Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:43 AM ET, 03/ 8/2011

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* David Obey predicts Walker will be recalled: Quote of the morning, from former Wisconsin Rep. and top labor ally David Obey:

"It is apparent to me that if the Governor does not engage in meaningful compromise, he will be recalled. Because when you go after the jugular, and try to put workers out of business, that is when they will mean business in the way they respond."

* National Dem base remains intensely engaged in Wisconsin fight: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America, who are running that ad featuring ordinary Wisconsinites making the case against Governor Scott Walker, will announce today that they've raised over $530,000 online from 23,700 grassroots donors -- and are expanding their buy for the third time.

It's a sign that the national Dem base's interest in this battle is only intensifying as the national media loses interest.

* Wisconsin Dems remain unified against Walker: Walker suggested at a presser yesterday that some state senate Dems were looking to come home, but 11 of the 14 senators have issued statements demanding Walker compromise with them, suggesting they remain unified in their resolve not to cave.

* Dem leader to Walker: Do what the people of Wisconsin want: Relatedly, the leader of the Wisconsin Senate Dems pushed back hard on Walker's criticism of Dems for remaining on the lam, noting pointedly: "The people of Wisconsin have spoken loudly and clearly" in favor of "reasonable compromise."

This statement, of course, has the benefit of being entirely true.

* Redefining fiscal "seriousness": Lori Montgomery reports on the coming-out of the latest "Gang of Six" in town, a bipartisan group of Senators who are trying to come together behind a package of proposals to reduce the deficit.

Intriguingly, they actually seem to be willing to entertain tax hikes as part of the solution, which means they may be very serious (really). Worth keeping an eye on to see how far that gets and what the details are.

* House GOP to target Obama on rising gas prices: A House GOP aide tells Mike Allen that Republicans will turn up the volume on gas prices by "reminding Americans of all the actions the Obama Administration has taken to block more American energy production that would lower gas prices and create jobs."

* Another battle for labor heats up: Something to watch for: While everyone is watching Wisconsin, labor activists are waging a feverish behind-the-scenes battle to block a measure being quietly pushed by House Republicans that would make it much harder for rail or aviation workers to unionize. This battle could grow increasingly public this week, with a conference call with reporters organized by the Communication Workers of America set for today.

* Pete King's evidence-free show trial: The New York Times has been doing a good job exposing King's planned hearings into the radicalization of Muslims for what they are, and today the paper hits him hard again, noting archly that the only thing that will be missing from his "show trial," set to begin on Thursday, is anything in the way of "empirical facts and expert observation."

* Breaking: Law enforcement to testify at King's show trial! King has repeatedly argued that law enforcement officials complain of a lack of Muslim cooperation with efforts to foil terror plots, but the only law enforcement official on the official list of witnesses set for the hearing will be called by Dems, and he'll make the opposite case.

* House GOP leader cool to King's show trial: John Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, asked for comment on King's hearings, offers only this:

"Chairman King is chairman of the Homeland Security Committe."

Politico notes: "Not exactly a ringing endorsement."

* Health care reform moves forward: While everyone is focusing on lawsuits meant to derail the Affordable Care Act and governors who are making loud noises about not implementing it, Georgia officials are quietly moving foward with efforts to comply with the law and expand coverage to the uninsured.

* Mitt Romney's Gordian Knot, ctd.: Joe Klein absolutely eviscerates Mitt Romney's latest effort to spin the individual mandate in Romneycare as a Tea Party Freedom Solution. Romney has decried "Obamacare" as a "one-size-fits-all federal takeover" that usurps the "power of states," but as Klein points out, this also applies to ... Medicare.

Key takeaway: Romney is now becoming, in the eyes of major pundits, a hapless, undignified and even comic figure.

* Opposition to Walker's proposals remains strong in Wisconsin: Rasmussen polls again, and gets a similar answer: 57 percent oppose Walker's proposal to "weaken the collective bargaining rights" of state employees.

