2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMoney, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails
by Ellen Brown
3/14/2016
Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillarys Emails
Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clintons recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.
The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a victory lap. We came, we saw, he died! she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.
But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.
US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding alack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review, and kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant.
Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa.
Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy.
The country boasted the worlds largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.
But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country. Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with the full spectrum of military operations required.
The Secretary of States victory lap was indeed premature, if what were talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention.
But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.
Mission Accomplished?
Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clintons private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails,dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:
Qaddafis government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and wasintended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
In a source comment, the original declassified email adds:
According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozys decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozys plans are driven by the following issues:
*A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
*Increase French influence in North Africa,
*Improve his internal political situation in France,
*Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
*Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafis long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa
Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.
Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a rape policy involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:
So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this regime change by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libyas wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children?
Bingo!
.....big snip.....
Read in full~
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article54422.html
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)This must be how Russian or Iranian citizens feel when they learn about horrific things their govt has done to other countries.
Reading these truths makes me ashamed of the US, and our media. And France! WTF?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)I love how her supporters will shred Trump's resume when he brags about all the deals he's made. It reads casino, airline, professional football league, multiple university, and steaks, yes steaks! Holy fuck, what an amazing list of accomplishments!
But her supporters are quick to point out 4 bankruptcies and a gimmick. With respect to her own resume, however, the a double standard How do they evaluate her resume? They don't. Instead, they continue to list the bullet points. Failures are foregiven if she continues to say "I was wrong" and "that was a mistake." "And Iraq, pfft, come on, that was just one vote and it was a long time ago, and besides, she already apologized for it so it's all good, now."
If she wins this primary, she better start to win northern, Democratic states. It would be a nightmare for the Confederate states to have delivered her an insurmountable lead and we see her limp to victory, unable to carry the North.
dchill
(38,468 posts)Don't look now!
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)If she wins the Primary, I want to see the northern and west coast, solid blue states outperform the Confederacy. I want her to go into the GE riding a wave. That said, I hope she loses -- which would be a catostrophic fail -- and already voted for Bernie.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)were the principal architects. Our Commander in Chief at the time was a man named Barak Obama. He made the ultimate decision.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Americas Secret Libya War
The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion on Libyas revolution, and secretly helped NATO with everything from munitions to surveillance aircraft. John Barry provides an exclusive look at Obamas emerging 'covert intervention' strategy.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html
And Hillary's emails back that up. Along with the real reason, and it wasn't Humanitarianism.
We were hood-winked by Obama who we know now is a neocon, & a neoliberal. Why do you think the large % of Obama's 08 supporters now back Bernie?
We want Democrats to BE Democrats. We're supposed to be saner, & not do evil unto others for profit.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Sarkozy's right wing government and then Cameron's government basically ignoring the situation. Obama is now putting a good part of the blame on them (our allies!) for this screw up. It seems his own SOS wasn't doing her job either.
http://www.jordantimes.com/news/region/obama-hits-out-cameron-sarkozy-over-libya-intervention
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)and her drive to destroy what had been one of the African continent's most prosperous countries is one of the main reasons I went from simply disliking her to outright hating her.
Her laughing about Gaddafi's brutal torture and murder on TV was behavior more apt for a mobster, not a SoS and definitely not a president. Her supporters don't want to talk about this sort of thing, but they can't deny it.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Just another facet of the fight for the 99%, here & around the globe. PEOPLE need to matter again, more than PROFIT.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)a partisan hack gives a flying fuck about interpreting complicated geo-political conflicts on the level of the schoolyard.
I know, Bernie will change everything. Even better than Obama could because.......he's a socialist.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)But I can see why some of you are unable to grasp that concept.
Darb
(2,807 posts)I forgot. We know Bernie is a decent human being. Obama is a decent human being too, and a Democrat.
Cannot wait for the return of the Democratic Underground.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)GO Bernie!!!
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)freedom! Right?
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)See!! That makes her the most qualified candidate!!! Never mind that her experience is usually in fucking things up...
polly7
(20,582 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)People need to know, so we can make wiser decisions about who exactly is leading US.
FourScore
(9,704 posts)Am I reading that right???
polly7
(20,582 posts)FourScore
(9,704 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)gave the UN its figures (lies) to enable the 'no-fly-zone' was western trained and backed. I don't want to overwhelm this good, current thread with the posts I bring out every time someone argues destroying Libya was a good thing so will post a link to older info - sorry, some of the links no longer work as they were from back when it was happening (plus a few newer posts from members here) if you're interested in going through it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1424903
Response to FourScore (Reply #25)
polly7 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Originally the Republicans, in an effort to politically damage President Obama, criticized him for "leading from behind" in Libya. They claimed that the U.S. should take the lead role in the NATO led 19 country effort.
Now come the Sanders folks. They too have a political axe to grind but with a twist. You see, they have nothing to gain by politically damaging President Obama, they have a need to politically damage Hillary Clinton. So the Sanders folks claim that we should have stood back and watched Gaddafi slaughter with impunity those that opposed Gaddafi's government and it is the Secretary of State that should bear primary responsibility. This is a particularly aggregious political exercise because it's directed at a member of our own Party.
I reject political opportunism and extremism regardless of if it manifests itself from the a Right or the Left.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Justice Has Been Served!
zentrum
(9,865 posts)...uglier than this. A true acolyte of Kiss-of-death (Kissenger).
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)'Democrats' like Hillary?
Kissinger, as he often is, was wrong.
A case can be made that Reagans bombing accelerated regional polarization and radicalization, contributing to blowback. As did Hillary Clintons completion of the job nearly three decades later.
No matter. I greatly admire the skill and aplomb with which you conduct our foreign policy, Kissinger wrote to Secretary of State Clinton in February 7, 2012, letter, not long after Clintons bombing of Libya had come to a conclusion and Qaddafi was dead.
Last year, Kissinger, reacting to a question about his role in overthrowing Salvador Allendethe democratically elected president of Chile in 1973and his illegal, covert bombing of Cambodiawhich started in 1969 and continued to 1973pointed to the Clintons bombing in Libya and proposed bombing in Syria.
Whats the difference? he asked.
None, apparently.
http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/
zentrum
(9,865 posts)In foreign affairs, it's clearno difference.
And in domestic affairs, a Rockefeller or Reagan Republican.
That's what the DLC aimed for from its inception.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Biggest con job in history.
Response to RiverLover (Original post)
polly7 This message was self-deleted by its author.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Just grotesque.