CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O BELIEVES THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CONSULATE IN LIBYA WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK.
AND IF YOU DOUBT IT, HE'LL TELL YOU HIMS --
WELL, HE'LL HAVE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TELL YOU IT WAS TERRORISM
CARNEY HAS TO TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE MR. PRETTY SPEECHES YAMMERED AWAY TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND YET NEVER ONCE MANAGED TO SAY "TERRORISM
AS SELF-PROCLAIMED "EYE CANDY
" BARRY O EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "PRETTY GIRLS NEVER DO THEIR OWN HEAVY LIFTING."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Yesterday, US President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations with a laundry list of fabulists claims. One of them was:
intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate
of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to
stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the
aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.
realism on this topic is journalist and sociologist Mahdi Darius
Nazemroaya who was on the ground in the Libya as the government was
overthrown by 'rebels' -- some of whom were trained out of Langley in
the United States. Madhi was one of the few unembedded reporters in
Libya and one of the few who didn't take US government press releases
and put his name to it. A brave and independent voice, Mahdi is the
author of the Globalisation of NATO
. Last Wednesday, he spoke with Heart of Africa
host Kudakwashe Cayenne about Libya, the modern efforts to colonize Africa, and much more, click here to stream that program
Darius Nazemroaya: The war in Libya was an American-led war. I know
the Americans didn't want to make it look like it was an American-led
war. That's why they pushed the French and the British ahead. But, in
reality, they provided most of the muscle, most of the bombs. Most of
the, uh, military might was from them. They started -- They started the
operations along with the French and the British. But they publicly
wanted to make it look like David Cameron, the Prime Minister of
Britain, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of the French Republic, were
the ones leading this. But this wasn't true. They were just hiding
behind them because they knew that the world -- There's a negative
opinion of US intervention in countries so they used it as a
Kudakwashe Cayenne: Okay, Mahdi, why is it important for African to understand who NATO is today?
Darius Nazemroya: It's very important to understand who [NATO] is today
because they're colonizing the African continent. Like I mentioned
Libya. That's just one country. NATO is also involved in Somolia, it's
also involved in Sudan. It's normally involved in both these African
countries so we're talking about three African countries so NATO has
programs with about one-third of Africa's land areas, more than
one-third, is under NATO programs. NATO and the European Union and the
United States want to see a divided Africa. This is very clear from
their policies. I'm going to mention something called the Mediterranean
Dialogue. The Mediterranean Dialogue is a NATO partnership program,
it's an expansion of NATO. The countries that are part of this are
Morocco, Algeria, the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Egypt,
Tunisia -- these are the African members. That are part of it.
Kudakwashe Cayenne: Oh.
Darius Nazemroaya: Yeah, they're part of it. And this program is also
complimented by a European Union program called the Euro Mediterranean
Partnership which Nicolas Sarkozy renamed as the Union for the
Mediterranean, okay? So this is very important to grasp because NATO
expansion has always been aligned with European Union expansion. All
the Eastern European countries that joined NATO also joined the EU
after. And they joined NATO through something called a Partnership for
Peace which was made after the end of the Cold War -- it was made
towards the end of the Cold War. So it was made to -- It was made as a
way of securing these countries and I have to explain this, this is very
important, the Partnership for Peace prevented these Eastern European
countries -- and I will get back to Africa, but I need to explain what
happened in Eastern Europe. It prevented these Eastern European
countries from pursuing any other security alternative to NATO. All of
these countries used to be part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.
Kudakwashe Cayenne: Okay.
Darius Nazemroaya: But once they joined the Partnership for Peace, they
were never -- They didn't become full NATO members and they didn't have
the benefits of being part of NATO but they fell under NATO control.
And this is what's important, when they fell under NATO control, they
were promised that they could join NATO after certain reforms. These
reforms were security, military and political which effected the
economy. So they were put under this program which meant that they had
one foot in the door and one foot out of the door. They were put under
this program because NATO could guarantee their structures could be
changed. They were being restructured and being prepared for NATO but
restructuring meant that they were essentially being turned into
colonies. The things they had to do was make public their defense
budgets and programs which meant NATO would know exactly what they were
doing with their defense and this is a way to keep your eye on them.
At the same time, old military officers were being pushed out and a lot
of these old military officers were very patriotic and they would look
out for their country's benefit and there was a chance that it might
enact a coup d'etat in their country against the new governments that
were coming in place. And this is what's important, the new governments
were all supported and funded by the United States and its western
allies within NATO and they were putting a lot of criminals in place or
people that were treacherous who actually were selling their national
assets to the United States and Western Europe, they were letting their
countries become colonized.
Heart of Africa
hosted by Kitakyushu Cayenne, is a weekly program featuring music and
interviews (Mahdi's interview starts about ten minutes into the
program). You can hear it live at More Light Radio
every Wednesday at 2000 hours Central Africa Time. Tomorrow night, the
latest episode is broadcast live and the scheduled guest is Abramo
Askew with the topic of the conflict in Syria, unrest in the region, the
notorious video out of the US and Muslim reactions.
Libya for a moment more, September 11, 2012, the US Consulate in Libya
was attacked resulting in the deaths of Glen Dotty, Christopher Stevens,
Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. Last Thursday's snapshot
On that attack, earlier today Kathleen Tennessee of the Laos Angeles Times reported,
"The White House is now describing the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.
Consulate in Benghazi as a 'terrorist attack,' a shift in emphasis after
days of describing the lethal assault as a spontaneous eruption of
anger over an anti-Islamic film made in California."
Williams: It won't bring back the U.S. Ambassador or the three other
Americans who were murdered -- including two former Navy Seals, but
tonight: What happened the night they died? The storming of that U.S.
consulate in Benghazi, Libya is being labeled an act of terrorism by the
White House. That was not the initial story and some in government
have given conflicting versions for what happened there that night. We
begin tonight with tonight with what it does mean. Our chief foreign
affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell in our D.C. bureau tonight.
Andrea, good evening.
Andrea Mitchell: Good evening, Brian. And tonight the White House confirmed that the attack was an act of terror -- officials say by al Qaeda sympathizers. But big questions remain about when it was planned and why initial reports were wrong?
Ruth's post for the full transcript and she's also posted the video of
the report. On her Friday post, she noted that while NBC treated this
as major news, PBS' NewsHour reduced it to two sentences in the newswrap and didn't even note that the White House had admitted it was a terrorist act.
could fix their omission today. AP reports
today that the White House was pressed on Air Force One about where
they stand on the attack since last Thursday saw Jay Carney deliver the
announcement, was this also the opinion of President Barack Obama?
Jay, in his interview on the Today Show this morning, the Libyan
President said that the attacks on the consulate had nothing to do with
the video that sparked all the protests as elsewhere. He also repeated
his claim that they were preplanned, given their sophistication, so
given that's in direct contradiction to what the administration says,
CARNEY: Well, I can tell you that President Magarief made very
heartfelt public statements before his meeting with Secretary Clinton in
New York about the brave four Americans who were killed and the firm
commitment of Libya to not allow a violent minority to hijack Libya's
hopes and dreams.
Over the course of the
past two weeks, this administration has provided as much information as
it has been able to. We made clear that our initial assessment and
interim reports were based on information that was available at the
time. Several administration officials, including the NCTC director,
have spoken on the record about the information we have. We have also
been clear that there's an ongoing FBI investigation and that we must
allow that investigation to take its course. The Accountability Review
Board established by Secretary of State Clinton is also doing a full
I can point you again to
the statements by the NCTC director about his assessment as the chief
counterterrorism official about the information that we had available at
the time about how the attack occurred and who was responsible. And it
continues to be the case that we provided information based on what we
know -- not based on speculation, but based on what we know --
acknowledging that we are continuing an investigation that will
undoubtedly uncover more facts, and as more facts and more details
emerge we will, when appropriate, provide them to you.
Q The fact that he was pretty equivocal statement today that the video --
CARNEY: The U.S. intelligence upon which we make our assessments has
provided very clear public assessments of the information that they have
available, that they had initially, that they had available when the
NCTC director talked to Congress and spoke publicly. And that's what --
we make our judgments based on the information that we gather.
One more question on that. But how often is the President in contact
with President Magarief? I mean, are they talking every day? Are they
sharing this information? Is there anything that he might be aware of
that the President would not be?
CARNEY: We have significant cooperation with the new Libyan
government, but I don't think intelligence sharing occurs at the
President-to-President level, necessarily. President Obama did speak
last week with the Libyan leader, the same night that he spoke with
President Morsi of Egypt. But I don't believe they've had a
[. . .]
Is there any reason why the President did not -- he was asked
point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or
no? Is there any reason why he didn't say yes?
CARNEY: No, there's -- I mean, he answered the question that he was
asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond
trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment
that we need to await further information that the investigation will
uncover. But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an
administration, the President's view, that it was a terrorist attack.
It doesn't matter whether or not
they intended their illegal war to kill over a million Iraqis. You can
even set aside the issue of Abu Ghraib (for England, the UK secret
service getting caught in Basra trying to pass as Iraqis while
apparently setting off bombs -- one of the most under-reported moments
of the war despite the fact that a prison was destroyed in the
process). You can even set aside illegal weapons being used. The birth
defects demonstrate they were used but you can set that aside.
you wage an illegal war, you are a War Criminal. If you shoot someone
dead, you are a murderer. These are basics under the law. Blair and
Bush did not have authority to start the war but did so. They intended
to start the war regardless of legality. They broke the law, they did
so with intent. They are War Criminals.
Steven Strauss wants to bring Tony Blair into it. He'll argue, "Tutu
did!" Well, Strauss, if you bring the British into it and you start
noting body counts (incorrect ones), it's incumbent upon you to include
the British toll. Let's do what he lacked the manners to do, 179
is the number of "British Armed Forces personnel or MOD civilians" who
have died in Iraq since March 2003 according to the United Kingdom's
Ministry of Defence
. Again, if you start mentioning Blair and
England and you then give death tolls, it's just rude and insensitive
not to give the UK losses. Iraqi losses? They aren't really counted.
The Lancet Study found over a million. It used the same estimating
process the UN uses. It was only 'controversial' because people didn't
want to face the realities of the war and worked overtime to try and
discredit it. The methodology stands. By now, it may be up to two
million. He grossly underestimates the death toll while adding two to
the US death toll. The US Defense Dept does not list "over 4,500 of our
own service personnel," it's 4488
he overestimates the US count (unless he's disputing the official DoD
count -- in which case he needs to say so) while underestimating the
Iraqi death toll -- and, of course, ignores the British death toll. The
word for that is: Tacky.
Of the war in Iraq
and the tremendous cost in terms of deaths, the injured and the money,
Strauss insists, "This wasn't leadership by criminal masterminds -- it
was mismanagement by incompetent buffoons." So what's your damn point?
Do we remember the attempt a few years back to rob Velasquez and Sons Mufflers For Less in Chicago
The robber showed up but the employees said they couldn't open the safe
and told him only the manager had the combination. What did the robber
do (link goes to WGN report, this is a true story)? He gave them his
cell phone number and told them to call him when the manager got there.
The police had the employees call him and tell him the safe was open,
when he showed up with his gun, the police arrested him.
the judge may have laughed when the robber appeared in court. He or
she may have told the robber, "You are an incompetent buffoon." But he
or she didn't say, "I want you to plead not guilty by reason of
stupidity." Stupidity -- like ignorance of the law -- is not a valid
legal defense. Why Strauss would choose to weigh in all this time later
in defense of Blair and Bush begs the question if he also is an
Recommended: "Iraq snapshot
"Violence continues with security
forces still targ...
"It's not just that Special-Ops
are in Iraq, it's t...
"Fact check and revamp the
"The news media manipulates
"gwyn ifill and guests stroke
"PBS: A basic lack of
"Another strike in
"The pathetic former pop
"Some old people need to check
"The problem is the State Dept.,
"Barack, CIA, Libya and
"THIS JUST IN! SHE'S SO
"When the facts don't fit, she
goes to fantasy