Sunday, April 17, 2011

Did Obama lie about Libya?

What, a sitting US President lie, exaggerate or spin the facts? Say it ain't so!
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.


  1. That "blood bath" code speak came from the uber Zionist Dennis Ross. Ross is also the one who wrote O's speech for AIPAC.
    He is one of his trusted advisers, and a close ally of the war hawk Shillary.
    This is "Neoliberal humanitarian aid" at its finest moment. :-)
    IMO we will have overt boots on the ground in Libya very soon.

  2. "...IMO we will have overt boots on the ground in Libya very soon..."

    Can't fault the logic in that.
    Maybe there'll be some proxy boots, or deniable boots first, but boots there will be.

    Personally, I don't buy his "reluctance" in acting. This has been planned for a while (as we'll doubtless be expected to be surprised to learn a few years down the road)maybe back-burnered, but the NATO alliance has a horse to back so out goes what's-his-face. Obama wrings his hands, looks solemn, then, "has" to act.

    Having "invested" in the "rebels", and seeing that the ball is being fumbled, we'll need "advisors" and "technitions". Then, someone for "security" who will assume an "aggressively passive posture" or some generalese horseshit which means they take an active role and kick ass and take names. And more for security while the "posture" is beeing assumed, and more to "keep order" and really piss of the already annoyed and screwed over locals who occasionally take friendly fire and have outsiders in their shit.

    Haven't we seen those horses pass on the merry-go-round before? Haven't we ridden them?

  3. Sarge
    I agree.
    There is no brass ring at the end of this merry go round.
    All dying empires have re-acted the same way.
    We are in a global era of endless wars with out borders.
    The energy choke points are at stake.
    Libya will not be the last stop.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.