PDA

View Full Version : A Little News about Libya



llotter
06-23-2011, 12:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.” </div></div>

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270293/al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebellion-john-rosenthal

Something just doesn't compute. The Moron is either working in the interest of our enemy or he is dumber than even I gave him credit for. Why did he lie us into another war, or he just plain stupid?

Gayle in MD
06-23-2011, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.” </div></div>

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270293/al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebellion-john-rosenthal

Something just doesn't compute. The Moron is either working in the interest of our enemy or he is dumber than even I gave him credit for. Why did he lie us into another war, or he just plain stupid? </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">bwa ha ha ha!!! The national review! Saome bunch of neocons who insisted that Saddam had nukes!

Samme RW rag that has been totally wrong about everything, for over a decade!

Your hilarious!

Go Ask that idiotic neocon what he thinks, he's only been so wrong about everything, most stations won't even allow him on the screen. If it weren't for FUX, and the American enterprise Institute, and the Neocon Heritage foundation, and the Koch Brothers, he'd be locked up in a nut house by now!

G.</span>

llotter
06-23-2011, 12:48 PM
Nothing but the facts, Gayle. You shouldn't attack the messenger because the story causes you some cognitive dissonance, it isn't healthy.

Sev
06-23-2011, 07:12 PM
You'd have better luck arguing with a box rocks.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2011, 10:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing but the facts, Gayle. You shouldn't attack the messenger because the story causes you some cognitive dissonance, it isn't healthy. </div></div>

It isn't healthy to take anything from The National Review, serious, given that William Kristol has a record of being completely wrong, about everything.

He's a joke.

G.

llotter
06-23-2011, 11:13 PM
William Kristol is not with NR but leaving that aside, NR is a very reputable operation with some of the very best writers contributing to it. And in this case, they were merely reporting (i.e. acting as messengers) what two french think tanks had published.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2011, 11:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">William Kristol is not with NR but leaving that aside, NR is a very reputable operation with some of the very best writers contributing to it. And in this case, they were merely reporting (i.e. acting as messengers) what two french think tanks had published. </div></div>

My mistake...

I always get The National Review and The Weekly Standard mixed up because there is little difference between the two.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> William Kristol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the American comedian, see Billy Crystal.
William Kristol

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States
In office
January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Vice President Dan Quayle
Preceded by Craig L. Fuller
Succeeded by Roy M. Neel
Personal details
Born December 23, 1952 (1952-12-23) (age 58)
New York, New York
Spouse(s) Susan Scheinberg
Children 3
Alma mater Harvard University
Occupation Publisher
Professor
Pundit
Religion Jewish

William Kristol (born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative[1] political analyst and commentator. He is the founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel.

Kristol is associated with a number of prominent conservative think tanks. He was chairman of the New Citizenship Project from 1997 to 2005. In 1997, he co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with Robert Kagan. He is a member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a member of the Policy Advisory Board for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a director of the Foreign Policy Initiative. He is also one of the three board members of Keep America Safe, a think tank co-founded by Liz Cheney and Debra Burlingame, and serves on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel.



Personal life

Kristol was born in New York City into a Jewish family. His father, the late Irving Kristol, served as the managing editor of Commentary magazine and has been described as the "godfather of neoconservatism."[2] His mother Gertrude Himmelfarb was a scholar of Victorian era literature. He graduated in 1970 from The Collegiate School, a preparatory school for boys located in Manhattan.

In 1973, Kristol received an A.B. from Harvard, graduating magna cum laude in three years. In 1976, he worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan's successful U.S. Senate campaign, serving as deputy issues director during the Democratic primary. Kristol received a Ph.D. in government from Harvard in 1979. During his first year of graduate school, Kristol shared a room with fellow government doctoral candidate Alan Keyes. Kristol was the campaign manager for Keyes' unsuccessful 1988 Maryland Senatorial campaign against Paul Sarbanes.

[edit] Career
After teaching political philosophy and American politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Kristol went to work in government in 1985, serving as chief of staff to Secretary of Education William Bennett during the Reagan administration, and then as Chief of Staff to the Vice President under Dan Quayle in the George H. W. Bush administration. The New Republic dubbed Kristol "Dan Quayle's brain" upon being appointed the Vice President's chief of staff.

He served as chairman of the Project for the Republican Future from 1993 to 1994, and as the director of the Bradley Project at the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee in 1993. In 1993, he rose to fame as he led conservative opposition to the Clinton health care plan.

In 2003, Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote, "The War Over Iraq: America's Mission and Saddam's Tyranny," in which the authors analyzed the Bush Doctrine and the history of US-Iraq relations. In the book, Kristol and Kaplan provided support and justifications for war in Iraq.

He also served as a foreign policy advisor for Senator John McCain's presidential campaign.[3]

[edit] Media commentator
After the Republican sweep of both houses of Congress in 1994, Kristol established, along with conservative John Podhoretz, the conservative newsmagazine The Weekly Standard. Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Managing Director of News Corp., financed the creation; Kristol is its current editor.

In the 1990s, Kristol was a panelist on the This Week Sunday program.

Kristol currently serves as a political commentator on Fox News. He is a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday and often contributes to the nightly program Special Report with Bret Baier.

Kristol worked as a columnist for Time in 2007.[4] Kristol wrote a weekly opinion column for The New York Times from January 7, 2008[5] to January 26, 2009.
</div></div>

They're both RW rags, as far as I'm concerned.

G.

LWW
06-24-2011, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You'd have better luck arguing with a box rocks. </div></div>

The rocks could probably spell better.

LWW
06-24-2011, 05:06 AM
Have you noticed she gets more shrill by the day?

llotter
06-24-2011, 07:58 AM
Yes I have noticed and frankly I am concerned about her health. This is the second time in a row that she has responded by one of my posts with completely irrelevant diatribes. Kristol has nothing to do with this thread which she admits and just continues to build the irrelevant straw man.

Previously I asked the simple question about what was so funny about a supposed Tea Party sign about 'no socialism. Stay away from my Medicare', and Gayle goes into a long response about religion. Made no sense.

I do think that there could definitely be a mental issue when your entire world view that you have vested so much in, is crumbling before you eyes.

(only kidding, Gayle)

LWW
06-24-2011, 03:43 PM
Here is Charlotte's world view in it's simplest form ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Bush_Fault.gif

Sev
06-24-2011, 03:48 PM
Seems to be getting a bit frantic.

Perhaps its the meds.

LWW
06-24-2011, 04:03 PM
It's definitely a psychosis.

Soflasnapper
06-24-2011, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.” </div></div>

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270293/al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebellion-john-rosenthal

Something just doesn't compute. The Moron is either working in the interest of our enemy or he is dumber than even I gave him credit for. Why did he lie us into another war, or he just plain stupid? </div></div>

Sorta like the way our taking out the Sunni-majority Iraqis from power enabled and strengthened Iran, you mean?

Frankly, Obama made no representations about those opposing Khadafi that I've heard, and therefore didn't lie about them.

And as is clear from the history of this probably ill-fated adventure, most likely Obama would not have done a military action on his own (and THEN he was heavily criticized for not doing that), except that Britain and France were hot to go to hostilities, which more or less dragged Obama in as a matter of national prestige and world leadership for the 'indispensable nation.'

Do these two French think tanks have any credibility? I doubt you or many have the slightest clue. We can talk about 'what IF they are right?,' but a discussion based on assuming they are right is without a factual predicate.

llotter
06-25-2011, 02:58 AM
I didn't think I would have to spell it out for you but just in case you missed it, here is exactly what the lie was and still is:

We do not know and even admit that we do not know who are the rebels of the so-called Arab Spring that we are supporting and why is it that we had to dredge up 20 year old activities of Qaddafi to make him out to the the bad guy that absolutely must be 'taking out' when to my memory, he has been fairly innocuous and even cooperative for an extended period.

The representation The Moron made was that we are pre-emptively protecting from massacre a bunch of civilians who only want to be free of a tyrant when we do not know this. In fact we had some evidence of al-Qaeda presents (is it 10% or 50% or more?) and they are likely teaming with others such as the Muslim Brotherhood that are unfriendly to real freedom seekers. It is all a weak fabrication of suppositions and I ask you plainly, who goes to war on such unknowns?

I guess The Moron has adopted, in our name, overt assassinations to replace the foresworn covert ones of half century ago and I have to say his newer version is really messy. And why has he avoided Congress, either before or sense? Is it because he has no case at all? The burden of establishing the important 'factual predicate' for going to war is not on me but on those actually making the commitments.

I do have an idea about the credibility of these french think tanks and its based on the fact that NR gave them credibility and that is sufficient to bring it here for discussion. It is not sufficient, however, to advocate going to war.

My understanding was that NATO was organized to protect it members from attack but there was not even a pretense of being under threat of military attack.

I am surprised that such a thoughtful person such as yourself would go so far to defend the indefensible...unless you are blinded by your leftist ideology.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 05:31 PM
There was a rebellion, likely inspired in domino fashion from the other rebellions, and Khadafi decided he'd put it down, and hard. He was amassing armor to take the last city stronghold, and said it would be a slaughter and a bloodbath, excepting no one there from death. Door to door, anyone who stayed there, for whatever reason (like having lived there for generations, for one), would be slain.

Our involvement wasn't because of some alleged pure character of those about to be slaughtered, but that they were about to be slaughtered. Which was a true statement.

I do not think this war is a good idea. But the idea the administration has avoided Congress is false. There have been dozens of consultations, before, and now during. It was pressure FROM Congress or prominent members of Congress that said he SHOULD take action (until he did, and then they decided he never should have taken action (see McCain, J.)).

As to should Obama shirk from the WPA obligatory turn to Congress for approval, liberals think he should not ignore the WPA, and instead, honor its terms. He's receiving heavy criticism for not doing so FROM LIBERALS, as with the lawsuit headed by Kucinich and a dozen or so others.

Should he NOT try to kill Khadafi and end his rule? It's only supposedly illegal under an executive order dating back to Gerald Ford, our only president unelected as either President or VP, and any subsequent president may overturn any other president's EO by his own EO. This EO was constructively broken by Reagan's bombing of Khadafi's personal compound, and GHW Bush's Operation Just Cause, where he killed some thousands of obvious non-combatants in his attempt to assassinate Noreiga.

I disagree with all three actions, but then, I oppose war as a general principle, and assassinations of foreign leaders.