Power Drunk Hillary Clinton - Wreaked Destruction on the Middle East

JUSTIN RAIMONDO ARTICLE Hillary’s War The Pentagon tried to stop her – unfortunately, to no avail by Justin Raimondo, February 02, 2015 What’s happening in Libya today is a crime: murder, rape, looting, chaos, a war of all against all. The perpetrator, the one key person who made all this possible, is a well known personage in American politics, a former Secretary of State and the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. What Hillary Clinton did to Libya is a crime on a scale rivaled only by the crimes of the Bush administration in Iraq – and there is a definite parallel in the methodology of the criminals. Libya has been pretty much off the public’s radar screen ever since the US intervention that led to Muammar Qaddafi’s downfall – and the ugly aftermath in which the US ambassador was murdered by the very people Washington was intent on "liberating." Now the aftermath is getting even uglier. The country is imploding, with two rival governments claiming suzerainty, but describing Libya’s situation as a state of "civil war" is a bit of an understatement. If ever there was such an entity as a "failed state" – that is, a state that has simply collapsed, and is dragging the rest of society down along with it – then Libya fits the definition to a tee. If we liken a society to the human body, then we can say Libya’s immune system is down, allowing a deadly infection to invade and take root – in this case, the "Islamic State," or "caliphate," known as ISIS, which first reared its head in Syria and is now spreading into Libya. [Suzerainty =  a power that controls the foreign affairs of a tributary vassal state, while allowing the subservient nation internal autonomy.] Last week ISIS gunmen stormed Tripoli’s five-star Corinithia Hotel and opened fire at everyone in sight: ten people were killed, five of them foreigners, including one American. A communiqué from the "Tripoli province" of ISIS took responsibility for the attack, which they said was in retaliation for the death of captured Al Qaeda operative Abu Anas al-Liby, who died of liver cancer in a US hospital after being captured by US Special Forces. Both Libya and Syria have been test cases in the experimental laboratory of America’s "regime-change" mad scientists – and both have given birth to Islamist Frankenstein monsters, turning on their creators with a vengeance. But who created them? Who are the Dr. Frankensteins who brought these monsters to life? The administration of George W. Bush lied us into war in Iraq, ignoring the warnings of war critics who presciently predicted the dissolution of the Iraqi state and the chaos we see there today. America’s alliance with "moderate" Sunni Islamists in Anbar province, credited with supposedly driving out Al Qaeda during the much-vaunted "surge," armed and trained the ISIS-led fanatics who have conquered that same region today. And yet while Team Bush can fairly be given some of the blame – by setting the general context of the disaster – the Obama administration is hardly innocent. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, took up a longstanding goal of the previous administration in pushing for a regime change campaign aimed at Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad: together with General David Petraeus, former CIA chief, she argued for arming the Syrian rebels, in concert with John Kerry and Republican allies like Sen. John McCain. This was part of a general strategy taken up during her tenure at Foggy Bottom, which sought to get ahead of the so-called Arab Spring and ally the US with "moderate" Islamists. The old secular-socialist despots, such as Assad and Libya’s Qaddafi, were finished, went the theory, and so the US should ally itself with this Wave of the Future so as not to be caught flatfooted by the rush of events. In Libya, this meant backing a motley collection of Islamist radicals with, at most, a few degrees of separation from al-Qaeda. This move was championed by Secretary Clinton, along with national security advisor Susan Rice and Samantha Power, then Special Assistant to the President for Human Rights – but not without pushback from the Pentagon. The generals didn’t want to get involved in what they viewed as a dubious adventure with unpredictable results. Who were these rebels we were supporting? The whole operation was "intelligence-lite," as a recent series of articles in the Washington Times puts it. The Times reports a full-scale Pentagon effort to avert US intervention: "Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli. "The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns." Just as neoconservatives in key positions in the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence in order to shape the debate over the Iraq war, deceiving Congress and the American people, so the Hillaryites in the Obama administration did the same in the brief debate over the Libyan intervention.  As the Times relates: “‘You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts,’ an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department was controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials." Secretary Clinton, National Security Advisor Rice, and "humanitarian interventionist" Power argued that Qaddafi’s speech in which he called Libyan rebels "rats" toward whom he would show "no mercy" indicated a "genocide" was imminent in the eastern city of Benghazi. The media blindly accepted this assertion, as is their wont when it comes to government claims, but as the Times reports: "[D]efense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton’s recommendation to use force." The generals feared they were being handed yet another foreign policy hot potato by the politicians, and in this they were indubitably correct: the Times says Hillary "repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials" – and prevented any of those warnings from reaching the President or members of Congress. Readers with long memories will recall similar suppressed (albeit leaked) warnings from dissident members of the intelligence community as George W. Bush and his neocon-controlled national security bureaucracy marched us to war in Iraq. The intelligence, they warned, was bogus; there were no "weapons of mass destruction," and the "evidence" for their existence was ginned up out of whole cloth. Surreptitious recordings of a US agent on assignment for the Pentagon reveal the President referring to the Libyan adventure as "all Secretary Clinton’s matter" – in effect washing his hands of it. According to the tapes, the Pentagon’s man in Libya told a top Libyan official – who was trying to negotiate a peaceful end to the crisis – that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, "does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it." At one point, the Pentagon liaison tells his Libyan contacts "I can tell you that the President is not getting accurate information." Sound familiar? As in the case of the Iraq war, intelligence made public was cherry-picked in order to support a preordained conclusion, and the facts didn’t matter all that much anyway. The Times cites a senior Pentagon official who says: "The decision to invade [Libya] had already been made, so everything coming out of the State Department at that time was to reinforce that decision.” The paper also quotes a senior intelligence official familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations as saying: “Neither the intervention decision nor the regime change decision was an intelligence-heavy decision. People weren’t on the edge of their seats, intelligence wasn’t driving the decision one way or another." Facts? Who needs them? Hillary was determined to have her war, and not even the efforts by the Qaddafi family to effectively surrender were going to stop her: "On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal. A day later, on March 18, Gadhafi called for a cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed." But the anti-interventionist generals in the Pentagon didn’t give up even then. The Times reveals that General Carter Ham, who headed up the US African Command (Africom), tried to negotiate a 72-hour ceasefire with the Libyan regime. The possibility presented itself through the person of retired Navy Rear Admiral Charles Kubic, who was a business representative in Libya: Kubic says he was approached by top Libyan officials who were ready to negotiate a truce. Kubic relayed the proposal to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, who was Africom’s Libya specialist, who informed Gen. Ham. The Africom chief agreed it was a good idea. According to Kubic: “The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored. “[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions. First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable.” The problem was that reasonableness had nothing to do with it: Obama having handed her the authority, Hillary was on her dry run as commander-in-chief and she wasn’t about to let the Pentagon stand in her way. She ordered Ham to "stand down two days after the negotiations began," reports the Times. Kubic says: "If their goal was to get Gadhafi out of power, then why not give a 72-hour truce a try? It wasn’t enough to get him out of power; they wanted him dead." They got what they wanted. They also got a failed state that has become a terrorist haven – and a dead US ambassador, along with several other Americans murdered in the same Benghazi attack. All under Secretary Clinton’s watch. Against the available intelligence, which proffered no evidence of an "imminent genocide," Hillary took her cues from Donald Rumsfeld, whose infamous disquisition on "unknown unknowns" represented the merger of foreign policy and speculative fiction. Citing Rwanda and the early stages of the Balkan conflicts, Clinton averred that inaction would be the equivalent of standing by while a "humanitarian disaster" unfolded. Evidence to the contrary was therefore not admissible because, after all, it might happen. Even as intelligence and military officials were warning that the aftermath of NATO’s Libyan campaign would be highly problematic, Secretary Clinton ignored them and instead pursued her politically-driven agenda – at a cost of thousands of lives, and a terrorist implantation in Libya. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) put it well: "I think there was a rush headlong toward war in Libya and [the State Department and the administration] weren’t listening to anyone saying anything otherwise, including the Defense Department and intelligence communities, who were saying, ‘Hold on a minute. This may not be a good idea.’ "Hillary’s judgment has to be questioned. Her eagerness for war in Libya should preclude her from being considered the next commander in chief." Amen, brother! http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/02/01/hillarys-war/ COMMENT LOL ... thought this guy's spell-check had gone haywire. Nope.  I just haven't come across the term 'suzerainty' before: Suzerainty:   a power that controls the foreign affairs of a tributary vassal state, while allowing the subservient nation internal autonomy. What I got out of this is that Hillary Clinton is a disgusting person and so is anyone associated with her, even if it's just for a book launch photo op. It's just mind-blowing that peoples lives are destroyed and that entire regions are drawn into mayhem created by these power-drunk idiots. ..................................................................................   PS  The 'power drunk' conclusion is probably a bit too simplistic.  Hillary Clinton and other US political figures that banded together to cause the mayhem in Libya did so on behalf of whoever they really represent (ie their political donors and backers).

BOOK - LIBYA - Mitchell Zuckoff - 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi

Reliving Benghazi’s 13 Hours Five survivors of the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, speak out. By Ross Kaminsky – 9.9.14 http://spectator.org/articles/60385/reliving-benghazis-13-hours #Libya > "like every other Third World country I’d been in… kind of a piece of crap. It was a lawless city" Geist >> Interesting article - Libya / Benghazi  -  worth a read.

US - HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI

Full speed ahead on Benghazi probe GOP-led House Select Committee on Benghazi terror attack shows no sign of backing down UPDATED 10:44 AM HST Aug 06, 2014 ... A flawed process The committee report, according to Ruppersberger, found that "the process used to develop the talking points was flawed" and that they "reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis." Like an earlier report by the House Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee also found that there was no 'stand down' order issued by the U.S. military command in Tripoli, which sought to support Americans under fire in Benghazi. CNN reached out to Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers for comment on the panel's report but did not receive a response. Gowdy has said repeatedly that the House Select Committee will review what other congressional committees have found, but also seek testimony from those who haven't done so yet. Gowdy told his hometown newspaper, the Greenville News, "witnesses who were previously unavailable or not interested in cooperating are now interested in cooperating." He added that "the universe of witnesses is expanding." Gowdy also indicated that the Select Committee would hold its first public hearing in September to hear how the State Department is carrying out new efforts on diplomatic security. ... EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.kitv.com/politics/full-speed-ahead-on-benghazi-probe/27340108

This looks worth examining.

Beyond my comprehension ATM.

Not focused enough. LOL

Libyan Exodus

Libya: UK Embassy Closes As Security Worsens 9:19am UK, Saturday 02 August 2014 Dozens of people are evacuated from Libya by the Greek military as the fighting intensifies and the UK Embassy is closed. The British Embassy in Libya has suspended all operations and staff are leaving the country - due to a recent upsurge in violence. ... Militias are now holding increasing sway in the country as the central government, police and military have lost much of their authority. They have filled a power vacuum that was left after the ousting of long time dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Fighting between rival militias has escalated over the past two weeks, prompting many western governments to pull their diplomats out of the country. A British Embassy convoy was fired at during an attempted carjacking on Sunday, resulting in all UK nationals being urged to leave the country immediately. Many UK diplomatic staff were evacuated earlier this week after intense fighting near the embassy compound but now the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] has said it will suspend its consulate once it has assisted the departure of British nationals. ...The United States shut its embassy last Saturday and evacuated its diplomats by road to neighbouring Tunisia under the protection of F16 fighter jets. On Friday, several explosions were heard and plumes of smoke seen in Libya's second largest city Benghazi, thought to be from air attacks by a renegade general on the bases of Islamic militias. A coalition of Islamic militias had captured a number of army bases in Benghazi, the city that was the main headquarters for the opposition during resistance to Gaddafi. Meanwhile, in the capital Tripoli, other rival militias have been battling for weeks over control of its airport. Foreign nationals who were forced to flee Libya as the fighting intensified, arrived in Athens on Saturday morning aboard the Greek navy ship Salamis. ...  http://news.sky.com/story/1311882/libya-uk-embassy-closes-as-security-worsens

That sounds pretty full on.

Guess the ambassadors to the Middle East are the ones that have drawn the short straws.

GUARDIAN - MH17 - Hillary Clinton Crows - Action is needed! - Biden Still Yapping

The Guardian Article

MH17: Hillary Clinton says Russian-backed rebels likely shot down plane

Former US secretary of state declares 'Putin has gone too far' as White House criticises Kremlin's arming of Ukraine separatists

    Warren Murray and agencies
    theguardian.com, Friday 18 July 2014 13.41 AEST   

...

A series of remarks by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry stopped short of directly blaming pro-Russia rebels for the missile attack on a civilian airliner that killed 298 people.

But Hillary Clinton, the former US secretary of state, was more potent in her statements, saying in a television interview that indications pointed at the Russian-backed side and action was needed to "put [Vladimir] Putin on notice that he has gone too far and we are not going to stand idly by".

Clinton said in an interview with Charlie Rose: "The questions I'd be asking is, number one, who could have shot it down? Who had the equipment? It's obviously an anti-aircraft missile. Who could have had the expertise to do that? Because commercial airlines are big targets, but by the time they got over that part of Ukraine they should have been high, so it takes some planning [to target such a plane].

"And the Ukrainian government has been quick to blame it on terrorists, which is their name for the Russian insurgents. And there does seem to be some growing awareness that it probably had to be Russian insurgents. [More LIES - they're UKRANIANS.  Simple.]

"Now, how we determine that will require some forensics, but then if there is evidence pointing in that direction, the equipment had to have come from Russia. What more the Russians may or may not have done, we don't know.

"Europeans have to be the ones to take the lead on this. It was a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur over European territory. There should be outrage in European capitals."

Joe Biden, the vice-president, said the plane had "apparently had been shot down. Shot down, not an accident. Blown out of the sky."

... article continues...

SOURCE - The Guardian - here.

---------------------------------------------------------------



COMMENT




And the Guardian is publishing what this proven liar has to say -- why?

Here's a little blast from the past:

Meanwhile, Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris wrote:

 Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:     

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

SOURCE - Patriot Post US - here.

---------------------------------------------------------------
If that's not enough, here's Hillary & co on Benghazi:

Townhall.com Article

Hillary Clinton's Big Benghazi Lie
Katie Pavlich | May 08, 2013


 CAPITOL HILL - Testimony given Wednesday on Capitol Hill by Greg Hicks, Benghazi whistleblower and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, exposed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a liar.

Hicks, who was on the ground in Libya on September 11, 2012, said Clinton called him around 2 a.m. from Washington to ask "what was going on." Hicks responded by saying the consulate was under attack. He never told her about a protest outside the consulate because there wasn't one.

"The only report that our mission made through every channel was that this was an attack," Hicks said. "No protest."

In his recollection of events the night of September 11, 2012, Hicks stated that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens called him and said, "We are under attack," just before he was brutally murdered and dragged through the streets. Again, no mention of a protest.

"The video was not instigative of anything that was going on in Libya," Hicks said. "We saw no demonstrations related to the video anywhere in Libya."

Hicks also noted that Twitter feeds were being monitored and showed Ansar al-Sharia took credit for the terrorist attack and had control of the hospital where Ambassador Stevens was taken.

Despite knowing Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the very beginning, after all she was briefed by Hicks who was on the ground, Clinton shamelessly stood in front of the flag draped caskets of dead Americans and blamed a YouTube video anyway. Watch starting at the 6 minute mark. [link to article - here]

    "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless and totally unacceptable."


 Shortly after, when violence in the Middle East was raging, President Obama in partnership with Hillary Clinton spent $70,000 in taxpayer money on a commercial that aired on Pakistani television apologizing for the "video."

    The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video.

    The State Department said Thursday the embassy had compiled brief clips of Obama and Clinton rejecting the contents of the movie and extolling American tolerance for all religions into a 30-second public service announcement that is running on seven Pakistani networks. Obama and Clinton's comments, which are from previous public events in Washington, are in English but subtitled in Urdu, the main Pakistani language.

    Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the aim was to get the messages to the widest possible audience in Pakistan, where tens of thousands of protestors angry about the film tried to reach the U.S. embassy before being turned back by Pakistani police. She said embassy staffers had decided the ads were the best way to spread the word. The seven networks have a potential audience of 90 million people, she added.

And then of course, Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows to blame the video.

 And so did President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

    "It is in response to a video." -Jay Carney September 14, 2012.


President Barack Obama blamed the irrelevant video in front of the world at the United Nations. Not to mention, Obama  described the man who made the video, who is still in jail after being dragged out of his house and arrested in the middle of the night, a "shadowy character."

    "It was a crude and disgusting video. I have made it clear the United States government had nothing to do with this video."

Hillary Clinton lied, Rice lied, Barack Obama lied, Jay Carney lied, the Obama administration lied. The men in Libya were left to die as military forces were told to stand down.

 Bring on the perjury hearings. What difference does it make? A big difference.

SOURCE - TOWNHALL.COM - here.

---------------------------------------------------------------



How many times has this lying old crow called:  Action is needed?

Some please tell me why she's even getting the time of day?

Pack of liars.