Showing posts with label No Fly Zone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Fly Zone. Show all posts
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
CIA Operative Appointed to Run al-Qaeda Connected Libyan Rebels
CIA Operative Appointed to Run al-Qaeda Connected Libyan Rebels
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 30, 2011
On Saturday, McClatchy reported that Khalifa Hifter, a former Gaddafi military officer, was appointed to lead the rebel army supported by the United Nations, the United States and the Globalist Coalition.
Hifter spent two decades living in suburban Virginia “where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gaddafi groups,” writes Chris Adams for the newspaper. A friend told the journalist he “was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.”
As it turns out, Mr. Hifter is a CIA operative, which likely explains his lengthy stay in Virginia. In 1996, the Washington Post reported that a Col. Haftar (a variation on Hifter) had arrived in the United States and he was “reported to be the leader of a contra-style group based in the U.S. called the Libyan National Army,” the Wisdom Fund noted at the time. “This group is supported by the U.S., and has been given training facilities in the U.S. It’s a good presumption that Col. Haftar’s group operates in Libya with the blessings of our government.”
In 2001, Le Monde diplomatique published a book entitled Manipulations africaines stating that Hifter, then a colonel in Gaddafi’s army, was captured while fighting in Chad in a Libyan-backed rebellion against the US-supported government of Hissène Habré. “He defected to the Libyan National Salvation Front (LNSF), the principal anti-Gaddafi group, which had the backing of the American CIA. He organized his own militia, which operated in Chad until Habré was overthrown by a French-supported rival, Idriss Déby, in 1990,” writes Patrick Martin.
Chad served as a base of operations to destabilize Libya, according to Paris-based African Confidential newsletter. It reported on January 5th, 1989, that “the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army,” writes author Peter Dale Scott.
In The Secret War Against Libya, Richard Keeble writes for MediaLens:
US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gaddafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gaddafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan.Hidden in plain view is the fact the CIA and the establishment have appointed a former operative to run the so-called rebel army posed against Gaddafi. In other words, the resistance daily portrayed as heroes by the corporate media – itself controlled by the CIA and the establishment – basically consists of the same folks who opposed the Libyan dictator two decades ago.
The other CIA front in Libya is al-Qaeda under the banner of al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya, aka the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG. The LIFG was founded in 1995 by a group of mujahideen veterans who had fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The mujahideen operation was run by the CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, and the Saudis. It eventually became al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and assorted jihadists.
Meanwhile, over at the Soros operation, Think Progress, the libs are desperate to support Obama’s murderous new war and dismiss anybody who would even suggest the heroic rebels are connected to al-Qaeda and the CIA.
“It’s necessary to have a public debate about the U.S. role in Libya, but it’s important to get the facts right — al Qaeda is not driving the Libyan resistance,” the foundation and globalist liberals insist.
They are right, but not in the way they think. The CIA is the driving force and al-Qaeda is just window dressing consisting of the usual dupes, patsies, useful idiots, and assorted psychopaths on the payroll.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Stratfor Asks What Happened To The American Declaration of War?
Stratfor Asks What Happened To The American Declaration of War?
George FriedmanStratfor
March 29, 2011
What Happened to the American Declaration of War?
In my book “The Next Decade,” I spend a good deal of time considering the relation of the American Empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic. If there is a single point where these matters converge, it is in the constitutional requirement that Congress approve wars through a declaration of war and in the abandonment of this requirement since World War II. This is the point where the burdens and interests of the United States as a global empire collide with the principles and rights of the United States as a republic.
World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration. It does so for two reasons, I think. The first is to prevent the president from taking the country to war without the consent of the governed, as represented by Congress. Second, by providing for a specific path to war, it provides the president power and legitimacy he would not have without that declaration; it both restrains the president and empowers him. Not only does it make his position as commander in chief unassailable by authorizing military action, it creates shared responsibility for war. A declaration of war informs the public of the burdens they will have to bear by leaving no doubt that Congress has decided on a new order — war — with how each member of Congress voted made known to the public.
Almost all Americans have heard Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941: “Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan … I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.”
It was a moment of majesty and sobriety, and with Congress’ affirmation, represented the unquestioned will of the republic. There was no going back, and there was no question that the burden would be borne. True, the Japanese had attacked the United States, making getting the declaration easier. But that’s what the founders intended: Going to war should be difficult; once at war, the commander in chief’s authority should be unquestionable.
It is odd, therefore, that presidents who need that authorization badly should forgo pursuing it. Not doing so has led to seriously failed presidencies: Harry Truman in Korea, unable to seek another term; Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, also unable to seek a new term; George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, completing his terms but enormously unpopular. There was more to this than undeclared wars, but that the legitimacy of each war was questioned and became a contentious political issue certainly is rooted in the failure to follow constitutional pathways.
In understanding how war and constitutional norms became separated, we must begin with the first major undeclared war in American history (the Civil War was not a foreign war), Korea. When North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman took recourse to the new U.N. Security Council. He wanted international sanction for the war and was able to get it because the Soviet representatives happened to be boycotting the Security Council over other issues at the time.
Full article here
Cost of Libya Intervention $600 Million for First Week, Pentagon Says
Cost of Libya Intervention $600 Million for First Week, Pentagon Says
George StephanopoulosABC News
March 29, 2011
One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.
U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles from their arsenals to the tune of $268.8 million, the Pentagon said.
U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.
A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.
And operation of the war craft, guzzling ever-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week, experts say.
Full article here
Monday, March 28, 2011
Defense Secretary Gates: Libya Did Not Pose Threat to U.S., Was Not ‘Vital National Interest’ to Intervene
Defense Secretary Gates: Libya Did Not Pose Threat to U.S., Was Not ‘Vital National Interest’ to Intervene
Jake TapperABC News
March 28, 2011
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that Libya did not pose a threat to the United States before the U.S. began its military campaign against the North African country.
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.
Gates explained that there was more at stake, however. “There was another piece of this though, that certainly was a consideration. You’ve had revolutions on both the East and the West of Libya,” he said, emphasizing the potential wave of refugees from Libya could have destabilized Tunisia and Egypt.
Full article here
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)