Obama Has Signed Secret Order Authorizing Covert US Support For Libyan Rebel Forces

Tyler Durden's picture

While we expect the imminent attempt at refutation from Hillary Clinton, we can't help but admire the symmetry between the handling of this campaign and that of Afghanistan where Al Qaeda also ended up on the receiving end of US generosity.

From Reuters:

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.

In interviews with American TV networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.

Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.

U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say that at present, neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, appear able to make decisive gains.

While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.

And this:

People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.

In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.

Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

And here is what US taxpayers will be funding on behalf of, among others, Al Qaeda:

The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."

U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.

Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activates in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."

"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.

Especially since such non grata individuals as Osama Bin Ladin and his troops may be in the immediate vicinity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NOTW777's picture

the people who accused Bush of war crimes - right

the mad hatter's picture

Welcome to 2011, where the Constitution only exists in history books.

cossack55's picture

Mainly history books published before 2000.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Books?  From here on out its going to be iPads, Nooks, Kindles and so on.

High Plains Drifter's picture

yeh , they are not our army anymore. they fight for the blue and the 12 stars..........

Holodomor2012's picture

They fight for the same flag that you fight for.  And it only has 1 star.



random shots's picture

It never existed...Your kids will one day say "Damn I miss Bush and Obama."

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Bush was a brutish idiot who's only ability as a president was to push people around and start wars.

Obama is a polished salesman who's good at talking to you on your front porch while his band of thieves sneaks in the back door and robs you blind. Or, promising you one thing and delivering something completely different than what you ordered.

To me, the moral of the story is: Regardless of which "party" you elect Wall Street, Big Pharma and the Military Industries always win and the working folks always lose just a little bit more (money, freedom, truth).

I wonder how long until we have a "no confidence" vote of the US government. Of course it will be a bunch of so-called Tea-Party insiders (or something similar) that holds the vote so it's essentially replacing the scum with the slime, but it'll make good theater for the sheep.

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Don't just junk it coward, explain why.

PuppetRepubl1c's picture



I guess they couldn't handle the truth you were putting out there, it doesn't jive with the fox news "republicans will fix everything this time, trust us" mantra they are used to hearing 8 hours a day.  Conmen are still conmen, no matter what lapel pin they wear.


Our government is a for profit enterprise, congressmen should be forced to wear NASCAR style advertisements from their donors so the votors know where their allegiences are.




macholatte's picture

congressmen should be forced to wear NASCAR style advertisements from their donors so the votors know where their allegiences are.


I like it.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Awesome!    Let's vote on brands to associate with various politicians. 

Barney Frank could be sponsored by some brand of mineral water and Hershey's, as in said highway.   

John Kerry, Heinz obviously.  

McCain that beer distributorship of his wifes'.

Obama, the Al Jazeera network, and maybe some golfing products brand, or a tourism agency.

Cindy_Dies_In_The_End's picture

George, I junked you because you only took half of the blue pill, then equated ALL TP ers with Republicans.


Ps--fuck you.thats why I really junked you. Seriously dude...just messing with you. You shouldn't care who junks you and ask for an explanation, just stand for what you believe in, and we'll kinda respect that.


However, I also drink a lot.

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Man, it's an internet message board. I really don't care who junks it. I wrote it that way to show that the cliquish lemmings here will kill each other to jump on the bandwagon with each other. They all try to outwit one another with one-liners, but just post something controverisal and they get their panties in a wad.

I'm guessing many here have a hankering for Tea-bagging (not sure if it's giving or receiving) and why I put them in the original post, hence the junking.

My skin is way tougher than most of these lightweights here, so I really don't care if they junk me or not. I like having my ideals and beliefs challenged, unlike so many of the conforming, non-conformist  and so-called wanna-be contrarian posers here and on the internet in general.

At least some folks here got my point. It's nice to see that some folks get it and don't have to follow the crowd. There's hope for us yet.

The sheep may now junk away....

sunkeye's picture

@geohay: made me laugh t/y now whenever i see 'thank you sheep' i cant not think of the xtranorml bears man i love them two matter of fact i wish them two were network anchors id at least tune in again

btw tho real bears scare the hell outta me and i aint whistlin stephencolbert either  made the mistake of youtubing 'bear attacks'  scared the hitshay outta me lemme tellya no bs  shotgun slug lock&load in bear country for real



DollarMenu's picture

No junks from me.

The whole pack in D.C. is no good.

It's a pre-requisite for their running for office.

They can't get thru a caucus to the ballot unless they've compromised/soldout.

The party machinery functions on grease.

D or R makes no difference.


sunkeye's picture

deleted no pos add to dialog


BrosMacManus's picture

All hail George, the all knowing enlightened one. We are so unworthy.

sanctimonious douche.


TBT or not TBT's picture

Hey internet tough guy, whattaya planning on doing with that digital spanner you got there?   My avatar carries a digital Walther PPK, albeit a cartoon one, d'Oh!

Blues Traveler's picture

"I'm guessing many here have a hankering for Tea-bagging (not sure if it's giving or receiving) and why I put them in the original post, hence the junking."

You got junked for being a light weight puss-a-lamus, you come across as daft.  Tigthen  up your game and bullshit, then we will ee how you do.

tmosley's picture

You should note that he said "Tea Partiers" with respect to the politicians, most of whom immediately betrayed the Tea Party by voting FOR the extension of the Patriot Act.

If the jokers vote FOR raising the debt ceiling, then they will have proven their true "mettle", ie they have none.

GeorgeHayduke's picture

I know. I'm just riling up the easy to rile crowd here.

Your comment about Tea Party winners is valid. Do they sit them down when they get to DC and tell them how they will vote "or else"? Or was the whole Tea Party thing just a big scam all along? We shall see.

Personally, I didn't buy much into the Tea Party folks as they seem to me to tend to the fascists side, even though they try not to act or talk like it. but hey, I'll see how they act now that they are in, but my guess is the Republicans will yank their chain anytime they want to.

tmosley's picture

I would say it is much more likely that standard Republicans capitalized on Tea Party fervor and just went back to their old ways once they were in.

I had high hopes for the Tea Party, but they were indeed infiltrated, as many suggested would happen.

The only way to have a political solution in my opinion is to throw out anyone who is associated with either party unless they already have a voting record in line with TP goals.  They SHOULD learn towards the libertarian or constitution parties instead.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Me too tmosley re having had high hopes for the Tea Party.

We will find out soon enough if Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and others who had strong Tea Party support will just sell out.

yakmerchant's picture

"Tea Party folks as they seem to me to tend to the fascists side"

Like the politicians claiming to be "tea partiers"? or the people you met at a local Tea Party?  As most of the ones I've met that aren't on TV (alot of NeoCon plants where elected as tea partiers if you ask me) seem alot more like Libertarian's that want little to zero government in their lives than fascists.  Now there are a few that take the whole hawkish strong defense thing a little too far and assume that means running around the globe playing policeman, but I guess that's better than all the other crap that we pay for that isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

The Tea Partiers I met (2009) were almost all nice, real and normal people of all kinds.  Not Fascist at all.

BigDuke6's picture

Avatars with big tits is stoopid.

And there are loads of you teenagers here now.

Anyway, my point....

Arming a bunch of jihadi's - can the usa be that fucked?

Taliban - Stinger missiles anyone?  Amazing one hasn't used to take down a 747.

Let these fuckers mash each other then roll in with the contracts to rebuild and pump the oil.

Wash rinse and repeat that.

Arkadaba's picture

History. I don't trust Wikipedia for unbiased analysis but I still think it is good for a jumping off point: 


BigDuke6's picture

Amazing... they can't help but interfere with these whackos.

and then give them refugee status to be on welfare forever.

tmosley's picture

Better than the guy with the "nice big cock" from Fight Club as his avatar a while back.

Similar to the way we are acting now, Rome armed mercenaries with their most advanced weaponry.  After those mercs completed their tours of duty, they left for the "barbarian" states they came from, and returned later at the head of armies to conquer Rome.  Eventually, they succeeded.

Not saying that is going to happen now, but history makes some "dope" rhymes.

mkkby's picture

Something wrong with breasts, homo boy?  Or do your idiot teen agers not notice them everywhere?

BigDuke6's picture

I love boobies especially udders like that and striders are the original and best.

but when i see them on avatars it reminds of this 'friendfinder' site (a friend of mine was on...) where people would have photos of their cocks and tits up.  Have you seen a cock as an avatar???

How would you feel if the ZH girls started doing that?

ZH would be like Fuckbook.  :(

Voluntary Exchange's picture

Did not, and would not junk your fair statement. But a lifetime of statist programing is not an easy thing for anyone to see through. 

There was nothing wrong with the American Revolutionary principles as they were based on basic organizing principles of civilization, ("natural rights"), combined with the great insight that all associations must be based on consent ( and thus are voluntary). Jefferson's words "... just power from the consent of the governed" was, in my opinion, a poor choice of words, but the founders were also raised in statism and could not have been too familiar with ideas like "free market" defense, or "free market" justice, since the limited history of those things was probably not available to them.

But the key basis for a truly free civilization lie within those words of the declaration if carefully respected.  What followed, the constitution itself, did not maintain that key focus on that great truth: the voluntary nature of any organization as it relates to a particular person's participation as long as they did not violate others life, liberty, or property. Natural rights supersede all subsequent agreements,  agreements which in turn must be based on consent. And we saw how the constitution's ambiguity about "consent" eventually turned the American experiment into just another system of statist exploitation common to every other state on the planet.  If the true nature of "consent" had been clearly understood from the start then we should have had competing service providers arise from the start instead of a monopoly "government", and this was the great tragedy of the moment:  they had that great truth at their fingertips, and they failed to live up to it. Some of us know better now, but we again need to win a revolution against the tyrants. This time it can be based on non-violence if people can but just make the connection in their minds between "just powers" and "consent" - (voluntary agreements).

Only that which is based on voluntary agreements can be "just", and so, since each person is different, there needs to be free voluntary markets for "defense" and "justice" but with that key power of the individual always preserved by the voluntary act of purchasing from the ones who deliver the goods. That means no more "taxation" in the sense of cumpulsion ever again. Then we can go to the stars and stop empowering murderers, thieves, and the best liars.

The moment an institution stops earning by a voluntary exchange and starts making demands, coupled with the usurped "power" to enforce those demands,  you have crossed the line, where "men" become beasts and no longer respecters of "natural" law. They become enemies of the self evident truth that all "men" are created "equal" - equal in that they have certain unalienable rights. All associations - even the ones with the fancy title "government" - must be based on consent - and this is best achieved in a truely free market as the voluntary purchase keeps the power where it justly belongs within the individual, (both male and female), who remains a co-equal among all other "men" and not a beast of prey.

So let's get it right this next time, because there will keep being a "next" time till we finally do get it right!

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Wow! Good job!

Do you read the little printed publication The Match? It really takes on the idea of needing a government and what it becomes, just as you did.

I am not a Libertarian as there will always be tasks that do not make a profit that we need to address. I also don't believe EVERY activity we do needs to have a financial/economic aspect to it. I have to admit that I find the idea of a true free market a tough one to create or maintain. The free markets created here under the Constitution have led to those with the wealth owning the government. Yes, corporate personhood and many of the other laws that allowed it did occur over many years, but they kept whitling away until they got eveything they wanted. I'm not sure how to install the stops that would keep that from happening. I am open to ideas though.

Thanks for the good response Voluntary Exchange.



Abitdodgie's picture

I think people junk comments when it is above there mental capacity.

New_Meat's picture

or maybe there spelling ability?

Robot Traders Mom's picture

Whoever junked that needs to pull their head out of their ass.

TheJudge2012's picture

I'd vote it up if I could. Obama is a slick sociopath. It's so obvious he's going after the oil.

Tom Servo's picture

Obama isn't going after anything, except maybe the Pro-V1 he hit in the woods off the #5 tee.  The puppetmasters however, ARE going after the oil :)


Abitdodgie's picture

The puppet masters are not too concerned about the oil ,what they want is to issue a new currency to the newly liberated Libya , at interest of course

francis_sawyer's picture

I doubt he's saavy enough to be playing with pro-V1's...

He probably uses those high spinning MOLITORS or 80 compression FLYING LADY's...


tmosley's picture


Throw ALL the bums out.  And don't replace them with more bums.  Pick a third party, and run with it.

tmosley's picture

Slogan: "We who have the gold, make the rules!"

Dollar Damocles's picture

Everything you say is right on.  Maybe we have a new influx of morons here on zerohedge who haven't yet figured out the banking/military/industrial/pharma complex that runs amerika (aka Fascism)?

Tail Dogging The Wag's picture

I guess whoever junked you still has hope in Mr Obama and politics. Housing prices are down in every state of the union, except in Washington, D.C. where housing prices are spiking. It pays to be a politician. $$$GE$$$ build me more nuclear plants. Coal is bad, nuclear is good. $$$

TBT or not TBT's picture

GE has understood the neo-fascist Democrat behavior, and have sucked up so well they don't even pay federal taxes...not that it makes sense for corporations to pay any taxes at all, I'm just saying Obama and his henchpersons have been overt about punishing friends and rewarding enemies in the private sector.