Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 25, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Five GOP Senators Now Oppose the Health Care Bill as Written

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Obama Addresses His Third Muslim War

Posted on Mar 29, 2011
White House / Pete Souza

The president made an effort Monday evening to explain, and perhaps to sell, his Libya strategy, saying “when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.”

Transcript from the White House Press Office:

7:31 P.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT:  Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya –- what we’ve done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism.  They have moved with incredible speed and strength.  Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe.  As Commander-in-Chief, I’m grateful to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and to their families. And I know all Americans share in that sentiment.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.  Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges.  But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.  That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny.  For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi.  He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Last month, Qaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom.  In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights.  As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”

Faced with this opposition, Qaddafi began attacking his people.  As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance.  Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi’s aggression.  We froze more than $33 billion of Qaddafi’s regime’s assets.  Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes.  I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people.  Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked.  Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed.  Supplies of food and fuel were choked off.  Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off.  Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble.  Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.  European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing.  The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya.  And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences.  Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice.  Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people.  He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment.  In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day.  Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city.  We knew that if we wanted—if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen.  I refused to let that happen.  And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it.  We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi’s air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone.  We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply.  And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance.

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies -– nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey –- all of whom have fought by our sides for decades.  And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.

To summarize, then:  In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners.  To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.  It took us 31 days.

Moreover, we’ve accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations.  I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners.  Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone.  Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians.  This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday.  Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.

In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role—including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation—to our military and to American taxpayers—will be reduced significantly.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear:  The United States of America has done what we said we would do.

That’s not to say that our work is complete.  In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded.  We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Qaddafi regime so that it’s available to rebuild Libya.  After all, the money doesn’t belong to Qaddafi or to us—it belongs to the Libyan people.  And we’ll make sure they receive it.

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations.  These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Qaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve—because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya.  Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous.  Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions.  The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task.  And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community and –- more importantly –- a task for the Libyan people themselves.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya.  On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land.  They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs.  And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.  But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.  In this particular country -– Libya —at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.  We had a unique ability to stop that violence:  an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.  We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.  Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries.  The United States of America is different.  And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him.  A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.  The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power.  The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security.  So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power.  I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means.  But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support.  It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do.  If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter.  We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air.  The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater.  So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.  Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future.  But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars.  That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do—and will do—is support the aspirations of the Libyan people.  We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power.  It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power.  But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafi’s side.  With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe.  And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform.  I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests.  That’s why we’re going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold.  That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are.  Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security -– responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce.  These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us.  They’re problems worth solving.  And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -– but the burden of action should not be America’s alone.  As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action.  Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves.  Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in Libya.  Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high.  Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya.  Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States –- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country –- this American did not find enemies.  Instead, he was met by people who embraced him.  One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends.  We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies.”

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.

Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time.  Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries.  There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes.  And then there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed.  The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns will have to be addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change.  Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms:  our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way.  Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States.  Ultimately, it is that faith—those ideals—that are the true measure of American leadership.

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas—when the news is filled with conflict and change—it can be tempting to turn away from the world.  And as I’ve said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home.  That must always be our North Star—the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe.  We have done so because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.

Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward.  And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.

Thank you.  God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  Thank you. 

                  END             7:58 P.M. EDT

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Gulam's avatar

By Gulam, April 4, 2011 at 11:17 pm Link to this comment

Maani, You are being really childish. Again and again I say that I am talking
about the perceptions of the masses not about blame. I talk of my concern for
how world events are perceived by the the great herd of gentiles, led by
persons much like yourself, and yes you have proved well how well
programmed you are to to spot anything that might be construed as what you
have been taught to call “anti-Semitism.” What makes you think that I am not
Jewish, since I have made reference in posts here to taking the Ulpan course for
immigrants to Israel? What if I my father was Jewish and my mother was a
Baptist?  What makes bloggers here sure that I am male? My attack on a shallow
feminism that is but throwing women into the work force to drive down the
cost of labour, sell more cars, and weaken the middle class - these views are
not that far from the views of Julia Kristeva and many third wave feminists.

If I were a raving anti-Semite would I post here? To see what I am on about go
look for yourself at what is on the internet that is blatantly anti-Semitic. You
will find very quickly that while there is some of that out there, it is done so
badly that it is hard to imaging that it poses much threat to anyone. Those
people seem very marginalized and impotent, unless given enough media
coverage. I never got very far looking at any of that, for in going to have a quick
look at that, I found something far more disturbing. There is so much more
dangerous and damning information to be had about Jewish people on the
much more common and better written and researched pro-Jewish sites, and
you will inevitably find more of that on your search, unless you intentionally
use vulgar phrases for the search.

I found one astonishing statement about how much the Jews control when I was
simply looking up the spelling for “disproportional” on the internet. There was a
long statement by a rabbi about how the Jews should be proud of their power,
and he went on to quote statistics for Jews on lists of people with major wealth.
Another time when I searched for “who makes porn” I immediately found
several sites, listed at least as Jewish organizations, that proudly tell the story
of Jewish dominance of porn from very early in the industry.

My concern is that average citizens must by now see that Jewish influence is
enormous and still growing, and that in many ways it has been employed to
push the United States into behaviours financial and military that are risky.
History has taught us to be looking for the Jewish community to find some way
to self destruct in this way, since it has happened again and again and again as
regular as clockwork. Here is another reason you might well consider me to be
Jewish, for who else reads history and takes it seriously. And, it is traditional
for Jewish scholars to talk about what really happened as if the real, unflattering
account has the most value, even when your side lost, and deserved its

I see a very complex game that requires two players who think very differently:
gentiles who obey orders and will swallow anything told them and a Jews who
play fast with the money system and make alliances between disparate factions. 
However, what really matters in the long run is what the that great herd of
gentiles believes to be the case once the dollar crashes or the Iranians put the
whole fleet in the bottom of the Persian Gulf, as happened in large war games
played on computers by the US military not long ago. What happens when, not
if, the US economy goes down the drain? It feels eerily like Jewish Americans are
being set up to take another fall when I see Goldman Sachs in the news and the
gentiles constantly being reminded how proud we should all be of the humble
Einstein. Day in and day out it is not the anti-Semites who are advertising
Jewish control over our world, we are getting it from Jewish owned news
sources every day and from Hollywood.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, April 4, 2011 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment

Maani.. come on now, bro.

Have you looked at the C.A.F.R. of your state, city and municipality? 

Have you considered that even Bill Clinton DID bring things into the black ( for a short, brief period ) prior to exiting office, that was the only time the U.S. deficit went positive since WWII!? 

Have you noticed the value of the dollar plummet for over a century?  Look up some graphs, my friend.

And while inflation has pumped due to printing and printing of fiat ( debt instruments ), that wages have stayed steady, near slave-wage status ( only prevailing wages hold any true significance to a ‘living’ wage )?

If anyone knows their history, Napoleon happened to France because the king printed money to his heart’s content to finance things unto himself… and by the time inflation was realized in the home of the common man, and that man couldn’t afford to simply buy bread, let alone pay tribute for his existence ( the rent ), well, that’s when that king found his head on the ground next to him.  My, how folks cannot see the signs of the times!

We must look into these things before commenting and giving a broad-stroking opinion… and not be quick to dismiss thing we haven’t looked at nor even considered.

I was debating someone earlier today that Walmart is NOT resembling a monopoly, yet they don’t see MY personal situation with the business that I run… for instead of being several suppliers of the material which I sell, now there is only ONE! 

That is the definition of a monopoly, but folks don’t want to consider such things for they are either ignorant or it challenges their paradigm… and they’d rather watch their regularly scheduled programming than think.

I love it when folks debate me about economics, money and such things… when they either work for government, or hold some job with their employer… yet do NOT run their own business, or are a simply tradesman yet do not know first thing about our fiat currency and how the banking system works today… not to mention usury and that evil.

This guy said it pretty well and directly:

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from the defects of the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nation, of coin, credit and circulation.”

—b. A.D. 1735 John Adams, 2nd President of the United States of America.

Report this

By Maani, April 4, 2011 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment


“Why else does this government run in deficit?  And has since WWII?”

Apparently, you never met a myth you didn’t like.  Clinton erased both the debt and deficit, and left GWB with a surplus of ~$600 billion.  GWB then reversed this by wasting the surplus and creating both the largest debt and the largest deficit in history.

As well, re the flag, what part of “debunked” don’t you understand?  Are you another one of those who sees black helicopters everywhere?  LOL.

Ultimately, you seem to agree with Reagan (misquoting John Adams) that “Facts are stupid things.”


Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, April 4, 2011 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

Patrick Henry is CORRECT!!!

Our sovereignty has been compromised…. why else does this government run in deficit?  And has since WWII? 

We must look at all the elements and turn of events from that epoch to get a clear picture of our world.

The fringe on the U.S. flag denotes the debt service position of the U.S. government, which each and every citizen being the surety for said debt.  It signifies that Admiralty law / commerce has enveloped the U.S.‘s debt position; debt to the lender… the FED being the agent of the lenders… who, as some of you know, are UNKNOWN and the FED has NEVER been audited.  It is a hidden / secret ownership. 

No conspiracy theory here, only conspiracy FACT.

Countless presidents of the U.S. have battled the creation of a central bank, for a central bank is actually the seat of what is defined as communism.

We must look further into these matters and not simply dismiss due to lack of understanding, knowledge of point of view.

Garry Wills wrote a great book explaining the Dictatorship the U.S. is being led by, and many have authored books describing who and what the FED really is.

For a reference containing much of this, I’ve put together a site to expose this very phenomenon:

Your click on the ads would be much appreciated, for I do not gain anything from that site’s information… unless folks contact me directly for help with their debt / lack of fiscal discipline.

And my personal opinions can be read here:

Cheers, and made God bless those who seek the Truth!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 4, 2011 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment


Meanings vary.  While the gold fringe on the flag is an accent for most, it means a lot more to a ‘fringe’ of others.

Admiralty law predates the US.

Report this

By Maani, April 4, 2011 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment


First, Tony Rogers is a comedian.  Second, the issue of the gold-fringed flag being somehow indicative of martial law or any supra-law idea has been debunked by Snopes and others. Here is one entry:

“Gold fringe can be found on ceremonial flags used indoors and for outdoor ceremonies. The fringe is considered completely within the guidelines of proper flag etiquette. There is nothing in the Flag Code about the fringe being for federal government flags only. The Internet contains many sites that claim that the fringe indicates martial law or that the Constitution does not apply in that area. These are entirely unfounded (usually citing Executive Order 10834 and inventing text that is not part of the order) and should be dismissed as urban legends. Others ascribe meanings of spiritual authority. Gold fringes on flags goes back long before the United States. Flags in ancient India had gold fringe, as did those in France, England, and throughout.”

In fact, you can purchase a yellow-fringed flag on any site that sells U.S. flags, and you can display it or wear it as a lapel pin.  And they are all sold in the “basic” flag category.


Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 4, 2011 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

The background of the picture of Obama is most disturbing, almost imperialistic.


Libya reportably has 147 tonnes of gold, you can hire a few mercs with that, however I don’t think Gadaffi has many takers considering the odds of spending it.

Report this

By Maani, April 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment


Didn’t think my response was “casual.”  I simply said that the action may well have had its roots in good intentions, rather than assuming that it was meant to be a “war” from the beginning.  I continue to believe that.

That said, although the U.S. has withdrawn almost entirely (though the CIA is now attempting a non-military regime change - which I do not support), the situation is definitely more “on the fence” between humanitarian intervention and actual “war.”


