World in dangerous drift towards war: Kissinger warns world fast approaching ‘turning point in human history’ « vineoflife.net
March 5, 2013 – IRAN – Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has warned that a crisis involving a nuclear Iran is in the “foreseeable future.” The Nobel Peace laureate, 89, was speaking about prospects in the Middle East at the World Economic Forum.
He said nuclear proliferation in the region triggered by an armed Iran would increase the chances of an atomic war – “a turning point in human history. I believe this point will be reached in a very foreseeable future,” he added. He also urged the US and Russia to co-operate in resolving Syria’s conflict.
“There has emerged in the region, the current and most urgent issue of nuclear proliferation. For 15 years, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have declared that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but it has been approaching,” he said.
Why Are We Still on the DMZ? … “President Eisenhower ended the Korean War 60 years ago. The Chinese armies in Korea went home. Twenty years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia abandoned communism and ceased to arm the North, and Mao’s China gave up world revolution for state capitalism.”
Why Are We Still on the DMZ?
Townhall.com ^ | February 15, 2013 | Pat Buchanan
Posted on Friday, February 15, 2013 9:18:01 AM by Kaslin
North Korea has just pulled off an impressive dual feat — the successful test both of an intercontinental ballistic missile and an atom bomb in the 6-kiloton range.
Experts believe North Korea is still far from having the capability to marry a nuclear warhead to a missile that could hit the West Coast. But this seems to be Kim’s goal.
Why is he obsessed with a nation half a world away?
America has never recognized his, his father’s or his grandfather’s regime. We have led the U.N. Security Council in imposing sanctions. We have 28,000 troops in the South and a defense treaty that will bring us into any war with the North from day one, and a U.S. general would assume overall command of U.S. and Republic of Korea troops.
We are South Korea‘s defense shield and deterrent against the North.
And while America cannot abdicate her responsibility and role in this crisis, we should be asking ourselves: Why is this our crisis in 2013?
President Eisenhower ended the Korean War 60 years ago. The Chinese armies in Korea went home. Twenty years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia abandoned communism and ceased to arm the North, and Mao’s China gave up world revolution for state capitalism.
Epochal events. Yet U.S. troops still sit on the DMZ, just as their grandfathers did when this writer was still in high school.
Prison Planet.com » Former Asian First Minister: Global UN Police Force To Enforce World Government Dictates
Former Malaysian First Minister Harris Saleh: “The Security Council will pave the way to setting up of a World Parliament and a World Cabinet making the UNthe most powerful and having full authority on earth.”
Former Asian First Minister: Global UN Police Force To Enforce World Government Dictates unpolice
On Sunday U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the United States is “ready from a military perspective’’ to attack Iran under the guise of preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Panetta makes his comment at 14:45.
Panetta’s comments arrive after the U.S. and members of the United Nations Security Council held talks in Baghdad on Iran’s supposed nuclear threat.
“I think it was a complete failure, in terms of content,” an Iranian diplomat told McClatchy on Friday. “The more they talk, the worse it gets.”
Despite Iran’s willingness to negotiate, a senior U.S. official has stated that harsher sanctions will be imposed on the Islamic Republic. The U.S. and Israel believe Iran is engaging in the talks – a third one will be held in Moscow next month – in order to buy time for its nuclear program.
WASHINGTON — Nine years ago this week, President George W. Bush ordered more than 250,000 troops in a U.S.-led coalition to cross the “berm” on the border of Kuwait and head into Iraq. Weeks later, Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime was finished, and the despot was in hiding. It was a stunning victory for the force of American arms and leadership. Though it took until Dec. 13 to find the former dictator hiding in a “spider hole” near his hometown of Tikrit, Saddam eventually was tried by his own people, convicted, inter alia , of crimes against humanity and executed by hanging Dec. 30, 2006. But Saddam’s demise and the installation of a democratically elected government didn’t quell the vicious insurgency that began shortly after the liberation of Baghdad.
In November 2008, American voters hired a previously obscure U.S. senator as commander in chief. During his campaign, Barack Obama pledged to “get us out of Iraq,” and he made good on his promise. On Oct. 21, 2011, he precipitously ordered all remaining U.S. troops to leave Mesopotamia. The ill-advised decision had three profoundly important unintended consequences:
—Unlike the victors of the Gulf War in 1991, none of the 2.2 million American soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines who fought and won every battle in Operation Iraqi Freedom — including nearly 4,500 U.S. personnel killed in combat and more than 32,000 wounded in action — received a “welcome home” parade. Though administration and Pentagon officials won’t admit it, the deleterious effect of the hasty pullout and lack of public acclaim has adversely affected military morale and contributed to a spate of damaging incidents involving American personnel in Afghanistan.
—The hurried U.S. withdrawal from Iraq emboldened radical Islamists throughout the Middle East, who now claim their jihad succeeded in “driving the American invaders (or crusaders) out of Iraq.” This oft-repeated theme is now part of radical Islamist rhetoric in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and Lebanon and is disseminated in propaganda organs supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaida, the Taliban and even al-Shabab.
—The rush to get out of Iraq and now Afghanistan, coupled with major cuts in the U.S. defense budget, has discouraged America’s allies and emboldened our adversaries. The most pernicious consequence of our retrenchment is evident in Syria, where Bashar Assad‘s brutal regime is perpetrating a bloodbath.
U.S. influence in the region is now so diminished that our government has been reduced to the role of bystander in a yearlong atrocity that has claimed at least 9,000 lives. The Obama administration refuses to offer anything but rhetorical encouragement for the Syrian opposition. But Iran — supposedly smarting under “severe” U.N. economic and diplomatic sanctions — continues to provide a full range of economic, military and intelligence support to buttress Assad’s grip on power.
“We’ve said and I say again that all options are open … President (Barack) Obama clearly and consistently says that he will do everything and resort to all necessary means to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, and he means every word,” Shapiro said in an interview with the Hebrew-language daily Ma’ariv, Xinhua reported.
The US and Israel have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the “option” of a military strike, based on the allegation that Iran’s nuclear work may consist of a covert military aspect.
They have also used this allegation as a pretext to sway the UN Security Council to impose four rounds of sanctions on Iran.
France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé, has raised the prospect of Syrian intervention. After a meeting in Paris with Burhan Ghalioun of the Syrian national council, Juppé said “humanitarian corridors or humanitarian zones” should be established to protect civilians from the alleged abuses of the al-Assad regime.
Public Relations Campaign for Military Intervention in Syria Begins 965b7 Reuters%2BFrance%2BForeign%2BMin%2BAlain%2BJuppe%2B480French foreign minister Alain Juppé.
The effort mirrors an earlier one in Libya. In February, the Libyan League, the National Endowment for Democracy (established to do the dirty work of the CIA abroad) and various NGOs petitioned the United Nations to suspend Libya from the UN Human Rights Council. The effort was based on unsubstantiated reports of human rights abuses made by Soliman Bouchuiguir, director of the Swiss-based Libyan League for Human Rights.
By Doug Hagmann Friday, October 7, 2011
By now, most Americans have learned about the existence of a “kill or capture list,” or a list of people who presumably have sufficiently demonstrated their ill intent or deeds against the United States of America. As normal Americans and civilized people of the West, it is likely that we envision those on such a list as the very faces of evil themselves and deserving of the full weight of ultimate justice that the U.S. has to offer. That justice can be delivered from afar, from a drone that the name on the list will never hear or see, or up close and personal. The method is dictated by circumstances.
The making of “the list”
According to the release of a document by our government with the self-proclaimed most transparent administration at the helm, the list is created and maintained by a secretive panel of unnamed government officials consisting of a subset of the White House National Security Council. There is no public record of the panel’s operations or decisions, nor is there any U.S. law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate……….
via The “list”.
Actually, it was Barack Obama, but his message was the same as the one from the man whose beating by police (after a 117-mph car chase) triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992 when the cops were acquitted. During the riot, King came out and famously said, “People, I just want to say, you know, can’t we all get along?”
The topic at the UN was Obama’s wish for the Palestinians and Israelis to be at peace in two nations, side by side. Meanwhile, the Security Council was considering recognizing an independent Palestinian state.
But the real message seemed to be Obama’s taking the dais as King of the World. Like a good sovereign, he touched on every theme imaginable to make “our children” happy, wealthy and wise. He talked about curing various diseases, stopping war and climate change, advancing science, prosperity and, yes, even gay rights, throwing in a line suited to a fundraiser in San Francisco. Of course, with his converting the United States military into the largest homosexual sensitivity training unit in history this week, why should we be surprised? Obama spoke as if the interests of the world were the same as those of the United States. He stroked the attendees repeatedly, reminding them of the UN’s importance, noting that “the United Nations helped avert a third world war.”
Actually, it was………………………
The American president received a tepid response from the assembled heads of state, foreign ministers and UN delegates. Not a single line in his speech evoked applause. The novelty of two years ago, when Obama made his first appearance before the body posing as the champion of multilateral-ism in contrast to Bush, has long since worn off. As the world quickly learned, changing the occupant of the White House did little to shift the direction of American foreign policy or curb the spread of American militarism.
The immediate purpose of Obama’s 47-minute address was to supplement a behind-the-scenes campaign of bullying and intimidation aimed at forcing the Palestinian Authority to drop its plan to seek a UN Security Council vote on recognition of Palestine as a sovereign member state.
Washington has vowed to veto any bid for Palestinian statehood if it comes to the Security Council, a move that would only underscore the real character of US imperialist policy in the Middle East and the hypocrisy of its claims to identify with the revolutionary upheavals of the Arab masses.
The speech and Obama’s defense of the veto threat served to accomplish the same purpose, further diminishing the US president’s popularity in the Arab world. According to a recent poll, his favorable rating in the region has fallen from roughly 50 percent when he took office to barely 10 percent, even lower than George W. Bush in his second term.
Obama rushed from the podium at the General Assembly……..
Another Vietnam Vet Speaks Out| The Post & Email
Another Vietnam Vet Speaks Out| The Post & Email: “My response to Sen. Cardin was:
Dear Senator Cardin:
Thank you for responding to my message to you in which I pointed out Obama’s illegal (per the 1973 “War Powers Act”) initial and continued use of U.S. military forces in Libya. I firmly believe that the U.S. Constitution makes the United States of America a nation of laws rather than men, and a sovereign nation not subordinate to the United Nations. Obviously you and your hero Obama, self-indicted usurper Obama I hasten to add, don’t believe that.
I applaud you for cosponsoring and helping pass S. Res 85, however that resolution in no way, shape or form supercedes the “War Powers Act” or made the United States of America subordinate to the United Nations Security Council. FYI: As Chairman of the United Nations Security Council your hero is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Section 9, to wit:
“No Title of Nobility shall be”……………………….
Posted by Gunny G at Monday, June 27, 2011
World Government To Issue Arrest Warrant For Gaddafi
World Government To Issue Arrest Warrant For Gaddafi
No comments yet; your thoughts are welcome.
Posted by Gunny G
No matter what president Barry Hussein Soetoro says tonight, he will not be able to justify his unilateral engagement of American troops in illegal and unconstitutional acts of war, as he has done without proper Congressional pre-authorization in Libya. In the president’s March 19, 2011 letter to Congress after he had illegally started the war with Libya he didn’t cite the constitution as his authority, instead he cited U.N. resolution has his authority.
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council… As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973…—Barry Hussein Soetoro
(see full Letter)
(Excerpt) Read more at creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com …
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of Likely U.S. Voters think Libya is a vital national security interest for the United States these days. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree and say Libya is not important to U.S. national security, while a sizable 29% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
A plurality (45%) also thinks the United States should not get involved in conflicts like Libya for humanitarian reasons when the situation does not directly threaten this country. But 35% feel the United States should get involved in conflicts for humanitarian reasons even when there is no direct national security interest at stake. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
Forty-five percent (45%) of Likely Voters support President Obama’s decision to use the U.S. military to help rebels in Libya, but slightly more (47%) think the president should have gotten Congress’ approval first.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com …
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich didn’t stop at blasting President Obama on his Libya war policy recently in a meeting of ultra-liberal Congressional Democrats. He practically invited Congress to consider an impeachment discussion of Obama.
Kucinich didn’t even stop there. He rammed the impeachment point home further in a follow-up interview in which he flatly said that the president went squarely against the Constitution in approving the Libya military action. So far, no other Democrat went quite that far. But several key Congressional Democrats including Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), did openly grouse that Obama went too far in not getting approval of Congress for his action.
There is no dispute that presidents have a legal, constitutional and political responsibility to get approval from Congress when the issue is waging war. This obligation is clearly spelled out in the War Powers Act. And those who made that point were right to make it. But Kucinich and the handful of Democrats who ripped Obama about Libya certainly know that there is virtually no possibility that Obama will blatantly abuse that power as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan and commit American ground troops to combat in Libya. This would be a gross violation of the provisions of the Act.
Obama backed the Libyan no-fly zone because the United Nations Security Council by unanimous vote backed it. The House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees backed the action. More importantly, the Arab League requested that the United Nations impose a no-fly zone over Libya. And nearly every humanitarian group around has backed it.
But, most important he backed it because it’s the politically and morally right thing to do. Kucinich and others would have screamed the loudest if Obama had done nothing and Gaddafi slaughtered thousands in a blood-lust rampage against the rebel groups. In his case, and that of every other dictator that’s ever been under siege from their own people, it always leads to the slaughter of innocent women, children and elderly, under the guise of restoring order. If Obama hadn’t acted, he would have been even more loudly condemned as being weak, indecisive and a chronic ditherer when it comes to making tough decisions on foreign policy issues.
….but I just can’t trust Chairman Obama’s motives for his UNCONSTITUTIONAL attack on Libya.
Before we continue, Let me be, as our Kenyan President likes to say, “perfectly clear”: Moammar Qadaffi is a lump of excrement. He has been a state sponsor of terror who has taken American lives. The 1986 disco bombing and the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.
If anyone deserves to die, it’s this piece of filth. When Qadaffi Duck is out of power, the world will breathe a small sigh of relief.However, this article is not about Qadaffi.
This article is about another Islamic dictator, Barack Hussein Obama.Chairman Obama has given us no reason whatsoever not to doubt his motives or trust his judgement in this matter.
After all in no particular order : •Didn’t Obama’s Department of Injustice sue the state of Arizona for having the gall to defend itself against the Mexican Trickle Invasion and refuse to send troops to the southern border, yet he rushed to send troops to Haiti and Libya ? •
Didn’t Chairman Obama turn his back on the only genuine democracy movement in the Middle East, Iran’s Green Revolution ? Didn’t he say he didn’t want to be seen as “meddling” ? •Didn’t Chairman Obama sit on his hands while General Stanley McChrystal damn near begged for additional troops in Afghanistan, yet he rushed troops to Haiti and Libya ? •
Didn’t Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, hand 900 million dollars to Hamas ? •Didn’t Chairman Obama call Egypt’s new military dictatorship a “democracy” ? •Didn’t Chairman Obama ask the UN’s permission instead of Congress’ permission to attack Libya ? •Aren’t many of these so-called Libyan “freedom fighters” al-Qaeda operatives ?
Even the HuffingtonandPuffington Post admits it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html
Given our Dear Leader’s 2+2=5 logic, is it really a stretch to question Chairman Obama’s motives in this matter ?
God help us all.
What the media are missing is the fact that Obama’s war on Libya has no basis in law or the U.S. Constitution. He has decided to wage this war on his own with the authorization of the United Nations, not the U.S. Congress.The conservative Washington Times has it right. In an editorial headlined, “Obama’s illegal war. Congress, not the U.N., should authorize force against Libya,” the paper said, “Removing Moammar Gadhafi from power would probably advance the cause of freedom, but the United Nations has no legal authority to take a step of this magnitude.
By bowing to the will of the U.N. Security Council, President Obama is diluting the sovereign power of the United States.”It’s true that President Reagan attacked Libya in 1986. But that was retaliation in self-defense, which is always reserved for the Commander-in-Chief, after evidence showed that the Gaddafi regime had attacked and killed Americans in Germany through a terrorist bombing.“Today,” Obama said on March 19, “I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians.
That action has now begun. In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people.”Obama said, “I’ve acted after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. And in the coming hours and days, my administration will keep the American people fully informed. But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.”
The President has no such “authorization” from Congress and consultation with Congress is not sufficient under the Constitution.
Congressman Bartlett represents Maryland’s Sixth District and he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee.“The United States does not have a King’s army. President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution.
President Obama’s administration has repeated the mistakes of the Clinton administration concerning bombing in Kosovo and the George W. Bush administration concerning invading Iraq by failing to request and obtain from the U.S. Congress unambiguous prior authorization to use military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens.
“Moammar Qadhafi is a tyrant despised throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
His brutal and merciless attacks against his own citizens are horrific. It is self-evident that the tragic situation in Libya is not an emergency since the Obama administration sought and obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to authorize military force against Qadhafi.
The Obama administration also had time to organize a 22-nation coalition to implement a no-fly zone with military attacks led by U.S. Armed Forces against Qadhafi’s forces.
Nonetheless, the Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American people and their elected legislators in the Congress.
Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his administration.”
The lack of clarity surrounding the mission ordered by Obama in Libya has triggered criticism from both parties, with Republicans demanding that he clarify its aims and some Democrats insisting that the President was Constitutionally required to seek Congressional authorization before ordering the invasion.
Obama has now sent a letter to leaders of Congress defining the mission, in keeping with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requiring a report to Congress within 48 hours of commencing military action, and it contains rebuttals of both lines of criticism.
Obama is taking criticism from the right for failing to articulate “regime change” as a goal of the mission. But his letter to Congressional leaders unapologetically sticks to the narrower definition of the mission as tailored to halting violence and preventing a humanitarian disaster:These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope.
Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners…United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.
Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas.
We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
Read more at washingtonpost.com …
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release March 21, 2011TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
Dear Mr. Speaker: Dear Mr. President:
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations U.N. Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope.
Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
On Friday, the teleprompter reader in chief and NCAA basketball picker Obama bellied up to the podium in the East Room of the White House and read his script. He said Libyan thug Moammar Gadhafi has to stop attacking civilians or face military retaliation.“Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Gadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die.
A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners,” Obama read from the teleprompter.“These terms are not subject to negotiation,” said Barry, sounding like a Mafia don in a back room meeting between crime families. “If Gadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.”
In other words, there will be blood.
Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2011 5:34:55 PM by opentalk
“In this broad context, if the Obama administration decides to impose a no-fly zone or take other significant military action in Libya, I believe it should first seek a Congressional debate on a declaration of war under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution,” Lugar said.
Weasel Zippers has the storyThe United Nations Security Council voted March 17 to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, with the veto-holding Russia and China abstaining. Obama, in his unconstitutional role as head of the UN Security Council, ‘authorized’ the United States to use military force along with the United Nations.
Would Obama dare to cross the line and declare war without Congress? You bet he would, this is what he and his backers are doing. After all, he received the Nobel Peace Prize.As Senator Richard Lugar noted above, Obama is not authorized to do any such thing as only Congress can declare war. And a no-fly zone is a declaration of war.
Excerpt Read more at drkatesview.wordpress.com …
The latest cha-cha chapters of Good Time Barry ~ “The Obamas are hedonists and no one ever looks to hedonists for anything good. “
…Those who brand him a “ditherer” are wrong. He knows exactly what he is doing and always finds the most direct path to Henry VIII extravagance. A life of ease and one that brings him closer to the rich and famous at lavish parties, the dolce vita writ big.
Kids dying of starvation in the Land of the Rising Sun? That’s Japan’s problem, not the USA’s?Things getting out of hand in the Middle East? Well he got rid of Mubarak and brought in Muslim Brotherhood democracy, didn’t he?
The difference between Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi? Trust him, it’s George Bush’s fault.How can the lame-stream media take seriously the haughty, uncaring and downright lazy Obamas?Obama’s planned departure to Latin America followed one day after the UN Security Council approved a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from attacks by Moammar Gaddafi’s forces.
The Obamas were already on Air Force One when Gaddafi renewed his attacks after agreeing to the ceasefire.Let him be clear: In Latin America, Obama will meet with recently elected Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Chilean President Sebastian Pinera and El Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes.
Let’s hope the media doesn’t focus too closely on the contrasting leadership styles of Obama and Pinera. Pinera stayed until the last man was out in the not so long ago Chilean mine disaster. Obama cut and run from both Japan and Libya.Obama did, however, fill out an entire page of condolences for the Japanese Earthquake victims.
The way things are going with his no-show schedule and earthquakes predicted for California, some day the Japanese may be able to return the favor….
So now we have a No Fly Zone resolution on Libya. And the man who ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008 as being the candidate who wouldn’t have gone into Iraq, is now running in 2012 as the candidate who will go into Libya.
Hypocrisy is a beautiful beast and politics is a petting zoo.
Khaddafi may be nuts, but he’s clearly taken a page out of Saddam’s handbook.
Announcing a truce as soon as the No Fly Zone gets announced. Now the US and Europe are stuck demanding verification of the truce.
Obama took a deep breath, butched up and is demanding that Khaddafi pull back from rebel strongholds or face UN led air strikes.
via Wag the Libyan Dog.
Browse · Search
|Pings · Mail||News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2011 11:52:10 AM by Libloather
Obama’s potentially awkward Brazilian arrival
By Ed Henry, CNN Senior White House Correspondent
March 19, 2011 9:28 a.m. EDT
Brasilia, Brazil (CNN) — Just hours after declaring at the White House that he has helped put together a “strong” coalition to launch military action against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi if necessary, President Obama arrived in a country that abstained from voting on the critical United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing force.
Obama landed in Brazil on Saturday for a bilateral meeting at the grand Planalto Palace with President Dilma Vana Rousseff, the first female leader of Brazil, which was one of just five nations that voted to abstain on Thursday night’s vote before the U.N. Security Council.
A Brazilian official told CNN that Rousseff’s government believes U.N. resolution 1973 is too wide in scope because besides opening the door to member nations imposing a potential no-fly zone over Libya, the resolution also allows those nations to take “any means necessary” against the Libyan government.
U.S. officials downplayed any notion that Brazil’s position on Libya will cause friction at the start of Obama’s five-day tour of Latin America, even though military action may commence over the weekend during the president’s stops in Brasilia and Rio.
Obama will also be traveling to Chile and El Salvador, and the White House is hoping to keep the focus on efforts to create American jobs by boosting U.S. exports in this region instead of any tension over Libya.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com …
Gotta fix those tan lines.
“Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration’s position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.”
The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned,” one of the diplomats told The Cable.Clinton’s unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.”
Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” the diplomat said. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.” “Excerpt Read more at thecable.foreignpolicy.com …
John R. Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations who is weighing a presidential run in 2012, accused President Obama on Friday of failing to address threats to U.S. national security and called the administration’s approach to the crisis in Libya “pathetic.”Hours after the president warned that the United Nations was ready to launch a military strike to defend the Libyan people if their leader Moammar Kadafi did not halt his attacks on civilians and pull back from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and three other cities, Bolton cast the president as indecisive, inconsistent and uninterested in foreign policy.
Amid America’s economic doldrums and as world events careen out of control, President Obama will not let a crisis deter him from unwinding. This same President, advising the American people how to deal with the financial crisis, once said, “If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, you might put off a vacation.” Here are the Top 10 Obama Leisure Activities:
Why aren’t we trying to get UN inspectors to go in and assess the situation?Maybe he……………………..
Having already armed and trained Moamar Gadafy’s armies and security forces, the Western war-profiteers have now decided to do the same for his opponents.These opponents, it must be noted, are at present led by top players who only weeks ago were at the center of Gadafy’s murderous, repressive regime — which was itself, only weeks ago, considered a worthy partner by Western governments and business interests. As As’ad AbuKhalil — a fierce critic of Gadafy for many years –noted today, before the UN vote:
The Libyan people have been betrayed. Their revolution against the Libyan tyrant has been hijacked by US and Saudi Arabia. That lousy henchman for Qadhdhafi, Mustafa Abd-Al-Jali [leader of the rebel's Libyan National Transition Council], is now a Saudi stooge who hijacked the uprising on behalf of a foreign agenda. I mean, what do you expect from a man who until the other day held the position of Minister of Justice in Qadhdhafi’s regime, for potato’s sake? And don’t you like it when Western media constantly refer to him as “the respected Libyan minister of Justice.” Respected by who? By Western governments……
Reporting from Washington —
The Obama administration has emphatically called for Libyan dictator Moammar Kadafi to step down and has pledged assistance to the rebels seeking to overthrow him.
Yet the U.S. has far less clarity on a key issue: Who’s in charge of the Libyan revolution?
U.S. diplomats this week began an intense effort to communicate with the protesters, seeking to identify their leaders and long-term goals.
But after three days of calls to Libya from diplomats including U.S. Ambassador Gene Cretz in Washington, both of those questions remain unanswered, officials say.”There are a lot of disparate views out there,” sighed a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive diplomacy.
Many of the figures who appear to be calling the shots in Libya “are really obscure,” the official said. “And they really don’t know yet what they want to do.
“Trying to figure out who’s going to end up in charge, the official said, is like trying to figure out “who’s going to be the Republican nominee in 2012.”
Excerpt Read more at latimes.com …
read the first responses…human nature is truly amazing…
6 posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 6:36:18 PM
“A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever…
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.
IBD Editorials ^ | February 23, 2011 | StaffPosted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:49:42 PM by Kaslin
A madman slaughters his own people, and the U.N. does virtually nothing.The U.N. Human Rights Council still proudly lists Libya on its list of members, along with other unsavory rights violators like Cuba.By some estimates, Libya’s government has slaughtered upward of 1,000 people since street protests broke out last week.
You might think that this would bring swift, tough action by the U.N. Security Council, at least. But you’d be wrong. Council members China and Russia, egregious human-rights violators themselves, won’t censure Libya — just as they refused to say anything about Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen.Instead, as Patrick Goodenough of CNSNews.com put it, the Security Council’s press statement condemning violence against civilians in Libya was “the weakest option available to it, short of saying nothing.
“We’re left to ponder: Just what do you have to do to get kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Council?
Excerpt Read more at investors.com …
Ok just another reason to have Obama arrested as a traitor to the Unites States and removed from office. I did a search and did not find any threads on this action so here it is read for yourself and you decide. President of the US or King of the world.www.knowthelies.com…/4422
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Mon, 09/14/2009 – 9:39am.Some unprecedented news today, folks. NEVER in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says…No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month.
The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th.
The Financial Times says…Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.
FOXNews.com – US walks out on Ahmadinejad’s UN speech as he says some think Americans caused 9/11 attacks
US walks out on Ahmadinejad’s UN speech as he says some think Americans caused 9/11 attacksPublished September 23, 2010| Associated Press Print Email Share Comments 2 Text Size UNITED NATIONS – UNITED NATIONS AP — Iran’s hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked yet another controversy Thursday saying a majority of people in the United States and around the world believe the American government staged the Sept. 11 terror attacks in an attempt to assure Israel’s survival.The provocative comments prompted the U.S. delegation to walk out of Ahmadinejad’s U.N. speech, where he also blamed the U.S. as the power behind U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used as fuel for electricity generation or to build nuclear weapons.Delegations from all 27 European Union nations followed the Americans out along with representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica, an EU diplomat said.Ahmadinejad said the U.S. has allocated $80 billion to upgrade its nuclear arsenal and is not a fair judge to sit as a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council to punish Iran for its nuclear activities. Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear weapon.The Iranian leader — who has in the past cast doubt over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — also called for setting up an independent fact-finding U.N. team to probe the attacks. That, he said, would keep the terror assault from turning into what he has called a sacred issue like the Holocaust where “expressing opinion about it won’t be banned”.Ahmadinejad did not explain the logic behind blaming the U.S. for the terror attacks but said there were three theories:—That a “powerful and complex terrorist group” penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses, which is advocated “by American statesmen.”—”That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.”