I totally disagreed with McCain’s remarks when he returned from Libya recently. He decried NATO’s Timid Approach. When Palin recently tweeted “Listen to McCain”, I commented on C4P that he was wrong and she is wrong. So this article was welcomed . He was also wrong when he returned from Serbia and gave his support to the Kosovo Muslims. Ted Belman
McCain calls the Libyan rebels his “heroes.” A year and a half earlier, in Tripoli, he described Gaddafi as America’s friend.
by John Rosenthal, PAJAMAS MEDIA
Senator John McCain’s description of the Libyan rebels as his “heroes” has raised numerous eyebrows. PJM editor David Steinberg has had the excellent idea of seeking comment from the senator’s office on the extensive video evidence of atrocities committed by some of the senator’s newfound “heroes.”
While one is at it, the senator should probably also be reminded about this: namely, his cordial handshake with Muammar al-Gaddafi in Tripoli in August 2009.
There is more here, including McCain’s allusion to the “spirit of mutual respect and friendship” that prevailed during his meeting with Gaddafi and other members of the Libyan leadership. In preparation for his 2009 visit to Tripoli, the senator received a U.S. State Department “scene setter.” The leaked briefing has been published by the Daily Telegraph. In it, the State Department identifies the Libyan government as “a critical ally in U.S. counterterrorism efforts” and notes, furthermore, that Libya “is considered one of our primary partners in combating the flow of foreign fighters.”
By the “flow of foreign fighters” is presumably meant the flow of foreign recruits to join al-Qaeda in Iraq. The senator’s new-found “heroes” will not have been particularly good allies or reliable partners in this respect. On the contrary, as I have discussed here, the eastern Libyan heartland of the rebellion was in per capita terms by far the largest supplier of foreign fighters to al-Qaeda in Iraq. One rebel military commander, Abdul Hakim al-Hasadi, has even admitted to having served as a recruiter of such fighters. Before that, al-Hasadi fought against American and coalition forces in Afghanistan. (See my PJM report here.)
On his own account at a press conference following his 2009 meeting with the Libyan leadership, one of the main topics of discussion was the sale to Libya of “non-lethal defense equipment” — whatever that is supposed to mean. The State Department “scene setter” speaks rather of the ordinary lethal variety. But the Senator did at least mention American concerns about the “status of human rights” in Libya. According to an AP report at the time, one particular area of American concern was the treatment of “ethnic minorities.”
Apropos this issue, once the senator has viewed the video clips of black Africans being lynched, beheaded, and otherwise abused by his “heroes,” he might want to tell the American public what kind of future he foresees for black Africans living in a Libya ruled by them. The five videos I presented in my PJM report on rebel atrocities only represent a fraction of the available evidence. I would be happy to provide the senator’s office additional examples.
It should be noted that to the degree that the black African victims of rebel atrocities are even acknowledged, they are typically described as “African mercenaries.” This is in keeping with rebel authorities’ own account of the conflict and the designation frequently serves as a sort of rationalization of the mistreatment that black Africans have suffered at the rebels’ hands.
But prior to the outbreak of the rebellion, an estimated two million immigrants from sub-Saharan African countries already lived and worked in Libya. As Chadian President Idriss Déby has pointed out, it is entirely possible that some of these immigrants ended up joining the regular Libyan army. As noted in my report, one of the victims of some of the most horrific abuse documented in the videos appears in fact to have been a Libyan citizen and a member of the regular army.
The rebels, in any case, make no secret of their disdain for Muammar al-Gaddafi’s well-known pan-Africanism and they have evident trouble hiding their racism toward black Africans in general. For example, one post on the “pro-revolution” website Feb17.info helpfully offers a selection of translated slogans to be chanted at solidarity protests around the world. The slogans include “oh Gaddafi king of the afro, you will now see the [real] Libyans” and “oh Living, oh Sustainer, the afro will die today.” (See the Google cache here.)
Perhaps the senator could also provide comment on these slogans.
John Rosenthal writes regularly on European politics for such publications as The Weekly Standard, Policy Review and The Daily Caller. More of his work can be found at www.trans-int.com.
The level of Debt means nothing in economic terms unless it is compared with the national GDP.
is The national debt was $8 trillion in January 2007 whan Yamit’s friend, Obama and the Democrats took control of the US Legislature. It took 230 years to get there and was a manageable percentage of GDP. In just 4 years Obama and the Dems increased it to $14 trillion with no end in sight, wasteing most of it in growing government employees instead of creating incentives for the economy to grow and create jobs.
Nothing in his background as a community agitator prepared Obama to even run a lemonade stand. To make it worse 92% of the advisors he has appointed have no business experience in the private sector.
Obama is either incredibly stupid, or, if he is as intelligent as Yamit and the Democrats would have us believe, he is deliberately destroying everything that made this country great.
see #26 </strong>
As I was saying. Case-in-point.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Yamit, Dweller, Mark, BaldEagle, Dogpoo.
May I humbly interject a point. Yes I have the answer.
I humbly quote the great Gertrude Stein, when asked to comment on the enduring question of the meaning of life.
she responded,
” there aint no answer. There ain’t gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer.
THAT’S THE ANSWER.”
Ed Katz, in #4.
Dweller, I think you were absent when your school class was discussing seriousness versus humor:-))
How should I know? It is whoever Dweller was referring to in No. 34.
P.S. Who is Ed?
You just can’t resist the urge to play “one-up,” can you?
I mean, I realize that everybody does it somewhat.
But for most of us, it’s an occasional seasoning — salt & pepper, etc.
For you, it’s a staple — your meat & potatoes.
As we can see from his response. More likely he’s in the library catching up with what he missed in class:-))
P.S. I hope Ed has a better sense of humor than Dweller.
I’m sure he’s quite capable of speaking for himself.
I think it means Ed was absent the day they covered middle-eastern geography in high school.
Ed, the entire flow of the Litani River is within the borders of Lebanon, not Syria. The river rises in the northern Biqa’a Valley and runs southward to Beaufort Castle, where it turns westward to the Mediterranean.
Did you mean that Israel should retake (or “occupy”) the territory of LEBANON that far north?
If not, what did you mean?
AmericanEagle says:
Yes you are right. I did not expressed myself correctly. I should say: “I am as liberal as his other than white buttock is white” LOL
However, I have no hope that American Jews will get ever any light in their shrunk brains. Jews are the race of maximalists. If Jew is smart – he is Genius, but if he is stupid he is degenerate. From my observation here in America about 50% of Jews are total degenerates while the rest of them are equally split between idiots and conservatives. And I say it with all due respect.
Mark, I hate to correct you, but his ass is only “half black”:-))
I hope you have started working on those liberal Jews. I see the Bamsters popularity among American Jews is down to baout 50% but that’s still 50% too high. I ask every liberal Jewish entrepreneur I meet whether they would hire Obama to run their business – and then enjoy watching them sputter.
AmericanEagle says:
Here you right. I am as liberal as hussein’s ass is white.
yamit82 says:
In Ydish there is one beautiful word which can describe both of those low life anti-Semites: “drek”.
These are subsidies that benefit us as buyers of their products at the expense of their own people. Wise up.
OPEC does not have a monoply. America’s biggest suppliers are non-OPEC Mexico and Canada. Besides, the US could break OPEC by defying the extreme environmentalists and opening up oil drilling and oil refining right here in the US. Wise up.
Dog-poo. The US is still the world’s foremost manufacturing nation:
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/01/13/u-s-is-still-the-worlds-1-manufacturer/
Only if you liberal Jews help to re-elect Imam Obama. Trends can change quickly in a resilient and dynamic country like the US.
Tariffs will destroy the US economy and kick inflation through the roof.
Not true. Free trade is one of the things that made America great.
China, India, Vietnam, Sri Lanka. This is how it should be for low-end products – it helps their economies and keeps our prices low. In the meantime all the major auto manufacturers are manufacturing cars in America, not to mention high-end IT products and pharmaceuticals among other things.
If they make crap they will lose their business to someone else who does not make crap. This is how free trade works. In the 70’s US auto manufactureres were making crap – and have never been able to recover since. That’s what happens to crap-makers and this only happens when there’s free trade, which keeps everyone honest when compared to the alternatives.
AmericanEagle says:
Oh sure. Where is “free trade”? With subsidized Chinese economy? With OPEC monopoly for the oil supply? And by the way whatever you call “free trade” products are nothing less than exploiting of foreign slave labor. With this dogma of “free trade” America lost its self sustaining ability and turned to be economical appendix of the rest of the World. If you read yesterday published economy predictions, by 2015 America will be behind China in GDP. Just look at the trend. Against my will I was forced to work with Chinese and Mexicans and built over there modern Hi Tech Companies. I am getting sick and tired listening this dangerous slogan “free trade”. It is clear way for destruction of America. And this is why instead of introducing fare tariffs and custom taxation for goods produced abroad (and tax relieve for American producers) hussein and his cronies are all in favor for “free trade” because they know what does it mean for America.
Yes, this stupid “free trade” policy sprung about 1990. And one should not be a rocket scientist to see the results.
When last have you visited “Home Depot”, “Best buy”, “Wallmart”, grocery stores? Just shlepp around their shelves and take a look at where 90% of goods were made. They all made in this beautiful place called “free trade”.
Personally I rather pay more for American made goods than to buy foreign crap.
For American birdbrain and anyone else who needs a roadmap in understanding what drives and motivates American policy makers nd their policies:
The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Gold standard!!! Nixon took the Dollar of the Gold standard because there wasn’t any gold left to back the dollar. Vietnam and Johnson’s Great Society was not sustainable and America sold off all her gold to pay for them. That opened the door for the FED to print and print and print. There is nothing backing up the value of the Dollar and most other fiat currencies today. I never mentioned Nixon in any context other than the economic rot in the American economy essentially began with the debasement of the currency, which allowed easy devaluation by ceating excesses in the money supply. This is known today as a Ponzi Scheme.
About that $14-15 trillion national debt: Get ready to tack some zeroes onto it. Taken alone, the amount of debt issued by the federal government — that $14 trillion figure that shows up on the national ledger — is a terrifying, awesome, hellacious number: Fourteen trillion seconds ago, Greenland was covered by lush and verdant forests, and the Neanderthals had not yet been outwitted and driven into extinction by Homo sapiens sapiens, because we did not yet exist. Big number, 14 trillion, and yet it doesn’t even begin to cover the real indebtedness of American governments at the federal, state, and local levels, because governments don’t count up their liabilities the same way businesses do.
Read More
NIXON!!! RICHARD NIXON??? LOL. Look, we know you love Obama but this is ridiculous, even for you. Since when did Nixon try to destabilize
America? American oil companies have been drilling for oil overseas before Nixon and since. America imports no oil from Libya.
Only if you liberal Jews insist on taking a leave of your senses again and pretend that Obama is a strong supporter of Israel.
Globalization is just another name for free trade. Free trade benefits everyone, including Americans who enjoy low prices and can upgrade their manufacturing base to higher end products. America remains the foremost economy and manufacturing country in the world, and Obama does not have enough time to destroy it completely. Foreign companies are building manufacturing plants in America and creating more high paying jobs than the low paying jobs that have moved to other countries because it makes economic common sense.
Yeah, right! You are about as clear as Obama’s policy on Libya. Global free trade started before Obama and will continue well after he is gone in a couple of years because it benefits everyone.
This will come as news to the Obama administration which has no idea whether they are coming or going in Libya or anywhere else. LOL.
DEBKA reported a few days ago
It all started with globalization. America got sold cheap all her manufacturing know how and now even design know how is sold up by the stupid “no tariff” customs policies of B. Clinton, G. Bush and hussein. But obama nailing the last nail into the coffin of American independence and self-sufficiency by promotion of his socialist’s dogma of the “international government”, the idea of progressive liberasts. Do you remember Clinton’s “new start” with Russia? Hussein’s apology in Cairo? Unprecedented treatment of Israeli PM? This is all the components of hussein’s strategy of islam promotion and destabilization of the West. He knows it well that globalization is venom that soon will bring Amerika on her knees. And this is his main goal. “Let me be clear”….
This can’t be all laid at the door of Obama. Actually it started with Nixon.
‘China’s economy will outstrip America’s in 5 years’
The U.S. was responsible for a quarter of global output in 1986. Now its share is less than 20%, and it is expected to drop to 17.8% by 2016, while China’s global output will rise to 18%.
Sorry Mark America was well on the way to economic insolvency long before Obama arrived on the scene. Whatever Obama has done to date to exacerbate all of the endemic problems in America, the FED has done more with a lot of aid from congress (both parties and both houses)
Because he wasn’t in Pakistan at the time, YOU IGNORANT, INSUFFERABLE MORON, he was being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar refused to give him up. He didn’t say, “I don’t have him, go talk to Musharraf in Pakistan!”
Because the Saudi government did not finance any such operation, YOU MORON. The Saudis are also under attack by Al Qaeda, YOU IGNORANT MORON.
Because Sudan had offered Osama to Bill Clinton, YOU MORON. And there were no training camps in Yemen at the time, YOU IGNORANT MORON.
So, why did they wait until 2001, YOU MORON, and then do so in such a half-assed manner, YOU IGNORANT MORON?
Your bucket is like a sieve. Wouldn’t Yemen or Ivory Coast be easier targets? Wouldn’t the easiest target be NO target?
So, let me get this straight. NATO is now in the business of promoting the values of the Islamic world. Yet Britain, France and the US have cracked down on Muslim extremists. Hmmn! Wonder how this works.
But, but, but… wouldn’t this be cotradicted by the attacks on Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide war on terror?
I just took a peek. Israel is on the bus, not under it.
But, but, but….What about the preemptive attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan and Al Qaeda?
You seem terribly uninformed about what is going on. Either that, or terribly confused because you are inverting all the facts. Use you head, man.
Again, wrong assumption that the reason for Libya attack, the war on Libya is THE OIL. Obama’s goal is economical destabilization of the Western World. The loss of Libya’s oil will do its partial trick – destabilization of Italy (no wonder that this morning total cretin Berlusconi put a bunch of shit in his Gucci pants and receded from the coalition).
If one wants to understand obama’s motivations just read what are saying his comrades Van Jones, G. Soros, S. Power, W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, R.Khalidi, S. Alinsky, W. Churchill, etc.
Remember, if it wouldn’t be so important for obama to destabilize the western himosphere, he wouldn’t invade Libya or any other than Israel country. He came to the WH running on promises (to the bunch of his useful idiots, “peaceniks” supporters) to end up two wars. And now he got involved into another, the third one.
Just think about it. Think hard, men (use your head for a change).
I never said they were taking over but were invited in to replace some western companies he had closed down. I can’t know for sure if it wasn’t a ploy to extract better contractual conditions for Libya.
American companies don’t just sell to America they sell to everyone. America has other than crude many and even quite large service contracts with Libya. America wanted military based in Libya and Gaddafi refused. Gaddafi had just signed multi billion dollar contract for weapons offensive and defensive with Russia. He was too independent for the Americans and not controllable.
After wikileaks you have no excuse to believe the pablum from American leaders and their propaganda organs unless you count yourself among the brain-dead as I do. You have so much in common with leftist Liberals.
You MORON if that’s the case why didn’t America bomb the shit out of Pakistan and then invade Pakistan. who have been harboring him from the first month if not before? Why didn’t America Bomb the crap out of the Saudis since they financed the operation, not to mention most of the PERPS were Saudi nationals? Why didn’t America bomb Yemen and Sudan who had allowed training bases for Ben Laden?
Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil
The Libyan leader proposed the nationalisation of U.S. oil companies, as well as those of UK, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Italy in 2009.
On January 25, 2009, Muammar Al Gaddafi announced that his country was studying the nationalisation of foreign companies due to lower oil prices.
“The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously,” said Gaddafi.
“Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production,” said the Libyan leader.
These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany’s Wintershall, Austria’s OMV , Norway’s Statoil, Eni and Canada’s Petro Canada.
In 2008, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues.
As a result of these contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues.
On February 16, 2009, Gaddafi took a step further and called on Libyans to back his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to the 5 million inhabitants of the country.
However, his plan to deliver oil revenues directly to the Libyan people met opposition by senior officials who could lose their jobs due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption.
Some officials, including Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi, Ali Al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of the Central Bank, told Gaddafi that the measure could harm the country’s economy in the long term due to “capital flight.”
“Do not be afraid to directly redistribute the oil money and create fairer governance structures that respond to people’s interests,” Gaddafi said in a Popular Committee.
The Popular Committees are the backbone of Libya. Through them citizens are represented at the district level.
“The Administration has failed and the state’s economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them,” Gaddafi said in a speech broadcast on state television. To this end, the Libyan leader urged a radical reform of government bureaucracy.
Despite this, senior Libyan government officials voted to delay Gaddafi’s plans. Only 64 ministers from a total of 468 Popular Committee members voted for the measure. There were 251 who saw the measures as positive, but chose to delay their implementation.
Given the rejection of the Committee, Gaddafi affirmed before a public meeting: “My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people.”
So…another big LIE falls by the wayside, the false image of Ghaddafi the dictator who robs from his people.
So far we have had pictures of pro-Ghaddafi demonstrations being portrayed as being against him. The professional, foreign and Photoshop nature of anti-Ghaddafi posters being bandied about were noted, along with signs being held upside down by people not knowing the alphabet placed on the signs.
We have had pictures of one sided battles where heavily armed terrorists are “fighting” with nobody. We have had reports, glaringly false, that Ghaddafi was fleeing the country.
We have had more than enough reports of bombings against his own people that never happened, as well as attacks against “unarmed civilians” that proved to be incorrect. It is patently obvious that there are no “unarmed civilians” involved in these actions against Ghaddafi, but CIA and other intelligence service mercenaries, foreign elements and Al Qaeda.
How many lies do we have to catch them in before somebody in charge buys a clue? It’s no sale!
They try to portray Ghaddafi as crazy when he speaks of fighting Al Qaeda and now they have to admit it’s true.
Two documents strongly back Gaddafi on this issue, according to the findings of Alexander Cockburn.
“The first is a secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008, part of the WikiLeaks trove, entitled, “Extremism in Eastern Libya,” which revealed that this area is rife with anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment.
The second document, or rather set of documents, are the so-called Sinjar Records, captured al-Qaeda documents that fell into American hands in 2007. They were duly analysed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point. Al-Qaeda is a bureaucratic outfit and the records contain precise details on personnel, including those who came to Iraq to fight American and coalition forces and, when necessary, commit suicide.
The West Point analysts’ statistical study of the al-Qaeda personnel records concludes that one country provided “far more” foreign fighters in per capita terms than any other: namely, Libya.”
?
?
All your arguments (especially about humanitarian motivations) don’t hold any water. The only reason that US and EU attacked Libya is that it is relatively easy target. The main purpose for this attack is to assist islamic world to promote their values further on. The reason is to show to the islamist that US and EU are on their side and this way both cowards are hopping to soften islamic world stand against Western civilization. By exactly the same reason Western world is throwing Israel under the bus. Due to “progressive” liberalization of the West, year after year it shows no balls, no guts in its stand against islamic world. It has sissy capitulation policy masked by insignificant action against perpetrators like Iran, Syria, SA, Yemen etc. For instance US using her military force like a peace corps with no clear military objectives and with no clear vision of its military function and goals. The West as we know it is doomed.
Apparently, he did not distribute enough.
This is provably false, but why should we expect anything better from Yamit? After Ghaddafi capitulated in the face of President Bush’s liberation of Iraq and gave up his WMD programs, he had a growing relationship with the west who were trying to get him to be less oppressive. They did not intervene until he was on the verge of massacring the protesters of his oppressive regime.
More dog-poo. If the Taliban had given up Osama when they were given the chance and an ultimatum, there would have been no attack on Afghanistan. Once the Taliban were toppled, the Bush Doctrine of encouraging a democracy to evolve in previous dictatorships kicked in.
I thought you said the Chinese and Russians were taking over Libya’s development.
Far greater percentage? Libya is not in the top FIFTEEN countries that the US imports oil from.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
MORE ON LIBYA
Similarly, AECOM Technology last week said the uprising had halted its work on a 2008 contract to modernize housing and water systems for major Libyan cities. A 2008 U.S. State Department cable disclosed by WikiLeaks shows that Abuzeid Dorda, then head of Libya’s Housing and Infrastructure Board, cited AECOM’s contract under the $50 billion project as a model for other U.S. firms.
