My Note –
Well, I was reading along this –
The Libyan Armed Forces consist of the Libyan Army, Libyan Air Force and the Libyan Navy with other services which include the People’s Militia. The total number of Libyan personnel is estimated at 119,000. Colonel Abu-Bakr Yunis Jaber is the chief of the staff of the military.
Got down to here –
The current strength of the Libyan Army consists of 25,000 volunteers with an additional ε25,000 conscripts (total 50,000). The army is organised into 11 Border Defence and 4 Security Zones, one regime security brigade, 10 Tank Battalions, 10 Mechanized Infantry Battalions, 18 Infantry Battalions, 6 Commando Battalions, 22 Artillery Battalions, 4 SSM Brigade and 7 Air Defence Artillery Battalions.
In 2009, it emerged that a British Special Air Service team were training Libyan special forces. Khamis al-Qadhafi’s 32nd Brigade is one of the main regime protection forces. The ‘Khamis Brigade’ is considered by U.S. diplomats as the most capable of defending the regime.
Had just been looking at this –
About the anti-corruption research network at Transparency International
And noted the article about the State Troopers sent to homes of Democratic Senators in Wisconsin – seems very wrong – they apparently intended to arrest them and drag them to the Senate against their will (in the United States)
Found a USNews article by Robert Schlesinger that says –
“Public Dislikes Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s Union Busting” – according to some poll
And, after seeing a Financial Times article among several others about the vast wealth of the Gaddafi clan – then noticed, the US to join effort to boot Libya from UN top human rights body –
I’ve yet to understand what they were doing there with a seat at that table anyway considering the egregious brutality that the Gaddafi regime has forced upon the people of Libya.
And, after noting a number of military purchases and arms sales to Libya in the last few years when I made the google search using the terms – Libya military equipment –
I was disgusted.
But, then –
I found a Reuters article about the
“Republican moves to kill several Obama administration programs aimed at keeping struggling borrowers in their homes . . . ” etc.
in an article entitled –
“Ending housing aid not answer: Senate panel aide” – Reuters
And, I got to thinking . . .
I’ll just say it like you are sitting here and I’m talking it out loud to understand it –
“you mean to tell me that this entire 41 years and especially during the last ten years, the UN, US and world leaders honored Gaddafi (and Mubarak, for that matter) as if they were people to be worshiped, funded their every need, honored them in Washington and in Geneva and New York, Paris and Rome while they were torturing people – and everybody knew it?”
and the same Republican Party that did that (among other things) is now forcing State Troopers in Wisconsin to go to homes of elected legislators to drag them out of their homes (although they probably aren’t there) and take them against their will to the State Legislature?
And the same conservatives that are responsible for honoring these foul dictators in the name of “stability” and oil companies are the same ones that have driven our nation for the last thirty – forty years, making America too impoverished for most people to ever own a home, make a living or pursue happiness, let alone to excel and accomplish great things?
And, the same ones who jumped up with our money and gave it to the banks to bail them out? And handed AIG over $150 billion dollars of our money to pay to Wall Street firms?
And while giving tens of millions of our dollars every day to other nations’ brutal dictators, the same conservatives and Republican Party members and policy makers that would make war in America on the poor, the unions, the working people, public education, homeless, the unemployed, the disabled, the young children and babies and families and the elderly in America now?”
– is that about it?
while they are protecting assets of people like Mubarak and Gaddafi, even in the United States?
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
I know that, but how could it all be so completely backwards in the minds and hearts of the leaders we have either trusted or endured, (or both) for over thirty years?
Maybe it is just in seeing it altogether where the massive wrongness of it all is glaringly apparent and just plain entrenched evil now revealed.
If I did the things that Gaddafi or Mubarak did – or even the crap that Scott Walker Republican Governor of Wisconsin is doing, or the things that Dick Cheney and President Bush did – nobody would be selling me arms, tanks, military hardware, guns, nice dinners, or letting me keep my seat in some nice office – oh no, not at all.
Disparity of Principles Applied by Republican leaders have killed us all – tortured, killed, supported brutality, abused people in America, impoverished American citizens, treated Americans as their enemies and, treated Mubarak and Gaddafi as their friends.
AP MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin state troopers were dispatched Thursday to the doorsteps of some of the AWOL Democratic senators in hopes of finding at least one who would come back to allow a vote on a measure to curb the power of …
The stepped-up tactic ordered by the Republican head of the Senate came amid reports that at least a few of the missing senators were returning home at night before rejoining their colleagues in Illinois.
By the CNN Wire Staff (CNN) — The fight over public union benefits and collective bargaining is spreading across the United States. Here is a state-by-state breakdown: Thousands of people have protested a proposal in Wisconsin that would eliminate …
Republicans in the House of Representatives earlier announced they would consider four bills aimed at killing different administration efforts to keep borrowers in their homes.
Anti-Corruption Research Network – Transparency International
United Nations Convention against Corruption
UNODC’s Action against Corruption and Economic Crime
Corruption is a complex social, political and economic phenomenon that affects all countries. Corruption undermines democratic institutions, slows economic development and contributes to governmental instability.
Corruption attacks the foundation of democratic institutions by distorting electoral processes, perverting the rule of law and creating bureaucratic quagmires whose only reason for existing is the soliciting of bribes.
Economic development is stunted because foreign direct investment is discouraged and small businesses within the country often find it impossible to overcome the “start-up costs” required because of corruption.
My Note –
I’m including this here for a reason – It is not like they don’t know. It can’t be that our leaders have not known. And, where is the fine line between abuse of power, corruption, bribery and the revolving door of our government especially when they serve on both sides of the table – if not today, then expect to do so tomorrow? Is that not incentive for them to favor those who are lining their campaign donations now and serve their party interests by donating to them, and where these same government elected officials expect they can get continued employment for their career specialties tomorrow?
It is certain, that wouldn’t be called “corruption” in the same sense as the Mubarak regime or Gaddafi family have done – or is it?
When the Republicans have taken funds from millions of individual donations that were made through other PACs and special interest groups for specific stands on certain issues only to turn around, in an abuse of power and serve wealthy corporate interests instead, or to support the removal of jobs from the economy when they said they would do the opposite? Is it right only because they have an army on every media type broadcasting the way we are all to look at it and to think about it? Is that what makes this not “corruption”?
How could they believe their friends and the “good guys” in all this are people like Mubarak and Gaddafi and the bunch out there at BP who literally killed people in the most horrible ways possible, polluted everything they’ve touched, kept millions of people and families in poverty, and took and took and took and took – never satiated?
Why would they value them more than me?
Why would they have given those horrible atrocity perpetrating people a seat at the table to protect human rights, give them awards, honor them and feast them on our money? And, why would our Republican and conservative leaders have worked so hard to build the business interests and income streams and armies for these human beasts of mankind?
I don’t get it.
That is just heart-breaking about America. No one even bothered to stop them from doing it – not our church leaders, not old Rush Limbaugh, not the trusted Republican Party membership, not local members of our communities and not even the United Nations and other world leaders. I just don’t understand it at all.
Don’t tell me not to take it personally – these jackasses valued those beasts more than you, too.
And, used your money from your hard-earned paychecks and earnings and profits to give them – just think – would you have done that with your money?
I wouldn’t have.
We’ve had ways to power our cars in other ways since the 1970’s – so why didn’t that get used? But, no . . .
And, supposedly, you and I and our neighbors and our community and our children and our family members are the “enemy” of the conservatives, the big businesses, the Wall Street firms and banks, and of the Republicans?
Is that right?
Boy, that sounds just plain backwards about who should be considered their enemy and who ought to be jointly the enemy of all of us considering what they’ve done – which would have to include Mubarak and his cronies, Gaddafi and his sons, an economic blight across our nation and getting the hell whooped out of us all by foreign nations in economic wars with them.
