Currently viewing the tag: “Against”

Union officials who have been challenged to accept a federally supervised secret ballot election for Hyatt hotel employees have sought and received protective cover from the Obama Administration. Thus far, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has rejected four petitions from hotels in California and Indiana asking for a straight up and down vote on unionization. Although it is unusual for an employer to ask for an election, this option has existed at the NLRB for 75 years.

The NLRB had scheduled hearings to review petitions for three of the four properties, but later cancelled those hearings when it became clear UNITE HERE was not asking for the election. The idea now is for the union to hide behind and NLRB procedure so it can sustain its corporate campaign and pressure Hyatt into accepting “card check” as a substitute for a secret ballot election.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA),” which provides for “card check,” has been a top legislative priority for union leaders but with Republicans now in control of the House it is unlikely to move. Even with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House in the first two years of the Obama administration, the legislation ran into stiff opposition.

“The lesson from this episode is clear: although unions couldn’t convince Congress to force card check on the American people, it remains their preferred method of organizing and they’ll do whatever they can to intimidate workers and employers into using it,” said Glenn Spencer executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the Chamber of Commerce.

“It’s unfortunate that the NLRB doesn’t think that years of harassment and pressure tactics by unions should be enough to trigger a true test of workers’ wishes-a secret ballot election. The NLRB seems intent on throwing out precedent in many other areas, it’s time they take a fresh look here.”

Robb Webb, the chief human resources officer with Hyatt, suspects the NLRB would have had a much different reaction if UNITE HERE had asked for the election.

“Although our request for elections has been denied, we believe the NLRB would have looked upon the matter differently if the leaders of UniteHere had agreed to a federally supervised election as they have nearly 300 times over the past five years, he said.  “We urge UniteHere to reconsider their decision, so that each of our associates can exercise their right to be heard by casting a ballot.

Clearly, union bosses have not given up on the idea of undermining the use of secret ballots, especially in those circumstances where it clear that employees would prefer to remain free of organized labor. The idea now for the left-leaning attorneys who dominate the NLRB to deliver administratively what could not be achieved legislatively even with Democratic majorities.


Big Government

Tagged with:
 

Local politicians from across Florida are joining together in their effort to take away state oversight and involvement from things they want to control themselves.

There’s already a move afoot to do that when it comes to development approvals. As you might recall, Gov. Rick Scott already said he’d combine the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) — which is involved in development permitting — with another state agency. He even said at a recent event that he’d heard from the public that the DCA is the agency people dislike the most.

“Why do we need state permitting when we have county permitting, when we have federal permitting?” he asked at that event. Click here for a memory refresher on that.

In this video above from the new “Keep It Local Florida” website, you’ll see some familiar faces, including cameo appearances from Broward Commissioner Ilene Lieberman and at least two local mayors — Joy Cooper of Hallandale Beach and Frank Ortis of Pembroke Pines.




Broward Politics

Tagged with:
 

CBC.ca
Lamar Odom helps Lakers break open game against Mavericks
Los Angeles Times
The 6-foot-10 forward scores 11 consecutive points in the second half to send Dallas packing in a 110-82, ejection-filled victory Thursday night. Lakers forward Matt Barnes, left, is restrained by teammate Lamar Odom, center, as Lakers assistant coach
Pincus: Fight Night at STAPLES CenterHoopsWorld
Los Angeles Lakers (54-20) at Utah Jazz (36-39), 10:30 pmMiamiHerald.com
NBA High-5: Lakers show why teams want to avoid them in the first round of the OregonLive.com
SB Nation Los Angeles –Hoopsvibe.com –ESPN (blog)
all 960 news articles »

Sports – Google News

Tagged with:
 

CBC.ca
Lamar Odom helps Lakers break open game against Mavericks
Los Angeles Times
The 6-foot-10 forward scores 11 consecutive points in the second half to send Dallas packing in a 110-82, ejection-filled victory Thursday night. Lakers forward Matt Barnes, left, is restrained by teammate Lamar Odom, center, as Lakers assistant coach
Pincus: Fight Night at STAPLES CenterHoopsWorld
Los Angeles Lakers (54-20) at Utah Jazz (36-39), 10:30 pmMiamiHerald.com
NBA High-5: Lakers show why teams want to avoid them in the first round of the OregonLive.com
SB Nation Los Angeles –Hoopsvibe.com –ESPN (blog)
all 960 news articles »

Sports – Google News

Tagged with:
 
photo: Leah Rabinsky

The Israeli Federation for Animal Rights last week organized protests against the Apartheid policy of the national bus company Egged.

In an Arab village close to the Lebanon border goats and a dog occupied the local bus station where they demanded entrance to the Egged busses.

Egged now mulls the establishment of so called “intercreative lines” based on an ancient concept taken from the book of Bereshit.

In the new concept, dubbed “Noah”, the front part of the busses will be Haredim only, the middle part will be for other Israeli’s and the back part for all other creatures.

PETA however has already reacted against the proposed solution, pointing out the negative connotation of sitting in the back of the bus. Instead, they suggest that the dogs be given window seats.

Hat tip: Missing Peace

Technorati Tag: .


Daled Amos

Tagged with:
 

But not arrested?


Charges have been filed in an investigation of e-mailed death threats to Republican state Senators last month during the budget-repair debate — but oddly, no arrest has taken place. Prosecutors filed two felony counts and two misdemeanor counts against 26-year-old Katherine Windels of Cross Plains, Wisconsin, but only after the Wisconsin Department of Justice sent […]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

Tagged with:
 

Said she wanted to put a “nice little bullet in your head.” How sweet.
American Thinker Blog

Tagged with:
 

Said she wanted to put a “nice little bullet in your head.” How sweet.
American Thinker Blog

Tagged with:
 

The House Republican spending plan for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 — H.R. 1 — includes many economically counterproductive cuts that will lead to job loss and stunted growth. One of these is a provision rescinding unobligated money from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II, or TIGER II, grant program. The…
Read more
ThinkProgress

Tagged with:
 

Rep. Mike Pence gave a great House floor speech about the truth behind his amendment to defund Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood activists claim this amendment is a “war on women.” Pence set the record straight.

 

Liberty Pundits Blog

Tagged with:
 

Rep. Mike Pence gave a great House floor speech about the truth behind his amendment to defund Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood activists claim this amendment is a “war on women.” Pence set the record straight.

 

Liberty Pundits Blog

Tagged with:
 

Rep. Mike Pence gave a great House floor speech about the truth behind his amendment to defund Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood activists claim this amendment is a “war on women.” Pence set the record straight.

 

Liberty Pundits Blog

Tagged with:
 

Iowa’s nonpartisan redistricting commission “threw an early wrench into the state’s redistricting process” proposing a map that would put Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) into the same district, while also putting Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) and Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA) into the same district, the Des Moines Register reports.

“The map is far from the final say on how Iowa’s congressional landscape
will appear on the 2012 ballot. Either chamber of the Legislature or
the governor can reject the LSA’s proposals twice. In the third round,
they can amend the map. But if either chamber or the governor reject
that, the map would be drawn by the Iowa Supreme Court.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire

Tagged with:
 

The House Republican spending plan for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 — H.R. 1 — includes many economically counterproductive cuts that will lead to job loss and stunted growth. One of these is a provision rescinding unobligated money from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II, or TIGER II, grant program. The program is designed to deliver competitive grants to states for high-need infrastructure projects.

All but three Republican senators voted for H.R.1 when it was before the Senate, and those three only voted no because they wanted even deeper cuts than those included in the bill. But three GOP senators — Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) — are now taking credit for a grant to rebuild the Memorial Bridge that was provided under the TIGER II program they voted to cut:

COLLINS: “I am delighted by today’s announcement that this critical $ 20 million will be preserved that will help to rehabilitate a vital link for our states’ businesses and people…I particularly appreciate Secretary LaHood’s working so closely with me to expedite the process to guarantee this funding.

SNOWE: “Snowe said she is grateful the US DOT fulfilled its commitment to the Memorial Bridge project in a timely fashion, and that completion of the bridge overhaul was not jeopardized by ongoing budget debates in Washington, D.C.”

AYOTTE: “Having been called ‘one of the worst bridges in America,’ I am pleased that paperwork issues have been resolved allowing this project to move forward. New Hampshire and Maine have already made a serious commitment to replacing Memorial Bridge, and I am glad that DOT followed through on its commitment.

After having voted to rescind any funding left for this program, the three New England Republicans lobbied the Department of Transportation to release the funding quickly before the recissions could take place. When H.R. 1 was before the Senate, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood warned people before the vote that approving those could put projects in peril. “We just want to make sure everybody understands that,” LaHood said.

Overall, H.R 1 “cuts funding for transportation infrastructure by 9 percent, slashing $ 2.7 billion from rail, $ 675 million from federal transit investments, and nearly $ 1 billion from highway investments.” Unfortunately for those trying to use America’s aged and disintegrating infrastructure, not every project will be rushed through to avoid the budget cuts that the GOP wants to implement.

Wonk Room

Tagged with:
 

It was revealed Wednesday evening that the Obama administration sent clandestine CIA operatives to Libya weeks ago to assist rebels in their civil war against Moammar Gaddafi.

Not only did MSNBC's Ed Schultz express his support for this action as well as arming these rebels, he also got into a heated argument with a Nation magazine reporter that compared this operation to the "disastrous dirty wars of the 1980s" bringing up images of Ollie North and the Iran-Contra scandal (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: But, this is the story we start with, that has me fired up tonight. It wasn’t supposed to go like this, but this is how it’s unfolding. "Reuters" reporting there are American boots on the ground in Libya.

"President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces in Libya, officials tell Reuters."

The order was signed within the past two or three weeks. Tonight, "The New York Times" is reporting the Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and make contacts with rebels battling Gadhafi’s forces, according to American officials.

And the "National Journal" reporting more than a dozen CIA operatives were sent to Libya.

You would think this announcement would quickly change the mind of a devout antiwar liberal like Schultz despite his having sycophantically and hypocritically expressed support for this Libyan operation right from the start. Well, think again:

SCHULTZ: When the president announced the United States military engagement in Libya, he was emphatic. There would be no troops, no boots on the ground.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA,PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: In fact, U.N. resolution 1973 excludes, quote, "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

Of any form? What’s that mean? NBC sources are telling NBC that the revelation of CIA operatives in Libya is pro forma. Still, the White House knows this kind of revelation — this kind of headline could change the dynamic on the ground in Libya, and support for the president at home could also shift.

Indeed, as well as support from his friends in the media that have been for this war. At least, that's what you would think:

SCHULTZ: The big question tonight that remains: will the United States or its allies arm these Libyan freedom fighters? "Reuters" also reports today U.S. officials have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gadhafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels — I call them freedom fighters — with weapons.

Now, remember yesterday, the president told Brian Williams that the operation of arming Libyan rebels wasn’t off the table. He also said the following to ABC News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We’re looking at all our options at this point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Senior European diplomat says the coalition of nations involved in Libya, considered arming rebels a serious option and that the coalition is considering that option now.

Reports from the front lines are that anti-Gadhafi forces, they are in retreat. It was not a good day for them. And they are poorly armed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: The momentum has changed very quickly in this war. And on the front line, Libya’s revolution is being held together with sticky tape.

Show me what you’re armed with. What’s your weapon? Only that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Only that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: So, we have stopped Gadhafi from slaughtering his people in Benghazi. Our airstrikes have allowed the rebels to advance. But now, they’re retreating. After all that, does the world community stand by and watch the freedom fighters get crushed?

The president pledged that there would be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya. Today, we learned that CIA operatives are on the ground. What does that all mean?

Still, it looks like the freedom fighters’ only shot for survival at this point is a real injection of military hardware that they say they desperately need.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today said that there was still no decision on arming the rebels.

Nobody wants another situation like the mujahideen in Afghanistan in 1980s. Whether or not we arm rebels, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them, is a very hard decision.

But I think we have to do it. It is a moral decision at this point.

Imagine that. Despite what resulted from arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda – Schultz is all for doing it AGAIN! This seems especially absurd given reports that al Qaeda is already present amongst the Libyan rebels.

But none of that matters to Schultz. His President is for this, and regardless of how he opposes this kind of conflict with every fabric of his being, this MSNBC shill is all in:

SCHULTZ: You just saw that piece of videotape, that young kid, we have a state in the United States of America, New Hampshire, live free or die. What do you think that Libyan freedom fighter wants? What is his choice?

He’s made what’s on the license plates in New Hampshire, live free or die. That’s where he is. And where does the United States stand tonight?

Look, I am a liberal. I am a progressive. But that means that we need to stand behind people who want freedom.

This isn’t Bush talk. This is totally different from Iraq. It’s totally different from any other situation in my opinion.

This is a situation where we have got a coalition that has come together and realized that Gadhafi is a terrorist. The president has gone on record saying that Libyan agents have killed Americans. That’s all as an American I need to hear.

This president has also gone on record that he was going to get America out of Iraq, close the terrorist center in Guantanamo Bay, and end secret CIA renditions. Despite him having gone back on all three pledges, Schultz is still taking him at his word:

SCHULTZ: Let’s get it done. Let’s arm these rebels. Let’s give them a chance to fight. At least if they’re going to die, they’re going to have some hardware in their hands to defend themselves.

There was a sound bite in Richard Engel’s piece last night, a gentleman says they’re pulling women out of houses. They’re lining people up and assassinating them. They’ve got shooters up on top of the roofs to picking people off.

I mean, come on, America. When do we fight? Does it have to be absolutely perfect and we have to have an absolute end game, and, you know, dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s? Hell no.

This is about freedom, is it not? This is about people who want to get rid of a dictator — a guy who has brutalized them for 40 years and we stand here tonight as if we’re not free. We stand here tonight as if — well, I don’t know about this, I don’t know about that.

The military equation here I understand is very, very complicated. They not trained freedom fighters. But they have in their heart, they have in their soul the same things, and the same qualities and the same spirit that the people who founded this country had in their hearts and their minds centuries ago.

How does he know that? Exactly how does anyone at this point know who or what these rebels are? Quite the contrary, we don't know.

But Schultz's president is for this, and therefore, so is he:

SCHULTZ: Look, this is a tough call. There’s no doubt. It’s a tough call for not only the president, and for people who support the president, who really have had enough of war.

We don’t have a stomach for this, I know that.

Just listen to the people on talk radio across America. They’re using this as a tool to take down our president, because they politically hate him. They have made it their goal over on the right to make sure that President Obama does not get reelected. So they’re playing the political games with the lives and the heart and the spirit and the soul of the Libyan people who all they want is a fighting chance to take down a dictator who has killed Americans.

Liberals, we are better than this. Give them a chance. Arm them.

That section there tells it all. Schultz must clearly think that if this mission in Libya fails, Obama's public support will plummet and with it his reelection chances. As such, he's willing to publicly and aggressively support an operation that he would otherwise be totally against simply because he believes it will help his president retain office.

It's really quite disturbing when you think about it that way, for Schultz is pointing fingers at conservatives for "playing the political games with the lives and the heart and the spirit and the soul of the Libyan people." But isn't it him playing political games with the lives of Americans that will be needed to assist these rebels? 

How is it possible that a devout antiwar liberal can miss this hypocrisy? Is love for Obama really this blinding?

Before you answer, consider what NBC News military analyst Col. Jack Jacobs next told Schultz:

COLONEL JACK JACOBS, NBC NEWS MILITARY ANALYST: Typically it’s going to take between eight and 16 weeks to take your average young fellow like you saw in that tape, from just being able to handle a knife, to being able to use any kind of small arm or automatic weapon, to be able to understand the difference between laying down a base of fire and maneuvering to close with and capture or kill the enemy. All that stuff, it takes us between eight and 16 weeks. So, weapons alone, ammunition alone is not going to do it. They’re going to need training.

SCHULTZ: Colonel, what about the CIA boots on the ground? Is this standard operating procedure before we get involved in some kind of military operation?

JACOBS: Oh, sure. We’ll always have people on the ground in order to gather intelligence. And in this particular case, in order to make some sort of connection between us and the people evidently running the rebel operation. Without that, it doesn’t make any sense to support anybody.

There also has to be liaison between the people who are on the ground, the Libyans who are fighting and the Egyptians to the east. Don’t forget Benghazi’s got 700,000 people. And when Gadhafi’s people came up close to it, it started to scare those people away towards Egypt.

So, there’s got to be — we have to have some Americans on the ground to do coordination.

So, it's going to take two to four months just to train these rebels with our "boots on the ground."

As such, the President's promises to the American people that this mission would take "weeks not months" as well as us not having any of our "boots on the ground" have been totally broken.

But that also doesn't matter to Schultz who next brought on the Nation's Jeremy Scahill who nicely exposed this MSNBC shill's hypocrisy:

SCHULTZ: For the politics of all of this, let’s turn to "The Nation’s" Jeremy Scahill. His cover story this week is: "The Dangerous U.S. Game in Yemen."

Jeremy, good to have you with us tonight.

JEREMY SCAHILL, THE NATION: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Does this headline — how damaging is it to the president? The headline reads, that the president sends CIA into Libya. What do you think?

Isn't it interesting that Schultz's primary concern was how damaging this revelation was to the President? Not a care in the world for the safety of the operatives involved, or whether or not this could lead to a protracted intervention.

Of course not. To shills like Schultz, it's all about getting Obama reelected regardless of the policy:

SCAHILL: Well, you know, the CIA operatives on the ground there are sort of engaged in an eharmony.com, or sort of, you know, dating service relationship with the rebels for the clandestine world. I mean, this is, as Colonel Jacobs said, standard fare.

What I think is of more concern is the fact that there are certainly U.S. Special Operations forces units that are deployed already secretly inside of Libya that are painting targets for the airstrikes. But I have to say that the scenario you’re laying out, when you talk about arming the, quote-unquote, "freedom fighters," it really evokes memories of the disastrous dirty wars of the 1980s. I mean, the United States getting involved in what is effectively a Libyan civil war, 1,000 or so rebels that don’t have much military training.

I mean, what you’re advocating, Ed, is that Americans are going to have to be totally invested in one side of a civil war. The president stuck his neck out very far when he said Gadhafi has to go. If the United States sends troops in there, and they would have to, as Colonel Jacobs said if they’re arming it, then we have a third full-on war in addition to the covert wars that the president is waging in Yemen, in Somalia and also in the Horn of Africa. I think a lot of military folks see mission creep in the big way here, Ed.

Makes sense, right? Is this what America needs now with all of its other problems?

Despite the logic, Schultz wasn't backing down:

SCHULTZ: Well, we have got a coalition put together. No question about it. We have got a willing coalition put together. Timing is everything. The circumstances surrounding this right now present us an opportunity to do justice on a man who the president says his agents have killed Americans.

SCAHILL: There is no question that Moammar Gadhafi — I’m sure most of the entire world wants to see Moammar Gadhafi gone. But the fact is that Ali Abdullah Saleh, the president of Yemen, is a murderous thug who has been sniper shooting nonviolent protesters and he remains a close friend of the Obama administration — the dictatorship, the Khalifa family in Bahrain, these are corrupt monarchy and the only thing that we get out of them is hosting the 5th Fleet there. So, don’t say anything about their violence — the message we’re sending to the world here is –

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: But the U.N. Security Council has not rendered judgment on the country that you’re talking about.

Pay particular attention to Scahill's response, for Schultz certainly didn't, and that's when things got heated:

SCAHILL: Well, the fact of the matter is, Ed, that that U.N. Security Council resolution was a result of blackmail and cajoling on the part of the Obama administration. A majority of the world’s people represented on the Security Council, Brazil, China, Russia, India — they abstained because they didn’t want anything to do with taking sides in a civil war.

SCHULTZ: And that’s their call. That’s their call.

SCAHILL: That’s the majority of the world’s citizens represented there.

SCHULTZ: But they didn’t stop it.

SCAHILL: There’s no NATO –

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: China could have stepped up. The Russians could have stepped up. They could have blocked this action in Libya, no question about it.

Every situation is different. And Secretary Hillary Clinton said just that, and the president’s been very clear on it. We have a situation now to bring justice on a terrorist who has killed Americans. That’s why I support this policy. That’s why I support this move.

SCAHILL: Well, Ed, this sounds a lot to me like Ollie North and the Iran Contra where you take a 1,000 people –

SCHULTZ: You make any judgment you want. Jeremy, you can paint me any way you want –

SCAHILL: You’re backing 1,000 people, Ed, inside of a very large country, and you’re taking sides in a civil war. What you’re advocating is going to lead to more American deaths –

SCHULTZ: You don’t know that.

SCAHILL: — and hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, it’s already cost us $ 400 million.

SCHULTZ: I take President Obama’s word for it, that troops will not be engaged on the ground. I take his word for it. Now, if he wants to hang me and my opinion out to dry as an American, that’s fine.

SCAHILL: Well, you know what? Your President Obama

SCHULTZ: My President Obama?

SCAHILL: He didn’t call

SCHULTZ: My President Obama? Is it your president, too? Jeremy, is he — wait a minute now. You’re not going to beat to the water’s edge. Is he your president, too?

SCAHILL: Of course. I’m an American.

SCHULTZ: OK.

SCAHILL: I said the words — you’re saying you take his word for it, Ed.

SCHULTZ: I do take his word for it.

SCAHILL: He didn’t close Guantanamo. He’s doubled down on some of the worst policies of the Bush administration. I just got back from Afghanistan where we’re killing mid-level Taliban people.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: He didn’t put universal health care at the table. I haven’t been totally happy with President Obama on every issue. I’ve been very clear on that.

But the fact is that we have the resources and the position to take out a man who has killed Americans. And I think that we have a moral obligation to the families in this country who lost people on that Pan Am 103. This is our time to do just this. We can do it without boots on the ground.

So, despite the President saying there wouldn't be American boots on the ground, and Schultz selling this war to his viewers as a result of the President's promise concerning this, the "Ed Show" host is now 100 percent behind troops being sent in.

Not only didn't it take long for Obama to break his word, it took even less time for Schultz to change his own tune while completely supporting the President's dangerous misdirection:

SCAHILL: Do you think we should take out Ali Abdullah Saleh, the president of Yemen, who double deals with al Qaeda all the time –

SCHULTZ: You got to the U.N. No, that’s Bush talk. No, Jeremy, Bush talk. No, no, no –

(CROSSTALK)

SCAHILL: Bill Clinton didn’t go to the U.N. for Kosovo.

(CROSSTALK)

SCAHILL: It’s bipartisan.

SCHULTZ: This is exactly what’s wrong with this debate from the standpoint of what we can do and when we can do it. The president has gone through the U.N. to get this done.

SCAHILL: We’re bombing Yemen. When did the president go to the U.N. to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles in Yemen?

SCHULTZ: You and I disagree. You and I disagree.

SCAHILL: What I’ve said are facts.

SCHULTZ: OK. Well, look, I support the president and the United States to do what they can to help these freedom fighters. That’s where I’m at. You want to call me Ollie North, you go ahead.

SCAHILL: I think it’s a wrong-headed policy that could lead to American deaths and a further disaster in Libya.

SCHULTZ: OK. That’s your calculation. That’s what you feel based on what has happened with the mujahideen in the 1980s. I understand that. But every situation –

SCAHILL: — double dealing with the president of Yemen because he supports al Qaeda one day and us the next day. We’re involved with a very dangerous game throughout the Middle East.

Indeed we are, and Schultz doesn't care for at this point he must think success here – whatever that is – is key to Obama's reelection.

But something was missing in this debate: Vietnam. That war began with America sending members of the OSS to assist our eventual enemy Ho Chi Minh.

For those unfamiliar, the Office of Strategic Services was the precursor to the CIA. Now, many decades later, we're sending clandestine CIA operatives into Libya to assist rebels we know very little about, and due to their already having some ties to al Qaeda could end up being our enemy in the future.

That Scahill missed this disturbing parallel was surprising.

As for Schultz, he's so engaged in supporting his president that he wouldn't see a barn in front of him if he was going five MPH in a tractor heading straight for it.

Scary, isn't it?

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with: