How Obama helped Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra & ISIS destroy the most prosperous country in Africa, Libya

Obama’s Legacy in Africa: How Libya, a Prosperous Nation in Africa was Destroyed by America’s First African-American President

By Timothy Alexander Guzman,

Barack-Obama discours

Barack Obama’s last day of pillaging the earth is on January 20th, 2017. The Obama administration’s era of “hope and change” has come to a close. The last 8 years with Obama has led to more wars of aggression that has caused countless deaths and destruction of numerous sovereign nations. Obama will be gone into the pages of history as warmongering Commander-in Chief just like his predecessor before him, George W. Bush.

Obama kept his promises to his corporate masters not to the people who had high hopes for change in domestic and foreign policies. Obama will be remembered as the president who authorized the destruction of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, the Ukraine and Honduras (Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was removed from power with help from his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton).

Obama’s drone strikes in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen has caused the deaths of innocent men, women and children because of the “War on Terror.” A report based on secret military documents obtained by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept called ‘The Assassination Complex’ published in late 2015 confirmed the toll on innocent civilians:

The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble”

Obama’s “hope and change” was “smoke and mirrors” as the world became worst under an administration that created more wars and in the process created useful terrorists to overthrow governments including Syria. On September 20th, 2016, Obama’s last speech at the United Nations where he described where the world stood on the global economy, terrorism, censorship and war:

We see it in the headlines every day. Around the world, refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict. Financial disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire communities. Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic security, basic order has broken down. We see too many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information. Terrorist networks use social media to prey upon the minds of our youth, endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent immigrants and Muslims. Powerful nations contest the constraints placed on them by international law.

This is the paradox that defines our world today. A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our societies are filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife. Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface

From “financial disruptions” to the ongoing wars in the Middle East, Obama claims that the world is now “less violent and more prosperous than ever before.” What planet is President Obama living on? It was the Obama administration that has elevated the war in Syria by supporting the “moderate rebels” comprised of terrorists from Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State and others that have committed numerous atrocities. Obama also mentioned that “many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information” as he himself called for the prosecutions of Chelsea Manning (although he just pardoned Manning), Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers who exposed corruption is just pure hypocrisy. However, President Obama presided over the destruction of Libya caused by America’s first African-American president whose father was originally from Kenya.

Libya, a Once Stable and Prosperous Nation Destroyed by the Obama Administration

Libya was once a stable nation under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The Obama administration ordered the removal of Gaddafi with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was ecstatic when she heard that Gaddafi was overthrown and then killed by the opposition, she said “We came, we saw, he died” with laughter. That was the mindset of Washington under the Democratic Party that managed to destroy one of the wealthiest nations in Northern Africa under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”.

Libya had the highest GDP per capita and reduced the number of people living below the poverty line and had the highest life expectancy in all of Africa. Obama destroyed that. In 2011, the Obama administration with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton ordered the US-NATO coalition to bomb Libya that resulted in more than 30,000 deaths with over 50,000 injured during the civil war that lasted several months. The “humanitarian intervention” (is what the Obama regime proudly called it) has destroyed what Gaddafi had built under his government. Under Gaddafi (although through dictatorial power) having your own home was a natural right. A university education whether at home or abroad was paid for by the government and everyone in Libya had access to universal healthcare. If a Libyan wanted a farm, they were given a farmhouse with land plus live stock and seeds free of charge.

Libya’s own state bank provided loans at 0% interest by law, so whatever you borrowed, you had no worries about repaying the bank with high interest rates as you would normally do in the West. Even electricity was free for the Libyans. However, a civil war began between the Gaddafi government and the anti-Gaddafi opposition forces with links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It was another case where Washington provided support to terrorists to remove Gaddafi from power by any means. In a 2014 article by The Daily Mail ‘Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report’ based on an independent report by The Citizens Commission on Benghazi from former members of think tanks, the military and the CIA stated the following:

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treasonous moves,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research. ‘And our men and women had to follow what many purport as, qualify as treasonous moves’

Washington was complicit in removing Gaddafi from power but also allowed for the weapons in Benghazi to find its way into the hands of the “moderate rebels” in Syria in an attempt to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power. “Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, one of the commission’s sources, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria” according to The Daily Mail report. Hillary Clinton spoke about the civil war in Libya in Paris, France on March 19, 2011. Clinton said the following:

Colonel Qadhafi’s campaign of violence against his own people must stop. The strong votes in the United Nations Security Council underscored this unity. And now the Qadhafi forces face unambiguous terms: a ceasefire must be implemented immediately – that means all attacks against civilians must stop; troops must stop advancing on Benghazi and pull back from Adjabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; water, electricity, and gas supplies must be turned on to all areas; humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Qadhafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences

And consequences there were. The war on Libya was about its natural resources that includes oil, gas, water (Libya has one of the largest water irrigation systems in the world) gold and silver holdings. Gaddafi’s dream was to free the entire continent of Africa from Western financial dominance by issuing the ‘Gold Dinar’, a gold-backed African currency threatening U.S. dollar hegemony and the Western central banking system. For Washington and their European partners, Gaddafi had to be stopped. The plan to remove Gaddafi was set years before the civil war erupted. Wesley Clark, the retired general and the supreme military commander of NATO admitted in 2007 that a “high ranking” pentagon official told him that Washington planned to “take out seven countries in five years” with Libya on that list.

Obama, the first African-American President of the United States was the man to stop Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Obama’s legacy in Africa will be remembered as one that has destroyed one of the last remaining prosperous and wealthiest nations in Africa. The fact is that there was nothing humanitarian about Obama’s “humanitarian intervention” in Libya and that is something history will teach future generations to come.

Russia looking to clear Libya of terrorists groups just as they did in Syria

Source

By | TUNIS

TUNIS A visit to a Russian aircraft carrier by Libya’s Khalifa Haftar has given the eastern–based commander a symbolic boost while also signaling Moscow’s interest in a greater role in the region following its intervention in Syria.

Haftar is a figurehead for east Libyan factions who harbors national ambitions, and his renewed engagement with Russia comes at a time when the U.N.-supported government in Tripoli that he has shunned is once more in crisis.

Russian support could embolden Haftar in making a play for power in Tripoli, a move likely to fuel conflict and represent a major setback for genuine unity government in Libya.

Western states say the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) provides the best chance of reversing Libya’s slide into anarchy and warfare.

But as splits and resistance have weakened the GNA in the capital, Haftar has gained momentum in the east, with support from foreign allies who back his fight against Islamist groups.

He enjoys close ties to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, and has cultivated his friendship with Russia, visiting Moscow twice last year to ask for help in his anti-Islamist campaign.

His tour of the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Mediterranean on Wednesday was Russia’s most overt show of support to date.

In a video-conference call from the ship reported by Russian media, Haftar and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu discussed the fight against “terrorist groups”, also one of Moscow’s stated targets in its Syria campaign.

Haftar’s advisers declined to comment on the aircraft carrier visit and what it might mean for relations with Russia.

But following its intervention in Syria, Russia sees Libya as a way to anchor its return to the Middle East, said Alexei Malashenko, the chief researcher at Dialogue of Civilizations Institute, a think-tank with close ties to the Russian leadership.

“One single Syria is not enough. That’s why we need one more state for the Russian presence not only in Syria but generally in the Middle East. Libya is a convenient territory for it. It’s complete chaos and you can always say that Russia helps to fight terrorism.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin may also take an interest in restoring his country’s influence in Libya, analysts say. Before he was overthrown, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had been a long-standing Russian ally and Putin opposed the NATO campaign that helped to topple him.

Russia did not use its U.N. Security Council veto to block the resolution authorizing military action, and Putin, who was out of presidential office at the time, took the risk of demonstrating a split in Russian leadership by publicly criticizing it.

CONTRACTS

Russia has outwardly backed U.N. mediation in Libya, and says it will abide by an arms embargo on the country. But it could eventually stand to recover billions of dollars worth of weapons and energy deals lost when Gaddafi lost power in 2011.

A parliament and government in eastern Libya that are allied to Haftar have no direct control over oil revenues. But they have maintained rival branches of the central bank, which has had Libyan dinars printed in Russia, and the National Oil Corporation (NOC), which has tried unsuccessfully to circumvent U.N. resolutions and sell oil independently of Tripoli.

“We hope for a return of the Russian state to its role as a support of Libya’s armed forces, which have been abandoned by most countries in their war against terrorism,” said Abdallah Bilhaq, a spokesman for the eastern parliament, citing some $4 billion in pre-2011 arms contracts.

Naji al-Maghrabi, appointed to head the NOC by the eastern government, told Reuters his office had signed 29 contracts, including recent ones with major states such as Russia and China. He did not give details.

So far, Russia’s support for Haftar appears to be mainly symbolic, said Karim Mezran, a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, though that could change if Haftar tries to take Tripoli, as his opponents in western Libya fear he is actively preparing to do.

“If he is getting signs of possible tribes or groups or militias who are really ready to switch to his side he might take the Russian encouragement and move,” he said.

The GNA has been hamstrung by its failure to win endorsement from Haftar’s allies, and its leaders have appeared increasingly isolated and dependent on Western backing since arriving in Tripoli in March.

At the start of January, one of its deputy prime ministers resigned, citing a failure to unite rival factions and tackle a collapse in living standards.

On Thursday, the head of a self-declared government sidelined by the GNA claimed he had regained control over several ministry buildings.

A general electricity blackout in western and southern Libya, on top of chronic security and economic problems, has pushed public frustration to new highs.

