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)

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/06/17/3b1f6c50-2ce0-486e-b73e-62e01ab60926/thumbnail/620x350/884fb987d9fb0f71b77c3d7eff9ededb/benghazi.jpg

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.

Conclusion

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.

Benghazi investigators ponder: Is State Dept lying, or is Hillary?


Benghazi investigators ponder: Is State Dept lying, or is Hillary?

By Byron York

Photo - House Select Committee on BenghaziChairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. speaks to reporters before a closed door meeting in the House Visitors Center at the U.S. Capitol June 16, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

House Select Committee on BenghaziChairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. speaks to reporters before a closed door meeting in the House Visitors Center at the U.S. Capitol June 16, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Last March, when Hillary Clinton made her first public comments on the secret email system she maintained while secretary of state, she took care to say she had turned over everything to the State Department. “I … provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related,” Clinton told reporters. “I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and … the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided.”

The message was clear. Clinton had turned over everything, and the State Department would make it all public.

Then State sent Clinton’s emails that concerned Libya to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Chairman Trey Gowdy immediately expressed skepticism about the claim that everything had been turned over. “There are gaps of months and months and months,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy’s suspicions appear to have been confirmed. As part of the committee’s questioning of Clinton friend and defender Sidney Blumenthal, who exchanged many emails with Clinton on the subject of Libya, Blumenthal turned over a bunch of emails with Clinton that the committee had never seen before. The State Department had not given them to the committee when State originally turned over what were purported to be all of Clinton’s Libya-related emails.

Hillary fired

Which led investigators to ask: Did the State Department fail to turn over all the Clinton emails it had pertaining to Libya? Or did Clinton not give all her Libya-related emails to the State Department, which in turn could not pass them on to the committee?

Shorter version: Did the State Department withhold information from the committee, or did Clinton?

The first possibility is entirely consistent with State Department foot-dragging on Benghazi that has been going on from the beginning. Just last month, Gowdy told Secretary of State John Kerry that “the pace of State Department document production has become an impediment to the progress of the committee.”

The second possibility — that Clinton did not turn over all of her work emails as claimed — would call into question everything she has said publicly about the secret email system. That could, in turn, reignite the Benghazi issue in the presidential campaign.

Clinton, of course, has said nothing about the Blumenthal emails. As far as the State Department is concerned — well, try to make sense of this exchange Wednesday between reporters and spokesman John Kirby:

QUESTION: You said that the emails that were provided by Mr. Blumenthal to the committee … were not shared with the Department. Does that mean that the committee didn’t share them, or you did not have them to give to the committee?

KIRBY: No, no. I meant that the documents that Mr. Blumenthal turned over to the — we — they were not shared with us either by him or by the committee.

QUESTION: Well, did you have them?

KIRBY: I can’t speak to their contents.

What does that mean? Certainly the Benghazi investigators don’t know. When the State Department originally turned over the Clinton emails earlier this year, Gowdy asked State to certify that it was turning over all of Clinton’s communications related to Libya. State officials would not do that, arguing they only had what Clinton gave them, although they accepted Clinton’s word that they had everything.

Also baffling to investigators is what is going on with Blumenthal. The materials he turned over could undermine Clinton’s claim of having given all of her work-related emails to the State Department. Yet Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton acolyte who owes his livelihood to the Clintons — during the time in question, he received $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation and another $10,000 from a Clinton-related media watchdog group — seems the last person in the world who would give Republicans anything they could use against Clinton. So that is another mystery.

This latest tangle illustrates the difficulty Gowdy and his fellow lawmakers face in trying to figure out the Benghazi story. Yes, they have made progress — remember, the world would not even know about Clinton’s secret email system had it not been for Gowdy’s committee. But they face a daunting challenge in getting information not only from Clinton but from her inner circle and the State Department. It’s taken a long time to get this far, and there is still quite a way to go.

benghazi-liars

The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy


The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy

usa-libya-flag

The mainstream U.S. news media is lambasting the Europeans for failing to stop the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea as desperate Libyans flee their war-torn country in overloaded boats that are sinking as hundreds drown. But the MSM forgets how this Libyan crisis began, including its own key role along with that of “liberal interventionists” such as Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power.

In 2011, it was all the rage in Official Washington to boast about the noble “responsibility to protect” the people of eastern Libya who supposedly were threatened with extermination by the “mad man” Muammar Gaddafi. We also were told endlessly that, back in 1988, Gaddafi’s agents had blown Pan Am 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland.

