Showing posts with label Muammar Gaddafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muammar Gaddafi. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

Lindsey Graham - Celebration of Life

Tuesday, April 15, 2025

Tucker Carlson and Curt Weldon: 9/11

Free speech.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Herman Cain: Libya

When presidential candidate Herman Cain was in Milwaukee yesterday, he met with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board.

The Board is most likely thrilled with its "scoop."

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, in the midst of a Midwestern campaign swing, stumbled badly Monday when attempting to answer a question about whether he agreed or disagreed with President Barack Obama's approach to handling the Libyan crisis.

Meeting with Journal Sentinel reporters and editors before fundraising appearances in Milwaukee and Green Bay, Cain was discussing foreign policy in general when he was asked specifically about Obama's handling of Libya.

Cain paused for some time, then wanted to clarify that Obama had supported the uprising. Clearly struggling to articulate a response, Cain paused again, saying, "Got all of this stuff twirling around in my head."

Finally, Cain said: "I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is. And I'm sure that our intelligence people had some of that information. Based upon who made up that opposition . . . might have caused me to make some different decisions about how we participated. Secondly, no I did not agree with (Moammar) Gadhafi killing his citizens. Absolutely not. . . . I would have supported many of the things that they did to help stop that."

Cain said the question of America's involvement in Libya was not a simple yes or no question. "I would have gone about assessing the situation differently. It might have caused us to end up in the same place."

Told that a number of Republican leaders had praised Obama for his handling of the situation, Cain said he wasn't criticizing the president, "I just don't think enough was done relative to assessing the opposition before everything exploded."

Here's video of Cain addressing the Libya question:



Oh, my God! Did you see that? He "stumbled badly."

Blah, blah, blah.

The Journal Sentinel brags about its "gotcha" moment:

Cain's answer, which began with a discussion of President George W. Bush's foreign policy before the Libya question came up, was recorded on video and posted as part of a series of unedited excerpts on the Journal Sentinel's online site. Each excerpt pertained to a different topic. The video quickly went viral and was linked to and embedded on a number of political websites around the country, as well as national newspapers and nightly cable and network news broadcasts.

Oh, good grief.

Who cares?

Why is that part of the coverage?

"Yippee! Our video went viral." That's irrelevant.

How unprofessional!

(The video is no "double rainbow guy.")

After the Journal Sentinel interview and a fundraiser in Milwaukee, Cain rode his campaign bus to Green Bay's Lambeau Field. As the bus approached its destination, his spokesman began fielding a flurry of media phone calls about his response to the Libya question.

When a Journal Sentinel reporter riding on the Cain bus asked him about the reaction his interview was getting, Cain responded with a smile and indicated he found the reaction ridiculous.

"I paused to make sure I didn't say something wrong. The fact of the matter is, I didn't. I didn't say anything wrong . . . but the fact I didn't answer immediately - I'm going to be honest with you, that is silly. That is silly!"

Said Cain: "I call it flyspecking every word, every phrase, and now they are flyspecking my pauses, but I guess since they can't legitimately attack my ideas, they will attack word and pauses. I'm kind of flattered that my pauses are so important that somebody wants to make a story out of it."

By the time his bus arrived at his campaign tailgate party at Lambeau, a large media scrum was waiting, and the first question was about the way he handled the question about Libya.

This is really lame.

Considering Obama can't get out a sentence correctly even when he's using his teleprompter, and considering that he is completely lost without it, I don't think it's fair to give so much weight to Cain's less than entirely smooth delivery when answering the Libya question.

If the JS Editorial Board had asked me the same question, I would have said that it's difficult to discuss Obama's approach to the Libya situation because it was so vague.

He supposedly applied the "lead from behind" doctrine.

Ooh! Lead from behind!

In other words, he dithered and stayed out of the way, then he took credit for skillfully removing Gaddafi from power, killing him.

In terms of stumbling badly on foreign policy, Cain's awkward response is nothing compared to Obama's recent remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From Haaretz:

U.S. President Barack Obama mentioned on Sunday morning the embarrassing gaffe that took place on November 3, when what he thought a private conversation between himself and French President Nicolas Sarkozy was broadcast to reporters.

Obama acknowledged the incident but refused to comment on disparaging remarks he and Sarkozy had made about Prime Minister Netanyahu. “With respect to the ‘hot mic’ in France, I'm not going to comment on conversations that I have with individual leaders,” Obama said in Hawaii.

Unaware that a microphone in the meeting room at the G20 summit at Cannes was on , Sarkozy was heard on November 3 calling Netanyahu "a liar" in what he thought was a private exchange with Obama.

