Gaddafi’s rantings

Blames JFK assassination on Israel.
Is he looking for a new job speaking at Tea Parties or chairing the RNC?

Apparently the Libyan crackpot is giving an even-more-deranged-than-usual speech to the U.N. He wants the JFK assassination investigation re-opened; he thinks that the “Israeli” Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald after Oswald killed Kennedy in order to prevent the U.S. from probing into Israel’s nuclear-weapons program.

Some may dismiss this as mere political theater, but political theater often has a point. I think he’s tired of life in Tripoli and hoping to make a new career speaking at Tea Parties or perhaps chairing the Republican National Committee. No word yet about whether he mentioned “death panels.”

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

10 thoughts on “Gaddafi’s rantings”

  1. Or, perhaps — just perhaps — his objective was simply to keep talking and throw off the carefully calculated schedule. It has already resulted in rescheduling of Gordon Brown's address… and given the recent "dealings" between Libya and the UK, that's definitely to Uncle Mo's advantage.

    Far be it from me to be cynical about these things. Or have any appreciation for culture-specific "what's in it for me" motivations.

  2. It's pretty standard for Qaddafi to go to these types of international meetings and make all kinds of outlandish claims and proposals. He does it at the Arab League meetings all the time.

  3. Apparently he referred to Pres. Obama as a "son" of Africa. Wanna guess who will take him at his word as if it were Gospel?

  4. Unable to temper his visceral hatred for all things Republican, Kleiman defies all fact or reason when he suggests that Gaddafi is one of them. To test this opinion answer the following Q. Who said or is more likely to say the following: "We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as the president?" 1. Kleiman; 2.Gaddafi; 3. [pick your favorite left-wingnut].

  5. Joel, there's a grain of truth in your complaint; I was about to post a remark to the effect that it was a bit unfair to drag the RNC into this. However while Mark's humor in this instance is a bit flat-footed, it should be clear that he was being sarcastic, if a little bitter for my taste (probably his as well). It's upsetting to listen to right-wing maniacs question the patriotism of the President of the United States or of liberal Americans generally and I suppose that got the better of him for a moment.

    The comparison with "tea baggers" doesn't on the other hand strike me as unfair because many of them are into nutty conspiracies that would seem right at home in Qaddafi's brain. Admittedly they don't think of themselves as enemies of our nation — although they do many of them seem to think of themselves as enemies of the legal entity that constitutes the nation and is called the United States. In their minds there's a distinction; under the current circumstances — duly elected government under our laws operating for the most part well within the parameters of the Constitution (better in that regard than the previous administration for example) — that strikes me as questionable.

    And your own sarcastic question misses the Mark entirely.

  6. I would be more inclined to agree with Larry's opinion that Mark's sarcasm was in bad taste if the RNC had actually done something to distinguish itself from the right wing nut jobs. Unfortunately, the party as a whole has hardly done anything to quell any of the ridiculous rumors swirling around the proposed legislation. I really want to respect the GOP, I think they could offer some valuable things. But as it is the party allows itself to be controlled by the fear of losing support amongst the most extreme portions of their constituency. It is especially difficult to take Republicans seriously on the healthcare issue. I can't for the life of me understand why Republicans weren't pushing for any of their fabulous alternative ideas for reforming healthcare during Bush II's administration when they actually had a majority on Capitol Hill. Or rather, I think I can understand why–because they had no obvious personal incentive as individuals and as a party to actually do anything.

  7. There's something else to consider re the Qaddafi/GOP analogy.

    If Glenn Beck–or anyone else on the right of American politics–had made this same speech, word for word, the mainstream media in this country would not have dismissed it as a rant. Rather, they would have insisted that Democrats appear on Sunday Morning political talk shows to answer the charges, and those charges would have been allowed to set the agenda for the next three or four news cycles. Any attempt to explain the facts underlying the arguments would have been presented in "he said, she said" format, with the original charges given at least as much weight as the refutation.

    How do we know this? Because nothing in Qaddafi's speech was remotely as paranoid or delusional as the kind of crap that spews out of the mouths of Beck and Limbaugh and Bachmann and Palin on a daily basis.

  8. Joel, I *wish* that Mark's comparison of Gaddafi to the RNC were over the top and unfair. Oh, how I long for that day! For the next generation or so, however, you and I are out of luck, and stuck with just one sane national party.

    The NRSC recently sent a mailing asking people if they were concerned that ObamaCare could lead to a "lottery system", or a "quota system on the basis of race and age". That's a lot worse than crazy tinfoil-hat rambling, it's actively deceptive.

    By the way, have you listened to RNC chairman Michael Steele lately? He's almost as coherent as Gaddafi.

  9. If one examines Gaddafi's "serious positions," such as Pan-Islamic Socialism, his one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reparations by Europe to African states, and as Nick Robinson, Political Editor of the BBC remarked, Gaddafi's "passionate plea for the rights of smaller nations and … attack on the dominance of the UN by the big nuclear states," Gaddafi is looking less and less like a fellow traveler of John McCain (and certainly not Ronald Regan), but more and more someone other than a "right"-wing nut job, which is why Kleiman chose only Gaddafi's crack pot views-to make ad-hominem attacks on Tea-Baggers, the RNC and all things Republican. As Kleiman fashions himself somewhat of a political strategist, perhaps he was attempting a preemptive strike. The problem is that Gaddafi's crack-pot views are crack-pot to the vast majority of persons who fit within the RNC, DNC or "Tea-Baggers" sets.

    The bottom-line is that if the Reality Based Community wants to be taken seriously, issues and positions on issues must be discussed or argued honestly based on facts and reasoned positions. Ad-hominem attacks on groups of individuals should not be tolerated.

Comments are closed.