Broccoli
While President Obama didn’t touch on it in his speech tonight, the U.S. is really militarily involved in Libya to protect our strategic interests in broccoli.
Specifically, Gaddafi has been threatening to nationalize Libya’s broccoli resources for years, as Reuters and the Financial Times have previously documented.
(I like Washington Blog’s take on this)
But what is the truth?
Oil
The Coalition of Globalists are not interested in sheltering the Libyan people from Muammar al- Gaddafi. The no-fly zone and attacks on the Libyan military by NATO and U.S. have nothing to do with democracy and free elections.
It’s about oil – and who owns it.
In case you are unaware Libya has the largest oil and natural gas reserves in Africa
Saving Humanity
What a laugh: Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia prove that this is a damned lie, not to mention all the other places in the world that have tyrants killing them left and right, but have nothing of perceived value to the US hegemony.
Does it matter that the “resistance fighters” are Al Qaeda
“We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces,” Admiral James Stavridis, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe and also commander of U.S. European Command, said during testimony at the U.S. Senate.
Gaddafi’s troops on Tuesday reversed the westward charge of rebel forces as world powers met in London more than a week after the United States and other nations launched a military campaign aimed at protecting Libyan civilians.
While Stavridis said the opposition’s leadership appeared to be “responsible men and women” fighting Gaddafi, he said that “we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah. We’ve seen different things.”
“But at this point I don’t have detail sufficient to say there is a significant al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence,” he said.
Some claim that there are over 1,000 jihadists in the “resistance”.
But hell, they will cut a deal…
Besides, the west sold Libya all the weapons we are now funding the resistance to fight against:
George Galloway interviewed on Sky News with journalist Nabila Ramdani on the Libya, Gaddafi, UN resolution, the bombing, arms, oil and gas.
RawDawg points out that we have no interest, as Americans and that what we are doing is the height of hypocrisy:
First, the US has no strategic or security interest neither in Libya nor in seeing Quaddifi removed from power. Although the premise of protecting civilians is promulgated as being of utmost importance, they do not say if rebels start to kill ruthlessly once they reach the immediate areas around Tripoli, that the US will protect pro government supports equally as vehement. This throws a wrench in what is apparently illogic US logic.
Second, the hypocrisy displayed by the current administration causes additional consternation. Looking at Yemen for example, where in theory we have a strategic interest, we are taking no action. Yemen is a country in which we have evidence that al Qaida is holding training for terrorist attacks against the US. There is also a division between the military between defectors from the monarchy and those loyal to the US confederate President Ali Abdullah Saleh. We are not involved at all yet a split in the military is likely the US worse fear seeing that it may lead to isolation for us not openly and aggressively supporting the youth revolt. They already are more anti-US than most other Arab nations and this may push them closer to Al Qaeda.
And whatever happened to the BFF’s?
He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.”
Gaddafi stressed that Obama’s presidency is “a major historical gain” and said, “He is someone I consider a friend. He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent. He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards peace.”
h/t Zero Hedge
Barry sets the friendship record straight here (I won’t bother putting the video up here and as DS explains:)
Propaganda Alert!
Warning: please don’t eat or drink anything while watching this video, wouldn’t want to hear of anyone choking. Thank you. ~ DS
But there are those that will explain the difference in truth and what emanates from Hopester’s mouth (and the fact that he lied to get elected and does totally different once the Sheople voted for him and the Empire):
Of course there is nothing new about shifting positions coming from the mouths of government officials. Take into consideration the March 7 press release by PJ Crowley:
QUESTION: P.J., before getting to a call with Juppé and the implications of that, I just wanted you to get a chance – Mark said on the conference call earlier that the – this story that appeared in the British newspaper over the weekend about the U.S. asking the Saudis to give arms to the Libyan rebels, he said that that was inaccurate and said that you might have something more to say about that.
MR. CROWLEY: I will just reiterate what he said.
QUESTION: Well, the reason I’m even asking this, first, is because at the White House, the spokesman there, when he was asked, gave the response, “I have nothing for you on that,” which, to my mind, was either the refuge of the – is the refuge of the inept or scoundrel. Is there anything to this? It’s less than a non-denial denial.
MR. CROWLEY: No, no. Well –
QUESTION: Can you put a stake through the heart of this story or –
MR. CROWLEY: Yes. Well, it’s very simple. In the UN Security Council resolution passed on Libya, there is an arms embargo that affects Libya, which means it’s a violation for any country to provide arms to anyone in Libya. So it’s not true.
QUESTION: Okay, all right.
QUESTION: And you’re not – so then you’re not going to ever consider arming the rebels?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I can repeat if you want.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. CROWLEY: It would be illegal for the United States to do that.
QUESTION: So that you’re eliminating that as an option?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s not a legal option.
QUESTION: Well, but the –
QUESTION: So you’re not going to do it?
QUESTION: Your counterpart at the White House said that arming the rebels – he said all options are on the table.
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
QUESTION: And that that is one of them.
MR. CROWLEY: Okay. I haven’t seen a transcript.
Oops! Not on the same page, but Crowley knows the law (supposedly). So, who will override the man’s understanding of the law?
Let me finish by quoting some of Paul Craig Roberts latest piece found at Information Clearing House, where you will get a taste of the exact position I take: Obama is a lying hypocrite and I cannot understand how anyone could take him serious again:
In his war against Libya, Obama has taken America one step further into Caesarism. Obama did Bush one step better and did not even bother to get congressional authorization for his attack on Libya. Obama claimed that his moral authority trumped the US Constitution. The hypocrisy reeks. How the public stands it, I do not know:
“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and–more profoundly–our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Doesn’t seem to make any difference to the man when it comes to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and every other place we control by killing or money or or torture threats.
If you like what you see here at The Revolt, please subscribe via Email subscription or by the RSS Feed button found on the upper right hand corner of this page and/or hit the Share Button at the bottom of the post to share via various means.














