Libya/Egypt: An Opportunity

As with all international incidents, it takes time to understand what is really going on across the Middle East. There are a lot of conflicting reports and some obviously false ideas being batted about. With several days to observe, here are my thoughts, and what I think needs to be done next.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

AP Top 10: Politicized News

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.


Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

I owe Herman Cain an apology. This “Libya gaffe” thing is just another smear, and sadly, I bought into it. Mea culpa. Here’s what really happened, along with my thinking on what really matters with the candidates.

Issue One: The Libya “Gaffe”

When Cain’s candidacy started taking off, the media smeared him with bogus sexual harassment allegations. Brought as anonymous and non-specific allegations, the MSM obsessively savaged Cain for failing to satisfy some undisclosed moving-target standard to acquit himself. Yet, within only a week, it became clear there was no substance to these allegations. The accusers aren’t credible: a serial complainer and a money-desperate liar. They have ties to David Axelrod, who has a history of this type of smear. The media witch hunt was overplayed. And polls continue to show Cain at or near the top. The scandal is D.O.A.

But just as Cain appeared to be recovering, a new allegation appeared: that he’s stupid. This allegation was based on his supposed “Libya gaffe,” and has again been pushed by the MSM and useful idiots like Byron York at National Review. But this is a smear too.

According to people like York, the Libya gaffe is this: A reporter asked Cain if he agreed with Obama’s policy on Libya. Cain had no idea what that policy was. He eventually mumbles something about Obama opposing Gaddafi, and then has to ask the reporter if what he’s just said is true.

IF this is true, then Cain really isn’t all that bright. Only. . . it’s not true.

Commentarama reader tryanmax sent me a link with the full interview. Here’s the link to the interview (LINK) and here’s a link to tryanmax’s thoughts on the subject (LINK). The interview is a lengthy discussion of many topics. About 20 minutes into the interview, they turn to the question of whether or not Cain would support democracy movements abroad. Cain tells the reporter he would support democracy movements, but he wouldn’t try to create one. Up to this point, Cain has come across as knowledgeable and relaxed.

The reporter then asks whether Cain thought Bush’s foreign policy was effective in this regard or if Cain has “a major critique” of how Bush handled the balance between American interests and democracy movements. Cain thinks about this and says he believes Bush ultimately struck the right balance. Cain repeats that where a democracy movement exists, he would support it, but he “won’t try to talk people into democracy.”

The reporter then says: “so you agreed with President Obama then on Libya or not?” Note first, that this is a strange question and it assumes much that has not been said by Cain or the reporter up to this point. They were talking about Bush’s foreign policy and suddenly the reporter asks this statement-question which assumes what Obama’s policy was and assumes that Cain has just provided an answer consistent with it. I am not saying this is a “gotcha” question, but it is a vague and ambiguous question with an uncertain subject. It is the kind of question a lawyer would object to and make the reporter rephrase.

Cain again thinks for a moment. Then he says:

“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘yes, I agree’ or ‘no, I don’t’.”

There’s the supposed gaffe. This is what is being portrayed as Cain asking the reporter to help him with the facts. The MSM is saying Cain’s use of the word “correct” means Cain needs the reporter to assure him he guessed right what Obama did in Libya. BUT that’s a blatantly false interpretation. Watch the video and it immediately becomes clear that Cain is neither confused nor is he asking the reporter to confirm the facts. Instead, Cain is asking the reporter to confirm that this was the topic the reporter meant with his odd question. Cain is using the word “correct” as a rhetorical device to make sure they were talking about the same thing. The fact both Cain and the reporter remain calm and continue the interview without any sense a gaffe has occurred confirms this.

There is NO reasonable way you can interpret this video as Cain being unsure what Obama did in Libya or asking the reporter to help him get the facts right. To assert that, as supposedly-reputable conservatives like National Review have done, is to adopt yet another smear, just as they did with the sexual harassment allegations. It is to intentionally pretend there is confusion, where there is none – just as they continue to wrongly claim Cain was confused about the difference between pro-life and pro-choice or as they tried to turn his verbal slip about China’s nuclear capability into evidence of ignorance.

I have also heard claims Cain must be stupid because he took time to consider his answer before responding. That is simply ridiculous. To expect someone to provide rapid-fire soundbites throughout an informal, 20+ minute conversation style interview on a variety of topics, rather than gather their thoughts, is disingenuous at best.

Issue Two: Dissecting Candidate Brains

Finally, I want to explain why I don’t care if Cain makes gaffes or Perry freezes up occasionally or Romney sounds prissy. Those things don’t matter. They are style over substance. What matters is understanding how the candidates think because what is truly critical is understanding how each candidate will approach whatever problems they face on the job. In other words, whether or not they know the capital of Mexico doesn’t matter, but knowing how they would analyze an invasion of Mexico by Venezuela does. Here is what I’ve seen so far (you may see things differently):

● Cain: Cain thinks like an executive. He’s hands off when it comes to details and he expects “his people” to carry out his orders. This is similar in style to Ronald Reagan. However, Cain lacks Reagan’s strong knowledge base and fundamental theoretical understanding of conservatism, and he has yet to show solid political instincts. His biggest flaw appears to be an assumption that those around him will work toward the goals he sets.

● Gingrich: Gingrich is the smartest man on stage. He is also politically savvy. BUT his history tells me he will often base his decisions on the wrong motives, such as ego or a desire to be loved. This overrides his intelligence and makes him unpredictable.

● Paul: Paul is a smart man with deep knowledge and a generally solid decision making process. However, he is prone to erroneous conspiracy theories and is fundamentally wrong on certain issues.

● Romney: Romney is afraid of decisions. He avoids them at all cost and immediately backtracks at the first sign of disagreement.

● Perry: Perry wants to let others make decisions for him. This means we don’t know who will actually be making decisions.

● Bachmann: Bachmann has failed to demonstrate any independent thinking. She follows bandwagons and believes knowledge of trivia is a substitute for analysis.

● Santorum: Santorum is a disaster. He only wants to hear people who agree with him and he simply does not understand the issues or people.

Some of these problems I can overlook, others I can’t. But one thing is clear: most of the things the MSM focuses on are irrelevant to understanding these people.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”

The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Speaks on Libya

Ladies and Gentlemen. Through our sources, we have obtained the original copy of Obama’s Libya speech before someone apparently cleaned it up ever so slightly. After you read this, tell us in the comments if you think this would have been better than Obama’s confused snoozer last night? And feel free to tell us what you might have said in his place. . . we'll pass your comments on to our contact "Joey B."

******

Enter speechifying room. . .
Look serious. . .
Read from TOTUS. . .
NO adlibbing. . .

******

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update you Americans on the international effort going on in a place called Libya -- what they have done, what I heard the Frensh and Britters plan to do about it, and why you should blame George Bush if you are unhappy.

I want to begin by paying tribute to the men and women in uniform on both sides. Because of them, our dedicated diplomats have saved uncountable numbers of lives. Meanwhile, as we speak, American troops are supporting your ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, generally not invading 187 other countries, futzing around with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and some other stuff that I don’t remember from the briefing. That has nothing to do with Libya, but it sounds good (don't read this part out loud).

You may not know this, I certainly didn't, but Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -- two nations that are located in a place called “the Middle East,” near Mexico. We used to call them the Orient, but that was racist, so we no longer call them Orientals. Instead, they are now called Orientations, which makes them happy and gay. Let me give a shout out to my third biggest contributors!

Libya is ruled by a man named Miramar Gandalf, who looks like Michael Jackson and smells like fish oil. He has denied his people their freedom, he exploited their wealth, he raised their taxes and he tried to seize their health care system and put it under the control of his sinister government. He has also involuntarily-ended-the-continuing-living of those who oppose him at home and man-made-disasterized journalists. That is what happened in Libya six weeks ago.

Exactly one day after that began, some people in places called Frensh and Britterica took action to try to stop Mr. Gandalf. Because they acted, we too have a responsibility to act so that we don’t seem weak. Though, we are naturally reluctant to use non-peaceful-expression to solve the world’s many challenges, the use of non-peaceful-expression is called for in this instance. But you can rest assured that I will do my utmost not to solve any of the problems in this Libya place.

When Gandalf began non-peacing his people, my immediate concern as President was with the safety of our citizens in Brazil. So I went to Brazil to ensure that our people, Kenyan and American, were not being mistreated. Contrary to what those who oppose tell you in the media, this was not just a vacation. And I can happily confirm to you that my trip was a success and for the first time in my wife’s life, she is proud to know where Brazil is located.

I understand that when the Frensh and Britters started non-peacing Gandalf’s non-peacing paid-volunteers, Gandalf chose to escalate his non-peacing. That was when I received a call from Obama bin Laden, my long lost uncle. He asked if we could non-peace some people in Libya too. So I unleashed non-civilian jets and helicopter regulated-militia-owners-ships upon people who had no means to defend themselves. These were taxhoarders and the IRS made swift work of them. I also ordered our non-peacers to do something about Libya. They tell me they have.

And we are not alone in this. Canada sent a box of maple syrup. Denmark and Norway sent a card. Italy and Spain and Greece sent promissory notes. Turkey sent a brigade to help Mr. Gandalf. And some of the Orientations sent other things in a box that I haven’t opened yet.

Make no mistake, we are serious about not-surrendering in this mutual non-agreement until our grievances are given a fair hearing by Mr. Gandalf. And we will stay involved and proactive in these events until such time as it is no longer time to remain involved or proactive, and I assure you that will be at some point. In the meantime, I have ordered my political team to find an exit strategy that allows me to blame this entire incident on the failure of George Bush to solve these problems before they were dumped in my lap. Tonight I ask you all to respond to all poll questions regarding Libya by blaming Mr. Bush.

Good night and may Allah bless you with a sexy camel.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bombing Libya? When were you gonna tell us?

The Obamas in Chile

Finally, President Obama has announced that he will address the nation about Libya this Monday. Better late than never. In the meantime, as we wait with baited breath for Our Dear Leader to speak to us, I have a question. Is it just me, or what?

For the past week we have been bombing Libya as part of a UN coalition of nations lead by France...yes, that France to presumably aid the rebel forces trying to oust Qaddafi. Now, maybe it's just me, but when the President of the United States commits our resources, military or otherwise, to send planes, pilots, and 2,200 members of the 26th Marine Expedition­ary Unit to bomb someplace, don't you think he should have the good grace to be sitting in the Oval Office when he signs the order? It is just unseemly to me that, as the Commander-In-Chief, he is committing the might of the American military while out of the country clinking glasses of wine (presumably a lovely Chilean red) at a State Dinner in South America. [See photo]

Am I the only one who thinks that the President of the United States should be in the Oval Office in Washington DC in the US of A when he makes these decisions? At the very least, he could be using a photo-shopped "Oval Office"*** to make a address. So, not only do we have a new war front, but our President has been out of the country, so we don't even know why, when, or for how long we will be doing this. Oh, the MSM insist it will be days, but the UN insists it will be months. I don't expect the President (any President) to tip his hand and tells us everything. BUT, after we started bombing, it would have been nice to know that the President respected the American people and the gravity of this new commitment enough that he would cut his trip short and hurry on back to American soil to let us know in person what the hell is going on!

Oh, one thing - expect to hear on Monday that this is not another war, it's a "kinetic military action". Somehow, that won't make me feel any better. How about you?

Oh, second thing - did you hear that Al Qaeda is fighting on the side of the Libyan rebels too?


***One would think they would have thought of that after the WH publicity office decided to use Air Force One to dive bomb the Statue of Liberty for a photo op in 2009.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Impeach Obama The Warmonger!

I have it on good authority that Dennis Kucinich (D-Pluto) is made from clown concentrate and processed chicken parts. So it won’t surprise you that he’s now wondering aloud whether Obama should be impeached for his war mongering in Libya. Yeah, that Obama. . . the one who spent the weekend in Brazil cancelling press conferences so he could samba. Does he have a point?

For some background, the French and British decided something needed to be done about Libya, where Michael Jackson’s evil clone (see below) has been killing his own people. They went to the United Nations and somehow got the UN to agree to institute a no fly zone over Libya. Russia, by the way, agreed to the resolution and then promptly turned around and condemned it. Weirdos.

With UN approval in his pocket and the French leading the way. . . Field Marshal Obama fled to Brazil as our navy started launching cruise missiles at Libyan air defense installations to protect coalition forces.

Enter clown boy and his posse of “hard-core liberal House Democrats” (as Politico describes them). This group of hard-core fans includes nine House members including noted intellectual luminaries like Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee, and our friend Dennis.

As a group, they question whether Obama has the constitutional right to launch missiles against Libya (after all, the word "Libya" doesn't appear in the Constitution anywhere). They’re also upset that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack, and they’re upset that this would lead the US into a third war in the Muslim world. Said one Democrat on the conference call:

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress.”

Kucinich goes one further and says this raises the question of impeachment. Kucinich, by the way, is an impeachment hobbyist, having tried to bring impeachment articles against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

So let’s look at a few points.

First, they are wrong about the “requirement” to advise Congress before blasting some foreign country. Only Congress can declare war, but under the 1973 War Powers Act, the President can commit US troops for up to 60 days without Congressional approval. So their point is garbage. . . and uppity Belgium better watch its back!

Secondly, this pretty much kills any claims the Democratic left flank has to legitimacy on war issues. They claimed they opposed Bush because he acted without genuine UN approval. Obama got that. Yet, they still complain. They claim they opposed Bush because he only wanted Iraq’s oil and Afghanistan’s. . . dirt. They said we should only fight when US interests aren’t at stake, like when an evil dictator is killing his own people and it has nothing to do with us (yes, they said that). Well, that’s exactly what Gaddafi is doing in Libya, and yet they still oppose the use of force. In fact, at the same time these Democrats were holding their conference call of stupidity, anti-war protestors were protesting at the White House gates.

What does this tell us? It tells us the left is lying when they come up with specific reasons for opposing particular military actions. The truth is they simply object to military action of any kind. Hence, we should start treating their objections as irrelevant.

Third, this tells us the left is unhinged and probably will field a candidate against Obama in the primary. Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders says a primary challenge would be a good thing (sounds like Martha Stewart... "it's a good thing"), though he won’t do it himself. Our boy Dennis Kucinich says a primary challenge would make Obama a “stronger nominee,” and seems intent on jumping in where Bernie fears to tread.

But wait, what about Hillary, you ask? Well, for one thing, Hillary no longer has progressive street cred, so she might as well be Son of Bush. For another, Hillary essentially took herself out of the race this week, saying that she will not run for President, will not take another government job and will not serve in Obama’s second term. I suspect this is actually her attempt to bail out before the rats start abandoning the A.S.S. Obama once the writing on the wall gets clearer in 2012 -- which makes it a brilliant move. But whatever her reasons, she out.

So Kucinich is in. And since Kenya Boy proved that you don't need to be a US citizen anymore to become President, I think we need to expand the field of possible contenders for his VP spot. Thus, I give you....

Kucinich/Kaddafi 2012

. . . you heard it here first.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Libya, On The To Do List. . .

Libya. We’re still on Libya. Ug. Why are we talking about Libya? Because Obama is an idiot, that’s why. Well, let’s get this over with.... then we’ll agree to never speak of this again!

1. Obama... Silence Ain't Golden

When a civil war starts in a country that sits a few hundred miles south of Italy, a country rich in oil, a country we bombed in 1986, a country that sponsors international terrorism. . . US Presidents tend to issue statements. So why has Obama been conspicuously silent? We speculated about this the other day and strangely, none of us came close to the real answer: apparently, Obama is soooooo busy he just didn’t have time to issue a statement. I guess Oprah’s been pretty special this week?

Seriously, I'm not making this up!

Here’s the quote from Obama Spokesmonkey Jay “small hands” Carney:

“This is a scheduling issue. The president will meet with Secretary of State Clinton this afternoon. We will have something to say out of that meeting. If possible, the President will speak this afternoon or tomorrow.”

What the heck? This is what you say when you decline a lunch invitation, not when a country erupts in civil war! And how long does it take to issue a statement anyway? It’s really quite simple. Obama takes off his wife’s jeans, puts on a suit. He walks to the statement giving hallway. The media bows, cheers and cries. Someone turns on the TOTUS. Obama reads. The media applauds and holds up lighters. Obama returns to the Huckleberry Hound Show which his staff conveniently TiVoed. How hard is that?

Oh, I see, he doesn’t know what to say? Gee, what do you say when a murderous tyrant the world hates is fighting for his life against his own citizens and his military is switching sides in city after city? Hmmm. How about this:

[look serious]
[frown]

To the people of Libya,
Get him!

[beat cheeks]

Was that so hard? You don’t even have to put it in Haikou format! Seriously, it’s hard to find an easier speech to give. Grrr.

2. On Israel....

While we’re here, I thought I’d mention briefly what all of this means for Israel. I bring this up because The Economist has taken the strange position that if all of this upheaval in the Arab world leads to free and peaceful democracies in the Middle East (which is actually possible), then somehow the United States needs to abandon Israel.

Right, just like we abandoned England when Germany became a democracy.

How does this make any sense? I honestly can’t tell you. The little bit of “logic” The Economist presented was nothing more than watered down conspiracies statements in the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy mold. Apparently, those sneaky Jews control the US because they have an effective lobby, and thus US policy has been a servant to Israel (as evidenced by us invading Iraq and in foreign aid we give Israel). If Arabs stop being meanies, then the US will need to give up supporting the regional bully, i.e. Israel. Q.E.D..

I hardly know where to begin with this. AARP is more powerful than the Israeli lobby? And if Jews are so powerful, why would that power suddenly fail them just because Arabs start voting? We invaded Iraq for a dozen reasons, none of which involved Israel. We give foreign aid to everyone. Israel isn’t the neighborhood bully, it’s the kid that stood up to the bullies. And if the Arabs stop being jerks, then Israel doesn’t need our protection. Hence, every single part of this theory is wrong.

The truth is this. If the Arab world becomes democratic and free (and gives up its desire to wipe Israel off the map), there is no reason in the world the US should abandon Israel. Frankly, I expect that would improve everyone’s relations and probably draw us closer into the whole region through increased tourism and investment.

Somehow, between the antiSemitic Economist and our silent President, I get the feeling we're not in the greatest of hands these days.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hypocrite: (noun) Obama.

Obama is an awful President. He’s also a hypocrite. From his heavy vacationing and lavish spending at the same time he’s telling the rest of us to tighten our belts, to his wife's diet-tribes, to his tax cheat cabinet, to his exempting his friends from his own policies, to his strange disparate handling of issues in the Middle East, he’s a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy One: Vacation-O-bamarama

You may recall the late unpleasantness, i.e. the recession that cost millions of Americans their jobs or significant pay cuts. Unemployment hit a level not seen since the inept Jimmy Carter. Tax revenues are down too. So both individuals and governments from Spain to China to Wisconsin to California have been forced to tighten their belts. Obama even spoke some words of sympathy to us, assuring us he felt our pain. Only, he didn’t. Obama never stopped taking luxury vacations. This week, Michelle Obama is in Vail, enjoying a wonderful skiing holiday with her fabulous friends, as they gorge on ribs.

But never fear all of the “personal expenses” were paid by the Obamas. Ok, what about the rest of it? The plane, the staff, the security and their room and board? We're paying for that.

At least she didn’t bring O’Biden, he’s in the Florida Keys for a well (un)deserved vacation.

And don’t get me started on the food hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy Two: Do As I Say Taxpayer. . .

You should have known something was wrong the moment Obama started advocating tax increases “for the rich” at the same time he tried to pack his cabinet with tax evaders. Seriously, how is it that so many of his people felt they didn’t have to pay the same taxes we do? Then came ObamaCare. Did you notice how hard Team Obama worked to make sure the healthcare plans belonging to his union buddies would not be subject to the Cadillac tax? Somehow, the taxes were good for everyone else, but not Obama’s friends. And everyone in Congress and the White House were exempted from ObamaCare. Why? Then we learned that hundreds of friends of Obama were submitting waiver requests so ObamaCare wouldn’t apply to them, and GE got a waiver from EPA rules it had been lobbying for.

Do as I say, not as I do, indeed.

Hypocrisy Three: Some Oppressors Are Worse Than Others

Remember how Obama didn’t care at all about terrorism until it hit an African country? In fact, he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word. . . “man-made disaster” my shiny butt.

Then we had a true moment of inspiration on the international front, as a people, tired of their brutally oppressive government, rose up and tried to bring down their insane dictator. I’m talking, of course, about Iran. As the protestors took to the streets in Iran, Obama said.... nothing. As the army beat the protestors, tear gassed them and shot them, Obama said.... nothing. A few days later, he went on television to proclaim his fondest hopes that both sides would play nicely. As if the protestors were the bad guys!

Obama had another chance when crowds rose up against the thuggish leader of Tunisia. He said nothing.

Then came Egypt. After an initial period where he, O’Biden and Shillary Clinton sent the mixiest of mixed signals, Obama finally got his foreign policy legs and came down firmly on the side of freedom against this not especially repressive regime, who happened to be a long term American ally. So we finally have the new Obama Doctrine, right? Obama would now side with the people?

Well, no. He hasn’t said jack about Libya. As Gaddafi’s army guns down protestors by the hundreds, Obama spent his time fretting about a dispute between Democrats and Republicans in Wisconsin. There is no legitimate foreign policy distinction to be made here. If anything, he should have be more vocal against people who aren’t our allies, like Iran and Libya, and people who are gunning down their own citizens. Yet he doesn't. Why?

Because the man is a bully. He throws his weight around against people who won’t fight back, and he remains noticeably silent as evil dictators mow down their own citizens. At the same time, let me remind you that Obama used to rail against Bush for supporting dictators throughout the world. . . the same dictators he now coddles or whose atrocities he turns a blind eye to in places like Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

Unless I'm missing something here, the man is a hypocrite. Is that how you see it?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Here Lies Ozymandias, King of Kings

No, that's not the man in the picture. The dejected looking semi-corpse is Muammar Gaddafi (this week's spelling of the name) who wants to be king of kings, but his fellow Africans just won't let him. No matter how much he pays them. Alexander wept because there were no nations left to conquer. Muammar weeps because the people he buys just won't stay bought.

Each year for the past three years, the very wealthy Gaddafi has put on one of his ostentatious all-expenses paid vacations for the various leaders of the African nations in hopes of forming a United Africa, with himself as king. I specifically used the word "king" because there's no resemblance whatsoever to an elected president or prime minister. Idi Amin's generalissimo and president for life would be the closest thing to it, or perhaps the Kim regime in North Korea.

Six months ago, Qaddafi tried to have himself re-elected to the one-year chairmanship of the African Union, but couldn't even pull that off. He really wanted that position because the AU is the largest organization in Africa determined to form something resembling a United States of Africa or a Union resembling Europe's federation. The AU would have fast-tracked that concept with Gaddafi as leader, but instead is now being run by his much-hated "gradualist" allies.

What is really peculiar about all of Gaddafi's machinations is the determination to create something as anachronistic as a king. The main opposition to this comes from the two sub-Saharan nations of South Africa and Nigeria. His support, tepid as it may be, comes largely from the strongmen and tribal chieftains of the more backward and destitute African nations. But as the representative of Zambia's Tonga tribe put it: "Most of our traditional leaders here are very poor and as such they are just agreeing with everything without objection." In other words, "anyone who can put on a party like this and give us freebies is a king in our book."

It seems that Gaddafi is envisioning something faintly akin to the Holy Roman Empire. A vast feudal congregation of nations varying in governmental form and leadership, but united under one leader. But "king" is not a word that has been bandied about much outside of Africa of late. Still, it is rumored that Gadaffi already had the papers elevating him to that position, waiting only for the signatures of the various heads of state present at the gathering in Tripoli.

Gaddafi has delusions of adequacy, and in his pipe dreams envisions himself as a king, or maybe even an emperor. Still, the thing that seems to have hung many of the delegates up is not the kingship itself, but Gaddafi's clear intention to make the throne hereditary. Even the Holy Roman Empire had pretensions to electing its emperors. Gaddafi's document doesn't specifically mention hereditary monarchy, but very noticeably goes out of its way not to mention time limits on the king's rule nor any provision for a successor. By default, that seems to mean hereditary monarchy.

Gaddafi has sons to assume the throne, and there's something eerie about his favorite son's name--Hannibal. I wonder what Rome thinks about that. But I digress. Before we entirely laugh off the concept of a king in the modern world, we do have to remember that there are many kings and queens in modern Europe, although I don't think Gaddafi has the idea of a true constitutional monarchy in mind. He will want to be both the head of state and head of government, and undoubtedly the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Lest anybody have any doubts about Gaddafi's real idea of kingship as an elected monarchy responsible to an elected legislature, consider his own words: "There would be no elections because there are dozens of examples of people who have lost their lives across the continent because of election disputes." So much for a republic led by a titular king. He solved that problem in Libya by simply murdering all his opponents, their supporters and fellow-travelers. Now it's all cozy and peaceful in his country. You do understand, don't you?

Another problem for Gaddafi (although he has the remedy) is that there are large Christian presences in Uganda, Nigeria and South Africa. In addition, there are also large numbers of animists in central Africa. Gaddafi is a jihadist Muslim, and recently sent 1,000 troops to launch a Muslim campaign to end Christianity in Uganda. He has also made his contempt for black Africans known, most particularly by his ejection of thousands of black workers from Libya and imprisonment of thousands more for nothing more than attempting to rise to positions of authority in labor organizations or start their own businesses in competition with Arab Muslims.

And if you didn't grasp the racism there, how about his attempt to coerce the European Union into giving him $6.3 billion to organize a project to keep black Africans out of Europe because, in his own words, blacks are "starving and ignorant." By dividing and insulting most of the rest of Africa, Gaddafi's bribes just don't convince even the most insular of African statesmen that he has the temperament or ability to organize a United States of Africa which will exert its rights and authority without mass murders and suppression of the majority African population.

One last question. Am I the only one who thinks that Muammar Gaddafi is actually Mickey Rourke in disguise? Well--have you ever seen them in the same place at the same time? I have heard from a friend whose sister's uncle's friend knew a grad student from Columbia who visited Libya once and saw Rourke getting into Gaddafi drag. How much more proof do you need? I sense a major international conspiracy.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Miraculous Recovery For Terrorist Bomber, And BP May Have Helped

It has now been a year since Scotland released convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on the humanitarian grounds that he had terminal cancer and only three months to live. Looking at it another way, the murdering bastard has already lived nine months longer than they said he would, and seems to be recovering nicely.

There's no need to rehash the original story. Scotland made a horrendously bad decision releasing a terrorist who murdered 270 people, mostly Americans, on Pan Am Flight 103. There is simply no "humanitarian balance" in showing mercy toward one vile inhuman beast when 270 innocent human beings went to their graves with justice denied. But now it appears that the picture of the Libyan mass murderer returning home in triumph [above] may be at least partially the result of efforts by British Petroleum (BP).

Now BP isn't exactly every American's favorite oil company at the moment anyway. BP executives continue to treat the Gulf oil spill as an unfortunate public relations mistake instead of a major disaster. Their statements regarding the events leading up to and following the oil spill have ranged from simple obfuscation to outright distortion. And now it seems that this is a pattern. Dead fish and birds and lost wetlands are bad enough, but murdered Americans being denied justice is at least as bad. When queried on their alleged involvement in the release of the mass murderer, BP at first remained silent (typical), then issued one of those infamous non-denial denials.

The Wall Street Journal hopped on the story early, and made multiple requests of BP officials for a confirmation, denial or explanation of the reports that BP influenced the decision to release the terrorist. But it wasn't until loud noises coming from members of Congress about a possible investigation into the allegations began to be heard outside the Capitol that BP felt it could no longer stonewall. So it sandbagged instead. BP's response to the Journal reads as follows:

"The decision to release Mr. Al Megrahi in August 2009 was taken by the Scottish government. It is not for BP to comment on the decision of the Scottish Government. BP was not involved in any discussions with the UK Government or the Scottish Government about the release of Mr. Megrahi." That is what the military academies call "a quibble." The answer is true, but not truthful. And it's dishonest and dishonorable. Here is what BP really said to both governments in late 2007:

"We are concerned about the slow progress that is being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya. We are aware that this could have a negative impact on UK commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan Government of BP's exploration agreement (emphasis added). OK, the memo doesn't specifically reference al-Megrahi. And if that's all we had, their current explanation would be at least somewhat believable.

BP was deep in negotiations with the Libyan government, and specifically with madman Muammar Qadaffi's son, Saif. From a legal viewpoint at trial, this is only hearsay, but we're not in court, and this is pretty nasty stuff. Says Saif: "At all times we (Libya and Scotland) talked about the prisoner transfer agreement it was obvious we were talking about him (terrorist al-Megrahi). And when we talked to BP, we all knew that was what we were talking about." Qadaffi is only one of several Libyan officials who have tied BP, the UK and Scottish governments, and Libya together.

So what we're left with at this point is BP claiming it had no direct part in the government negotiations (true, apparently), but was very much involved in negotiations regarding economic matters and prisoner exchanges, which had at their pinnacle the unspoken but well-known exchange of BP oil exploration agreements in Libya for the release of a mass murderer. That is a distinction without a difference, and if BP can't come up with something better than that, they should earn at least a major consumer boycott of their products in America.

In all fairness, the WSJ writers say "what we still don't know is how hard BP lobbied the British government to secure the transfer agreement. One key figure is Mark Allen, a politically connected former MI6 officer who became an adviser to BP in 2004 and raised the matter with then-UK Justice Minister Jack Straw in 2007. The company hasn't answered our request for details of Mr. Allen's conversations with Mr. Straw." The Journal was being generous in not pointing out that Straw was notorious for being in the hip-pocket of Middle East Oil money men.

The only thing that prevents this from being a clear and provable quid pro quo is that the transfer agreement was signed in 2007. BP immediately thereafter received a $900 million deal from the Libyan government in Tripoli to drill deep water wells off the Libyan coast. Still, bureaucratic matters held up the specific release of al-Megrahi until 2009. That might give BP a little room to maneuver around this latest revelation, but not enough to satisfy me without considerably better answers. I don't ordinarily jump to conclusions, but where there's oil, there's lies. As I mentioned earlier, we're not in a court of law, and all things being equal, it seems right to me to consider BP guilty until proven innocent.

ADDENDUM: Before anyone asks, I did indeed see the entire joint press conference between the President and the British Prime Minister. That display of bonhomie was both necessary and appropriate. That said, nothing either of them said allays my suspicions of BP's possible involvement in the release of the Lockerbie bomber, nor I suspect it will have much affect on the Wall Street Journal. In fact, Cameron's comment that the British government will cooperate in any investigation but doesn't see the point of it only adds to my suspicions. I don't see anything sinister in his statement, but I do see an attempt to minimalize what may be a very important story.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The United Nations Serves A Purpose After All

I'm going to take a small side road away from my conservative friends and suggest that the United Nations does indeed serve a purpose. Yesterday's performances demonstrated that fact, in spades. I'm not sure it's worth the billions of dollars we burn supporting it, but then how can you put a genuine value on great theater? Or maybe I should say comic opera. The greatest collection of comedy stars since they broke up the Hollywood Studio System was gathered yesterday in one grand forum that was seen by the entire world.

Sadly, one of the poorest performances of the day was put on by the American president. Obama droned, spouted platitudes, spoke of American unilateralism, and looked far too serious for the silly non-message he was conveying. "Lookey--where would Earth be without this great planet of ours?" And he let us all down by failing to do his well-known levitation routine while raising his arms to heaven to establish the connection. Since we see the president at least once a day, every day, his performance was at best mundane. It's impossible to forget what he looks like, what he sounds like, and how very sincere he is in his own beliefs. So his General Assembly speech didn't have any surprises, we've heard it from him approximately 250 times over the past nine months.

But the rest. Ah, the rest were absolutely sublime. Venezuelan President-for-Life Hugo Chavez told us that the smell of sulphur left behind by President Bush had finally dissipated and had been replaced by the gentle zephyrs of hope which trail behind President Obama. And then he told the United States that it's making a good start, but it has to move faster on socialism (and possibly the one-man, one-vote, one-time concept). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threw a few flowers at Obama, and then went into his holocaust-denying schtick. That produced a highlight of the day--the mass walkout of all the friends of Israel, including all the delegates from the Anglosphere. He went on about how the huge nation of the Zionists was oppressing and murdering the entire tiny Arab and Muslim world. So naturally, Israel has to be wiped off the map.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated "satisfaction" with Obama's speech. That is also known as "damning with faint praise." He then went on to channel lawyer Joseph Welch at the Army-McCarthy hearings by looking out disgustedly at the General Assembly, shaking his head, and saying: "Have you no shame? Have you no decency?" I didn't think Obama's speech was that bad. Oh, wait, he was referring to the body allowing the frothing-at-the-beard Ahmadinejad to speak at all. "To those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say . . . what a mistake. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations." Beside being very moving, it was also a refreshing change from the usual speakers condemning the United Nations for allowing Israel and the United States to survive.

But no report on the opening session would be complete without a full and fair discussion of the featured speaker, Moammar Qaddafi (please don't correct my spelling, this guy has changed the spelling three times himself). At the end of his speech, it looked like he had just run out of gas on his mission to out-talk Fidel Castro (who set the record for yapping for four hours and twenty minutes). But he did manage to out-crazy Castro. Much of he said was rambling, incoherent, and garbled (even his Arabic translators were having trouble understanding him).

Unlike the others, Qaddafi was effusive in his praise for Obama. After pausing for a bit, he decided it wasn't enough. So he wished out loud that Obama could be America's president forever (all the rest of the guys had to settle for president-for-life). Maybe Qaddafi was buying into the divinity thing for Obama, but I don't think Mohammed or Allah would be too pleased.

After references to the "King of Kings of Africa," and referring to Obama as "our son," he went on to lecture on the JFK assassination, the Martin Luther King assassination, and the origins of swine flu (created in a military lab, or a private pharmaceutical lab, he couldn't decide which). Then he asked the very telling question: "What's next? Fish flu?" What a wit. And for a change of pace, he spent much of the speech excoriating the United Nations itself. Mostly he was ticked off at the Security Council which had declared him a terrorist and his nation a rogue nation a couple of decades back. So he called it "the terrorist council." And to punctuate the thought, he said "now, brothers, there is no respect for the United Nations, no regard for the General Assembly" while tearing off a corner of the U.N. Charter to wave around.

Onward and upward. Next target--Europe. He had gotten his accountants to make a careful calculation, and he had determined that Europe owed the Africans 7.7 trillion dollars for its former colonization of the dark continent. And if they don't pay, "the Africans will go get the money themselves." After 90 exhaustive minutes, Qaddafi probably just forgot to mention the Lockerbie plane bombing, 270 dead passengers, and the triumphal return home of the bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

So--why do I think the U.N. is still important? Every cuckoo who showed us what they really are, and what they really stand for is why I think it. We need to be reminded that these people are not simply pictures from Reuters and AP, exotically sitting in faraway lands, just trying to get along. Each of the vile dictators and oppressors who spoke put himself in our living rooms--up close, and personal. And that is an important thing. We need to see who the enemies are, not just of America, but of everything that is right and decent. We need, as Admiral Yamamoto is attributed with saying, to be an awakened sleeping giant, filled with a terrible resolve.

But I saved Qaddafi for last for a reason. He messed with the United States a few times too often when we still had real leaders. His adopted daughter got blown up by a bomb in 1986 after Qaddafi sponsored several terrorist attacks resulting in American retaliation. For most of the 90s, Qaddafi's country was under international sanctions for refusal to turn over two of the Lockerbie bombers to American or international courts. But in 2003, apparently after hints that the Bush administration might consider Libya to be the next American target for rooting out terrorist havens, he turned over the bombers and renounced his nation's nuclear ambitions.

Since 2003, Qaddafi has been flying under the radar, pretty much ignored by Americans and the American press. He convinced the liberal/left in America that his abandoning of Libya's nuclear plans was strictly humanitarian peace-making. And the New York Times gladly gave him editorial space to make the claim. His fellow dictators didn't believe the conversion, but they certainly believed the deception was working. He was elected head of the African Union and was touted as a great unifier. The Western press bought it hook, line and sinker. They saw a "road to Damascus" conversion in his 2003 actions, and were determined to promote it, but not too loudly. Qaddafi's public redemption continued unabated.

Now look at the effect it has had in Africa. Before 2003, democratic leaders in Africa were free to speak for their nations opposing Qaddafi and his murderous policies. After 2003, no so much. Very recently, Kenya's Prime Minister was interviewed by The New Republic. Raila Odinga offered a very strong critique of the African Union and the dictators involved in unrest on the continent. But when asked how he thought Qaddafi, as head of the AU, could possibly play a constructive role in promoting human rights, he responded that leaders like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe deserve condemnation but don't get it because most of the other leaders don't want their own human rights violations exposed in the process. The New Republic writer pressed the issue by reminding Odinga that he had asked specifically about Qaddafi.

Odinga is the leader of a nearly-western style democracy, and seems genuinely disgusted with the African dictators. But when pressed on Qaddafi, he replied simply: "I don't want to comment on the head of a state which has got a diplomatic relationship with Kenya." It was OK to go after Mugabe and others, but Qaddafi's redemption had reached such a point that even a good man could not bring himself to criticize Qaddafi's ongoing brutal suppression of his own people and attempts to undermine neighboring countries, particularly Chad.

So the Qaddafi U.N. speech served a very useful purpose. There is buzz all over Africa about "the crazy man." And neutral Americans who either didn't know or had forgotten that Qaddafi is a dangerous lunatic were treated to Moammar at his best. All the conservative talk about Qaddafi wasn't worth one minute out of the 90 minutes that Qaddafi used to prove he is stark, staring, nuts and doesn't deserve to sit on an international body, let alone lead anything. Sadly, today (this was written on Thursday) he is sitting in the Security Council a mere five seats away from the American president who is still basking in the glow of his own brilliance and too distracted to know there's a loony in the room.

So I agree with the idea of keeping the United Nations functioning. But I also agree with Qaddafi who thinks it should be moved out of New York. His reasons are somewhat different from mine. He is just angry that it "felt like he was in Guantanamo Detention Center, cut off from the outside world." Mostly he was ticked off that nobody would give him space to set up his gigantic tents and camp out with his multiple female assistants. But the guy with the visage borrowed from Leatherface, and clothes borrowed from Scarlett O'Hara has a point.

My suggestion is Antarctica, where the dictators can go outside the building and strut around with the emperor penguins. The annual dues should be modified as well. Every country, including the United States, should pay $4.98 annually toward the advancement and improvement of the body. All enforcement powers and peace-keeping operations should be terminated immediately. The Security Council should be abolished, and the General Assembly should be renamed "The Generally Crazy Debating Society." Hell, I'd be willing to have the United States double its dues to $9.96 annually just to be able to watch that perpetual TV soap opera about an international lunatic asylum.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gadhafi Carol

Today, I’m going to be a little lazy. I seem to be suffering the effects of the Lawyer Flu (H1N2). Unlike the H1N1, which will kill us all, this one only annoys the heck out of you. In the final stage, I hear it sues your colon, but I don’t know about that yet.

Since I’m being lazy, I’m just going to re-print something interesting I read. I figured you could all stand to learn a little more about our friend Moammar Gadhafi. Enjoy. . .

AP -- New York

In his long and dramatic address to the UN today, Libyan leader and noted Swiss-hater, Moammar Gadhafi aired various eyebrow-raising complaints. Among his targets:

• The UN Security Council, which he called the “Terror Council” for failing to prevent conflicts around the world since 1945, including his own coup in Libya.

• Everyone who says he looks like Michael Jackson.

• Switzerland, because he’s lactose intolerant.

• The premier of China, who keeps saying “nice dress” whenever he sees Gadhafi.

• The UN delegation from Kongo Bora, who keep calling him Gadhafi Duck.

• New York. He wants the UN moved from New York because New York is an inconvenient location for him and it causes him to suffer from jetlag. He also ranted for several minutes about the difficulties inherent in getting camels to board airplanes.

Gadhafi also whined about the Iraq war, which he described as the mother of all evils, and about General Mills, which sold him a box of Lucky Charms that contained the mother of all weevils.

He accused the Fed of being part of an international conspiracy to destroy the Libyan currency -- the Turd. He said that Oliver Stone killed JFK, who is not really dead, but instead lives on the moon deflating world oil prices. And he claimed that swine flu was some sort of plot by non-Arab governments, though he mumbled so badly that no one is sure exactly what he said.

At one point, he tossed the UN Charter fourteen feet across the floor, coming close to the record of fourteen feet three inches set by S'mdum Bastrd from Tossilvania. His throw was enough to place him second, however, just edging out the former Chancellor of East Germany.

Many have speculated as to what caused Gadhafi’s erratic behavior. Some suggest Gadhafi was upset from lack of rest. He had planned to set up his tent on Donald Trump’s property in Bedford, NY, home to Martha Stewart and Ralph Lauren, who also live in tents. But Trump wasn’t home or didn’t answer the doorbell when Gadhafi rang. So he ended up staying at a U-Store-It in Englewood, New Jersey, where he had no access to water or electricity, and he lacked the necessary southern view to get satellite television.

During the night, Gadhafi apparently also experienced difficulties when he was visited by three guests. First, came Louis Farrakhan, who discussed the past with Gadhafi, reminding him of how happy he was before he seized power. Then he was visited by two unknown young African American men in “Raiders” jackets, who showed him what life was like for average New Jersey residents, meaning they stole his tent and graffiti'd his camel. Finally, he was visited by a vagrant who spoke to him of the future, before sexually assaulting him. The vagrant has been charged with sexual assault on a foreign dignitary, which carries a penalty of three days in prison.

In any event, Gadhafi’s speech hasn’t gone unnoticed. As of this writing, most news organizations have reported on his erratic behavior. CNN called it “shockingly insulting,” CBS News referred to it as “Moammar’s Rant”, while MSNBC described it as “a brilliant tour de-force that continues to prove the evils of Bush administration policy.”

The White House had no comment on the content of the speech, though they did congratulate him on his second place finish in tossing the UN charter. They also promised to cut down the trees blocking his satellite view at the U-Store-It.

Tomorrow, Gadhafi plans to unleash a plague of locust at the UN, where he warns prophetically that they will destroy every crop in New York City, starving the people of Manhattan.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...