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, who was also unaware that the mic had been turned on and was being monitored by reporters via the headsets used for simultaneous translations.

Obama didn't exactly defend Netanyahu in that conversation, either. "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to wire service reports.

Now that is stumbling badly.

I think the Journal Sentinel's gushing over its "viral video" is also a bad stumble.

____________________

Here's video, from FOX6 News:

 

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Penn State Students Rally, Joe Paterno

Thousands of Penn State students were not happy that football coach Joe Paterno was fired in the wake of the child molestation scandal involving assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

Here's video of the rally:




The CNN anchor makes a fool of himself reporting the "facts" of the story, declaring that the students were chanting, "F--- Sandusky."

No, they were chanting, "F--- the trustees." That's a completely different angle.

Whatever, I don't think CNN should have stayed with that audio when it was clear the chant included the F-bomb.

Here's more on the students' pro-Paterno rally:

Thousands of Penn State students loudly and angrily displayed their displeasure over the firing of football coach Joe Paterno on Wednesday night, rioting, screaming and loudly chanting, hours after the school's Board of Trustees fired the 46-year head coach.

Lamp posts were tipped over and broken on Beaver Avenue, part of the campus business district, where students were met by police and pepper spray. A television truck was overturned, and students rushed the university's administration building, "Old Main," a couple of blocks away.

Students chanted "We Are Penn State," "We want Joe" and "One more game" and yelled Paterno's name as they rushed the building, where a half-dozen police officers waited on the steps, preventing the mob from going inside.

The ugly tone of the evening was set at the Board of Trustees' news conference when an audible gasp went through the room at the Penn Stater Resort as John Surma, the Board's vice chairman, announced Paterno was no longer the coach.

More than one student in the audience yelled, "Your campus is going to burn tonight," shortly after the announcement, which came at about 10:15 p.m. ET.

Police said they had not been informed in advance of the board's decision.

So police prevented the disgruntled students from occupying "Old Main."

They had a better handle on the situation than Madison police did when protesters squatted in the Capitol building for weeks last February and March. Oh, that's right. Madison police put out the welcome mat for them.

Back to Paterno, Sandusky, and the crimes...

Why are thousand of students showing such fervent support for Paterno?

He knew Sandusky preyed on children. He kept a monster on his staff. While Paterno was loyal to his friend, he didn't do the right thing.

Paterno is a legend. Forty-six years is a long time to hold a job, longer than Muammar Gaddafi was in power in Libya. Naturally, there would be some mixed emotions upon his firing.

Students can show appreciation for Paterno and what he meant to the university. That's nice. But under the circumstances, this rally showing undying support for him is another matter.

The students don't seem to care about Sandusky's victims. They don't seem to want to hold Paterno accountable. They refuse to acknowledge all the wrongdoing.

It's unsettling that they don't understand why Paterno was fired, or they don't care. The fact that they find his forced departure to be unjust makes me question their moral bearings.

Penn State is experiencing a morality crisis, on so many levels.

_________________

Slideshow: "Students fill Beaver Canyon in riot in response to firing of Joe Paterno"

More video:


Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Obama and Leno - Video, Transcript

Obama was Jay Leno's guest on Tuesday's Tonight Show.

It was a campaign commercial.

No surprise there.

I expected Leno to be respectful and he was.

I expected Leno to be a total suck-up and he was.

Obama looked tired and old and frail.

This time, Obama didn't mock Special Olympics athletes, like he did during his appearance in March 2009.

I don't think he'll have to issue any apologies like he did when he revealed what a callous and cold individual he is. He could apologize to the viewers for his shameless politicking, but he didn't disgrace himself the way he did when he compared his poor bowling ability to that of a Special Olympics participant.

Certainly, Obama owes the country an apology for his disastrous policies.

Leno owes his viewers an apology for being the willing stooge, accepting Obama's spin without challenge.

I really don't blame Leno too much because he's not meant to do a tough interview.

The question becomes: What is a sitting U.S. president doing on the Tonight Show?

I think it makes Obama seem small. It diminishes the office.

Here's video, by topic:

President Obama on the death of Gaddafi.



President Obama on Republicans opposing the withdrawal from Iraq.



President Obama's reaction to the GOP debates.



President Obama on Halloween and the White House getting egged.



Here's the complete interview video:
Part 1: President Obama on Gaddafi, Bin Laden and withdrawal of troops from Iraq.



Part 2: President Obama on Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and the Occupy Wall Street Movement.



Part 3: President Obama on stopping to eat at Roscoe's plus more on Halloween and GOP.



