lo yeeOn
2016-09-14 05:29:57 UTC
"The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is
that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured."
"[Alan Kuperman] cited the Human Rights Watch data from Misurata, a
city of 400,000 that Qaddafi's forces had recently seized. There, in
nearly two months of war, only 257 people were killed, including
combatants. . . .
According to some sources, Hillary and Obama chose to kill some 30,000
Libyans to satisfy their blood lust.
Hillary's explanation: "We had our closest allies in Europe burning up
the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw
as a mass genocide, in their words," . . .
For more of what actually was happening in Libya in 2011, instead of
the narrative provided by our government, please read Jack Cashill's
Hillary's "Genocide" Lie
And now the British Parliament has also reached the conclusion that
the case for the bloody intervention was overstated.
Mr Cameron has defended his handling of the situation, telling MPs
in January action was needed because Gaddafi "was bearing down on
people in Benghazi and threatening to shoot his own people like
rats".
But the foreign affairs committee said the government "failed to
identify that the threat to civilians was overstated", adding that
it "selectively took elements of Gaddafi's rhetoric at face value".
It's our rulers who are not held accountable for their bloody lies
that are sinking the ship. Imagine when the Iraqis, the Afghans, the
Syrians, the Libyans, and who know who else, start filing suits to sue
for compensation of their losses and their suffering from every war
that has used American bombs and missiles. It would be just fair for
them to sue, if the relatives of the victims of the 9/11 attacks are
now suing Saudi rulers for their losses.
lo yeeOn
Hillary's "Genocide" Lie By Jack Cashill
AmericanThinker.com - October 15, 2015
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/hillarys_genocide_lie.htm
"Well, let's remember what was going on," Hillary Clinton told
Anderson Cooper Tuesday night in Las Vegas in response to his question
about the bombing of Libya. "We had a murderous dictator, Qadaffi,
who had American blood on his hands, as I'm sure you remember,
threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people.
Before going any further, we might want to note that In April 2009,
Qaddafi's son Mutassim had a cordial meeting with Secretary of State
Clinton in Washington. At that time she was apparently not too
squeamish about the blood on his old man's hands. "We deeply value
the relationship between Libya and the United States," Hillary told
the press with the tall, western-looking young man standing beside
her.
April 21, 2009: Hillary holds press conference with Qaddafi's son in
tow.
Back to Las Vegas, "We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the
phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a
mass genocide, in their words," Hillary continued with a straight
face.
When the late William Safire called Ms. Clinton a "congenital liar",
he knew whereof he spoke. The mendacity is in Hillary's DNA. There was
no genocide in Libya, nothing close. Although I have written about the
Libyan fiasco previously on these pages, the story bears repeating at
least in part as Hillary has assumed full ownership of the genocide
lie.
In his March 2011 address to the nation, Barack Obama laid out the
case for America's surprise military intervention in Libya. "We knew
that if we ... waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city
nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have
reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the
world." http://1.usa.gov/1bUieqx Two days earlier in a radio address,
Obama used the word "bloodbath" to describe Benghazi's likely fate at
the hand of Omar Qadaffi.
Less than two months before America went to war, however, Obama had
not so much as mentioned this benighted country in his State of the
Union address. As late as September 2009, John McCain was meeting with
Qaddafi in Tripoli and describing his regime an important as "ally in
the war on terrorism". Then, just eighteen months later, Obama was
asking America to believe Qaddafi was about to smear a Rwanda-sized
stain on "the conscience of the world".
If Obama did not know, Hillary certainly knew how the media would
react when a Democrat president launched an unauthorized air war. In
1999, Serbian authorities were attempting to suppress an insurrection
by Albanian Muslims in the Kosovo province of their fracturing
nation. Like Obama, President Bill Clinton had not bothered getting
congressional approval before unleashing America's air power.
"Well, obviously, I voted, when President Clinton said, `let's stop
ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.' I voted for that," bragged Senator
Bernie Sanders in Tuesday night's debate. Sorry, Bernie. There was no
vote. There was no ethnic cleansing for that matter."
To bolster public support, President Clinton and his people began a
drumbeat about mass graves, ethnic cleansing and genocide. As in
Libya, there was no stated reason for this war other than to prevent
genocide. The State Department's David Scheffer was the first of many
to claim a six-figure death count, specifically "upwards of about
100,000 [Islamic] men that we cannot account for" in Kosovo. President
Clinton compared the work of the Serbs in Kosovo to the German
"genocide" of the Jews during the Holocaust and assured America that
"tens of thousands of people" had been murdered.
In the war's wake, however, international teams could find no signs of
genocide. The ethnic Albanian dead numbered in the hundreds, not in
the hundreds of thousands. Spanish forensic surgeon Emilio Perez Pujol
would tell the British Sunday Times that the talk of genocide was "a
semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not
find one - not one - mass grave." In 2001, a United Nations court
ruled, as the BBC noted, "Serbian troops did not carry out genocide
against ethnic Albanians".
For the Libyan conflict, Alan Kuperman, a Democrat and author of The
Limits of Humanitarian Intervention, did the calculations that the
media refused to do. Just two weeks after the President's address on
Libya, Kuperman made the simple point, "The best evidence that Khadafy
did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in
the other cities he had recaptured."
"He cited the Human Rights Watch data from Misurata, a city of 400,000
that Qaddafi's forces had recently seized. There, in nearly two months
of war, only 257 people were killed, including combatants. In Rwanda
by contrast, more than 800,000 Tutsis were killed in just ninety days.
What did happen in Libya, Kuperman explained, was that rebel forces,
fearing imminent defeat, faked a humanitarian crisis. On March 14, a
rebel spokesman told Reuters that if Qaddafi attacked Benghazi, there
would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda." On
March 21, The New York Times's David Kirpatrick reported, "The rebels
feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming
nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting
in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly
inflated claims of his barbaric behavior."
No matter, the U.S. military had already started bombing. A month
later, Obama co-signed a letter claiming, "The bloodbath that he had
promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi
has been prevented." http://bbc.in/1gqwBr6 In reality, the only people
who promised bloodbaths were the rebel spokesmen and the western
leaders. By this time, Hillary and Obama had to know the pretext for
war was false, but they would continue to pursue it for another six
deadly months.
As the insurgency dragged on, the insurgents began spreading the myth
that Qaddafi had been using African mercenaries. This falsehood, said
the Times, "Rebels repeat as fact over and over."
Fired up by rumors of black mercenaries on Viagra-fueled rape sprees,
the rebels did some ethnic cleansing on their own. Patrick Cockburn
of the Independent saw the evidence up close. "Any Libyan with a
black skin accused of fighting for the old regime may have a poor
chance of survival," he concluded. Hillary and Obama chose not to
notice. Black lives may have mattered in Las Vegas on Tuesday, but
they didn't matter a hill of beans in Libya.
On October 20, 2011, militia members took Qaddafi prisoner,
indelicately sodomized him with a knife, and captured it all on
video. They then threw Qaddafi, still breathing, onto a pick-up
truck. When the truck pulled away, he promptly fell off. Said a giddy
Obama in a Rose Garden speech about this Keystone Cops-meets-Mad Max
muddle, "The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted." In defending
this nonsense, Hillary and Obama championed the victors and tried to
turn Libya into a success story. This would have consequences not too
far down the road.
If the major media were willing to endorse the White House narrative,
Alan Kuperman was not. Writing for the Harvard Kennedy School's
International Security journal in 2013, Kuperman unspun the web of
deception that the Libyan rebels and their NATO enablers had
woven. "The biggest misconception about NATO's intervention," wrote
Kuperman, "is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its
neighbors."
In fact, Qaddafi did not attack peaceful protesters. The rebels
started the violence, and Qaddafi responded. Barely six weeks after
the rebellion started, Qaddafi had all but suppressed it at the cost
of about one thousand lives. Then Obama authorized NATO intervention.
That intervention prolonged the war seven months and cost roughly
seven thousand more lives. At war's end, rebels killed scores of the
former enemy in reprisal killings and exiled some 30,000 black
Africans.
During the insurrection, the Obama administration had been funneling
money to Qatar to help arm Libyan rebels. As the Times reported more
than a year after the fact, "The weapons and money from Qatar
strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a
destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government." After
the fall of Qaddafi, these groups refused to disarm and continued to
resist government authority.
In the midst of this mess, in early April 2011, American special
representative Chris Stevens arrived in Libya on board a Greek
freighter. His job was to research the various groups involved in the
Qaddafi opposition and report back to Washington. His bosses at State
and in the White House would reward his loyalty and courage with the
most disturbing lies of their relentlessly dishonest careers.
Needing to blame something for Stevens' death other than the
administration's fatally befuddled foreign policy, Hillary Clinton
sent a memo the very evening Stevens was murdered indicting
"inflammatory material posted on the Internet".
Has there ever been a more mendacious major party candidate for
president?
-----
MPs attack Cameron over Libya 'collapse'
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37356873
A UK parliamentary report has severely criticised the intervention by
Britain and France that led to the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar
Gaddafi in 2011.
The foreign affairs committee accused the then PM David Cameron of
lacking a coherent strategy for the air campaign.
It said the intervention had not been "informed by accurate
intelligence", and that it led to the rise of so-called Islamic State
in North Africa.
The UK government said it had been an international decision to
intervene.
Mr Cameron has defended his handling of the situation, telling MPs in
January action was needed because Gaddafi "was bearing down on people
in Benghazi and threatening to shoot his own people like rats".
But the foreign affairs committee said the government "failed to
identify that the threat to civilians was overstated", adding that it
"selectively took elements of Gaddafi's rhetoric at face value".
. . .
Crispin Blunt, chairman of the committee, told the BBC: "We were
dragged along by a French enthusiasm to intervene, and the mission
then moved from protecting people in Benghazi, who arguably were not
at the kind of threat that was then being presented...
"Indeed, on the basis of the evidence we took, the threat to the
people of Benghazi was grossly overstated."
The committee said "political options" were available once Benghazi
had been secured - including through ex-PM Tony Blair's contacts with
Gaddafi - but the UK government "focused exclusively on military
intervention.
By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians
had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change, the committee
said.
. . .
that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured."
"[Alan Kuperman] cited the Human Rights Watch data from Misurata, a
city of 400,000 that Qaddafi's forces had recently seized. There, in
nearly two months of war, only 257 people were killed, including
combatants. . . .
According to some sources, Hillary and Obama chose to kill some 30,000
Libyans to satisfy their blood lust.
Hillary's explanation: "We had our closest allies in Europe burning up
the phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw
as a mass genocide, in their words," . . .
For more of what actually was happening in Libya in 2011, instead of
the narrative provided by our government, please read Jack Cashill's
Hillary's "Genocide" Lie
And now the British Parliament has also reached the conclusion that
the case for the bloody intervention was overstated.
Mr Cameron has defended his handling of the situation, telling MPs
in January action was needed because Gaddafi "was bearing down on
people in Benghazi and threatening to shoot his own people like
rats".
But the foreign affairs committee said the government "failed to
identify that the threat to civilians was overstated", adding that
it "selectively took elements of Gaddafi's rhetoric at face value".
It's our rulers who are not held accountable for their bloody lies
that are sinking the ship. Imagine when the Iraqis, the Afghans, the
Syrians, the Libyans, and who know who else, start filing suits to sue
for compensation of their losses and their suffering from every war
that has used American bombs and missiles. It would be just fair for
them to sue, if the relatives of the victims of the 9/11 attacks are
now suing Saudi rulers for their losses.
lo yeeOn
Hillary's "Genocide" Lie By Jack Cashill
AmericanThinker.com - October 15, 2015
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/hillarys_genocide_lie.htm
"Well, let's remember what was going on," Hillary Clinton told
Anderson Cooper Tuesday night in Las Vegas in response to his question
about the bombing of Libya. "We had a murderous dictator, Qadaffi,
who had American blood on his hands, as I'm sure you remember,
threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people.
Before going any further, we might want to note that In April 2009,
Qaddafi's son Mutassim had a cordial meeting with Secretary of State
Clinton in Washington. At that time she was apparently not too
squeamish about the blood on his old man's hands. "We deeply value
the relationship between Libya and the United States," Hillary told
the press with the tall, western-looking young man standing beside
her.
April 21, 2009: Hillary holds press conference with Qaddafi's son in
tow.
Back to Las Vegas, "We had our closest allies in Europe burning up the
phone lines begging us to help them try to prevent what they saw as a
mass genocide, in their words," Hillary continued with a straight
face.
When the late William Safire called Ms. Clinton a "congenital liar",
he knew whereof he spoke. The mendacity is in Hillary's DNA. There was
no genocide in Libya, nothing close. Although I have written about the
Libyan fiasco previously on these pages, the story bears repeating at
least in part as Hillary has assumed full ownership of the genocide
lie.
In his March 2011 address to the nation, Barack Obama laid out the
case for America's surprise military intervention in Libya. "We knew
that if we ... waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city
nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have
reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the
world." http://1.usa.gov/1bUieqx Two days earlier in a radio address,
Obama used the word "bloodbath" to describe Benghazi's likely fate at
the hand of Omar Qadaffi.
Less than two months before America went to war, however, Obama had
not so much as mentioned this benighted country in his State of the
Union address. As late as September 2009, John McCain was meeting with
Qaddafi in Tripoli and describing his regime an important as "ally in
the war on terrorism". Then, just eighteen months later, Obama was
asking America to believe Qaddafi was about to smear a Rwanda-sized
stain on "the conscience of the world".
If Obama did not know, Hillary certainly knew how the media would
react when a Democrat president launched an unauthorized air war. In
1999, Serbian authorities were attempting to suppress an insurrection
by Albanian Muslims in the Kosovo province of their fracturing
nation. Like Obama, President Bill Clinton had not bothered getting
congressional approval before unleashing America's air power.
"Well, obviously, I voted, when President Clinton said, `let's stop
ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.' I voted for that," bragged Senator
Bernie Sanders in Tuesday night's debate. Sorry, Bernie. There was no
vote. There was no ethnic cleansing for that matter."
To bolster public support, President Clinton and his people began a
drumbeat about mass graves, ethnic cleansing and genocide. As in
Libya, there was no stated reason for this war other than to prevent
genocide. The State Department's David Scheffer was the first of many
to claim a six-figure death count, specifically "upwards of about
100,000 [Islamic] men that we cannot account for" in Kosovo. President
Clinton compared the work of the Serbs in Kosovo to the German
"genocide" of the Jews during the Holocaust and assured America that
"tens of thousands of people" had been murdered.
In the war's wake, however, international teams could find no signs of
genocide. The ethnic Albanian dead numbered in the hundreds, not in
the hundreds of thousands. Spanish forensic surgeon Emilio Perez Pujol
would tell the British Sunday Times that the talk of genocide was "a
semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not
find one - not one - mass grave." In 2001, a United Nations court
ruled, as the BBC noted, "Serbian troops did not carry out genocide
against ethnic Albanians".
For the Libyan conflict, Alan Kuperman, a Democrat and author of The
Limits of Humanitarian Intervention, did the calculations that the
media refused to do. Just two weeks after the President's address on
Libya, Kuperman made the simple point, "The best evidence that Khadafy
did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in
the other cities he had recaptured."
"He cited the Human Rights Watch data from Misurata, a city of 400,000
that Qaddafi's forces had recently seized. There, in nearly two months
of war, only 257 people were killed, including combatants. In Rwanda
by contrast, more than 800,000 Tutsis were killed in just ninety days.
What did happen in Libya, Kuperman explained, was that rebel forces,
fearing imminent defeat, faked a humanitarian crisis. On March 14, a
rebel spokesman told Reuters that if Qaddafi attacked Benghazi, there
would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda." On
March 21, The New York Times's David Kirpatrick reported, "The rebels
feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming
nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting
in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly
inflated claims of his barbaric behavior."
No matter, the U.S. military had already started bombing. A month
later, Obama co-signed a letter claiming, "The bloodbath that he had
promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi
has been prevented." http://bbc.in/1gqwBr6 In reality, the only people
who promised bloodbaths were the rebel spokesmen and the western
leaders. By this time, Hillary and Obama had to know the pretext for
war was false, but they would continue to pursue it for another six
deadly months.
As the insurgency dragged on, the insurgents began spreading the myth
that Qaddafi had been using African mercenaries. This falsehood, said
the Times, "Rebels repeat as fact over and over."
Fired up by rumors of black mercenaries on Viagra-fueled rape sprees,
the rebels did some ethnic cleansing on their own. Patrick Cockburn
of the Independent saw the evidence up close. "Any Libyan with a
black skin accused of fighting for the old regime may have a poor
chance of survival," he concluded. Hillary and Obama chose not to
notice. Black lives may have mattered in Las Vegas on Tuesday, but
they didn't matter a hill of beans in Libya.
On October 20, 2011, militia members took Qaddafi prisoner,
indelicately sodomized him with a knife, and captured it all on
video. They then threw Qaddafi, still breathing, onto a pick-up
truck. When the truck pulled away, he promptly fell off. Said a giddy
Obama in a Rose Garden speech about this Keystone Cops-meets-Mad Max
muddle, "The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted." In defending
this nonsense, Hillary and Obama championed the victors and tried to
turn Libya into a success story. This would have consequences not too
far down the road.
If the major media were willing to endorse the White House narrative,
Alan Kuperman was not. Writing for the Harvard Kennedy School's
International Security journal in 2013, Kuperman unspun the web of
deception that the Libyan rebels and their NATO enablers had
woven. "The biggest misconception about NATO's intervention," wrote
Kuperman, "is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its
neighbors."
In fact, Qaddafi did not attack peaceful protesters. The rebels
started the violence, and Qaddafi responded. Barely six weeks after
the rebellion started, Qaddafi had all but suppressed it at the cost
of about one thousand lives. Then Obama authorized NATO intervention.
That intervention prolonged the war seven months and cost roughly
seven thousand more lives. At war's end, rebels killed scores of the
former enemy in reprisal killings and exiled some 30,000 black
Africans.
During the insurrection, the Obama administration had been funneling
money to Qatar to help arm Libyan rebels. As the Times reported more
than a year after the fact, "The weapons and money from Qatar
strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a
destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government." After
the fall of Qaddafi, these groups refused to disarm and continued to
resist government authority.
In the midst of this mess, in early April 2011, American special
representative Chris Stevens arrived in Libya on board a Greek
freighter. His job was to research the various groups involved in the
Qaddafi opposition and report back to Washington. His bosses at State
and in the White House would reward his loyalty and courage with the
most disturbing lies of their relentlessly dishonest careers.
Needing to blame something for Stevens' death other than the
administration's fatally befuddled foreign policy, Hillary Clinton
sent a memo the very evening Stevens was murdered indicting
"inflammatory material posted on the Internet".
Has there ever been a more mendacious major party candidate for
president?
-----
MPs attack Cameron over Libya 'collapse'
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37356873
A UK parliamentary report has severely criticised the intervention by
Britain and France that led to the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar
Gaddafi in 2011.
The foreign affairs committee accused the then PM David Cameron of
lacking a coherent strategy for the air campaign.
It said the intervention had not been "informed by accurate
intelligence", and that it led to the rise of so-called Islamic State
in North Africa.
The UK government said it had been an international decision to
intervene.
Mr Cameron has defended his handling of the situation, telling MPs in
January action was needed because Gaddafi "was bearing down on people
in Benghazi and threatening to shoot his own people like rats".
But the foreign affairs committee said the government "failed to
identify that the threat to civilians was overstated", adding that it
"selectively took elements of Gaddafi's rhetoric at face value".
. . .
Crispin Blunt, chairman of the committee, told the BBC: "We were
dragged along by a French enthusiasm to intervene, and the mission
then moved from protecting people in Benghazi, who arguably were not
at the kind of threat that was then being presented...
"Indeed, on the basis of the evidence we took, the threat to the
people of Benghazi was grossly overstated."
The committee said "political options" were available once Benghazi
had been secured - including through ex-PM Tony Blair's contacts with
Gaddafi - but the UK government "focused exclusively on military
intervention.
By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians
had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change, the committee
said.
. . .