The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About

The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About

by JoanneM

Here’s what Members of both parties desperately avoided bringing up at the Benghazi hearing this week: the US knew its partners in Libya were jihadist terrorists and the Benghazi “consulate” was a CIA facility to smuggle weapons and terrorists from Libya to Syria for the next “regime change.” This is no conspiracy: it was openly covered in the media right after the attack.
The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About

The Benghazi Hearing: What Neither Hillary nor the Republicans Want to Talk About
Written by James George Jatras
Friday October 23, 2015

As I write this, Hillary Clinton’s appearance before the House panel investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks that killed four Americans is still going on. I wasn’t able to listen to all of it live, and will plow through the transcript in due course.

Two things already are notable: one concerning the impact of the hearing itself – plus another aspect marked only by the sound of crickets chirping.

First, as one would have expected, the hearing has generated more heat than light. As has been the case to date, Republican lawmakers seem mainly interested in granular details of the State Department’s bureaucratic handling of the Benghazi post’s requests for more security, what did then-Secretary Clinton know and when did she know it, whether help could have and should have been sent and who stopped any such attempt, whether prompt action might have changed the outcome, questionable claims regarding a movie riling up the Muslim rabble, Hillary’s reliance on the expertise (or lack thereof) of Sidney Blumenthal, and all the other back-and-forth that’s dominated the issue since the events in question.

Democrats predictably shilled for her, the poor innocent victim of a GOP Star Chamber.

In short, nothing new.

Hillary boosters will be reinforced in their conviction that the inquiry is a witch hunt to hurt political prospects of the still-presumptive (especially with “Uncle Joe” Biden’s declining to run) Democratic presidential nominee. In supporting that conviction, the ill-phrased comments of abortive House Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy were a godsend.

Conversely, Hillary-haters (who outnumber her fans, according to polling) will be buttressed in their conviction that she’s a lying incompetent with the blood of four Americans on her hands. (There’s nothing wrong with a witch hunt if you catch a real witch.)

Aside from digging Americans more firmly into the partisan points of view they already hold, little of importance is likely to result.

Which is unfortunate, because the hearing could have been a watershed in American foreign policy if someone on either side of the aisle had wished to pillory Hillary on an issue that screams out for public answers. But certainly no Democrat would do so for partisan reasons, and no Republican seemed to care. (One can only wish that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, or both, had been on that panel!)

That issue is what was really going on in Benghazi. Unremarked upon from the lawmakers’ bench was Clinton’s admission that the post in Benghazi was not a consulate, as it is uniformly reported in the media. She did refer several times to the CIA compound.

No Sherlock Holmes is needed here. The facts have been in plain sight for over three years. As just one example, the following is a good summary from October 2012, barely a month after the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans:

‘There’s growing evidence that US agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official US liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between him and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that an FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the US surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the US consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at [the] rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.’

“How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria,” Business Insider, by Michael B Kelley, October 19, 2012

In short, to an extent still undisclosed to the American people, US agencies (and specifically the CIA) were at least aware of – and almost certainly complicit in – a pipeline to ship weapons from Gaddafi’s captured stocks to jihad terrorists in Syria seeking to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The key actors were jihadists, including elements of al-Qaeda, that NATO had assisted in overthrowing Gaddafi.

Shockingly, such savages don’t always remain on the leash and sometimes bite the hand that fed them. In a word, the Benghazi debacle was blowback from a “regime change” operation in which our allies and clients were the very terrorists we’ve been told for 14 years by both parties are the greatest threat to Americans’ lives and freedoms.

It’s then clear why Republican Congressmen declined to grill Hill’ on the details of our canoodling with terrorists: to do so would be to call into question the bipartisan penchant for supporting jihadists in multiple conflicts. Perpetuating a pattern established no later than the 1980s in Afghanistan (under Ronald Reagan, when at least Cold War vicissitudes could be considered a partial excuse), terrorists inspired by Saudi Wahhabist ideology were “our guys” in Bosnia and Kosovo (under Bill Clinton) and in Libya (under Barack Obama).

While the presidents in the post-Cold War cases were Democrats, most Republican criticism was not that supporting people of that ilk was a bad idea but that, respectively, Clinton or Obama wasn’t moving decisively enough to empower the terrorists. Hence, the familiar refrain that Obama was “leading from behind” in Libya. If only we had moved faster, critics claimed, pro-American, democratic “moderates” might have gained power . . . Sure.

The same pattern continues today, in Syria. Just this week, in light of Russia’s airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), the al-Nusra Front (the official al-Qaeda affiliate), Ahrar al-Sham, and other jihadists, the Obama administration boldly responded – with arms drops to “trusted” terrorists. Having been up to their elbows in supporting jihad in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Gulf States are now doubling down on their aid to terror groups in Syria, while publicly members of the US-led “anti-ISIL coalition.” Some allies.

And where is the GOP? Aside from a few noble exceptions, Republicans are faulting Obama for not providing more help to the jihadists, even joining with none other than Hillary Clinton in calling for a no-fly zone. How little we’ve learned.

Other angles could also have been explored at the hearing, such as Hillary’s faux Caesaresque cackle regarding Gaddafi’s murder: “We came, we saw, he died!” One yearns to ask her if extrajudicial murder of foreign heads of state is now official US policy, or is that just her private peccadillo? Can she suggest a list of other countries’ leaders who, without benefit of trial, should have a knife shoved up their rectum, then get shot in the head?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Article link:…

Ripped From Hillary’s Emails: French Plot to Overthrow Gaddafi and Help Itself to Libya’s Oil

Ripped From Hillary’s Emails: French Plot to Overthrow Gaddafi and Help Itself to Libya’s Oil

By Conn Hallinan,

“Philosopher“ Bernard Henri-Levy (aka, BHL) worked undercover as a journalist to engineer the deal with Libya, thus paving the way for yet more journalists to be accused of being spies. (Photo: Itzik Edri / Wikimedia Commons)

“Philosopher“ Bernard Henri-Levy (aka, BHL) worked undercover as a journalist to engineer the deal with Libya, thus paving the way for yet more journalists to be accused of being spies. (Photo: Itzik Edri / Wikimedia Commons)

French intelligence plotted to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi to horn in on Libya’s oil and to provide access for French businesses.

For more of Conn Hallinan’s essays visit Dispatches From the Edge. Meanwhile, his novels about the ancient Romans can be found at The Middle Empire Series.

The Congressional harrying of former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over emails concerning the 2012 death of an American Ambassador and three staff members in Benghazi, Libya, has become a sort of running joke, with Republicans claiming “cover-up” and Democrats dismissing the whole matter as nothing more than election year politics. But there is indeed a story embedded in the emails, one that is deeply damning of American and French actions in the Libyan civil war, from secretly funding the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi, to the willingness to use journalism as a cover for covert action.

The latest round of emails came to light June 22 in a fit of Republican pique over Clinton’s prevarications concerning whether she solicited intelligence from her advisor, journalist and former aide to President Bill Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal. If most newspaper readers rolled their eyes at this point and decided to check out the ball scores, one can hardly blame them.

But that would be a big mistake.

While the emails do raise questions about Hillary Clinton’s veracity, the real story is how French intelligence plotted to overthrow the Libyan leader in order to claim a hefty slice of Libya’s oil production and “favorable consideration” for French businesses.

The courier in this cynical undertaking was journalist and right-wing philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, a man who has yet to see a civil war that he doesn’t advocate intervening in, from Yugoslavia to Syria. According to Julian Pecquet, the U.S. congressional correspondent for the Turkish publication Al-Monitor, Henri-Levy claims he got French President Nicolas Sarkozy to back the Benghazi-based Libyan Transitional National Council that was quietly being funded by the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), the French CIA.

According to the memos, in return for money and support, “the DGSE officers indicated that they expected the new government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya.” The memo says that the two leaders of the Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil and General Abdul Fatah Younis, “accepted this offer.”

Another May 5 email indicates that French humanitarian flights to Benghazi included officials of the French oil company TOTAL, and representatives of construction firms and defense contractors, who secretly met with Council members and then “discreetly” traveled by road to Egypt, protected by DGSE agents.

Henri-Levy, an inveterate publicity hound, claims to have come up with this quid pro quo, business/regime change scheme, using “his status as a journalist to provide cover for his activities.” Given that journalists are routinely accused of being “foreign agents” in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Afghanistan, Henri-Levy’s subterfuge endangers other members of the media trying to do their jobs.

All this clandestine maneuvering paid off.

On Feb. 26, 2011, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1970 aimed at establishing “peace and security” and protecting the civilian population in the Libyan civil war. Or at least that was how UNR 1970 was sold to countries on the Security Council, like South Africa, Brazil, India, China and Russia, that had initial doubts. However, the French, Americans and British—along with several NATO allies—saw the resolution as an opportunity to overthrow Qaddafi and in France’s case, to get back in the game as a force in the region.

Almost before the ink was dry on the resolution, France, Britain and the U.S. began systematically bombing Qaddafi’s armed forces, ignoring pleas by the African Union to look for a peaceful way to resolve the civil war. According to one memo, President Sarkozy “plans to have France lead the attacks on [Qaddafi] over an extended period of time” and “sees this situation as an opportunity for France to reassert itself as a military power.”

While for France flexing its muscles was an important goal, Al- Monitor says that a September memo also shows that “Sarkozy urged the Libyans to reserve 35 percent of their oil industry for French firms—TOTAL in particular—when he traveled to Tripoli that month.”

In the end, Libya imploded and Paris has actually realized little in the way of oil, but France’s military industrial complex has done extraordinarily well in the aftermath of Qaddafi’s fall.

According to Defense Minister Jean-Yves Lodrian, French arms sales increased 42 percent from 2012, bringing in $7 billion, and are expected to top almost $8 billion in 2014.

Over the past decade, France, the former colonial masters of Lebanon, Syria, and Algeria, has been sidelined by U.S. and British arms sales to the Middle East. But the Libya war has turned that around. Since then, Paris has carefully courted Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates by taking a hard line on the Iran nuclear talks.

The global security analyst group Stratfor noted in 2013, “France could gain financially from the GCC’s [Gulf Cooperation Council, the organization representing the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf] frustrations over recent U.S. policy in the Middle East. Significant defense contracts worth tens of billions of dollars are up for grabs in the Gulf region, ranging from aircraft to warships to missile systems. France is predominantly competing with Britain and the United States for the contracts and is seeking to position itself as a key ally of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as it looks to strengthen its defense and industrial ties in the region.”