Here's Obama "acting":
Presidential Cold Open - President Obama's teleprompter.



Here's the complete transcript of Obama's interview, as provided by NBC.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Libya and Radical Islamic Law

Libya is liberated!

From the Los Angeles Times:

Reporting from Beirut— Libya's new leaders declared their nation "liberated" on Sunday, paving the way for elections and a constitution that the revolutionary government says will put the country on a path to its first representative democracy.

"Democracy" shouldn't be confused with freedom for all.

Libya is liberated but that doesn't mean the plan is for the country to be free from oppression.

The long-awaited pronouncement came with a heavy dose of Islamist sentiment, as Mustafa Abdul Jalil, leader of the transitional government, embraced the Muslim code known as Sharia law as a foundation for future legislation.

During his more than four decades in power, Moammar Kadafi viewed Islamists as a threat and jailed hundreds of suspected religious militants. But Jalil, a former justice minister in Kadafi's regime, signaled that Islam would have a central place in the new Libya, imposing two Islamic-style edicts — capping interest rates and lifting restrictions on how many wives men may have.

Islamists are one of a number of groups seeking a stake in the new Libya. Many Libyans are also advocating a secular state. The transitional leaders have repeatedly emphasized the nation's "moderate" version of Islam and dismissed as far-fetched the notion of an Iranian-style theocracy emerging in Libya. Still, some Western leaders who backed the rebellion have voiced concern about the possible rise of fundamentalist rule in Libya.

In his remarks about the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, Obama put a nice, shiny spin on the future.
OBAMA: The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted. And with this enormous promise, the Libyan people now have a great responsibility -- to build an inclusive and tolerant and democratic Libya that stands as the ultimate rebuke to Qaddafi’s dictatorship. We look forward to the announcement of the country’s liberation, the quick formation of an interim government, and a stable transition to Libya’s first free and fair elections. And we call on our Libyan friends to continue to work with the international community to secure dangerous materials, and to respect the human rights of all Libyans –- including those who have been detained.

We’re under no illusions -- Libya will travel a long and winding road to full democracy. There will be difficult days ahead. But the United States, together with the international community, is committed to the Libyan people. You have won your revolution. And now, we will be a partner as you forge a future that provides dignity, freedom and opportunity.

It seems to me that it's nuts for Obama to say "[w]e're under no illusions."

Radical Islam doesn't mean "dignity, freedom and opportunity" for all Libyans.

Liberation?

I don't think so.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Gaddafi Killed, Economy Still Sucks

Derek Hunter tweets:

Wait, Gaddafi is dead, so why do we still have massive unemployment and high gas prices? Oh yeah, because Obama is a horrible President.

Yup.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Gaddafi Killed - 'Allahu Akbar!'

So we have extremely graphic images of the bloodied dead body of Libyan leader and terrorist Muammar Gaddafi.

Two months after Western-backed rebels ended 42 years of eccentric, often bloody, one-man rule by capturing the capital Tripoli, his death and the fall of the final bastion ended a nervous hiatus for the new interim government, which is now set to declare formal "liberation" with a timetable for elections.

The killing or capture of senior aides, including possibly two sons, as an armored convoy braved NATO air strikes in a desperate bid to break out of Sirte, may ease fears of diehards regrouping elsewhere - though cellphone video apparently of Gaddafi alive and being beaten may inflame his sympathizers.

A Libyan official said Gaddafi, 69, was killed in custody.

"We confirm that all the evils, plus Gaddafi, have vanished from this beloved country," interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril said in Tripoli as the body was delivered, a prize of war, to Misrata, the city whose siege and suffering at the hands of Gaddafi's forces made it a symbol of the rebel cause.

"It's time to start a new Libya, a united Libya," Jibril added. "One people, one future." A formal declaration of liberation, that will set the clock ticking on a timeline to elections, would be made by Friday, he said.

Here's the video of the dead Gaddafi (GRAPHIC):



Gaddafi is gone. Who will replace him? A democracy-friendly leader?

After Obama's Rose Garden statement at 1:00 PM CT, on NBC, a reporter in Libya told Brian Williams that there was a beautiful fireworks display celebrating Gaddafi's death. She also said children could be heard yelling, "Allahu Akbar," God is great!

"Allahu Akbar!"

I can't help but be reminded of the 9/11 terrorists whenever I hear that.

Still waiting for the Osama bin Laden death photo.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Obama Libya Speech

Tonight at 7:30/6:30 PM CT, Obama will address the nation about his decision to involve the U.S. military in Libya.

Obama will deliver his speech from the National Defense University in Washington.

Why mess with that? Why not just do the speech from the Oval Office?

These carefully choreographed events are lame.

Obama should keep it simple and just talk to the nation from the White House.

The guy seems to be afraid of speaking from behind his desk. The time is weird, too; very early.

Matt Spetalnick, Reuters, writes:

President Barack Obama faces the challenge on Monday of convincing Americans he has clear military aims and a U.S. exit strategy in the Libya conflict as he seeks to counter growing congressional criticism.

In a high-stakes televised address, Obama -- accused by many lawmakers of failing to explain the U.S. role in the Western air campaign against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi -- will try to define the mission's purpose and scope.

This should be interesting.

Obama is on the record slamming President Bush and U.S. involvement in Iraq. He declared that to be a "dumb war."

What brilliance!

It's going to be tough for him to explain why action in Libya is appropriate with his history of insisting military operations in Iraq were not.

Obama is going to have to do a lot of contortions to give the impression that he knows what he's doing regarding Libya.

To date, he and his administration haven't given the American people a coherent message.

They've been remarkably incompetent.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Brian Williams and Jimmy Fallon - March 22, 2011 (Video)

Last night, Brian Williams was a guest on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.

Brian Williams makes relatively frequent appearances on the show, taking time out as NBC Nightly News anchor to serve in comic roles. For example, a regular feature on the show is "slow jam the news," when Williams and Fallon, with help from The Roots, address an issue in the news. Watch them comment on the recent protests in Madison.

Unlike the political pontificating engaged in by David Letterman and Jay Leno with certain guests, Jimmy Fallon usually steers away from such discussions.

It was a little bit different yesterday when Fallon interviewed Williams. While it was still a very light-hearted segment throughout, Fallon tossed out a few of his concerns regarding Obama and those advising him.

Here's video:

Brian Williams, Part 1




Transcript

JIMMY FALLON: It's crazy at this time right now. I think, am I counting wrong? But are we in three wars?

BRIAN WILLIAMS: We're in three. It's early yet. We got some time.

FALLON: I mean, what is happening? Can you take me through, like...?

WILLIAMS: So you got your Iraq winding down. You got your Afghanistan, nobody loves. And the greatest Americans we've ever fielded are over there - Staff sergeants making no money at all, getting their combat bonus, supporting a family back home, slogging through it. And then we have fired as of today 162 cruise missiles from mostly U.S. Navy ships and submarines offshore.

So while they're not fighting on the ground, remember, this is fuelers, pilots, all those deck hands, all those men and women working on all those ships, aircraft, fueling 'em up. There's a lot of people engaged in this third front.

FALLON: Have we ever seen anything like this in our country?

WILLIAMS: We haven't been this busy. I don't think our military's been at this busy a footing.

FALLON: It's insane. And our goal for this Libya thing is so that Qaddafi or Gaddafi - is there a real thing?

WILLIAMS: Pick one. We got a couple spellings. I've gone with the "G." I've gone with the "Kh." I've gone with just the "K."

FALLON: Haddafi?

WILLIAMS: Never that. But yeah, the goal can't be to take him out. He's not a target. The Pentagon briefers said last Sunday, 'Look, if he happens to be in a building that we hit...'

FALLON: (Going into a Robert DeNiro-esque impression) 'Scuse me. What? Are you kidding me? I don't remember anything.

That is just insane, I think with all that stuff. And it feels like to me that President Obama is playing soccer in Rio with kids, and Hillary Clinton seems to be weirdly stepping up, almost like she's being very presidential. I feel like, isn't it weird?

WILLIAMS: It might be a bit unfair. He... You gotta remember, Jimmy, the machinery of the presidency, a lot like when you travel, the machinery of the presidency comes with the president. When you travel you get the Late Night computer and your paging devices so that decisions back in New York about guests, musical order, can be made by you. The president has scrambled phones. He's got video conferencing. He's got the three big Irishmen in his life - Donilon, Brennan, and Daley - who are a part of his inner circle. He's got all of his people. They're all reachable. While he may come back early from this trip to South America, I think the command and control... American people like to see the president.

FALLON: Why is he there again?

WILLIAMS: Well, this was a trip that to have cancelled this...

FALLON: Costs so much money.

WILLIAMS: Yeah. Right.

FALLON: He can't get a refund? Come on!


Brian Williams, Part 2



Transcript
JIMMY FALLON: What is going down? He's making NCAA, he's doing his brackets on ESPN. I'm like, who is advising this man?

BRIAN WILLIAMS: I think we've seen a little political 'tude coming out tonight. This is interesting.

FALLON: Come on. A little change...

WILLIAMS: I think this is interesting. I never heard you go into this area before.

FALLON: I don't normally do it, but I get upset. I mean, I have better people advising me than the president does.

WILLIAMS: Actually, I've met your staff... Just one thing to remember: Every cruise missile - about $1 million, 162 of those. Think of what goes into launching each one, target selection, all that. It's a crazy world.

FALLON: It's a tough job.

WILLIAMS: I feel like you have to hang on to something.

FALLON: I'm very patriotic. I'm always rooting for the president. I just feel like, what is going on? I feel like I want to hear from him.

WILLIAMS: Well, this is a tough perception. The White House has to deal with this because, seriously, if you're saying it, and you do hear this across America, it means it's real. And it means they've got to deal with the perception, even though he's with his daughters and they get very little time off. He's down in South America, three country tour, doing all the official business. I don't work for them. I cover them all equally - Democrats, Republicans. They've got an appearance issue if you're saying they do. You have that kind of sway.

FALLON: Exactly. He watches this show all the time.

It's funny that Williams felt he needed to defend Obama and then qualify it by saying, "I don't work for them," as if we might forget his role as unbiased newsman.

I think the direction of the discussion caught Williams off guard just a little, though I like the way Jimmy expressed his concerns. I liked the 'tude.

What I especially liked is that it was a topical discussion without being polarizing and preachy. It was still funny and entertaining.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Obama's War, Libya: Questions for Liberals

"I don't oppose all wars... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

BARACK OBAMA, October 2, 2002

John Hawkins raises some interesting questions about Obama's war in Libya.

Hawkins writes:

It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change" instead. It's funny how that worked out, isn't it? We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush's footsteps.

His seven questions for liberals:
1) Isn't this is a rush to war?

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him?

3) Is this a war for oil?

4) Where are the massive protests?

5) Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead?

6) Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya?

7) Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk?

Excellent questions.

I assume Obama supporters will have lame answers; but the fact is Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, led the country to another war.

No question about that.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Leno: Scott Walker and Gaddafi

JAY LENO: In Wisconsin, a new poll shows that Republican Governor Scott Walker's attack on public employees is making him more and more unpopular with his own constituents. They feel he's attacking his own people, which is not good, 'cause the only other guy doing that right now - Muammar Gaddafi. You don't want to fall in that group.

Not funny.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Leno: Gaddafi and Keith Olbermann

JAY LENO: Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi went on TV today. He was angry and defiant. Then, he went off the air and no one has seen him since. Kind of like Keith Olbermann.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Conan O'Brien: Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, and Castro

World leaders like Muammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Fidel Castro have expressed their thoughts on NBC and The Tonight Show situation.

CONAN O'BRIEN: Of course, NBC late night, that's the big story right now. I didn't think that the programming changes at NBC would mean very much outside of our country. I thought that this was just a story for America. I was wrong. Incredible coverage around the world. Take a look.

Watch the video clip.











Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Gaddafi's Speech - Quotes

UPDATE, October 20, 2011: Gaddafi Killed
__________________

Libyan leader and terrorist Muammar Gaddafi delivered his first ever address to the United Nations General Assembly today.

He had a 15-minute time limit. He went long.

(Note: Gaddafi = Gadhafi = Qaddafi)

From the New York Times:

In the first third of a speech that lasted more than 90 minutes, Colonel Qaddafi focused on what he called the inherent unfairness of the United Nations, which gives the five permanent members of the Security Council far more authority than the nations only in the General Assembly. This, Mr. Qaddafi said, was dictatorship, not democracy and, as such, “was terrorism itself.”

“We are not committed to obeying or adhering to resolutions by the Security Council in its composition right now,” he said, adding that the Security Council should be renamed the “Terror Council.” At one point, he even tore the edge of the founding charter of the United Nations he held in his hand, saying he agreed with the document’s preamble but nothing else.

He said the organization’s power dynamic should be reversed — to make the Security Council an instrument designed to “implement the will of the General Assembly.”

...Ali Abdussalam Treki, the Libyan diplomat who now holds the rotating presidency of the General Assembly, introduced him as the “leader of the revolution, president of the African Union, King of Kings of Africa.”

An hour into his address, Colonel Qaddafi began calling for investigations into each of the major wars since the United Nations was founded: the Korean War, the war over the Suez Canal, the Vietnam War and the ongoing war in Iraq, which he called “the mother of all evils.”

The Afghan war, too, he said, should be investigated for possible prosecution. At times, Colonel Qaddafi veered into conspiracy, saying, for example, that the H1N1 influenza virus, also called swine flu, might be a military or corporate weapon that got out of a lab, and he intimated that an Israeli hand was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, should be solved by the creation of a single state, which Mr. Qaddafi called Isratine, but Mr. Qaddafi stressed it was wrong to infer that Arabs hate the Jews. “You are the ones who burned them, not us. You expelled them,” he said, referring apparently to European nations.

For Mr. Obama personally, however, he had only warm words, calling on the collected nations to welcome “our son” on the occasion of his first United Nations appearance. “We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president of America,” he said, and added that he feared America would return to its old ways after the end of Mr. Obama’s term.

Here's more, from Bloomberg:
In a rambling speech that lasted more than 90 minutes, Qaddafi tried to rip in two a pocket-sized copy of the UN Charter, charging that the council’s existence violated the provision that all UN members be treated equally. He called for power to go to the General Assembly, whose rotating presidency this year is held by Libyan diplomat Ali Treki.

“The Security Council since its establishment did not provide us with security but on the contrary provides us with terror and sanctions,” he said. “It was used against us. It should not be called a security council, it should be called a terror council.”

... “Sixty-five wars broke out after the establishment of the UN and the Security Council, and the victims are millions more than the victims of World War II,” he said. “Were these wars in the interest of all of us? No, they were in the interest of one country or three countries or four countries.”

Turning to the heads of state gathered in the assembly chamber, Qaddafi said, “You are just like speakers on Hyde Park Corner” in London. “You make a speech and then disappear.”

... “The General Assembly is the parliament of the world, the master of the world, and no one should object,” he said.

...The Libyan leader said he is proud of Barack Obama’s election to the U.S. presidency as a “son of Africa” and called him “a glimmer in the dark.” He praised Obama’s call for a reduction in nuclear weapons.

...Turning to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just days after Obama urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to build two states living side-by-side in peace, Qaddafi said a two-state solution was “not practicable.”

“The solution is an Arab state without religious fanaticism,” he said. “Look at Palestinian youth, look at Israeli youth -- they want peace and want to live in one state.”

...At one point, Qaddafi noted that many world leaders appeared to have dozed off during his speech, and complained that holding UN sessions in New York caused jet lag. He said he had woken up at 4 a.m. because of the change in time zones.

More quotes, from the Wall Street Journal:
At another point, Mr. Gadhafi asked why the U.N. is situated in the U.S. and questioned whether it would be better to move the headquarters elsewhere.

"Everyone here today came across the Atlantic or the Pacific, and I ask you, why?" he said. "Is this Jerusalem, or Mecca? All of you have jetlag and are physically tired. Many of you are very tired because your biological mind should be asleep right now. Think about it, why should we continue to meet here in America?"

"We should not have to come to New York," he said.

But Mr. Gadhafi softened his tone when referring to Mr. Obama, saying, "We are happy and proud that a son of Africa is president of the U.S. in a place where blacks could not go in a bus where whites go." He said Mr. Obama was "the beginning of a change."

"Obama is a glimpse in the dark, and I am afraid that we may go back to square one. Can you guarantee how America will governed after Obama?" he asked, looking back at U.N. Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon. "As far as I'm concerned he can stay president of America forever."

Mr. Gadhafi later turned this attention to Iraq.

"The Iraqi war was the mother of all evils," he said. "Why did we invade? This should be investigated. It was a violation of the U.N. charter, without any justification."

He asked why prisoners of war were tried, including Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein. "How is the member of a government and president of a country be sentenced to hang? Who were these people in masks that did this? Did they have the right to do it?"

He said some believed that the executioners were Americans. "We don't the identify of these people. The U.N. has the duty to answer these questions, who implemented the death sentence."

Mr. Gadhafi then rambled further afield, even touching on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He asked who killed the U.S. president and why this hasn't been answered yet. "We know that the Israeli Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who had killed the president," he said. "And then this Israeli died. … We have to know how and why this happened, so such things will not be repeated."

Touching on the subject of piracy, Mr. Gadhafi said he had met with pirates in Somalia who have made headlines in the past year for dozens of hijackings of cargo ships.

"These men are not pirates," he said. "We are the pirates. We are all pirates. We went there to their territorial waters, and they are just protecting the food of their children. The solution does not lie in sending military ships to Somalia."

If I were Obama I wouldn't be too pleased with Gaddafi's words of praise.

It's not good to be embraced by a terrorist and conspiracy nut like Gaddafi.



Monday, August 24, 2009

Kenny MacAskill: "A Sentence Imposed by a Higher Power"

Kenny MacAskill continues to face criticism over his decision to release Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, exploding over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, and killing 270 people.

From the Associated Press:

Scottish legislators gathered Monday for an emergency meeting on the government's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber as critics claimed the act could severely damaged relations with the United States.

The government of First Minister Alex Salmond has faced unrelenting criticism from the both the U.S. government and the families of American bombing victims for freeing Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

The Libyan — the only man convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 airline bombing — was released last week on compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill with prostate cancer. He has returned to his native Libya.

In a strongly worded letter to the Scottish government, FBI director Robert Mueller said al-Megrahi's release gave comfort to terrorists, while Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said releasing the bomber was "obviously a political decision."

Lawmakers want to question Salmond's minority government about the decision, with some calling for Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to resign. MacAskill has said the decision was his alone, followed all the correct procedures under Scottish law and was not influenced by political considerations.

Some Scottish lawmakers want to distance themselves from the decision by Scotland's nationalist administration, which advocates full independence from Britain.

"Today is about showing the world that Kenny MacAskill did not speak for Scotland in making this decision," said Richard Baker, the Labour Party's Scottish justice spokesman.

More, from the BBC.

Needless to say, the release of Megrahi has resulted in a lot of political posturing.

There's outrage aplenty.

But MacAskill also has his supporters.

From the Telegraph:

Nothing in his experience of life or politics could have prepared Kenny MacAskill for the walk towards that podium last Thursday and I wondered if he would endure the ordeal ahead. Scotland's justice minister, an honest journeyman in the minority part-government of a relatively unimportant country, had nothing beyond a desire to see that natural justice must prevail as he pondered his decision to show compassion to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

This is the man whom Scots justice had found guilty of the biggest terrorist atrocity committed on these islands, the bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. He knew that his decision was being scrutinised on four continents and that his character would be trashed before the hour was spent. Yet he emerged from his trial with his stature increased and Scotland woke up on Friday with its reputation for decency and fairness enhanced.

MacAskill could have washed his hands of this issue and simply had a terminally ill man spend the few remaining days of his life in a Greenock prison cell. Few, beyond the masters of the British petroleum industry, would have demurred. Certainly not Downing Street, whose haunted incumbent would have been praying for such a verdict, and certainly not America whose default position on justice is: "When in doubt, hang them from the neck… especially if they are poor, black and uneducated." In the Arab world, there would have been desultory protests but nothing more. Baghdad, Helmand, Kabul and the West Bank are of far more pressing concern than the final resting place of a man they all wished to forget.

But this unprepossessing minister of justice sought to ignore all the serried interests of the global supermen. Instead, he found refuge in the fundamental principles of a judicial system that has served Scotland soundly for more than 400 years. For 16 years now, our statutes have given us leave to release from prison anyone who is deemed by competent medical authority to have three months or less to live. It was a concession rooted in compassion, pity and forgiveness. Few in the United Kingdom have ever taken issue with it. It is a good and just law. MacAskill simply applied it. In this case, he used it merely to allow a murderer go home to die. Before Megrahi, 23 other prisoners had been shown a similar mercy in Scotland. It was also a decision buttressed by two oncologists and two urologists who provided written documentation that, in their opinions, the Libyan prisoner was in the very last stages of his final agony.

Nor had MacAskill been party to any quid pro quo deal that involved Megrahi dropping his appeal against his original conviction in return for compassionate release. The desired outcome for the Scottish government was for Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail and for his appeal to proceed.

...One senior SNP politician I spoke to last night stated categorically that no deal had been struck with Megrahi: "Politically, the worst option for us was the one chosen by Kenny MacAskill. But it was also the right and proper one and consistent with the principles this nation strives to govern itself by. What no one could have foreseen two years ago was the onset of the prisoner's aggressive prostate cancer and this changed everything."

So did MacAskill do the morally right thing? Was it a selfless act on his part to free Megrahi?

A piece in the Telegraph by Stephen Hough highlights the Christian overtones of MacAskill's words, speaking of "compassion" and "mercy."

However, he uses MacAskill's terminology against him, concluding that MacAskill overstepped his authority, acting unilaterally to grant Megrahi mercy.

Hough writes:

‘Justice’, in practical legal terms, is in the hands of the courts, and I am amazed that one man could make such a sweeping decision to hold or release someone like this; but ‘mercy’ (in MacAskill’s terminology) can only come from God. I dearly hope for unlimited mercy for all people from God, but I think it was misguided and inappropriate for the Justice Secretary to take on that task himself on behalf of those who were so deeply affected personally by that Pan Am plane’s plunge to the ground in 1988.


A piece that was published on the New York Times website on August 20, includes remarks from MacAskill that strike me as profoundly misguided and offensive, and not the least bit compassionate or Christian.
Scotland’s justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, announced that Mr. Megrahi, “convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die.”

With his release, Mr. MacAskill said, Mr. Megrahi “now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power.”

“It is one that no court, in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule,” he said. “It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.”

I strongly object to MacAskill's assertion that Megrahi's illness is a "sentence imposed by a higher power."

This supposed man of compassion is seriously lacking, in my opinion.

So according to MacAskill, being terminally ill is Megrahi's punishment for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, meted out by God, and that should satisfy those wanting and deserving justice?

What does that suggest? What does that say to all those suffering from dreadful illnesses? That they are being punished by God?


Are we to equate a terminally ill child with Megrahi?

What did the child do that would condemn him or her to "[face] a sentence imposed by a higher power"?

I fail to see any compassion in MacAskill's statement that Megrahi is being punished and justice is being done by virtue of the fact that he's ill, facing a death sentence that he believes is imposed by a higher power.

If MacAskill thinks that terminal illness takes the place of a sentence handed down by a court of law, that it's the ultimate punishment from God, then I think he should explain why those who are innocent, who aren't terrorists, are afflicted with devastating illnesses.

MacAskill's remarks were terribly callous, lacked compassion, and showed no mercy.
___________________

Related:

Here's an interesting piece written by John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations:

Outrage was the uniform American response to Scotland's release last week of Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of blowing Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie in December, 1988. Two hundred and seventy innocent people died in that act of terrorism, of whom 189 were Americans, many of them students on their way home to celebrate Christmas with their families.

Outrage also greeted the public celebration of Megrahi's arrival in Libya and his warm reception from Muammar Gaddafi. These manifestations of insensitivity only highlight the shamefulness of Britain's fundamental mistake in letting Megrahi go free, regardless of his condition. "Compassion" has no place here. Releasing him to die at home means that he has spent less than two weeks in jail for each of his 270 victims. They never made it home.

The justifiable disgust over Megrahi's release sadly underlines what amounts to a spectacular failure of American diplomacy. "Obamamania" overseas is a dominant theme of the media, endlessly recounting how the US position in the world has
improved since President Bush's departure. "Engagement" with friend and adversary alike is the Obama administration's hallmark, with diplomatic advances expected to flow like wine.

So what happened? The state department said on Friday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked "for weeks and months" to persuade Britain not to release the murderer. Both Washington and London all but begged Gaddafi not to hold public celebrations on Megrahi's arrival in Tripoli. Yet Britain, the other half of the "special relationship", ignored Clinton's efforts, as did Libya, which only recently resumed full diplomatic relations with America.

This is effective US diplomacy? This is one of the tangible benefits of Obamamania? The purported "decision" by Scotland (under whose laws America, Britain and Libya agreed Megrahi would be tried) was almost surely taken at the behest of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Government. Even worse, Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, and Lord Trefgarne, president of the Libyan-British Business Council, have both essentially confirmed that Megrahi's release was intended to facilitate enhanced commercial relationships between Britain and Libya. Gaddafi said the release "will be positively reflected for sure in all areas of co-operation between the two countries". Is there any doubt of his meaning?

Cabinet protestations to the contrary are increasingly hollow, as inconvenient new evidence, such as Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis's letter to Scotland's justice secretary, demonstrates. For sure, there was no "deal" between Brown and Gaddafi or their underlings, no signed contract, no express quid pro quo between Megrahi's release and business for Britain. In reality, of course, that is not the way it's done. All denials of such an explicit transaction are probably "the truth", but not the whole truth. Sequencing the release and the subsequent contracts was designed to enhance official deniability, but the linkage is palpable to all concerned.

Expert Cabinet spin cannot hide the emerging reality. Some say Brown listened to those British victims' families who still doubt Megrahi's guilt. Why does he have so little faith in Scottish justice? And if Scotland (birthplace of two of my grandparents) can't get mass terrorism right, what does that tell foreigners thinking about visiting?

In fact, this is merely the latest example of a fundamentally flawed American approach to international terrorism, begun in the Clinton administration. Although rejected by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Clinton philosophy that terrorism was simply a law-enforcement matter is again in vogue in full force under President Obama. Both the first President Bush and President Clinton should have treated the destruction of Pan Am 103 as an attack on the US and responded accordingly. This mass murder was not simply a bank robbery writ large; it was an act of state aggression almost surely directed by Libya's government, then, as now, in Gaddafi's hands.

Bolton makes some legitimate points about Obama-mania, "'engagement' with friend and adversary alike," and treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter.