On 1/14/16, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hillary Clinton is not a friend of Working Class America. She belongs
to the Empire. Of course we all are under the control of the Empire,
but Hillary Clinton enthusiastically supports the Empire. It troubles
me to hear some of my Progressive friends say that if Bernie Sanders
does not win the nod, they will vote for Clinton as the lesser of two
evils. I can only conclude that they do not grasp the reality of a
Clinton presidency. Indeed, even a win by Bernie Sanders is not going
to result in some fundamental change in our government. Sanders is
still controlled by the Empire in so far as their World Dominance is
concerned. For me, a vote for Bernie is a real compromise of my basic
values. But if...and sorry to say, when he loses I will throw my vote
away on one of the far Left candidates on my ballot rather than throw
it away on Clinton. If the Republican Party can't shake out Donald
Trump, leaving themselves with several other quieter but similar
minded Puppets, Clinton will be our next president. She does not need
our vote, which is, whether we want to admit it or not, is our
confirmation that she is worthy of the job. I just can't bring myself
to be among those numbers.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/13/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Parry writes: "In Official Washington's propaganda world, the U.S.
government and its 'allies' are always standing for what's right and good
and the 'enemies' are the epitome of evil doing the vilest things. But
some
emails to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton depicted a far different
reality."
Hillary Clinton. (photo: NBC)
What Hillary Knew About Libya
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
13 January 16
In Official Washington's propaganda world, the U.S. government and its
"allies" are always standing for what's right and good and the "enemies"
are
the epitome of evil doing the vilest things. But some emails to Secretary
of
State Hillary Clinton depicted a far different reality, writes Robert
Parry.
To justify U.S. "regime changes," the U.S. government has routinely
spread
rumors and made other dubious claims which - even when later doubted or
debunked - are left in place indefinitely as corrosive propaganda, eating
away at the image of various "enemies" and deforming public opinion.
Even though this discredited propaganda can have a long half-life -
continuing to contaminate the public's ability to perceive reality for
years
- President Barack Obama and his administration have shown no inclination
to
undertake a kind of HAZMAT clean-up of the polluted information
environment
that American citizens have been forced to live in.
A recent case in point was the emergence - in the State Department's New
Year's Eve release of more than 3,000 emails to and from former Secretary
of
State Hillary Clinton - of evidence that two key propaganda themes used
to
advance violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011 may have originated with
rebel-inspired rumors passed on by Clinton's private adviser Sidney
Blumenthal.
A March 27, 2011 email from Blumenthal reminded Clinton that "I
communicated
more than a week ago on this story - [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi
placing
bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result
of
Allied bombing - though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know,
[Defense Secretary] Robert Gates gives credence to it."
Blumenthal's email, which was slugged "Rumor: Q[addafi]'s rape policy,"
then
plunged ahead into his new rumor: "Sources now say, again rumor (that is,
this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed
independently
by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has
even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press
conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of
a
much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation."
A month later, this bizarre Viagra-rape angle became part of a United
Nations presentation by then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice who
brought up the Viagra charge in a debate about the evils of Muammar
Gaddafi's regime.
A U.N. diplomat at the closed session on April 28, 2011, told The
Guardian
that "It was during a discussion about whether there is moral equivalence
between the Gaddafi forces and the rebels. She listed human rights abuses
by
Gaddafi's forces, including snipers shooting children in the street and
the
Viagra story."
On Blumenthal's other propaganda point, it's not clear where Defense
Secretary Gates got the idea to accuse Gaddafi of "staging" scenes of
U.S.-inflicted carnage, but Blumenthal's email indicates that he was
disseminating that rumor which might have been picked up by Gates, rather
than independently confirmed by Gates. (It's also true that the "staging"
excuse has been used before when evidence emerges of U.S. bombs killing
civilians.)
Media Self-Interest
Yet, regardless of the truth or falsity of such U.S. claims and
counter-claims, the chance that someone inside Official Washington is
going
to review the lies and exaggerations used to rationalize a major U.S.
foreign policy initiative - in this case, the violent overthrow of the
Gaddafi regime - to, in effect, "clear" Gaddafi's name is remote at best.
The few cases of the media debunking U.S. propaganda, such as exposing
the
made-up claims about Iraqi soldiers killing babies on incubators before
the
Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, are rare exceptions to the rule. Even rarer
are
cases when the U.S. government admits that it relied on false
information,
such as the intelligence community recanting its pre-invasion claims
about
Iraq hiding WMD stockpiles in 2002-03.
The much more common approach is to simply leave the decaying propaganda
in
place and move on to the next target of opportunity. There is little
benefit
for anyone to undertake the painstaking work of separating whatever
slices
of truth exist within the rot of lies and exaggerations that were used to
justify some war.
The way mainstream journalism usually works in America is that a reporter
who challenges U.S. government propaganda aimed at a foreign "enemy" is
putting his or her career at risk. The reporter's patriotism will be
questioned amid suggestions that he or she is a
"fill-in-the-blank-with-the-villain's-name" apologist.
And since the reality - whatever it is - is usually fuzzy, there is
almost
never any vindication for a brave stance. So, the smart career play is to
go
along with the propaganda or stay silent.
A similar reality exists inside the U.S. government. Honest intelligence
analysts can expect no rewards if they debunk one of these propaganda
themes, especially after a number of important U.S. officials have gone
out
publicly and sold the falsehood to the people. Making the Secretary of
State
or the Defense Secretary or the President look bad is not a great career
move.
France's Designs
Plus, the propaganda themes, which stress American righteousness in
standing
up to foreign evil, are useful in obscuring the self-interested motives
that
often circle around a killing field like the one that Libya has become.
For instance, another Blumenthal memo to Clinton explained France's
political and pecuniary interests in toppling Gaddafi and thus thwarting
his
ambitious plans to use Libya's oil wealth as a means of freeing parts of
Africa from French domination.
In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close
to
one of Gaddafi sons were reporting that "Qaddafi's government holds 143
tons
of gold, and a similar amount in silver" and the hoard had been moved
from
the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli closer to the border with Niger and
Chad.
"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 franc (CFA)."
Blumenthal then added that "According to knowledgeable individuals, this
quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French
intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current
rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced
President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya."
The email added: "According to these individuals, Sarkozy's plans are
driven
by the following issues: a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil
production, b. Increase French influence in North Africa, c. Improve his
internal political situation in France, d. Provide the French military
with
an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, e. Address the
concern
of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the
dominant power in Francophone Africa."
In an earlier email, dated March 27, 2011, Blumenthal also discussed the
French interests in the conflict, citing "knowledgeable individuals" who
said that Sarkozy "is pressing to have France emerge from this crisis as
the
principal foreign ally of any new government that takes power."
So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to
rally
American support behind this "regime change" by explaining how the French
wanted to steal Libya's wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence
over Africa - or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes
about
Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women
while
his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!
Seeing No Jihadists
In selling the Libyan policy to the American people, it was also
important
to downplay another part of the crisis: that Gaddafi was right when he
warned of the danger from Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda's North
African affiliate, operating in eastern Libya.
Gaddafi's original military offensive was aimed at these groups, but the
Obama administration's propagandists twisted the issue into Gaddafi
supposedly committing "genocide" against the people of eastern Libya,
thus
requiring a U.S.-led "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" mission.
However, in the emails to Clinton, Blumenthal conveyed the actual reality
-
that these supposedly innocent anti-Gaddafi rebels in the east indeed
included jihadist elements. He wrote: "Sarkozy is also concerned about
continuing reports that radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan
Fighting
Groups and Al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the
NLC
[the rebel's National Transitional Council] and its military command.
"Accordingly, he [Sarkozy] asked [a] sociologist . who has long
established
ties to Israel, Syria, and other nations in the Middle East, to use his
contacts to determine the level of influence AQIM and other terrorist
groups
have inside of the NLC. Sarkozy also asked for reports setting out a
clear
picture of the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the rebel leadership."
Blumenthal added: "Senior European security officials caution that AQIM
is
watching developments in Libya, and elements of that organization have
been
in touch with tribes in the southeastern part of the country. These
[European] officials are concerned that in a post-Qaddafi Libya, France
and
other western European countries must move quickly to ensure that the new
government does not allow AQIM and others to set up small,
semi-autonomous
local entities - or 'Caliphates' - in the oil and gas producing regions
of
southeastern Libya."
In other words, the danger of Islamic terror groups exploiting the power
vacuum that the Obama administration and its Western allies were creating
inside Libya was well understood in March 2011, but the supposed "R2P"
mission pressed ahead nevertheless.
The "R2P" advocates also turned a blind eye to evidence that black
Africans
working for Gaddafi's government were being systematically rounded up and
murdered. As Blumenthal reported to Clinton, "Speaking in strict
confidence,
one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute
all
foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting."
These so-called "mercenaries" were contractors from black Africa where
many
people viewed Gaddafi as a champion of the continent's development,
independent of the former Western imperial powers and the harsh demands
of
the International Monetary Fund. While some of these blacks were part of
Gaddafi's security structure, others were involved in construction
projects.
Whatever their assignments, executing prisoners of war is a war crime -
and
the image of U.S.-backed rebels singling out black Africans for execution
turns the pretense of an "R2P" mission on its head - or perhaps all those
noble humanitarian arguments were just phony from the start.
As Brad Hoff of the Levant Report wrote, "historians of the 2011 NATO war
in
Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations
contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops
trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda
embedded
in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to
Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim,
and
concern over Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves threatening European
currency."
Reality's Hard Sell
But it probably would have been a hard sell to the American people if the
U.S. government explained the dark side of the "R2P" mission - that it
involved systematic executions of blacks and rapacious Western officials
grasping for oil and gold - as well as creating a vacuum for jihadists.
Instead, it worked much better to promote wild rumors about Gaddafi's
perfidy.
It is in this way that U.S. citizens, the "We the People" who were
supposed
to be the nation's sovereigns, are treated more like cattle herded to the
slaughterhouse.
Some of us did try to warn the public about these risks. For instance, on
March 25, 2011, days before Blumenthal's emails, I described the hazard
from
the neocon "regime change" strategies in Libya and Syria, writing:
"In rallying U.S. support for these rebellions, the neocons risked
repeating
the mistake they made by pushing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They
succeeded
in ousting Saddam Hussein, who had long been near the top of Israel's
enemies list, but the war also removed him as a bulwark against both
Islamic
extremists and Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf. .
"By embracing these uprisings, the neocons invited unintended
consequences,
including further Islamic radicalization of the region and deepening
anti-Americanism. Indeed, a rebel victory over Gaddafi risked putting
extremists from an al-Qaeda affiliate in a powerful position inside
Libya.
"The major U.S. news media aided the neocon cause by focusing on
Gaddafi's
historic ties to terrorism, including the dubious charge that he was
behind
the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988. There was little attention paid to his
more
recent role in combating the surge in al-Qaeda activity, especially in
eastern Libya, the base of the revolt against him." [See
Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons Regroup on Libyan War."]
Though the 2011 concerns about Al Qaeda have since morphed into worries
about its spinoff, the Islamic State, the larger point remains valid
regarding Libya, which descended into the status of failed state after
Gaddafi's ouster and his brutal torture-murder on Oct. 20, 2011.
Secretary
Clinton greeted the news of Gaddafi's demise with glee, exulting, "we
came,
we saw, he died" and then laughed. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Hillary
Clinton's Failed Libya Doctrine."]
More than four years later, the Obama administration still struggles to
piece together some order from the chaos in Libya, where Western
governments
have even abandoned their Tripoli embassies. Meanwhile, the Islamic State
and other jihadist groups continue to expand their control of Libyan
territory.
In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad has hung on despite continued efforts
by
the Obama administration and its regional Sunni allies to remove him. The
four years of war - waged mostly by jihadists armed and financed by
Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Western powers - have killed a quarter million
people and made millions homeless, now spreading the Mideast's disorders
into Europe where the refugee crisis is dividing the European Union.
Of course, in the U.S. mainstream media, the Syrian deaths and
destruction
are blamed almost entirely on Assad, much as the conflict in Libya was
blamed on Gaddafi and the U.S. invasion of Iraq was blamed on Saddam
Hussein. In the world created by U.S. propaganda, it is always some other
guy's fault.
In the Syrian case, the major decaying propaganda theme that continues to
contaminate public understanding of the crisis has been the accusation
that
Assad "gassed his own people" with sarin on Aug. 21, 2013. Although
independent evidence has long been pointing in the direction of a rebel
provocation, perhaps aided by Turkey, the old rotting propaganda is
routinely dug up by neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks
to
justify why "Assad must go!" [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Collapsing
Syria-Sarin Case."]
In the case of Libya, Blumenthal's emails provide a useful window into
what
was actually happening behind the scenes - and what Secretary of State
Clinton knew.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his
latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy
on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: NBC)
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/12/what-hillary-knew-about-libya/https://
consortiumnews.com/2016/01/12/what-hillary-knew-about-libya/
What Hillary Knew About Libya
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
13 January 16
In Official Washington's propaganda world, the U.S. government and its
"allies" are always standing for what's right and good and the "enemies"
are
the epitome of evil doing the vilest things. But some emails to Secretary
of
State Hillary Clinton depicted a far different reality, writes Robert
Parry.
o justify U.S. "regime changes," the U.S. government has routinely
spread
rumors and made other dubious claims which - even when later doubted or
debunked - are left in place indefinitely as corrosive propaganda, eating
away at the image of various "enemies" and deforming public opinion.
Even though this discredited propaganda can have a long half-life -
continuing to contaminate the public's ability to perceive reality for
years
- President Barack Obama and his administration have shown no inclination
to
undertake a kind of HAZMAT clean-up of the polluted information
environment
that American citizens have been forced to live in.
A recent case in point was the emergence - in the State Department's New
Year's Eve release of more than 3,000 emails to and from former Secretary
of
State Hillary Clinton - of evidence that two key propaganda themes used
to
advance violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011 may have originated with
rebel-inspired rumors passed on by Clinton's private adviser Sidney
Blumenthal.
A March 27, 2011 email from Blumenthal reminded Clinton that "I
communicated
more than a week ago on this story - [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi
placing
bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result
of
Allied bombing - though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know,
[Defense Secretary] Robert Gates gives credence to it."
Blumenthal's email, which was slugged "Rumor: Q[addafi]'s rape policy,"
then
plunged ahead into his new rumor: "Sources now say, again rumor (that is,
this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed
independently
by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has
even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press
conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of
a
much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation."
A month later, this bizarre Viagra-rape angle became part of a United
Nations presentation by then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice who
brought up the Viagra charge in a debate about the evils of Muammar
Gaddafi's regime.
A U.N. diplomat at the closed session on April 28, 2011, told The
Guardian
that "It was during a discussion about whether there is moral equivalence
between the Gaddafi forces and the rebels. She listed human rights abuses
by
Gaddafi's forces, including snipers shooting children in the street and
the
Viagra story."
On Blumenthal's other propaganda point, it's not clear where Defense
Secretary Gates got the idea to accuse Gaddafi of "staging" scenes of
U.S.-inflicted carnage, but Blumenthal's email indicates that he was
disseminating that rumor which might have been picked up by Gates, rather
than independently confirmed by Gates. (It's also true that the "staging"
excuse has been used before when evidence emerges of U.S. bombs killing
civilians.)
Media Self-Interest
Yet, regardless of the truth or falsity of such U.S. claims and
counter-claims, the chance that someone inside Official Washington is
going
to review the lies and exaggerations used to rationalize a major U.S.
foreign policy initiative - in this case, the violent overthrow of the
Gaddafi regime - to, in effect, "clear" Gaddafi's name is remote at best.
The few cases of the media debunking U.S. propaganda, such as exposing
the
made-up claims about Iraqi soldiers killing babies on incubators before
the
Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, are rare exceptions to the rule. Even rarer
are
cases when the U.S. government admits that it relied on false
information,
such as the intelligence community recanting its pre-invasion claims
about
Iraq hiding WMD stockpiles in 2002-03.
The much more common approach is to simply leave the decaying propaganda
in
place and move on to the next target of opportunity. There is little
benefit
for anyone to undertake the painstaking work of separating whatever
slices
of truth exist within the rot of lies and exaggerations that were used to
justify some war.
The way mainstream journalism usually works in America is that a reporter
who challenges U.S. government propaganda aimed at a foreign "enemy" is
putting his or her career at risk. The reporter's patriotism will be
questioned amid suggestions that he or she is a
"fill-in-the-blank-with-the-villain's-name" apologist.
And since the reality - whatever it is - is usually fuzzy, there is
almost
never any vindication for a brave stance. So, the smart career play is to
go
along with the propaganda or stay silent.
A similar reality exists inside the U.S. government. Honest intelligence
analysts can expect no rewards if they debunk one of these propaganda
themes, especially after a number of important U.S. officials have gone
out
publicly and sold the falsehood to the people. Making the Secretary of
State
or the Defense Secretary or the President look bad is not a great career
move.
France's Designs
Plus, the propaganda themes, which stress American righteousness in
standing
up to foreign evil, are useful in obscuring the self-interested motives
that
often circle around a killing field like the one that Libya has become.
For instance, another Blumenthal memo to Clinton explained France's
political and pecuniary interests in toppling Gaddafi and thus thwarting
his
ambitious plans to use Libya's oil wealth as a means of freeing parts of
Africa from French domination.
In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close
to
one of Gaddafi sons were reporting that "Qaddafi's government holds 143
tons
of gold, and a similar amount in silver" and the hoard had been moved
from
the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli closer to the border with Niger and
Chad.
"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 franc (CFA)."
Blumenthal then added that "According to knowledgeable individuals, this
quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French
intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current
rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced
President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya."
The email added: "According to these individuals, Sarkozy's plans are
driven
by the following issues: a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil
production, b. Increase French influence in North Africa, c. Improve his
internal political situation in France, d. Provide the French military
with
an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, e. Address the
concern
of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the
dominant power in Francophone Africa."
In an earlier email, dated March 27, 2011, Blumenthal also discussed the
French interests in the conflict, citing "knowledgeable individuals" who
said that Sarkozy "is pressing to have France emerge from this crisis as
the
principal foreign ally of any new government that takes power."
So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to
rally
American support behind this "regime change" by explaining how the French
wanted to steal Libya's wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence
over Africa - or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes
about
Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women
while
his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!
Seeing No Jihadists
In selling the Libyan policy to the American people, it was also
important
to downplay another part of the crisis: that Gaddafi was right when he
warned of the danger from Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda's North
African affiliate, operating in eastern Libya.
Gaddafi's original military offensive was aimed at these groups, but the
Obama administration's propagandists twisted the issue into Gaddafi
supposedly committing "genocide" against the people of eastern Libya,
thus
requiring a U.S.-led "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" mission.
However, in the emails to Clinton, Blumenthal conveyed the actual reality
-
that these supposedly innocent anti-Gaddafi rebels in the east indeed
included jihadist elements. He wrote: "Sarkozy is also concerned about
continuing reports that radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan
Fighting
Groups and Al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the
NLC
[the rebel's National Transitional Council] and its military command.
"Accordingly, he [Sarkozy] asked [a] sociologist . who has long
established
ties to Israel, Syria, and other nations in the Middle East, to use his
contacts to determine the level of influence AQIM and other terrorist
groups
have inside of the NLC. Sarkozy also asked for reports setting out a
clear
picture of the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the rebel leadership."
Blumenthal added: "Senior European security officials caution that AQIM
is
watching developments in Libya, and elements of that organization have
been
in touch with tribes in the southeastern part of the country. These
[European] officials are concerned that in a post-Qaddafi Libya, France
and
other western European countries must move quickly to ensure that the new
government does not allow AQIM and others to set up small,
semi-autonomous
local entities - or 'Caliphates' - in the oil and gas producing regions
of
southeastern Libya."
In other words, the danger of Islamic terror groups exploiting the power
vacuum that the Obama administration and its Western allies were creating
inside Libya was well understood in March 2011, but the supposed "R2P"
mission pressed ahead nevertheless.
The "R2P" advocates also turned a blind eye to evidence that black
Africans
working for Gaddafi's government were being systematically rounded up and
murdered. As Blumenthal reported to Clinton, "Speaking in strict
confidence,
one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute
all
foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting."
These so-called "mercenaries" were contractors from black Africa where
many
people viewed Gaddafi as a champion of the continent's development,
independent of the former Western imperial powers and the harsh demands
of
the International Monetary Fund. While some of these blacks were part of
Gaddafi's security structure, others were involved in construction
projects.
Whatever their assignments, executing prisoners of war is a war crime -
and
the image of U.S.-backed rebels singling out black Africans for execution
turns the pretense of an "R2P" mission on its head - or perhaps all those
noble humanitarian arguments were just phony from the start.
As Brad Hoff of the Levant Report wrote, "historians of the 2011 NATO war
in
Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations
contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops
trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda
embedded
in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to
Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim,
and
concern over Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves threatening European
currency."
Reality's Hard Sell
But it probably would have been a hard sell to the American people if the
U.S. government explained the dark side of the "R2P" mission - that it
involved systematic executions of blacks and rapacious Western officials
grasping for oil and gold - as well as creating a vacuum for jihadists.
Instead, it worked much better to promote wild rumors about Gaddafi's
perfidy.
It is in this way that U.S. citizens, the "We the People" who were
supposed
to be the nation's sovereigns, are treated more like cattle herded to the
slaughterhouse.
Some of us did try to warn the public about these risks. For instance, on
March 25, 2011, days before Blumenthal's emails, I described the hazard
from
the neocon "regime change" strategies in Libya and Syria, writing:
"In rallying U.S. support for these rebellions, the neocons risked
repeating
the mistake they made by pushing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They
succeeded
in ousting Saddam Hussein, who had long been near the top of Israel's
enemies list, but the war also removed him as a bulwark against both
Islamic
extremists and Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf. .
"By embracing these uprisings, the neocons invited unintended
consequences,
including further Islamic radicalization of the region and deepening
anti-Americanism. Indeed, a rebel victory over Gaddafi risked putting
extremists from an al-Qaeda affiliate in a powerful position inside
Libya.
"The major U.S. news media aided the neocon cause by focusing on
Gaddafi's
historic ties to terrorism, including the dubious charge that he was
behind
the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988. There was little attention paid to his
more
recent role in combating the surge in al-Qaeda activity, especially in
eastern Libya, the base of the revolt against him." [See
Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons Regroup on Libyan War."]
Though the 2011 concerns about Al Qaeda have since morphed into worries
about its spinoff, the Islamic State, the larger point remains valid
regarding Libya, which descended into the status of failed state after
Gaddafi's ouster and his brutal torture-murder on Oct. 20, 2011.
Secretary
Clinton greeted the news of Gaddafi's demise with glee, exulting, "we
came,
we saw, he died" and then laughed. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Hillary
Clinton's Failed Libya Doctrine."]
More than four years later, the Obama administration still struggles to
piece together some order from the chaos in Libya, where Western
governments
have even abandoned their Tripoli embassies. Meanwhile, the Islamic State
and other jihadist groups continue to expand their control of Libyan
territory.
In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad has hung on despite continued efforts
by
the Obama administration and its regional Sunni allies to remove him. The
four years of war - waged mostly by jihadists armed and financed by
Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Western powers - have killed a quarter million
people and made millions homeless, now spreading the Mideast's disorders
into Europe where the refugee crisis is dividing the European Union.
Of course, in the U.S. mainstream media, the Syrian deaths and
destruction
are blamed almost entirely on Assad, much as the conflict in Libya was
blamed on Gaddafi and the U.S. invasion of Iraq was blamed on Saddam
Hussein. In the world created by U.S. propaganda, it is always some other
guy's fault.
In the Syrian case, the major decaying propaganda theme that continues to
contaminate public understanding of the crisis has been the accusation
that
Assad "gassed his own people" with sarin on Aug. 21, 2013. Although
independent evidence has long been pointing in the direction of a rebel
provocation, perhaps aided by Turkey, the old rotting propaganda is
routinely dug up by neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks
to
justify why "Assad must go!" [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Collapsing
Syria-Sarin Case."]
In the case of Libya, Blumenthal's emails provide a useful window into
what
was actually happening behind the scenes - and what Secretary of State
Clinton knew.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his
latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy
on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