Sure enough, the French company Thales landed a $3.34 billion Saudi contract to upgrade the kingdom’s missile system and France just sold 24 Rafale fighters to Qatar for $7 billion. Discussions are underway with the UAE concerning the Rafale, and France sold 24 of the fighters to Egypt for $5.8 billion. France has also built a military base in the UAE.

French President Francois Hollande, along with his Foreign and Defense ministers, attended the recent GCC meeting, and, according to Hollande, there are 20 projects worth billions of dollars being discussed with Saudi Arabia. While he was in Qatar, Hollande gave a hard-line talk on Iran and guaranteed “that France is there for its allies when it is called upon.”

True to his word, France has thrown up one obstacle after another during the talks between Iran and the P5 + 1—the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

Paris also supports Saudi Arabia and it allies in their bombing war on Yemen, and strongly backs the Saudi-Turkish led overthrow of the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, even though it means that the French are aligning themselves with al-Qaeda linked extremist groups.

France seems to have its finger in every Middle East disaster, although, to be fair, it is hardly alone. Britain and the U.S. also played major roles in the Libya war, and the Obama administration is deep into the ongoing wars in Syria and Yemen. In the latter case, Washington supplies the Saudis with weapons, targeting intelligence, and in-air refueling of its fighter-bombers.

But the collapse of Libya was a particularly catastrophic event, which—as the African Union accurately predicted—sent a flood of arms and unrest into two continents.

The wars in Mali and Niger are a direct repercussion of Qaddafi’s fall, and the extremist Boko Haram in Nigeria appears to have benefited from the plundering of Libyan arms depots. Fighters and weapons from Libya have turned up in the ranks of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. And the gunmen who killed 22 museum visitors in Tunisia last March, and 38 tourists on a beach July 3, trained with extremists in Libya before carrying out their deadly attacks.

Clinton was aware of everything the French were up to and apparently had little objection to the cold-blooded cynicism behind Paris’s policies in the region.

The “news” in the Benghazi emails, according to the New York Times, is that, after denying it, Clinton may indeed have solicited advice from Blumenthal. The story ends with a piece of petty gossip: Clinton wanted to take credit for Qaddafi’s fall, but the White House stole the limelight by announcing the Libyan leader’s death first.


Washington’s Al Qaeda Ally Now Leading ISIS in Libya

Washington’s Al Qaeda (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group LIFG) Ally Now Leading ISIS in Libya

Although its an old article dated in March 2015 by Eric Draitser you should read it so you can understand what game FUKUS IS playing on the Libyan people.

The revelations that US ally Abdelhakim Belhadj is now leading ISIS in Libya should come as no surprise to those who have followed US policy in that country, and throughout the region. It illustrates for the umpteenth time that Washington has provided aid and comfort to precisely those forces it claims to be fighting around the world.



According to recent reports, Abdelhakim Belhadj has now firmly ensconced himself as the organizational commander of the ISIS presence inside Libya. The information comes from an unnamed US intelligence official who has confirmed that Belhadj is supporting and coordinating the efforts of the ISIS training centers in eastern Libya around the city of Derna, an area long known as a hotbed of jihadi militancy.



While it may not seem to be a major story – Al Qaeda terrorist turns ISIS commander – the reality is that since 2011 the US and its NATO allies have held up Belhadj as a “freedom fighter.” They portrayed him as a man who courageously led his fellow freedom-lovers against the “tyrannical despot” Gaddafi whose security forces at one time captured and imprisoned many members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), including Belhadj. ****(But Belhaj being an MI5 agent knew how to survive and betrayed all of his comrades to avoid prison he stayed in-house arrest for one year and then was free to go where ever he pleased. He was never tortured by the Libyan Jamahiryia and he was never deprived of anything he demanded. He swore allegiance to the Jamahiryia by orders of MI5 or 6 so that the foreign intelligence could get a foot hold in Libya, now he is a Multi-billionaire while he stole Libyan assets: he has his own private army, airport and planes. He is being groomed by UN/USA/UK to become the new DICTATOR IN LIBYA)



Belhadj served the US cause in Libya so well that he can be seen receiving accolades from Sen. John McCain who referred to Belhadj and his followers as heroes. He was initially rewarded after the fall of Gaddafi with the post of military commander of Tripoli, though he was forced to give way to a more politically palatable “transitional government” which has since evaporated in that chaotic, war-ravaged country.



Belhadj’s history of terrorist activity includes such “achievements” as collaboration with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course his convenient servitude to the US-NATO sponsored rampage across Libya that, among other things, caused mass killings of black Libyans and anyone suspected of being part of the Green Resistance (those loyal to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya led by Gaddafi). Although the corporate media tried to make a martyr of Belhadj for his alleged torture via the CIA rendition program, the inescapable fact is that wherever he goes he leaves a violent and bloody wake.

While much of this information is known, what is of paramount importance is placing this news in a proper political context, one that illustrates clearly the fact that the US has been, and continues to be, the major patron of extremist militants from Libya to Syria and beyond, and that all talk of “moderate rebels” is merely rhetoric designed to fool an unthinking public.

