Obama Authorizes Covert Operations to Aid Libyan Rebels
 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...n-sources-say/


BMT

Shaking my head at the absurdity....

you do realize that it ain't "covert" if it is blasted all over the news media....:rolleyes:

Darn!
Fox is going to have to scrap all those "Rebels been tryin' to toss Gadaffy for three weeks and he ain't doin' nothin'' editiorials.

If a person knows who's doing it.......
 

It ain't "covert".

cov·ert (kvrt, kvrt, k-vûrt)
adj.
1. Not openly practiced, avowed, engaged in, accumulated, or shown: covert military operations; covert funding for the rebels. See Synonyms at secret.
2. Covered or covered over; sheltered.
3. Law Being married and therefore protected by one's husband.
n.
1. A covering or cover.
2.
a. A covered place or shelter; hiding place.
b. Thick underbrush or woodland affording cover for game.
3. Zoology One of the small feathers covering the bases of the longer feathers of a bird's wings or tail.
4. A flock of coots. See Synonyms at flock1.

Used to be real sticklers on the difference between overt, covert and clandestine.

Overt - the guy is sitting at his desk. You kick in his door, go over to his desk, beat the crap out of him, walk over to his safe, torch it open and walk off with his secret plans. He knows you did it.

Covert - The guy gets to his office in the morning, the door is kicked in, his safe torched open and his secret plans are gone. He don't know who did it, thinks it might be you but has no proof.

Clandestine - The guy gets to work and everything looks normal. BUT you sneaked in during the night, picked his safe, photographed everything, put everything back and in order and departed without a trace.

I am completely underwhelmed

So this announcement make these operations overt right?

That can’t be.
It’s only a No Fly Zone.
We are NOT the rebel air force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...01499520110321

Forces not providing air support for rebels-general

WASHINGTON, March 21 (Reuters) - U.S. and coalition military forces enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya are there to protect civilians and not to provide close-air support for opposition forces fighting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday.
U.S. Army General Carter Ham said the military mission in Libya was "very clear" and he was not concerned that the objectives would grow and change in the coming days. He said he had no orders to directly attack the Libyan leader.

While we focus on Libya - I wonder whether that is the main event, or merely a distraction from other things. Perhaps the faux-covert arms are mere political theater.

But who is the intended audience? Us, I suspect. I read that we Americans are now spending 22% of our income on food and fuel, housing is down, and the recovery in terms of employment slow.

Hmm....

I suppose that a whole van load of CIA pasty white guys in dark suits and earplugs wandering around saying "Take me to your leader" attracted some attention so their cover was blown and Fox just reported what every one else in Libya already knew. :D

The POTUS must've been watching Clear and Present Danger last night...but I kinda wish he hadn't fallen asleep during that last thirty minutes. ;)

Richard :munchin

As an old friend once said,"If they ask for volunteers to take one step forward, be sure to take two steps back..."

Was "W" consulted? :munchin

Ahh memories
 

Who among us doesn't recall those "covert types" down south wearing panama shirts (fresh from the samsonite, creases and all) and wearing wing-tips...yeah, covert:cool:

All I see here is planning, hell I'm pretty sure if I had 12 months to poke around the Pentagon I could find a military plan to invade New Zealand!

So their planning on what it would look like to do something, and fox thinks thats a secret file, probablt leaked, cos ever Tom, Dick, and Harry knows we're thinking about it.

S

I just can't believe all the News coverage about CIA Operatives on the ground. Am I the only one who See's how insane this is. At least it took the press a few weeks before they started reporting about boots on the ground in Astan.

I wonder what Director Panetta has to say about his "covert" action getting plastered all over the world media...




You could always chalk this up to "transparency"

:confused: Please explain.

Your right. You just have to know where to look or who to ask (Frank Meeks seems to be the guy).
The Pizza spike Jan 15 1991. http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/gov..._and_pizza.htm

Sorry Dusty, for the off the cuff comment there.


My take on the article is that the Big O is paving the way for arming the rebels if we need to. Is that really particularly surprising? The Pentagon is planning an option. That’s what the Pentagon does, my understanding is that we pretty much have a skeleton contingency plan for invading the Oval Office's private crapper as well as anything else under the sun.

I’m not particularly surprised and I don’t think anyone else is either (i.e. other world governments, or the Qaddafi Regime) that we’re thinking about it. Hell it's in line with the UN resolution parameters.

However plastering it all over the MSM so that the average non-moderate middle-eastern Muslim can read it is not particularly smart I think, they certainly won’t see it as just us planning an option that the UN wants. Afterall we are the all conquering great Satan etc.

Also whenever I see a leak of a “Secret document” IMHO it’s more often then not an intentional leak to send a political message somewhere to someone. I just can't imagine that the most powerful military in history can leak like a siv.

So I read this as the O sending that Nut Bag Q a message,

“Hey chief well get our hands dirty if ya really want us to, up to you son”

I don't think any government in the world let alone the Qaddafi regime was under any illusion that we weren't looking at options. But I agree having it in the papers is a poor decision from a mass PR point of view and most defiantly discussing CIA ops on the ground, that’s a different kettle of fish.

And as the article says something like this was always in the confines of the UN resolution, so…the Pentagons looking at it and the Os allowing them to. Big woop Fox news. But that's news for ya.

Hope that clears it up, thank's for the lane correction Dusty.

S

LMAO off, now that's funny. Sure it wasn't jutst a stag party? :D

S

Well worth the six minutes of your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_...layer_embedded

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

I don't see how he schooled them since they just kind of laughed it off and then gave their last word.

That was breathtaking.
Oh yeah, he schooled them both, and is not likely to be invited back. He’s definitely off message.
Why is CNN so blatantly and unashamedly biased and committed to the success of these uprisings? I have been catching a fair amount of their coverage, which has been consistently pro-rebel. The lead anchor-babe attempts to indict Scheuer for not being a fan of this policy, ie. not a fan of American military support for the uprising. Zero impartiality: she really is merely carrying water for the Obama administration.