Prez fails to call for dictator's removal despite reports of attacks on citizens
JERUSALEM – As pressure mounts on the White House to intervene to stop Moammar Gadhafi's bloody crackdown in Libya, many commentators have been wondering why Barack Obama has been cautious in his criticism of the dictator after the U.S. president so fervently supported the removal from office of U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual adviser for more than 23 years.
The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group.
So far, White House officials have called for an end to the violence but have seemingly ruled out any unilateral action in Libya. Despite Gadhafi's reported ordering of massacres that reportedly have killed hundreds of civilians in recent days, Obama hasn't called on Gadhafi to leave office.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual adviser for more than 23 years.
ReplyDeleteThe Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group
WHAT?!
Am I the only one who sees this as a red flag...BANNER?
Or maybe it's because the US doesn't have too many cards to play in Libya. Unlike Egypt, they are not tied by the ropes of hefty economic and military aid. But what the hey, we should just send our men and women into another war zone (great idea Sarah) because that makes a good sound bite for today's news cycle.
ReplyDeleteAnd why aren't Americans calling on Obama to leave office???
ReplyDeleteThe introduction to "The Manchurian President" relates: "Barack Obama is backed by and deeply tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that, as this book will show, was instrumental not only in mentoring Obama and helping him to build his political career, but essentially in overthrowing the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and in securing and powerfully influencing Obama's presidency
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=160569
You are all treating World Net Daily as a legitimate news source? Really. What, Glenn Beck was not available for comment?
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of straws to grasp at if one wishes, but don't grab the ones held by the clowns.
If I remember it right Obama was not the one to normalize relations with Lybia, nor was he presient when England released the Lockerbie bomber. These points are not addressed in this article, but it does speak to other Administration's views about the regime. Just sayin...
Let's face it....Obama is not one of US....he's from another planet, just like me. We breath oxygen !!
ReplyDelete3:24 PM
ReplyDeleteYes. Why not? Do you have a source? If so, share it please.
Source for which part, word?
ReplyDeleteSource to dispute or disprove or anything else to which you question the legitimacy of the news source we used, as well as the topic of said news source.
ReplyDeleteI did a short search but could not find any 'major' news source reporting this exact phrase, which is really no big surprise to me since I believe most are controlled by government to some degree.
Searching each figure mentioned might prove worthwhile but I'm not inclined to do so at this time.
I've never liked obammy so it's not hard for me to believe such things about him from the totality of what I have read about him.
So yes, I may be a little biased but I will read whatever you may supply with as much an open mind as I can.
So, if I understand your reasoning, if there is no article in opposition to this article, then the source material must be true?
ReplyDeleteHave you consitered the possibility that no one is writing about how the source is dubious because it may go without saying? It is almost impossible to debate the crazy ones, because there is no way to refute what they pull out of their butt.
It is as if this article was about the secret love triangle between Obama, Pelosi, and Bin Laden, and how US Government Leaders are working day and night to cover it up. I would call it crazy nonsense, then you would respond by saying "show me your proof that it is wrong." There is no proof that it is wrong, it just is.
However, my lack of said "proof" allows you to claim some kind of victory.
To personalize it a bit it would be like this: I am not saying that you killed your first wife in secret and have hidden it from everyone, but I have never heard you say that you did not kill your first wife in secret and hid it from everyone all these years. I mean, what do you have to hide?
It is OK to all out the crazy for what it is, even if it is about those people you don't like. Giving creedence to the crazy birther/manchurian/muslim/soclist conspiracy mongers handicaps you when you are trying to put forard a legitimate, reasoned policy debate opposing the other side.
You are in bed with them or you are not. But crazy is sticky. Once it gets on you, it colors everything.
Well I tried to be reasonable, open minded and polite but I take offense to your assumptions.
ReplyDeleteI thought I made myself clear but perhaps not.
I already admitted I couldn't find a major source to confirm this, but from the rest I have heard and read about this man I would tend to believe it, although I couldn't confirm it with conventional news sources.
I also stated that individual searches on the other players might be worthwhile but I'm not inclined to do it since I already tend to believe it in the first place.
There is no strict policy I follow to which if one things applies, it applies to every other instance. I view each individual issue on it's on merits, not some blanket policy.
I do see your point and maybe later on I will dig deeper into it to satisfy my own curiousity and to verify the merits of the story.
The issue was if this was a credible news source, which I believe it is. They've been doing it over 14 years and have a staff of 25.
Something just came up I'll get back to this later.
You state, "I already admitted I couldn't find a major source to confirm this, but from the rest I have heard and read about this man I would tend to believe it, although I couldn't confirm it with conventional news sources."
ReplyDeleteWell, doesn't that all depend on "the rest you have read and heard" about "this man?" If all you read is from anti-Obama sources,a nd you only listen to people who glean their opinion and "knowledge from anti-Obama sources, then you have predjudiced your opinion, willingly or not.
To be clear, I am not saying that "you" directly are guilty of this, but you must see how a great deal of opinion is based on falsehoods and unconfirmed rumor that the masses take as gospel.
And WND's time at the wheel does not mean that they are credible. Rush Limbaugh has been at it for longer and that does not mean he is credible. (You could say the same about MSNBC too.)
WND's webiste's first five stories are about the birther mess. The next two are advertisements. The next story is about how (I'm paraphrasing) we should no longer let the Jews co-opt Passover from Jesus which, in essence, is another advertisement for another DVD.
The message I get from WND is this "We hate liberals, buy our stuff and learn wny you should hate them too."
Classy.
I have already stated I never liked the man and my opinion of him may be biased.
ReplyDeleteThere have been many negative things said about him in major news outlets over the years so it's not just this particular one.
There are many crackpot blogs and 'news outlets' such as you mention. I ignore them if I believe them to be such. If I thought WND was one of them I wouldn't read it.
Most of what we read is bs anyway, but it can be entertaining. It's up to the individual to seperate it all out.
I don't see any need to continue to drag this out. We can just agree to disagree and move on.
Have a nice day. I'm sure we will see each other on here again.