Hillary’s War: Pentagon Opposed Hillary Clinton on Regime Change in Libya
By: Daniel Greenfield
Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.
As Libya continues melting down, the Washington Times’ Kelly Riddell has an important story on just how conflicted the situation was. This war a tug of war between Hillary Clinton, who wanted to bomb Libya, and the Pentagon which didn’t.
Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force.
“You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,” an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.
So the Pentagon went rogue over Hillary’s War.
The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA,but there’s nothing he can do about it.”…
While Mrs. Clinton urged the Pentagon to cease its communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward…
As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times with officials directly familiar with the overture.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to help.
That more than Benghazi may explain Ham’s abrupt exit. He had been proven right, but Hillary was the heir to the throne.
Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business consultant in Libya at the time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for Libya. Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.
“The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored,”Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.
“[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions,” Mr. Kubic said. “First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.”
But not the State Department.
Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of theState Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.
It’s ironic considering how the media liked to play up Saddam’s truce offers, but this doesn’t get reported. The Pentagon wanted to avoid a war, but Hillary was howling for one.
Even Obama was less eager for war than Hillary.
In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aidethat Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya “its all Secretary Clinton’s matter” and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.
More like he didn’t care. So he let Hillary have her war.
CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book “Worthy Fights” that the goal of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq and Afghanistan “for both substance and symbolism.”
“In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we’d be bringing troops home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn’t officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya was regime change.”
That’s what I’ve written all along, but the Secretary of Defense admitting that the American public was lied to over an illegal war just isn’t interesting when Obama is in power.
New emails show possible Benghazi deception by Hillary Clinton, Obama admin
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times June 22, 2015
Congress released nearly 200 pages of newly uncovered emails involving former Secretary of StateHillary Rodham Clinton, raising questions Monday about whether the Obama administration and the Democratic presidential candidate herself were truthful when they said they turned over all of her email communications on Benghazi.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the select House committee looking into the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya, demanded the State Department say whether it has the emails — a way of testing whether the administration withheld them against the wishes of the committee, or whether Mrs. Clintonnever turned them over in the first place, contradicting her public statements.
Mr. Gowdy gave the department a deadline of the end of the day Monday.
“Once again the Benghazi Committee uncovers information that should already be part of the public record but was not made available to the American people or congressional investigators,” Mr. Gowdy said.
Mr. Blumenthal turned them over to the committee himself and has also been deposed by the committee behind closed doors.
Democrats countered that “many” of the emails had been turned over before and said Mr. Gowdy’s decision to release the set Monday was a political effort to tarMrs. Clinton.
“Before today, Chairman Gowdy had not officially released a single email from a single witness in this entire investigation, which has lasted more than a year. Now, he has apparently decided that this one witness is so critical that his emails — and his alone — must be released,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi probe.
Mrs. Clinton has admitted she set up and used her own email server and account during her time at the State Department, which meant her communications weren’t able to be searched under open-records or congressional information requests, as required by law.
Prodded by Mr. Gowdy’s committee last year, nearly two years after she left officeMrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department about 30,000 messages she decided were related to official business. She said she withheld and expunged another 32,000 messages, and says she has wiped the server clean to prevent anyone from recovering any of them.
The State Department is under a court order to produce all of the emails publicly, though it claimed to have already given Mr. Gowdy’s committee all emails related to the Benghazi investigation.
Mr. Gowdy said the latest releases, however, poke a hole in that version, saying that eitherMrs. Clintondidn’t actually turn over all appropriate messages to her former employer, or else the State Departmentdidn’t comply with the committee’s demand for information.
Democrats have called for Mr. Gowdy to release the transcript of the committee’s deposition of Mr. Blumenthal, which took place last week, saying it would show there was nothing nefarious in the arrangement between him and Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Cummings said the transcript has been available since last week and would put the new emails in context.
“By the chairman’s own admission, these emails have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi, and their selective release demonstrates the Select Committee’s singular focus on attacking Hillary Clinton and her bid for president,” the congressman said.
Whistle blower reveals secret U.S. program to recruit, train, and provide visas to ‘terrorists’
IF YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW how sausages are made, don’t start reading Visas forAl Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the Worldby Michael Springmann. The sausages in this case: the string of too-easily-swallowed accounts of bloody events in the “global war on terror,” served up daily with relish by the mainstream media. In reality these sausages are filled with tainted meat that’s making everyone sick.
Springmann is a brave whistle blower living in Washington, D.C. He’s written an accessible book, safe to digest, highlighting details of the corruption of the American Empire (and its accomplices, including Canada) as he experienced them from the inside during his years with the U.S. State Department.
While he served as a visa officer in the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for instance, he was obliged under threat of dismissal to issuevisas to persons hired clandestinely by the CIA to become trained-in-the-USA terrorists. Most of these psychopathic thugs were clearly and legally unqualified to be issued visas. There is every reason to believe the “Visas for Terrorists” program remains fully operative today.It takes a lot of expendable terrorists to run a global terrorism op.
Springmann places his experiences both within the context of the historical roots of the U.S. Empire and within its current ongoing global destabilization project.
“This tale,” the author states near the beginning, “is a sordid sketch of backstabbing, disloyalty, double crosses, faithlessness, falsity, perfidy, sellouts, treachery, and betrayal.”
And that only covers the bureaucratic aspect. Even more sobering is his sketch of human rights violations: torture, assassinations, massacres including bombings of markets, invasions and occupations of countries, destabilization of nations and regions.
Then there’s the financial side: widespread criminality, resource theft, bribery, diversion of funds, illicit drug dealing and more.
Not to mention the flouting of international laws. This dimension includes gross infringements on national sovereignty, the casual violation of treaties and ho-hum everyday general lawlessness, risking even the threat of nuclear annihilation.
All this before taking into account the moral dimension, in which trashing the Ten Commandments is just an opening trifle.
“My story shows how things really work,” Springmann writes, correctly. In the book’s 250 pages he names names, dates, times and places – presumably opening himself up to lawsuits, should there be anything here that the individuals named deem libelous. They might think twice, however, since Springmann is a lawyer by profession and knows his way around the Empire’s capital – as well as some of its outlying ramparts such as Stuttgart, New Delhi and especially Jeddah.
Stinging in itself, Springmann’s book also can be read as an authenticating companion to Michel Chossudovsky’s Towards a World War III Scenario (2012) and The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” Against Humanity (2015). Along the way, both authors deal, to one extent or another, with the ideological, hubristic and increasingly bellicose role of the Harper government as handmaiden to the American Empire, including military involvements in Libya, Serbia and the Ukraine. Springmann necessarily refers very little to Canada, but to read his account of the cowardly and unnecessary rain of death inflicted on Libya, for instance, is to be obliged as a Canadian to think of Harper’s enthusiasm and pride in having this country share in the slaughter and destabilization carried out under the Orwellian “responsibility to protect” notion.
Springmann quotes Maximilian C. Forte who notes that before the attack Libya enjoyed the highest Human Development Index (a UN measurement of well-being) in all Africa. “After Western military forces destroyed the country the Index only records the steep collapse of all indicators of well-being. More Libyans were killed with intervention than without. It was about control, about militarizing Africa,” Forte argues.
What Springmann brings uniquely to the table is his firsthand knowledge of precisely how the USA recruits terrorists (no quotation marks needed), sends them to the USA for training and then deploys them to carry out murders, torture, bombings and more. The bloody mayhem carried out by these thousands of paid mercenaries – ostensibly beheading-habituated “jihadists” fighting against democracy, decency and the USA and its “allies – is planned, organized and funded by none other than the same USA and its allies. It’s a global false flag operation – the largest by far in history.
As Springmann on page 65 writes of the “Visas for Terrorists Program:”
This was not an ad hoc operation, conceived and carried out in response to a specific foreign policy issue. Rather, it was another of too many CIA efforts to destroy governments, countries, and politicians disfavored by the American “establishment” in its “bipartisan” approach to matters abroad. Whether it was opposing the imaginary evils of communism, the fictitious malevolence of Islam, or the invented wickedness of Iran, America and its intelligence services, brave defenders of “The City Upon A Hill,” sought out and created fear and loathing of peoples and countries essentially engaged in efforts to better their lives and improve their political world. Along the way, Agency-sponsored murders, war crimes, and human rights violations proved to be good business. Jobs for the Clandestine Service (people who recruit and run spies), sales of weapons and aircraft, as well as the myriad items needed to control banks, countries and peoples all provided incomefor and benefits to American companies.
That the American Empire has been able to carry out such a massive illegal program for so long is the saddest of commentaries on how deep the rot is, how effective the secrecy, how complicit the media.
