welcome to the lot of the real headlines with none of the mercy we live in washington d.c. now tonight we're going to talk about the death of bull market off and how easy it is to go from friend to flow of the u.s. and what does our war in libya really say about our current foreign policy especially taking into account obama's decision to send troops to uganda are the two comparable one better than the other one gene healy is going to join us for that and it's fair and will talk to us about occupy wall street and the attempts to vilify or co-opt the movement by both the right and the left in figures on campaign donations by wall street he was a perfect example of why this should not be split along party lines but all that for you tonight and more including details of happy hour but first let's take a look with mainstream media has decided to miss.

so this morning we all woke up to the breaking news that after months of heavy fighting supported fighting the new libyan government was saying that moammar gadhafi had been killed breaking news out of libya reports. he is dead but libyan fighters say they have defeated the last forces loyal to moammar gadhafi one says that gadhafi died in a trench in his hometown of sirte killed by gunfire one describing it was hiding in a hole another claiming that he was taken out by a needle forty two years ago taylor seemingly ended just hours ago mary mitchell is being circulated reported to me moammar gadhafi in tripoli and. what appears to be the end of this is a huge day for the rebel forces the revolutionary forces in libya. now initially of course the reports were still unconfirmed so we saw the media take

it slow remain slightly skeptical until confirmation came out but that skepticism of course was restricted to whether it was true he was dead or not it wasn't skepticism as to ask you why nato would still be in striking convoys in search of the original mission as authorized by the un resolution was to protect civilians not to try and take it off the out not asking if this was truly regime change it was brought about by the people of the country themselves or whether it was nato enforced not asking why it is just a few years ago we had centers and u.s. officials shaking hands looking cozy with gadhafi and why he suddenly became a target now we're going to get into all of those questions in just a minute and we speak to robert farley but i think the limit things that i found most disturbing in the coverage this morning of the announcement of gadhafi is death was the immediate smugness that followed the media apologies for unlawful acts that kate and let's not forget right president obama did not ask congress before he got the u.s. involved in a war in libya he decided to go but there has actors have suddenly the u.s.

listens to the u.n. rather than runs it of course but that's a tangent so here you had a really truly gross overreach of executive power and it deserved to be called out and at the time we saw a number of lawmakers voice their opposition and their concern people like congressman dennis kucinich who came on the show to talk about it but the mainstream media. not so much for some reason they're not as bothered as the rest of us about the constitution being trampled on over and over again so i guess i should have expected the following question today coming from chuck time. there was a lot of. hand-wringing on capitol hill when president obama unilaterally decided to do this not asking for. congressional approval but to participate in the nato operation. inside. congress. giving the president more thought or frankly deferred rather than publicly

creating a little bit of a political issue about it. you know i really hope the child was stuttering so much right there because he realized as the words were coming out of his mouth would be sounded ridiculous this is the problem with our political system with our power worshipping establishment media the president decides to unilaterally get the country involved in a war one where the subject it was supposed to be the object it was he was supposed to be just a humanitarian intervention not regime change but when all those rules are broken and the bad guy being killed and all's forgiven it was totally worth it it was more than just a little political thing chuck it was a move that was unconstitutional there was an abuse of executive power they deserved to be criticized so whatever members of congress want to say about it right now and i'm sure that we're going hear nothing but praise thrilled responses to get off of being out that doesn't change the fact that the way of this operation came about was and still is an outrage because it goes against what this president promised in terms of what kind of

a leader he would be it goes against the constitution the rule of law the justice that we supposedly hold so dear and it just sets another bad precedent for everyone to follow in these footsteps and expand on them in the future but the mainstream media they care about that is all you know that's what they choose to miss. out throughout the day details on just how it is the market off he was killed after more than forty years of rule in libya have been pouring out and at this point the official statements say that a u.s. drone acquired hellfire missiles on a convoy in sirte but obvious self was said to have been found in a drainage pipe and exactly how he died still a bit of a mystery was it from gunshot wounds in a firefight that he bleed to death in an ambulance or was he executed by his captors and the following video that's been playing all day she. what looks like a wounded but alive get off me being wrangled by rebels leading many to believe

that the third option is probably the most probable. the. the. was the. was the. it's not a my coffee is gone let's take a look at how we got to this point how i went from being friend of america so quickly and one message that sends to her leaders in north africa and the middle east joining me to discuss this is robert farley system professor at the university of kentucky and blogger at lawyers guns and money robert i want to thank you so much for joining us tonight and you know i think there are most people in the u.s. right now don't think that we can probably find any official that's going to say they're not happy that gadhafi is gone but we have to go back and realize that that wasn't the point of this operation of this humanitarian intervention we weren't supposed to take a copy out and so then when you start thinking about it and the events that

transpired today if this was supposed to be about saving civilians why a lie on earth are we still having drones that are firing hellfire missiles in sirte. right oh i mean i think you're absolutely right that the original mission was intended it's going to go see. it's not near benghazi and there seems to be no indication that he really was people were about to attack civilians at the time and so i don't really understand that american drone was involved also in french jets but it's pretty obvious that. either the intention from the first point was to engage in regime change or the mission shifted to regime change or some point during the war. for the word war to intervention it would make so much more sense in this context. but they're yeah i mean we decided at some point that it was simple you're going to be our goal to be rather than to protect civilians because the original united nations which the united nations security council a great kid. i'm sadly with you there that war is

a much more adequate term but it's so much about the rhetoric right and the way that at the presidents that western nations have really tried to approach this humanitarian intervention slash really war and so i want to play you a little clip of what the president said today where after reading the reports of broken think listen. one year ago the notion of a free libya seemed impossible but then the libyan people rose up and demanded their rights and when gadhafi and his forces started drawing city to city. to my town it's a brutalized men women and children the world refused to stand idly by. and so we've heard that refused to stand idly by statement said before by the president actually he got a lot of flak for in the past and i think rightly so because there's just a little bit of hypocrisy you think about what's been going on in bahrain in yemen in syria why is he still using that term. where you just point us just further and

he wants to just for what is in his version is done and he wants to talk about it in the best possible terms and it's interesting how you talk about all the political actors in the united states right now are essentially congratulating the president and i think. president obama wants to. knowledge all of that and wants but i hold in the best light and so we don't necessarily think we're going to libya but we want to sort of constitutionality we didn't really think what was going to come next and that's sort of the biggest question which is what is the rest of the libyan war going to look like and it's not we're not over quite yet. but we want to return to the reasons that we engaged in the war focused on those are million affectively said mission accomplished which is so of course something very similar to what president bush said in terms of iraq. eight years ago. well how long do you think the president obama said today that i mean very soon the war in libya is going to be wrapping up but realistically what does that person mean because initially they told us that we're only going to be there for

a few weeks as well and what they've got. right i mean we all sincerely hope that the president is correct and that all of the lesser credits and that the war will run that there won't be a long term uncertainty that the engine see the rebel coalition will come together that they won't be fighting between themselves it's just hard for a lot of us to believe that and all of that is going to the united states and nato in general into a very severe find when different parts of the rebel coalition struck and against one another or when the rebels spent five or six years trying to hunt down guerrillas in the living hinterlands nato isn't necessarily well prepared to think so i think forward in those terms but i don't think that the president asked for the american people to think for those troops either. now i want to ask you if we could i guess go back through a little bit of history of look at the u.s. relationship with. how did everything change so quickly because of course for a long time he was the pariah that we started seeing the bush administration because you have to we had senator john mccain and senator joe lieberman there just

two years ago in two thousand and nine shaking hands talking about you know possible deals and then suddenly once a arab spring erupts it was so easy to to then go turn against him and like you have been discussing not necessarily for humanitarian intervention but regime change by such a quick switch but i think people in washington thought it was both a problem or an opportunity simultaneously because even though there have been a lot of positive elements for the relationship with gadhafi over the past five or six years there were still a lot of people in washington from long memories memories that went back from actually eighty's and witchcraft here in the village. and so what the arab spring did was it offered an opportunity for some of those people to argue well this is a this is a situation in which we can really get rid of you no matter how friendly you spend your sort of six years that he remains a fundamental. but i think it was also a problem in terms of the united states having developed this positive relationship

and then being embarrassed by what it off he was doing to his people i think this is even a bigger problem in europe where italy the united kingdom and france are developing relatively close relationships with libya but they all sort of went back on disagreements as well and therefore to throw. but is it that moammar gadhafi really changed or just the way that we looked at him change and i'm just wondering what kind of message this sends to perhaps other leaders out there and middle east in northern africa if you look at that office history and you look at the fact that about for twenty years he defied the u.s. and had nothing to do with them and he held on to power there and it was once they decided to start working together open up oil reserves get rid of weapons then he made himself very vulnerable and somebody they could turn against that is a send a message is to just don't ever cooperate don't ever give up your weapons oh i think it sends a message that the united states and the western alliance more generally are fickle friends but they are friends who are necessarily going to stick with you for the

long haul as it were that's that's what's good about going i mean it's a good thing in terms of leaders not believing that you can do horrible things for people but it's also about their you know in terms of leaders in these countries moral authority and sometimes a little more democratic sometimes a lot more authoritarian being skeptical of cooperating with the united states skeptical about giving up their nuclear weapons or other weapons stockpiles in the future but there are a lot of leaders who are going to say try this before they keep promises from united states and take promises from the other nato countries very seriously and i definitely think that that makes sense and so if you had to have a guess here robert in terms of the asking how long do you think that we might stay but what do you think the situation is going to look like and how my it play out in libya at least in the near future. well you know and i hope that everything works out ok a democratic election i hope that there is peace in libya i'm really skeptical i

mean i see fighting between different elements of the rebel coalition and i see an insurgency an insurgency that still supports gadhafi i see your potential for al qaeda becoming part of the insurgency for making inroads into the insurgency into chaos and so i don't think that the libyan war is over by me by any means i think this is just the beginning of the american war i robert and i thank you so much for joining us tonight if you now coming up and coming up after the break seems they will ask this about anybody for their support when it comes to the company's proposed merger with you know to just wait until you hear we are going to now for help and left fox tried to leave uganda neither are in our national interest so how does that say about obama's foreign policy style. the beliefs of the left in it.

what. nobody seems to know. it will persuade. the argument that they're being overly dramatic. story and seeing so whole. other part of it and realize that everything. is a big. book

. now it comes to getting things done there is nobody better than corporations are

doing it because they'll do just about anything to get what they want and so eighteen t. is no different here in eighty initially announced its proposed thirty nine billion dollars merger with t. mobile they have lobbyists go to every inch of america to make sure that their plan would go off without hitch and that with more obvious people like the department of justice for a series of sessions discussing our proposal although all of that came to a halt when the d.o.j. slapped an anti-trust suit on the deal out of the blue of the government was the only sector where they were trying to gather support the eighteen c. got edible a.c.p. to back the merger and they're notorious for finding ways to get groups other groups to support it of all shapes and sizes across the country hispanic groups cattle farmers even hot air balloon companies are sending letters to the f.c.c. explaining why this merger would be beneficial and trust me some of the reasons are get very creative that we should know the head of the telecoms lobbying group is also the head of their corporate foundation the division that hands out small grants so sensible process they have going on there right now it seems you want

this merger so badly that they even found sappy ways of appealing to the american people making this for marshall explaining how to deal with t. mobile of bring thousands of jobs back to america. from. the. stimulation the exploding. if we. can. that's right there is nothing better than sucking on america's heartstrings for the sake of creating a monopoly i think it's far fair to say that the telecom has reached a new low after reports came out that they're turning to homeless shelters to back up this merger with the mobil to the shreveport rescue mission out of louisiana has agreed to show support for the telecom mega merger on a local level and. appeals to the f.c.c. all of this in exchange for fifty thousand dollars so as you can imagine eighteen

teeth came under fire for that seemingly awkward deal but reverend tied to the rescue mission showed a support for the merger he said people often call on god to help the outcast and downtrodden that walk among us but sometimes however it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands please support this merger so you get that now god wants this merger to happen eighty and t. is just being plain old ridiculous in fact as word spreads about what's being done to their fake grassroots effort the telecom is losing credibility by the day and reaching out to the homeless asking for them to show their support even write letters i kind of think that's crossing the line there's a reason the d.o.j. put a halt to this effort because it would create higher prices lower quality products and provide fewer choices to the public but i guess eighty is has too much vested in this deal to take no for an answer. now today everyone has shifted in their sessions to the results of the war in libya to moammar gadhafi being killed let's

remember why the u.s. got involved to begin with or at least the official line of so why we got involved which would be humanitarian intervention nothing to do with our own personal self-defense now same goes for the president's announcement last week one hundred u.s. soldiers be heading to uganda to help take on the lord's resistance army and human rights activists have been calling for that intervention for here so you first have to start asking why now and you have to wonder if this is a better or worse use of our military capabilities the massive undertakings for the sake of self-defense or the scots this administration he'll leave us president ikeda institute and columnist at the washington examiner thanks so much for being here tonight. so i just want to get your take first we already had you on booked to come talk about uganda and then what do you know more cannot be is being killed how do you compare these two situations in terms of humanitarian intervention in terms of the arguments that are used to go into to both countries to get us involved or you think they're linked because each piece you seriously emerging obama doctrine

which is very very own feel good humanitarian interventions and the notion seems to be that we get involved in areas where there's no plausible relationship to u.s. national security in fact there's hardly a straight face or going to be neat if there is a plausible relationship to u.s. national security and we kind of show our nobility by doing things we're getting involved in fights where the u.s. has really no stake but i think you could say in libya you know let's face it right our officials have been cozying up to moammar gadhafi for the last couple of years and all of this was done in exchange for the oil fields there being opened up and for our big oil companies to be allowed to go in there so you could say that maybe there's not something in terms of our defense at stake but there's definitely some part of national interest there. so you had secretary of defense robert gates the president's own secretary of defense go on national t.v. and say that the united states had no vital interest in libya while you were in the

middle of bombing libya so that some evidence that there's not much for us to eat and why don't i don't think it's a governmental again right i mean i think you can talk about some of the some of the people that might pull the springs that might have a lot of influence like our government where there's a lot of money involved doesn't necessarily mean it's good for america to go into libya but i think that it might be good for exxon i think it might be good for the for the frame true of more interest there for the british it's not a major supplier of u.s. oil and i generally don't buy these conspiracy theories that say the iraq war was about oil libya was about oil uganda is kind of a little conspiracy theory i think that's a very valid point to bring out if we have to have a certain self-interest i think we do you know it's when my father said if iraq was a war for oil you know where we're you know three dollars a gallon gas why didn't we get any of that well once those are actually opened up and sold ok i think what's going on here there's a huge ideological components of this it's pretty clear that there are many people

in the administration who sincerely believe in the u.n. notion of the responsibility to protect. citizens of other countries when their governments cannot or will not protect them and i think this is part of a piece with that and i think it's a very wrong headed but why is it wrong headed you know i think that first of all i think it's also contradictory because you could say that right now we're going into uganda you could say that supposedly which i just don't believe that we went into libya solely for the purposes of humanitarian intervention to save civilians but at the same time we still have soldiers in iraq we haven't rockets that weren't civilians are still dying there were killing civilians unfortunately that right they get on the crosshairs or maybe back on drone strikes in yemen in pakistan in afghanistan so it's not like those are wonderful adventures from the heart that are saving lives. it is difficult. to make a credible lead true or going to intervening in uganda makes any american any safer

it's really just another case of the us turning into like unicef with predator drones we've got nothing we've got we've got nothing in this fight you most americans can't find you know know very little about this region and could have named the lord's resistance army before last weekend and. why it is contradictory what it does contradict the purposes of us national defense as laid out in the us constitution which the founding fathers were pretty clear about that the us defense establishment exists for the common defense of the united states it's not an agent to go around and do arms community organizing it's not suffice for just making the world better and i think to the extent that we forget about that we're going to perhaps not in this limited intervention but somewhere down the road will find ourselves in a lot more trouble how do you think that already when we start hearing these ideas

or this questions about nation building coming up right if we talk about iraq or if we talk about afghanistan these are actual words that are already in you know doesn't that also come into play or tell me how iraq was part of our national defense at all you know i think they're already in south africa it's about things that were your call them on a massive scale because it's not just one hundred troops like we're sending in to uganda these are wars that we've been in for years or thousands of people have died and trillions have been spent pushing i was against the iraq war from the start but one thing i would say is at least somebody bothered to make up a story that had some plausible relationship to me thing american safe or even the story with those story was completely bogus better to go out ok the stories are no no no real hold or started and i think you would say the difference is these humanitarian interventions on the part of the obama administration if nothing else they can't possibly. benefit us but there are a lot cheaper and less bloody. in iraq and afghanistan so

you know if you want to look on the bright side i did something to prove that it's not something we should be doing and you know that's why i think that you bring in a very interesting point here because this is where you have bipartisan consensus normally is when you start talking about humanitarian interventions and you know these types of stories and i actually want to show you a clip this is ed schultz and jeremy scahill on this is that are going back in september i think right after it announced that at least last bengazi and so here you have a shelter says i am a progressive i'm a liberal but he was defending the president's actions despite the fact that he buys into this congress not yet to the debt because. we have a situation out of bring justice on a terrorist who was killed americans that's why i support this policy that's why i support this move this sounds a lot to me like like oh you north of the iran contra is where you took you make a judgment you sure you could you can feed me any way you want here but you're backing up thousand people at the inside of a very large country and it's if you're taking sides in

a civil war where you're advocating it's going to lead to more american deaths and heterozygous of dollars you don't know what i already call the first president i take president obama's word for it the troops will not be engaged on the ground i take his word for it. so you know what have we can call it responsibility for exactly also do you think that we've seen an uptake in this sort of liberal interventionism you know since since obama came into office definitely yeah i think there's a lot of hypocrisy here on both sides i mean he killed his own people was not a particular was not viewed by liberals as a good argument for taking out saddam hussein but suddenly it's a good argument for taking out moammar gadhafi and joseph koni the man who's the head of the lord's resistance army you know it often is so often there's like a situational constitutionalism where people wind up behind their team but i think what we ought to be thinking about is do we want to use u.s. military power so promiscuously and i think what's behind most of these things i

don't think there's much that we stand to benefit for many of them i think through ideologues ideology is a lot to do with it but i think a lot of it is also like that the infamous quote from madeleine albright to colin powell when he was chairman of the joint chiefs and she said what's the point of having this wonderful army you're always bragging about if we don't get to use it i think people in power want to use it and a lot of times they use it for purposes that had nothing to do with u.s. national security i guess and some ways you can say that that's a little bit of empire play here you can say that's a little bit of military just for a complex of play here because we have this massive beautiful military and somebody fancy tools and machines that so much money has been thrown into and you know somebody has to leave justify using that suffering is to everybody to take a good look at it and you know come back to sanity every now and then gee thanks so much for joining us tonight. i stuck around tonight. and then watched the

mainstream media shifts all of its caucus to libya will continue to bring you the latest on occupy wall street and how president obama has found a way to feel support this movement or this. means that only we would. give up work to be just the sort. i have every right to build what my government would want to know what i think actually. what i would characterize obama care was me a cruise ship that will never get exceptional it's a. good . story and seems so easy if you understand it and you need something else here's some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm trying to get you to.