I don't think anyone really thinks that the ultimate objective of what the international community is engaged in right now can be anything other than a Libya without Qaddafi in charge. The problem is that the United Nations, led by the U. S., has authorized a mission which, perhaps for good and even necessary reasons, is much more limited in scope than that, and which therefore is not proportionate with what everyone knows—Muammar Qaddafi most of all—is in fact the real intended "end game".

It's also hard to conceive that anyone really believes that anything other than "boots on the ground" can resolve the matter. I think Colonel Jack Jacobs is correct in asserting that "getting rid of Qaddafi includes the imperative of somebody (Saudi? Egypt? A mixed Arab force?) having to occupy and administer Libya." So if these boots are not to be American, or European, but rather will need to be mostly Arab, the question therefore becomes: Who can put together such a force, what will it consist of, and what would be the broader geo-political consequences of its formation?

It would seem that the gradually-emerging "Obama Doctrine", whatever it's total import, will almost certainly emphasize a multilateral approach to foreign affairs, in pointed contradistinction to his predecessor's vaunted go-it-alone "Cowboy approach." This latter approach made for great rhetorical flourishes—standing high and proud on the ramparts in the lead-up to military engagement—and shamed-faced, rodent-like scurrying about the dark corners of the room, obviating responsibility, as things got complicated, wrenching difficulties ensued, and the endeavor sank into the pit of miserable failure.

Obama may have more success with his multilateral approach, but that will mean he will need at his disposal a sufficient degree of diplomatic agility, coordination and finesse such that will inspire historians to pen enough volumes to fill up a library someday. And this would have to mean a manner of leadership from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that would establish for herself a legacy rivaling, and conceivably even exceeding, that of her husband.

What the larger question surrounding this operation therefore amounts to is this: Can Obama & Co. provide a real-time demonstration of the worth of his multilateralist inclinations, and thereby manage to construct and supervise some type of coalition which would include Arab "boots on the ground"—perhaps organized through the aegis of the Arab League—U.S and/or NATO forces guaranteeing protection overhead in the air, so as to drive Qaddafi out of power, and then the thorough backing and involvement of all the necessary nation-states to help bring into being a satisfactory and stable post-Qaddafi government in Tripoli?

And if Obama and his team can't do something of this magnitude in this instance, isn't "Operation Odyssey Dawn" doomed to the same manner of miserable failure as "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

Dear Mr. Mathews:

I am very much a fan of yours and of all the MSNBC narrators...Rachael, Ed, The Last Word, etc. In watching you speak of the 'mess' in Libya and all those that oppose what we are doing there, I came up with an idea that might help solve the problem of everyone's interpretation of the 'no-fly' zone, which in a way is a state of mind to most people, although the military tells us it is an 'act of war'.
And this question of 'why are we there?' Well, I would say that we are there in the capacity of a 'humanitarian no-fly zone'...we are there to help the people of Libya gain their independence from a very cruel, sick dictator. The only way to do this is to go in with our military forces. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

I wonder if you use the term 'humanitarian no-fly zone' more people will begin to fully understand why we are there and perhaps stop their criticism of our President? I know myself and my circle of friends understand why the military is there...why is this action so hard for people to understand? Yikes, we must be surrounded with ......., or they just want their 15 minutes of fame!

Thank you for your program and all of your people at MSNBC for reporting things as they are!

Sincerely yours.

Watching 3/22 show. The discussion with Howard and Joan (two of my favorites) was one of the best ever on your show.

I very much appreciate your passion, heart, knowledge, intellect and humor in presenting issues and information. Thank you.

watching you, Howard, and Joan again; what a treat: you guys are all so sharp & so dear. and honest; SO welcome to a viewer like me. you all must cringe that someone like Palin is even seriously in the mix; in politics, in governance. after having been involved as long as you have. like watching your favorite sports team hire some... goof. aaaahhh !

integrity too: never seen any of you present something just for points. Thank you.

"in the echo chamber of BS..."

"you know why you're a good person, Joan"

I could go on, but will call it a wrap.

just... thanks. Thanks to you all I get informed, I get entertained. I get fed, Good stuff.

when times are new - and they will have to be if the future is to ever be something other than a repeat of the past - then there is need for more instinct, if you will; not so much reliance on past methods & practices. Faith, trust, in Powers greater than us. "Doing the next right thing" applies at any and all levels. I for one trust Barack Obama (for one) to do that. I believe he's grounded, centered, has "conscious contact" with said power(s). And I am very grateful for that.

 Have a hard time getting on. Not sure what I am doing wrong

Keep hearing some of the alleged experts bring up "mission creep" No fly zone, no drive zone, no sea zone. Mission creep indeed. All of this hooey about Gaddafi not being a target while the US bombed the hell out of Gaddafi's compound. Gaddafi has a bullseye on his back. Just can not get over how often we are hearing all of these alleged experts and even host of shows like Chris Matthews, Cenk Uygar etc repeating a "massacre" "slaughter" The massacre and slaughter has all ready happenned folks and the MSM will not even discuss it. People in the U.S. our MSM, our leaders do not want anyone looking back at the pile of dead and injured Iraqi and American bodies that our a direct consequence of an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Just move on folks, "lean forward" "next chapter"

Chris and team did you see Jon Stewart and John Olivers skit on Monday night about which countries and which dictators the US and the UN choose to focus on and who to ignore? The show even mentions the West Bank and the Gaza...will miracles never cease? Would fit on your show. Surprised you did not all ready have it on.

Chris and team at MSNBC. Why are you folks recycling warmongers like Kenneth Pollack? Is it so impossible to find other former CIA analyst to be on your program rather than the individuals who lied to the public about Iraq? You could actually tap into those former CIA analyst who were right about Iraq before the invasion like former CIA analyst and former Bush administration official (he quit just before the invasion) Flynt Leverett (website Race for Iran and with the think tank the New America Foundation) former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst Kathleen and Bill Christison. This is absurd that MSNBC and other outlets are recycling these invade Iraq war thugs instead of bringing other alleged experts on your program. Enough all ready

This alleged expert was totally wrong on Iraq, he pushed the war based on those known WMD lies. He was targeted by the FBI and followed for passing on classified intelligence about Iran to Israeli agents in the Aipac espionage investigation and 9 time delayed trial that was dismissed. I believe he was labeled US Gov 1 in the Aipac espionage files(Link at Fas)

USA v. Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman ("The AIPAC Case"): Selected Case Files

AIPAC trial could expose ways information is gathered in D.C.

By Ron Kampeas

11/03/05 "JTA" -- -- WASHINGTON — It’s a classified leak case that could rattle U.S. foreign policy and fundamentally alter how Washington does business. But while the world watches the implosion in the vice president’s office, this case is proceeding quietly across the Potomac.
Motions filed in recent weeks in the case against two former senior staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media, but their implications could be as explosive as the perjury indictment last week against Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff and a principal architect of the Iraq war.

Defense motions suggest that the trial, now scheduled to start April 25, could expose the extent of covert U.S. surveillance of an ally, Israel, and how Israeli diplomats gather information about the United States.

It also could shed light on how journalists use intermediaries like AIPAC to gather information, on how U.S. officials selectively leak information to manipulate public perception of U.S. policy and on the inner workings of AIPAC, an organization famed for its media-shy profile.

At a hearing Wednesday on pre-trial motions in the case charging Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst with illegally transmitting classified information, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis determined that prosecutors may withhold evidence from the defense. Ellis said prosecutors persuaded him that it was in the national interest to do so.

Ellis said he would determine what material the defense can use and what material it cannot access. Because that process is likely to be long and involved, Ellis pushed back the trial date from Jan. 2 to April 25.

Rosen’s lawyer said that despite the ruling, Ellis showed sensitivity to the defense’s concerns.

“We’re pleased that the court understands the complexities involved in providing our clients with the right to a fair trial in the midst of all these classified procedures,” Abbe Lowell said.

Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon analyst, pleaded guilty last month to leaking classified information relating to Iran.

Two defense motions filed Oct. 21 seek to subpoena as witnesses Israeli and U.S. diplomats, raising the possibility that the case will expose how the countries share information and how U.S. diplomats try to manipulate public perception through strategic leaks.

The diplomats are not named in the documents, but JTA has established that one of the three Israelis sought in the case is Naor Gilon, who was chief political officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington until this summer. Two of the four U.S. officials sought are David Satterfield, currently the deputy ambassador in Iraq and formerly an assistant deputy secretary of state, and Kenneth Pollack, a member of President Clinton’s national security council, JTA has established.

David Siegel, the Israeli Embassy spokesman, acknowledged receipt of the defense request for Israeli diplomats’ cooperation. He would not comment further, but Israel already has offered limited cooperation to the prosecution.

Lowell previously described the Israelis as uncooperative with the defense.

Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, likened the case to that of Zacarias Moussaoui, allegedly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. A judge in the same Alexandria, Va. courthouse where Rosen and Weissman will be tried expressed sympathy for Moussaoui’s claim that the government’s refusal to allow him to see testimony of other Al-Qaida suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unfairly prejudiced his case.

“The more the defendants show it’s not their fault that the Israeli witnesses are not available, the likelier it is they will get relief from the court,” Levenson said.

The State Department refused to make Satterfield available for comment. A spokesman said that the decision about whether or not to testify was Satterfield’s alone, and the department would not compel him to do so. Pollack did not return calls.

One motion also seeks to subpoena the FBI agents in the case. Sources close to the defense have suggested that the strategy is to show how little the FBI came up with during a broad, six-year investigation.

The strategy also is reflected in the separate exchange of motions on how much of the transcripts and tapes of tapped phone conversations the prosecution must share with the defense that preceded Ellis’ ruling on Wednesday. The prosecution is offering only nine hours of what could amount to hundreds of hours of recordings. Ellis may add to that in coming months.

Should Ellis eventually allow the publication of a substantial portion of the transcripts, it could expose the breadth of covert attention that U.S. agencies pay to Israel and to AIPAC, a respected domestic lobbying organization. The prosecution hopes to stymie that exposure with its own motion that seeks not only to suppress most of the tapped conversations, but even their quantity. Ellis did not indicate whether he would suppress information about the quantity.

A close analysis of the indictment shows that FBI tracking of Rosen and Weissman did not begin in earnest until 2002. Yet there is much in the indictment preceding that date, suggesting that the FBI might have had other targets, including Israeli diplomats, journalists and even U.S. officials.

Another government practice with the potential for embarrassment, as the Libby case has shown, is the tendency for administration officials to selectively leak information to manipulate public opinion.

Satterfield and Pollack, neither of whom has been charged in the case, allegedly leaked information related to Iran and al-Qaida. If required to testify, they likely would be asked why it was important to get this information to the pro-Israel lobby.

In previous hearings, Ellis has expressed sympathy for defense arguments that much of the evidence the prosecution hopes to withhold would meet a relevance standard that would require sharing it with the defense. But it’s not just the U.S. government that stands to be embarrassed should Ellis lean toward defense arguments, and release more material.

“Any and all statements made by the defendants to the following people are relevant,” says a defense motion filed Oct. 21. “Their employees, supervisors or co-workers at AIPAC; their alleged co-conspirators; anyone referred to in the superseding indictment; any government official of Foreign Nation A,” a reference to Israel; “any employee or official of the United States; and/or any journalists.”

That list threatens to blow open a number of Washington practices. Diplomats of all countries in Washington avidly mine government officials and lobbyists for unclassified tidbits.

Journalists, increasingly denied access to the Bush administration, have taken in recent years to soliciting information from groups and lobbies close to the White House. AIPAC is known among journalists as a premier conduit for hard-to-get information, and two such incidents are cited in the indictment. JTA has learned that the incidents involve The Washington Post and The Nation.

Additionally, defense sources say they have reason to believe that the defendants’ relationship with a New York Times reporter might have been monitored.

Finally, the defense will argue that the practices alleged were routine for AIPAC.

AIPAC has insisted that Rosen and Weissman overstepped bounds. The group fired the two in April because of what its spokesman said was information arising out of the FBI investigation. It is obligated to pay their legal fees under AIPAC’s bylaws, however.

AIPAC also says that none of its current staff has been involved in any wrongdoing, and the lead prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty, has said as much as well.

Still, the prospect of AIPAC officials taking the witness stand to prove or disprove whether Rosen and Weissman hewed to routine cannot be a happy one for a group known in Washington for closely guarding its lobbying practices.

Defense sources have suggested that they will show that Rosen and Weissman relayed information that the government says was classified to Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s executive director, as soon as they allegedly got it from Franklin in July 2004.

That information supposedly will establish that such practice was part of AIPAC’s routine, though no one is suggesting that Kohr knew the information was classified or that he shared it with anyone else.

The argument that Rosen and Weissman’s practices were routine got unexpected support last week from none other than Patrick Fitzgerald. He’s the U.S. attorney who won the perjury indictment against Libby for allegedly leaking the name of a CIA operative who is married to Joseph Wilson, a prominent critic of the Iraq war.

In an extended news conference, Fitzgerald sought to explain why he was prosecuting a cover-up — the alleged perjury — and not the underlying alleged crime, the leaking of Valerie Wilson’s name.

“That would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act,” Fitzgerald said. “That is a difficult statute to interpret. It’s a statute you ought to carefully apply. I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.”

Indeed, Section 793 rarely is used to prosecute the transmission of classified information. Experts can’t think of a single case since the mid 1980s — until this year, when it was used to charge Rosen and Weissman.

© JTA.

Translate

Here is the Jon Stewart skit and a conversation over at Mondoweiss. We have had the discussion before about what Jon Stewart will discuss or target and what he will not.

Jon Stewart strikes again (mondoweiss)

by Pamela Olson on March 22, 2011

 How naive is it to think that the United States is bombing yet another country to "free it's people?"  Ask anyone of the many commenters.  Yes, bring "humanitarian relief" in the form of at least 128 Tomahawk missiles raining down on civilian and military alike.  Make no doubt about this, whatever jive you've been conditioned to believe in the last 20 years about Libya, the Middle East will not thank the United States for any intervention in their affairs.  This will be another blemish caused by the United States military intervention.

Have you heard?  The rebels are primarily the Libyan Al-Qaeda (you know, that CIA creation/tool) who asked for "international" help to overthrow Qaddafi.

Just ridiculous. 

 Chris you are too obsessed with the Clintons...let it go...this is Obama's show

Anyways, on Lybia, what the president is saying is what should be, it is clear that we cannot make the mission to take the dictator out, we cannot mingle in that civil struggle...our mission is minimal in scope and the intentions are for it to remain that way...yes you can think all you want and all we want about what shold be but from what we think to what the President already knows he is going to do is a big jump...we just have to be supportive of him either way he goes...period ...this is a complex issue the layman american cannot resolve only those in power can and whatever stipulations we make is going to be a waste of time...lets just wait and see what Obama does and that is the end of it

Qaddafi doesn't deserve to lead a nation but there are probably 50 more like him scattered all over creation. We can't take them all out although the radical right extremists like McCain and Graham would probably like too. What really irks me is that we have the money (and I mean billions) to get into a campaign like this on top of two unnecessary wars and we don't have the money to nation-build within our own borders. Do I have my priorities right or am I totally wrong? Everyone is afraid to bring up the costs of wars and nation building but they are quite happy to extend the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts, just as they are afraid to debate the oil industry tax breaks that make us taxpayers kick in $150 million in tax returns to Exxon when that corporation posts earnings of $32 billion. Serious discussions about serious money never happens on TV or in Congress unless its about cutting entitlements like oil heat for the poor, day care and other education cuts, and the worst... NPR. I think all members of congress and most political analysts are emasculated and lacking jewels. Look at Obama... even he caves in on us. It must be the kool-aid (mixed drinks) they serve in Washington. Everyone talks the talk off camera and then buttons up when on.

 You and Robert are both full crap. Talk about the R courting the large corp for funds. And what is Obama and the Dems doing ? Courting the unions and thugs for their money and votes. Both are full of crap also. I say get rid of all of them and forget about parties and think about America and what is good for the Country.

As long as we remain under the stranglehold of lobbies & special interests, 'think about America' is not going to happen.

We have to boot out these doddering old fuddy duddies , the politicos up on the Hill, so steeped in self serving agenda & pandering to the foreign lobbies that interests of America & Americans has become the least of their worries.

I so wish that Americans knew the truth about foreign agencies like AIPAC and their covert activities on our soil & the hold that such foreign 'agencies' have on our policy makers.

@ Kathleen is doing a remarkable job of bringing facts to the knowledge of fellow bloggers and Chris. Thanks @ Kathleen.

I also urge Chris to bring such intellectual stalwarts and academics as Robert Falk, Ilan Pappe, Uri Avnery, Noam Chomsky and MJ Rosenberg to the show on policy issues relating to the Middle East & the Arab world.

 Isay one guest on BBC World Service this morning brought up how contradictory it is that the US and coalition forces  have allegedly  attacked Libya to "protect civilians" and have never taken any military action against Israel's continued ILLEGAL occupation of Palestinian lands, killings etc

AP’s paradigm: Palestinians initiate violence, Israelis respond

by Philip Weiss on March 24, 2011 Over at Mondoweiss

"

this morning Mika Brzezkinski said the same thing on Morning Joe when they whispered about the violence. Israel’s violence is all in reaction to Palestinian’s violence…never ever do they mention that Palestinians violence if often based on Israel stealing their land, killing and injuring Palestinians, bulldozing their homes on Palestinian land, cutting down their olive trees. etc

The I/P conflict was brought up several times on the Morning Joe program. Mike Barnacle asked Dr. Brzezinski’s (who was on the program” How the situation in Libya, Egypt etc effects Israel. Brzezinski indicated the door was closing on a two state solution.

Kathleen March 24, 2011 at 10:33 am

Chris really do hope you and your team stop recycling the WMD's in Iraq liars. And please do not use that line if only they knew then what they know now hogwash...denial and escape valve. Before the invasion I was a soccer mom in Athens Ohio and would listen to the Diane Rehm show, Talk of the Nation, Democracy Now and then watch the MSM (including your show) in the evening. My kids (now grown up would tell you I was obsessed) I heard former weapons inspector Scott Ritter (in Iraq during the 90's), former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, former Cia analsyt Katheen and Bill Christison, Zinni, Carter, Brzezinski, Robert McNamara (still alive at the time), Seymour Hersh and many others seriously question the validity of the Bush administrations inteligence (if you dare to call those lies intelligence). I heard the head of the IAEA at the time Mr. El Baradei come out in early March of 2003 and state that the Niger documents were forgeries and bad ones at that.

Now when one would turn on the MSM in the evening you could flip from CNN, Msnbc etc and hear the same things being repeated byWolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Bush, Pollack, Kristol, Friedman, Bolton, Ledeen, Gerecht, Frum, Woolsey repeating..."mushroom clouds, Saddam has, might have, wants, dreams about, imagines, desires" WMD's But mostly that he all ready posessed them. Once Phil Donahue was disposed of Chris Matthews was one of the only MSMers to actually challenge a TINY BIT. Kristol , Frum etc. Most everyone else rolled over. But basically so did Matthews.

Did not have Ritter, Mc Govern, Hersh, Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski and others who were questioning the validity of that false intelligence.

So if a soccer mom knew that the Office of Special Plans was lying and "stovepiping" that false intelligence (best article was Jason Vest in 2002) way back before the invasion as well as the millions who marched nation wide and world wide before the invasion.

At the very least you MSM folks could do is stop fueling and allowing these same deadly liars (Kenneth Pollack, Frum etc)o get back on your programs and pretend that they are experts. Chose your guest from some other highly respected think tanks like NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION. Have some of the folks who were right before the invasion of Iraq on your program...not the same warmongers.

The Men From JINSA and CSP

Jason Vest

August 15, 2002

Isn't it time we pick a fight we can win? I say we declare war on Canada. Take a couple of months, tops, and the troops get to come home on weekends. The Canadians might not even notice, the French side -- well, let's just say they're French. We've got all kind of justification: William Shatner, Gordon Lightfoot, funny looking zip codes, their quarters don't work at the laundromat, and they don't know the difference between ham and bacon. It would be great for the economy, we can expand the NFL, get cheaper prescription drugs, and even keep an eye on Sarah Palin from our kitchen window.

@ Kathleen

enlightening comments as always. I always say that our main stream media tags along with the propagandists and vested interests when it comes to issues relating to the Middle East or the Muslim world in general.

That's one reason that establishment gets away with policies which have yet to serve American interests. Middle East is a region vital to our geo-poltical and economic interests and so is winning the general population, not puppets leaders of our own creation, in that region to our side.

unfortunately our political leadership and politicos in general turn a blind eye to this reality either wittingly to pander to foreign lobbies or unwittingly due to lack of vision, intelligence and farsightedness. In order for this great country of ours to find a direction which stands at the right side of history, we Americans need to learn to discern between propaganda & truth. Why go along with whatever Fox Propaganda Channel dishes out or any other major media outlet. This is the age of information. Every thinking American must make up his or her mind about vital issues by seeking the truth. Chris, pl take note.

Keep up the good work we need more like you. Wish you would cntribute to Piers Morgan blog too.

@ Urban Ghurka

why not add Mexico to the list. Very convenient, we need not even seek support of muslim countries for logistics. And we do hate those muslims so much, all 1.2 billion of them depriving us the superior beings of the right to rule & plunder the planet.

it is all pandering for power maybe we should let the arab states take care of thier own,stop the U.S.

nation building and help the economy and people here.

Why did you have Richard "the puppet" Steele on ur show? What a waste of time. The bottom line the president CAN'T win.

After reading these, if you are also Chris, can only quote what a certain New York Times Columnist, David Carr, says about blogging:

"Blogging is feedback through a firehose."

LOL

what will prevent Khadafi from evadiung the no flight zone and the naval blocakde by inmporting weapons, mercenaries and supplies through the land borders with Niger and Chad

what will prevebnt Khadafi from avpiding the no flight zone and the naval bklokcade by simply importing weapons, nercenaries and supplies through his land border with Chad and Niger?

Chris Matthews and other readers, please consider the charges in context:

With no imminent threat a US President does not have the US Constitutional authority to launch an attack on a sovereign nation. Such appears to be entirely clear, concise and thankfully there is no wiggle room on this.

It is ILLEGAL for any UN resolution to specifically be used to force a change of a Government. Such is far and beyond the United Nations charter, aims and goals of a International Community.

UN 1973 resolution:(d) no attack on the infrastructure, making it a War Crime and illegal to bomb Tripoli Fuel Terminal, Depots, Harbors and ESPECIALLY Pro-Gadhafi residences in Tripoli, Libya. ALL of these appear to have been specifically targeted and this is specifically prohibited under article (d) in the 1973 UN resolution.

Background on this war:

Gadhafi had recently nationalized the Libyan Oil, Gas fields leaving both France and UK's Big Oil corporations receiving far smaller Oil, Gas dividends on their corporations Oil, Gas wells inside Libya. Suddenly both France, UK were chomping at the bit to attack Libya, oust Gadhafi and seize the Libyan Oil fields. SUCH Historically appears nearly identical to America's response to the Democratic government inside Iran when Iran did nearly the identical action and the CIA under America's Big Oil behest moved to undermine and destroy the existing Iranian government and insert the Shah of Iran to keep getting cheap Iranian Crude Oil.

It was British MI6 and the CIA who paid Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda $100,000 dollars to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996.

In 2002 French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell controlled directly by Bin Laden to hatch a plot to kill Gadhafi that was foiled in March 1996. The cell was led by Anas al-Liby, who was with Bin Laden in Sudan before Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan.

It was Gadhafi’s Libya who put out the first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden’s arrest in 1998. Western intelligence agencies blocked the warrant from being pursued, and allowed Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to go on and kill more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

NOW President Obama is Protecting and the CIA is Arming the very same Al Qaeda rebels that planned and blewup the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania out of their base in Benghazi. IF Gadhafi's arrest warrant had been carried out by Interpol, Osama bin Ladin would have been extradited to Libya and his reign of terror would have ended in 1998 saving THOUSANDS of American Lives!

The so-called rebels who completely appear to be linked to Al Qaeda:

Senior Al Qaeda commander backs Libyan rebels in video tape posted on Jihad Websites. http://xrl.in/8br7

Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect http://xrl.in/7ihk

U.S. Government Backs Libyan Al-Qaeda While Hyping Terror Attacks Inside U.S. http://xrl.in/7ij5

Libyan Rebels in Benghazi deeply connected to Al Qaeda US Military Documents reveal! http://xrl.in/7sih

China's sending a warship to protect Gadhafi and guard against coalition targeting pro-Gadhafi civilians http://xrl.in/8bzx

Serious questions about this conflict and War Crimes:

What part of UN resolution 1973'No-Fly Zone' involves bombing ground forces and pro-government civilian residences 200 miles from combat lines?

US Secretary of State Clinton Hillary seriously needs to learn history, the Benghazi Al Qaeda Rebels were the very ones that planned, and were under orders by Osama bin Ladin to carry out the US Embassy Kenya bombing!

Arming and Protecting the Al Qaeda rebels in Libya is INSANE. Didn't America BOMB Afghanistan because they were protecting Al Qaeda?

Pentagon 'mission-creep' what a assine understatement! China is sending the Warship Xuzhou to protect Gadhafi while Russia is warning of a WAR! Russian popular sentiment is extremely anti-American on what they see is a crass attempt to sweep Gadhafi out of power and steal the Oil, Gas Libyan wells.

China is far from happy about being forced to leave the Oil Wells in Libya. No way is China going to stand by and let France, UK take over the Libyan Oil, Gas wells and take those away from China. Now China is entirely likely to respond not only with sending a warship to Libya, China will also probably cut-off rare earth element exports to much of the West which every single new weapons platform totally require. Not a single Submarine, Jet Fighter, Aircraft Carrier etc. etc. could be built without them. Cutting off the rare earth elements exports and that would effectively become a major obstacle to future arms buildup if America (number one exporter of the weapons of death) is severely lacking the rare earth elements to include in their construction.

Both Russia and China last year warned of the use of gunboat diplomacy over the theft of another nations natural resources and Oil, Gas reserves. Neither of those nations is going to put up with the West as the West has played that old tired card time and time again around the world. Both Russia and China have thawed out their cold relationship and formed a mutual protection pact and are both warning America not to start WW3 over such soul-less diplomacy as well as mutually building up their nations to prepare for WW3. YES, both of those massive nations are 'banking' on America continuing on the same destructive form of gunboat diplomacy in the future. That was last year and it appears today with Libya as a very accurate view of the utter lack of America's diplomatic skills and non-gunboat style influence.