You are hereBlogs / Stephen Lendman's blog / Obama on Libya: Defending the Indefensible

Obama on Libya: Defending the Indefensible


By Stephen Lendman - Posted on 30 March 2011

Obama on Libya: Defending the Indefensible - by Stephen Lendman

Obama's March 28 television address wreaked of hypocrisy, lies and disdain for basic democratic values, making an indefensible case for naked aggression against a non-belligerent country. America's media approved.

On March 28, New Times writer Helene Cooper headlined, "Obama Cites Limits of US Role in Libya," saying:

Obama "defended the American-led military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have 'stained the conscience of the world,' " even though no threat existed until:

-- Washington showed up with co-belligerents France and Britain;

-- beginning in 2010, armed and funded so-called "rebels" who, in fact, are cutthroat killers, rapists and marauders, terrorizing every area they control, including their Benghazi stronghold; and

-- support them with daily "shock and awe" terror attacks, causing increasing numbers of deaths and injuries, as well as destruction and contamination of all areas struck by depleted uranium bombs, missiles and shells, spreading radiation over wide areas.

Despite Pentagon denials, conservative estimates put civilian deaths at over 100, besides combatants killed and unknown numbers murdered by rebel allies. Since March 19 air attacks began, nearly 1,500 sorties have been flown, that number to rise exponentially as daily strikes continue under US command, running all NATO operations under AFRICOM's General Carter Ham. Alleged new commander, Canada's Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, is his subordinate, a Pentagon figurehead.

The alleged handover is fabricated. NATO is code language for America/the Pentagon. Obama lied announcing otherwise, saying Washington's role will be limited to stop potential "slaughter and mass graves" in Benghazi. In fact, he supports and/or ignores rebel terror killings against defenseless civilians, making him complicit in their crimes, besides widespread ones caused by NATO, America's missile. US attacks, in fact, will continue throughout the campaign, perhaps lasting months at an enormous cost, besides hundreds of billions annually in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Making an indefensible case, Obama said:

"For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant - Muammar Gaddafi," ignoring the numerous regional and global ones America supports, including rogue Israeli regimes, lawlessly terrorizing Palestinians for over six decades with generous US support and funding.

Addressing the issue, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, Denis McDonough, said:

"I think it's very important that we see each of these instances....in the region as unique. We don't get very hung up on the question of precedent....because we don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."

Precisely true on the last point. However, policy decisions are very consistent. Allies are supported whether despots or democrats. Outliers are opposed, even benign ones posing no threat to America or neighbors. The rule of law is a non-starter. So are democratic values, "principles of justice and human dignity."

Only imperial aims matter, especially resource and human exploitation adventurism for money and power. For generations, they've guided US policies, notably since WW II, at home and abroad.

Yet pseudo-left apologists back Obama's Libya war, its faux "humanitarian intervention" to save lives, including darling of the left Rachel Maddow, defending the indefensible, pretending Obama's different from Bush when, in fact, he's worse, waging four, not two wars.

He also:

-- supports others in Palestine, Yemen and Somalia;

-- operates US Special Forces in at least 75 countries globally;

-- backs killing US citizens abroad lawlessly;

-- endorses holding detainees indefinitely without charge;

-- practices torture as official US policy; and

-- backs the worst of despotic states, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt under a military junta, Algeria under a military dictatorship (Abdelaziz Bouteflika more figurehead than president), other GCC states, besides others in Africa, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Yet Maddow and other faux liberals call Obama a peace president. No matter how great the body count, she's firm saying "he appears to be walking more of that walk as well as talking that talk."

He indeed talks plenty while letting imperial forces reign death and destruction on non-belligerent nations, spends hundreds of billions of dollars, then claims we're too broke to address vital homeland needs, especially social ones and crumbling infrastructure.

Cheerleading Print Media Support

For decades, The York Times endorsed all US imperial wars, the tradition maintained on March 28 in an editorial headlined, "President Obama and Libya," saying:

Obama "made the right, albeit belated, decision to join with allies to try to stop (Gaddafi) from slaughtering thousands of Libyans," despite clear evidence that Washington, France, Britain and rebel killers initiated attacks. Love or hate him, Gaddafi justifiably responded in self defense.

However, despite Obama's willful deception and lies, The Times claimed he "made a strong case for why America needed to intervene in this fight - and why that did not always mean it should intervene in others," notably against subservient despots, no matter how much "violence on a horrific scale" they cause.

"Most important," said The Times, Obama "vowed that there would be no American ground troops in this fight." A previous article explained otherwise, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-led-libyan-ground-assault-plann...

Numerous reports, in fact, suggest a ground assault is planned for late April-early May if air and rebel attacks don't oust Gaddafi, what most experts believe unlikely.

On March 28, New York Times writers Kareem Fahim and David Kirkpatrick suggested as much, headlining "Rebel Advance Halted Outside Qaddafi's Hometown," saying:

"....the American military warned on Monday that the insurgents' rapid advances could quickly be reversed without continued coalition air support," quoting General Ham saying more, in fact, may be needed, stopping short of suggesting ground forces deployed offshore will invade.

Whatever lies ahead, no matter how bloody and destructive, The Times insisted Obama "made the right choice to act."

So did the Washington Post, its editorial opinion headlined, "Mr. Obama and Libya: Where's the strategy to preserve success?" saying:

Obama "was right to act, and he deserves the credit that he claimed....He was right" saying "we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles of freedom and nonviolence," ones, in fact, America spurns at home and abroad, especially during direct or proxy imperial wars.

On March 29, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "Obama, Libya and the GOP," saying:

Obama "made a substantial case for his Libya intervention, (and) we welcome the effort....The credibility of US power is essential to maintaining our influence in a Middle East that is erupting in popular revolt against decades of injustice," much, in fact, America caused.

US media opinions mostly expressed support. The Los Angeles Times said "no one can complain that he didn't make a thoughtful, compelling case for his decision to intervene." The Philadelphia Daily News endorsed "the Obama Doctrine....a rationale for the use of US force, (his Monday speech perhaps) the beginning of a saner foreign policy."

The Chicago Tribune wondered whether a "humanitarian mission (set) a precedent that will be used to demand American involvement in other places." The Boston Globe endorsed his "swift Libyan intervention (wrongly calling it) the first time Obama has ordered US troops into a new conflict, (then saying it's) a key test of his presidency and a moment that allowed him to delineate his most comprehensive vision yet for America's role in the world and the role of the military abroad."

According to the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) Stephen Flanagan, Obama "laid the beginnings of an Obama doctrine. He said that there are instances where our safety is not immediately threatened but our interests and values are, and in those cases....we will act, particularly when we can act with a broad international coalition" of willing co-belligerents plus others bullied and/or bribed to join or endorse imperial aggression against another targeted country.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on "Public TV's Libya Limits"

America's Public Television (PBS) and National Public Radio rely heavily on government and corporate funds. As a result, they provide managed news like major media networks, suppressing hard truths on vital issues.

PBS' Libya reporting is instructive, FAIR saying:

"Over the past two weeks, the (flagship) NewsHour has featured an array of current and former military and government officials in discussion segments - leaving little room for antiwar voices, US foreign policy critics and legal experts."

NPR and PBS are similar, supporting state and corporate policies throughout their histories, depriving listeners and viewers of real news, information and opinions on vital issues.

The 1967 Carnegie Commission report (creating PBS) envisioned a "forum for debate and controversy (to) provide a voice for groups in the community that may be otherwise unheard." NPR's founding mandate was similar, yet both operations represent power, money and privilege, not popular interests they were established to serve.

A Final Comment

In his book "The Next Decade," Stratfor Global Intelligence founder George Friedman "consider(s) the relation of the American empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic('s)" survival, given its addiction to war and abandonment of the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 provision letting Congress alone declare it. It was last done on December 8, 1941 against Japan.

As a result, seven US decades of wars have been lawless. Moreover, no nation may attack another except in self-defense or until the Security Council acts - lawfully according to the UN Charter. In authorizing a no-fly zone (an act of war), SC members acted illegally, brazenly violating international law, letting America and co-belligerents France and Britain wage imperial war against a nation posing no threat to them or neighboring states.

Friedman stressed the importance of congressional declarations of war, "requir(ing) meticulous attention to the law and proprieties." However, he stopped short of addressing international law or explaining the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Under it, every treaty America ratifies automatically becomes US law, the UN Charter, of course, included. No congressional or presidential act may contravene it, what, in fact, happens regularly, especially on matters of war.

As a result, in a recent interview, University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle was blunt, calling Obama's war on Libya "plunder and aggression, (the) first major outright power grab by the United States and the major colonial, imperial powers against Africa in the 21st century." For sure, it's not the last.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Tags

Hey kidz!!! Meanwhile Gene Simmons and 27 U.S. Senators "Defend The Indefensible" . . .

. . . but be it Libya, Iraq, Palestine, or the Official BIG LIE of 9-11 . . . isn't it really all about defending World Zionism and Israel? . . . ;-)

(clipped headline and article)
"KISS Front-man Slams Artist Boycott of Israel - The Kiss front-man, who was born Chaim Witz near Haifa, recently opened that mouth to call artists boycotting Israel 'fools.' Simmons is currently in Israel to film scenes for his reality show, Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels."

(full story)
http://www.revoltoftheplebs.com/categories/rogues-gallery/kiss-front-man...

Ah, yes, good ol' Israeli and Zionist Supremacist Chaim "That's What Gentiles Are For" Witz (aka Gene Simmons, Eugene Klein) . . ;-)

(link to video - approx. 1 minute)
"Gene Simmons on Gentiles"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuLXGEtSqZU&feature=player_embedded

Meanwhile, we have 27 U.S. Senators showing their true colors as to which country they serve FIRST . . .

(clipped headline and article)
"US senators press Clinton on anti-Israel 'incitement'- Twenty-seven US senators pressed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday to make clear to Palestinian leaders that any incitement to violence against Israel or Jews is 'not tolerable.' . . . 'The Itamar massacre was a sobering reminder that words matter, and that Palestinian incitement against Jews and Israel can lead to violence and terror,' the group, which included Democrats and Republicans, said in their message."

(full story)
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/us-senators-press-clinton-on-anti.html

Never mind that the Itamar "massacre" was most likely either carried out by a shafted Asian worker . . . or yet another Israeli "False Flag" made-for-the-tabloids IDF/MOSSAD operation to attempt to re-establish Israel as the eternal "victim" . . .

. . . and never mind how many babies were "massacred" during Israel's "Operation Cast Lead" on Gaza . . . or daily in the occupied West Bank . ..

.. . or during the increasingly frequent Israeli air-strikes on Gaza in retaliation to all those "TERRORIST" bottle-rockets hitting in Israeli-occupied parking lots and empty fields. . . .

(clipped 18 Mar 2011 headline and article from Veterans Today)
"ALISON WEIR : What the Media Missed on Itamar - Murdering Babies is 'Permissible' When They’re Palestinian - US media have been widely and repeatedly reporting on the awful March 11 murder of three small Israeli children and their parents. While no one yet knows who committed this act, reports presume that the murderers were Palestinian, and for this reason the incident is receiving major attention"

(full story)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/18/alison-weir-what-the-media-misse...

Now, we can understand why Chaim Witz (aka Gene Simmons) and Robert Zimmerman remain such loyal whores for Israel and the Zionist media mafia . . .

(clipped headline and article from Veterans Today)
"Gilad Atzmon: To Call Zimmerman a Zimmerman - Singer/songwriter and harmonica owner Bob Dylan (born Robert Allen Zimmerman) will perform at Israel’s Ramat Gan Stadium in June. The 69-year old folk legend seems to be impervious to Israel’s war crime record and the growing international movement calling for artists to boycott the rogue state."

(full story)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/24/gilad-atzmon-to-call-zimmerman-a...

. . . but why would these AMERICAN Senators, members of Congress, and State Department officials be so eager to commit TREASON before the American People while at the same time defending yet another ILLEGAL and IMMORAL WAR to benefit the geo-political ambitions of a foreign power?

What is that old gangland saying, "Never trust anyone you can't destroy?" . . ;-)

(clipped headline and article from What Really Happened)
"IS ISRAEL BLACKMAILING AMERICA? - What follows is the original article I wrote when the news story first broke regarding the existence of a system to tap into any phone in America built into the surveillance system used by law enforcement authorities. The focus of the article was a single question. Could Israel be blackmailing the entire US Government and media. . . The answer is now obvious."

(full story)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/blackmail.html

Of course, I guess if you don't "Defend The Indefensible" . . . they might call you a mean ol' "anti-Semite" . . . or a "S.H.I.T" (Self Hating Israel Threatening) . . . ;-)

And what could possibly be worse than that, kidz??? . . . ;-)

"You got a lot of nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning . . .
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
Then you'd know what a drag it is
To see you"
- "Positively 4th Street" by Bob Dylan

peace.

Hey kidz!!! Meanwhile, James Allan Khan "Defends The Indefensible" . . .

. . . with that classic Zionist tool . . . CENSORSHIP!!! . . . ;-)

Film maker Anthony Lawson dares to touch "The BIG Third Rail"

(clipped headline and article)
"Predictably, YouTube censors Anthony Lawson's video on the 'Holocaust, Hate Speech and Stupid Germans' - I have just received the following notice: We have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from James Allan Khan claiming that this material is infringing:"

(full story)
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2011/03/predictably-youtube-censors-al...

Sure enough, if you go out to the original YouTube site:

(link to former video)
"Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gycNMf0xAc

. . . you will find the following notice where the video used to be.

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by James Allan Khan"

Film maker, Peace Activist, and 9-11 Truth Movement Champion Anthony Lawson had this to say on this YouTube Channel site:

(clipped text)
"alawson911 I have just received notification from YouTube that my latest video "Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?" has been disabled following a claim of copyright infringement made by a person going by the name of James Allan Khan. YouTube does not supply any further details, and I have been unable to locate any reference to this person, or a relevant James Khan on the Internet. If anyone knows of this person, I would be grateful if they would contact me."

(link to clipped text On Anthony Lawson's YouTube Channel)
http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911

The two topics that are guaranteed to get you censored and even banned on YouTube are "Questioning The Holocaust(TM)" and "9-11 TRUTH" . . . ;-)

Just ask North Carolina film maker Ryan Dawson who has had his documentaries on "The Holocaust(TM)" and "9-11 TRUTH" repeatedly censored . . . ;-)

For those of you who want to judge for themselves if Anthony Lawson has violated the person that calls themselves "James Allan Khan", you can view this thirty minute documentary in its entirety here:

(link to video - approx. 30 minutes)
"Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?"
http://vimeo.com/21508099

"Suppressing free and open discussion on any subject is as bad as telling lies, and knowingly suppressing the truth is the biggest lie of all, because it is based, not on a mistake or a genuine error, but on a deliberate intention to deceive."
- clipped from above vimeo site, author unknown

As WE THE PEOPLE see LIE after LIE used to "Defend The Indefensible" in these ILLEGAL WARS and OCCUPATIONS . . .

. . . one has to ask "How far back do these BIG LIES go???"

Truth needs no law to support it.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell, from "1984"

And all this red-faced kvetching, the imprisonment of historians, and Zionist censorship only make the "Official Stories" become more and more suspect.

I never had any reason to doubt the history I was taught in American Public Schools about World War II. But like they keep telling me, "9-11 Changed Everything" . . . ;-)

Connect the dotz . . . see the pattern . . .

"Brainwashed in our childhood
Brainwashed by the school
Brainwashed by our teachers
And brainwashed by all their rules
Brainwashed by our leaders
By our Kings and Queens
Brainwashed in the open
And brainwashed behind the scenes"
- "Brainwashed" by George Harrison (the last album)

peace.

Hey kidz!!! Sergey Brin, YouTube and Google "Defend The Indefensible"??? . . . ;-)

Does Google's YouTube have a Soviet Stasi-style "Guilty until proven innocent???" policy???

Just ask film maker Anthony Lawson . . . ;-)

(link to video - approx. 8 minutes)
"Copyright or Censorship?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sieMkGRcxuU&feature=channel_video_title

A little background on the players:

(link to YouTube info page)
"YouTube - The company is based in San Bruno, California, In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google Inc. for $1.65 billion, and now operates as a subsidiary of Google."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

(link to Sergey Brin info page)
"Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin, (born August 21, 1973) is a Russian-born American computer scientist and software developer who, with Larry Page, is best known as the co-founder of Google, Inc., the world's largest Internet company , . . . Sergey Brin was born in Moscow to Jewish parents, the son of Michael Brin and Eugenia Brin, both graduates of Moscow State University."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin

Now, as brilliant as Mr. Sergey Brin must be, surely he and the Legal Staff of Google know that the LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States has this Game Rule:

(clipped text)
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
- Amendment VI, The U.S. Constitution

Yet, YouTube has once again violated this Game Rule and choosing instead the Soviet Stasi/Talmudic method of Law of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" where one has no right to face one's accusers or to even know what law one has been accused of breaking.

So, who is this "James Allan Khan" and what "copyrighted material" is Mr. Anthony Lawson infringing upon? Why the secrecy here?

Why is Google's YouTube so quick to pass judgment and impose punitive action without due process?

Is the nature of the material the driving force here as Google's YouTube defends these indefensible actions that are in direct contrast to the primary laws and principles of this Great Republic???

This ol' fool from North Cackilacki is reminded of that infamous quote:

“Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.”
- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Prime Minister and War Criminal Terrorist

Now, what was that old "Prime Directive" that Google was always marketing? . . . ;-)

"Don't Be Evil"
- Google Corporate Motto

Wouldn't "Defending The Indefensible" and violated both the 1st Amendment and the 6th Amendment be considered doing "evil", kidz . . . not to mention being considered ILLEGAL??? . . . ;-)

"Why do we never get an answer,
When we're knocking at the door?
Because the truth is hard to swallow,
That's what the war of love is for."
- "Question" by The Moody Blues

peace.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.