Muammar Gaddafi is Dead, Killed by Libyan Fighters

Muammar Gaddafi has been killed by fighters in Libya.

[His death] was announced by several officials of the National Transitional Council (NTC) and backed up by a photograph of a bloodied face ringed by familiar, Gaddafi-style curly hair.

"He was killed in an attack by the fighters. There is footage of that," the NTC's information minister, Mahmoud Shammam, told Reuters.

< Herman Cain: Would Sign Federal Law Protecting Sanctity of Life | Bon Jovi Opens "Pay What You Can" JBJ Soul Kitchen, >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I thought I heard the devil (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:48:24 AM EST

    Maybe Libya can have some peace now.

    I just hope that the government is a democracy and is friendly to the west.

    Good hopes... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:17:35 AM EST
    Lets also hope it puts dictators and tyrants and oppressors on notice the world over, east/west/north/south...right your ships before your victims get violent.

    Rumors that he was executed (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    after they (rebels?) got him, and that they stuffed him in a drainage pipe that his body had to be retrieved from.  The story is all over the place.  But his wounds are reported to be his legs and gunshot to the head.  Could the rebels have executed him?  Why not?  Could someone else have done it?  Why not?

    So we're pulling our troops out of Libya (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:33:40 AM EST

    Sigh.  I suspect that this now will be used as reason to send in more troops, spend more billions, into yet another quagmire.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    The guy (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    was simultaneously shot in the head and killed during a pitched battle, or shot in both legs by NATO warplanes as he tried to flee and taken away in an ambulance, or found in a spider hole unhurt but begging for mercy, or all three at the same time.

    Quite a talented guy able to be in three places at once. Superhuman. Scary.

    I'm sure they'll get the story straightened as soon as the PR department guys get in to the office.

    Fog of war, etc, you know? Glory and honor, too. Or something.

    Just trivial detail (none / 0) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:52:12 AM EST

    There was about zero doubt that daffy was going to be shot.  And so it has come to pass.



    Of course (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    Can't have him testify in a trial in open court, after all.

    Besides, someones body has probably already been dumped in the sea - in accordance and respecting Muslim customs of course.


    I wish (none / 0) (#19)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    I could get behind the "we should have had Osama stand trial" business but I just can't.

    Glad he's dead. Don't care if they shot him on sight or after a fight.  Don't think it would be illegal in either event.


    You're up (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:29:55 AM EST
    for capping Hillary Clinton too, I suppose. With no trial?

    You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

    The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online.

    -- Libya: 'Humanitarian' Snow Job

    Ask yourself that question... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by ks on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    "Lamenting" his death..."blaming the US..." C'mon now, that's pretty disingenuous. As other have mentioned, you do have a bad habit of exaggerating other folks opinions for effect.  

    Your comment is not worth responding to (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    other than to laugh at.

    Hillary and Rice (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    I would add that Hillary and Rice deserve a fair amount of credit for advising the president that the Libyan intervention could work and would be the right thing to do.

    And (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    a few years ago, Rice was smiling and shaking hands with the guy.

    When they are of use to us, we schmooze them.

    When they're not, we kill them.


    I think the Rice the commenteer is referring to (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    is UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  When making the case for the humanitarian, prevent blood bath bombing and drone attack no-fly zone, strategic leaks were made that it was the women-folk of the administration that persuaded the president and the boys in the backroom to do it.  Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers, were the kindly hearts behind "Operation Odyssey Dawn" (aka operation hoodwink).

    This comment (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    was intended as a reply to you.  Just in case the comments get separated.

    I'd say (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    that the Libyan people should be getting the credit.  We just played catch-up.

    The Libyan people (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    thanked us for our support and the new government has been fairly clear in its praise.

    Why is it so blasphemous to give us some credit for doing the right thing. We took a restrained role. We let others lead. We obtained international backing for our actions. In short, we did everything we should have done in Iraq.

    And for some reason there is a push to paint this as some sort of failure.  

    It just isn't.  This was a good day for the administration, the Libyans and the world in general.


    ABG: It IS a good day. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:35:03 PM EST
    Recognize, tho, that it can be quite difficult for some to give credit for how well this military operation was handled, especially in the coordination with key countries. Looking back over the many instances of unwittingly getting mired & worse in military/political engagements, the Libya situation can be hard to comprehend. Because it appears to have proceeded quite well in terms of strategy, tactics, and present outcome. If the new Libyan government--& the new governments in other mid-eastern countries this year--can proceed in such a way as to give voice to their people, it will be an even better day.

    Keep at it!


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ks on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:40:01 AM EST
    It's not hard to understand at all.  You mean the "humanitarian mission" that instantly turned into regime change and outright assassination?  We are supposed to "give credit" to the plain fact that mostly NATO forces could easily bomb the crap out of MG's forces and pave the way for the rebels?  Of course it proceeded "quite well" from our comfortable perspective though I doubt the residents of Sirte would feel the same.

    Give voice to the Libyan people?  The NTC is headed by a former senior MG figure, is filled primarily with former MG defectors/opportunists, Benghazi royalists and hard line conservative religious figures.  Just a couple of months ago they murdered their military commander and are already at each other's throats and that's without even taking into account the outrageously racist and murderous campaign against black Libyans or, more accurately, any black African unfortunate enough to sill be in Libya.    

    It doesn't seem like you've paid any attention to the many facts that don't fit your narrative.  


    Oh, I've paid attention allright (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    ...for years I have paid attention to the tyrant Qaddafi.  Look, sometimes what follows an overthrow in a country can be worse, but that doesn't mean that the individuals there should not try.  Taking a big step back in history, we look at Versailles & the French Revolution, and we remember from our studies that that revolution had some very dark days with the Reign of Terror a bit later...does that mean that the overthrow of that monarchy & the storming of the Bastille should not have occurred?  (And, while I'm aware that there are historical examples supporting both sides, there is plenty of support here for the overthrow by his citizens via international help from NATO in coordination with the US.... IMO, the reasoning only begins with the PanAm flight at Lockerbie.)

    Non-responsive babble (none / 0) (#102)
    by ks on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    You haven't paid attention to MG for years.  Stop it.   You're just talking in your usual vague allusions and preachy meanderings.  Anyway, to your one relevant point, Pan Am 103 didn't seem to bother our leaders or the rest of the West when they were falling all over themsleves and MG trying to make deals with him in the recent months before the Benghazi uprising though it is "interesting" that your reasoning for overthrow begins at Pan Am 103 as opposed to anything he did to his own people prior to that.  Yeah, you were paying close attention to MG.  Uh huh.

    See your "babble" accusation, and raise (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 05:48:44 PM EST
    one "bull."  Actually, you don't know what you are saying.  BTW, how can you presume to know what I've attended to or not!  Just a little note: A peculiar birthday of mine back in the Reagan invasion of Libya turned into a huge family argument...you better believe we all paid attention (if not earlier from that moment on.)

    The reference to PanAm was utilized because it is not abstract, not vague, and it is real and almost tangible to Americans.  Rather than arguing whether Qaddafy was a madman or pure tyrant at the end--which would merely be an exchange now somewhat irrelevant--the PanAm incident was mentioned as one familiar to everyone here.


    Christin (none / 0) (#92)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 07:17:37 PM EST
    Agree with all of that.

    I didn't call it blasphemy. You did (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    If I was going to call it anything, it would have been sanctimony.

    And I admit I may be being a bit unfair to you.  But you seem trying to give the lion's share of the credit to the administration who "took a restrained role".  Congratulating the administration seems to take chest-thumping a little too far.  It reminds me a little too much of the kid who takes credit for another kid's work.



    You can budge a it, sj:) (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    The Libyan situation, after all, demonstrated so far a different--and, IMO, more adept & smart--approach to military interaction & coordination from a US White House than we have seen in these past 50 or so years. Rather than the bluster of the Bush II years, this restrained approach is a positive. (Granted, it is better not to have wars & military engatements & fighting at all...and, yes, they should be much much more limited. And, while pacifism for certain conscientious individuals will be the acceptable option...for others, if we must engage, then Libya (as well as the somewhat successful strong-arm diplomatic approaches from this WH during Arab Spring) represent a better response than we have experienced earlier.

    While Florida's Sen. Rubio wants to deny any credit for the progress by this WH in Libya, his strong Republican partisanship in all things makes that one predictable. Nevertheless, even he will probably be advised that he could afford to sound a bit more supportive, graceful (esp. if he is looking for a VP chance.)


    The "YMMV" (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 06:28:33 PM EST
    is me budging.  LOL

    Bwahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 06:49:52 PM EST
    Thanks, sj, I just shot Diet Pepsi out my nose!  You go, sister!

    Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ks on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    You probably need to clarify the "Libyan People" a bit.  I don't think the black Libyans are all that thrilled at the current state of affairs given the pretty obvious campaign of ethnic/racial cleansing taking place against them.  

    No, "The Libyan People" (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    did not ask for or express thanks for the US led NATO attacks on their country.

    Some Libyans who wanted to attack other Libyans did so.

    Similarly, before and after the 2003 invasion some Iraqis asked for and expressed thanks for the US invasion of Iraq.

    By some counts more than a million Iraqis died as a direct result of that "humanitarian intervention", on top of the more than a million who died as a result of the sanctions before the invasion.

    Lately there has been much written about the US/NATO attacks on Libya, with much `cheering' over Obama looking as `strong' as crazy republicans.

    The one thing that most overlook, or few seem to want to face, is what the US Governments intentions really are re Libya.

    Many of the comments posted on various blogs "supporting" the so-called "humanitarian intervention" try to use the fact that some Libyans "asked" for the intervention, and are "happy" that the US obliged. But there is rarely any inquiry into exactly who it is in Libya that "asked" for it, and there is much more to the story that is usually discussed.

    The US Government has been "intervening" in Libya for decades.

    The Secret War Against Libya
    Richard Keeble

    US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan.
    Following the April 1986 attack, reports of US military action against Libya disappeared from the media. But away from the media glare, the CIA launched by far its most extensive effort yet to spark an anti-Gadafi coup. A secret army was recruited from among the many Libyans captured in border battles with Chad during the 1980s. And, as concern grew in MI6 over Gadafi's alleged plans to develop chemical weapons, Britain funded various opposition groups in Libya including the London-based Libyan National Movement.

    Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?
    Peter Dale Scott

    "Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks."

    Do people really think that some Libyans being happy that the US is bombing some other Libyans somehow invalidates a quarter century or more of history? Or that the US Governments intentions intervening in Libya since it now has a saleable excuse to do so that the America public will "buy" are now magically somehow more "humanitarian" than their intentions have ever been in any other "intervention"?

    "we don't intervene based on precedent or based on a certain set of consistency guidelines but rather so that we can advance our interests [like energy security]."
    - Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough

    We shall see how happy most Libyans are a few years from now. Perhaps they'll be as happy as Bahrainis and Iraqis and Afghanis are now?

    You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

    The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner."

    As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

    Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.

    Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.

    Both the powerfully seductive myth of American Exceptionalism and the loudly proclaimed goal of "humanitarian intervention" in Libya's civil war appear to be driving the narrative in US media and from the US Government.

    The history of US involvement and war in Vietnam and in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations, historically illustrate quite clearly the level of "concern" the US Government has for civilian populations, and US domestic policies the past few years at least illustrate the same level of "concern" re the American people.

    Why anyone would think developments in Libya will be different from those of any other US foreign "intervention" is somewhat of a mystery.


    Am I the Only One... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 03:04:15 PM EST
     ...who thinks it is just plain nuts that Gaddafi was still in Libya ?  Was he that far gone mentally, or was there some nobility of going down in his own country.

    And I'll be the first to say it, I kinda liked the guy.  I liked that he flipped off the US, I like that women are equal in Libya.  I liked his style, from his tents, personal female guard, and most of all I like his sense of fashion.  I also liked that he kept a Muslim nation from going off the scales this past decade.

    Of course there tons to dislike, but on the 'Evil Dictator' charts, he's a softy, still evil, and I am glad he's gone.  All oppressors, including our own, need to go.

    But if we are going to start charting rulers, of the 300+ nations, there are at least 100 worse than Gaddafi.  And for the record, I would give two years salary to have that bronze sculpture of a missile he erected in defiance of Reagan in my den.

    I will also say this, we are chummy with a hell of a lot more unsavory characters then Gaddafi.

    I hope the people have enough sense to keep US 'interests' out, along with everyone else.  I would love to see a 'Nation of the People, for the People' in my lifetime.  And the Libyans, unlike the Egyptians, seem to have abetter sense of direction/purpose.

    On this morning's "news" magazine (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    Christiane Amanpour was at the desk for this announcement.  Robin Roberts (I think) made essentially the same point that you did about Gadaffi's apparent obliviousness.  Amanpour opined that "they" were "all" in their own little bubble with no idea of the intensity of the pushback.  

    No one made the comparison to our own oblivious "elite".  But I think it may have actually crossed their minds.  There was just the briefest of pauses, almost unnoticeable.  Almost enough time for me to jerk my head up, and then everybody's face got even more earnest as they listened to her speak.

    Then again, maybe it was wishful thinking.


    Why Libya? (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 03:28:29 PM EST
    Libya: I Knew The Bride When She Used To Rock & Roll

    Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank - this before they even had a government. Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal:

       I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.

    Whatever might be said of Gaddafi's personal crimes, the Libyan people seem to be thriving. A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedevz and Prime Minister Vladimir Putinz that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:

    [Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 US dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.

    They maintained that the international community had been misinformed about the struggle against the regime. "Tell us," they said, "who would not like such a regime?"


    The US administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were set on developing deep "military to military" ties with the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi, classified US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks on 24 August reveal.

    The United States was keen to integrate Libya as much as possible into "AFRICOM," the American military command for Africa which seeks to establish bases and station military forces permanently on the continent.

    "We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi," Senator Joseph Lieberman (Ind.-CT) said during an August 2009 meeting, which also included Senators John McCain and Susan Collins.


    "We can get [equipment] from Russia or China," Muatassim told the visiting senators, "but we want to get it from you as a symbol of faith from the United States."

    In hindsight, given the US support for the NATO war against the Gaddafi regime, it is not difficult to understand why the Libyans wanted these guarantees.

    Nevertheless, Gaddafi received high praise for his "counterterrorism" credentials from US officials.

    The documents also reveal that the United States was keen to court Gaddafi's sons, flying them to the United States for high level visits.

    And, notably, none of the cables regarding high level meetings quoted in this post made any mention of American concerns about "human rights" in Libya. The issue never appeared on the bilateral agenda.

    Does the removal of the Gaddafi regime now clear the way for the United States to pursue the plans for integrating Libya into AFRICOM under what the Americans must hope will be a pliable regime?


    Courting Gaddafi and his sons

    After President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, it appears General William Ward, the commander of AFRICOM did get his invitation to visit Libya the following March. Before his visit, Ward received a classified briefing document from the US Embassy in Tripoli setting out US priorities and goals in Libya as well as providing insights into the regime.


    Ward's brief, according to the classified cable, was to help overcome Libyan suspicion of US military expansion into Africa.


    At no point were human rights concerns ever an obstacle to American engagement for either the George W. Bush or Obama administrations.

    The documents support the view that the decision to go to war against Gaddafi - in the name of "protecting civilians" was more opportunistic - riding on the back of the "Arab Spring."

    Did Wikileaks just reveal the US blueprint for Libya?, electronicintifada.net

    Conspiracy theories? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 04:02:11 PM EST
    That is what these snippets suggest. Most peculiar is the suggestion that for the rebels/interim government to have been sophisticated <by forming a central bank> there must, indeed, be somehing nefarious or strange or.... That seems as though it reflects elitism on the part of those who would readily fall into the trap of thinking that any mid-east insurgency necessarily must be sponsored by those more sophiisticated than they.

    I also know that most international events, etc. are not usually as they seem. But, that usually takes time & facts to assess. It seems to me: That, for some reason, you need to find the US culpable in this as opposed to recognizing the apparent success of a UN & NATO driven operation (a well-coordinated one at that)...that to find once again that the US must be acting in league with all that is wrong (read: deliberate overstatement on my part) it is necessary to practice premature revisionism about the character of Qaddafi & rebuild him as some kind of hero. Certainly, you believe what you want & I believe what I want.  But, it might be nice to watch a bit... see what the evidence actually is.


    No Comment on the Particulars... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 04:59:37 PM EST
     ...but to blame anyone for not believing compulsive liars is a misdirection of blame.

    Name one significant international event the US Government has told the truth about.

    I am not talking about secrets that we should not be privy to, or inconsistencies of minor details, just one truth in recent history.

    The larger point here isn't actually finding an example, it's that we are lied to consistently, and for someone to question the perpetual liars, to me at least, seems to make a hell of a lot more sense then believing them.

    And for the record, if you manage to dig up one, I can, off the top of my head name 5 lies that resulted in un/declared wars.  Lies that changed world history, never mind the kazillion others used to for whatever agenda du jour was.


    I'm suspecting, then, that you don't want (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    an answer...merely (as you indicate in your comment) that you would counter anything I might say.

    Look, it is ok if nothing would convince you of anything good. People can reach that point about anything...relationships, jobs, what have you (probably not dogs tho, because they are always perfect.) I'm just not into what reads to me as excessive fault-finding as to the US--or almost anything for that matter.  Frankly, my own read on a situation where one can only blame/despair/despise etc. is usually that the person is overstating and/or needs to explore the situation a bit more. Who knows? Maybe I'm a minimalist at heart, but I find overstatement & over-broad condemnations to be along the line of a whine. (We all have things that do the "one last nerve" thing...and the attempt to lionize a ruler who was definitely a dictator is way too much for me.)


    Off Topic (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    But haven't read/heard anything about Corporal Bradley Manning.

    And thanks for adding to the things Gaddafi did for his people, things our 'civilized' leaders are incapable of even contemplating for their people.

    I wish you owned some major media conglomerate, because you always find... not sure what the word is, but you dig for answers, and put the pieces together in a way that makes sense with what I observe.

    And now that I think about it, you do what reporters should do, and yet it's commendable because that profession is a shell of what it once was.  Nothing correlates anymore, they say this, for example OSW, but it doesn't reconcile with facts I know or good old common sense.

    Not even sure where I was going, but keep 'em coming.


    Quite a compliment. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:08:48 PM EST
    Thank you, Scott...

    Edger, Edger, Edger.... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ks on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:07:00 AM EST
    Surely you know by now that the most powerful propaganda force in the world is not just American exceptionalism. It's selective American amnesia.  Anything that doesn't fit the usually simplistic narrative of the moment is a "conspiracy theory" even when it's backed leaked classified US diplomatic cables!  

    Well said Scott (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ks on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    Insofar as MG still being in Libya, that really doesn't surprise me.  For all of his faults, he was a true believer.  Going down fighting at home was probably much more preferable to living in exile abroad.

    The risk we took (none / 0) (#3)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    in supporting the rebels looks like it has paid off.

    We went to war in Iraq in part because the neocons told us that a tyrant could not be overthrown by the people. That was wrong.

    It cost us a trillion to over throw Saddam.  It cost a billion to overthrow Gaddafi.

    So for a trillion and a billion (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    we're still at war.

    If the aim was achieved, why are we still in Iraq?  (Perhaps you could address that other part of the reasons that justifies our presence there, in your mind.)

    And Obama will announce today that our troops are home tonight from Libya?


    I disagreed with Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:09:05 AM EST
    We are on the same team here.  I do not think we should have gone to war in Iraq and think we should have the troops home yesterday.

    Again, I generally support Obama but don't support every action he takes and have been vocal about my disagreement with both his Iraq and Afghanistan timelines.  

    The point is that it is possible for countries to liberate themselves and that we can provide support in a secondary role.

    And let's keep it real in terms of troops levels. We have like 16 people in Libya from what I can tell.

    16 people.

    And they aren't there for combat, they are there for training assistance.  There are probably more US military personnel on my street than have been assigned to Libya.

    If committing less than 50 troops to Libya over the next year to assist the rebels is the cost of getting Gaddafi, I am fine with that.

    Our concern should be the REAL deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.


    Good, we agree to a point (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    but I disagree on Libya, as all it takes is for one American to die there to justify sending in more.  We have seen that before; I'm old enough to remember when we had only those "advisers" on the ground in Viet Nam, too.

    Out.  Now.  No more "policeman of the world," per Teddy Roosevelt more than a century ago.  It was a stupid slogan then that already had gotten us into quagmires that continue to resonate today (Cuba).  

    So it's still a stupid slogan -- and policy.


    How far do you think we are in? (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    20 people? 30?

    I bet that we have more people than that operating undercover in almost every country on earth.

    We certainly have more than 20-30 CIA types in Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, Brazil, Mexico. Heck, I bet we have more than 40 Americans snooping around Mexico City alone right now.

    Our involvement in Libya is as minimal as can be I think, and probably equals the number of personnel on the ground covertly in most countries.


    Those snoops... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    should be pulled out now too.

    And all the military bases on foreign soil.

    The only representatives we should station abroad are diplomats.


    A lot farther than we officially admit (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    since it took weeks for us to admit even to four.

    Watching that, I was taken back to May 1970, and Nixon caught about Cambodia.

    And you remember, I'm sure, what happened next.


    One concern, now, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    is for the  20,000 LIbyan looted or missing shoulder-held, surface-to-air missiles.  The US is now searching for these missiles, some of which have  already  been smuggled out with fear of getting into the hands of terrorists and jeopardizing commercial air travel.  So far, we have allocated about $30 million in contracts to try and retrieve them.  But, maybe this is just the risks of an adventure that did not meet, according to Harold Koh, the definition of hostilities. Another concern, is to get that sweet crude pumping once again.

    Troops in Libya? (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    I am unaware of any public announcements of troops.

    It is possible a few Special Forces or Delta are there but apparently not many.

    Our support of the NATO sorties will end because there are few if any sorties left to do.

    And, we are leaving Iraq at a rapid pace--now, finally.


    If you haven't followed that story (2.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    just google.  Try terms like Libya and U.S. and ground troops to catch up.

    In any numbers of consequence (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:54:50 AM EST
    Hey...fair is fair (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    If Tim Geithner gets so slow walk and forget to do stuff he is told to do so does everyone else.

    Big picture (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    The argument is about whether 4,000 troops stay.

    We used to have 140,000 troops in Iraq.

    Not many left now as it is.....

    We have several hundred troops in a number of places and countries.


    And the biggest (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    "embassy" (lol, sic) in the world, which because Iraqis are so lovin' the freedom and democracy America delivered to them, require 7000 mercenaries and The Department also has asked the Pentagon for twenty-four Blackhawk helicopters, fifty Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles and other military equipment all on the State Dept's tab so you can get away without calling them "troops", to "secure" it from all those cheering flower throwing freedom and democracy lovin' Iraqis (the one who are still alive, of course)

    That is an embassy (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    in a hostile location and embassies in hostile locations are fortresses with their own armies.

    Again, I was against the war completely and am against continued combat operations, so I am no neocon.

    But the other extreme, leave everywhere and bring every "troop" home is not realistic or even desirable either.

    If we have an embassy in Bahgdad, is your wish that a bunch of pencil pushers sit around as sitting ducks for the inevitable attack? I'd think not and with that in mind, security will be required to protect Americans over there.

    If you are arguing that we shouldn't even have an embassy in Iraq, that may be fair, but that's a different discussion.


    I know (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    I said it was a fortress in a hostile location with tit's own army. Hostile because Iraqi hate freedom.

    But not "troops". Right.


    The US agreed to withdraw all (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    troops from Iraq in accord with the Status of Forces agreement negotiated  with the Iraqi officials by Bush,  except those necessary to protect the Embassy.  That was not 4000 troops.  And, the Pentagon has apparently determined that the criticality of keeping these troops is outweighed by an absence of immunity from Iraqi prosecution.  Perhaps, they feel that the 100,000 troops in a nearby country could be deployed back to Iraq if needed.    And, it is time to re-assess the pros and cons and to prioritize the need for US troops all over the globe, starting with Germany--Mike Mansfield called for the draw-down of troops years ago.

    I don't get or understand the (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    Iraqi's hate freedom bit. No one here is making any ridiculous arguments that would lead into that jibe.

    There are bad people who have guns who are now, and will in the future, try to blow people up in Iraq.  If they blow up Americans it is a bonus.

    If we are going to have an American embassy in the country, we have to protect those americans from those bad people.  It's really as simple as that.

    The only alternative is to argue that we shouldn't have an embassy, which is a fair argument to make.


    I see that you don't get it. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:12:14 PM EST
    Why? (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:48:17 PM EST
    Because it provides us (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    with leverage and an outpost in the event that there is a situation involving US citizens near those locations.

    The reasoning behind US outposts in places like Germany or South Korea are fairly sound and are generally accepted by most foreign policy types from both sides of the aisle.

    I don't think it is wise to demand that every troop everywhere come home. There is a benefit we get from having them posted in noncombat locations that is worth a fair amount.

    Now if soldiers are dying in South Korea, I'd have a completely different view.


    Wrong, Edger (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    The U.S. will be out by year's end.

    What did we get for it?  Nothing.

    And so that is the way the war ends. No great demonstrations in the US against it in its twilight. It is ending almost by default, because the Iraqi parliament can seldom get real legislation done, the US is forced to adhere to the 2008 SOFA. In the background, the bombs are still going off and the country is riven by ethnic disputes. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. The US will receive no benefit from its illegal war of aggression, no permanent bases, no bulwark against Iran, no new Arab friend to Israel, no $14 a barrel petroleum- all thing things Washington had dreamed of. Dreams that turned out to be flimsy and unsubstantial and tragic.
    - Juan Cole

    I'm not so confident as Cole is (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:16:30 PM EST
    that the SOFA terms won't be "negotiated" again....

    "My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse... Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature would be on the contract".

    -- Michael Corleone

    I have no interest in going here (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    as a Liberal.  I want Democrats to be effective  national security providers so that crazy people don't get voted in as our leaders by default when people are afraid. This President does demonstrate exactly how to do that on a national security level.

    You will lose your heart and your soul and probably your mind too on the road you dare to travel right now, embracing someones "instinctive" choices to go to war as superior, more trustworthy.  War must always be questioned to the extreme...ALWAYS

    Wars are not certainties for anyone under any circumstance.  History is littered with guys who should have won coming home in body bags and their homeland defeated.

    Just because Gaddafi is dead doesn't mean anything wonderful for Libya either.  Now the rebels have to stop being rebels, that's a big leap unsoldiering soldiers....deprogramming warriors.  Who will lead now?


    Good Points (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    But I do believe that we should support people searching for freedom, even if we aren't certain of the future.

    That doesn't mean going to war at the drop of a dime.  It does mean, I think, that in a situation where we have the approval of the UN, the regional leaders surrounding the area, the forces seeking freedom and the international community, that an intervention without troop commitment or risk of loss of life should be considered.

    That's in essence what we had here and the level of involvement was exactly the level required. No American solider has died or been injured.  A tyrant and killer (and terrorist who orchestrated a plane bombing) is dead and his people are free to begin choosing their own path.

    I understand your concerns about a slippery slope and unintended consequences, but on the facts, our role in Libya is one that I stand firmly behind and one which we will ultimately look at with pride IMHO.

    The best part: we didn't lead it. The french did.


    Oh, ABG you make this way too easy (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    But I do believe that we should support people searching for freedom, even if we aren't certain of the future.

    You say this with such certitude.  But when it comes to our country we should settle for not "as bad as the other guy".  And tell the hippies that they should clarify their agenda.

    That's a switch from the usual position.  In this case, it's "freedom for thee and not for me" that you are advocating.  They can dare to aspire, but we should meekly pick one of the two inferior products that are being offered.


    God free everyone but the United States of America (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:25:04 AM EST
    We need a UN resolution (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    like the Libyan one--very elastic.

    Naomi Wolf demonstrates how (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    to discuss with the nice policeman what the first amendment says.  The policeman mistakenly thinks that the first amendment is your right to remain silent.

    SJ (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    When Wall Street executives begin killing people in the streets, you have my vow that I will be fully supportive of any movement to address that tyranny.

    I don't care how nice it feels to make the analogy, comparing the worst politician, including the dreaded W, to someone like Gaddafi insults the memory of the victims of real tyranny.

    And remember, I am the guy who thinks Obama has been doing fairly well with the hand he's been dealt. I don't see him as some inferior choice.

    Finally, even Bill Clinton is suggesting that OWS get a coherent message and OHS looks like it will do that in July.

    Down here in Atlanta, the OWS people tried to break through the doors of a hospital in protest in support of a homeless shelter across the street.  That's a hospital with sick and dying cancer patients and one of the most important neo-natal units in the city.

    The action greatly damaged OWS for many here and clearly, to keep their support growing, the movement will eventually have to focus so that it can't be accused of trying to prevent sick people from getting treatment, for example, which is what is blasted all over the news here.


    The fact that people want OWS to succeed but fear that it will not if it doesn't become more focused isn't some crazy concept.  A lot of people other than me that I am sure you would respect are saying the same things and trying to find ways to encourage that without coopting the movement.


    Oh, well, if Bill Clinton thinks the (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:01:22 PM EST
    Occupy movement needs a coherent message, well then, I guess that means...exactly nothing.  

    Bill Clinton is part of the system, working within it, too far removed from the streets, from kitchen tables where people are tearing their hair out trying to pay their bills, from job fairs where the same people have stood in long lines again and again and again just for the opportunity to hand out yet another resume in hopes of a job, from courtrooms where homes are being foreclosed on, from hospitals and doctors' offices where people agonize over the fact that pharmaceutical companies have engineered cancer drug shortages so they can charge 10 and 15 times what the drugs should cost, from cities that have had to lay off teachers and police and have had to close fire stations because they don't have the money.

    How dare Bill Clinton, on whose watch most of the massive deregulation of the financial sector took place, deign to tell the Occupy movement that they need a more coherent message.

    Maybe Bill Clinton - and you - need to watch this ad from the Occupy movement.  

