MOST FAR RIGHT AND “TEA PARTY” HOUSE MEMBERS GONE IN TWO YEARS

The elections of 2010 brought a lot of new people to Congress. This is, apart from politics, a good thing. It would, in fact, be a good idea if about half the Congress were to change say, every twelve years or so. The new Members are generally younger, most under 45, many under 40 and they are earnest to a fault. They want to do right, to follow what they believe they were instructed to do by the people, cut spending.

Where will this get them? Looking for another job, most likely. People always say they like “straight talking” politicians, but they actually approve, over and over again, those who know how to play the game and make back room deals. We, the voters, talk one way and almost always vote another.

Cutting spending is fine, as long as you DON’T HURT ME!Then, you are stepping on sacred ground, buddy. What the right in America actually wants is to cut spending on everything that benefits everyone else, except themselves. The right wants the programs that help cities, especially east coast cities, to be end, now. Farm programs? Let’s keep those billions. Defense spending? Can’t touch that. Money that goes to help a local health care program? Yeah, we need that, too.

The deal is this: you can’t have it both ways. Well, you can try, but it won’t work.

If you would like to know why most of the new Members of Congress will be gone in two to four years, read this story from the WashPost and the answer will be clear.

http://tinyurl.com/4934fmb

The Urgent Need for More Decisive Action by the U.S. on Libya

THOUGHTS ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION IN LIBYA

Beyond the immediate concern of getting American citizens out of Libya, here is one of the ultimate questions I believe we have to ask ourselves: how far can a mentally unstable dictator go in killing the people of his own nation while the world watches? This is a question which relates to all situations of genocide or anything approaching it. What are the limits? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Half a million? If you don’t set the number fairly low, how do you justify acting when the number goes very high?

It is around questions like this that the desire for a United Nations was born, but sadly that has not worked very effectively. The world still depends on the bold to come forward and take action when most others hesitate. Europe looks to America to take the lead because they would rather not bear the cost, in lives and money and possible criticism, of doing it themselves. But what level of military response would be appropriate?

At this moment, Qaddafi stands as the least admired head of state in the world. He has not reached the low status of Idi Amin, but he's headed in that direction. Only Daniel Ortega dares call him and express sympathy. (Memo to Ortega: are you trying to make the American right look good?) From all indications, Qaddafi has hired a slaughter corps from across Africa to murder indiscriminately.

This is one of the few times when a coup not only would be appropriate, but is needed, direly. There is no workable international apparatus to convict Qaddafi of his crimes and to send in a force to get him and bring him out, alive or otherwise. Nations have resisted this kind of thing because they fear the power could be turned on them next and that no government in the world would then be safe from criminal charges against its leaders. These fears are not unfounded, but they are overblown. Further, one reason that nations tolerate abuses is they have plans for abuses of their own.

Here is what is sad about this situation: a nation has risen up against a tyrant and we, who are spending something like a trillion dollars for wars and their aftermath in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of freedom and democracy, believe we can do little to help the people of Libya, who are paying with their blood and their lives to rid themselves of an abundantly unbalanced murderer. We can make clear that we support those in the military who oppose Qaddafi and that we will be available to assist them, with military power, once he is gone. The idea that we, through the UN, could help restore peace should have a strong appeal. We should, also, search for every option to do more to bring about his end.

We, the United States, have an unfortunate run of picking all the wrong wars. We act when we should stay put and stay home when we should be active. The catalog of our mistakes and misdeeds is long. I think a major part of what is behind this is that we search for the easy war, the great win, the triumphant moment that will rock the world with our power and decisiveness. We are always seeking to show, to demonstrate, rather than actually do. Vietnam was one extended attempt to show that we would “pay any price, bear any sacrifice” and we wound up doing just that, for all the wrong reasons and for no gain.

Gulf War I, the H.W. Bush war, succeeded in running Saddam back to Baghdad with his scuds between his legs, but what else did it accomplish or prove? Within a few short years, terrorists had risen from the middle east energized by the notion that America could not take losses on battlefields and would retreat quickly when confronted. This miscalculation on the part of the terrorists leg directly to 9-11, 2001. There is nothing that can ever be proved to the world about America’s “resolve” that doesn’t have to be proved over and over within months or a few years of the last proof.

We would have no idea of showing something to the world by the U.S. taking an active, military and covert role in Libya. What we might do, however, is earn some small gratitude and develop a role in shaping the post revolutionary state of Libya and the middle east. But that is far secondary to the basic humanitarian goal of helping a people who are now at the mercy of a madman. How long can this go on without a strong response?

Doug Terry 

The Revolutionary Moment, 2011

Here is a list of some places where protests are happening today, Wednesday, 2.24.11

WISCONSIN
OHIO
INDIANA
GREECE
LIBYA
KURDISTAN (IRAQ)
BAHRAIN
YEMEN


REVOLUTIONS IN PROCESS:
EGYPT, TUNISIA


CONCESSIONS OFFERED:
JORDON, SAUDI ARABIA, IRAN


CHANGE SUPPRESSED: (so far)
CHINA, SYRIA, MOROCCO, ALGERIA


CONCESSIONS REFUSED:
WISCONSIN

DAIVD IGNATIUS, writing in the WashPost: (2.22.11)

It's for the Libyan people to dump Gaddafi, and they are struggling to do so with extraordinary courage -- reportedly even standing up to fighter jets. As I write, the Obama administration is still dithering about applying sanctions and otherwise pulling the plug on a man that Ronald Reagan called a "mad dog."

Shame on President Obama. This is a clear case of right and wrong, and the United States and its allies should show they mean it when they describe Gaddafi's behavior as "unacceptable."

http://tinyurl.com/4s9as5g

Background on Libya

Admit it or not, we in the United States live in a kind of a vacuum, an American vacuum created by dealing with our local concerns, and even our self importance. This living in mental isolation is so strong that the rest of the world hardly even is considered to exist. Add in the attractions of a hundred cable channels, video games, smart phones and the lack of any deep education about the rest of the world when growing up and you’ve pretty much got an invisible wall around the U.S. Plus, those other places are so far away, aren’t they?

To Europe, Libya and Tunisia are close by. In fact, part of Italy almost touches northern Tunisia. The problems of north Africa and the middle east spread quickly to Europe and they have millions of immigrants from the region living in their cities. As a result, they get better news coverage of international events than we do and regular people expect to understand some of the history and background of what happens. Can you imagine?

Here is a short clip from the Guardian newspaper of England in regard to events prior to the current revolt in Libya, followed by a link to their site:

 Libyans trudged through nearly 42 years of arbitrary and destructive policies, ever mindful of the vigilant eye of Gaddafi's brutal security apparatus. People who were even faintly critical disappeared. Opposition figures were hunted down worldwide and assassinated – the stray dogs of Libya, as the regime referred to them. Siblings informed on each other. University students were forced to watch the execution of their fellow students on campus. People were questioned if they were out of the country for long. Frequent worshippers at mosques were picked up and "rehabilitated". Wounded soldiers returning from the Chad war were thrown from airplanes over Libya's vast desert to conceal the extent of losses suffered by the Libyan army. Thousands of political prisoners were exterminated in the infamous Abu Salim massacre in 1996.

Following the ousting of Saddam in 2003, Gaddafi was quick to recognise that a shift was necessary on the international front if he was to avoid a similar fate and keep his grip on the country's resources and wealth. He renounced terrorism, paid $2.7bn in compensation to the families of the Lockerbie bombing, set up a$1.5bn fund to compensate the victims of Libya's bombing of a Berlin disco in 1986 and a French UTA airliner in 1989, and dismantled his programme for weapons of mass destruction. His turnaround was welcomed by the west and, one by one, western leaders made their way to Gaddafi's tent in the desert and came away with business deals worth billions of dollars.

http://tinyurl.com/4drgsyb