Fidel Castro weighed in on this recently,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27809.htm

Anyone who thinks that this is about “humanitarian aid” is a fool. Here are a couple articles I came across that should help explain the REAL reasons we are “involved” in Libya.

First, a 2009 article in Forbes:

http://bit.ly/gSDCYK

Next, a more recent article in Bloomberg:

http://bloom.bg/fv2NQn

And for some color commentary:

The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company. Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants. They sure do get a lot done. What a skilled bunch of rebels - they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever. If only the rest of us were so versatile! But isn’t forming a central bank something that could be done after the civil war is over?

http://uruknet.info/?p=m76342&hd;=&size=1&l=e

and

http://exm.nr/hyzRuI

There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya. The “Axis of Evil”.

Two $billion worth of tomahawk missiles fired into Libya and they say the U.S. broke?

It bears mentioning that last night on The News Hour, Judy Woodruff hosted the weekly “Shields and Wall Street Journal Substitute for David Brooks” discussion. 

First, I have no personal beef with Ms. Woodruff. I think she is a great journalist who cares a lot. We need more like her. But, like many other journalists, she’s been shamed into supporting the twenty-four hour war cycle. 

“National syndicated columnist” Mark Shields, who I’ve never seen or read anywhere except The News Hour, stated that if Gadhafi is not replaced, it will be a failure for Obama. Shields is the “liberal” point of view by the way.

Woodruff let this load of crap pass without a swipe because, again, journalists are expected to support only the Democrat or Republican view, and since both the elephants and the asses majority support perpetual war, Ms. Woodruff must publicly support it too. 

The next show, Washington Week, which is little more than a journalism circle jerk, again proposed that a failure to overthrow Gadhafi is a failure for Obama.  No one dissented.

This “liberal” perspective of PBS is doing little more than set pro-war policy. They are banging the war drum in the media echo chamber.  And now that echo chamber is chanting that we must overthrow Gadhafi. Wow. Six months ago the guy couldn’t have made headlines crapping on the sidewalk. No he’s the focal point of American foreign policy. 

For the record, this is Ronald Reagan foreign policy, not Obama. 

Couple notes:

* At the very end of the “Shields and Wall Street Journal Substitute for David Brooks” discussion, they hastily mentioned the CIA is providing support for the rebels.  It reminded me of a child letting Dad know he’d just pissed his pants.  It was said in a hurried, under-the-breath type of way and nothing else was said about it. The little parody of a discussion ended.  Would have been nice if the discussion had started where it ended and if there had been a progressive point of view. 

* On Washington Week, one of the commentators noted that it’s a slippery slope to providing CIA assistance and going to war. Everyone in the circle jerk agreed or acquiesced but no one mentioned that perhaps supplying “non-lethal aid” (money), which readily converts to lethal aid (weapons), is not a good idea. Maybe, if we’re gonna spend millions of dollars intervening over there, we should be disarming both sides and, saying: “Okay, now that you can’t shoot each other, how about sitting down to negotiate?” No. Can’t say that. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to stop the small arms trade that is so lucrative—jobs and all that—so the media must pretend the only solution is war and more war. 

* Another commentator, who dared bring sanity to the discussion, teased out the point that Libya, despite its oil reserves, is of no significant strategic interest to the United States, a fact borne out by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who has said he would prefer to keep US troops out of Libya. In other words, like kids in a schoolyard, we’re going to war because we can’t think of anything else better to do. Nice.   

@RedwoodGuy,
Thank you for your reply.  Your comments about the health care “debate” are particularly striking. The debate was a farce.  Single payer—a terrible name by the way that the average Joe does not readily grok—is the best solution. As for the Huffington Post, it’s bored me for years. Haven’t been there in a long time. Sure as hell won’t go there now that it’s been Borg’d by AOL.

@Arabian Sinbad,
Thank your for your comment. If only Robert Scheer shared your sentiments—

And the b.s. corporate media, even when it brands itself “liberal,” goose steps along:

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/01/new-gcc-head-zayani-lauds-attacks-on-bahraini-protesters/

By SoTexGuy, April 1 at 8:15 pm

“Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel wrote this as a goodbye commentary..

555 PEOPLE—By Charlie Reese

  Politicians are the only people in the world who
  create problems and then campaign against them..”
===================================================
Wow! I really got lucky today! First, I was impressed by and enjoyed reading D.R.Zing comment on Sirota’s article. And now I come across another powerful comment by SoTextGuy.

So, thank you SoTextGuy for your wonderful elaboration on the 555-PEOPLE concept. It is indeed a very small oligarchy who run our affairs in the most-bragged-about democracy in the world. Though I greatly enjoyed reading your commentary,I, in the end, felt very sad to realize how a tiny privileged minority,intoxicated with power and corrupted by it, from among 300 millions, run the affairs of so many people who end disagreeing with and disappointed in them.

The sad conclusion is that even representative democracy does not work as it is practiced now. And in my search for a remedy, I can only think about a law giving the people the right to recall their elected politicians in their second year in office if they are not happy with their performance.

If their are any other ideas about how to reform the system I would love to read them!

D. R. Zing,
“Why does this matter?  Because it shows when anyone has the guts to oppose wars of choice, the media—from public to private, from conservative to liberal, from magazines to television to newspapers—rise up as one to support the war and marginalize its opponents.”

True. But further to the point, is that all media works to promote only the establishment agenda. War is one of half a dozen important components of this agenda. Here are the others:
- public austerity
- neo-liberalism
- two party paradigm
- patriotism
- religiosity

If you put them all together you have today’s America. Those pieces fit together like a puzzle. What does it support? A fantastic entrenched oligarchy of historic proportions. This “all media - all the time” strategy of the establishment includes TV networks, cable, newspapers, magazines, web sites, and so on. For instance, try to think of ANY television show in which an anchor or host, or reported is a self-declared socialist? I bet you can’t. Socialism is not allowed on television, or in newspaper editorials. Or even on web sites, aside from the most puny self-published blogs.

What passes for “leftist” talk in the media or Internet is nothing more than mildly liberal, still patriotic, positions. There are ZERO “leftists” in the media in spite of the wild claims of the right wing.

It’s fair to say that in the most general terms possible, “the media” is a fully captured tool of this oligarchy. What was the most popular “left leaning” web site until this past month? Right, the HuffandPuff Post, which in the end was nothing but a venture capital startup for the same cast of characters! (Of course anyone seeing the sensor operations knew this.)

The establishment agenda does allow for some choice, of course, as long as they decide the choices. They are not stupid. You can choose health care with no public option, or health care with a public option - those are both acceptable - but you sure as heck are not allowed to choose single payer health care, right? So, during that 6-month media debate on health care, if you watched television you would never know that for 40 years running, Americans polled by Pew preferred single payor by 62%!

Defining and limiting the public agenda to acceptable choices is the full-time job of “the media.”

Has the US ever delivered on what is promises?  Oddly enough, the US seems to deliver only on the things it doesn’t promise:  war, chaos, slaughter, destruction, theft, pillage.

Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel wrote this as a goodbye commentary..

555 PEOPLE—By Charlie Reese

  Politicians are the only people in the world who
  create problems and then campaign against them..

  Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and
  the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

  Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are
  against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high
  taxes?

  You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The
  President does.

  You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to
  vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

  You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

  You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

  You and I don’t control monetary policy,
  the Federal Reserve Bank does.

  One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one
  President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 555 human
  beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and  
  individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

Those 555 human beings spend much of their energy
  convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They
  cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

  What separates a politician from a normal human being is an
  excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the
  gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for
  creating deficits….. The President can only propose a budget. He
  cannot force the Congress to accept it.

  The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the
  land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for
  originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who was the
  speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She was the leader of the
  majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President,
  can approve any budget they want.

  If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they
  agree to.

  It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300
  million cannot replace 555 people who stand convicted—by
  present facts— of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a
single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 555 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 555 people exercise the power of the
  federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to
exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it
  unfair.

  If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want
  it in the red ..

  If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan
  it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

  If they do not receive social security but are on an
  elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because
  they want it that way.

  There are no insoluble government problems.

  Do not let these 555 people shift the blame to
  bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to
  lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to   whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent
  them from doing what they take an oath to do.

  Those 555 people, and they alone, are responsible.

  They, and they alone, have the power..

  They, and they alone, should be held accountable by
  the people who are their bosses.

  Provided the voters have the gumption to manage
  their own employees…

  We should vote all of them out of office and clean
  up their mess!

—
I can’t argue with any of it!

Adios!

By D.R. Zing, April 1 at 7:15

“Why does this matter?  Because it shows when anyone has the guts to oppose wars of choice, the media—from public to private, from conservative to liberal, from magazines to television to newspapers—rise up as one to support the war and marginalize its opponents.”

“No president—Democrat, Republican or Independent—will ever be able to break the cycle of perpetual war as long as the news media is mouth piece for the war machine.”
===================================================
Well said, D.R.Zing and factually correct.

As you mentioned, Hitchens, Matthews and and Friedman are good examples of so-called liberals who would outdo right-wingers when it comes to warmongering.

The conclusions one can draw from your comment is that, despite all the hype about American free-media, this media identifies more with the political-military establishment than serving the truth and the interest of the American people.

Thank you again, D.R.Zing, for putting it so right! I did enjoy reading your piece more than I enjoyed reading Sirota’s piece which prompted your comment.

I like this article quite a lot, particularly the point about deficit hawks being stonily quiet about million dollar cruise missiles.

Do have to quibble with one statement: “During the Iraq invasion, Republican partisans regularly insinuated that Democratic war opponents were unpatriotic because their criticism allegedly helped Saddam Hussein.”

The above statement is true but a little narrow in scope because it’s important to note much of the news media went war-hawk as well.

Christopher Hitchens, a writer generally considered a liberal because of his status at Vanity Fair and his book on atheism, appeared on NPR Talk of the Nation and equated opposing the invasion with supporting the terrorists. The host went chicken hawk when confronted with the intellect and eloquence of Mr. Hitchens. Thanks NPR. That was awesome. 

Chris Matthews.  When a college student appeared on his “liberal” show chanting “no blood for oil,” he called her out, told her that going to war was a done deal, and asked if she could do something other than chant. I never watched his show again. He’s a venal idiot who doesn’t realize he could have used his media power to resist the war. He’s a coward. The girl was brave.  History will prove who should have been hosting the show and who should have been hawking peanuts.

The New York Times.  God bless his equivocating, clarifying, backtracking soul, but purported liberal Thomas Friedman supported the war, too.

Why does this matter?  Because it shows when anyone has the guts to oppose wars of choice, the media—from public to private, from conservative to liberal, from magazines to television to newspapers—rise up as one to support the war and marginalize its opponents. 

No president—Democrat, Republican or Independent—will ever be able to break the cycle of perpetual war as long as the news media is mouth piece for the war machine.

Break up the corporate media. Stop the wars next.

“This is no social crisis. It’s just another tricky day for you.”

So far, the U.S has spent 100’s of millions, and killed an untold number of Libyans, in order to give support to two guys from Al Qaeda in a rusted out Chevy Luv Pickup, one guy driving, the other in the back with a shotgun.

Well… the above is an absurd comment, but it was briefly mentioned yesterday on CNN that an esteemed Western War Correspondent estimated the military forces in opposition to Gadhafi to be less than 1000.

I’m wondering how much the U.S. will have to pay in order to get our Arab League partners to put Arab League boots on Libyan soil.

Time will tell.

As I see it, DavidByron, genuine patriotism is love for a homeland and not for a State—the two are not one and the same, despite the way apologists for States claim they are. After all, Bill Clinton to the contrary, you can love your country and despise your government.

“America Has Made Patriotism the Refuge of Partisans”

Patriotism is a prejudice against foreigners inculcated in the population so as to make war easier to wage.  It’s basically the same as racism which was promoted (in the US) to make it easier to keep down the working population by dividing it.  Patriotism seeks to divide the interests of the workers across various nations and set them against each other instead of fighting the elites.

The idea that you could give patriotism a bad name is ridiculous.

This is bullshit:

“there’s been so little outcry about President Obama invading Libya without a constitutionally mandated congressional declaration of war”

Siorta has been so good recently as well.  But the talk about congressional mandate is a red herring.  Does anyone doubt that Congress 100% supports this (or any other) war?  If Congress was against the war it would be worth raising this point, but as it is, this sort of statement makes it sound like the only reason to oppose war is the failure of the president to dot his ‘I’s and cross his ‘T’s.

Why not discuss that the war is criminal in many other ways that directly relate to its immorality?  The fact that wars of aggression are the worst crime humanity has (per Nuremberg trials)?  Why this bloodless objection—one constantly raised—contra what Sirota says here?

So what? More generic sturm and drang to feast on. As soon as you see catch phrases like “modern media” you know you are in for a masturbation session, not real sex. Can anyone explain the purpose of this kind of writing?

Unless and until you are naming names and pinning tails on real donkeys, how do you expect this tired hash to move anyone? What are the odds that these generic statements about the establishment’s militarism has moved anyone?

Oh, it’s more party rhetoric, now I get it.

Then those pro-Obama Demo partisans are scoundrels; as Dr. Johnson said so long ago, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

And by taking refuge in patriotism, the Demo warmongers have shown themselves to be as nasty and evil a lot of scoundrels as their opposite numbers in the Repub ranks.