Mitt Makes Matters Worse

Even before the dead are buried, Mitt uses them for his own purposes.

The day after both presidential candidates called an unofficial truce to observe the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America, Mitt Romney went back on the offensive with a both barrels attack on the Obama Administration. Responding to a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo condemning an anti-Islamic video playing on You Tube supported by Terry Jones, the Koran-burning preacher, that had led to violence in Egypt and particularly Libya which had taken the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others on his staff.

With less than 60 days to the election, the Republican response to the violence was predictable. We certainly didn’t have to wait for long for the predictable partisan attempt to hang the corpse of Ambassador Stevens around the neck of President Obama.

– At 10:09 p.m. ET, the Romney campaign sends out a statement to reporters. It’s “embargoed until midnight tonight,” i.e., until after the 9/11 anniversary. Romney:

I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

At 10:24, the campaign lifts the embargo and reporters start mentioning the statement.

– At 12:01 a.m. ET, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus tweets:

Notice that the timestamp says “9:01 p.m.” Twitter’s website is cued to Pacific Time. Both the RNC and the Romney campaign were honoring a 9/11 embargo that ended only when 9/12 came to the Eastern time zone.

Two men have a huge problem here. President Obama because he is the Commander-in-Chief and this crisis is one he, along with Secretary of State Clinton will have to deal with. This is the job. Let’s see how they do it.

The other man with a problem is Romney. He can play to the red-meat base and rip into Obama as a secret Muslim sympathizer and assert control of the situation in a John Wayne way by sending in the Marines to kick some ass. Or he can display some sober reasoning that he may not be in possession of all of the facts (there are reports the attacks in Libya were planned to coincide with the 9/11 observances).
It’s also worth noting how the masters of outrage on the Right have their ass on their shoulders over the embassy’s condemnation of the anti-Islamic film, but the film itself is fine and dandy because it’s protected hate free speech. And it’s very bad form for a presidential candidate to rush to the  microphones and criticize the incumbent during a crisis in a transparent attempt to score political points without waiting for all the facts.

Romney should have been more careful in his criticisms of the Obama Administration. His own lack of foreign policy experience and shoot-from-the-lip attacks on the president could send a signal to Islamic radicals in Libya and Egypt the nation is fractured and confused and lead to the deaths of more American personnel. The easiest thing in the world is to say is “You’re doing it wrong” when you haven’t explained how you would do it right.

Stevens was killed in the line of duty.

Romney has cynically decided there is more upside for him to criticize the State Department and Obama than to show any solidarity with the president when the nation’s diplomats are under siege.

Does offer a word of sympathy to the family of Ambassador Stevens? Does he demonstrate any concern for the American personnel still in harm’s way? Does he possess even a shred of support to the President of the United States in a time of crisis and the day after the 11th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against the American homeland.

No. He does not. That would be the decent thing to do. That would be the honorable thing to do. But that isn’t what Mitt Romney does because he is a man of little decency and less honesty. He is the anti-Obama and he can only rip, shred and tear at the president in the hope it will boost his poll numbers a notch or two.

Decency and honesty take extended holidays in the final weeks of an election.

But that’s Romney for you. You never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.If he can’t think on his feet he should keep his mouth closed.

 

Advertisements

Leading From Behind, Coming Out Ahead

Need a nap Gaddafi? Take one. Forever.

There’s no trophy room in the White House, but if there were one, President Obama could add Libyan dictator Mohammar Gaddafi’s pelt to the wall next to Osama bin Laden and the radical American-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, spiritual adviser to Major Nidal Malik Hasan whose shooting spree at Fort Hood, killed 13 people and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day bomber.

Libyan rebels found Gaddafi hiding in a drain pipe and shot him.  No big loss to the world.

While elitist jerks like Mitt Romney sniff, “It’s about time” in response to the news Gaddafi is finally cold meat and neo-cons refuse to give the president any credit for the part the U.S. played in bringing a dictator down and isolationists like Ron Paul would have had simply sat on the sidelines and watched with disinterest, a larger principle was served here.

A measure of justice for the relatives of the 259 people killed when Pan-Am 103 was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland on orders from Gaddafi.

Cape May Courthouse, NJ — Susan Cohen, mother of Syracuse University student Theodora Cohen who died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, was watching reports of Moammar Gadhafi’s death this morning on CNN. Cohen was waiting for confirmation of the death, but she was fairly confident.

“I think it’s marvelous,” Cohen said. “This will be the happiest day of my life since Dec. 21, 1988. I owe it all to the Libyan people.”

Cohen said she would open a bottle of champagne today and raise a glass to the people of Libya.

“You could not deal with him,” she said of Gadhafi. “He was a ghastly tyrant.”

“It’s just absolutely marvelous. It’s a day of joy.”

Cohen said that it was absolutely horrible that 35 Syracuse University students, “young people with futures, their lives ahead of them,” were among the 270 who died in the bombing of Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Cohen blamed Gadhafi for her daughter’s death.

“I hope he suffered,” she said.

“I’m going to celebrate his death. It should have happened earlier by the hand of the United States,” she said.

Gaddafi finally pays in full for the bombing of Pan-Am 103.

The neo-con job artists, led by Evil Dick Cheney will claim it was George Bush’s intel that led the Navy SEALS to bin Laden’s address, but it was also Bush’s bungling at Tora Bora that allowed bin Laden to get away and inspire more terrorist attacks around the world.

Intelligence without a Commander-in-Chief to differentiate between what is actionable and what is not is the difference between invading Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist and successfully ending the evil of a murderer who killed innocent American citizens.

Without question it’s the Libyan people who rose up against Gaddafi who deserve the lion’s share of the credit and all the responsibility to go forward in the aftermath of the tyrant’s demise.

Obama recognized that fact when he said, “Today belongs to the people of Libya. This is a moment for them.”

But the steadfast refusal on the part of some of the usual suspects to give Obama any credit for ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki and now the successful topping of Gaddafi can be explained in two words: sour grapes.

It’s not enough to have the military bullet in the gun. You also need someone with a steady hand to aim it. Presidents don’t personally take out the garbage, but they have a lot to say in deciding who deserves to go out in it.  The president saw an opportunity to get rid of Gaddafi and he took it.  Good for him.  Obama was roundly criticized from all sides of the political spectrum with a few nuts like Dennis Kucinich suggested bombing Libya was an impeachable offense.   The president’s “leading from behind” strategy was vilified at the time, but it got the job done.

You don’t have to give Obama credit and he’s not going to parade around waving the bloody shirt or the head and horns. He could have taken a “hands-off” and this day still might have happened anyway.

Or it might not have happened at all.

Reagan wanted Gaddafi. Bush wanted Bin Laden.

Obama got ’em both.

When one has made a decision to kill a person, even if it will be very difficult to succeed by advancing straight ahead, it will not do to think about doing it in a long, roundabout way. One’s heart may slacken, he may miss his chance, and by and large there will be no success. The Way of the Samurai is one of immediacy, and it is best to dash in headlong.

~ Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai

Samurai Obama Bags Another One

Bush’s Wars Are Obama’s Wars Now

Obama stands alone

I consider myself a supporter of the president, but I don’t support his attack on Libya and the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Which is why it troubles me to learn President Obama ignored legal advice that he did not have the authority to wage air strikes against Libya without the authorization of Congress.  The president’s insistence he does not need their approval has angered Congress and found both Republicans and Democrats demanding answers from the White House or they may decided to end the funding of the wars in three Muslim countries.

Maybe this time John Boehner and Dennis Kucinich are right.  Congress should pull the financial plug on these endless wars.

The president should either get Congressional approval of the war in Libya (and make no mistake, it IS a war even without ground troops being involved) or get out.  The same thing applies for Afghanistan and Iraq.   End the war.  Bring the troops home.

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for ten years and for what?  Osama bin Laden is dead and most of what’s left of Al Qaeda is holed up in Pakistan beyond the reach of a drone attack.  Iraq can handle its own affairs  Why is the U.S. maintaining four PERMANENT bases there?