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend…Until He Isn’t

There is ample documented evidence of Belhadj’s association with Al Qaeda and his terrorist exploits the world over. Various reports have highlighted his experiences fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and he himself has boasted of killing US troops in Iraq. However, it was in Libya in 2011 where Belhadj became the face of the “rebels” seeking to topple Gaddafi and the legal government of Libya.

As the New York Times reported:

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group’s members were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces… Officially the fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj].

So, not only was Belhadj a participant in the US-NATO war on Libya, he was one of its most powerful leaders, heading a battle-hardened jihadist faction that constituted the leading edge of the war against Gaddafi. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than when the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) took the lead in the attack on Gaddafi’s compound at Bab al-Aziziya. In this regard, LIFG was provided intelligence, and likely also tactical support, from US intelligence and the US military.

This new information about Belhadj’s association with the suddenly globally relevant ISIS certainly bolsters the argument that this writer, among many others, has made since 2011 – that the US-NATO war on Libya was waged by terrorist groups overtly and tacitly supported by US intelligence and the US military. Moreover, it dovetails with other information that has surfaced in recent years, information that shines a light on how the US exploited for its own geopolitical purposes one of the most active terrorist hotbeds anywhere in the world.

According to the recent reports, Belhadj is directly involved with supporting the ISIS training centers in Derna. Of course Derna should be well known to anyone who has followed Libya since 2011, because that city, along with Tobruk and Benghazi, were the centers of anti-Gaddafi terrorist recruitment in the early days of the “uprising” all through the fateful year of 2011. But Derna was known long before that as a locus of militant extremism.

In a major 2007 study entitled “Al-Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records” conducted by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point, the authors noted that:

Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia… The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qa’ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa’ida on November 3, 2007…The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna], Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh’s 4.3 million, has far and away the largest per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records.

And so, the US military and intelligence community has known for nearly a decade (perhaps longer) that Derna has long been directly or indirectly controlled by jihadis of the LIFG variety, and that that city had acted as a primary recruiting ground for terrorism throughout the region. Naturally, such information is vital if we are to understand the geopolitical and strategic significance of the notion of ISIS training camps associated with the infamous Belhadj on the ground in Derna.

This leads us to three interrelated, and equally important, conclusions. First, Derna is once again going to provide foot soldiers for a terror war to be waged both in Libya, and in the region more broadly, with the obvious target being Syria. Second is the fact that the training sites at Derna will be supported and coordinated by a known US asset. And third, that the US policy of supporting “moderate rebels” is merely a public relations campaign designed to convince average Americans (and those in the West generally) that it is not supporting terrorism, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The Myth of ‘Moderate Rebels’

The news about Belhadj and ISIS must not be seen in a vacuum. Rather, it should be still further proof that the notion of “moderates” being supported by the US is an insult to the intelligence of political observers and the public at large.

For more than three years now, Washington has trumpeted its stated policy of support to so-called moderate rebels in Syria – a policy which has at various times folded such diverse terror groups as the Al Farooq Brigades (of cannibalism fame) and Hazm (“Determination”) into one large “moderate” tent. Unfortunately for US propagandists and assorted warmongers however, these groups along with many others have since voluntarily or forcibly been incorporated into Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS/ISIL.

Recently, there have been many reports of mass defections of formerly Free Syrian Army factions to ISIS, bringing along with them their advanced US-supplied weaponry. Couple that with the “poster boys” for Washington policy, the aforementioned Hazm group, now having become part of Jabhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda linked group in Syria. Of course these are only a few of the many examples of groups that have become affiliated with either the ISIS or Al Qaeda brand in Syria, including Liwaa Al-Farouq, Liwaa Al-Qusayr, and Liwaa Al-Turkomen to name just a few.

What has become clear is that the US and its allies, in their unending quest for regime change in Syria, have been overtly supporting extremist elements that have now coalesced to form a global terror threat in ISIS, Nusra, and Al Qaeda.

But of course, this is nothing new, as the Belhadj episode in Libya demonstrates unequivocally. The man who was once Al Qaeda, then became a “moderate” and “our man in Tripoli,” has now become the leader of the ISIS threat in Libya. So too have “our friends” become our enemies in Syria. None of this should surprise anyone.

But perhaps John McCain would like to answer some questions about his long-standing connections with Belhadj and the “moderates” in Syria. Would Obama like to explain why his “humanitarian intervention” in Libya has become a humanitarian nightmare for that country, and indeed the whole region? Would the CIA, which has been extensively involved in all of these operations, like to come clean about just who they’ve been supporting and what role they’ve played in fomenting this chaos?

I doubt any such questions will ever be asked by anyone in the corporate media. Just as I doubt any answers will ever be furnished by those in Washington whose decisions have created this catastrophe. So, it is for us outside the corporate propaganda matrix to demand answers, and to never let the establishment suppress our voices…or the truth.



Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Their Roles in Libya

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Their Roles in Libya

By: Frank de Varona

A Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi was set up in September 2013 to investigate the causes and the circumstances involved in the attacks of September 11, 2012 on the U.S. Consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya. The members of the commission include former CIA officers, retired military from the different branches of the Armed Forces, journalists, and defense consultants.

Among the members are Roger Aronoff, editor of Accuracy in Media, Brigadier General Charles Jones (Ret.), Admiral James Lyons (Ret.), General Thomas McInerney (Ret.), former CIA officer Clare Lopez, former CIA officer Wayne Simmons, former CIA officer Kevin Shipp, General Paul Vallely (Ret), former Congressman and Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Allen West, Captain Larry Bailey (SEAL Ret.), and John A. Shaw, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security.

