VIDEO: 'We all know 'the five second rule.' Drop food on the floor and if you pick it up before that span of time elapses, and it'll still be 'good.' There is also a life-and-death version of this: the five-day rule, by which we have surrendered to any US President the right to kill people in our name, provided he only does it for a couple of days.' Keith Olbermann, FOK News Channel
Special Comment:
Libya, Obama and the Five-Second Rule
24 March 11
To read the transcript of Keith's Special Comment click here.
Live Occupy Wall Street Tweets
VIDEO
 Wednesday, 02 May 2012
|
 Saturday, 21 April 2012
|
 Thursday, 12 April 2012
|
 Monday, 09 April 2012
|
 Friday, 30 March 2012
|
 Wednesday, 28 March 2012
|
 Sunday, 25 March 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Thank You
March 24, 2011 at 12:03 am
Come on man, Kieth, stop it already. You got this one wrong dude. The Pres, is doing the best he can with a bad situation. What would you do if some maniac puke dictator threatened to annihilate his opposition with weapons supplied by us, simply because he can? I don’t believe for one minute that Daffy conned the Bush cabal. He was a useful idiot that was more than willing to play along with the Nuke thing and he got rewarded for it. This is just one more mess left by Bush and Cheney for Obama to clean up, so chill out…
March 24, 2011 at 12:03 am
"I don’t believe for one minute that Daffy conned the Bush cabal. He was a useful idiot that was more than willing to play along with the Nuke thing and he got rewarded for it."
Hmmm... which one was "the useful idiot", Daffy or Bush?
Yeah, you might be onto something...
I fear that we and the Brits have been drawn into this fight by the French and, to a certain extent, the Italians. Both countries have huge economic interests in Libya, not the least of which is oil.
According to a 2006 DOD study authored by a student at the Air War College, Libya supplies no significant amount of oil to the U.S. Contrary to what Keith Olberman says, oil is not the orimary reason we're in Libya. I think the reason is far more mundane: we were snookered by the French and the Italians.
Is that bad? Not necessarily, since we have a large national interest in seeing that the economies of western Europe prosper.
But HEY people those of you who are stating that this is about oil, need to think for a minute. If this were about protecting oil, we'd be on Qaddafi's side helping him put down the revolution and ensureing the oil starts flowing quickly.
I don't think this whole mission has been well thought out, that shows Obama's military inexperience. We need a much clearer idea of what our mission there is and what needs to happen before that mission is done and we leave.
er, government.
Rep. Markey has it exactly right. If Libya didn't have OIL it would be of zero strategic interest. Syria, Baharain, Yemen slaughter their own people. Does the US lift a finger? Of course not. Did the US involve itself in the destruction of Yugoslavia or the Rwandian genocide? Of course not.
Toppling Qaddafi and replacing him with a pro-Western government has been the wet dream of Presidents since Reagan. So, yes, it is about the oil; and manifestly not about human beings who are just so much collateral damage or casualties of war.
We're protecting people from mass slaughter, like they themselves begged us to. We don't want to put people on the ground because the rebels don't want us to. They want to get rid of this tyrant themselves and want control of their own country. That is the definition of democracy, which is what these people protested for and only took up arms when heavy military hardware was turned against them. That's why we're not putting boots on the ground and that's why we can't declare that getting rid of Qaddaffi is part of the mission. Simply put, we're giving them what they've been begging for for weeks. Protection from planes and tanks so they can get rid of the thug themselves which they were close to doing before he unleashed the full force of his planes tanks and artillery.
Why are we not helping in Bahrain, Syria or Yemen? It's because they haven't started an internal military campaign against their own people, but have on used riot police and small scale killings, not mass slaughter. Why no "no-fly" zone in these places? They're not using planes and tanks to bombard their own people's towns. There's nothing flying to keep from flying.
Isn't it fascinating that during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when global nuclear annihilation was actually on the table, our young, "inexperienced" president bucked the likes of WWII hero (and warmonger) USAF Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay and resisted attacking Cuba, despite legitimate, documented provocation 1000 times more apparent than anything going on in Libya?
And this act of dogged U.S. restraint, in the face of nuclear provocation and enormous pressure to use military force, is regarded as the historical aopogee of the JFK legacy?
RSS feed for comments to this post.