AECOM said the disruption would cause an 8-cent drop in earnings per share in the second quarter and added, “The company cannot determine when or if this project will continue.”
Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that other major U.S. companies with recent Libya business dealings include Dow Chemical; Halliburton, the defense contractor and energy industry products and services giant; and Fluor, which provides engineering, construction, maintenance and procurement for the energy industry and other business sectors.
The U.S. firms spent heavily to help open Libya to foreign trade and investment amid periodic international sanctions for Libyan-linked terrorism acts, such as the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The passenger jet exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 aboard and 11 others on the ground.
Congressional lobbying reports show Occidental, Marathon, ConocoPhillips, Boeing, BP America, Caterpillar, Chevron USA, Fluor, Halliburton, Hess, Raytheon and Dow all lobbied the federal government in recent years on Libyan issues.
U.S. oil firms and other companies also amplified their views through the National Foreign Trade Council, a trade organization that has lobbied Washington officials on Libya-related business issues.
One lobbying focus: the U.S. sanctions imposed against the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi for the Lockerbie bombing and other attacks.
Multiple filings referred to the so-called Lautenberg Amendment, congressional action that made it easier for plaintiffs in terrorism-related lawsuits to satisfy U.S. court rulings by seizing assets owned by foreign governments.
The measure raised the prospect that U.S. companies working with Libya could have been responsible for paying the cost of any future court settlements under the legislation.
But the U.S. business lobbying effort helped win a legal victory in 2008, when Congress and the Bush administration approved the Libyan Claims Resolution Act. The measure created a fund to compensate victims of Libyan-linked terrorist attacks and gave Libya immunity from lawsuits filed over the assaults. Final approval keyed an expansion of U.S. business dealings in Libya.
For its part, the Libyan government and organizations with ties to the Gadhafi regime have pushed their business and other causes in Washington by hiring influential intermediaries, such as the lobbying firm headed by former congressman Robert Livingston, a Louisiana Republican. The relationship ended in 2009, Justice Department records show.
Despite the efforts of domestically based oil companies, U.S. trade data show that other foreign suppliers, such as Saudi Arabia, account for a far greater percentage of U.S. oil imports.
Besides facing the uncertain outcome the rebellion will have on their Libyan operations, U.S. businesses confront a related hurdle in the form of new sanctions imposed on Libya by the U.S., the United Nations and the European Union. The restrictions could make it hard for U.S. firms to continue partnerships with Libya’s national oil company.
“The climate in general is so uncertain now that no one will want to do business anyway except for some of the companies that have managed to stay in there and seem to be able to pump oil,” said Vandewalle, a government professor who last visited Libya in May. “But all the other ones I think would be very reluctant and probably wouldn’t return full-fledged until at least the legal issue from the United Nations’ point of view is settled.”
The U.S. sanctions include a freeze on $30 billion linked to Gadhafi, his relatives and several financial arms of the Libyan government. The action could affect U.S. banks and private-equity firms believed to hold some of those assets, because they earn fees from Libya for managing the investments.
A 2010 State Department cable disclosed by WikiLeaks quoted Mohamed Layas, head of the Libyan Investment Authority, saying that several unidentified U.S. banks each managed $300 million to $500 million for the sovereign wealth fund, which had $32 billion in liquidity.
In a briefing last week, David Cohen, the Treasury’s acting undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said the freeze blocks any effort to close the accounts and transfer the funds.
Once the outcome of the uprising becomes clear, Vandewalle predicts, Libya will need to rebuild its economy “from the bottom up” by establishing and attracting new businesses to supplement the oil industry. “There’s going to be a lot of new opportunities for companies to go in — but not as long as there’s uncertainty on the
He kicked out European oil companies and invited the Russians and Chinese in to replace them. He has some 40,000 Chinese workers building a railway. He has multi billion weapons contracts already sined with the Russians. He alone among Arab dictators distributed oil revenues among the people and raised Libya from one of the poorest countries to one of the wealthiest. His opposition within Libya is based on tribal hatreds. Gaddafi belongs to the largest tribe and the opposition are from the smaller tribes. Gaddaffi was a staunch opponent to al-Queda and Muslim brotherhood and was more independent than any other Arab country he may have been crazy but was our nut.
The EU and America decided to take him out when he left the reservation and was moving into the Russian and Chinese orbit at the expense of Europe and America.
Yes they were before 9/11 but Bush used 9/11 as the excuse for invasion of Afghanistan. The plans and purpose existed before 9/11. I doubt America would have invaded a sovereign nation unless they could sell it to the American people. 9/11 therefor wast most fortuitous for Bush and his oil co. bosses.
Factbox: U.S. oil companies’ interests in Libya
Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:38pm EST
(Reuters)
Many U.S. oil companies have interests in Libya. The following are details of their exposure, based on their latest annual reports:
CONOCOPHILLIPS
ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company, holds a 16.3 percent interest in Libya’s Waha concessions, which encompass nearly 13 million gross acres. Net oil production from Libya averaged 45,000 barrels per day in 2009 — or 2 percent of worldwide output — down from 47,000 bpd in 2008.
MARATHON OIL CORP
Marathon has a 16 percent interest in the outside-operated Waha concessions in the Sirte Basin. Its 2009 exploration program included the drilling of four wells, along with five development wells. Net liquid hydrocarbon sales from Libya were 46,000 bpd in 2009, or 19 percent of its total. Marathon said on Tuesday its Waha production was normal.
HESS CORP
In 2009, Hess produced 22,000 bpd of crude from Libya, or 8 percent of its crude output. At the end of 2009, 23 percent of its proved reserves were in Africa, with Libya making up 11 percent of that. Along with its Oasis Group partners, Hess has operations in Waha, with an interest of 8 percent. Hess also owns all of Area 54 offshore, where it drilled an exploration well in 2008, followed in 2009 by a down-dip appraisal well.
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP
Occidental, the fourth-largest U.S. oil company, earned $243 million in net sales from Libya in 2009, or less than 2 percent of its total. Production increased in 2010, and Oxy has plans to double its output from Libya by 2014.
Amid reports of a sharp falloff in Libyan oil production, Occidental Petroleum spokesman Richard Kline said, the industry is “watching what’s going on and hoping for a rapid resolution.”
The financial stakes are as high as the profits drilled from Libya’s oil fields.
Marathon, New York-based Hess and ConocoPhillips, headquartered in Houston, share a minority stake in the Waha Concessions, a nearly 13 million-acre area in Libya’s Sirte Basin that produces about 350,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Their majority partner? Libya’s national oil company, which holds a 59.2% interest and runs the project.
McCain is a neo-con. He believes in humanitarian intervention. But he doesn’t want to play at war like Obama, he wants to be in it to win it so he advocates full force. Palin is not McCain except that she too believes in being in it to win it. That’s a good policy but first one must decide whether to be in it. She has her doubts and has demanded of Obama to tell Americans why we are in it. She is skeptical.
Yamit is right about it being all about oil. Libya’s oil was going to china who had being making deals with the Chinese. Britain and France wanted to put a stop to this and so enlisted Obama to help out. Britain and France want the oil for themselves.
Yamit chides me for not wanting criticism of Palin. He is wrong. Criticize her poilicies all you want. Just don’t criticise her person. Don’t make it personal. You accuse her of being stupid or corrupt or both. She is neither.That’s what I object to. I was on her case for the position she took at the beginning of the Libya fiasco and have continued to criticize her on Israpundit for her position . I think she is not yet in command of the facts in Libya but is learning fast.
Don’t forget that neo-cons like Crystal are in favour of deposing Gadaffi and Americans still think of Gadaffi as the one who authorized the bombing at Lockerbie. He was but that was 25 years ago and he has since turned over a new leaf and paid compensation. A plea bargain if you will.
The big question is what kind of relationship is Obama cultivating with Iran and Syria. He has given both a pass while most Americans think he should be taking them on. What don’t we know. It seems to me that it has a lot to do with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The second question is why is he alienating Saudi Arabia?
What’s going on here?
You might want to read this Pajamas Media piece “Sarah Palin keeps getting everything right”
Anything that put hussein at disadvantage is the victory of sanity and Good of the World. Let him fail in Libya. This empty suit had run on promises to end up two wars. Now he got stuck with three. What a jerk.
Whether you agree or not, they believe that anything will be better then Qaddafi, who is clearly a maniac. As in Egypt, only time will tell. The allies need to get Qaddafi and get their foot in the door so as to pre-empt Al Qaeda from gaining influence. It will be up to the Europeans. They can’t count on Obama for anything.
Dog-poo. Brisard had no direct knowledge of what he is talking about. Any talks about an oil or gas pipeline with the Taliban was before 9/11. The talks could not have had anything to do with 9/11 as Al Qaeda had already been attacking the US throughout the 90’s, increasingly emboldened by Clinton’s failure to respond. The only condition on the Taliban after 9/11 was to give up Osama.
Most US interventions are in places with no oil. They left Kuwait and went home in 1991 leaving all that middle-east oil behind. Iraqi oil is being sold by Iraq not the allies. Europe in both world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan – no oil. The US imports no oil from Libya. The US has more oil reserves than the entire middle-east combined.
Try either total stupidity or they are both corrupt or maybe both? Some say power corrupts but so does money and the economic stakes in play are truly mega even super mega. Contrary to Belman’s cultish belief in Palin she has a side he blinds himself to. Till now I have mostly respected his command not to criticize Palin, so I won’t elaborate now. Those who have eyes and can read can find what I refer to on the web.
McCain is a true idiot and as I said before the last election, he could have been worse than Obama as much as some will have difficulty in coming to grips with this statement. Been listening to some of the Jewish neocons on Fox and they all seem to be unrepentant fools, the coin of past mistakes hasn’t seemed to have dropped.
It’s all about OIL: READ
Central Asia/Russia
US policy on Taliban influenced by oil – authors
By Julio Godoy
It’s just good old American, British and French Imperialism for control of ME oil. First you Balkanize the region with puppets. you control…thus locking out main competitors the Russians and Chinese.
America and British have done this forever in South America, Iran even Indonesia. America will never leave Iraq unless pushed out are in Afghanistan to control leadership for oil pipelines from FSR who have lots of oil but they are landlocked. They need a friendly Pakistan as the terminus for that oil. Iran is potentially better for American oil companies because Aramco only issues marginally profitable service contracts while Iran will allow a % of the profits. The Saudis are now feeling the heat.
See: Interview – Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – Part 1
Interview – Confessions of an Economic Hit Man – Part II
I am truly perplexed by the enthusiasm shown by McCain, Palin, and others for supporting these “rebels” about whom we know little, and what little we know, does not bode well.
To the extent that I can come up with a “rational” explanation for any of this, it is truly mercenary, Machiavellan presidential election campaign politics at work.
People like McCain, Palin, etc., obviously want Obama defeated in 2012. They KNOW he doesn’t have the resolve to act decisively in Libya, if for no other reason than that Qadaffy is a “good buddy” of Obama’s “good buddy”, Rev. Wrong.
So, by raising the political bar of action, knowing that he can’t clear it, McCain & Co. are creating a political dynamic aimed at making Obama appear that much weaker on foreign policy, most importantly, with respet to the one war that Obama became involved with completely on his own hook.
That is the only way I can explain this.
I’d be interested to hear other theories.
McCain, in the rebel capital, is criticizin¬g the U.S. policy, calling for the U.S. to do more, and saying the U.S. cannot fail in Libya. Those who criticized Iraq policy from outside Iraq during the Bush admin were called traitors by many repubs, including McCain. Irony is ironic, isn’t it? Who appointed this guy to speak for the U.S.?
It matters not to me what is happening in Libys. As a matter of fact, let them fight for the next 20 years because Libyans are animals anyway. Syria is another matter because the uprising directly effects Israel and the US. Syria is an ally of our most feared enemy, Iran who supposrt Assad must have to exist. They have sent terrorists into Iraq to fight our troops and they are tightly connected to Al Quida. The best thing that could happen in Syria would be an overthrow of Assad, the Kurds uniting with their families in Iraq, Turkey and Iran to form their own country. It would be important for Israel to occupy Syrian territory to the Littani River.
We should reserve the same gag reflex that coughs out the Kennedys for this wretched little man. He is old and infirm and let us hope we can hold out until he just tips over. The sooner the better.
McCain’s Libya policy is über-Obama. That of most other Republican candidates is not much different. Donald Trump wants us to keep our noses out of there, and he is right.