Libya, David Cameron’s “Iraq”? Damning Report Shreds Another War Monger.

Libya, David Cameron’s “Iraq”? Damning Report Shreds Another War Monger.

By Felicity Arbuthnot

Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron is consistent in just one thing – jumping ship when the going gets tough. He announced his resignation in the immediate wake of the 23rd July referendum in which Britain marginally voted to leave the EU, a referendum which he had fecklessly called to appease right wing “little Englanders”, instead of facing them down.

He lost. The result is looming financial catastrophe and the prospect of unraveling forty three years of legislations (Britain joined the then European Economic Community on 1st January 1973.) No structure was put in place for a government Department to address the legal and bureaucratic enormities should the leave vote prevail. There is still none.

Cameron however committed to staying on as an MP until the 2020 general election, vowing grandiosely: “I will do everything I can in future to help this great country succeed”, he said of the small island off Europe which he had potentially sunk, now isolated from and derided by swathes of its continental neighbours – with the sound of trading doors metaphorically slamming shut reverberating across the English Channel.

David Cameron has now jumped again, resigning unexpectedly and immediately as an MP on Monday 12th September, giving the impression that he was not in agreement with certain policies of his (unelected) successor, Theresa May. He stated: “Obviously I have my own views about certain issues … As a former PM it’s very difficult to sit as a back-bencher and not be an enormous diversion and distraction from what the Government is doing. I don’t want to be that distraction.” What an ego.

Over the decades of course, the House of Parliament has been littered with former Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers who have remained constituency MPs without being a “distraction.”


The following day the real reason for his decision seemed obvious. Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee released their devastating findings on Cameron’s hand in actions resulting in Libya’s near destruction, contributing to the unprecedented migration of those fleeing UK enjoined “liberations”, creating more subsequent attacks in the West – and swelling ISIS and other terrorist factions.

“Cameron blamed for rise of ISIS”, thundered The Times headline, adding: “Damning Inquiry into Libya points finger at former PM.” The Guardian opined: “MPs condemn Cameron over Libya debacle” and: “Errors resulted in country ‘becoming failed state and led to growth of ISIS.’ ”

The Independent owned “I”: “Cameron’s toxic Libya legacy”, with: “Former PM blamed for collapse in to civil war, rise of ISIS and mass migration to Europe in Inquiry’s scathing verdict” and “Cameron ignored lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan …”

The Independent chose: “Cameron’s bloody legacy: Damning Report blames ex-PM for ISIS in Libya.”

No wonder he plopped over the side.

The Report is decimating. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluding: “Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister, David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

The disasters leading to that final verdict include the UK’s intervention being based on “erroneous assumption” an “incomplete understanding” of the situation on the ground, with Cameron leaping from limited intervention to an: “opportunist policy of (entirely illegal) regime change”, based on “inadequate intelligence.”

Once Gaddafi had been horrendously assassinated, resultant from the assault on his country: “ … failure to develop a coherent strategy … had led to political and economic collapse, internecine warfare, humanitarian crisis and the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in North Africa.”

After his death, Gaddafi’s body, with that of his son, Mutassim, was laid out on the floor of a meat warehouse in Misrata. (“I”, 14th September 2016.)

“We came, we saw, he died”, then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton told the media, with a peal of laughter. (1) Just under a year later US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three US officials were murdered in Benghazi. Payback time for her words, taken out on the obvious target?

Muammar Gaddafi, his son Muatassim and his former Defence Minister were reportedly buried in unmarked graves in the desert, secretively, before dawn on 25th October 2011. The shocking series of events speaking volumes for the “New Libya” and the Cameron-led, British government’s blood dripping hands in the all.

The UK’s meddling hands were involved from the start. France, Lebanon and the UK, supported by the US, proposed UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Britain was the second country, after France, to call for a “no fly zone” over Libya in order to: “to use all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians. “It neither explicitly authorised the deployment of ground forces nor addressed the question of regime change or of post conflict reconstruction”, reminds the Committee.

Moreover: “France led the international community in advancing the case for military intervention in Libya … UK policy followed decisions taken in France.” Former Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder confirmed to the Committee: “Cameron and Sarkozy were the undisputed leaders in terms of doing something.” (Emphasis added.)