Haftar, a one-time ally of Gaddafi who returned from exile to join the uprising that toppled him, has largely shunned attempts to shore up the U.N.-mediated deal that created the GNA just over a year ago, accusing the government of aligning itself with some of the Islamist-leaning forces that took control of Tripoli in 2014.

In the east, his self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA) has been tightening its grip, ousting Islamist-led opponents from most of Benghazi, appointing military governors, and extending its control over oil facilities.

As the LNA’s profile has risen, Western envoys have begun to recognize its gains, while publicly insisting that the U.N. agreement is the only way to bring stability to Libya.

Hoping for more support for his anti-Islamist stance from incoming U.S. President Donald Trump, Haftar is positioning himself to talk to the new U.S. administration from a position of strength, said Mezran.

“He expects this political agreement to fail and in his mind he thinks the only solution will be a military takeover, and in the end he thinks the West will side with him,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow and Ayman al-Warfalli in Benghazi; Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Giles Elgood)

Russians will arm Libyan general Haftar in challenge to West, according to his aides – The Times & The Sunday Times

Libyan army commander Haftar signs $2 billion arms deal with Russia despite UN sanctions, according to Libya Express – defenseworld.net

RAI TV reports that Haftar signed an agreement whereby Russia would build two military bases near Tobruk and Benghazi – Al Jazeera

Obama is illegally bombing in Syria and trying to oust Assad yet complains that Russia meddled in the election

Obama is bombing Syria and trying to oust Assad yet complains that Russia meddled in the election

Yes. That is how stupid things are today.

America has been in the business of ‘nation building’ for generations – installing and deposing of nations leaders whenever they felt like it.
The whole Arab Spring was the US meddling and creating the situation for the upheaval that happened in those countries. Now Obama is whining that maybe Putin hacked some emails.

Obama and the CIA have MURDERED nations leaders.

On 60 Minutes, President Obama flatly stated the US plan for Syria leaves no room for President Assad, the democratically-elected leader of the country. As Obama backs away from his “no boots on the ground” promise, he drops a bomb on the American people as big as any that have hit Syria. Image credit: wikimedia.org

“We are not going to stabilize Syria under the rule of Assad.”

It’s very clear that the United States’ plan is to remove the ISIS threat and stabilize the country. To say that it will not be done under Assad means only one thing: it is the US government’s plan to remove him from power. The US media obediently ignored this statement, allowing the President to quietly tell the American people that the United States is headed towards another regime change operation followed by a lengthy occupation. This is not a simple statement indicating that the United States will not cooperate with Assad’s government during the war. It is a direct statement showing that the United States is planning to have Assad out before the country is stabilized.

The Clintons and Obama have made many powerful enemies. They are surrounded by liars who say no one is more powerful than America that America will protect them, and they will never suffer direct consequences. These advisors constantly give them false assurance that they will never be a victim, only a victimizer.

There are literally now millions of people with means of inflicting hurt directly and indirectly on American ruling class elites.

American elites leave a digital trail of their crimes without regard then appear shocked when their well documented crimes are hacked and exposed.

The big mistake was when Obama and the Anglo Israelis made their move on Khadaffi and ripped off China in Libya. Yeah they gave him butthurt when Clintons deathsquad shoved that knife up Khadaffi’s ass. Hilly got a little cackle from that.

The media should have been mortified, but they are so twisted mentally, they are just actors. Not journalists.

Have you ever heard such a dishonest statement? UK says 2011 Libya intervention ‘saved civilian lives’

UK says 2011 Libya intervention ‘saved civilian lives’

The British government defended its decision to militarily intervene in Libya in 2011 and help to topple long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, after criticism was directed at it in a parliamentary report.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report in September that harshly criticised the decision made by then-prime minister David Cameron to join France in a military intervention to save the lives of civilians during the revolt against Gaddafi’s regime.

The committee described the British intervention as “based on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

It also accused Cameron’s government of selectively taking the threats of Gaddafi at face value, suggesting that Gaddafi was full of bluster and did not seriously mean his threats.

The government responded today, stressing that its actions “undoubtedly” saved civilian lives in Libya, adding “Gaddafi was unpredictable and had the means and motivation to carry out his threats. His actions could not be ignored, and required decisive and collective international action.”

The critical report stated that Cameron should have been aware that “extremist Islamists would try to exploit the popular uprising,” noting that it did not find evidence that the British government had “correctly analysed” the nature of the various rebel factions.

On its part, the government stated in its response that the overwhelming majority of Gaddafi’s opponents have no links to the so-called Islamic extremism, noting that “Daesh are now on the back foot in Libya.”

 

Clinton against Syria: Criminally Stupid, or War Criminal?

Clinton against Syria: Criminally Stupid, or War Criminal?


Clinton’s attempts to mimic human emotion at the Convention were unsuccessful

by Miri Wood, RNc

Graphic.  Contains images of inappropriate smiling and laughter.

