Obama Follows In The Traditions Of Democrats Withholding Gunship Support

This isn't the first time that a Democrat administration withheld effective gunship support from an American unit under fire.

Remember back in the Battle of Mogadishu, immortalized in Black Hawk Down, where US forces were denied Armor and AC-130 gunship support by the Clinton administration including Lee Aspin and Colin Powell?

Reports are now coming out that in Libya there was one or two AC-130s available to assist but the Obama Administration denied them permission to engage and even ordered CIA assets to stand down and not assist to support the beleaguered ambassador and his security?

In addition its looking more and more that Obama knew within 24 hours that the attacks were not based on a video unwatched by millions but was instead a terrorist attack planned to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11. Obama then consistently lied about this for weeks.

This is starting to smell worse and worse - lies about the cause and event, withholding available support from Americans under attack and a continued coverup that is starting to fray.

Whether the MSM can continue to cover and ignore evidence for the President to keep this out of the headlines until after the election is going to be interesting.

The Curious Case Of The Fraudulent Felonius Filmmaker

The alleged filmmaker of the Youtube clip that was used by the Islamists as a pretext to attack US Embassies in Libya and Egypt has been identified.

As suspected, he's not an Israeli Jew but instead a convicted felon with the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

Apparently he now proclaims that he is a Coptic Christian. Whether that is yet a further lie from this felonious fellow, who is already convicted of federal bank fraud charges, should be interesting to find out, and the chance of this being an Islamist-coordinated act should not be ruled out. Or it could very well be that an Anti-Semitic Copt tried to libel the Jews for his actions.

The Detroit Free Press: US identifies anti-Muslim filmmaker

Federal authorities identified a Southern California man who is on federal probation for financial crimes as the key figure behind an anti-Muslim film that has spawned mob violence against American embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday.

There was no sign of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, at his family's home Thursday in Cerritos outside Los Angeles, as details slowly began to emerge about his checkered past, his connections among southern California's right-wing Christian organizations and his central role in the production of the film.

Excerpts from the movie, which the filmmaker said was called "Innocence of Muslims," enraged Islamic protesters in Egypt, Libya and Yemen over its portrayal of the prophet Muhammad.

.........

Much about the film remains a mystery, including who financed it. Several actors have come forward and claimed they were duped about their roles, and that incendiary language was dubbed over their lines.

The permit to shoot the film, normally a public document, is being withheld at the "request of federal authorities, who have cited public safety concerns," according to Ryan Alsop, assistant chief executive office for Los Angeles County. He did not elaborate. Such permits normally contain little more than logistical information.

Questions remained about whether Nakoula's filmmaking and Internet distribution activities might have violated his federal probation and send him back to prison.

Lots of questions, and hopefully this international idiot of infamy is fully investigated.

Islamists And The Impotence Of The Weak Horse President

The whole President Obama the weak horse thing is getting pretty tiring.

We see Islamists paying attention to such weakness, attacking embassies in Egypt and raising the Al-Qaeda flag on the Embassy walls.

And in Libya we see Islamists killing the US Ambassador and three other Americans there in a planned attack on 9/11 with a pretext of a movie that most likely none of the participants have even seen, and was likely created by an agent provocateur falsely claiming to be an Israeli Jew.

Under a Republican President, an Aircraft Carrier or two would be steaming towards these places with a demand that the perpetrators be handed over or consequences would be severe, and bombs damn well would fall.

Heck, under a Republican President one would only hope that invaders scaling an embassy's walls would be met with force.

But with Obama, the first thing from the State Department is apologies for hurt Muslim feelings. An apology quickly walked back and disavowed once caught by angry Americans.

Unless there is strong and swift retaliation for these attacks, these scum will be further emboldened. Anyone really expect Obama to act beyond empty platitudes that those responsible should be brought to justice - as if this was a simple criminal problem and the US could really find, issue arrest warrants then arrest and try the terrorists responsible for these acts?

Again, Obama appears the weak horse, and Americans will suffer because of it.

This popcorn moment brought to you by the Congressional Democrats

From Newsmax: Dems Rip Obama on Libya, Bring Up 'Impeachable Offense'

...nine liberal House members “strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus conference call Saturday, two Democratic congressmen who took part told Politico.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” a Democrat lawmaker said.

One of the nine Democrats, Rep. Kucinich, has publicly issued the strongest criticism of Obama. "President Obama moved forward without Congress approving. He didn't have congressional authorization. He has gone against the Constitution, and that's got to be said," Kucinich told Raw Story in an interview on Monday.

“I'm raising the question as to whether or not it's an impeachable offense. It would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

I guess a few Dems couldn't pivot out of anti-war mode quickly enough to get with the program. Good luck with that while you're busy looking for your missing district.

The Newsmax article also relates that it looks like yet another Obama promise just it its expiration date:

An Obama Flip-Flop

As an Illinois senator and presidential candidate, Obama himself strongly stated that the president can’t authorize military action without congressional approval unless it’s necessary to stop an imminent attack on the United States.

In a December 2007 interview, a Boston Globe reporter asked Obama under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

Heh. Poor hippies. So, do you miss Bush yet?

Libya, Democrats and Clear Goals.

Remember when Democrats insisted than an American intervention had to have clear goals and timetables?

But now with the Democrats in charge, there's a lot of confusion as to what exactly are the objectives in Libya. Obama is not making it any better with his fence straddling and confused pronouncements that first Qaddafi must go and then pronouncing that the current mission is limited to protecting civilians.

Of course in a civil war that gets kinda hazy, especially as to which civillians you're supposed to protect, as this interesting interview with General Carter Ham shows.

But don't worry Sen levin assures us it will be a limited mission.

Levin: U.S. military intervention in Libya 'a limited mission'

President Barack Obama "has a military operation with a very clear mission," Levin said in an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. "… No boots on the ground."

So the clear mission is to make sure no American infantry get involved? How's that for an intervention strategy?

The Detroit News:

One of the more vocal skeptics in Congress, Sen. Richard Lugar, said he worries that the U.S. may have entered a conflict with unclear goals.

"We really have not discovered who it is in Libya that we are trying to support," the Indiana Republican said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "Obviously the people that are against Gadhafi, but who? In eastern Libya, for example, a huge number of people went off to help the Iraqis against the United States in a war that still is winding down."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that the U.S. intends to take a back seat soon.

"After the air is cleared of any threat there is going to be a hand off to our allies and this mission will then be carried on by French, by British and by Arab countries, and that's very important," Levin said.

So we're putting in a limited appearance and then handing Libya over to its (albiet briefly) colonial masters? Sounds promising.

What could possibly go wrong?

No War for Total Fina Elf!

This post was inspired by Tam's snark-winning post of yesterday.

French Jets are flying over Libya putatively to enforce a no-fly zone, but of course, it's all about oil contracts for Total Fina Elf n'est ce pas?

Indeed, were I some leftist anti-war protester and Obama was Bush....

It is sad however that the reality of US foreign policy decisions under Obama has devolved to:

"Are the French down with it? Well, ok then."

That it took the French and the Brits to finally get Obama to take any real action is quite pathetic. America from leader of the free world to mutli-lateral supporting player in one administration.

Indeed, It seems Hilary Clinton was instrumental in making decisive decisions about US Foreign Policy concerning Libya, and as Glenn Reynolds has posted before, she has been predicted to be the most uncompromising wartime president in history, and he may very well be right and she's getting her start at State. HRC in 2012 for the Dems?

In any case, it is nice to see Obama following the modern Democrat precedent on war making: lob a few cruise missiles at a convenient target.

The Soft Reality of the Obama Doctrine

Once we had the Bush doctrine. This was rather clear, gave due and timely warning to our enemies and scared the crap out of Democrats.

Overall it was good but Bush had lots of problems with follow-through. I; I'd give it a B- for results tempered by the fact that it was operating in the face of a hostile press, an internationl community that turned up its nose at the whole thing, and Democrats playing partisan politics with national security. History will likely look more favorably upon it, especially when compared to the results of his sucessor.

Now we're seeing the effect of the Obama doctrine's replacement of hard power with "soft power". It means you talk, mouth a few platitudes, and do nothing and wait on the "International Community" to plod its way to eventually doing something, maybe.

This, in the face of a lapdog press that thinks Obama can walk on water when it is not frozen, an international community that loves him and the Democrats backing him on national security.

Not surprising, since his own people are moving away from interventionism as quickly as their feet can carry them, the Obama Administration is busy decisively declaring that they must wait for the UN's blessing for any American action.

Defense Secretary Gates as I blogged about previously, of course changed the prior defense doctrine of the US from being able to fight two major regional wars at once to only being ready to fight one major regional conflict.

This lead to costs savings as less military equipment and manpower was needed. Nice when you want to shovel money on the domestic side as is obama's desire, but bad when multiple problems crop up worldwide.

Unfortunately there's no guarrantee we'll only face one major conflict at a time, nor that we don't have to deal with multiple simultaneous lower-intensity conflicts. Such as oh, I don't know, piracy, Libya, Iran....

So much for the Obama campaign promise that he made regarding international intervention.

Obama is facing the sternest test yet of his philosophy of humanitarian intervention, which he has described as an imperative to prevent atrocities against civilians. But Gadhafi's brutal suppression of protests and crackdown on opponents to his 42-year rule may fall short of Obama's criteria for military action.

As a presidential candidate in October 2008, Obama outlined a doctrine for American military force that included crises in which the United States has a "moral obligation" to intervene. As commander in chief, he soon will have to decide whether Libya fits that bill.

Too bad for the Libyans because as with all Obama promises it comes with an expiration date, and this one's expired.

Meanwhile Gaddafi tanks, jets strike deeper into rebel heartland.

But don't worry, Obama's team promises swift indecisiveness:

Obama did not attend Wednesday's meeting [of his national security people], and the White House said no action was imminent. Officials set no timeline.

We're not at a decision point," Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney, said as the White House sought hardBut Obama's admonition for international action -- not go-it-alone-force -- remains a driving principle of any military intervention.

That approach offers broader legitimacy and shared burden, but also more complicated politics.

"We believe it's important that this not be an American or a NATO or a European effort; it needs to be an international one," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday on CBS. She conceded divisions within the United Nations Security Council but said that a "good, solid international package" was being considered.

Of course, the US can depend on NATO to lead as it stands ready:

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters Wednesday that "NATO is not looking to intervene in Libya."

Ok, maybe not that ready.

Not to worry, the UN is ready for decisive action:

Britain and France are pushing for the U.N. to create a no-fly zone over the country, and while the U.S. may be persuaded to sign on, such a move is unlikely to win the backing of veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China, which traditionally object to such steps as infringements on national sovereignty.

Darn, not too much effective action from the UN either. How unexpected.

I think we've just seen the obvious flaw in the Obama Doctrine's emphasis on soft power and its requirement for an international multilateral response before the US is alowed to respond to a crisis. NATO and the UN seem unable or unwilling to shoulder the load in this brave new multi-polar world, and the doctrine leaves the US hamstrung and unable to act, which seems to have been its intent all along.

Farrakhan While Defending his Benefactor Gaddafi Lets His Mask Slip Yet Again

Poor Calypso Louie.

He was doing so well making the useful idiots of the world believe he had given up his anti-Semitic bent. Then he had to go off and blame the Jews for the unrest in Libya.

From Newsmax:

Farrakhan: 'Satanic Jews' Pushing US Into War

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Jews and Zionists are "trying to push the US into war" and are a cover for Satan, at the group's annual meeting near Chicago on Tuesday.

“President Obama," Farrakhan said, "if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.” Farrakhan called Muammar Gaddafi "my brother" and "my friend."

He also accused American Zionists of attempting to push Israel into war with Iran, adding that "Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system."

I understand how sad he is. After all losing a long-standing patron is always painful.

Gaddafi funneled Farakhan and the NOI millions if not billions of dollars from his oil revenues, and that loss will sting.

In addition, in 1996 Gadaffi gave Farrakhan the coveted Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights which came with a $250,00.00 award. Reading the list of winners, this prize is an award that confirms the award recipient as either a human rights violator or a useful idiot, with the very occasional decent person thrown in for cover. Not too shabby huh?

In other words, Farrakhan was Gaddafi's bitch.

Farrakhan is continuing to try to protect his benefactor so the funds can keep coming his way.

Farrakhan also gave perhaps the understatement of the year in regards to the uprising in his speech at the NOI convention as a pathetic attempts to defend his meal ticket he said

no leader has been loved by 100 percent of his people.

Wow. After getting millions and millions of dollars from Gaddafi the best he can do in his favor is blame the Jews and do an underwhelming statement along the lines of "nobody's perfect" to protect his sugar daddy? Gaddafi got screwed on this investment.

So we can understand Farrakhan is upset that it looks like his Gaddafi-duck gravy train is coming to an end and he went looking for his convenient and popular scapegoat. Now he's gonna have to really work at it yet again to make the useful idiots think he's not an anti-Semite.

Don't Expect Effective Action From The UN Or EU On Libya

The UN and the international community seem in quite the quandary as to what to do about Libya (they really don't want to call on NATO and the US to actually do something).

Stern diplomatic notes have failed, and the EU's condemnatory resolution seems far to timid and dare we say, an example of typical European hand-wringing? Go over to UN Watch and read the whole thing, then peruse the entire UN Watch blog, its real good.

Maybe the international community can take some baby steps first, like removing Libya from its seat on the UN Human Rights Commission. Of course that might be seen as too harsh a measure for some, and could also raise some questions as to why some of the world's greatest human rights violators have seats on the council.

Listening to NPR on the way in to work today, it was interesting listening to a UN official being interviewed hemming and hawing as to whether Libya could or should be removed. She seemed to want to punt the whole issue to the Security Council.

If the UN can't even take that step, don't count on the "international community" to start any real intervention anytime soon. But all hope is not yet lost, there is a rumor that harsh language may soon be unleashed, followed by some vigorous finger-pointing.

Updated: Sure enough, The UN Human Rights Council is now mulling over maybe suspending Libya.

Maybe if the UNHRC spent less time condemning Israel to the exclusion of any other activity it might speed up the process somewhat.

Libyan Bomber's cancer diagnosis by a GP?

Chalk up another win for both the British National Health Service and British Realpolitik.

New row over 'non-expert' cancer diagnosis of Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi

The furore over the release of the Lockerbie bomber intensified today over the medical advice given to the Scottish government on how long he has to live.

It emerged that the prognosis that Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi had a life expectancy of only three months or less was supported by an unnamed doctor who had no expertise in terminal prostate cancer.

The final report on al-Megrahi’s condition which went to Kenny MacAskill was drawn up by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care with the Scottish Prison Service.

The three-month time limit is important because Scottish Prison Service guidance says that compassionate release from prison “may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period.”

Dr Fraser’s report says: “Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist ‘would be willing to say’.”

Dr Fraser’s report, however, also contains a reference to the “opinion” of an unnamed doctor - thought to be a GP - who, says the report, “dealt with him (al-Megrahi) prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer”.

In other words, a doctor who was quite likely medically unqualified to give a diagnosis gave one that was awfully convenient in timing for releasing this terrorist and helping the UK with Libyan oil deals.

Having underqualified doctors handle the diagnosis of cancer patients - so much for the superiority of British government healthcare.

Update: The Smoking Gun has a copy of at least one of the medical reports recommending his release. (Thanks to Lagniappe's Lair for the email with the tip)

In the medical report are such gems such as Megrahi is not remorseful but "simply wishes to return home to be with his family, including his elderly mother," and he is feleing isolated religiously and culturally. Yes, really. Absolutely sickening.

More importantly, it states that specialists when asked "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than 3 months, no specialist "would be willing to say" but then has the unknown doctor stating that the prognosis is 3 months (see page 2 of the report).