McCain, Lieberman Beat War Drums on #Libya

Neocons to the rescue. Looks like they've got the marching orders, bypassing Obama.

John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain and Joe "Let's charge Julian Assange with treason" Lieberman just returned from their MENA (Middle East, North Africa) tour, and strongly urge Prez Obama to lead the way in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

Just so that we know without any illusion, imposing a no-fly zone will mean the US bombing Libya: "To establish a no-fly zone, the U.S. and its allies would need to bomb Libya's air defense system and devote hundreds of aircraft to patrol the country, military officers say" (LA Times).

Let's see, considering that US special forces and military advisors have been in Libya since February 23, and several hundred Marines are on the way, the US seems ready set to enforce a no-fly zone as soon as it convinces itself it has the good enough mandate - doesn't need to be the UN's, doesn't even need to be the Nato's, but as long as the US key allies (UK, France, possibly Italy) agree and participate.

From Reuters (3/1/2011):

Two senior senators called on President Barack Obama to lead the way in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya and said Washington should use trade and investment to support what they called a full-scale revolution in the Arab World.

Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Joe Lieberman, an independent, just returned from a North Africa and Middle East tour and spoke with leaders emerging from the upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia. They also visited Israel and Jordan.

In a joint Reuters interview, both senators called for a no-fly zone over Libya. The Obama administration has been discussing with NATO allies the creation of such a zone and U.S. ships have moved closer to Libya.

"I believe that (Libyan leader Muammar) Gaddafi's days are numbered and we should do everything in our power to shorten the number of days so that we can relieve the misery of the people of Libya," McCain said.

And they also have this to say about the net social media:

Speaking about the way social media played a role, the two senators said Tunisian opposition leaders asked them if they could possibly get Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to visit.

"Because he was the most popular man in Tunisia," said McCain.

(Ugghhh.)

Tweet

Happy Bipartisanship: Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran!

The first joint project by Congressional Republicans and Obama may be to attack Iran.

Stratfor has already recommended that Obama attack Iran to boost his standing in the US and increase the chance of winning in 2012 Presidential election. Now the good old war-mongering Republicans will be happy to assist him.

Senator Lindsay Graham Warns Of War With Iran, Confrontation With "Cheating" China (Tyler Durden, 11/06/2010 Zero Hedge)

With republicans back in control, it was only a matter of time before the military-industrial complex reminded the world of its existence. It took about 72 hours: republican senator Lindsay Graham, who apparently has not received the memo that all modern wars are now waged in binary, and are won by those who can push the FX bid/ask the furthest and the fastest away from equilibrium, spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum, giving a very distinct taste of what US foreign policy is about to look like: "Iran is a major threat to any conceivable world order" and that he sees an almost inevitable confrontation with Iran. As AP reports, the South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic "not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime." And the Democrats, still in shock over their recent pummelling, will likely not have the resolve to respond palliatively to such warmongering, which they likely deem as supported by the broad population: "US Democratic Senator Mark Udall, who joined Graham during a panel discussion at the forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, urged continued sanctions against Iran. But he also noted that "every option is on the table," a thinly veiled reference to possible military action." And just when the world was getting along so well, and all the international bickering appeared to be taking place over various Forex terminals...

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Now, the true Tea Party Congressmen and Senators, please stand up. Not the neocon kind of Sarah Palin and her ilk (and her puppet masters). And shut up a neocon idiot like Lindsey Graham who wants to drag the bankrupt US into another costly and probably endless war.

Tweet

One Neoconservative to Obama: Bomb Iran and Save Your Presidency

I hear that President Obama will be interviewed by Katie Couric of CBS during the pre-game show of the Super Bowl this coming Sunday. He's been going all over the place in the U.S. since the Massachusetts special election, trying to cast a new image of a aggressive, combative commander in chief who is not afraid to be unpopular to do the right thing. (Or something like that.)

And this neo-conservative writer is egging on Obama to embark on a sure-winner to further boost his image and popularity among Americans and America's allies: Bomb Iran.

Bomb Iran, and the American people would rally around you, he says.

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran
(Daniel Pipes, 2/2/2010 National Review)

"I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work against. But here is an idea for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects the United States and its allies."

"...... He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

"Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity."

After citing the poll numbers seemingly suggesting the American public would support attacking Iran (but remember, poll questions are crafted to elicit the desired answers...), he continues:

"Not only does a strong majority — 57, 52, 58, 61, and 61 percent in these five polls — already favor using force, but after a strike Americans will presumably rally around the flag, sending that number much higher."

So he is suggesting Obama bomb Iran to boost his poll numbers.

"Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, and make the netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon."

In other words, everyone in the U.S. would flock to Obama with starry eyes, if only Obama bombs Iran, a country that has never attacked the U.S. and which has never posed a threat to the U.S.. For what? Obama presidency makeover? And he is not suggesting a makeover in substance but image and perception.

Much like ads for branded goods.

The most recent buildup in the Middle East does indicate something may be up. Since Obama seems to be on a rampage beating up on nation's top banks, Supreme Court judges, Americans who oppose his policies (half the country), GOP, Reuters, Toyota, Ken Lewis, it's about time he ventures outside the border for a fresh target.

To be sure, if John McCain had been elected as president, he would have bombed Iran long time ago, as he merrily sang. (Sort of.)

Here's what one weary observer says about Obama and Iran:

Will Obama Play the War Card? (Pat Buchanan, 2/5/2010 Lewrockwell.com)

Tweet

Obama Support Shoots Up On War Prep in Middle East

I could be wrong, but that's what I think.

Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll for today (February 1, 2010) shows quite an anomaly. The gap between "strongly approve" and "strongly disapprove", which was in negative high teens, narrowed over the weekend to a mere -4.

"Strongly disapprove" percentage hasn't changed much, around 40%. It is "strongly approve", which jumped from Friday's 25% to 35%. That's a 40% jump in "strongly approve" category.

Also, there is hardly a change in "total approve" and "total disapprove". The sudden surge in "strongly approve", therefore, must have come from the Obama supporters who already approve of the president's handling of his job - i.e. switching from "approve" to "strongly approve" over the weekend. There had to be a trigger for such an abnormal move.

What changed from Friday to Monday? Have you read any cheerful news that makes you want to enthusiastically support the president?

It cannot be the $3.83 trillion budget of his that was unveiled this morning, with gaping $1.6 trillion deficit for yet another year.

The only significant news that I can think of over the weekend is this:

US raises stakes on Iran by sending in ships and missiles (1/31/2010 Guardian UK), and
China, Iran Spur U.S. to Develop Air-Sea Battle Plan (2/1/2010 Bloomberg)

If this news was a trigger for the sudden surge of strong support for Obama, it could only come from people who highly approve of more aggressive stance and action by the U.S. military around the world, particularly in the Middle East, whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents.

It seems neoconservatives (here's one) are alive and well, after all.

To protect "our allies". Which one? Pick your country and cheer.

Tweet