Currently viewing the tag: “Support”
Part of the debate in Washington surrounding American involvement in Libya is whether the U.S. is actually helping terrorists take down Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. Earlier this week, U.S. NATO commander Adm. James Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there are potentially “flickers” of al Qaeda and Hezbollah elements within the Libyan rebel movement. However, one senior counterterrorism official has said that “no one should think the opposition is being led by al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.”
Yesterday during a hearing in front of the same committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen echoed those sentiments. “We just haven’t seen anything other than what I would call aspirational from al Qaeda leadership,” he said. But outside of whether anti-American terrorists have joined the Libyan resistance, Defense Secretary Robert Gates later added that even if there are al Qaeda elements, there is “no evidence” the Libyan people would support their ideology. Mullen agreed:
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do either one of you believe the Libyan people would stand for an al Qaeda led Libya?
GATES: Absolutely no evidence to support that.
MULLEN: No, I don’t. […]
GATES: Look, the real power in Libya is in the hands of the tribes and even Qaddafi realizes that. And I just don’t understand how it would be possible for these tribes to want to cede any of that authority to some outside crowd like al Qaeda.
Various reports back up Adm. Stavridis’s statement this week but there is so far no evidence to suggest that al Qaeda or any other terror group is leading the Libyan resistance. U.S. officials reportedly “haven’t seen much, if any” extremist activity in Libya. The rebels themselves say they aren’t affiliated with terrorists, and reporting from the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi this week, The New Yorker’s Jon Lee Anderson concluded of the rebels, “It seems unlikely…that they represent Al Qaeda.”
Conservatives here at home — such as Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — have been attacking President Obama for allegedly committing the U.S. military to fight on behalf of al Qaeda in Libya. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence to support these claims, Gates addressed this argument and noted that it’s important to be mindful that Qaddafi is using it to justify his attacks on the rebels and civilians:
GATES: One of the things that Qaddafi is doing though is in his information operations, he is trying to gin up the narrative that the opposition is in fact led by al Qaeda and so one of the things that’s making it a little difficult is he broadcasts all the time that al Qaeda is involved and al Qaeda is doing this and that. So we just have to be aware that he is using this in his own propaganda.
Watch it:
Part of the debate in Washington surrounding American involvement in Libya is whether the U.S. is actually helping terrorists take down Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. Earlier this week, U.S. NATO commander Adm. James Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there are potentially “flickers” of al Qaeda and Hezbollah elements within the Libyan rebel movement. However, one senior counterterrorism official has said that “no one should think the opposition is being led by al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.”
Yesterday during a hearing in front of the same committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen echoed those sentiments. “We just haven’t seen anything other than what I would call aspirational from al Qaeda leadership,” he said. But outside of whether anti-American terrorists have joined the Libyan resistance, Defense Secretary Robert Gates later added that even if there are al Qaeda elements, there is “no evidence” the Libyan people would support their ideology. Mullen agreed:
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do either one of you believe the Libyan people would stand for an al Qaeda led Libya?
GATES: Absolutely no evidence to support that.
MULLEN: No, I don’t. […]
GATES: Look, the real power in Libya is in the hands of the tribes and even Qaddafi realizes that. And I just don’t understand how it would be possible for these tribes to want to cede any of that authority to some outside crowd like al Qaeda.
Various reports back up Adm. Stavridis’s statement this week but there is so far no evidence to suggest that al Qaeda or any other terror group is leading the Libyan resistance. U.S. officials reportedly “haven’t seen much, if any” extremist activity in Libya. The rebels themselves say they aren’t affiliated with terrorists, and reporting from the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi this week, The New Yorker’s Jon Lee Anderson concluded of the rebels, “It seems unlikely…that they represent Al Qaeda.”
Conservatives here at home — such as Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — have been attacking President Obama for allegedly committing the U.S. military to fight on behalf of al Qaeda in Libya. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence to support these claims, Gates addressed this argument and noted that it’s important to be mindful that Qaddafi is using it to justify his attacks on the rebels and civilians:
GATES: One of the things that Qaddafi is doing though is in his information operations, he is trying to gin up the narrative that the opposition is in fact led by al Qaeda and so one of the things that’s making it a little difficult is he broadcasts all the time that al Qaeda is involved and al Qaeda is doing this and that. So we just have to be aware that he is using this in his own propaganda.
Watch it:
In a speech at Georgetown University earlier this week, President Obama appeared to signal his support of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast of the United States.
Canada’s Financial Post reports:
Barack Obama may not have mentioned the Keystone XL crude pipeline expansion specifically at Georgetown University on Wednesday, but the themes of his speech nonetheless support the TransCanada Corp. project.
The U.S. president spoke about looking to neighbours with “stready and reliable oil resources,” such as Canada, Mexico and Brazil. He also stated that America will be dependent on oil for “quite some time.”
The State Department will ultimately approve the pipeline, so supporters of the project should be pleased, according to RBC Capital Markets analyst Robert Kwan. At the same time, the administration is demonstrating to opponents that it is willing to re-examine the issues surrounding the controversial project.
TransCanada has prepared the market for a delay and the State Department is likely to ask the company to make relatively minor modifications to the project to demonstrate efforts to protect the environment, Mr. Kwan told clients. Then it should issue a Presidential permit. Although this has become a political issue, Congressional approval is not required.
This has been clear for quite some time, that the project will ultimately be approved. The key question is, how much will the U.S. government demand be done to ensure public and environmental safety in the building of the project — especially in the wake of the million-gallon spill of tar sands crude from a pipeline in Calhoun County last year.
USA Today |
'Killah' Barnes has Bryant's support
OCRegister Kevin Ding column: Kobe Bryant endorsed Matt Barnes' intervention in support of Lakers teammate Steve Blake — and acknowledged how much tougher the Lakers have become. LOS ANGELES – The three guys the Lakers brought in to play the most … Lakers-Jazz Preview Tempers flare in Lakers' blowout over Mavs Feisty Lakers push to stay ahead of Dallas, 110-82 |
One of the key amendments that the Tea Party has pushed for, the balanced budget amendment now has the support of all the GOP members of the senate.
McConnell said: “It’s not too much to expect that lawmakers spend no more than they take in.”
This is Sen. Mike Lee’s principle piece of legislation.
According to a Reuters report, a few weeks ago, President Obama “signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.” It is unclear to what extent such covert support has actually taken place, as White House officials have quickly moved to inject ambiguity to the matter, claiming that no decision has been made on whether to carry out the order. However, if history is any guide, and given the fact that the CIA has already met with rebels on the ground, it seems likely that covert U.S. support of Libyan rebels is already underway.
It has also become apparent that the Libyan rebels we are ostensibly supporting have ties to al-Qaeda, according to Libyan rebel commanders as well as top U.S. officials.
“It’s almost a certitude that at least part” of the Libyan opposition includes members of al-Qaeda, said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama. Riedel said that anti-Gaddafi elements in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi have had “very close associations with al-Qaeda” dating back years.
“I would hope that we now have a good sense of the opposition in Libya and can say that this is 2 percent, not 20 percent,” Riedel said. “If we don’t, then we are running the risk of helping to bring to power a regime that could be very dangerous.”
Leaving aside for a moment the odd fact that the U.S. now officially provides an al-Qaeda affiliate with the material wherewithal to carry out acts of violence and possibly overthrow the government of a North African country, another issue is well worth noting.
The United States code designates material support for terrorism a serious offense. The question of whether or not the U.S. is in violation of its own laws and is obligated to prosecute its own leadership is highly unlikely to get much play in the media and will certainly be left out of Obama’s next softball Katie Couric interview. But, to me, this is the central question regarding our support for the rebels and regime change in Libya.
The truth is that the U.S. has historically shown little if any respect for the law when conducting foreign policy, while demanding that others dutifully obey it. At the height of the Iraq war, when reports were coming out constantly of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. troops, politicians and pundits were infuriated at such brazen criminality. That Iran was funneling support to Iraq insurgents to hinder U.S. operations there was a grave insult, threat, and breach of law. Bush went so far as to authorize US military commanders in Iraq to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities”.
Yet, to this same crowd, it was perfectly acceptable for the U.S. to provide funding, training, and arms to the mujahedeen insurgents in Afghanistan to fight against Soviet troops. There is no discernable difference between the two cases. In both cases, a military invaded and occupied another country and was then faced with resistance which was aggressively supported by a third party. Only in one of them, though, according to the dominant narrative, was the covert support to insurgents wrong and illegal. If they do it, it is terrorism; if we do it, it’s principled foreign policy conducted for the always-sacrosanct National Security Interest.
Then there’s Libya itself. When the Reagan administration authorized air strikes in Libya in 1986, it was ostensibly in response to Gaddafi’s support for terrorism, particularly the bombing of a nightclub in West Berlin. At this point in history, Libya was on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and Gaddafi was consistently called out by Reagan as the “Mad Dog of the Middle East” and for his “well-documented” “record of subversion and aggression” and “sanctioned acts of terror in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as the Western hemisphere.” And here, two and a half decades later (and five years after Libya was taken off the U.S. terrorist list), the Obama administration has authorized the funding of terrorist subversives in Libya with links to al Qaeda aiming to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. Are we not now turning around and engaging in exactly the type of activity which would qualify another state for inclusion on the list of sponsors of terrorism?
At this point last season, many neutral observers of Manchester United at Old Trafford could be forgiven for believing they were watching matches televised from Norwich City’s Carrow Road. This is not a criticism of the quality of football on…
This is a content summary. Visit http://www.epltalk.com for full contents! Want the full RSS feed? Visit http://www.epltalk.com/epl-talk-pro-faq/ to learn more.
If you’ve been following the Wisconsin fracas over these past few weeks, you’ve probably noticed that the Left’s enemy du jour has become the American businessmen Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries. As an American company, Koch Industries employs over 50,000 Americans. In total, the number of American jobs that indirectly supported Koch Industries is over 200,000. In Wisconsin, Koch Industries provides nearly 3,000 jobs directly and 11,000 jobs indirectly. More importantly, many of those jobs are good-paying union jobs. So, why all the hate?
The Koch brothers have recently come under fire from the institutional Left due, primarily, to a more than 40-year commitment to economic freedom. In part, the Koch brothers’ advocacy for freedom may stem from their father, Fred C. Koch, who developed a hatred of Communism when he saw the effects of it first-hand, working in Russia during the 1930s.
“Virtually every engineer he worked with [there] was purged,” Charles Koch once explained of his father.
Given the desire of many on the Left, many of whom were protesting in Madison these last few weeks, to ‘fundamentally transform‘ America’s economy, the Koch brothers’ opposition to a nation bankrupting itself (as well as their support of Scott Walkers’ efforts to rein in union power in Wisconsin) represents a direct threat to the Left’s agenda. As a result, some of the more extremist groups on the Left are pushing a boycott of Koch Industries and its companies’ products.
Due to the sheer number of jobs that directly or indirectly benefit from Koch Industries, the Left’s undertaking to topple the Koch brothers and their companies may have the negative consequence of actually hurting those the Left purports to want to help—namely union workers. This has a top official with the United Steelworkers concerned.
On Wednesday, Jon Geenen, an International Vice President with the United Steelworkers wrote a long post on the union’s blog entitled A Well Intentioned Bad Idea. While Geenen’s post was not a defense of the Koch brothers’ politics, it was a defense of Koch Industries, both as an employer and, more importantly, a unionized employer:
The groups that generally operate in the middle and to the left of the center of the political spectrum who identify themselves as moderate, progressives, trade unionists and other like-minded people are outraged by this dirty little secret. It has led to a progressive uprising in some areas, with protests that are said to eclipse the anti-war protests of the 1960s. These groups have also launched various efforts to pressure the financiers and architects of this agenda into rethinking their positions.
Therein lies at least one problem.
A number of organizations are advocating a boycott of the products that come from companies owned by the Koch family. This is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it could potentially hurt the wrong people.
The Koch brothers own Georgia Pacific. It is an American consumer goods company that makes everyday products like facial tissue, napkins, paper towels, paper cups and the like. Their plants are great examples of American advanced manufacturing.
Incidentally, GP makes most of its products here in America. The company’s workforce is highly unionized. In fact, 80 percent of its mills are under contract with one or more labor union. It is not inaccurate to say that these are among the best-paid manufacturing jobs in America.
This presents a dilemma and a paradox. While the Koch brothers are credited with advocating an agenda and groups that are clearly hostile to labor and labor’s agenda, the brothers’ company in practice and in general has positive and productive collective bargaining relationships with its unions.
While some companies are running from investment in American jobs, The Koch brothers’ Georgia Pacific just reached agreements with its primary union in the paper industry to invest more than a half a billion dollars in capital to essentially create two state-of-the-art machines that conserve fiber and energy at two separate union mills.
Geenen also goes on to explain why a boycott of Koch Industries is, at best, misguided.
So the problem for the advocates of a boycott against Koch is that it can only marginally hurt Koch, and the workers who are the epitome of what advanced manufacturing jobs in the United States ought to look like, would be the first casualties of a boycott. Of course, this will eventually drive a wedge between groups that are otherwise in political alignment.
If consumers pick alternate products (because people will still use toilet paper), in many cases, the substitute will be from a company with a track record that is much less friendly to the values of the workers who would, as a result of the boycott, become the collateral damage. The Koch brothers’ lifestyle will not dramatically change; there are no shareholders that will become concerned; the company is privately owned. The stock won’t plummet either — there is none. [Emphasis added throughout.]
Whether or not Geenen’s common sense rationale will sink into the heads of the radical Left engaging in the war against the Koch brothers remains to be seen. However, it is refreshing to note that, in a sea of so much lunacy on the Left, there seems to be some integrity and sound judgement in Geenen’s post.
_________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
* Note: This post was not supported, financially or otherwise, by the Koch brothers or any of their affiliates.
Photo atribution: Sue Peacock
(Scott)
Yesterday at noon National Review posted a good editorial on the next front in the battle of Wisconsin: the election pitting incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser against Joanne Kloppenburg. Kloppenburg has all but vowed to toe the union line on the budget repair bill if she makes it to the court. Her campaign is inimical to the rule of law, and the larger campaign supporting her is, as the NR editorial makes out, a disgusting exercise in vilification and dishonesty.
Justice Prosser has accepted public financing for his campaign and therefore cannot accept contributions. The NR editorial advises: “[Y]ou can help his campaign by helping the Wisconsin Club for Growth (donate here) or donating to Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (donate online here; fax donation form here).”
NR’s editorial omits the date of the election. It’s next Tuesday, April 5. I don’t know how late contributions can be made and still have an impact on the race, but today would seem to be the latest.
UPDATE: John Nolte has much more on the union thuggery on behalf of Kloppenburg.
The clock ran out on the transgender non-discrimination bill on Wednesday but lawmakers said they expect the issue will come up again in the Judiciary Committee next week.
The bill would make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity and expression. It is facing opposition from the Family Institute of Connecticut, among other groups.
Spurred by a concern raised by the FIC, legislators will offer an amendment that would allow school districts to transfer teachers who are transitioning between genders to another school against their will.
Transgender activists say they will not support such an amendment and are launching an all-out effort to win approval for the bill as drafted.
“We must take this opportunity to remind Judiciary Committee members to vote in favor of our bill as written,” Jerimarie Liesegang, director of the CT TransAdvocacy Coalition, said in an email. “We will not support a bill that allows anyone to be discriminated against.”
From our good friends at Pundit Review Radio (the best show on Boston Talk Radio), here is some information about supporting the Medal Of Honor awardee, Jared C. Monti, with a scholarship fund provided through a poker tournament in Massachusets:
You can listen to our tribute to Jared, done as part of Someone You Should Know, back in 2007 which includes a Father’s Day interview with Paul, here.
Jared’s family and friends are keeping his memory alive through a scholarship that is funded through an annual Poker Tournament. Details about how you can support this great cause, dedicated to this great man, are below.
5TH ANNUAL SFC JARED C. MONTI POKER TOURNAMENT
SATURDAY, APRIL 16TH, 2011
4pm Registration, 5pm Start
2:30pm Satellites – 8:00pm Live Auction
American Legion Post #405
291 Mill Road, Raynham, MA
As the situation in the Ivory Coast rapidly deteriorates, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla. – R) has written to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for new elections in the Ivory Coast, a signal of support for outgoing president Laurent Gbagbo who has refused to step down from office after losing an internationally certified presidential ballot in November.
Inhofe’s position starkly contradicts the administration’s policy on the Ivory Coast, where Gbagbo has been widely accused of targeting civilians and opposition supporters during the four month stand-off. U.S., European, U.N., and African Union policy has called for the outgoing president to step down immediately. Today, the U.N. Security Council slapped tough sanctions on his regime, adding to existing American, European, and African sanctions already in place.
So how did an Oklahoma senator come to support a man that most see as an obstacle to peace in the Ivory Coast?
Salon got the first bite out of this story, reporting that Inhofe and Gbagbo met through a Christian group known as the Fellowhip. Read that side of the story here.
When I spoke to Sen. Inhofe by phone today, he told me that he had known Gbagbo for years. "We have a lot of friends in common." I asked him if he had been able to communicate with Gbagbo since the November election, to which he replied: "I have been able to, but I have not."
Inhofe first wrote to the State Department to contest the Ivorian elections on February 9, when he says that he provided documented evidence that the vote had been flawed.
Then, earlier this week, a former member of Gbagbo’s outgoing government, Mel Eg Theodore, visited Inhofe to discuss the political stand off in the Ivory Coast. Theodore told me this afternoon by phone that he arrived in Washington from Abidjan just two days ago to meet with U.S. officials about the country’s political stand off. He said he "didn’t have chance" to meet with the State Department, but he claimed that evidence of the fraud — including voting records — was sent to Foggy Bottom months ago.
"We have received things from those purporting to be from Gbagbo," a state department official told me today. "And we have seen some things that have clearly been manufactured. We know that the U.N. [which certified the election results] has maintained copies of all of the voting records as well.
"We share his concern for the violence on the ground, but we remain clear that Gbagbo must step down."
In his letter to Clinton, Inhofe claims to have spoken with Ivorian
officials. He also told me he had conferred with five "sub-Saharan
African"
heads of government "who are very close to this issue and who agree
[the election] was stolen, no question about that." The heads of state,
he said, had chosen not to make their allegations publically in hopes of
preventing more bloodshed.
Inhofe writes that he also wants to prevent further bloodshed on the ground in calling for new elections, though a switch in U.S. policy at this stage would likely prolong the political deadlock.
Theodore denied that the Gbagbo government had been involved in committing atrocities against the Ivorian people. "Always it is lies and lies and more lies," he told me.
"Right now there is no fighting in the streets. Abidjan is more than quiet, it is even ghost city."
Reuters is reporting that in the last two or three weeks President Obama authorized a “finding” which allows secret support of the Libyan rebels. Details on what that support consist of is unclear. No government, in fact no organization can exist without secrets, but this is something that Senator Obama would not have tolerated during the Bush administration. What’s more troubling here is that no one seems to know what kind of people we are supporting there. Are they Velvet Revolution-type supporters of democracy or are they al Qaeda terrorists? Or are they combination of both?
Does Obama know?
Technorati tags: 
news libya Obama Barack Obama armed forces military news
President Obama “has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi,” Reuters reports.
Obama signed the order within the last two or three weeks to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
