Even Critics Understate How CATASTROPHICALLY BAD The Hillary Clinton-LED NATO Bombing Of Libya Was

[Segami]

A Pentagon intelligence official told Seif Qaddafi that his messages were falling on deaf ears. “Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this,” he explained.

“Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,” the U.S. intelligence official added.

The New York Times published two lengthy pieces this week detailing Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya. Both are important documents, and provide much insight into how, as secretary of state for the Obama administration, Clinton played a uniquely hands-on role in the war. At 13,000 words in length combined, the articles are important contributions to the historical record. Yet although they are critical of Clinton and her leadership in the conflict, they fail to acknowledge the crimes of U.S.-backed rebel groups, and ultimately underestimate just how disastrous the war was, just how hawkish Hillary is and just how significant this will be for the future of the United States — not to mention the future of Libya and its suffering people.

~snip~

Clinton’s leadership in the catastrophic war in Libya should ergo constantly be at the forefront of any discussion of the presidential primary. Throughout the campaign, Clinton has tried to have her cake and eat it too. She has flaunted her leadership in the war as a sign of her supposed foreign policy experience, yet, at the same moment, strived to distance herself from the disastrous results of said war. Today, Libya is in ruins. The seven months of NATO bombing effectively destroyed the government and left behind a political vacuum. Much of this has been filled by extremist groups.


Millions of Libyans live without a formal government. The internationally recognized government only controls the eastern part of the country. Rivaled extremist Islamist groups have seized much of the country. Downtown Benghazi, a once thriving city, is now in ruins. Ansar al-Sharia, a fundamentalist Salafi militia that is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., now controls large chunks of it. ISIS has made Libya home to its largest so-called “caliphate” outside of Iraq and Syria. Thousands of Libyans have been killed, and this violent chaos has sparked a flood of refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Libyan civilians have fled, often on dangerous smuggling boats. The U.N. estimates more than 400,000 people have been displaced.

A disjointed peace process, mediated by the U.N. and other countries, drags on, with no signs of the war ending anytime soon.


cont'

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastrophically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/

[thereismore]

1. I am right there with you segami. She is

reckless and dangerous. Also, she's dead inside.

[Darb]

4. That is a really, really curious statement.

Dead inside? Wow, you are quite the shark jumper with that one. And it is the Hillary people who are on attack.......not.

Another suspect Berner.

[thereismore]

6. You are justifying wars and cluster bombs.

[Darb]

10. No I'm not. You are jumping sharks.

Typical of today's DU, pragmatism is supporting cluster bombs.

Nice form, I'll give you a 7.5. I've seen much better from the Berniers. You guys got some real fine jumpers.

[Darb]

28. Ooooh, putting me on ignore.

Please do. But consider keeping your nose.

[Darb]

2. Trump is most likely.

Don't forget that in your cloud of Hillary hate.

[JaneyVee]

3. Didnt Bernie vote for Libya?

[NWCorona]

8. Voting for the no fly zone

And being the architect of this mess called Libya are two different things.

[Darb]

11. Another shark jump.

Architect? Doubt it. But keep practicing. The shark jumping Olympics is not far off and you got a LOT of competition.

[NWCorona]

13. You should read her book

"shark jump"? Lol

[Darb]

19. Yeah, that's it, I read her book, that's the ticket.

I have my doubts. Keep practicing your jumps. A whole lotta competition out there these days.

[NWCorona]

22. So you don't have anything to add

Other than that shark nonsense. Classic!

[Darb]

23. Yeah, don't cut your nose off.

If that helps.

[NWCorona]

24. Your debating skills are impeccable lol

[Darb]

27. You can't argue with belief.

I am not going to get into an in depth discussion with someone that thinks the Secretary of State calls the shots with regard to an incredibly complicated and intricate international crisis and deserves all the blame/credit/responsibility. Especially one that is currently in the act of cutting off their nose.

[NWCorona]

29. The facts are the facts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/02/03/a-tough-call-on-libya-that-still-haunts/

[Darb]

30. Cherry pick much?

But you knew that. She wasn't president of the world was she? Does that article say she was president of the world? She said let's bomb Libya and POTUS and the French, and the Brits were all powerless to stop her?

You are being hyperbolic in order to trash her, therefor, jumping a shark.

Nice form, keep practicing.

[NWCorona]

31. Again, if you read up on Libya

Obama wasn't on board and clinton went on a lobbying spree. That isn't in dispute. Also I never said that she was the president or green lighted the mission. I said she was the architect and you haven't brought anything to the table that says otherwise.

[Darb]

34. Here's what I am bringing to the discussion:

you think Hillary is Commander in Chief of the French and British Military Forces. You see, the US military did not bomb Libya. ISIS and the rest of those crazy fucks have nothing to do with any of this, it is all Hillary. And that you are determined to cut off your nose.

[NWCorona]

36. Well you would be woefully wrong on that.

Again, do you have anything to bring to the table as you haven't countered my claim yet.

[Darb]

38. Your claim that Hillary is President of the World?

She is not....and was not.

[NWCorona]

33. Also you are using "jump through shark" wrong

That is unless you were in love with my options.

[Darb]

35. Did I say "through"? Meant "the". You are jumping THE shark, meaning.......

you have taken that ridiculous horseshit waaaaaaay to far. Is that wrong?

[NWCorona]

37. Yes, both of your premises are wrong.

[Darb]

39. No, I hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Deal.

[NWCorona]

43. Keep telling yourself that.

[Darb]

45. Next you'll post video of Hillary on the bow of the Titanic yelling......

"I am king of the wooooooooorld!!!!"

Spare the Nose.

[NWCorona]

46. Now you are being silly

[Darb]

50. Yes, I am.

Peace out.





Spare the Nose!

[NWCorona]

53. Same to you

Have a great day!

[randome]

5. The international community was practically begging us to intervene in Libya.

To say this was all Clinton's doing is very short-sighted and betrays one's prejudices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

In the throes of the Arab Spring, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was facing a furious revolt by Libyans determined to end his quixotic 42-year rule. The dictator's forces were approaching Benghanzi, the crucible of the rebellion, and threatening a blood bath. France and Britain were urging the United States to join them in a military campaign to halt Colonel Qaddafi's troops, and now the Arab League, too, was calling for action.

It was a very complex and violent situation but if you're reading into it that it was nothing but 'adventurism' on Clinton's part, I think you are selectively seeing what you want.

Maybe it wasn't handled well, maybe it made ISIS stronger, all good points, but, again, the international community was practically begging us to intervene. It is not as simple as Clinton simply deciding one morning she wanted to kill some people, or to bully then.

Even this NYT article, critical of her, states that much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[CentralMass]

7. I think that she had a bit of an obsession with this one.

[NWCorona]

9. The glee on her face says it all for me.

[jillan]

15. Yep it's so funny! that Libya is now an Isis stronghold, isn't it Hillary?

[NWCorona]

17. I'm not to sure that wasn't by design.

[randome]

18. She's of an older generation that needed to try harder to be "as good as a man".

I think that's just an example of her trying a little too hard but I understand it and I don't think it reflects callousness on her part as it does an overstatement.

Just my opinion. I don't see her as a warmonger at all.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[jillan]

12. They are also begging us to intervene in Syria. TG John Kerry has the intelligence to say no.

[randome]

20. Different countries, different situations, different people involved.

I'm not at all defending Clinton's actions, I'm saying that Libya was a hell of a lot more complex situation than many here are trying to make it out to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[amborin]

52. Biden, Gates, and many more warned AGAINST bombing Libya; the intel that H relied on was flawed; oth

ers could see that, but not H

[philly_bob]

14. All those Republican Benghazi hearings were asking the wrong questions /nt

[jillan]

16. Seriously, Benghazi was not the major problem from her intervention in Libya.

[CentralMass]

60. There, IMO, was some covert operation going on there that cover is being provided for.

I don't think they can ask the right questions.

[Darb]

21. I know, we should have more.

Another jumper.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

25. What's Bernie's plan for Libya?

Other than a past tense, "we should have never".... Let's say he's commander in chief. How does he solve the Middle East? All I've heard him say is how he voted 12 years ago, fair enough it was a good smart vote. Hillary was duped into believing the weapons of mass destruction hype. And that's absolutely on her. Horrible vote. But beyond that vote, he says diplomacy and patience. Ok, and then what happens?

John Kerry is working like crazy to forge diplomatic solutions....

What would Bernie do differently, substantively? Beyond slogans, what?

And I ask this question in a respectful tone. Both sides say let's discuss issues, ok....put some meat on the bones of his Middle East plan. I'd read it all. Everyone knows what's not working. How will Sanders be the solution?

[Arazi]

40. US involvement in the Muslim world has only made things worse

every conflict has become a disaster because of our interference.

Bernie Sanders plan is to get out. Let the Muslim countries deal with their problems many if not most of which, revolve around ancient religious and tribal conflicts we are ignorant about. Provide humanitarian aid only and let them sort it out. The Sunni/Shia split has been going on since Muhammed's death. It's now even worse with more fracturing of Islam into various sects. We can't fix any of that.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

47. So leave a big ol' power vacuum

And let the chips fall as they may?

As a woman, that's a frightening plan because that century old way of existing over there? Hasn't been much of a cake walk for women.

How is "leave it all alone" a plan? Who is that good for? It's not good for women and girls...

Humanitarian aid? We build a school they destroy it. We build a hospital they close it. We send food...does it get there? Do we feed them every day and hope they can work out the politics of dictators and ancient ideologies on their own?

Don't see how that doesn't wind up with women and girls in particular getting the crap end of that deal...

Again I'm respectfully here to discuss issues, not attack, how you think his plan would be successful and for whom...

[Arazi]

51. 3 trillion dollars later, the "government" (cough) in Afghanistan only controls Kabul

and not really even that

3 trillion dollars and 15 years later and it's a hell hole of catastrophic proportions.

That's what US intervention gets. That's the result of trying to prop up puppet governments so there's no "power vacuum". Do you think the women are better off in Afghanistan now? How many did we slaughter to "improve" their lives?

We can't solve this. Colonialism has ensured we'll only make it worse. The only places that are succeeding (to the degree they're succeeding) are those we stayed out of "helping the rebels" during the Arsb Spring - Tunisia and Egypt

[HillareeeHillaraah]

59. Now who's saying no we can't?

It's too expensive, too big a goal?

Here, we disagree

[Arazi]

61. I'd laugh but it's just too fucking sad

You can't possibly be serious.

Really

Do you think the women of Afghanistan are better off now than they were before we bombed the shit out of them? Destroyed their livelihoods, families, homes, wells etc?

There no "power vacuum" now because there's a "government" in place?

Do you think we might have gotten a better result for the women and children of Afghanistan if we'd never dropped a single bomb and instead used that 3 trillion dollars to build schools, houses, provided clean water supplies, and decent roads? Maybe let the special forces hunt for Bin Ladin and the extremists instead of killing and maiming thousands of Americans in a failed attempt to "root out" the Taliban

The fucking Taliban (or any extremist group like Hamas or Boko Haram) thrives when there's a war on. Afghanistan had 15 years of the Soviets and 8 years of us getting our war on - that's a virtual lifetime for extremists to form and take hold. Look what ISIS has been able to do in 2 years.

We don't understand these places. They're colonial history ensures we'll fail anyway.

It's time to let the Arab and gulf states deal with it and get out militarily.

[randome]

49. U.S. involvement in Muslim world disasters, did you mean to say?

Our interference is definitely not always a positive but it is sometimes understandable when the Muslim world itself is doing everything it can to descend into chaos. I don't see us disengaging from the world.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Arazi]

55. Bernie Sanders isn't advocating disengagement

hes advocating to shift our focus to humanitarian and educational aid.

Food, medicine, shelter instead of bombs.

The bombing thing isn't working

[randome]

56. Drop food and medicine on them while they drop bombs or hack away at one another?

I think we interfere too much but sometimes it really is the only way to try and stem the killing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Arazi]

58. Killing them won't stop the killing

how many did we kill in Iraq?

How many are still being killed daily in the Sunni/Shia civil war that's going on now?

If we kill more of them do you think that's going to "solve" the Sunni/Shia fracture?

How about we don't kill more of them and yes, drop food, medicine, water etc instead? If they continue to kill each other (because they're going to - this civil war has been going on for millennia) at least we won't have helped kill and perhaps only helped them live.

[randome]

66. Iraq doesn't count as an intervention since it was stable before Bush, Jr.

That was an unprovoked invasion.

Sure, I understand the non-intervention standpoint but what about when other groups or neighboring countries are pleading for our help? Should we ignore them? "Sorry. Here, have a pop-tart."

Assad is an absolute bastard. He is absolutely on the wrong side of this thing in Syria. We can turn away and let him do whatever he wants or we can try to help. It's not an easy decision to make and I don't for one moment think Obama wouldn't prefer to pull us out of every nation possible but he has to see the larger picture, too. As does our next President.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Arazi]

67. Serious question, arming the "rebels" in Syria has worked?

How about our "training" of the rebels?

FWIW, we're not going after Assad anymore. You know that right? It's part of our deal with Russia. Also you do realize Assad has the majority Syrian support? It's only in our (cough PNAC) minds that this dictator has to go

We're supposedly bombing ISIS, Al-Nusra, the Khorasan group fighters etc meanwhile Russia is bombing the "anti-Assad rebel groups" that WE are supporting (covertly now since we aren't supposed to be going after Assad anymore) and doing its level best to antagonize Turkey into striking because now that they've been invited in, Putin is a happy camper to rev up that little grudge match.

Oh yes and the Kurds - here we are walking a fine line as they battle ISIS for us but sshh, we can't be seen overtly arming or helping them or our ally Turkey, that wants to see every single last Kurd genocided off the planet, will get angry.

Meanwhile HRC has an insane proposal for a US enforced "no fly zone" over Syria that will certainly lead to direct war with Russia.

Are you confused yet? Feel like we're on the right track there still? Still feel like we're "helping" or being sucked into a dangerous game without any good reason, a game that's almost certain to backfire as has every other military effort we try in the region?

It's madness and it's time we are out. Drop meds, drop food, drop shelter - do good instead of contributing to the evil

[karynnj]

64. Bernie has said that he would not be open to regime change - which means that there will

be fewer NEW fires to fight. Sanders has repeatedly praised the effort John Kerry is making. In fact, HRC mocked him for arguing that to deal with the Syrian problem, he would involve the countries in the region - like Iran and Saudi Arabia. HRC's response was that essentially that Iran was not helpful. In fact, Kerry's efforts that led to the Vienna agreement that led to the UN resolution and the cessation of hostilities, did just that!

You seem to equate Kerry's effort with HRC -- yet, her own comments suggest that she would not have brought Iran in. This is something that Kerry considered necessary to get those VERY long shot results. That Bernie spoke of the same thing suggests that he is actually closer to what Kerry and Obama are doing.

You ask what Bernie's solution is -- yet you should balance it by asking for Clinton's solution. In 2015, when she thought it was helpful, she distanced herself from Obama and actually argued that not following her advise to more aggressively help the rebels and for leaving Iraq, he helped create the ISIS mess. Even now, she has called for a no fly zone - when ISIS has no planes -- so, they would be used to keep Russia and Syria from flying in the area. That is a recipe for trouble.

[DetlefK]

32. So... We were supposed to let a bloodthirsty dictator massacre the rebels?

Gaddafi's was giving interviews, bragging how the libyan army will have wiped out the rebels in Benghazi before the international community has even finished debating.



So... Do you really think that Muammar Al-Gaddafi should have been allowed to kill the rebels?

[Arazi]

42. Why do we have to intervene? Why not let the gulf and Arab states deal with it?

we aren't helping there - our involvement is only making things much worse.

The rebels are dead now anyway along with hundreds of thousands of others. It's equivalent to "we had to destroy the village to save the village". That's fucked up

Our interference has only made matters worse in those regions. It's time to get out. Provide humanitarian aid only and get out

[DetlefK]

62. HAHAHAHA! The gulf-states dealing with a problem!!! HAHAHAHAHA!

Libya at the brink of civil-war.
What did the Arabic League say? "It's their internal business, we shouldn't meddle."

The West helps the rebels topple Gaddafi.

Brief stability turns into sectarian warfare.
What does the Arabic League say on Libya? *crickets*




Syria at the brink of civil-war.
What did the Arabic League say? "It's their internal business, we shouldn't meddle."

Civil-war erupts. ISIS, Al-Nusra and others join the fray.
What did the Arabic League do? They supported ISIS, because they wanted to get rid of the iranian lackey Assad. And then they changed their minds. Saudi-Arabia is now fortifying its northern border to prevent the fighting from spilling into Saudi-Arabia.




Shia rebels are trying to overthrow the sunni government of Yemen.
Did the Arabic League say that this is their internal business and they shouldn't meddle? No. They began bombing the shit out of the Shias.

[Arazi]

63. It's THEIR sectarian battle to fight or not. It's NOT ours

That's the bottom line

Our "help" isn't helping. HRC wants more of the same. In fact, she's on record saying she'd do even more military intervention.

That's bullshit

[Cheese Sandwich]

41. I like this focus on Libya but that graphic has too many faces in it.

[Sweetearth]

44. A woman's touch?

As the most influential inspiration for chaos & aggression against country after country in the mid-east & South America, she's caused more misery in the world than any other American & put us at greater risk than at any time in our history. Yeah!, insofar as the gender thing, she gives women a bad name.

[Jefferson23]

48. There was support here for those efforts, and expect the same no matter what she decides

in foreign policy should she win the WH. When our side does it, just as in WS money,
its not a big problem.

[Faux pas]

54. Oh snap!

[WDIM]

57. Hillicon will continue PNACs unending wars of aggression.

While supporting brutal dictators that meet the interest of the US.
Anybody that has respect for human life would not vote for Hillary.

[WillyT]

65. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!