U.S. joins with al-Qaeda to topple Gaddafi?

When Moammar Gaddafi indicated that Libyan civilians were being 'drugged by members of al-Qaeda', my first impression was that his comments about a terrorist network presence in his country was a load of BS, and that he was just babbling like any other insane dictator. Well, take it with a grain of salt.

It turns out, seeing that the Muslim Brotherhood presence in Egypt escalated after Hosni Mubarak's resignation, Gaddafi's comments are turning out to be completely true.

Libyan rebel forces have recruited Muslims from the terrorist group al-Qaeda to combat Gaddafi's regime. This means, the U.S. has in an essence have become allies of al-Qaeda. This is breathtaking.

The same terrorist group that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on American soil, is committed to bringing down Gaddafi, with the assistance of U.S. military and the so called 'international community'. Do you think anyone in this Administration is going to admit that we have officially aligned ourselves with a terrorist network? Not in a million years, the mainstream news media and the left-wing 'supposed' 501 c 3 non-profit Media Matters for America, (also known as Media Matters Hates America) would never touch base on something like this.

Now some Libyan rebels are already expressing the belief that "not all al-Qaeda members are bad Muslims."

I beg to differ. Anyone that has an association whether it is al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood poses as a danger to the world. To be frank, the people associated with these organizations have absolutely no remorse anything. These are the kinds of creatures that cherish their barbaric lifestyle by kidnapping, torturing and murdering people, whether its Americans or Israelis, or anyone else for that matter.

Yet in a situation like this, we have indirectly aligned ourselves with a terrorist group that is committed to destroying America, just because President Obama felt that it was necessary to impose a No-Fly Zone on Libya which had no immediate threat to our national security.

By the way Mr. President, I understand there is violence going on in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Will the UN decide to impose a No Fly Zone in those countries as well?

Contradictory issues on Libya

Well, so far, it looks like Libya has already been mismanaged from the top down. The United Nations imposed a "no fly zone" this weekend, and then backtracked saying air strikes were not necessary. President Obama, right before his vacation to South America, supported the air strikes and engaged military intervention without Congressional approval. Something that Congressman Dennis Kucinich calls an impeachable offense.

However, nothing is more mismanaged on Libya then this breathtaking contradictory statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While President Obama was hoping all over South America, Secretary of State Clinton was in Tunis, Tunisia and told ABC News in an interview "The UN Security Council resolution was very broad but explicit about what was legally authorized by the international community. There is nothing in there about getting rid of anybody."

So why is Secretary Clinton and President Obama going on and on for the last week and a half that Moammar Gaddafi must leave immediately?

If the UN Security Council specifically says nothing about removing Gaddafi from power, then it seems necessary to perhaps call this action on Libya nothing more than a war crime. Wow! Obama and Clinton are war criminals, just like Bush and Cheney. I guess history does repeat itself.

Of course, Secretary Clinton calls this as nothing more than an act to protect civilians. Yet, the role of the so-called "Rebel allies" in Libya has not even been clearly identified. Gaddafi is no cake walk, everyone can attest to that. However one has to ask themselves about how democracy can be established in the Middle East. We already saw what happened in Iraq. Free the people. Well, Iraq is probably just as much of a disaster area now, as it was under the reign of Saddam Hussein.

If Gaddafi leaves power or is killed in the war, most likely the entire country will become more of a mess than it already is. Something I'm sure, the Muslim Brotherhood is waiting silently for.

Congressman Kucinich suggests impeachable offense?

If there are any two members of Congress that typically do not always side with their own party, it is Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. You know, they actually do what they're elected to do and set policy for the American people, instead of acting like rubber-stamps for their own party.

At the height of the United States participating in the air assault on Libya following the United Nations resolution for a no-fly zone, Congressman Kucinich suggests President Obama's decision to go into Libya is an impeachable offense because the President did not get formal Congressional approval.

Kucinich also introduced impeachment proceedings against President Bush in 2007 after the mismanagement of the War in Iraq, but it was turned down by Speaker Pelosi. Now any impeachment against President Obama is probably unlikely, however there is admiration for the liberal Congressman Kucinich, because, unlike the rest of the left who keeps cheer leading the President on just about everything he does, this particular situation, Kucinich claims "He didn't have Congressional authorization, has gone against the Constitution, and involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way."

An argument could be made that President Obama as Commander in Chief does not need Congressional approval to take military action into another country if there is an immediate danger. Kucinich says otherwise. Libya simply does not pose as an immediate danger to the United States.

Insofar, Congressman Kucinich does point out the grave reality that the no-fly zone could cost U.S. tax payers between $400 to $800 million. Iraq and Afghanistan combined has cost trillions of dollars. Furthermore, Kucinich insists the United States does not have the time or the will to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the Middle East for the third time, while the United States continues to go broke.

Now, Kucinich is anticipating on introducing a resolution to defunding military operations in Libya.

No question that Moammar Gaddafi is slaughtering his own people as we speak and a resolution by the United Nations to try and stop his despicable actions was necessary. However is it necessary for the United States to continue to take action in the Middle East every time there is an uproar? After all, other countries in the Middle East like Lebanon and countries in Africa including Liberia and the Ivory Coast have engaged themselves in civil wars and action from the United States was limited, if any.

I think the bigger problem is going to be the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood after the chaos in Libya is finally over... 

U.N. imposes no fly zone on Libya

Well, after weeks and weeks of talking, and talking, and talking, about imposing a no-fly zone on Libya, the United Nations finally decided to go ahead with it which they hope will prevent the Moammar Gaddafi regime from attacking its own people.

Meanwhile, Libya offered an immediate cease fire as a strategy to prevent international military intervention into the country. However that really doesn't seem to be the case. The kind of subterfuge that exists in any dictatorship, is to give the impression that you're going to stop attacking your people when its clearly the other way around.

Maybe he is standing by his promises? After all, Gaddafi said he would die fighting to the end and showing no signs of retreating.  As we speak, the regime is bombing Misurata and Adjadbiya.

The U.N. Security Resolution to call for the no-fly zone also included military action from Britain, France and Italy. The United States has not really identified its role, but it is more than likely that if anything goes wrong in Libya, the U.S. will be held responsible.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that this is the first goal of international action to end the violence in Libya. Ever wonder that she acts more like the President of the United States than the puppet we have in there right now?

Of course, reading through the lines, this is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood wants. Get international intervention in Libya, overthrow Gaddafi, once the intervention leaves, impose Shariah Law on the Libyan people.

Libya considering Chavez plan for resolving unrest

Hugo Chavez, the self important clown of Venezuela, says that he has proposed a plan to the Arab League which detailed "resolving the unrest" in Libya.

Just what we need in this world, another dictator reaching out to help another dictator.

Reuters reported today that Chavez's plan was to work with an international commission on working with Moammar Gaddafi on restoring Libya.  Like Iran, Libya has had a productive working relationship with Chavez. But the details of Chavez's so-called "turnaround plan" offered no precise details as to what would be proposed. It seems apparent that Chavez is wanting to work with Gaddafi perhaps due to oil. Anyone with a triple digit IQ knows that Chavez has no real commitment to restoring peace in any country, he is just about as brutal as Gaddafi.

Critics are already calling Chavez's plan as nothing more than offering Gaddafi "an easy way out of power". Meanwhile Chavez has been criticizing Washington as "exaggerating reports of repression" of his pal Gaddafi, simply as a way for the U.S. to possibly invade that country.

Noting Chavez's participation with Iran on uranium enrichment, it seems logical to conclude that Chavez probably wants some kind of consideration from Libya. Again, could it be oil? Working in the future to develop nuclear programs? Offering subsidies for terrorist groups?

At this point, Chavez's plan is simply under consideration, but at this point Gaddafi is in dire need of any support he can muster. Even if it is from another horrible individual. Sort of like evil meets evil.