the. as missiles fire in the mid east rather low key blast through the western ways of hypocrisy shattering the humanitarian cover for what he says is an unjust war. we tried regime change before and sometimes it's worked and sometimes it's taken ten years and that being said he's been there done that secretary of defense robert gates so for him is the mission in libya coming down from politics experience congress wants to know. congress also wants to know the plan how much and how long

and from the goals of wars past arming rebels to fight it off the now because the u.s. to be up in arms later. there is no you know in general all the anyone in the station is lower than it was thirty years ago and why might that be long let's start by taking a look at some high profile pay stubs from ten to fifteen million dollar contracts mainstream media talents cass's in all of the checks out. the mission in libya is now under the command of nato and we continue to see the pendulum swing in terms of who controls the major regions there we know the members of the cia at least have their boots on the ground and there is new evidence that the question of whether or not to arm the rebels there was answered weeks ago when

an order signed by president obama saying well let's do it what will the implications of all this be i want to go now to one of our favorite guests here on our t.v. and that is rapper loki he's in london right now. hey there loki it's been a while since we've last spoken and a few things have happened you could say including u.n. resolution one thousand nine hundred three and the west's involvement in libya there are so many theories about why libya why not elsewhere why anywhere at all i want to get your thoughts on this. personally i believe that the interests of work here are. the u.s. britain and france has interests in sustaining civil war rather than reaching some type of. time when things can be sort of put back together and the country can be a whole its about sustaining the period of civil war and thus the stabilising the revolutions which took place in tunis and in egypt i think it's interesting that there's such

a respect for these un resolution for the un resolution one nine hundred seventy three when israel has violated countless un resolutions in the united states and britain and france have never even considered military reaction let alone sanctions well here what benefit does it have for the west pretty u.k. france and the united states to have such strife going on and have yet to have the civil war as you say they want to keep that going but why. why i think if we can specifically talk about britain for a moment let's look at who was next to david cameron when he went to egypt after the revolution it was his friends from be a ysis terms this war is costing britain five million pounds per day it's costing the british taxpayer five million pounds per day now all of that money is going to be a systems in terms that every weapon that britain uses will of course have to be replaced

so in the terms of britain having that role that's what that's about also in terms of it being within their interests for it to be destabilized is if you have a imperial presence in libya and also you know it's really are involved in this as well and you know you can just ask the libyans about the history of its early in the region the french are involved we can our jury and about the history of the french in the region we can ask you about the history of the british the libyans also know about the british they used to have a military base there but in terms of keeping. avoiding the possibility of there being three. countries that have genuine revolutions genuine uprisings and then being able to unite i think that is something which the imperial powers don't really want to see three years anger of the world in some ways that this is simply about propping up in military industrial complex well definitely of

course we have to also question why there is complete hypocrisy when it comes to places like buckley and in saudi arabia and then we have to look at. really who created and nurtured the political elites that rule in these places why are saudi arabia. the u.a.e. and britain supporting supporting quote unquote democracy activists in libya but fighting against democracy activists in saudi arabia doesn't really make sense loki on a personal note i guess i want to ask you to speak for your generation and for others like you you know second or third generation generation muslims living in the west you seem and you have seen for many months angry about what's going on do you think that this is the sentiment shared you know by your peers by people like you. i think it's important to also understand that one side of my family is

english you know i had. a great aunt on one side of my family who was married to a man in the military that lived on the british military base in libya as a human being i don't believe it is right for britain or any other country in the world to have any type of military base in libya and believe me if these powers get their way when all is said and done there will be a foreign military base again in libya and i don't believe that is acceptable i don't expect any human being should be asked to accept that and i also feel that if britain is interested in defending itself against terrorism this is really not the way to go about it involving itself in a war which it doesn't need to be involved in the fact that david cameron himself since. in november two thousand and ten really tells you all you need to

know about the hope ocracy of the british government when it comes to libya certainly i would imagine where you are in london as here you know in the united states in washington d.c. in particular a lot of very that drastic opinions are strong opinions going on here from the people about what's happening now is rapper loci have partially we're out of time lucky joining us from london england. and here's a day in washington defending the mission in libya secretary of defense robert gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen testified before congress well for the first time since the u.s. started its involvement in libya ours is killing for it has more on the model of nature of the mission and the anger that's spring for some lawmakers. twelve days into the u.s. bombing of libya. u.s. congressman we're hoping to finally get some answers but after two hours of questioning the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff they

were still confusion about the u.s. is ending and i think a policy success would be the removal of. the cut off the regime the military mission is a limited one and does not include regime change. who the rebels are we don't have much visibility into into those who have risen against each element has its own agenda. it's very much a pickup ball game at this point and whether the u.s. will arm them discuss our plans if you know regarding arming the rebels they seem to be getting better but swept but gates and mullen passed the buck on that one differing to the white house but it was a cater to the muscle and the story would clearly have a problem about how long the u.s. will stay the bottom line is no one can predict for you how long it will take. for that to happen and whether the u.s. is that war at all these are combat operations were intended to be combat outbursts

from the beginning i don't know why this administration has not been on this with the american people that this is about regime change what is clear the cost five hundred fifty million dollars in the first ten days alone and the estimated forty million dollars a month but not how it will be paid in terms of how to pay for this. there is a. we are in the discussions with the white house may be very difficult for the department came eat this cost tough talk from the house over president obama's unilateral decision we don't understand what he's doing still. and i don't think he has a son for this congress the briefing of the armed services committee there wasn't one but your circular stance you ought to be an expert on what's an act of war of war or not gates told congress the president actually did not make his final decision on what to do until thursday night less than forty eight hours before the

first two hundred tomahawk missiles were fired it's mullen repeated over and over again there would be no american ground troops there will be no american boots on the ground in libya who is the person on the ground that is directing close air support missions against gadhafi forces there's no one on the ground the recent press reports at least indicate there are cia operatives on the ground so boots on the ground as i would define it and if other sending troops i guess is we'd all read about it in the newspapers the same time i see that's my concern is that we read about things in the newspaper and then we get to come and ask the questions he has formally handed control to nato today and you know operation odyssey dawn and beginning operation unified protector but newspapers quoting vatican sources said that forty civilians were killed in coalition air strikes guaranteeing that there will be plenty of more questions for it's hard american military brass here in washington for an artsy washington d.c.

so we've just gotten tough questions posed by members of congress and they do feel they've been left out in the cold when it came to making the decision to get involved in libya in the first place so how will that testimony shape what happens next the dip or shot of the director of international studies trinity college he joins us now from hartford connecticut hey how you doing hey every day you know on capitol hill today we just saw gates and mullen defending the action but also pretty brutally honest in what is not known do you think there's a clear strategy outlined when it comes to libya if not you know in their testimony then at least inside the oval office. well it's curious to me that they say they don't know anything that's happening on the ground largely because the united states has a very close friend who is running the military operation all the been the rebels from the early nineteenth. to late february two thousand and one.

lived in budget vienna virginia which is a suburb of washington d.c. and seven miles away from langley virginia. the calipari was an important figure in the movement against gadhafi called the libyan. uprising in one thousand nine hundred six which was put down and he made ecumenically i arrived back in bin body just before the opening of the military offensive in late february early march and is a crucial member of the military brass of the band so it strikes me as rather odd that secretary gates can go to the house i'm stuck with his committee and say we don't have by the on the ground is on the ground surely they must be in touch with. anybody who i mean amazingly left the battlefield of chad early night and was able to relocate to vienna virginia so certainly they must know more than

the services committee let me that you're talking about one person here i mean it's hard for one person to speak for others and maybe giving a little background to speak for the entire group of rebels and exactly who they are and i think you know secretary gates has been this business for thirty years i think you served for dinner eight presidents. some are skeptical and maybe realistic about what's going on kind of like i don't know you know how the sounds i want to get your take on this role both public and private as far as live concerned . yes certainly secretary gates from the beginning which is to say from mid february has warned that any action against libya is going to end badly in fact he was very much opposed in public to the making of the no fly zone because he knows what it's going to do secondly secretary gates is well aware that even if they're

on the ground they're up in the air which is to say that the united states is using a c one thirty aircraft and eight hundred two aircraft both of which are not intended to patrol the skies but which are able to have one platform teach him how global ground and fired it another was intended to be battlefield aerial vehicles so if that alone on the ground it up in the air take a guess is that the united states is on one side of the of a civil war and that this is going to end badly i can feel for him but on the other hand he's trapped by a policy he has to in effect i think a way that when we talk about boots on the ground and even sontarans peace one of the lawmakers speaking about. officers are on the ground that could also make on this on the ground i want to get real quick on the talk about whether or not the rebels a lot of people asking the question who are these rebels anyway your prediction on

what happens in the weeks to come whether it's clear that the rebels are going to need to be but certainly since the nineteen seventy s or seventy six in my view is that the that the regime has stopped the forces of eastern libya particularly because it's a hard bit of rebellion and has been so for a while so whatever they have they're not going to last forever so if this thing was to continue in the west since it has become what it says on the side of the rebels at some point be forced which is why in that u.n. resolution one hundred seventy three. there is a clause which be americans inserted which says that all necessary measures can be used not made standing un resolution one thousand seven b. un resolution one hundred seventy says no arms must be sold but that would not withstanding is crucial it means that the united states is always been planning to supply the rebels with talk of deadness escalated and i think this is already so i

think that people have begun to consider seriously. director of international studies at trinity college and as washington considers arming the rebels and broadening the military mission is it ready for the potential blowback artie's guy and it's a context a look at the ghost of wars past the international community permitted intervention in libya to protect civilians from colonel qaddafi but washington wants to go further than that and is considering arming the rebels while officially denying that toppling khadafi is the objective of its involvement in libya but broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake president obama has reportedly signed a secret order authorizing covert american support for rebel forces seeking to oust the lead in leader critics of the u.s. taking sides in a civil war war of the consequences we help accelerate the chaos. and in

creating more chaos we're to we think somehow we're going to be able to direct the outcome it's the same hubris that has visited the united states and iraq the same hubris that keeps us opinion in afghanistan causes us to believe that somehow we are going to wreck. any outcome in libya we cannot do that nor do we have the right to determine who the leader of libya should be many fear radical forces could keep it advantage of the chaos in libya former jihadists know my benoît men who renounces all kind of feeling asian in two thousand says he has to mates one thousand jihadists are among the rebels in libya one lady and rebel commander has openly admitted his fighters have links other reports say terrorists seized libyan surface to air missiles when arsenals were looted nato intelligence reports claim flickers of al qaida and hezbollah have been found among the rebels

in libya but maintained there is no reason to believe their presence is significant but the u.s. military study three years ago said lidia's made up the second largest group of jihadists in the war right after saudi arabia all of that seems to be discarded as the u.s. is trying to prop up the opposition in libya as some analysts say in an attempt to forge a relationship with them that would be favorable for the united states in the future but experts say as of now the opposition in libya hardly has a defined face or power so these people. will not be able to take control over the situation as soon as the current regime. goes off and that means that somebody else will be. tempted to take over the country and you know the. will organize. liberal force in the region not in the country but in the region is unfortunately some say arming the rebels could

backfire we've been in a situation in afghanistan one day we help people and the next day they shoot at us if we are cautious about military intervention so blowback her charm was drawn. famously about is sure to happen in libya in afghanistan back in the eighty's the u.s. had a narrow goal to help the mujahideen fight soviet troops subsequently the same militants turned their weapons and training against the u.s. among those of them was osama bin ladin whose group eventual evolved into al qaida beenz chemistry cia and alice is an operations chief in the 1980's says back then the us didn't see the dangers of arming afghan militants. and what we've seen were tribal so. you know so. leaving.

some reconstruction because well over two decades after arming the afghan mujahedeen america is now considering giving weapons to another rebel band with an unclear identity simply because of who they're fighting against going to check on r.t. washington d.c. and you know these historic connections exist on many levels but what can we learn from them and to what extent could history be repeating itself earlier i spoke to philip giraldi a former officer with the cia he's only why he thinks the u.s. is falling into the same pattern of mistakes as it did in afghanistan and why libya is so interested in the first place. they always say that history doesn't repeat itself but it tells you certain things and i think that what we're seeing here is essentially we're falling into the same mistakes that we fell into in afghanistan and i've fallen into it in other places which is essentially we're in a situation where we don't really know what we're arming and we have people that

are claiming to be rebels against gadhafi are claiming to be supporters of democracy and and claiming various things but the fact is we don't really know a lot about these people what they would wind up doing with weapons that we would give them so there is a there is a very strong possibility that we will see some repeat of history the government should learn from its experiences and its experiences in terms of of intervening militarily or power militarily to make it a lower profile intervention they don't turn out very well and this is this is really the problem with this sort of thing if if these things were as surgical and as quick as they were always promoted to be in the beginning i guess most people would support them especially if it's a bad guy like a dolphin or a saddam hussein but they don't turn out that way the interest is not to be intervening that's for sure the interest in libya if you look at syria's national interests for the united states is libya is an energy producer whoever is in charge

in libya will have to sell energy so that's ok it doesn't matter who the government is and the and the other thing is you know the basically libya cannot become a base for terrorism but libya was not a base for terrorism under under gadhafi so now the question is there's no national interest really here libya was not a base for terrorism under gadhafi at all i mean he said not recently not since he had a long history of not said things are out of the cold yeah exactly but but in recent history gadhafi i stopped at a supporter of terrorism as far as anyone knows but the thing is that you know this is i think what what the president said on tuesday night is basically a humanitarian a nation building a democracy promotion. move on to. part of the u.s. government and i find it very difficult to support as a national interest and that was former cia officer philip giraldi. well it's not just what's happening in libya or what's happened in tunisia in egypt remember we just had a huge earthquake and nuclear meltdown in japan and all of this is overwhelmed news

channels with a tsunami of costs after years of cutting back on bureaus and correspondents overseas but the networks are being reminded once again the benefit of real boots on the ground news coverage but it does cost a lot more than armchair political punditry artie's honest on a sunday at church you know breaks it down. parts of a protest and news pundits are teleporting to almost the speed of light from the safety of their news desks to faraway and dangerous places sirens are now going off led by their journalistic colleagues and with big bucks to be made and spent egypt tunisia libya you know the world us japan in a tremor after naani and earthquakes i want to err on the side of caution for you here disasters exploding around the world one after the other these past months one could all great news records my guess is that you're ok forcing us networks to

cough up the cash the news organizations are crying because they're saying that the spending their entire budget is gone by march their whole annual budget for covering emergencies and crises with the latest. reports suggest big t.v. networks have been spending as much as two million dollars on each of the middle east uprisings for one network is said to have spent an entire one number half million dollars in just one day in japan so all this money is ripping away at their annual budgets it's certainly not ripping away at the pockets of the star pundits when you talk about someone like katie couric who for five years reportedly received fifteen million dollars a year you talk about brian williams ten million dollars a year and some reports now if they didn't take those it enormous salaries you could hire a hundred one hundred fifty actual reporter producer but instead most networks have

been shutting down foreign bureaus and kicking out hundreds of journalists many of whom were on the ground and actually in the know a.b.c. news alone twenty five percent of their entire new staff last year begging the question whether the superstars are actually worth more than hundreds of their colleagues and putting a toll. the information their viewers end up receiving there is no doubt that in general the quality of any one news organization is lower than it was thirty years ago with a shadow officially cast on what was once top notch news coverage to pay the enormous salaries to the stars who don't know a lot about the middle east they're not experts on nuclear power they don't speak arabic but there they are chatting over to these countries it's a little silly then we didn't is standing by getting filled in on events in an unknown land forces networks to play catch up at top speed but often unsuccessfully

as far as libya goes you know we're hearing all this talk about the rebels nobody has really told me who these rebels are they don't seem to know though c.n.n. got to enjoy the highest reading since obama's inauguration after several months are dying viewership box for one has been caught cheating yet again police think she egg man a local nightclub on one map with japan's nuclear reactors as well as going so far as to call new york's times square where the lion king ad kairos to rere square and its news coverage in fear of being out competed by others t.v. networks have to be there or be square the wrong square that is and while this method certainly cvs a buck or two it can cover up the fact that crews check in for disaster jet back when the worst is over leaving viewers in the dark about what leads up to and what happens after the chaos and the seizure of. new york. you know sometimes that's the

most important part of the story how it ends but without the drama and the pictures it does cost ineffective for some of these networks to stay any longer than they do and as we just saw it's not just the cost of traveling expenses keeping veteran anchors on board with multimillion dollar contract is indeed going to make it so others will get pushed overboard so how does this change the media landscape for the future and what happens with these media outlets whose budgets have already run dry earlier i pose those questions to danny schechter a filmmaker and longer with news that's actor dot org. they have to develop stringers citizen journalism social media they have to use other outlets than the ones they've traditionally used and also partner with local networks i mean al-jazeera is covering you know every day but you see al-jazeera on american television anywhere no you know we need to find a way to work with colleagues in other countries some networks have been doing that

a little bit with japan's in h.k. there covering the crisis there the calamity of their own people in a really moving manner so there are ways to do it put if you just stick to the same old protocols the same old rituals of news coverage you quickly not only run out of money but you run out of ideas what about this notion danny a painting is better and host these huge amount of amounts of money you know on one hand people like to see faces that they recognize faces that have been in the business for a long time that they trust but on the other hand i mean we're starting to think i mean c.b.s. news is a great example a lot of other people being laid off because they just can't afford to have the manpower on top about this third of balance of power well it was reported today for example that katie couric is not signing up again as a news anchor and they're doing c.b.s. probably will be distributing a new talk show that she will be doing in

a post oprah environment so she's going to be sort of cashing in by going in another direction maybe staying on sixty minutes but there will be a news new news anchor at c.b.s. the anchors are there really to brand the newscast so they can get in more revenue and more higher ratings that's their function they've done a good job at that but what gets lost in the mix is the is the more probing and challenging coverage. certainly something to think about that was any shocker filmmaker and blogger at newsday sector dot org and that's going to do it for now for more on the stories we covered go to our t.v. dot com slash usa or you tube dot com slash r t america i'm christine purcell and what drives the world the fear mongering used by politicians who makes decisions to break through get through because it made who can you trust no one.