"make no mistake". yeah that was bush's line. over and over.
"make no mistake." ha. too late. we elected this asshole.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Nordic » Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:59 pm
by 23 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:14 pm
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.
And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world.
While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa.
(Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.)
U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire.
Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.
“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”
“Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.
“Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members.”
The unrest among Hill Democrat resembles, in part, the debates inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department over the last few weeks as the Libyan crisis has unfolded.
The White House has worked to put out a narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as initially opposed to any involvement in a Libyan campaign, with a major change in the president’s viewpoint developing over the course of the last week as Qadhafi loyalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and a humanitarian crisis appeared inevitable.
While Defense Secretary Robert Gates led administration opponents of any U.S. role in the anti-Qadhafi operation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed calls from the French and British governments for a NATO-led effort to assist the Libyan rebels. The Clinton clique eventually prevailed in the debate, and Clinton then worked with U.S. allies to craft a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the mission.
The Security Council then approved a resolution on Friday authorizing a “no-fly zone” for portions of Libya controlled by anti-Qadhafi rebels, as well as “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,” according to a U.N. statement.
With U.S. attacks already being launched, it was unclear what, if anything, Democratic opponents of the Libyan campaign could actually do to stop it. They could try to offer an amendment for under the 1973 War Powers Act, which would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from any conflict within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval, although it is unlikely that pass.
They could also seek to cut off funding for any extended military effort, although it is unclear how long or what the White House anticipates the cost of the operation could be.
Kucinich’s call to explore the impeachment question “got no support from anyone else on the call,” said another Democrat.
Yet there is growing unhappiness within Democratic ranks on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict, and with Obama gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, he will need the backing of liberal and progressive factions within his party — already disenchanted over some of the president’s fiscal and tax policies — in order to defeat any Republican challenger.
Recent opinion polls show the American public is also tiring of the Afghan war. On Thursday, 85 House Democrats — and eight Republicans — backed a Kucinich resolution calling for removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Dec. 31.
A total of 321 House members, including Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), opposed the Kucinich measure.
On the Senate side, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered a similar resolution, but so far, it has only garnered three cosponsors.
by StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:52 pm
by Canadian_watcher » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:00 pm
Coalition attacks wreak havoc on ground troops
Air strikes hit Gaddafi's forces hard, but revolutionary leaders appeal for more
Chris McGreal
guardian.co.uk Sunday 20 March 2011 21.06 GMT
The dozen or so men clustered behind the last smouldering tank looked as if they had died while they slept.
Their blankets bore no burn marks so perhaps it was the force of blasts – powerful enough to rip the turrets off the Russian-made tanks and toss them 20 metres or more across the open field near Benghazi – that killed Muammar Gaddafi's soldiers.
The air attack came at 4am , after the tanks pulled back from a day-long assault on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. The crews chose to rest in a field about 10 miles from the de facto capital of the anti-Gaddafi revolutionaries.
It must have seemed safe to the soldiers. The rebels were far away and the tank crews would have seen any threat approaching by road. They gathered to eat and sleep behind the tank furthest into the field.
But it was no protection from the threat in the sky. The tanks and their operators were sitting ducks in the open and probably never heard the planes. The French pilots did not even have to be concerned about the risk of harming civilians.
Within moments, three of the four tanks in the field were shells.
What was not immediately incinerated was mangled, thrown into the sky and dumped in bits on the earth. Machine guns twisted into grotesque shapes, broken engine parts and flattened shells lay among the wreckage.
Four hours later, two of the tanks were still smouldering. A flatbed lorry used to haul them to the edge of Benghazi was on fire. A handful of pickup trucks, one carrying tins of food for the troops, had been burned out. Scavengers were picking over the corpses of Gaddafi's dead soldiers.
Wreckage was strewn in similar scenes along nearly 15 miles of road beyond Benghazi, the result of air strikes on targets across the country that turned the struggle between Gaddafi and Libya's revolutionaries on its head in a moment.
The barrage of attacks led by France, Britain and the US on Libya's army, air bases and other military targets drew threats of a prolonged war from Gaddafi himself. But on the ground many of his forces were in disarray and fleeing in fear of further attacks from a new and unseen enemy.
The air assault halted and then reversed the advances by Gaddafi's army on Benghazi and other rebel-held towns. But the revolutionary leadership wanted more. On Sunday it appealed for an intensification of the air assault to destroy the Libyan ruler's forces and open the way for the rebels to drive him from power.
The first of the decapitated tanks sat just three miles outside Benghazi. Its turret lay flipped over a good distance away. The missile had torn out the heart of the armoured beast. But perhaps its crew was luckier than others. There were no bodies to be found and from the boxes of dates and long life milk lying on the ground a short walk across the field, it appears they may have been far enough away to survive the blast and flee.
Another seven miles farther on lay a larger tank graveyard, at al-Wafia, and beyond that many more miles of destruction on the road toward Ajdabiya. Eight tanks, brought up to Benghazi to continue the terrifying assault on the city that began on Saturday, were destroyed altogether. More than a dozen other armoured vehicles of various kinds were wrecked, their remnants scattered on the scorched tarmac.
A couple of multiple rocket launchers sat at the road side. One appeared to have no damage at all. Perhaps it broke down, or maybe its driver decided to get away from it fast – part of the intended effect of the air strikes to break the will of Gaddafi's army to fight.
Scattered among the ruined armour were thousands of bullets and empty tank shell boxes.
Young rebels, known as shabab, danced on the armoured carcasses. They fired guns and chanted: "Here come the shabab. Gaddafi is finished".
Western powers leading the air assault said again that the attacks are about protecting civilians from Gaddafi, not regime change. But many of the revolutionaries see the coalition forces as fighting on their behalf.
The air bombardment is regarded among rebel military commanders as creating a more level battle field by removing Gaddafi's advantage of heavy armour.
"There must be more attacks, to destroy his forces and heavy weapons," said Kamal Mustafa Mahmoud, a rebel soldier on the edge of Benghazi. "Then they can leave Gaddafi to us. We know how to fight him but we are afraid of his heavy weapons. I want them to destroy the ground forces of Gaddafi."
A rebel commander in Benghazi, Ahmed al-Diwani, said that the air strikes open the way for the rebels to retake the towns they have lost in recent fighting and then continue their campaign toward Tripoli. But he acknowledged that it would be wrong to assume that the government's army is a spent force because of the air strikes.
"Gaddafi's advantage was tanks and rockets. That was what was defeating us. When we did not face them we were winning. Now we can go forward again. We will still have to fight, but when they see that they cannot win, it will be over," he said.
As Gaddafi's soldiers fled from around Benghazi after the air assault, the rebels seized the advantage to move back toward Ajdabiya, a town the two sides have battled over for nearly a week. Late today, people in the town said Gaddafi's forces could no longer be seen.
The revolution's political leadership shares the fighters' view that the air assault is about regime change.
Salwa el-Deghali, of the national transitional council, said: "I'm happy the air strikes have started, but at the same time I'm worried that the international community will not keep up the attacks long enough to remove Gaddafi. There must be more attacks on Gaddafi's forces, and fast. We need these attacks until he is crushed."
Asked if she thought the goal of the air attacks was regime change, she replied: "Yes, it's to push him from power".
Deghali said that the revolutionary leadership is counting on the air assault to destroy Gaddafi's army, either by killing its soldiers or encouraging them to desert. She said that when the threat of violent repression is removed, the council plans to call on Libyans to rise up in cities across the country.
"When Gaddafi's forces are destroyed, he will have no power. It will be easy to press forward," she said.
Essam Gheriani, a spokesman for the national council, said that with the air strikes destabilising Gaddafi, the revolutionaries would organise fresh popular uprisings in cities still under the Libyan leader's control, in the belief that it will be difficult for him to find the forces to put them down.
However, beyond the broad plans to blend popular uprisings with armed resistance, the revolutionary council does not appear as yet to have decided how to take advantage of the shift in the military situation.
Some of its members fled Benghazi during the government's assault on Saturday. Others remain trapped in Gaddafi-controlled areas.
For all the revolutionaries' appeals for foreign help, there are limits. Deghali reiterated the condition laid down since the beginning of the uprising: the air assault is welcomed, but foreign troops will not be accepted on Libyan soil. The country's history of occupation by the Italians and strong views about the invasion of Iraq have created a deep-seated suspicion of foreign armies.
"We don't want what happened in Iraq with international intervention," she said. "Foreign troops on the ground, no. Just the air strikes."
by 82_28 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:01 pm
by Canadian_watcher » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:10 pm
82_28 wrote:If all the other US "wars" were convoluted scams, this one takes the cake, period. Obama is more of a wolf than even I thought he would be.
by 23 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:27 pm
Calling Barack Obama as "our son", Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sent a message to the US President defending his decision to attack the rebels fighting to overthrow him.
Gaddafi(68) also wrote a letter to the French and British leaders, and the UN Secretary General, saying the Security Council resolution was "void" and violated the UN charter, warning them that they would "regret" any intervention.
"Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans," he said.
Details of Gaddafi's letters were released by the Libyan government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli.
Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, "Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example."
Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, "To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."
In his letter to Nikolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Ban Ki Moon, Gaddafi said, "Libya is not yours, Libya is for the Libyans. The security council, their resolution is void because it is not according to the charter to interfere with the internal affairs of the country."
You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet on our people, it is Al Qaeda organisation."
by tazmic » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:28 pm
Canadian_watcher wrote:(Coalition attacks wreak havoc on ground troops)Machine guns twisted into grotesque shapes...
by 82_28 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:35 pm
23 wrote:http://www.timesnow.tv/Gaddafi-defends-attack-on-rebels/articleshow/4368205.cms
'To my Dear Obama, our son', says Gaddafi, defending attack on rebelsCalling Barack Obama as "our son", Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sent a message to the US President defending his decision to attack the rebels fighting to overthrow him.
Gaddafi(68) also wrote a letter to the French and British leaders, and the UN Secretary General, saying the Security Council resolution was "void" and violated the UN charter, warning them that they would "regret" any intervention.
"Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans," he said.
Details of Gaddafi's letters were released by the Libyan government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli.
Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, "Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example."
Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, "To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."
In his letter to Nikolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Ban Ki Moon, Gaddafi said, "Libya is not yours, Libya is for the Libyans. The security council, their resolution is void because it is not according to the charter to interfere with the internal affairs of the country."
You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet on our people, it is Al Qaeda organisation."
by StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:48 pm
by seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:05 pm
by 23 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:06 pm
by 82_28 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:07 pm
StarmanSkye wrote:^^^^^
JeeZuS, well Damn Said alright.
82_28 wrote:
"If all the other US "wars" were convoluted scams, this one takes the cake, period. Obama is more of a wolf than even I thought he would be."
Convoluted scams.
It just sounds ... Right.
I think maybe by posing another fairytale mythos of humanitarian 'good' vs dictatorial evil the morally-vacuous 'democratic party' c/o Obama & Clinton are hoping to tap-into the self-righteous legitimacy of the faux-Patriotic gung-ho military fantasists whose sole redeeming feature is their abiding faith in the 'virtuous' long-odds idealism that inspires America's wannabe Valiant Proud Warrior culture.
Ignoble means do not engender noble ends.
US Inc. just CANNOT get that lesson down.
by 82_28 » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:16 pm
Look at our collection of hands, heads, and feet to see where we've been. Embrace this parody: the ending of things you can believe. We'll drive you 'til you're skin and bones and when we finally reach the end, you'll fall open arms, accept our tears of sympathy. Make way for our emptiness. A descent that never ends 'til the one last living thing is the next thing to go. You should know by now that we never come in peace. Endure this tragedy, wrap yourselves in our fantasies. When you think of all you've lost, weigh it with what you've gained in trade. We've given the greatest gift: the savior that will never rise, The Bringer of Greater Things. Creator of Brighter Days. The city cops, a sub-zero night. A midnight ride out of town. The passenger was found frozen in the snow. Our enduring legacy. We bring a better way. Our handshake crushing bone. The blankets that keep you warm, we've soiled with disease. The Bringer of Greater Things. Creator of Brighter Days. The hollow songs you'll sing at the ending of your day.
by 8bitagent » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:35 pm
StarmanSkye wrote:Re: LibyaNewMedia Retweet message claiming Gaddafi militias are indiscriminately shooting people --
I am SO deeply suspicious of these kinds of anonymous provocations; US & EU change agents encouraged Albanian and Kosova separatists to ambush their own citizens then blamed on the 'evil' Serbs to foment increased racial antagonisms and to appeal for world community support via manipulated PR media;
Undoubtedly the US (and perhaps w/ UK) also provocateured sectarian strife in Iraq between Sunnis and Shia. Veteran ex-Ranger Macbeth publicly testified being ordered to routinely shoot innocent Iraqis, and protesters, along with ambushing Mosque worshippers (see his youtube vid).
Farrakhan also suggests something similiar with CIA duplicity and provocation in Libya.
It seems to me the rebels, or factions therof, are FAR more desperate and ruthless than Gaddafi or his troops -- but we'll likely never really know WHO these faceless murderers are.
Its just a cryin, awful shame anyway you look at it.
Farrakhan is one helluva firebrand, he always has something vital to say.
Goddamn Obama and Sec State Clinton for manipulating the UN, choosing 'sides' and lobbing missiles esp. w/o Congressional approval. Impeach his corporate-military-bought ass!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 147 guests