Look, this is not meant to be political in any way, more like reportage.
 
So, you might like to know that rebels are advancing on Tripoli, (hit F5 on that site for updates).

 
 
*edit* There are reports that they have reached Green Square" in the centre of Tripoli.

 Mugro wrote: 
I don't we should have gone into Libya in the first place.  My point about Obama is that he took too long to identify the original opportunity to get Qadaffy when he was most vulnerable, in the beginning.  It was a now or never moment.  I don't pretend to know how it went down in the White House, but one thing is clear to me, The White House subordinated the US to the UN and the delay got us into the mess we are in now.

We blew it in Egypt and we blew it Libya.  Its good that we did not get militarily invoved in Egypt, but the damage we took with the credibility of our foreign policy by having five different official desired outcomes being uttered from DC all at the same time.  Not to mention Obama himself changing his mind several times.

On a personal thought to you, I applaud your courage, service and insight.   

Happy Father's Day over there.

 kurtster wrote: 
I am going to respectfully disagree with both you and the letter I posted. I posted the letter because it was thought provoking, not because I necessarily agreed with it. I don't believe that we should cut off funding for the Libyan "adventure", but I also don't agree that we should have gone in there full steam as the letter suggests. Rather, I think we need to have a debate as Americans as to what kind of foreign policy paradigm that we want to pursue in this limited budget 21st century. We clearly cannot be everything to everyone everywhere, and I don't think that we can continue to fund so many acts of democracy promotion and anti-terrorism wars going forward. We need to refocus our efforts to where they will do the most good and we need to decide what is truly in our foreign policy interests.

I decry the lack of true and honest discussion about this subject in America today, and I hope that the coming presidential campaign will bring this into better focus.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Interesting indeed.  Its time we adust our foreign involvements based on costs first and alone, before all the political baggage gets attached to the argument.

I totally disagree with the purpose of the letter posted.  First, its not that we didn't and haven't done enough, its that we did too little to late.  If Obama had jumped in when the fighting had just got going and Qadaffy was really on the ropes, this would have been over.  But Obama blinked.  So here we are.  We cannot correct that error of judgement with more action later, we need to just stop it altogether and if the Republican House has the balls to cut off the funding, I think it will boost the Repubs not hurt them.  It will show meaningful money considerations.  It is seperate from the foreign policy issue and will not hurt them in that regard.

I really hope Boehner has the cajoñes to cut off the dollars.  Obama might learn something about timing, hesitancy and leadership by seeing that failure to act decisively has consequences down the line, worse than the reasons for the hesitation.  And we might finally see our representives finally doing the right thing for the right reasons.  The rest of the world takes the United States for granted militarily to bail them out of their problems.  Perhaps everybody might think a little harder, because one thing is clear, nobody can do the things we do, and the way we do them.  The NATO action in Libya cannot continue without the US.  We have no legitamate security issues with Libya, only old grudges.  NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  Its different from the EU (sorry to state the obvious).  WTF does Libya have to do with that ?

Our military is still the best in the world, but only because it actually still fights.  Only the Chinese are in our league, but they are not battle tested.  Besides, they don't have the capabiltity to deploy them far from home, which means basically if the Chinese are ever going to fight, they are just going to push buttons and blow everything up.

 Mugro wrote: 
Yes, I was wondering aloud to myself "WTF,,,,,,really?" When I initially saw that the Republicans are actually against the involvement in Libya. To me the whole thing shines a spotlight on the maddening competitiveness between the 2 parties and how both of them have completely lost sight that their primary goal as elected officials is to do what is best for their constituents, not what they think will will garner political points to remain in power. Whether you agree with these people or not, at least they are not playing politics and are plainly expressing their opinion on what they think is truly in the countries best interest.

Neocons warn House GOP on Libya
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/17/neocons_warn_house_gop_on_libya
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, June 17, 2011 - 4:23 PM Share

There's a growing division inside the Republican Party on national security policy that is being exacerbated by the Libya intervention, and several GOP foreign policy mavens are warning House Republicans not to play games with the issue.

Top national security experts on the right are preparing an open letter to House Republicans urging them not to cut funding for the military intervention in Libya, as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has threatened to do. The letter was written by former NSC staffer Elliott Abrams, Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. A letter asking for signatures was circulated Friday by Jamie Fly, director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, and subsequently sent to The Cable.

"We thank you for your leadership as Congress exercises its Constitutional responsibilities on the issue of America's military actions in Libya. We are gravely concerned, however, by news reports that Congress may consider reducing or cutting funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military operations against the oppressive regime of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Such a decision would be an abdication of our responsibilities as an ally and as the leader of the Western alliance," the letter reads. "It would result in the perpetuation in power of a ruthless dictator who has ordered terrorist attacks on the United States in the past, has pursued nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and who can be expected to return to these activities should he survive. To cut off funding for current efforts would, in short, be profoundly contrary to American interests."

The letter's authors agree with Congressional complaints that the Obama administration has failed to properly communicate with the legislative branch regarding the Libya mission, but disagree with those in Congress who believe the Libya intervention is unwise. In fact, they want more military involvement.

"We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted this operation. The problem is not that he has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to UN Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies," the letter states.

Kagan told The Cable that Republican support for cutting off funding for Libya was not only bad policy, but also a political mistake, because it would put the decades-long GOP advantage on national security in jeopardy.

"We just think Republicans, in their understandable annoyance at the Obama administration, are losing sight of the big picture," he said. "And it's not only a strategic error but also a political error. Republicans can quickly squander a well-deserved reputation for being the strong party on foreign policy. They may not know it now, but it will hurt them in 2012."

Full letter after the jump:

An Open Letter to House Republicans

We thank you for your leadership as Congress exercises its Constitutional responsibilities on the issue of America's military actions in Libya. We are gravely concerned, however, by news reports that Congress may consider reducing or cutting funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military operations against the oppressive regime of Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Such a decision would be an abdication of our responsibilities as an ally and as the leader of the Western alliance. It would result in the perpetuation in power of a ruthless dictator who has ordered terrorist attacks on the United States in the past, has pursued nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and who can be expected to return to these activities should he survive. To cut off funding for current efforts would, in short, be profoundly contrary to American interests.

We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama administration has conducted this operation. The problem is not that he has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to UN Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.

What would be even worse, however, would be for the United States to become one of those irresolute allies. The United States must see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion. Success is profoundly in our interests and in keeping with our principles as a nation. The success of NATO's operations will influence how other Middle Eastern regimes respond to the demands of their people for more political rights and freedoms. For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt-a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation's enemies.

In Speaker Boehner's June 14, 2011, letter to President Obama, he wrote that he believes "in the moral leadership our country can and should exhibit, especially during such a transformational time in Middle East." We share that belief, and feel that now is the time for Congress to exhibit that moral leadership despite political pressures to do otherwise.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

 oldslabsides wrote: 

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Awesome.

 Proclivities wrote: 
No, so do the French - it's white.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Indeed, but it will happen. The only question is when.

 beamends wrote: 
 I imagine you're already aware what I think of that idea.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I've no evidence, but I believe the situation in Libya is being used to take the first steps down the road to a 'European army', building on the UK/French agreement to cooperate on things military, the UK and France having the most active armed forces. It's not going to happen next week and there will be a lot of squabbling along the way, but I'll bet a lot of French, British and maybe Italian defence people will suggesting, behind closed doors, that this 'proves' the need for it.

Purely personally, I think it's about time, and would be a significant step towards the formation of 'United States of Europe', for want of a better name. I think that is a lot closer than many believe, the financial crisis having accelerated the political and financial process. I might be in a minority of one, but I believe a united EU is both desirable and essential since creating the worlds largest economy can only be beneficial.

Flame-proof suit and tin helmet donned!

 beamends wrote: 
Agreed.

I'm not supporting what's being done, I'm just saying that the European nations - hell, Italy or France alone - are more than capable of dealing with this themselves. 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Politics.

wtf?

You mean to tell me that the mighty NATO nations of the European Union can't kick lil' ol' Libya's ass all by themselves?  Bullshit. 

 romeotuma wrote: 
Yes. Of course I know. I make a point of knowing about these things. Or at the very least I know how to connect the dots. Before 9/11 there were 7 countries without Rothschild central banks;

Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan & Cuba.

Since 9/11 -

Afganistan: invaded (now central bank)
Iraq: invaded (now central bank)
Libya: invaded (most recent central bank)
North Korea: low level invasion
Iran: planned invasion . . . ?
Sudan: planned invasion . . . ?
Cuba: planned invasion . . . ?

192 of 197 countries & counting

So, can you see a pattern here ? Can you connect the dots ?


“Libyan Rebels” Create Central Bank, Oil Company

As analysts debate possible motives behind President Obama’s United Nations-backed military intervention in Libya, one angle that has received attention in recent days is the rebels’ seemingly odd decision to establish a new central bank to replace dictator Muammar Gadhafi's state-owned monetary authority — possibly the first time in history that revolutionaries have taken time out from an ongoing life-and-death battle to create such an institution, according to observers.

In a statement released last week, the rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed rag-tag revolutionaries announced the “esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

The Gadhafi regime’s central bank — unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is owned by private shareholders — was among the few central banks in the world that was entirely state-owned. At the moment, it is unclear exactly who owns the rebel’s central bank or how it will be governed.

(...)

 

The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company.  Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants.  They sure do get a lot done.  What a skilled bunch of rebels - they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever.  If only the rest of us were so versatile!  But isn't forming a central bank something that could be done after the civil war is over?  According to Bloomberg, the Transitional National Council has "designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."  Apparently someone felt that it was very important to get pesky matters such as control of the banks and control of the money supply out of the way even before a new government is formed.

(...)

Why is the Fed Bailing Out Qaddafi?

By Matt Taibbi

Barack Obama recently issued an executive order imposing a wave of sanctions against Libya, not only freezing Libyan assets, but barring Americans from having business dealings with Libyan banks.

So raise your hand if you knew that the United States has been extending billions of dollars in aid to Qaddafi and to the Central Bank of Libya, through a Libyan-owned subsidiary bank operating out of Bahrain. And raise your hand if you knew that, just a week or so after Obama's executive order, the U.S. Treasury Department quietly issued an order exempting this and other Libyan-owned banks to continue operating without sanction.

I came across the curious case of the Arab Banking Corporation, better known as ABC, while researching a story about the results of the audit of the Federal Reserve. That story, which will be coming out in Rolling Stone in two weeks, will examine in detail some of the many lunacies uncovered by Senate investigators amid the recently-released list of bailout and emergency aid recipients - a list that includes many extremely shocking names, from foreign industrial competitors to hedge funds in tax-haven nations to various Wall Street figures of note (and some of their relatives). You will want to see this amazing list when it comes out, so please make sure to check the newsstands in two weeks' time.

This list became public as a result of an amendment added to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that was sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The amendment forced the Federal Reserve to open its books for the first time and make public the names of those individuals and corporations who received emergency loans and bailout monies during the roughly two year period between the crash of 2008 and the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill...

 

 HazzeSwede wrote: