Condi Rice Photos Are Moammar Gaddafi’s Dictator Porn of Choice

  unlikely porn stars

screen shot from gadhafi's dreams.It turns out that possibly (?) ousted nutjob Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi kept a big ol’ catalogue of fap fuel made up of Condoleezza Rice photo scrapbooks hidden in his torture castle. “I support my darling black African woman. I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders … Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. … I love her very much,” is apparently something he actually said during the first head of state interview we know of to be conducted while masturbating. It’s sort of natural, though, isn’t it, for Gaddafi to want to _______ Condi? (We cannot find a verb to put there that doesn’t turn our brain to poop, so go ahead and Mad Lib that one yourselves.) How many other ladies does Gaddafi know who got to run around the world with a top spot in a murderous regime and can keep a carefully maintained, famously weird hairdo? These two have “OKCupid profile match” written all over them, basically.

Go look at the utterly weird photos! They are just a bunch of laserjet printouts glued into binders, which makes it even more gross somehow.

From the MSNBC Photo Blog:

The former U.S. Secretary of State paid a visit to Tripoli in 2008 during a brief interlude that saw Gadhafi begin to be welcomed back into the international fold. As Jason Ukman of the Washington Post wrote on Wednesday, “it was only three short years ago that Rice shared a late-night dinner with Gaddafi to break the Ramadan fast, three short years ago that the United States and Libya were celebrating what was to be a new chapter in their relations.”

Haha, he said “relations.” [MSNBC]

 
Related video
Related

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.

234 comments

  1. GunToting[Redacted]

    First details of a teary Condi admitting to Cheney that she was wrong, now fap material for an insane North African despot. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the kitchen jamming an icepick into my ear.

    1. mrpuma2u

      No this is a great day for America. Now we know Condi had SOME sort of lasting foreign policy impact of consequence.

  2. JustPixelz

    I guess Moammar and I aren't that much different after all.

    Dubya's girlfriend gets around, doesn't she?

    She's the Jodi Foster to his John Hinkley.

    "Protocol" was a documentary?

  3. Crank_Tango

    My question is, who wants sloppy seconds after dubya?

    Not me, that's who. Then again, I would plow laura and bar jr, but not that jenna. no fuckin way on jenna. OK, maybe jenna too. but bar jr ftw.

    1. Major Thom

      I'd do Laura, but with a paper bag over both our heads. Oh, and and a raw Idaho potato(e) in her mouth.

  4. OkieDokieDog

    Are there little smiley faces and hearts drawn on the borders? With I heart Condi and Mrs. Condi Gaddafi written 900 times? Young love is so sweet.

    Hey – he's still awol isn't he? Has anyone looked under Condi's bed?

    1. Lionel[redacted]Esq

      There are several scratched out notes in the margins of the photos such as Mr. and Mrs. Gaddafi, Mr. and Mrs. Rice-Gaddafi, and Col. and Mrs. Rice.

  5. metamarcisf

    This has been the best week for the Bush administration since Katherine Harris stole the 2000 election.

      1. Mumbletypeg

        That's what I said after reading Greer's post. How did I never know all these dictators throughout history were secret aesthete wanna-be's? Also introduced me to the word "feuilleton" = +1.

          1. Mumbletypeg

            Not sure yet. I think there's potential for a pun involving "futon".

            At the time though, that word prompted Owls with what would become a nice assist for me to rejoinder him w/ some snark at Granpa Cornpants.

        1. Rarian Rakista

          Have you ever seen what a spurned artist is capable of ?

          First live in GF was a fine arts major: break up with her after 2 years of her not paying her half of rent/expenses and she proceeds to break all my CDs in half while I am at work so her hands are bleeding, this gives her enough blood to work with to write insane threats on the wall of our bedroom about her brothers hunting me down and killing me, along with some other disturbing imagery of what I found out later was her "aborting" me as a flower or some insanity like that.

          Fine arts is bedlam.

          1. Rarian Rakista

            Actually somewhere, analog photos I took but decided not to use against her because a few weeks later I took a job 800 miles away. I prefer not to go digging for them, I know all of her other stuff is in some box in the attic.

            Why do people keep every crazy exes stuff?

          2. Mumbletypeg

            Mercy RR … sorry that ended so badly, even violently, for you.
            FYI I graduated w/ a fine arts degree (sort of "applied arts".. long story_)
            And until we ended it this spring, lived for 5 years with a painter/ artist-type.
            Since I've always had artist friends in my life, most of whom have exhibited relatively balanced disposition & no more dysfunctional propensities than the overall subset-population, I've avoided drawing unmitigated conclusions as far as tying obsessive-destructive tendencies to artistic aptitude or vocational proclivity.
            The exception possibly being my own mother, who raised me, and herself excelled at ballet, piano and painting in her youth and adulthood; yet is likely the most personality-imbalanced individual I've ever known. But it's hard for me to assess that objectively as her daughter.
            Exception#2 I rarely hesitate to draw unmitigated conclusions about ostentatiously pious religious folk who don't practice what they preach.

