Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who accompanied McCain on that August 2009 trip to Libya, flashed a similar bit of amnesia. Like McCain, he invoked Gadhafi's support for terrorism in the 1980s -- including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which killed dozens of Americans -- as a reason the U.S. should now "drop a bomb on him."

This was during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Secretary of Defense Bob Gates was testifying. Here's the exchange (see the video here, starting around the 98:30 mark):


GRAHAM: Is Gadhafi the legitimate leader of the Libyan people in your eyes, legally? And if he's not, would it be unlawful for a nation including ours to drop a bomb on him, to end this thing?

GATES: Well, President Reagan tried that.

GRAHAM: Well that doesn't mean we shouldn't try again. I'm asking this in all seriousness. I don't believe this man is the legitimate leader of the Libyan people. I believe he's an international terrorist, unlawful enemy combatant, then we're within our bounds as a nation -- and our coalition partners -- to take the fight to him and his cadre of supporters. Is that on the table or not?

Speaking on CBS' "The Early Show" today, McCain twice cited the fact that Moammar Gadhafi has "American blood on his hands" as a reason the U.S. should try to oust the dictator. McCain specifically referred to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which was indeed carried out by a Libyan agent.

What McCain is apparently forgetting is that, apart from the past few weeks, the last decade has been a period of rapprochement between the United States and Libya. It started with President Bush announcing in 2003 that Gadhafi had agreed to give up his "weapons of mass destruction" programs. In 2006 Bush removed Libya from the official list of state sponsors of terrorism. In September 2008 Condoleezza Rice traveled to Libya to have talks with Gadhafi. And just a few days before the 2008 presidential election, Bush signed a settlement under which Libya compensated families of victims of Lockerbie and other '80s-era attacks.

It's one thing to destroy air targets. I think the president is exactly right -- we do not want to commit ground troops. We don't have them to commit.

We're in two theatres of war now -- Iraq and Afghanistan. We just don't have any more forces available for any prolonged situation, at all.

On his radio program, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested that ground troops would be necessary in Libya.

One thing you'd think would be common knowledge by now is that you can't win a war with air power alone. You can bomb until the rubble turns to gravel, but at some point, foot soldiers have to go in and finish the dirty job. Ironically, foot soldiers may turn out to be the Achilles heel of the Libya operation," Huckabee said. "For the rebels to regain the upper hand, might require the allies to either arm them — which backfired in Afghanistan — or put our own boots on the ground to fight Qadhafi on their behalf. President Obama has already said 'no' to both those options.

Aside from the fact that I don't understand why the neocons are suddenly so against this action in Libya when they've been so trigger-happy the past dozen or so years...

Didn't the President work through the UN, who with a consensus took the action? Didn't he meet with members of Congress the day before the action and briefed them on what we were going to do?


Sure, Mike. Obama isn't Bush. Like Dean said, Bush invaded Iraq based upon a lie. Didn't Bush invade Iraq after ignoring the UN? Didn't Bush invade Iraq single-handed like the sheriff of the world?

Didn't Bush invade Iraq in violation of the UN Charter and our very own laws?

How many thousands and thousands of lifes in Libya have been saved?

As far as your humanitarian question, how many lives have been saved... that's the weird one for me.  I heard Ghaddafi's threat as one against the rebels, not just a promise of mindless innocent slaughter

Gaddafi's last stand: Embattled leader threatens to 'burn all of Libya' if protesters do not cease in their bid to overthrow him
 
Former Libyan diplomat warns thousands will die in the next 24 hours Prospect of setting up a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi bombing protesters
Thousands defy shoot-on-sight warning at Green Square protest
U.S. imposes sanctions on Libya and cuts diplomatic ties
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi has threatened to 'burn all of Libya' if the citizens do not cease protests against him. In a surprise televised appearance, Gaddafi warned he was ready to unleash further bloodshed and urged his followers: 'Prepare to defend Libya.'
He told loyalists in Tripoli's Green Square that 'we will defeat any outside attempt to overturn our country', and bizarrely added: 'Libyan people love me.'
He was attempting to stage a dramatic last attempt to cling on to power as tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Libya.

Adml Samuel Locklear, who has joint responsibility for enforcing the no-fly zone, said that, according to US intelligence, Gaddafi had launched attacks on the rebel-held western city of Misurata, where four children were reportedly killed by shelling yesterday.

“It’s my judgment that, despite our success, Gaddafi and his forces are not yet complying with the UN resolution due to the continued aggressive actions his forces have taken against the civilian population of Libya,” he said.

His comments followed reports that Misurata was under siege by Gaddafi’s forces. Tanks and snipers have been deployed to the city centre, killing more than 40 people and injuring 300.

Doctors described desperate scenes as hospitals struggled to cope with the number of injured. Surgeons were forced to operate on bullet and shrapnel wounds in hospital corridors because of a lack of space

I'm trying to think which one of those lines you wrote you might be correct on...

As far as NeoCons go, Obama is now one of them. 

The debate over going in to Iraq lasted a year.  It was a debate with the public, in the media, and with both houses of Congress.  There UN resolutions, Use of Force approved by the Congress, a national interest at stake (whether you think it's a "lie" or not) and overwhelming public support. 

As hard as he tried, twice or more and failed, Bush could NOT get the United Nations Security Council to approve his invasion of Iraq.

The United Nations Charter "prohibits the use of military force against any member nation without the approval of the Security Council", but lacking the required authorization, Bush decided to attack Iraq asserting that Congress gave him the authorization to do so by approving House Joint Resolution 114, the "Authorization to Use Military Force".

However, a closer look at the Resolution reveals that Bush did NOT COMPLY with the "most critical WHEREAS clauses" CLICK HERE http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.html

"Basically Bush tricked Congress into signing HJR114 by fraudulent means which negated his authority to invade Iraq.

Violation of Requirement for Determination
Bush also violated several terms of the resolution. The first violation relates to Section 3(b), which states:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall ... make available ... his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"

If Bush had told the truth about Iraq then he would have said Iraq did not pose a threat to America. In that case "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would have given us adequate protection.

"Overwhelming public support"? Based on a lie...

"UN"?

http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/11/congress_gives_bush_unilateral_power_to

Congress Gives Bush Unilateral Power to Invade Iraq Without UN Approval Or Congress Notice: House Members Dennis Kucinich & Barbara Lee Try to Delay the VoteShare As the Iraqis hunker down for an invasion, the U.S. Congress has voted to give President Bush the power to unilaterally attack Iraq. Just before the House took its roll call vote a protester cried out. Minutes later Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio tried to have the vote delayed by putting forward an amendment to send the resolution back to committee. Several Congress members including California’s Barbara Lee supported him. Kucinich’s amendment was defeated. The House then voted 296-133 to give President Bush the power to unilaterally invade Iraq.

http://www.opednews.com/Poll/Did-Bush-Comply-With-The--by-Gene-Cappa-080809-311.html

Did Bush Comply With "Authorization to Use Military Force"?

     

The United Nations Charter "prohibits the use of military force against any member nation without the approval of the Security Council", but lacking the required authorization, Bush decided to attack Iraq asserting that Congress gave him the authorization to do so by approving House Joint Resolution 114, the "Authorization to Use Military Force".

Oh...I don't care to get involved with your arguments with the Kazz. That's like talking to a brick wall.

I don't know if we entered the Iraq war illegally; we did, however, enter it in violation of the UN Charter.

Ha!

Yeah I never understood what she was trying to do...

Ha!

Yeah I never understood what she was trying to do...

I don't think any major nation recognizes that restriction.  Virtually all of our wars are in violation of the UN charter on that account because we don't recognize that limitation on our sovereignty.  However our orignial cease fire agreement recognized resumption of hostilities if Iraq didn't comply with the argreement, which they didn't of course.  Although we did nothing for years...

The lesson from the Gulf to Iraq wars is, as has been made again recently, is that if you strike at the king, you have to kill him.  So we will have to stay long enough to kill Ghaddafi.

And then what?

Who said I was talking about Kazzy?  ;D

I think Ghaddafi will end up (sooner than later) in asylum somewhere welcoming to him.






Probably Texas.

Nutty, there are, believe it or not, some pols out there who still have integrity.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel, call them all crooks, and bring in a whole new bunch. It didn't work last November, did it?

I fired one off to Webster last nite.

Obama/Holder on Guantanamo and the KSM trial. Their hands were tied...they had no other choice. Although I don't agree with the decision yesterday, I understand and appreciate what they had to do.

I appreciate it too!

 :D

At 10:51 a.m. on Thursday, the speaker of the House took questions from reporters about the tick-tick-tick toward a possible government shutdown. "Democrats are rooting for a government shutdown," said John Boehner. "Our goal is to cut government spending, not shut down the government.

House Republicans huddled late Monday and, according to a GOP aide, gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them that he was advising the House Administration Committee to begin preparing for a possible shutdown.

You/me/us/the world may not appreciate it after the trials.

Damn. I was hoping you were going to comment on Boehner rallying the troops behind shutting down the govt.

I don't think Boehner is for shutting down the government.

Damn. I was hoping you were going to comment on Boehner rallying the troops behind shutting down the govt.

Well the Prez said he wasn't going to sign a one week CR, so I guess he's the one shutting it down!

