Libya - $100 million a day and counting

True, $100 million a day may, at first, be chump change to the U.S. budget. But, with no exit strategy, with Europeans' military presence still thin and likely to remain so, $100 million a day for maintaining Libya's no-fly zone to protect largely discordant tribalists will add up soon enough.

And, it's no more likely that Gadhafi will accommodate Obama's "suggestion" to step down than Saddam Hussein did for Arab leaders before Bush's invasion.

It's no wonder the military action has attracted Congressional foes from straight-shooting Republican Sen. Richard Lugar through centrist GOP-turned Dem Sen. Jim Webb to liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinch.

"There needs to be a plan about what happens after Kadafi," Lugar said. "Who will be in charge then, and who pays for this all? President Obama, so far, has only expressed vague hopes."

Per the top-linked story, soon, Team Obama will have to ask for a "supplemental," and the sparks will fly. Non-sensible GOPers will probably still be divided on the issue, tea partiers opposed but some neocon types supportive, and Dems won't be fully unified either.

Beyond that, why Libya, vs., say, Yemen? Is it, in the end, about the oil? It's kind of hard to argue against that — another parallel with Iraq.

Mona Charen lies about Jimmy Carter lying

I don't go out looking for wingnut columns and blogs. And, I'm not going to defend former president Jimmy Carter against a charge of smugness. But, because Zionist Mona Charen has a column in my newspaper today, calling a Carter liar in general, and with a lot of vitriol directed toward his stance on Middle East issues, I will indeed defend him against a claim of mendacity.

And, I'll go further. I'll point out her lies.

Let's start outside the Middle East:

Carter's apologies for the United States make Obama's seem chauvinistic. Meeting with Haiti's dictator Raoul Cedras, Carter allowed as how he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country.

Sorry, but true. We could also apologize to Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc.

Of course, her bete noire is Carter's support for fair play in the Middle East. So, she has to lie about history there. She starts:

Carter repeatedly gets history wrong — as when he suggests that Israel attacked Jordan in the 1967 war. In fact, Israel pleaded with Jordan to remain neutral as it fought off Egypt and Syria.

Nope. First, Jordan never declared war. Neither did Israel. It just attacked. Per Wikipedia:

(O)n the morning of November 13, the Israel Defense Force mobilized, crossed the border into the West Bank and attacked Es Samu. The attacking force consisted of 3,000-4,000 soldiers backed by tanks and aircraft. They were divided into a reserve force, which remained on the Israeli side of the border, and two raiding parties, which crossed into the West Bank.

And, if we're talking about sneak attacks, Ms. Mendacity, let's not forget Israel attacking the USS Liberty while we're at it.

Charen continues with the lying:

Carter also repeatedly insinuates that U.N. Resolution 242 calls for such a withdrawal (to pre-1967 boundaries) — another lie. The resolution does speak of withdrawal, but was carefully crafted (against the objections of the Soviets) not to call for such a total pullout.

Yet another lie. Wikipedia quotes from the relevant section:

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

In the Wikipedia story, then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk said that the resolution allowed for some limited land exchanges, but that was it:

But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided

So, you don't need to read the rest of the column.

Nor do you need to leave a comment on Charen's website at Creators. I took care of that for you. (I wasn't about to bother registering at Townhall.

Herr Ratzinger, aka Benedict, has ANOTHER problem

Holy crap, Bavarian neo-Nazis and Catholics. Uhh, Herr Ratzinger, when you get a chance, between child sex abuse woes and getting Jews mad, and speaking of that, you might want to tackle this:

A chapel built on a mountainside in Germany is turning into a shrine for neo-Nazis after it emerged that it was built with marble and grainte taken from the ruins of Adolf Hitler's luxury retreat.

A swastika was reportedly found carved into one of the wooden beams of the Wegmacher Chapel, which was built in 1997, while local residents claim a number of shaven-headed, leather jacket-wearing 'pilgrims' leave behind notes of praise to Hitler and candles burning in his memory.

It was only recently that the Bavarian government admitted that material from the wreckage of Hitler's retreat, the Berghof in Berchtesgaden, was used in the construction of the chapel.

Some of the stones are from the terrace of the Berghof - quarried by Jewish slave labourers in concentration camps.

Oh. My. Fucking. Doorknob. Why the German Catholic Church hasn't taken the simple solution and just razed this place to the ground, I have no idea.

Wanted: 30,000 skinheads and neo-Nazis

No questions asked, to join the U.S. Army, since it’s not screening them out right now.

Gay – get an Army boot; skinhead – get an Army pass

Whether top Army brass will do anything about it or not, Stars and Stripes reveals just how deep and numerous skinheads, neo-Nazis, etc. are, inside U.S. armed forces. Private-sector journalists have already reported on how military recruiters turn blind eyes to things like swastika tattoos as part of meeting recruiting goals, and how, at the same time, the violently inclined among these groups want the military training.

In short, the U.S. military, and Department of Defense civilians who aren’t acting either, are supporting the development of home-grown terrorism.