Posts Tagged ‘Muammar Gaddafi’

Raul Castro, CELAC president

Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

The blinders come off:
Gaddafi was praised by the UN’s Human Rights Councila, and now Raul Castro is president of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States:

Cuba will lead CELAC until early 2014, when Ecuador will take over.

But should we be surprised? After all,

The organization was founded in Caracas in 2011 as a brainchild of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. It groups 33 nations of Latin America and the Caribbean but excludes the United States and Canada. Many people see it as Chávez’s challenge to the Organization of American States, which is based in Washington and includes the United States and Canada among its members.

Notch it up as a success of the Cuban dictatorship.

Hugo Chavez’s BFF Gaddafi no longer

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

Libya live: Muammar Gaddafi ‘killed’ as Sirte falls
Live rolling coverage from Libya as rebels claim to have killed ousted dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, following the fall of his stronghold Sirte.

• Colonel Gaddafi reported killed in Sirte – senior NTC official
• Photo released purports to show Gaddafi ‘badly injured’
• Gaddafi’s son Mutassim dead – NTC commander
• Rebels converge on centre of Sirte to celebrate
• Rebels hoist new national flag over captured holdout

WARNING: all links have gruesome photos

Many of the reports say that Gaddafi was killed by “rebels”, however, Noticias 24 claims he was killed by a NATO air strike to his convoy as he was trying to escape Sirte

Just last month Hugo was praying for him.

At least this puts to rest the rumors that Gaddafi was in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez was in Havana about to fly to Venezuela when the news broke about Gaddafi.

Chavez is heading to a shrine in Táchira to pray some more.


Is Gaddafi in Venezuela?

Sunday, August 21st, 2011

Last night the rumor raged,
Chinese News Agency report Gadaffi and family in Tunisia en route to Venezuela

According to a report by Xinhua a Venezuelan plane has landed on the island of Djerba (Tunisia) to evacuate members of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s family, This was announced by Tunisian radio but from a rebel source in Benghazi..
The correspondent quotes the source as saying that Gaddafi’s family members would soon leave Tunisia for the Venezuelan capital Caracas, adding that “it was the beginning of the end of Gaddafi’s rule.” There was no explanation of how the Gadaffi’s [sic] would get to Tunisia..

It wouldn’t surprise anyone if Gaddafi/Kadhafi/Gadaffi (he of the multiple spellings) would like to get out of the insurgents’ way. However, for now, at least, he’s remaining defiant, and Hugo still hasn’t brought the gold into Venezuela (just in case there are sanctions, you know).

So, until you see Muammar landing in Caracas and running into Hugo’s open arms, don’t believe it.


Speaking of gold, Hugo lifted a page of Muammar’s book:
Traders prepare for Chávez gold transfer

Countries such as Iran and Libya, which have been subject to international sanctions, have in the past repatriated gold reserves, traders said. Libya’s foreign reserves were frozen after war broke out this year. “There is a growing preference among many different communities in the gold market to have their physical gold at home,” said Edel Tully, precious metals strategist at UBS.


Gaddafi ain’t going nowhere but his nurse is pregnant

Saturday, March 26th, 2011

Looks like Gaddafi’s not leaving…for now.

For starters, as Andy McCarthy points out,

We understand neither whom we are fighting for nor the consequences of invading a Muslim country. To apprehend these things requires a rudimentary grasp of sharia. You don’t need a doctorate in Islamic jurisprudence. As I contend in The Grand Jihad, the basics will more than suffice. The problem is that, since the World Trade Center was first bombed in 1993, the government has been telling us that Islam has nothing to do with the jihadist campaign against us, so we have studiously avoided informing ourselves about Islam and its law.
It has come to light in just the last few days that commanders of the “rebels” (you know, those secular freedom fighters who are supposedly better for us than Qaddafi) include one Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi. And, I’ll be darned, it turns out that Hasadi is a jihadist who fought the United States in Afghanistan, and was detained for years until our forces turned him over to Libya. That was during the Bush years, when, through democracy-project alchemy, Qaddafi was transformed into a valuable U.S. ally against terrorism. Our new friend Qaddafi promptly . . . released him in 2008, in a deal designed to appease his Islamist opposition — a common practice in the Middle East, where, because Islam dominates life, even dictators must alternately court and repress jihadists in order to hang on.

Then there’s the fact that Obama’s ruled out killing him,
Barack Obama to lawmakers: We won’t kill Qadhafi, but we’ll sue him instead,

The president told lawmakers that NATO has begun proceedings against Qadhafi at the international court at The Hague, according to a GOP aide briefed on the call. He also said that the U.S. mission has always been humanitarian — to stop Qadhafi from slaughtering his own people — the aide said.

Do they expect Muammar to just step down?

And now for a deja vu moment: Remember when Reagan bombed Libya and Gaddafi posed with a dead baby, claiming Reagan had killed his daughter? There may be more of that coming up soon,

Gaddafi/Qadhafi’s nurse is saying she wants to go to Papa,

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s Ukrainian nurse has reportedly said she believes he will put down the uprising in Libya and that she will be back by his side in a matter of weeks.

Noticias 24 was saying today that Papa knocked her up and she wants to be by his side when the baby’s born.

That, and she wants her $3,500/month salary back.

Apparently the first to report the baby news was Ukrainian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda v Ukraine, which says 38-year old Galina Kolotnitska is not saying who the father is, but she is pregnant and wants to return to Libya.

Wouldn’t surprise me if she does.

Mr Bingley says, Sing it!


Obama speechless on Libya

Friday, March 25th, 2011

Obama avoiding major Libya address

That’s not to say the president won’t talk about Libya over the next few days, aides say, but he’s not likely to succumb to pressure to deliver a long, explanatory address to outline his elusive endgame to the nation until the path ahead becomes clearer.

Clearer, you say?

This is rather extraordinary, from the New York Times this morning:

From the start, the administration insisted that it was acting to avert the imminent slaughter of civilians in Benghazi and other rebel-held cities, and that the goal of the military operations was clearly spelled out in the United Nations Security Council resolution.

Mr. Obama’s administration, however, has clearly tried to avoid the debate over a strategy beyond that by shifting the burden of enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing force on to France, Britain and other allies, including Arab nations like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which on Thursday said that it would contribute warplanes to the effort. In other words, the American exit strategy is not necessarily the coalition’s exit strategy.

“We didn’t want to get sucked into an operation with uncertainty at the end,” the senior administration official said. “In some ways, how it turns out is not on our shoulders.”

Not too extraordinary, to those who think things are OK if they look good on paper,

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to … what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarrelling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.

Where Gaddafi to remain in power (h/t Gerard),

Civilian planes will likely start failing out the sky, as did the one over Lockerbie; assassination attempts will multiply, like the attempted Libyan-backed murder of the Saudi king in 2003; al-Qaeda and affiliates might be aided and abetted to do Lord-knows-what to the Italians, the French, the British and, of course, to us. With nothing to lose, and way beyond the threshold of worrying about sanctions and such, Qaddafi could well become more dangerous than ever. If I were Silvio Berlusconi, in particular, I’d pick my future whorehouses with extreme care.

The Hard Truths on Libya amount to this:

A ruler like Qaddafi is part Milosevic, part Saddam, part Noriega, and part Kim Jong Il. They stay in power for years through killing and more killing (to paraphrase Dirty Harry, “They like it”), and they do not leave, ever, unless the U.S. military either bombs them to smithereens or physically goes into their countries and yanks them out of their palaces. Period. They most certainly do not care much for the concern of the Arab League, the U.N., or a contingent from Europe, or a grand verbal televised threat from a U.S. president — again, even if his name is Barack Hussein Obama and he is not George Bush.

Sorry, but that is where we are and where we’ve always been, so we can either quit, as in Lebanon and Somalia; send in the Marines to take charge of postwar stabilization, as in Afghanistan and Iraq; target Qaddafi and bomb him incessantly until he is broken, as in Clinton’s Balkan air campaign; or schedule a multiyear, Iraq-style no-fly zone, with ample latitude to bomb now and then to carve out sanctuaries within Libya. Those are the options, and one will be chosen one way or another, even if the president thinks he can once again vote present on all of them.

In the meantime, the Libya farce goes to 11.


It’s not a war, it’s a ‘kinetic military action’ UPDATED: No more!

Thursday, March 24th, 2011

A what? A ‘kinetic military action’

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer.  “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said.  “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”

You could have fooled me.

Who’s in Charge Here?
On Libya, there’s confusion over both goals and authority.

Why am I against the Libya “kinetic military action”? Let us count the ways. A sample,

Aims and ObjectivesFact: We are now and then bombing Libyan ground targets in order to enhance the chances of rebel success in removing or killing Qaddafi. Fiction: We are not offering ground support but only establishing a no-fly zone, and have no desire to force by military means Qaddafi to leave. Questions: Is our aim, then, a reformed Qaddafi? A permanently revolutionary landscape? A partitioned, bisected nation? What is the model? Afghanistan? Mogadishu? The 12-year no-fly-zone in Iraq? A Mubarak-like forced exile? Who are the rebels? Westernized reformers? Muslim Brotherhood types? A mix? Who knows? Who cares?

As for “no boots on the ground”, think again. It’s all “contingency planning.” 400 Marines now, 2,200 later.

Kinetic, indeed.

As of 3:05PM Eastern, Kinetic Military Action No More

“Kinetic military action” is out and  “a time-limited, scope-limited military action” is in.

Well, that ought to ease everybody’s mind!


And now, a war in Libya

Sunday, March 20th, 2011

with no clear goals – because the women made Obama do it.

Away in Brazil, Obama declared,

“The use of force is not our first choice, and is not a choice that I make lightly,” Obama said in a statement from Brazil where he is on a tour of Latin America. “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his own people that there will be no mercy.”

Indeed, the coalition’s immediate goal is to protect civilians with a no-fly zone, but not necessarily to depose Muamar Ghaddafi,

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went on Sunday interview shows today to echo the Obama administration’s position that the U.S. is working with allies on military action in Libya that is defined and limited — and could conceivably leave Moammar Gadhafi in power.

President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and other U.S. officials have called for an end to the Gadhafi government, but that is not the goal of the coalition mission.

So Gaddafi will stay on, maybe. Either way, Obama hasn’t answered any of the five questions I mentioned yesterday.

Gerard remembers 2003


In the headlines: ‘my Dear Obama, our son’, French flying over Libya, Obama in Rio

Saturday, March 19th, 2011

Headlines today:
Gaddafi patronizes the POTUS:
‘To my Dear Obama, our son’, says Gaddafi, defending attack on rebels

Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, “Al-Qaida is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example.”

French Jets Fly Over Libya as World Leaders Meet

France Sends Military Flights Over Libya

How Obama turned on a dime toward war

Congress was not broadly consulted on the decision to intervene in Libya, except in a Thursday afternoon classified briefing where administration officials explained the diplomatic and military plan. Rice was already deep in negotiations in New York.

Obama’s Tuesday night decision to push for armed intervention was not only a defining moment in his ever-evolving foreign policy, but also may have marked the end of the alliance between Clinton and Gates — an alliance that has successfully influenced administration foreign policy decisions dating back to the 2009 Afghanistan strategy review.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states,

The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Heritage yesterday asked Five Questions Obama Has Not Answered on Libya

Here are just some of the fundamental questions the Administration has failed to answer as our military stands on the brink of a new and costly commitment:

So far, the only firm commitments are a naval blockade, AWACS for air traffic control, and signal-jamming aircraft. U.S. officials said that it would probably take several days for a full operation to be undertaken and that President Obama had not yet approved the use of U.S. military assets. Will he? Will the U.S. be using military force against Libya?
If establishing a no-fly zone in Libya is so vital to U.S. national security, why did the Administration waste a week getting approval from the U.N.?
Imposing a no-fly zone entails substantial costs for U.S. armed forces and risks diverting scarce U.S. military and intelligence assets. Will the vital missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa suffer?
Are the rebels free of terrorist elements, and what precautions will we require them to take to ensure that weapons we supply are not sold or diverted to other groups?
Will we rule out supplying arms (“Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles, for example) that could pose a potent threat to U.S. forces if they end up in the hands of terrorists?

Obama’s in Brazil, taking a trip that should have been scheduled two years ago. I am glad he’s finally gone to Brazil.

US President Barack Obama  introduces his family as they arrive in Brasilia, Brazil, on Saturday.

His weekly address touched on the topic,

Obama should be creating a much more business-friendly environment for trade with Latin America, and instead of giving lip service, can easily approve the free trade agreements with Colombia and Peru, and possibly one with Brazil. That would increase America’s competitiveness within the hemisphere.

He and Dilma did not hold a joint press conference, just a press announcement, because Dilma doesn’t take questions:

a press officer in the Brazilian foreign ministry says Rousseff just doesn’t take questions. “It’s not her way. She didn’t do it with the prime minister of East Timor either,” the press aide said.

Hundreds of miles away, Brazil Sends Forces to Jirau Dam After Riots

Brazil’s federal government Friday authorized the presence of national security forces in the Amazon state of Rondonia after riots at the Jirau dam site halted construction on the 3,450 megawatt dam.

Brazil is one of the five nations that voted to abstain on Thursday night’s vote before the U.N. Security Council.


Why the Obama administration’s silence on Chavez and Castro? UPDATED with VIDEO

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Otto Reich, writing about Qaddafi, Chávez, & Co.
The Obama administration will suffer from a crisis of credibility until it stands up to the tyrants in our own hemisphere.

It is good that dictators in the Middle East are at long last being overthrown, and that President Obama has finally called on Qaddafi to step down. The administration must explain, however, why it does not say the same about Castro and Chávez, or why Cubans and Venezuelans who have been tirelessly protesting against their dictators for years receive no support from the administration. Why do we see instead that the Cuban government receives financial incentives from the United States? Why do Bolivia’s Morales and Nicaragua’s Ortega — both Qaddafi Prize winners and Castro-Chávez allies — receive no pushback in their relentless efforts at subjugating their people? It is easy to see why some Americans have concluded that the Obama administration is more interested in appeasing its political base than in replacing anti-American dictators.

And, by the way,

The malign influence of Chávez can be measured by the more than $10 million a day in oil money that he gives Cuba, almost equal to the $5 billion a year by which the Soviets kept the Castro brothers afloat for over 30 years.

That doesn’t include Chavez’s alliances with the Russians and the Iranians, either.

Via Theo Spark, Bill Whittle on Obama’s friends and enemies,


Is Castro Gaddafi’s pimp?

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

Just last week, Castro came to Gaddafi’s defense – not surprisingly, considering that Gaddafi had awarded Fidel Castro a prize for “human rights” in 1998.

Now Capitol Hill Cubans poses the question,
Is Castro Gaddafi’s Pimp (Literally)?

If this clip from Ukrainian TV is true, then we’ve seen it all.

According to the translation:

When the leader sleeps, the soldier stays awake, and it’s the women who do the fighting. Gaddafi trusts his security to ladies only. The head of the Libyan Jamahiriya has a total of 300-400 girls on his security detail. According to the official story, all of them are virgins.

Selection is done by Gaddafi himself. This whim has an explanation for it: In ancient times, they believed that the best guards were either virgins or lesbians, the underlying belief being that they could sense threats, the so-called wind of death. The girls were even sterilized to make them more aggressive toward men.

There can be different views on these stories, but it was the girls with Kalashnikovs who saved Gaddafis life several times. During the assassination, they shielded him from gunfire and grenades. One died, two others were wounded. The bodyguards are with Gaddafi day and night. Each of them can handle several strong men. According to some sources, most of the girls are Cuban.

We can’t confirm the voracity [sic] of this report.

If it’s true, it’s beyond bizarre.