Report this

By elisalouisa, April 4, 2011 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

Humor is good for the soul.

More specifically, I was speaking to your casual attitude as to another war. Yes, it is a war. A war by any other name is still a war.

Report this

By Maani, April 4, 2011 at 11:00 am Link to this comment


LOL.  I didn’t say I would harm him in any way, or do anything…un-Christian.  I merely said I’d retrieve him.  LOL.

As an aside, I once told a comedian friend that I had become a man of the cloth.  His response?  “Which one - blue serge?”  LOL.


Report this

By elisalouisa, April 4, 2011 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

Sometimes Maani it is hard to believe that you are a man of the cloth.

Report this

By Maani, April 3, 2011 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment


For $25 mil, I would PERSONALLY go to Libya and retrieve him!  LOL.


Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

Maani, No time to read all the comments on his blog, Nicholas
Kristof makes a good argument.  And he is stunningly right about
the Gulf countries putting a bounty on Qaddafi’s head, that would be
putting their money where their collective mouth is.  But $15,000,000
is a bit light, don’t you think?  It would probably take another
$10,000,000 to get someone to do it. 

And where exactly is Qaddafi getting all the money to pay mercenaries
to kill his own people?  America froze all the assets he has through the
US.  I wonder if the other countriesI in the no-fly zone coalition froze his
money in their countries?

Report this

By Maani, April 3, 2011 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment


Brava to She!  And I’m glad I could bring a much-needed (but nevertheless relevant and enjoyable) sidebar to the thread.

That said, and getting back on topic, I wonder how people might respond to this:


Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 3, 2011 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

Wow, Mark Twain, who would have guessed.

His ‘Innocents Abroad’ novel is desktop reference material used by hasbarats citing the non existence of Palestine during his trip because he wrote that no population was present during his visit there.  The fact that he was a anti-semite seems to hold validation in their eyes to this claim.

On another note,

Fidel Castro, the original survivor on suvivor island.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 3, 2011 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

Since no one has responded, why it has got to be that venerable
citizen from Hannibal!  But did you know he served as a volunteer
in the Confederate Army during the Civil War as a second lieutenant? 
But but but he deserted!  And joined up with his brother Orion who
was an abolitionist.  All the stories about him agree that his ideas
about slavery changed acutely.  Huck Finn is a testimony to that.
Missouri, where he grew up, never joined the Confederacy, but it was
a place in which slavery was taken for granted by most whites and
defended by all public institutions, including churches.  Slavery was
never attacked out loud by anyone; Twain’s own parents owned slaves.
However, the family his wife belonged to were active abolitionists too,
and by the time he married which was at the very beginning of his
career, America had abolished slavery.  Doesn’t everybody know who
said that?

Thanks Maani for helping us remember!  It has been a while.

Report this

By Maani, April 2, 2011 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

Test your knowledge.  Without using the Internet or other research sources, does anyone know who said the following?:

“I said that no party held the privilege of dictating to me how I should vote.  That if party loyalty was a form of patriotism, I was no patriot, and that I didn’t think I was much of a patriot anyway, for oftener than otherwise what the general body of Americans regarded as the patriotic course was not in accordance with my views; that if there was any valuable difference between being an American and a monarchist it lay in the theory that the American could decide for himself what is patriotic and what isn’t; whereas the king could dictate the monarchist’s patriotism for him – a decision which was final and must be accepted by the victim; that in my belief I was the only person in the sixty millions – with Congress and the Administration back of the sixty million – who was privileged to construct my patriotism for me.  They said, ‘Suppose the country is entering a war – where do you stand then?  Do you arrogate to yourself the privilege of going your own way in the matter, in the face of the nation?’  ‘Yes,’ I said, ‘that is my position.  If I thought it an unrighteous war I would say so.  If I were invited to shoulder a musket in that cause and march under that flag, I would decline.  I would not voluntarily march under this country’s flag, nor any other, when it was my private judgment that the country was in the wrong.  If the country obliged me to shoulder the musket I could not help myself, but I would never volunteer.  To volunteer would be the act of a traitor to myself, and consequently traitor to my country.  If I refused to volunteer, I should [i.e., would] be called a traitor, I am well aware of that – but that would not make me a traitor.  I should [i.e., would] still be a patriot, and, in my opinion, the only one in the whole country.”



Report this

By Maani, April 2, 2011 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment


Correction.  Einstein and Oppenheimer were responsible for discovering the fission reaction that made the atom bomb possible - which was based at least partly on (but is not the same as) the fission reaction discovered by the others.


Report this

By Maani, April 2, 2011 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment


Your anti-Semitism is no longer veiled; it is as virulent - and poorly supported - as any I have seen.

First, even were Einstein and Oppenheimer (you forgot Edward Teller) responsible for nuclear power, to blame THEM for the situation in Japan is like blaming the inventor of sewing needles for pricking your finger and bleeding.  What a crock.

In actuality, atomic power - as applied in nuclear power plants - was developed LONG before the discovery of nuclear FISSION (and thus the “bomb”) by Einstein et al.  In fact, not ONE of the people associated with the discovery and initial application of nuclear power - James Chadwick, Fredric Curie, Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassman - was a Jew.  (Although it is true that Hahn and Strassman were anti-Nazi, and Strassman was almost executed for hiding a Jewish family.)  It was Hahn and Strassman who first demonstrated nuclear fission - in 1938.  So maybe you ought to do a little more research before you make claims that are hopelessly incorrect.

Re the financial meltdown, to blame this on Bernanke and Summers is, again, absurd; one could easily go further back and blame it on Reagan (who was not a Jew) since he was arguably the father of deregulation, which was a huge contributor to ALL of the “bubbles” and other financial crises we have had since then.  (And if you want, we can go back further, to Jimmy Carter, who was not a Jew either.)  Ultimately, the global financial meltdown was not caused by any one, two, three ot four persons; it was the confluence of a number of very bad policies and deregulations.  In fact, one could argue that Bernanke and Summers helped to keep the financial meltdown from becoming even worse.

Finally, blaming AIPAC for America’s “attacking one Muslim country after another” is equally absurd.  Yes, AIPAC is a powerful lobby, and has the “ear” of virtually everyone in DC.  But to suggest that simply because they do, they are singularly - even largely - responsible for policies that the President sets and carries out is naive at best, paranoid at worst.  In fact, at the risk of sounding even more cynical than some here (LOL), presidents and Congress don’t NEED AIPAC to “attack” Muslim countries, whether for oil (Iraq) or pipelines (Afghanistan) or anything else; our government is all too willing to assert itself re U.S. “interests” with or without AIPAC.

Ultimately, your blatant anti-Semitism - i.e., blaming Jews for what you consider the “three big problems facing the world right now” - is repulsive and unconscionable.  It is also, as noted above, completely and totally unsupported by the facts relating to those three “big problems.”


Report this
Gulam's avatar

By Gulam, April 2, 2011 at 12:22 am Link to this comment

Maani, what has happened before can give us some idea of what might happen
in the future.  That is the basic premise of science. We are talking about a social
phenomenon that has gone down scores of times. If you really care for the
Jewish people you love them for all that they are, not just the good parts, and
you warn them when they are pushing the gentiles too hard. Were the gentiles
not such herd creatures and so dangerously anti-intellectual and violent the
danger would be less. I adore the Pashtuns as I do the Jews, because they are
so “bad” in the sense of defying all the expectations of Western women, and
they have refused to be bullied even by the British, Russians, and Americans at
the height of their power. It is not fashionable to like the Pashtuns, and it is
practically forbidden to criticize the Jews, right now.  However, what are the
three known, big problems facing the world at this moment?

1. Meltdown at a nuclear facility.
2. Meltdown of the Western financial order.
3. The Americans attacking one Muslim country after another.

We are not talking here about some wild-eyed red-neck prejudice here. It is
soon going to be impossible to keep pretending. The reality of what drives
these events is not as important as the perception of their causes by the mass
of the public, and despite all the media control, soon it is going to be hard for
most people not to see that Einstein and Oppenheimer gave us the bomb,
Bernanke and Sommers and company gave us the financial bubbles, and IPAC
has driven us to make war on all Islam. All three of these problems would
probably not be on our plate at all were it not for wildly disproportional Jewish
influence in academia, media, and government leading American society into all
all three catastrophes. Seeing the obvious and expressing concern about it on a
site like this is not “borderline anti-Semitism;” it is straight up questioning of
the Jewish role in American life in an appropriate place. Anti-Semitism has by
now become an overworked, incorrect,  and trite term for questioning Jewish

The problem is to see the rising threat to and from the Jews as very real and
largely of their own making, and then to act with compassion and tact, and to
make sure that the causes are remembered for the future. Nobody can ever
justify many of the actions of the Germans in the 20th century, but you are
contributing to the next such disaster when you deny that Jewish actions
payed any part in the German tragedy or that it cannot happen again if all the
same prerequisites are set in place once more.  I am saying things on this
Jewish-controlled web site that I would never want to bandy about in public,
because this is the best place that I have found where it might be done quietly
and seriously to some constructive purpose.

I raise the issue of the appointment of the third Jew to the court, replacing the
last Protestant, because this is the event that convinced me that trouble is
coming soon. When that massive gentile herd no longer cares about something
like this, when they are not paying attention, and there is no longer anybody in
the press willing to talk about it, this tells me that we are nearing the end of a
cycle. The great herd of gentiles who make up the vast majority of Americans
have been amazingly docile for decades as secular Jews secularized their
society, ran Hollywood, and took over the Universities. One day that herd is
going be spooked by some event, and it will turn en masse and mow down
everything in its path. It takes two to play this game: the cleaver Jews and the
docile gentile herd that does not defend itself or say anything at all until it has
become deadly angry.

This is the kind of arrogance that the herd has been resolutely ignoring. Bear in
mind that 1.8% of Americans are Jewish, according to CIA statistics on Google:

Report this

By Maani, April 1, 2011 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment


Re your comments on the Libyan situation, they are quite solid.  You might also be interested in David Brooks’ column in today’s NYT:

It is also worth noting that although there are no military “boots” on the ground, the CIA has sent in “boots” of their own.  This would be consistent with an attempt to bring down Qaddafi through covert action rather than military force.  Not sure how I feel about it, I’m just stating it as observation.

Re your other comment, it is not really surprising, given that the article is about Obama and the U.S.’ actions.  I’m pretty sure most TDers have the Libyan people’s wishes and hopes in mind as well, just as they have for the Tunisians, Egyptians, and others struggling for freedom from tyranny in the region.


Report this

By Maani, April 1, 2011 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment


While I appreciate the support in your first two paragraphs, you lost me on your third, which reveals your own borderline anti-Semitism.

Your comment about Jews and money is about as stereotypical as anything can be; indeed, you come dangerously close to offering an apologia for the most severe depredations of Hitler and National Socialism.

As for SCOTUS, your comment is not simply out of line, but historically ignorant.  For the first 150 years of its existence, EVERY SCOTUS justice was a white Protestant male.  It was not until 1916 that the Court got its first Jewish justice (Brandeis). (And it was not until 1981 that the Court got its first female justice, O’Connor.)  Yet you would begrudge the Court eight Jewish members out of 112, and the fact that three of the current Justices are Jewish?  Are you suggesting that the Court SHOULD be comprised entirely of white male Protestants?  Or white male non-Jews?  Or white male or female non-Jews?  Or white or black male or female non-Jews?

I would strongly suggest you explain your comment in greater detail or I will be hardpressed not to see it as anti-Semitic.


Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, April 1, 2011 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Manni, - “I believe that it is entirely possible that there were good intentions here with respect to the initial action.  Even if regime change was somewhere in the back of their minds, I also believe that, as Obama said, that would not have been palatable to ANYONE: the U.S. populace, Congress, the U.N., the global community.”


We agree on part of this being humanitarian.  But it appears clear that much of Europe, which receives a great deal of oil from Libya, along with the Arab League, which means every Arab Muslim nation on earth, understood precisely what was being requested when they asked the United Nations to mandate a “No Fly Zone” over Libya.

Everyone involved understood that a No Fly Zone over Libya would, necessarily, be lead by the United States. - When the United Nations voted for this current action the Security Council went much further than a No Fly Zone.  Much further than an humanitarian mission. - Add to that the fact that France and several Arab nations are, today, requesting to have the opposition inside Libya militarily armed.  That’s not an humanitarian move.

Clearly several European and Arab Muslim nations believe it’s in each of their best national interests to have Qaddafi removed from his seat. - On this point it’s instructive to keep in mind that Russia and China, by their abstentions, have given tacit approval.  It was within each their rights to veto.

It also seems clear that the American people, along with the American President, have been more than a little reluctant to get involved militarily.  Contrary to what many here suggest, this is not about the U.S. desirous of an “American Puppet” in Libya.


Are you too struck by the fact that nearly no one on TruthDig is speaking to the wishes and desires of the Libyan people?  The wishes and desires of Europe and the Arab League?  Nearly every entry on this thread deals with the subject of how each individual here feels about…..wait for it…..the United States.

I have been reading from this Web space nearly since TruthDig went on-line.  It matters none the global event.  The discourse is always the same.

Report this
Gulam's avatar

By Gulam, March 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm Link to this comment

Maani do not take these critics too seriously. But, you are youngish still if candy
bars were 20 cents when you were young. I have not yet turned 65, and I clearly
remember buying candy bars for a nickel.

You were attacked for seeming to take a religious position amid people for
whom secularism has become a religion. Your point about the end of times
being no Christian or Muslim’s business to try and predict was very apt, since
regardless of the official secularism of the state, such beliefs can have a
profound effect upon real political actions. The important point is not that some
of those here have religious beliefs and some do not. Most of those who THINK
that they have no religious beliefs make an even greater leap of faith when they
actually believe the “Enlightenment” jargon that they use to take its place.

These same people who claim to have no faith but science will stand up put
their hands over their hearts and pledge their undying allegiance to a monster
state apparatus that has unleashed nuclear disaster on the world, lead the world
in all forms of pollution, environmental and cultural, and under whose leadership
the poor grow weaker every day and the rich exponentially richer. They will tell
you they believe nonsense lines like “all men are created equal” with all the
fervour of any other believer in the unseen. And, as a group they have defied the
first principle of anyone with any belief in science: human beings learn better
through trial and error in the real world than from philosophically determining
their beliefs.

If there is one lesson that history has taught nations again and again it is that it
is economic suicide to let the Jews, who are not allowed to charge interest
among themselves but who have many centuries of experience at playing this
game with other people’e money, to come in and take over the financial system,
again. Doing that has proved to be a disaster for all concerned, many times.
After the last disaster of this sort in Germany many fled to the US, where soon
they had the power to label and forbid, theoretically forever, any questioning of
their role in American life as anti-Semitic (the vast majority of the world’s
Semites are Christian and Muslim Arabs). If the Mormons had a small fraction of
their power there would be hearings in Congress and raving among the talking
caste. Secularism means not being able to raise questions about
disproportionate influence when a third Jew replaces the last Protestant on the
Supreme Court.  Religious issues are indeed relevant in today’s world, and it is
your critics Maani who are letting their engrained prejudices from their
Enlightenment Religion cloud their judgment of the present situation.

Report this

By Myshkin, March 31, 2011 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

5th Muslim war (that we know of) but why count anymore? This has all been planned for for a long time. In the end, you know, it’s about Central Asia, don’t you?
Drones strikes on Pakistan
CIA in Yemen

Report this

By Maani, March 31, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment


As skeptical (though not cynical) as I am about my own government, I do not think EVERYTHING they do is automatically wrong or driven by hidden agendas or ulterior motives.  Yes, some, maybe lots of it is.  But not all.

In this regard, I believe that it is entirely possible that there were good intentions here with respect to the initial action.  Even if regime change was somewhere in the back of their minds, I also believe that, as Obama said, that would not have been palatable to ANYONE: the U.S. populace, Congress, the U.N., the global community.  [N.B. Consider what the response would have been if we did NOT act, and Qaddafi had slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people in a single strike.  There would be an outcry AGAINST the U.S. for not having acted when it could - should - have.]

Again, I see no reason to believe the action was not “humanitarian in its roots” - even if it strayed from that.  Because I am old enough to know that despite all of its “bad” actions - with their hidden agendas and ulterior motives (or blatant disregard for law, support, etc.), this country has been, and is still, capable of “good” actions.


Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, March 31, 2011 at 6:38 am Link to this comment


Then I am shocked.  Most people of our age are more, well, focused and consistent in patterns.

And after your many years following politics and global events you believe what’s happening in Libya today is humanitarian at its root?

Yes, shocked.

Report this

By Maani, March 31, 2011 at 12:13 am Link to this comment


As an addendum, I will add the following:

-I saw MLK speak, in person
-I saw RFK speak, in person
-I marched against the Vietnam War - three times
-I smoked a spliff with Bob Marley
-When I was a kid, candy bars were 20 cents


Report this

By Maani, March 31, 2011 at 12:09 am Link to this comment


I am not offended, but not even close!  In fact, based on your comment, I am almost certainly old enough to be your father!  [Hint: I have already had four separate careers, EACH lasting more than a decade - AFTER college.]

Nice try, though.


Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 30, 2011 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

To me it is surely mostly a waste of time, for I see people arguing over dribble and not educating themselves… I do try and read what folks are saying, but find most of the stuff argumentative, or an attempt to tow the line of dubious rhetoric… or just purely ignorant at best.

Some folks on here DO KNOW what they are talking about, most others are simply in the dark by choice or by circumstance, yet the latter don’t care to open their eyes or minds… this, like on TV, is entertainment.

The Nazi propaganda to mold the minds of the masses has surely worked.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, March 30, 2011 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment


Alright but, don’t be offended.

I sincerely believe you have yet to vote in a General Election.  If you’ve already cast your ballet for this U.S. President this would be your first.  You’re particularly proud of your vote and not yet comfortable having it challenged.

You are new to politics and world events. Most of what you have seen is derived from the internet and cable television.  You haven’t lived yet.

The belief that what’s happening in Libya today is humanitarian in nature, and not at its core a multinational attempt to remove Qaddafi from power, is a young man’s understanding of global events. - You write as if this is all very new to you.

You are interesting at times, however.

Report this

By Maani, March 30, 2011 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

Nap, Gerard:

Yes, being “here” at TD is certainly more about talk than action.  What matters, of course, is how the things we talk about - and learn from each other - here in cyberspace are applied “out there” in the bricks and mortar world.

As long as it is not JUST talk, there is no harm in sharpening our focus and honing our ideas.


Report this

By gerard, March 30, 2011 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment


Relative to your question:  “Are you ALL paid to argue senselessly amongst one another?”

The wonder is, we do it for nothing!  And not once, but day after day.  Proving that talk is cheap. Some days cheaper than others.

Makes you wonder if we are approaching the No Cry Zone.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 30, 2011 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

It is interesting how distraction works on rag site like this one.. in the postings.

Yesterday between 10:40am and 10:45, Lush Bimbo ( Rush ) was OWNED on his own show by a caller who showed the dubiousness of the military intervention seen the world over.

As soon as the Lush was found in a corner of his own logic and faulty lying…. he QUICKLY began to run circles around the caller, not allowing to speak anymore, spouting off SO FAST all kinds of “that’s a misnomer, illogical, etc.” and bringing up all other kinds of malarkey and obfuscations… the typical dull and obedient listener to his dribble most likely forgot what the caller initially said.

Just goes to show, that even on these boards, the much typing and spouting out ALSO distracts from the TRUTH!

Folks, WAKE UP for useless banter and recognize your Economic Slavery, your U.S. of AmeriKa military dictatorship, and the New World Order ( CNN now has no qualms of broadcasting that moniker anymore ).

Arguing with these shills on here is instigating at least and blinding at best.

And no one has anything to say about those links I’ve included…

Are you ALL paid to argue senselessly amongst one another?

Report this

By Maani, March 30, 2011 at 11:11 am Link to this comment


??  What exactly are you paying attention TO?  And if you’re so sure, why not skip the cryptic comment and tell me how old I am?  I’m betting you won’t even be within 10 years of my actual age.


Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, March 30, 2011 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

March 29, 2011

What Does the World Think Now?
Obama Raises American Hypocrisy to Higher Level


“What does the world think?  Obama has been using air strikes and drones against civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and probably Somalia.  In his March 28 speech, Obama justified his air strikes against Libya on the grounds that the embattled ruler, Gadhafi, was using air strikes to put down a rebellion.

Gadhafi has been a black hat for as long as I can remember.  If we believe the adage that “where there is smoke there is fire,” Gadhafi is probably not a nice fellow. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya.

Moreover, Gadhafi is putting down a rebellion against state authority as presently constituted, but Obama and Bush/Cheney initiated wars of aggression based entirely on lies and deception.

Yet Gadhafi is being demonized, and Bush/Cheney/Obama are sitting on their high horse draped in cloaks of morality. Obama described himself as saving Libyans from violence while Obama himself murders Afghans, Pakistanis, and whomever else.

Indeed, the Obama regime has been torturing a US soldier, Bradley Manning, for having a moral conscience. America has degenerated to the point where having a moral conscience is evidence of anti-Americanism and “terrorist activity.”

The Bush/Cheney/Obama wars of naked aggression have bankrupted America.  Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that the money wasted on the Iraq war could have been used to fix America’s Social Security problem for half a century.  Instead, the money was used to boost the obscene profits of the armament industry.

The obscene wars of aggression, the obscene profits of the offshoring corporations, and the obscene bailouts of the rich financial gangsters have left the American public with annual budget deficits of approximately $1.5 trillion. These deficits are being covered by printing money.  Sooner or later, the printing presses will cause the US dollar to collapse and domestic inflation to explode. Social Security benefits will be wiped out by inflation rising more rapidly than the cost-of-living adjustments.  If America survives, no one will be left but the mega-rich.  Unless there is a violent revolution.

Alternatively, if the Federal Reserve puts the brake on monetary expansion, interest rates will rise, sending the economy into a deeper depression.”

Click on link for the rest:

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, March 30, 2011 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Maani, - “How on God’s great earth would you know how old or young I am?”


I pay attention.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 30, 2011 at 2:12 am Link to this comment

Here President Kennedy publicly denounce the power behind the front… and listen to the corporate behemoths and how he mentions their evil tactics…. it sounds like these very words can be said today…

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 30, 2011 at 1:58 am Link to this comment

Once again, Mr. Obama is simply the face of the U.S. military dictatorship initiated since WWII, Truman being the first one.

That’s why, in the documentary entitled “Evidence of Revision” Kennedy denounces publicly the ‘honorary chairman of some fraternal order’ and says ‘that’s not what the constitution says.’

How else has Congress NOT declared war since then… and yet, it has been the President’s executive office which is the one who leads into war ( just happened this week with Libya ).

Come on folks, take a look at the link and that lecture by Garry Wills… what?  Afraid of truth people?

Pull your head out of the sand already, you bunch of Ostriches!!!!

Get a spine and LOOK!

Report this

By Maani, March 30, 2011 at 12:02 am Link to this comment


“You’re a young man with little experience to draw from.”

Excuse me?!  How on God’s great earth would you know how old or young I am?  How do you know I am not older (and perhaps, yes, wiser) than you?

What an incredibly presumptuous statement!

Peace. (?)

Report this

By cruxpuppy, March 29, 2011 at 11:35 pm Link to this comment

This strutting poseur, who thinks he’s commander-in-chief, President of the United States of America, the Most Powerful Man in the World, whoopie doo, makes me ill. He’s a blithering idiot at the service of the greatest idiocy the world has yet seen. Another hypocritical holy war is utter madness. Those in power need to back off, get down on their knees and beg the universe for forgiveness. Obama doesn’t have enough sense to stop digging when he’s in a hole, and the American people just sit back and go Duhhhh…..

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 29, 2011 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment

Call Me Roy sounds like he works for Truth Dig… for the good ole boys party, you know, the one with the Nazi Bush boys!?

He sounds like a lackey on FOXtrap news or CNNothing.

Roy, we all know you are on the dole, so keep your tires rhetoric and shilly slander to your pedigreed caucus, ok?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, March 29, 2011 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment


You’re a young man with little experience to draw from.  You’ll come to realize this is about Qaddafi being removed from power.

Report this

By Maani, March 29, 2011 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment


There is a phrase in Arabic that translates essentially as “to two thousand, but not to three thousand.”  That is, the “end of days” will occur between 2,000 and 3,000 AD.  Quite a spread there, but I suppose it’s never too early.

Re Christianity, it is only Christians who do not know their Scripture (or take it out of context) who would declare that we are in or near the “end times.”  Yes, Scripture tells us to watch for certain “signs,” and even specifies some of those signs, some of which COULD be applied to present-day situations.  But much more important is Jesus’ statement that “No man knows the day or hour” of His return.  God words on His own timetable, not ours.  Nothing humans can do can accelerate or slow down that timetable (contrary to what some fundamentalist Christians apparently believe…)  We are also told that the signs will be like “birth pangs,” getting more frequent and more intense as the “end times” actually get closer.  But, again, since God works on His own timetable, there is no way for humans to know how long there may between “signs.”  Thus, any attempt to “shoehorn” it into a man-made schedule is futile and, ultimately, un-Christian.


Report this

By Maani, March 29, 2011 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment


“It seems to me President Obama used the precise rationale for a use of military force in Libya as did President Bush regarding Iraq.”

Huh?  Since when is unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change “precisely the same” as humanitarian intervention and withdrawal?  Bush went in with no U.N. mandate, having strongarmed Blair into helping, with a coalition of the coerced, with the INTENTION of removing Saddam and installing a “top-down” democracy - all in a “cakewalk” in which we would be met with “flowers.”  We see how well THAT went.

Obama had a U.N. mandate, the support of the Arab league, the French and British LEADING the charge, and a clear intention NOT to effect regime change.

And these are “precisely the same?”


“At least Bush didn’t ramble on and on.”

Nope.  You’re right about that.  He simply decided what he wanted to do - right or wrong, with or without legitimate support of the U.N. or others - and did it.  Yup.  The decider-in-chief.  Deciding unilaterally how the U.S. - and the world - should be run.

“Reagan never said anything, not a goddamn thing in eight long, miserable years.”

Nope.  Except…(a mixed bag, to be sure…):

“Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”

“I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

“I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.”

“My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.”

“What we have found in this country, and maybe we’re more aware of it now, is one problem that we’ve had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless, you might say, by choice.”

“To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world’s strongest economy.”

“Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.”

“We can not play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.”

“We’re in greater danger today than we were the day after Pearl Harbor. Our military is absolutely incapable of defending this country.”

“The greatest security for Israel is to create new Egypts.”

Report this

By taikan, March 29, 2011 at 9:10 pm Link to this comment

@call me roy
Many Christians also are claiming that we are approaching the end of days, citing similar “evidence” in support of that claim.  However, they are predicting the return of Christ, not the return of the 12th Imam (or some other Islamic messiah).  In some circumstances, the similarity of claims might lend some credence to the general concept that each is claiming, but in this instance I think it merely shows that both Islamic and Christian religious nuts think alike.

Report this

By call me roy, March 29, 2011 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment

An Iranian produced video depicting the end of days is currently circulating around the Muslim world. The video claims that the current upheavals spreading across the Middle East are proof that the end is near and that the coming of an Islamic messiah is imminent. It has reportedly been approved by the highest level of the Iranian regime, and says that in the final showdown between Muslims and “infidels,” Jerusalem will be captured by Iran and the U.S. will fall to the hands of Muslims.
This video, which clearly illustrates Iran’s intentions toward the West and the apocalyptic vision of Iran’s leaders, should be enough to convince us that the time has come for the West to face up to the Iranian threat. While NATO forces are bombing Libya, Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons and suppress the uprising in their country. Meanwhile, the Iranian opposition has yet to receive any backing from the West.
The time has come to take a definitive stance against the destabilizing forces that threaten Israel and the entire free world. Islamic terrorism, supported by Iran, poses a grave danger to Western civilization, and a coalition of like-minded countries must act against this threat before it is too late.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, March 29, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

I’‘m sure that Obama is the CIA’s favorite president, after George Bush senior.  El
Presidente, Obama needs to act to shore up our interests and values in the world, how
convenient that is. Those same values here at home seem either to be for sale to the
highest bidder, or a moving target when not buried, by the corporate owned media.
Witness the hapless gulf oil spill victims.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 29, 2011 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment

People… take a look at what Garry Wills says… for they guy has researched the topic of government his entire life.. and he’s not partial, just stating facts… like the shills on this rag of a news site are supposed to be doing.

Also, of course the Amerikan Empire is waging war… isn’t that what the Roman Empire did to keep from collapsing ( grow baby grow, like drill baby drill )?

Can we not see the class warfare going on since the beginning of time ( at least since the penning of the New Testament )?

Please, watch and learn, for FOXtrap News, CNNothing and all their talking heads are either completely ignorant of their history or are towing the line…. for they love the dole and themselves much more than the truth.

Report this

By AmishEcstasy, March 29, 2011 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rand Paul has it right. “We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card. A credit card that is fast approaching its limit”.

Report this

By Rosemary Molloy, March 29, 2011 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Is there no possible alternative to violence in this country’s reactions to anything on the world stage?  Do we HAVE to go in with guns blazing no matter what the circumstances?  I’m filled with disgust and can say only, “Read again CJ’s comment.”  He said it all and said it right.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 29, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Obama, we see that you are simply the spokesperson for the military dictatorship instilled after WWII.. and if some do not see this, please see this and be brought up to speed on the true history of these United States of Amerika.

You can keep you head in the sand folks, or you can up for air and breathe in the truth… you’ll be glad you did!

Report this

By morristhewise, March 29, 2011 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

Partitioning of Libya will bring Democracy to a nation once ruled by despots and
dictators. The Eastern coastline with its oil reserves will go to the freedom
fighters, and the vast deserts will be given to those that love their land.

Report this
CJ's avatar

By CJ, March 29, 2011 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

My favorite moment or part was when he claimed that our “national interest” (read “national security”) is being served by keeping Tunisia and Egypt free of a Libyan refugee problem.

That claim was truly out-loud laughable. Did he write that? Who wrote that? Fire him, or her. (Maybe Power, that concerned interventionist, wrote it while thinking again of Rwanda in connection with Congo. Rwanda was different, as was Cambodia. Libya is neither, not even close. Bad as things can get in the Middle East, there’s no Khmer Rouge-like operation going on or about to happen. I can only imagine Palestinians being subjected to anything like that, though can’t imagine even Israel going that far. And if Israel were to go that far our pols would still appear at AIPAC meetings to talk up our “bond” with an increasingly useless, when not downright detrimental, satellite in the Middle East.)

Listening to our officials talk about democracy is like listening to AT&T talk about the virtues of competition. Neither is a believer but it all sounds true and good (and for Plato we might add, beautiful). Nonetheless and at the same time they also prove they do have consciences and that they know very well they’re forever in violation of their own. They know but don’t believe.

Hypocrisy seems the actual “endgame,” as long as media insists on beating that chess term to death and for so long as we’re talking of values.

He tut-tutted both those on his left (everyone?) and those on his right (how far right?) by now more schoolmaster than anything else, giving lectures and handing out homework.

He talked—again—of “our values.” What values? I have no idea what the hell he’s referring to. Unless greed is a value? Is that what he means? Exploitation? (By U.S. biz of labor around the world and while enjoying the corporate entitlement that is the backing of the taxpayer-paid-for U.S. military.)

Talk, talk, talk of values that papers over a complete lack of values. He might just as well come on and say, “Mom and apple pie,” or “God and country,” and then go away. A few words would do, but instead he takes half an hour to say it, or rather not say much of anything.

At least Bush didn’t ramble on and on.

When Obama got started last night I thought of Reagan, and then remembered the President read something on or by Reagan during his recent Hawaiian get-away.

The talking is getting cheaper as the suits get pricier. Reagan never said anything, not a goddamn thing in eight long, miserable years. (Which made him perfect fodder for SNL.)

Just what we and the world need: more empty rhetoric to do with “our values.”

Did America (as collective, I guess?) have “values,” it or we would not have backed countless dictators since about the imposition of the Monroe Doctrine, which doctrine was followed up with yet more doctrines attributed to every president since Monroe and all saying the same thing: “Let’s kick some ass da American way!”)

Dictators have been good for American business, as good as European colonialism was for European business at a previous point in (man-made) history.

All of it is colonialism, or imperialism for those who prefer the lighter term, in the…endgame, which really is invariably hypocritically justified.

Back at it, as the headline reads. Even I had no idea how profitable it all must be. While “values,” let alone a Libyan refufee problem, got nothin’ to do with it, Mssr. Bourbon.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, March 29, 2011 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

It seems to me President Obama used the precise rationale for a use of military force in Libya as did President Bush regarding Iraq.  Although, according to President Clinton before them, Saddam Hussein was far more dangerous, had killed far more human beings, and was of greater threat to the region and the world.

Just as interesting as what President Obama said last evening is what he didn’t say.  Historians will attempt to understand why, less than ten years after removing Hussein from Iraq, six years after Iraqi’s began voting for their own national leaders - for the first time in thirty years - and two years Bush left office, a wide-spread “Jasmin Revolution” broke out across Africa and the Middle East.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, March 29, 2011 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

This is not a war for the U.S. and I do not believe it will become
one.  I’ve heard screeching arguments against Obama by several
Republicans, wheezy Pat Buchanan, shifty Newt Gingrich who
about-faces as the wind blows, and arguments for by the overly
reactive Ed Schultz, and Colorado Democrat Senator Mark Udall
and conservative California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, and we
see Ron Paul scramble back from his call for impeachment, so with
shrewd tempered equilibrium his response was the only right
response Obama should have given. He is obviously a pragmatic
politician like him or not.  The choice was, whether like it or not, to
abstain while Qaddafi murders his own people with mercenaries by
the tens of thousands or support the people. That was the choice. 
Why not then intervene in the other uprisings in the Middle East or
genocide such as recently Darfur or Rwanda?  This deserves and needs
discussion but the US was not asked by the people to act nor was there
UN or NATO support.  The international body’s unwillingness to get
involved is at least in part comes from concern that a fragile peace deal
between north and south would have been jeopardized.  These wars are
extremely complex and anyone must enter into them with huge
deliberation unlike what George Bush did in Iraq.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook