Additional Titles









Florida Microchipping Alzheimer's patients Despite Cancer risks











By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
April 4, 2011

The President who promised "change" and "transparency" in the White House may have had a change of heart when faced with the dictates of his internationalist, New World Order dogma.

According to more than one military analyst, President Barack Obama's decision to enter the civil war in Libya shows there is no "change' in the U.S. prosecuting undeclared wars and that the White House kept Americans in the dark for two weeks before explaining the so called mission, claims political strategist Mike Baker.

In a Quinnipiac University poll of 2,069 registered voters, 48 percent say the U.S. should not use military force to remove Moamar Khadhafi from office and 47 percent oppose any U.S. involvement. Only 29 percent believe Obama clearly stated his goals for Libya.

According to syndicated talk show host Chuck Wilder, President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed. Obama was criticizing the planned invasion of Iraq and the murderous dictator was its leader, Saddam Hussein.

Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power, Wilder points out.

But in Obama's March 28, 2011 speech justifying his decision to attack the Libyan leader Moamar Khadhafi, Obama cited the dictator's record of brutality, saying that allowing him to continue his brutality was not an option.

As an Illinois state senator, Obama said that economic and domestic problems should take precedence over attacking Saddam Hussein, despite his record of humanitarian abuses. However, in his March 28 speech justifying attacking the government of Libyan leader Moamar Khadhafi, Obama said that domestic problems “cannot be an argument” against military intervention.

"The word hypocrite immediately comes to mind," said Chuck Wilder, who's syndicated show is aired by the Cable Radio Network.

A former U.S. intelligence officer now serving as a director of corporate security for a multi-national corporation tells that he's aware of the identity of some of the Libyan rebels fighting Col. Moamar Khadhafi's military forces and they are not the freedom-loving patriots the Obama administration claims they are.

According to the intelligence source -- who requested anonymity -- the roads leading to the city of Tobuk from the cities of Benghazi and Darnah are saturated with Islamic terrorists, many of whom possess combat training and experience gained in terrorist training camps throughout the Middle East.

Some of the Libyan rebels have fought Americans in Iraq as part of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization. A few were even used as suicide bombers to take out Iraqi police officer and other targets in Baghdad and other locations, said the intelligence source.

According to internal CIA and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) reports, the city of Darnah serves as a suicide-bomber farm for much of the Middle East, but the area received minimal attention since Libyan dictator Col. Khadhafi was successful in controlling the country's terrorist population which included a laissez faire policy as long as terrorists did not attack Libyans and Libyan targets.

The current anti- Khadhafi military action by the U.S., Britain, France and other coalition members is motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 which acknowledged a need to protect the poorly armed and poorly trained rebels who fought Libya modern army.

President Barack Obama other U.S. leaders have sold their military intervention as being one based on compassion and not American interests. Obama has repeatedly emphasized that U.S intervention is purely a humanitarian endeavor to prevent a massacre of "pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates" by the highly mechanized Khadhafi military forces.

"Everyone [in the Obama Administration] appears to downplay the possible involvement of jihadi terror groups in Libya, the same way they sold Americans a 'bill of goods' that the Muslim Brotherhood was not a problem in the aftermath of the recent Egyptian overthrow of its government," said the intelligence source.

There are also fears that Khadhafi indeed still possesses some chemical or biological weapons, although it's not known which type he possesses and what delivery systems he possesses to use weapons of mass destruction.

There is also the so-called rebel council that suddenly appeared within days of the civil unrest in Libya. In fact, the exact composition of the council is being kept secret to avoid a Khadhafi-led bloodbath.

The intelligence source then recommended an unclassified study of the backgrounds of some of the Arab world's most deadly terrorists and militants.

In December 2007, an indepth study by West Point Military Academy authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, found that Saudi Arabia took first place as far as the numbers of terrorists sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.”

Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.”

2011 NWV - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

For radio interviews regarding this article:










Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power, Wilder points out.