          3. Rarian Rakista

            I suppose it depends on what circles you frequent.

            We had met at Burning Man in 96 and by 99 we were living together but by then she had consumed vast quantities of drugs from DMT to cocaine and back again. I dabbled but never really went whole hog except on marijuana. Looking back these 13 years and I was a pretty shitty boyfriend but this was also my first major relationship outside of high school so c'est la vie.

  6. Lascauxcaveman

    As a firmly heterosexual male, I don't mind asserting that at one time Condi was indeed, quite boneable. Yes, kinda odd looking, but still. This was before she was actively promoting mass murder, etc.

    Kind of like Sarah Palin ca. 2005, when we knew of her, but had not yet heard her open her vile yap.

    1. VeraSevera

      I'm sorry but you've just confirm every icky stereotype I have about straight men…you guys will screw anything!

  7. elviouslyqueer

    It’s sort of natural, though, isn’t it, for Gaddafi to want to _______ Condi (we cannot find a verb to put there that doesn’t turn our brain to poop, so go ahead and Mad Lib that one yourselves)?

    *raises hand frantically* Oooh, oooh, let me!

    defenestrate
    freeze-dry
    julienne
    macerate
    frappe

    DAMMIT. This is harder than I thought!

      1. elviouslyqueer

        I like it! Oh, which reminds me: garotte. Gaddafi would absolutely want to garotte Condi. HUZZAH.

    1. Come here a minute

      I will simply choose "buy arms from" and pretend all the other suggestions never happened.

  8. Biel_ze_Bubba

    I was pretty sure Condi was one tough cookie, and not capable of being weirded out by anything. I'm gonna modify that, because I'm pretty sure she is very weirded out right now.

    1. GregComlish

      Oh give me a break. Condi walks around in those black leather S&M fuck-me heels for a reason. And the reason is because she wants to be a sex object. Fuck, I'm surprised she didn't show up to Gadhafi's palace in a busty nurse's outfit as per the leaked State Department diplomatic cables.

        1. GregComlish

          No she likes masculine stereotypes. She's into dumb jocks like football players and George W.

    2. Rotundo_

      The in NSA or CIA probably had her briefed on this, and she probably took every advantage of it she could. Some strategically timed dips to pick up pens, the thousand buck fuck-me-pumps and black leather skirts probably gave us more cooperation than any other diplo gesture we made. "Let me pick that up for you, General" with a long lingering downblouse view probably made the old boy swoon.

    1. LesBontemps

      I'd like to see how the Condoleeza Hairdo Alert System handles the Don King moment she's undoubtedy having now.

    2. 102415

      I been clickity clicking away looking for Princess Sparkle Pony on this very important pre-9/11 anniversary thread. Damn, I miss him. I made an actual diplomat choke up with laughter when I posed us in two matching armchairs. Thank you! Sparkle Pony! You taught me so much. I wish I could embed "To Sir With Love" MP3 right here:)

  9. SayItWithWookies

    Thanks for that — I feel confident in saying I will see nothing more horrific the rest of the day. Unless, that is, you're saving some naked pictures of Rupert Murdoch for later this afternoon.

    1. LabRodent

      The boot page is stuck to the back of the one with the microphone near her mouth. Pow right in the Kisser.

    2. 102415

      Were those the boots she bought during Hurricane Katrina? We are living in magical times. Yesterday I noticed a poster for Bush's 911 interview for the National Geographic show. They are using that faked photo of him on the plane going somewheres. And then I got off the subway and then it earthquaked and now it's hurricaning. Good times.

  10. widestanceshakedown

    You know who else kept Condi pictures (other than the blogger formerly known as Princess Sparkle Pony, because um, duh and eww)?

      1. widestanceshakedown

        Thank you, elvious, After near a half an hour and no takers for a 'You Know Who Else?' comment, I was beginning to wonder if I had died in my sleep and was doomed for eternity to haunt my job, posting phantom comments to no one.

  11. Serolf_Divad

    What you wanna bet that when the contents of his Khaddafis' pockets are emptied, a snaphot of Condoleeza is found, along with a pen knife, a pack of gum, and the C3P0 figure that his father gave him for his 12th birthday.

  12. fartknocker

    If Gaddafi had hooked up with Kourtney and her veggies, none of this shit would have happened. I believe Kourtney could suck the chrome off a ball hitch.

  13. ManchuCandidate

    Sec State plane bound for petrol fields
    Works for a admin that killed New Orleans
    Scarred dictator knows he's doing alright
    Hear him with his sock drawer just around midnight

    Brown sugar how come you taste so good?
    Brown sugar just like a Sec State should

    1. natoslug

      Some of us have standards. They may be pretty low, but they're standards. Early Condi Rice, before she was outed as a warmongering cretin, met the requisite "two tits, a hole and a heartbeat"* standards.

      *Said standard first posited by the Poet/Philosopher/Douchebag A. "Dice" Clay.

  14. Texan_Bulldog

    Snowbilly will be righteously indignant that he did not have pictures of her stockpiled. No other Republican woman is allowed to be idolized or worshiped. This.will.not.stand.

    1. 102415

      So you are saying that this affected Lou Sarah? I'm glad I found out. I will mail her some monies.

  15. SayItWithWookies

    So there was at least one thing that Muammar Qaddafi had in common with Ariel Sharon. That Condi sure knows how to bring people together:

    Not only has she spent her career mixing with the most influential men on earth, she has managed to cajole and charm each of them. The former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon reportedly was dazzled by her legs, along with her passion for peace.

    Condi's legs survived the Dubya administration better than her alleged passion for peace did, though.

  16. Goonemeritus

    Well I have learned my lesson; you can bet I will be shredding my Elizabeth Warren picture album before the rebels get even close to my compound.

  17. Ducksworthy

    Didn't Qadaffi have a movement called The Children of Gawd that went around selling weird little crap and handing out Qadaffi literature about the same time as the Moonies and Hari Krishnas were active?

    1. DrinkYerBourbon

      I don't know. I have friend who grew up in the Children of God cult though and their leader apparently thought Qadaffi was a swell guy. Same time frame so that may be it.

    2. 102415

      That's right. I spent a week with them in Tahiti. It was stranger than you will ever know. I got the whole story.

  18. Lionel[redacted]Esq

    is apparently something he actually said during the first head of state interview we know of to be conducted during masturbation.

    Kirsten, you must be young as you clearly don't remember Reagan's interview with George Wills where they discussed decreasing the top marginal tax rate on millionaires.

    1. weejee

      Lionel, her head is elsewhere. She is considering a run to Home Despot for some plywood, before they're sold out, to put over the windows at 1 Wonkette Square.

  19. SayItWithWookies

    I can't wait until the rebels find the video she used to give to all the despots she called on — in it she's wearing a tasteful one-piece bathing suit and boots as she fires various guns in the desert and stomps on hamsters while Tchaikovsky's piano concerto plays in the background.

  20. rileywaggs

    sorry to be "that guy/rent boy," but our relationship with gaddafi was way more than just him spanking his man-meat to Condi's tumblr account or whatever. Peep this leaked diplomatic cable: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI648.h

    "Libya has acted as a critical ally in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, and Libya is considered one of our primary partners in combating the flow of foreign fighters. Our strategic partnership in this field has been highly productive and beneficial to both nations. We have begun some successful training programs to assist Libya in improving its security capabilities, under the rubrics of anti-terrorism assistance and border security."

    Gaddafi might be a total weirdo, but the idea that he is some hopeless monster who eats baby-blood-and-cucumber sandwiches for afternoon tea or whatever is far-fetched at best.

    In 2010, Libya ranked 53rd on the Human Development Index (out of 170 U.N. member states), making it a “high human development” country. The U.N. Development Programme said Libya had “high human development” in every major index category, including gender inequality, empowerment, perceptions of individual well-being and happiness, civic and community well-being, enabling environment: economy and infrastructure, access to information and communication technology, and education.

    source: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/Lets-Talk-HD-HDI_201

    Obama's favorite ally-forever, Yemen, was ranked at 133.

    Furthermore, independent investigations by Amnesty International and Doctors without Borders have found zero credible evidence to support the rebel accusations that gaddafi was using "rape as a weapon"; they also found zero evidence of gaddafi using helicopters/jets to slaughter civilians.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/am

    Sorry that this was not funny at all. I will go away now….

    1. James Michael Curley

      Remember that Malomar GaDaffy stagged the dress rehearsal in the summer of 1972 for the eventual oil embargo proving we would do anything for our petro fix.

    2. imissopus

      Libya was also rated by Freedom House's 2009 Freedom of the Press rankings as the most-censored country in North Africa and the Middle East and the 2010 Corruption Perception Index from Transparency International ranked Libya higher than its two neighbors Egypt and Tunisia, and we know what happened recently in those two places.

      Yeah, Libya has a highly educated and developed population – but ruled by a dictator who had made it illegal (under penalty of execution) to found political parties. Despite the development level, Libya has an unemployment rate of anywhere from 20 – 30% (depending on the source). In addition, Khaddafi had imported over a million migrant workers, which depressed wages. Meantime he was amassing a vast personal fund and his playboy sons were living high on the hog, tooling around Europe.

      In other words, as "developed" as the UN might have considered Libya to be, in practicality you had a highly educated population struggling with high unemployment and with no hope that its leader of forty years would do anything to help them, and no hope of elections to put new leaders in place. Meantime, a State Department report from 2004 claimed that 10 to 20% of Libyans worked for surveillance committees that reported dissent to Khadaffi, putting Libya on a par with North Korea and Iraq when Sadaam was in power (http://www.meforum.org/878/libya-and-the-us-qadhafi-unrepentant). All of this was a recipe for an uprising at some point, particularly when two countries bordering LIbya saw uprisings that threw out their longtime dictators.

      Yeah, Khadaffi tried to suck up to the U.S. during the Bush administration so the country wouldn't put him on its shit list, but Bush isn't in office anymore. While some reports on his actions during this war were likely exaggerated for propaganda purposes, there is no question that his response to civil unrest was to unleash his military against civilians, to promise to destroy Benghazi and send his soldiers in to go house to house killing anyone lucky enough to survive the artillery bombardments. He could have committed himself instead to peaceful reforms for his unhappy people, and he didn't.

      So while no one is claiming that the guy "is some hopeless monster who eats baby-blood-and-cucumber sandwiches for afternoon tea", thinking of him as just a total weirdo is disingenuous at best. I know all this messes with the "OIL COMPANIES DID LIBYA ARBLE BARGLE" narrative, but that does not make any of it less true.

      1. rileywaggs

        re: "going house to house killing civilians" …..
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/am

        Here is a big ol' blurb:

        Nato intervention started on 19 March with air attacks to protect people in Benghazi from massacre by advancing pro-Gaddafi troops. There is no doubt that civilians did expect to be killed after threats of vengeance from Gaddafi. During the first days of the uprising in eastern Libya, security forces shot and killed demonstrators and people attending their funerals, but there is no proof of mass killing of civilians on the scale of Syria or Yemen.

        Most of the fighting during the first days of the uprising was in Benghazi, where 100 to 110 people were killed, and the city of Baida to the east, where 59 to 64 were killed, says Amnesty. Most of these were probably protesters, though some may have obtained weapons.

        Amateur videos show some captured Gaddafi supporters being shot dead and eight badly charred bodies were found in the remains of the military headquarters in Benghazi, which may be those of local boys who disappeared at that time.

        There is no evidence that aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against crowds. Spent cartridges picked up after protesters were shot at came from Kalashnikovs or similar calibre weapons.

        The Amnesty findings confirm a recent report by the authoritative International Crisis Group, which found that while the Gaddafi regime had a history of brutally repressing opponents, there was no question of "genocide".

        The report adds that "much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge".
        ————————-

        Let's look at an example of "Gaddafi brutality" from January, 2011:

        Witnesses said that hundreds of policemen were observing the protests but did not intervene, even when hundreds of people broke in to some buildings under construction.

        Information and videos posted on Twitter and YouTube show hundreds of Libyans protesting in the east of the country in the cities of Bidaa, Darna and Sabhaa late Saturday.

        Qourina, an independent news website, reported several lootings during the protests in Darana city.

        Qourina also reported that two of its reporters were beaten by protesters on Saturday.

        There are no reports of injuries or clashes with the police.

        Al Jazeera TV network reported that police have been instructed by the government to avoid any clashes with protesters and to only protect government buildings and contain the protesters' anger
        http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/4032.aspx
        ————–

        And our infallible teevee media make it seem as if Gaddafi is some sort of satan-worshiper; the coverage of this conflict — a civil war in which the U.S./NATO illegally intervened — has been completely one-sided. You know, nobody wants to mention that Gaddafi provided the South African resistance movement with ongoing support during the apartheid era. And here is a quote from Mandella about Gaddafi: "This man helped us at a time when we were all alone, when those who say we should not come here were helping the enemy" http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mandela.html

        Furthermore, in July the African Union passed a resolution that "disregard the arrest warrant issued for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi." A quote-thing:

        AU executive Jean Ping also told reporters the ICC is “discriminatory” and only goes after crimes committed in Africa, while ignoring those he says were committed by Western powers in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
        http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/af

        1. imissopus

          Riley, my condemning Gadaffi's forces' attacks on civilians should in no way be construed as me being unaware that the rebels have also committed atrocities. I'm sure they have. I'd also note that I specifically stated that some of the Libyan government attacks had probably been exaggerated for propaganda purposes.

          You're right about one point: I should have said that he had only THREATENED to send his soldiers house to house. The main forces had not yet entered the city when NATO started bombing them back.

          The question of whether NATO illegally intervened here is far from settled. NATO was responding to multiple UN resolutions, including one that calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, and the establishment of a no-fly zone always involves bombing to take out a military's command-and-control structure. Robert Gates publicly warned months ago that that would happen. In any case, I'm fairly sure that international law allows countries and alliances to enforce UN resolutions even in sovereign territory (whether NATO went beyond the resolution’s mandate is an entirely separate question.)

          Here's a thought experiment: there are multiple UN resolutions going back to 1948 calling on Israel to give up the occupied territories and for both Israel and Arab nations to allow the return of refugees driven out of their homes by multiple conflicts. Over the years Palestinian supporters have cited these resolutions when criticizing US policy towards Israel. Those same people are often the ones claiming that NATO has acted illegally in intervening in Libya. Should we pick and choose which UN resolutions we want the US to enforce and which we think the US should ignore? And if the US intervened militarily against the Israelis to drive them out of the West Bank in order to turn it over to the Palestinians, would that be okay? Keep in mind that as the West Bank has been annexed, it's technically a part of Israel proper now. People call for it to be given to the Palestinians, but I've never heard anyone call for it to be handed back to Jordan.

          To your point about Mandela: what is your point? That sometimes bad people do good things? At the same time Gadaffi was helping the resistance in South Africa, he had also invaded Chad to try and annex some of its territory. The militiamen he armed later established a base in Darfur and became the precursors to the militias that have been terrorizing that region for a decade now.

          Also, note that at the time he was helping the South African resistance, the Reagan administration was not opposing the apartheid regime and was actively engaged with it because they saw the country as a bulwark against Communism in Africa. So whether Gadaffi was helping Mandela out of some genuine anger at the racism of SA or just to fuck with Reagan (you're too young to remember but Gadaffi was Reagan's bogeyman in the 80s) is an open question. Probably it was some combination of the two, but I bet his motives were not entirely pure.

          1. rileywaggs

            I'm about to head out for the night (hot date tonite…with Breitbarf?) but I would like to address one point, specifically. I'll think over the rest…ant any rate, this:

            "The question of whether NATO illegally intervened here is far from settled. NATO was responding to multiple UN resolutions, including one that calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, and the establishment of a no-fly zone always involves bombing to take out a military's command-and-control structure. Robert Gates publicly warned months ago that that would happen. In any case, I'm fairly sure that international law allows countries and alliances to enforce UN resolutions even in sovereign territory (whether NATO went beyond the resolution’s mandate is an entirely separate question.)"

            The U.N. resolution was to protect civilians. Fine. In theory, I have nothing wrong with that. But wouldn't you agree that it's pretty damn clear by now that NATO is not acting as a peacekeeping force or "humanitarian interventionists" — they are active participants in a civil war.

            note the following:

            "Al-Jazeera footage captures 'western troops on the ground' in Libya"
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/weste

            "SAS troopers help co-ordinate rebel attacks in Libya" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/23/sas-t

            and also this:

            "As the battle in Libya appeared at stalemate, it was an open secret that foreign military advisers were working covertly inside the country providing guidance to rebels and giving tactical intelligence to NATO aircraft bombing government forces.

            Diplomats say members of the alliance and partners in the Middle East were engaged in an undercover campaign on the ground in Libya. The operation was kept separate from the NATO command structure to avoid compromising its mandate from the United Nations – to protect civilians."
            http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBYA_H

            If the U.N. resolution was strictly followed — fine. Obviously — and I really mean "obviously" — this is not the case. If NATO is allowed to do whatever it wants, and that's not considered "illegal," then why even bother with U.N. resolutions? So I would say that this issue is definitely "settled."

            Re: the African Union. Regardless of their lack of impartiality, or whatever, they clearly have far more moral authority over Libya/Africa than NATO does. Their decisions and resolutions should be respected — it's their continent, after all.

            I brought up the Gaddafi/apartheid example because — and i stick by this — the media has dumbed down this war to such an incredible level. Their is no historical context and no real understanding for Libya in relation to the rest of Africa. Americans view conflicts in vacuums. I doubt most Americans know that we funded Saddam up the ying-yang to fight Iran, etc. If the media was willing to show both sides of these things — you know, Gaddafi has severe human rights issues, but that is NOT the complete story — maybe we wouldn't rush off to war so quickly? Maybe we would listen to the AU more? Who knows! point is, some more learnin' before bombin' would benefit everyone. (And Did Gaddafi support Mandella for his own selfish reasons? As an American, I have no right to even ask such a question. As if American foreign policy was based on selflessness! Falsch!)

            and i know that the protest-link i provided was from before the conflict started. That's the point, though: It's not like Gaddafi was mowing down opposition every time it popped up.

            anyway, have a good thursday!

          2. imissopus

            Riley, Resolution 1973 specifically calls for establishing a no-fly zone in order to protect civilians. If a no-fly zone is the mechanism under which this protection occurs, there will be bombing. It was the case in Iraq for years after the first Gulf War, it was (I believe) the case in Bosnia in the 90s. The idea is to remove any and all means by which Libya could fuck with the aircraft enforcing said zone (i.e. anti-aircraft missile batteries, command-and-control centers that could be used to coordinate Libyan Air Force efforts to attack NATO planes, and so on.) If you have another mechanism to protect civilians, great, but I can't think of anything that would not involve putting large numbers of troops on the ground, which would have been a terrible idea.

            I will say that from what little I read about it, NATO has been mealy-mouthed when defining legitimate targets that are part of the Libyan military's capabilities in the air. But I don't know enough about specific bombings to say with authority one way or the other about whether NATO overstepped its bounds in that regard.

            Which brings up your point about the alliance being active participants in a civil war because of the troops on the ground. To me, this is actually a gray area. Having units on the ground to identify bombing targets is pretty standard in the military. If anything, in theory it actually decreases civilian casualties because close-in observers can identify a target more accurately than people poring over photos taken from 20,000 feet in the air. In other words, authorizing a no-fly zone does not mean hard-and-fast limits on ground troops. There will be small units on the ground, and it makes sense that they will hook up with Libyan rebels to move around and gather intelligence. At the same time, will they be providing non-no-fly-zone-based advice? I would assume so. I don't know how you tell a soldier that when he's talking to the rebels, he has to tell them "Sorry fellas, I can help you with this but not with that, so don't even ask the question." You send in those guys, they are not going to be neutral, and I'd bet my last dollar that the civilians at the UN knew that when they voted.

            This is all a long-winded way of saying that the minute you consent to using the military to protect civilians, you're authorizing bombing and putting troops on the ground. I understand opposition to bombing and troops, but the flip side might be that those civilians don't get protected. You said that in theory you're okay with protecting civilians, and I am too, but the minute we say that we're on a slippery slope. And that just leads right back to the question of whether we should never, ever help one group of people, even if it means dropping bombs, simply because we lack the capacity to help all groups that are threatened by armed men.

            I get your point on Gaddafi/apartheid, particularly after re-reading it. I took issue with it initially because I thought the way you brought it up was as context-free as the way in which you accused the media of bringing up Gadaffi's human-rights abuses. Gadaffi has been active on the African continent for forty years in ways both good and bad. Mentioning ONLY one particular time when he was on what we consider the right side is cheating just as much as ONLY mentioning his human rights abuses. Sure, he helped fight apartheid…but (to cite one example of the bad stuff) considering the visibility of the Darfur issue a few years ago, I think the fact that militiamen that he armed are the predecessors of the groups terrorizing that region today is equally important.

            As for the AU, its member nations are also part of the UN, and I don't know that any of them protested the original resolution. So I can't say that they have more moral authority, which is an abstraction anyway. If any of them voted in favor of it, they were voting for enforcement using mechanisms that they might in theory be morally opposed to. In that case, the responsibility is on them to protest before a course of action is set in motion, not after. And yes, it is their continent – but how many of the AU's members are also members of the Arab League, which specifically asked NATO and the UN to intervene?

            In other words, various organizations had this debate six months ago. They chose a course of action that pretty inevitably led to where we are now. To be upset about it now is to be upset that they can't put the genie back in the bottle.

            And I still think the link to the story from January is irrelevant to your case. We know Gadaffi wasn't mowing down opposition every time it popped up. The concern is whether or not he was mowing down opposition that popped up in mid- to late February. Those were the protests that set this whole thing in motion. If the stories of the mowing down were made up out of whole cloth then I would be pissed. But I don't think they were…exaggerated for propaganda purposes, maybe, but that does not necessarily invalidate the case for protecting civilians from retaliation by Gadaffi's military.

            Stay dry this weekend.

        2. imissopus

          Your link to that story from ahram.org is from mid-January, when protests against the regime had broken out only over delays in the building of subsidized housing for poor people. It was AFTER that, in early February, that activists started calling for wider protests (building on the momentum of the early ones) to demand greater freedoms in Libya. That is when security forces are alleged to have gotten violent.

          As for quoting an exec from the African Union, they are not exactly impartial, as Gadaffi supposedly provides about one-fifth of the AU's funding. And the idea that the ICC only goes after crimes committed in Africa would be news to Serbs like Milosevic and Radicz and any other Yugoslavs sitting in the Hague right now.