After many months of investigation and research which involved interviews with several knowledgeable sources, the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi issued on April 22, 2014 an interim report entitled “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror.”

This is a summary of the alarming findings:

“1) The war in Libya was unnecessary, served no articulable U.S. national security objective, and led to preventable chaos region-wide. In the period since 2011 revolution in Libya, the country has remained fragmented, poorly governed, and overrun with violent militias, the majority of which are jihadist al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) affiliates. Yet, at the time of his overthrow, Muammar Qaddafi was an ally of the United States in the Global War on Terror.

On March 17, 2011 the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973 for a “No Fly Zone,” ostensibly to protect Libyan civilians caught up in the hostilities between the Libyan government forces and the rebel forces, which were dominated by the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. The following day in London, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced U.S. government support for the Muslim Brotherhood-led Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC) in its revolt against Qaddafi.”

The commission found out that the civil war in Libya could have been avoided, and would have saved thousands of lives and the enormous turmoil that followed the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. After a few days of the Obama administration declaration that the United States would support the Libyan rebels, Qaddafi wanted to enter negotiations to discuss his possible abdication and exile.

On March 20, 2011 General Abdulqader Yusef Dibri, head of personal security for Qaddafi, contacted Rear Admiral (Ret.) Chuck Kubic. Upon receiving this information, Rear Admiral Kubic telephoned Lieutenant Colonel Brian Linvill in Stuttgart, Germany, the U.S. AFRICOM officer point of contact for all military matters involving Libya.

Lieutenant Colonel Linvill immediately notified the head of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham, stating that the Libyan leader was ready to establish communication with the Africa military command. General Ham was quite interested. However, the Obama administration did not give permission to General Ham to proceed with the negotiations.

The opportunity for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Libya did not interest President Obama. The war continued and tens of thousands of lives were lost. It was absolutely appalling that the White House and the State Department did not even consider entering into negotiations with Qaddafi to avoid bloodshed since President Obama and Secretary Clinton wanted to pursue the unconstitutional war in Libya supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and the al Qaeda-linked rebels. Both Obama and Clinton need to explain to the American people and to Congress why both of them wanted to empower jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, which went against the national security interest of our nation.

“2) Changing sides in the War on Terror: Even more disturbingly, the United States was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion. The jihadist agenda of AQIM, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and other Islamic terror groups represented among the rebel forces was well known to U.S. officials responsible for Libya policy.

The rebels made no secret of their al Qaeda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic Jihad, according to author John Rosenthal and multiple media reports. And yet, the White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al Qaeda. The result in Libya, across much of North Africa, and beyond has been utter chaos, disruption of Libya’s oil industry, the spread of dangerous weapons (including surface-to-air missiles), and the empowerment of jihadist organizations like al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“3) The weapons flow: An American citizen source trusted by the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi who has long experience in the Middle East described the flow of weapons from Qatar to the Libyan rebels and the diversion of some of those arms. After Qaddafi’s regime had been ousted, a delegation from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) traveled to Libya to collect payment for the weapons that the UAE had financed and Qatar had delivered to the Transitional National Council (TNC) during the war.

During their visit to Tripoli, the UAE officials discovered that half of the $1 billion worth of weapons it had financed for the rebels had, in fact, been diverted by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the Muslim Brotherhood head of the Libyan TNC, and sold to Qaddafi.

Furthermore, according to information learned during the UAE visit to Tripoli, when Jalil learned that Major General Abdel Fatah Younis, Qaddafi’s former Minister of the Interior before his late February 2011 defection to the rebel forces, had found out about the weapons diversion, he ordered Abu Salim Abu Khattala… to kill him. Abu Khattala, later identified as the Ansar al-Shariah commander who led the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, accepted the order and directed the killing of General Abdel Fatah Younis in July 2011. ****(Let me make something clear for the late General Abdel Fatah Younis he was set up by CIA/QATAR/UAE/FRANCE/TURKEY/UK agencies as he didn’t agree with what was going on.. therefore they Western Media, Benghazi Committee and other extremists are trying to cover their involvement.)

The key significance of this episode is a demonstration of a military chain-of-command relationship between the Libyan Muslim brotherhood leadership of the TNC and the al Qaeda-affiliated militia (Ansar al-Shariah) that has been named responsible for the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Abu Khattala is under a Department of Justice sealed indictment. His brigade merged into Ansar al-Shariah in 2012, and he was positively identified to the FBI in a cell-phone photo from the scene of the attack, yet remains free and available for interviews to the media.”  ****(He is in custody in the United States after he was kidnapped by SAS in Libya, but I have a question for you see the photo of Abu Khattala does it strike you that he could plan and execute the US mission in Benghazi? BTW the real organizer of this strike after I had spoken with one of the Benghazi Committee people was kidnapped and executed. Here is the photo)

Abu Khattala


The future ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, was sent to Benghazi to coordinate the assistance provided by the Obama administration to the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaida-linked terrorist organizations ****(What she does not say is that Chris Stevens was ordained by Hillary Clinton to ambassador is this also a coincidence?). Once he became the U.S. Ambassador, Stevens continued working with the jihadist terrorists. Somehow a dispute must have arisen ****(the dispute was not with Ansar al Shariah but with Clinton, Brennan and the CIA)and he was assassinated by Ansar al-Shariah, the terrorist group that he had been assisting during the civil war, and later working with Ansar al-Shariah jihadists to send weapons to Syria.

Many of these weapons fell into the hands of al Qaida-link terrorist groups trying to overthrow the Syrian dictator ****(tell me again who is the dictator?Just because Arabs have accustomed differently than the West that does not mean every leader is a dictator. Also we know how America works when there is a real democratic leader they assassinate him, mentioning a few countries Iran, Iraq, Latin America, Italy, Africa and all they are for their resources). Perhaps Obama let him die to avoid a future Congressional investigation or that the gun-running operation could have come to light just before the 2012 presidential election.

The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi also investigated the White House cover-up on Benghazi. It stated the following: “The White House campaign appears to have been well-coordinated with U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations as well as Islamic nations members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, who all joined in condemnation of the video, and, even more troubling, issued calls for restriction on Americans’ free-speech rights. The Obama administration officials knew that the YouTube video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, yet for two weeks President Obama and members of his administration deliberately falsely claim that a protest had preceded the attack on our Benghazi mission.”

There is no question in my mind that President Obama committed treason, dereliction of duty, and criminal negligence in Libya during the civil war against Qaddafi, and for his refusal to save our diplomats and Navy SEALs in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton is also guilty of treason and criminal negligence since she supported assisting the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists to overthrow Qaddafi and later her State Department denied repeated requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens for protection and for her lies and participation in the cover-up

The House of Representatives voted to create a Select Committee to probe Benghazi attack

On May 8, 2014, the House of Representatives voted a resolution creating a Select Committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the United States Consulate and the CIA safe house annex in Benghazi, Libya. The vote was 232-186, with seven Democrats joining 225 Republicans in support of the resolution. This panel should have been set up 20 months ago. But it’s never too late to seek justice and accountability.

A Select Committee comprised of seven Republicans and five Democrats will investigate what happened before, during, and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. House Speaker John Boehner appointed Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina, a former prosecutor, to chair the Select Committee. Congressman Gowdy stated that he plans to aggressively pursue interviews with any official who he believes has information about the attack, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Select Committee will have the authority to subpoena witnesses and view classified materials, tools that will help the committee to determine why the United States was not able to prevent the terrorist attack, send military assistance to save the lives of the Americans at Benghazi, and whether Obama administration officials tried to mislead the public on why it happened.

House Speaker John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, explained why he called a vote to create the Select Committee, after having resisted demands to do so in the past. Boehner decided to create the Select Committee after a lawsuit by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch forced the release of an email that had been sent from President Obama’s National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in the days following the attack. In that email Rhodes advised Rice to stick to blaming the attack on the anti-Muslim video in her upcoming appearances on five Sunday television talk shows.

President Obama and Ben Rhodes, as well as the rest of the officials in his administration in the White House, Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, State Department, and Defense Department, were fully aware that the premeditated terrorist attacks at Benghazi had nothing to do with a video. The White House decided to mislead the nation once again. Speaker Boehner stated that “a line was crossed” when new information was discovered that pointed out the White House involvement in misguiding the American people in the talking points used by former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday television shows.

The Obama administration officials, as well as the president, blamed the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on a video for two weeks since Barack Obama was campaigning for reelection stating that he had defeated al Qaeda. The attack at Benghazi contradicted his speeches over his victory over al Qaeda. The president was well aware that al Qaeda, rather than being defeated, was getting stronger in Africa and the Middle East.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about the “fog of war” and, together with Obama, both deliberately lied to the family members of the four brave Americans who were assassinated by terrorists in Benghazi. Administration officials knowingly lied by stating that the CIA intelligence indicated that the attack in Libya was due to a video. Lying is a felony. President Obama and Secretary Clinton should be held accountable for their actions.

Doug Hagmann of the Canadian Free Press, James Robbins of the Washington Times, and Aaron Klein of WND explained that the Obama administration was engaged in a massive gun-running operation to al Qaeda, which included transporting heavy weapons from Libya to Syria. Ambassador Stevens was in charge of this operation, which also involved recruiting jihadists to fight against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. When the attack began around 9:40 p.m. on September 11, 2012, Ambassador Stevens contacted Greg Hicks in Tripoli and told him, “Greg, we are under attack!” And he requested assistance. Hicks immediately notified all agencies so that they could initiate an emergency response plan.

There were soldiers at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, as well as soldiers in all the Western embassies and consulates of countries, such as Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, that upon request by President Obama would have sent their military personnel immediately to Benghazi to provide assistance to our diplomat and other personnel. Yet nothing was done!

The Benghazi scandal involved criminal negligence and dereliction of duty as the Obama administration allowed Ambassador Chris Stevens, two former Navy Seals and a computer specialist to die for political reasons when the United States had forces nearby that could have saved them.

