Qaddafi sends maximum force to put down rebellion.

Sources reporting to World Tribune in an article from Cairo, Egypt says fighting between opposition forces and the regime of Col. Moammar Qaddafi has spread. Libya has imposed a news black out as thousands of government troops are rushing to several cities.

Qaddafi regime sources claims the fighting is a tribal conflict but Libyan opposition sources said tribes and other unemployed young men were battling regime forces in at least two cities in the North African state. Call it a revolution.

Government sources say, “Skirmishes between youths from Al Tabu and Zawia tribes evolved into larger battles in which several cars and houses were burned,” the Libyan daily Al Watan said on Nov. 7 before the blackout was imposed. .

Opposition sources said the fighting between tribal members and the regime began in the southeastern Libyan city of Kufra in early November and has now spread to the streets of Benghazi the second largest city.

30% unemployment, a dysfunctional economy and even the recent courtship by Russia has raised the level of discord that has now boiled over to street fighting.

Libya is governed by a so-called Jamahiriya (a state of the masses) in theory, governed by the populace through local councils; in practice, an authoritarian state with Qaddafi as its dictator. It has a unworkable amalgam of Italian and French civil law and Islamic law. It is without a Constitution, or political parties so effective opposition is almost impossible and chaotic.

95% of its export income is from crude oil accounting for 60% of private sector wages. Theoretically it has one of the highest per capita incomes in Africa but little of it trickles to the poorest and even its 45 billion barrel oil reserve allows little hope for a better life except for the elite.

Libya has claimed more than 32,000 sq km in southeastern Algeria and about 25,000 sq km in the Tommo region of Niger in a currently dormant dispute; various Chadian rebels from the Aozou region reside in southern Libya.

At this writing it is unknown if foreign fighters or influence are involved in the current conflict.

Ok let’s have a little straight talking. The first part of his speech was borrinngggg…..

I know, I know, everybody had been saying that in this speech he needed to give details of what he will do but truthfully? Maybe I shouldn’t admit this but he was losing me as he discussed these “kitchen table” items. All I really need to know are a few things that are at the heart of all Republican beliefs. Does he belief in a small government, in a strong defense and that the court should never deviate from the Constitution? If he believes in this, which he does, then the rest is simply details to be worked out later.

The middle part started to get a little more interesting. For he vowed to continue to reach across the aisle, to work with Democrats, Independents, anyone who can help him get things done. And the delegates applauded. Wow. What a difference from a year ago when he was vilified for breaking away from some of the Republican ideas. But with Gov. Palin appealing to the conservative base then McCain is freed up a bit and perhaps his being his maverick self isn’t a bad idea right now. Maybe some Independents out there will be moved to vote for him this fall. We’ll see.

It was that last third that was terrific. Sure we’ve heard his life story before, but not quite in this way. How being a POW changed him from a selfish hot shot fighter pilot into who he is today. And the whole theme of being a fighter was a winner. It was stirring and emotional and moved the crowds as he concluded on a high note.

But you know what? I can just hear folks talking around the water coolers in the morning saying that it wasn’t a bad speech, but it sure wasn’t a Sarah Palin speech. And that’s ok, too.

Sometimes you simply couldn’t make this stuff up. You’ve probably read about this but it bears repeating. The former DNC Chairman, Don Fowler had an interesting conversation while on a flight back from Denver with his seatmate, S.C. Congressman John Spratt. Apparently sitting immediately behind them was a blogger with a phone which had a video camera. And did I mention he was a conservative blogger? Oops.

First official acts as governor was to sell on eBay a posh gubernatorial jet because it was wasteful.

Known, at times, as “Sarah Barracuda” because of her ferocity on the high school basketball court. As co-captain her senior year, Sarah Palin was a point guard who lead her team to its first state championship.

The nickname resurfaced when as a 28-year-old political novice City Council member she turned on a veteran blocking a bill that would have steered business to his garbage-hauling firm.

The moniker was revived again in 2003, when Alaska’s governor, whom she would later unseat, appointed her to a state oil-and-gas commission. As a brand-new member, she challenged the ethics of the panel’s leader, the chairman of state’s Republican Party, forcing him ultimately to resign.

Since long before she became Alaska’s youngest — and first woman let alone mother of five  – governor 20 months ago, Sarah Louise Heath Palin has been making her mark as an unlikely upstart. Friday, she did it again, accepting Sen. John McCain’s surprise offer to be his VP running mate.

A Saturday Washington Post article describes how Palin rose to the statehouse by challenging the corruption that has become endemic in Alaska, even if it meant taking on the Republican establishment there, including the former governor and the state’s congressional delegation.

Born in Idaho, Palin became an Alaskan as an infant when her parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, hauled their young family and their belongings up the Alaskan Highway. They settled eventually in Wasilla, about 45 miles north of Anchorage. Palin’s official biography describes it as a place with a “reputation for junky yards and cranky land-owners who didn’t mind using the serious end of a shotgun to run off trespassers.” Ivan Moore, a veteran political pollster in Anchorage, described Wasilla as “the most fearsomely conservative region of the state.” It is Alaska’s fastest growing city and where Sarah grew up and entered politics.

Her Dad was a science teacher and her mother became a school secretary. The family would go on camping trips to hunt moose, bear and sometimes wild sheep Palin likes to salmon fish in nearby Bristol Bay. She is a lifetime NRA member.

Her father was her track coach, and she played on the softball team, but her real passion was basketball. “She doesn’t like sitting on the sidelines,”says a friend. She was runner-up in Miss Alaska beauty pageant.

As a further example of Palin fitting the McCain maverick model her first official acts as governor was to sell on eBay a posh gubernatorial jet because it was wasteful.

Three Fingers of Wild Turkey - Please.

Bartenders in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area preparing for the GOP convention there next week might take note of a new survey of the drinking habits of Republicans and Democrats.

Among the findings of the survey of about 100 bartenders in the Washington, D.C., area, which were reported by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:

• Asked who is more likely to order a drink straight up, 82 percent of respondents said Republicans, and 14 percent said Democrats.
• Democrats are more likely to order a fruity (pink) drink - they were chosen by 58 percent of the bartenders, compared to 34 percent for the Republicans.
• 74 percent of bartenders said Democrats have the best pick-up lines, and just 14 percent chose Republicans.
• Republicans are more likely to arrive first for happy hour - but Democrats are more likely to be the last to go home.

The survey was commissioned by Beam Global Spirits & Wine Inc., whose beverages include Jim Beam bourbon and Canadian Club whisky, in collaboration with Clarus Research Group.

It is no surprise that my mind is preoccupied with feisty ladies. The biggest one, of course, is tropical storm Fay who will be passing close to my home later today. Unlike the three hurricanes which went right over my roof during a 6-week period in 2004 this one will be more ladylike. As of this morning, Fay is taking her time as she dawdles up through Florida leaving a trail of minor wind and rain damage.

The other feisty ladies are four groups I happened to find while surfing the internet. I would look for these ladies to be raising their voices next week in support of the feistiest lady of the land, Hillary Clinton. According to The Stiletto, these different groups are now all coming together into one group, The New Agenda, to promote a variety of women’s issues.

It is more interesting, however, to look at the individual groups. I think the largest group is PUMA, which stands for Party Unity My Ass. Ever since Obama won the Democratic Primary, Howard Dean and Barack Obama have been continuously lecturing that all Democrats must now come together as one party. The name of this pro-Hillary group pretty much sums up what these women think about that!. As Hillary supporters they are demanding a roll call of votes during the DNC Convention next week to remind everyone how many votes Hillary did have and just how close Obama came to losing plus they wanted Hillary to have a prime time slot for her speech.

I Own My Vote is a group of Hillary supporters who argue that their votes do not belong to any party or candidate and that they will vote however they like. See a trend here? In fact their website http://www.iownmyvote.com/ would make a McCain staffer proud. They are also demanding a roll call of votes during the DNC Convention to remind everyone how close the race was etc.etc.etc.

Just Say No Deal appears to be a group of PUMA bloggers who are demanding a roll call of votes to remind everyone blah blah blah. Together 4US is a group of 8,739 women who have signed a pledge requesting that the DNC Convention have a roll call of votes yadda yadda yadda. You get the picture.

Four different groups of women, all furious with the Democratic primary, all continuing to support Hillary and not only wanting Hillary to be recognized during the DNC Convention but to remind Obama that he just barely won. For many, they are not only pro Hillary but have become anti Obama as evidenced by their stinging rhetoric in their websites and by their “NOBAMA” signs. Apparently some of these women have reached the tipping point where they are so angry with their party that they are actually voting for McCain. This is making an impact as the polls have been showing that Obama is not doing as well as expected in the “white women” group.

Now all these pro Hillary groups are merging together. Tropical Storm Fay might be causing havoc this week but it sounds as if these other women might do the same during the DNC Convention . I think that Howard Dean just might have his hands full if these women come out in force in Denver. I also wonder what would happen if they all start to chant for Hillary, especially if they do so while Obama is standing by himself in that stadium. Fay may have moderately high winds and even throw off some tornadoes but nothing will come close to what Dean and Obama might have to face as they are reminded of that oh so true statement: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…

The war against international terrorism and its sponsors is a war unlike any we have ever known.