      2. rileywaggs

        sorry, message part II:

        Instead of siding with the ICC (West), here's what the AU is up to:

        South Africa’s Deputy President, suggested that Nato should be investigated by the International Criminal Court for its role in the conflict.

        President Zuma was heavily criticised by his regional neighbours for voting in favour of UN Resolution 1973 which authorised Nato to protect civilian lives by policing a no-fly zone in Libya following the uprising in February.

        Appointed the AU’s chief mediator, he visited Col Gaddafi twice during the crisis and later complained that the UN resolution was being abused “for regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation”.

        On Tuesday, he said that Nato’s use of force had undermined Africa’s peace efforts, and had the African Union been given time to pursue its “road map” for Libya, the level of bloodshed might have been avoided.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaa

        Do I think gaddafi is the shizzle? Nope. But yes, this is an illegal regime change, oil companies ARE drooling, and the arguments for NATO-bombing the dickens out of Libya are ridiculous when you consider that we are butt buddies with countries like Yemen and Bahrain.

        I'm sorry, but this is not a feel-good, yay war. And it's far from over — which is too bad for the Libyans, and also too bad for Americans, since recent polling shows only 20% want to continue military operations
        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/po

        Also: that diplomatic cable was sent last year (i.e. Gaddafi was an Obama ally).

        1. imissopus

          If you're referring to that diplomatic cable on wikileaks that you referenced in your original post, I'll point out that it was actually sent in 2009 and was prepared for a Senate delegation visiting Libya led by John McCain. The other Senators who went with him were Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham. You want to argue that they went to Libya in the capacity of representing the Obama administration? No, that visit was a follow-up to Condi's visit from September of 2008 and was meant to continue the Bush administration's embrace of Gadaffi.

          A little context would be helpful. Bush wanted to normalize relations with Libya because a) Gadaffi had agreed to and actually followed through on dismantling his WMD programs, which to Bush validated his whole approach in the Middle East, as Gadaffi had agreed to the dismantling six days after Sadaam was captured and, one presumes, Gadaffi did not want to risk meeting the same fate (see here for a timeline). And b), Gadaffi in the 90s had brutally put down Islamist rebellions in eastern Libya and cracked down on the Islamists again AFTER his "come-to-Jesus" moment in 2003. Those Islamists are believed to have been training and sending suicide bombers to Iraq from Libyan soil. So of course anyone who would help Bush in that effort would be beloved by neocons like Lieberman and Ham Biscuits and McCain. But a visit from that crew should not in any way be construed as an endorsement by the Obama administration, which had been in office for all of six months and, as you will recall, had much more immediate problems on its plate then Libya.

          As for your argument about us being butt buddies with Yemen and Bahrain, yeah, I've heard that one before. What it says to me is that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to countries threatened by Arab Spring rebellions. We can't intervene to protect the public in every uprising, so does that mean that we should not intervene in ANY uprising?

          As for the oil companies, the French company Total SA, along with ENI and Respol, actually saw profits go down in the second quarter due in large part to disruptions in Libyan exports (ENI, by the way, is Italy's largest oil company). They had actually been very active in Libya before the uprising began. And American oil companies were on the verge of getting more business with Gadaffi's regime thanks to the thaw in relations over the last few years, so why would they want to risk getting into that market by getting rid of Gadaffi and replacing him with who-knows-what? Why would France and Italy actually take the lead in pushing for some sort of regime change if their two largest oil companies would be HURT by it? Sorry, but I don't buy the argument about the oil companies. They may very well be drooling now that it's all over, but I see no reason why they would have pushed for a policy that could hurt them and even, if it backfired, get them kicked out of the largest oil-producing nation in North Africa.

          Finally, believe me, I'm not arguing that this is a feel-good, yay war. No war should be seen that way. But it's possible there are not hidden reasons here for NATO intervening. Sometimes, as they said on Lost, what happened, happened.

      3. Negropolis

        For once, I find myelf in near complete agreement with you. Libya happened for a whole host of reasons, most them, surprisingly, legitimate ones this time. I'd say the single biggest reasons Libya happened is that you had a legitimate, unarmed, peaceful uprising, the subsequent use of helicopters with gunners and rooftop snipers to indiscriinately kill people in Tripoli, an imminent siege of a major city for collective retribution, and then the most important piece, the request/sanction by the Arab League. Rarely have things fallen into place so easily, so quickly, and so completely.

    3. fuflans

      i'm sorry did i just link to 'foreign affairs' or WTF??!?!?!

      i would like to point out that steve jobs is still leaving and jennifer garner is still pregnant again.

      jeeez.

  21. bureaucrap

    Is the pic from "I Love Lucy"? If so, excellent choice. There's so much you could do with Condi and Muammar as a demented Lucy and Ricky.

  22. technosailor

    "It’s sort of natural, though, isn’t it, for Gaddafi to want to _______ Condi? (We cannot find a verb to put there that doesn’t turn our brain to poop, so go ahead and Mad Lib that one yourselves.) How many other ladies does Gaddafi know who got to run around the world with a top spot in a murderous regime and can keep a carefully maintained, famously weird hairdo? These two have “OKCupid profile match” written all over them, basically."

    Keep it classy.

    1. Nostrildamus

      Well it's not like they dressed Jarbara in a pinafore before they bottled her.

      Or did they?

  23. kingcocrazy

    What really maxes out the creepmeter is that Rice has LOOONG been rumored to be a lesbian. Was shacked up at Stanford with another woman who shared the mortgage. John Hinckley–Jodie Foster indeed.

  24. kissawookiee

    This reminds me of some of my best work. Of course, the pictures were Han Solo shots carefully cut out of old Starlogs and I was, oh, twelve years old at the time, but the rubber cement work was really top notch. I commend Col. Qaddafi on his quality gluesticking.

  25. Lionel[redacted]Esq

    Dear Penthouse,

    I am the dictator of a tin-pot African Country. Still, I never thought something like this would ever happen to me until the day the United States sent over this ebony god to discuss weapons of mass destruction with me. Allah be praised, if in the end we did not investigate some very secret places….

  26. SaintRond

    He just wanted to see his dick in the same place where Lil' Bush had his.

    It's a slave mentality thing, wanting to identify with the Man.

  27. Chet Kincaid

    Dear Wonkette,

    Frankly, I resent the supercilious tone, as if you have never loudly dressed down a binder full of glossy printouts of Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that barely conceal her brazen, unladylike behavior!

    Steadfast & Loyal,
    Allen "Low Top" West

  28. Porter Melmoth

    You know, there's really kind of a poignant side to this: the lonely fuhrer, who's really got a dainty side, quietly and tastefully worshiping a truly 'strong' gal, who's just a little bit 'alternative'. One could get wistful in a 'Springtime For Hitler' sort of way…

    Muammar would've been a pretty hip 'guest villain' on Condi's 'Girl From U.N.C.L.E.' show…

    1. zhubajie

      Well, you know, it's only your own love-life which is sweet and romantic. Everyone else's is embarrassing, sordid or comic.

  29. Limeylizzie

    Dearest Wonkettes, I was eating a peach, and no that is not a metaphor, and reading all your comments and I have peach juice on my tits and have sprayed some on my coffee table, please stop being so funny,

  30. ttommyunger

    What's the difference between Condi and a Bowling Ball? If I had to, I could eat a bowling ball.

  31. Weenus299

    I mean really. Sniffing out the State Department? Be like all the other P-hounds and follow women's tennis.

  32. owhatever

    The centerfold picture was missing from the album, as were the panties she left behind, framed and autographed.

  33. Tr0tt0

    So there is rumor of a Rihanna sex tape in existence but he faps to this? Clearly, the international community is right. This man has no clue how to run a dictatorship

  34. Mapmonger

    "I had a dream that no one else could see
    You gave me love for free

    Condi Condi Condi I can't let you go
    All my life you're haunting me"

    (Sorry, Iggy…)

  35. DahBoner

    "How many other ladies does Gaddafi know who got to run around the world with a top spot in a murderous regime and can keep a carefully maintained, famously weird hairdo?"

    Somebody's got to do it:

    All of 'em, Katy!

  36. sati_demise

    Am going with the expert Princess Sparkle Pony on this one: Arab Kleenex. One thing Daffy and Condi do share, indeed, a foot fetish and shoe collections! So much in common….

  37. Ancient_Hacker

    I thought Condi was Bush's two-fer, token darkie and token lezzo.

    Leave it to Gadaffi to focus in on a non-starter.

  38. zhubajie

    Qaddafi and Condi, Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein; what other unlikely couplings are waiting to be revealed?

  39. user-of-owls

    It’s sort of natural, though, isn’t it, for Gaddafi to want to _______ Condi? (We cannot find a verb to put there that doesn’t turn our brain to poop, so go ahead and Mad Lib that one yourselves.)

    Hand-toss?

  40. Negropolis

    Daffi ain't gonna go down, 'cause he's a proud, beautiful black woman, and he ain't afraid to cut a bitch. Yes, yes, that's it.

    It's Condi, Ms. Rice if your nasty…

  41. fuflans

    these things never really end well do they?

    your head on pike and your porn scattered all over the internet where your 3024 descendants can pick over them.

Comments are closed.