To Fellow Americans, please attempt to  imagine the following scenario:  More than 100 countries have dumped their human garbage here; more than 360,000 foreign terrorists have been armed, have invaded us.  They are all over our country, and heavily concentrated in specific areas, where they hold our civilians hostage. Our troops are on the ground, defending us; our Air Force is strategically bombing these concentrated areas, minimizing the risks of civilian casualties.  We are defending ourselves within our own borders.  The world claims that these terrorists are “American freedom fighters,” that our government is murdering us.  A leading candidate for president of the world’s most powerful country has announced she will “continue to push” for the shooting down of US Air Force jets, within American airspace, by a coalition of other countries.

Fellow Americans, would you ever swallow such a scheme?

Why, then, should it be given so much a veneer of legitimacy, that it is not to be challenged when Hillary Clinton’s stated goal is to inflict such murderous colonialism on Syria?

Despite the massive domestic problems of the US — among them, unemployment, healthcare and the crumbling of infrastructure — Clinton chose to make her intended destruction of Syria the key point in the final presidential debate, 19 October.

I’m going to continue to push for a no fly zone and safe havens within Syria…[to] gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians… — former US Senator, former Secretary of State Clinton

Who is Hillary Clinton, to demand, with colonialist impunity,  “some leverage” against Syria and Russia?

According to WikiLeaks — whose veracity Clinton acknowledged during the final, nationally televised debate — at a private, paid speech before the Goldman Sachs financial empire, in 2013, Clinton noted that a NFZ would “kill a lot of Syrians.”


Clinton wants to murder more Syrians

One year ago, the Democratic nominee ignored both American problems in need of solutions, and the will of the Syrian people, who elected Dr. Bashar al Assad as their president, in 2014 when she — in true colonialist fashion — stated that the removal of Syria’s president is her number one priority.


Destroying yet another country takes precedence over fixing massive US domestic problems.

On 9 September 2015, Clinton gave a campaign speech at the Brookings Institute.  It was so bellicose that several media sources reported on her “more muscular foreign policy.”  How does it get more muscular than Barack Obama bombing seven countries between 2009 – 2014?  Why would any candidate want more devastation than afforded by the more than 23,000 bombs dropped on Muslim majority countries, in 2015?

In this Brookings speech, Clinton actually suggested that former Vice President Dick Cheney has become a dove, and offered the inference that there may be an ‘Arab Springing’ in Iran’s future.

My approach will be distrust and verify.

She also promised an increase “in our efforts to train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition.”

Certainly, we Americans would appreciate a foreign head of state offering more weapons to terrorists among us, would we not?

Geopolitical Repetition Compulsion:  Is Nominee Clinton Criminally Stupid, Or War Criminal?

The orwellianly bloodless euphemism of the colonialist No Fly Zone was born in 1991, first used against the Iraqi government; it is the genocidal “stuff” of which NATO-UN dreams are made on.

Col. Clint Hinote, Military Fellow of the perpetual war think tank Council on Foreign Relations — a “Dr. Strangelove” type [1] — has noted  “[t]he United States and its allies enjoy a significant advantage over most potential adversaries in the air,” making the NFZ a perk of international, fascist, bullies.

The result of the NFZ  against Iraq was genocide.  The Bush/Cheneyac/Halliburton destruction of Iraq, led to the creation of ISIS (al Baghdadi — with whom John McCain had meetings when he illegally entered Syria — was released from an Iraqi jail by US forces, in 2006) led to the country’s never-mentioned balkanization, terrorism where there was none, previously, and to the exportation of terrorism throughout the region.

Hillary Clinton was part of the 57% of the Democratic Senate that voted to support the Bush/Cheneyac/Halliburton carnage against Iraq.  In 2015, she began calling her genocidal vote, a “mistake,”  while negligently omitting the mention of, exactly, how many times she voted to fund this “mistake.”

During her 2008 presidential campaigning, though, she was still not ready to make such a “big” admission (her fan club now considers her new admission as evidence of her phenomenally noble character,  à la “It takes a big man to admit he was wrong” whitewash).

Back in 2004, though, Clinton’s only “regret” involved “the way the president [George W. Bush] used the authority.”

How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?  I don’t understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen.

Between her stupefaction of 2004, and her brave mistake admission of 2015, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State (21 January 2009 – 1 February 2013), during which time she not only supported a NFZ against Libya, but also happily met with al Qaeda terrorists who helped in the obliteration of that country.


Clinton: Killing Libya was good, and supported by leading countries of genocide.

 

Let us remember that Clinton acknowledged that the US created al Qaeda for the purpose of fighting the Soviets, in Afghanistan (‘and it was good’), and that the US left al Qaeda massively armed.