The US was then “instrumental in extending the terms of the Resolution” to even a “no drive zone” and “assumed authority to attack the entire Libyan government’s command and communications network.”


On the 19th March 2011, a nineteen nation “coalition” turned a “no fly zone” into a free fire zone and embarked on a blitzkrieg of a nation of just 6.103 million (2011 figure.)

All this in spite of the revelation to the Committee by former UK Ambassador to Libya Sir Dominic Asquith, that the intelligence base at to what was really happening in the country: “… might well have been less than ideal.”

Professor George Joffe, renowned expert on the Middle East and North Africa, noted: “the relatively limited understanding of events” and that: “people had not really bothered to monitor closely what was happening.”

Analyst Alison Pargeter: ‘expressed her shock at the lack of awareness in Whitehall of the “history and regional complexities” of Libya.’

Incredibly Whitehall appeared to have been near totally ignorant as to the extent to which the “rebellion” might have been a relatively small group of Islamic extremists.

Former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Richards was apparently unaware that Abdelhakim Belhadj and other Al Qaeda linked members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were involved. “It was a grey area”, he said. However: “a quorum of respectable Libyans were assuring the Foreign Office” that militant Islam would not benefit from the rebellion. “With the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best”, concluded his Lordship.

“The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion should not have been the preserve of hindsight. Militant connections with transnational militant extremist groups were know before 2011, because many Libyans had participated in the Iraq insurgency and in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda”, commented the Committee. (Emphasis added)

Iraq revisited. Back then it was the “respectable” Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi and their ilk selling a pack of lies to the seemingly ever gullible, supremely unworldly Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Much was made by William Hague, Foreign Secretary at the time and by Liam Fox, then Defence Secretary, of Muammar’s Gaddafi’s threatening rhetoric. The Committee pointed out that: ”Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

Further, two days before the 19 nation onslaught: ‘On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.”

Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi’s forces re-took Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians. “Muammar Gaddafi also attempted to appease protesters in Benghazi with an offer of development aid before finally deploying troops.”

Professor Joffe agreed that Gaddafi’s words were historically at odds with his deeds: “If you go back to the American bombings in the 1980s of Benghazi and Tripoli, rather than trying to remove threats to the regime in the east, in Cyrenaica, Gaddafi spent six months trying to pacify the tribes that were located there. The evidence is that he was well aware of the insecurity of parts of the country and of the unlikelihood (that military assault was the answer.) Therefore, he would have been very careful in the actual response…the fear of the massacre of civilians was vastly overstated.”

In June 2011 an Amnesty International investigation failed to find corroborative evidence of mass human rights violations by government troops but did find that: “the rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence” and that: “much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events …”


The Committee wrote damningly:

We have seen no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed.

It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.

Moreover: “The deployment of coalition air assets shifted the military balance in the Libyan civil war in favour of the rebels”, with: “The combat performance of rebel ground forces enhanced by personnel and intelligence provided by States such as the UK, France, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.” Lord Richards informed that the UK “had a few people embedded” with the rebel forces.

Arms and tanks were also provided to the rebels by members of the “coalition” in contravention of Resolution 1973.

Was the aim of the assault regime change or civilian protection? Lord Richard said: “one thing morphed almost ineluctably in to the other.”

The Committee summarized: “The UK’s intervention in Libya was reactive and did not comprise action in pursuit of a strategic objective. This meant that a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into a policy of regime change by military means.” (Emphasis added.)

The Cameron-led UK government had “focused exclusively on military intervention”, under the National Security Council, a Cabinet Committee created by David Cameron.

The Committee’s final observation is:

We note former Prime Minister David Cameron’s decisive role when the National Security Council discussed intervention in Libya. We also note that Lord Richards implicitly dissociated himself from that decision in his oral evidence to this inquiry. The Government must commission an independent review of the operation of the NSC … It should be informed by the conclusions of the Iraq Inquiry and examine whether the weaknesses in governmental decision-making in relation to the Iraq intervention in 2003 have been addressed by the introduction of the NSC.

Cameron who said he wanted to be “heir to Blair” seems to have ended up as just that, pivotal cheerleader for the butchery of a sovereign leader, most of his family, government and the destruction of a nation.

Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa . However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa ‘s most prosperous nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. Libyans did not only enjoy free health care and free education, they also enjoyed free electricity and interest free loans. The price of petrol was around $0.14 per liter and 40 loaves of bread cost just $0.15. Consequently, the UN designated Libya the 53rd highest in the world in human development. (2)

End note: David Cameron jumped ship yet a third time – he refused to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

The full text of the Committee’s findings:


The original source of this article is Global Research

Militiaman who became Libya’s oil kingpin

Militiaman who became Libya’s oil kingpin


RA’S LANUF, Libya — Ibrahim Jadhran has gone from an alleged car thief imprisoned in Colonel Muammar Qadhafi’s most notorious prison to a warlord in charge of a powerful militia sitting on billions of dollars of oil money.

Now he’s one of the most important players in an effort to end the chaos that has torn Libya apart since Qadhafi’s overthrow in 2011: He has thrown his weight behind the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), signing a breakthrough deal to reopen Libya’s oil ports.

Jadhran is the chief of the Petroleum Facilities Guard (PFG), a militia force of more than 20,000 men that is supposed to protect the country’s vital oil industry. Speaking in the large boardroom of his office complex in the deep-water port of Ra’s Lanuf, in the oil crescent of central Libya, he spelt out his supposed conversion.

Jadhran’s voice matters both because of the men and the money he controls.

“I am a Muslim but I consider myself a moderate,” said Jadhran, who had shed his normal military uniform for a dark suit. “And it is because of that I chose the middle … The area where we sit now is in the middle of Libya. It is my country’s security valve and it is the beating heart of Libya’s wealth.”

His voice matters both because of the men and the money he controls. Jadhran has been an extremely skillful player in the turmoil of post-Qadhafi Libya as militias, tribes and rival governments — an internationally recognized one in the eastern city of Tobruk, and a more Islamist one called the General National Congress (GNC) based in the capital Tripoli in the west — battled for control.

In mid-2013, Jadhran closed two major oil export terminals, demanding the GNC government give eastern Libya more autonomy, particularly over oil revenues, and branded the former management of the National Oil Company corrupt.

His brand of maverick separatism increased and, in March 2014, he allowed an oil tanker named the Morning Glory to set sail from the eastern port of Sidra under the North Korean flag. It was promptly stopped and boarded by the U.S. Navy.

Jadhran claims the Morning Glory crude oil shipment had been authorized by the Tobruk government, but the Tripoli government tried to stop the tanker, and the incident led to the ousting of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan.

Now Jadhran denounces all sides. He accused the GNC of being dominated by Islamic extremists. Jadhran in turn was accused of not doing enough to stop ISIL when the terror group seized part of the central Libyan coast that had been under the control of his forces.

Jadhran is also critical of the eastern legislature in Tobruk, which he claimed was seeking a military dictatorship under General Khalifa Haftar****(that is not true Khalifa Haftar is not under the HoR), who led an assault on the GNC government and remains a powerful warlord.

“We stood by the government, but at the time the National Congress started to lean toward the Islamists and then the parliament [House of Representatives in Tobruk] leaned towards the militarization of the state and the return of a dictatorship. So we saw that we were the only ones standing in the middle,” said Jadhran.

Jadhran supported a national political dialogue and it was this process that led to the December formation of the new U.N.-backed government in Tripoli. “We released a statement of support three hours after the GNA was formed despite the fact it was almost political suicide to support its newly-born presidential council,” he said.

Call to arms

Others point out that Jadhran’s loyalty to the GNA came at a price, the payment of his 20,000 plus PFG forces of all their back salaries.

Mattia Toaldo, policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, is critical of what he called Jadhran’s “opportunistic choices” but is pragmatic about his importance to Libya’s political future.

“Jadhran remains in the eyes of many Libyans a very controversial figure,” he said. “Yet, the truth is that along with Defence Minister Mahdi Al-Barghathi, he’s the only easterner who supported the GNA from day one and the GNA needs not just the oil he sits on but his loyalty.”

That support for a new and internationally recognized government, complete with a signing ceremony — attended by tribal leaders — to reopen the ports is something of a change for Jadhran. He’s been embroiled in his country’s violent politics since the war that ousted Qadhafi.

The son of an army officer, the muscular 34-year-old had spent the previous six years in the notorious Abu Slim prison, where he was sent at 22 for a life sentence for what he says was his political activism, but which records suggest was for car theft. However, Qadhafi never called anyone a political prisoner and inmates were branded pretty thieves, traitors or spies.

“I was released three days after the spark of the February 17th revolution,” said Jadhran. “Because the demonstrators calling for change were met with live fire and mortars from the Qadhafi regime, peaceful protest was not possible and we were forced to take up arms. Young men found themselves forced to carry arms and return fire on an enemy.”

He formed a battalion of volunteers to defend Libya’s oil crescent around Ra’s Lanuf and Ajdabiya, his hometown. “I managed to gather 16 battalions under the one flag, all of which participated in the revolution.”

In a deeply divided country, Jadhran defended Cyrenaica, the east of the country that has traditionally been hostile to the Tripoli-dominated west and slowly took over Libya’s oil infrastructure.

Now he controls the four main oil ports of Ra’s Lanuf, Zueitina, Sidra and Brega, many oil wells and hundreds of miles of pipelines and says that his goal is to protect the oil wealth that accounts for 97 percent of Libya’s economic output

His forces helped oust ISIL fighters from key oil terminals and in recent weeks have led assaults on key ISIL locations along Libya’s coast. He has also followed through on his promise to allow for renewed oil exports under a unified National Oil Company.

“The issue of selling and marketing oil is strictly the business of the National Oil Company, it has been entrusted to carry out this mission by the government and the people of Libya,” he said.

This week, the House of Representatives voted against the GNA in a no confidence motion. The vote means that Jadhran’s commitment to the GNA, together with his influence in the east and control over the security of oil exports, are even more vital to Libya’s future.

So the question is, what does Jadhran want? The answer seems to be political respectability and to present the PFG as an example of good governance to encourage investment back into Libya.

“There is no doubt that I have high expectations in assuming a high and honorable position and that this position should be for the good of the people,” said Jadhran. “If Libya becomes independent, its institutions secured within a real democratic and good governance blueprint, then this will enable international investment companies to re-enter Libya.”

Clinton Foundation’s “pay-to-play” structure becoming clearer

From Wayne Madsen Report (WMR):

August 15-16, 2016 —

Clinton Foundation’s “pay-to-play” structure becoming clearer

The recent release of additional private emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email servers based at her New York home provide a clearer picture of the “pay-to-play” connections between Clinton’s State Department, her and her husband’s and daughter’s Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative, and the private investment consulting and investment firm of Teneo Holdings, Inc. in Manhattan. In addition to these entities, there are separate Clinton family foundations that maintain their own revenue streams: the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton (BHCC) Foundation, the Clinton Foundation Hong Kong, William J. Clinton Foundation Charitable Trust (Kenya), William J. Clinton Foundation Charitable Trust (UK), and the Clinton Foundation Insalingsstiftelse (Sweden). All these entities maintain separate operations for the Clintons’ pay-to-play global racketeering operations.

The Clinton operations are massive in relation to the reported lobbying dealings that Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, maintained with the former Yanukovych government of Ukraine. The sudden appearance of “secret ledgers” containing Manafort’s name and alleged cash payments to him by the puppet Ukrainian government of George Soros bear all the signs of another Soros/Cass Sunstein disinformation operation.

Donor Amount given to Clinton Foundation/Global Initiative (CGI) Received in return

-Prince of Abu Dhabi and Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates Shaikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahayan and the Al Nahayan family of Abu Dhabi <$5,000,000 Access to HRC at State Dept. and a $500,000 environmental speech by Bill Clinton given at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi while HRC was meeting in Washington with Shaikh Abdullah.

-Algeria $500,000 State clearance for U.S. arms sales to Algeria. Deal included biological and chemical agents.

-Australia, Commonwealth of $75,000,000 Strong State Dept. for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which stands to be a boon for Australian multinational firms.

-Bahrain, Kingdom of $250,000 Muted criticism by State of Bahrain’s abysmal human rights practices.
Boeing Corp. $900,000 State Dept. clearance for $29 billion arms U.S. arms sale to Saudi Arabia, including Boeing’s F-15 fighter.

Brunei Darussalam, Sultanate of $5,000,000 State Dept. clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Brunei.

Cameroon, Republic of <$100,000 Influence buying by the Cameroon government with the Clinton State Department.

-Canada $500,000 State Dept. support for Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline, eventually vetoed by Barack Obama.

Chagoury Group <$5,000,000 in cash and a $1,000,000,000 pledge HRC delayed designating Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization because of Chagoury Group’s investments and operations in Nigeria. Chagoury Group received the “Sustainable Development Award” from the CGI. Chagooury helped the family of Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha hide his wealth stolen from Nigeria’s oil revenues.

-Confederation of Indian Industry <$1,000,000 Access for Indian businesses to U.S. government officials.
Corning, Inc. $150,000 Clinton arranged for international access for the New York-based firm.
Dahdaleh, Victor <$5,000,000 Lobbyist for Bahrain state-owned aluminum company who sought a contract between the Bahraini firm and the U.S.-owned Alcoa World Alumina.

Dominican Republic <$25,000,000 Clinton Foundation board member Rolando Gonzalez’s company InterEnergy received contracts from Dominican government for wind energy projects. The firm received Domican President’s Gold Citizen Award in 2010.

Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) <$100,000 State pressure on Justice Dept. to curtail criminal investigation of FIFA.

Fernwood Foundation (Canadian foundation run by Canadian uranium mining mogul Ian Telfer $2,600,000 Telfer’s UrAsia and Uranium One Corporations, co-owned with Canadian mining magnate and “Friend of Bill” Frank Giustra receved favorable uranium mining deals with Kazakhstan and Russia’s ROSATOM and Kazakhstan’s KAZATOMPROM.

-Flanders, Government of €780,000 ($872,000) High-level access to U.S. government officials by Flemish government officials and businesses.

GEMS Education, Dubai $5,600,000 Bill Clinton made “honorary chairman” of the Dubai company.

Germany, Federal Republic of $250,000 High-level access to U.S. government officials by German officials and businessmen.

-Giustra, Frank (Canadian mining magnate) (Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership/Radcliffe Foundation) $31,300,000 State soft-peddled threat of the Islamic State because Lafarge had negotiated with the terrorists to maintain its operations in ISIL-controlled territory in Syria. arranged favorable deals with Kazakhstan and its president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Hindustan Construction Corp. (India) <$500,000 Access for corporate officials to U.S. government officials.

Ireland, Republic of <$158,300,000 Influence-buying by Irish government with the Clintons.

Italy, Republic of $100,000 Influence buying by the Italian government with the Clinton State Department.

Jamaica $100,000 Digicel Group, owned by Irish billionaire and Friend of Bill, Denis O’Brien, received USAID grant for a telecommunications project in Jamaica. Digicel (Jamaica) paid Bill Clinton $225,000 for a speech in Kingston. That was in addition to the $100,000 kicked in by Jamaica to the Clinton Foundation.

Kuwait, Emirate of $10,000,000 State Dept. clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Kuwait.

Lafarge Group <$100,000 State soft-peddled threat of Islamic State (ISIL) in Syria because Lafarge had an agreement with ISIL not to interfere in Lafarge activities in ISIL-controlled territory in Syria. HRC was a director of Lafarge between 1990 and 1992, at a time when the firm was selling strategic military materials to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Lesotho, Kingdom of <$100,000 Kickback from $11.2 million Irish grant to Clinton Foundation for HIV/AIDS abatement in Lesotho.

Mittal, Lakshmi, owner of ArcelorMittal, a major steel company, and board member of Goldman Sachs <$5,000,000 Favorable opportunities in Kazakhstan, where Mittal is a member of the Foreign Investment Council of Kazakhstan. Dovetails with Bill Clinton’s uranium deals with Giustra and Nazarbayev.

-Sheikh Mohammed H. Al Amoudi (Ethiopian-Saudi billionaire)1 <$10,000,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Monsanto <$5,000,000 State advocated for Monsanto “Frankenfood” and “Frankenseeds” worldwide.

Netherlands, Kingdom of the (Netherlands National Lottery) $10,000,000 State helped open up investment opportunities for Dutch firms in Africa.

-New Zealand, Government of $1,200,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Norway, Kingdom of $89,600,000 Norwegian government split up donations to make them look smaller than they actually were. Norwegian firms received investment opportunities in the developing world, courtesy of the U.S. Millennium Goals Corporation.

Oman, Sultanate of <$5,000,000 State clearance for U.S. weapons sales to Oman.