* But Walker's allies are rolling out the big guns: Can it be that the embattled Governor is now enjoying the support of robocalls from ... Joe the Plumber? Game changer!

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | March 8, 2011; 8:43 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, House GOPers, Labor, Morning Plum, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, deficit  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Drive to recall Wisconsin GOP senators gaining steam, Dems say


Not sure if you saw my posts over in the Happy Hour this morning, but I thought these two articles were interesting:

The AP (3/8) reports, "Health insurer Humana Inc. paid Chairman and CEO Michael B. McCallister 6 percent less last year than in 2009, as a decline in option awards outweighed a bump up in the long-standing executive's performance-related bonus. McCallister, 58, received 2010 compensation valued at $6.1 million from the Louisville, Ky., insurer, according to an Associated Press analysis of a proxy statement filed Monday." This figure "included a salary of about $1 million, a performance-related bonus totaling more than $2 million, and options awards valued at $2.5 million, which was down from about $3.4 million in 2009."


Posted by: ashotinthedark | March 8, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

So, Sheriff Lee Baca will, or will not, be offering evidence at Rep. King's show trial? Just trying to get my scorecard ready.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 8, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

I find it a little tone deaf that Obama is out there today talking about education in beantown when he really should address energy.

Obama was focused in his first two years on addressing climate change but since that went down, Obama has addressed what I think is a winning issue which is ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. I think that Obama needs to come up with a plan that is unrelated to climate change but what we can do to get off foreign oil.

Obama needs to focus on that now.

Posted by: maritza1 | March 8, 2011 8:50 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark, do you think that an estranged boyfriend to punches his ex-girlfriend in the stomach and kills an unborn child should be prosecuted for "real" murder?

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 8, 2011 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Again, if Governor Walker is a minor-leaguer and is causing this much grief to the union-loving Obamacrats just think what a real big-league, Republican could do.

I say let the Cheese-heads have their socialism. In a few years, they'll be even more broke and they will have to vote conservative, again.

Maybe next time they'll be serious.

Posted by: battleground51 | March 8, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Wisconsin, under a Democratic Governor, ended up with one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country after Bush destroyed the global economy.

Seven states with no collective bargaining rights, have greater state debts accumulated, than the states where public servants have collective bargaining rights.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

claw- If the unborn child is past the age of viability, yes. Isn't that how most states approach it?

Obviously that Georgia bill is extremely problematic. Do you support such a bill? How would you interpret "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever"?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | March 8, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse


Three headlines in a row. So I guess "King's show trial" is the DNC phrase of choice to describe this thing, then. Very sublte, Greg, very subtle.

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 8, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich addressed one of those Family Values Faith groups in Iowa yesterday.

No reports issued about if all his wives and former mistresses showed up to hear his holiness speak.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Scott C is upset that Greg is picking on the Republicans' Neo-McCarthy, The Peter King.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 9:07 AM | Report abuse

I haven't checked on "viability" lately, but I do support this law, and I imagine the courts would impose a "reasonable woman" standard. I'd rather err on the side of protecting the unborn child. Who's next?

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 8, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Hosni Mubarak was not able to prevent the Egyptian people from staying in the public square, around the clock, but Hosni Walker has now succeeded in preventing the protestors in Madison, Wi from being able to do the same thing, that those Egyptian Protesters were able to do.

The people of Egypt now have far more freedom of assembly, and free expression, than the people of Wisconsin have, under their beady eyed despot; Hosni Walker.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

So if a woman takes cocaine or some other drug, would she be guilty of prenatal murder? How about a preeclamptic woman or a woman with gestational diabetes who is non-compliant with medication and/or diet which leads to a miscarriage?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | March 8, 2011 9:16 AM | Report abuse

No more so than the mother who "accidentally" forgets to feed or leaves her cocaine where her 2-year old gets in it.

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 8, 2011 9:21 AM | Report abuse

What about a spontaneous miscarriage. Can we have Special Prosecuter ,JakeD's Claw, charge God with having punched the woman in the stomach, and killed her fetus, and if found guilty be given the death penalty?

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

If Rasmussen is saying Walker has 57% opposed then the actual figure is probably closer to 70%.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 8, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

ScottC thinks the poor shouldn't vote. QB agrees. They both have a fundamental disagreement with the government's ability to spend money.

God Bless America. A country where you are free to be a disgusting pig filled with hate and loathing for millions of Americans.

Why do Reublicans put corporate profits and special interests over the good of the country? How can they trumpet these ideas to limit Americans' rights and still salute the flag of the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? It is just bizarre.

Posted by: ronnieandrush | March 8, 2011 9:27 AM | Report abuse

No more so than the mother who "accidentally" forgets to feed or leaves her cocaine where her 2-year old gets in it.

Posted by: clawrence12
So once a woman becomes pregnant she is legally obligated to refrain from any action that may endanger the unborn child? Essentially the same standard as is applied to children out of the womb. How do you take an unborn child into protective custody?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | March 8, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans stand on Medicare and Social Security;

No Death Panels for Granny. Instead; let us take away her life supporting benefits, and let us work her to death.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

How about a car accident ... or even better, a car accident where the mother wearing a seat belt saves her life but kills the fetus? Should pregnant women be prohibited from getting in a car? from wearing a seat belt?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | March 8, 2011 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Anybody else getting really funky fonts in the comments section?

There's an important point from the Gang of 6. Tom Coburn mentions that the tax system is crazy. It takes in $1.1T of revenue and doles out $1.6T in breaks and credits. That opens the door for real cuts in tax rates, but broadening the base.

Well said, sir!


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 8, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

@c12: I would rather err on the side of keeping the government out of women's uteruses. How can there be no human involvement in a human pregnancy? Shall we impose nutrition standards on women to that they don't starve themselves into a miscarriage? Arrest and incarcerate them for smoking or drinking? Pregnant women can't ski, play sports, or drive because these activities might result in ending a prgnancy? What about say acupuncture that is rumored to terminate a pregnancy? If there is no scientific proof that it works, can women use it?

I just love the intellectual consistency of "small govt" conservatives that feel that they should control women's bodies.

The concern for the fetus while in the womb is touching, but it apparently doesn't exend to providing prenatal care and once the fetus actually becomes an independent being, its time to balance the budget on the backs of these new beings and cut aid to women and infants. Don't bother spending money to educate them, ensure basic health care (not treatment in an ER, or adequate housing and food.

Posted by: srw3 | March 8, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

ScottC thinks the poor shouldn't vote. QB agrees. They both have a fundamental disagreement with the government's ability to spend money.


These guys don't want a penny taken from anyone's cookie jar to pay fr any benefit for anyone else.

I think it safe to say that redistribution-obsessed Conservative People are kinda like totally f*cked in the head.

Posted by: caothien9 | March 8, 2011 9:47 AM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark, before viability it will of course require taking the woman into protective custody as well. Until we overturn Roe v. Wade, there's nothing more we can do legally. Morally, however, I would argue that once a woman becomes pregnant she is obligated to refrain from any action that unreasonably endangers the unborn child

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 8, 2011 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else having trouble with the site loading correctly?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 8, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

claw- While I obviously disagree with you and can't fathom how your proposals would be enforced, at least you're consistent and honest about your positions. So I do appreciate that. And I apologize in advance for the inevitable insults and name calling that will follow your post.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | March 8, 2011 9:55 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain and srw3, I already said "unreasonable". If a born child dies in a traffic accident, that dies not always result in murder charges ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 8, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else having trouble with the site loading correctly?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 8, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Special Prosecutor; JakeD's Claw would charge every person who has anything to do with The Morning After Pill, with engaging in baby killing, because(As Monty Python sang of) "Every sperm is sacred"

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 10:00 AM | Report abuse

The current oil price spike has nada to do with oil supply.

