Posts Tagged ‘libya’

via Glenn we see the media is continuing to exhibit abused spousal syndrome concerning be locked up by the VP’s staff :

Powers had not sneaked into the event. He was chosen as the pool reporter for local media and was expecting to speak with guests in addition to hearing speeches by Biden and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida). Instead, when he got there he was told the politicians had not yet arrived and hustled into a closet that seems to be more nicely appointed than my apartment.

How ignored? Only Jake Tapper has bothered to write about it and that was days after the fact:

“Scott – You have our sincere apologies for the lack of a better hold room today,” wrote Vice President Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander last Wednesday to Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers.

“Lack of a better hold room” is an interesting way of putting it. In order to keep Powers from mingling with guests at a Democratic fundraiser last Wednesday, Powers was escorted into a storage closet by a Biden staffer.

Yup a reporter kept in a storage closet isn’t big enough news for Morning Joe of Mika this morning, after all they know that the administration actually loves them and wants the best for them and as you can see by the apology they really mean it this time.

Meanwhile the media still ignores the Al Qaeda links to the people we are fighting a war engaging in a kinetic military action for.

Al-Qaeda’s offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad’s president said in an interview to be published Monday.

Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was “100 per cent sure” of his assertion.

“The Islamists of Al Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere,” a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.

the Australian and Arab press have been reporting this, our press, not so much. I’m sure that Al Qaeda has only the most peaceful intentions for these surface to air missiles. I feel safer in an airliner already!

I wonder if the NYT will after the fact suddenly discover that these folks aren’t nice guys as they did in Egypt?

Finally while the Huffington post is busy banning Andrew Breitbart his site is reporting on an actual racial incident that people are trying to hide:

Multiple sources reluctant to come forward publically, or speak on the record, paint an extremely troubling picture that only raises even more serious questions, if true. Why did Snider abruptly resign? If there was an altercation, why was no one charged? Why did the local police turn the case over to the State Police? Are they really the best qualified to investigate one of their own given such a potentially significant story impacting race relations, especially for Democrats, in Illinois? Will justice be served, or only the interests of Democrats, who control all levers of government in Illinois?

Some have alleged that Snider entered the Anchor Inn in Carlinville, leaving after making a curious comment about the tavern appearing “dark.” Allegedly, there were a number of black patrons present, including students from Blackburn College. It’s also claimed that Snider returned later and proceeded to remark loudly as to the large number of “n#&&ers” present. It’s said some tried to quiet Snider, or get him to leave; but he resisted.

At some point, an altercation between Snider and a black Blackburn student is said to have taken place due to Snider’s outburts. It’s also been claimed that a number of Blackburn students, including one involved in the alleged altercation, then fled with Snider pursuing them on foot, allegedly “threatening to get his gun and kill them” at some point.

Dan Riehl is on the case, his blogging will suffer for it, but that’s what happens when you do the job and report the stories that the MSM will not.

If only these stories reflected on republicans, then these would all be front page news and vital stories that the media would want you to know.

Says Mrs. Clinton. Michael Totten who apparently knows more about Syria than anyone in the administration is picking his jaw up from the floor:

He’s actually a totalitarian state sponsor of terrorism with American, Israeli, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Syrian blood on his hands. And some of that Syrian blood is still warm on the streets.

and as Gateway pundit reminds us:

And, don’t forget that for years this “reformer” Assad allowed terrorists on his soil who had been moving, arming, and funding foreign jihadists traveling through Syria into Iraq in cooperation with al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

The actual difference is that one is an Iranian satellite who’s opposed us in Iraq and the other gave in to us when it came to WMD after Iraq fell.

Of course as Israel matzav writes it could be a question of fear:

Though no one is yet talking about a no-fly zone over Syria, Obama administration officials acknowledge the parallels to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Some analysts predicted the administration will be cautious in pressing Mr. Assad, not because of any allegiance to him but out of a fear of what could follow him — a Sunni-led government potentially more radical and Islamist than his Alawite minority government.

Frankly we aren’t in a position to intervene in Syria even if we want to, but why not simply be ambiguous? Just say: “All options are on the table.” Make Syria and Iran sweat? Make Assard think he has to give concessions?

This is what comes of judging based on what others want than our own national interest. 2012 can’t come fast enough.

Libya: Is it the right thing to do?

Posted: March 24, 2011 by datechguy in opinion/news, war
Tags: , , , ,

At Patterico a relevant question has been asked concerning Libya that is not being asked enough concerning president Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya.

But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now?

The answer: It depends on how you look at it.

If you look at is in terms of preventing a slaughter, then yes. Our actions prevented an immediate slaughter and are thus worthwhile in the short term. The trick will be to keep it from becoming a bigger slaughter in the long term.

If you look at it in terms of dealing with troublemakers then perhaps. As a general rule if you have a chance to get rid of an enemy (Gaddafi) one should take the opportunity, however the time to have acted was when the rebels were outside of Tripoli not when Gaddafi was outside of Benghazi.

If you look at it in terms of national interest then frankly the answer is No. The rebels who are fighting him seem to also be fighting us elsewhere. If we give over Libya to a different set of enemies they can use that state to sponsor war against us. This is a very bad idea. Additionally historically we have gotten little payback when we have stuck our necks out for Arab countries in general.

All of this is pretty moot now that we are in, WE ARE IN. The real question is what will be the result of our actions. Here are the three possible results

#1. Gaddafi wins: I think this is the least likely outcome. As long as there is some kind of no-fly zone it becomes a ground fight, Benghazi can still fall but if his armor heads toward Tobruk it is very vulnerable from the air. If the west is willing to take out his tanks and armor then Gaddafi can’t finish the job. Of course if the west gets cold feet this goes from the least likely outcome to the most likely outcome, but I think that England and France have too much invested for them to let this happen.

#2 The Rebels win: This has a better chance of happening because you can’t be sure how loyal the forces supporting Gaddafi are. As long as the money holds out the hired guns from the south will stay loyal, but the loss of air superiority makes a huge difference. Of course it’s also a question of taking back cities held by the government which I think is not possible unless Gaddafi and his sons are dead. The question becoming if the rebels win, will they be grateful or will they use the new Libya as an Islamic state to support our foes internationally?

#3 The partition/administration of Libya. Almost certainly the final result. The west without US leadership doesn’t have the staying power or the willingness to actually win the war or commit the ground troops necessary to do so. Sans such will the end result will be a deal to save face for the west that allows Gaddafi’s family in charge of the east where his tribe lives and the rebels in charge of the west. That allows Gaddafi to claim a victory over the west while the west claims success in its mission even as the east is purged of supporters of the rebellion.

And of course this result is the worst of all possible results for the US. We will have a Gaddafi family looking for revenge by proxy in the east while in the west the rebels, who never liked us in the first place, will blame us for the failure to take the country and the purge of their supporters in the east. Since they were already supporting wars against us they will now have a nation to do so with, and it will be a nation “supported’ by the UN.

This is a mess full of bad choices and results. We can only hope it is done wisely.

One of the strangest bits of what is going on in Libya is watching people describe what is going on.

At my weekly game night I went around the table with the guys and asked the opinion of the people there. About 60% didn’t care for it thinking it was not our business, another 40% not only approved but they had an interesting take, they insisted what we were doing wasn’t a war.

By an odd coincidence that is exactly what the French are claiming too:

“We are not at war with Libya, we are protecting the civilian population,” said Fillon and added, “Our objectives are very specific… to protect the civilian population, excluding explicitly any occupation forces.”

Nope it’s nothing at all like a war, I would think the Libyans might disagree.

Exit question: As things are getting interesting in Syria what are the odds of seeing the UN or anyone else support “protecting the civilian population” there.

Police fired live ammunition and tear gas Sunday at thousands of Syrians protesting in a tense southern city for a third consecutive day, killing one person and signaling that unrest in yet another Arab country is taking root, activists said.

I suspect we will be hearing crickets over there.