NY Times Shamelessly Whitewashes Hillary’s Intervention in Libya



We destroyed Libya. Hillary and Obama destroyed Libya.

Libya is a chaotic, festering pit of radicalism, anarchy, and death as The Federalist describes and it’s thanks to the woman who would be president. She is selling it as a success when discussing her foreign policy and did so only recently. Now the NY Times is attempting to do the same thing.

Months before the murders of US personnel in Benghazi, during her triumphant tour of Libya, the country she destroyed, she was guarded by a known terrorist, according to a new book,  Jihadi John: The Making of a Terrorist, by Robert Verkaik.

She has been a fool from beginning to end.

Hillary with Libyan terrorists

Now the NY Times is on board with a wholesale cleansing of what she did in Libya.

The NY Times article Sunday, Smart Power and a Dictator’s Fall, is a whitewash of Hilary Clinton’s most massive failure – the destruction of Libya. The Times even tries to turn her military disaster into proof of Hillary’s great strength of character. Sadly journalist Jo Becker put her name to this piece.

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, as despicable as he was, was no threat to the United States or to the people of Benghazi.

Generals warned Hillary not to go into Libya and when she didn’t listen, she took credit until it was obvious the war in Libya was a failure. Now she says “it’s too soon to tell” how Libya will turn out despite the fact that it’s an obvious disaster.

Libya isn’t simply a failed state, it’s a destroyed state. By January 2013, Westerners were told to leave Benghazi to avoid being kidnapped. According to Arab News, the Libyan President, Mohammed Megaryef, who was put into power by the US, barely escaped an assassination attempt on January 6th.

Qaddafi, the NY Times wrote, was facing a “furious revolt” and “threatening a bloodbath” as the dictator’s forces were approaching Benghazi.

That’s untrue.

“France and Britain [and the oil thugs in the Arab League] were urging the United States to join them in a military campaign”, the Times wrote. That’s true. They were worried about their oil contracts and that’s the real reason we joined them. Follow the money.

The Times claims Obama dispatched Hilary to investigate but in truth, Hillary was the one pushing Obama.

Hillary called her agenda “smart power”. She convinced the president to go into Libya, which was an illegal war and did not have the support of Congress or the generals.

The Times admits “The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direct answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.”

But it’s not true she was without answers. The generals told her and congress told her that this could happen and then after the bombings, there was no follow up plan, the immense arsenal of Qaddafi weapons were not secured and because of Hillary, the country and the weapons are being taken over by al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups.


The Times wants you to see it as a positive. It’s “evidence” they say “of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.”

“From the earliest days of the Libya debate,” the Times authors continued, “Mrs. Clinton was a diligent student and unrelenting inquisitor, absorbing fat briefing books, inviting dissenting views from subordinates, studying foreign counterparts to learn how to win them over. She was a pragmatist, willing to improvise — to try the bank-shot solution. But above all, in the view of many who have watched her up close, her record on Libya illustrates how, facing a national-security or foreign-policy quandary, she was inclined to act — in marked contrast to Mr. Obama’s more reticent approach.”

She was a fool who destroyed Libya.

She acted without American support. She acted on the support of people from foreign lands, many of whom donated to her money laundering foundation. Making a positive out of Libya is like serving road kill for dinner.

The Times went on about how “reflective” she is, how she listens, and they blathered about her “desire to do good in the world”.

She destroyed Libya because she wasn’t reflective, had no plan and didn’t listen to the American generals or congress.

The Times does admit “Libya’s descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a ‘shadow of uncertainty’ as to Colonel Qaddafi’s intentions.”

Only there was no ‘shadow of uncertainty’. He wasn’t going into Benghazi to destroy the jihadis though it would have been better for us if he had.

Then the Times blamed the puppet leaders we installed for the aftermath, “Only after Colonel Qaddafi fell and what one American diplomat called “the endorphins of revolution” faded did it become clear that Libya’s new leaders were unequal to the task of unifying the country, and that the elections Mrs. Clinton and President Obama pointed to as proof of success only deepened Libya’s divisions.”

We should have known that. We put them in power.

“The looting of Colonel Qaddafi’s vast weapons arsenals during the intervention has fed the Syrian civil war, empowered terrorist and criminal groups from Nigeria to Sinai, and destabilized Mali, where Islamist militants stormed a Radisson hotel in November and killed 20 people.”

The US DID NOT secure the weapons.

They admit the results to some degree:

“A growing trade in humans has sent a quarter-million refugees north across the Mediterranean, with hundreds drowning en route. A civil war in Libya has left the country with two rival governments, cities in ruins and more than 4,000 dead.

Amid that fighting, the Islamic State has built its most important outpost on the Libyan shore, a redoubt to fall back upon as it is bombed in Syria and Iraq. With the Pentagon saying the Islamic State’s fast-growing force now numbers between 5,000 and 6,500 fighters, some of Mr. Obama’s top national security aides are pressing for a second American military intervention in Libya. On Feb. 19, American warplanes hunting a Tunisian militant bombed an Islamic State training camp in western Libya, killing at least 41 people.”

ISIS is now 300 miles from Europe when they’re not sneaking in with refugees or radicalizing Muslims already in Europe and Hillary is to blame, only the NY Times refused to admit that one obvious point.


ISIS, the Beginnings and the End from Sara Noble on Vimeo.

Check out the Libya timelines here:

The Libyan Kinetic Military Action Supported al Qaeda All Along

Check out Hillary’s pivotal role:

Hillary for America as She Was for Libya

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments