Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
October 21, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Truthdig Bazaar
If I Were Another: Poems

If I Were Another: Poems

By Mahmoud Darwish

The Divine Comedy

By Dante Alighieri

more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

U.S. Happy to Hand Off Libya, but to Whom?

Posted on Mar 21, 2011
White House / Pete Souza

President Barack Obama walks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, left, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon, Portugal.

The U.S. appears to be losing a game of hot potato with respect to military action in Libya. President Obama says he will hand over control of the mission to NATO “within days,” but the BBC reports, “Turkey and Germany have been reluctant for NATO to assume control, and France is not keen.”

Every one of the 28 NATO countries must agree to take on the responsibility or ... the potato lands on the floor?

Meanwhile no one seems to know whether Col. Moammar Gadhafi is a legitimate target, even though his compound has already been attacked by coalition forces.  —PZS


Earlier on Monday the coalition had sought to clarify whether Col Gaddafi was considered a military target.

It came after his sprawling Bab al-Aziziya complex in Tripoli was hit in an overnight air attack.

On Sunday UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox had said targeting Col Gaddafi could “potentially be a possibility”.

But the head of the US Africa Command Gen Carter F Ham said attacking Col Gaddafi was not part of his mission.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

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

By call me roy, March 22, 2011 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment

Unemployment in America is hovering at just below 10 percent, so President Barry Barak Hussen Obama hosts a “Summit on Entrepreneurship” in Washington, D.C., in an effort to boost economic development ... in Muslim nations? The president thinks more U.S. investment in Muslim lands and exchange programs that will bring Muslim women to America so they can work as interns will enhance U.S. prosperity and, thus, change Muslim attitudes about the United States. Egypt receives about $2 billion of American taxpayer dollars every year, yet it still votes against American interests at the U.N. 79 percent of the time. Jordan, a “moderate” Muslim nation, receives nearly $200 million annually in U.S. foreign aid, but votes against America at the U.N. 71 percent of the time. Pakistan votes 75 percent of the time against the U.S. at the U.N. while pocketing nearly $7 million annually in foreign aid (in addition to the money it gets to supposedly fight al-Qaida). Since 2007, U.S. foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority and to PA-controlled (nongovernmental organizations) reached nearly $2 billion, in addition to $3.7 billion contributed by the U.S. to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Has this aid produced jobs? Has it led to both sides in the Middle East conflict mounting a sustained effort to respect one another and seek common ground? On April 20, 2010 Abbas named a Ramallah street in honor of Abu Jihad, the architect of PLO terrorism during 1965-1988. Honor? For masterminding terrorism targeting Israeli civilians? On March 11, PA (Palestinian Authority) media, which Abbas controls, praised Dalal Mughrabi, who commanded the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre, which resulted in the deaths of 38 civilians, including 13 children. The PA also named a girl’s school in Hebron, a computer center, a summer camp and a sport tournament after Mughrabi. In 1994, Abbas, who was then deputy to Yasser Arafat, inaugurated a system of hate education that continues to this day. In the PA media, in schools and in mosques, children and adults are exposed to venomous anti-Semitic speech and images that rival those of The Third Reich. In fact, writes Ettinger, “Hitler and suicide-bombers are folk heroes.” As Arafat’s top aid for 50 years, Abbas was involved in the “betrayal of Arab host countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait. He enrolled in KGB courses and submitted a doctorate thesis on Holocaust denial at the Moscow University.” Abbas supervised the logistics of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre that took the lives of 11 Israeli athletes, co-supervised the March 1973 murder of two U.S. ambassadors in Sudan, was a key member of the Palestinian cell of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo and earned the nickname “Mr. 20 percent” because of his corruption. And yet, President Obama’s special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, treats him as a legitimate leader who shares American objectives for the region?

Report this

By call me roy, March 22, 2011 at 9:39 pm Link to this comment

Obama: Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Thank You

That is right - I will say it, “THANK GOD FOR THE PRESIDENT.”
1. He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine - Driving a stake thru the heart of Hillary’s Presidential aspirations something that no Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you!
2. He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - No more Kennedys trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American women and Freedom are safer tonight!
3. He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race - quit Evan Bayh had never lost a race - quit Byron Dorgan had never lost a race - quit Harry Reid - soon to be GONE These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed! By the end of 2010, dozens more will be gone. In December of 2008, the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles, they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. In just one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the House, if not the Senate, back to the Republicans.
4. He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every Generation seems to need to re-learn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He is bringing home the lesson very well. Liberals tax, borrow and spend - check. Liberals won’t bring themselves to protect America - check. Liberals want to take over the economy - check. Liberals think they know what is best for everyone - check. Liberals aren’t happy till they are running YOUR life - check.
5. He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year, he has rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans. Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking backAmerica!
6. His amazing leadership has sparked the greatest period of sales of firearms and ammunition this country has seen. Law abiding citizens have rallied and have provided a “stimulus” to the sporting goods field while other industries have failed, faded or moved off-shore.
7. In all honesty, one year ago I was more afraid than I have been in my life. Not of the economy, but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends and strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence of the Greatness and Wisdom of the American people was flat wrong.
8. When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barack Obama woke up these Great Americans! Again,
I want to say, “Thank You Barry Barack Hussein Obama!” This is exactly the kind of hope and change we desperately needed!

Thanks to “BARRY HUSSEIN ” I can no longer afford these “Luxury’s”
Donald L. Shnyder
WWII Merchant Marine Veteran
Korean War Marine Veteran

Report this

By call me roy, March 22, 2011 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment

Barry Hussein Soetoro
1. The man has never and never will connect to America in the truest sense of the word. He was born in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia for most of his formative years, then returned to Hawaii until he left for Occidental in California when he was about 20.
2. During his formative years, he was exposed on a daily basis to Islam through his adoptive stepfather and attended a Muslim school while living in Indonesia. His biological father was a non-practicing Muslim. The religion of Islam was a real presence in his life until he moved back to Hawaii to live with his very liberal grandparents.
3. Obama was, for all practical purposes, raised and influenced in his youth by a liberal, far right grandfather who, in my opinion, instilled in Obama a deep seated dislike for America. His mother was not an influence to the degree other people were but her lifestyle was anything but moderate, bordering on Marxism, without doubt, socialism.
4. Obama chose to associate with the radical element of the day and his mentor in Hawaii was a well known activist against America.
5. Obama was and is still conflicted about his racial pedigree. He resents the white side of his parentage and has shown it on every occasion that arises. His instinctive defense of the Harvard professor was one of the tells he displayed. When asked, if he were truly a post racial person, he would have responded with a “no comment” answer. Instead, his deep resentment of caucasians in general invoked a subconscious response that invaded his conscious level and he “chose” to respond as he did. If he was not a racist at the conscious level, he would have answered differently.
6. When he referred to the rage he felt when he realized his grandmother was a racist at heart after the incident at the bus stop, that should have been the key to understanding the man immediately. The woman who paid his way through life, the woman who rose to the top at the bank she worked at in Hawaii, the woman who was the real bread winner in the family, later on became the woman he threw under the bus. The other tell in the incident was the reaction by his grandfather to his grandmother’s comments about the incident. He was outraged and offended by her fears, which if you read the book, were not unfounded. She was honest but that made no difference to Obama or his grandfather. Not once did he make reference to any incident in his book about his grandmother demonstrating or displaying racism at any level. If she was the racist at heart he tried to tell us she was, there would have been other references to support his claim.
Obama has made choices through his life based on his core beliefs and dedication to a cause or principle. His friendship with Ayers and other radicals is by choice, not chance. His choice to become a community organizer was by choice, deeply affected by his upbringing. He lived the life most of us did not nor will never have. If one were to take all of the elements of his life and do an honest evaluation, the conclusion would a foregone one. He is at heart and soul, a die-hard socialist. He will not abandon his core beliefs and convictions. He will use anyone to further his agenda and has demonstrated this time after time. And, he does and will consciously enjoy the perks and priviledges of the ruling elite class on every occasion because he believes it is his right and the rewards are rightfully due him and his family.
Finally, after reading the book and listening to him speak and reading some of his other writings, the styles and choices of descriptive language offers many conflicts. The man is conflicted about many things but on one, he is not. Obama is a true socialist and will never change. He will continue to push his agenda until the day he is voted out of office and until that day comes, he will use his power to enact and force changes on this country that are not welcome nor are they good for America.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, March 22, 2011 at 5:50 pm Link to this comment


Right you are. Hugo is destroying his oil industry and will soon need to import the stuff to keep his minions happy.

Report this

By SarcastiCanuck, March 22, 2011 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe Obama can outsource the war to India and China.They got the industrial sector and high tech,might as well give em the military too.

Report this

By TDoff, March 22, 2011 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have formed a coalition and offered to take over the Libyan ‘NATO’ attack, but Obama fears their takeover might ‘defeat the purpose of the Libyan mission’. Translation: ‘The oil will flow in the wrong direction if Cuba and Venezuela get involved’.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, March 22, 2011 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment


You’re right of course, but that would mean that the US would have to take sides, which would mean that the US would need a value system for which to articulate its support of the rebels. And far be for the US to be judgemental in these post-modern times. All value systems (except capitalism) have equal merit, don’t you know, and who are we to pick sides? Our no-fly policy is merely to level the playing field. We have no preference who wins, because that would require policy discrimination, and we can’t have that. Libya will still sell us oil in the end, so no worries.

Report this

By ghostcommander, March 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

What a ridiculous dilemma: Who do we hand off the Libya situation to?
Goodness Gracious, have all those involved in the Libya situation forgotten about the Libyan rebels.

They are the ones to hand off to. All they need is anti-  tank weapons, artillery or rockets with which to defeat the regime of Gaddafi.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, March 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

RE: Obama’s not a sellout.

absolutely true -  wholly owned before ever hitting the campaign trail

rico-san, good of you to point out how so many were duped - current puppet
POTUS, clearly hand picked to run Left Cover for the unflagging hegemonic
advance of the globalist agenda - clearly installed by Wall Street

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, March 22, 2011 at 11:49 am Link to this comment


Amazing how reality continually turns pie-in-the-sky squishy, liberal coffee house, Upper West Side, Hollywood dreaming into mightmares, isn’t it?

Obama’s not a sellout. He just got the briefing on how the world really works and he’s responding rationally.

And yes, fearnotruth:

You heard me right. The US is THE global leader, for better or worse, unless you can name another one for me. Wishing it weren’t so is a perfectly valid sentiment, and I commend you for feeling it. (Join the libertarians at the Cato Institute.) But, also, WISHING it were not so doesn’t make it not so.

To say that pre-eminence should or even could be “shared”, as if the world operated like Sesame Street, is naive and counter to all historical experience. Show me a nation on earth which has done LESS than it rationally and realistically could to maintain and expand its influence.

Finally, the FACT that the US leads the world does not prove the CLAIM that the US, is ipso facto, imperialistic.

Report this

By samosamo, March 22, 2011 at 10:37 am Link to this comment


Who would have thunk it? Here is o trying to pawn off Libya.
Gosh darn, if no one takes it, guess o will just have slug it on
out to the end.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, March 22, 2011 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

RE: ...teachable moment…

exception taken

regardless what the current puppet POTUS had to say about the Iraqi despot,
initially installed by CIA handlers, encouraged, enabled, funded and armed by
the US to make war with Iran and exterminate opponents within Iraq…

the real ‘teachable’  moment is this:

Scott Ritter -,    Tuesday 2 December 2008 21.30 GMT


As pre-war British government discussions with Bush administration
officials reveal, there was never a solid case to be made on Iraq’s possession of
WMD in the months leading up to the decision to invade, simply a sophomoric
cause-effect relationship linking regime change (the preferred policy) and WMD
(the excuse) “in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD”
(quoting Blair).

The intelligence on Iraq’s WMD was whatever the president and his cronies
(including his erstwhile ally at 10 Downing Street) wanted it to be. Over seven
years of UN-mandated weapons inspection activity, conducted from 1991 until
1998, had produced a well-defined (and documented) record of disarmament
which, while not providing absolute verification of the disposition of every
aspect of Saddam’s WMD programmes, did allow any observer interested in the
facts to ascertain that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed from a qualitative
perspective. This, coupled with the presence of the world’s most technologically
advanced and intrusive arms control regime monitoring the totality of Iraq’s
industrial infrastructure, provided a high degree of confidence that Saddam had
neither retained nor reconstituted his WMD programme.

There was a gap in inspection coverage of Iraq from December 1998 until
November 2002, brought on by the removal of weapons inspectors at the
behest of the United States (during the administration of Bill Clinton). However,
no verifiable intelligence emerged during this time to credibly suggest that Iraq
had sought to reconstitute its WMD programme. Instead, the Bush
administration developed arguments that spoke of a “re-examination” of the
“facts” from the perspective of a “post-9/11 world”.


Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, March 22, 2011 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

This seems to me another “teachable moment”.

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, state Sen. Obama was unpersuaded: “I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ...”

Today, as President of the United States, we see American Military in Libya. I guess things look different than they do from the State House in Illinois.

Obama is now, in the true definition of the phrase a “New-Conservative”.

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, March 22, 2011 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

THE global leader heard him right… Now let them eat CHEETOS!

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, March 22, 2011 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

The headline says it all.

And as distasteful as the fact may be to most of you, the US is THE global leader. Obama can’t just walk away from that responsibility, as much as he might despise the role.

As for, “...but to whom?”, I said in a previous post somewhere that Iran has the Suez Canal booked up for the next month. There are already Iranian ships in the Eastern Med. Why? Is that a good thing? Power hates a vacuum.

While the rest of the West has been cutting back on their militaries, to the rave reviews of the left, the Iranians and Chinese and Indians are building up theirs. Why, pray tell, if they have less and less to fear militarily from their traditional “enemies” as time goes by?

Report this

By brianrouth, March 22, 2011 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

I totally agree with you!

Report this
fearnotruth's avatar

By fearnotruth, March 21, 2011 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

as these so-called ‘leaders’ of the so-called ‘free world’ scramble to find the
‘scope’ of their ‘mission’, those among us, who already have a pretty good idea,
might continue by speculating as into how many pieces they’ll need to carve this
nation state, in order to render each utterly impotent to resist the agenda of the
IMF, World Bank and global corporations on whose behalf enormous debt will be

Report this
Robespierre115's avatar

By Robespierre115, March 21, 2011 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment

Obama is a classic imperialist, most likely the plan is to try and install a working client regime and then leave. There’s no way the U.S. will ever allow a truly independent Libyan government in place, especially with all that oil.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook