Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

The Good Slaughter And The Bad Slaughter

April 6, 2011 by  

The Good Slaughter And The Bad Slaughter

The United States corporate media and political elite warmongers—champions, they would have you believe, of the little people in Libya being slaughtered by troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi—have been strangely silent about the slaughter of civilians in Bahrain and Syria.

Now we know why. President Barack Obama made a deal with the House of Saud: We take out Gadhafi and you can have free reign to quash pro-democracy protests in Bahrain (Syria is another story we’ll deal with shortly).

Two foreign diplomats—one from a European country and another from the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) group—told Asia Times Online about the deal.

According to the article, one of the diplomats said, "This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner."

So the U.S. stuck its nose in another country’s civil war and unleashed its air power and dropped bombs on Tripoli—killing countless civilians in the process—in order to halt the killing of a group of rebels who were learning that it takes more than a good idea to make a rebellion. Never mind the fact that the “nice rebels” the U.S. is so keen to protect includes al-Qaida terrorists who have shot at American troops.

Meanwhile, Saudi enforcers entered Bahrain—home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet—and shot peaceful protestors seeking reforms in their government. And according to reports coming across Twitter, more than 400 people who had blogged or Tweeted in favor of the protests are now either missing or in custody, many of them grabbed on the streets by masked thugs imported from other Arab and Asian countries.

To Obama, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and other lovers of the military-industrial complex, that’s acting humanely.

For Saudi Arabia, it’s a win-win. They see their hated enemy Gadhafi humiliated—if not eliminated—and are allowed to squelch any popular uprisings before they spread into Saudi Arabia. And to put a cherry on it, Saudi Arabia cements itself as “the” player in the Arab League.

For the U.S.-led coalition, eastern Libya is the prize because of its oil fields. Already the rebels are making oil deals with European nations. And let’s not forget that Libya would make a great location for another NATO base, giving the U.S. a foothold it needs on the African continent.

As for Syria, the Obama administration can’t seem to make up its mind whether that country is friend or foe. On March 27, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Bob Schieffer on CBS’ Face The Nation that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was a reformer, even as dozens of pro-democracy protesters were being gunned down and more activists were disappearing by the day.

But Clinton forgot to tell Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who labeled Syria as one of only three repressive regimes in the whole of the Middle East, along with Iran and Libya.

Make no mistake: The assault on Libya is a shot across the bow of both Iran and Syria. “Play with us or feel our wrath.” NATO is the new police force and it’s going to rule the Mediterranean.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Good Slaughter And The Bad Slaughter”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • http://None J.B. Williams

    The Holy Bible told us this was coming. Do you have the mark of the beast 666 yet? The New Testament book of Revelations tells believers of Jesus Christ NOT to let anyone put that mark on them. It goes on to say that those who have it will not enter His heaven. If America doesn’t vote this thug out of office in 2012 the United States Constitution will be no more then toilet paper. FYI

    • Tom Anderson

      Shame on you Mr. Williams for your hypocrisy in pointing out the obvious faults of Obama but NOT laying blame where it belongs – Cheney and Bush and the Military Industrial Complex. All of those, Bush, Cheney and Obama, ALL have gone over to the “House of Saud” and kissed those dictators’ behinds.

      The ONLY reason that the american public would vote a Marxist-Leninist big-eared Mulatto into the Presidency is because they were so revulsed by the Bush-Cheney atrocities. BUSH and CHENCY are responsible for Obama being in office. The DEMOS should erect a statue to BUSH/CHENEY. No other duo has done MORE for the DEMOCRAT party cause.

      Most of the terrorists of 9/11 were Saudis – AN ACT OF WAR! We should have immediately declared war on the Saudi dictatorship and bombed them into oblivion – but NO! Bush goes and holds hands with the Saudi King (we call them dictators in the USA) and, then, Obama goes and BOWS to the dictator. BOTH OBAMA AND BUSH SHOULD BE HANDED FOR TREASON (but, of course, first a trial)

      Obama is simply BUSH with bigger ears and a better tan.

      YOU tell me what difference there is between Bush and Obama – they are both WHORES for the MIC.

      • BigBadJohn

        YOU tell me what difference there is between Bush and Obama – they are both WHORES for the MIC.

        I have been saying for a long time, Obama and Bush look an awful lot a like to an independent!

        “For the U.S.-led coalition, eastern Libya is the prize because of its oil fields. Already the rebels are making oil deals with European nations. And let’s not forget that Libya would make a great location for another NATO base, giving the U.S. a foothold it needs on the African continent.”

        That about sums it up. If you keep talking about the NWO – look no further- it is the MIC.

        • bob wire

          Both men have played their part, “O” got sucked into it, finding there is never a good time to let go of an annoyed gator.

      • arthur

        So then, if Bush did a bad thing it’s OKAY if the thug in the wh also does bad things which include destroying our democracy ???

      • Bruce D.

        The difference Tom is that Bush and Chenney haven’t been in office for over two years. Meanwhile Obama has started two wars, expanding one into Pakistan and one in Libya and the whole Middle East is in turmoil. Now he has four wars going on. He has now sent the CIA into Libya which probably means we will be nation building there also when the conflict is over.

        • bob wire

          CIA doesn’t imply nation building but I get your point.

          However, “O” didn’t start these fires but he has responded to them. I see a difference that you seem to overlook or make light of.

          I’m beginning to think keeping Gates even those we were in the middle of great conflict was a poor decision on “O’s” part.

          • Bruce D.

            Gates tried to keep Obama out of Libya as Powell tried to keep Bush out of Iraq. Obama is just another war president. There can be no denying that now. Don’t push it off onto Gates. Bush and Obama both ignored the real problem which is Iran which is more of a threat than Iraq, Libya, or Bin Larden could ever be.

          • spitfire

            Mr. wire, I think you are all WET! O started many fires all on his own and has his own plan for America, and most of us do not like it.

          • bob wire

            “Gates tried to keep Obama out of Libya as Powell tried to keep Bush out of Iraq. ”

            well, Gates has gone on public record of saying it would be insane to put US boots on the ground, I’ll agree to that part of your statement.

            I do believe “O” accepts military council with serious consideration and deliberation, something greatly lacking with “W” & company.

            “O” presented the Libya question to the US Senate March 1st 2011 and it was reviewed and voted on by all Senators present. Today “O” has kept within the framework of this public proposal that many have now elected to forget, ignore and some even recant. True ! he didn’t consult congress as the time frame and movement on the ground was quickly changing failed to allow it.

            The US directive is indeed vague and for good reason, the mad Man of the East is to be consumed by his own people and not by some imported evil empire. That’s my take on this affair.

            These sandmen need to want freedom bad enough to fight and die for it. That the frogs and limeys are there as some insurance to a final outcome should afford the US some comfort.

            Otherwise, US citizen that oppose “everything” this administration does can have a field day making political hay of it.

            At this point in time, I’m not worried, the man is going down! I’m glad that I lived long enough to see it.

            It’s my guess there is some serious back stage work in process to fill the void, things that can’t be made public at this time, leaving us to fret the unknown and uncertain.

      • Carlucci

        If the “official” story the American people were fed about 911 was really true (and I have my doubts), then it would stand to reason that Saudi Arabia would have been attacked in retaliation by the US govt. But no – the American people were fed yet another big fat lie about Saddam Hussein and his alleged cache of “weapons of mass destruction”, which did not exist. Then there was the made up story a long time ago in the early nineties about Saddam and his army taking Kuwaiti newborns out of their incubators and leaving them on the floor to die. Of course they were blowing up Kuwaiti oil wells in the meantime.

        Now there is allegedly a hot mess going on in Libya. As a Libertarian, I say get US troops the hell out of the middle east.
        Our presence there is only going to add more hatred of the USA fuel to the fire. We need to focus on our own problems, drill for our own oil here, and let the arabs duke it out themselves, because they really aren’t our “friends” or allies.

        • Anthony

          Hold on thar a minute now, Carlucci … Just wait a cotton-pickin’ minute.

          In late February, only roughly two weeks or so, prior to Bush going into IRAQ, there were videos online of a hugeWasgon Train of white semi (w/trailers) heading out of IRAQ and into SYRIA. There was NO mistake and it WAS hushed up almost immediately. You could try explaining that nonsense. In essence, this nonsense was why the delay at the U.N. for allowing the U.S. to cross the borders in the first place.

          Curious how some on here STILL need to censor real intel as a part of making their so-called talking points.

    • Eddie47d

      JB; The end of times have been predicted for thousands of years and from many religious and non-religious entities.There are signs everywhere throughout the world yet which ones are right? Calling Obama a thug in relationship to the Bible (mark of the beast) shows a shallow understanding of our Bible.You may not like Obama (I don’t like his incursion into Libya either)but there are worse politicians in Washington and far worse throughout the world.

      • independant thinker

        “but there are worse politicians in Washington ”

        Not so sure I agree with that I think there are several including Obama tied for that “honor”.

