Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

April 3, 2012

On Libya & Glenn Greenwald: Are the anti-interventionists becoming counter-revolutionaries?

Filed under: Libya — louisproyect @ 9:12 pm

On Libya & Glenn Greenwald: Are the anti-interventionists becoming counter-revolutionaries?

by Clay Claiborne

Anybody that has ever been in an abusive relationship or supported someone in an abusive relationship may find that the period immediately after ending the relationship can be a most dangerous one. This is a truth that it well known to homicide detectives.

Even though I know this, I’d nevertheless curse the advisors that would counsel staying in an abusive relationship because of the hazards that may attend ending it. Likewise, I will call out those ‘left’ anti-interventionists that are now promoting counter-revolution in Libya because for years they harbored certain western ‘left’ mis-conceptions about Mummar Qaddafi.

full article


  1. You’re running this with no commentary? Clay Claiborne is about as tarnished a figure on the left as you could find. He baited radicals out of Occupy LA using their photos. I find this method of argument of this piece suspect on its merits, but even moreso knowing something about the political methodology of the author.

    Comment by John B. Cannon (@johnbcannon) — April 4, 2012 @ 12:03 am

  2. ^- So because he did something you don’t agree with, he’s wrong on Libya? Pretty stupid way of approaching politics. Character assassination is a poor substitute for substantive counter-arguments.

    Comment by Binh — April 4, 2012 @ 1:33 am

  3. JB Cannon. How about you provide some more substantiation of these alleged tarnishments & baiting of erstwhile radicals in OWS. For all we know he was admonishing young cats wearing masks & hoodies that were advocating smashing windows and provoking police?

    Comment by iskraagent — April 4, 2012 @ 2:28 am

  4. John, what photos are you talking about. I know some people at OLA that don’t like my politics, that’s okay. I don’t like theirs. For the readers reference, there are my writings about Occupy LA, which I was involved with before the occupation began:

    My reports on Occupy LA for WikiLeaks Central:
    2011-09-30 Occupy Los Angeles on October 1st!
    2011-10-02 #OccupyLA Day 2
    2011-10-03 #OccupyLA – Day 3
    2011-10-04 #OccupyLA – Day 4
    2011-10-05 #OccupyLA – Day 5
    2011-10-06 #OccupyLA – Day 6
    2011-10-08 #OccupyLA – Day 7
    2011-10-09 #OccupyLA – Day 8
    2011-10-12 Los Angeles City Council votes support for #OccupyLA
    2011-10-16 Ten Thousand March with #OccupyLA
    2011-10-12 Los Angeles City Council votes support for #OccupyLA
    2011-11-18 Arrests & Renewal #OccupyLA Day 48

    And here are my DailyKos essays on the eviction from L.A. city hall:
    #OccupyLA – Day 60: The Eviction
    Did 1st Amendment protect OLA encampment @ City Hall Park?
    Was DHS behind the eviction of Occupy LA?
    What’s the real reason Villaraigosa kicked us out?
    The Demonization of Mario
    How Occupy LA got itself evicted

    If you have anything of substance to discuss about any of my writing about OLA or Libya, I will be more than happy to entertain you. I stand by all my writing and my political practice.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 4, 2012 @ 3:33 am

  5. Clay Claiborne follows an absurd line of argumentation. The US, an imperial power, bombed its erstwhile ally and unleashed chaos–reporting of which has fallen off the radar screen of the mainstream press since Qaddafi’s death.

    Greenwald brings up many important points in his critique of the Libya policy: its complete extra-legality; it’s lack of any coherent ideological justification (recall Obama waited weeks before he even made a public statement on the matter, and when he did, it was virtually nonsensical); the precedent it sets for unilateral presidential wars that do not even remotely qualify as in the “national interest”; the further misuse and distortion of the concept of genocide (Qaddafi was targeting rebels, not an ethnic population).

    However noble the rebels may have been, the quality of their rebellion immediately took on a different tone once the US dispatched its forces, air, ground target-painters, and undoubtedly intelligence operatives. The Left shouldn’t be in the business of pretending the US intervention somehow can be a neutral or positive force on a rebellion–it *changes* the makeup of the rebellion itself.

    Note that Greenwald does not take a side in support of Qaddafi–he (rightly) views his role as a critic of American foreign policy, which in this case was, and continues to be, tremendously destructive in both its legal and material effects.

    Comment by JC — April 4, 2012 @ 7:56 am

  6. It ain’t about hoodies. http://unpermittedla.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/statement-from-decolonize-la/

    There are a lot better, more informed pieces out there about Libya. Just because he gave your article some dap, Louis, doesn’t mean you should link to left-liberal crap without a shred of materialist analysis uncritically. Makes me have less respect for your blog.

    Comment by John B. Cannon (@johnbcannon) — April 4, 2012 @ 8:13 am

  7. I agree with JC that Clay Claiborne’s superficially attractive argument largely falls apart on close examination. Among the many faults: to quote as unimpeachable a newspaper that has appeared only after the deposition of Qaddafi, without any examination of its position in the political spectrum of the new Libya. Is there no such thing as propaganda?

    A deeper flaw is to cast the entire discussion of Libya in terms of pro-or-anti-interventionism. It is perfectly possible to see the Libyan revolution against Qaddafi as “legitimate” and “justified” as far as Qaddafi’s tyranny went and also to understand that providing the strategically indispensable military air support represented the best strategy for the U.S. and the world banking oligarchy to claim a debt that gets them inside the Libyan door in a potentially very destructive way.

    Why not state the obvious: namely that the overthrow of Qaddafi has led to a situation full of the sharpest possible contradictions to which the petty-bourgeois moralism of people like Claiborne and Chris Hedges cannot provide any answer except for narcissistic self-dramatization, in a tradition at least as old as John Bunyan (“What shall I do to be saved?”). Of course these left liberals want to be arrested with Occupy while crying out courageously against evil–did not Jesus embrace his crucifixion? But what has this to do with Marxist analysis of the situation in Libya?

    Anyway, any government that–like the current ruling coalition in Libya–happily receives a delegation of right-wing American senators can’t be all good–must in fact be pretty effing rotten in some respects. Nothing in that fact delegitimizes the revolution as such or justifies Qaddafi.

    I commend Claiborne for wanting to take Greenwald to the woodshed, but to portray GG as a left liberal knee-jerk anti-imperialist is the worst possible way to do so. Again, JC has it right.

    For some important truths about the complex, but generally misunderstood and often overrated Greenwald, see the following (if I have the link right):


    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 4, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

  8. “…Are the anti-interventionists becoming counter-revolutionaries?”

    Really? The CPUSA use to love throwing the “counter-revolutionary” slander around at anybody who didn’t tow the line.

    Claiborne’s argues the usual line of liberal “Humanitarian Interventionists” against those on the left opposed to military intervention as being too wrapped up on what the West’s motives might be and therefore weakly unable to do the right thing, or they were wack-job supporters of Qaddafi. Regardless, in Claiborne’s view they are the same thing and all possibly counter-revolutionary. And Claiborne describes NATO’s performance in Libya as “particularly pathetic”; meaning what, not enough killing? I guess so since the tally as reported was a paltry 26,000 sorties including about 9,600 strike missions and destroyed about 5,900 targets before operations ended on October 31. His concern for the torture of Libyans, which he implies that Greenwald seems to morally lack, is reserved for the centralized torture under Qaddafi and not the decentralized torture under the militias. I suppose the latter is being doled out more democratically to those who deserve it. Claiborne writes as if we’ve just witnessed the equivalent of the Russian Revolution and not a factional civil war (that’s not completely over).

    Comment by Rick — April 4, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

  9. Come clean Clay – who do you get your monthly “briefings” from? What department pays you for the shills? Was it simply “get Greenwald” on the side of a cigarette packet this week?

    We have a right to know.

    Comment by The President's Analyst — April 4, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

  10. I have no idea who pays David Kasper (The President’s Analyst) either but this kind of snitch-jacket baiting is something that the left (most of it, anyhow) put behind it long ago. For those who want to know more about Clay’s 40 year plus involvement with the left, I invite you to go here: http://amlives.artsci.wustl.edu/details_streaming.php?rid=906.

    About all I know about Kasper is that he is a blogger. Big fucking deal.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 4, 2012 @ 6:03 pm

  11. Louis, did you post this because you think it’s really intelligent, or because you think it’s really stupid? I think it’s the latter, since it seems to be built on a retooled Bush-era doctrine of democratic regime change from without–an idea that produced a megadeath or two in Iraq. It also seems to be suggesting, quite stupidly, that Glenn Greenwald must have supported Qaddafi because he opposed US intervention. But of course, that logic stinks to high heaven: I believe you opposed US organization of “regime change” in Iraq, but not because you thought Saddam Hussein was a swell guy.

    Also, Mr. Claiborne needs to learn to proofread better before posting.

    Comment by jimholstun — April 4, 2012 @ 6:11 pm

  12. Jim, did you actually read what Greenwald once wrote:

    It is not, of course, actually fair to compare the torture to which the prisoners in Libya were subjected to the treatment which detainees in American custody receive. After all, there is no indication that the torture of the prisoners in Libya included even a fraction of the torture which Jane Mayer, in a truly superb article in The New Yorker this week, documented was practiced by the American government under the Bush presidency in the CIA’s secret camps, i.e., “black sites,” established beyond the reach of law.

    It kind of speaks for itself.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 4, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

  13. As far as the idiocy of yours and Claiborne’s recent posts go, your ‘resumes’ don’t mean shit to me. Big fucking deal.

    There’s US imperial agendas, and those who support them at opportune moments. End of. Pointing out the hypocrisy/propaganda/wishful thinking has jack shit to do with “supporting Gaddaffi” and a lot to do with wondering why such “eminent leftists” are peddling such hogwash.

    Comment by Frank Serpico — April 4, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

  14. Yes, Serpico/Kasper, I know that you are a legend in your own mind but I tend to go by what people do rather than what they say. You are just another blogger while Clay Claiborne spent 4 months in jail for protesting ROTC in the 70s. Now just who the fuck are you?

    Comment by louisproyect — April 4, 2012 @ 6:20 pm

  15. Yeah, yeah. A lot of people spent time in jail and ended up serving the people who put them there. As an eminent boomer, you should be aware of this. Lay off the sugar and you might remember a thing or two. Like the Iraq war, for example.

    I’m nobody, Louis. There are billions of nobodies just like me. I believe they were once known as “the proletariat”. This may be why I’m of no use to the cops, or assholes who defend their imperial shills with no more than schoolyard name-calling.

    Comment by Mata Hari — April 4, 2012 @ 6:26 pm

  16. Dear Louis,

    Nah, Lou, it doesn’t speak for itself–things seldom do. Look a the original Greenwald column, in which he’s referring not to every single person every tortured by scumbag Qaddafi, but to “the foreign medics jailed on charges of infecting children with HIV-AIDS.” The comparison is a little hyperventilated–electrodes on genitals is bad enough–but strictly speaking, true: none of them were tortured to death, as some American detainees have been. http://www.salon.com/2007/08/10/libya/singleton/

    Now look back at your man Claiborne, who tries to insinuate that Greenwald is talking about every person ever tortured by Qaddafi, including those whose graves were opened up after Greenwald wrote. The person who forms this kind of article is a rancid hack, and unworthy of any respect at all.

    And you still haven’t addressed the point I and others have made about “regime change.”


    Comment by jimholstun — April 4, 2012 @ 6:31 pm

  17. Kasper, I would appreciate it if you didn’t keep changing your tag. I assume that you are a just a Walter Mitty type sitting somewhere getting your kicks out of keyboard attacks on those who don’t live up to your rrrrevolutionary standards, but if you want to continue posting here at least stick with one tag. Maybe something like Walter Mitty in fact.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 4, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

  18. I don’t want to get into the details of what Greenwald said or did not say, but for me the overriding need is to see the Libyan rebels in their own terms rather than analogizing them with the KLA or any other of the counter-revolutionary outfits that the CIA has sponsored in the past. One of the chief militia leaders was in fact a jihadist in Iraq, long before the left had decided that political Islam was the enemy (Pepe Escobar et al). A couple of months ago there was all this furor about an al-Qaida flag flying over a courthouse in Benghazi in Counterpunch, MRZine and all the other usual venues. I can remember when such a flag being flown over Fallujah would have been cheered.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 4, 2012 @ 6:38 pm

  19. JC,
    Calling my arguments absurd doesn’t defeat them, it just bypasses them.

    I don’t get my info on Libya from the MSM. I wrote my first piece on the Libyan uprising on Jan. 18th of last year, more than two months before Greenwald penned his first piece on the subject. At the time, the only MSM piece I found on the housing protests was a tiny Reuther’s piece. My info then came from Libyan and “Anonymous” sources. Today I have much better sources, including Libyans I’ve come to trust that have translated for me, fact checked for me, and in the case of a sensitive subject like the killing of General Younes, give me feedback on cultural and tribal questions. If you read my writing you too will discover many of those same sources.

    As far as your statement that “reporting … has fallen off the radar screen of the mainstream press since Qaddafi’s death.” That would appear to be contradicted by the major articles in the NYTimes and WPost from the first 2 days of this month that I critique in my piece, but then you don’t seem terribly concerned with getting your facts straight.

    The reason Obama [and NATO] waited so long to make a statement about Libya is that they were happy to see the uprising quashed, provided Qaddafi could do it fast. What NATO countries couldn’t afford, given the world economic crisis, was to have Libyan oil off the market for years. They realized that if Qaddafi was going to be able to put down the uprising through violence, he would have already done so in that first month when they gave him a free hand. By the time he was ready to move on Benghazi, the military wing of the opposition had already pretty well established itself and the rebellion had spread beyond the east. Qaddafi could have killed thousands of civilians in Benghazi but that wouldn’t have ended the rebellion. Witness Syria. Killing civilian in a city is a lot easier than defeating a people’s army in the field.

    When he did act:

    President Obama defended the American-led military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have “stained the conscience of the world.”

    Never mind, that this wasn’t the whole truth. It was part true. An imperialist power can hardly justify the title “cops of the world,” and let people be massacred by the thousands in full view of the press. See my NATO’s Game Plan in Libya for more on this.

    We all know that the “cops of the city” represent an armed force of the bourgeois, and exist to maintain their power. However, to justify their existence they must also intervene in domestic disputes, stop petty criminals and perform a number of other services generally useful to society. This is an aspect of the question that I think has been completely overlooked by the anti-interventionists. Of course the US aways claims humanitarian motives for intervention but that is not the same as saying there are never humanitarian justifications for intervention.

    I find it sad that some Marxists, who are suppose to be internationalists, are arguing that we should not oppose the slaughter of workers in any country by its own bourgeois because it’s not in our “national interest.” I think this actually puts you to the right of Obama on this question, a perception born out by all the right-wing support this argument has among Obama’s opponents.

    You also seek to really narrow the definition of genocide and distort the facts in your defense of Qaddafi. Of course the people of eastern Libya were an “ethnic population.” Most were from different tribes and there is a long history of Benghazi being suppressed and short changed by the Qaddafi regime, that is why what quickly became a national uprising started there. So you could say it was an “ethnic population” in revolt that Qaddafi was targeting. Historically, that is most often when genocide occurs, when ethnic populations rebel. Again, I find it extremely sad when Marxists play such word games in defense of mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Remember what Qaddafi promised on the eve of that UN vote:

    “They are finished, they are wiped out. From tomorrow you will only find our people. You all go out and cleanse the city of Benghazi. A small problem that has become an international issue. And they are voting on it tonight … because they are determined. As I have said, we are determined. We will track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road,

    And your view is that the UN should have not intervened and allowed Qaddafi to have his way because “Qaddafi was targeting rebels, not an ethnic population.” What shameful words from the pen of a Marxist.

    You say “However noble the rebels may have been.” I’m curious, did you support the Libyan revolution before the UN vote you opposed, or were you obvious to it before it got on to the radar of the mainstream? I strongly supported it from the beginning because I saw it as a true people’s uprising and the leading edge of the Arab Spring. The fundamental character of that movement didn’t change with the UN vote and neither did my support for it.

    Of course the Libyan revolutionaries made a compromise with imperialist when they accept NATO air support. IMHO they made a smart compromise by accepting NATO planes but no NATO boots. Somewhere in my writings on Libya you will find the musing of an imperialist that complained that if they could get NATO “boots on the ground” they could have little impact on the final out come. And since this is a Marxist forum, I will end with a quote from Lenin’s Left-wing Communism. an Infantile Disorder that I think very apropos:

    Of course, to very young and inexperienced revolutionaries, as well as to petty-bourgeois revolutionaries of even very respectable age and great experience, it seems extremely “dangerous”, incomprehensible and wrong to “permit compromises”. Many sophists (being unusually or excessively “experienced” politicians) reason exactly in the same way as the British leaders of opportunism mentioned by Comrade Lansbury: “If the Bolsheviks are permitted a certain compromise, why should we not be permitted any kind of compromise?” However, proletarians schooled in numerous strikes (to take only this manifestation of the class struggle) usually assimilate in admirable fashion the very profound truth (philosophical, historical, political and psychological) expounded by Engels. Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimises the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists. (The history of the British labour movement provides a very large number of instances of such treacherous compromises by British trade union leaders, but, in one form or another, almost all workers in all countries have witnessed the same sort of thing.)

    Naturally, there are individual cases of exceptional difficulty and complexity, when the greatest efforts are necessary for a proper assessment of the actual character of this or that “compromise”, just as there are cases of homicide when it is by no means easy to establish whether the homicide was fully justified and even necessary (as, for example, legitimate self-defence), or due to unpardonable negligence, or even to a cunningly executed perfidious plan. Of course, in politics, where it is sometimes a matter of extremely complex relations—national and international—between classes and parties, very many cases will arise that will be much more difficult than the question of a legitimate “compromise” in a strike or a treacherous “compromise” by a strike-breaker, treacherous leader, etc. It would be absurd to formulate a recipe or general rule (“No compromises!”) to suit all cases. One must use one’s own brains and be able to find one’s bearings in each particular instance.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 4, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

  20. Lou,
    You “don’t want to get into the details of what Greenwald said or did not say” after you posted CC’s long and duplicitous attack? and after you then posted a thoroughly malicious bit of hackwork from CC purporting to say Greenwald whitewashes Qaddafi?

    Aaaack, I give up.

    Comment by jimholstun — April 4, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

  21. I’m generally with Joe Vaughan on this. Clay makes some obviously good points about the so-called ‘anti-interventionists’, but…

    – Support for the Libyan revolution against a reactionary Ghadaffi, including respect for their right to call on military assistance from whomever they please, is not to be confused with the stance of those of us who live in the NATO countries. We are not the Libyan revolutionaries, we don’t have a gun to our heads, and that gives us the real freedom to consistently oppose the imperialism of “our own” countries, the ones we, and not Libyans, actually live in. That is the only germ of truth, the rational kernel, of the otherwise absurd positions of the PSL/MR/GG/Counterpunch etc. line that only formally bases itself upon this truth (because many of them only really want to support Ghadaffi as a good thing in itself). For me this is materialist dialectics 101: I am not a Libyan revolutionary, I am a revolutionary, anti-interventionist (more on that below) Marxist in the U.S.A.

    – Therefore Clay’s support for the NATO intervention is to be condemned. All the more so due to the manner it was presented in the article. Not upfront; One was led to “suspect” as much with the one-sided stereotyped strange of an “anti-interventionist Left”, with the implication that Clay is not an “anti-interventionist”, IOW, is not just “a little bit pregnant” here. But alas, it got worse when the truth was finally admitted explicitly: It turned out that support was contingent upon how many of the innocent were or were not murdered (how I treasure GW Bush’s favorite expression) by NATO! One could almost hear an audible sigh of relief rise from the words as the good news that only a few innocents were murdered. This is precisely the kind of petit-bourgeois moral calculus Joe rightfully criticized. More importantly, it shows that Clay’s support for NATO was based on no principle at all, was IOW classic *opportunism* of the literal kind whose lambasting we are familiar with in the classics of Marxism.

    – Speaking of which, the formal invocation of Marx in “What would Jesus do?” mode. No problem with the mode itself, it is actually quite funny. But it had little or no relation to the content of the article. Therefore it looked like a mere figleaf.

    – Assumptions about the overall class character of the Libyan revolution. As Louis knows, my assumptions were that while an obvious extension of the revolutionary wave sweeping the Arab world, the working class content of its Libyan branch was bound to be weaker than Egypt or even Tunisia. That’s because Ghadaffi’s Libya was a classic rentier capitalist regime, this one based on petroleum. One thing about rentier capitalists: they hate the existence of a proletariat, and do anything to make it disappear. That’s because of the character of their social relation to production – they do not appropriate their cut of the surplus value in direct relation to the proletariat. They might just as easily appropriate they (rent) cut from other capitalists, so in certain cases – such as all the Arab petro-rent regimes – they take care not to allow a indigenous industrial proletariat to form around oil extraction. hey they’ve all read Marx too, and so did Ghadaffi. In Libya the oil workers were largely foreign born and fled when the fighting broke out. What is left is the service working class, likely more native born. That is fine, politically speaking – industrial workers are not somehow “superior” *politically* speaking, to any other sector of the working class. It is just that these would last long without the restoration of the oil sector and its industrial workers. In the final apolitical analysis, though, it all depends on the program of the Libyan revolutionaries, and its proletarian character is not yet clear to me to say the least. But I am always open to surprises!

    – Finally, the use of “counter-revolutionary”, a bit ironic for me. I loudly lambasted the PSL/MR/GG/Counterpunch crowd using precisely (and the intention was precise) the same term, and I must say I was privately admonished not to use this term by the blog/list master. Out of respect for him, I had no problem with complying. But now we need a bit more guidance on when it might be OK or not OK to use such terminology, as the cat is out of the bag again: When is it helpful, or not helpful, to label a position “counter-revolutionary”.

    Comment by matthewrusso9 — April 4, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

  22. “In the final apolitical analysis” 😀 should clearly be “In the final political analysis”. Otherwise I stand by all my other typos….

    Comment by matthewrusso9 — April 4, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

  23. Nice to hear from you, Matt. I wonder why you don’t answer my emails. I am only writing you publicly since private messages seem to end up lost in cyberspace.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 4, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

  24. Btw, Greenwald bought into the nonsense that Qaddafi was impeding Western oil interests, thus causing NATO to intervene:


    I have dealt with this in the past and see no need to dredge it up again.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 4, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

  25. Joe Vaughan,
    You guys have put me in a difficult place, first JC accused me of relying on the mainstream press, and now you accused me of using Libyan sources that didn’t exist while it was still a police state. What’s an activist to do? I didn’t call the Libyan Herald an “unimpeachable source,” so please don’t put words in my mouth, and didn’t use them “without any examination of its position in the political spectrum of the new Libya.”

    I know, for example, that they published this yesterday, 31 claimed dead as fighting around Zuara intensifies, another one of those ‘chaos” situations that reflects badly on the revolution but hasn’t been widely reported outside of Libya. They also reported on the clashes around Serba before the western media got wind of it.

    It’s easy now for counter-revolutionary forces to lay everything negative that happens in Libya at the feet of the NTC. I really think that the outbreak of tribal fighting that claimed dozens of lives down near the Chad/Sudan border and more than 500 miles from Tripoli or Benghazi a few weeks ago had little to do with the “chaos” created by the Libyan revolution except the the NTC eventually sent a force down there to put an end to it. Africa has a long history of such strife.

    Therefore we also have to consider how much of the current “chaos” in Libya, as reported in the west, is a result of the MSM’s increase scrutiny, or the Libyans increased freedom to report on them, as compared to the locked down Qaddafi police state. The massacre of blacks in Tripoli in 2004 got almost no attention for example.

    Finally, since this is a Marxist forum, I must object to your use of the term “propaganda” because it has a very particular and positive meaning for us. I am proud to call my most important pieces on the Libyan revolution, Racism in Libya, NATO’s Game Plan in Libya or Helter Skelter: Qaddafi’s African Adventure, propaganda. My tweets, on the other hand, or more in the nature of agitation. I would remind that the use of the word “propaganda” as a synonym for “lies” is an anti-communist perversion.

    I know that I have only dealt with the first paragraph of your comments here, but life is short. And I know that I have not dealt with all the name calling my piece has evoked [ “as tarnished a figure on the left as you could find”, “left-liberal crap”, “petty-bourgeois moralism of people like Claiborne and Chris Hedges”, “narcissistic self-dramatization”, “who do you get your monthly “briefings” from”, “really stupid”, etc ] , but they are irrelevant.

    And for the record, you can find my critique of Chris Hedges views on Libya here: Why is Chris Hedges calling for “boots on the ground” in Libya?

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 4, 2012 @ 8:59 pm

  26. matthewwrusso9,
    “We are not the Libyan revolutionaries, we don’t have a gun to our heads, and that gives us the real” privilege of taking a seemingly uncompromising and principled stand on no-intervention, because its no skin off our backs and no one we care about will die as a result of UN in action.

    I believe I have been upfront about my support for NATO intervention since at least June, and anyone that has read my works knows this. What I said here is that I thought that support had been acquitted in light of the low number of civilian deaths caused by NATO bombing because it almost certainly did result in less Libyans killed overall.

    Most of the people that fought on the side of the revolution were from the Libyan working class, most of those in the revolutionary brigades are from the Libyan working class. Your argument that Libyan doesn’t really have a working class doesn’t wash.

    “its proletarian character is not yet clear to me to say the least” This is a line we hear a lot from leftist that haven’t done the work to find out. I’ve often heard “We don’t even know who these rebels are” or from the Greenwald piece I wrote about “rebel claims were most often impossible to independently verify.”

    Please consider that while your subjective understanding of reality, or lack of it, may make hard it for you to draw conclusions or take action, has absolutely nothing to do with objective reality. Your lack of information is not the fault of the Libyan who have put out more info about their struggle than anyone has ever done before. [Blogs, websites, YouTube, cell phone pictures and video, even Google translates, which makes Arabic sources available to all, etc.]

    And for the record, I consider anyone who spoke out against “regime change” when the Libyan thuwar were fighting and dying for exactly that, to be objectively pro-Qaddafi, and those who now seek to discredit the Libyan revolution and argue that it shouldn’t have happened, or argue like they hope it will fail, to be counter-revolutionary.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 4, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

  27. I have to admit that Clay Claiborne’s defense of his position makes far more sense to me than the original article did. I find myself in agreement with much, though not all, of what he says here. Perhaps this is because the framing of the original piece using the “bad relationship” theme–fine as a piece of political sarcasm in its own right–was simply too light to support the real weight of the discussion

    Claiborne’s long quote from Lenin, while apposite, still seems to me to sidestep the question of where he stands philosophically–yes, Clay C. can quote Lenin to Marxists, but does he stand with Hedges and the Democratic Party on the side of abstract morality and the almighty Constitution of the United States, or does he favor a more scientific and materialist view? As an atheist, I’ve quoted enough Scripture to Christians to understand how easy it is to avoid scrutiny when taking that tack.

    I still think the attack on Greenwald–failing to understand Greenwald’s roots in Libertarianism and instead placing him with a certain generic segment of the “left” as it is generally understood–fell ludicrously short of its target, who is both far worse and far better than Claiborne seems to think he is.

    At the end of the day, I find that I am opposed to “interventionism” as it plays out in the U.S. politically, but in favor of the use to which the intervention was put militarily by the Libyan revolutionaries.

    I do fear that the Libyans are in danger of getting little from their revolution in the long run but debt peonage and more austerity than Qaddafi ever dreamed of. Will some Libyans with they had the old bastard back? I imagine some will–or the political dead end of Islamism will appear as the only solution to the problem.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 4, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

  28. Rick wrote:

    Claiborne describes NATO’s performance in Libya as “particularly pathetic”; meaning what, not enough killing?

    In a word “Yes.”

    If they were really serious about “humanitarian intervention to save lives,” then yes, they should have done more killing. I am thinking particularly about the siege of Misrata which lasted 3 month after NATO intervention. Qaddafi killed thousands in that siege while the rebels begged NATO to do something.

    I also think NATO could have helped lift that siege sooner, by doing “more killing” of the Qaddafi forces carrying out the siege, and that would have saved lives. I suppose you would also oppose a police sharp shooter taking out a mass murderer in the middle of the killing spree since the shot that took his life would have been “more killing.”

    Frankly, I think NATO had some very imperialist reasons for not doing “more killing” and lifting the siege sooner. I think they were trying to rein concessions from the revolution. PressTV made the same critique at the time:

    NATO has come under intense grilling over its lack of response to the killings of Libyan civilians by the regime forces amid fierce skirmishes in the western city of Misratah.

    I criticized PressTV at the time for the very misleading title they gave to this article:

    NATO slammed for Libya civilian deaths

    PressTV Saturday Apr 09, 201108:16 AM GMT

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 4, 2012 @ 10:08 pm

  29. “with they had” should be “wish they had”

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 4, 2012 @ 10:11 pm

  30. Re NATO and civilian deaths: CC says NATO held back on ground attacks in order to win concessions from the revolution

    Of course they were trying to win concessions–indeed, they were trying to achieve control!

    How could NATO as it really exists have behaved otherwise?

    So this position really doesn’t work out in favor of the actual NATO intervention–which had a certain character that CC shrewdly recognizes and rejects–but rather, apparently, in favor of some other invention that never took place, and that would have had an entirely different character.

    It’s not out of disrespect for Claiborne that one points to such contradictions, but because the contradictions are really there.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 4, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

  31. “Is the system going to flatten you out and deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system to the attainment of human purposes?” — Joseph Campbell

    That a Libyan revolution to throw off the Gaddafi dictatorship has succeed is a triumph of the solidarity of public sentiment in France, Britain and the United States with the aspirations of the Libyan people. By means of modern telecommunications and media, Americans and Europeans learned about and sympathized with the feelings, both desires and fears, of the Libyan public.

    In March of 2011, the western public was aware that Gaddafi was about to perpetrate a purge of dissent, beginning in Benghazi (as we have witnessed since in Syria), and that public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of preventing such an outcome. This was the psychological-political pressure that moved Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama (individuals whose careers sail on the basis of their acute sensitivity to the direction of the political winds) to take action.

    The Libyans made good use of the lifeline fate had thrown them, and the NATO political leaders and the popular will that pushed them were both relieved to know that history would not record them as craven non-interventionists acquiescing to an impending massacre. This outcome is an infrequent triumph of popular will moving the political elites to use the machinery of states to actualize a “people’s choice,” forcing those elites to move out of their comfort and self-interest zones and take risks. The elites moved because failure to do so would tarnish their names in popular consciousness and in the history books for failure to respond to a clear and impending insult to the conscience of the world — which they had the power to prevent.

    So, we the people got the rulers to do what we wanted. And it was good.

    The inability of doctrinaire non-interventionists to applaud this result, or to admit that adherence to their ideology (in this case) would have resulted in a worse fate for the Libyan people simply shows their ideological inflexibility (and by implication, the ideology itself) to be dismissible because it is inhuman. The whole point of any ideology is to guide the interpretation of current events, and the choices that are being made for the management of human affairs, with a clear realization that no set of ideas can ever anticipate the full range of human (socio-political) possibilities. The guiding ideology is always to be moderated (even ditched when useless) by higher level functioning of the mind and heart, what the Confucians and Taoists called “human-heartedness,” the Buddhists called compassion, the Christians (later) called “agape,” and we know instinctively as conscience; all of which arise from our instinctive identification (i.e., psychic link) with others of our species.

    I suspect that the many accusations hurled at Clay Claiborne and Louis Proyect, of ideological impurity, are probably correct. The outcome of their thinking is superior precisely because it is ideologically impure, and their deviations from inflexible adherence to doctrine seems to be guided by a higher level of values in favor of human-heartedness. Interpreting an ideology literally and applying it inflexibly is like eating the menu in a restaurant instead of using it as an initial guide in developing a meal plan. It’s a muddle-headed sort of Marxism that moans about people freeing themselves from dictatorship (and a murderous one), and wishes they were back under it because of some geo-strategic greater good (a.k.a. countering USG foreign policy). Do such navel-gazing political theorists ever wonder why their ideology’s political influence is insignificant, and aren’t we mere mortals fortunate that it is?

    Comment by manuelgarciajr — April 4, 2012 @ 11:39 pm

  32. Joe,
    Except the actual NATO intervention that did take place allowed the Libyan revolution to win its battle against the Qaddafi regime without allowing NATO to achieve the level of control [or any level of control] that they desired. That is how matters stand now.

    Those that are making revolutions in the real world have to negotiate such nasty compromises with imperialism, those that simply talk revolution can, of course, take a “higher road.” I have already mentioned Lenin and the compromise of Brest-Litovsk. For another example, similar to the Libyan situation is some respects, look at the “humanitarian intervention” the US practised with the Soviet Union against Hitler. It was heavily manipulated because the imperialists had there own agenda and I’m sure there were many “leftist” who opposed the Soviets accepting money and weapons from the imperialists to fight the fascist.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 4, 2012 @ 11:50 pm

  33. @manuelgarciajr: Good impersonation of Bernard-Henri Levy.

    Comment by Rick — April 4, 2012 @ 11:52 pm

  34. Rick, if all you are interested in is one-line put-downs, you’d do better elsewhere. I created this blog so socialists can debate with each other, not to write one-line put-downs. Okay?

    Comment by louisproyect — April 5, 2012 @ 12:21 am

  35. There is another important point to be made about the split in the left on the question of Libya, and that is the relationship between Feb. 17th and Sept. 17th.

    OWS largely came out of the network of activists that developed around international support work on the Libyan revolution. That is why Anonymous has play such a prominent role in both struggles. That is why OWS kicked off just as the Libyan struggle was coming to a conclusion.

    Thank you manuelgarciajr for bringing up the very important question of this international activist support network. While some leftists were focused on opposition to NATO and tended towards dissing the Libyan revolution, others, including yours truly, where focused to supporting that revolution. [ Many leftist say that the Libyan success would have been impossible without NATO support. I also think it would have been impossible without Anonymous support because if Qaddafi had ever been successful cutting off the Internet, I think it likely that the popular support that pushed NATO involvement might never had developed. Kudos goes to Google here also, with coming forward with the Libyan “speech-to-tweet” network that allowed anyone that could get to a landline to get to the Internet. And if you see Google as simply another capitalist corporation, you don’t understand open source, the movement Google came out of and is still a part of (why is OS one of 6 principles for OWS?) or the support from the workers of Google, who put that together as part of the 20% personal project time Google allows all its workers.)

    I was far from the only activist that when straight over from doing Libya support work to playing a formative role on OWS.

    OpLibya lead directly to Occupy Wall St.

    There is so much to tell, so much you all are missing. One morning I received a message in Arabic. It was forwarded to me because it had been sent to WikiLeaks Central and at the time I was the WLC “boss of Egypt.” The Google translates version told me enough that I knew it was a critical message. It was from an from an activist in Alexandra and it said that Soleiman was gathering up buses and trucks to transport thugs for another assault on the protesters in Tahrir Sq. I got the message to an Egypt activist in LA that knew how to get it to the people who needed to know in Tahrir. That was the morning the army blocked up Tahrir Sq. with trucks and tanks, checked everyone for weapons but still left them into the sq. Now you know why.

    Shortly after that, as my focus turned to Libya, another WLC staff member Alex O’Brien started USDOR which became one of the components that gave birth to OWS

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 5, 2012 @ 12:46 am

  36. Louis Proyect wrote: “Jim, did you actually read what Greenwald”

    Oh come off it Louis. Greenwald was making the argument that the *scale* of death and destruction perpetrated by the Americans on the world since the beginning of the so-called “war on terror” is greater than Qaddafi’s domestic tyranny. This is undoubtedly the case.

    Comment by JC — April 5, 2012 @ 1:32 am

  37. C. Claiborne wrote: “As far as your statement that ‘reporting … has fallen off the radar screen of the mainstream press since Qaddafi’s death.’ That would appear to be contradicted by the major articles in the NYTimes and WPost from the first 2 days of this month that I critique in my piece, but then you don’t seem terribly concerned with getting your facts straight.”

    -There is no denying that the coverage of Libya in the aftermath of the invasion–aside from one or two stories in September in the AP and the late several or so articles in the WaPo and NYTimes–has been a fraction of what it was at the height of the calls to intervene. Token reports on the aftermath, devoid of any attendant *calls to action* on the part of NATO–this is crucial–do not constitute a countervailing trend. Note that it is both the diminished volume of reporting on the issue and the content of the stories and what they are attempting to propose as a solution that I find most interesting.

    -I never asserted that *your* sources are from the mainstream press. I was describing the ideological background conditions shaping the public debate (such as it is–it really does not exist) before and after the intervention; I used the change in mainstream reporting to illustrate this.

    -I am not interested in doctrinal purity. Let’s look at the *function* of the intervention and its likely *effects* (legal, material), as opposed to the mentality of the parties involved when deciding on what the Left should support. Obama’s speech to the public was a travesty of basic logic and has had the effect of broadening presidential war-making powers further than could have been imagined under the darkest days of Bush II, both in how casually the case for war was made, in its delay (that is, made *after* the bombing campaign began), in its clear absence of material evidence that the Libyan situation qualified as a direct threat to “national security.” Please do not misunderstand me. What I argue is that the *effect* this has is to normalize full-scale air war waged willy-nilly, at the president’s impulse without even the pretense of legal or national security concerns. Who knows how this new legal, cultural and social norm will be instrumentalized in the future?

    -CC is concerned that I diminish the massacre of the eastern Libyan rebels. But there is no doubt that Qaddafi was concerned with the rebellion qua rebellion–it was a concrete, internally rational military strategy of restoring his order–not an ideologically driven or nationalistic one based on ethnicity or national identity. That is a crucial distinction when the justification of the NATO intervention was utilizing Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which is most effective rhetorically when glossed as a protection against *ethnically-based* war crimes. Again, the question is the function of the term upon the public consciousness, and how the concept of genocide is used imprecisely to justify intervention in a brutal civil war; and, importantly, how this logic may be employed in the future, now that it has enjoyed great propaganda success.

    -Why are you mum on the question of Libyan rebels rounding up and imprisoning black Libyans, whom they accuse of (on the basis of their race alone) collaboration with Qaddafi in years past?

    -Of course I feel great solidarity with any rebel group of the Left that is fighting against tyranny. The question of strategy cannot be based on these feelings, especially when the strategy of so-called “compromise” as you describe it involves full-scale invitation of the world’s greatest imperialist military alliance to commandeer one’s revolt. Is it “infantile” to raise doubts about the wisdom of such a so-called “compromise”?

    -How dare you accuse me of hoping for the Libyan revolution to fail. I am questioning the strategy, and I am raising the question effects and function of American imperial war-making on this very revolution (which, I believe, should be considered regional, as the US strategy in Libya must have surely been formulated in part as a response to the loss of its key ally in Egypt).

    -Very concretely, so long as we are actually talking about socialist strategy, I would like you or anyone to point to one example of a successful implementation of the type of strategy you supported vis-à-vis Libya. Once NATO and/or an imperialist alliance impresses itself upon a revolt and dispatches material, cash, intellectual resources and military and political advisers, how likely is it that the end result will be progressive, leaving us closer to a socialist victory? Is there one example from the historical record of this type of success?

    Comment by JC — April 5, 2012 @ 2:22 am

  38. I think the question of whether the USA or Libya tortured more people or with greater intensity is not one that is worth pursuing. For those who are interested in a serious debate, I suggest that a focus on Libya today is more in order. Whether you agree with Clay or not, you have to recognize that he is putting a great deal of effort in backing up his arguments with facts. I invite those who disagree with him to respond in kind. That will move the debate forward, not cheap shots about he is another Bernard Henri-Levy. Someone with those kinds of politics would have not spent hundreds of hours making a documentary about the Vietnam war. Same thing with Gilbert Achcar. He is a revolutionary socialist, not a liberal interventionist. The Greenleft newspaper in Australia supported imperialist intervention in East Timor. That did not make them latter-day Kautskyites. The sooner we stop putting those we disagree with on the left into these pigeonholes, the better off we will be. As far as my own reputation is concerned, I welcome all any insult. Just try to be entertaining or witty in the process or else you will be sent on your way.

    Comment by louisproyect — April 5, 2012 @ 2:24 am

  39. Clay,

    What you actually think and what you have written in a number of places, as far as I can see, are two not-quite-congruent things. I agree in principle with a good part of what you now tell me you are saying, though I don’t find it entirely clear, but your words in the passage I cited convey a contradictory meaning. I’ve already explained this in as concise a fashion as possible, and have not changed my mind, so will not reiterate.

    You say that the Libyans “[negotiated] a nasty compromise with imperialism.” But who negotiated what? The situation appears to be both fluid and filled with contradictions. The imperialists knew that they were being made use of and accepted that as the cost of entry in what to them was apparently some sort of high-stakes great game. The “rebel forces” accepted the air support because it enabled them to defeat Qaddafi. This is plain enough. But are you saying that the National Transitional Council is a brilliant and legitimate revolutionary government–that feasting with the likes of John McCain is some sort of clever master strategy? Was Younes a more luckless Kornilov, liquidated before his plots could come to fruition? Are we looking at some sort of Maoist opera of the glorious people in glorious revolution all waving banners in time to martial music, all contradictions resolved? And the Al-Jazeera footage of groups of European men amid the rebels–was that faked? Are there no currents and counter-currents at all in the new Libya, no Western fifth column? Is the Libyan Tribune newspaper a trustworthy source merely because it comes after Qaddafi?

    On what specific grounds do you confidently expect that the sequel in Libya will not be yet another imperialist cluster-fuck leaving Libya in a shattered state with only the weak alternative of some sort of Islamism as an alternative? And how does this revolution–or does it–advance the cause of the Human Race, as the old Internationale has it, particularly when you consider the limitations imposed on an isolated Libya by its oil-based economy?

    We agree that nobody in revolutionary times can have entirely clean hands–I should say, that nobody has to be a saint before being a revolutionary–that sense of “wretched compromise” is clear enough as far as it goes, and I accept it up to a point. What troubles me in what I’ve seen of your discourse is that you seem to alternate a dialectical view with a Manichean moralistic one without apparently recognizing that you are doing so. Thus, if someone cries out moralistically against “killing” in the abstract, you counter by demanding more killing. But your response is merely the negative image of the moralism against which you are reacting–in essence, an equally moralistic response, expressed as immoralism.

    I have a somewhat clear idea what a group of post-sectarian Trotskyites mean by “revolution.” But the crux of this whole discussion is what you mean by it.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 5, 2012 @ 2:36 am

  40. I guess you really didn’t read what Greenwald wrote. He said “the torture to which the prisoners in Libya were subjected to the treatment which detainees in American custody receive.” but you think he was really talking about “the *scale* of death and destruction perpetrated by the Americans on the world since the beginning of the so-called “war on terror” Okay. But Louis is right, that is not really worth pursuing.

    So instead, here is a complete list of mass protests in Arab countries against NATO intervention in Libya :

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 5, 2012 @ 4:34 am

  41. JC said:

    -Why are you mum on the question of Libyan rebels rounding up and imprisoning black Libyans, whom they accuse of (on the basis of their race alone) collaboration with Qaddafi in years past?

    Yes, this I must deal with because this has become a favor line of attack on the Libyan revolution by some folks, including anti-interventionists, pro-Qaddafi force, and apparently you. I will quote from stuff I have already written, to show you I have not been “mum” on this question.

    But before I do that, remember those African mercenaries fighting for Qaddafi that many on the left insisted weren’t there? Well some of them are in Mali now and when a Mali army base surrender to them, they killed everyone. How do you think they dealt with Libyans? From a Tuareg mercenary:

    When the protests began in Tripoli, his unit was attached to the infamous 32nd brigade, led by Qaddafi’s son Khamis, and was sent to disperse the unarmed marchers. “That was easy,” he said with startling nonchalance. “We would kill three or four in the front of the crowd and they all ran away. It was very easy.”

    He fought throughout the revolution and said many Tuaregs were forced to fight for Qaddafi:

    After Tripoli, he and his fellow Tuareg mercenaries fought in several battles east of the capital city along the coast, including at Misrata. As the fighting intensified, Libyan officials began rounding up Tuareg living in Libya, threatening to imprison them and their families if they didn’t join the fight, though many had no military training. Some deserted and joined the rebels, but most stayed with the forces loyal to Qaddafi.

    Which gives you an idea how Qaddafi really treated his African supporters.

    Now on to an exchange from the comments of my Libya in the news today piece. This has to do with a grotesque YouTube video that has been widely circulated by the above mention groups to prove that the Libyan revolution is racist to the core.

    First a Qaddafi supporter posted the RT version of this video with this comment:

    Here’s a disturbing video of blacks being tortured

    A shocking video has appeared on the Internet showing Libyan rebels torturing a group of black Africans. People with their hands bound are shown being locked in a zoo-like cage and forced to eat the old Libyan flag.

    ­“Eat the flag, you dog. Patience you dog, patience. God is Great,” screams a voice off-camera in the video published by LiveLeak on February 28.

    I found a version on Youtube that had subtitles. This is my response:

    They aren’t being tortured because they are black.

    Here is the same video but with sub-titles so we can tell what they are saying, which is stuff like:

    “Dog Eat the flag! Dog Eat the Flag!
    You dog come here! Eat this flag! eat it, yea, Tawergian! Yea dirty Dog!

    Note that while being called a dog is derisive, it is not racists. In fact, this particular video proves the opposite point because while the title, whoever posted this version on YouTube gave it, Libya: Blacks treated like Apes in the Zoo by rebels is factually true, it is misleading. Race or color plays no role in what is being said by their tormentors. If the video had been titled Libya: Tawergians treated like Apes in the Zoo by rebels it would have been much more accurate, because they are being abused, no doubt by people from Misrata, not because of the color of their skin, but because of where they were from.

    I dealt with this question also in my diary last Saturday and gave another example, so to repeat what i said there:

    One focus of the report is the persecution of people from Tawergha. They document many such abuses:

    Another challenge is to tackle the widespread discrimination and xenophobia against sub-Saharan Africans and dark-skinned Libyans from Tawargha and other parts of Libya where support for al-Gaddafi forces during the conflict was reportedly high. The 30,000 residents of the town of Tawargha, who were forcibly displaced during the conflict, are still barred from returning to their town, where their homes have been looted and burned down. They remain in poorly resourced camps in Benghazi, Tripoli and elsewhere in Libya and face an uncertain future. So far the NTC has been unwilling to take on the militias and local authorities in Misratah who are determined not to allow the residents of Tawargha to return home.

    Because most people from Tawargha are black, much has been made of these revenge attacks by some in the pro-Qaddafi and anti-interventionists camps. They see them as racists attacks, pure and simple, and display them as proof that the revolution is “not progressive in anyway.”

    While racism by Arabs against black Africans in Libya is a problem of long standing which I have examined elsewhere, most notably in Racism in Libya, there is reason to believe that the suppression of Tawargha and its people has much less to do with racism than these people think and more to do with simple revenge. Certainly, there is enough reason in the realities of the war immediately past to understand the animosity between these two groups without falling back on any color difference. The descriptions of the abuses in the Amnesty document don’t look like racism, in fact many can be read the other way entirely. For example, they describe the abuse a 45-year-old army officer from Tripoli of Tawargha origin while he was being held at a militia’s detention facility in Tripoli:

    [He said] “They also subjected me to electric shocks through live wires while I was lying on the floor. They put the electricity to different parts of my body including my wrists and toes. At one point I fainted and they threw water at me to wake me up.

    He said that he believes that the only reason he was detained was that a colleague reported him to the militia for being of Tawargha origin.

    Another way to say that is to say that he wasn’t detained because he was black, they already knew he was black, he was detained and tortured after they found out that he was from Tawargha.

    I am in no way trying to justify the mistreatment of Libyans from Tawargha. That has to end and that town eventually has to be restored. I only point this out because so many people on the left are only too happy to brand this treatment racist and use it to condemn the whole revolution.

    You’re one of those people and you should be a shame of yourself.

    I have recently noticed that I have about 60 Libyans following me on Twitter, including the Libyan Youth Movement and the NTC Labor Ministry. Hopefully, they also read what I have to say here. If I can I want to have a positive influence on their struggle. I want to fight racism in Libya and encourage reconciliation between the people of Misrata and Tawargha, and I can’t do either if I, like you, confound the two for the purpose of attacking the Libyan Revolution and the great victory they have already won.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 5, 2012 @ 6:06 am

  42. C. Claiborne: I am having some difficulty understanding what you are saying. Anyone who has read Greenwald knows he was always opposed to Qaddafi, and that he views himself firstly as a critic of American foreign policy, media and law. Here’s the concluding quote from the article you linked to. It clearly differentiates between Qaddafi’s domestic tyranny and US as a *world actor*:

    “While American citizens inside of the U.S. still enjoy robust civil liberties as compared to most other countries around the world — certainly nobody rational would compare the tyranny of a country like Libya to the state of domestic political affairs inside the U.S. — one cannot say the same for our behavior as a world actor. In that regard, such comparisons are not only plausible but indisputably valid.”

    Comment by JC — April 5, 2012 @ 6:19 am

  43. Joe said:

    And the Al-Jazeera footage of groups of European men amid the rebels–was that faked?

    I have been looking for European faces among the rebels but couldn’t find any. I watch AJE 2 or 3 times a day, and I don’t remember seeing this or them pointing that out. AJE also has a YouTube channel were they post their most important videos. Could you provide some links so I can make my own assessment whether they are European faces of light skinned Arabs?

    Now I need to leave this discussion because tomorrow I have to start worrying about how I’m going to pay May’s rent, but I want to leave you with these thoughts from a Libyan:

    On the eve of February 17, looking back over the course of last year, the changes that have occurred still fill me with awe. The fear and hopelessness that once defined Libya as a country has almost been completely eradicated. Instead, there is the aim of progress, the collective hope of a better tomorrow. Libyans now do not live for the present, but for the future, a future where people are equal, and the government protects the interests of the country instead of exploiting them.

    Of course, that’s not to say that the road to improvement hasn’t been bumpy at times. Just like that first protest sign in Benghazi, many official positions and councils in the new Libya were put together hastily, to fill the missing holes in the system. Elections are still months away and the temporary government is facing increasing criticism. The people want to see tangible change, and the rumours of corruptions and disorder that are circulating do nothing to dissuade unrest.

    There is change, however, sometimes overlooked, but still takes you by surprise when you notice it. We CAN challenge the government, we CAN make our opinions known and our voices heard. One year ago, typing an anti-regime slogan on Facebook or Twitter wasn’t even up for consideration by many.

    Libya won’t be able to undo 42 years of damage in a year, or even five years. But the process has already begun. Women are asserting their role in society and in the government, demanding more representation. Dozens of newspapers, magazines and organizations are making the most of free speech, daring the citizens to raise their own voices. There’s a new atmosphere dominating the Middle East, a desire to once again be at the forefront of civilization, and Libya is determined to be at the head.

    They said a revolution in Libya was impossible; the very idea was laughed at. And yet, here we are, one year later, rebuilding a nation. Years from now, I expect, Libya will still continue to defy expectations

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 5, 2012 @ 6:36 am

  44. my bad: “alternative” twice in the same sentence.

    I don’t know what Louis P. should be ambassador of–I can just see him in a silk hat, morning coat, and sneakers–but American Imperialism certainly ain’t it.

    JC: I think CC has Greenwald exactly wrong, but am not sure what relevance this has to the larger, slippery discussion of pro and anti-interventionism.

    I’m dismayed that Greenwald has the traction that he has on the left, given his essentially reactionary views in general, but this is a separate discussion that I wish someone would have. That said, your characterization of his views in this matter seems correct to me.

    I don’t see how anyone in the United States can favor “interventionism” as an ongoing policy of our so-called government–after all, our first “no boots/few boots” intervention was in the civil war in Afghanistan, and we all know how well that turned out.

    I have no problem accepting that some group of “legitimate” revolutionaries could–and in this case did–make good use of an intervention once it happened. But I also think it would be disastrous for our internal politics if “we” undertook any more interventions or started any more wars at all. It also seems to me by no means a foregone conclusion that the revolutionary “good guys” in Libya are going to succeed in the long run, even if they were right to accept the intervention. Clay has not succeeded in convincing me that there is a big, obvious, “good” revolution that is now in power in Libya–if indeed (and who can be sure?) that is what he is saying.

    A fraternal (sororal?), revolutionary United States might very well be obliged to assist brothers and sisters abroad–but that is not what actually happened. So I think the Libyan intervention, while its winds blew some good, was at best a once-off, and is certainly not to be repeated, even in Syria–and above all not (remember, we are discussing American policy) in a new war with Iran.

    The internal politics of the U.S. have broad repercussions in the world. If one were going to be a revolutionary here, while it would be necessary to expose and combat imperialism, surely the first necessity would to clear the way for revolutionary change in our economic and political power structure, since imperialism can never by defeated while that is intact.

    At all events, I consider myself merely a concerned citizen. I have grown too old on the margins of things to claim the mantle of revolutionary, though I will be happy to hold a banner and shout “Viva!” at the top of my poor, cracked voice–at least until some young zealot appears on my doorstep with a Kalashnikov and transforms my subject into an object.

    Here endeth.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 5, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

  45. Louis, Sorry for breaking a rule concerning the comments section of your blog. And I agree with your point.

    Clarification: The offending comment was clearly aimed at manuelgarciajr’s contribution, not Clay Claiborne, as implied by your later comments.

    Comment by Rick — April 5, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

  46. British Special Forces in Libya (for what it’s worth):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7On6uKaabKw&feature=player_embedded#! (starting from about 2:06)
    The accompanying piece from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya?CMP=twt_fd
    An article I found which includes a short BBC piece: http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2012/01/sas-in-libya.html (appears to be a pro-Qadhafi site?)
    I’m looking for a picture of what is clearly a white European guy with a bushy beard holding his weapon in a certain way that’s typical of military training, but haven’t located it yet. I’ll post a link if/when I find it.

    Comment by Deimos — April 5, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

  47. Found the article with the picture of the white guy:
    His beard isn’t quite as bushy as I remembered it to be, ha. And “clearly” might be overstating it. But, like I said, for what it’s worth.

    Comment by Deimos — April 5, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

  48. @#45

    I am not insulted by Rick’s response, #33, to my comment, #31 (I’ve been called much worse). I’ve received responses of similar type over the years to things I have written. I understand why a person who dislikes one of my comments or essays would respond in that fashion. My comments were rather pointed, and people who felt criticized by them could feel stung. Also, I realize my views generally would be quite unpopular with this audience. It’s of no consequence to me if comment #33 is ignored instead of being seriously considered and addressed, I’m satisfied I said what I wanted to whom I wanted to say it. Also, I extracted what was worthwhile from the accumulated chatter. Enjoy.

    Comment by manuelgarciajr — April 5, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

  49. Re #48

    “If comment #33 is ignored” should be “if comment #31 is ignored.”

    Excuse the typo. Enjoy

    Comment by manuelgarciajr — April 5, 2012 @ 6:02 pm

  50. I justed wanted to thank you for pointing out that the people (workers) of the US & EU that favored NATO intervention in Libya. I had forgotten about that.

    Form the offices of Digital Rights Corp. (hehe)

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 5, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

  51. When I heard PM Cameron saying that SAS troops were involved in the liberation of Tripoli, my 1st question was “Why is he saying this?” not “Is it true?” because their general policy is never to comment on SAS or SF operations.

    I think the answer is that if they can take credit for the victory, they can claim a portion of the spoils. This is how imperialists think. When I heard anti-interventionists citing Cameron uncritically as “proof”, I thought now they have come full circle and those that seemed so completely opposed to their own bourgeois and now supporting them on Libya.

    Were there SAS, SF or other NATO “boots on the ground” in Libya? That is still something of an open question to me. We know both France and the Brits conducted operation to extract their nationals last Feb., that is noted a “proof” in the longest video you sent me. There was that incident in March when the rebels captured an SAS team trying to make contact. If the phone call between the Brits and Jaril is to be believed, what it proves is that there was no relationship before that, i.e. the rebels weren’t Libyan contras as many anti-interventions claimed.

    I paid a lot of attention to the controversy around FAC. Early on there were a number of “friendly fire” incidents that NATO claimed happened because they didn’t have there own FAC on the ground. The NTC was refusing. I took the position that this was just a ploy to get boots on the ground, but the defense forums I was monitoring thought it a real problem. They thought NATO’s performance was really bad with so many accidents while at the time they weren’t attacking anything on more than 20% of strike sorties. There is a lot more to this story, including a lot I don’t know but eventually the friendly fire died down and the air war got a lot more effective. Did that involve NATO FAC? Still an open question.

    As far as European looking and British sounding rebels. That isn’t much. Remember Lawrence of Arabia when the blond blue-eyed Peter O’Toole convinces the Turkish General that he was an Arab, Castillen or something i think he said. Of course that’s a movie. Also many Libyans lived in England and the US and returned home to fight. Plus I would think both the US, Brits and France for that matter could probably find darker skinned operatives to sent in. That’s what I would do. I actually suspected some of the black rebels I saw in videos of being USSF.

    But I think that the main point to grasps is that Rambo is a myth and even LoA didn’t play the leading role in that Arab revolt as portrayed in the movie.We may be debating this for sometime, but a few dozen or even a few hundred SF NATO types didn’t win this victory or even lead it. This was a hard won victory of the Libyan thuwar and no one can take that away from them.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 2:20 am

  52. If FDR had sent arms to the Spanish Republic, today’s socialist left would have us on the train tracks blocking those shipments.

    Comment by Binh — April 6, 2012 @ 4:31 am

  53. Binh. Of course, Roosevelt would never have sent arms to the Spanish Republic any more than he would have supported the Sharecroppers’ Strike. He was too busy rescuing Brown Brothers, the Harrimans, the Kennedys, and the Harvard-owning classes in general from the worst consequences of their greed and arrogance and love of Hitler and Mussolini.

    OK: I admit that I was rooting for the rebels and wanted them to win. When the intervention started, I still wanted them to win–and am not sorry they did. But I distinctly remember also rooting for the rebels in the Afghan civil war against the Taliban. Anyone who says the Taliban are the People’s Glorious Heroes deserves to be shot. Nevertheless the bad consequences of that intervention haunt the world to this day.

    The formula seems to be: Give the Wogs some air support with no or few boots on the ground and let them kill each other. When it’s all over, send in the clowns. To my mind, this, like the OTPOR nonsense shows a surprising and unwelcome adaptability and intelligence on the part of “The West”. We ought not to underestimate it.

    There seems little doubt that a pro-“Western” element, or elements, in Libya and in the NTC in particular existed during the fight against Qaddafi, collaborated with a few boots on the ground and–with whatever aim–even conflicting aims–continues to exert an important influence. Who knows what the significance of this is? The situation is fluid and fraught with contradictions. Fortunately, to date, nobody has sent in an army to defend the NTC against “the terrorists.” Rather, “we” have sent Republican senators, bankers, and oilmen. But that could change.

    Rather than detecting in all this the presence of evil and waving a cross to stop it, I think we have to take a dry-eyed look at the remaining contradictions in the current phase of the Libyan struggle and think very carefully about its implications for the future. This has made me firmly opposed to any further U.S. intervention in Libya and any further U.S. military action anywhere else in the world.

    I’m not advocating socialism in one country, but I think that the most important thing in America today is to pull down the existing power structure and put something functional, humane, and socialist in its place. Until this is possible, support of revolutions abroad by Americans (who are politically impotent at home) becomes next to meaningless, since interventions on the whole can be accomplished only through the exercise of imperial power, which possibly does more damage when it fails even than when it succeeds.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 6, 2012 @ 11:57 am

  54. As far as Cameron’s statements are concerned, I chalk that up to the politicization, if you will, of special forces in general (look at how the Obama administration has used the Navy SEALs in the US for instance). I don’t think it’s that strange anymore for a head of state to declare that s/he has deployed a well-known special forces unit to deal with something, especially if said head of state believes this leads to political gain. Also consider that commenting on ongoing operations is quite different from simply stating that you’re deploying them to somewhere, even if you do so publicly.

    As for “boots on the ground”, I think it’s very likely that certain NATO-countries had some operatives on the ground in Libya itself, be it from special forces or intelligence agencies. Initially, like Mr. Claiborne said, to help their nationals get out of the country, subsequently to establish contact with the rebels to provide training, logistics and material (the basics, you know). I’m thinking of Britain and France in particular since they took the lead in helping the rebels, but Italy and the Netherlands come to mind as well. I even suspect Belgium, my homeland, may have had a small SOF presence (Tchad neighbours Libya so it wouldn’t be too hard for them to enter from there if necessary). This is not to say that I believe they won the rebels the war or even that they took charge or led from the front, just that they were there helping out.

    FACs (I take it you mean Forward Air Controllers) would have been part of these special forces. I believe NATO made their presence necessary to the rebels by cynically playing both sides in the beginning of the conflict: they would bomb Qadhafi-regime forces to help the rebels out, ensuring they could advance west, only to “accidently” bomb their rebel allies, forcing them to retreat in some cases. These friendly-fire incidents would then help open the door for assistance from foreign SOF units, including FACs to help with airstrikes.

    Of course, we’ll never know for sure, at least until things get declassified or leaked or whatnot.

    PS: I’d also like to point out that you’ll be hard-pressed to find any SOF operators with skin colour darker than from sun tanning, hahaha. These guys tend to be white, especially here in Europe.

    Comment by Deimos — April 6, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

  55. Today’s socialist left should also consider how their stance looks to progressive workers who haven’t been ‘educated’ as to their carefully tailored view of the world. On a particularly bloody Saturday in Homs a few weeks ago, I was told over 400 were killed, I participated in a “Stop War on Iran” rally organised by PSL/WWP at the Westwood Federal bldg. I had the only sign protesting what Assad was doing in Syria.

    I can only imagine that those passing the rally that pay attention to international news, must have wondered what sort of movement ignores mass murder were it is happening in favour of protesting it were it might happen because they hadn’t got the memo saying that we only protest the slaughter of workers by “our own” bourgeois.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

  56. Demos said:

    PS: I’d also like to point out that you’ll be hard-pressed to find any SOF operators with skin colour darker than from sun tanning, hahaha. These guys tend to be white

    Outside of the Air Force, the US military is more than 25% black and Latino, and while those same proportions don’t hold for USSF, I have no doubt that they would have no trouble finding hundreds of operatives of color. From SEALs and diversity :

    The Army Special Forces, known by distinctive green berets, has 234 African-American officers and soldiers in a force of 5,200 men. Blacks make up 4.5 percent of the Green Berets, compared with nearly 24 percent of the male soldiers in the Army.

    The Navy has only 31 blacks among its 2,299 Sea-Air-Land, or SEAL, commandos, less than 2 percent of the force. African-Americans constitute nearly 17 percent of the male personnel within the Navy.

    And, the Air Force’ special-tactics groups have only eight blacks in a force of 472 men, less than 2 percent. Servicewide, about 14 percent of the Air Force’ s male personnel are African-American.

    Now the overall number of minorities in the special forces is substantially higher than the number of blacks, but we need to remember that the real concern here is with blacks, not other minorities. I quote again from the Union-Tribune:

    Only 13 percent of the Pentagon’ s highly trained special-operations forces are racial minorities. Of the 8,775 Army, Navy and Air Force commandos, 1,180 are classified as minorities.

    Less than 15 percent of the Army’s Special Forces and Rangers personnel are soldiers of color, compared with about 40 percent of the entire Army.

    About 11 percent of Navy SEALs, whose headquarters are in Coronado, are minorities. “We are underrepresented (with minorities) compared to what we’ d like,” acknowledged Rear Adm. Eric Olson, the Navy’ s top SEAL.
    Eight percent of the Air Force’ special-tactics and para-rescue groups, the military’ s smallest commando force, are minority members.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

  57. Joe said:

    support of revolutions abroad by Americans (who are politically impotent at home) becomes next to meaningless

    IMHO you really fail to understand how internationalism can work in the age of the Internet don’t you?

    Are you still unaware of the role of Anonymous, whose OpTunisia kicked off on Jan. 2, 2011 and which has a healthy dose of American’s in it in supporting the struggles in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya? Are you also equally unaware of the network of websites, forums, piratepads, and chat rooms that sprung up in support of the Libyan revolution? Or how that segued into Occupy? Americans were involved in that. How about WikiLeaks or WikiLeak Central? Last time I checked I was still an American? Even Google, with its Egyptian and then Libyan Speech-to-Tweet services played a crucial role in breaking the dictators Internet blockage. Brought to you by the workers of an American corporation in their paid “personal projects time” but obviously with corporate approval.

    Cyberspace is now an extremely important arena in the class struggle and one that allows anyone with an Internet connect to participate. In fact, some vital tasks can best be performed by those not in the conflict zone that have greater access to bandwidth and technology, and the peace to put them to the best use.

    The people around Anonymous and WL get that, unfortunately, and because Marxist have largely been MIA, these struggles have been lately dominated by anarchists and others with no clear ideology. But I have operated openly as a Marxists in these arenas, including the Libyan revolution and found wide support for my views.

    Consider this piece we are discussing now. It got only 5 recommends on the DKos, but it has been shared or liked over 400 times. Guess by who? Here’s a clue:

    Support Libyan Revolt is out! http://bit.ly/fQmDTc ▸ Top stories today via @russellvogt @afreehuman @benghazichron @annalan @clayclai
    3:15 AM – 4 Apr 12

    LibyaFromFrance favorited your Tweet
    3 Apr: On #Libya & @GGreenwald: Are the anti-interventionists becoming counter-revolutionaries? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/03/1080068/-On-Libya-Glenn-Greenwald-Are-the-anti-interventionists-becoming-counter-revolutionaries- via #Feb17

    EAAZuz retweeted you 3 Apr: On #Libya & @GGreenwald: Are the anti-interventionists becoming

    However things turn out in Libya, I will know that I been in there fighting for a Marxist line and not standing outside of it like a tourist to world revolution.

    Get with it! The world is in revolt now and Marxists need to do more than stand outside of it, commenting.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

  58. @ Mr. Claiborne: I think the article you provided makes clear that the US would struggle to actively field even a small number of SOF operators of color (I’m taking into account more than just raw numbers here, to be clear). Just my impression.

    Btw, why are Hispanics considered a different race in the US (and possibly elsewhere)? Is it because they’re supposed to have Native American (Maya, Inca, etc.) blood or something? I like to think they’re white too because of the Spanish/Portugese blood.

    Comment by Deimos — April 6, 2012 @ 8:33 pm

  59. Revolutions are not made by tweeting on the internet. Next question.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 6, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

  60. Race is a social category. Race is defined by the racists, it has no real basis in blood or genetics or anything you are thinking about.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 11:01 pm

  61. Then I am wasting my time here.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 11:01 pm

  62. That last comment was directed at Joe, who seeks to belittle the roles of communication, ideology, agitation, propaganda, organization and unity building in making a revolution because the Internet is now an extremely important tool for revolutionaries in all of those areas.

    I certainly have no to time to spend discussing revolution on the Internet with people who think the Internet is irrelevant to making revolution.

    Joe also shows that he is completely clueless about the significant of twitter in the military aspects of the Libyan revolution.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

  63. Twiiter was used by the thuwar to provide targeting info, including GPS co-ordinated, to NATO for example.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 11:16 pm

  64. Twitter was used to alert activist of a trap Qaddafi tried to sping on them in Tripoli in another.

    Revolutions aren’t made by any one thing period, and anyone who rejects any useful tool in making revolution, of seeks to belittle it, needs to get out of the way.

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 6, 2012 @ 11:20 pm

  65. Clay, don’t tell me I’m pissing on the fucking flag when it’s obvious that I’m not. Furthermore, I don’t believe for one second that you had any idea about that until the other guy piped up. Not a lot of weight in that particular pile-on.

    I make my living in Internet technology and know more about it than either of you probably realizes.

    I repeat: 1) absent revolution in the United States, American radicals are essentially powerless to change the course of foreign revolutions. If you consider yourself a revolutionary, you can either go and fight abroad, as some do sometimes, or you can make revolution here. Otherwise, you are politically powerless. The greatest gift America can give to the world is revolution here. This is so obvious that I don’t see how there can be an honest controversy about it. There may of course be other kinds of controversy–but i say nothing about that.

    2) The Internet–and Twitter specifically–is no doubt useful to revolutionaries–so are camp stools and toilet paper. It is not a way in which American radicals can decisively influence the outcome of foreign revolutions, and nothing you say would justify such a preposterous assertion. Otherwise, it is no more intrinsically revolutionary than any other tool. Posting articles on blogs–the original subject of all this fuss-certainly can contribute to revolution but is no more intrinsically revolutionary than printing them on printing presses. The technology is superior in some ways–and inferior in the advantages it offers to subversion and censorship under many circumstances–but is not itself the point.

    As to uses that Libyans in Libya may have made of Twitter, this is fine, but since I never denied, as both of you ridiculously assert, that revolutionaries can make use of Twitter but rather that Twitter by itself is revolutionary–you haven’t proved anything against anything that I ever said.

    3) The best contribution Americans can make to foreign revolutions is to make revolution here. That’s the major task. This is hardly controversial.

    Phobos–sorry, Deimos: I do thank you–it that was you–for documenting my point about a few Euro or Euroid boots on the ground during the revolution. I believe the consensus worked out in favor of that one, which turned out not to be a counter-revolutionary libel after all. Imagine that!

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 7, 2012 @ 3:29 am

  66. BTW–After all the petty-bourgeois about Wael Ghonim and his I-thing, it turned out that working-class revolutionaries in Cairo managed to outwit the police using cell phones and diversionary tactics with no internet use at all.

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 7, 2012 @ 3:40 am

  67. petty bourgeois horseshit about Wael Ghonim

    Comment by Joe Vaughan — April 7, 2012 @ 3:41 am

  68. @ Mr. Claiborne: I hope you and other people don’t think I’m a racist because of a question based on some naive ideas I got from a biology book in my youth (no, not “Mein Kampf”, dammit). I have since wikied race as a social construct and understand now what you mean. (/Off topic)

    Comment by Deimos — April 7, 2012 @ 9:53 am

  69. Hahaha, don’t mistake me for my right-wing brother, Joe.

    Comment by Deimos — April 7, 2012 @ 9:55 am

  70. Adding “decisively” so changes your argument.

    Libya’s Amazigh celebrate spring festival

    Comment by Clay Claiborne (@clayclai) — April 7, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

  71. Sorry Louis for the non-replies, I’ve been awfully busy with the “rent” project, researching, writing and feeding to the “editor”, weekly trips to UCB. All on top of working for a living…

    Comment by matthewrusso9 — April 11, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: