This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The 4 Deeper Truths about Benghazi and Libya
Democrats and Republicans have very different views about Benghazi, Libya.
Republicans say the Obama administration is to blame for the death of Ambassador Stevens – and have created a special committee to investigate Benghazi – while Democrats by and large say that the is nothing but politics.
The truth is bigger than either side is admitting …
First, Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the story of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam under Nixon and the torture scandal under Bush – says that Benghazi was really a CIA outpost for running weapons capture from Libya after Gaddaffi was overthrown into Syria … approved on a bipartisan basis by both Democrats and Republicans.
Second, it has been confirmed that the U.S. backed Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya so that they would overthrow Gaddaffi.
Third, as we noted right after Gaddaffi fell, the Obama administration’s stated reason for going into Libya makes no sense. Now, RAND Corporation political scientists theorize that Obama might have decided to bomb Libya – not for any reason having to do with Libya or Gaddaffi themselves – but rather “to keep the Arab Spring going“.
The U.S. ousted Gaddaffi and then left, and Libya has now descended into chaos.
The Washington Post argues that America fighting the Libyan war is a bigger scandal than Benghazi itself:
Republicans have a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline. On Sunday, a disputed vote in parliament led to the swearing-in of a new prime minister — the sixth since former dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 with the help of U.S. and NATO air forces. The new leader, an Islamist from the city of Misurata, replaced pro-Western prime minister Ali Zeidan, who was driven out of the country this year after his government proved unable to stop a militia from filling a tanker with stolen oil.
From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.
***
The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.
Fourth, the Libya war – just like the Iraq war – was illegal, as noted in the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Washington Times, Guardian, Salon, and elsewhere.
Those are four the deeper stories about Benghazi and Libya which neither the mainstream Democrats or Republicans want you to know about.
»
- advertisements -
This is why "Benghazi! Benghazi!" is such a great political stick for the Republicans to beat Obama with. They all know the truth about that situation, and they know none of them will tell the truth. So they can now say whatever the hell they want about it.
Washington DC is just following orders from its master in Israel to kill Muslims.
Bankers, oil companies and the US gov. profit the most from murdering Qadhafi. He wanted a gold backed Dinar.
now what other middle east leader wanted to depart from the petro dollar hmmm
oops missed surging's post
love the fistful of democracy image
As noted in a few other posts, Gaddafi was trying to escape the petrodollar and sell oil for gold. But as Saddam showed when he tried to sell oil for Euros instead of dollars, the petrodollar will give you a fistful of democracy right up your ass if you attempt to resist its power.
The Gold Dinar.
There's also the other strategy of Balcanizing the Middle East to make it easier for Israel to dominate the region. None of the other powers can get a toehold because they are too busy infighting to gain any strength or momentum. Meanwhile Israel gathers strength and picks off the feable.
Washington lays out the big picture The big picture really indicts journalist as war crimminals IMO On a micro level, this is what I want to know.
How could the USA military watch Americans dying and do NOTHING. The military has stated they were watching in real time. Not one plane was even prepared to take-off as they watched the Benghazi facilities burn with people outside and inside firing guns. How can you explain no effort as no one knew how long this attack would continue? (Note: All explanations to date are rational excuses based on the known length of the attack, but in the first moment the length of the attack was unknown. Even the rational excuse makes military people cry from shame.)
There are two explanations. Fact, any action requied the White House to say "GO". The request must have been made to go by our military or there is real shame that must be brought to our military. 2nd explanation, White House did not want to expose the Banghazi attack, so White House decided in that MOMENT, the military was an inappropriate action for political reasons. The White House made a political decision instead of engaging the enemy.
Americans deserve to know if our military has lost its courage or our White House decided to sacrifice American lives so Obama could be re-elected. Americans deserve an answer as they fund the military and the White House.
Washington lays out the big picture The big picture really indicts journalist as war crimminals IMO On a micro level, this is what I want to know.
How could the USA military watch Americans dying and do NOTHING. The military has stated they were watching in real time. Not one plane was even prepared to take-off as they watched the Benghazi facilities burn with people outside and inside firing guns. How can you explain no effort as no one knew how long this attack would continue? (Note: All explanations to date are rational excuses based on the known length of the attack, but in the first moment the length of the attack was unknown. Even the rational excuse makes military people cry from shame.)
There are two explanations. Fact, any action requied the White House to say "GO". The request must have been made to go by our military or there is real shame that must be brought to our military. 2nd explanation, White House did not want to expose the Banghazi attack, so White House decided in that MOMENT, the military was an inappropriate action for political reasons. The White House made a political decision instead of engaging the enemy.
Americans deserve to know if our military has lost its courage or our White House decided to sacrifice American lives so Obama could be re-elected. Americans deserve an answer as they fund the military and the White House.
There wasn't supposed to be an attack that needed to be defended, so calling in backup only would've made things worse. I'm assuming it was a PR psyop to make Obummer and Hitlery look like bonafide leaders once they pressed for release of the hostages.
Next time they'll know better than to have Navy Seals for security, as they were the wild-card in this scenario.
stevens was dead by the time the Navy Seals arrived. False flag using Al Qaeda is an interesting theory.
George, always good reading.
Why did Al Queda attack the base of their weapons acquisition?
Are they stupid or disjointed?
Because the attack was staged, and wasn't supposed to be real.
Shit got real the instant those unauthorized Seals came with guns blazing trying to rescue everyone, not knowing it what it was all about.
Military and shadow assets in the region were told to stand down because Ambassador Stevens was supposed to be kidnapped. Obama was going to get to do a "Master of Statesmanship" hostage negotiation to free the ambassador right before the upcoming elections.
When the SEALS refused to stand down and killed a bunch of the militants at the embassy, the militants were enraged and killed the ambassador.
Perhaps we were arming a rival faction to Al Qaeda
Consider this: The people that attacked the US embassy were recieving Weapons and probably money to carry out clandestine missions on the behalf the the US. Why would they attack the same hand that was feeding them, unless they were under orders to do so? Was Stevens going to blow the Whistle on the Gun running operation and silenced? US special forces where order to "stand down" and not aid Stevens.
Why would they attack the same hand that was feeding them?
al qaeda is a mercenary army paid to overthrow ME regimes living under shia law. they are hired guns, who were never desirable allies, and when their job is finished they become expendable. we assassinate their leadership, while their organization gets larger. eventually al qaeda may become a legitimate political party and have seats in a parliamentary government, but lacking any real ideology they fade away. thats how it worked with the German and Basque terror groups in Europe. this is statism and its ugly underbelly
Again, it's possible we were arming a rival faction to the one which carried out the Embassy attack. Who ordered it? Perhaps the attacking faction has links to Syria.
Was Mr. Stevens going to blow the whistle? We will probably never know.
But the whole thing follows the classic Obama foreign policy pattern, from Egypt, to Libya and now to Ukraine: stir up shit; when it hits the fan, run away fast and blame someone else.
As usual, George, your story penetrates right past politics and warns that the American media stories, this time of Benghazi, obscure what’s really happening in secret America.
Just a note here on how some columnists are hitting this tyranny harder than ever before. Three grafs from today’s Paul Craig Robert piece, “Gangster State America”:
“Government is used to impose agendas that result from the symbiotic relationship between the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony and the economic interests of powerful private interest groups, such as Wall Street, the military/security complex, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and extractive industries (energy, mining, and timber).
“Dollar imperialism, threats, bribes, and wars are means by which US hegemony is extended. These agendas are pursued without the knowledge or approval of the American people and in spite of their opposition.
“Professor Martin Gilens at Princeton University and Professor Benjamin Page of Northwestern University have examined American governance and have concluded that the US is an oligarchy ruled by powerful rich private interest groups and that the US government has only a superficial resemblance to a democracy. Their analysis is forthcoming in publication in the journal, Perspectives on Politics.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/paul-craig-roberts/gangster-state-2/
Remember kids, vote early, and often!
Remember the Iraqis voted and had to dip their thumbs in black ink to show they voted. That would be illegal in America, where the right to vote multiple times is enshrined in electoral practice.
We're a first world country.
You vote once and a machine replicates the vote it wanted 1,000 times.
Gaddafi's "crime" was attempting to help Africa to evade the embrace of NATO-AFRICOM, the IMF, and western global corporations. Gaddafi's Africa Union was viewed as an "existential threat" to Western US-EU interests.
The Obama administration is not policy-driven to promote democracy in Africa, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine or anywhere else (including in the US where recent studies prove an elite oligarchy rules in fact). The "democracy" claim is strictly bogus, disinformation primarily meant for US domestic consumption.
"... the UN no-fly resolution 1973 of March 17 followed shortly on Gaddafi’s public threat of March 2 to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.
Significantly China, Russia, and India (joined by their BRICS ally Brazil), all abstained on UN Resolution 1973.
... If Qaddafi were to succeed in creating an African Union backed by Libya’s currency and gold reserves, France, still the predominant economic power in most of its former Central African colonies, would be the chief loser. ...
... Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s African initiative with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze [steal] all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. "
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-libyan-war-american-power-and-the-decli...
FWIW, my two cents, I read somewhere that Libya was attempting to get a communications satellite into space as they were leasing these services from a French company at a hefty cost.