        I do not believe Obama is the anti-christ however. As I understand it the anti-christ has to be acceptable to both Isreal and the various muslim countries and i just do not see that happening. Obama could well be the setup man for the anti-christ however.

        • http://gunner689 gunner689

          He is; he’s George Soros’s puppet.

      • spitfire

        Please do not bring the BIBLE into this forum, as you will have nearly everyone here vibrating so bad they will not be able to type, let alone speak. They do not want the truth. Its that simple.

        • MLawrence

          The Anti-Christ has been here for 1500 years.

          Michael Lawrence: Editor, Founder
          ISGI Institute for the Study of Global Ideologies

          Log onto:
          True History of Islam, Mohammed and the Koran (A lifelong Scholar of Religious History and Arab convert fluent in Arabic dialect and the Qur’an (koran) exposes the connection between Satanic Ideology, Islam and Mohammed, quoting the works of many ancient and contemporary Middle Eastern Historians opposed to the teachings of Mohammed and the Koran. Remember Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses? From Biblical Revelations the Anti Christ marks the forehead of its followers,(from the constant striking of the forehead by muslims?), and for a thousand years non-Muslims were tattooed (marked) in order to participate in the local economy of an Islam conquered territory. This Ex-Muslim author offers an unimpeachable argument that identifies Mohammed and Qur’aic teachings as the Anti-Christ of Biblical Revelations!)
          For more enlightening revelations log onto:
          The Qur’an An Apologetic Paper
          The Cult of Islam by Ali Sinai)
          Islamist Infiltration – Larry Kelley – Townhall Conservative
          The Sword & Shield to Stop the Islamization of America

  • sean murrey

    he wants his buddies the muslim brotherhood to take over the middle east.

    • arthur

      And when thats done, he wants said brotherhood to take conttrol here…..

      • Eddie47d

        The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t the one who is causing the unrest in the Middle East.These nations have their own Military Industrial Complex and they have used it well against their own people.One reason and maybe the main reason there is little democracy in this region is this huge thumb of repression. Censorship is king and the citizens are kept in line.The world markets demand their oil and in turn we (those who buy their oil)supply the leaders with treacherous weapons.This long held repression has erupted and yes indeed it can be blamed on the Military Industrial Complex. Democracy has stalled in Egypt and more than likely the same will happen in these other countries.In Egypt the military took over and is once again arresting and torturing their citizens. Any women who is caught protesting is forced to take a virginity test to prove she is not a whore.It didn’t say who does the testing so use your imagination.Never trust any government who is taken over by the military.They are even worse than their civilian counterparts and that includes Gaddafi. The biggest concern with al Qaeda is in Yemen which seems to be coming another Somalia.

  • Bob

    These are not “pro-democracy” demonstrators. They are one group of muslim thugs trying to take power from another group of muslim thugs. As long as muslims are fighting muslims, we should stay out of it. Democracy and islam are incompatible.

    • bob wire

      That’s shucking down the corn BOB, I tend to agree with you.

      I think the plan is to be limited involved and allow them to fan themselves out with proxy’s to offer direction to some final outcome.

      Once the dogs of war have been set loose it’s a very hard thing to control at any one place and time. Chaos and mayhem rules the day. A large overview is required and some understanding of what a final outcome might look like is required.

      These people don’t even understand the concepts of liberties or personal freedom. It’s something that they have never tasted, never experienced.

      Why would they want something they know little of?

      They want running water, something to eat, several good women, a herd of goats, to be not fearful of neighbors or government and to praise Alla three times a day with their butt in the air for what they got.

  • bob wire

    Good read Mr Livingston! I tend to agree, there is a major power shift in the works and from what I gather from here and there is been in the “works” for sometime now by America’s out of sight and out of mind people and Foreign operatives.

    I would like to believe the Arab world is attempting to come into the 21 Century and stand as nations among civilized nations with a little help.

    I could be wrong.

    It’s a very hard thing to do, unseat the powerful and privileged after a 40 year reign of any nation without a bloody mess.

    One thing I see as certain, ~ “W” style, direct frontal assaults are not cost effective and the results is greatly lacking as we go into our 11th years with these middle east wars. These people are resilient and truly have little to lose.

    I always attempted to avoid fighting some already ugly man that had little to lose as I seen myself pretty and hated the thought of losing an ear for no reason other then to win a fight with a man that had nothing.

  • 2WarAbnVet

    “Pro-democracy protests in Bahrain”, my left hindquarter. You mean the Iranian agents in Bahrain. I was in Saudi Arabia during the 1979 Iranian Revolution (sponsored by Jimmy Carter). The Saudis have feared Shia takeover by Iran since that time.

    • 45caliber

      (GASP!) You mean Carter was WRONG??? How can that be! He prefers the terrorists to the peaceful…

      Oh, I forgot, The new Iranian government (since the Shah) believes in terrorism, doesn’t it?

    • Carlucci

      We were in KSA from ’87 to ’90. In ’87, Saudi Arabia kicked all of the Shias out of the kingdom. Many of them were from Lebanon.

  • 45caliber

    As long as they shoot each other and we stay out of it, I’m happy. We shouldn’t be trying to be the “police of the world”. There is no reason to get our men killed in these actions. We need to stay out of them. Let France and England do their thing without us.

    • spitfire

      Amen! You hit the nail squarly.

    • bob wire

      I believe that is the plan, let it burn it’s self out, allow these sandmen to win their liberty with a little help.

      If you will recall, we too enjoyed some outside help.

      It’s important that they pay the price in blood for their freedom as it makes freedom more precious.

  • Tom Anderson

    Where were all you guys when Bush attack Iraq and Afghan???

    Neither of those countries attack us. Neither of those countries posed a threat to us. But NOT a peep out of you psuedo-conservatives when a bona-fide GOP president (Bush) whores himself for the MIC. You eat it up.

    Now a Mulatto, big-eared Democrat whores himself for the MIC and you are all over him! I love your hypocrisy!!!

    And don’t give me – “well, Aghan harbored Bin-Laden” – so what! Most of the 9/11 attacks were launched financially and organizationally from GERMANY!!! Yet, Bush didn’t invade Germany.

    Oh, Yes, Iraq had WMD – so what! WE KNOW ISRAEL has HUNDREDS of WMDs – - when are we going to invade Israel? Again, a splendid example of unadulterated hypocrisy. Give me more!

    The GOP Congress did NOT issue a declaration of WAR for either of Bush’s wars – and NOT a peep from the psuedo-conservatives. Now Obama does it without a Congressional Declaration of War and you cry like scalded babies!

    So, yes, go ahead and keep a head-count budget of how many innocents Bush/Cheney murdered versus how many innocents Obama is murdering. I must be blind – I don’t see any difference in a murderous war committed by a big-eared Mulatto or a small minded white idiot.

    I love hypocrisy! Keep it up.

    • Tim

      Why does Israel have WMD? Because most of the Middle East is hell bent on destroying it.

      Iraq is a sequel to a long line of big problems. An initial west leaning state, aka ally, Saddam orchestrated the Iraq Iran war with the blessing of Jimmy Carter. This wasn’t a mild skirmish but a brutal desert slogging match that included chemical weapons. He had a propensity to start wars – Kuwaiti was a prime example, and destabilise the region and world markets. Iraq was bankrupt and well armed with a nasty reputation. Play the what if game now, If Saddam Hussein was in power now what would have happened in the duration.

      Gaddafi:- is a brutal person. Not the same mould as Saddam but that is because he is very clever. Known to sponsor terrorism etc I would say it would be a good thing for him to go. There was plenty of opportunity for USA to get involved weeks before the rebellion, but now? The rebels are a loose association of interest groups with different objectives. They had been pushed out of key positions. No way can USA come through this clean, they all want to tar USA. Most the middle east countries are scared that they will be next to have a rebellion. This is encouraging other rebels to think,,

      • Tom Anderson


        All of your statements are true. However, I sense your implication is that we should get involved because if we don’t then all hell will break loose.

        Well, that is fine. There are LOTS of tin dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere and if you decide to arm yourself and finance your war against them with YOUR own blood and money, then I will cheer you on heartily.

        Otherwise, don’t use MY money and my family’s blood for your compulsion to be the world’s policeman. Go do it yourself. Have fun!

        Israel? Are you aware that JFK faught tooth-and-nail to keep ALL nukes out of Israel? Some suggest that the MOSSAD was partially involved in his brains marring the the trunk of his guvmint Lincoln Continental. Facts are that the worms hadn’t had their first meal on JFK before LBJ had given Israel ALL the nuke material and and instruction they needed to build some 400 nukes.

        And Israel paid LBJ back by attempting to murder all of our sailors on the USS Liberty – and LBJ called back the fighters sent to protect our sailors – LBJ called them back TWICE! The attack on USS Liberty was an International War Crime – the Israeli navy machine gunned our lifeboats!!! Yes, use YOUR money for funding Israel too – leave mine alone.

        Israel is a terrorist state. It birth occurred via the famous terrorist attack on the King David Hotel – killing innocent English women and children – and the Israelis, to this day, are PROUD of those murders! Why doesn’t our guvmint categorize Israel as a TERRORIST STATE – - there is no better definition for it.

        • spitfire

          Because the U.S.government is mostly run by gangsters, that we call politicians.Actually they are worse than gangsters. They are essentially a bunch of bullies, and our taxe dollars empower them to have their way whereever.

          It will take a very serious and organized civil war in America, to get this mess fixed for good. They aint no otha way folks! You know it I know it! Now what?????

        • Carlucci

          Yep. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated JFK because JFK did not want Israel to have nuclear weapons. He did not trust them. JFK was also totally against the jewish owned Federal Reserve and was in the process of eliminating that and had the US mint print some American greenbacks. In one of his last speeches (that someone on this blog posted about a week or so ago), he was trying to tell the American people what was going on. Well, we all know what happened to him.

          Read the book “Final Judgement” by Michael Collins Piper and you will understand what really went on and continues to go on behind the scenes.

          • Anthony

            JFK had a Thomas Jefferson attitude about digging into other Country’s problems. In other words, JFK was against Imperialism. Robert McNamara, well that was a different story. And, yea, Cheney and Rumsfeld were just joining that backstabber crowd. JFK and other Presidents before him weren’t always told everything they needed to know when it came to making just decisions … look at Woodrow Wilson and THE FED. Let’s not generalize on those details.

    • DaveH

      Many flaws in your Liberal diatribe, Tom.
      1) Bush is no longer president. Get over it.
      2) Two wrongs don’t make a right.
      3) You have no idea what we felt about Bush’s wars. How ignorant of you to make those presumptions and call us hypocrites.
      4) Bush did seek permission from Congress to engage both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has not. See the Iraq War Resolution for Iraq, and see Authorization for Military Force Against Terrorists for Afghanistan.

      None of the above means I support the United States being the world’s policemen. We should not be launching military action against any country that has not attacked us, or is taking proven actions to do so. And we should get our military out of other countries that haven’t done either of those. If their own citizens don’t care enough to fight for themselves, then I can only conclude they don’t care enough.

      • Tom Anderson

        You call me a Liberal?

        That makes sense because you think that that illogical and messy rambling document by Congress (Iraq authorization for War) is a REAL Congressional Declaration of War. Who in the hell is the Liberal here?

        Try reading the official Declaration of War against the Empire of Japan or the Congressional Declaration for WW1. If you like the nonsense that our Congress wrote to justify the messes in Iraq and Afghan then you must LOVE Obama’s health care mess – it is equally rambling and nonsensical (and many pages long too) and costly.

        A TRUE conservative DEMANDS a REAL Congressional Declaration of War not some pissant excuse that Bush/Cheney used to whore for the MIC.

        In a TRUE Declaration of War, the US Congress ORDERS and DIRECTS the president to execute war against a nation – no references to the UN or “talking about killing one’s father” or any other nonsense is required. That you accept THAT as a constitution excuse for war stamps you are a true-blooded leftist liberal. And I stand in awe of your anabashed hypocrisy.

        You, my friend, are the pinko-commie, leftist, Marxist-Leninist who is intent on squandering America’s blood and treasure on whoring for the Military Industrial Complex – you ONLY complain about it when a mulatto big-eared democrat initiates it.

        • DaveH

          Wow. You chastize me for calling you a Liberal when you go off the deep end in an wholly unfounded accusatory comment? You have no idea what the rest of us think, but that doesn’t stop you a lick from blasting us with labels. I am a True Conservative, one that believes in the Freedom and Limited Government that our Founders tried to guarantee for us. If you are indeed a Conservative, I can only say I wish you weren’t. People like you give us a bad name.

          • DaveH

            And by the way, I am a betting man, and my wager from reading your comment, Tom (or whatever your name really is) is that you are indeed a Liberal trying to make Conservatives look bad.

        • Bruce D.

          Bush fulfilled the intent of the Constitution when he went to war. It may have been the dumbest war ever but he got the permission and the agreement from Congress. Democrats pissed and moaned about it much later but never tried to defund it or bring it up for vote when they had full power and control of all three branches. Most conservatives disagree with Bush’s handling of illegal entry into the country, Medicaid, and in hindsight the Iraq war but few hate him. I think Tom is a liberal also masquerading as a conservative.

        • Bruce D.

          Tom Anderson, conservatives never say Bush/Chenney. They either say Bush or they say Chenney. The left always point to Chenney. It is rare to put that kind of focus and importance on a vice president. Biden is only looked on as a joke and not given any importance in Obama’s decisions. Chenney has always been focused on what they perceive is the importance of Chenney. To me you are a liberal. By the sounds of it even more far left than Obama.

          • Anthony

            Pointing at Cheney is not exactly in error……

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Tom Anderson,

      If you are referencing me, here is what I wrote in The Bob Livingston Letter® in November, 2001:

      The art of war is that all warfare is based on deception and that rulers must cultivate the appearance of moral rightness in order to rally the people and persuade them to fight. It works!

      In the blink of an eye the people have stopped blaming the government for the worsening economy and shifted the blame to the “terrorists.”

      The government of the United States has reasserted its power over the American people. It is now stronger, much stronger, because of the “terrorist” attack. Any student of history would know ahead of time that government power is strengthened by horrendous attacks such as we have seen on our own people.

      Who really benefited from the attacks? The answer is the US government is now ready to wage a simulated war on the Arabs and real war on the American people.

      In August, 2003, I wrote:

      Do you think that the phony war against Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (which never existed and were never found) is anywhere near the threat to the American people that the drug companies are?

      In September, 2003, I wrote:

      The Iraq situation is far more serious than Americans believe. I am afraid that we are in a long no-win situation. The problem with guerrilla wars is that one never knows who is friend or enemy. The enemy just is not visible. There are no rules of engagement. Therefore the US is and will incur tremendous casualties in continuously recurring ambushes, acts of sabotage and raids on their camps.

      And there is much more. Go to (subscription required) and view the archives.

      Does that answer your question?

      Best wishes,

      • Carlucci

        Bob Livingston said:

        “The art of war is that all warfare is based on deception and that rulers must cultivate the appearance of moral rightness in order to rally the people and persuade them to fight. It works!

        Bob is 100% right on this one. Here are some good examples to back up his statement: The American people were not interested in getting involved in WWII. So a reason had to be cooked up to get them interested. The Japanese were provoked into bombing Pearl Harbor, when FDR knew weeks ahead of time that it was going to happen. Just like the Gulf of Tonkin (cherchez LBJ and Bob McNamara) phony incident that was blabbed all over the airwaves by the lapdog media. Just like “communism” was taking over Vietnam and was going to spread here. Just like the Kuwaiti newborns being taken out of their hospital incubators. Just like in the early sixties the Bilderbergs intended to set up and blame Cuba for planes flying into tall buildings (sound familiar?). JFK just couldn’t get behind all that craziness and look what happened to him.

        In the blink of an eye the people have stopped blaming the government for the worsening economy and shifted the blame to the “terrorists.”

        Of course they have, because many people believe what they are told by the lap dog media. My mother is one of these people. She will blather on and repeat exactly what she hears on mainstream t.v. “news”. She believes that since she watches FOX news that she is getting the “real truth”. It is all I can do not to burst out laughing because she is so clueless. I have to cut her some slack because she’s almost 80 years old, but she is a perfect example of what Mr. Livingston is talking about.

        Wake up everybody – ! The PTB have been playing us for years.

        • 45caliber

          Check WWI. We got into the war because the Lucitania was sunk with over a thousand civilians on board.

          I saw a NY newspaper once that was dated two or three days before it sailed. There was a full page ad in it by the German government. It stated in 2″ letter, “DON’T SAIL … It will be sunk!” It further stated the ship was to be sunk since it was loaded with guns and ammo. And they had its sailing route, courtesy of the US Government. In the same paper was another ad (on the front page if I remember correctly) by our government. It stated that it was perfectly safe to sail on the ship. It didn’t contain weapons at all.

          About 10 years ago, they found the ship. It was loaded with guns and ammo …

          • Carlucci

            Imagine that…

          • Anthony

            The Sinking of the Lusitania … was a false flag event.

          • bob wire

            I wasn’t aware of this warning 45. ~ Good to know.

      • Tom Anderson

        Thank you, Bob. And I certainly agree with all of these prior statements.

        However, the gist of many of these comments is that Obama is the center of all evil whereas Bush is given a “pass” for the same or worse behavior.

        As a measure of evil, is there any significant difference between Obama or Bush/Cheney? I believe that they all march to the same drummer.

        I am a liberal? Perhaps! I believe that I am in the company of Ike and Gen. Washington in being VERY hesitant to involve ourselves in wars against nations which:

        1) NEVER attacked us
        2) NEVER were a direct threat to us

        Washington’s farewell addressed, “… overgrown military establishments … are inauspicious to liberty and particularly hostile to Republican Liberty”

        And Ike’s, “… Military Industrial Complex ” comments in his farewell address.

        Isn’t it interesting that our TWO most formidable military leader/presidents used their FINAL speech to warn the nation of our OWN MILITARY!!!

        I sense that that Bush/Cheney are treated with kid gloves when they initiate a MIC war, whereas Obama is not given any “pass”.

        I give none of these criminals a pass and would love to see all three hanged from the Congress’s ceiling (of course, AFTER a trial)

    • 45caliber

      Congress declared war on terrorists – wherever they are found. They were found in Afghanistan and they voted to go there. They were found in Iraq and they voted to go there too. So you are wrong on both counts. They are also found in most of the countries in that part of the world but so far they haven’t voted on going to any more of them. Including Libya. That was Oblama jumping in without permission after the UN decided to do something.

      • Anthony

        AL QAEDA … is the name of a U.S. governmetn database listing the names of “potential” terrorists, supposedly from around the World.

        In all reality, I have read enough to understand the more true possibility is Al Qaeda is a CIA creation.

      • sherri ww

        It is My understanding that any POTUS has The legal right to handle a situation with NATO in the way he sees fit.Also,remember that first Pres.O. Was critized for NOT going to Libya fast enough,and it waswas plain to see he actually wanted nothing to do with the whole mess! But,when he finally agreed to go HELP NATO,not do it ourselves,then he was critized FOR going ,like NEWT G IS ON TAPE,SAYING ONE SUNDAY,that” he would be there sooner” then THE NEXT SUNDAY,saying”I would not have gone overthere!”course. Newt is goofy, but the point is that President Obama couldn’t win with some of these idiots,no matter WHAT he does!@

  • Kris


    • DaveH

      You’re right, Kris.

    • 45caliber

      Correct. This stupid idea of rebuilding a country we defeat is simply wrong. It came about at the end of WWII – in Japan because we wanted a presence in the Far East and in West Germany because we wanted to balance the Soviets there. Now it is expected.

      I believe that IF we make war, we do it fast and hard. We take out our objective (defeat the enemy) and then walk off and leave the place. If they complain, remind them that we wouldn’t have had to go in if they had selected an honest government in the first place. And warn them that if we have to come back, we’re going to be nasty next time.

      Further, all this hogwash about going in to protect our oil there or to gain control of it is also ridiculous. As you said, we don’t get oil from Libya – England and France do. So why should we be sending in our planes? Let them do it.

      • DaveH

        Walk softly and carry a big stick.

  • http://com i41

    If the Americans had any brains on voting, they wouldn’t have voted for the dumbocraps, who preach the crap about renewable energy and keep knocking using our massive oil reserves. Of course these are the same dumb bastards that want more land made into parks and wilderness areas, The idoits worry about food safety and swallow all the bs of foreign food being checked for purity from other countries. To clean out the perv muslim goat abusers, if USA would fight to win and clean out all of these freaks, instead of slapping the pukes a few times and then going home. Our arm chair leaders are pusified whimps at the best and beleive the we all get along crap. If you have pests creating problems, kill all of what you can see and as many as you can that you can not see. Any elected bastard, both State and Federal will not talk about using our domestic oil reserves, but blab about the airy fairy crap that may be cost effective in 60 years, both dems and rep. Try and talk to the pukes and don’t just listen to the bs, but see if anything gets done. See the muslim morons kinetic mission isn’t protecting the cililians worth a damn, this cholate crossbred book training just isn’t working as the manual sad it would.

  • spitfire

    Would we be having budget problems at home, if we kept our noses out of all other counties business, and did not spend money all over the planet?????

    • mountainman

      In a word, YES. If the money wasn’t being pushed and shoveled to other countries, the libs would just give it to lazy-asses here in the States.

  • Douglsa Dauntless

    Obama, Wright, and Farrakan, all Jew haters went to Libya to see their friend Muammar in the 80′s when Libya was off limits to Americans. Obama got there on his Indonesion passport as Barry Sotoro, They picked 2 million in gold from Muammar. Now Obama stabbed him in the back. Also we forget the Miss Powers is Jew hater #2 next to Obama. That’s another reason Obama wants Muammar out. The Jews are the real target. Our government always works with the same people who kill our troops. Where are those great liberal movies stars to protest these Wars as did with Bush. This is all to really done to destroy the United States with the help of Obama and the Communist Democrats and Republicans John Mc Cain as the leader, along with his pal pin-head Leberman to keep us in a War that costs billions of dollars a day. The statement about Muammar and Obama was on U-Tube

  • DaveH

    Speaking of guns. How many of you heard about this story from the anti-gun MSM?

  • FreedomFighter

    Pull all American ground troops out, burn the poppies.

    If we need to return, fight a real war, to win. Kill as many as possible until unconditional surrender, reparations.

    Nuke Iran now, for so many good reasons, soon it may be to late to stop the psychos.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • sherri ww

      @freedomfighter:We just need to stay out of all of it,bring regular troops home as soon as its possible,leaving just Special Forces,to watch over things,an much as it might sound good sometimes,we,or nobody else needs to” nuke”ANYBODY,EVER!

  • jeanelane

    Politics… bah! The best we can do with these news reports is to be warned and stop all the blithering. It does no good.

  • Anthony

    THe Administration lied about going into IRAQ – using a U.S. database as the excuse … AL QAEDA. That was 2003.

    Now, they aren’t even bothering with positing any type of LIE. They’re just going in and comitting atrocities, at will.

    True – both Bush II and Obama are two sides of the same coin.
    True – Obama has reversed NONE of what Bush started – he doubled down.

    True – Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to strip freedoms away from U.S. citizens.
    True – Obama’s executive orders have positioned POTUS with the right to confiscate all property from al citizens, at will.

    Try reading Executive Orders, beginning with 10,991 and all others written since that one.

    • sherri ww

      @anthony: I don’t see that we are committing”atrocities”over there at all,for one thing,and I would like to know where in the world people get the idea that the POTUS is interested in” taking anybodys property” ever,unless they would be bad criminals of some sort.I hear that stuff about the President wants to take your guns,and so on.If you or anyone,thinks the President is sitting around worrying about taking peoples property,then I got a big bridge I will sell anybody who believes that!

  • Jay

    Barack Obama recently issued an executive order imposing a wave of sanctions against Libya, not only freezing Libyan assets, but barring Americans from having business dealings with Libyan banks.

    So raise your hand if you knew that the United States has been extending billions of dollars in aid to Qaddafi and to the Central Bank of Libya, through a Libyan-owned subsidiary bank operating out of Bahrain. And raise your hand if you knew that, just a week or so after Obama’s executive order, the U.S. Treasury Department quietly issued an order exempting this and other Libyan-owned banks to continue operating without sanction.

    I came across the curious case of the Arab Banking Corporation, better known as ABC, while researching a story about the results of the audit of the Federal Reserve. That story, which will be coming out in Rolling Stone in two weeks, will examine in detail some of the many lunacies uncovered by Senate investigators amid the recently-released list of bailout and emergency aid recipients – a list that includes many extremely shocking names, from foreign industrial competitors to hedge funds in tax-haven nations to various Wall Street figures of note (and some of their relatives). You will want to see this amazing list when it comes out, so please make sure to check the newsstands in two weeks’ time.

    This list became public as a result of an amendment added to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that was sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The amendment forced the Federal Reserve to open its books for the first time and make public the names of those individuals and corporations who received emergency loans and bailout monies during the roughly two year period between the crash of 2008 and the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill.

    As Bernie’s staff was going through this list, it found, among other things, some $26 billion in extremely cheap loans (as low as one quarter of one percent!) extended to this ABC bank over a period of years, beginning in December of 2007 and continuing through as recently as February of 2010. The senator sent a letter to Ben Bernanke over the winter demanding more information about this loan (among others) but the response he got was completely unhelpful.

    When I first started working on this story, one of Sanders’s aides was careful to point out the ABC loans. Later, I took a closer look at the company and found that it was 59% owned by the Central Bank of Libya, which I found very odd, even by the generally insane standards of the bailout era. Why, I wondered, would the Federal Reserve be giving Muammar Qaddafi $26 billion in near-zero interest loans? Exactly how does that address America’s financial problems? What bailout plan could that possibly be part of?

    It gets weirder from there. Sanders’s office subsequently found out that ABC is not only exempt from Obama’s sanctions, it has two functioning branches here in New York City. In a letter he sent yesterday evening to Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency chief John Walsh (the banking regulator with purview over the New York branches), Sanders put it this way:

    Why would the U.S. government allow a bank that is predominantly owned by the Central Bank of Libya – an institution on which the U.S. has imposed strict economic sanctions – to operate two banking branches within our own borders?

    Neither the Fed nor Treasury so far has offered explanations for these loans; the Treasury has so far only explained why ABC was not subject to sanctions and pointed to the March 4th order when I contacted them.

    The ABC loans are just one example of the Fed’s bailout madness. Again, there are 21,000 transactions on the Fed’s list of released names, and “every one of these… is outrageous,” as one Sanders aide put it. You will be shocked, for sure, to find out who else is on that list. We’ll have a lot more on those other loans in the next issue of Rolling Stone.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.