Long oppressed by their strongman leader, the rebels finally had their day. With immense military and political help from the West, they first toppled the regime, and later, the dictator himself.  At long last, “freedom” was theirs, although as we have come to know, one person’s freedom is another’s hell.

And how did the rebels show their appreciation to their liberators? By showering them not with roses, but roadside bombs, bullets and vitriol. Their message? “Thanks --- now get out.”

So it was in Iraq, and so it will be in Libya.

Amazingly, Western leaders either don’t read history, or, more likely, do so and arrogantly think they can avoid the same mistakes.

They can’t.

The objective of the US and NATO was to remove Gaddafi. Well, mission accomplished. But once again, the age-old adage applies: Be careful what you wish for…you might just get it. And get it they did, but now what? How much more blood and treasure will be expended to maintain a presence in a country that was a) stable, b) a Muslim “ally” of the West, and therefore c) didn’t need an occupying Western presence?

Sadly, too much.

                                                                                       *****

There was no question why the U.S. became involved in Libya.  It wasn’t about stopping a dictator or civilian deaths.  And it’s wasn’t about democracy and freedom.  It was because Libya produces a lot of oil. Period.

Need proof?  Among numerous examples, just look at Syria.  They continue to massacre their citizens and foment terrorism, but their petroleum production is but a fraction of what Libya pumps out annually. Case closed.

So America once again did much of the heavy lifting, giving its imprimatur for the airstrikes which led to the rebels taking down Gaddafi.  

But it seems that we have forgotten one small thing.  Those rebels --- who brutally and gleefully executed Gaddafi in full view of cameras, and are now “running” the country --- are the same folks who comprised the largest fighting force outside of Iraq to engage the United States military in that country.

That bears repeating.

We just backed the very same people who have been shooting at us for the past eight years.  A naïve question, to be sure, but did anyone in charge actually bother to think about this before participating in the regime change of a sovereign nation?
 
The rebels, who are no longer rebels but now governmental “leaders,” have tasted power. They are getting used to carrying out the law ---their law --- on the spot, administering justice as they see fit. To think that they are just going to lay down their weapons (which we provided) and obey orders from a civilian politician is a fairy tale. Just look at the recent revelation that upwards of 20,000 portable surface-to-air missiles, each capable of downing a jetliner, are missing and feared to be in unfriendly hands. What a shock.

The result will be chaos and armed factions roaming the country.  And when they are pressed further, look for car bombs and oil pipelines to start exploding.

Kind of like…Iraq. 

But the West can’t have that, so by its own admission, it will be sending in ground troops.  And as history shows, that is never a short-term proposition. 

Of course, since European countries are broke and wholly incapable of sustaining any military operation, the United States will inevitably be drawn further into the Libyan quagmire.

In the hope of not repeating past mistakes, there are two lessons that should be heeded by what will hopefully be a new Administration next year:

1) Credibility is everything.  Nowhere is a nation’s word more important than on the world stage. If a country that prides itself on being of high moral character lies and betrays, it’s credibility is shot.  Period. It’s a lesson the United States still hasn’t learned.

For example, America urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of Gulf War I, pledging support to help them overthrow the dictator. But the U.S. reneged on that promise, leading to the needless slaughter of many. Because of our credibility gap, we were forced to expend enormous effort to convince the Kurds to join the coalition in the Gulf War II. 

Fast forward to the present, and it is apparent that lesson has gone unheeded, as the Libyan debacle clearly illustrates.

Moammar Gaddafi was never an angel, not in the beginning of his forty-year reign, nor at the end.  But he showed himself to be a leader with whom the West could effectively work, even if his transformation was rooted in self-preservation.

In no uncertain terms, Gaddafi was told to shape up or face the consequences.  To his credit, he did, and then some.  He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his WMD/nuclear program, and stopped harboring terrorists.  As a result of his positive actions, Gaddafi’s nation was removed the Terrorism List by the George W. Bush Administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was rewarded for its "renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the U.S." in the war on terror.

And yet, despite U.S. assurances to Libya that the two nations would be conditional allies, that “excellent cooperation” wasn’t good enough.  America broke its word by helping to eliminate a leader who had done everything the United States had asked of him.  With that kind of “credibility,” is it any wonder why many leaders have chosen a path at odds with America? Venezuelan General Hugo Chavez comes to mind.

This results in needless roadblocks in diplomatic, political and economic negotiations around the world. The damage from one thoughtless decision can take years to repair, with Libya the latest example.

2) It is time for energy independence.  Despite the inherent common sense of energy independence, both from economic and security perspectives, it remains a policy neither Party chooses to advance.  Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that is where it ends.