Let us remember here…the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago…and we did it because  we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

They invaded Afghanistan…and we did not want to see them control Central Asia, and we went to work..and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said ‘you know what?  It sounds like a pretty good idea.  Let’s deal with ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.’

And guess what?  They [Soviets] retreated…they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So there is a very strong argument which is, it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union, but let’s be careful with what we sow…because we will harvest.

So we then left Pakistan…we said ‘okay, fine, you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country…you deal with the mines that are along the border, and, by the way, we don’t want to have anything to do with you.  In fact, we’re sanctioning you.’  So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we are making up for a lot of lost time.  — Senator Hillary Clinton, during her Secretary of State Senate Confirmation Hearing, 13 January 2009

What was the purpose of Clinton’s support for the NFZ against Libya?  Did the NFZ not become a campaign to literally take out, destroy, the entire country — with the first bombs razing the infrastructure of the Great Man-Made River, which Gaddafi called “The Eighth Wonder of the World.”?

According to sensitive information available to this source, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver…This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to  establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar.  This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French france (CFA).”  — declassified email from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton, 2 April 2011

On 20 October 2011, then Secretary of State Clinton was interviewed by Leslie Stahl, on 60 Minutes.  In this now infamous clip, Clinton quite un-diplomatically — and quite sadistically — cackles over her part in the brutal rape and murder of Muammar Gaddafi, just reported [2]


Clinton, filled with joy

Gaddafi, moments before his happiness-inspiring rape and murder, 20 October 2011, in Sirte

Sirte, post Clinton’s No Fly Zone success

That Clinton ungraciously accepted the laurels Stahl placed at her feet, becomes especially  shocking upon realization that Gaddafi was still alive — though kidnapped — when Clinton arrived in Tripoli and met with State Department supported  al Qaeda terrorists, on 18 October.  Her arrival was kept secret until after she left, and US security teams secured the meeting place, before her plane landed.


Then Secretary of State Clinton, with al Qaeda terrorists in Tripoli, Libya

Clinton bubbling over with joy, among her friends of the takfiri al Qaeda, Tripoli, 18 October 2011

During this short meeting, Clinton promised an influx of US funding to this terrorist “transitional government,” funding not tied to these ”freedom fighters” ending the slaughter of black people in “new” Libya.

These terrorists had begun a campaign of extermination, labeling blacks as “Gaddafi loyalists,” especially the migrant workers from Sub-Saharan countries of Africa.

Note that this video was uploaded 30 August 2011, almost two months before Clinton’s elated airport meeting.

In 2014, the RAND Corporation issued a policy paper, “Libya After Gaddafi.”  Its authors note that “Libya verges on becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda linked groups,” and that terrorists have established “a foothold nationwide.” [3]

The country was awash in small arms and light weapons including MANPADS, anti-tank missiles, GRAD rockets and mortars.  France, Qatar and other countries had supplied the rebels with weapons during the war, with Qatar contributing more than 20,000 tons of weapons…More important were Gaddafi’s own weapons stocks, most of which had been let loose during the war.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s political history is in its 44th year of public service.

  • Hillary Rodham was a junior member of the Temporary Impeachment Inquiry into President Richard Nixon, ’73-74
  • She was Arkansas state’s First Lady, ’79-’81, and ’83-’92
  • She was First Lady  of the US, ’93-’01
  • When Patrick Moynihan announced his retirement from the Senate, the Clintons immediately bought a house in NYC, so that H. Clinton could run for his seat, creating the opportunity to nickname her ”carpetbagger.”  She ran on a platform of 200,000 manufacturing jobs for the state.  During her tenure, NY manufacturing dropped by 24.1%, which she blamed on the policies of the Bush/Cheneyac administration.
  • In ’08, she ran for president.  During that campaign, she answered a provocative question by  provocatively threatening Iran with nuclear annihilation [4]
  • On 13 January 2009, she was confirmed as Secretary of State, a position she resigned from 1 February 2013, in order to have time for her presidential campaign
  • Though not a member of the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, her husband and daughter are.  She has not only spoken on several occasions to this group, but has admitted that as SoS, she received marching orders from it:  “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

Given Clinton’s considerable history in politics, are we to be counted among the wide-eyed fools who claim she made a mistake in her decision to support the genocide against Iraq, based on lying propaganda, a “mistake” for whose financing she kept funding?

How did she manage to commit the very same mistake, by supporting the No Fly Zone which turned Libya into a landmass, a haven for the new generation of mujahideen whose terrorism in Afghanistan she deemed successful, during those 2009 confirmation hearings?

How does she unabashedly, unashamedly, tell the US electorate that her priorities are to commit the same atrocities against the Syrian Arab Republic as she helped to commit against Iraq and Libya?

Clinton campaigns before the Council of Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute, yet she magically remains oblivious to the report of the Rand Corporation.

Though her lamentation regarding her mistook Iraqi destruction vote was limited to Bush/Cheneyac being “poorly prepared” for post-Hussein chaos, she feigns blindness to the same horrific problem in post-Gaddafi Libya, and loudly proclaims her plans for the same devastation in Syria.

Criminally stupid, or war criminal: Is there any difference, in genocide tallies of perpetual war?

 

Miscellaneous Clinton addenda not specifically related to her NFZ priorities.

On 4 September 2014, Clinton wrote a review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order,” for the Washington Post.  In it, she noted that “Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state.

During the 19 October debate, Clinton — again, she did the veracity of the WikiLeaks — Clinton emphatically stated that

We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.  I find that deeply disturbing.

“Neutral” US msm supported this saber-rattling claim, some using the corrupt “fact-checking website PolitiFact,” which ‘rated’ Clinton’s statement as “true” (as though this site were judges of Dancing with the Stars).  According to a 7 October Joint DHS and ODNI Security Statement, the leaks “…are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russia-directed efforts.” Being “consistent with” does not denote conclusion.


When did “consistent with” come to mean proof?

Time, somewhat presciently, had already supported Clinton’s uncorroborated allegation via its 29 September cover story, Russia wants to undermine faith in US election, and advising US not to “fall for it.”  Did Time really forget its bragging cover of 15 July 1996, cheering that Americans rescued Boris Yeltsin, making him the first post Soviet president of the Russian Federation?


Double standard hypocrisy

While noting the integrity of double standards, let us ponder why politicians and media grossly offended by the coarse words of the “hot mic,” were not also offended by celebrity Madonna’s grotesque offer for those promising to vote for Clinton.  More politically, let us consider why the same media outraged by uncorroborated allegations of foreign influence in US elections, had no problem in cheering the talent-less, Russian Pussy Riot support of Clinton’s candidacy.   Back in August 2012, the US State Department also had no problem sticking its nose into Russian affairs, issuing a condemnation of against the PR convictions, via spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Nuland, by the way, at a think tank meeting in DC, December 2013, bragged that the Nazimaidan coup in the Ukraine cost US taxpayers five billion dollars (another State Department employee, Natalie Jaresko, US born and reared, is post Nazimaidan Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, and may become its Prime Minister, in December); bipartisan support of the Nazimaidans was much more than Nuland and McCain giving free lunches to the terrorists in Kiev.

The freedom-loving  US State Department, by the way, in March 2014, demonstrated its support of “democracy” by restricting the mobility of Syria’s ambassador, to a 25 mi/40 km radius from the UN, in order to stop his successful Town Hall Meetings throughout the country.

One of the few times Clinton smiled — nay, she beamed — during the final debate was when moderator Chris Wallace asked the hypothetical question, “Does President Clinton shoot that [Russian] plane down?” as follow-up to her NFZ plans.


More glee, over the thought of shooting down a Russian jet.  Like Bush, Clinton appears most jubilant when thinking of destruction

Clinton savored the moment, but did not answer the question.  Instead, she moved into war porn mode, re-pimping the story of the little boy painted with dust, and placed into the pristine ambulance.  Should she, or anyone else, be concerned that the guy who took that “iconic” photograph is friends with the savages who cut off the head of 12  year old Syrian-Palestinian, Abdullah Issa?

[1]

[2] Stahl, no novice to journalism, cackled along with her.  In May 1996, Stahl still maintained a semblance of journalistic propriety, when interviewing UN Ambassador Albright.  Stahl asked whether the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children — dead from US-imposed sanctions — was “worth it.”  Albright, appointed ambassador by President Bill Clinton, was appointed — also by Clinton — Secretary of State, in December 1996.  In 2012, Albright received the Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama.  In February of this year, while campaigning for H. Clinton, stated that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

[3] RAND Corporation is a global ‘non-profit’ which was founded in 1948, “to connect military planning with research and development decisions.”  Qatar (“pronounced ‘gutter”’) is the Gulfie absolute monarchy that bragged in 2013, of having spent more than 3 billion USD for its part in the final solution against Syria.  Through its monarchy-owned media, al Khanzeera and ak+, it has engaged in the most heinous psy-op propaganda against the SAR.

[4] On 22 April 2008, on Good Morning America, then ABC News reporter Chris Cuomo — now at CNN — asked candidate Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.  Instead of using the opportunity to let the viewing population know that Iran did not have nuclear weapons, instead of even showing leadership character via saying she would use diplomacy to prevent such a thing, Clinton jumped right into perpetual war fantasy:  “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran…in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

 

Libya is a Complete Western Disaster, Finds a British Parliamentary Report (Not to mention Iraq & fact they want to add Syria)

Libya is a Complete Western Disaster, Finds a British Parliamentary Report

435342312312312Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.” Today, this statement is a proven lie that was fed to the public at large in the West.

