The Washington Post lauded the intervention in Libya. The demise of Gaddhafi threw the country into deep chaos. The Washington Post is now working to instigate a like intervention in Syria. To be able to do so it has to hide the chaos in Libya. Thus we get this news report:
Growing concerns over protests roiling Libya prompted the State Department to begin evacuating some diplomats from Tripoli, as the Pentagon put troops stationed at nearby European bases on high alert.
The U.S. is evacuating diplomats and alarming troops because of some protests? Aren't their protests in many countries all the times without such measures taken? What are these protests about?
The protests that have spread in Libya over the past week stem largely from the passage of a law that bars from public office officials who served in key roles under the deposed Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi.
…
The unrest worsened after the country’s new legislature last weekend overwhelmingly passed the bill barring certain figures from serving in government. It could unseat officials who currently hold important jobs.
That is all you will learn from the Washington Post news report. Some law was passed, with an overwhelming majority we are told, that threatens some bureaucrats with being fired. Someone is protesting about that.
Except, of course, that is NOT what happened.
For over a week some unidentified heavily armed gangs had set siege onto the Foreign Ministry in Libya. They also occupied the Justice Ministry:
The armed protesters have said their main goal was to push the General National Congress to pass a proposed law that would ban Gadhafi-era officials from holding government posts.
…
Last month, armed protesters besieged the General National Congress for several hours in an attempt to force its members to pass the political isolation law. Gunmen later opened fire on the vehicle of the parliament speaker, who escaped unharmed.
There was more:
It has emerged that militiamen tried to intimidate Prime Minister Ali Zeidan when he met and negotiated with them. He said today that they had brandished a grenade and a gun at him. He did not say when this happened.
”The rebels unlocked the grenade in front of me but no one was hurt because the grenade did not explode and it was taken quickly outside the Prime Ministry headquarters,” he stated today at a press conference.
There was shooting at the parliament, armed gangs seized ministries and put guns to the prime minister's head. This to push for the law that the Washington Post writes was "passed overwhelmingly". Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the law was passed by very frightened parliamentarians only under very heavy duress?
There is still more that the Washington Post will not let you know:
Militiamen who have been besieging the Foreign Ministry this evening fled when hundreds of pro-democracy supporters arrived at the building to demonstrate their support for the government.
Around 200 demonstrators had marched from Algeria Square along the Corniche to the Ministry but were quickly joined by others along the way, overwhelming the couple of dozen or so militiamen who were still mounting their siege outside the Ministry buildings.
These protests, much bigger than the armed gangs, are against the new law. They are also defenders of democracy:
Earlier in Algeria Square, around 400 anti-militia protesters brought traffic to a halt. Placards read: “With our blood we will defence the legitimacy of the government”, “No to bringing down the government with arms” and “Get rid of the guns in your hands and start building Libya”.
“I don’t like Zeidan”, said a protestor, “but he was appointed by a democratically-elected Congresss. “We must support him”.
Does the Washington Post believe that these protests that pushed out the militants led to the diplomatic and military high alarm? That does not sound reasonable but from reading the WaPo piece is the only item one is led to believe. Or has the threatening diplomatic atmosphere to do with this issue:
The crowd roared anti-militia chants interspersed with takbeers (“Allahu Akbar”) and occasional barbs at Qatar.
“We don’t want to be ruled by Mozah and Hamid,” they shouted – a reference to the Emir of Qatar, Hamid bin Khalifa Al-Thani and his wife, Sheikha Mozah, who was brought up in Libya. Qatar is accused by many of interfering in Libya by funding Salafists and other Islamists.
Is this attitude of the protesters or are the heavily armed gangs the reason for diplomats fleeing and military alerts? Whatever. The Washington Post will not let you know. It fudges the issue. Throwing Syria into chaos is too important to let people have second thoughts about the chaos following similar interventions.