Libya, Iran, Entire Middle East Beginning To Spiral Out Of Control. Obama Entirely Responsible

We told you so! WE TOLD YOU SO! WE TOLD YOU SO!!!

My exact words back in August:

If Muammar Gaddafi is truly overthrown from Libya, who or what is going to take his place? A worse regime? A French-Revolution-style bloodbath of mob-rule and executions galore? Terrorist Islamist groups like al Qaeda? A pro-Iranian puppet state like Lebanon?

It shouldn’t surprise anybody if the factions that fought alongside one another to depose Gaddafi begin to fight against each other for control over the oil fields and political control. There are the Berbers versus the Arabs, and a whole bunch of tribes versus a whole bunch of other tribes.

Just remember that if Barack Obama assumes the credit for the wonderful day that Gaddafi is overthrown, then he should assume every single particle of blame for Libya turning ugly.

Colin Powell famously told Bush regarding Iraq, “If you break it, you buy it.” And liberals threw that in Bush’s face – even though Bush got Saddam Hussein and won the Iraq War. If a crisis develops – which I think it will – shouldn’t Obama be held accountable for his substantial role in buying Libya???

But is the mainstream media blaming Obama for the disastrous developments in Libya the same way they blamed Bush at every turn for everything that went wrong in Iraq? Nope.

Libya: revolutionaries turn on each other as fears grow for law and order
Hundreds of revolutionaries fought each other at a hospital in Tripoli early on Monday, in the biggest armed clash between allies since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi.
By Nick Meo, Tripoli
9:00PM GMT 31 Oct 2011

The fighting fuelled growing fears that nobody is in control of thousands of swaggering armed men who are still based in Tripoli and that the country’s interim government will struggle to impose law and order.

Two people died from bullet wounds and at least seven fighters were injured during a battle that started when militia from the town of Zintan were stopped by guards from the Tripoli Brigade from entering the city’s Central Hospital to kill a patient.

The hospital front door and entrance hall were afterwards left pocked with bullets, doctors and patients had to flee the building and two elderly patients died of heart attacks during the shooting, which lasted from about 1am until dawn. Heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns were used by both factions, supposed allies who in reality nurse a dangerous rivalry.

The shoot-out started when a group of gunmen arrived at the hospital in search of a man they had shot earlier in the night. Witnesses said the gunmen were drunk, and had come to finish the man off after learning that he had survived and been taken for medical treatment.

Doctors asked them to leave, at which point one of them pulled out a pistol and began shooting.

“He was overpowered, but then hundreds of Zintan men arrived outside the hospital with heavy weapons and shooting started,” said Mohamad Hamza, a Tripoli Brigade fighter in charge of security. “We had to call for backup, and our boys came from all over Tripoli.

“We couldn’t believe that they were shooting at us. I had to say to them, you are shooting at a hospital, not at Muammar Gaddafi’s 32nd Brigade. Eventually, after several hours, a Shaikh came from the mosque and persuaded them to stop and they handed over three of them who started it to Tripoli’s military council.”

He said one Zintan fighter and a passer-by were killed in shooting, and seven Tripoli Brigade men were injured, two seriously. He said he believed Zintan injured were taken to other hospitals.

The incident will raise pressure on the fragile National Transitional Council to disarm the former rebel fighters who are still at large in Libya’s capital, even though they were asked to leave weeks ago and have been ordered to give up their heavy weapons.

The Zintan brigades were some of the most ferocious fighters against Gaddafi’s forces and helped lead the attack on Tripoli, but have outstayed their welcome, earning a reputation for mayhem and looting.

Thousands of them have ignored pleas to go, staying put instead of returning to their town in the mountains three hours drive to the south.

The battle came on the day Human Rights Watch warned in a report that the entire population of 30,000 people from the town of Tawargha, near Misurata, has been driven out by former rebels for siding with Gaddafi. There have been reports that some of its men, who are predominantly black-skinned, may have been shot or beaten.

Tripoli’s residents fear that there will be more clashes in their city, which is desperate to get back to normality. Mr Hamza, in charge of security at the hospital, said he expected more trouble. “I think it will happen again,” he said. “They will be back for revenge.”

Peter Cole, Libya analyst with the International Crisis Group, said: “Rivalry between brigades from different cities has not been resolved and it does now pose a threat to Libya’s security.

“This suggests that the National Transitional Council needs to work harder with the militia groups to bring unity among them.”

The fighting came on the day that Nato formally ended operations in Libya.

The military action, unprecedented in setting out from the beginning to win a war while guaranteeing not to use troops to do so, was declared a success by Nato’s chief. “At midnight tonight, a successful chapter in Nato’s history is coming to an end,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general and a former Danish prime minister, said at a press conference with the interim Libyan president, Mustafa Abdul Jalil.

Libya’s interim leadership meanwhile elected an academic from Tripoli as the country’s new interim prime minister.

Abdel-Rahim al-Keeb was chosen by the National Transitional Council and will appoint a new Cabinet in coming days. The new government is to run Libya in the coming months and to pave the way for general elections.

In the same way, Barack Obama has done nothing but take credit for getting Osama bin Laden. It doesn’t matter that THE single instrumental intelligence coup necessary to get bin Laden was the result of the BUSH WATERBOARDINGS that Obama demonized and actually even tried to criminalized.

Obama gets all the credit for killing Osama bin Laden. But he receives absolutely no blame whatsoever for destabilizing U.S. – Pakastani relations by the mainstream media propaganda. Even when he actually personally admits his action was responsible for that destabilization.

Osama Bin Laden killing hit US-Pakistan relations: Barack Obama
Published: Saturday, Oct 1, 2011, 9:43 IST
By Lalit K Jha | Place: Washington, DC | Agency: PTI

The US-Pak ties have strained following the detention of American diplomat Raymond Davis in Lahore and the Abbottabad raid which killed Osama bin Laden, affecting the bilateral military cooperation, President Barack Obama has told the Congress.

Bilaterally, the fallout of the raid resulting in the death of Osama bin Laden continued to complicate the United States-Pakistan relationship, further strained by a series of media reports based on alleged leaks from both the United States and Pakistan,” Obama said in a new report to Congress on US operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Let’s also not forget the disaster that Obama has now created in Iraq with his total troop pullout.

Obama had THREE YEARS to negotiate with the Iraqi government. The Iraqi Congress WANTED American military assets to remain. And in EVERY SINGLE WAR ON EVERY SINGLE FRONT for the last SIXTY YEARS, when the United States of America fought and won to defeat an enemy, they have STAYED ON THE GROUND THEY FOUGHT FOR. Example Germany. Example Japan. Example Korea.

Obama snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. And turned Iraq into Vietnam, the only country we pulled out of.

Which is why the military is beyond pissed off:

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
Others echo call for strength against Iran
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times
Sunday, October 23, 2011

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

U.S. troops will be vacating Iraq at a time when neither Baghdad’s counterterrorism skills nor its abilities to protect against invasion are at levels needed to fully protect the country, say analysts long involved in the nearly nine-year war.

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

But how is the mainstream media propaganda describing this abject disaster? As a great victory won by Obama. That’s how dishonest the media is today.

And let’s not forget Iran. George Bush WARNED America that Iran posed a clear and present danger to the United States as they developed nuclear weapons. And Democrats demonized him for being RIGHT:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

Iran is bolstered. They already have TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS under Barack Obama’s misrule. And they are flaunting their strength in front of a weak and frankly pathetic Barack Obama.

You also need to realize that the euphamistically media-labelled “Arab Spring” (sounds SO refreshing) has unseated long American allies such as Egypt and is the direct result of Obama’s terrible mismanagement of the U.S. dollar which has created soaring food prices both here and abroad:

FEBRUARY 23, 2011
The Federal Reserve Is Causing Turmoil Abroad
Few protesters in the Middle East connect rising food prices to U.S. monetary policy. But central bankers do.
By GEORGE MELLOAN

In accounts of the political unrest sweeping through the Middle East, one factor, inflation, deserves more attention. Nothing can be more demoralizing to people at the low end of the income scale—where great masses in that region reside—than increases in the cost of basic necessities like food and fuel. It brings them out into the streets to protest government policies, especially in places where mass protests are the only means available to shake the existing power structure.

The consumer-price index in Egypt rose to more than 18% annually in 2009 from 5% in 2006, a more normal year. In Iran, the rate went to 25% in 2009 from 13% in 2006. In both cases the rate subsided in 2010 but remained in double digits.

