** THE SURPRISING PNAC CONNECTION TO LIBYA **
by Zen Gardner
March 21st, 2011
* Looks like the PNAC, or Project for A New American Century, agenda of 1997 is rolling along as planned. Just as has been outlined by other think tanks, Illuminati writers and social programmers.
* But a blind world reels on the defensive when they could have known what was coming all along. Notice, mind you, that the portrayal of an unstable middle east includes every “rogue” nation BUT Israel. Israel oddly enough is never “on the table” for discussion, when in fact they are the fomentors and co-creators of the entire “terrorist” threat fabrication.
Recent Developments
If you want to know exactly what’s happening or about to transpire, keep an eye on Neocons like Bill Kristol at rabid Zionist Murdock’s Fox News, the former head of PNAC when they made their famous study, proposal and ‘Statement of Principles’ preceding the staged 9/11 events and ensuing bogus “war on terror”.
It looks like despite Obama’s “promises” to not send troops, we’re about do it anyway. Surprise. So expect a real good reason to be fabricated soon, like tales of horrific atrocities by Gaddafi, to make sure the public is behind it. A false flag or two within Libya is probably on the table right now, like the staged theatre fire massacre in Abadan, Iran during the Iran revolution.
Kristol “Announces” the Plan
Here’s Kristol’s “announcement” that “we will not leave Gaddafi in power”:
(Raw Story) The operation to create a no-fly zone in Libya has just begun, but already conservative Fox News pundit Bill Kristol is wishing the U.S. would send in ground troops “sooner rather than later.”
U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday the “Odyssey Dawn” operation launched under a UN Security Council resolution was a “limited military action,” unlike the regime change aims of the war against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
He pledged no U.S. troops would be deployed on the ground.
Fox News Chris Wallace asked Kristol Sunday if it was a mistake to limit the mission in Libya.
“Let’s talk about the mission,” Wallace began. “You heard Admiral Mullen, earlier in the show, say his orders are clear: protect the civilians, don’t overthrow Gaddafi. That’s not the point. Is that a mistake? Can we live with Gaddafi in any sort of power? He can create a lot of trouble.”
“No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power,” Kristol agreed. “And we won’t leave Gaddafi in power.”
“The immediate military mission, Admiral Mullen correctly described but the political goal is to remove Gaddafi and ultimately military assets will serve that political goal.” (source)
Bastard comes to mind.
PNAC- Project for a New American Century Agenda Rolls On
If you’ve done your homework you know this neocon “think tank” led by Kristol at the turn of the century announced their intentions to militarize the US and roll on through the middle east towards global hegemony. Almost all signatories of the PNAC Statement were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the admitted steering committee on U.S. policy.
However, they needed to galvanize the American people behind such a move.
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.
What has transpired since 9/11 has been an ongoing fulfillment of their plan. See the original document for yourself and decide if all that’s transpiring now isn’t a fulfullment of their Statement of Principles.
http://www.theindyvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/project-new-american-century.jpg
To Summarize the PNAC Goals in their own words in 1997: (emphasis mine)
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
<• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
How terribly altruistic and unselfish of them. Unbelievably Machiavellian yet the world is forced to swallow it.
PNAC Checklist Almost Complete
Let’s see how they’re faring on the above-stated agenda:
* Increase defense spending: CHECK. “in the past 10 years, defense spending has accounted for two-thirds of the growth in (government) discretionary spending.” (Source) Astronomical defense (war) spending is not only killing the American economy, but its unwitting soldiers and millions of innocent foreign nationals.
* Challenge Regimes: CHECK. “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists”. Is that broad enough? How many countries has the U.S. machine invaded, bombed, poisoned, infiltrated and subverted in the past 10-14 years alone…never mind the rest of its sordid history?
* Promote political and economic freedom abroad. CHECK. Multinationals just about have full global sway and control as sovereign economies are sacrificed to the Globalist banking cabal. What freedom–for them. As for political freedom, the whole world’s practically on lock down now, thanks to the bogus Orwellian “war on terror”.
* Extend an international order friendly to OUR security, OUR prosperity, and OUR principles. CHECK. And to hell with what anyone else says or thinks.
The Importance of the Move to take Libya
Most people do not realize the historical strategic importance of Libya in the Middle East and Europe. More will be coming out about this as the days play out, but here’s a few points to ponder:
Libya is not peripheral to the world system. It is at its very core. Libya possesses 1,800 kilometers of Mediterranean coastline. The country produces 2 percent of the world’s oil, with 85 percent of exports going to Europe. Libyan nationals have been prominent jihadists in Iraq. Since the beginning of the Great Recession and the slump in global demand in 2008, Libya has allocated $200 billion toward new infrastructure spending.
This same article goes on to tell us exactly WHY Libya is so important and vital to U.S. and globalist interests:
But a brief review of Libya’s history demonstrates that Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States have long had a great deal at stake in Libya, even before oil was discovered in 1959. Today, it is a paramount American interest that Libya not return to being a rogue state or descend into civil war. If Libyan leader Muammar al-Gadhafi reasserts control over the east or even if he fails and the country is cleaved in two, U.S. interests in the region would suffer a major setback.
What makes Libya so important? Any real estate agent could tell you: location, location, location. Control of the country has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into Egypt, the Mediterranean, and beyond. Similarly, denying a hostile power (be it the Soviet Union, Muammar al-Gadhafi, or terrorists) the ability to destabilize surrounding countries from Libyan territory has been a consistent thread in U.S. policy since the end of World War II. (more history of the region with NPR spin HERE)
Epilogue
It’s clear this is going down fast and emphatically. The work to gain supposed “international consensus” via the UN was quicker and more decisive and far reaching than any international policing move on their part.
That says a lot. While most of the world knows it’s mainly once again a U.S. aggression to keep consolidating its hold on the Middle East, the message is clearer daily that a global police force is being positioned in the world’s mind.
Expect to see a lot more of that. It’s in the language, positioning and rhetoric.
It’s propaganda warfare most of all. And ushering in the New World Order is their main objective.
I’ll end with an apt quote:
This “War on Terror” is 100% absolute, utter theater. The very people making trillions from the wars are now purposefully generating hatred, division and animosity to continue their lucrative genocide and continue their designs of world domination they openly write about.
The danger when confronted with a news story, especially a controversial one, by not asking yourself the important questions, is being forever trapped in a false paradigm. A cage not of steel, but of your own ignorance. One within which you may send your son off to die because you fell for absolute utter theater put on by a single organization with soulless scum posing in different masks on opposing sides. Always click “About Us” and never settle on a conclusion until you have all the facts. Knowledge is power; that is not a cliche that is literally the difference between freedom and slavery, life and death. Source
Keep your eyes peeled and heart open,
Zen
www.zengardner.com
23 March 2011
22 March 2011
* THE LIBYAN WAR: UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGITIMATE . . . **
To some, what Ghadafi is doing to his people is simply enforcing the provincial and governmental patriotic laws - by using deadly force against domestic enemy combatants who threaten regime change in his country . . .
What if, tomorrow, three million people decided to become 'active protesters' in the United States, and begin to march against the utterly corrupt U.S. government? What if they refused to 'go away' and local police, National Guard, and Army Reserve troops began to use force against said 'protesters'? Could we then, logically, expect countries like Russia and China to 'do the right thing' - to band together militarily, and attack sensitive strategic military and aviation installations all across the U.S. - to simply prevent the 'violent atrocities' being committed by the U.S. government against innocent Americans?
** The Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa is opposed by countries representing 40 percent of the human race
By Michael Lind
*
** The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate
AP
** There is no doubt that U.S. participation in the Anglo-French-American attack on Libya is completely unconstitutional. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, before becoming president Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former law professor, accurately described the limits of a president’s authority to initiate a war in cases where the U.S. has neither been attacked nor is in imminent danger of attack:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
The civil war in Libya is a perfect case of "a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." While the president is limited by the Constitution to repelling or forestalling attack, Congress can declare war for a variety of purposes beyond simple defense. But as a member of the United Nations, the U.S. must abide by the provisions of the U.N. Charter.
The provisions of the Charter are ambiguous, but the soundest interpretation is that under Article 51 countries can wage wars of national or regional self-defense without the approval of the U.N. Security Council. However, under Article 42, Security Council approval is necessary for wars undertaken for other, non-defensive purposes.
It is not clear whether there are limits on what kinds of military actions, in addition to wars of self-defense, that the Security Council can authorize, to deal with a "threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," as described in Article 39. The Security Council was designed to act as a great power concert capable of intervening to nip international crises in the bud. Whether one thinks it is prudent or not, intervention in the Libyan civil war, in order to avert, say, floods of refugees spilling over the borders or washing up on the shores of southern Europe, would seem to be the sort of thing the Security Council has the power to authorize.
However, while the Security Council can authorize member states to undertake a war for purposes other than national or regional self-defense, it cannot order any country to do so. The U.S. agreed to participate in the United Nations only because the U.N. charter makes it clear that each member state has the right to decide, on the basis of its internal constitutional processes, whether to take part in an enforcement action authorized by the Security Council.
In other words, there are two distinct systems of authorization, one international and one national. Under international law, the U.S. lacks the authority to engage in wars unrelated to its own defense or that of its allies. Security Council action might lift that legal restraint. But once the Security Council has acted, Congress must still authorize the military action by formal voting, not by mere "consultation" with the president.
The U.S. stayed out of the League of Nations after World War I in part because critics argued that it transferred the power to send the U.S. to war from Congress to an international body. Critics of U.S. participation in the United Nations after World War II similarly argued that the result would be presidential wars authorized by the U.N. but not by Congress.
By taking part in a war unrelated to American defense on the basis of a U.N. Security Council resolution, without asking the House and the Senate for a joint resolution as the basis of his authority, President Obama has validated the fears of the critics that U.S. participation in the United Nations would informally amend the Constitution, by transferring authority to initiate all kinds of wars from Congress to the president. The argument that Congress, merely by funding the military, approves of wars initiated without congressional authorization, cannot be taken seriously.
This is not the first unconstitutional war in American history. Truman’s Korean war and Clinton’s Kosovo war and his invasion of Haiti were all waged without congressional authorization (the Vietnam War was authorized by the Southeast Asia Resolution or “Gulf of Tonkin” Resolution). In contrast, Ronald Reagan obtained a congressional joint resolution authorizing his brief intervention in Lebanon (September 29, 1983), George Herbert Walker won a congressional joint resolution in favor of the Gulf War on January 12, 1991, while his son George W. Bush similarly obtained congressional authorization for the Afghan War (September 14, 2001) and the Iraq War (October 16, 2002). Unconstitutional wars waged without authorization by Congress and justified in the name of this or that international diplomatic body -- the UN, the Organization of American States, or in the case of the Libyan war the Arab League -- seem to be a specialty of "internationalist" Democratic presidents like Truman, Clinton and Obama.
In the case of the Libyan war, the presidential power grab is even more blatant, because weak, poor countries on the Security Council have acted as ventriloquists’ puppets for the U.S., Britain and France.
When the U.N. was being designed during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt initially wanted membership in the Security Council to be limited to three or four great powers, like the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and nationalist China. Unfortunately, in its final form, the authority of the great powers in the Security Council was diluted by rotating membership for various lesser powers. In addition to the five permanent members of the Security Council -- the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China -- there are, at any given time, ten temporary members. Only a permanent member can veto a U.N. Security Council resolution, but the temporary members are permitted to vote as equals of the permanent members.
Why this matters is evident from the pattern of the U.N. Security Council vote that authorized the no-fly zones in Libya. At present the U.N. Security Council is made up of the five permanent members plus ten other countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Germany, India, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa.
Of the members of the Security Council other than the permanent five, only Germany and possibly India and Brazil can be described as actual or potential great powers. Several of today’s temporary U.N. Security Council members are hardly countries at all. Lebanon’s government controls only part of its territory. Gabon is a statelet with a mere 1.6 million people, smaller than many American cities.
In the vote to authorize war against Libya, the U.S., Britain and France were joined by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa. Abstaining from the vote were five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany.
What do the five countries that registered their opposition to the Libyan war have in common? They make up most of the great powers of the early twenty-first century. A few years back, Goldman Sachs identified the so-called "BRIC’s" -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- as the most important emerging countries in the world. The opponents of the Libyan war on the Security Council are the BRIC’s plus Germany, the most populous and richest country in Europe.
Including the United States, the Security Council nations that voted for the no-fly zone resolution have a combined population of a little more than 700 million people and a combined GDP, in terms of purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The Security Council countries that showed their disapproval of the Libyan war by abstaining from the vote have a combined population of about 3 billion people and a GDP of around $21 trillion.
If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion between the pro-war and anti-war camps on the Security Council is even more striking. The countries that abstained from the vote account for more than 40 percent of the human race. The countries that joined the U.S. in voting to authorize attacks on Libya, including Britain and France, have a combined population that adds up to a little more than 5 percent of the human race.
The truth is that the U.S. is joined in its war on Libya by only two second-rank great powers, Britain and France, which between them carved up North Africa and the Middle East a century ago, slaughtering and torturing many Arabs in the process. Every other major power on earth (with the exception of Japan, which is not on the Council and has been quiet) opposed the Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa, registering that opposition by abstentions rather than "no" votes in the Security Council.
The U.S., along with Britain and France, won the Security Council vote in the face of opposition from China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil only by rounding up the votes of various minor countries, including Gabon and Lebanon and Colombia and Portugal. If the U.S. promised favors to these weak nations in return for pro-war votes, it would not be the first time in the history of American diplomacy. In any event, the claim that the international community supports the war cannot be sustained, in the face of the opposition of the BRIC’s plus Germany.
And what of the alleged moral authority provided by the Arab League? A week after calling on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on Libya, the Arab League reversed its position, once western bombs began to rain down on an Arab country. Explaining the reversal, Amr Mussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, said: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."
In his press conference last Friday, President Obama told the American people: "Yesterday, in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League, the U.N. Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against citizens." It is bad enough that the President thinks that a declaration of war by Congress is not necessary, as long as the war is blessed by Security Council members like Colombia and Gabon, as well as by "the Libyan people" and by the collection of kleptocrats and thugs that make up the Arab League. But when the Arab League withdraws its support as soon as the war begins -- well, that’s just embarrassing.
What if, tomorrow, three million people decided to become 'active protesters' in the United States, and begin to march against the utterly corrupt U.S. government? What if they refused to 'go away' and local police, National Guard, and Army Reserve troops began to use force against said 'protesters'? Could we then, logically, expect countries like Russia and China to 'do the right thing' - to band together militarily, and attack sensitive strategic military and aviation installations all across the U.S. - to simply prevent the 'violent atrocities' being committed by the U.S. government against innocent Americans?
** The Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa is opposed by countries representing 40 percent of the human race
By Michael Lind
*
** The Libyan war: Unconstitutional and illegitimate
AP
** There is no doubt that U.S. participation in the Anglo-French-American attack on Libya is completely unconstitutional. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, before becoming president Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former law professor, accurately described the limits of a president’s authority to initiate a war in cases where the U.S. has neither been attacked nor is in imminent danger of attack:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
The civil war in Libya is a perfect case of "a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." While the president is limited by the Constitution to repelling or forestalling attack, Congress can declare war for a variety of purposes beyond simple defense. But as a member of the United Nations, the U.S. must abide by the provisions of the U.N. Charter.
The provisions of the Charter are ambiguous, but the soundest interpretation is that under Article 51 countries can wage wars of national or regional self-defense without the approval of the U.N. Security Council. However, under Article 42, Security Council approval is necessary for wars undertaken for other, non-defensive purposes.
It is not clear whether there are limits on what kinds of military actions, in addition to wars of self-defense, that the Security Council can authorize, to deal with a "threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression," as described in Article 39. The Security Council was designed to act as a great power concert capable of intervening to nip international crises in the bud. Whether one thinks it is prudent or not, intervention in the Libyan civil war, in order to avert, say, floods of refugees spilling over the borders or washing up on the shores of southern Europe, would seem to be the sort of thing the Security Council has the power to authorize.
However, while the Security Council can authorize member states to undertake a war for purposes other than national or regional self-defense, it cannot order any country to do so. The U.S. agreed to participate in the United Nations only because the U.N. charter makes it clear that each member state has the right to decide, on the basis of its internal constitutional processes, whether to take part in an enforcement action authorized by the Security Council.
In other words, there are two distinct systems of authorization, one international and one national. Under international law, the U.S. lacks the authority to engage in wars unrelated to its own defense or that of its allies. Security Council action might lift that legal restraint. But once the Security Council has acted, Congress must still authorize the military action by formal voting, not by mere "consultation" with the president.
The U.S. stayed out of the League of Nations after World War I in part because critics argued that it transferred the power to send the U.S. to war from Congress to an international body. Critics of U.S. participation in the United Nations after World War II similarly argued that the result would be presidential wars authorized by the U.N. but not by Congress.
By taking part in a war unrelated to American defense on the basis of a U.N. Security Council resolution, without asking the House and the Senate for a joint resolution as the basis of his authority, President Obama has validated the fears of the critics that U.S. participation in the United Nations would informally amend the Constitution, by transferring authority to initiate all kinds of wars from Congress to the president. The argument that Congress, merely by funding the military, approves of wars initiated without congressional authorization, cannot be taken seriously.
This is not the first unconstitutional war in American history. Truman’s Korean war and Clinton’s Kosovo war and his invasion of Haiti were all waged without congressional authorization (the Vietnam War was authorized by the Southeast Asia Resolution or “Gulf of Tonkin” Resolution). In contrast, Ronald Reagan obtained a congressional joint resolution authorizing his brief intervention in Lebanon (September 29, 1983), George Herbert Walker won a congressional joint resolution in favor of the Gulf War on January 12, 1991, while his son George W. Bush similarly obtained congressional authorization for the Afghan War (September 14, 2001) and the Iraq War (October 16, 2002). Unconstitutional wars waged without authorization by Congress and justified in the name of this or that international diplomatic body -- the UN, the Organization of American States, or in the case of the Libyan war the Arab League -- seem to be a specialty of "internationalist" Democratic presidents like Truman, Clinton and Obama.
In the case of the Libyan war, the presidential power grab is even more blatant, because weak, poor countries on the Security Council have acted as ventriloquists’ puppets for the U.S., Britain and France.
When the U.N. was being designed during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt initially wanted membership in the Security Council to be limited to three or four great powers, like the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and nationalist China. Unfortunately, in its final form, the authority of the great powers in the Security Council was diluted by rotating membership for various lesser powers. In addition to the five permanent members of the Security Council -- the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China -- there are, at any given time, ten temporary members. Only a permanent member can veto a U.N. Security Council resolution, but the temporary members are permitted to vote as equals of the permanent members.
Why this matters is evident from the pattern of the U.N. Security Council vote that authorized the no-fly zones in Libya. At present the U.N. Security Council is made up of the five permanent members plus ten other countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Germany, India, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa.
Of the members of the Security Council other than the permanent five, only Germany and possibly India and Brazil can be described as actual or potential great powers. Several of today’s temporary U.N. Security Council members are hardly countries at all. Lebanon’s government controls only part of its territory. Gabon is a statelet with a mere 1.6 million people, smaller than many American cities.
In the vote to authorize war against Libya, the U.S., Britain and France were joined by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa. Abstaining from the vote were five countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany.
What do the five countries that registered their opposition to the Libyan war have in common? They make up most of the great powers of the early twenty-first century. A few years back, Goldman Sachs identified the so-called "BRIC’s" -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- as the most important emerging countries in the world. The opponents of the Libyan war on the Security Council are the BRIC’s plus Germany, the most populous and richest country in Europe.
Including the United States, the Security Council nations that voted for the no-fly zone resolution have a combined population of a little more than 700 million people and a combined GDP, in terms of purchasing power parity, of roughly $20 trillion. The Security Council countries that showed their disapproval of the Libyan war by abstaining from the vote have a combined population of about 3 billion people and a GDP of around $21 trillion.
If the U.S. is factored out, the disproportion between the pro-war and anti-war camps on the Security Council is even more striking. The countries that abstained from the vote account for more than 40 percent of the human race. The countries that joined the U.S. in voting to authorize attacks on Libya, including Britain and France, have a combined population that adds up to a little more than 5 percent of the human race.
The truth is that the U.S. is joined in its war on Libya by only two second-rank great powers, Britain and France, which between them carved up North Africa and the Middle East a century ago, slaughtering and torturing many Arabs in the process. Every other major power on earth (with the exception of Japan, which is not on the Council and has been quiet) opposed the Anglo-French-American attack in North Africa, registering that opposition by abstentions rather than "no" votes in the Security Council.
The U.S., along with Britain and France, won the Security Council vote in the face of opposition from China, Russia, Germany, India and Brazil only by rounding up the votes of various minor countries, including Gabon and Lebanon and Colombia and Portugal. If the U.S. promised favors to these weak nations in return for pro-war votes, it would not be the first time in the history of American diplomacy. In any event, the claim that the international community supports the war cannot be sustained, in the face of the opposition of the BRIC’s plus Germany.
And what of the alleged moral authority provided by the Arab League? A week after calling on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on Libya, the Arab League reversed its position, once western bombs began to rain down on an Arab country. Explaining the reversal, Amr Mussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, said: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."
In his press conference last Friday, President Obama told the American people: "Yesterday, in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League, the U.N. Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against citizens." It is bad enough that the President thinks that a declaration of war by Congress is not necessary, as long as the war is blessed by Security Council members like Colombia and Gabon, as well as by "the Libyan people" and by the collection of kleptocrats and thugs that make up the Arab League. But when the Arab League withdraws its support as soon as the war begins -- well, that’s just embarrassing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)