Congress Can End The New York Times' And NATO's War On Libya

-A +A
0

The "rebels" resume: Exterminating Black Libyans in Misrata, and executing and beheading Blacks and perceived regime supporters in Benghazi-- perhaps the citizens of Tripoli can be excused for refusing to heed the "rebels" call for a popular uprising.


[Black Star News Editorial]

The New York Times continues to expose its pro-war bias by the continuous stream of wishful-thinking articles such as today's "Libyan Rebels Gain Inches Toward Link To Tripoli."

After more than 100 days of merciless and illegal NATO bombardment --far exceeding the mandate granted by United Nations Resolution 1973-- the so-called "rebels" are still merely gaining "inches" towards Tripoli?

After nearly $1 billion of U.S. taxpayer money, the so-called "rebels" have inches to show for it?

After illegal drops of weapons by France, clearly in violation of United Nations Resolution 1970 as Russia's foreign affairs minister noted last week, the so-called "rebels," exposed in a June 21 Wall Street Journal article as virulent racists who have exterminated all Black Libyans in Misrata, the so-called "rebels" are gaining merely inches?

What would these NATO and New York Times-backed "rebels" do when they reach Tripoli, where more than one million people showed up in the streets last week, ironically, not to drive out Muammar al-Quathafi, but to show their opposition to The New York Times' favorite rebels?

Judging by their exemplary performance so far in territory under their control -- exterminating Black Libyans in Misrata, and executing and beheading Blacks and perceived regime supporters in Benghazi-- perhaps the citizens of Tripoli can be excused for refusing to heed the "rebels" call for a popular uprising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWzNhk3zv4U

Clearly, these aren't revolutionaries at all; the evidence is abundant for people that are interested. Not in The New York Times, but occasionally in The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian (U.K.) and various online news publications.

Follow the money, or the sponsors of these so-called "rebels":

Al-qaeda --whose leaders, after being released from U.S. captivity on Guantanamo Bay, have been training the "rebel" fighters, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal, which The New York Times, was belatedly compelled to do its own version; the CIA; military advisors from France and Britain; Qatar, the oil-rich realm ruled by a single family, which itself is ripe for a democratic revolution; the International Criminal Court, whose chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, "coincidentally" always indicts any African ruler deemed persona non grata by the United States, and; Nicolas Sarkozy, who's desperate to blunt a political challenge from the surging right wing National Front party in France.

Sadly, The New York Times has become the media outlet of choice of this sorry and discredited crew. In the process, the newspaper has terribly exposed its partisan and even reactionary credentials.

Give it up, Arthur Sulzberger.

The African Union proposal remains on the table, even as The New York Times continues to beg NATO to continue bombardment on behalf of the anti-Black rebels.

The AU plan calls for a ceasefire to be monitored by the International community; negotiations for a constiution, and; democratic elections.

Six out of 10 Americans now oppose The New York Times' and NATO's war on Libya. Congress should cut off funding for U.S. participation in the Libya war of choice. It should call for all combatants in Libya to support the African Union plan, which has now been embraced by Russia, which this week hosted the plan's chief proponent, South African president Jacob Zuma.

"Speaking Truth To Empower."


Also Check Out...

MASQUERADE PARTIES AND NATIVITY
Politics As Usual
Politics As Usual
NYC Tests Mali Traveler For Ebola
It Never Gets Old
BRITS HONOR FIRST BLACK ARMY