    I was driving home from work the other night, was stopped at a light, and from around the corner came a group of about 30, mostly younger, people, carrying homemade signs and chanting in support of the 99% and against the greed and corruption of our system.  You could see on their faces the glow of liberation, the energy that comes from finally speaking their minds.  People honked, waved, shouted encouragement.  It was a wonderful moment.

    And that is taking place in cities all over this country - people are finding their voices, speaking out, refusing to be told what they should say and how they should say it.

    We've listened to and put our hopes into people like Bill Clinton for years, and you know what?  It's our turn now.  As far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton needs to sit down and STFU; he might actually learn something.


    OK (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    Whose opinion do you respect that is a public and credible figure?

    My only point was that people many of us otherwise respect have a different opinion.


    The problem (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    is that you think you get to define "credible".  I can't speak for Anne, but I'm not playing that game.  We as a nation have been led down the garden path to our own destruction by those "public and credible" figures.

    Anne has an excellent brain and she knows how to use it.  She doesn't need to hold up a paper doll and say "see? this person agrees with me".


    Why does the opinion have to be from (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    a public figure?  Do you mean to suggest that there is more value in the opinion of a public figure than a private one?

    I get that you feel aligning yourself with Bill Clinton validates whatever it is you're saying, but why do you need that validation in the first place?  If we're just all throwing out our opinions, why do you always seem to have to bring Bill Clinton along with yours?

    The truth - for me - is that my respect for public figures has decreased significantly, picking up downward speed as it has become clearer over time that most of the ones we hear from regularly have been bought and paid for by industries looking for more ways to get rich at our expense.  It's a great little racket, a sweet gig with a well-greased revolving door.

    So, no - I'm not going to provide you with the name of any public/credible figure to validate what I think and express.


    I reference (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 07:26:15 PM EST
    Public figures because they are experts. And as much as I think I understand foreign policy, for example, I think that we would be wrong to assume that our random opinions as lawyers or doctors or bus drivers or whatever are on  par with those who live this for a living and have real experience and knowledge.

    I am not arrogant enough to believe that I know better than a progressive expert in foreign policy so I rely on their opinions to help craft my own.

    We can google and read blogs and articles and such but our grasp of complicated geo political issues just isn't going to be as good as an expert.

    I'd think that that point would be uncontroversial.


    You're right (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 07:57:26 PM EST
    There is not much controversial about your approach.

    It's very well documented and well understood.

    Cracks In The Wall, Part I: Defining the Authoritarian Personality

    While the high-SDO leaders are defined by Dean as dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, and amoral, right-wing authoritarian followers have a different but very complementary set of motivations. The three core traits that define them are:

    1) Submission to authority. "These people accept almost without question the statements and actions of established authorities, and comply with such instructions without further ado" writes Dean. "[They] are intolerant of criticism of their authorities, because they believe the authority is unassailably correct. Rather than feeling vulnerable in the presence of powerful authorities, they feel safer. For example, they are not troubled by government surveillance of citizens because they think only wrongdoers need to be concerned by such intrusions. Still, their submission to authority is not blind or automatic; [they] believe there are proper and improper authorities...and their decision to submit is shaped by whether a particular authority is compatible with their views."

    2) Aggressive support of authority. Right-wing followers do not hesitate to inflict physical, psychological, financial, social, or other forms of harm on those they see as threatening the legitimacy of their belief system and their chosen authority figure. This includes anyone they see as being too different from their norm (like gays or racial minorities). It's also what drives their extremely punitive attitude toward discipline and justice. Notes Dean: "Authoritarian aggression is fueled by fear and encouraged by a remarkable self-righteousness, which frees aggressive impulses."

    3) Conventionality. Right-wing authoritarian followers prefer to see the world in stark black-and-white. They conform closely with the rules defined for them by their authorities, and do not stray far from their own communities. This extreme, unquestioning conformity makes them insular, fearful, hostile to new information, uncritical of received wisdom, and able to accept vast contradictions without perceiving the inherent hypocrisy.

    Conformity also feeds their sense of themselves as more moral and righteous than others -- a perception that's usually buttressed by the use of magical absolution techniques that they use to "evaporate guilt," in Dean's words. Because they confessed, or are saved, or were just following orders, they can commit heinous crimes and still retain a serene conscience and sense that they are "righteous people." On the other hand, when it comes to outsiders, there is no absolution.

    more... from an "expert" on the subject

    An algorithm (none / 0) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    for protest bad actors:   One, armed "white-shirted" command officer pepper sprays cordoned off women in the face is equivalent to 100,000 bongo-drumming noise makers; one, armed, motorized scooter cop hits one legal observers who illegally stepped off the curb onto the street is equivalent to 10,000 protesters, peacefully but illegally on the street; one armed officer clubs smarty-pants  protestor equivalent to ..etc..... ; one protester illegally demonstrating in hospital entrance equivalent to one arrest by officer.

    So we have to wait until (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    the killing is obvious and then we can rebel?  

    I don't know what streets you traverse but in my streets I am seeing more and more people claiming park benches and office building entrances at night.  There used to be more resources for the homeless than there are now.  But Wall Street (short hand for the oligarchs) is making record profits.  

    It doesn't take squinty eyes to translate the deaths coming this winter to Wall Street executives killing people in the street.

    This is too patronizing and self-righteous to respond to

    comparing the worst politician, including the dreaded W, to someone like Gaddafi insults the memory of the victims of real tyranny

    so I won't.

    I remember you very well that you are the guy who thinks the Obama the Weak is doing fairly well.  You may be surprised to hear that I don't have a problem with that.  I have a problem with the fact that you use that to denigrate the insights of others.


    Well, in Josh's situation (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    being denied the surgery that saved his life for months by the for profit insurance company who is accountable to their shareholders first isn't good enough for a rebellion.  He managed to survive because his parents screamed and cried and one had a nervous breakdown and one was freshly back from Iraq in a U.S. uniform.  What if the news got ahold of all that?  There wasn't any visible blood spilled though so I have no right to rebel.

    SJ (none / 0) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    I am not denigrating anyone else's view. I am simply providing the arguments of another perspective.

    No one here can claim to be 100% right about anything.  We just throw our opinions out and defend them.


    How is (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:23:26 PM EST
    "dismissive of" different from "denigrating"?

    You tell me (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    This only seems to be something that comes up when the opinion is contrary to the commenting masses.

    When Obama supporters are told they are stupid, ignorant, conservative, naive, simple minded, non-readers, it's not denigrating or dismissive . . .

    it's simply the truth.

    My tone is way more subdued than the tone used by others against those who disagree with the overall sentiments.

    I just sound louder because I'm the contrarian on many issues.


    I'm not going down that route either (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    The "he's another" logical fallacy is just a way of diverting the conversation.
    When Obama supporters are told they are stupid, ignorant, conservative, naive, simple minded, non-readers, it's not denigrating or dismissive . . .

    I'm not talking about your so-called opposition. I'm talking about the tack that you, ABG, specifically, have often taken.

    This comment is somewhat subdued, that's true.  While you are still playing martyr here, I can live with that.  And you do get a pile-on at times, so okay.  

    But who do you think you're talking to here?  Do you think that everyone's memory starts with this morning?  You just sound louder NOT because you are "the contrarian" but because you get louder.  You get louder when [I'm guessing] that's the only path left open to you when your arguments are weak and easily exposed you as such.


    I'll be more impressed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    when the "rebels" here are supported.  Not co-opted.  Supported.

    Say What You Mean... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:17:37 PM EST
     ...Obama did good.

    I wasn't part of the we, but this did turn out well, so far.  I would wait on the mission accomplished bravado to see how this plays out.

    This could still be a disaster, but right now I will give your candidate some well deserved props, he played this well.

    One my petty side... I do get some pleasure knowing that a D is taking care of matters the R's couldn't.  This has to be driving them nuts, Obama making the right call.  OBL and MG in the same year, if Obama was an R they would be throwing a ticket tape parade and naming every government facility in American after him.


    Actually, Scott, even that militarist (none / 0) (#88)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 05:29:50 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan stated that if Obama were an R, the foreign policy/military successes of the past several months would result in his face on Mt Rushmore. Yep, the Rs must be choking on their own bile.

    What? Saddam was overthrown well within the first (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:53:36 AM EST
    100 billion we spent.

    And Khaddafi could not be overthrown by the people. That's why NATO helped.

    Hopefully the Libyan oil business was not destroyed int he fighting, so they can pay for their own rebuilding, or else the 1 billion is just the down payment.

    Not saying getting rid of Khaddafi is not a great thing - it is - but let's be honest about how it happened.  


    Risk? (none / 0) (#63)
    by ks on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    What risk?  NATO supported the rebels with overwhelming force (e.g. air power, bombs, supplies, training, special forces, money, ploitical support, etc.),and frankly, it was the sheer incompetence and very dodgy nature of the rebels that it's taken this long to finish this squalid affair.

    From the most reliable reports, this ended in much the same manner.  NATO straffed/bombed the Kadaffi convoy, a severly wounded Kadaffi escaped and was finished off by the rebels.  


    Just get the (none / 0) (#10)
    by SOS on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    damn oil fields under U.S. control then we'll worry about the rest.

    Isn't that what was done before? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    First world nations worried about the oil first and the rest later.  And now 20,000 Anti-Aircraft shoulder launched surface to air missiles are missing in Libya.

    Oh look now, MT (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    Those are freedom bombs you're dissing there...

    Who provided those missiles and who (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    was responsible for keeping track of them?

    The lists of who provided are long (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:35:52 AM EST
    and illustrious....  Keeping track of?  What's that?

    Actually, those particular missiles (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    were provided by Russia. I think they are nicknamed the Grinch.  He had a ton of really evil junk though from everyone.

    This comment (none / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    just makes me feel rather ill.  It's the oil that's important.  Not the people.

    You mean the Europeans (none / 0) (#28)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    get the oil fields.

    Oy, and Joe Biden can't wait to get ahold of (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    the mic and diss on those dick taters.  He isn't going to think highly of peter peppers either I'm guessing.  Did he get a permit for that mic?

    Local paper has very graphic photo (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    on line of the late Mr. G.  This a.m. LAT and NYT didn't post such a photo.