"Gaddafi's "crime" was attempting to help Africa to evade the embrace of NATO-AFRICOM"
No, Most likely that he decided to price Libyan oil in Euros, and the Washington DC could not let that happen.
A little of Column A, a little of Column B...
None of us were at the meeting, so it's all guesswork. You could throw in a gold-backed currency, or the great water project that was going to make Libya a Mediterranean breadbasket.
Cutting through the lies is like peeling onions, just when you think you've reached a core truth, there's another lie to peel back.
NO,
AGuy
It was much more than the Petrodollar vs. EURO. Ask why France's government so eagerly sought intervention, (and why Hollande is such an Obamaphile).
Gaddafi's AU website is still up:
"According to its charter, the AU will be very different from the OAU:
The AU will have a peacekeeping force, whereas the OAU stressed non-interference in the internal affairs of member-states.
It will also have its own central bank and court of justice and will work towards creating a single currency."
http://africanunion.algaddafi.org/about-african-union-au
UniCredito, the biggest bank in Italy, had borrowed multi-billions from Gaddafi during the crisis and they didn't feel like paying it back. Add in Gaddafi's pan-African dinar and the fact that he gave Libyans the highest standard of living on the continent and you've got plenty of reasons for the US/NATO jets and missiles to fly.
My brother-in-law lived in Tripoli the last five years and operated in the highest circles. He said it was common knowledge Gaddafi buried containers of gold in the desert and then machine gunned the buriers. My brother-in-law left for the airport when the stuff hit the fan with his family of five, suitcases, and $25K in cash to get past the checkpoints. It worked, barely. Left their house full of furniture, now a burnt hulk.
Get the facts about Libya:
http://libyasos.blogspot.com.au/p/gaddafi.html
And oh by the way, impeach war criminal Obomba
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-30/battleground-ukraine-comprehens...
Geopolitical strategy was also mentioned in said article.
Iraq and Afghanistan proved to be a tad expensive. Proxies and private mercs are the new normal. There will be collateral damage. Four government mercs getting whacked isn't even newsworthy. Ok so one of them had a title, big deal. Such are the vicissitudes of empire.
MENA either falls in line behind the west or it's perpetual turmoil and war. It's called divide and conquer I believe. MENA has been a play thing for western interests for rather a long time now. Referring to some new development as a scandal confers implied legitimacy to the last thousand or so rationalizations.
The west will need to suffer vastly higher casualty rates to change behavior.
I think they've proven that without a draft and without an economy, no one cares
About Libya and Putin :
Putin has always said that the West's assassination of Q-daffy was the straw that broke the camel's back in his book and fueled his determination to draw the line in the sand-- with the implicit backing of China and some Brics-- both on Assad support against the same Qatar/ MB/ Salafist cabal that helped eliminate Q-daffy, as that assistance to Iran, concomittnt to creating an alternative to petrodollar monetary thread; with China/Brics/Iran etc.
So Putin's EuroAsia play is an expression of a long term vision that counters the blueprint of the American century neo-con strategy that wants to neutralise all resistance in the ME (Assad, Iran, Q-daffy, afghan) against the great US plan for the sacred Oil patch and its CIA ring-fenced friendly monarchies.
We are seeing a QUALITATIVE shift of great magnitude and it influences the Oil/monetary/big stick strategy which is at the core of neo-con "shock and awe" strategy of GWB days.
Obama has been a reluctant warrior who plays along with the Oligarchy on the financial-economic front; all the while reinforcing his statsit clientelist strategy by deficit spending at home. Both these strategies spell more financial pain for the US down the road, as they feed the financial fire under the rug.
But on the militarist front, shock and awe is not Obama's cup of tea; far from it. And it is not clear how much latitude he will give the Neo-cons and the MIC if and when he has to cross the Rubicon to defy openly Putin and China on geopolitical issues either in south china sea or in Ukraine or in the ME.
Libya's botchup is a tipping moment as he has pissed off his Saudi friends-- along with Putin-- by not "shock and aweing" Assad and Iran.
And he may have pissed off Merkel if the Ukraine play leaves the EU with a mutilated orphan in Ukraine and more debt to heal its resourceless and state less vacuum now emerging. All this in the context of NAfta arm twisting and NSA "yes we scan Mutti's emails"...
If Nato and Nuland backfire in Ukraine and Putin walks away in the long haul with half of Ukraine, it will create a casus belli between EU of tomorrow and the US admin; post 2016.
A River Runs Through It
Dnieper (1941 Map)
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=dnieper+river&id=20EC7F6AEFEEAB29B8CC94A34E8955F02614D053&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=20EC7F6AEFEEAB29B8CC94A34E8955F02614D053&selectedIndex=0
The grand bargain the allowed Obozo to get elected was allowing the neoclowns to remain embedded when he took office.
He had absolutely zero comprehension or interest in foreign policy and deferred to them and Hillary, and Hillary is one of them.
Everything that happened and continues to happen follows from this grand bargain.
He still has no clue what is going on and is much more interested in getting good tee off times on weekends.
Kerry is just a big dopey made for TV clown.
I enjoyed reading that Russian Professor last week, because he connected all of the neoclown dots from the Russian perspective.
More Hildabeast kunst-art, please.
Sorry, outta here again: fucking Cramer popped up in my face, shilling stocks.
That I will not stand. Get a clue, Tyler!
Any attempt to exonerate Obama by claims that he knows not what he is doing... is sadly mistaken.
Lacks "comprehension"? Hardly.
He is an imperialist, a neoCON in all but name.
He surely is aware of his parent's role in the CIA-Indonesian bloodbath under Suharto.
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/08/special-report-the-story-of-obama-a...
Does lack of comprehension of economics explain his convenient support for
bankster handouts?
Does lack of comprehension of the law explain his convenient support for
a draconian police state and gutting the Constitution?
Does lack of comprehension of history explain his convenient support for
jihadists, fascists, dictators, torture, assassinations, and jingoist militarism?
It is wishful fantasy to suggest his "heart is in the right place" and if only you
had the 'king's ear, you could tell him the "truth", and the 'king' would change his policies.
Are we be to believe he really disagrees with what he says and only says what he says because he lacks "comprehension" about the meaning?
Most Obama apologists argue that supposedly he only does what he does to prevent even worse by the Republicans, and not that poor uncomprehending Obama is being misled by the bad neoCONs... Which version is more unbelievable is a toss-up.
You said exoneration not me.
Have you ever heard the expression you can delegate whatever horseshit you want but not the reponsibility?
How about "reckless indifference."
Denuding us of our civil liberties is, however, one of the few things Obozo deserves highest accolades for his mastery.
His election had a price tag which Dr Didn't No eagerly paid. On that price tag was a stay out of jail card for the banksters and a gimme for the neocons.
As we have seen, spying on and beating the shit out of anyone who complains was all part and parcel.
Stole this for facebook and had twenty likes in less than five minutes.
Good job!
Hillary is one of a lot of things
it's all such stupid, evil theatre
"U.S. backed Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya so that they would overthrow Gaddaffi."
I was thinking we could cut off the sentence after "terrorists."
+ 1,000,000
I think you're right, but there was another part to the grand bargain. I remember in May of 2008, reading that Obama had collected more in campaign contributions for the Finance Sector than either Sen. McCain or Sen. Clinton. Think of that; Sen. Clinton, the sitting Senator from New York, and husband to the most finance-accommodating President we'd yet had in modern times. Then in September 2008 when TS was HTF'ing, both candidates McCain and Obama promised if elected, to appoint one Timothy F. Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.
That, to me, was the other leg of the Grand Bargain that gave the Presidency to Obama.
Indeed it was
Indeed it was... and more.
Was a deal struck between them?
Same as it ever was.
Basically similar, but getting worse, faster.
"I enjoyed reading that Russian Professor last week, because he connected all of the neoclown dots from the Russian perspective. "
Same for me, albeit from the Russian perspective, indeed.
And, it's refreshing to hear someone from the other side of the cold war (or is it wall now) to lambast our glorified ivy-leaque economists, no?
Issue remains (for sheeples): what is the invincible hand stirring, now that we have seen the visible one !
"But on the militarist front, shock and awe is not Obama's cup of tea; far from it. And it is not clear how much latitude he will give the Neo-cons and the MIC if and when he has to cross the Rubicon to defy openly Putin and China on geopolitical issues either in south china sea or in Ukraine or in the ME."
Putin as well as China can respond appropriately without the need for military force and bring the US to its knees economicly (yes it will hurt them too) and worse yet for OBaomao and others lead to a growing rebellion against the US leadership. Might take only a small spark and few people as shown in Nevada just recently.
Putin will walk away with all of the Ukraine eventually and probably a few other East European nations if their citizenry wakes up to USSA/EU designs. Putin will probably help in that regard.
He pissed off Merkle when the NSA tapped her phone!
"Oh everyone is doing it"
Nope this is personal.
Instant "Mess Creators".....
I think Libya's gold, the petrodollar, and establishing a private central bank I bet none of us could discover the owners of {hey, just like back in the USSA!} explains it {or largely explains it} - I think "keeping the Arab Spring going" is not only horseshit, but obvious horseshit.
The Arab Spring was a spark fanned into flame by the CIA, except in Bahrain and a couple other spots, where .gov did what it could to suppress domocracy and protest - as they are doing now in Ukraine and will do relatively soon in the U.S.