As stated, the Benghazi consulate and CIA safe house were attacked at approximately 9:40 p.m. For seven hours, a small group of brave Americans fought approximately 120 terrorists while notifying our government and repeatedly requesting help. There were two squadrons of F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy. The F-16 aircraft is armed with 500 20 MM rounds and other weapons and they are able to fly at 0.92 mach speed. A Marine detachment was at U.S. Navy Base in Rota, Spain. U.S. forces were also stationed in Greece. The ensuing cover up was disgraceful and is completely unacceptable. It violated our armed forces Code of Conduct which states that we do not leave someone behind.

 Is it because Barack Obama is an ally of this al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group that like him wants to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad of Syria? Perhaps, this is why the President signed an executive order on September 16, 2013 waiving a ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to the Syrian rebels, many of which are supporters of al Qaeda. In essence, he exempted himself from any laws, such as the Patriot Act, that prohibits anyone from giving weapons to a terrorist organization. This executive order should be grounds for impeachment. In reality, Obama has been secretly shipping weapons from Libya to Turkey for a couple of years. The weapons were being given to the rebels fighting the Syrian regime, which included al Qaeda-linked rebel groups. One of the largest al Qaeda group is the Nusra Front. Abu Mohammed al Golani is the leader of this al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group and he has an army of 10,000 soldiers under his command in Syria.

Benghazi Scandal and other threats as seen by Admiral James Lyons

James Lyons is a retired four-star admiral in the United States Navy who is part of the Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi. He served honorably our country for 36 years. During his service to our nation Admiral Lyons was appointed to many important positions in the U.S. Navy. Admiral Lyons served as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to 1985, and subsequently as Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987. Admiral Lyons was interviewed by Roger Aronoff of Accuracy in Media, who also serves on the Citizens’ Committee on Benghazi. The interview was published by the New Zeal Blog on February 15, 2013.

The interview was done the day after outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton´s testimony to Congress. Secretary Clinton, when asked repeatedly about the scandal and cover-up of Benghazi, Libya, became very upset and at one point pounded the table. When asked why the Obama administration kept claiming for weeks after the attack that what had occurred in Libya was in response to an anti-Islamic video produced in the United States, when it was obvious that this was a lie, she answered “What difference [at this point] does it make?”

Admiral Lyons, in response to the statement made by Secretary Clinton, responded with the following: “Richard Nixon found out what the difference is when you lie to the American public and in his lie, it was only a bungled burglary attempt; nobody got killed. In this case, we had four Americans murdered. Furthermore, we knew, within a matter of hours, that this was determined, preplanned terrorist attack. So you have to ask yourself that ‘in perpetuating this lie, we had administration officials lying to Congressional committees. That´s a felony.’ So, ‘what difference does it make?’” Lyons explained, “It makes all the difference in the world. You cannot flaunt the truth here, just walked away from it and, basically, tell the American public to stuff it. That’s not acceptable.”?Admiral Lyons has been highly critical regarding the way the Obama administration handled the attack on our Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. When asked about the report provided by Secretary Clinton´s Independent Accountability Review Board, which took several months to look into the terrorist attack, Admiral Lyons explained that, from his perspective, the board ”was like having the Mafia investigate a crime scene.” He said that Thomas Pickering, a former career employee of the State Department who is now the chairman of the International Crisis Group, which is a Soros-funded group, could hardly be trusted to conduct a fair investigation. He said that you are never going to get the true story until you appoint a Special Prosecutor who can interview people under oath to find out what actually went on.

Now, of course, we have a Select Committee with the power to subpoena administration officials, including President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. General Carter Ham, Commander of the United States African Command and Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was in charge of Carrier Strike Group Three, which included the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis, were both fired for trying to send a rapid response team to Benghazi to save our people in violation of the order that they were given to stand down, meaning do nothing should be interviewed. Former CIA director, David Petraeus, should also be sent a subpoena.

Other high-ranking generals, as well as White House officials from the National Security Council who were aware of what happened at Benghazi, should be sent subpoenas and forced to testify under oath. Only then will the truth be found out, and it could very well be career ending for Barack Obama.

In an interview with Lou Dobbs, Admiral Lyons, when asked what did he think that went on in Benghazi, he responded: “If I had to speculate, I believe this was a bungled attack-kidnapping, the object being to kidnap Ambassador Stevens, and hold him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, who sits in jail in the United States for his role in planning the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.” Lyons explained that in June 2012 both the British Consulate and the International Red Cross had to close their offices due to the assassination attempt on the British Consul General and other assassinations. The bombing outside our Special Mission Compound in Benghazi took place on June 6.

Ambassador Chris Stevens had requested additional security assistance on multiple locations. Secretary Clinton sent home Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood and the 16-man security force which was at our embassy in Tripoli. The pleas from our Ambassador for additional security were ignored and denied by the State Department. Lyons stated: “Perhaps this was supposed to be part of a kidnapping, hostage situation, holding him in exchange for the Blind Sheikh. Because killing Ambassador Stevens made no sense to me since he was the great facilitator in funneling the arms to the rebels, to other militias, many of which were al Qaeda-affiliated, who have been fighting our troops in Iraq. So why would you kill the golden goose? It made the no sense to me.”

Admiral Lyons was highly critical of the Obama administration for its lack of response to the terrorist attack against our men in our Consulate ans CIA safe house in Benghazi. He explained that we had 130 Marines at our Base at Sigonella, Sicily and another Marine detachment at our naval base in Rota, Spain. We also had F-16 aircraft that could have been there in an hour.

Lyons also criticized the fact that the Obama administration did not ask for help from the other Western Consulates that had security forces and could have assisted our men. Later, Consul Generals stated that if they had been requested assistance, they would have provided it. Lastly, Lyons stated that what happened at Benghazi would make the Iran-Contra scandal look like child’s play.

During his interview Admiral Lyons covering another topic. He stated the following: “The Muslim Brotherhood penetration in this country is really unconscionable. They have been able to penetrate almost every one of our government agencies. You see it reflected down in the administration´s directive, where we have to purge all of our training manuals and instructors on anything that purports the truth about Islam. Anything that is considered anti-Islamic must be purged, and instructors who do not fall in line, find themselves with new orders elsewhere. We have the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that our great Secretary of State has endorsed, which impinges on our First Amendment right of freedom of expression, and the administration is embracing this, that we leave it up to the 57 or 58 Islamic states that make up the organization, to determine what they consider to be insulting to Islam, and, therefore, they can impose sanctions or bring you to trial, or whatever on this. None of this makes any sense to me.”

Admiral Lyons, when asked what signal is being sent to Iran and Israel by sending advanced weapons to the president of Egypt, as well as the appointments of John Kerry to the State Department, Chuck Hagel to the Defense Department and John Brennan to the CIA, he responded: “Certainly, if I were Iran, I would be thrilled to death with those appointments.” He stated the following: “Because none of them are for taking any military action against Iran, which is giving Iran a clear sailing for the development of their nuclear weapon capability. And it is not just their capability in Iran, you have got to look at what they have done in Latin America. We have Iranian operational missile bases today in Venezuela fully up and operational. They have been able to accomplish what the Soviet Union was unable to do in Cuba in 1962. We have cities in the United States today which are on their threat umbrella of those missiles that are in Venezuela. It needs to be addressed. In fact, they should be forced out of there post-haste. Either take them out, or we will take them out. I do not see that happening”.

Admiral Lyons ended the interview with Roger Aronoff by saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan and that is: “It is to institute Shariah law in the United States in place of our Constitution—they call it the “Stealth Jihad”—and, in their own words, to destroy us by our own miserable hands.”

We have to thank this brave Admiral for condemning the Obama administration for its lack of response and prevention in the terrorist attack against our diplomats in Benghazi and for participating in the commission. We need other retired generals and admirals to come forward and tell the American people the true story on Benghazi. There is no question in my mind that there were repeated lies and a huge cover-up, as well as criminal negligence, committed by high officials and by President Obama. As Admiral Lyons indicated, felonies were committed and the newly appointed Select Committee needs to conduct a comprehensive investigation.

The danger that Admiral Lyons pointed out regarding of the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our government is a clear and present danger. Unfortunately, president´s older brother, Malik Obama, was accused by the Vice President of the Supreme Court of Egypt on a television station in Cairo as “being the architect of the finances of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Additionally, Malik Obama works with the Da´wa organization in the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled and terrorist nation of Sudan.


The Select Committee needs to investigate not only the terrorist attacks on the mission in Benghazi but also the Obama administration assistance to the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists during the civil war. Additionally, the Select Committee needs to investigate the White House cover-up with Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States and Muslim nations in the world.

President Obama entered into a war in Libya violating the Constitution since Congress did not authorized it. Later Obama had been engaged in a Middle Eastern gun-running operation without Congressional authority and in violation of United States laws. If the Select Committee does its job properly, it will uncover what my investigative research found months ago. The president violated his oath of office and multiple laws by sending weapons working with terrorist groups during the civil war in Libya and later by sending weapons from Libya to Turkey knowing that those weapons would eventually fall into the hands of al Qaeda-link terrorist groups fighting in Libya. Moreover, Obama worked with the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and Muslim nations to engaged in a cover-up. This is shameful and Obama is a traitor who should be prosecuted. For this reason, the House of Representatives must file impeachment charges against President Barack Obama. As pointed out earlier, President Obama committed treason, dereliction of duty, and criminal negligence in Libya during the civil war against Qaddafi and his refusal to save our diplomats and Navy SEALs in Benghazi. President Barack Obama is unfit to be our commander-in-chief and must be impeached by the House of Representatives.



This article was originally published at Bear Witness Central.

Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya

Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya

By: Daniel Greenfield

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.



As Libya continues melting down, the Washington Times’ Kelly Riddell has an important story on just how conflicted the situation was. This war a tug of war between Hillary Clinton, who wanted to bomb Libya, and the Pentagon which didn’t.

Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.

“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.

So the Pentagon went rogue over Hillary’s War.

The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”…

While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward…

As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.

That more than Benghazi may explain Ham’s abrupt exit. He had been proven right, but Hillary was the heir to the throne.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.

“The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored,” Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.

“[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions,” Mr. Kubic said. “First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.”

But not the State Department.

Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.

It’s ironic considering how the media liked to play up Saddam’s truce offers, but this doesn’t get reported. The Pentagon wanted to avoid a war, but Hillary was howling for one.

Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.

In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya “its all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.

More like he didn’t care. So he let Hillary have her war.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book “Worthy Fights” that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan “for both substance and symbolism.”

“In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change.”

That’s what I’ve written all along, but the Secretary of Defense admitting that the American public was lied to over an illegal war just isn’t interesting when Obama is in power.