Egyptians were able to overthrow the dictatorial Hosni Mubarak. Their efforts to fashion a more responsive regime may or may not succeed. Iranians are taking far greater risks in tackling the vicious Revolutionary Guards to try to unseat the ruling ayatollahs.

Probably few of the protesters in the streets connect their economic travail to Washington. But central bankers do. They complain, most recently at last week’s G-20 meeting in Paris, that the U.S. is exporting inflation.

China and India blame the U.S. Federal Reserve for their difficulties in maintaining stable prices. The International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, always responsive to the complaints of developing nations, are suggesting alternatives to the dollar as the pre-eminent international currency. The IMF managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, has proposed replacement of the dollar with IMF special drawing rights, or SDRs, a unit of account fashioned from a basket of currencies that is made available to the foreign currency reserves of central banks.

About the only one failing to acknowledge a problem seems to be the man most responsible, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. In a recent question-and-answer session at the National Press Club in Washington, the chairman said it was “unfair” to accuse the Fed of exporting inflation. Other nations, he said, have the same tools the Fed has for controlling inflation.

Well, not quite. Consider, for example, that much of world trade, particularly in basic commodities like food grains and oil, is denominated in U.S. dollars. When the Fed floods the world with dollars, the dollar price of commodities goes up, and this affects market prices generally, particularly in poor countries that are heavily import-dependent. Export-dependent nations like China try to maintain exchange-rate stability by inflating their own currencies to buy up dollars. […]

Oil is going up. Foodstuffs are going up. And when the Fed sneezes money, the weak economies of the world, and the poor masses who are highly vulnerable to price rises in the necessities of life, catch pneumonia. […]

The Fed is financing a vast and rising federal deficit, following a practice that has been a surefire prescription for domestic inflation from time immemorial. Meanwhile, its policies are stoking a rise in prices that is contributing to political unrest that in some cases might be beneficial but in others might turn out as badly as the overthrow of the shah in 1979. Does any of this suggest that there might be some urgency to bringing the Fed under closer scrutiny?

Obama has depicted the “Arab Spring” like it was a good thing. It has been a terrible thing that was the result of terrible Obama policies.

This reminds me of the Clinton years. Bill Clinton created one foreign policy disaster after another. And it started right away. In 1993, Bill Clinton radically expanded the humanitarian mission to Somalia that George H.W. Bush had implemented. Clinton turned it into a military campaign to get the Somalia warlord Adid. But Clinton refused to allow the US military the assets on the ground they needed to get that job done; he refused to allow them the heavy armor they needed to support any raid that could (read “would”) run into trouble because he wanted to keep “a low profile.”

When the Black Hawk Down” incident that humiliated America occurred, the U.S. was forced to seek emergency assistance from the U.N. security forces from Pakistan and Malaysia – which were justifiably furious at us for not having warned them about any military actions.

And then we pulled out with our tails between our legs like cowards.

That incident pulled a yet-unknown Osama bin Laden to conclude – and I quote:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”

And so Osama bin Laden – smelling liberal Democrat weakness – began to set a plan in motion during the Clinton presidency. He put all of his assets into the United States under Bill Clinton’s nose. And by the time it was all ready to go, George Bush had just taken over. Which of course made the plan that occurred during the Clinton years and the assets being inserted into the U.S. during the Clinton years all Bush’s fault when the Clinton-era terrorists took down the World Trade Center twin towers and murdered 3,000 Americans.

Of course, George Bush had to respond. But Bill Clinton had gutted the United States military and the Central Intelligence Agency in order to “take advantage” of the “peace dividend” that Reagan and Bush 1 had won:

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

What chance did George Bush have to stop the 9/11 attacks? Bill Clinton had gutted our intelligence capability and allowed all of the terrorists into America before Bush even took office.

And of course Democrats SCREAMED in outrage when Bush spent to rebuild the United States military and intelligence capabilities in order to fight a war that was the direct result of Bill Clinton dismantling the American military and the American intelligence capability – leaving America both weak and blind – and then displaying gross weakness and outright cowardice by pulling out of Somalia the way he did. But, then again, it was Bush’s fault that Clinton had done those things.

It is long past time to disregard the mainstream media propaganda and finally hold the Democrats responsible for the messes that they have made.

The only thing more dangerous to the United States of America than the Democrat Party is the Goebbels’-like media propaganda that sustains the Democrat Party with bias and distortion and outright lies.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: