MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell’s facebook page boasts ”
Get the last word on the biggest issues and most compelling stories of the day.” Too bad that doesn’t mean getting it right. Recently Mr. O’Donnell put this Nick Ramsey piece out on his MSNBC page.
Basically, Nick Ramsey and Mr. O’Donnell, on his show last night, falsely imply Senator Paul supported the US led “Nato Libyan war/conflict/jaunt/policing/hand holding/let me be clear/camping trip.” So, I decided to get clarification since there was absolutely no evidence of a vote on the US Senate page. A Paul staffer explained it best that Mr. O’Donnell is wrong.
The Paul staff told Free Man In Kentucky “There wasn’t a vote. It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn’t even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn’t even have a chance to object to it because the resolution–which is non-binding– was in and out before he made it back to the floor.”
So basically this was a vote done very fast, with no discussion and was rushed through before others could get to the floor? That’s odd. If this had been done by the GOP, Mr. O’Donnell would have so much Hyperbole, it would make Alex Jones look tame.
STOP Killing Innocents!
You are just creating more enemies, thus far America has attacked/in connection:
Japan, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Greece, Laos, China, North Korea, Bolivia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Chile, Uruguay, Cyprus, Angola, Nicaragua, Zambia, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Haiti, Iran, Panama, Bulgaria, Somailia, Zaire, Congo, Qatar, Yugoslavia (today known as Serbia and Montenegro), Sudan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Philippines, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, the list is not complete, feel free to ask me to update with a nation I did not specify.
“We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government,” he told reporters following talks with UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
He added: “All of them [the victims] are civilians, Syrian, unarmed and they are on the Syrian territories.
“Killing civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression.”
Asked if Syria would use force if a similar operation was mounted, he said: “As long as you are saying if, I tell you, if they do it again, we will defend our terrorities.”
Oops – (collective Eye Roll Here….)
Referring to the US presidential election, he said: “We hope the coming administration will learn the mistakes of this administration.” BBC.com
It’s not an endorsement Barack Obama probably expected — or wanted — but Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol gave the president high marks for his recent foreign policy gestures.
In his “You’ve come a long way, baby” post Monday night, Kristol praised Obama for his address to the American people about the action he took against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. On Wednesday’s “Red Eye” on the Fox News Channel, Kristol took things a step further and declared Obama “a born-again neo-con.”
“He didn’t come to me for help, of course,” Kristol said. “I’m not going to acknowledge that. He came to me to make sure I was supporting his sound policies. Of course, since his sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while, I’m happy to support them. He’s a born-again neo-con.”
Throughout 2007 and 2008 in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama ran as the anti-war candidate. But Obama has taken on different stripes with this gesture, Kristol joked.
“What’s the joke – they told me if I voted for McCain, we’d be going to war in a third Muslim country?” Kristol said. “I voted for McCain and we’re doing it.”
The president accepted a transparency award in a closed, undisclosed meeting. AP Photo Close
President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.
The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.
This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.
“Our understanding going into the meeting was that it would have a pool photographer and a print reporter, and it turned out to be a private meeting,” Bass told POLITICO. “He was so on point, so on target in the conversation with us, it is baffling why he would not want that message to be more broadly heard by reporters and the public interest community and the public generally.”
Just hours before the White House put off the original event, White House press secretary Jay Carney was defiant in his defense of Obama’s transparency record against criticism that it might have been premature.
“This president has demonstrated a commitment to transparency and openness that is greater than any administration has shown in the past, and he’s been committed to that since he ran for President and he’s taken a significant number of measures to demonstrate that,” Carney said in a testy exchange with Fox News reporter Wendell Goler on March 16.
The transparency advocates who presented the award to Obama say that the recognition is important, because despite the work left to be done, Obama has done a lot to change the government’s posture toward openness issues.
But others believed the positive reinforcement was more than a little unnecessary.
“I don’t feel moved today to say ‘thank you, Mr. President,’” said Steve Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. But he said he understands the award to be “aspirational,” in recognition of Obama’s potential to do more on the transparency front.
“And in that sense, one could say it resembles the award at the Nobel Peace Prize,” Aftergood said. “It’s not because Obama brought peace to anyone but because people hoped he would be a force for good in the world, and maybe that’s the way to understand this award.”
LIBYA’S BLOOD FOR OIL: THE VAMPIRE WAR
By Susan Lindauer, former U.S. Asset who covered Libya at the United Nations from 1995 to 2003
Who are we kidding? The United States, Britain and NATO don’t care about bombing civilians to contain rebellion. Their militaries bomb civilians every day without mercy. They have destroyed most of the community infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan before turning their sights on Libya. So what’s really going on here?
According to the CIA, the following never happened…
Last October, US oil giants— Chevron and Occidental Petroleum— made a surprising decision to pull out of Libya, while China, Germany and Italy stayed on, signing major contracts with Gadhaffi’s government. As the U.S. Asset who started negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial with Libyan diplomats, I had close ties to Libya’s U.N. Mission from 1995 to 2003. Given my long involvement in the Lockerbie saga, I have continued to enjoy special access to high level intelligence gossip on Libya.
Last summer that gossip got juicy!
About July, I started hearing that Gadhaffi was exerting heavy pressure on U.S. and British oil companies to cough up special fees and kick backs to cover the costs of Libya’s reimbursement to the families of Pan Am 103. Payment of damages for the Lockerbie bombing had been one of the chief conditions for ending U.N. sanctions on Libya that ran from 1992 until 2003. And of course the United Nations forced Gadhaffi to hand over two Libyan men for a special trial at The Hague, though everybody credible was fully conscious of Libya’s innocence in the Lockerbie affair. (Only ignorant politicians trying to score publicity points say otherwise.)
Knowing Gadhaffi as well as I do, I was convinced that he’d done it. He’d bided his time until he could extort compensation from U.S. oil companies. He’s a crafty bastard, extremely intelligent and canny. That’s exactly how he operates. And now he was taking his revenge. As expected, the U.S. was hopping mad about it. Gadhaffi wasn’t playing the game the way the Oil Bloodsuckers wanted. The Vampire of our age—the Oil Industry—roams the earth, sucking the life out of every nation to feed its thirst for profits. Only when they got to Libya, Gadhaffi took on the role of a modern-day Robin Hood, who insisted on replenishing his people for the costs they’d suffered under U.N. sanctions.
Backing up a year earlier, in August 2009 the lone Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people, Abdelbasset Megrahi, won a compassionate release from Scottish prison. Ostensibly, the British government and Scottish Courts granted Megrahi’s request to die at home with dignity from advance stage cancer—in exchange for dropping a legal appeal packed with embarrassments for the European Courts. The decision to free Megrahi followed shocking revelations of corruption at the special Court of The Hague that handled the Lockerbie Trial. Prosecution witnesses confessed to receiving payments of $4 million each from the United States, in exchange for testimony against Megrahi, a mind-blowing allegation of judicial corruption.
The Lockerbie conviction was full of holes to begin with. Anybody who knows anything about terrorism in the 1980s knows the CIA got mixed up in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley during the hostage crisis in Lebanon. The Lockerbie conspiracy had been a false flag operation to kill off a joint CIA and Defense Intelligence investigation into kick backs from Islamic Jihad, in exchange for protecting the heroin transit network.
According to my own CIA handler, Dr. Richard Fuisz, who’d been stationed in Lebanon and Syria at the time, the CIA had established a protected drug route from Lebanon to Europe and on to the United States. His statements support other sources that “Operation Corea” allowed Syrian drug dealers led by Monzer al-Kassar (also linked to Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal) to ship heroin to the U.S. ON Pan Am flights, in exchange for intelligence on the hostages’ whereabouts in Lebanon. The CIA allegedly made sure that suitcases carrying heroin were not searched at customs. Nicknamed the “Godfather of Terror,” Al Kassar is now serving a prison sentence for conspiring with Colombian drug cartels to assassinate U.S. nationals.
Building up to Lockerbie, the Defense Intelligence team in Beirut, led by Maj. Charles Dennis McKee and Matthew Gannon, suspected that CIA infiltration of the heroin network might be prolonging the hostage crisis. If so, the consequence was severe. AP Reporter Terry Anderson got chained in a basement for 7 years, while 96 other high profile western hostages suffered beatings, mock executions and overall trauma. McKee’s team raised the alarms in Washington that a CIA double agent profiting from the narco-dollars might be warning the hostage takers whenever their dragnet closed in. Washington sent a fact-finding team to Lebanon to gather evidence.
On the day it was blown out of the sky, Pan Am 103 was carrying that team of CIA and FBI investigators, the CIA’s Deputy Chief assigned to Beirut, and three Defense Intelligence officers, including McKee and Gannon, on their way to Washington to deliver a report on the CIA’s role in heroin trafficking, and the impact on terrorist financing and the hostage crisis. In short, everyone with direct knowledge of CIA kickbacks from heroin trafficking died on Pan Am 103. A suitcase packed with $500,000 worth of heroin was found in the wreckage. It belonged to investigators, as proof of the corruption.
The punch line was that the U.S. State Department issued an internal travel advisory, warning that government officials should get off that specific flight on that specific day, because Pan Am 103 was expected to get bombed. That’s right, folks! The U.S. had prior knowledge of the attack.
Unforgivably, nobody told Charles McKee or Matthew Gannon. But other military officials and diplomats got pulled off the flight—making room for a group of students from Syracuse University traveling stand by for the Christmas holidays.
It was a monstrous act! But condemning Megrahi to cover up the CIA’s role in heroin trafficking has struck many Lockerbie afficiandos as grossly unjust. Add the corruption of purchased testimony– $4 million a pop— and Megrahi’s life sentence struck a nerve of obscenity.
It struck Gadhaffi as grievously offensive, as well—The United Nations had forced Libya to fork over $2.7 billion in damages to the Lockerbie families, a rate of $10 million for every death. Once it became clear the U.S. paid two key witnesses $4 million each to commit perjury, spook gossip throughout the summer was rife that Gadhaffi had taken bold action to demand compensation from U.S. (and probably British) oil corporations operating in Libya. More than likely, Libya’s demands for kick backs and compensation extended to other European oil conglomerates as well—particularly France and Italy—who are now spearheading attacks on Libya.
I knew last summer there would be trouble. Payback would be a b—tch on both sides. You don’t lock an innocent man in prison for 10 years on bogus charges of terrorism, and expect forgiveness. The United States and Britain had behaved with remarkable selfishness. You’ve got to admit that Gadhaffi’s attempt to balance the scales of justice demonstrated a flair of righteous nationalism.
Alas, Gadhaffi was playing with fire, no matter how justified his complaint. You don’t strike a tyrant without expecting a tyrant to strike back.
And that’s exactly what’s happening today.
Don’t kid yourself. This is an oil war, and it smacks of imperialist double standards. Two articles by Prof. Chossudovsky at the Global Research Centre are must reading: “Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa” and “Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d’Etat in Libya?”
There is simply no justification for U.S. or NATO action against Libya. The U.N. charter acknowledges the rights of sovereign nations to put down rebellions against their own governments. Moreover, many observers have commented that plans for military intervention appear to have been much more advanced than U.S. and European leaders want to admit.
For myself, I know in my gut that war planning started months before the democratization movement kicked off throughout the Arab world—a lucky cover for U.S. and European oil policy. Perhaps too lucky.
As Chossudovsky writes, “Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya’s eastern breakaway province” on February 23 and 24— seven (7) days after the start of Gadhaffi’s domestic rebellion. “The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk.” (DEBKAfile, US military advisers in Cyrenaica, Feb. 25, 2011) Special forces on the ground in Eastern Libya provided covert support to the rebels.” Eight British Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region, while acting as military advisers to opposition forces, according to the Times of London.
We’re supposed to believe the United States, Britain and Europe planned, coordinated and executed a full military intervention in 7 short days— from the start of the Libyan rebellion in mid-February until military advisers appeared on the ground in Libya on February 23-24!
That’s strategically impossible.
Nothing can persuade me that Gadhaffi’s fate wasn’t decided months ago, when Chevron and Occidental Petroleum took their whining to Capitol Hill, complaining that Gadhaffi’s nationalism interfered with their oil profiteering. From that moment, military intervention was on the drawing board as surely as the Patriot Act got stuck in a drawer waiting for 9/11.
The message is simple: Challenge the oil corporations and your government and your people will pay the ultimate price: Give us your oil as cheaply as possible. Or die.
Don’t kid yourself. Nobody gives a damn about suffering in Libya or Iraq. You don’t bomb a village to save it. The U.S., Britain and NATO are the bullies of the neighborhood. The enforcers for Big Oil.
Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan have something in common. They have vast and extraordinary oil and mineral riches. As such, they are all victims of what I call the Vampire Wars. The Arab Princes get paid off, while the bloodsuckers pull the life blood out of the people. They’re scarcely able to survive in their own wealthy societies. The people and the domestic economy are kept alive to uphold the social order, but they are depleted of the nourishment of their own national wealth.
The democratization movements are sending a warning that I don’t think Big Oil, or their protectors in the U.S. and British governments understand or have figured out how to control. The Arab people are finished with this cycle of victimization. They’ve got their stakes out, and they’re starting to figure out how to strike into the heart of these Vampires, sucking the life blood out of their nations.
And woe to the wicked when they do!
This article may be reprinted in full or part with attribution to the author.
Former U.S. Intelligence Asset, Susan Lindauer covered Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria/Hezbollah from 1993 to 2003. She is the author of “Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.”
Like every war the United States has been in since World War 2, the current war in Libya needs a drummed up motive in which all ambitions for empire are forgotten, coaxing the public to unite against a grave threat and/or a just cause, giving the collective OK for the government to kill people while the taxpayers watch it on TV. Vietnam had the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident. The first Gulf War had the liberation of Kuwait and the fabricated incubator baby incident. Afghanistan had the 9/11 false flag event. Iraq had WMD’s. (Wait…no it didn’t) . The media plays out the war story like an action movie, beginning with a staged provocation from an evil adversary so that the audience doesn’t think the handsome leading man is just blowing away hundreds of extras for no reason. It’s like lighting a dark room with a dim flashlight– feeding the nation’s thirst for war while at the same time writing a fiction of noble sacrifice for justice and a greater good.
Make no mistake– President Obama has committed the United States to another war, though he refuses to use that word. Not only that, he has done it without a declaration from Congress, forcing the United States to collectively jump to its feet at the command of the United Nations. Bringing his promised “change” (for the worse), Obama and his puppeteers are steering the dying horse of our nation towards the next phase of world empire for the globalists, draining the public treasury to do it and blatantly ignoring the already weak facade of checks and balances in U.S. government, especially when it comes to the use of military force.
Not only that, but his “humanitarian” mission is doing the opposite of its stated intention– it’s backing genocide.
One could make the excuse that this is simply blowback resulting from the bumbling foreign policy of a president who doesn’t know what he’s doing…if not for the fact that this witch-hunt was taking place even before the United States and its allies officially announced their support for the Libyan rebels and started bombing the country.
This report from Al Jazeera was posted to Youtube on March 1st, 2011. While still perpetuating the myth that the uprising in Libya is an organic revolution and not a staged globalist attack on Gaddafi’s regime to seize Libyan oil and plunge the nation into debt slavery, it covers the attacks on black Africans in Libya before their civil war officially became America’s new foreign entanglement.
The reality that the United States’ first black president– whose father was from Africa– is backing thugs who are carrying out a racist, murderous purge of black Africans is, on an intellectual level, ironic, and on a human level horrifically tragic. Like the protagonist of a Shakespeare play set in modern day, Obama is a character who illustrates the cannibalistic nature of those seek not even power, but the illusion of power, as he’s led by the money forces that control United States policy and obediently continues an agenda that was set in motion long before he even came into office.
Back in 2008 a candidate named Barack Obama ran for president of the United States of America. He ran on a platform of hope and change. Basically, he was sold to the American people as an agent of change who would reverse the war mongering, Bill of Rights shredding policies of the Bush administration. As a result, not only was he catapulted into office, but both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate held onto and increased their Democrat majority. The message sent by the American people was clear. They were sick of war, they were tired of policies that trampled on their rights, they’d had enough of big government, and they wanted to reestablish transparency and accountability in the federal government. I remained skeptical at the time and felt the Obama administration would bring none of the change he intimated he would and the best we could hope for would be that government would not increase. Read more
Progress in Libya Fight … Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won’t enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya, where the international effort to protect civilians from Muammar Qaddafi is progressing. “No,” Clinton said when asked on the CBS program “Face the Nation” if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities over the weekend after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country. – Bloomberg
Dominant Social Theme: The 400-year-old Peace of Westphalia goes glimmering into the night; but relax, the United Nations has found something to put in its place.
Free-Market Analysis: When the Anglo-American elites do something big (like destabilizing the entire Middle East with CIA-supported “youth movements”) it is often necessary to follow along for a while to figure out what’s really going on. Eventually the elites themselves may clue you in because they will inevitably begin to justify whatever chaos they are embarked upon (human nature) in an attempt to justify it. There are lots of clues in the Bloomberg article excerpted above. In this analysis, we’ll take a look at some of them.
Thanks to the Bloomberg article and others like it (and the alternative ‘Net press as well), we believe we may have discerned the bottom-line reason for what’s going on. As we reported yesterday, six years ago, the UN seems basically overturned the Peace of Westphalia established in Europe in 1648. The Peace of Westphalia established the sovereignty of nation-states and apparently made official the principal that an attack on such a state constituted a formal act of war. The new UN principle passed by both the Security Council and the General Assembly in 2005 has turned the sovereignty principal on its head via something called Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
This principle explains that the primary purpose of a nation-state’s government is not to rule but to protect civilians. Thus if the UN as a whole determines that a given nation state is promoting genocide rather than peace, then that nation state can be attacked by the massed forces of the entire UN. Pax Westphalia is no more. Just yesterday in “War Thy Name is David Cameron” we wrote:
THIS is the REAL reason that Britain (et al.) has gone to war. It is not so redemptive after all. It has to do with rewriting the principle of national territorial sovereignty as codified by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Did you know, dear reader, that the Libyan war was a repudiation of this ancient treaty? “R2P is being given a trial run in Libya, and the results of the experiment will have momentous consequences in the decades ahead,” the article informs us.
Now everything is much clearer. The new R2P is mostly an enforcement mechanism for the Anglo-American power elite that runs the UN and therefore is basically in charge of its recommendations. There are other reasons of course that may have to do with oil and the dollar reserve currency’s oil link, and which we’ve written about previously. (See Mid-East Conflict Not Exactly About Oil.) Here’s some more from Bloomberg:
Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya – international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution – are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.” “What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” Clinton said, referring to Qaddafi’s attacks on the Libyan people, “than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
Clinton could not be any clearer. For some reason Assad is seen (currently anyway) as a good guy while Qaddafi is not. Therefore he will not be bombed and chased out of office while Qaddafi will be. What is the dividing line? Not the UN but the US Congress, which sees Assad as a “reformer.” It seems obvious that Ms. Clinton “misspoke” when she made this point; in other comments she has been careful to explain that the US has gone to war under the umbrella of the UN.
Of course, this has its own unique set of problems as US leaders are not supposed to send men into battle without Congressional authorization. What is interesting is that despite the incredible sensitivity and high profile of these issues (thanks in large part to the Internet) Clinton does not hesitate to declare that America is now going to war based on UN authorization. Not only that, but she refuses to rule out FURTHER actions. The Bloomberg article quotes her as saying, “Each of these situations is unique,” in reference to such countries as Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Bahrain.
Bloomberg also reported that Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (who can be counted on to support almost any US military action) told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the intervention helped the U.S. “There’s a democracy movement, and we should be on the side of that movement,” Levin said. Of course this begs the question: Will the US wish to intervene in every overseas Democracy movement or just some? And who will make that determination, and why?
As the Libyan action unfolds, Clinton has been more and more forthcoming. “I’ve never seen anything like it, where the world spoke so unequivocally,” she reportedly said. In a conversation with NBC, Clinton was even more blatant. A United Nations envoy will soon inform Qaddafi loyalists of two significant questions, she explained. The first was, “Do you really want to be a pariah?” and the second, “Do you really want to end up in the international court?” By this she meant the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
So now it comes together. The UN has established a new precedent and Middle Eastern turmoil – to a large degree engendered by Anglo-American mischief – has provided a proving ground. The US, according to Clinton (and Congress in particular) is picking and choosing what wars it wants the UN to fight based on whether the individual governments are “reformers” or “tyrants.” Finally, those who are selected as tyrants are to be informed that if they resist the UN’s demands to leave office, they will doubtless be charged with “war crimes.”
We still believe in the points we have made previously regarding these youth revolutions – that they may end up in Islamic governments that will allow the US in particular and the West in general to continue to promote the phony “war on terror.” Such Islamic governments would look militaristic on the outside but behind the scenes they will actually be manipulated by Western intel and military power.
But what is emerging now is far deeper and frankly quite startling. The Anglo-American power elite has overthrown a lynchpin of international diplomacy for 400 years and substituted in its place a UN resolution that is evidently and obviously answerable to the West and to the US (and the Anglosphere) in particular.
Conclusion: This sends a direct and threatening message to the leaders of other nation states throughout the world. It is a new era, perhaps. If these leaders, no matter how thuggish or freedom minded, are not inclined to agree with Western power elites on any one of a number of issues they too could find themselves first destabilized, then attacked and finally brought in manacles to the Hague. The New World Order proceeds?