CIA Running Around Libya, Obama Authorizes Arming Libya Rebels

  turd adventures

And we won't come back till it's over over there.Remember when President Obama made that speech about how the war in Libya was such a small war you could barely see it, and it was pretty much over and done with anyway, so you can go back to watching (your one life on Earth fade away while you watch) Dancing with the Stars? That wasn’t exactly correct. But hey, what’s an American war without the president lying about it? Obama was just being patriotic and paying tribute to the great leaders who came before him! (Namely, right before him.) While the CIA is flooding Libya with agents trying to simultaneously figure out how to help the rebels and learn who these people even are, it turns out Obama already authorized heavy arms shipments to them. The turd sandwich has been placed in the microwave, and it’s HEATING UP.

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.

Well somebody was planning ahead!

Sending in weapons would arguably violate an arms embargo on Libya by the U.N. Security Council imposed on February 26, although British, U.S. and French officials have suggested there may be a loophole.

There’s always a loophole for illegal wars: It’s called “being America.” FUCK YEAH!

In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities. American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.

Yet. So who are these rebels we may soon be trusting with our advanced weapons and running this country?

The briefers told Congress they are a loose-knit, localized and factionalized opposition lacking the basic military necessities of command, control and communication, according to lawmakers who attended the briefings, one for the House and one for the Senate, in an auditorium beneath the Capitol.

Uhhhhhh.

Look, we’re already in this war. We’re already committed to taking down Gaddafi, whether Obama admits it publicly or not. So instead of doing things on the cheap and hoping they work out, why don’t we just invade and make sure a stable government is set up? Yes, that means doing this. But what happens when we’ve armed rebels like this in the past? This. Hmm. A turd sandwich indeed! [Reuters/Politico]

Share This
 
Related video

About the author

Jack Stuef is your loyal editor and a freelance satirist or something like that. He is a contributing writer for The Onion. E-mail him or whatever.

View all articles by Jack Stuef

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

107 comments

  1. neiltheblaze

    With our asleep at the switch Media – Iraq and Afghanistan were apparently wars so small you could barely see them. Libya is a Sunday drive to these people.

    1. dailyworldwatch

      Leave Obama alone! CIA people don't wear boots! There is no boots on ground still! Oh…oops…

    1. SmutBoffin

      Oh, so you believe the "official" story: That a ragtag group of rebels of varying hirsuteness infiltrated the Death Star, stole the secrets of it's manufacture, and destroyed it with a single torpedo, a feat even experienced pilots have deemed "…impossible, even for a computer"?

      Death Star was an inside job WAKE UP SHEEPLE

  2. memzilla

    Because this policy worked out so well when we armed the mujahadeen to fight the Soviet Army in Afghanistan in the '80s… that's why.

    1. Negropolis

      We armed a bunch of guys called the motherfucking mujahideen, for Allah's sake; a group of fighters who indentified themselves primarily as religious fighters. We knew who they were and we still armed them because we had such a blind hate for the Soviets during the Cold War. I'd hate for people to pretend that we thought they were some kind of secular, high-minded democrats.

      This was not the secular, facebooking twitteratti we're seeing arise and supporting, today. What's happening over the region, today, is not in anyway comprable to the Islamic revolutions that swept the region in times past. They just aren't no matter how much some may feign us "not knowing" who the rebels are. We know enough to know who they aren't. I'm so damned tired of these far-fetched comparisons.

  3. donner_froh

    "a loose-knit, localized and factionalized opposition lacking the basic military necessities of command, control and communication"

    Exactly the people who we should be arming with heavy weapons.

      1. CrankyLttlCamperette

        Teatards want someone else to invade for them. I mean, Dancing with the Stars isn't going to watch itself, pal!

    1. WhatTheHeck

      Now if I remember my history, the Taliban were such a loose-knit group fighting the Soviets back in Afghanistan, so we gave them some stingers to play with.
      And them we created Bin Laden.

      What could go wrong?

  4. Ducksworthy

    I don't get it. Lybia's a kleptocracy. The US of A's a kleptocracy. I thought kleptocracies didn't go to war with other kleptocracies.

      1. riverside68

        BUZZZ –Not!
        Rhode Island declared indendence on May 4, 1776, after burning a british man-of-war to the waterline. (The brits were interferring with non-tariff free marketeers, aka smugglers.) The whole town of Providence turned out for the burning!