As to the span of dangerous widespread deception, Springmann notes that Rahul Bedi wrote in Jane’s Defence Weekly on September 14, 2001 that beginning in 1980 “thousands [of mujahideen] were … brought to America and made competent in terrorism by Green Berets and SEALS at US government East Coast facilities, trained in guerilla warfare and armed with sophisticated weapons.”
The point is made repeatedly that Al Qaeda and now ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State are essentially “Made in USA” entities, brought into being and organized for the Empire’s purposes. Among the elements that make possible such a vast fraud are deception, compartmentalization and secrecy. Springmann quotes attorney Pat Frascogna, “a man with FOIA expertise,” about secrecy and its purpose:
Thus whether it be learning the dirty and unethical business practices of a company or the secrets of our government, the same deployment of denials and feigning ignorance about what is really going on are the all-too-common methods used to keep the truth from the light of day.
Langley recruited the Arab-Afghans so clandestinely that the terrorists didn’t know they had been recruited. They thought that they had found a battlefield on their own, or through the Internet or through Twitter or through television…
Frascogna’s observation intersects with Springmann’s on-the-job experiences as a visa officer in Jeddah starting in 1987. Springmann was repeatedly overruled when he turned down disqualified applicants for U.S. visas. He writes:
As I later learned to my dismay, the visa applicants were recruits for the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union’s armed forces. Further, as time went by, the fighters, trained in the United States, went on to other battlefields: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. They worked with the American intelligence services and the State Department to destabilize governments the United States opposed. While it’s no secret, most knowledgeable people still refuse to talk about this agenda.
As Springmann learned, “the average percentage of intelligence officers to real diplomats at a given Foreign Service post is about one in three. My experience in Jeddah, Stuttgart, and New Delhi might place it higher—at least 50 percent, if not more.” According to the Anti-CIA Club of Diplomats: Spooks in U.S. Foreign Service [sic], a twelve-page, 1983 Canadian publication (see namebase.org), the percentage is 60 percent.
“At Jeddah,” Springmann writes, “to the best of my knowledge, out of some twenty US citizens assigned to the consulate, only three people, including myself, worked for the Department of State.The rest were CIA or NSA officials or their spouses.” Elsewhere Springmann suggests that essentially the CIA runs the State Department, and that this is true of many other U.S. government departments and agenciesas well. It seems that it’s almost impossible to over-estimate the reach of the CIA’s tentacles or the overweening treason of its nonstop black ops and unconstitutional operations domestically.
Springmann toward the end of the book refers to the beginnings of the CIA. It’s interesting for this reviewer to think that he was 13 years of age in 1947 when U.S. president Harry Truman agreed with the National Security Council (NSC) to secretly create the CIA and NSA. I remember that in my teenage years a few of my peers said there “was something” called “the CIA.” This was around the time a few people also said there “was something” called “the Mafia.” The consensus was that both ideas were very far-fetched.
In 1948 Truman approved yet another NSC initiative, providing for “propaganda, economic warfare;preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuationmeasures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas, and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” That’s a tabula rasa if there ever was one: a license for lawlessness.
The CIA’s twisted hits have just kept coming. It’s worth noting that Truman didn’t single-handedly initiate this monstrosity. The dark recesses of the Deep State, as Peter Dale Scott calls it, are where the demonic entity was spawned. Ever since, Frankenstein’s monster has been a harmless schoolboy by comparison.
To read of the rape of Libya with active Canadian military complicity makes for difficult reading. The lies are piled as high as the bodies, and these two categories are insuperably paired.
Equally sordid, especially in light of Stephen Harper’s enthusiasm for expanding the war on Russia (the economic sanctions and the diplomatic exclusion of Russia from the G8 are forms of warfare, not to mention decades of covert* military incursion by the West onto the territory of the former USSR and now the Russian Federation, as described in Visas forAl Qaeda) is to read some of the history of the Ukraine. “The West’s” meddling in the Ukraine has a long illicit pedigree. As Springmann writes:
It seems that the CIA had problems [in the immediate post World War II period] distinguishing between underground groups and above-ground armies. Langley used Marshall Plan money to support a guerrilla force in the Ukraine, called “Nightingale.” Originally established in 1941 by Nazi Germany’s occupation forces, and working on their behalf, “Nightingale” and its terrorist arm (made up of ultranationalist Ukrainians as well as Nazi collaborators)murdered thousands of Jews, Soviet Union supporters, and Poles.
