Benghazi investigators ponder: Is State Dept lying, or is Hillary?
By Byron York
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.
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 $10,000a 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.
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-fortestimony.
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. Megrahibefore 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 toMegrahi’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 elsein 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.
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.”
“In the emerging post-Qaddafi Libya, the most influential politician may well beAli 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 nowAbdel 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 inone 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?
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.”
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, reportedAntiwar.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 Pentagonhas 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 costof 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 hourmaximum 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.
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.
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 areport 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 militarilybut 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 Libyain 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-fireoffers 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 1973was 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.
Even 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 Tawerghaethnic 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 intervenedin 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 intocriminal 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 sawany “mercenaries,” just their oversized bullets. She never saw any mass graves of the hundreds or thousandsallegedly 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 stoppedDemocracy 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 powerthan challenging it.
In fact, Al Jazeera was the first news organization to report, and repeat ad nauseam, the liethat 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 evidenceever 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.
President Obama’s presidency has a definitive shelf life. His backpedaling in the Middle East is of major concern to the military establishment but also to special interest groups such as the Carlyle Group. Obama is threatening to let Iraq and Afghanistan follow in the footsteps of Vietnam. Further, Obama’s refusal to attack Syria and Iran threatens the viability of the Petrodollar. This two-part series will examine the forces which are lining up against this President and how five simultaneous political scandals are being held over his head to gain compliance from several powerful special interest groups.
The Aftermath of Benghazi
Obama’s presidency may not survive until 2016. He has the most dramatic set of political scandals in the history of the Oval Office. The only question remaining for this president is will he leave office as a result of the scandals or the result of a direct military coup? Obama has already survived one military coup attempt, but it is difficult to believe that there aren’t more military coups waiting in the wings for the right moment to strike.
The First Military Coup
In the fall of 2012, it is now clear that President Obama survived an attempted military coup. My sources tell me, that Obama, is fully aware of the fact that key elements of the military want him gone as the President and, in response, Obama has secretly embedded his CIA operatives in various military command structures around the world by placing these operatives into executive command positions in order to help them prevent just such a military coup and these embedded forces have indeed served him well in the aftermath of Benghazi.
Often, these embedded operatives serve as the second-in-command. The sole purpose of Obama’s operatives is to keep watch on key military leaders and to prevent them from moving against the policies of the present administration.
The murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security detail at Benghazi served as a flashpoint for an attempted military coup. What is interesting about the coup attempt, is that very divergent military forces have joined together to take down Obama’s presidency. At issue was the attempted rescue of Ambassador Stevens by two senior military command officers.
Can you imagine the reaction of Stevens, his security team, and two senior command officers if Stevens had indeed been rescued? The gun-running stories of the CIA to Al-Qaeda would have turned the general populace on its ear. This would have been Obama’s Watergate moment. Of course, Stevens had to be murdered to cover up Obama’s complicity in gun-running to Al-Qaeda.Remember, it was Hillary Clinton, on behalf of Obama, who refused to beef up security for Ambassador Stevens at his request. With all that the Benghazi event represents, the sheep of America would’ve been awakened if Stevens had survived to talk. With the inability of the Obama administration to squelch the cries of conspiracy in the aftermath of Benghazi, Hillary, in an effort to preserve her 2016 election hopes, could not jump off the Obama ship fast enough. And even Napolitano has jumped ship and look for more defections in the weeks ahead. Obama is in real trouble. Spying on reporters and using the IRS to harass political enemies is damning, but Benghazi is career ending.
A Review of Benghazi
Let’s review what we have learned about what transpired at Benghazi. The Benghazi consulate, which was no more than a CIA safe house, came under attack by Al Qaeda forces and the attack lasted several hours. We now know that CIA forces were right down the street at the time of the attack that murdered Stevens Al Qaeda attackers, as they attempted to flee the murder scene, were subsequently murdered by the CIA forces, who could have been used to rescue Stevens.This was a desperate attempt to conceal Obama’s gun running operations.We also know that several key personnel at Benghazi have been forced to sign nondisclosure agreements about what they know. What did they know?