 

A recently published report of British parliament’s foreign affairs committee has categorically acknowledged that the Western intervention in Libya in 2011 was not only based upon flawed intelligence but also directly paved the way for the resurgence of Islamist terror groups in the country. What had initially been propagated as a sort of “humanitarian intervention” to “protect” civilians from the “tyranny of Gaddafi” soon exacerbated into the notorious game of regime change and led to the subsequent disaster, proliferation of Islamist groups and Libya’s downfall from a reasonably stable state to a fragmented one. The report’s findings are, as such, highly critical in terms of the way the West, particularly the US, has been projecting the utmost necessity of NATO’s intervention.

Even if we were to agree to the Western proposition that Gaddafi regime was inflicting atrocities on its people and that the real goal, as a recent article published by the corporate-funded Brookings Institute argues, was to protect people, the report finds it to be wrong. It unambiguously states:

“Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi, if those forces had been able to enter the city. However, while Muammar Gaddafi certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision.”

Exposing the hollowness of the propagated “truths” that Gaddafi regime was indiscriminately killing his countrymen and that he would have continued to do so “in large numbers if that’s what his survival required”, the report states that nothing of this sort was happening at the time of intervention or was likely to follow. Intervention happened not because Gaddafi was inflicting atrocities but because he was winning the fight against Western and Arab funded militias:

“Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011.”

The report goes on to state that:

“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 regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians.”

Contrary to this situation was the mantra of “protecting” people that was officially projected for public consumption, while the real goal was to send Gaddafi home and to re-design Libya’s future in which Gaddafi or his affiliates would have no role to play. The report states:

“When the then Prime Minister David Cameron sought and received parliamentary approval for military intervention in Libya on 21 March 2011, he assured the House of Commons that the object of the intervention was not regime change. In April 2011, however, he signed a joint letter with United States President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy setting out their collective pursuit of “a future without Gaddafi”.

That the goal was always to impose a new regime on the people of Libya is evident from another finding that no option other than that of military intervention was explored and considered:

“The Government rapidly developed a new policy of intervention to protect civilians as Muammar Gaddafi’s forces approached Benghazi in mid-February 2011. It did not explore alternatives to military intervention such as sanctions, negotiations or the application of diplomatic pressure. In pursuing regime change, it abandoned a decade of foreign policy engagement…”

What the West wanted to achieve by regime-change?

As could be expected of the West, the real goal was to extend Western influence in the African continent. Libya was to be the gateway for that. However, as long as Gaddafi was there, this objective could never be realized. Hence, the anti-Gaddafi propaganda and the development of “pro-democracy” discourse in the West that paved the way for NATO-led intervention. The report enlists following critical objectives, which were of crucial importance for France’s Sarkozy, behind the military intervention and change of regime in Libya:

1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production.

2. Increase French influence in North Africa,

3. Improve his internal political situation in France,

4. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world.

5. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

Therefore to achieve these objectives, a dual strategy was implemented. On the one hand, NATO intervened and on the other hand weapons were allowed to be distributed to the Islamist militias. The report categorically states:

“….the international community turned a blind eye to the supply of weapons to the rebels. Lord Richards highlighted “the degree to which the Emiratis and the Qataris…played a major role in the success of the ground operation.” For example, Qatar supplied French Milan antitank missiles to certain rebel groups. We were told that Qatar channelled its weapons to favoured militias rather than to the rebels as a whole.”

Who were the “rebels”?

While it is largely believed that that crisis in Libya were linked to a general uprising linked with the so-called “Arab Spring”, this is far from the truth. For one thing, a general popular uprising against an autocrat regime could not possibly have descended into a pure chaos but for the involvement of foreign funded extremist groups. This is precisely what happened in Libya. The critical question, therefore, is: were the Libyan rebels really “rebels”? The report disputes the Western official narrative that it was a general uprising and that extremists got involved at some alter stage. Contrary to the official narrative, the report concludes:

“It is now clear that militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards. They separated themselves from the rebel army, refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.”

That the West had “turned a blind eye” to the support certain militias were receiving from Arab countries is, in fact, an indication of the Western complicity in facilitating the rise of Islamist groups in Libya. And as the report states yet again:

“We asked Lord Richards whether he knew that Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011. He replied that that “was a grey area”. He added that “a quorum of respectable Libyans were assuring the Foreign Office” that militant Islamist militias would not benefit from the rebellion. He acknowledged that “with the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best.” 

What is Libya today? A disastrous mess

It is a mess, a victim of Western conspiracy and its notorious cold-war era policy of imposing regime change in countries that refuse to abide by their rules of global politics. Libya, today, is a disaster. Facts speak for themselves: In 2010, Libyan economy was generating US$75 billion in GDP, with an average per capita income of US$12,250, roughly equal to an average income in some European countries. As of 2016, however, Libya is likely to experience a budget deficit of some 60% of GDP. The United Nations ranked Libya as the world’s 94th most advanced country in its 2015 index of human development, a decline from 53rd place in 2010.

