy "reconstruction" contracts will benefit France. That will be the final step to privatize all this - for the moment free - water. From shock doctrine to water doctrine.

Well, that's only a short list of profiteers - no one knows who'll get the oil - and the natural gas - in the end. Meanwhile, the (bombing) show must go on. There's no business like war business.



Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:03 pm
by ninakat
William Blum wrote:Is there anyone left who still thinks that Barack Obama is some kind of improvement over George W. Bush?

Probably two types still think so. 1) Those to whom color matters a lot; 2) Those who are very impressed by the ability to put together grammatically correct sentences.


I went to see Wanda Sykes perform last week and she started right out defending Obama's Libya decision. She said Kucinich needs to "shut the fuck up" (about impeachment, presumably) and then went on to denigrate Kucinich because of his short size -- "he's got short people's disease" (paraphrasing). All in fun, of course. :roll: I really was tempted to yell out "Hey honey, just because Obama's black, that doesn't make him right." Not my style, plus I would probably have been crushed in that pro-Obama crowd.

Actually, the audience only laughed lightly at her little jab at Kucinich, presumably because they probably hadn't even been paying attention to the news.

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:18 pm
by 8bitagent
Occult Means Hidden wrote:This is what is concerning me, as its implicit and subtle nature is very worrying for all the wrong reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42334803/ns/world_news/

More at link. Fair use quote:

LONDON — A U.S.-born al-Qaida preacher believes revolts sweeping the Arab world will help rather than harm the Islamist cause by giving its supporters greater scope to speak out after they are freed from tyranny.

Western and Arab officials say the example set by young Arabs seeking peaceful political change is a counterweight to al-Qaida's push for violent militancy and weakens its argument that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

But Anwar al-Awlaki, in an article published online Tuesday, said the removal of anti-Islamist autocrats meant Islamic fighters and scholars had greater freedom to discuss and organize.
"Our mujahedeen brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation," he wrote, using a term that refers generally to Islamic guerrilla groups or holy warriors.
"For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahedeen," wrote al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and is now believed to be hiding in southern Yemen.
He said it did not matter what sort of government succeeded Arab autocrats, as these were unlikely to be as repressive.


Gadhafi a 'lunatic'
Imagining that only a Taliban-style regime would benefit al-Qaida was "a too short-term way" of looking at events.

"We do not know yet what the outcome would be (in any given country), and we do not have to. The outcome doesn't have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction," he said.
"In Libya, no matter how bad the situation gets and no matter how pro-Western or oppressive the next government proves to be, we do not see it possible for the world to produce another lunatic of the same caliber of the Colonel (Gadhafi)," he added.

(Are Libyan rebels al-Qaida sympathizers?)

Al-Awlaki, regarded as al-Qaida's most influential English-language preacher, said the revolts had broken "the barriers of fear" among Muslims whose "defeatism" under tyranny had deepened after Algeria's crushing of an Islamist uprising in the 1990s.
Al-Awlaki made his remarks in the fifth edition of "Inspire", an online al-Qaida magazine aimed at Muslims in the West.

The publication is produced by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, known as AQAP, an arm of al-Qaida responsible for the group's most spectacular attempted attacks in recent years.
Another writer, called Yahya Ibrahim, said al-Qaida was not against regime changes through protests, but was against the idea that the change should be only through peaceful means to the exclusion of the use of force.
...

I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. I'll just say the subtlety of this is disturbing. If you need explaining as to why, point-for-point, then you don't get it.

Those with the mental illness of thinking, "I support your tyranny if it ensures my democracy", may find fault and confusion in this. But they are unreconcilable to begin with.


As I half joked a few months ago, I'm sure the PTB already have Anwar Al-Awlaki's boasting confession tape all ready to cue up when the "big one" hits America.
I did a report on this clown back in 2007, regarding his deep role in 9/11 and as a bin Laden operative, yet fully protected by intelligence for some unknown reason. And this was before the
Fort Hood and Christmas Detroit plot. al Qaeda is the global elite's most beloved and favorite modern proxy tool, more beloved I'd say than even the neo fascist stay behind militias controlled
by the Italian government and NATO that killed many people throughout Europe.

The elite WANT Pakistan, Libya, etc to descend into jihadist anarchy, fueling the minds of impressionable young Muslims to "jihad" in yet another bloodbath. From Chechnya, to Bosnia to Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once again the US has been embarrassed and setup to fail. The rebel links to al Qaeda, whether real or not, are now headline news. And the rebels have been badly beaten back all the way to Benghazi as the US and NATO look like fools.

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:23 pm
by 8bitagent
Hammer of Los wrote:Reagan also bombed Libya and tried to kill Gaddafi. They were testing out their fancy stealth aircraft. Flew right over the country before Libyan air defenses could even respond. The Libyans alleged that Gadaffi's adopted daughter was killed in the attacks, although I believe that has been disputed, so perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it.

All of this in violation of international law, as determined at the time by the United Nations. They tried to assassinate a head of state; a cowardly surprise attack, like Pearl Harbour. A war crime as clear as day.

I just refreshed my memory with a glance at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon

Who is the rogue state again?

I don't believe Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerbie either. I couldn't exactly say who was, though.


I argue both ways in famous terror cases. Either way, the West and PTB are complicit.
Now if Libya was behind or involved in Lockerbie, Blair and Brown aggressively petitioned to get the bomber free in exchange for big fat BP oil contracts, going so far as to make up the fake
medical excuse.

In the case of 9/11, no matter what its a PTB/NWO job, given I believe both the US and al Qaeda are controlled by higher globalist forces. In fact the US covering up Saudi Arabia's direct role in facilitating the hijackers at every step is proof in the pudding.

And we see how the CIA uses al Qaeda linked militants out of Baluchistan province to stage bombings in Iran, which is also "totally legit" in the eyes of the government and media

More people NEED to ask the obvious: why isnt the US targeting Yemen, Bahrain, etc for doing the same thing?

Re: Libya, Obama, and Empire The Anti-Empire Report

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:27 pm
by 8bitagent
ninakat wrote:
William Blum wrote:Is there anyone left who still thinks that Barack Obama is some kind of improvement over George W. Bush?

Probably two types still think so. 1) Those to whom color matters a lot; 2) Those who are very impressed by the ability to put together grammatically correct sentences.


I went to see Wanda Sykes perform last week and she started right out defending Obama's Libya decision. She said Kucinich needs to "shut the fuck up" (about impeachment, presumably) and then went on to denigrate Kucinich because of his short size -- "he's got short people's disease" (paraphrasing). All in fun, of course. :roll: I really was tempted to yell out "Hey honey, just because Obama's black, that doesn't make him right." Not my style, plus I would probably have been crushed in that pro-Obama crowd.

Actually, the audience only laughed lightly at her little jab at Kucinich, presumably because they probably hadn't even been paying attention to the news.


I literally forgot Obama was black. I don't really see a black man, I see a corporate wallstreet executive with a slight tan.