In 2011, Hillary Clinton was the public face of the U.S. intervention to push out Libya’s longtime strongman, Moammar Gaddafi. There was no compelling reason for the U.S. to go into Libya so Hillary invented one.
Our relationship changed with Gaddafi after 9/11 as he saw the way world events were shaping up.
Gaddafi denounced terrorism and decided to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction program in 2003.
Gaddafi even did the unthinkable, signing on – at least nominally – to the U.S.-led Global War on Terror. He promoted his son’s charitable foundation to augment his influence and revamp his reputation outside Libya.
Gaddafi so impressed George W. Bush’s administration that the U.S. government restored full diplomatic relations with the terror nation in 2006. As then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at the time, Libya had provided “excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001.”
They did a lot more than Cuba has done for far more benefits.
In 2009, Senator Lieberman praised the importance of Libya, our new ally in the war on terrorism. Goldman Sachs had gone into Libya and began to lose an enormous amount of Gaddafi’s fortune.
While ignoring humanitarian causes in Syria and the Congo, Hillary Clinton felt strongly about the war against Libya for humanitarian reasons. She claimed Gaddafi was going to slaughter innocent civilians in Benghazi.
“Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled. … The cries would be, ‘Why did the United States not do anything?’” Clinton said in an interview in March of 2011.
Several reports have noted the pivotal role played by Clinton in convincing the president to support the intervention, which was also strongly backed by then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, and Samantha Power, then serving at the National Security Council, as well as then-Senator John Kerry, who invoked Rwanda, the New Republic reported.
The leftist and anti-right-wing New Republic dismissed some of the intelligence reports posted in a three-part series by The Washington Post at the time which exposed Hillary’s incompetence and deceit over Benghazi because The Washington Times is right wing. They admitted, however, that some of it had to be taken seriously. They quoted expert after expert who said there was no valid reason to go into Libya.
One quote from the publication:
“What was decided was to declare Gaddafi guilty in advance of a massacre of defenceless civilians and instigate the process of destroying his regime and him (and his family) by way of punishment of a crime he was yet to commit, and actually unlikely to commit,” wrote Hugh Roberts, a scholar at Tufts University and head of the ICG North Africa Project at the time, “and to persist with this process despite his repeated offers to suspend military action.”
The bombshell recordings released by The Washington Times show the frustration of top Pentagon officials over Clinton’s involvement in ousting Muammar Gaddafi. The officials – U.S. Generals – were so frustrated at the time that they opened up their own secret talks with Gaddafi’s son Seif.
That was unheard of.
Seif was trying to negotiate peace but Hillary would not compromise or negotiate.
Mrs. Clinton became the most vocal proponent on the war and falsely claimed there would be an imminent massacre of 700 innocent civilians in Benghazi. No one even had a count of how many people were in Benghazi, a known stronghold of jihadists.
Intelligence officials said that Gaddafi would not risk world outrage and a massive attack was not likely. There was no intelligence pointing to genocide.
Gaddafi had in fact sent a small cadre of 2,000 troops to defeat the rebels and he was winning. There was no genocide.
Two of the stories from The Washington Times exposed some of the infighting among government agencies and branches of government on this controversial decision, and highlighted the key role that Clinton played in initiating the war.
Mrs. Clinton’s reasons for going to war conflicted with what was actually happening on the ground. Her reasons for bringing the United States into war in Libya were based on speculation not on intelligence. Nearly a dozen intelligence officials who spoke with The Washington Times agreed that it was “intelligence-light” as one unnamed source described it.
“Speculation” often “trumped reporting from the ground”, the Times reported.
She also misled the public when she claimed there were large stockpiles of WMDs in Libya.
The Lockerbie bombing, often brought up and which was attributed to a plot by Gaddafi and Mugrahi, was never proven and all evidence came from known liars. Gaddafi offered reparations to ease relations.
When we went into Libya, it was supposed to be limited NATO bombing to protect the allegedly endangered Libyan civilians protesting Gaddafi’s oppressive regime in Benghazi.
The bloodletting never took place, perhaps because of NATO, despite the Civil War going on in the country.
Americans didn’t want to go to war with Gaddafi so then we heard that Gaddafi was encouraging mass rape and even giving the military Viagra and condoms. Human Rights groups found no legitimate evidence to support the claims.
There is no evidence that ever was the case but it made the public amenable to the limited bombing of Libya.
U.S intelligence did not concur with Clinton’s public rationale for invading Libya, a military action that was never approved by the United States Congress, according to the newspaper report. She had claimed Qaddafi was planning to commit acts of genocide aimed at liquidating his regime’s detractors. But intelligence operatives “had come to the opposite conclusion: that [Qaddafi] would not risk world outrage by killing civilians en masse even as he tried to crush the rebellion in his country.”
Then there were the arms. Citing secret Libyan intelligence documents, The Washington Times reported that Libyan officials were worried back in 2011 that weapons were being directed to NATO-supported rebels with ties to al-Qaeda. It was later revealed that this directive came from Hillary Clinton.
When Hillary Clinton’s Libya-related emails were released, they exposed how Mrs. Clinton was interested in arming the rebels before they were “formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations,” according to reporters Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne.
Mrs. Clinton exchanged emails with the director of policy planning for the Department of State, Anne-Marie Slaughter, in the spring of 2011. On March 30, 2011, Slaughter counseled Hillary Clinton that she was “VERY dubious about arming the Libyan rebels.” When Hillary Clinton asked why, Slaughter argued that “sending more arms into a society generally … will result in more violence – against each other” and “adding even more weapons does not make sense.”
Yet Mrs. Clinton emailed her aide, Jake Sullivan, on April 8, 2011, that “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”
A year later, the Benghazi attack took place, leaving four Americans dead.
NATO undertook 7,000 bombing runs at one million dollars each and killed some of the civilians they claimed they wanted to protect. The war cost at least one billion dollars which The Washington Post touted as a bargain at the time.
The French were interested in oil and Gaddafi’s close relationship with the Italians over oil threatened them and the British. Sarkozy also wanted to see an end to the Libyan-African connection which brought immigration from those countries into France. Sarkozy believed Gaddafi was encouraging it.
The alleged “spontaneous uprising” of February 2011 was not spontaneous. It began before the Arab Spring and it was orchestrated by the West.
In October 2010, Qaddafi’s protocol chief, Nouri Al-Mesmari, arrived in France, purportedly for medical treatment. But he had his family with him, and he had defected. Immediately, he plunged into talks the French intelligence and it is believed that he helped launch the offensive with his in-depth knowledge of breaches in Gaddafi’s national security shield. He made it easy to take him down.
In December, three more Western-educated Libyan businessmen, who had years earlier staged an unsuccessful revolt against Qaddafi, defected to France and Sarkozy signed on to topple Gaddafi.
A French trade delegation traveled to Benghazi in November and it included French military officials (spies) according to Africa Intelligence’s Maghreb Confidential. Sarkozy wanted a Mediterranean Union that included Israel which Gaddafi saw as dangerous. He was afraid he could not keep the jihadists at bay if such a union was formed.
Egypt soon became part of the group hoping to depose Gaddafi.
On February 27, a National Transitional Council, made up of politicians, ex-military officers, tribal leaders, businessmen and academics, announced its launching in Benghazi as the rebel leadership.
The Italian intelligence services, intent on preserving that country’s advantageously close relationship with Qaddafi, began trying to leak what was going on.
When it proved unable to stop the operation, the Italian government seemingly decided to switch and try to head the parade of fools.
France began the operation, jumping ahead and angering Italy. The differences were resolved by Hillary Clinton.
The campaign was lauded as a foreign policy success for the Obama administration and its most famous Cabinet member, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
WaPo wrote in response to GOP criticisms against this unnecessary war:
What emerges from these accounts is a picture of Clinton using her mixture of political pragmatism and tenacity to referee spats among NATO partners, secure crucial backing from Arab countries and tutor rebels on the fine points of message management.
Hillary touted herself:
Clinton, in an interview, acknowledged “periods of anguish and buyer’s remorse” during the seven months of the campaign. But, she said, “we set into motion a policy that was on the right side of history, on the right side of our values, on the right side of our strategic interests in the region.”
She was loathe to do just a “no-fly zone”:
“We were opposed to doing something symbolic — that was the worst of both worlds,” said one of the aides. “We would have crossed the threshold [of intervention] without accomplishing anything.”
Clinton drew up the conditions for a “no-fly” zone that included a formal request by Arab states for intervention. On March 12, the 22-nation Arab League did exactly that, voting to ask for U.N. approval of a military no-fly zone over Libya, WaPo reported in 2011.
On March 13, she traveled to Paris where she met with the Group of Eight foreign ministers; Mahmoud Jibril, the rebel leader who later worked with the Muslim Brotherhood at the administration’s urging; and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.
Her naivèté was stunning.
WaPo clearly explained she had no instructions from the White House on whether to support strong action in Libya. She did it on her own.
By March 15, when Clinton spoke with Obama by phone to brief him on the meetings, she had become a “strong advocate” for U.S. intervention, one administration official said. Obama agreed to act.
On March 17, the action was approved by “all necessary means”.
She allegedly convinced the mirage of an Arab coalition to conduct sorties and they did – 3 of them.
The United States had been nervous about Gaddafi’s relationship with Putin which is one reason they joined in.
The Telegraph leaked information that the U.K. and U.S. were involved in the surprise uprising for weeks before it occurred, as early as August, NATO troops were on the ground.
The documents and audio recordings examined by The Washington Times suggest Hillary Clinton had no clear plan for how to deal with the Libyan crisis she created and whether the lawlessness and chaos she spawned in that country led to the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
After the war, without a plan and without securing Gaddafi’s weapons, his arsenal was distributed throughout the region, mostly to jihadists. There is also strong evidence that the administration was gunrunning to Syria.
Clinton, ignoring the advice of the State Department’s lawyers, convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, a move that allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Gaddafi’s frozen accounts. At a meeting in Istanbul on July 15, she pressed 30 other Western and Arab governments to make the same declaration.
“She brought everyone over at once,” said a Western diplomat who attended the Istanbul meeting.
In mid-2011 Libyan officials and a Pentagon operative informed former top [Qaddafi] regime official Mohammed Ismael that they were thinking about seizing some of Qaddafi’s frozen assets and directing them to the rebels fighting against him. The report further suggests U.S. ally Qatar played a major part in shipping weapons to the Libyan rebels, a role Qatar adamantly denies.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and for what it’s worth, interviewed Gaddafi’s son Seif:
“The Qataris have spent more than $100 million on this, and they have an agreement with the rebels that the moment you rule Libya you pay us back,” Qaddafi’s eldest son, Seif, told then Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in a conversation recorded in May 2011.
“So, it’s your position that your government has been trying to defend itself against an insurrection brought about by jihadists who were joined by gangsters, terrorists and that there’s basically about 1,000 people who were joined by NATO?” Kucinich asked.
“Yes,” Seif Qaddafi replied.
Five weeks after the money was released, Tripoli fell.
Gaddafi wasn’t a jihadist and for that reason the so-called rebels wanted him gone.
After Gaddafi was publicly tortured and killed, Clinton laughed and said, “We came, we saw, he died.”
Libya is now a failed state and a jihadist hellhole with hundreds of thousands fleeing torture and killings, many dying for their efforts, only to end up living in camps. Blacks are especially victimized by the jihadists.
Prior to the war, Libya had a high standard of living for Africa. Bans against free speech are worse now than under Gaddafi. There are no women’s rights. Homosexuality is punishable by death. Libya is now the worst state in North Africa to be a Christian and bans Jews from entering the country. Tribal warfare has defined the fighting since 2011 and black Africans are frequently singled out for violence.
After the war, Libya asked for training but we abandoned our puppet government. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama told the Libyan government to work with The Muslim Brotherhood seeking to overturn their government.
Rand Paul describes Libya as a “jihadist wonderland.”
“Somebody needs to ask Hillary Clinton, was it a good idea to topple Gaddafi in Libya? I think it’s a disaster. Libya is a failed state. Someone ought to pay and Hillary Clinton needs to answer questions about it,” Paul said at an Iowa Republican Party Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines on May 16.
Another GOP presidential candidate, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, said in an interview with Charlie Rose of PBS in May that “the result in Libya was a protracted conflict that killed people, destroyed infrastructure and left behind the conditions for the rise of multiple militias who refused to lay down their arms.”
Libya was to be Hillary’s crowning achievement. We know that from the veritable treasure trove of Libya-related emails turned over to the House committee by Sidney Blumenthal. Most are still secret but National Review exclusively obtained one of them written by Blumenthal to Clinton:
Blumenthal also gave her the talking points:
Hillary once planned to use Libya as the basis for her “Clinton Doctrine.” When discussing the Clinton Doctrine, we might also want to recall her full-out support of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood dictator, Mohammad Morsi.