How odd, an agreement in the 11th hour.

I heard from a friend in DC that the republicans have caved, the Planned Parenthood provision Boehner has been denying all day is not the sticking point has been tabled, and the shutdown will be averted.

More soon as I get it.

Nobody wants to let the government shut down — that’s absurd

In an October 2010 report for FoxNews.com, reporter Jason Robinson interviewed the "rap legend" and told him, "your music is very positive. And you're known as the conscious rapper. How important is that to you, and how important do you think that is to our kids?"

Michelle Obama is under fire from conservative media outlets for inviting to the White House a rapper who once called for the burning of George W. Bush.
 
Common, whose real name is Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr., will make an appearance at an event celebrating American poetry on Wednesday.
 
The backlash came quickly. Fox News called the Grammy-Award winning artist "vile," and right-leaning Matt Drudge featured the item prominently on his website under the headline "First Lady to host rapper who talks of killing cops, burning Bush."
 
And The Daily Caller, a website run by conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, posted a sampling of offensive Common lyrics.
 
"With that happening, why they messing with Saddam? Burn a Bush cos' for peace he no push no button. Killing over oil and grease, no weapons of destruction," Common says in "Letter To the Law," evidently referring to the former president. In another song, he reportedly urges the killing of police.
 
The First Lady's press office did not immediately return requests for comment.
 
Even former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin weighed in on the event, tweeting "Oh lovely, White House," followed by a link to the Daily Caller article.
 
Common is from the President's hometown of Chicago. In 2008, he appeared in a video called "Yes We Can," created in support of Obama's presidential campaign.
 
He received a Grammy in 2003 for Best R&B Song for "Love of My Life" with Erykah Badu. He was awarded a second Grammy for Best Rap Performance for "Southside," which featured Kanye West in 2007.

THEN
 

[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/05/10/2011-05-10_sarah_palin_fox_daily_caller_rips_michelle_obamas_invite_to_rapper_common_for_po.html]NOW

 (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4380489/the-hot-zone-common/)

I found this whilst bopping about and I think it pretty much hits the nail on the head...

"What is it about rap that disturbs people so much? There is more violence on "The Sopprannos­" or "The Godfather" than in a rap song but people love those, they have a cult following. Would a Shakespear­ean tragedy be considered trash if the characters were black? Is there more violence and sex in a rap song than in an episode of "Boardwalk Empire"? Do rap music videos exploit women any more than any James Bond movie ever made or "Entourage­"? There seems to be allowances and acceptance­s for things when your skin is lighter."

so....they are saying....people of darker pigment are more intolerent then lighter skinned peoples...wow

The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that "the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

Israel's prime minister promised to present his vision for an Israeli-Palestinian peace in a speech before U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday, but vowed his country would not return to mid-1967 borders that he termed "indefensible."

Benjamin Netanyahu made this pledge in an address Monday to thousands of pro-Israel American Jews and U.S. lawmakers. His speech drew roaring cheers and standing ovations, a sign of the powerful backing he enjoys in the U.S. as the White House pressures him to do more to renew stalled Mideast peacemaking.

The warm reception Netanyahu enjoyed at the gala dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee contrasted sharply with the contentious quality of some of his recent exchanges with President Barack Obama precisely over border issues.

His planned address on Tuesday to a joint meeting of Congress, where Israel enjoys strong bipartisan backing, could similarly remind Obama, ahead of his re-election bid, of the political price he might pay if he tries to push Netanyahu too hard.

In that speech, Netanyahu said, he will "outline a vision for a secure Israeli-Palestinian peace."

But in language that suggested he was not going to take a conciliatory pose, he promised to "speak the unvarnished truth."

"This conflict has raged for 100 years because the Palestinians refuse to end it. They refuse to accept a Jewish state."

A peace agreement, he said, must assure Israel's security: "Israel cannot return to the indefensible 1967 borders," he declared, rekindling the dispute with Obama in a possible effort to placate territorial hardliners in his government.

Borders became an issue last week when Obama, in a major Mideast policy speech, took the position that any negotiations on final borders of the Jewish and Palestinian states must be based on the boundaries Israel held in 1967 before capturing east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – lands the Palestinians claim for their hoped-for state.

THEN: (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/a-joint-statement-from-clinton-and-netanyahu.html)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a joint statement with Hillary Clinton on Nov 11, 2010:

NOW: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/netanyahu-aipac-speech-1967-borders_n_865990.html)

Damn...Ol' Bibi sure takes his orders (or vice versa) from the Republican Party, huh?

Or you could just change your mind to make the President look like a chump.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president…. Our single biggest political goal is to give our nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful.”

“Their storyline is that there must be some villain out there who’s keeping this administration from succeeding.”