There is no battlefield, no clash of armies. It is a war fought in the shadows and recesses of the world. Terrorism breeds among the hopeless and the alienated, in societies where democracy and economic opportunity are out of reach for most people. Military power alone will not end this scourge of mankind. Victory will require extensive international cooperation in the intelligence, economic, diplomatic, law enforcement and humanitarian fields. It will require a seamless network of cooperation between America and her allies (Hagel, 2003).

In this article, I want to discuss how terrorist organizations have successfully employed a number of political strategies to gain popular support in their respective communities, and compare these efforts to the largely non-political strategies employed by the Bush administration in its attempts to counter terrorism. As we consider these points, I think it’s very important to keep in mind the positions of Senators Obama and McCain, and how they fit in relation to the existing order.

From September 14 to 17, 2001, Gallup surveyed individuals in 14 foreign countries on whether they thought that the United States should attack the country (or countries) serving as a base for the 9/11 terrorists … of those surveyed only Israel and India supported a military attack. This poll reflected both the unpopularity of the military approach to terrorism, as well as the prevailing conventional wisdom against it. President Bush’s argument that al-Qaeda hates “freedom … life … education … and health care” is seen for the oversimplification that it is:

It is nonsense to claim that Al Qaeda and its sympathizers have no morality and simply want to annihilate Western civilization … Even bin Laden has never preached destruction of Western culture or else, as he has taunted, “Why didn’t we attack Sweden?” At every turn, bin Laden has sought moral justification for Al Qaeda’s actions and demands (Atran, 2006:136).

There are two interpretations currently on offer in Iraq, that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi^[1] (who argued that Islam mandates terror), and that of Grand Aytollah Ali al-Sistani (who says Islam does no such thing and is compatible with democracy). If we are to believe President Bush, then the “terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own” are obviously of the first variety; and this is truly all we need to concern ourselves with.

After all, what does one do with parasites? One exterminates them. Parasites have no political cause for their circumstances, no justification for their actions, and no place among decent human beings. One does not need the consent or cooperation of the international community to do away with parasites, for they are worthless and meaningless. It’s not important to understand why they are terrorists, or what oppression or desperation has brought them to these particular crossroads, it’s sufficient that we simply blow them out of existence, along with any number of innocent civilians who happen to be in the vicinity (one is reminded of Elmer Fudd leaving mass destruction in his wake as he unsuccessfully attempts to blast Buggs Bunny).

Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, USN [retired] is very optimistic about the progress we’ve made, and the prospects for continued military success. Redd believes that the US is “better prepared today to fight the war on terror than at any time in out Nation’s history, and we are getting better everyday” (Committee on Foreign Relations, 2006:7).

On the other hand, Martha Crenshaw (2006:64) writes “that even the most extreme and unusual forms of political behavior can follow an internal, strategic logic … Terrorism can be considered a reasonable way of pursuing extreme interests in the political arena.” But the Bush administration refuses to consider this possibility, for this would afford those who employ terrorism as a political tactic a voice, a face, an identity beyond that of “terrorist.” Rather than consider that groups employing terrorism may have a legitimate grievance, the Bush administration has instead chosen to flatly and unconditionally denounce the “terrorists” and vow retaliation:

…we’re going to get them, no matter what it takes. This act will not stand; we will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running and we’ll bring them to justice. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them.

What the Bush administration is missing is the bigger picture. Far more than an engaging game of “whack-a- mole,” the United States government is facing a world-wide mutiny against the existing order. Western governments must recognize that the tiny proportion of the population that ends up in terrorist cells cannot exist without the availability of broader sources of active or passive sympathy, resources and support.

But how do terrorist groups obtain this support from the broader population? Given the offenses committed by the Bush administration, angering Muslims by the millions, the greatest challenge that remains is to unite the Muslim population against a common enemy. Scott Atran (2006:136, 143) offers an explanation of how this is accomplished:

The edited snippets and sound bites favored by today’s mass media have been used with consummate skill by jihadi leaders and ideologues, beginning with bin Laden himself. As a result, deeply local and historically nuanced interpretations of religious canon have been flattened and homogenized across the Muslim world and beyond, in ways that have nothing in particular to do with actual Islamic tradition but everything to do with a polar reaction to perceived injustice in the prevailing unipolar world…Historically and today, it is desecration of sacred places and perceived humiliation, even more than death and destruction, that has moved people to embrace violence.

“We are in a battle, and more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media… [We] are in a media battle for the hearts and minds of our umma.”

- Ayman-al-Zawahiri, July 2005 (reprinted in Lynch, 2006:50).

Al-Qaeda is attempting to restructure the political identity of the entire Islamic population, primarily via the media. Much like any political campaign, al-Qaeda is targeting the “median voters of the Arab Muslim public.” While this target population may not be Islamist, because of their concern over American involvement in the Middle East and their fury over corrupt Arab governments, they are susceptible to Al-Qaeda’s anti-American message. While al-Qaeda has been utilizing the media all along, it invested in this tactic more heavily than ever after the American strikes against Afghanistan. Zawahiri strongly believes in the need to obtain wide support of the public. He uses American intervention in the region to turn popular support against America.

Jessica Stern (2004) quotes from Zawahiri’s autobiography, in which he refers to the “crusader” alliance and the “fundamentalist coalition” which opposes it, “It is anxious to seek retribution for the blood of the martyrs, the grief of the mothers, the deprivation of the orphans, the suffering of the detainees, and the sores of the tortured people throughout the land of Islam.” Stern cautions that the Bush administration is giving Zawahiri every media advantage he could dream of to muster support for al-Qaeda. Not only does Stern claim that the Bush administration’s approach to fighting the war on terror is immoral when she refers to “the heart-wounding images of American soldiers humiliating, torturing, and killing Iraqi prisoners,” she also suggests that it’s just not very smart:

If bin Laden were writing a script for George Bush and Tony Blair to follow, would he not command them to attack and occupy a Muslim country in defiance of the international community and in violation of international law? And would it not be his fondest wish to see the “new crusaders” humiliate those Muslims, and themselves, in the most graphic way possible? Having those soldiers photograph their crimes might have seemed too much to ask for.

Now consider Senator Obama. He’s on a world tour proclaiming his intention to continue the military war on terror, and to take it to the soil of one of America’s own allies. What is Senator McCain doing? He’s proclaiming the need to continue the military war on terrorism as well. How long will it be before either of these candidates has the United States in direct opposition to the greater Muslim world? Both candidates are blindly assisting the efforts to radicalize moderates against the United States. In this great political campaign, what we need is a candidate that understands that the hearts and minds of over a billion Muslim people hang in the balance; not between Obama and McCain, but between moderate and radical.

What we need is a candidate that can wage war where it can be won, at the negotiating table.

---

^[1]Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in June 7, 2006, along with his wife and child when the US dropped two 500-pound guided bombs, a laser-guided GBU-12, and GPS-guided GBU-38 on their home.

I seem to recall an old saying that went something like “You leave the dance with the one that brung ya.”

This came to my mind after listening to the recent reports about how McCain and Obama are flip flopping on a variety of critical issues. Both candidates now seem to be moving towards the center in their need to acquire the largest voting base possible. But as so often happens, this is angering the far right and left supporters who elected these candidates in the first place. And any movement to the center can only hurt Obama more than it hurts McCain.

The far right has always been wary of McCain’s more centric outlook, as well they should be. He paid lip service to the basic tenants of the Christian right during the primary but now that he is the candidate he is moving back to the center again. No one is really surprised at this change, including the far right candidates. There is discussion of making this an issue during the convention but it is doubtful if much will happen. As long as McCain promises to stay the course in Iraq, continue to support the Second Amendment and be pro-life then most Republicans will continue to support him.

On the other hand, Obama cannot afford to anger the far left that elected him over Hillary this spring. Yet he did just that when he tried to sneak in during the start of the long weekend an idea of taking more time on bringing the troops home. But it backfired on him and Obama now has to spend time trying to explain that he didn’t really mean that. It is on this promise, of bringing home the troops immediately, that most differentiated Barack from Hillary and his supporters will not give him any leeway on this issue.

Yet if Barack stays true to his far left supporters then he won’t be elected. It is as simple as that. We have seen this happen time after time in the Democratic Party. Candidates who promote far left issues find themselves out of sync with the rest of the nation. Bill Clinton, the only Democratic candidate in the past 25 years to be elected, ran on a centrist theme from the start and therefore was not tied to far left extremist ideas. All the other recent Democratic candidates relied on far left supporters to win the primary and found they had very little room to move towards the center. And so they lost.

Barack Obama’s first effort to move slightly towards the center, even during a four day weekend when no one is supposed to be paying any attention, did become an issue and was met with resistance from his supporters. It will be interesting to watch over the next four months if Obama can become more centrist in order to appeal to a bigger voter block. Or perhaps I should rephrase it to read; if Obama’s supporters will allow him to move to the right from their far left stance.

Can he appeal to more centrist voters or is he stuck with the far left ones that he brung to this dance?