Rather than tap into the largest natural gas deposits in the world (the Marcellus and Utica Shales), the vast oil reserves in Alaska, the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, the reserves under the Rockies that may be the largest on the planet, and drill offshore, the politicians continue the disastrous policy of relying on petroleum from hostile nations.

Put another way, if Libya, and the entire Middle East for that matter, wasn’t sitting on huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

But because neither Party will pursue energy independence in a meaningful manner, job creation suffers, inflation rises, and America’s fighting forces remain in the crosshairs.

So once again, America is involved in yet another conflict with no clear objectives, which will only create more uncertainty in world markets that are already on the verge of collapse.

Common sense is such that America should stop playing policeman to the world, become energy independent, put the interests of its citizens before the people of other nations, and, above all, keep its word.

Don’t hold your breath. As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common.”

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to the United Nations has been met with fierce opposition, including a 30-nation walk-out during his address to the international body. That childish protest, led by the U.S., was exactly what transpired during his previous visits when he spoke at both the U.N. and Columbia University.

People can protest all they want.  That's their right in this country, and Ahmadinejad has certainly provided enough material.  But a distinction has to be made as to what is being protested.

If people want to voice disapproval of Ahmadinejad's totalitarian policies and inflammatory statements, great. If, however, the U.N. walk-out was to (ultimately) criticize the organization’s decision to allow an unpopular figure to speak, that's a different story.

Why are we so scared of Ahmadinejad?  What frightens us so much that we demand his viewpoints be silenced?  He is the undisputed leader of a sovereign nation, a man whose words and decisions have significant weight on the world stage.  Like him or not, he's the President of Iran, and the West has no choice but to deal with him and his government. 

And if the criteria for a walk-out are fanatical statements made by the ranting leader of a second-rate country, then U.N. delegates better get comfortable shoes, because they’ll be doing a hell of a lot of walking.

Walking out on Ahmadinejad is completely counter-productive, as it gives him a public relations bonanza. Like eating the forbidden fruit, Ahmadinejad’s remarks will now be heard by many who otherwise would not have cared, being attracted by the “If it’s bad enough that the U.S. walked out, I must hear what he said” mentality.  And it permits our enemies to label us hypocritcal, jettisoning free speech whenever convenient.

It’s exactly like those who protest KKK and neo-Nazi marches. The louder the protesters, the more energy and media coverage is given to those groups. They feed off the attention. Stay home, and they go away. It’s that simple.

And it’s a horrible example for our children. Don’t like what the professor has to say? Leave. Mom and Dad trying to enforce the rules? Walk out. Disagree with what your political opponent says about you? Throw out some invectives and storm away.

                                                                                 *****

In 2007, despite getting hammered by protesters and politicians, Columbia played it right by affording Ahmadinejad a platform, but equally important, chose not to give him an award.  It is one thing to allow someone to speak, but quite another when accolades are bestowed upon individuals who don't deserve them. 

The larger question centers on free speech.  Aren't we always told that America sets the standard for the free exchange of ideas?  Don’t we teach our young people to keep an open mind and question everything?  Isn’t it invaluable to hear opposing points of view, and ultimately form one's own opinion?

Failure to maintain an open atmosphere leads to close-mindedness and ignorance.  The world is increasingly “flat,” in that we live in an ever-expanding global economy.  Traditional borders and cultural barriers continue to be dismantled.  Therefore, it’s imperative that Americans understand the value of listening, are open to constructive dialogue, formulate tough questions, and refuse to live in fear.

Narrow-mindedness will only make the road ahead more difficult. 
 
This is not a call for appeasement, nor is it running from reality.  Iran's posturing---and actions--- have made the West very uncomfortable, and if that nation continues its current path, especially with regard to its nuclear program, the situation may well become bloody. 

Is Iran an “enemy,” whose leaders should be banned from entering America, as some contend?  Depends on your definition.  But if that’s the case, then kick out France, which aided and abetted Iraq leading up to the war (in many cases illegally). And China, since it massacred citizens at Tiananmen Square, among its other heinous transgressions. And Syria, given the ongoing slaughter of its citizens.

And let’s not forget to look in the mirror, as America’s role in overthrowing the sovereign regime in Libya --- which we had repeatedly praised as a nation reformed and a partner in rooting out terrorism --- was nothing more than an inexcusable oil grab for our European allies. Where do you draw the line? 

We are not at war with Iran.  If Ahmadinejad wants to make ludicrous statements amounting to Holocaust revisionist history, the absence of homosexuality in Iran and who was really behind 9/11, he does so at his own peril.  He needs Western investment and petro dollars to survive, and such rhetoric only undermines his credibility and jeopardizes the economic stability of his country. The more Ahmadinejad speaks, the more he hurts himself.

While he advocates much which we abhor, it is the strength of America that allows him to express himself without fear of repercussion.  That is why we are still the envy of the world.

It’s time to start effectively dealing with Iran ---politically, diplomatically, economically, and yes, if necessary, militarily. For that to happen, we need to act like grown-ups and dispense with second-grade games that make Khrushchev’s shoe-banging outburst look respectable.

The United States should run from no one, least of all Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the words of FDR, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationall in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

How this affects you: the lack of a manned American space program is a deathblow to the discovery of new technologies and life-saving bio-medical research --- not to mention a national security threat, as the U.S. must now rely on foreign nations for human access into space.

Say what you want about Americans, but at least we’re consistent.  After all, we have willfully allowed the demise of our nation, not from outside invasion, but within. With our full approval, the greatest, most benevolent nation the world has known is being transformed into a shadow of its former self.  In many respects, it has become a second world nation with a first-world military, but even that dubious distinction may soon be a pipedream.

The biggest culprit for the decline?  Overseas outsourcing.  Consider what we have done:

- Incomprehensibly, we have outsourced our energy needs.  Rather than utilizing our mammoth domestic reserves, we find ourselves bent over a barrel, paying through the nose to nations who don’t put exactly put America on their Christmas card lists --- such as Venezuela and the Middle East. This transfer of wealth, the largest in history, only continues to accelerate.

- We have outsourced virtually our entire manufacturing base to Mexico, Central America, India and China.  When a nation makes nothing, it is infinitely harder to rebound from a severe recession, so do the math.  Our economy will be in the tank for the long haul.

-Bowing to excessive self-imposed regulations, America now relies on other countries --- especially China --- to supply it with rare earth elements, without which the economy would come crashing down.  These materials are absolutely instrumental in everything necessary to keep commerce flowing and our nation safe: computers, cell phones, high-tech electronics --- and yes, strategic military assets.

So now that our fleet of Space Shuttles has been retired from service, it should come as no surprise that we have done what was once unthinkable.  We have officially outsourced the mainstay of our space program --- manned space flight.   Naturally, we have no replacement, since that would have required foresight and common sense, so now we are in the peculiar situation of having to rely on the very same folks who less than two decades ago were our archenemy --- the Russians. 

Hey, it’s great that they’re a bit friendlier now, but let’s not get carried away.  They are still Ruskies, with quite a few Soviets still in the mix --- folks who don’t exactly pop to mind when contemplating our bona fide allies.

There’s an old saying that it’s not how fast you start the race, but who crosses the finish line first.  So it’s not without irony that the biggest race that mattered to this country just a few decades ago --- the Space Race --- has now officially been won by our adversary.

Sure, they launched a Cosmonaut into space before we put Alan Shepard there, but after that, it was all America.  Skylab, multiple moon landings, deep space probes, communication and military satellites and yes, forking over huge chunks of cash to build the International Space Station (ISS).  And without Americans supplying the logistics to the ISS via the Shuttle program, it would have never gotten off the ground. Literally.

So let’s recap.  We foot most of the bill.  We supply the engineering knowledge and expertise.  We send the materials into space, and we build it.  And now, we have to beg permission from the Russians to access it.

How does a parent have that conversation with a starry-eyed child mesmerized by the lure of outer space?

“Dad, how do we get astronauts to the space station?” 

“Well, uhhh… since we put all of our space ships into museums and don’t have any new ones, we now have to hitch a ride with the Russians.  But there’s good news.  They used to be our enemy, but now they’re run by the Mob.”

If America’s space situation doesn’t lend itself to the euphemism of a deep space probe getting stuck in Uranus, I don’t know what does.

                                                                                       *****

By no means was the Shuttle program without flaws.  True, it was the base of operations for cutting edge experiments and bio-medical research, and it placed the incomparable Hubble telescope into orbit, opening our eyes to unprecedented views of the universe.

To many, though, the Shuttle was nothing more than a very expensive bus that flew around the Earth, dropped off construction equipment, and returned home.  And while the original plans called for launches on a regular basis, the Shuttle flew only a fraction of the envisioned missions.

Shuttle’s value aside, it is indisputable that America’s original vision for space exploration got sidetracked, with numerous Administrations forsaking that which inspired generations of Americans to literally reach for the stars.

Despite the once-unimaginable walk on the Moon occurring a mere 66 years after the Wright brothers’ first flight, we haven’t been back in nearly four decades.  Dark side of the Moon?  Still unexplored.  Manned missions to Mars, let alone Jupiter’s moons, which hold the promise of life more than anywhere else in our solar system?  Off the table. (And it’s not for lack of money, as we spend trillions on everything else under the sun --- no pun intended --- but that’s another column).

The resulting loss of innovation and invention has been significant.  Even in a program as basic as Shuttle, the technology that emerged was phenomenal, from materials to microprocessors that revolutionized every aspect of our lives.  Now imagine those types of advancements on steroids.  Such is the sky-is-the-limit creativity that would emerge if America stopped wallowing in mediocrity and once again forged ahead, as only it can.

And it’s not just the tangible advances that come about from a dedicated space program, but something infinitely more important.  There is an unbridled sense of nationalism, a pride that emanates from every citizen that, in no uncertain terms, shouts to the world that the American pioneering spirit can never be stopped, that nothing is impossible. For proof, look no further than the spectacular rescue of Apollo 13.

Ask anyone alive in the 50’s and 60’s, and they will mistily recount how America was completely united when it was launching its boys into the great unknown.  Were there political disagreements? Of course, but reaching for the stars made folks realize that they could rise above petty arguments, and that yes, some things were even bigger than themselves. 

Pushing the limits of human ability and venturing into what was literally a dream for 50,000 years’ worth of humankind gave Americans the justifiable patriotic pride that they were indeed special --- that they weren’t just traveling through history, but making it.

Conquering gravity and making science fiction come true didn’t start in Russia, and most certainly didn’t originate in China.  The space race isn’t a sprint, but a marathon, yet the United States doesn’t even have a runner on the track.

So will America ever come out of its self-imposed eclipse and once again claim the space leadership mantle that it not just owned, but invented?
Hard to tell, but a hybrid quote from astronaut James Lovell and the comic strip character Pogo keep coming to mind:

“Houston, we have a problem ---- and it is us.”

Chris Friend is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

American columnist Chris Freind again questions why Gerry and Kate McCann won’t admit that THEY are most responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance

Is it any wonder why the state of journalism is so dismal?  Why its luster as a noble profession has been lost? And why so many citizens no longer have faith in the media to ask tough questions and seek the truth, wherever it may lead?

Sadly, that brand of hard-nosed, “no sacred cows” reporting is now virtually nonexistent.  Instead, it’s all about making nice with interviewees and bowing at the altar of political correctness, where reporters spend more time trying not to offend than actually doing their job.

Case in point: the nauseating interview by CNN’s Piers Morgan of Gerry and Kate (G and K) McCann, parents of Madeleine, the British toddler who went missing from a Portuguese resort four years ago. Maddy, you may recall, was left alone in a ground floor, unlocked apartment along with her twin two-year old siblings while G and K ate and imbibed at the resort restaurant. 

Rather than probe G and K to shed light on the many questions needing clear and concise answers, Morgan merely placated them (“…you’re certainly good parents… no one is questioning that..”), allowing the McCanns to manipulate the discussion to their liking.

So once again, a chance to help Madeleine via a worldwide audience is wasted by the McCanns’ self-serving spin. 

                                                               *****

The McCanns claimed Madeleine was kidnapped, though there is scant evidence to that claim. While those who have followed the drama have various theories as to what really happened to Madeleine, this author has consistently hammered home four core points:

1) There are numerous inconsistencies in the McCanns’ version of what transpired that fateful night. And the only way to get straight answers would be for an interviewer to do his job and ask the right questions.  But for the world to trust the McCanns, and by extension generate renewed vigor in the search for Madeleine, Gerry and Kate need to come clean and address the many inconsistencies.  Example: why did Kate allegedly yell “they’ve taken her” rather than “Madeleine is missing” after discovering her disappearance? And why kidnapping was her first thought, which is totally inconsistent with Gerry’s interview answer to Morgan (detailed below).

The Court of Public Opinion will judge G and K accordingly, but the longer questions go unanswered, the more doubts arise.  (For the record, “Freindly Fire” has repeatedly requested an interview, but to no avail).

2) The McCanns, unequivocally, endangered their children through negligence.  No matter what spin is put on the situation, the fact that three children, with a combined age of seven, were left alone for hours is inexcusable.  Sure, no one is perfect, and there are degrees of mistakes, but that takes the cake.  Some critics argue that focusing on Gerry and Kate’s actions do nothing for finding Madeleine and serve no purpose, but in fact, the opposite is true.  First, by genuinely admitting their grave mistake and taking pains to show the world that children should never be left unattended, they set the right example for parents who may still engage in that practice. 

More important, they would build enormous goodwill with those who simply can’t get past the McCanns’ arrogance, and in doing so, generate a level of trust that they can be believed.  Taking blame for their mistake will win people over, and for obvious reasons, the more people tuned into Madeleine’s situation (without so much anger directed at the parents), the better the chances for additional leads.

3) The British media should do its job by reporting the facts and asking the right questions. Despite Britain’s ridiculously stifling and archaic libel laws, the UK press still has plenty of leeway in which to move this case forward.  They should neither pronounce guilt nor cozy up to the McCanns, but take an objective down-the-middle approach to finding answers to the most pressing questions.

And along those lines, the McCanns would be well served to stop suing or threatening every individual, web group and media entity that states something they don’t like.  By leaving your children alone in a foreign nation --- and not adequately addressing that mistake --- they brought criticism upon themselves.  Deal with it.  Threats to silence critics only make them look guilty.

4) Why have no negligence charges been brought against Gerry and Kate, thus showing the world that willfully walking away from your children is not only wrong, but criminal?  Remember, for a three-year old in an unfamiliar place, parents who are 100 meters away might as well be in a foreign land.

                                                               *****

Unfortunately, the Piers Morgan interview demonstrates that those lessons involving humility and honesty have not been learned by Gerry and Kate.  It’s just more of the same: softball questions, slick answers, and the blame game.  The most telling excerpts:

Piers Morgan (PM): Why didn’t you just pay to have a nanny if you wanted to go out to dinner?

Gerry (GM): We did what we thought was best….If you’re children are asleep upstairs in a bedroom and you’re dining (outside) in the garden, you can’t hear them. And that’s the similar thing to me.

PM: But most people’s homes are secure. (The resort) wasn’t a secure property. People could come in off the street…

GM: It gets back to the safety issue.  We did not perceive an element of threat. Child abduction is so rare.  Why would you have ever thought that someone would have entered the apartment and steal your child? It just didn’t enter our head.

Kate: We’ve been through all these questions, day in and day out….we felt really safe….and there’s no way we would have taken a risk.

GM:  (These questions on our behavior) take the focus away from the abductor, and that becomes quite frustrating for us….Those responsible for taking her are still at large.

A question comes to mind for our well-to-do globetrotting celebrities (both physicians who could have easily afforded a nanny or babysitting service):

Is there a change of seasons on your planet?

Give Gerry credit.  He actually said those things with a straight face.  As far as Piers, he dropped the ball and let them off the hook.  Same old story.

Perhaps he could have followed up just a bit more on the “dining-in-the-backyard is the same as being out at a restaurant,” pointing out that Gerry couldn’t see the room (it was blocked by a six-foot wall) and was barely within earshot of the apartment even if an adult had screamed, let alone a child crying in distress.

Piers, it appears, isn’t ready for prime time.

And the “element of threat?”  Why is it only kidnapping, in hindsight, that Gerry sees as the threat?  I’ve been to resorts in that area of Portugal. Guess what?  The floors are hard as rock, because in many instances, they are.  So the possibility never occurred to the McCanns that an unsupervised Madeleine could playfully jump on the bed --- and fall off?  And if she did, how would checking on the children every half-hour help if she broke an arm --- or skull?

What about little children getting into medicine and overdosing?  Or simply walking out the unlocked door and into a dangerous world --- one very close to the ocean?

And if there had been a fire, would Madeleine, with her whopping three years of life on Earth, be expected to save herself and the twins?

Perhaps most interesting, were the McCanns’ valuables locked in the safe, as some state?  If so, why --- if there was no “element of threat?”  Smart doctors surely would not have left their children alone in an unlocked room if there was even a remote threat of burglary.  Would they?

The risks to the McCann children are obvious to all who possess common sense, and, one would presume, to two well-respected doctors.  But Gerry and Kate once again failed to admit what is apparent to most people: negligence has consequences. So when Gerry expresses frustration that focusing on the McCanns’ behavior takes away from the search for the abductor, he still doesn’t get it.

He and Kate need to admit that by looking in a mirror, they will instantly see who is most “responsible” for Madeleine’s disappearance, since, by definition, she wouldn’t have gone missing or been “kidnapped” had an adult been present.

Then, and only then, will Gerry’s and Kate’s long road back to credibility begin.  And that is the best thing possible for little Madeleine McCann.

Chris Freind, an accredited member of the press, is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com His extensive collection of columns questioning the McCanns for their negligence can be found in his website’s archives.

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national/international television.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it