Considering The Whole Picture

Thetruth is that the Obama administration has not had nearly as many attacks on diplomatic targets as occurred during the years of the Bush administration. Of course, the Republicans don't want to talk about that. They only want to talk about Benghazi, in a pathetic attempt to smear Hillary Clinton in case she runs for president in 2016 (because a Clinton candidacy scares the hell out of them -- and rightfully so). They also don't want to talk about how they handicapped Obama and Clinton by cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in embassy and consulate security -- which makes their attempt to scandalize Benghazi just another GOP exercise in hypocrisy.

Attempt To Smear Hillary Is Failing

Karl Rove and his desperate minions have decided that the only chance they would have to defeat a Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2016 is to smear her good name -- and they have started early. Having nothing else, they are trying to turn the Benghazi tragedy into some kind of scandal, and paint Clinton as the ogre behind that scandal. But it's a pathetic attempt, and not even supported by some in their own party.

As the above graphic shows, Republican Robert Gates (appointed by President Bush to be Secretary of Defense) says he would have handled the situation the same way if he had still been in office, and scoffed at the idea that then Secretary of State Clinton had done anything wrong or been involved in any kind of cover-up. He even labeled the ideas that some Republicans have of what should have been done as "cartoonish".

And a Public Policy Polling survey (conducted of 576 voters between May 10th and 12th -- with a margin of error of 4.1 points) shows that the public is not buying into the silly idea that Benghazi is a scandal that will hurt Hillary Clinton. The survey shows that Hillary is still viewed far more favorably (52%) than the congressional Republicans (36%). And the views on Benghazi are also telling:

IS BENGHAZI THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY?
Yes...............23%
No...............65%
Unsure...............13%

DO YOU TRUST HILLARY CLINTON OR CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MORE ON BENGHAZI?
Clinton...............49%
Republicans...............39%
Unsure...............11%

In addition 18% more voters said it was more important to pass immigration reform than to investigate Benghazi, and 9% more said it was more important to close the loopholes in background checks for gun purchasers. Try as they might, the GOP is just not getting any traction on trying to use Benghazi to smear Hillary Clinton.

Public Didn't Like Willard's Mideast Remarks

The time since the party conventions has not been good for Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie). He got no bounce from his own convention, and had to watch as the president got a very nice bounce in the polls from the Democratic Convention. That would have been bad enough, but then Willard had to shoot himself in the foot by trying to make it look like he knew something about foreign policy.

When the embassies of this country were attacked in the Mideast (especially in Egypt and Libya, where Americans were killed), Willard was quick to jump in and try to score some political points from the tragedy by blaming the riots on President Obama. And he did this at a time when Americans should have been standing behind the president. Many people found Willard's attempt to score political points off the death of American officials to not only be inappropriate, but unpatriotic.

This is verified by a survey done between September 13th and 16th by the Pew Research Center. Only 26% of all Americans approved of Romney's remarks on the Mideast turmoil (which is even less than the number of Americans who self-identify as Republicans). In fact, as the chart above shows, all demographic groups disapproved of Willard's remarks except one -- Republicans, and even there only 58% approved. This was truly a gaffe that hurt the Romney campaign.

About the only good thing about this affair for Romney is that it was pushed off the media front pages after only a few days. Unfortunately for the Romney campaign, the story that pushed it out of the media's glare was another shot to the foot by Willard -- the video of his disdain for half of the American people. Willard seems to be just stumbling form one disaster to another right now.

Egyptian PM Asks For The Impossible

The gentleman in the picture above is Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil. He has a tough job ahead of him -- to keep the peace in a divided country while trying to establish a workable democracy. I recognize that, and I hope he is successful in that task. But he has an unrealistic view of the United States, and what President Obama has to power to do here.

You have surely heard about the ridiculous, offensive, and poorly-made video posted on YouTube. It purports to be the truth about the prophet Mohammed, founder of the muslim religion. But it really is nothing more than naked and ugly bigotry. And it has been used as a reason for muslim riots in several Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt and Libya (where four Americans, including our ambassador, were killed).

To his credit, PM Qandil has said that regardless of the provocation, violent demonstrations are unacceptable. He is right about that. Insults (and the ridiculous film was insulting) are offensive, and never any fun to see or hear -- but they are also not a justification for violence, especially violence resulting in fatalities.

In a recent interview with BBC's Arabic News, PM Qandil said it is "unacceptable to insult our Prophet". He has the right to that opinion, but he went further and seems to be asking the United States (and other Western countries) to curb free speech. He called on them to:

 "take the necessary measures to ensure insulting billions of people, one-and-a-half billion people and their beliefs, does not happen and people pay for what they do, and at the same time make sure that the reflections of the true Egyptian and Muslims is well in the Western media."

I understand his feelings. But he is asking the impossible -- at least I hope it is impossible. In the United States, we have a constitutional guarantee of free speech. Our Founding Fathers knew that free speech can be offensive at times -- sometimes very offensive. But they determined that free speech is a necessary requirement for a democracy, and they were right. And maintaining a free and open democratic society is much more important than not ever being offended by what someone else has to say, write, or film.

In short, being offended on occasion is just the price of democracy -- and if you are never offended, then you don't live in a democracy. I personally don't like what the racists, misogynists, homophobes, and other bigots in this country have to say. I find it very offensive. But I defend their right to say those offensive things because I want to live in a free and democratic society. And I also recognize that I have the right to blast those people for those bigoted views with my own words, and I try to do that often.

Mr. Qandil has the right to be offended by religious bigotry in this country, and he has the right to speak out against it. And his people have the right to peacefully demonstrate against that hateful bigotry. What they should not have the right to do is commit violent acts -- or ask any other country to curb (or eliminate) their right of free (and sometimes offensive) speech.

Perhaps the most reasonable statement about this whole mess has come from the Grand Mufti Sheik Abdel-Aziz al-Sheik, the top religious authority in Saudi Arabia. He said:

"Muslims should not be dragged by wrath and anger to shift from legitimate to forbidden action and by this, they will, unknowingly, fulfil some aims of the film."

Bush And Qaddafi - Partners In Crime

Like most Americans I had always believed that the brutal dictator pictured above, Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, was an enemy of this country. After all, his regime not only supported worldwide terrorism but he was directly responsible for some vicious terrorist attacks -- including the bombing of the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, Scotland and the nightclub bombing of U.S. soldiers in Germany. And whether he was responsible for it or not, he publicly applauded the assassination of our ally in Egypt, Anwar Sadat. Hell, Ronald Reagan even bombed Libya in 1986.

But it seems that every American president didn't see things that way. After stealing an election, curtailing the rights of Americans with the Patriot Act, starting two unnecessary wars, authorizing the torture of prisoners, and selling out to Big Oil interests, George Bush (and his evil cohort, Dick Cheney) decided that Qaddafi wasn't such a bad guy after all. They picked him to be an ally -- albeit a secret one.

Now that Qaddafi has virtually been overthrown (although he's still in hiding trying to save his worthless neck), documents of the Libyan government have come to light. And some of those documents show that starting in 2002 the Bush administration had the CIA form a working relationship with Libyan intelligence services.

There were some detainees that Bush/Cheney wanted answers from, but decided that the methods of torture needed to get those answers were too extreme even for them. I know its hard to believe that any torture was too extreme for Cheney, but evidently there were some. But no torture methods bothered the brutal Qaddafi, and that made him useful to Bush/Cheney.

The United States "renditioned" detainees to Libya (sent them to Libya to be tortured). I'm sure some in the Bush administration would claim they didn't know what happened to the detainees after they arrived in Libya (plausible deniability). That's just not true. The CIA not only provided the questions to be asked while the Libyan torturers did their job, CIA officers actually sat in on many of the torture sessions. Bush administration officials not only knew what was happening, they approved of it.

And it gets worse (if that's possible). The Bush administration arrested some anti-Qaddafi Libyan "extremists" and turned them over to Qaddafi -- helping him to prop up his brutal regime. The current leader of the rebel Libyan army is one of those the U.S. arrested and gave to Qaddafi.

If it wasn't proven before (and I believe it was) then this leaves no doubt that Bush, Cheney, and others in that administration did plenty enough to classify them as war criminals. They should be arrested and turned over to the World Court in the Hague to be tried for their crimes.

Qaddafi Loses (And Obama Wins)

It looks like the bloody and vicious reign of Moammar Qaddafi is over in Libya. His location is still unknown at the time I am writing this, but the rebel forces control all of the country outside of Tripoli and most of the city. Qaddafi's position is untenable, and it's basically all over but the mop-up (and the celebrating).

And speaking of celebrating, the above pictures of Libyans celebrating shows who they thank for helping to rid them of Qaddafi. They call them the Fantastic 4. They are United States U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and President Barack Obama. The Libyans know that without the work of these four people to bring the air power of NATO into the fight on their side, it would have been much more difficult (and maybe impossible) to overthrow the dictator.

I have been critical of President Obama for his failure to stand up to the Republicans on domestic issues, but I certainly can't fault his political courage in standing up for the Libyan people and helping them to achieve their freedom from Qaddafi. When he led the effort last March to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and kicked off the NATO effort with American air power (which he then transitioned to NATO), the Republicans (both in Congress and on the campaign trail) were brutal in their complaints about his actions. According to them he wasn't doing enough, he was doing too much, and he was doing it wrong (and would fail).

So what happened? In about six months of conflict, with NATO backing the rebels, Qaddafi was defeated. It cost the United States about $1 billion (half of what one week in Afghanistan is costing). And it was done without the loss of a single American soldier. It sounds to me like he didn't just do a good thing, he did it the right way.

But they Republicans still refuse to give the president any credit. They are contorting the truth way out of shape to deny him any responsibility for the success in Libya. Maybe it's because he didn't do it the Republican way -- by involving the country in a decade-long and seemingly endless war costing billions of dollars a week and killing thousands of U.S. soldiers  while failing to accomplish the goal.

Maybe those Republicans should just keep their mouths shut about this one.

Right-Wing Goes Looney Over Libya

There used to be a time in this country when the right-wing conservatives actually stood for something. This was especially true when it was led by men like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. I seldom agreed with them, but at least they knew what they believed in and knew how to expound those beliefs -- and those beliefs didn't change, no matter who was president or who agreed or disagreed with them.

That is no longer true. Since the election of our African-American president, Barack Obama, the right-wing in America seems to have completely lost its mind (and many of its beliefs). It seems that they no longer stand for anything. Now they are too caught up in standing against things -- that is, anything that President Obama says or does.

When a person or group actually stands for something, they can be dealt with -- and compromise can be found. The compromise may not make everyone ecstatic, but they can be satisfied that a solution was found that would be good for the country. But a person or group that is only against things, like the current teabagging right-wing, cannot compromise because they don't really have a base position to act from. Whatever their opponents (especially the president) propose, they must be against -- no matter how reasonable the proposal is.

A good example of this is the current situation in Libya and our government's reaction to it. When the conflict first started, the right-wing was aghast that the president didn't jump right in to help the poor people in Libya who were fighting for their freedom. They viewed his slow and measured response as failing the wonderful "freedom fighters", and really as being anti-freedom in general. They were quick to criticize the inaction.

But now the president, through the United Nations, has acted to defend the Libyan rebels from certain annihilation by Kaddafi's forces, and it is working. The rebels have, with U.N. help turned a bad situation into an advantageous one. In short, they are once again winning -- and it looks like Kaddafi may actually be shoved from power.

Now one might think this would make those on the right very happy. After all, the president has done what they were asking him to do. And that would be the case -- if they had really had firm beliefs to begin with. But they didn't. They wanted the president to intervene only because he wasn't intervening. In other words, they were simply taking a position opposed to the president (and could care less about the Libyans).

Once the president finally acted the right-wing did a full flip-flop. All of a sudden they were against any intervention in Libya. Now this made them look a little silly, since they had taken the opposite position just the week before -- but what could they do? They had to oppose the president (since their only and fundamental belief is the president is wrong -- no matter what he does). Even worse for them, it looks like the president's action might actually be working.

This meant they needed some reason for them to justify opposing the president, so they pulled the old boogeyman out of the closet -- al-Queda. They have suddenly discovered that the rebels aren't freedom fighters at all, but al-Queda operatives who want to take over Libya and use it as a base of operations for their nefarious purposes. Listen to what some of these fringe right-wing nuts are now saying:

– On Facebook, former Speaker Newt Gingrich asked “Does President Obama acknowledge the danger of Al Qaeda allies among the anti-Qaddafi forces and pledge to work for a moderate replacement government without extremist factions?” [03/28/11]

– Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): “I have been very reluctant to see the United States to go into Libya. For one thing, we haven’t identified yet who the opposition even is to Qaddafi. We don’t know if this is led by Hamas, Hezbollah, or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really better off, are United States, our interests better off, if let’s say Al-Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?” [03/24/11]

– AFA’s Bryan Fischer: “Al Qaeda is behind the rebellion in Libya. So this no-fly zone is in fact helping the Muslims who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. But helping our sworn enemies, especially if they are Muslims, does not seem to be a bother to Obama.” [03/22/11]

– Hateblogger Pam Geller, writing at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment: “And now [President Obama] is essentially backing Al-Qaeda in Libya. Al-Qaeda has already established an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, and is playing a leading role in the revolt against Gaddafi. The Libyan Islamist Fighting Group is also involved.” [03/21/11]

There's only one problem with these new charges from the right-wingers. They aren't true. U.S. intelligence has not been able to find any connection between the Libyan rebels and al-Queda (or "islamofascists" of any kind for that matter). They have simply pulled this ridiculous charge out of their (tinfoil?) hats, because they had to have some reason to oppose President Obama.

What's even crazier is that their new position puts them in the uncomfortable position of supporting the Kaddafi government -- the same government they were applauding Ronald Reagan for bombing (since Kaddafi was the force behind the Lockerbie airliner bombing). How's that for fickle?

While I seldom agreed with them, I miss the old-style conservatives. At least they had some real beliefs.

Intervention In Libya Seems To Be Working

There has been a lot of discussion over the United Nations intervention in Libya in the last few days. Some want to paint it as a new war by the United States (even though most actual air flights have been flown by French and British troops, while the United States mainly used cruise missiles to knock out radar installations and command& control sites). Others counter that we should have struck sooner and unilaterally. Frankly, I think both sides are wrong.

It would have been a serious mistake for the United States to unilaterally intervene in Libya. It needed to be a United Nations effort with the bulk of the fighting shared among several nations (including at least some Arab nations), and that is exactly what has happened. Although the U.S. took the initial lead in the operation, control will now be handed off to NATO in a couple of days.

If intervention had occurred any sooner, the rebel uprising (which truly is a Libyan uprising) could have easily blamed on Western nations. If it had happened any later, it is doubtful that the rebels could have survived the vicious attack by the Libyan military (which was pounding them with air strikes, tanks, and artillery). It looks like the United Nations intervened at exactly the right time.

Once the French started destroying Libyan army tanks and artillery, and the rest of the coalition made sure the Libyan air force was out of the fight, the odds were evened and the rebels began to once again seize the advantage. They were able to save Benghazi and retake Ajdabiya. Now they have moved west and also retaken Ras Lanuf and Brega. This gives the rebels control over most of Libya's oil fields -- a situation that Kaddafi cannot allow to exist if he is to remain in power for long.

But the fighting is far from over. The rebels are pushing west while the Libyan army retreats (leaving their armor and artillery behind, smoking and destroyed). But the rebel hold on Misrata is still tenuous, and the rebels must take Sirte (Kaddafi's home town) before they can help out with Misrata. And it is expected the fighting in Sirte could be very bloody.

Even if Sirte is taken and Misrata saved, the fighting would not be over. The endgame is surely to be played out in Tripoli -- Libya's capital and largest city. And it's anybody's guess as to what will happen there. The population of that city could rise up and throw Kaddafi out, or they could settle in for a long and protracted and very bloody battle. Only time will tell.

But for now, the intervention of the United Nations is working. The rebels have the initiave once again. It looks like Kaddafi's days may be numbered. But the U.N. is doing all it can or should do. Now it's up to the rebels. And we'll just have to wait and see if they can finish what they started.

Objective Not To Remove Kadaffi ?

The United Nations "no-fly zone" has been established in Libya, and it looks like the "other necessary measures" are also being pursued. Radar and Command & Control sites have been attacked by cruise missiles (over 200 of them) and French planes have taken out some tanks attacking rebel positions.

So far it looks like the United States has taken the lead in the action. I think that was probably to be expected, especially with the removal of radar and other sites by missiles. But care needs to be taken that this doesn't turn into a third American war on a muslim nation. The action was approved by the United Nations and must remain a U.N. action.

The president and Secretary of Defense Gates have both said that within a few days the United States will hand over primary control of the operation to other U.N. forces -- probably Great Britain and France. They have also ruled out sending ground forces into Libya. I hope they are telling the truth on both counts. I think the U.N. needed to act in Libya, but the U.S. doesn't need another major war on its hands.

Having said the above, I must also say that the recent remark by Joint Chiefs of Staff head Admiral Mullen is rather stupid. He said that the purpose of the mission was not to remove Kadaffi from power. What else could be the objective? Surely we don't want to maintain the status quo -- a divided country in the midst of a civil war, with Kadaffi still in power and controlling Libyan oil. That would be a worse outcome than just staying out and letting Kadaffi solidify his position again.

The only legitimate reason for the U.N. action is to help remove Kadaffi from power. And once he is removed from power, he should be tried and convicted and spend the rest of his life in prison for ordering the bombing of the airliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. This should have happened many years ago.

Allowing Kadaffi to remain in power is not an option, especially now that the United Nations has attacked the country. he must be removed from power. Anything short of that would be a dismal and complete failure.

U.N. OK's "All Necessary Action" Against Gaddafi

I have posted a couple of times on this blog that I opposed any action by the United States to interfere in the internal situation in Libya. I still oppose unilateral action by the United States (or any other country). However, I do support the action taken last night by the United Nations.

The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing U.N. forces to impose a "no-fly zone" over Libya, and to take "all necessary actions" to protect the Libyan population from Gaddafi. Ten nations voted for the resolution and five abstained from voting. The abstaining nations are Germany, Russia, China, Brazil and India.

The rebels in Libya had taken over nearly half the country, until Gaddafi unleashed his air power and large artillery. Recently it looked like Gaddafi might take over the country, but if he can't use his air force (and artillery) the momentum could swing back to the rebels.

It is believed that any early actions taken by the U.N. would be by Britain and France with help from at least two Arab nations. This is a good thing. Just like unilateral action would have been a mistake, action without Arab help would also be a mistake. Any action must be viewed by the world as a U.N. action -- not a NATO action.

Gaddafi is not going to withdraw his troops and stop his attacks -- he's too much a madman for that. It would probably be a good idea to go ahead and take out any Libyan radar in preparation for action that might be necessary against their air force or artillery. I still wish Gaddafi would abdicate and leave the country, but that's not going to happen. The next best thing is to take away his technological weapons advantage -- and that's what the U.N. did last night.

All we can do now is hope this Libyan action ends soon and with a minimal loss of life -- and with Gaddafi out of power.

Libya - To Intervene Or Not

Dissent is spreading across the Middle East. After years of living under tyrannical rulers the people are beginning to demand their own rights to democracy, economic justice and human rights. The tyrants in Tunisia and Egypt has already been tossed out by their people and the movements is spreading to other countries. Currently, the battle for freedom is reaching a critical point in at least one country -- Libya.

The dictator in power in Libya, Moammar Kadafi, doesn't seem to be able to read the writing on the wall. He is desperately trying to hold on to power -- even to the point of hiring mercenaries to murder his own people. The country is now divided and may well be slipping into civil war.

That has many in this country, both on the left and the right, who would like to intervene in that country on the side of those opposing Kadafi. One of the most popular ideas for this intervention is to create a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent the dictator from using his airplanes and helicopters to attack those trying to drive him from power.

That sounds like a simpler solution than it actually is. It would require the attacking of Libyan radar and air defense systems to protect the pilots that would be patrolling the no-fly zone. In other words, we would have to attack Libyan territory -- at least on a limited (we hope) basis. I can't believe it would be in the best interest of this country for pictures to be flashed around the world showing America attacking another Arab country -- especially in light of the disastrous invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which seem to be endless).

America has a history of intervention into the affairs of other countries, and it has usually resulted in undesirable outcomes. For example, we helped to overthrow the democratically-elected president of Iran years ago and installed the Shah in his place -- a dictator with American sympathies. The end result of that was the current anti-American theistic regime in Iran. It would have been better if we had just stayed out of Iranian affairs to begin with.

And that is far from the only example. Interventionism is a policy that is fraught with unseen dangers. What may seem to be a sensible action could easily turn into something horrible, like when we supported the Taliban (then called the mujahadeen) in their struggle against Russia. That one certainly didn't turn out as expected.

My point is that intervention is a mistake. We would not allow another country to intervene in our own internal affairs, and we should extend that same courtesy to all other countries. The Libyan people have the right to decide their own fate without any help or interference from any outside force (including the United States). If they truly want Kadafi out of power, then he will be tossed out (regardless of what brutal actions he may take).

In fact we already intervene in most of these countries in that part of the world too much. Much of the police and military propping up these dictators are trained and supplied by the United States -- with both lethal (guns) and non-lethal (tear gas) weapons. We have profited by selling the tools that have kept the tyrants in power. Some Americans think this is just good business, but it is a dirty business that has helped to keep millions enslaved for many years. It needs to stop.

I have no problem with selling American products to other countries, but those should not be the products to make war or oppress people. It we are to export anything, it should be the belief that all people have the right to dignity, freedom and economic justice.

U.S. Government Wimps Out

I almost threw up when I heard about this. It seems that the United States government has apologized to Muammar al-Gaddafi, the dictator of Libya. Actually, it seems more like they got on their knees and kissed his ass to keep the huge oil companies happy.

Last week, Gaddafi said that Switzerland "deserved to be attacked through jihad", because the Swiss had voted to outlaw the building of minarets in their country. I admit the Swiss showed some bigotry and intolerance in the vote -- but a jihad? That sounds a bit extreme and a whole lot nutty.

And State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley remarked about it saying it was "lots of words, not necessarily a lot of sense." I think that statement was right on target and actually showed a lot of restraint, but evidently Gaddafi and his henchmen were offended (boo-hoo!). In my opinion, if Gaddafi is so sensitive then maybe he shouldn't be threatening others.

The Libyan ambassador to the United States later said the dictator was talking about an economic boycott -- not "an armed attack". That sounds more than a little disingenuous to me. When has the term jihad ever referred to an economic boycott? That is certainly not the meaning most of the world (muslim or not) gives the term.

The truth is that Gaddafi (pictured) opened his mouth and made himself look like a fool (not the first time either). Now they are trying to act offended over a rather modest statement. A statement that was much less offensive than Gaddafi's. But Libya's National Oil Corporation told U.S. oil companies they faced possible "repercussions" over the insult to Gaddafi.

And the big oil companies went running to the government. They made it clear that business, and their huge windfall profits, were far more important than right or wrong and calling a dictator on his threats to one of our allies. So our wimpy government bowed to the wishes of the big oil companies and sent Crowley out to apologize to the dictator.

Crowley said, "I should have focused solely on our concern about the term jihad, which has since been clarified by the Libyan government. I understand my personal comments were perceived as a personal attack on the president. These comments do not reflect U.S. policy and were not intended to offend. I apologize if they were taken that way."

Pitiful. How can the U.S. badmouth a popularly elected president like Hugo Chavez, and then kiss the butt of a psychopathic madman like Gaddafi? Gaddafi is an insane fool, and has been for many years. And I won't be apologizing for that!