"Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Obama ?

MASTERBAKER

DEMOTED MOD
BGOL Investor
original post in mainboard
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=9667077#post9667077

Louis_Farrakhan_391.jpg

“Don’t let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world. They don’t like the way you handled (former Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak! They don‘t like the way you’re handling the situation in the Arab world! So I would advise you to be careful-and move with wisdom and skill.

And then, Farrakhan offered Obama some divine advice.

“Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans, and ask for a meeting with Gadhafi? You can’t order him to step down, and get out-who the hell do you think you are, that you can talk to a man that built a country over 42 years, and ask him step down and get out? Can anybody ask you? Well, well there’s a lot, now, [that are] going to ask you to step out of the White House, because they don’t want a Black face in the White House,” said Minister Farrakhan.

“Be careful, brother, how you handle this situation because it is coming to America! It has already started. Look in Wisconsin! Look in Ohio! Look at what’s going on in your country! And remember your words because the American people are rising against their own government: It’s not Muslims; it’s not Black people! It’s White militias that are angry with their government, and they are well armed. Are you going to tell them-’Put your arms down, and let’s talk it over peacefully?’ I hope so. But if not, America will be bathed in blood, not because Farrakhan said so, but because the dissatisfaction in America has reached the boiling point. Be careful how you manipulate the dissatisfaction in Libya and other parts of the Muslim world,” he warned.
 
Why No One Likes Obama's Libya War


Why No One Likes Obama's Libya War​

A lot of folks didn't get the peacenik president they
planned for. And he still hasn't quite sold Americans
on why we should be taking sides in Libya's civil war.


libyamap_0.jpg




The Root
By: David Swerdlick
March 25, 2011


With all the flak Obama was taking a week ago for his go-slow approach on Libya -- and all the phony bouquets for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the crisis -- you might have been tempted to think that she was the one who had green-lighted missile strikes on Muammar Qaddafi, and Obama was the senator who had once voted to invade Iraq with no provocation and no exit strategy.

It's an irony lost on the "do something" caucus that hounded Obama for weeks while he pressed for the approval of the U.N. Security Council, Arab League and NATO before striking in Libya.

Sarah Palin demanded "less dithering." Rudy Giuliani said that "Hillary Clinton would have been better." Newt Gingrich called Obama the "spectator-in-chief" before Obama committed to the mission, then flip-flopped and said, "I would not have intervened." And after U.S. missiles had already started hitting Libyan targets last weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called Obama "unnervingly indecisive," quipping, "I'm glad we're finally doing something … thank God for strong women in the Obama administration."

You can trace it all back to Clinton's own "3 a.m." riff. She was the first one who tried to paint her boss as a weak-kneed dove and not the president who wound up doubling down in Afghanistan.

Which is how the debate over the U.S. role in the U.N. mission got so skewed. A lot of people weren't prepared for Obama to come out shooting.

Going split-screen with air strikes and a high-profile trade mission to Brazil was the kind of impassive, all-business play that is more often associated with China's leaders, not ours (even if China is just waiting around to lock up oil leases in Libya -- no matter which faction ultimately wins).

The Arab League, accustomed to condemning Western intervention in the Middle East, came hat in hand, petitioning for a strike against one of its own members. French pilots, usually on the ground, blew up the first Libyan tanks. The British, nothing if not ever ready, worried about running out of missiles.

Anti-war Democrats have teamed up with paleo-cons to challenge the president's legal authority to act in Libya -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) says Obama could be impeached for striking without congressional approval -- while Republicans in Congress are getting out-hawked by Obama, with even House Speaker John Boehner eschewing partisan rhetoric by sending the president an unimpeachably businesslike letter asking for the "scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya, and how it will be achieved."


He's at least right that so far, Obama hasn't publicly laid out a comprehensive justification for meddling in the civil war between Qaddafi's Tripoli-based loyalists and Benghazi-based rebels, so far saying only that U.S. credibility demanded "a relatively modest contribution as part of a broader international effort" to stop Qaddafi from going "door-to-door hunting people down."

And the Congressional Black Caucus is split along the same lines. Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) is in the "dithering" camp; progressive Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), CBC chair emeritus, is against the strikes; and Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.), on the Africa subcommittee, reluctantly backs Obama.

But while Obama's policy can certainly be questioned, there's nothing indecisive or unusual about it. It says more about the nature of being president than it does about him. A multilateral strike is nothing Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton or Bush 43 didn't do. Obama's wrinkle -- doing it with minimal fanfare -- is really a nod toward Teddy Roosevelt's enduring admonition to "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

With everyone off-kilter, it's taken longer for the real war debate -- what are we doing, why are we doing it and how do we get out? -- to get off the ground. But if the real conservatives could ever get the fake ones to quit squawking about Obama's nerve, they'd get to it a lot quicker.

Up to now, 60 percent of Americans back military action in Libya, but only 49 percent think it's worth the cost, and only 17 percent call Obama "strong and decisive." There's still an ambivalence about going into a third Mideast war while we're mired in a recession. In one sense, the country as a whole caught up with the perspective of African Americans and Native Americans -- who are overrepresented in military ranks, but who overwhelmingly expressed reluctance about the Iraq War from the start.

So when Obama finally addresses the nation -- and you know that's probably coming -- he can't just say that Qaddafi is a bad guy. We know that. He has to convince us that it's our job -- and explain why it's in our interest -- to oust Qaddafi. And if it's purely a mission to prevent a bloodbath, Obama should tell us now what we gain if any American service members' lives are lost.

And in that staccato Obama tone, he should level with folks: "Look, you can stop getting mixed up in other countries' fights if you want. But then you're just a power. You're not a superpower."

Despite the fretting over Obama's strategic resolve, it turns out he got the right answer on one of the most important questions about taking sides in Libya's civil war: The U.S. can't afford to go in alone, invade and occupy an Arab country, and then take the rap for unintended consequences. And with NATO poised to take command, there's a chance Obama can make good on getting out before things break bad. But what Obama hasn't done yet is help Americans answer the most important question: why we got into this war at all.



http://www.theroot.com/views/why-no-one-likes-obama-s-libya-war?page=0,1
 
Re: Why No One Likes Obama's Libya War

The Prez is gonna conduct a press conference tomorrow concerning the Libya situation.
 
Re: Why No One Likes Obama's Libya War

The Prez is gonna conduct a press conference tomorrow concerning the Libya situation.

Yep.

I think a lot of people were not prepared for Obama to come out shooting. Some were probably anti-war types, and some probably thought he was just a pacificist. The Republicans, many of them, don't really care -- to them is wrong for what he's doing, but he would be wrong, if he didn't -- that is -- damn if you do, and damn it you don't -- how can we use it to attack Obama!

Tomorrow, he's got some Splaining to do: what exactly are we doing; why are we doing it; and how will we get our asses out. Let's see how well he explains those elements, and I believe we will soon see how much farther those in his own party continue to quip and how much of his ass do the republicans get to rip.

QueEx
 
Re: Why No One Likes Obama's Libya War

It's a problem for any left leaning President: the Democrats are going to have those who are going to be against military action no matter what and the Republicans will attack him for whatever reason they can manufacture. A right leaning President will have the Republicans on his side no matter what but will have those same Democrats against him.
A "liberal" President can never be "liberal" enough to satisfy everyone on the Left and since Reagan, the corporate media has done such a good job of making being a "liberal" a negative, no Democrat wants to be known as one while Republicans publicly embrace being "conservative" even if their policies aren't conservative at all.
 
Louis_Farrakhan_391.jpg




Don’t let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely
ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world.

<font size="5">
<center>

Gadhafi finds that money
can't buy friends in Africa</font size></center>




McClatchy Newspapers
By Shashank Bengali
April 4, 2011


CAIRO — For decades, Col. Moammar Gadhafi splashed his oil wealth around sub-Saharan Africa with pompous abandon, building cellphone networks and luxury hotels, cozying up to kings and guerrillas, hosting peace summits and loudly proclaiming his dream to lead a "United States of Africa."

Now, just when Gadhafi could use a few friends, his African beneficiaries haven't exactly rushed to his side.

The three African members of the U.N. Security Council — South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon — voted with the United States and Britain last month to authorize "all necessary measures" to stop Gadhafi from harming Libyan civilians. The African Union, the league of nations that Gadhafi championed more consistently than anyone, has been divided over the U.S.-led military campaign against him and uttered just a whisper of disapproval.

South Africa, some of whose anti-apartheid fighters trained in Libya starting in the 1970s, slighted Gadhafi again when one of its former senior judges, Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, recommended that Libya be suspended from the organization's human rights council.

Uganda — where Libyan state money funds phone and pharmaceutical companies and built the country's biggest mosque — hastily backtracked last week from a reported offer of asylum to Gadhafi should he resign.

"It was a hoax. It is not true," an irritated Tamale Mirundi, a spokesman for the Ugandan president, said by phone from Kampala, the Ugandan capital.

Gadhafi's eager, eccentric but ultimately ineffective pursuit of an African sphere of influence encapsulates his dealings with the rest of the world over his 40-plus years in power. He was long on shtick — sweeping rhetoric, elaborate ceremonies, outlandish outfits topped by an oversize gold brooch in the shape of Africa — but experts say that his actions betrayed a man interested mainly in himself. His impulsive and often disastrous meddling in far-flung countries and conflicts alienated African leaders much as it did the West.

"If all this mythology had been true, you'd be expecting the African Union to be jumping up and down saying, 'My gosh, our brother is being bombed to smithereens by the Western imperialists,' " said Steven Friedman, the director of the Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa.

"The mythology has been broken by his actions. If he does have any remaining friends in Africa, they're not terribly influential."


In the current crisis, unconfirmed reports said that African fighters for hire, perhaps Tuareg tribesmen from neighboring countries such as Chad, have backed Gadhafi's forces in western Libya. If true, it would hardly be the first time that he's courted armed men from Africa's ungoverned spaces.

Over nearly 42 years in power he offered shelter, financial support and military training to a hodgepodge of leaders and movements, from Idi Amin, who slaughtered tens of thousands during his terrifying reign in Uganda, to the African National Congress, which led the fight against white apartheid rule in South Africa.


The ANC's Nelson Mandela had particularly warm relations with Gadhafi, whom he called "brother leader." Mandela helped persuade Gadhafi to hand over the two Libyans accused in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103.

"There are a number of cases where Gadhafi earned himself justifiably a large measure of good will with his support of African liberation movements," said J. Peter Pham, the director of the Michael S. Ansari Africa Center at the Atlantic Council, a Washington research center.

"On the other hand, there were many cases where the rebels he supported were warlords."

Among them were Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh, who trained in Libya together during the 1980s and whose rebel armies went on to kill, rape and mutilate countless civilians during the civil war in Sierra Leone.

Taylor is facing trial before a special court in the Netherlands, "and many West Africans would hold that Gadhafi should be a co-defendant," said Patrick Smith, the editor of Africa Confidential, a journal.


Gadhafi's effort to win friends also took more benevolent forms. For the past several years, Libya has paid the annual membership dues to the African Union for several cash-strapped countries, contributing sometimes more than a fifth of the body's total budget. A state-of-the-art conference center in his hometown of Sirte is a monument to the organization, lined with wall-length posters of a beaming Gadhafi next to the slogan "Long live the African Union."

Through a variety of investment arms, Libya has poured billions of dollars into the continent, helping to build infrastructure such as a key Kenya-Uganda oil pipeline and holding controlling interests in the main telecommunications companies in Uganda and Zambia.


Libya runs more than 2,000 gas stations, owns hotels in Gabon and Rwanda and provides commercial air service to some of Africa's underserved capitals through Afriqiyah Airways, whose website boasts that it realizes "the dream of linking the African countries directly with one another."

The Libyan government doesn't publicly release details of its financial dealings. But a confidential 2008 State Department cable released by WikiLeaks reported that investments by the Libyan Foreign Bank, one of Libya's main vehicles for international trade, were "focused in sub-Saharan Africa, including every country in the Maghreb (western North Africa) except Morocco."

"Libya is not my country. But Gadhafi has done a lot for Africans," said Abdullahi Harouna, an employee at the Tripoli embassy of the West African nation of Niger who fled the fighting last week.


With Gadhafi targeted for financial sanctions, the future of these investments is uncertain, particularly the oil pipeline, envisioned as a vital link to the rich crude deposits of Southern Sudan, which will become the continent's newest nation in July. But in recent years China, India and other new powerhouses have dramatically scaled up their investment in Africa, and experts say they're likely to step in if Libyan money vanishes.


For all his largesse, however, Gadhafi ultimately was tone deaf on African politics. He stubbornly pushed for a United States of Africa, which Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, recently labeled "illogical," perhaps because it would dilute the powers of heads of state.

When those leaders proved less pliable than he liked, Gadhafi curried favor with tribal elders and traditional chieftains, infuriating leaders such as Museveni, who'd worked for years to clip their influence.

"He did hand out goodies to some people, but it's not exactly as if he won too many arguments," Friedman said.

Two years ago at an African Union meeting in Sirte, Gadhafi proposed the idea of a centralized military force for the continent. The idea was "absolutely thrown out of the conference by the assembled leaders, even those who wanted to be polite," Smith said. "And given the way his own armed forces have behaved (in the current crisis) ... it does strike a lot of people as delusional to talk about that as a viable prospect."



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/04/111479/gadhafi-finds-that-money-cant.html
 
Let's see if the tides have changed, in Libya's favor...


African Union: Libya Accepts Ceasefire Plan
"We have completed our mission with the brother leader, and the brother leader's delegation has accepted the road map as presented by us," said South African President Jacob Zuma. He traveled to Tripoli with the heads of Mali and Mauritania to meet with Gaddafi, whose more than 40-year rule has been threatened by the uprising that began nearly two months ago.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2064471,00.html#ixzz1JGqSvrH3
 
Let's see if the tides have changed, in Libya's favor...

African Union: Libya Accepts Ceasefire Plan


Libyan rebels reject African Union cease-fire proposal

Washington Post
By Leila Fadel
Monday, April 11, 2011


BENGHAZI, Libya — An African proposal to end Libya’s more than month-old
conflict unraveled Monday in the opposition’s de facto capital, where rebel
leaders insisted that they would not make a deal unless leader Moammar
Gaddafi agreed to leave office immediately
.

The rejection came less than 24 hours after South African President Jacob
Zuma, who led an African Union delegation to Libya, said Gaddafi had
accepted the “road map” to peace. The plan called for an immediate cease-
fire, safe passage for humanitarian aid, the protection of foreign nationals
and the start of discussions about reform between the government and the
opposition.

“The African Union initiative does not include the departure of Gaddafi and
his sons from the Libyan political scene,” opposition leader Mustafa Abdel
Jalil told reporters after meetings in Benghazi between the A.U. delegation
and rebel leaders. “Any future proposal that does not include this, we
cannot accept,” he said.


FULL STORY


 
Mobs attack embassies in Tripoli; U.N. leaves

Amidst the currently EXTREMELY sloppy & questionable story of how Osama Bin Laden was supposedly killed via Obama's orders....maybe you all forgot about the innocent Gadhafi Family members that were killed in Libya by a group that the US is a member of..... NATO.

Well ...a lot of people over there are pissed....and justifiable so. The West is creating more enemies. And usually more enemies mean more problems for people like us..not the people thats creating the problem.

With all the lies floating around via our government, their Zionist buddies, etc.... it sure aint a good time to be a Muslim. My only concern is when will the US civil wars or World Wars kick off.

Mobs attack embassies in Tripoli; U.N. leaves

In this photo made on a government organized tour, loyalists chant and burn a US flag at the Qaddafi family compound in a residential area of Tripoli, Libya, Sunday, May 1, 2011. (AP Photo/Darko Bandic)


CBS/AP) TRIPOLI, Libya - Angry mobs attacked Western embassies and a U.N. office in Tripoli Sunday after NATO bombed Muammar Qaddafi's family compound in an attack officials said killed the leader's second youngest son and three grandchildren, ages six months to two years.


As a result of the mob attacks, the U.N. has decided to withdrawal all of its international staff from the Libyan capital, and the British government expelled the Libyan ambassador, BBC reports.


Russia said the Western alliance exceeded its U.N. mandate of protecting Libyan civilians with the strike.


The vandalized embassies were empty and nobody was reported injured, but the attacks heightened tensions between the Libyan regime and Western powers, prompting the United Nations to pull its international staff out of the capital.

NATO strike kills Qaddafi son, spares leader
Complete coverage: Anger in the Arab World



The bombing did not slow the attacks by Qaddafi's forces on rebel strongholds in the western part of Libya that has remained largely under the control of the regime. The rebel port of Misrata, which has been besieged by Qaddafi's troops for two months, came under heavy shelling Sunday and at least 12 people were killed, a medic said.


Qaddafi has repeatedly called for a cease-fire, most recently on Saturday, but has not halted his assault on Misrata, a city of 300,000 where hundreds have been killed since the rebellion against Libya's ruler erupted in mid-February.


The rebels, who control most of eastern Libya, have been unable to gain an advantage on the battlefield despite weeks of NATO airstrikes. Alliance officials and allied leaders emphatically denied they were hunting Qaddafi to break the stalemate between the better trained government forces and the lightly armed rebels.


Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, who commands NATO's operation in Libya, said that "we do not target individuals." However, the leaders of the U.S., Britain and France have said Qaddafi must go, prompting warnings by U.N. Security Council members Russia, China and Brazil against NATO attempts to change the regime.


In some of its strongest language, the Russian Foreign Ministry on Sunday accused NATO of a "disproportionate use of force" and cast doubt on NATO's assertion that it is not targeting Qaddafi or members of his family. Russia called for an immediate cease-fire.


NATO warplanes have shifted their focus in the past two weeks from support for rebels on the front lines to attacking the regime's communications centers. Saturday's strike reduced most of the Qaddafi family compound, which takes up an entire block in the residential Garghour neighborhood, to rubble.

Officials said it killed 29-year-old Seif al-Arab Qaddafi, who had survived a 1986 U.S. airstrike on his father's Bab al-Aziziya residential compound. Also killed were 2-year-old Carthage, the daughter of Qaddafi's son Hannibal; six-month-old Mastura, daughter of Qaddafi's daughter Aisha; and 15-month-old Seif Mohammed, son of Qaddafi's son Mohammed.


Dr. Gerard Le Clouerec, a French orthopedic surgeon who runs a private clinic in Tripoli, inspected the bodies of an adult and two infants at Tripoli's Green Hospital on Sunday.


He told reporters that the adult's face was intact and that "in relation to a photo we have seen most probably was the son of Qaddafi." He said the adult had a thin mustache and a full beard.


The two children had been badly disfigured, the doctor said.


The complex targeted Saturday, hidden from view by blast walls and tall trees, contained three one-story buildings and a large yard with lawns, geranium flower beds, a woodshed, a swing and a table soccer game. A dead deer and a twisted bathtub lay on the debris-strewn grass.


A kitchen clock, knocked from the wall, had stopped a 8:08 and 45 seconds, the time of the explosion. Cooking pots with food, including stuffed peppers, noodles and a stew, had been left on the stove, covered with aluminum foil. Thick gray dust covered crates of onions and lemons in the pantry.


In one of the living rooms, a pile of video games, including FIFA 10, were scattered on a sofa. In what looked like a children's bedroom, half an apple and a glass container of Nutella chocolate spread stood on a night stand.








http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/01/501364/main20058768.shtml
 
Back
Top