Even relatively recently, since the so-called Orange revolution in the Ukraine made events there eminently newsworthy, I can’t remember seeing in the mainstream media a single substantial article dealing with the historical relationships between the Ukraine and Russia going back to World War II, nor such an article laying out the history of the involvement –overt or covert – of “the West” in the Ukraine.
Instead, we see the surreal ahistorical likes of the top headline in The New York Times International Weekly for June 13-14, “Russia is Sowing Disunity,” by Peter Baker and Steven Erlanger. They report breathlessly in the lead paragraph: “Moscow is leveraging its economic power, financing European political parties and movements, and spreading alternative accounts of the Ukraine conflict, according the American and European officials.
True to the narrative of “the West” as a pitiful giant facing a powerful and expansionist Russia, the writers posit that the “consensus against Russian aggression” is “fragile.
The drift of this NYT yarn, typical of Western propaganda across the board, is that there remains in effect a behemoth “Soviet empire” surreptitiously shipping “Moscow gold” to dupes in “green movements” and so on. Even a former American national intelligence officer on Russia, Fiona Hill, now at the Brookings Institution, told the writers: “The question is how much hard evidence does anyone have?
Maybe this NYT propaganda, like its clones across the mainstream media, is not ahistorical after all. The story comes across rather as an historical relic of the Cold War – found in a time capsule in a fallout shelter – that the NYT editors decided to publish as a prank. A sausage.
* Military action by “the West” has not always been covert. Springmann notes that American and Japanese soldiers were dispatched to Russia in 1917 to squelch the fledgling Russian revolution. The soldiers were part of what was called the Allied Expeditionary Force. Winston Churchill for his part said: “We must strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib.” Springmann might have noted that Canadian soldiers were part of the AEF.
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.
Judge rejects State Dept. plan for Clinton emails, sets timetable for release
FILE – In this Jan. 18, 2013 file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the State Department in Washington. On Friday, the State Department posted 296 Benghazi-related emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Judge Rudolph Contreras gave the departmentuntil the end of January to complete the production of all 30,000 emails, which means the final messages will be released about the same time Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, prepares to face voters.
The State Departmenthad asked that it have 60 days between releases, and didn’t give any targets for how much would be released each time, but Judge Contreras rejected that proposal and set out a firm timeline.
By June 30, the departmentmust release 7 percent of the emails, totaling 2,100 messages, then release 2,400 more by the end of July, 3,000 more in August, 3,600 in September, 4,200 in October, 4,500 in November, 4,800 in December and the final 5,400 or so in January.
The judge did give the administration an extra two weeks — until Jan. 29 — to finish up. The State Department had said it would need until the middle of the month.
“Defendant shall provide a status report informing the court of the number of pages of emails produced. If, in any given month, the defendant fails to meet the above-referenced production goal, it shall explain in detail in its status report how it intends to catch up with the schedule by adding resources or otherwise,” the judge wrote in the order.
The State Department last week released about 300 messages related to the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack. Those messages constitute just 1 percent of the totalMrs. Clinton had withheld until she was notified last year that she was in violation of open-records laws.
“The department is keenly aware of the intense public interest in the documents and wants to get releasable materials out as soon as possible,” the Obama administration said in a court filing Tuesday.
The administration said it would try to find ways to shift resources to process more emails, as long as that didn’t hinder the department’s other priorities.
But in a previous filing, the department had shown little urgency, saying that while it got the messages from Mrs. Clinton in December, it hadn’t begun scanning them in for processing and release until about two months ago, and completed that process earlier in May.
Now staffers are running the messages by other government agencies to see whether parts of the emails should be kept secret.
Part of one message released last week was deemed classified by the FBI and was redacted from the release, sparking questions over whether theadministration was trying to shield embarrassing detailsor whether Mrs. Clintonhad shared sensitive information from her private account.
Mrs. Clintonset up her own server at her home in New York and exclusively used that for email during her four years as secretary, despite federal guidelines saying that official business was to be conducted on government accounts to messages could be stored.
Mrs. Clintondidn’t turn over any of her messages until nearly two years after she left office, and only then when prompted by theState Department.
She has since said on the campaign trail that she now wants the emails all made public quickly — though she says since she turned them over, she no longer has control of them and it’s up to the State Department.