Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Libya Turmoil 63

How the 3 stooges play with the world peace for their own glory.
Thanks Igoigwe.
Joel Skousen writes the very ultimate article.



No Fly Zone Turns Into
All-Out Attack On Libya

By Joel Skousen
Editor - World Affairs Brief  


As seems to be the usual pattern for US globalist leaders, whether Republican or Democrat, the humanitarian intervention in Libya was just a pretext for a broader war that was preplanned even before the non-spontaneous revolt by opposition leaders. Moammar Gaddafi's air defense sites and air bases have all been destroyed by cruise missiles, and now the US and its allies are having trouble finding excuses to continue the attack. Anything that moves on the ground militarily is now a new target eagerly sought out, as is Gaddafi's bunker complex in Tripoli. But air attacks alone aren't going to remove Gaddaffi, who is determined to turn this into a long and protracted conflict. At some point the US is going to have to justify an invasion, either directly or by surrogates, and that won't be easy to do given the mounting opposition to this trumped up and unconstitutional war.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is the man on the hot seat and he isn't doing a very good job convincing the public that this is just a minor police action, as he tried to do in the beginning. Gates admitted mid-week that "there is no timeline for the end of the US-led assault on Libya" as international opposition to the invasion continues to grow. In other words, the US is staying in the fight, even as they claim they want NATO to take over, for as long as it takes to accomplish globalist objectives.
There is also increasing evidence that this was planned and provoked well in advance, just like the invasion of Afghanistan, that used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext. Russia Today (RT television) happened to be filming Gates walking along with General Petraeus in Afghanistan when the two exchanged this little embarrassing slip: Petraeus asks off-handedly if they were going to invade Libya? "Yeah, exactly" said Gates, who is now claiming he was being sarcastic. Yet, during a prior visit to Cairo, Robert Gates said no one was in a position to predict what would happen in Libya. Sure!
Michel Chossudovsky points out the revolt was provoked by western backed opposition: "the entire Libyan rebel movement has been backed by the US and UK for nearly 3 years. The initial calls for a Libyan 'Day of Rage' came not from the streets of Benghazi, but from the London based National Conference for Libyan Opposition (NCLO). NCLO leader Ibrahim Sahad was literally sitting in front of the White House giving an interview to the Western media in the opening stages of the Libyan unrest, talking about the West's desire to militarily intervene with a no-fly zone."
The Wall Street Journal noted the presence of Egyptian mercenaries: "...the latest Egyptian operation to arm Libyan rebels had started several days ago and is ongoing."
Stratfor, with ties to the CIA, reported that, "While all this was going on and before final decisions were made,special operations forces were inserted in Libya on two missions. First, to make contact with insurgent forces to prepare them for coming events, create channels of communications and logistics and create a post-war political framework. The second purpose was to identify targets for attack and conduct reconnaissance of those targets that provided as up-to-date information as possible. This, combined with air and space reconnaissance, served as the foundations of the war. We know British SAS operators were in Libya and suspect other countries' special operations forces and intelligence services were also operating there."
Former NATO commander General Wesley Clark inferred in an interview this week that the bombing of Libya has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for several years. The Financial Times recorded a comment by a western official at the NATO negotiations that added fuel to the provocation fire. When asked whether or not any of them could get their act together and assume command of the US operation he replied "NATO countries have beenworking for weeks to have the alliance assume effective command of the mission." Given that the mission is only a week old, that means this was planned in advance.
The source to the Times added that "As we got closer and closer to closing the deal at Nato, France suddenly blocked everything, which confused us at first ... But then it became clear -
[French president Nicolas] Sarkozy wanted to announce strikes just as he was walking out of his meeting in Paris where he was leading the show." This is typical of European infighting. Even though the US has predictable globalists in every major government in Europe, they are each jockeying for recognition and power with the EU and keep stabbing each other in the back.
"French officials denied acting alone in Saturday's attack, saying the plan had always called for French fighters to kick off the operation followed by British and American missile attacks, French diplomats said." This quote strongly implies a closed door agreement between the US, Britain and France (and probably Italy) that the rest of the EU was supposed to go along with. That didn't happen.
While the US is still desperate for someone else to front for the war, NATO completely failed this week to agree on who should have command. Turkey was the main stickler, having been kept out of the initial secret negotiations between the US, Britain and France that had given France the major glory role. While NATO has claimed as of today that they are taking over command, other sources revealed that the current coalition (US, France and Britain) is still "retaining control over certain aspects." What that means is that the NATO command is a puppet front. In spite of the show of unity, let me take you through the problems in the negotiations to show how little unity there really is.
"After ambassadors of the 28-nation alliance ended a third day of wrangling in Brussels without a deal, one senior NATO diplomat said: 'No decision on anything.' Turkey, a Muslim ally, said it did not want NATO to take responsibility for offensive operations that could cause civilian casualties or be in charge of enforcing a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone while coalition aircraft were simultaneously bombing Libyan forces." That's understandable for the lone Muslim nation in NATO, but the real reasons have to do with Turkey wanting to exercise her veto for having been slighted on this and other issues, including failure of the EU to allow her to join the economic Union in addition to NATO.
"Turkey, a NATO member that has expressed reservations about the military intervention, also blocked a move to give the alliance command and control responsibilities during a Sunday night meeting. The Turkish government was upset that its representatives had not been invited to Paris for a summit on the crisis. Other non-European Union members of NATO, including Norway, were included. Yesterday, Turkey gave in after being promised unspecified concessions for the future.
"In desperation after Wednesday's failures, the French proposed a new political 'committee' to oversee operations--supposedly giving no one the limelight as leader. That didn't fly either, especially when the French wanted to have a predominance of members from France and Britain--a new Anglo-French alliance as in WWII. Sarkozy is posturing for the limelight as he is in trouble for reelection. In fact, almost every European leader is under increasing threat of disapproval at home over the Libyan affair and needs to carve out some political capital from it if they are going to foot the cost and the blame in the future.
"Failing to come to an agreement, Germany pulled out the largest share of its military equipment, two frigates, and an AWACS surveillance aircraft, but the US is luring them back in with financial bribes as well. The temporary withdrawal was mainly for show since the Americans don't trust any but themselves for command and control. The feint of a withdrawal was a backhanded way of telling the Americans how tired the Europeans are of playing second fiddle and covering for US black operations. The Italians, meanwhile, who have had the lion's share of cheap oil from Libya (a former colony) accused the French of backing the NATO agreement only with promises of more oil from Libya after its all over. Finally on Thursday NATO finally had paid off enough of the opposition states to forge an agreement. However, the show of disunity mares its significance."
There was also a verbal disagreement between the US and Britain over whether or not Gaddafi was a legitimate target for assassination. Canada's PM Harper already let the cat out of the bag that Gaddafi's elimination was what the US was shooting for. U.K. government officials were mincing words about killing the Libyan leader, but only if it would prevent civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution. And how about the deaths caused by the US bombing? A funeral was held Thursday for civilian victims, but the US is denying they did it--as usual.
The Russians and Chinese play both sides, as usual. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday lashed out at the "steady trend" of US military intervention around the world, accusing Washington of acting without conscience or logic.' And yet Russia didn't use its veto, because it wanted to eavesdrop on US and NATO military operations. But the Ruskies failed to get any data on the effectiveness of the Russian supplied anti-aircraft missiles sold to Libya. They were all destroyed by cruise missiles before any could be launched.
Is this another no win war? Probably not even though several U.K. ministers say war could last thirty years. Libya does not have the terrain that lends itself to a long guerrilla war like Afghanistan or Vietnam. They aren't self-sufficient in agriculture and now have few sources of income with oil production and exportation shut down.
If the US has to start attacking civilian cities--so much for their humanitarian concerns--they will do so in order to get this over with. Not because they think what they did was wrong in provoking this war, but because the current Democratic administration is losing credibility fast with its core constituency who were promised a change from the aggressive, interventionist Bush era policies that brought down the Republicans. They know the American public is getting weary of all these wars.
For various reasons, I'm suspicious that the US may be instigating this attack on Libya for reasons other than allowing a radical Islamic state to emerge. That hasn't panned out yet in Egypt either now that the military is in charge--and they aren't giving the Muslim Brotherhood the time of day. That, of course, could still happen both in Egypt and Libya. We know very little about who the US is backing in the opposition ranks.
All the talk about al Qaeda is just so much propaganda. Al Qaeda, at the top, is a US and British creation so globalists can jerk the chain of anti-terrorism any time they want to justify a new intervention. Ironically, when Gaddaffi cries that he is fighting al Qaeda, no one gives him any credence. But when the Western press blames something on al Qaeda, the dumbed down public believes them.
Now that the US African Command is running this show, I suspect that the US is about to open another anti-terror and anti-dictator front in Africa and use Libyan military occupation as a jumping off base to start dictating to other countries in Africa. The Sudan, just south of Libya is ripe for intervention. And then there is Somalia. This might just be the reason the US has been playing soft with pirates and not invading their safe harbors in Somalia. This might be the time for them to pull that excuse out of the hat. In short, there's no shortage of countries in Africa with dictators that the globalists and excuses for intervention.
Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East is still aflame. Protestors were shot dead in Syria, and Yemen is falling to political unrest. Bahrain has Saudi troops inside the country, and I wouldn't be surprised if the insurrection starts up again in the Saudi Kingdom itself--after having fizzled the first time. The "Day of Rage" didn't amount to much. President Assad made a public statement hinting at giving Syrians greater freedom to appease the public outcry after the killing of 37 protestors.
Neoconservative Foreign Policy Still Reigns: The long term implications of more foreign intervention are not good. Philip Geraldi expresses the sense of those who are tired of US hegemony: "One of the enduring mysteries is why neoconservative foreign policy continues to dominate the Republican Party and also large parts of the Democratic Party even though that policy has been disastrous for the United States.
"No one - not even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - is willing to call the two land wars currently underway in Asia successful (there are others) and the hemorrhage of more than $12 billion a month to support the conflicts does nothing whatsoever for a struggling US economy unless one is a defense contractor. Yet the view that the United States must use its waning power to remake much of the globe prevails. The policy is in some circles underwritten by the myth that the United States is a special nation that makes it somehow immune to the history of the decline and fall of past empires."
It's true. Very few Americans believe the US could fall. It can and it will if our globalist leaders continue down this path. That is, in fact, just what they are intending--to foment a huge backlash to US bullying that will induce a nuclear war someday, attacking America, giving them the excuse to force us into a New World Order for protection and the prosecution of another "war to end all wars."
While I find it refreshing that someone other than just Ron Paul is protesting Obama going to war without Congressional approval, the Republican opposition is tepid and not intended to stop this continuing intervention. The key unconstitutional aspects are not be prosecuted.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is making the news with his critique of the attack on Libya, but he is only asking questions that can easily be answered with diplomatic doubletalk. After all, this is the same White House he is addressing that told Democratic and Republican congressional aides Tuesday that the U.S. is "not at war with Libya." Incredible.
The media claims Boehner sent Obama a "scathing letter" that "demands answers to the run-up to engagement in the region and hits the White House for first consulting the United Nations and the Arab League, but not Congress." All this just evades the real issue. If Boehner is only demanding that Congress be consulted, he doesn't understand the constitution--which gives Congress the exclusive power to wage war. Perhaps that is why the White House won't admit this is war.
According to Politico.com "Boehner wrote in the letter that he is 'troubled' the United States
military has been engaged in the attacks on Libya 'without clearly defining what the mission is and what America's role is in achieving the goal." Only troubled? And, how hard is it for the State Department to come forward with some esoteric goals to answer his critique? -Even if they are lies.
"The questions touch on the U.N. resolution, among other things. Boehner notes that the U.S. has said Col. Mommar Qadhafi should step down, but the resolution does not indicate a similar goal. Given that, Boehner asks if it would be acceptable for Qadhafi to stay in power, how he'd be removed from power, and why the U.S. would 'commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interest.'
"The speaker asks which nations are in the lead, if there are clear lines of authority and responsibility and whether the mission involves attacking 'land-based battlefield activities.' And if other nations drop their support, Boehner wants to know if the U.S. will 'take on an increased role.' He's also seeking information on when the Americans will hand over control, and how long after that U.S. forces will be involved. And if Qadhafi stays in power, how long a no-fly zone would stay in place."
These are all nice questions, but equally simple to defer or evade by saying "we won't know until we get further down the road." Also, he wants the administration's plans to engage with opposition forces, also inquiring what 'standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by' the U.S. government. The budget-slashing Republican leader also wants to know the cost of the mission, and if the administration will seek a supplemental funding measure for military actions."
Boehner knows quite well that there are no answers to these questions. They all depend on future events unknown. Instead of asking rhetorical questions, he ought to say "Stop, in the name of the Law (the Constitution)" Congress will set the parameters and then tell you if and when you can go to war.
The cost is already piling up. The Pentagon had to request emergency funding from Congress to pay for it. The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn cost about $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone." So, if the Republican controlled Congress objects to not being consulted, why do they agree to pay?
The hardcore opposition from Sen. Rand Paul and his father Congressman Ron Paul are once again going to force Congress to address a declaration of war. Both will introduce into their respective chambers a declaration of war on Libya, which they do not intend to support. This follows after what Ron Paul did during the Iraq war in an attempt to force Congress to go on record with proper justification--something he knew they wouldn't do.
The earlier attempt by Ron Paul elicited the infamous retort by House Speaker Henry Hyde that, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore."
So not only has Congress informally repudiated its war powers in Ron Paul's day, but it now is reluctant to even bring it up. The only thing Paul's protest in committee did was add to our proofs of conspiracy. Hyde's remarks were edited out of the video tape and the audio tape of the hearings by two separate entities--one private (C-Span) and the other public (Congressional Recording Office). Somebody got to both of them to protect Hyde from having publicly denigrated the Constitution and his oath of office to it.
What it adds up to is this: The president skipped town for a tour of South America so he couldn't be called before Congress to justify his actions. It was doubtful his hiding was necessary. As a defense, he could very well have said that the White House did send a team to brief a "select few" in Congress--which was true. But they were sworn to secrecy in an intelligence briefing, which hardly constitutes the constitutional approval of Congress to declare war.
The more volatile issue that the White House is desperate to avoid is the resurrection of the video of 2007 when then SeNATOr Joe Biden was pressed to repeat his position that then President Bush should be impeached because he went to war without a declaration of war. Not only did he confirm that this was his position he told Matthews, "I was head of the Judiciary Committee for seven years. I taught constitutional law. The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against another country without the approval of Congress." He then repeated his claim earlier to Matthews that "Yes, this was an impeachable offense."
So where is Joe Biden now? Why, he's the Vice President to Barack Obama who just went to war without the approval of Congress, and without a whimper of protest from Biden. In 2007 Biden had merely jumped on the bandwagon attacking Bush for reasons of political expediency but he's now quite silent. Worse, there are only a handful of Republican statesmen that countenance a proposal to impeach the president. There would be an immediate retort, "It just isn't done anymore!" Sad but true.
The president did TELL Congress he was engaging in military actions, and someone should at least hold Obama accountable for the soon-to-be-clear lies he told:
"On March 19, 2011, at my direction [not Congress], 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."
We know the humanitarian pretense is a ruse. If the US were serious, they would have long ago invaded Zimbabwe where thousands have been killed and tortured under a communist reign of terror and land confiscation. North Korea is also a much bigger threat than Iran or Libya,and yet we give them guarantees against any military intervention and promises not to seek regime change. The Sudan and Somalis also have much blood on their hands, but there is no invasion there either.
How can Obama prove that the internal affairs of Libya constituted a threat to international peace and security? When Libya was sending thousands of fighters to engage in warfare in Iraq, no such claim was made about posing a threat to International peace!
Obama continues, "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." However, the allied response was a partial violation of its own UN resolutionwhich calls for a ban of ALL weapons into Libya. But the US and Britain are supplying rebels with weapons.
Here's the expansion clause: "These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners." That's an open door to invasion and occupation.
Even bigger than the Biden quote for political expediency was Obama's campaign statement which directly contradicts what he is doing now. Fred Lucas of CNS News reports: "As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States. Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
"'The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,' Obama responded." Explain that away.
In a harshly worded statement Monday evening, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) said that "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,"
But those too are hollow words without a bill of impeachment. But that won't ever come especially with the weasel words of establishment SeNATOrs like Dick Lugar, a ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent ally of the president on foreign policy, who called for a "full congressional debate on the objectives and costs... and a declaration of war if it goes on." Hearings are always a means to a cover-up. We'll never see a declaration of war, especially when Gaddaffi has not done a thing to attack the US.
Finally, not a few anti-American leaders have called for Obama's Peace Prize to be revoked. It should never have been given, except that it served globalist political purposes. I'll end this section with words from Ben Stein, American political writer, lawyer and author, who is very upset:
"Maybe I missed something, but wasn't that The Constitution of the United States of America that we just laid to rest this weekend? It was buried in a private ceremony by Mr. Barack Obama of Chicago as he silently signed America on to the One World Government some of us have been worried about for decades.
"Look at it this way: Where did Mr. Obama get the authority to commit United States forces to war in Libya? There was no declaration of war. There was no authorizing resolution by Congress allowing money to be spent on a war against Col. Gaddafi... There was no lengthy buildup in which the Congress was 'allowed' to express the people's opinion on whether we want to be in a third concurrent war. There was just a vote by the United Nations Security Council, a very far from unanimous vote, and suddenly, the President's Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, solemnly announced that we were at war.
"But, when did we amend the Constitution to declare that the United Nations had control over our military? When did we abolish the part of the Constitution that said Congress had the right to declare war? Now, I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don't have declarations of war. But we have Congressional debates. We have funding votes. We have a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution. This time, zip. Nada. Nothing. Just France and the U.K. and Norway saying that it's time to go to war, and off America goes to war. And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a South American 'fact finding' trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing junket for the Obama girls." Yes, it's enough to make us despair. But this is just the beginning of wars. It's going to get worse folks. Be prepared. Don't just be a passive observer.
World Affairs Brief, March 25, 2011 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief  http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com


  1. Hermes,

    You must be getting a little tired. Skousen is not a serious thinker. He's like a little kid trying on his daddy's and sometimes his mommy's clothes.

    Rense.com is a swampland where conspiracy theorists hang out waiting to jump on legitimate issues and drag them down into oblivion. It's one step up from the Huffington Post.

  2. @ Capo

    I admit I was very tired. I will reread it.

  3. @ Capo

    I agree, this is one for Huggy and his Huggistas.


  4. Rense vs Common sense reporting

    "Why I fear the West can't influence the powder keg that is the Arab world" - by Max Hastings



  5. I tend to agree about your observation regarding Rense, but not all of the time. I try not to shoot the messenger before dwelling on the message. For me the message was potent enough and worthy of some reflection.

    I have not concerned myself much with the writer's individual conclusions, which I do not write off completely either, but with the facts relayed and as contained in the post.

    Personally, I found them thought-provoking.

  6. I did forgot to add that this is not Rense per sec; Rense was merely a pasteboard, reproducing the author's article as originally posted at Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com

  7. @Capo:
    I am unsure why you are so hard on Skousen but I am sure, for whatever reasons, we can still look at the message analytically. Are there aspects of his message, in this instance, you disagree with and why?

    We all could use a little education and through it get to understand better the point you are trying to make.

  8. @Ego

    I take your point about the core of this Skousen article and you're right. I shouldn't imply that I'm trashing the message because I don't trust the messenger. Skousen does a lot of cut and pasting in his writing and much of what he is pasting together here is perfectly fine and correct. I found the center of the article - Al Qaeda and US intentions a little jumbled and lacking focus, but his main point about the unilateral and constitutionally questionable jaunt off to war by Obama and his gals to be absolutely correct. I have read a lot of Skousen thru the years, and Rense.com makes me cringe when I see it, my negative response,as I alluded to in previous post, is conditioned by seeing perfectly good and valid analytical arguments gets swallowed up in other sensational accusations which I really don't want to see happen in regard to this issue.

    I admit I may have been too harsh in using this article as a heads up about Skousen, but that Rense.com heading was a red flag that urged reader beware.

  9. @ all

    I hope my blog will continue to incite adult conversations like above.
    It means I didn't waste my time.

  10. @Capo:
    "... but that Rense.com heading was a red flag that urged reader beware."

    Believe me, you are not alone with that feeling. It's one I can fully relate with and understand.