All speculation as was the spike in 2008. Now the know nothing party will do the bidding of their campaign donors and push for more drilling so we can have oil globs floating up on every beach in Amurka, because oil is beautiful!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | March 8, 2011 10:03 AM | Report abuse


""Shall we impose nutrition standards on women to that they don't starve themselves into a miscarriage?""

Tell them they have to eat fruits and vegtables, and justify it on the grounds of regulating interstate commerce. The failure to buy apples clearly effects interstate commerce, no?

Posted by: ScottC3 | March 8, 2011 10:04 AM | Report abuse

"What else is happening?"

First, looks like bold face is stuck on after this line:

"* Opposition to Walker's proposals remains strong in Wisconsin:"

Second, in light of this headline:

"Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay"

"President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security. The administration also said it will start new military commission trials for detainees there.

The announcements, coming more than two years after Obama vowed in another executive order to close the detention center, all but cements Guantanamo Bay's continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy."

it's worth revisiting Glenn Greenwald from Salon:

"The vindication of Dick Cheney"

"Conservatives would love to bash Obama for being weak on Terrorism so that, in the event of another attack, they can blame him (and Cheney, in last night's interview, left open that possibility by suggesting Obama may suffer from unknown failures). If it were at all possible, they'd be out accusing him of abandoning critical programs that Keep us Safe; that's what they do best. But they cannot with a straight face claim that Obama has abandoned their core approach, so they do the only thing they can do: acknowledge that he has continued and strengthened it and point out that it proves they were right -- and he was wrong -- all along. If Obama has indeed changed his mind over the last two years as a result of all the Secret Scary Things he's seen as President, then I genuinely believe that he and the Democratic Party owe a heartfelt, public apology to Bush, Cheney and the GOP for all the harsh insults they spewed about them for years based on policies that they are now themselves aggressively continuing.

Obama has won the War on Terror debate -- for the American Right. And as Dick Cheney's interview last night demonstrates, they're every bit as appreciative as they should be."

See also Dana Milbank's analysis from this morning about how Obama has adopted not just the substance of Bush's anti-terror policies, but also the methodology of unilateral executive action that he used to condemn.

Posted by: jnc4p | March 8, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

mike: "oil is beautiful!"

That rainbow shimmery sheen it makes on the surface of water is just a sight to behold, isn't it?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | March 8, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Transplant all fetuses from pregnant women, to the bellies of ProBirther Men, since they are the only ones who really want babies to be born. By all means let us treat Women as a suspect class, that can not be trusted to handle their own pregnancies.

I guess it must have been JakeD/Claw's dad,that ended up with stretch marks, from having carried baby Jake to term.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

She would make a great Republican Nominee. If she runs, and my first choice, Palin, does not, then I will work the primaries for Michelle.

Run Michele Run.


"Bachmann Will Wait Until Summer
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) tells CNN she'll decide in "early summer" about running for president.

Said Bachmann: "I think a natural time frame and I think, probably, by about early summer a decision should be made. I think that's kind of a natural time-frame, and so I think a decision will be made by then."

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Happy 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day!

Funny how Google refused to honor the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan though ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | March 8, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

JakeD. Google would have, if Reagan had demonstrated that he could still blow out jst one of those hundred candles.

Women are eternal. Reagan is long gone.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Give me that Right Wing Religion, Give Me That Right Wing Religion.


Roemer Explains His Divorce(s)
Byron York notes how former Lousiana Gov. Buddy Roemer (R), who has been married three times, addressed the subject of his divorces before a religious audience last night.

Said Roemer: "I'm honored to be with you in Iowa in faith and freedom. I've always been a churchgoing Methodist boy, from a cotton field in north Louisiana. After a long period as a divorced man, 12 years, I remarried some 10 years ago. I married the piano player in a church next door to my own. Scarlett. Thank you, Jesus."

He added: "So I now go to First Methodist Church nearly every Sunday. Sit in the balcony and then as the final hymn is sung, I sneak out and go to the chapel on the campus at LSU and sit with my wife and occasionally the piano. Faith and freedom, I'm honored to be invited."


I wonder if Newt, listening to that, muttered to himself: It is like I have an identical twin.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence, who gets so little chance to hold center stage on the Plumline, has suggested that unborn babies are not protected enough. That has some truth to it. Moms to be often are undernourished, do not get enough medical attention, are homeless, and/or are addicts. So, why does the GOP advocate cutting programs that help at risk pregnant moms get medical care and better nutrition? I am all for programs that help moms to find ways to have and keep their babies, but its more than just punitive actions to avoid abortion--its a whole spectrum of aid to have a healthy baby and mom.

Pregnancy only lasts 9 months. That's the most important time to help pregnant moms to have and keep healthy babies.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | March 8, 2011 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Sex-ed classes, and support for the use of contraception would also help young women out.

Contraception Prevents Abortions.

Put it on a bumper sticker.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Rember back when those Baby On Board car signs were all the rage? Every time I saw one of those in a rear window, I decided to cancel my plan to have a car accident with that particular car.

I wonder If JakeD's Claw would be satisfied if we brought back those signs, and instead of putting them on car windows, we installed them on all baby bumps?!

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"Contraception Prevents Abortions.

Put it on a bumper sticker.

Posted by: Liam-still "

haha, I have one of those

Posted by: DDAWD | March 8, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

In the end, the Dem's grassroots monetary efforts don't amount to a hill of beans since--thanks to the Republican Supremes and their Citizens United decision--any of Walker's corporate supporters can cut an easy million dollar check in a heartbeat. The "game" is no longer hard-fought, balanced or fair. The only game changer left in the political equation is the individual vote, and that depends on people showing up to vote and then not voting against their own interests....

Posted by: dozas | March 8, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse


"Obama has addressed what I think is a winning issue which is ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. I think that Obama needs to come up with a plan that is unrelated to climate change but what we can do to get off foreign oil.

Obama needs to focus on that now."

Agreed 100% While intelligent people understand climate change the unending propaganda on the subject has muddied the waters...I do not wish to debate the merits of Climate Change..

However working for energy independence is a "no brainer"..that means everybody should be able to understand it. I realize the 20% without brains who are teabaggers will still suffer from Obama delusion syndrome..but that 20% are largely old dying dinosaurs who will be more worried about the upcoming cuts to their SS and Medicare than anything else.

As you suggest Maritza Obama should FOCUS on energy independence. Who can argue against that concept. It doesn't have the baggage of Climate change but will probably accomplish the same goals anyway.

The R's are so full of shite when they talk about anything related to our oil production as having a real impact on the price of oil. Oil is fungible...all that crude extracted in the gulf of Mexico..minus the sludge that ends up on our beaches and marshes of course...doesn't amount to a minute fraction of daily oil production.

In addition, US has only 2.2% of the world oil reserves and GOM accounts for 19%, so GOM accounts for 0.42% of world reserves.…

That's right lecherous piggie R's..drill baby drill...risk MY beaches for .42% of the world you tea bagging palinista morons get that...

The freaking Gulf of Mexico holds less than ONE PERCENT of the world reserve.

Worse still even when we extract it..BP et al sell it to the highest is a fungible product..and so it's not like the U.S. gets a break on GOM oil tea for brains!!!!!

Now perhaps one of our righties can correct me if I'm mistaken. Do U.S. consumers get a price break on the oil that is extracted from U.S. reserves?

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 8, 2011 11:02 AM | Report abuse

@c12: the reasonable standard is what a judge and/or jury say it is. I am not willing to put women's bodily integrity in the hands of some fundie judge or a bunch of people that might believe the US is a divine and christian nation where the rights of a fetus trumps a woman's right to control her own body.

Posted by: srw3 | March 8, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"Worth keeping an eye on to see how far that gets and what the details are."

but then again:

"None of us have ever voted for a tax increase, and I don't intend to... We can... actually lower rates and at the same time raise revenues."

I'm not gonna hold my breath for this one.

Posted by: mmyotis | March 8, 2011 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Before getting rushed into enforcing a no fly zone over Libya; President Obama should slow down, and reflect on what happened, when we went down that same rabbit hole in the past.

If we start enforcing a no fly zone over all of Libya, what will be the time limit on it, and what will we do, if that time limit has expired, and Qadaffi is still hunkered down, and waging a civil war.

What is our end game supposed to be?

What will we do, if some of our pilots are shot down and captured?

What will we do, when one of our strikes to take out their defense sites, hits the wrong target, and kills some women and children?

How will we deal with oil smugglers and bribes to international players, such as happened in Iraq?

How will we deal with another Blackhawk down incident?

President Obama better be careful about jumping on the tiger's back. It is when we need to dismount, that we will end up getting mauled, once more.

Since Libya has been a big supplier of energy to Italy and other EU nations, then why not let them step to the plate, and enforce the no fly zone?

I would urge President Obama not to get sucked into that mess.

Posted by: Liam-still | March 8, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Republicans seem to be only fixated on protecting a fetus in the womb, yet they could care less about those children systematically "destroyed" by dysfunctional and by emotionally and financially-unprepared parents. By the way, where are the Jobs you promised in the 2010 elections?

Posted by: dozas | March 8, 2011 11:15 AM | Report abuse


"Since Libya has been a big supplier of energy to Italy and other EU nations, then why not let them step to the plate, and enforce the no fly zone?"

Precisely, and they have already begun. I'm surprised Greg and others have missed the story about the six British SAS agents who were captured and just released by the Libyan rebels. The thirst for oil creates some strange bedfellows, but our limey friends have played this card before when they released the villain behind the Lockerbie bombing. The Brits need that oil and they've gladly taken some knee pads from ole Muammar to make sure they keep getting it. They were there "purportedly" to act as liasons.
Again Mr. President FOCUS on energy independence not reacting to GOP yelps about the current price of oil. The GOP represents the "traders" who speculate and have driven the price so high so quickly.

"Six British SAS soldiers landed by helicopter at the dead of night in eastern Libya. They were carrying passports from several countries, guns and explosives. They were detained by rebels. And during two days of negotiations for their release, Britain's ambassador to Libya said they were there to "liaise" the opposition. But a lot of people aren't convinced by this version of events."

The British government was on Sunday facing embarrassment after a secret mission sent to liaise with rebel groups in Libya ended in humiliation with at least eight men, including reportedly six members of the elite Special Air Service (SAS), being captured by the very people they had gone to help.

Libyan opposition figures were reported to be angry over British intervention as they feared that it could be used by the Qadhafi regime as evidence of western interference. Last week, a proposal by Prime Minister David Cameron for military intervention in Libya was shot down by other grounds precisely on the same grounds.

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 8, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

@ruk - You seem to be forgetting about the North Sea reserves. The UK spent much of the last decade exporting oil.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 8, 2011 12:07 PM | Report abuse


Apparently most of that oil is closer to Norway and they make the $$$ not the Brits.

"The historic oil production and consumption data are taken from the 2006 BP statistical review. The historic import and export data (1965 - 2005) are calculated by subtracting the oil consumption from the oil production figures. This shows that the UK became a net exporter during 1980 and the data point to the UK becoming a net importer during 2006."

Posted by: rukidding7 | March 8, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The United Kingdom does quite well out of the North Sea, though the output is declining. I don't think it's reasonable to claim the British were desperate to secure Libyan oil.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 8, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Your Auto Insurer hates this. You can get Car Insurance for even $9 check Clearance Auto Insurance

Posted by: jayneburch9 | March 9, 2011 2:20 AM | Report abuse

Why would Tea Partiers side with billionaires?

I don't get the connection.

Posted by: georgia198305 | March 9, 2011 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company