  5. Texan_Bulldog

    "why don’t we just invade and make sure a stable government is set up? " Like we've done such a good job of that in Iraq & Afghanistan. I am very disappointed in this decision but will still not vote for Newtie or Mitt or any of the Pauls out of spite.

    1. Terry

      Some folks from the early days of the Iraq coalition provisional authority are probably still looking for jobs. I bet the Heritage Foundation still has all those resumes on file.

  6. BloviateMe

    I refuse to jump on board until it's dubbed a "Crusade."

    Until then, it's just so half-assed.

  7. Blendergoathead

    Somewhere in the world, there are serious people who gamble on things like this, and whoever placed their bets just right just won the brownie/muslin trifecta.

    Oh yeah, that would be the global military industrial complex – they win every time.

  8. baconzgood

    Yes….This time is going to be just fine. Not like Saddam Hussein, or Franco, or Stalin, or Batista, or Pinochet, or Noreaga, or well…pretty much all of Central and South America over the past 100 years. This time it's gonna be just fine….Trust me, what could possibly go wrong?

    Now let's get back to that bridge that you're going to buy off me.

    1. riverside68

      Not to be picky but when did Stalin have a contract with the CIA or any other US government agency or corporation?
      Not that he didn't save our asses by "tearing the guts out of the Nazi war machine."
      Oh yah, I forgot, Lend/Lease.
      Carry on.

  9. prommie

    Libya isn't a turd sandwich, its actually the only so-called "food" item that is more disgusting than a turd sandwhich. Libya is a marshmallow Peep, and you know what happens when you put a Peep in the microwave!

  10. SexySmurf

    Sounds like all the planning of the Bay of Pigs crossed with the legality of arming the Contras. I predict a huge success.

    1. Ducksworthy

      That story says Reargun armed the Iraninan terrorists to get release of the hostages. Actually the deal was that they would keep the hostages until his inauguration and not release them until then.

    1. jus_wonderin

      Shhhhh. He will go away if we are quiet. And I don't want him stomping on my rock hard head.

  11. Guppy06

    Wah wah, our Anglo-French allies don't have the aircraft carriers and the cruise missiles, but surely they can be the ones to supply the spies and shit! Heck, I'd wager French spies would be more likely to speak the local language!

  12. Badonkadonkette

    Say what you will about Bammers, Jack. We're all still better off having a guy like him, who goes into a war knowing we're screwed whether we get involved or sit it out, than we were having that retard with a deck of trading cards who literally thought Iraq and Afghanistan were a fucking game, except better, 'cause it had real people.

  13. SorosBot

    You go to no-fly-zone and cover pseudo-war with the rebels you have, not the rebels you wish you had.

  14. DaRooster

    "The briefers told Congress they are a loose-knit, localized and factionalized opposition lacking the basic military necessities of command, control and communication…"

    Will they arm us when the revolt against the rich starts? That's gonna be kewl…

    1. smitallica

      "…a loose-knit, localized and factionalized opposition lacking the basic necessities of command, control and communication…"

      So the rebels are Democrats, then?

  15. randcoolcatdaddy

    Well, Obama, enjoy that turd sandwich you just ordered along with that of iced urine and a side fried left over lyposuction fat that your predecessor ordered at the drive through.

    You want some Tums with that?

  16. harry_palmer

    Here's how it works: Arming the shit out of Qua-ka-ga-daffy was the clear-eyed, pragmatic thing to do not too long ago, just as now arming the shit out of those who want him dead is the clear-eyed, pragmatic thing to do. You libtards don't know shit about geopolitics. This is the winning strategy we used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa …

  17. Sophist [غني عن ذلك]

    But hey, at least we're not trading blood for oil this time, right? That's a step in the right direction, isn't it?

  18. bumfug

    "President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday."

    Did the Oxford English Dictionary, besides adding OMG, LOL and Muffin Top, also redefine the words "secret" and "covert?"

    1. Not_So_Much

      Yeah, what the shit? It would appear one of the two congress douchenozzles briefed on this was twatting it at the exact same time.

      This is the best we can do at 'secret'? Assange would be laffing if he had any emotions.

      1. DaRooster

        So they were acting treasonous against our country?

        That seems like an excommunicatable offense or something…

  19. Radiotherapy

    We need to get more of those white compact Toyota pick-ups…and spray paint, lots of spray paint.

  20. Terry

    Did anyone honestly think that the CIA wasn't in Libya to some degree before this uprising and to a much greater degree after this all started?

    1. elviouslyqueer

      For real. It's like every Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan movie ever made, only with moar dead American soldiers.

  21. CapeClod

    I'm going to bet that some scumbag despot who has nothing to do with Libya is going to get a birthday cake out of all this.

  22. arihaya

    Like Jefferson,, Hopey also sending ships to Tripoli,, but i am affraid only that far the similiarities go in this Libyan war

    1. SmutBoffin

      Yeah, after the judge told the Walker Admin. THREE TIMES that the law couldn't go on the books.

  23. Jim89048

    Is this war already small enough to drown it in a bathtub? If so, why has nobody drowned it in a bathtub yet?
    ABORT THIS ANCHOR-WAR!

  24. Lascauxcaveman

    Eh, I'm not freaking out, yet. I still think Libya most closely resembles the thing we did in Kosovo, only with fewer Albanians, and more oil.

    1. Ducksworthy

      So another blow for Muslin liberation? Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! (Trying to sound like a Darlek.)

    2. Lascauxcaveman

      Also fun: the Libyan foreign minister has apparently defected to Britain.

      Mostly this is Wonkette-worthy because dude's name is "Moussa Koussa."
      Sure, it's no Boutros-Boutros Ghali, but still.

    1. calibrit

      Oh, great. We all know how high the CIA's standards are for who they work with. If they were A-OK with Mobutu Sese Seko, I'm sure they'll only approve of Libyan rebels of the finest moral character. LibyGandhis, if you will.

  25. cat48

    Gates just said in testimony this a.m. that we have not armed the rebels & he doesn't see that happening, because there are other countries capable of doing that. NO PLANS & Congress Gang of 8 Says NO REQUEST RECEIVED, except the normal CIA authorized for ANY operation. A guy at The Atlantic thinks the prez is just mess'n with Gadaffi's mind by leaking untrue stuff. Sounds like something he's capable of since he does it to Repubs all the time & they act just like Gadaffi, crazywise!

  26. anniegetyerfun

    Fuck YEAH. This is the kind of clandestine shit that makes our country great (also, hated). Boo-yah, USA USA USA!

    1. SmutBoffin

      U.S. States have a right to self-determination, so Obama can't interfere. Libya, however, does not.

  27. V572del c:/*.* y/n?

    Here's the problem with "rebels." They start off with a lot of jehadi enthusiasm, well founded anger at the old regime, high spirits and the element of surprise. Then they run out of ammunition, food and water and gas, and the trucks break down, and the weapons jam because nobody knows how to clean them, and they don't have any radios on the same frequency. Meanwhile the regime's relatively well-disciplined and adequately supported forces start fighting back. The importance of unglamorous maintenance and resupply now becomes evident.

    So we can help, with bombing to frighten and discourage the regime's guys, and logistical support to the rebels. It might be worth it, and it might work.

    Apparently we can't do nothing. It's not like this is Rwanda or something.

  28. Gopherit

    No boots on the ground? We must be making the bastards wear sandals or something. Yay having a president with a law degree again!

  29. badkarma92

    I think that we should never have interfered with the Libyans why dos it matter if we do any thing we should have just let Mubarak do what he was going to do and have some sort of stability in the region now we have no idea who going to come to power.

  30. owhatever

    To send our Libyan rebel buddies megadollars means the poors at home in America must starve harder. We're broke.

  31. Negropolis

    The rebuhls is Al Queda and other assorted racial Mooslamics, I tells ya! Col. Q-Daffy told us so! Democracy, my ass. It's just like in Egypt, and Tunisia, and Bahrain and Syria and…they all want to trade out their secular(ish) dictators for caliphates!

  32. ShaveTheWhales

    So, I do have to point out that the Reuters article, at least, comes from the Reuters blog of the (wonderfully named) Mark Hosenball. I have no idea who this blogger is, and hence no opinion about his objectivity or verification protocols, but I was struck by the fact that he apparently used this story in very similar posts four or five times in one day. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding his blog history.

    In any event, I hope he got multiple verifications from the "government officials with knowledge" that are the source of the article.

Comments are closed.