Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 28, 2016

On The NYT's Sorry Whitewash Of Clinton And Her War On Libya

The New York Times has a two part piece about the U.S. war on Libya and especially Hillary Clinton's role as the then Secretary of State in it. Adhering to the NYT's editorial line, the overall picture of Clinton is painted in sympathetic colors even when it describes the disaster she created.

Overall it is a whitewash of history based on the lies that the "humanitarian intervention" was perceived necessary because Ghaddafi was about to "kill civilians". It is not unexpected that the NYT would write such nonsense. The NYT editors had themselves endorsed the war and the paper lauded the immediate result. It is guilty of inciting the war just as much as Clinton is.

But the story of the "humanitarian intervention" for the Libyan people in March 2011 is hogwash.

Libya, Spring 2011

The attack on Libya was well prepared. Radical Islamist under Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who had once been held in a secret CIA prison, were violently attacking the Libyan state with financial and military support from Qatar. Ghaddafi acted in response to them and in a proportional manner. There never was any danger of a "massacre in Benghazi" (at least when Ghaddafi was still alive). That he reacted at all was used as pretense to launch a war that had been conceptualized earlier.

French intelligence was on the ground in Libya and coordinating the "protesters" in Benghazi in February 2011. The UK and France had prepared themselves for attacking Libya under the disguise of a military air maneuver called Southern Mistral. It was planned to start in late March 2011 but when everything was in place the maneuver was "suspended" and converted into the actual attack on Libya. This was straight out of deception 101. The maneuver scenario:

SOUTHLAND : Dictatorship responsible for an attack against France's national interests.
FRANCE : Makes the decision to show its determination to SOUTHLAND (under United Nations Security council resolution n°3003).
UNITED-KINGDOM : Allied country as determined in the bilateral agreement. The United Kingdom supports France through the deployment of its air assets.

All points lead to the conclusion that the attack on Libya had been planned long before the first protests in Libya began.

The NYT write up also misses out on the intent of the war and Clinton's push for it:

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

The "than anyone imagined" line is funny because just a few paragraph later the piece itself claims that there were people in the government who indeed foresaw the consequences:

Some senior intelligence officials had deep misgivings about what would happen if Colonel Qaddafi lost control. In recent years, the Libyan dictator had begun aiding the United States in its fight against Al Qaeda in North Africa.

“He was a thug in a dangerous neighborhood,” said Michael T. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time. “But he was keeping order.”

Just like the U.S. military intelligence the Canadian military knew exactly what would happen after an overthrow of Ghaddafi.

Al Qaeda's flag flying above the courthouse of Benghazi, Fall 2011

Some lonely blogger warned before the "intervention" of a coming disaster in a still deeply tribal country:

The misrepresentation of this conflict in the media may well lead to military intervention by "western" forces. These would then have to fight those tribes which for whatever reason support Ghaddafi. With "western" intervention the situation on the ground would quickly deteriorate. This would cost a lot more lives than any situation in which the Libyan people fight this out by and for themselves.

Libya is now, as predicted, a failed destroyed state. Leaving failed destroyed states behind has been the consequences of ALL U.S. wars in the last 20 years. The wars on Yugoslavia left several of those. Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya all ended up destroyed. Are we to believe that its the same bug that infests every U.S. intervention? Or is it not rather more plausible that the outcome of destroyed states is the intended feature of U.S. bellicose interventions?

The war on Libya was not a "failed intervention". It was a war with the aim of creating a failed state on the geography of Libya. In the larger strategic contest Libya was the nut the U.S. needed to crack to get entrance in Africa. Ghaddafi was the most prominent person urging for African unity and preparing for a common market and a common currency. Now Africa is more divided, left without the significant Libyan economic backing and can be further chopped up piecewise.

The special forces the U.S., Uk and France now put again onto Libyan ground to fight the Islamic State" will only increase the chaos by attracting another backlash:

The Libyan officials said the presence of Western forces was not welcomed by ultraconservative Salafist factions, who are allied with Libya’s eastern army and perceive the foreign intervention as an “occupation.”

Clinton's role in inciting the war was very aggressive. She has learned nothing from the mess she created. It is no wonder that she is the darling of the neoconservatives as well as the liberal interventionists. There is no bombing she would not endorse. The way she proclaims her line “We came, we saw, he died!" (vid) ending in laughter, points to a deeply psychopathic background. Letting her be the, likely unelectable, presidential candidate would be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Posted by b on February 28, 2016 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

next page »

As a Canadian I hope with every bone in body, that for the good of not only America, but for the planet, Bernie wins. If as Hilary claims, he bankrupts America and in the process prevents the funding of wars any longer, even better!

Posted by: Steve | Feb 28, 2016 12:18:23 PM | 1


Yes indeed, lonely voices then and today ...

In line with articles authored by David Kirkpatrick:

Bloggers Call BS on NY Times Benghazi Article | Dec. 29, 2013 |

    [Subtitle: Juan Cole Feels Vindicated by NY Times Story]

    Kirkpatrick doesn't offer any new evidence to what US Congress and multiple investigations already published. His story is suspect of a whte-wash for a future Democratic presidential candidate.

Why Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Good for Israel in the Long Term | Haaretz - Feb. 6, 2016 |

Posted by: Oui | Feb 28, 2016 12:24:31 PM | 2

As the secretary of state in 2011, Hillary Clinton pressed the Obama administration to intervene militarily in Libya, with consequences that have gone far beyond the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Mali prime example ...

Islamic militancy fight is a ‘battle against barbarity’, says French PM on Mali visit | France24 |

    French intervention in Mali as hundreds of trucks with well equipped jihadists headed for capital Bamako:
    ○ Expedition in Mali by French Armed Forces - Operation Serval

    In January 2012, following an influx of weapons that occurred after the Libyan Civil War, Tuareg tribesmen of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) began a rebellion against Mali's central government ...

Mali Hotel Attack: Gunmen Take 170 People Hostage in Bamako, Special Force Enter Radisson Blu | Nov. 2015 |

Posted by: Oui | Feb 28, 2016 12:29:49 PM | 3

thanks b..

the usa's intent is to create failed states.. it's impossible to see it any other way..

Posted by: james | Feb 28, 2016 12:35:12 PM | 4

Hillary is locked in, I'm afraid. we will be drowned in a tidal wave of slick identity politics exploiting feminism and shouting lesser-evilism at anyone who tries to remind voters about the reality of what the Clintons have done to America.

Posted by: lizard | Feb 28, 2016 12:35:30 PM | 5

Well, what would you expect from
Sulzberger's slimes?
But still a good catch.
Just the toilet paper of record, period!
My grand-dad always said he had a good use for that
paper, starting the fire in the fireplace...

Posted by: noman | Feb 28, 2016 12:38:57 PM | 6

Lizard, Clinton won the black vote in SC. All of her other numbers look great because she won the black vote to such a degree. Once they are removed or at least lessened then Bernie wins, Latinos (they do not forget that Obama is Deporter in Chief), women, men and under 45. The only problem is that boomers will continue to vote for Clinton because of her last name and she has a vagina.

One hope is that people in the FBI go public if and when the Obama administration does not indict.

Or if Annonymous somehow has a copy of her data.

It is shocking although not surprising that the Democratic Presidential nominee is nominated by states that have not voted democratic in generations. The backwards South may decide that Clinton wins the nomination but none of those states will go her way in the General. She will not win Ohio or Pennsylvania this cycle especially against Trump. The white working class will not vote for her.

Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Feb 28, 2016 1:03:13 PM | 7

Hillary's inner circle on foreign policy are all hawks on sanctioning Iran and are pro Netanyahu's right-wing romp cabinet oppressing Palestinians. Eight (?) more years of sucking the US into Middle East involvement.

The second circle is made up of former lower-level officials who work with the campaign on a more regular basis. These include Nicholas Burns, who served as undersecretary of state for political affairs in the George W. Bush administration and who, among other tasks, negotiated the American military aid package to Israel;

Posted by: Oui | Feb 28, 2016 1:09:46 PM | 8

former undersecretary of defense Michele Flournoy, and former deputy secretary of state James Steinberg. HRC could just as well hire Israel's hit-man Danny Ayalon as her Secretary of State.