The Truth Is Hiding In Plain Sight
What is known, and what was reported in the New York Times, is that this administration ran guns to Al Qaeda in a Middle East version offast and furious. We’ve also learned that Ambassador Stevens was the conduit between the establishment and Al Qaeda receiving weapons, which they used to overthrow the Libyan government.
The murder of Stevens and his team at Benghazi is a seminal moment in American history. We have further learned that al-Qaeda forces, fighting on the side of NATO in Libya,obtained 20,000 hand-held stinger missiles. This means that the Obama administration has allowed al-Qaeda to be armed to the teeth including the acquisition of 20,000 stinger missiles in which only one is needed to take down an American airliner. To cover their tracks, the Obama administration left Chris Stevens and his bodyguards defenseless as they were killed by the very terrorists who this administration armed. Can you imagine how the election of 2012 would’ve turned if the American public had this information. This is why Stevens had to be killed, but there’s more.
Arming Al-Qaeda In Syria
It is now common knowledge that this administration was also running guns to Al Qaeda in an attempt to overthrow Assad of Syria. However, news of their gunrunning was beginning to leakand the source of the gunrunning had to be eliminated. That source was Ambassador Chris Stevens and the sensitive information that he held, unfortunately for Stevens, came only a couple of months prior to the 2012 presidential election. It is quite apparent that this administration felt that the evidence of their gunrunning trail must be totally obliterated and the only way to accomplish that was to arm Al Qaeda forcesto assassinate Ambassador Stevens. These are not shocking revelations and I believe it’s likely that Congress knew the truth is far back as December of 2012. However, the congressional investigation did not succeed in their attempts at getting to the bottom of the Stevens murder. For more than a month Hillary Clinton refused to show up and testify. Other establishment figures were less than cooperative with regard to the congressional investigation. However, there is a clear and distinctive pattern of high command military awareness of this establishment’s murderous and treacherous actions which culminated in the death, the preventable death of Stevens and his bodyguard contingency.
The Middle East command structure of the American military was not on board with President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta is so unpopularwith the troops, that when he visits Afghanistan, the troops must be disarmed prior to his landing because he has been fired upon before from American ground forces.
In the aftermath of the Benghazi massacre, two senior level command officers, General Carter Ham, the former commander of AFRICOM and Admiral Charles M. Gayouette were removed from the command positions and arrested by their executive officers. Do you remember that I previously said that Obama was embedding CIA operatives into the number two command positions in key military commands around the world? When Hamm was in the process of launching a rescue mission to save Stevens, General Rodriguez promptly arrested Hamm and assumed his position as the head of AFRICOM.
Before we get into why Hamm and Gayoutte were sacked on the same day, please allow me to first say that Obama’s action of sacking two high ranking officers is so unprecedented, so reckless, that it is difficult to comprehend. Please allow me to offer a sports analogy in order to explain the magnitude of this action. Imagine that your favorite football team was on the eve of playing in the Super Bowl and the owner of your team fired both the head coach and the quarterback the night before the big game. Wouldn’t this throw your team into a state of disarray? Of course it would, and subsequently your team would face annihilation. This is exactly the case with our forces in the Middle East after the firing of these two military leaders at this critical point in time. The deposing and subsequent arrest of the AFRICOM commanding officer, and the firing of a Carrier task force commander was an irresponsible move by the Obama administration and left a dangerous leadership void in the Middle East that has needlessly put the lives of our military at risk. And it is important to note that these firings took place at a time when it appeared that war with Iran, Syria, China and Russia was on the immediate horizon.
The positions held by Hamm and Gayouette are so powerful and so sensitive, that their replacements require approval from the Senate. Why would Obama engage in such a reckless act when the country was so close to war? Very simply, both men were jointly attempting to rescue Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards, despite being told to stand down by Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta who was acting under Obama’s orders.
As Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, General Hamm had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was really a CIA safe house, was under attack. When General Ham received his “stand down” orders from Obama, he still continued with his plans to go ahead with the rescue and was arrested within minutes of contraveningthe order by his second in command, General Rodriquez. Admiral Gayouette, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, was preparing to provide intelligence and air cover for General Hamm’s rescue in violation of his standing orders and he was promptly relieved of command for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.” What is so significant about the sacking of these two military officers is that they were from two completely different command structures in two different branches of the military. This speaks clearly to an overall military mindset with regard to how they view Obama.
