WSJ Opinion Journal on Obama's Kinetic Military Action

Read the original here.
 
Obama KLAMs Up
The World's Greatest Orator is the worst communicator of recent times.

By JAMES TARANTO

(Best of the tube this weekend: We'll be on the political panel of "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 7 p.m. ET tonight on Fox Business Network, and discussing Libya and Wisconsin on "The Journal Editorial Report," 2 and 11 p.m. ET Saturday on Fox News Channel.)

Gallup found a striking result in a survey this week: Only 47% of American adults approve of "the current U.S. military actions against Libya." That is a plurality (37% disapprove), but it is also the lowest proportion at the outset of any military action of the past three decades. Even the second-least-popular, Kosovo in 1999, had majority (51%) approval.

Here's a number that should be worrying the president's political team: While majorities of both Democrats (51%) and Republicans (57%) approve of the Libya action, only 38% of independents do, vs. a 44% plurality who disapprove.

By contrast, when Ronald Reagan bombed Tripoli in 1986, 71% approved. To be sure, lots of today's adults hadn't even been born then, but it's hard to believe those young voters, who supported Barack Obama so ardently, were unmoved by the president's speech the other day in which, among other things, he rehearsed Moammar Gadhafi's history of terrorism against Americans.

Haha, we're pulling your leg! Actually, it's easy to believe, because Obama gave no such speech. His administration is speaking with many voices, including that of national security aide Ben Rhodes, who, as the Washington Examiner reports, memorably described the Libya campaign not as war but as "kinetic military action."

In fairness, this ridiculous bit of jargon is not an Obama-era coinage; Bushies were using it way back in 2002, as Slate smart aleck Tim Noah noted at the time. In unfairness--and in honor of France's leadership--we are going to start referring to the Libya effort by the Frenglish acronym KLAM, for Kinetic Libyan Action Militaire.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that Obama speech. Politico reports that the president is clamming up about the KLAM:
Obama is resisting pressure to deliver an Oval Office speech explaining his policy on Libya--in part, because he doesn't want to equate what he regards as a smaller, time-limited mission with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Administration officials haven't ruled out a big speech, but Obama is reluctant to make a major address on Libya until the United States hands over most command and combat duties to its allies.
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.

What makes this such a head-scratcher is that Obama was supposed to be the World's Greatest Orator. The other day at lunch, a Brazilian lady observed that the president had been a big hit in her country, because "he's so well-spoken." This made us incredulous until we jogged our memory and remembered that, oh yes, they used to say that about him here too.

And it's true that Obama is good at expounding sweet nothings: One America, two America, red America, blue America, that sort of thing. His 2004 Democratic National Convention speech and his 2011 Tucson memorial speech were memorably good. The crowds in Rio probably got something similar.

Obama's indifferent performance in taking the country to war--sorry, to KLAM--can be explained by his indifference to the topic. By all accounts, he followed the lead of Hillary Clinton and her kettle of hawk hens, just as America followed the lead of the French, the British and the Arab League.

But Obama cared about ObamaCare, and he couldn't sell the public on that either. Has he ever managed to convince anyone of anything of substance?

Teachers Union Seeks to Hide Strike Talk in School Emails from Public Eyes

Read the original here.

Teachers Union Seeks to Hide Strike Talk in School Emails from Public Eyes
By Tom Gantert | March 25, 2011

The Michigan Education Association’s attorney sent an email advising its members to make sure that all emails pertaining to the illegal activity of striking teachers not be released in a Freedom of Information request sent to their districts. Art Przybylowicz, the MEA’s general counsel, warned union members that the Mackinac Center for Public Policy had sent a FOIA to school districts asking for electronic correspondence regarding a strike.

Last week, MEA president Iris Salters sent an email to members asking about their willingness to allow the union to “initiate crisis activities” which could include “work stoppages.” Teacher strikes are illegal under Michigan law.

Przybylowicz cited the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling on the Howell Education Association vs. Howell Board of Education case. This ruling stipulated that email communications between public school employees in their capacity as members of the union were “personal emails” and thus not subject to FOIA.

“Thus, school districts should not be disclosing those types of e-mails in response to this inquiry,” Przybylowicz wrote in his email. “If you become aware that your school district is planning to disclose e-mails between staff members, please contact your UniServ Director.”

But Robin Luce-Herrmann, general counsel to the Michigan Press Association, said she thinks Przybylowicz has an overbroad interpretation of the Court of Appeals ruling. Herrmann said emails in the Howell case involving teacher/union members and the administration were released pursuant to FOIA. She said the Court of Appeals ruling said that emails were not considered “public records” solely because they were in a teacher’s email. Herrmann said emails related to “crisis activity” or “job action” involves teachers acting in their official capacity as public employers.