Seems like that would make more sense.
And, what exactly entitled our nations’ bankers to our money?
What exactly is the name of the “entitlement” that gives billions of dollars in our tax money to foreign nations to build their militaries in the hands of ruthless, non-egalitarian dictators?
And, what is the entitlement of the rich which gave them the extensions of tax cuts they didn’t need in the first place while everyone else is doing without?
And, what entitlement gives industries and mega-businesses subsidies, tax cuts, help at every turn and pays for every bit of research and development they use from our tax dollars?
What entitlement thinking allows our legislators to have mega-staffs, mega-salaries, mega-perk packages, mega-everything in the finest variety covered while people are homeless in America? Whose damn idea was that?
That isn’t free market capitalism.
That isn’t fair trade, fair markets, fair business practices, fair even playing fields for competition and small businesses to compete or innovate.
Whose idea was that?
Why are the Republicans and conservatives entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars to further their psyops campaigns on the American people? Whose decision was that? Who decided that none of them were to be held accountable to what they’ve done with that power and what they are doing with it now?
Whose idea was that entitlement?
Who gave it to them? Who decided to vote for them? Who believed for one minute they would create jobs when they are the ones who literally decimated our economy, our families, our lives, our potentials, our education systems, our public resources, our state and federal budgets, and gave our money to a bunch of bankers and Wall Street hounds whose idea of investments is to gamble away everyone else’s money in their command?
So, I took awhile and thought about it.
And then sat down at the computers and found this –
Some now question U.S. deal that brought Gaddafi back into diplomatic fold
and I noticed this part especially and wondered –
“We rehabilitated a cruel dictator in the interest of securing American policy gains,” Miller said. Though the policy change had its merits, “It was a devil’s bargain because we essentially said, ‘If you support our policies on war and peace, we’ll give you a pass on human rights,’ ” Miller said.
Others argue that Libyans would likely be no better off today if the deal had not been struck, and indeed, by almost every measure, the perils facing the region would be far worse.
“His nuclear program would still be intact and even further developed, and he would have his missiles and chemical weapons to use as he wishes,” said Elliott Abrams, a former foreign policy adviser to both Bush and President Ronald Reagan. Rejecting Gaddafi’s overture would have left the West without any levers for influencing Libyan behavior, he added. “It would be saying to him, ‘You go on making nuclear weapons and supporting terrorists, and we’ll just make speeches’ ” about human rights, Abrams said. (etc.)
The name was familiar – so I looked it up and sure enough – guess who –
During the Reagan administration, Abrams gained notoriety for his involvement in controversial foreign policy decisions regarding Nicaragua and El Salvador.
During Bush’s first term, he served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs.
At the start of Bush’s second term, Abrams was promoted to be his Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, in charge of promoting Bush’s strategy of advancing democracy abroad.
His appointment by Bush was controversial due to his conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.
And there’s more –
Abrams first came to national prominence when he served as Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs in the early 1980s and later as Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs.
His nomination to Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs was unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 17, 1981. Abrams was Reagan’s second choice for the position; his first nominee, Ernest W. Lefever, had been rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 5, 1981.
During this time, Abrams clashed regularly with church groups and human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch. and Amnesty International, over the Reagan administration’s foreign policies. They accused him of covering up atrocities committed by the military forces of US-backed governments, such as those in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, and the rebel Contras in Nicaragua.
In early 1982, when reports of the El Mozote massacre of civilians by the military in El Salvador began appearing in U.S. media, Abrams told a Senate committee that the reports of hundreds of deaths at El Mozote “were not credible,” and that “it appears to be an incident that is at least being significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas.”
The massacre had come at a time when the Reagan administration was attempting to bolster the human rights image of the Salvadoran military. Abrams implied that reports of a massacre were simply FMLN propaganda and denounced U.S. investigative reports of the massacre as misleading.
In March 1993, the Salvadoran Truth Commission reported that 5,000 civilians were “deliberately and systematically” executed in El Mozote in December 1981 by forces affiliated with the Salvadoran state.
Also in 1993, documentation emerged suggesting that some Reagan administration officials could have known about El Mozote and other human rights violations from the beginning.
President George W. Bush appointed Abrams to the post of special assistant to the president and senior director for democracy, human rights, and international operations at the National Security Council on June 25, 2001. Abrams was appointed special assistant to the President and the NSC’s senior director for Near East and North African Affairs on December 2, 2002.
Some human rights groups and commentators considered his White House appointment controversial due to his conviction in the Iran-Contra Affair investigation and his role in overseeing the Reagan administration’s foreign policy in Latin America.
On February 2, 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Abrams deputy national security adviser for Global Democracy Strategy. In his new position, Abrams became responsible for overseeing the National Security Council’s directorate of Democracy, Human Rights, and International Organization Affairs and its directorate of Near East and North African Affairs.
Abrams accompanied Condoleezza Rice as a primary adviser on her visits to the Middle East in late July 2006 in the course of discussions relating to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
My Note –
And that’s the person put in charge of human rights, democracy, the Near east and North African affairs – a man proven to have disregarded human rights, democracy and a convicted criminal of the highest treason as well? Why would anyone do that?
And, that’s whose advice they are taking in Washington right now – again – about the same things that put these horrific abuses into place, kept these beasts of mankind in place, and failed to protect human rights, freedom, democracy and human dignity in Libya, in Egypt, in the Mideast and in North Africa (and elsewhere)?
He let some of the most horrific abuses of mankind against a nation’s own citizens go on with torture, suffering, genocide, and turns around today to tell the world in the Washington Post that ”
Abrams, who in 2003 was the top Middle East adviser to the Bush administration’s National Security Council, acknowledged that White House demands for Libyan political reform were “muted,” despite the intense pressure applied by the administration on other Middle Eastern governments to allow greater political freedom.
“We had just cut a deal with this guy. It would have been wrong to immediately start firing at him verbally,” Abrams said.
At the bottom of the wikipedia page about Elliott Abrams this caught my attention and since I wasn’t sure what it was, being that the names of so many political things are nearly the same but actually aren’t – I looked it up – and I’m repeating it here, because it just doesn’t make sense –
And, so I picked – Members of Social Democrats USA which took me to a listing of some members and a link at the top to find out more about it – so I clicked it and then –
Social Democrats USA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA), one of three successor organizations emerging from the historic Socialist Party of America (SP), was a coalition of democratic, anti-Communist intellectuals and trade unionists, whose active life lasted for about three decades after its foundation in 1973.
By 1972, the American left was deeply split into a multiplicity of factional groupings. Even a numerically small organization, such as the historic Socialist Party, was bitterly divided over questions such as the socialist position on the Vietnam War, relations with different segments of the labor movement, and the perspective to be taken by socialists towards the “New Politics” of insurgent Democratic Party Presidential candidate George McGovern. Central was the question which had tormented the Socialist Party since its Convention of 1912 — what should be the organization’s policy towards those advocating syndicalism or socialism established by revolutionary means?
On the Socialist Party’s Right were many of the primary officials of the party, including Max Shachtman, Tom Kahn, Charles S. Zimmerman, Bayard Rustin, Paul Feldman, Penn Kemble and Joan Suall, who saw in communism a heinous social system which must be stopped from expansion through the application of military force. They therefore opposed the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam and looked askance from the motley anti-war movement, which included Maoists, supporters of Ho Chi Minh, Trotskyists, hippies, radical pacifists, and sundry others who alienated the social group they courted, the organized blue collar workers of the AFL-CIO. With respect to the McGovern campaign, this right wing of the Socialist Party followed the lead of AFL-CIO chief George Meany, a fierce anti-communist and supporter of American intervention in Southeast Asia, in adopting a policy of neutrality in the Presidential Election of 1972.
This orientation struck others in the party as little more than de facto support for American imperialism and the Nixon Administration’s bloody war in Viet Nam. This opposition to the Socialist Party’s primary leaders were unified in their explicit rejection of the Vietnam conflagration and hostile to the conservative AFL-CIO bureaucracy headed by George Meany. They were themselves divided, however, on the question as to whether continued dedication on the part of “New Politics” adherents in the Democratic Party could transform that historic bulwark of the status quo into a principled party of the left, advancing a social democratic agenda.
The pivotal turning point came at the end of December 1972, when the Socialist Party met in New York City in a Special Convention to discuss changing the name of the organization. It was argued by the main leadership group that the name of the organization not only alienated most Americans — the word “Socialist” being linked in the popular consciousness with the various “Actually Existing Socialisms” of the Soviet Union, China, and nations of Eastern Europe — but further was not reflective of the reality that the so-called “party” had abandoned use of the tactic of running its own candidates for public office since the late 1950s. The abandonment of the word “socialism” was seen by the opposition factions, on the other hand, as indicative of a lack of commitment of the leadership to the organization’s socialist mission, a sort of kowtowing to conservative trade unionists and uninformed public opinion that would only accentuate the SP’s slide towards conservatism in its domestic and international political outlook.
The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which sought to work largely within the Democratic Party and liberal movements, and the Union for Democratic Socialism, which wanted to ally with peace and progressive forces outside the Democratic Party. (The DSOC later became the Democratic Socialists of America and the UDS later became the Socialist Party USA.)
At the same time, and contributing indirectly to the larger splits, the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation voted in 1972 to merge with the much smaller Democratic Socialist Federation (based largely on New York Jewish trade unions and fraternal organizations); in 1973 the merged “SP-DSF” changed its name to “Social Democrats USA.”
Although most of SD USA’s members were Democrats, the organization maintained ties with both major political parties and supported a strongly interventionist foreign policy. It was unwavering in its support for Israel, strongly supported the 2003 war in Iraq, and came to generally favor the international policies of the United States under George W. Bush, a stance which was also at odds with the views of the Continental European social democratic parties.
In the 1970s and 1980s, members of SD USA were sometimes referred to as “State Department socialists”, for example by journalist Michael Massing  due to their support of hard-line Cold War policies. Prominent SD USA members served in the Reagan Administration (e.g. Elliot Abrams), on the staff of the State Department, Labor Department and on Jeane Kirkpatrick‘s staff – one of SDUSA’s leading figures, Carl Gershman, served as Kirkpatrick’s aide when she was US Ambassador to the United Nations. SD USA members have long been prominent at the National Endowment for Democracy (Gershman is the NED’s president) and Freedom House (SDUSA member Bruce McColm served as Freedom House’s executive director).
Influence on Neoconservative movement
Although some former members had become neoconservatives, SD USA as an organization held many positions that were different from those of most neoconservatives. For instance, they strongly supported workers’ rights at home and overseas and opposed many of the Bush administration’s domestic policies. In the 1980s, the SD USA was perhaps best known for its support of Poland‘s Solidarity trade union.
One of its leading members, and its first National Chairman, was the late civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, though by the 1980s he was not active in the organization and focused most of his energies on the issue of gay rights. Other notable members have included Ben Wattenberg, Sandra Feldman, and Ronald Radosh.
There was much speculation that the death of the group’s long time leader Penn Kemble would be SDUSA’s demise. This tone was strongly felt in the January 2006 reminiscences of SD veteran Joshua Muravchik in Commentary Magazine. The SDUSA website has not been updated since 2005, in 2007 the organization’s membership in the Socialist International lapsed, and the two telephone numbers and one fax number listed on the official website have been disconnected.
In 2008, a group centered around Pennsylvania members of SDUSA determined to re-launch the organization as the Social Democrats USA — Socialist Party, USA, reclaiming the right to use the name “Socialist” for local election activities, in defiance of the SPUSA, which they allege is illegitimately using the designation, as are SP USA’s allied groups. This organization has applied to the International for re-activation of SD USA’s membership, to be granted to SD/SP.
In preparation for the re-launch of the Social Democrats, USA, Long Island member David Hacker authored the so-called “Hacker Manifesto.” Hacker wanted to break away from some of the more conservative patterns of thought which often led the older SD USA into an uncritical support of US foreign policy and military initiatives in the name of democracy and anti-Communism. Hacker wished the revived SD USA to maintain its support of U.S. organized Labor but to have a more critical response to the leaders of the Labor movement than in the past.
Hacker called for a new statement of principles, writing: “The Statement will also discuss how the SD will attempt to reach out to the religious community, while at the same time develop a consensus position on divisive social issues, such as abortion and Gay and Lesbian rights, which will not please everyone, but would enable us to attract a wider area of the entire spectrum of the population of the United States than any other group on the Left.” Hacker wanted the revived SD USA to be an organization which would continue to support the traditional coalition of organized labor, African Americans, other minorities, and asked the organization continue to support the full human rights of women, gays, lesbians, and oppressed minorities.
May 2009 phone conference
The SD,USA-SP,USA held a re-founding phone conference on May 3, 2009. Acting National Director Gabriel McCloskey-Ross and acting Young Peoples’ Socialist League National Secretary Seamus Johnston were given the task of holding both a local convention and organizing the phone conference with the aid of the Laurel Highlands (Western Pennsylvania) local, the group’s only functioning local, with more than one-third of the organization’s total membership.
Individual members in other parts of the country objected to how the Laurel Highlands local was handling the on-site convention preparation, particularly that cultural majorities were not being fairly represented in local organizing. A number of active members argued that among the issues any revived social democratic organization should focus on were the conflicts in the Middle East, and that any fledgling S-D group should be aware of sentiments within American liberal communities, including the liberal sectors of the American Jewish community. Disagreements over these issues led to the departure of at least two leading members from the SD,USA-SP,USA, leading to the formation of another group, which also considers itself the Social Democrats USA.  Not unrelated to the disagreements that led to this breakaway, it was decided during the May 3, 2009 phone conference to add language to the SD,USA-SP,USA’s Statement of Principles condemning opposition to Zionism as racism.
Via the May phone conference, a new set of officers were elected by the McCloskey-Ross and Johnston group; these people were charged with the daily affairs of the organization. A further controversy ensued over allegations that some of the newly-elected officers had stopped paying organizational dues in protest of political positions maintained by other officers, thus losing membership and party official status. A factional fight erupted, which is ongoing.
The McKlosky-Ross Johnson group plans to hold ongoing meetings to build toward a nationwide May Rally next May 1, 2011.
So, here is the part about the Republican administrations in the US and Elliott Abrams – (but he treated human rights and democracy as
In the 1970s and 1980s, members of SD USA were sometimes referred to as “State Department socialists”, for example by journalist Michael Massing due to their support of hard-line Cold War policies.
Prominent SD USA members served in the Reagan Administration (e.g. Elliot Abrams), on the staff of the State Department, Labor Department and on Jeane Kirkpatrick‘s staff – one of SDUSA’s leading figures, Carl Gershman, served as Kirkpatrick’s aide when she was US Ambassador to the United Nations.
SD USA members have long been prominent at the National Endowment for Democracy (Gershman is the NED’s president) and Freedom House (SDUSA member Bruce McColm served as Freedom House’s executive director).
Influence on Neoconservative movement
Although some former members had become neoconservatives, SD USA as an organization held many positions that were different from those of most neoconservatives.
But, they are not actually socialists and they aren’t Democrats – so what are they and why are they like that? And, who created them? Is it a Mossad thing?
– I don’t believe it.