Thanks to the Western intervention which was, to say the least, not only ill-informed and a result of propaganda against Gaddafi but also motivated by purely geo-political considerations. Thanks to the Western intervention that has ‘successfully’ transformed Libya from the richest African state under Gaddafi to a failed state under Western supervision.

Its various experiments in Libya have failed to transform it into a pure Western vessel. And as the reports indicate, the US in now trying to install one of its long term assets, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator and then help the West in transforming Africa’s political economy into a disastrous the kind of which Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan today are.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Obama’s confession: Post-Gaddafi Libya is a mess, but it doesn’t stop him wanting the same for Syria

Source

Obama's confession: Post-Gaddafi Libya is a mess

Claiming a lack of planning for the aftermath of the Libya revolution, US President Barack Obama has called it the “the biggest mistake” during his Presidency

World Bulletin / News Desk

Should the West have intervened in Libya to overthrow the “Kafkaesque” regime of strongman Moamer Kadhafi?

Surveying the chaos in the north African country five years on, with rival authorities and factions vying for power, many now concede a disastrous lack of planning.

US leader Barack Obama has cited the Libya intervention as the worst mistake of his presidency, telling Fox News that he regretted having failed “to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya”.

In Britain, a scathing parliamentary report last month found former prime minister David Cameron “ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy”. 

Nicolas Sarkozy, who is angling to win back the French presidency next year, has defended France’s role in Kadhafi’s ouster, while admitting that after the country held elections in 2012 “we let Libya drop”.

A European diplomat who was in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in 2011 said “there was no doubt” that Libya’s second city would have suffered a bloodbath without the intervention.

“There was a real revolution. People did not want to live a minute more under Kadhafi’s Kafkaesque regime,” he said.

Today, the UN-backed unity government is struggling to assert its authority nationwide since arriving in Tripoli in March, with a rival parliament in the east refusing to cede power to it.

In the aftermath of Kadhafi’s overthrow, the dictator’s arsenals were looted, fighters fanned out through neighbouring Niger, Mali and Tunisia, and ISIL gained a foothold on Europe’s doorstep.

A major operation is still under way to oust IS fighters from Sirte, Kadhafi’s hometown, which the rebels seized in June last year, with fears that they will regroup elsewhere in the country.

 Broad support 

In March 2011 the West, led by Britain and France and backed by NATO, enjoyed broad support for the intervention to support the revolution.

After taking up arms in February on the heels of the uprising in Libya’s northwestern neighbour Tunisia, the rebels faced a vicious backlash from Kadhafi.

The entourage of the strongman who had been in power for 42 years promised “rivers of blood”, especially in Benghazi, the birthplace of the revolt.

A UN Security Council resolution with Arab backing — Russia abstained — authorised the use of “all necessary means” to protect civilians and enforce a ceasefire and no-fly zone against Kadhafi’s forces.

It opened the way to Western and Arab air strikes, leading eight months later to the overthrow and death of Kadhafi, who was lynched after his convoy was hit by a NATO air strike.

By then, the conflict had claimed more than 30,000 lives, according to the former rebel National Transitional Council (NTC).

 No follow-up 

The NTC transferred power to an elected national assembly in August 2012, the first peaceful transition in Libya’s modern history, but rival forces have failed to coalesce into a single authority.

Regional powers jockeying for influence have also added to the instability.

Five years on, Chadian President Idriss Deby is just one of the regional leaders to accuse the West of failing to follow up on the overthrow of Kadhafi.

“You forgot about after-sales service,” he has often said.

A European diplomat said: “In retrospect, we… should not have washed our hands of it collectively. There was a sort of guilty detachment.”

But he said the new leadership “made it clear that they didn’t want foreign forces, including UN peacekeepers” in the country.

Libya expert Mattia Toaldo recalls that the Libyans repeatedly turned down Western offers of help, “saying they could manage on their own”.

Mahmoud Jibril, who was part of the rebel NTC, remembers the early post-Kadhafi days differently, telling AFP: “We warned them we needed them to rebuild our institutions after Kadhafi’s death, but everyone told us ‘our mission is accomplished’.”

 What about Syria? 

 Many point to the devastating war in Syria as a counter-example.

“War is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives in that country,” Toaldo said. “In Libya it is ‘only’ tens of thousands. And a political process is under way, however difficult it is.”

The repercussions are also felt in relations with Russia, with President VladimirPutin defending Moscow’s role in Syria where it backs strongman Bashar al-Assad.

“Some of the responsibility for what is happening… lies especially with our Western partners, above all the US and its allies,” Putin told French television.

“Remember how everyone rushed to support the Arab Spring? Where is that optimism now?” he asked. “Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organisations were destroyed as states?”

%d bloggers like this: