Rivero has been spitting fury because apparently Israel has been working to undermine what he calls the Libyan 'democratic revolution' - because Israel's like that, see. Rivero claims that because Israel is pro-Gadaffi, and against the rebels, then no international intervention could take place against Libya. Rivero said the world would cave-in to Israeli influence....just as the USA always does, apparently.
Here's Rivero from just a few days ago:
So, according to Rivero ISrael is fighting on behalf of Gadaffi, and therefore Gadaffi's regime is immune to international concern and agitation.
Here's Rivero expounding on his meme:
Pretty clear position, right? Here's Rivero again, effectively supporting military action against Gadaffi (something he is always against when it is the USA seeking intervention):
When the UN vote on intervention was mooted, Rivero claimed that the USA would veto it, under direction from Gadaffi's supporters in Israel, of course (because Israel runs America, according to Rivero):
And yet, when the UN voted, it voted for military action against Gadaffi. Despite Israel running the USA, Mr Rivero?
When the vote came in, Rivero responded thus:
What on earth does he mean? That he really is shocked? The way he has written is a cliched way of saying one is not shocked - and yet events happened exactly contrary to what Rivero believed would happen. Rivero was proven completely wrong - about the UN voting for intervention, about a US veto, about Israel's influence on USA and the international community, UN etc.
He couldn't have been any more wrong. Yet now he asks us to 'imagine his shock'?
What is it that is going to give amongst Rivero's ridiculous analysis? Something has to. Somehow I don't think it will lead him to reassess Israel's influence.
Update - As soon as I finished this post I went back to WRH and one of the posts above has already been changed. This is how the comment now appears:
As the story develops Rivero has added this under a new story about the vote for military intervention:
So he *is* shocked?
Yes, your analysis was proven completely wrong, Mr Rivero! Absolutely, completely wrong.
Please take note? Neither USA nor the UN etc "caved-in" to Israel's determination to (supposedly) protect Gadaffi, Mr Rivero.
Interesting to see how he is going to squirm out of this.
ETA - in the day or so since Rivero posted on UN resolution he's gone pretty silent on Libya. WRH has posted 100 articles on nuclear fears re Japan, but only 15 articles relating to Libya. He's holding off commenting on any of it? Some of what he posted (without comment) was the usual critical view one might have expected Rivero to adopt - the view he'll probably retreat to once his lobbying and support for intervention drops back a few more pages. Amusingly he did say "no-one is mentioning the Israeli mercenaries" (which he claims are supporting Gadaffi). So why is USA attacking Israel's supposed interests, Mr Rivero? No answer.
2 comments:
You missed a good one a few days ago where he quoted that British paper from 1939 about world Jewry boycotting Germany.....
Did we not get that one?
There was a Jewish boycott of sorts against Nazi Germany in '33? It was The Express that claimed "Judea declares war on Germany"?
People who quote it (and the Daily Mail from that time too) omit to mention that they are now considered examples of the anti-semitism prevalent at the time - Beaverbrook and Rothermere, for example.
The Daily Mail in 1938 - "The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage."
The Daily Mail again - "Once it was known that Britain offered sanctuary to all who cared to come, the floodgates would be opened and we would be inundated by thousands seeking a home.’
A Daily Mail editorial in 1940, when Britain was at war with Germany, warned Jews that ‘They should be careful not to arouse the same resentment here.’ !
Anti-semites are using the same articles today. Mad how it goes on and on.
Post a Comment