What Both Hillary and the GOP Are Covering Up About Libya

It Was Never About Security or Human Rights

Congressional Republicans were desperate to score political points in the Benghazi saga. So desperate that they finally decided to masquerade as … peaceniks.

During the recent grilling of Hillary Clinton, the Republicans — who have rarely seen a war they didn’t like — actually criticized the former Secretary of State for ignoring the difficulty of successful regime change. (No mention was made of how well George W. Bush’s regime change has gone in Iraq.)

Further, they claimed that she had run roughshod over her own experts, who warned that US involvement in a 2011 air campaign in support of rebels would lead, at best, to new problems, and that they (the Republicans) had anticipated the chaos that marks Libya today.

“You initiated a policy to put the United States into Libya…. You were the prime mover…. You were concerned about image, you were concerned about credit,” Rep. Peter J. Roskam ­(R-IL) told her. “If Libya unraveled, you had a lot to lose.”

This new line of attack was simply the latest in a series of attempts to damage her over Benghazi, none of which seem to have eroded confidence among those inclined to give her their vote, or even among those on the fence. It was essentially a hail mary pass, and we will see if the public blames her for the morass that is Libya today — a country where chaos and extremism now reign.

What the GOP Dares Not Ask

But, quick: What was Libya really about? If you don’t know, then you’re no different from most people, including most members of Congress — as evidenced by the debate in 2011, and by the discourse since. Seemingly missed by all: getting rid of Muammar Qaddafi was never really about protecting the lives of Libyans.

No, it was, like everything else in geopolitics — about money. Or, more precisely, the invaluable resources to be had, and about a national leader who would not play ball with those who wanted those resources. Of course, the establishment was not about to level with us, so it lied.

WhoWhatWhy was on the case from the beginning in Libya, pointing out the deceptive propaganda campaign that was unleashed to guarantee that war was inevitable.

The real questions Hillary Clinton ought to be asked — but which the Republicans cannot ask because they are as complicit as anyone — is why she pushed for Qaddafi’s ouster. And why she was apparently so comfortable with misleading the American people about the actions taken in their name.

As the US enters the thick of yet another presidential election, we urge everyone to consider just why it is that the inevitable nominees from both parties can be expected to perpetuate the same historical myths. And why whoever is elected can be counted on to commit troops, dollars and lives to still more such military adventures. Or misadventures.

What Historical Myths? Keep Reading

To learn more, we invite you to read our original reports published when it was all unfolding. They chronicle how US officials disseminated (with media complicity) an unending stream of brazen lies designed to advance a hidden, predetermined agenda.

Here are links to a couple of those past stories (summaries edited for space):

The Libya Secret: How the West Cooked Up “People’s Uprising

The public was told that the sole purpose of what was to be very limited bombing was to protect rebelling Libyan civilians from massive retaliation by Qaddafi. However, protecting civilians apparently didn’t generate sufficient US public support for intervention, so we started to hear about other purported justifications for going in: Qaddafi was so odious he was encouraging his soldiers to … commit mass rape! And if that wasn’t enough, he was giving them Viagra! Oh, and condoms!

You can’t make this sort of thing up. And yet that’s just what the NATO crew did — made it up.

Libya: Connect the Dots — You Get a Giant Dollar Sign

“Why Libya?” Why were the United States and its allies suddenly so worried about the rights of Libyans under the long-ruling Qaddafi? And why did the West initiate a no-fly zone, commence massive bombing runs, and virtually create, train, supply and fund a rebel army?

For an answer, we need only look to the “usual suspects” — oil companies, financial houses such as Goldman Sachs — all engaged in quintessential corporate intrigue. Just the sort that never seems to come out in … the corporate media.

And here are a few more Libya-related stories from the You-Can’t-Make-This-Up Department:

Burying the Lockerbie Bomber and the Truth

The CIA’s Man in Libya

Kerry, McCain Behind Mysteriously Urgent Libya Mission

LIbya Update Featuring Media and Congress as Daffy Duck

Al-Jazeera’s Failures on Libya and What They Tell Us About the Network

Related front page panorama photo credit: Tuareg Man (David Stanley / Flickr [CC BY 2.0]), El Sharara oil field (Javier Blas / Wikimedia [CC BY-SA 3.0]), Muammar al-Gaddafi (U.S. Navy / Wikimedia)

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

15 responses to “What Both Hillary and the GOP Are Covering Up About Libya”

  1. Galhalla says:

    This article still doesn’t get to the core reason Qadafi was taken out. He was taken out because after his son was arrested in Switzerland, he not only petitioned the UN to revoke recognizing Switzerland as a nation, but he also called for Islamic jihad against Switzerland. Don’t believe me? Google it.

    Nobody ever messes with Switzerland because Switzerland secretly runs this entire planet, and the United States secretly operates on its behalf as an agent of Germanic planetary race supremacy. Whosoever threatens the supreme contentment of Switzerland ends up having a decidedly bad day.

  2. Platos Cave says:

    True but even more important is Central Banks, the IMF/BIS and money creation. Libya refused to bow to the Bank For International Settlements, with a Government-owned Central Bank that created its own money to fund huge projects and free health care, resulting in a thriving country.

    ..In a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview of US General Wesley Clark (Ret), Gen.Clark stated;
    ‘ about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq.’
    Upon asking ‘why ?’ he was told by the General, ‘I don’t know’
    The General told Gen. Clark that the U.S. planned ‘to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran’.
    None of these countries are listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – placing them beyond the regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.
    Elsewhere……..
    ‘According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.”

    • timmy says:

      Thank you for having the courage to speak the truth – I have been trying to convey this message to those around me. It is of the utmost importance that people understand what is really happening around us, for I fear that we all are getting ready to lose….

  3. Westcoastdeplorable says:

    As long as the U.S. is following the “Wolfowitz doctrine” this farce will continue. Putin, however, has other plans.

  4. artemis6 says:

    What about the massive man-made river from deep lake that would revolutionize the region. What about the independent banking system Qaddafi was creating? He was a huge threat to the status quo.

  5. punkyboy says:

    Excellent source I read just after Gaddafi’s assassination, “Slouching Towards Sirte – NATO’s War on Libya and Africa,” by Maximilian Forte. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

  6. Farzaneh Joshaghani says:

    All the disinformation is intended to paralyze you through apathy. By being strong and acting within the law like Putin, we can erode their power and expose their crimes while minimizing casualties. Good thing the élite have enough to pay the fines that are coming their way.

  7. Un CoverUp says:

    Russ, good works–thanks. Connecting the money-dots also leads to the motives for Libyan revolutionaries targeting international trade lawyer turned diplomat Christopher Stevens for the failed “extraordinary rendition” that lead to his death.

  8. Joshua says:

    One important fact missed by most concerning Libya, Gaddafi….was the Central Bank that he was in the process of starting up. The Libyan Mint was said to have been the first target NATO bombed & there is no mention of the $350 billion in gold bullion that was backing the new currency for all of Africa. Gaddafi had already paid for a communications satellite to be put into space, which truly brought all of Africa out of the stone age and cost AT&T some $100 million-plus a year in expected revenue. Gaddfi can be seen (I believe it was in 2009,) addressing the entire UN Council regarding the illegal overthrow of our once-puppet Saddam Hussein, and asking at what point will or could this happen to another nation, in direct violation of International Law. Well it took 2 years for it to happen again and they killed him. For: oil, gold, gas, & water & destabilization = control.

  9. kent says:

    As someone once said “if you get rid of one bad regime, you will probably get another bad regime.”
    The US policy is always about power and money….and motivated by leaders with ego and no brains, probably egged on by the financial institutions, munitions and armament merchants, rag trade uniform merchants, and any other vulture that makes money out of other peoples’ misery.

    • Rozanne Gates says:

      As long as the US government is thinking “What is our oil doing under their sand?” we will continue to kill for access to natural resources. US corporations want to control access to all the world’s resources and the US government is doing their bidding. The nominal nod to energy sources beyond oil and gas is a joke. I can only hope that Bernie Sanders will defund the Pentagon and reallocate those funds to rebuild this country rather than destroying others.

    • punkyboy says:

      Don’t forget, G put our oil under their sand! Just one more example of The Omnipotent One messing up big-time, I guess, but we know what he really meant for us to do, exceptional folks that we are – so exceptional, we can out-god God.

    • edwardrynearson says:

      The empire resides above the US and predates it.

  10. Klaus Weiß says:

    You missed the water issue.