Posted by: Oui | Feb 28, 2016 1:10:20 PM | 9

Thanks b…
I anticipate this “NYTimes whitewashing” may indicate the FBI’s investigation of “top secret“ and other classified documents on Hiltery’s private email server is now concluded.

Whatever happened to that indictment said to be weeks away?

“We came, we saw, he died”….cackles

Evil incarnate.

So we brought Moumar Ghadaffi in from the cold only to lay him down stone cold. Wouldn’t be funny if the conspiracy rumours prove factual --- “they took out his double.”

Here in the northeast, I am seeing more “Hillary for Prison in 2016” bumper decals. If only if it were to be.

Posted by: likklemore | Feb 28, 2016 1:18:42 PM | 11

Apparently promising a hard line as Commander In Chief, HRC won't be using her sissy R2P policy of regime change, but just bomb away with our powerful Armed Forces. Making America Great Again. Difference is in semantics only on foreign policy.

The Saudi-Israeli Alliance and Piggy-back Coup of 2005 | Feb. 2013 |
MB Axis Egypt - Turkey - Qatar Faces Defeat | July 2013 |

Posted by: Oui | Feb 28, 2016 1:24:49 PM | 12

Via Xymphora...

Snowden Sums Up The Presidential Campaign With Just One Tweet.

"2016: a choice between Donald Trump and Goldman Sachs."

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 28, 2016 1:31:33 PM | 13

A great piece even by MoA standards. b's "historical" views are in a class of their own; notwithstanding the usual timely analysis of complex situations that barely anyone can sort out on the www. And this here with a clear message of huge importance -- just wow.

On another note: to create failed states when the talk was all about nation building and democratization seems to be consistent with propaganda 101. It's interesting to look out not only for whitewash and false trails, but the exact opposite of a narrative suddenly ringing true. There are more examples.
Would the accumulated experience at this place care to elaborate on this point? Maybe it's just a chapter in some book, or a psychological paper from the 40ties. - Thanks in advance.

Posted by: persiflo | Feb 28, 2016 1:32:48 PM | 14

RT ran a great opinion piece a few days ago titled 'NATO turned Libya into a destroyed state, not a failed state'.

I agree and we should call a spade a spade. Saying 'failed state' is a bit of a whitewash in itself.

Posted by: woogs | Feb 28, 2016 2:20:10 PM | 15

The plan is for failed states ONLY when the evil US Empire can't establish immediate military or dictatorial control - in countries where they can get away with it.
Failed states is the plan, for as many people in a country or area to kill as much of each other, so too weaken and make it easier to control or dominate and then steal.

With already seen in Lybia, Syria, Iraq etc, how airpower with a moderate ground force can dominate militarily. So if the evil empire has ground forces to support it's criminal war campaign, then that could possibly end the planned murderous chaos in Libya and establish a dictatorship _ Egypt style.

Posted by: tom | Feb 28, 2016 2:22:54 PM | 16


An interesting interview given to Iranian media outlet Javan by Sharmine Narwani reposted in English at her blog,

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 28, 2016 2:23:27 PM | 17

Lizard @ 5

To paraphrase Stalin, "It's important to vote, but it's more important to be the one who counts the votes."

Assuming you're right, and the Clintons (Both are running, even if no one wants to say so.) have the election in the bag, whoever counts the votes must believe what the U.S. really needs is Bill and Hillary back in the White House.

Boy, if they do get elected imagine the viciousness. A lot of old enemies, including much of the population, feel they got off too easy the first time and will be glad for a chance to go after them again. With their usual breath-taking arrogance they may be walking into a nightmare. Highly vulnerable and basically helpless, meant only to provide entertainment and distraction while the Grand Plan goes on unaffected.

Posted by: Ken Nari | Feb 28, 2016 3:13:54 PM | 18


Hillary Clinton Promises A More BOTOXED Foreign Policy As President... with the help of her blue pill fed poodle...

Posted by: virgile | Feb 28, 2016 3:25:31 PM | 19

"So if the evil empire has ground forces…"

Ground forces aren't much use without the will to fight.

Posted by: paulmeli | Feb 28, 2016 3:56:38 PM | 20

In a female-oriented business, I can't find a female Hillary fan except for one. Linda proclaims herself to be a "die-hard liberal" (she's clueless, of course, as she thinks she gets the truth from NPR and her NYT subscription).

Now I cannot poll the customers, of course, or I'd lose my job. However, I do pay attention to what I'm hearing around me. Adult women, by-and-large, are not shy in their Hillary bashing. These fairly outspoken types absolutely despise her (for the wrong reasons, of course, but that's another matter).

I believe that Hillary is not supported by a sufficient number of female voters.

It's gonna take a lot of electoral college fraud to get her elected. She won't beat Trump and she'd have a hard way to go vs. Rubio or Cruz.

Posted by: fast freddy | Feb 28, 2016 4:04:40 PM | 21

The way she proclaims her line “We came, we saw, he died!" (vid) ending in laughter, points to a deeply psychopathic background

yeah, really, she should run it as a campaign slogan. it oscillates with imperial swagger. and congregational intent.

Posted by: john | Feb 28, 2016 4:13:00 PM | 22

The media and DNC unions have whitewashed that she's a career criminal, culminating in her grand theft of $5B stolen from Afghanistan aid in 2009, paid directly into Karzai's Bank of Kabul, for which she received a 1% finder's fee while a Federal official, which is a FELONY.

Then when Karzai looted the $5B, she was forced to grift him another $1.35B to keep the USAID audit accountants quiet, which Special Envoy Holbrooke bitterly pointed out, just before his throat was cut on a Georgetown operating table.

These are evil evil people, true psycopaths.
"We came, we saw, he died! Haww,haww,haww."

The Libyan people had free education, free healthcare, a stable economy, and the biggest irrigation project in Africa, until that c*nt destroyed an entire nation, haww,haww,haww.

She's a raging alcoholic unable to stand at a lectern without feeling woozie, after she went black-out drunk and hit her head. An almost 70-year old, insane, alkie, Zio-Luciferian.

LOOK AT HER! Use the eyes that G-d gave you!!

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 28, 2016 4:30:34 PM | 23

The timing of The New York Propaganda Rhymes' two-part series must be significant. March 1st, 2016, is Super Tuesday when several states hold their primaries. Colorado (Democrat?), Massachusetts (Democrat), Minnesota (Democrat), Texas (Republican, and a populous state to boot) and Vermont (Democrat) are among them. So this series of articles could be the NYT's way of trying to influence voters on Super Tuesday to support the Klintonator.

By the way, that war in Syria must be going really badly for the US and its allies if the NYT feels the need to deflect attention away from there.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 28, 2016 4:34:14 PM | 24

Thanks for the posting b. It is a great example of the power of propaganda, putting lipstick on the pig of Hitlery's womanhood.

One of the reasons Ghaddafi died was because he was challenging private finance. But of course that is never discussed in polite circles.

You talk about the US creating a failed state in Libya. From the perspective of the global plutocrats the state of Libya represents a resounding success that is helping the the failure/success of neighboring nations.

And yes, Hitlery has done a stand up job for the global plutocrats and is in line for annointment this year as the lesser of the evils in comparison to Trump. As a "woman" in gender only, Hitlery has become the emasculated puppet token "woman" just like Obama is the puppet token "person of color".

I suspect the only REAL woman running in the 2016 presidential race will be Jill Stein

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 28, 2016 4:36:24 PM | 25

Now Chipnik, don't go getting all age myopic because of Hitlery. I am 67 and if you look at the picture of me on my web site with the skeleton you might pick Smiley over me......grin

Don't throw all us early boomer babies out with the bathwater.....

And as to your comment about inflation on a previous thread; there are lots of inflation definitions in the myth of capitalist economics and I believe you are confused about some of them and their meaning.....for a later thread....and Social Security used to/could still be a conservative and successful insurance program.

You didn't mention Ghaddafi's threat to private finance in your comment. I think that was the main reason he was eliminated with all the strum and drang.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 28, 2016 4:48:58 PM | 26

I found Gaddafi speech Translated by A Million Supporting Gaddafi Admin اسكندر بيك from 1 July 2011. Clearly the last thing in the world the Libyans wanted was to be invaded and destroyed by the US/EU/NATO. Same for Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya ... Ukraine.

The outlook ... 'even' with Bernie ... seems dark indeed. We're left to hope the awful, shocking mess known as the "west" ... the Washington consensus ... collapses due to its own internal contradictions. Russia stands alone in opposition.

If the Syria, Iraq, Iran allies can prevail in the Middle East ... and they are gaining, on the ground, forget the media ... there will be hope for ... mostly the Asian part of Eurasia. Can't see much hope for the "west" when its version of 'victory' is nothing but more death, devastation, and destruction.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 28, 2016 4:59:55 PM | 27

Chipnik @23

Any hard evidence to support those charges?

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 28, 2016 6:01:19 PM | 28

I think that it is worthwhile to try to put together the reason for the FUBAR in Libya. I would start from the assumption that it is not the result of intention, "dismantle Libya as a functioning state" but a combination of reasons that render American foreign policy so disfunctional. Some clues are in an article (link one below) about the fate of American pavilion. By a weird law passed by Congress it has to be funded from private donations so one of the duties of Secretary of State is to beg for them. In her day, Hillary Clinton did a splendid job, but Kerry recruited good specialist and architect firm but raised barely half of the 50 million price tag, Clinton being more popular among the plutocrats. And by law, some aspects of foreign policy is left to those.

The reasons surmised by the journalist was that given political aspirations of Clinton, and good chances of those, donors were more eager to make donations. It made me think that Putin could promise Kerry to whisper a word to his own tycoons in exchange for some small act of cooperation, and then they haggled for 12 hours behind the closed doors (ostensibly, to hash out the details of the ceasefire in Syria). I actually read a comparable conspiracy theory: it is a mere smokescreen that Sheldon Adelson recruits politicians to support Greater Israel: what he truly, truly wants is a legislation outlawing online poker (this theory appeared in or something like that). Conspiracy or not, Secretary of State has to juggle a lot of private interests and sometimes it is humanly impossible to keep so many balls in the air.
An even better candidate for SoS

So how many balls were in the air? Neocons and "muscular liberals" clamored to show mercy upon oppressed folks around the world and graciously intervene on their behalf. However, they have rather testy and fractious paymasters. You may think that "all Sunni Islamists are one ilk" but in fact there are two camps with sufficient funds to influence our policies, "Qatari" and "Saudi". Those are the only two states ruled by monarchs of Wahhabi sect, but some 200 years ago al-Thanis fled Saudis from the wider Arabian peninsula to Qatar, and perhaps they did not get over it yet. As soon as they got any funds they showed munificience to Muslim Brotherhood which in turn is hated in KSA and most other Gulf monarchies (in KSA, for being anti-salafi, elsewhere for anti-monarchic bent). Qataris got Turkey's Erdogan in their camp, and Turkey is the precious eastern flank of NATO, so the two camps are unfortunately somewhat balanced. Unfortunately, because in Libya, Egypt and Syria they worked against each other. In Syria it undermined the chances of the "revolution", in Egypt, Saudis and Emiratis funded a successful counter-revolution and in Libya, they keep slugging it out.

Working in concert, Gulfies have Brookings and other think tanks in their pockets, not to mention the ability to fund all the pet causes that SoS, SoD and POTUS may have. Actually, the true muscle of their bribing power is in enormous purchases of vastly overpriced equipment, so MIC is in their pocket (and that brings France and UK on board). But when they engage in an ugly feud, our government is too entangled to choose "our bastards" and help them whack the other bastards. In the same time, tribes and militias on the ground get munificent sponsors who do not want them to agree with the adversaries.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 28, 2016 6:16:59 PM | 29

I'm sorry but for me even noticing the quadrennial farce of electing the most sociopathic corporate puppet in the room is a massive waste of time and energy. In all the years my ass has been pointing in the general direction of planet earth, amerikan voters have always picked the worst possible human outta many dodgy humans to become their prez.
Whoever is picked this time will continue to kill innocents for no discernible reason. If the winner is a dem more innocents will die than the prez claimed would when he/she was a candidate, if the winner is a rethug there will be less murdered than the candidate reckoned were gonna cop it. That is the only difference and that doesn't amount to anything because the number of us butchered will actually be the same whoever wins, because the seeming gap is purely rhetorical. The prez does what he/she is told and has no meaningful input into the decision.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 28, 2016 6:29:43 PM | 30

The expansion of the State of Israel is the reason for killing innocents. Israel is to expand westward to the Nile River and east to the Euphrates. This is not a secret. It has been outlined in the PNAC and the Yinon Plan. It can be seen clearly in the bellicosity and propagandizing from "The West". The West generally includes France, Great Britain, Canada, Israel and The USA (and any nation which can be strong-armed into going along with the murder of innocents aka collateral damage).

Posted by: fast freddy | Feb 28, 2016 6:45:48 PM | 31

Pepe Escobar writes about the Kurds versus Erdogan,

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 28, 2016 6:46:41 PM | 32

Is there some coordination here?

Following on the heels of NYTimes’ whitewash of Hiltery, ZH notes Trump Must be Stopped; declared as unfit for Prez by the Establishment boys and gals. The Economist and the CFR in unison.

Time to fire Trump

The front-runner is unfit to lead a great political party, let alone America

However, when such stalwart titans of financial Economist", who until now had been largely ignoring Trump's ascent in the political hierarchy finally unleash an all out assault and go after Trump on the very same day, you know that the flamboyant, hyperbolic billionaire has finally gotten on the nerves of some very high net worth individuals.


Posted by: likklemore | Feb 28, 2016 6:47:23 PM | 33

@ Chipnik 23....let's not forget AND she laughs like a horse....sorry, sorry, could not help myself.

Posted by: shadyl | Feb 28, 2016 7:07:05 PM | 34

Debs @ 30: "Whoever is picked this time will continue to kill innocents for no discernible reason. "

Debs my friend, there is a very discernible reason.. It's called profit uber alles. This is a corporate empire, they will brook no competition.

HRC, will be the puppet face of that monstrous cabal in the U$A.

Posted by: ben | Feb 28, 2016 8:31:52 PM | 35

I feel sick when she looks happy. has got 3 new ones up: US Thinking about Restoring the Monarchy in Libya; Trump advised by General Flynn; Saudis just got nukes from Pakistan.

Posted by: Penelope | Feb 28, 2016 8:55:20 PM | 36

@36 I think you mean

the other guy is some gothic horror artist.

Posted by: dh | Feb 28, 2016 9:02:57 PM | 37

@15 woogs.. i agree 'destroyed state' is a better description..

@30 debs is dead.. it's depressing even thinking about it and i take very small pleasure in being a canuck as opposed to an american who has to put up with this ongoing crap... i think it's a bit like getting 2nd hand smoke which makes it worse..

hilary : the ongoing nightmare that keeps on giving..maybe she's is supposed to make the others look 1/2 ways normal even if they aren't..

@31 fast freddy.. in my worst moments, i think that.. it's counterproductive thought exercise though.. when will these political weasels ever stop sucking on zionist tits? too depressing to contemplate.. meanwhile the usa continues to outpace any other country in murdering innocent people by a wide margin..

Posted by: james | Feb 28, 2016 9:05:38 PM | 38

Without getting into a rather pointless debate since nothing that any of us say will have the slightest effect on how or why humans are killed by amerika, I still maintain that amerika's motive for all this butchery cannot be adequately defined.

If either profit or the furthering of Zionist expansion was the primary force powering the butcher's juggernaut, surely amerika would choose a better strategy. In both cases the fear and loathing created by the killing makes it more difficult for many humans to support Israel or do business with amerikan corporations.
If either of those two were the primary motive the iron fist would remained sheathed in a velvet glove.

No there is something else going on something cruel and sick, but something indiscernible.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 28, 2016 10:05:45 PM | 39

Debs is dead said: "No there is something else going on something cruel and sick, but something indiscernible."

Genocide is my short answer. It is hard to control 7-8 billion

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 28, 2016 10:20:00 PM | 40

@ Debs 39 "...I still maintain that amerika's motive for all this butchery cannot be adequately defined. "

Maybe it's not amerika's motive. Amerika may be acting, wittingly or no, as some other sovereign's proxy. Or sovereigns'.

Posted by: chu-teh | Feb 28, 2016 10:24:30 PM | 41

And further to the question,

What if you are the global plutocrats and you don't want to do a debt Jubilee because it might get out of control. What are the other options to maintain the centuries of power and control built up? A little culling of the herd perhaps? Look at the methods used by the US to "promote Democracy" around the world by killing off any potential oppositional leadership.

I would like to think better of our species but when you read about a high school in Iowa chanting Trump, Trump, Trump after losing to a "ethnically diverse team" it does give one pause..........

This next month of American politics should be a chart topper I suspect. Too bad the losers look to be the US and world public at this point.

Here is a question for the commetariat. Who will be Hitlery"s running mate?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 28, 2016 10:34:56 PM | 42

psychohistorian @42

Is this a trick question?

Bill Clinton?


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 28, 2016 10:48:07 PM | 43

''Who will be Hitlery"s running mate?''

Apparently a Gay latino male

Posted by: Nick | Feb 28, 2016 11:22:44 PM | 44

Gaddafi had almost 144 tonnes of gold, enough to back a suitable alternate currency and haul the african continent out of the dark ages. Wanna stop over population...? Then give everyone a comfortable life...pretty soon birth rates decline as people get selfish.

But no, this sort of financial self determination could not stand - given the massive co-ordinated global currency devaluation on between the major currencies, led by the USD, a new Gold back Dinar would have been a major spanner in the western works.

However, it was a masterstroke that Hilary and Sarkozy enabled NATO to 'free' the Libyan people. I am sure that gold is in safe hands now.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Feb 28, 2016 11:41:29 PM | 45

I can't take part in this thread, it's way too Gothic for my stomach. May I cite an observation from the Russian political system, just to get us all envious of a better country? It's OT but perhaps a welcome half-time break?

From the latest by Scott over at Saker, he quotes what seems like pretty grass-roots commentary about the so-called "liberals" of Russia, that fifth column wanting nothing more than to deliver Russia captive and broken to the west.

It's a straight lift from his article, but it's priceless. I actually found it immensely touching:

“It’s remarkable, how oblivious these people are to the simple fact that we as a nation tolerate them only in respect to our President. Putin thinks that these people should be tolerated, and that’s why we tolerate them. If Putin is gone, the way they demand, these people would have less than twenty-four hours to run for Russia’s borders.”

Posted by: Grieved | Feb 28, 2016 11:41:38 PM | 46

Debs @ 39: Greed and Avarice are sociopathic sicknesses that the U$A is now stricken with, and those still defy explanation, but the history of humanity is replete with examples. The U$A is controlled by these monsters.

It's just business ya' know. We're NOT the first empire in history to terrorize humanity in the name of profit/market share.

Posted by: ben | Feb 28, 2016 11:48:25 PM | 47


It does take a strongman such as Putin to temper these thuggish Fascist tendencies in Russia. As the economic situation there worsens it will become more difficult to contain them as scapegoats are sought for pogrom targets.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Feb 29, 2016 12:22:08 AM | 48

Hillary Clinton is a tool of the Zionist Lobby.

And let's not forget the role the Zionist Bernard Henri Levy played in fanning the flames of a fake humanitarian cause a cover for humanitarian imperialism.

Notice how the only sane person in Congress at the time stood up in a room almost by himself against the invasion of Libya.

Here's Ron Paul addressing the lies:

Oh and remember the chemical weapons used in Syria? This military expert thought then it could have been an Israeli false flag:

Posted by: Circe | Feb 29, 2016 1:01:28 AM | 49

To be fair, Hilary was just a figurehead. It doesnt matter who would have been in her place - end result would be the same. US elites already decided to attack Libya many years earlier, and preparation was well on the way.

The difference between her and Obama, is that the latter at least feigns the lack of desire to go into wars, while Hilary is very enthusiastic about it. Nonetheless, end result is the same.

Posted by: Harry | Feb 29, 2016 1:04:30 AM | 50

Here is a description of the way Clinton won Nevada
In Nevada, Clinton’s campaign colluded with casino owners, the Democratic Party, and the Culinary Workers Union — which was officially neutral — to deliver the state to her. The Democratic Party set up caucuses at the six casinos so workers didn’t “have to travel to their home precincts to participate.” And until Nevada Sen. Harry Reid reportedly pushed CWU local 226 into action and pressured casino owners to give workers paid time off to caucus, turnout at casinos was forecast at about a hundred voters. The Culinary Workers Union provided 100 organizers at sites including the casinos and coordinated with casino management, which gave workers up to three paid hours to attend caucuses. The state Democratic Party extended the noon deadline by an hour or more for the caucus to begin, enabling large turnouts at the casinos. The Clinton campaign flooded the casinos with volunteers, delivering resounding two-to-one victories. Unabashed about their partisan role, the CWU local political director celebrated the Clinton win and Tweeted that it wouldn’t have happened without Reid.
Here is the link:

The Democratic Party is as corrupt a puppet of the global plutocrats as the GOP. Any attempts to represent the people will be met with power and control flowing through these organizations. As I type those words it comes to me that only outside pressure will bring down the US and it ain't going to be pretty.....argh!

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 29, 2016 1:07:03 AM | 51


Juan Cole did not write the article, originally published here:

A Corporate Democratic Party Is Hostile Ground for Bernie Sanders | Tele Sur | by Arun Gupta

Posted by: Oui | Feb 29, 2016 2:55:21 AM | 52

"The war on Libya was not a "failed intervention". It was a war with the aim of creating a failed state on the geography of Libya. In the larger strategic contest Libya was the nut the U.S. needed to crack to get entrance in Africa. Ghaddafi was the most prominent person urging for African unity and preparing for a common market and a common currency. Now Africa is more divided, left without the significant Libyan economic backing and can be further chopped up piecewise."

So, the United States deliberately destabilized the entire state of Libya because of some moony old anti-western "unity" rhetoric, of the kind that Ghaddafi had been spouting for ages? And this stood in the way of exactly what? As for the pipe dream of an African common market and a reserve currency based on -- what? Which country's inflationary monopoly money would they all have agreed to?

Oh, we all know that Africa was so close to the kind of political unity and economic stability necessary to create a powerful regional trading bloc that would have threatened the interests of western oligarchs, and that -- of all people-- Ghaddafi was the one who could have brought this about, the one regional leader (!) that all the Africans would listen to, because he was so widely respected outside (or even inside) his own country.

So it only logically follows from this impeccable chain of reasoning, that instead of bribery or regime change in Libya, the best option was to deliberately engineer a chaotic failed state in which anti-American Islamic fanatics would vie for power and create a safe haven for terrorists.

That makes much more sense than the theory that the United States, as usual, acted without accurately foreseeing the consequences of its meddling.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 4:36:13 AM | 53


That 'Top Secret Revealed!: ____ meant to destroy the petro dollar with Gold~!' ponzi scheme is pretty lame, don't you think? The Goldbuggerers have been whipping that dead horse to a froth since the price of gold went frothy. The intent of their little paid docu-dramas by Celente, Black, Rogers and their Zio-Ilk about Saddam and Ghaddafi isn't to correct the history book that they were: "'really' mrudered because of the Gold Dinar!", was to panic $100 petrodollar holders and SELL MORE GOLD~!

Ghaddafi was mrudered to extend the reign of terror on world oil prices begun by Dickey Bird Cheney. No sooner did Prince Bandar suggest that the House of Saud would find $25 oil 'profitable', than Cheney baked a Yellow Cake. Review your timeline. With Iraq oil shut in by Oil War II, the price of crude doubled and redoubled to $145, the greatest wholly artificial increase in strategic commodity price since the Dutch Tulip Panic.

And after the engineered Mortgage.Con Panic of 2008, when commodities prices began to plunge across the board, it was Dirtbag Grifter Hillary to the rescue for the House of Saud, remember, the same Saudis who slammed two planes into the WTC, it was Dirtbag Grifter Hillary who took out Ghaddafi and the lightest, sweetest crude oil producer competitor to KSA.

The Gold Dinar was meant as a pan-African currency to protect Libya from having $100Bs in US$s that they'd have to park in NYC and deal with the ZioBankers and their wholly illegal sanctions. The Gold Dinar protected Libya against deadbeat African currencies by despot dictators. At no time was GD a threat to US or EU, they did perfectly fine without Libyan oil, and even today, you will not find Libyan oil among the top 20 producers.

Libya's destroyed. That's what US State:AID:IMF:WB do. They Destroy (tm).
It had absolutely nothing to do with Ghaddafi and the Gold Dinar.

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 29, 2016 4:53:44 AM | 54


I grew up two blocks away from her, and went to high school with her, and may have banged her on an East Coast inter-college date weekend, I don't remember, I was blackout drunk, and she would have been too.

You have to understand she grew up in an all-white MidWest suburb, her entire intellectual development was in an all-white East Coast power community, then she learned to lie and swindle from the best Black Ops Hands on the planet, now she has the blood of millions and millions of innocent people on her hands, not just in Libya and Afghanistan.

"We came, we saw, they all died! Hawww, haww, haww"

She laughs like Satan would laugh after GWBush the Anti-Christ took over. Listen to their tapes! Hillary and GWBush have the same demonic laughter. She laughs like a razor sharp stilleto pushing in between your ribs.

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 29, 2016 5:09:09 AM | 55

@ Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 4:36:13 AM | 53

The below link would support your contention;

It would seem everything is indeed, going according to plan.
At least until Russia intervened in Syria; definitely changed the metric.
Russia is on the verge of delivering a number of complete S-300 AA systems to Iran; further upsetting the Washington plan for the M.E..
Iran will then be almost literally immune to Israeli and U.S. pinpoint strikes against their facilities.
This should add to further stabilizing at least part of the M.E..

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 5:14:50 AM | 56

The United States in its foreign interventions is a bit like Charlie Brown: it always thinks that, this time, for sure, it can kick that football.

Neoconservative dreams fail because they are based on wishful thinking and fatuously connected from local realities on the ground.

Even assuming that the Iraq War was motivated in part by the desire for access to oil locked up by sanctions, and the promise of far more oil from untapped reserves in the deserts of western Iraq, that scheme would only work with a stable government which was firmly in the American camp. How did that work out from 2003 to 2011?

If there is one stable verity in American politics, it's that neither the electorate at large nor the political leadership ever learn these lessons. That's why, after an a nearly decade long war against an insurgency dominated by Al Qaeda and Baathists displaced from power, in which 200,000 coalition troops were committed at the high water mark, the American public and many of its political leaders imagine, after seeing all the gains of the Iraq War lost in a short time to a nearly identical coalition of Islamists and displaced Baathists and Sunnis, that Islamic State can be defeated by sending in 10,000 or 20,000, or even 50,000 troops, for a short time. As if, even were the immediate military situation amenable to such a solution, the unchanged demographic, religious, and political problems wouldn't continue to operate, in vacua, to result in the same repetition of problems. As if these problems don't transcend one, or even two countries.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 5:22:12 AM | 57

Typo correction: that should have read "fatuously disconnected".

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 5:24:47 AM | 58


To answer your question, I have to phrase it in three chapters, so for those who find time more precious than MoA, I'll start with the brief:

The USA is deadbeat broke more than any nation in world history, and while you don't have to outrun the bear, you only have to outrun the BRIC, their demise will not save the citizens of the USA from this hyperdeflation that will inexorably and inevitably strip the grocery store shelves, first the Cold Chain, then the Green Chain, until all you have left is Ramen and Spam and 25-lb bags of rice and pinto beans. Which is not a bad diet, although the 65% of Americans who are grossly obese will hog the Ramen and Spam, and carpet the city parks with their discarded Pepsi cans and bloated corpses.

So there's that.

Second, now that the race is down to Clinton versus Trump, I think everyone who has half a brain realizes the shit is going to go sideways in less than a year, and like 2000 and 2008, the Globalist ZioBankers are going to pull down the Walls of the Xtian Temple, once again, meaning that your almost recovered 401k will be forever and foremost worthless in short order, and the US will be plunged into martial law and All Seeing Eye Police State.

Tick-tock. 'Loose Lips' and all that.

Third, yes, if you read MoA, I've described in great detail several times in the past the hard evidence of Clinton and Milliband and Karzai in the Great Grift Robbery of 2009. $5B was more than the total of humanitarian aid throughout the world in 2009. They just looted it like it was theirs.

Anyone can check that Holbrooke complained publicly that 85% of US aid to Afghanistan was being round-tripped right back to WADC-NOVA, (hint-hint) just before they cut his throat on the operating table.

Anyone can check that Clinton announced after five unexplained trips to Kabul that her -$35M deadbeat 2008 presidential campaign had been 'paid by an anonymous donor', which flies so hard into the face of harsh reality that nobody in Congress demanded audits of those payoffs for a standing Cabinet member, the most powerful Cabinet member, that the blood today still runs from my face, like the blood that ran from the faces of my investigative journalist cohorts who alerted me to this grift, with pre-copies of Karzai's demand for the $5B, patronizingly written in US State Georgetown English, as his script for the Afghanistan Conference in London.

Means? Yes. Method? Yes. Motive? Definitely. Both Clinton and Milliband.

Prosecution? Well, review the above, and it's pretty clear that we're just banging our gums on the tilting deck of the Titanic. She'll either clot out before November, or Trump's people and her people will be having running gnu-battles back forth across the Potomac after the November riots begin.

I generally live and let live, but I hope to live long enough to covertly pour a jar of strong fermented piss over Clinton's and Cheney's graves.

You'll recalll that there was no 'hard evidence' against Cheney, either.

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 29, 2016 5:30:46 AM | 59

Re 56: George Friedman makes some interesting (but mostly generalised) points, but ends by sabotaging his credibility by predicting a maritime war between Japan and the United States. He also fails to recognize that what he takes for facts are often assumptions, and that it is not possible to mathematize conflicts as he suggests, because of incomplete knowledge and irrational variables. He talks about memorizing grand master chess games, but forgets that chess is still an open contest between grandmasters, that beyond the opening there are too many variables to calculate, that even the openings are being revisited with computer assistance and the weakening of prior biases, and that even grandmasters sometimes lose to patzers. I also don't find it plausible that the United States fought in the First World War to maintain maritime dominance at a time when that was the prerogative of Britain.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 5:49:50 AM | 60

Gaddafi had the audacity to reject the capitalist/exploitation model by creating a society whereby the benefits from the country’s natural resources were widely shared by its citizenry rather than funnelled to the oligarchic/corporate masters of the universe. His plans for a pan-African alliance with its own gold-backed currency were a threat not only the petrodollar and the French franc but to the very structure of the capitalist system vis-à-vis the exploitation of Africa.

The threat of a good example:

Gaddafi's Libya Was Africa 's Most Prosperous Democracy

During the NATO bombardment of Libya , western media conveniently forgot to mention that the United Nations had just prepared a lengthy dossier praising Mr. Gaddafi's human rights achievements. The UN report commended Libya for bettering its "legal protections" for citizens, making human rights a "priority," improving women's rights, educational opportunities and access to housing. During Mr. Gaddafi's era housing was considered a human right. Consequently, there was virtually no homelessness…


Money from oil proceeds was deposited directly into every Libyan citizen's bank account.


Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa . However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa 's most prosperous nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands . Libyans did not only enjoy free health care and free education, they also enjoyed free electricity and interest free loans. The price of petrol was around $0.14 per liter and 40 loaves of bread cost just $0.15. Consequently, the UN designated Libya the 53rd highest in the world in human development.

Posted by: pantaraxia | Feb 29, 2016 5:50:34 AM | 61


More than likely Ghaddafi's demise was precipitated by Venezuala's and then Germany's demand for repatriation of their gold bullion being held in NYC.

I think if you check the timelines, Ghaddafi died after Chavez demanded Venezualas gold, and Proshenko's putsch occurred right after Boehringer demanded Germany's, although I read that Mali was also looted of their bullion, like Poroshenko sent the 200T of Ukrainian bullion to NYC private bank vaults 'for security purposes'. Bullion that Germany received appears to have been recently melted down and restamped with fake Reichs markings.

The Gold Dinar story is just an apocryphal tale to hide the massive NYC ZioBank involvement in the looting of gold bullion around the world, like the WTC story is just an apocryphal tale to hid the GHWBush-Kashogi-Marcos war gold for Soviet oil junk bonds for Day After repayment without records.

If people really knew what WADC-NOVA-NYC-LNDN-TA did with our last life savings and in our names, there would not be enough lampposts to hang them all. But never fear, the next engineered panic and Wayback Disc Wipe Off is only months away, before we're back to scrabbling in Present Perfect.

Then when Joseph and Mary come to the inn this winter, they'll be lucky to get a handful of sea salt and a bowl of avena between them.

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 29, 2016 5:59:18 AM | 62

-informative video (ignore illuminati reference) provides context:

The Truth About Muammar Gaddafi

Posted by: pantaraxia | Feb 29, 2016 6:05:11 AM | 63

I came away from the last US presidential election with the distinct feeling that the Republican ... Rommey ... was a false front, a place holder, picked specifically to shepherd folks to Obama. This time ... with The Donald ... that feeling is much stronger than in 2012. With the visceral revulsion so many share for the Hill, the equally/surpassingly vile Donald was/is the only possible man for the same job.

The absolute confirmation that the US is a one-party, war-party state will come if and when the Hillary is defeated by the Donald. The Democrats will have literally cut off their noses to spite their collective face.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 29, 2016 6:15:53 AM | 64

P.S. re 56:

Friedman is also inconsistent in his premises. For example, he discounts stupidity and craziness as analytical factors, calling the incorporation of such factors intellectual laziness; but in the same interview, says that (unlike himself) politicians are often irrational "because they want to get things done" (i.e. because they are not objectively disinterested); yet it is the same actions of these politicians he wants to predict without taking into account stupidity or craziness. The best evidence of irrationality in policy are the countless historical events where the actions of a nation led to severe losses to that national interest which its political rulers could not possibly have intended.

Sometimes there are obscure, underlying interests that need to be uncovered. Other times, in attempting to make something poorly thought out look sensible, conspiracy theory ends up distorting the overall dynamic. It's like trying to make a twisted piece of thread look straight by twisting up the rest of the world (as arranged in your mind), so that from your twisty new perspective, that string now seems straight.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 6:29:18 AM | 65

Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 5:49:50 AM | 60
Yes, yes, yes; my focus was on the game in the M.E.; and of course he didn't factor in Russia.
As far as WWI and Britain's naval superiority; that was in fact the beginning of the end for Britain and the beginning of the U.S. hegemon of the seas.
In any event, I found the article interesting, if not perfect. A look into "think tank" processes of applied logic; and why they rarely get it right.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 6:55:02 AM | 66

Emil Pulsifer says:

The United States in its foreign interventions is a bit like Charlie Brown

oh my, how picturesque. the lovable loser. the clumsily incompetent, but in essence good-hearted, American (archetypal)Imperium.

neoconservative dreams have hardly failed, you fucking twit. or is it just coincidence that this genocidal shitstorm was brewed betwixt east and west along the new silk road?

it's just the good-hearted American Imperium muddling along...through the millions of corpses and decimated communities, blood-splattered blast walls...

Posted by: john | Feb 29, 2016 7:12:31 AM | 67

Re 61 ("the threat of a good example"):

I doubt if Libyan "socialism" would have occasioned military opposition by Europe and the United States if Ghaddafi hadn't spend decades promoting international terrorism against them. Some of the terrorist acts attributed to Ghaddafi may have been committed by other parties, but the fact remains that his support for terrorism is well documented and the creation of "suicide squads" against European and American interests was even announced by Libyan State Television at one point. While it's true that the Ghaddafi regime had made amends with the west, in large part, by the time the civil war broke out in Libya in 2011, the elephant never forgets, and here was a golden opportunity to do openly what years of covert ops failed to accomplish.

Despite great strides in living standards by European social democracy, which American politicians and the general public often refer to as "socialism", nobody ever seriously considered the military overthrow of Norway, Sweden, or the Netherlands for their good example. The American political establishment and media marginalize the accomplishments of such states by the simple expedient of ignoring them most of the time and misrepresenting them the rest of the time. This works even for countries directly on America's border, like Canada, in discussions of healthcare reform.

America was also supporting popular movements (often called democracy movements but not always accurately) in many countries in the region at the time of the "Arab Spring", including Egypt, which was certainly not a "good example" in the left-political sense. It was only after the fairly predictable rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood (which American policymakers seem not to have foreseen) that the wind shifted and the United States supported a military coup to reverse the democracy whose outcome was so distasteful.

As for Libyan standards of living, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that they were as high as the United Nations and other parties concluded. But the only source for some of the statistics underlying those conclusions was the Libyan regime itself, which was a police state not overly concerned with the truth. If I'm wrong and these conclusions were reached more objectively, I'm certainly open to informed argument.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 7:22:00 AM | 68

Re 66: Okay, we agree that the article was interesting and made some valid points. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Re 67: My analogy emphasized the qualities of gullibility and failure to learn from past mistakes, not being lovable or goodhearted.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 7:28:54 AM | 69

I am thinking most people here know about this clinton history, (the Mena connection )but it was news to me...
Clintons, Bushes, Iran contra, Mena

They seem to have left their fingerprints on several crimes thru the decades ...

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Feb 29, 2016 7:29:32 AM | 70

A talk about central banking interests in Libya as a possible motivation for the coup....also a review of the political decisions in USA and un around time of Libya invasion....

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Feb 29, 2016 7:32:56 AM | 71

Another point that may be overlooked is that the military action taken against the Ghaddafi regime by the United States and European powers was performed under the authority of a United Nations mandate whose avowed aim was to prevent civilian casualties at the hands of the regime. Since the only UN body capable of authorizing international military force is the Security Council, upon which Russia sits; and since the veto of a single permanent member of the Security Council can prevent the passage of a Security Council resolution, it seems clear that insofar as such action could be described as mistaken, the blame must be shared.

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 29, 2016 8:10:46 AM | 72

This from RI, originally posted by the NYT;

The U.S. is so royally screwed by their own failed foreign policy advisors, as well as Russia's Putin, acting with the moral high ground on his side.
Let's just hope the hegemon can eat a little crow; well deserved crow, I might add...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 8:24:52 AM | 73

Oops; make that the Wall Street Journal (not NYT)...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 29, 2016 8:28:22 AM | 74

You have underplayed the contribution of the Britsh to the butchering of Gadhaffi and the destruction of Libya. British special forces were present from February 2011, prior to the UN mandate. At least one MI6 officer was 'parachuted' into Libya in December 2010. His cover was a IT person for a large US-owned farm in west Libya. A group of UK special forces and at least one 'diplomat' (aka MI6 officer) were captured by Libyan farmers. The troops were dressed in plain clothes (just like those caught in Iraq driving a car packed with explosive just before the start of sectarian violence that destropyed Iraq).

Some of the story was recorded in the Guardian (spit) August 2011. More is confirmed indirectly on a UK website run by ex-SF people. They also note the irony that SAS people have recently been sent back to attack the very people they trained in 2011.

An SAS sniper seems to be responsible for the killing of ISIS leaders in Iraq. I suppose this is just covering up the traces of the extent of UK involvement now TSHTF thanks to Russia.

Posted by: Yonatan | Feb 29, 2016 8:35:34 AM | 75

Emil Pulsifer says:

My analogy emphasized the qualities of gullibility and failure to learn from past mistakes, not being lovable or goodhearted

ah, but learn they have. first they learned to ban news coverage of coffins returning home, then they learned to use hordes of foreign schlubs for all their gruesome industry.

Posted by: john | Feb 29, 2016 8:54:32 AM | 76

@41 re: Maybe it's not amerika's motive. Amerika may be acting, wittingly or no, as some other sovereign's proxy. Or sovereigns'.

Posted by: chu-teh | Feb 28, 2016 10:24:30 PM | 41

Yes. Totally possible. When there are no limits to the bribe$ politicians are taking, then those with the most money buys the most political influence? Mafia, drug cartel, oil thugs, pimps, god only knows who all has their hands on those levers of power...

Posted by: Bluemot5 | Feb 29, 2016 9:06:44 AM | 77

Nope. France (under one Nicolas Sarkozy) also had its own plans with Libya.
- Khadaffi had plans to replace the CFA (which was supported/backed by the French franc and then with the Euro) by a currency that was supported by a lybian dinar and backed by Khadaffi's gold reserves. That plan posed a direct threat to the large french influence in Western Africa.
- France (and Italy ??) wanted to get their hands/more influence over the libyan oilsupply.

And only later the US "joined the party".

Brad Hoff

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 29, 2016 9:20:00 AM | 78

Emil Pulsifer @72:

Another point that may be overlooked . . . the blame must be shared.

It seems that you have overlooked a more important point: the authorized action was a NO FLY ZONE, not a bombing campaign.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 29, 2016 9:26:37 AM | 79

"African Monetary Union Stirs Criticism of France"


Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 29, 2016 9:37:22 AM | 80

The hell bitches running mate?Marco Rubio,for the Zionist party.
For the American Party;Trump.
The Zionists stick it to the Catholic Church,Spotlight wins best picture.
Best foreign language film;Son of Saul,another tome to Zion.
The hubris of the monsters is immense.
No movies about Cast Lead,or Protective Edge Huh?

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 29, 2016 10:30:29 AM | 81

Graun?:Hayden says military might not carry out Trumps orders as POTUS.Sheesh.
When did America self lobotomize itself?When we let the Zionists steal our media.

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 29, 2016 10:41:07 AM | 82

@62 Chipnik
No doubt, the attack on Libya suited the clearly stated long term objectives of at least a couple of NeoCon think tanks. Regime change and American democracy incoming. Though, if Hillary's emails are to be believed, Sarkozy is just as responsible, if not more for this human tragedy. And this is where the Gold Dinar does apply: A gold dinar being a threat - not yet globally - but very much locally, and a genuine opt out of the colonial Francophone past for some countries. But, you know, free markets we all know are an appearance of the fourth kind - only free once your under the banking cartels' global monopoly.

I find this episode of modern history incredibly sad. Saddams fate was improper under international law, and Gaddafi was not Saddam - more human being than painted monster, with the interests of his people at heart. The lament of my previous post is for what the Gold Dinar could have produced for Africa...and of course, it would have set a blue print for any other country with designs of financial independence.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Feb 29, 2016 11:18:56 AM | 83

Not to forget Gaddafi's body was left exposed for selfies for 3 days, preventing any usable autopsy. Wouldn't want anyone to find a bullet with MAS stamped on it..

Posted by: Lozion | Feb 29, 2016 12:02:25 PM | 84

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, I didn't have time to read all the comments. I listened to Brad Hoff on Scott Horton's radio show, a few months back, discussing this article: He links to the email summarizing Sarkozy's true motivations for war in Libya: hint, it has nothing to do with humanitarian intervention.

The interview:

Posted by: Jessica | Feb 29, 2016 12:04:54 PM | 85

One of many Brits getting paid by a Gulf State sheikh or emir to be an official bullshitter first class. What a warped world we live in ...

Our obsession with Iraq is making us impotent in Syria by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon

We are so blinded by the lessons of the second Gulf War that we are forgetting the far more relevant lessons of the first

"Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a former Army officer and chemical weapons expert advising Syrian NGOs" (*)

"Syrian NGOs" my ass ... foreign agents posing as a NGO to propagate regime change. In recent years, UN officials used the same revolving door opportunity to pose as honest while being paid as locuter or lobbyist for a corporate of government interest. Hamish most likely has a poster of Tony Bliar hanging in his office. Similar to George Bush with the bust of Churchill ... malomaniacs [Urban diction: bad ass].

(*) Linked to Qatar – House of Thani

Posted by: Oui | Feb 29, 2016 12:28:12 PM | 86

Although I do not give any credence to info posted on that website, this article caught my attention:
Wonder what would be the state of the world if this was to actually happen.

Posted by: Ken | Feb 29, 2016 12:31:14 PM | 87

@68 Emil Pulsifer

by the time the civil war broke out in Libya in 2011,

There was no civil war in Libya. That canard was for western consumption to justify subsequent actions. The so-called opposition consisted of a small group of jihadis, augmented by fighters returning from Iraq.
Demonstrations IN SUPPORT OF GADDAFI were held in Tripoli with crowds exceeding 750,000 people, roughly 75% of Tripoli’s total population.(which western MSM conveniently overlooked)
Cut through the bullshit and what is left is an operation to topple Gaddafi pure and simple. The only question is why.

Strongly suggest you watch the following video for a more comprehensive understanding of events.

The Truth About Muammar Gaddafi

Posted by: pantaraxia | Feb 29, 2016 12:32:33 PM | 88

Some French ppl claim the Lybia catastrophe was all Sarkozy’s doing. I guess ppl prefer their *very own* villains? -- See also Yonatan at 76 and Willy2 at 79.

Sark was a main mover to be sure - complete utter treachery as he previously tried to up F influence on the African continent by making friends with Kadafi. Recall, Sark had 'a' dream of a Mediterrean Union (see wiki): K welcomed it, as a positive outcome of his capitulation and normalisation stance and actions. E.g. Lockerbie, children’s AIDS scandal..not minor issues…

Sark brought K out of the cold (to the astonishment and outraged condemnation of some of the French) and received him at the Elysée. K contributed to the Sark’s election funds. When the history of all this is properly told it will emerge that Cecilia (Sark’s wife at the time) was a principal actor in all these events.

There are strong echoes to the relations between Erdogan and Assad, a very similar story, OT, so not for now.

Killary is the no.1 potential candidate to oppose by any legal non-violent means.

Lame ducks, Repub. remnants from the bottom drawer, on the take, new hopey-changey types, or the wild card Trump are… I give up. Words fail. Cheers. A round on me. Clink Clink.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 29, 2016 12:50:12 PM | 89

3 quick points:


@ likklemore | Feb 28, 2016 1:18:42 PM | 11
“Whatever happened to that indictment said to be weeks away?”

Well said. I have previously suggested on MoA that Loretta Lynch holds the future of the world in her hands. Even if she stalls or decides to bury the charges against Hil, that is still Loretta’s call. In that case Trump will mop the floor with Hil and the Democrats’ cover-up.

My comment is re-posted here with exclusive, HD photos of Hil and Loretta.

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen photos of Biden’s speech in CA last week and I am stunned that it looked like a campaign speech with “Go Joe” signs and banners and the whole 9 yards. If Hil gets indicted, the Democratic race is wide open and I think Biden is keeping his hand in play. Those blue balloons can’t be cheap.

Tulsi Gabbard has just told Hil, Wasserman-Schultz, and the DNC to f*ck off, and she’s thrown in with Bernie. This is one smart woman and I can’t believe she’d be backing Bernie if she thought he is a loser. It’s about time for some of these anti-neoliberal progressives to be getting off their asses.

Wasserman-Schultz has made a joke of the DNC; she’s as toxic as she is gormless. Gabbard is smart to get as far away from these crooks as she can.

Bernie needs to quickly designate Gabbard or Warren as his running mate before it’s too late. I know this is a terrible thing to say, and it sounds like something from a Hollywood tabloid, but Bernie needs a pretty face on the stage with him. Dr. O’Meara is obviously brilliant and successful, but a man much smarter than m’self once said: “American politics is all optics, mostly.”

For months the RealClearPolitics polls I have been looking at say that Bernie would beat Trump with 2x the margin that Hil would beat Trump.

Again, it sounds like a cheap-shot, but I really wonder whether that vast middle America – or even half of them – is ready for a Jewish president. Recall that it was just 55 years ago being Catholic was an impediment, and most Catholics ain’t even Jewish.

Posted by: Denis | Feb 29, 2016 2:12:19 PM | 90

Is there a ignore fonction on MoA?

Posted by: Lozion | Feb 29, 2016 4:04:37 PM | 91

The New York Times MIND to the American people every day.
Libya had the best HDI in Africa, the best African Gini index in the government Muammar Gaddafi. It was the most advanced country in education in Africa, along with South Africa.
Hillary Clinton and her crazy CIA destroyed Libya!
It should be be arrested and tried by an international court

Posted by: Aleksi | Feb 29, 2016 6:03:12 PM | 92

@90 noirette

Thanks for the reminder of the pure evil of Sarkozy. Makes Valls look like a lapdog in comparison.


There's one on my mouse ... the wheel between the buttons. They do take up a lot of space though, don't they.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 29, 2016 6:13:51 PM | 93

Donald Trump could get the nuclear codes: How anti-intellectualism is killing American democracy

Posted by: Aleksi | Feb 29, 2016 6:23:12 PM | 94

No kidding..

Posted by: Lozion | Feb 29, 2016 7:14:11 PM | 95

in re 80 --

Clearly you've not paid attention while these zones were imposed. You attack first all AA batteries, command and control, infrastructure, and pretty much anybody you see with portable SAM, thereby obtaining local air superiority. I believe destruction of the opposing airforce on the ground is optional; if anyone goes up at this point, they can easily and quickly be brought down.

See also the text of the resolution. Member states working with the Secretary-General are authorized to take any measure necessary, short of occupation, to both protect civilians and impose the no-fly zone.

Posted by: rufus magister | Feb 29, 2016 7:29:52 PM | 96

Hot of the presses... From Vice's Jason Leopold: The Final 1,700 Hillary Clinton Emails Were Just Released — And One Was Not

One email released Monday was sent to Clinton on January 25, 2014 by her longtime confidante Sidney Blumenthal. It concerns "internal Libya security deliberations" and the information is based on "sources with direct access to the Libyan National Government, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services."

Clinton's very typical response? "Pls print," she told her aide Monica Hanley.

The full email here PDF...!

Posted by: CTuttle | Feb 29, 2016 7:34:29 PM | 97

Hillary (& Co.) worked to get the NGOs to spread the false stories, get more recognition for the NTC, worked with Powell and Rice to get Obama on board, etc. Libya was Hillary's war just like Iraq was Cheney's war. So far she has not answered beyond the staged answers at a debate and a few times in the news interviews. There've been a few stories about Hillary's role but not much. It's teflon with little traction and the sheeple aren't paying attention.

Posted by: Curtis | Feb 29, 2016 8:36:39 PM | 98

Johnnie Carson, U.S. assistant secretary for African Affairs,
*China is a “very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals.*

exhibit l = libya.

*NATO’s Libya campaign was and is all about oil. But not about simply controlling Libyan high-grade crude because the USA is nervous about reliable foreign supplies. It rather is about controlling China’s free access to long-term oil imports from Africa and from the Middle East. In other words, it is about controlling China itself. [1]

Libya geographically is bounded to its north by the Mediterranean directly across from Italy, where Italian ENI oil company has been the largest foreign operator in Libya for years. To its west it is bounded by Tunisia and by Algeria. To its south it is bounded by Chad. To its east it is bounded by both Sudan (today Sudan and Southern Sudan) and by Egypt. That should tell something about the strategic importance of Libya from the standpoint of the Pentagon’s AFRICOM long-term strategy for controlling Africa and its resources and which country is able to get those resources.

It is useful to briefly recall the sequence of Washington-sponsored “Twitter” revolutions in the ongoing so-called Arab Spring. The first was Tunisia, an apparently insignificant land on north Africa’s Mediterranean. However Tunisia is on the western border of Libya. The second domino to fall in the process was Mubarak’s Egypt. That created major instability across the Middle East into north Africa as Mubarak for all his flaws had fiercely resisted Washington Middle East pollicy.

Then in July 2011 Southern Sudan declared itself the independent Republic of South Sudan, breaking away from Sudan after years of US-backed insurgency against Khartoum rule. The new Republic takes with it the bulk of Sudan’s known oil riches, something clearly not causing joy in Beijing. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, led the US delegation to the independence celebrations, calling it “a testament to the Southern Sudanese people.” She added, in terms of making the secssion happen, “the US has been as active as anyone [sic]

[sorry to disappoint , there's nothing *spontaneous* about the *arab spring*, tam, hk's *umbrella rev* and assorted *people power movement* etc etc, there's method in the seeming chaos !] [2]

Gaddafi’s Libya had maintained strict national state control over the rich reserves of high quality “light, sweet” Libyan crude oil. As of 2006 data Libya had the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, some 35%, larger even than Nigeria. Oil consessions had been extended to Chinese state oil companies as well as Russian and others in recent years. Not surprisingly a spokesman from the so-called opposition claiming victory over Gaddafi, Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm AGOCO, told Reuters,
We don’t have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.” China and Russia and Brazil either opposed UN sanctions on Libya or pressed for a negotiated settlement of the internal conflict and an end to NATO bombing.

chinese work sites came under attacks by libyan *insurgents*, 30000 chinese workers had to flee libya after ghadaffi's gruesome death, another astronomical loss of investment costing 20-30 billions.

nobody seems to be paying attention to the africa *pivot*, but chinese co have been hermorrhagging trillions of rmb, not to mention thousands of workers/engineers slained by assorted aq franchises, courtesy of uncle sham.


during the outbreak of violence in libya, brian suggested it's cia.
the diehard *conspiracy theorist* in me immediately concurred, so did deb.
then someone labelled us *gadaffi apologists* and *con theorists* to boot.

one clown produced this image to mock us, *whats with all these cia con theory* ?

a very professional piece of work dont u think so ?

i related to him this story.
* there was this peasant who distrust them bankers so he kept all his fortune in a box at home, to safeguard his monies from theft , he pasted a label on the box with the bold msg, *there aint 300 taels of gold in this box* !*
i told the clown that libya *insurgents* banner reminded me of the msg on that peasant's box.
he still didnt get the point !
some people just dont seem to be able to connect the dots.
inspite of hanging around alternate sites like moa for many yrs, they often gawk at the trees while missing the forest. !

Zwo watch rule 1
scratch the surface of any mayhem and u'd find the snake and/or its cohorts lurking beneath !

Posted by: denk | Feb 29, 2016 10:05:13 PM | 99

Not that I'm trying to push this Hillary indictment issue -- I mean, it's only the biggest IED in American politics since Kennedy's assassination -- but . . .

Here's a well written piece in the Washington Examiner datelined today, Feb29, that makes it clear how real this reality really is.

My guess: It'll be Rubio v. Biden in the general election. Clinton and Trump will both be fighting federal criminal charges. Hil's superdelegates will go to Biden.

Posted by: Denis | Feb 29, 2016 10:16:16 PM | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.


Site Meter