The R2Pers, led by then-National Security Council aide Power with the backing of Secretary of State Clinton, convinced President Barack Obama that a “humanitarian intervention” was needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering people whom he claimed were Islamic terrorists.

As this U.S.-orchestrated bombing campaign was about to begin in late March 2011, Power told a New York City audience that the failure to act would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.” Power was credited with steeling Obama’s spine to press ahead with the military operation.

Under a United Nations resolution, the intervention was supposed to be limited to establishing no-fly zones to prevent the slaughter of civilians. But the operation quickly morphed into a “regime change” war with the NATO-led bombing devastating Gaddafi’s soldiers who were blown to bits when caught on desert roadways.

Yet, the biggest concern in Official Washington was a quote from an Obama’s aide that the President was “leading from behind” – with European warplanes out front in the air war – when America’s war hawks said the United States should be leading from the front.

At the time, there were a few of us who raised red flags about the Libyan war “group think.” Though no one felt much sympathy for Gaddafi, he wasn’t wrong when he warned that Islamic terrorists were transforming the Benghazi region into a stronghold. Yes, his rhetoric about exterminating rats was over the top, but there was a real danger from these extremists.

And, the Pan Am 103 case, which was repeatedly cited as the indisputable proof of Gaddafi’s depravity, likely was falsely pinned on Libya. Anyone who dispassionately examined the 2001 conviction of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi by a special Scottish court would realize that the case was based on highly dubious evidence and bought-and-paid-for testimony.

Megrahi was put away more as a political compromise (with a Libyan co-defendant acquitted) than because his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, by 2009, the conviction was falling apart. Even a Scottish appeals court expressed concern about a grave miscarriage of justice. But Megrahi’s appeal was short-circuited by his release to Libya on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

Yet the U.S. mainstream media routinely called him “the Lockerbie bomber” and noted that the Libyan government had taken “responsibility” for the bombing, which was true but only because it was the only way to get punitive sanctions lifted. The government, like Megrahi, continued to proclaim innocence.

A Smirking MSM

During those heady days of bombing Libya in 2011, it also was common for the MSM to smirk at the notion that Megrahi was truly suffering from advanced prostate cancer since he hadn’t died as quickly as some doctors thought he might. Then, in September 2011, after Gaddafi’s regime fell, Megrahi’s family invited the BBC and other news organizations to see Megrahi struggling to breathe in his sick bed.

His son, Khaled al-Megrahi, said, “I know my father is innocent and one day his innocence will come out.” Asked about the people who died in the Pan Am bombing, the son said: “We feel sorry about all the people who died. We want to know who did this bad thing. We want to know the truth as well.”

But it was only after Megrahi died on May 20, 2012, that some elements of the MSM acknowledged grudgingly that they were aware of the many doubts about his conviction all along. The New York Times’ obituary carried a detailed account of the evidentiary gaps that were ignored both during the trial in 2001 and during the bombing of Libya in 2011.

The Times noted that “even some world leaders” saw Megrahi

“as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence. … Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.”

Besides the lack of proof supporting that hypothesis was the sheer implausibility that a terrorist would assume that an unattended suitcase could make such an unlikely trip without being detected, especially when it would have been much easier to sneak the suitcase with the bomb onto Pan Am 103 through the lax security at Heathrow Airport outside London.

The Times’ obit also noted that during the 85-day trial,

“None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr. Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr. Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays. …

“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert. Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in [Megrahi’s co-defendant’s] desk in Malta, that Mr. Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.”

In finding Megrahi guilty, the Scottish court admitted that the case was “circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable,” but concluded that “there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt” of Megrahi.

However, the evidence later came under increasing doubt. The Times wrote: “It emerged that Mr. Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr. Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.” Scottish authorities learned, too, that the U.S. Justice Department paid Gauci $2 million for his testimony.

As for the bomb’s timer, the Times noted that the court called Bollier “untruthful and unreliable” and “In 2007, Mr. Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.

“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored. Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by [South African President Nelson] Mandela.”

In other words, Megrahi’s conviction looked to have been a case of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane). And those problems were known prior to Megrahi’s return to Libya in 2009 and prior to the U.S.-supported air war against Gaddafi in 2011.

Yet, Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC and pretty much everyone else in the MSM repeated endlessly that Megrahi was “the Lockerbie bomber” and that Libya was responsible for the atrocity, thus further justifying the “humanitarian intervention” that slaughtered Gaddafi’s soldiers and enabled rebel militias to capture Tripoli in summer 2011.

Al-Qaeda Hotbed

Similarly, there was scant U.S. media attention given to evidence that eastern Libya, the heart of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, indeed was a hotbed for Islamic militancy, with that region supplying the most per-capita militants fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, often under the banner of Al-Qaeda.

Despite that evidence, Gaddafi’s claim that he was battling Islamic terrorists in the Benghazi region was mocked or ignored. It didn’t even matter that his claim was corroborated by a report from U.S. analysts Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman for West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.

In their report, “Al-Qaeda’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq,” Felter and Fishman analyzed Al-Qaeda documents captured in 2007 showing personnel records of militants who flocked to Iraq for the war against the Americans. The documents showed eastern Libya providing a surprising number of suicide bombers who traveled to Iraq to kill American troops.

Felter and Fishman wrote that these so-called Sinjar Records disclosed that while Saudis comprised the largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, Libyans represented the largest per-capita contingent by far. Those Libyans came overwhelmingly from towns and cities in the east.

“The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s Northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (53) and Benghazi 23.9% (21),” Felter and Fishman wrote, adding that Abu Layth al‐Libi, Emir of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), “reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al‐Qa’ida.”

Some important Al-Qaeda leaders operating in Pakistan’s tribal regions also were believed to have come from Libya. For instance, “Atiyah,” who was guiding the anti-U.S. war strategy in Iraq, was identified as a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman.

It was Atiyah who urged a strategy of creating a quagmire for U.S. forces in Iraq, buying time for Al-Qaeda Central to rebuild its strength in Pakistan. “Prolonging the war [in Iraq] is in our interest,” Atiyah said in a letter that upbraided Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for his hasty and reckless actions in Iraq.

After U.S. Special Forces killed Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, in Pakistan, Atiyah became al-Qaeda’s second in command until he himself was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike in August 2011. [See Consortiumnews.com “Time Finally Ran Out for Atiyah.”]

However, to most Americans who rely on the major U.S. news media, little of this was known, as the Washington Post itself acknowledged in an article on Sept. 12, 2011, after Gaddafi had been overthrown but before his murder. In an article on the rise of Islamists inside the new power structure in Libya, the Post wrote:

“Although it went largely unnoticed during the uprising that toppled Gaddafi last month, Islamists were at the heart of the fight, many as rebel commanders. Now some are clashing with secularists within the rebels’ Transitional National Council, prompting worries among some liberals that the Islamists — who still command the bulk of fighters and weapons — could use their strength to assert an even more dominant role.”

On Sept. 15, 2011, the New York Times published a similar article, entitled “Islamists’ Growing Sway Raises Questions for Libya.” It began:

“In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well be Ali Sallabi, who has no formal title but commands broad respect as an Islamic scholar and populist orator who was instrumental in leading the mass uprising. The most powerful military leader is now Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of a hard-line group once believed to be aligned with Al Qaeda.”

Belhaj was previously the commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was associated with Al-Qaeda in the past, maintained training bases in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, and was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Belhaj and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group denied continued allegiance to Al-Qaeda, but Belhaj was captured during George W. Bush’s post-9/11 “war on terror” and was harshly interrogated by the CIA at a “black site” prison in Thailand before being handed over to Gaddafi’s government which imprisoned and – Belhaj claims – tortured him.

The Times reported that “Belhaj has become so much an insider lately that he is seeking to unseat Mahmoud Jabril, the American-trained economist who is the nominal prime minister of the interim government, after Mr. Jibril obliquely criticized the Islamists.”

The Times article by correspondents Rod Nordland and David D. Kirkpatrick also cited other signs of growing Islamist influence inside the Libyan rebel movement:

“Islamist militias in Libya receive weapons and financing directly from foreign benefactors like Qatar; a Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abel al-Rajazk Abu Hajar, leads the Tripoli Municipal Governing Council, where Islamists are reportedly in the majority.”

It may be commendable that the Post and Times finally gave serious attention to this consequence of the NATO-backed “regime change” in Libya, but the fact that these premier American newspapers ignored the Islamist issue as well as doubts about Libya’s Lockerbie guilt – while the U.S. government was whipping up public support for another war in the Muslim world – raises questions about whether those news organizations primarily serve a propaganda function.

Gaddafi’s Brutal Demise

Even amid these warning signs that Libya was headed toward bloody anarchy, the excited MSM coverage of Libya remained mostly about the manhunt for “the madman” – Muammar Gaddafi. When rebels finally captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, in the town of Sirte – and sodomized him with a knife before killing him – Secretary of State Clinton could barely contain her glee, joking in one interview: “We came, we saw, he died.”

The months of aerial slaughter of Gaddafi’s soldiers and Gaddafi’s own gruesome death seemed less amusing on Sept. 11, 2012, when Islamic terrorists overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. In the two-plus years since, Libya has become a killing ground for rival militias, including some now affiliated with the Islamic State.

As the BBC reported on Feb. 24, 2015, the Islamic State

“has gained a foothold in key towns and cities in the mostly lawless North African state [Libya], prompting Egypt – seeing itself as the bulwark against Islamists in region – to launch air strikes against the group. …

IS has launched its most high-profile attacks in Libya, bombing an upmarket hotel in the capital, Tripoli, in January, and releasing a video earlier this month showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians it had kidnapped. On 20 February, it killed at least 40 people in a suicide bombing in the eastern town of al-Qubbah.”

Now, the chaos that the U.S.-sponsored “regime change” unleashed has grown so horrific that it is causing desperate Libyans to climb into unseaworthy boats to escape the sharp edges of the Islamic State’s knives and other depredations resulting from the nationwide anarchy.

Thus, Libya should be a powerful lesson to Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and the other R2Pers that often their schemes of armed “humanitarianism” can go badly awry and do much more harm than good. It should also be another reminder to the MSM to question the arguments presented by the U.S. government, rather than simply repeating those dubious claims and false narratives.

But neither seems to be happening. The “liberal interventionists” – like their neoconservative allies – remain unchastened, still pumping for more “regime change” wars, such as in Syria. Yet, many of these moral purists are silent about the slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Palestinians in Gaza, or now Houthis and other Yemenis dying under Saudi bombs in Yemen.

It appears the well-placed R2Pers in the Obama administration are selective in where that “responsibility to protect” applies.

Samantha Power, now serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, remains the same self-righteous scold denouncing human rights abuses in places where there are American-designated “bad guys” while looking the other way in places where the killing is being done by U.S. “allies.” As for Hillary Clinton, she is already being touted as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.

Meanwhile, the MSM has conveniently forgotten its own propaganda role in revving up the war on Libya in 2011. So, instead of self-reflection and self-criticism, the mainstream U.S. media is filled with condemnations of the Europeans for their failure to respond properly to the crisis of some 900 Libyans apparently drowning in a desperate attempt to flee their disintegrating country.

Libya Lies – Rape as a Weapon of War – Made in the USA?


Libya Lies – Rape as a Weapon of War – Made in the USA?

By Felicity Arbuthnot | Dissident Voice

It’s really 19th century behavior in the 21st century, you just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.
— Secretary of State, John Kerry, “Meet the Press”,  March 2, 2014

Various professional psychology sites state succinctly: “Projection is a defense mechanism which involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.”

Further: “Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political, but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic – in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder”, opines Wiki.

With that in mind it is worth returning to the assault on Libya and the allegation by Susan Rice, then US Ambassador to the UN, in April 2011, that the Libyan government was issuing Viagra to its troops, instructing them to use rape as a weapon of terror.

However, reported Antiwar.com, MSNBC was told “by US military and intelligence officials that there is no basis for Rice’s claims. While rape has been reported as a ‘weapon’ in many conflicts, the US officials (said) they’ve seen no such reports out of Libya.”

Several diplomats also questioned Rice’s lack of evidence, suspecting she was attempting “to persuade doubters the conflict in Libya was not just a standard civil war but a much nastier fight in which Gaddafi is not afraid to order his troops to commit heinous acts.” ***(here is were everybody is making the same fatal mistake there was no civil war, there was a protest march were the protesters had guns killed 4 police officers and 2 soldiers, question to you readers what would your government do if your protesters had killed police officers?)

The story was reminiscent of the pack of lies which arguably sealed the 1991 US-led Iraq onslaught — of Iraqi troops leaving premature babies to die after stealing their incubators. The story, of course, was dreamt up by global public relations company, Hill and Knowlton Strategies, Inc., then described as the world’s largest PR company which had been retained by the Kuwait government.

A tearful hospital “volunteer”, Nayirah, gave “testimony” which reverberated around an appalled world. It transpired she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington and was neither a “volunteer”, “witness”, nor in Kuwait. Amnesty International obligingly backed up the fictional nonsense suffering lasting credibility damage.  However, as with Libya two decades later, Iraq’s fate was sealed.

The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice and Foreign Affairs advisor, Samantha Power are credited with helping persuade President Obama to intervene in Libya. By the end of April 2011, Rice was also pushing for intervention in Syria, claiming that President Assad was “seeking Iranian assistance in repressing Syria’s citizens …” In the light of all, she vowed: “The United States will continue to stand up for democracy and respect for human rights, the universal rights that all human beings deserve in Syria and around the world.” (Guardian, April 29, 2011)

Looking across the world at the apocalyptic ruins of lives and nations resultant from America’s continuance in uninvited “standing up” for “democracy”, “human rights” and “universal rights” there are surely few who could not only silently weep.

Amnesty, perhaps “once bitten” not only questioned the Libya Viagra nonsense but denied it in categorical terms. According to Donatella Rovera, their Senior Crisis Response Advisor, who spent three months in Libya from the start of the crisis: “We have not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped.”

Liesel Gerntholtz, heading Womens Rights at Human Rights Watch, which also investigated the mass rape allegations, stated: “We have not been able to find evidence.”

The then Secretary of State, Hillary “We came, we saw, he died” Clinton, was “deeply concerned” stating that: “Rape, physical intimidation, sexual harassment and even so-called ‘virginity tests’ “were taking place not only in Libya, but “throughout the region.” Presumably leaving the way open for further plundering throughout Africa in the guise of bestowing “democracy”, “human rights” etc.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court obediently weighed in, telling a Press Conference of:  “ … information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those that were against the government. Apparently (Colonel Gaddafi) used it to punish people.” A bit of a blow for the impartiality and meticulous evidence of the ICC it might be thought.

A week after the bombing of Libya started in March 2011, Eman al-Obeidy burst in to a Tripoli hotel telling the international journalists there she had been raped. She was removed by Libyan security. Government spokespeople claimed she had mental health problems, was drunk, a thief, a prostitute and would be charged with slander. The world sneered.

By June 2011 Ms al-Obeidy had ended up in Boulder, Colorado, US, granted asylum with remarkable speed, with the help of Hillary Clinton, according to US news outlets.

In November 2014 al-Obeidy, now known as Eman Ali, was arrested for “violating conditions of her bail bond and probation.” It was her third arrest. Prosecutors allege that she tested positive for opiates and alcohol. The probation and bail bond relate to an alleged assault case in a Boulder bar with Ms al-Obeidy-Ali accused of pouring drink over a customer and then lobbing a glass at her.  The trial is scheduled for 17th February with the possibility of her asylum status being rescinded.

However, back to projection. It transpires that the Pentagon has been supplying Viagra to US troops since 1998. That year it spent $50 million to keep troops, well, stiffened up.  “The cost, roughly, of two Marine Corps Harrier jets or forty five Tomahawk cruise missiles …”

By 2014 the cost of extra-curricular military forces’ frolics had risen to an astonishing $504,816 of taxpayers money. An additional $17,000-plus was spent on two further erectile enhancing magic potions.

The Washington Free Beacon helpfully estimated: “that the amount of Viagra bought by the Pentagon last year could have supplied 80,770 hours, 33 minutes, and 36 seconds of sexual enhancement, assuming that erections don’t last longer than the 4 hour maximum advised by doctors.”

Surely coincidentally on February 14, St Valentine’s Day, Joachim Hagopian released an article: “Sexual Assault in the US Military – More Rapists Attend the Air Force Academy Than Any Other College in America.”

In a survey taken in 2012 “an unprecedented number” of over “26,000 incidents of unwanted sexual contact was reported by service men and women.” Further, weekly: “another high profile officer often in charge of reducing assaults was being investigated and charged himself.”

The US Air Force at Colorado Springs, writes Hagopian “has more rapists on Campus than any other college in the country.”

But then the US military planners would seem to be sex and bodily function obsessed. In 1994 they contemplated releasing pheromones (a hormonal stimulus) against enemy troops “to turn enemy soldiers into flaming love puppets whose objects of affection would be each other.”

“While enemy troops were preoccupied with making love instead of war …” America’s finest could blow them to bits. This bit of military dementia was dubbed the “gay bomb.”

Also dreamed up have been halitosis, flatulence and vomit-inducing chemicals to unleash on foes. Body function obsession clearly rules in the armed forces, officially and unofficially.

Projection: “ … is more commonly found … in personalities functioning at a primitive level.” Indeed. And to think both Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi were labeled mad by such as these.

The Truth of Libya (Finally) Goes Mainstream


The Truth of Libya (Finally) Goes Mainstream

Mustafa Abdul Jalil Head of False Libyan Revolution Admits Qaddafi did not Kill Protesters

Author: Eric Draitser

Editors note: The article admits that the Illegal war in Libya was a false flag, its what we have been saying since 2011 finally the truth is coming out and going into the mainstream. We the simple people have been writing about it from the beginning and the Mainstream was calling us conspirators, Qaddafi loyalists are some of the names that I can remember. Thanks to all the activists and bloggers who spent hours on end with no financial back up. We have been for the last three years laughed at, condemned at, some were prosecuted, some lost their lives and some are still in hiding as the Libyan Militias have put a price on our heads. I would like to thank the author and his colleagues who took the time to read our articles, videos etc and to decide to write an article about the truth. We still have a long way to go, but its a start.

99977

Sirt

 

More than three years after the US and its NATO allies unleashed an “intervention” and regime change in Libya, the US establishment admits they maybe have “got it wrong.” Naturally, there were many of us who were demonized endlessly for speaking out against that war, and against all those politicians, analysts, and “activists” on the left and right, who championed the “humanitarianism” of waging war on Libya. We were attacked as “soft on dictators,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “anti-Americans.” And yet, today it is our voices that still proclaim loudly the immorality and illegality of that war. Thankfully, it seems the establishment is beginning to hear us.

One of the most highly regarded politico-academic institutions in the US – the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University – has issued a report which undermines the established narrative of the war in Libya, laying bare the cold, hard reality of what Libya was at the outset of the war, what really happened in the early days, and what Libya has become today. Of course, responsibility for the tragic and lasting effects of that war should be laid at the feet of Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, and the other participants, in addition to those media outlets and NGOs that deliberately spread lies about the reality on the ground in Libya. All must be held accountable.

Finally Seeing the Light?

The recent report, which is actually almost a year old, was written by Dr. Alan Kuperman, Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin. Dr. Kuperman attempts to shed light on some of the key aspects of disinformation before and during the war in Libya. These important findings contradict every single justification for that war, from the lies and distortions of Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton, to the deluge of propaganda from so-called NGOs such as Human rights Watch and Amnesty International. By examining the obfuscations and outright lies told by these individuals and organs of soft power, Dr. Kuperman makes it quite clear that, just as with Iraq, the people of the United States (and much of the world) have been lied into yet another war.

One of the principal lies told about Libya and Gaddafi was the totally unsubstantiated claim of “massacres” by Gaddafi forces in Benghazi and a few other cities. This claim, perpetrated by Human Rights Watch among others, was repeated ad nauseam by every major media outlet. As Dr. Kuperman writes:

Contrary to Western media reports, Qaddafi did not initiate Libya’s violence by targeting peaceful protesters. The United Nations and Amnesty International have documented that in all four Libyan cities initially consumed by civil conflict in mid-February 2011—Benghazi, Al Bayda, Tripoli, and Misurata—violence was actually initiated by the protesters. The government responded to the rebels militarily but never intentionally targeted civilians or resorted to “indiscriminate” force, as Western media clai med. Early press accounts exaggerated the death toll by a factor of ten, citing “more than 2,000 deaths” in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libya in that period.

These are indeed significant facts that merit further examination as they completely contradict the standard narrative of the war in Libya and, most importantly, the justifications for it. First and foremost is the question of who initiated violence. The talking points in Western media all through early 2011 held that Gaddafi was “murdering his own people,” and that this justified a humanitarian intervention, to “help the people of Benghazi.” However, the hitherto suppressed truth is that it was the violent “protesters” (who should rightly be referred to as terrorists within the protests) who actually initiated the violence, using protesters as human shields.

Secondly, the notion that Gaddafi’s forces intentionally targeted civilians has been thoroughly debunked. Quite the contrary, the evidence now shows that Gaddafi went to great lengths to make sure that no civilians were harmed in the counter-terrorism operation as can be evidenced by the fact that “Qaddafi avoided targeting civilians…HRW reports that of the 949 people wounded [in Misrata] in the rebellion’s initial seven weeks, only 30 were women or children, meaning that Qaddafi’s forces focused narrowly on combatants.” Rather than ordering the wanton killing of civilians, Gaddafi attempted to maintain discipline among his forces such that they could stamp out insurgency with as little collateral damage as possible.

Third is the simple fact that all death tolls reported by the media leading up to the war were not only inaccurate, but wildly exaggerated beyond the parameters of “margin of error.” In fact, by overestimating the death toll by a factor of ten, Human Rights Watch consciously played the part of public relations clearinghouse for US-NATO. Of course, Human Rights Watch, long since understood to be very cozy with the State Department, Pentagon and CIA, has become increasingly discredited in the eyes of serious human rights investigators and activists. The role of HRW in Libya exposed the organization in ways it had never been exposed before – as an organ of US soft power projection, working tirelessly to justify on humanitarian grounds what is undoubtedly a nakedly imperialist war.

Dr. Kuperman also points out another key aspect of the Western narrative which is a complete fiction, namely that US-NATO’s goal in waging the war was not regime change, but the protecting of civilians. As Kuperman writes:

The conventional wisdom is also wrong in asserting that NATO’s main goal in Libya was to protect civilians. Evidence reveals that NATO’s primary aim was to overthrow Qaddafi’s regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately, including some in retreat and others in Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, where they posed no threat to civilians. Moreover, NATO continued to aid the rebels even when they repeatedly rejected government cease-fire offers that could have ended the violence and spared civilians. Such military assistance included weapons, training, and covert deployment of hundreds of troops from Qatar, eventually enabling the rebels to capture and summarily execute Qaddafi and seize power in October 2011.

Indeed, the US and its allies abandoned the “protection of civilians” justification almost as soon as UNSC Resolution 1973 was passed, authorizing merely a No Fly Zone in Libya which the NATO forces took as a de facto authorization for total war. As Dr. Kuperman describes, NATO forces were clearly engaged in an air war to destroy the military and political institutions of the Gaddafi government, rather than simply protecting civilians and providing support to rebels. Indeed, the NATO forces became the primary driver of the campaign against Gaddafi, allowing the rebels to take territory and, I might add, carry out their massacres of civilians.

bp2Even Human Rights Watch, which vigorously suppressed the truth about ethnic cleansing carried out against black Libyans while it was happening, was forced to admit crimes against humanity in Libya, specifically the forced displacement of the Tawergha ethnic group. Naturally, these revelations came much too late to save the many innocent black Libyans, particularly in the Fezzan province, who were slaughtered by the rebels backed by US-NATO.

Kuperman’s report also highlights a number of other disastrous effects of the US-NATO war on Libya, including the civil war in Mali, the proliferation of weapons to terrorist groups throughout North Africa, and the general chaos and breakdown of all political, economic, and social institutions in Libya. Additionally, Kuperman notes that the US-NATO war prolonged significantly the war. He writes:

When NATO intervened in mid-March 2011, Qaddafi already had regained control of most of Libya, while the rebels were retreating rapidly toward Egypt. Thus, the conflict was about to end, barely six weeks after it started, at a toll of about 1,000 dead, including soldiers, rebels, and civilians caught in the crossfire. By intervening, NATO enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths. ****(unfortunately it was not 7,000 deaths the number is a lot bigger to even for someone to grasp it. In these eight months the death toll arrived over 100 thousand people including women and children.)

This is a critical point to highlight. Even by the western investigation number of 7,000 – a gross underestimation in my view, the death toll is likely much higher – the US-NATO war led directly to at least 6,000 additional deaths in Libya. Far from “protecting civilians,” it seems US-NATO was too busy killing them.

While noting some of the critical points, Kuperman’s report also leaves out a number of other shameful outcomes of the war including the deliberate destruction of critical infrastructure (including the Great Man Made River Project), the oppression of women whose rights were protected under Gaddafi, the displacement of many black Libyans and Africans from other neighboring countries who had taken refuge and found employment in Gaddafi’s Libya, and many other deeply troubling developments.

Who Should Pay?

Because the entire narrative of the Libya war has been shown to be a fabrication of the State Department, CIA, International Criminal Court, NGOs and other appendages of US hard and soft power, the question of guilt and culpability comes into play. The United States, along with its allies, has been howling for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, held illegally by the Zintan militia since 2011, to be taken to the International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes. Now that both mainstream and non-mainstream, western and non-western sources have emerged to challenge this narrative, it’s time we start asking who in the West should be held to account.

First among the criminals must be high-ranking officials in the Obama administration, including former Secretary of State Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton, and President Obama himself. Not only have they, and their subordinates, blatantly fabricated intelligence leading to an aggressive war (a crime against peace, the most serious of the Nuremburg charges), they deliberately misled the world as to the nature of their operation in Libya. Russia and China certainly feel betrayed by the US and its lies in the UN Security Council. But this is merely the tip of the iceberg.

What price should be paid by media organizations and NGOs deliberately spreading misinformation? Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International should face serious investigations into criminal negligence, or at least gross misconduct, in terms of their dissemination of lies – lies which were used as the prime justification for the war in terms of how it was sold to the people. Is it a crime to inflate by 1000% casualty figures, the end result of which is a justification for war? If not, it should be, as without such propaganda, the war could never have been sold to the public.

Media organizations, especially some ostensibly on the Left, should also be held to account for their misinformation and disinformation. Democracy Now is at the top of the list of guilty organizations. As Bruce Dixon, Managing Editor of Black Agenda Report, wrote at the height of the war:

So like every other Western reporter, Anjali Kamat [Democracy Now’s Libya correspondent] never saw any “mercenaries,” just their oversized bullets. She never saw any mass graves of the hundreds or thousands allegedly killed by Qaddafi’s “heavy machine gun fire” either, or that would be on Democracy Now too. It’s not. Nobody’s located the thousands of wounded survivors either, that must have been the result of shooting into crowds killing hundreds of people, and none of this has stopped Democracy Now from carrying the story just like Fox News or CNN or MSNBC…Something is really wrong with this picture. We have to wonder whether, at least as far as the war in Libya goes, whether Democracy Now is simply feeding us the line of corporate media, the Pentagon and the State Department rather than fulfilling the role of unembedded, independent journalists.

As Dixon points out, Democracy Now exhibited at the very least poor journalistic practice, and at worst, served as the left flank of the imperial propaganda machine. By faithfully reporting the “facts”, which have now been utterly discredited, Kamat and Democracy Now primed the pump of left progressive support for “humanitarian” war.

Of course, Democracy Now is not the only outlet that should be held responsible. All major media in the US obviously toed the US line on Libya. So too did Al Jazeera, the Qatari-owned news outlet which gained notoriety during the Bush years as a news outlet hostile to US policy in Iraq. However, by the time of the war in Libya, Al Jazeera had purged its staff of anyone truly critical of US foreign policy, particularly as it pertained to the “Arab Spring” narrative. In fact, insiders have told me that a wave of resignations, forced resignations, and firings at Al Jazeera coincided with the refusal by some of the more principled journalists to suppress the truth of what was happening in Libya. It would seem then that, rather than reporting the news, Al Jazeera, like its western counterparts, was more interested in serving power than challenging it.

In fact, Al Jazeera was the first news organization to report, and repeat ad nauseam, the lie that Gaddafi’s soldiers were systematically raping women in Benghazi, and that they had been issued Viagra by their commanding officers. This claim, repeated by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, and many others has since been debunked, with absolutely zero evidence ever surfacing to substantiate the allegation. And yet, it was one of the principal claims used to justify the indictment issued by Luis Moreno-Ocampo as head of the International Criminal Court. This fact, among many others, shows how the irresponsibility of Al Jazeera, and nearly every other journalistic and human rights organization, led directly to the war in Libya.

Sadly, it is unlikely that any of the parties responsible for the criminal and shameful war on Libya will ever be held to account for their crimes in a courtroom. However, they can be held to account in the court of public opinion. Their institutions must be discredited. Their names and faces must be known and repeated the world over. They all share responsibility for the misery inflicted on the innocent people of Libya. And we who have stood against this war from the beginning, we have been vindicated. Unfortunately, there is no solace to be found in a Libyan graveyard.

 

source: journal-neo.org