There is a motion that the Michigan Supreme Court reconsider the Howell Education Association vs. Howell Board of Education decision. Herrmann said the MEA’s overbroad interpretation of the ruling is one reason why the Supreme Court should take up the case.

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation and the Michigan Press Association have jointly filed a legal brief in the case.

“One of our contentions has been that last year’s ruling would lead to public employees’ illegal activity being hidden from public scrutiny, thereby gutting the state’s FOIA law,” said MCLF Director Patrick Wright, who coauthored a joint amicus brief. “That concern has been heightened now that a school district has used the decision to thwart a request for emails discussing school employee strikes. Such strikes are illegal.”

~~~~~

Copyright © 2011 Mackinac Center for Public Policy
www.mackinac.org

Sen. McCaskill has trouble defining legal

Read the original here.

McCaskill: No, I can’t assure voters that I’m doing everything legally

posted at 3:35 pm on March 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Give Claire McCaskill some credit for agreeing to discuss her legal issues on the air with Jamie Allman today in St. Louis. Most politicians facing potential charges for tax evasion would clam up, advisedly, to ensure that they don’t provide contradictory public statements for a potential prosecution. McCaskill has already pledged to pay whatever she owes, so that probably won’t be an issue anyway — and besides, her political career is dead unless she can convince the Show-Me State that she was just incompetent and not crooked.

And McCaskill deserves credit for taking blame at every turn in this interview, and answering all of Allman’s questions rather than attempting to duck them. McCaskill stumbles while being a little too honest when Allman asks whether McCaskill can assure voters that everything she’s doing now is legal. She also appears to balk at releasing the tax records for the corporations involved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYpP1vCYnDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFKJqhKTmIE

McCaskill tries to deflect questions about the tax records by claiming that her husband’s success has been a “bright shiny object” for her political opponents, but that’s hardly responsive to the question. She used her husband’s success to the extent that she used the plane, and contributed to it to the extent that she transferred $76,000 from her Senate budget to the company that owns the plane. Had the money come from her campaign coffers rather than her Senate budget, it wouldn’t have been as much of a problem for the reason McCaskill gives regarding Obama’s use of the plane; either campaigns have to pay to use transportation or the companies providing it have to declare an in-kind contribution.

Meanwhile, one Republican opponent has already rolled out a new web ad on the scandal. Sarah Steelman uses McCaskill’s own words to argue that Missouri voters should never vote for McCaskill again. This one will leave a big mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CJPQpjUSJI

McCaskill’s doing just about everything she can for damage control, including reaching out to Missouri talk-show hosts to express her mortification and her regret, but this is a lot of damage to undo. Don’t be surprised if Democrats end up with Robin Carnahan back on the ticket in 2012.

Who deserves freedom in this country?

… The Republicans in Congress claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway.

-Sen. Frank Lautenberg, 3/22/2011

The Speech Obama Hasn't Given

Read the original here.

The Speech Obama Hasn't Given
What are we doing in Libya? Americans deserve an explanation.

By PEGGY NOONAN

It all seems rather mad, doesn't it? The decision to become involved militarily in the Libyan civil war couldn't take place within a less hospitable context. The U.S. is reeling from spending and deficits, we're already in two wars, our military has been stretched to the limit, we're restive at home, and no one, really, sees President Obama as the kind of leader you'd follow over the top. "This way, men!" "No, I think I'll stay in my trench." People didn't hire him to start battles but to end them. They didn't expect him to open new fronts. Did he not know this?

He has no happy experience as a rallier of public opinion and a leader of great endeavors; the central initiative of his presidency, the one that gave shape to his leadership, health care, is still unpopular and the cause of continued agitation. When he devoted his entire first year to it, he seemed off point and out of touch. This was followed by the BP oil spill, which made him look snakebit. Now he seems incompetent and out of his depth in foreign and military affairs. He is more observed than followed, or perhaps I should say you follow him with your eyes and not your heart. So it's funny he'd feel free to launch and lead a war, which is what this confused and uncertain military action may become.

What was he thinking? What is he thinking? 

Which gets me to Mr. Obama's speech, the one he hasn't given. I cannot for the life of me see how an American president can launch a serious military action without a full and formal national address in which he explains to the American people why he is doing what he is doing, why it is right, and why it is very much in the national interest. He referred to his aims in parts of speeches and appearances when he was in South America, but now he's home. More is needed, more is warranted, and more is deserved. He has to sit at that big desk and explain his thinking, put forward the facts as he sees them, and try to garner public support. He has to make a case for his own actions. It's what presidents do! And this is particularly important now, because there are reasons to fear the current involvement will either escalate and produce a lengthy conflict or collapse and produce humiliation.

Without a formal and extended statement, the air of weirdness, uncertainty and confusion that surrounds this endeavor will only deepen.

The questions that must be answered actually start with the essentials. What, exactly, are we doing? Why are we doing it? At what point, or after what arguments, did the president decide U.S. military involvement was warranted? Is our objective practical and doable? What is America's overriding strategic interest? In what way are the actions taken, and to be taken, seeing to those interests?

From those questions flow many others. We know who we're against—Moammar Gadhafi, a bad man who's done very wicked things. But do we know who we're for? That is, what does the U.S. government know or think it knows about the composition and motives of the rebel forces we're attempting to assist? For 42 years, Gadhafi controlled his nation's tribes, sects and groups through brute force, bribes and blandishments. What will happen when they are no longer kept down? What will happen when they are no longer oppressed? What will they become, and what role will they play in the coming drama? Will their rebellion against Gadhafi degenerate into a dozen separate battles over oil, power and local dominance?

What happens if Gadhafi hangs on? The president has said he wants U.S. involvement to be brief. But what if Gadhafi is fighting on three months from now?

On the other hand, what happens if Gadhafi falls, if he's deposed in a palace coup or military coup, or is killed, or flees? What exactly do we imagine will take his place?

Supporters of U.S. intervention have argued that if we mean to protect Libya's civilians, as we have declared, then we must force regime change. But in order to remove Gadhafi, they add, we will need to do many other things. We will need to provide close-in air power. We will probably have to put in special forces teams to work with the rebels, who are largely untrained and ragtag. The Libyan army has tanks and brigades and heavy weapons. The U.S. and the allies will have to provide the rebels training and give them support. They will need antitank missiles and help in coordinating air strikes.

Once Gadhafi is gone, will there be a need for an international peacekeeping force to stabilize the country, to provide a peaceful transition, and to help the post-Gadhafi government restore its infrastructure? Will there be a partition? Will Libyan territory be altered?

None of this sounds like limited and discrete action.

In fact, this may turn out to be true: If Gadhafi survives, the crisis will go on and on. If Gadhafi falls, the crisis will go on and on.

Everyone who supports the Libyan endeavor says they don't want an occupation. One said the other day, "We're not looking for a protracted occupation."

Protracted?

Mr. Obama has apparently set great store in the fact that he was not acting alone, that Britain, France and Italy were eager to move. That's good—better to work with friends and act in concert. But it doesn't guarantee anything. A multilateral mistake is still a mistake. So far the allied effort has not been marked by good coordination and communication. If the conflict in Libya drags on, won't there tend to be more fissures, more tension, less commitment and more confusion as to objectives and command structures? Could the unanticipated results of the Libya action include new strains, even a new estrangement, among the allies?

How might Gadhafi hit out, in revenge, in his presumed last days, against America and the West?

And what, finally, about Congress? Putting aside the past half-century's argument about declarations of war, doesn't Congress, as representative of the people, have the obvious authority and responsibility to support the Libyan endeavor, or not, and to authorize funds, or not?

These are all big questions, and there are many other obvious ones. If the Libya endeavor is motivated solely by humanitarian concerns, then why haven't we acted on those concerns recently in other suffering nations? It's a rough old world out there, and there's a lot of suffering. What is our thinking going forward? What are the new rules of the road, if there are new rules? Were we, in Libya, making a preemptive strike against extraordinary suffering—suffering beyond what is inevitable in a civil war?

America has been though a difficult 10 years, and the burden of proof on the need for U.S. action would be with those who supported intervention. Chief among them, of course, is the president, who made the decision as commander in chief. He needs to sit down and tell the American people how this thing can possibly turn out well. He needs to tell them why it isn't mad.


Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Obamacare, friends need not be applied to...

As someone whose premiums went up 33%, with a 40% reduction in benefits, I would like to know how I can apply for a waiver?
-----------------------------------------
Anthony Weiner: Waiver might work for New York - Kate Nocera

Rep. Anthony Weiner[1] said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.

Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York[2], said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.Continue Reading[3]

“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”

New York is one of two states that pass on Medicaid expenses to cities and localities, so “the city winds up having an enormous Medicaid expense,” Weiner said.

The congressman was trying to debunk Republican “myths” about the health care law during a speech at the Center for American Progress. He used the waivers as way to describe how flexible the law actually is and how “this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people’s throats” is not true.

“The administration needs to make this argument more forcefully,” he said. “A lot of people who got waivers were … people who are our friends.”

The New York Democrat said that he does not have the power to get the city to apply for a waiver but that he is “personally looking at whether he can make the numbers work.”

“We in New York already have hospitals, we already employ doctors and we employ nurses. We have a lot of uninsured people. … [Setting up] the exchanges is the one piece of the puzzle that would be difficult for us to do,” he said. “I’m just looking internally to whether the city can save money and have more control over its own destiny.

Weiner is slated to hold at least five events on the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act[4] and has been one of the most outspoken[5] Democratic supporters of the law.

References
^ Anthony Weiner (www.politico.com)
^ New York (topics.politico.com)
^ Continue Reading (www.politico.com)
^ Affordable Care Act (topics.politico.com)
^ most outspoken (www.politico.com)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51840.html#ixzz1HWM0kbjc

Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011)

Read the original article here.

The Bawdy and the Beautiful
Elizabeth Taylor's delightful vulgarity

By Simon Doonan for Slate

March 23, 2011

Elizabeth Taylor was wild and beautiful and unpretentious and insanely glamorous. When I was a kid the papers were filled with cascading images of her scandalous trials and fabulations: Liz in Capri pants clutching poodles and waving drunkenly from the deck of her yacht; Liz deathly ill; Liz back from the dead, suntanned and buying ever bigger bijoux; Liz and Eddie; Liz and Monty; and, most importantly, Liz and Dick.

Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton were the Brad and Angelina of their day, minus all that the earnest actor-ish stuff. A movie actress her entire life, she was so confident about her ability to deliver her lines that she never descended into all that gobbledygook—it's about "the craft" and "the work"—which spouts from the mouths of contemporary actors. Dick always claimed that his wife, with her just-shut-up-and-say-the-bloody-words attitude toward acting, relieved him of the burden of his Shakespearian provenance and taught him how to just do it.

Miss Taylor differed from today's actors in another way too. SHE BOUGHT ALL HER OWN DRAG! No freebies for Liz. In truth, La Taylor had an uneasy relationship with the world of fashion. Though lauded for the beauty of her face and her violet eyes—her catlike make-up in Cleopatra inspired a million girls around the world to break out the liquid eyeliner—she was always having too much fun to seek out the approval of the snootier echelons of the world of style. (In Cecil Beaton's odiously disdainful diaries he likens her to "a peasant woman suckling her young in Peru.") When, in 1998, La Taylor's fashion influence was finally acknowledged with a CFDA award, her acceptance speech consisted of one sentence: "Eat your heart out Mr. Blackwell!" That nasty old geezer had plopped Liz's name on the worst-dressed list for years, but Liz had the last laugh.

Liz always had a way with a bon mot. For someone who earned her living delivering other people's (screenwriter's) gems, she was remarkably capable of crafting her own. A few of my favorites:

"Success is a great deodorant. It takes away all your past smells."
"If someone's dumb enough to offer me a million dollars to make a picture, I'm certainly not dumb enough to turn it down."
"Big girls need big diamonds."
"The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues."

Liz Taylor's glorious, gorgeous, generous (she was a tireless AIDS advocate long before it became trendy), incredible life is a monument to the ultimate triumph of fun and glamour and vulgarity. Yes, vulgarity. When Diana Vreeland famously said, "Vulgarity is a very important ingredient in life. A little bad taste is like nice splash of paprika. We all need a splash of bad taste—it's hearty, it's healthy, it's physical. No taste is what I'm against," I feel she must surely have had a picture of the fabulous Elizabeth Taylor in her mind.

As we revisit the Taylor movie canon in the coming months, you will no doubt watch Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Suddenly Last Summer, BUtterfield 8 and all the greats. But don't overlook the dustier nooks and crannies of Liz-obilia. Some of the best style moments are to be found in her more obscure movies like Secret Ceremony and Reflections in a Golden Eye. My fave might just be X Y & Zee with Michael Caine. How to describe this demented movie? Imagine if Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was transposed into early '70s London and 90 percent of the characters are wearing caftans. The opening credits—a busty, boozed-up Liz plays a violent game of ping-pong with a hot-looking, bespectacled Michael Caine—are pure orgasmic joy. My hubby and I were so smitten with this movie that we installed a ping-pong table in the middle of our living room, in homage to La Taylor. Why don't you give it a whirl! What better way to remember the incredible Liz: Crack open a bottle of scotch, throw on a caftan, and grab those ping-pong paddles.

RIP, Elizabeth (as you preferred to be known). You will be horribly missed.

Who needs a coalition, when there's no war...?

'We are not at war,’ says Fillon

Opening the debate on French involvement in Libya, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon reiterated that the intervention was intended to stop attacks against Libyan civilians, and nothing more.

“We are not at war with Libya, we are protecting the civilian population,” said Fillon and added, “Our objectives are very specific... to protect the civilian population, excluding explicitly any occupation forces.”

France and Libya

As the first and only country in the world to recognize the Libyan opposition’s National Transition Council, France took a leading role in pushing for a no-fly zone to contain Muammar Gaddafi’s air power and stop the Libyan leader from targeting civilians.
The resulting UN resolution 1973, which was passed last week, gives the international community wide scope to use "all necessary means" to protect civilians.

Domestic repercussions

Fillon admitted that French involvement could have “domestic repercussions,'' and that intelligence services had been mobilized as “threats were made” against France. But he did not provide further details.

Reporting from the French parliament Tuesday, FRANCE 24’s Catherine Norris Trent said Fillon had mentioned the recent uprisings in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt and asserted that “France want[s] to see a new era in the Mediterranean region."


“His speech focused not just on what’s going on in Libya, but in very idealistic terms, on what’s going on in the entire region,” she said.

Under French law, the executive branch must inform parliament about the government’s move to commit French troops abroad.

Parliamentary approval, however, is not mandated under French law and Tuesday’s debate is not expected to spark much controversy.

French political opinion has been largely behind President Nicolas Sarkozy’s deployment of forces to aid the international mission in Libya.

Former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has welcomed France’s involvement in Libya. In an interview published on Sunday in the weekly newspaper, Le Journal du Dimanche, Villepin supported the French military initiative against Gaddafi.

France’s main opposition Socialist Party has also supported UN Resolution 1973.

Addressing parliament after Fillon, Socialist Party parliamentarian Jean-Marc Ayrault, said his party had agreed with the text and the hopes of UN Resolution 1973. But he also warned of the risks of a stalemate.

“We do not know the actual military capabilities of the Libyan insurgents,” said Ayrault. “Muammar Gaddafi is in no hurry.”

In his speech before parliament Tuesday, French foreign minister Alain Juppe responded to concerns over the long-term strategy in Libya, calling for the formation of political steering committees comprising of the foreign ministers from coalition partners – including Arab allies – to discuss the next stages of the Libyan intervention.

Juppe told parliament that the political steering committees could meet in Paris, Brussels or London in the coming days.
He also reiterated France’s position that NATO must not take political control of the military operations after the USA handed over control because it would alienate Arab countries although France was willing to use the alliance's military command to plan and execute air operations.

At the extreme ends of the political spectru, though, hardline left and right parties have voiced opposition to the intervention. “This is an act of war,” said Marine Le Pen, the new leader of the far right Front National party. “It will not solve the problem, which is one of long-term civil war”.

US should only go to war with a broad coalition....right?

Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart


By Daily Mail Reporter[1]
Last updated at 1:32 AM on 23rd March 2011

• Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated 
• French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
• Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction 
• Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
• No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine 
• U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
• Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
• Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.

U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces within days, handing the reins over to NATO.

But Germany and European allies remain unwilling to have NATO take on a military operation that theoretically has nothing to do with the defence of Europe.

Today the German defence ministry announced Berlin had pulled out of any military operations in the Mediterranean.

A ministry spokesman said two frigates and two other ships with a crew of 550 would be reverted to German command.

Some 60 to 70 German troops participating in NATO-operated AWACS surveillance operations in the Mediterranean would also be withdrawn, according to the ministry.

Berlin isn't participating in the operation to impose a no-fly zone in Libya and abstained on the U.N. resolution authorising it.

Who is providing what in the war effort

US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
France: Rafale and Mirage aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
UK: Typhoon and Tornado aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
Canada: F-18 aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
Spain: F-18 aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
Denmark: F-16 aircraft
Belgium: F-16 aircraft

France, which launched the initial air strikes on Libya on Saturday, has argued against giving the U.S.-led NATO political control over an operation in an Arab country, while Turkey has called for limits to any alliance involvement.

In a bid to halt the embarrassing bickering, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe today proposed a new war committee to oversee operations.

The new body, Mr Juppe said, would bring together foreign ministers of participating states - such as Britain, France and the U.S. - as well as the Arab League.

Meanwhile the head of the Italian Senate's defence affairs committee, Gianpiero Cantoni, said the original French anti-NATO stance was motivated by a desire to secure oil contracts with a future Libyan government.

Some allies are even questioning whether a no-fly zone is still necessary, given the damage already done by air strikes to Gaddafi's military capabilities.

Speaking about yesterday's hastily arranged meeting of NATO allies, one diplomat said: 'The meeting became a little bit emotional,' before adding that France had argued that the coalition led by Britain, the United States and France should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.

'Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn't make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,' the diplomat added.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

'There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,' he told news channel CNN Turk.

Adding pressure to the already fractured alliance, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has also reiterated a warning that Italy would take back control of airbases it has authorised for use by allies for operations over Libya unless a NATO coordination structure was agreed.

In a shock admission, U.K. ministers have admitted the intervention in Libya could last for up to '30 years'.

Asked for an estimate, British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey said: 'How long is a piece of string? We don't know how long this is going to go on.

'We don't know if this is going to result in a stalemate. We don't know if his capabilities are going to be degraded quickly. Ask me again in a week.'

In the U.S., Obama has made it clear he wants no part of any leadership role in Libya.

The President has already been criticised for continuing with a tour of Latin America as the military operation over Libya began. And yesterday he insisted again that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. is not prepared to remove him by force, but merely to enforce the no-fly zone.

Even that hesitant stance, which has already earned him the title of the Great Vacillator, left him criticised for not seeking proper approval from Congress before sending the American military in.

And after reports emerged that Gaddafi's son had been killed in a kamikaze strike yesterday, fresh questions over what exactly the U.S. intends to achieve in Libya emerged.

With Turkey digging its heels in and the Arab League suspicious, it has been pointed out that Mr Obama has fewer coalition partners in Libya than George Bush did at the start of the Iraq war.

He was criticised by both Republicans and Democrats over his decision to commit the U.S. military before going to Congress.

Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California, Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland all complained that Mr Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without Congressional permission.

The President hit back in a two-page letter to Congress and again reiterated his claim that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. was only in Libya to enforce the no-fly zone for the protection of civilians.

France has already taken a leading role in the conflict, with President Nicolas Sarkozy hosting a summit in Paris over the weekend and French bombers being the first to enforce the no-fly zone.

Last night Britain's top general was embroiled in an extraordinary clash with Downing Street over the legality of a strike to kill Gaddafi.

No 10 slapped down Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards after he flatly rejected ministers’ suggestions that the Libyan dictator was a legitimate target for assassination.

Downing Street and Foreign Office officials were quick to dispute that – saying assassinating Gaddafi would be legal because it would preserve civilian lives in Libya.

But U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates quickly dismissed the suggestion, describing the calls for Gaddafi’s killing ‘unwise’.

Desperately trying to keep the mission on track, he warned that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.

‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,’ he said. ‘I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.’

Were journalists used as human shields by Gaddafi

A vicious war of words has broken out between TV networks Fox news and CNN.

On Monday a Fox website reported journalists from several news organisations being used as 'human shields' to stop a British air strike on a Gaddafi compound.

The 40 journalists were bused to the site on the invitation of Libyan government officials.

The Fox report said the trip was part of a plan by Gaddafi officials to prevent the planes releasing their bombs.

Nic Robertson, a veteran CNN correspondent who was part of the CNN crew mentioned in the Fox story, called the rival network's report 'outrageous and hypocritical.'

Mr Robertson added that a Fox journalist was part of the trip, a fact left out of the network's web report.

Mr Obama has not directly discussed the military action with British Prime Minister David Cameron since it began on Saturday – an omission that would have been unthinkable under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The public spat just days into the operation highlighted growing tensions about ‘mission creep’ in the assault on Gaddafi.

Meanwhle, the coalition abandoned a further raid by Tornado bombers when SAS soldiers on the ground warned that civilians and journalists were being used as human shields.

And Russian premier Vladimir Putin provocatively likened the UN-backed mission to the medieval crusades.

On Saturday Gaddafi's son was said to have been killed in a Tomahawk missile strike on the dictator's compound carried out by the British submarine HMS Triumph.

And soon afterwards, it was reduced to rubble by a precision strike from the 1,000lb weapons. The block was about 150 yards from the tents which the Libyan leader uses as his official residence.

It is not known where the dictator was at the time of the bombing but he has not been seen or heard since the attack. He may have fled into the desert. Senior government sources described the hugely symbolic strike at the heart of his regime as a ‘shot across his bows’.

But there was outright condemnation from Russian premier Vladimir Putin, who gave fuel to Muslim critics of the attacks by branding the UN resolution backing the use of force – a resolution on which Russia abstained – a return to the Crusades.

‘The resolution is defective and flawed,’ said Mr Putin. ‘It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades.’

Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League said that while he supports a no-fly zone, ‘the Arab League was against aerial bombing in principle’.

The North Atlantic Council will meet today to thrash out the differences as every Nato country must agree the plans.

Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan called for air strikes to end ‘as soon as possible’.

‘If Nato is going into operation we have some conditions,’ Mr Erdogan said. ‘Nato should go in with the recognition and acknowledgement that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth.’

Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said legal procedures for establishing a coalition ‘were not sufficiently respected’ by the West.

Mr Cameron responded: ‘There are millions in the Arab world who frankly want to know that the UN, the U.S., the UK, the French [and] the international community care about their suffering and their oppression.’

Defence officials say Qatari war planes are to join the no-fly zone operation and the United Arab Emirates is being pressured to help too.

Explore more:People:Robert Gates[2],Vladimir Putin[3],George Bush[4],David Cameron[5],Barack Obama[6],Gordon Brown[7],Nicolas Sarkozy[8],Nick Harvey[9]Places:Paris[10],New York[11],Washington[12],Berlin[13],France[14],Chile[15],Germany[16],Turkey[17],Libya[18],Iraq[19],United Kingdom[20],Russia[21],Italy[22],Canada[23],Denmark[24],Spain[25],Belgium[26],Europe[27],Mediterranean[28]

References
^ Daily Mail Reporter (www.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Robert Gates (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Vladimir Putin (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ George Bush (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ David Cameron (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Barack Obama (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Gordon Brown (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Nicolas Sarkozy (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Nick Harvey (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Paris (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ New York (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Washington (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Berlin (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ France (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Chile (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Germany (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Turkey (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Libya (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Iraq (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ United Kingdom (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Russia (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Italy (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Canada (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Denmark (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Spain (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Belgium (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Europe (explore.dailymail.co.uk)
^ Mediterranean (explore.dailymail.co.uk)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html#ixzz1HQZC8gVA

Quote of the Yesteryear

"I want to make it clear, and I made it clear to the President, that if he takes the nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval...I will make it my business to impeach him.  And that's a fact.  That is a fact."


-Sen. Joe Biden, now Vice President Joe Biden, 12/14/2007.


(So, this is a very specific impeachment clause, having to do only with Iran and George Bush, with the necessary Barack Obama and Libya exemption?)

Is BusinessInsider.com a reputable source? If so....

Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America

A former official of one of the country's most-powerful unions, SEIU, is detailing a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.

Specifically, the plan seeks to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks.[1] Many Americans will undoubtely sympathize with and support them. Still, the "destabilization" plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.

Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore--the redistribution of wealth and the return of "$17 trillion" stolen from the middle class by Wall Street--is to "destabilize the country."

Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage[2], student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.

Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.

Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.

Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November[3], reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here. It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields. His main message--that Wall Street won the financial crisis, that inequality in this country is hitting record levels[4], and that there appears to be no other way to stop the trend--will almost certainly resonate.

A transcript of Lerner's full reported remarks is below, courtesy of The Blaze. We have heard the tape, but we have not independently verified that the voice is Lerner's. You can listen to the tape here[5].

Here are the key remarks:

Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything...

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
How do we bring down the stock market
How do we bring down their bonuses
How do we interfere with there ability to be rich...

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
that we are not broke there is plenty of money
they have the money - we need to get it back
and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle[6] to try and destroy us

And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE BLAZE

SPEAKER: Stephen Lerner. Speaker at the Left Forum 2011 "Towards a Politics of Solidarity" Pace University March 19, 2011

Speaker Bio: Stephen Lerner is the architect of the SEIU's groundbreaking Justice for Janitors campaign. He led the union's banking and finance campaign and has partnered with unions and groups in Europe, South American and elsewhere in campaigns to hold financial institutions accountable. As director of the union's private equity project, he launched a long campaign to expose the over-leveraged feeding frenzy of private equity firms during the boom years that led to the ensuing economic disaster.

TRANSCRIPT:

It feels to me after a long time of being on defense that something is starting to turn in the world and we just have to decide if we are on defense or offense

Maybe there is a different way to look at some of theses questions it’s hard for me to think about any part of organizing without thinking what just happened with this economic crisis and what it means

I don't know how to have a discussion about labor and community if we don't first say what do we need to do at this time in history what is the strategy that gives us some chance of winning because I spent my life time as a union organizer justice for janitors a lot of things

It seems we are at a moment where the world is going to get much much worse or much much better

Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.

What's changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us

They figured out that they don't need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.

We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate

The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything.

Government is being strangled by debt

The four things we could do that could really upset wall street

One is if city and state and other government entities demanded to renegotiate their debt
and you might say why would the banks ever do it - because city and counties could say we won’t do business with you in the future if you won’t renegotiate the debt now

So we could leverage the power we have of government and say two things we won’t do business with you JP Morgan Chase anymore unless you do two things: you reduce the price of our interest and second you rewrite the mortgages[7] for everybody in the communities

We could make them do that

The second thing is there is a whole question in Europe about students’ rates in debt structure. What would happen if students said we are not going to pay. It’s a trillion dollars. Think about republicans screaming about debt a trillion dollars in student debt

There is a third thing we can think about what if public employee unions instead of just being on the defensive put on the collective bargaining table when they negotiate they say we demand as a condition of negotiation that the government renegotiate - it’s crazy that you’re paying too much interest to your buddies the bankers it’s a strike issue - we will strike unless you force the banks to renegotiate/

Then if you add on top of that if we really thought about moving the kind of disruption in Madison but moving that to Wall Street and moving that to other cities around the country

We basically said you stole seventeen trillion dollars - you've improvised us and we are going to make it impossible for you to operate

Labor can’t lead this right now so if labor can’t lead but we are a critical part of it we do have money we have millions of members who are furious

But I don't think this kind of movement can happen unless community groups and other activists take the lead.

If we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of what's happening in capitalism

Then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop really ability to put a boot in the wheel then we have to think not about labor and community alliances we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates

We need to think about a whole new way of thinking about this not as a partnership but building something new.

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
How do we bring down the stock market
How do we bring down their bonuses
How do we interfere with there ability to be rich


And that means we have to politically isolate them, economically isolate them and disrupt them

It’s not all theory i’ll do a pitch.

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
that we are not broke there is plenty of money
they have the money - we need to get it back
and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us


And so we need to take on those folks at the same time

and that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city
then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization it try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

Listen to the tape here >[8]

See Also: 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America[9]

References
^ appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks. (www.theblaze.com)
^ mortgage (www.businessinsider.com)
^ ousted from SEIU last November (www.laborunionreport.com)
^ inequality in this country is hitting record levels (www.businessinsider.com)
^ listen to the tape here (www.theblaze.com)
^ vehicle (www.businessinsider.com)
^ mortgages (www.businessinsider.com)
^ Listen to the tape here > (www.theblaze.com)
^ 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America (www.businessinsider.com)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/seiu-union-plan-to-destroy-jpmorgan#ixzz1HLUC4UF0

The NY Times is objective...and I have a bridge to sell you.

Huckabee Book Back on NYT List After Newsmax Article

The New York Times upgraded the classification of Mike Huckabee’s new book Friday, one day after Newsmax detailed complaints that the paper was politicizing its best-sellers rankings to the detriment of Fox News contributors.

Huckabee’s new best-seller “Simple Government” will move from the Times’ “Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous” list to its more popular and influential “Non-fiction” best-sellers list, Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha tells Newsmax.

“We consider titles on a case-by-case basis, and the decision involves a multiplicity of factors, which in turn can lead to a change in our categorization,” says Ha. “As it happens, ‘Simple Government’ by Mike Huckabee will now appear on the non-fiction list.”

Ha was responding to complaints detailed by Newsmax[1] from political strategist Dick Morris, who accused the Times of manipulating its best-seller list to keep conservative authors connected to Fox News out of the prime categories

The Times list set to be published Sunday, up until yesterday, had Morris’ “Revolt: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs,” Huckabee’s “Simple Government,” and Dr. Frank Luntz’s business book “Win” in the “Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous” List.

“What do those authors have in common?” Morris complained. “Just one thing: Huckabee, Morris, and Luntz are all Fox News contributors.”

Morris claimed the Times’ “ghettoization of the Fox News books” to its How-To list comes directly from Executive Editor Bill Keller’s disdain for Fox News and its audience. Keller has been widely quoted saying regular viewers of Fox News are “among the most cynical people on planet.”

“The New York Times is once again showing its liberal bias in overtly politicizing the best-sellers list,” Morris says. “Now, it's not just the news that's way over left, it's the best-sellers, too.”

The politicization of the Times’ list could have a profound impact on sales, Morris adds. Once the new list is published, many booksellers won't put “Revolt!” in prime retail positions with the other nonfiction best-sellers. Instead, Morris complains, they’ could be relegated to the shelves of self-help, marital advice, and diet books.

Ha called Morris’ characterization of the Times list inaccurate. “There is no policy or campaign to shunt conservative books onto the “advice, how-to, and miscellaneous” list,” she tells Newsmax. “The decision about which of our several lists is most appropriate for a title is made jointly by our news surveys department, which closely studies sales, and book review editors.”

Established in 1942, The New York Times Best-Sellers list employs a secretive methodology involving the survey of more than 3,000 bookstores and 20,000 retail outlets in order to come up with its weekly list of hot reads. The list heavily influences both consumer purchasing and retail display of books, according to a 2005 Stanford Business School analysis. The system is far from perfect. Authors have had success in the past gaming the list by making concentrated purchases of their own books at select stores known to report to the Times.

The New York Times added the Advice, How-to and Miscellaneous category in 1985 when a glut of self-help and instructional books began crowding out the general nonfiction list.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

References
^ complaints detailed by Newsmax (www.newsmax.com)

Read more on Newsmax.com: Huckabee Book Back on NYT List After Newsmax Article