There is only one answer.  The U.S. plans to stay in Iraq.  Just the same way the U.S. has stayed in Germany, Japan and South Korea long after the wars there ended.

Like I said, I am a supporter of President Obama, but I’m not so blind I can’t recognize there are some things he has NO power to change and the imperialistic nature the U.S. has to occupy and keep up military forces wherever we are is one of those things.  It is a manifestation of this country’s wish to put its footprint on the entire globe.

America is one of the world’s superpowers and trying desperately to keep China from overtaking it.   Failing to fend them off economically, the decision seems to have been made to keep the military option strong and a counter-balance to China’s globe-spanning plans.

Especially when they run counter to America’s own plans for global superiority.

In geo-political games of power and dominance even the President of the United States can be a manipulated pawn of forces beyond him.

The president has drawn down the number of troops in Iraq, but he’s not talking about dissembling the bases built there.  Those will stay and that means U.S. troops will continue to remain in Iraq to occupy those bases. I imagine Israel must be pleased by that prospect.

Afghanistan isn’t a lost cause.  There was never a cause in the first place.   Karzai is as crooked as a dog’s back leg and only controls a small part of that ungovernable country.  The rest is run by the Taliban and warlords.  Nobody can impose order on the chaos there and many other nations have tried before the U.S. and failed dismally.  Afghanistan is a trap.  All it does is bleed money and lives.

As for Libya, Qaddafi is a madman AND a racist, but he’s not America’s problem.  This is a civil war and it should left up to Libyans to depose Gaddafi or not.   After all this time, the superior strength of NATO hasn’t brought the dictator to his knees.   What’s the upside of continuing to pour money down a rat hole to kill one particularly tenacious rat?.

I think its possible to both support the president and still criticize him when he makes mistakes (and he has made his share of them like everyone else).

Going the route of a Cornel West or Lupe Fiasco is going too far because they make the criticisms personal.   I don’t believe Obama is a bad guy because he has done some bad things.  I’ll take him on his worst day compared to any of the Republican challengers on their best.

But waging wars in three Muslim countries is a lousy way to win them over and it wont get gasoline under $4 bucks a gallon either.

Three years ago it was possible to say Obama inherited the wars George Bush started.  You can’t say that anymore.  These are Obama’s wars now and he owns them.   It’s up to him to end them.

But these wars are bleeding America dry as the costs run into the millions daily and billions yearly.  We cannot continue to throw good money after bad to do little more than kill a few terrorists and a lot of civilians.

It’s time for the president to earn that Nobel Peace Prize.  He knows how to.  He has to decide he wants to.

The Strange Friends of Minister Farrakhan

Now this is one strange relationship

You will never hear any Black leader of prominence take on and repudiate Minister Louis Farrakhan in a direct, clear and unmistakable way.   Jesse Jackson won’t do it.  Al Sharpton won’t do it.  The NAACP won’t do it.  Even President Obama won’t do it.   That is a fight they do not want and know they can not win.

Farrakhan warned the president not to allow the United States to be drawn into a war with Libya and attempt to depose (or kill) the dictator Muammar Gaddafi.   The leader of the Black Muslims said Obama should reach out to Gaddafi.

“Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Khadafy? You can’t order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?”
 
Farrakhan’s support of the dictator is in part based upon Gaddafi loaning the Nation of Islam $5 million dollars. 

Nothing has happened to change my mind that the U.S. and its allies should stay out of the civil war in Libya.  If Obama wants to take a giant step to reassure his reelection he should take full advantage not to drag the United States into yet another Middle East minefield.  There’s no upside to it.

The President IS wrong on Libya. I agree with Farrakhan that it is a Libyan civil war to be fought for and won (or lost) BY Libyans.   Obama is now saying he will arm the rebels.  The same rebels whom are being assisted by Al Qaeda.  Sure, we want to get rid of Gaddafi, but by indirectly giving a helping hand to America’s sworn enemy?   That seems incredibly wrong-headed.

Farrakhan has some advice for Obama. Some bad advice.

However, being criticized by the buddy of a dictator can’t hurt Obama.  If anything it makes the president look more mainstream when he’s blasted by someone so firmly out of it.

The question is, does Farrakhan know he can’t win a popularity contest against Obama?   A choice between backing the president and the minister is no choice at all for me.  I have heard Farrakhan speak live three or four times.  He is a charismatic and electrifying speaker.  Nobody sleeps when Farrakhan rocks the mic.   I’ve attended as part of the press pool and watched the White reporters shaking their heads grimly while the Black reporters would exchange knowing glances between them.

Farrakhan is an anti-White, anti-Semitic, homophobic demagogue who preaches Black separatism.  His appeal is he knows how to tap into Black resentment and he never puts any distance between himself and his audience by talking down to them.   Only Farrakhan could have pulled off the Million Man March.  Only Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam have demonstrated the ability to take the most wretched and hopeless and teach them how to clean up their lives and carry themselves with pride and dignity.

But Obama being wrong does not make Farrakhan right. I don’t care about his “disenchantment” with Obama and the Nation of Islam vote isn’t large enough to make a dime’s worth of difference in a national election. Besides, do Black Muslims even vote? Anybody who wants to take their political cues from a guy who says the president is caring out the agenda of “the Jews” probably isn’t anybody whom I want to be associated with.

Farrakhan has set himself an impossible goal if he hopes to sway the opinion of over 30 million Black people to side with a racist dictator who approved a terrorist attack that took American lives over that of the president.

What I WON’T do is bang on Obama because I think “the Jews” have him by the short and curlies. What I WON’T do is follow the lead of a man who possibly played a key role in the death of one of the strongest Black men to walk the earth. What I WON’T do is think Louis Farrakhan is Blacker and more down for the cause than Barack Obama because he speaks pretty and knows how to raise an audience to their feet.

Obama can do that to. And he doesn’t have to use hatred of other people to do it either.

If Farrakhan wants to make the case Blacks should be supporting Gaddafi and not Obama he only has to answer two questions before I switch my allegiance.

1.  Will Minister Farrakhan repudiate Gen. Gaddafi for ordering the 1988 bombing of Pan-Am 103 where 243 passengers, 16 crew members and 11 people on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland died?   189 of the 270 who perished were Americans, so in some way isn’t the hell Obama unleashing upon Gaddafi long overdue?

2.  Speaking in Rome in August 2010, Gaddafi said on the subject of illegal immigration from Africa, “Europe runs the risk of turning Black” and  “We don’t know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans.”    Does the minister agree with the dictator’s remarks?

3.  Where does the minster stand on the arrest of Iman al-Obeidi, a Libyan woman who was dragged away after screaming to foreign journalists she had been gang-raped by Gaddafi loyalists?

A Libyan woman is dragged away after telling foreign journalists she was raped by Gaddafi supporters.

A distraught Libyan woman stormed into a Tripoli hotel Saturday to tell foreign reporters that government troops raped her, setting off a brawl when hotel staff and government minders tried to detain her.

Iman al-Obeidi was tackled by waitresses and government minders as she sat telling her story to journalists after she rushed into the restaurant at the Rixos hotel where a number of foreign journalists were eating breakfast. She claimed loudly that troops had detained her at a checkpoint, tied her up, abused her, then led her away to be gang-raped.

Her story could not be independently verified, but the dramatic scene provided a rare firsthand glimpse of the brutal crackdown on public dissent by Moammar Gadhafi’s regime as the Libyan leader fights a rebellion against his rule that began last month.

Before she was dragged out of the hotel, al-Obeidi managed to tell journalists that she was detained by a number of troops at a Tripoli checkpoint on Wednesday. She said they were drinking whiskey and handcuffed her. She said 15 men later raped her.

“They tied me up … they even defecated and urinated on me,” she said, her face streaming with tears. “The Gadhafi militiamen violated my honor.”


As al-Obeidi spoke, a hotel waitress brandished a butter knife, a government minder reached for his handgun, and another waitress pulled a jacket tightly over her head.

Al-Obeidi said she was targeted by the troops because she’s from the eastern city of Benghazi, a rebel stronghold.

The waiters called her a traitor and told her to shut up. She retorted: “Easterners, we’re all Libyan brothers, we are supposed to be treated the same, but this is what the Gadhafi militiamen did to me, they violated my honor.”

This is the fiend we’re supposed to feel sorry for?  A murderous, mad dog dictator with American blood on his hands whose supporters rape their opponents?   Or does Farrakhan think this is a made-up story by a CIA financed insurgent?

As he ages Farrakhan’s star is settling not rising.  He has lost his relevance to Black America.  His cozy relationship with maniacs like Gaddafi only erodes what little credence he has left.

Dennis Kucinich: The elf with a bad attitude.

"Pay attention to me or I will eat this microphone!"

In shoes, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich stands 5’7″, but what the Keebler Elf of Washington lacks in height he makes up for in stupid.  When the Cleveland Democrat isn’t filing frivolous lawsuits for the pain and suffering he experienced from biting into a “dangerous” sandwich with a unpitted olive in the House cafeteria, he can be found saying spectacularly dumb things  such as President Obama should be impeached for joining the United Nations in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

“It’s not even disputable, this isn’t even a close question. Such an action — that involves putting America’s service men and women into harm’s way, whether they’re in the Air Force or the Navy — is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone,” Kucinich said that although Obama’s decision “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense,” the question of whether a trial should be held is “a whole separate question.”

Midget, please.

I’m on record as opposing the U.S. getting involved in the Libyan conflict, but I’m bored by perennial fringe/loser candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader and their diarrhea of the mouth.

The Far Right says “DO SOMETHING, YESTERDAY!” The Far Left screams “DO NOTHING, EVER!”

The truth is out there but you won’t find it from a failed former boy mayor who led Cleveland into default and may find himself gerrymandered right out of Congress.

The President doesn’t care if narcissists like Kucinich yap like a oversexed chihuahua and isn’t losing any sleep worrying about the “I” word tossed around.   Obama knows there’s a good chance Kucinich may run against him in 2012.   For his part, Kucinich is using his time in the spotlight for profit as much as principle.

Days after saying that President Obama’s authorization of U.S. intervention in Libya is an “impeachable offense,” Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is now using his criticism of the president in a fundraising appeal.

Kucinich posted a video message on his campaign Web site Monday in which he asks supporters for campaign contributions and charges that the Obama administration’s decision to intervene in Libya was “outside the Constitution of the United States.”
 
The video comes as Kucinich, who is up for a ninth term in 2012, faces the prospect of having his district redrawn in Ohio’s redistricting battle, which will see the Buckeye State lose two House seats. Faced with the prospect of a tough bid, the Ohio Democrat has already made forceful fundraising pleas to his supporters; as he has in those previous messages, Kucinich notes in his most recent fundraising missive that his district may be “dramatically altered” and that he’s “going to have to make some decisions about where I’m going to run.” 
 

Obama: "Look me in the eye when I'm talking to you." Kucinich: "I can't look ANYBODY in the eye."

 

Scratch Kucinich’s “guts” and what you find is cold, cynical, calculation and a cheap hack following the First Commandment of politics: Do and say whatever you must to get reelected.

Kucinich is a political gadfly. A back bencher who rises up to tweak his fellow Democrats as the soul of the party, but that was a role better handled by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone.

 Kucinich’s assertion the president has committed an impeachable offense is not supported by Constitutional scholars or political realists. He’s pandering and playing to the cheap seats who lust for Obama to face a primary challenger next year. Fine. If Dennis sees himself as the left-wing Don Quixote as he did in his no-shot runs in 2004 and 2008, he’s welcome to get in the race. It might do Obama good to have a foil in a few debates and toughen him up for the rollicking the Republicans are going to give him.

But as a progressive, I’m choosy about whom I get behind to fly my freak flag. Kucinich ain’t my guy. Kucinich was a failure as mayor of Cleveland and as a Congressman he’s carved out a niche as an ideological fly in the ointment, but is he an effective legislator? I haven’t seen much evidence to support that.

On the score of being a relentless self-promoter who’s never shied away from a camera and the opportunity to run his mouth, Dennis Kucinich is exactly like Michelle Bachmann in neither has ever said “no comment” to an interview request.

Kucinich is playing to the Daily Kos crowd and raising campaign contributions by blurting out political absurdities like “impeachment” which he knows aren’t about to happen.

Kucinich enjoys yelling the “I” word and demanded it for George Bush and Dick Cheney and once again was roundly ignored for posturing like the world’s ugliest ballerina.

Yep, dude’s a real profile in courage self-preservation.   It may not save him though as the results of a recent poll by Public Policy Polling didn’t hold much love for Kucinich in it:

Ohio’s two-time minor Democratic presidential candidate and 10th district Rep. Dennis Kucinich is not well liked at all statewide, with 27% seeing him favorably and 40% unfavorably. He turns 63% of Republicans off and gets the nod from only 44% of Democrats. Independents mirror the electorate at-large.

 
Today’s example in shameless ass-covering has been brought to you courtesy of Dennis “the Menace” Kucinich.

Maybe when he’s done messing with Obama he’ll get back to filing stupid lawsuits against the peddlers of  “dangerous” sandwiches loaded with unpitted olives.

Such a unserious man hardly deserves to be taken seriously.   

 

"Sure, I'm homely and short and I'm 31 years older than she is, but she's HOT!"

 

It’s Not Our Oil. It’s Not Our Fight.

It's their fight. Let them fight it.

British, French and US military aircraft are preparing to protect the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi after the United Nations security council voted in favour of a no-fly zone and air strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces.

With Gaddafi’s troops closing in on Benghazi, the French prime minister, Francois Fillon, said “time is of the essence” and that France would support military action set to take place within hours.

Jets could take off from French military bases along the Mediterranean coast, about 750 miles from Libya. Several Arab countries would join the operation.

Isn’t it strange how we keep hearing over to the point of nausea, “WE’RE BROKE!” but there’s always enough leftover change in the cushions of the couch to buy another bomb to drop on nine boys looking for firewood one day and two more the next engaged in the terroristic act of watering the fields.

Yep, we’re really helping those poor, oppressed bastards in Afghanistan, aren’t we? Helping them right under the ground.

By the way, I know we’ve only been in that shithole for a decade or so now, but could someone remind me why we’re still in Afghanistan? It can’t be in search of Osama bin Laden. He’s chillaxin’ over in Pakistan somewhere under the protection of their version of the CIA.

It can’t be to keep Hamad Karzai in power. Dude’s as crooked as a dog’s back leg.

Some 64 percent of Americans don’t think the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting anymore. So why go on if there’s no point and no end to it. Ten years later and victory is no closer than it was in 2001. What an obscene waste of time, men, money and innocent lives.   If President Obama wanted to reassure his reelection he’d pull our troops out of Afghanistan and leave them to their endless wars and heroin production.

The Middle East is a quagmire for superpowers who try to impose their will upon it.  The Russians learned this lesson about Afghanistan and ten years down the road, the United States is getting schooled as well.

And now the U.S. is supposed to help the rebels in Libya? As one professional football player responded when asked why he took himself out of a game in order rather than risk an injury, “For who? For what?”

Why is this our fight? What’s it in for us? Gasoline back under $3.40 for regular?

Because dead Libyans being killed by their dictator isn’t a good enough reason for me. That sucks, but it sucked when the genocide in Darfur and Rwanda went down and I didn’t see anyone at the U.N. falling over themselves to get in there and break that mess up.

Of course, the only thing black you’re going to get out of intervention in the Sudan and Rwanda are grateful Africans instead of barrels of oil. Gratitude is cool, but you can’t fill your gas tank with it.

WHO are we supposed to be backing in this civil war and WHAT are we going to get out of it? If we didn’t go to war in Libya to get rid of Khadafy or Gaddafi (or however the hell we’re spelling his stupid name this week) after he blew 189 Americans to hell and gone in 1988 in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, why he’s so much worse now than he was then?

I was against the last war and I’m against the next war too. There’s enough European countries with air power to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. Let them fight and die for their oil instead of the U.S. fighting and dying for their oil.

The change will do them good. Especially France.

Col. Gaddafi (or however he's spelling his name today)