It is abundantly clear that had Obama been concerned for saving the lives of the four murdered Americans, American forces could have stopped the mortar fire that eventually killed Ambassador Stevens. However, Panetta and Obama blocked any rescue attempt. In legal parlance, Obama, Panetta and Clinton are, at minimum, accomplices to murder. At maximum these three rogue government officials are co-conspirators to first degree murder and now they have sacked two senior command military leaders to cover their complicity in an act of treason. I feel like I am watching an episode of the former popular television show, 24, as we are presently engaged in a plot that scarcely anyone would have believed if it had aired on television and not occurred in real life.
Others Have Taken Note and Spoken Out
Even though the corporate controlled media refuses to provide detailed coverage of the events in Benghazi, Representative Buck McKeon wrote a letter to Obama in which he boldly stated ”As we are painfully aware, despite the fact that the military had resources in the area, the military did not deploy any assets to secure U.S. personnel in Benghazi during the hours the consulate and the annex were under attack. I find it implausible that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command (author’s note: General Hamm) and the Commander of U.S. European Command would have ignored a direct order from the Commander in Chief.”
There is also proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.
There’s further evidence that US agents in Libya were at least aware of weapons and militants moving across the border. The ties between murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and jihadist Syrian rebels are becoming more clear as it is now known that Chris Stevens was an arms dealer for the CIA and brokered arms deals with Al-Qaeda and their affiliate rebels in both Libya and Syria.Can anyone imagine the political fallout to this President if word of this had ever leaked out? Stevens was the link between the CIA and Al-Qaeda. With Stevens out of the way, the trail could grow cold and the American public would be none the wiser. This is why a rescue attempt was not permitted and this explains why two senior level officials were sacked for trying to do so. However, it is becoming increasingly clear this mutiny represents a military mindset and has the backing of the Carlyle Group. This connection will be explored in part two.
Obama’s Tumultuous Relationship with the Military
General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya.And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders. The first sign of a major rift between the American military and Obama became evident when the supreme commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, was fired by Obama for derogatory comments made by the general about the president. Interestingly, the reporter who published a story which led to McChrystal’s firing was none other than recently murdered reporter Michael Hastings.
First McChrystal, then Hamm and Gayoutte were fired by Obama. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that the military is becoming more emboldened in their rebellion against this rogue President.
CIA Director David Patraeus Is Sacked
Patraeus was the former commander in Iraq and in Afghanistan after McChrystal was fired by Obama. He was rewarded when he was appointed to be the CIA director. An extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell brought down his reign as CIA director in November of 2012, just following the election.
There is the reason given to explain an event and there is the real reason behind the event. Sixty percent of all married men cheat on their spouses. The more money they make and the more power a man possesses, the more opportunity for cheating.
I have swamp land for sale, in Florida, for anyone to purchase if they are naive enough to believe that David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), resigned solely based upon having an extramarital affair with the biographer-turned-mistress, Paula Broadwell. How did the affair compromise Petraeus’ position as CIA director? The FBI, who vetted Patraeus for the CIA director position, concluded that it did not.
Within two monthsafter the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged by Obama:
Gen. Hamm, on October 18, 2012.
Adm. Gayouette, on October 18, 2012.
Gen. Petraeus, on November 9, 2012.
General Allen, on November 13, 2012.
Other casualties of military leadership during this time frame includes General Keene and General Odierno. Further, the second in commander of Central Command, General Mattis, And who could forget about General Mckiernan? In total, Obama has sacked nearly 20 generals during his tenureas president.
Not wanting the Middle East to become America’s next Vietnam, the military wantsObama gone. And now the military has a strong partner, the Carlyle Group whose connections ripple through the American power structure. These connections and the other reasons why the Obama administration may not be standing by the end of year will be presented in part two.
this is by DAVE HODGES FROM ‘THE COMMON SENSE SHOW’