Papua New Guinea, Government of <$100,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Qatar, Emirate of <$5,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. arms sales to Qatar. State pressure on Justice Dept. to curtail investigation of bribery payments regarding FIFA and 2022 World Cup host, Qatar.

Ras al Khaimah, Emirate of $50,000 Influence-buying within the Clinton State Dept.

Rwanda, Republic of $200,000 Influence-buying with HRC’s State Department.

Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of $25,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia

Suzlon Energy, Ltd. (Amsterdam) <$5,000,000 State and CGI promoted wind turbine solutions in developing countries. Suzlon, owned by an Indian national, is a leading supplier of wind turbines.

Swaziland, Kingdom of <$100,000 Access to U.S. government officials for Swazi government/private business leaders.

Sweden, Kingdom of $7,200,000 Access to U.S. government officials for Swedish government/private business leaders.

Switzerland, Confederation of $325,000 Access to U.S. government officials for Swiss government/private business leaders.

Tenerife Island, Government of $50,000 High-level access to U.S. government officials by Flemish government officials and businesses.

Taiwan $10,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.

United Arab Emirates <$5,000,000 State Dept. approval for U.S. weapons sales to the UAE.

United Kingdom £50,000,000 ($78,000,000) Access for key UK officials and UK businesses to key U.S.government policymakers.

Victor Pinchuk Foundation (Ukraine) $8,600,000 Buy influence with Clinton at State to pressure Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to free jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Walmart, Inc. <$5,000,000 HRC pressured Indian government to open up India to Walmart, an action opposed by India’s small retailers.

1 Al Amoudi once threatened to sue WMR and he demanded some $110,000 to be deposited in his Swiss bank account to drop the suit. Al Amoudi hired the Jewish law firm of Nabarro Nathanson in London to make his legal threat. WMR informed the FBI that a Saudi national, who we reported had links to Saudi-funded jihadist organizations, attempted an extortion shakedown of WMR. WMR never heard back from Al Amoudi or his Jewish lawyers after we informed him that he could go pound sand up his ass (and there is a lot of that in Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia for him to pound).

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

Here are all the emails about Libya

This Is Why America Is Bringing “Freedom” To The Middle East

This Is Why America Is Bringing “Freedom” To The Middle East

Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

I can’t figure out why we are so concerned about the Middle East. Can you?

If we are swimming in shale oil and our future is driver-less electric cars, why are we so concerned about the Middle East?

After 15 years in Afghanistan, the opium crop is at record high levels. How could that be? I thought we were there to modernize and democratize their country. At least heroine in the U.S. is now cheaper than a happy meal at McDonalds.

We’ll start with the obvious: the number one export for many countries here is crude oil or related petroleum products. Middle Eastern countries made up a significant portion of global oil export revenues during 2015 with shipments valued at $325 billion or 41.3% of global crude oil exports.

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran, and Oman were all among the top 15 exporters of crude oil in 2015. Russia and Kazakhstan, countries on the Central Asian part of the map, were also members of that same group.

Regimes in the region found that there were many other corollary benefits from this economic might. Unrest could be stifled by rising wealth, and these countries would also have more influence than they otherwise would in global affairs. Saudi Arabia is a good example in both cases, though a major driver of Saudi influence has been slipping in recent years.

Outside of Oil

Aside from exports of oil, there are some other interesting subtleties to this map. One of the most advanced economies in the region, Israel, is not dependent on oil exports at all. The country has had to find other ways to create value in the global market and its three major exports include electronics and software, cut diamonds, and pharmaceuticals.

War-torn Afghanistan, which is not a significant producer of petroleum on the world market, gets the majority of its export revenue from different natural resource. Opium is Afghanistan’s most valuable cash crop, and opiates such as opium, morphine, and heroin are its largest export. Fetching an estimated value of $3 billion at border prices, it was estimated to make up about 15% of the country’s GDP equivalent in 2013.

Lastly, countries on the map without oil wealth tend to be less influential on the world stage from a geopolitical perspective. Armenia, for example, mainly exports pig iron, unwrought copper, and nonferrous metals and is the world’s 138th largest exporter by dollar value, ranked in between Jamaica and Swaziland. Surrounded geographically by countries that Yerevan considers hostile, Armenia has increasingly turned to Russia for its support.

Here is the link with the maps: