Obama had another one of his usual bullcrap-laden speeches last night, which is no surprise given his irresistible attraction to the media.  But, here’s a nice surprise:  the media’s irresistible attraction to Obama may finally have reached its breaking point with the Libyan war.

AP put out not one, but two distinct reports, both extremely critical of his speech (to the point of virtually calling Obama a liar).

One of them is the straight-up “FACT CHECK: How Obama’s Libya claims fit the facts“, which debunks many lies spewed by Obama during the speech, such as these excerpts (click the link for the full text):

OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption. . . .

___

OBAMA: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.”

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi’s forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. . . .

___

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” He added: “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

“The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. “History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”

Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.”

___

OBAMA: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya’s air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi’s ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that “the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.” . . .

___

OBAMA: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily “without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands.”

He questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”

Now, such questions are coming at him.

The other report, entitled, “Analysis: Obama doesn’t mention Libyan rebels“, contained some lines such as these:

…the war he described Monday doesn’t quite match the fight the United States is in.

It also doesn’t line up with the conflict Obama himself had seemed to presage, when he expressly called for Moammar Gadhafi’s overthrow or resignation. Obama’s stated goals stop well short of that. And although Obama talked of the risks of a long war, he did not say just when or on what terms the United States would leave Libya.

…If the purpose of the U.N.-sanctioned military action is to protect civilians, does that include pro-Gadhafi civilians who are likely to be endangered in places like Sirte that are in the rebels’ crosshairs? If not, it is difficult to see the Western intervention as a neutral humanitarian act not aligned with the rebels.

…the role of Western air power then went beyond that initial humanitarian aim, to in effect provide air cover for the rebels while pounding Gadhafi forces in a bid to break their will or capacity to fight.

…Obama still faces questions about why Libya and not Yemen, or not Syria. One of his closest national security advisers, Denis McDonough, told reporters Monday that the administration doesn’t “get very hung up on this question of precedent.”

 

 

 

This story is almost too crazy to believe, but knowing how psychotic Qaddafi is, it’s really hardly surprising.

Reuters is reporting on a “party” that Qaddafi had arranged with 200 Italian women, having recruited them with an ad asking for women “between 18 and 35 years old, at least 1.70 meters (5 foot, 7 inches) tall, well-dressed but not in mini-skirts or low cut dresses.”

They were told that “they would receive 60 euros ($90) and ‘some Libyan gifts’” for attending what they expected to be a party.

Instead, Qaddafi arrived and “gave them a lesson on Libya and the role of women in Islam.” Then, after approximately two hours “the lesson, including questions and answers through an interpreter, concluded with an exhortation by [Qaddafi] to ‘convert to Islam’ and with each woman given a copy of the Koran and a book of sayings by [Qaddafi].”

Among his bizarre ramblings that night included the gem of a claim that “Jesus was not crucified but that ‘someone who looked like him’ was put to death in his place.”

Priceless.

Here’s a video news report of it by al-Jazeera:

Mark Steyn’s latest column pointing out the craziness of Obama’s speech at the United Nations is a great read. Here’s an excerpt, but read it in full if possible:

Half a decade or so back, I wrote: “It’s a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice cream and a quart of dog feces and mix ‘em together, the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That’s the problem with the U.N.”

Absolutely right, if I do say so myself. When you make the free nations and the thug states members of the same club, the danger isn’t that they’ll meet each other half-way but that the free world winds up going three-quarters, seven-eighths of the way. That’s what happened in New York last week. Barack Obama is not to blame for whichever vagary of United Nations protocol resulted in the president of the United States being the warm-up act for the Lunatic-for-Life in charge of Libya. But it is a pitiful reflection upon the state of the last superpower that, when it comes to the transnational mush drooled by the leader of the free world or the conspiracist ramblings of a terrorist pseudo-Bedouin running a one-man psycho-cult of a basket-case state, it’s more or less a toss-up as to which of them is more unreal. To be sure, Col. Moammar Gadhafi peddled his thoughts on the laboratory origins of swine flu and the Zionist plot behind the Kennedy assassination.

But, on the other hand, President Obama said: “No nation can or should try to dominate another nation.”

Pardon me? Did a professional speechwriter write that? Or did you outsource it to a starry-eyed runner-up in the Miss America pageant? Whether or not any nation “should try” to dominate another, they certainly “can,” and do so with effortless ease, all over the planet and throughout human history.

And how about this passage?

“I have been in office for just nine months — though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences.”

Forget the first part: That’s just his usual narcissistic “But enough about me, let’s talk about what the world thinks of me” shtick. But the second is dangerous in its cowardly evasiveness: For better or worse, we are defined by our differences — and, if Barack Obama doesn’t understand that when he’s at the podium addressing a room filled with representatives of Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Venezuela and other unlovely polities, the TV audience certainly did when Col. Gadhafi took to the podium immediately afterward. They’re both heads of state of sovereign nations. But, if you’re on an Indian Ocean island when the next tsunami hits, try calling Libya instead of the United States and see where it gets you.

This isn’t a quirk of fate. The global reach that enables America and a handful of others to get to a devastated backwater on the other side of the planet and save lives and restore the water supply isn’t a happy accident but something that derives explicitly from our political systems, economic liberty, traditions of scientific and cultural innovation and a general understanding that societies advance when their people are able to fulfill their potential in freedom. In other words, America and Libya are defined by their differences.

What happens when you pretend those differences don’t exist? Well, you end up with the distinctively flavored ice cream I mentioned at the beginning.

…In Libya and Syria and far too many “nations,” truth is simply what the thug in the presidential palace declares it to be. But don’t worry, Obama assures them, we’re not “defined by our differences.”

Hey, that’s great, isn’t it? Yet, if you can no longer distinguish between the truth and a lie, why be surprised that the lie metastasizes and becomes, if not yet quite respectable, at least semirespectable and acceptable in polite society?

…Although he affects a president-of-the-world manner, I don’t think Barack Obama cares much about foreign affairs one way or the other… like many European nations, when it comes to the global scene, President Obama has attitudes rather than policies. If you’re on the receiving end — like Israel, Poland, Honduras — it’s not pleasant, and it’s going to get worse.

This vermin may be a low-life, despicable, murderous terrorist, but at least his appearances are not without some form of entertainment.

The New York Post reports some strange anecdotes surrounding his United Nations appearance:

After struggling to turn Khadafy’s insane ramblings at the UN into English for 75 minutes, the Libyan dictator’s personal interpreter got lost in translation.

“I just can’t take it any more,” Khadafy’s interpreter shouted into the live microphone – in Arabic.

At that point, the U.N.’s Arabic section chief, Rasha Ajalyaqeen, took over and translated the final 20 minutes of the speech.

“His interpreter just collapsed – this is the first time I have seen this in 25 years,” another U.N. Arabic interpreter told The Post.

Breaking with protocol, Khadafy brought his own interpreters from Tripoli for Wednesday’s speech rather than use one of the 25 Arabic translators supplied by the United Nations, staff interpreters said.

“This is the best team in the world – most heads of state prefer to use U.N. interpreters because then – no matter what happens – they can blame the interpreter,” one staffer said.

Khadafy told the U.N. that he was supplying his own French and English interpreters because he would be speaking a special dialect only they would understand, but staff interpreters said he actually spoke standard Arabic.

Those who have translated for Khadafy in the past said they could empathize with his interpretator’s exasperation.

It’s not just the zany conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination and swine flu that are a challenge, but the loony Libyan’s strange mannerisms.

“He’s not exactly the most lucid speaker,” another Arabic interpreter said. “It’s not just that what he’s saying is illogical, but the way he’s saying it is bizarre. However, I think I could have made him sound a lot better.”

Khadafy has a habit of repeating the same phrase over and over again, “which is good because if you don’t understand what he says the first time you can get it right the second or third time,” the interpreter said.

The Colonel extemporaneous ramblings are a particular challenge, another interpreter said.

“Sometimes he mumbles, sometimes he talks to himself,” he said.’

Ajalyaqeen, who had to rescue the bealegured interpreter, was given the day off yesterday.

“Ten minutes with Khadafy earns you a lot of annual leave,” one interpreter said.

There is a lot of buzz now about a possible visit by Libyan dictator/terrorist Moammar Qaddafi to New Jersey, of all places. As if New Jersey didn’t have enough problems already…

The Washington Post has this bizarre story:

Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi often brings a Bedouin tent along on his foreign trips, and he has pitched one in Cairo, in Rome and next to the Elysee Palace in Paris. But reports that he is planning to set up camp in suburban Englewood, N.J., next month have prompted outrage from U.S. lawmakers and a diplomatic scramble in Washington.

Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D-N.J.), whose district includes Englewood, said Tuesday that he had taken the matter to the State Department and the White House and that they had “strongly urged the Libyan government to have Mr. Gaddafi remain only in New York City” when he visits to address the U.N. General Assembly.

The topic dominated the daily State Department news briefing, with spokesman Ian Kelly saying officials are reaching out to members of Congress and local authorities about the tent. “We’re also talking to the Libyans to highlight the concerns that we have and the very raw sensibilities or sensitivities of the families who live in that area,” Kelly said…

Gaddafi’s planned visit next month would be his first to the United States since becoming Libya’s leader in 1969. He had initially asked if he could pitch his tent in New York’s Central Park during the U.N. session, but “we said no,” said Jason Post, a spokesman for New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I).

After reports in local newspapers that the Arab ruler would instead set up the tent on the grounds of a house owned by Libya’s U.N. mission in Englewood, a town of 29,000 about 12 miles from Manhattan, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) wrote to Clinton on Monday asking that Gaddafi’s visa restrict him to the area around the U.N. headquarters.

Rothman said the Libyans bought the Englewood house in 1982, when he was mayor of the town. At the time, the State Department sent the Libyan government a letter saying the residence was to be used only by the Libyan U.N. ambassador’s family and not by Gaddafi, Rothman said.

The congressman said he emphasized to federal officials that those restrictions “should not be waived under any circumstances.” His objections stem partly from concerns about local residents’ security and partly from “Gaddafi’s well-deserved reputation as a murderous dictator who had American blood on his hands,” he said.

Kelly, the State Department spokesman, said Tuesday that the Libyan government had not yet decided where Gaddafi would stay.

A Libyan Embassy spokeswoman, Nicole DiCocco, told the Associated Press that Gaddafi’s tent might be set up in Englewood, but only for social events, not sleeping. Reached Tuesday by The Washington Post, however, DiCocco referred calls to a public relations firm. A representative there, Molly Conroy, declined to comment.

As an even more bizarre twist to the story, it turns out that the would-be next door neighbor to Qaddafi during his stay is Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, one of the most well-known and outspoken rabbis.

The Jewish Week has that story:

When Libyan leader Moammar Kaddafi decided to set up camp, literally, in Englewood, N.J., during his upcoming visit to the U.S. for the United Nations General Assembly next month, he likely did not realize that his next-door neighbor would be one of this country’s best-known and most outspoken rabbis, with a gift for media attention.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the author and host of a cable television show, “Shalom in the Home,” dealing with family conflicts, is in no “love thy neighbor” mood when it comes to Kaddafi, and he is making it known, including plans to sue the Libyan government for damaging his property.

Rabbi Boteach says he woke up one morning two months ago and noticed a disturbing sight on the grounds of his home. Eight large trees and a metal fence, which separated his property from his neighbor’s, were gone. The trees had been chopped down overnight, and the fence had been removed.

The perpetrators, claims Rabbi Boteach, were his neighbors, representatives of the Libyan government. The damage to his property and concurrent renovations on the neighboring home, a residence of the Libyan ambassador to the United Nations that had been in disrepair since the rabbi and his family moved to New Jersey a decade ago, led him to guess — correctly — why uncared-for property was suddenly being cared for: Libyan leader Moammar Kaddafi was coming.

Libya subsequently announced that Kaddafi, who has ruled the Arab nation in northern Africa since a military coup 40 years ago, would attend the opening of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 15, and would live in a tent on the Englewood property during his U.S. sojourn.

Find somewhere else to stay, the rabbi said.

Rabbi Boteach announced at a press conference at his house this week that he is suing the Libyan government for damaging his property, and he wants an accounting of the high-tech surveillance apparatus that will likely be installed in the Libyan house as part of security measures before Kaddafi’s arrival.

Rabbi Boteach will sponsor a protest rally at his house, with the participation of local government officials, on Sunday at 11 a.m.

The Libyan Mission to the UN did not respond to a Jewish Week request for a comment on the controversy.

The suit — to be filed in a yet-to-be-determined court — “is a statement … I don’t want Kaddafi as my next-door neighbor,” Rabbi Boteach said. “I don’t want a terrorist living next door to me. I suggest he pitch his tent in the UN compound [in Manhattan]. They’re his hosts.”

(The Libyan leader’s request to camp out in Central Park was denied by city officials.)

The rabbi says he was angered by the welcome Kaddafi gave last week to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only convicted bomber in the case of the Pan Am flight that exploded in midair over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Two hundred and seventy people, including 189 Americans, were killed.

Al-Megrahi, suffering from terminal cancer, was released from Scottish prison, setting off furious protests in the U.S. and the West. Libyan television showed Kaddafi embracing the terrorist. “He clearly is a lover of terrorists, an abettor of terrorists, a champion of terrorists,” Rabbi Boteach told The Jewish Week in a telephone interview.

Englewood officials told Rabbi Boteach that the Libyan property there “was millions of dollars in arrears in property taxes, with the Libyan government claiming immunity from local taxation, even though the same claim was being made on a property in New York and an exemption is provided for only one residence,” he wrote last week in the Jerusalem Post. “Orthodox Jews account for a very large percentage of Englewood’s tax revenue, and since Kaddafi’s embassy refuses to pay a dime in taxation, it is our community which in no small measure finances the basic services of his mansion.”

A Libyan representative at the site, who said he was “under instructions” to be “very accommodating” to the rabbi, initially said the government would replace the trees and pay for the fence, Rabbi Boteach said. “It was supposed to be done immediately.” He later told the rabbi that the decision to repair and pay for the damage was to be the responsibility of the government. “It had been taken out of his hands.”

The trees are still missing, says the rabbi, who says he has not received any payment for the damage. “The government has been utterly contemptuous of the residents of Englewood.”

“Every dollar” the rabbi’s family receives from Libya “is one less dollar to plant bombs,” he said. “There are damages. I want the trees replanted,” the rabbi says. “I want to insure that my right to privacy is ensured.

“The community is united in not wanting Kaddafi,” Rabbi Boteach said. Including Englewood’s Muslim residents, he said. “American Muslims are God-fearing, decent, hardworking citizens, and I believe they share my hatred of terrorism.”