Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumWHAT HILLARY KNEW ABOUT LIBYA
What Hillary Knew About Libya
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
13 January 16
In Official Washingtons propaganda world, the U.S. government and its allies are always standing for whats right and good and the enemies are the epitome of evil doing the vilest things. But some emails to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton depicted a far different reality, writes Robert Parry.
o justify U.S. regime changes, the U.S. government has routinely spread rumors and made other dubious claims which even when later doubted or debunked are left in place indefinitely as corrosive propaganda, eating away at the image of various enemies and deforming public opinion.
Even though this discredited propaganda can have a long half-life continuing to contaminate the publics ability to perceive reality for years President Barack Obama and his administration have shown no inclination to undertake a kind of HAZMAT clean-up of the polluted information environment that American citizens have been forced to live in.
A recent case in point was the emergence in the State Departments New Years Eve release of more than 3,000 emails to and from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of evidence that two key propaganda themes used to advance violent regime change in Libya in 2011 may have originated with rebel-inspired rumors passed on by Clintons private adviser Sidney Blumenthal.
A March 27, 2011 email from Blumenthal reminded Clinton that I communicated more than a week ago on this story [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi placing bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result of Allied bombing though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know, [Defense Secretary] Robert Gates gives credence to it.
Blumenthals email, which was slugged Rumor: Q[addafi]s rape policy, then plunged ahead into his new rumor: Sources now say, again rumor (that is, this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed independently by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of a much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation.
A month later, this bizarre Viagra-rape angle became part of a United Nations presentation by then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice who brought up the Viagra charge in a debate about the evils of Muammar Gaddafis regime.
A U.N. diplomat at the closed session on April 28, 2011, told The Guardian that It was during a discussion about whether there is moral equivalence between the Gaddafi forces and the rebels. She listed human rights abuses by Gaddafis forces, including snipers shooting children in the street and the Viagra story.
On Blumenthals other propaganda point, its not clear where Defense Secretary Gates got the idea to accuse Gaddafi of staging scenes of U.S.-inflicted carnage, but Blumenthals email indicates that he was disseminating that rumor which might have been picked up by Gates, rather than independently confirmed by Gates. (Its also true that the staging excuse has been used before when evidence emerges of U.S. bombs killing civilians.)
Media Self-Interest
Yet, regardless of the truth or falsity of such U.S. claims and counter-claims, the chance that someone inside Official Washington is going to review the lies and exaggerations used to rationalize a major U.S. foreign policy initiative in this case, the violent overthrow of the Gaddafi regime to, in effect, clear Gaddafis name is remote at best.
The few cases of the media debunking U.S. propaganda, such as exposing the made-up claims about Iraqi soldiers killing babies on incubators before the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, are rare exceptions to the rule. Even rarer are cases when the U.S. government admits that it relied on false information, such as the intelligence community recanting its pre-invasion claims about Iraq hiding WMD stockpiles in 2002-03.
The much more common approach is to simply leave the decaying propaganda in place and move on to the next target of opportunity. There is little benefit for anyone to undertake the painstaking work of separating whatever slices of truth exist within the rot of lies and exaggerations that were used to justify some war.
The way mainstream journalism usually works in America is that a reporter who challenges U.S. government propaganda aimed at a foreign enemy is putting his or her career at risk. The reporters patriotism will be questioned amid suggestions that he or she is a fill-in-the-blank-with-the-villains-name apologist.
And since the reality whatever it is is usually fuzzy, there is almost never any vindication for a brave stance. So, the smart career play is to go along with the propaganda or stay silent.
A similar reality exists inside the U.S. government. Honest intelligence analysts can expect no rewards if they debunk one of these propaganda themes, especially after a number of important U.S. officials have gone out publicly and sold the falsehood to the people. Making the Secretary of State or the Defense Secretary or the President look bad is not a great career move.
####More####
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/34588-focus-what-hillary-knew-about-libya
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Also claims that the reasons France wanted war was to protect the French Franc, help himself politically at home, get more access to Libyan oil and help spread French influence abroad.
So we knew that, at the very least, one of our major allies in the campaign had very disingenuous reasons for dropping bombs and we said nothing.
Which is pretty much as awful as doing it for oil ourselves.
And honestly - knowing what we know about US foreign policy - the above is probably an optimistic best case scenario.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The French Franc was discontinued when it was replaced by the Euro in 2002
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)They are CFA Francs that are backed by France but are not French currencies and only circulate in certain African countries.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)the are French, and they are francs..
The delineation is not really relevant either way you look at it..
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You're splitting hairs to no purpose. One degree of separation does not negate motive in this instance.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The French Franc no longer exists. It was phased out over a 3-year period beginning in 1999.
The CFA Franc is a currency that is separate from the French Franc, although it is backed by France.