Hillary Clinton’s Failed Libya ‘Doctrine’

Exclusive: Libya remains a nation shattered by political chaos and bloody terrorism, a result of the U.S.-backed “regime change” in 2011 that Secretary of State Clinton championed and once saw as her crowning foreign policy achievement, even the basis for a “Clinton Doctrine,” reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fancied the violent 2011 “regime change” in Libya such a triumph that her aides discussed labeling it the start of a “Clinton Doctrine,” according to recently released emails that urged her to claim credit when longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was deposed. And Clinton did celebrate when Gaddafi was captured and murdered.

“We came; we saw; he died,” Clinton exulted in a TV interview after receiving word of Gaddafi’s death on Oct. 20, 2011, though it is not clear how much she knew about the grisly details, such as Gaddafi being sodomized with a knife before his execution.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Ousted Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi shortly before he was murdered on Oct. 20, 2011.

Since then, the cascading Libyan chaos has turned the “regime change” from a positive notch on Clinton’s belt and into a black mark on her record. That violence has included the terrorist slaying of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, and jihadist killings across northern Africa, including the Islamic State’s decapitation of a group of Coptic Christians last February.

It turns out that Gaddafi’s warning about the need to crush Islamic terrorism in Libya’s east was well-founded although the Obama administration cited it as the pretext to justify its “humanitarian intervention” against Gaddafi. The vacuum created by the U.S.-led destruction of Gaddafi and his army drew in even more terrorists and extremists, forcing the United States and Western nations to abandon their embassies in Tripoli a year ago.

One could argue that those who devised and implemented the disastrous Libyan “regime change” the likes of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power should be almost disqualified from playing any future role in U.S. foreign policy. Instead, Clinton is the Democratic frontrunner to succeed Barack Obama as President and Power was promoted from Obama’s White House staff to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations — where she is at the center of other dangerous U.S. initiatives in seeking “regime change” in Syria and pulling off “regime change” in Ukraine.

In fairness, however, it should be noted that it has been the pattern in Official Washington over the past few decades for hawkish “regime change” advocates to fail upwards. With only a few exceptions, the government architects and the media promoters of the catastrophic Iraq War have escaped meaningful accountability and continue to be leading voices in setting U.S. foreign policy.

A Dubious Validation

In August 2011, Secretary of State Clinton saw the Libyan “regime change” as a resounding validation of her foreign policy credentials, according to the emails released this week and described at the end of a New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt.

According to one email chain, her longtime friend and personal adviser Sidney Blumenthal praised the military success of the bombing campaign to destroy Gaddafi’s army and hailed the dictator’s impending ouster.

“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”

Clinton forwarded Blumenthal’s advice to Jake Sullivan, a close State Department aide. “Pls read below,” she wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic. That’s my hesitancy, since I’m not sure how many chances I’ll get.”

Sullivan responded, saying “it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine.”

However, when Gaddafi abandoned Tripoli that day, President Obama seized the moment to make a triumphant announcement. Clinton’s opportunity to highlight her joy at the Libyan “regime change” had to wait until Oct. 20, 2011, when Gaddafi was captured, tortured and murdered.

In a TV interview, Clinton celebrated the news when it appeared on her cell phone and even paraphrased Julius Caesar’s famous line after Roman forces achieved a resounding victory in 46 B.C. and he declared, “veni, vidi, vici” “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Clinton’s reprise of Caesar’s boast went: “We came; we saw; he died.” She then laughed and clapped her hands.

Presumably, the “Clinton Doctrine” would have been a policy of “liberal interventionism” to achieve “regime change” in countries where there is some crisis in which the leader seeks to put down an internal security threat and where the United States objects to the action.

Of course, the Clinton Doctrine would be selective. It would not apply to brutal security crackdowns by U.S.-favored governments, say, Israel attacking Gaza or the Kiev regime in Ukraine slaughtering ethnic Russians in the east. But it’s likely, given the continuing bloodshed in Libya, that Hillary Clinton won’t be touting the “Clinton Doctrine” in her presidential campaign.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

41 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s Failed Libya ‘Doctrine’

  1. Anonymous
    July 5, 2015 at 13:39

    Americans are not safe wherever they go and this is really sad because the ppl who are causing this are living comfortable with a lot of money to guarantee their own personal safety and you guys vote for them.

  2. John
    July 5, 2015 at 07:32

    Yesterday I was talking to someone from Europe, who was complaining about the Greek crisis and other problems facing the EU. At one point, he said that at least in America, there’s the American Dream, the idea that anyone can start with nothing and still work themselves into any kind of success they’re willing to strive for. And I thought, yes, it’s great, whenever it actually works that way. The problem is, when you look at the polls and see that the leaders are Bush and Clinton, it goes a long way to contradict the idea that your success depends on your performance. To put it succinctly, the reason that an enlightened minority despise Clinton is that she represents the antithesis of the American Dream.

  3. Jean
    July 4, 2015 at 20:46

    Gadafi was a great man, he cared for his people and for Africa. He was butting
    heads with the most evil, greedy, Heartless people on earth. Hillary Clinton
    fits the evil discription in every way. She is a scourge upon the earth. People
    have only to look back on the Clinton history and the body count that arose with
    them when in power at the State level continueing on through the Presidential
    terms. The media is staging events depicting her as being very popular. People
    will sell their soul to the devil and it has been done election after election.

  4. irv
    July 3, 2015 at 17:08

    Qaddafi was going to finance it with his independent pan-African bank plan. The Globalist Banksters has to have him killed and Libya “freed” because of that. Look up ELLEN BROWN: LIBYA: ALL ABOUT OIL, OR ALL ABOUT BANKING?



    “…1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right

    In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.

    2. Education and medical treatment were all free

    Under Gaddafi, Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Middle East and Africa. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.

    3. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project

    The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.

    4. It was free to start a farming business

    If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.

    5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies

    When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.

    6. Electricity was free

    Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!

    7. Cheap petrol

    During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.

    8. Gaddafi raised the level of education

    Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.

    9. Libya had It’s own state bank

    Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.

    10. The gold dinar

    Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.

    The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader…..”

    • Brad Owen
      July 4, 2015 at 09:06

      Great Analysis, irv. It usually proves out to be the best policy, to figure out the Money Angle, to examine the status of “The Money Power”, who controls it, who’s losing control of it, or gaining control of it, etc… All other “conflicts” over religions, or political “-isms”, even environmental fights and differing groups of scientists with opposing views, are usually subordinate “means” to gaining or maintaining control over “The Money Power”, which assigns control over World events to that group with “The Money Power”.

      • Mortimer
        July 6, 2015 at 15:21

        One source of “The Money Power” behind Hillary is George Soros. His pac has already contributed $25 million to her campaign. This has to be based on her credibility as a bona fide member of the Regime Change minded “sole superpower’ imperialist murderers – the darlings of New American Century dogma which dominates US foreign policy.

        Soros is a chief architect/shot caller and financier of the elected-government overthrow in Ukraine, providing cash for weapons and giving orders to the neo-nazi shooters as well as to those forces murdering civilians in eastern Ukraine.

        Hillary, as US president, would naturally follow the pre-ordained imperial plan designed by Brzezenski as outlined in his book, “A Blueprint for World Dictatorship.” The war-mongers are already laying groundwork for conflict in Central Asia, using Islamist to foment war in that region. The GWOT is an all encompassing endeavor to OPEN MARKETS for global capitalists control and ownership. (The East India Company is alive and thriving under the banner of the American flag & “NATO” ).

  5. Mortimer
    July 3, 2015 at 15:47

    Let none of us forget the pernicious Preview of Coming Attractions as stated by Hillary’s predecessor at State Dept.

    To Wit: “What we see now are the BIRTH PANGS OF A NEW MIDDLE EAST”
    Ms. Condolezza Rice, c. 2006.

    This is simply the fulfillment of “A Clean Break- A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”.

  6. July 2, 2015 at 22:35

    I must remember to pair Libya with Honduras when talking about the enlightened wannabe leader of the free world.

    • Mark
      July 3, 2015 at 06:08

      Yes, and when speaking to Americans complaining about Latino’s coming to the US looking for work, or speaking to Europeans complaining of Mid-Easterners seeking refuge in Europe, remind them that it is American policies promoting corporate dominance in the Americas, and promoting Israel’s special interest religious chaos in the M-E from which these people flee…

  7. F. G. Sanford
    July 2, 2015 at 07:49

    Lots of insightful comments here demonstrating a wide range of concise interpretations and cogent observations. But what strikes me is that Hillary’s own transcripts illustrate the fact that Sidney Blumenthal does her thinking for her. So, a vote for Hillary is really a vote for Sidney. It’s kinda like the relationship between Karl Rove and George Bush: Bush called Rove “Turd-blossom”, and everybody else called Rove “Bush’s brain”. That was somewhat disingenuous, because as we all know, Cheney was actually in charge. Based on Judge Napolitano’s recent article, Hillary has already established her credentials as a war criminal, and the American voting public appears to be satisfied she has demonstrated the appropriate skill-sets to handle the job. What I’m really curious about is the term of endearment Blumenthal will eventually acquire. I doubt that it’ll be ‘Stud-Muffin’, but you never know…

  8. paul wichmann
    July 2, 2015 at 06:14

    [repost, with apology to ConsortiumNews]

    From Blumenthal:
    “First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. … You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. … The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”

    How wonderfully sickening.
    When doing your job primarily or exclusively for your own greater glory (or perks or profit); when doing your job with one eye and half a mind on your next job, the results of your jobbing will be a flush. Straight line causal.
    Mrs. Clinton is, of course, the queen and king of ‘em all, y’all, cutting a figure so grotesque that any possible caricature is flattering. Yet this is US. This is how we do it. In government, in industry and in our leisure time. And this is why our backsides are planted. Our cause is lost because we’re only pretending to have one.

  9. paul wichmann
    July 2, 2015 at 05:27

    From Blumenthal:
    “First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. … You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. … The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’”

    How wonderfully sickening.
    When doing your job primarily or exclusively for your own greater glory (or perks or profit); when doing your job with one eye and half a mind on your next job, the results of your jobbing will be a flush. Straight line causal.
    Mrs. Clinton is, of course, the queen and king of ‘em all, y’all, cutting a figure so grotesque that any possible caricature is flattering. Yet this is US. This is how we do it. In government, in industry and in our leisure time. And this is why our asses is planted. Our cause is lost because we don’t even have one.

  10. July 2, 2015 at 04:40

    As a European I despair at the increasing attacks on democracy, both at home and abroad, that have been carried out by successive US governments of both political colors. Hillary Clinton is offering yet more of the same with jam on.

    What causes me most despair is the deliberate convolution of NATO with the EU. To get one thing straight: NATO is not the military arm of the EU, and the states of the EU are not ‘united’ in the way the United States are. Unfortunately, most US citizens have forgotten the term is plural.

    Neither the EU or NATO has been elected to represent Europe as a whole, and NATO is not elected at all, so neither can claim to speak for the whole of Europe with any degree of validity. Added to that, not all members of NATO are members of the EU – the US and Canada being prime examples – and not all members of the EU are members of NATO. Further to that, far from all European states being members of either, despite amazingly undemocratic pressure by the US for them to join both, many are not. This interference in European affairs is astounding, when considering how the US would take it if Europe started messing about in Latin America or Canada.

    The fact that a number of European states are not members of either of the EU or NATO, and many of those who are do not agree with US policies in Europe, makes it impossible for either body to claim to represent the interests of Europe. In the minds of many Europeans both organistations could be said to represent the interests of the US above all others. I would go even further. The wholesale meddling of the US in the affairs of former soviet republics goes against the interests of Europe, which would be the first in line – and bear the brunt – of any military retaliation by Russia should Russia feel under too great a threat.

    • Peter Loeb
      July 2, 2015 at 05:16


      Thanks to Bryan Hemming for his careful deliniation of
      the reality of what these various organizations were /are
      intended to be.

      Despite these points of Mr. Hemming’s, in the realm of
      political rhetoric there is no distinction. While the US
      may be losing its power in the (very) long run, it is not
      productive to believe that the US in claiming the support
      of “our allies” wherever and whomever they may
      be, as being under US command.


      The information on Hillary Clinton is interesting but ultimately
      irrelevant. There is no candidate for the office of US
      President who does not take pride in supporting terror-
      states such as Israel in their oppression of their neighbors
      and conveniently denying international law.

      But then international law is not applicable to Jews as
      explained in Norman Finkelsteins “THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY”..

      H. Clinton’s previous policy and attitudes have always meant
      increased support of Israeli oppression and murder. These
      issues will not be highlighted in Clinton’s campaign. The US
      gives such pretense of “shock” at presumed Russian
      actions in the Ukraine. There is silence about US-Israeli
      acts of aggression and murder .

      —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

      • Mark
        July 2, 2015 at 06:44

        The US/Israel relationship is indeed a strange one. With Israel’s AIPAC lobby coercing US politicians and the “US media” being corrupted by its prevalent bias enabling and even condoning Israel’s atrocities, it’s questionable as to whether it’s Israel or the US running this circus of worldwide impositions and injustice.

        They are unquestionably partners in crime…

    • paul wichmann
      July 2, 2015 at 05:40

      “…makes it impossible for either body (the EU or NATO) to claim to represent the interests of Europe.”

      Bryan, here in america, the administration, our representatives and the supreme court DO claim to represent the interests of america – of americans – in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Mrs. Clinton Exhibit A. Welcome to the imposition of our world.

    • Mark
      July 2, 2015 at 07:24

      Thanks for that report. The negative effects of the undemocratic enslavement of worldwide citizens, by what appears to be the US government, is being seen by more and more people for what it is.

      The fact is the US government has been willingly hijacked by corporate and special interests — in collusion they all work hand in hand to enrich themselves with complete disregard for all applicable domestic and international laws anywhere.

      It seems the lure of personal gain and advantage is too powerful for the average sycophant to resist — various governments led by the US along with corporate interests and mass media propaganda networks are all enabling each other to conduct operations as a collective of psychopaths defined by their criminal activities and lack of empathy for their victims — the entire world’s population pays for their transgressions in so many quantifiable ways.

      Life on earth has never been under a greater threat from such an organized and deceitful collection of inhuman beings…

      Disinformation and enticing their operatives and adherents with carrots, makes them all practitioners of the world’s oldest profession as they buy and sell each other on the road to extinction.

  11. Boris M Garsky
    July 1, 2015 at 20:49

    Prior to his announcement to run for the presidency, I predicted that Sanders would indeed run. I predicted that he would have widespread press support, which, in fact, is overwhelming for someone who has no qualifications nor achievements worth noting. I predicted that he would be asked to join up with Hillary as VP. Clinton has too much drive and ill earned pride to allow for anything else. Either way, Sanders will be on the ticket. And who knows if the SCOTUS will need to intervene and usurp the Constitution as it had in 2000. Personally, I do not believe the polls, the numbers are obviously skewed towards Sanders. If he can only muster a VP spot, Hillarys’ career may be short lived. What we have at stake here is nothing less then taking control of our nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community. War with Iran would be guaranteed as might a war with Russia and China. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings. Note the ceaseless media attacks on Bush and Trump, both far more qualified to president this nation. Israel is determined to get its’ man in place and we are in troubled waters to say the least. We need to get the neocons out of Washington.

  12. Mark
    July 1, 2015 at 19:23

    Hillary is the epitome of American political betrayal and unpatriotism — along with Bill Clinton and all their supporters and philosophically like-minded operatives and agents enjoined wittingly or not, in the unholy marriage of democrats and republicans, for the purpose of delivering the American electorate and citizenry over to corporate fascism — they now attempt to enslave and rule over the entirety of the earth with the propagandized consent and contributing support of the American people…

  13. David Sheridan
    July 1, 2015 at 13:49

    There is no doubt in my mind; Clinton is a sociopath. If she get elected president she just might start another world war.

    • Zachary Smith
      July 1, 2015 at 21:37

      On that account the woman’s “Christian” religion needs to be closely examined. If Hillary is a certain breed of Fundie, the chance to start a nuclear war would be the climax of her whole life.

  14. Abe
    July 1, 2015 at 13:22

    ‘Libya & Syria steps in West’s way to challenge China’
    Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

  15. Abe
    July 1, 2015 at 13:20

    Libya and Syria in Context of the US/NATO Plan for a “New Middle East”
    Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

  16. Abe
    July 1, 2015 at 13:06

    The title of Horace Campbell’s book on NATO’s 2011 Libyan intervention, Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya, is an allusion to a Guardian article by Seumas Milne entitled, “If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure.” Echoing Milne’s use of “catastrophic” is apt. Claudia Gazzini of the liberal NGO International Crisis Group points out that, if the casualty figures provided by Libya’s National Transitional Council are accurate, “the death toll subsequent to the seven-month NATO intervention was at least ten times greater than the tally of those killed in the first few weeks of the conflict” before NATO intervened. As Campbell shows, while NATO claimed to be protecting human rights, it bombed Libyan civilians and enabled the Libyan opposition to persecute black African migrant workers and ethnically cleanse the black Libyan town of Tawergha. Less than four years after NATO attacked Libya, Bernadino Leon, the United Nation’s special envoy to Libya, says the country is “close to the point of no return.”

    Perhaps as many as two million Libyan refugees have fled to Tunisia, though the exact figure is in dispute. In November, militants claiming affiliation with ISIS secured control of the Libyan city of Derna, where they have carried out public executions and assassinated activists.

    The Disaster in Libya
    By Greg Shupak

  17. dahoit
    July 1, 2015 at 12:57

    She represents the banality of evil tome as exhibit number one,and is a serial liar and opportunist,ready to do anything for power.
    A modern whig,a no nothing with multiple plaques of excellence on her hall walls.

    • Zachary Smith
      July 1, 2015 at 21:35

      Sir or madam, your fine summary isn’t quite complete.

      You left out one of Hillary’s major features – her incompetence. But I suppose that if creating the chaos was her starting aim, Libya might not be the best example of that.

      Hillary is Israel’s dream president.

  18. incontinent reader
    July 1, 2015 at 12:42

    Pre-war Libya- Secular state, highest standard of living in Africa, guaranteed housing, guaranteed education, guaranteed healthcare (including abroad, if required), income subsidies for the elderly and for families with new children, women’s rights as applied to marriage and the workplace (not that that would have mattered to Hillary or the sisterhood in DC), the largest water project in the world (built without US contractors, and ready to be hooked up until it was bombed to smithereens by NATO), a deepwater port/dock extension in Tripoli under development by the Chinese (being built at a fraction of the cost, and in a more timely way, than the French or US could have achieved- until it was bombed, and the Chinese expelled), a catalyst for real African unity, an advocate of an African monetary gold standard, and, reportedly, the impetus behind an African coalition suit that was being prepared for filing in the World Court against the Europeans to recover several trillion dollars in damages for past exploitation of and transgressions against the African peoples (which, whether or not it had any chance of success, would have made clear how Africa was and is being exploited by the West and its multinationals).

    • a.z
      July 1, 2015 at 13:42

      i actually did not see the reason behind them doing libya. i mean he was now playing by their rules. i thought this was about hubris, settling old scores and misreading the situation (thinking the kleptocracy albeit without the gaddafi family would immediately take over control the situation and give them a free hand in everything) but your points especially the last one (i think it was just to play himself up as an independent actor which he was not anymore) seem to make some kind of sense with regards to their action ( in an amoralist way).

    • Joe Tedesky
      July 1, 2015 at 14:08

      Everything you wrote here should be used as evidence towards how our U.S. Media is not keeping it’s American readers up to par. To many your essay would be a mine blowing education if enough were to hear you. This isn’t your responsibility, however. This responsibility belongs to our MSM, and this is where the blame belongs. Thanks, for your post.

      • William
        July 3, 2015 at 17:42

        Joe, the U.S. mainstream media is in complete lockstep with the administration. The same people who spent billions of dollars to make whores out of congress and who spent billions more to elect Obama and the very same people who own or control every major newspaper, every major publishing house, and every major t.v. television corporation and movie studio. It would be nice to have examples rebutting this charge, but I’m not holding my breath.

        • Procopius
          July 5, 2015 at 07:55

          The U.S. media are now controlled by about half a dozen reactionary billionaires who own controlling interests (not necessarily more than 5%) in the huge Multi-National Corporations that now own all the media, down to local AM radio talk stations. Of course the people who work there know what the owners don’t want to hear and so make sure to never cover those stories. One that always surprises me, though, is Peter G. Peterson’s “Fiscal Times.” Despite the owner’s insane obsession to destroy Social Security, they get some pretty good economists writing for them, and articles that really counter Peterson’s goals. Other than that …

    • Brad Owen
      July 2, 2015 at 05:30

      “Well we can’t let such a thing as THAT continue to exist. It’ll inflame the hirelings, fill them with notions of worth and dignity ‘n’ such…they’ll stop work ‘n’ start that nonsense again about rights ‘n’ such, and all our hard work of breaking them-to-harness will be undone. Get our guy in the White House on the phone. Something must be done about this…” said the Barons of finance & industry.

  19. Bruce
    July 1, 2015 at 12:39

    And NOT jest Libyans; Killery’s depraved disregard for human life and well-being extends to US, in the death-masked Face Of NukeUS FUKUSHIMA!
    http://nuclear-news.net/2013/07/26/radiating-americans-fukushima-rain-clintons-secret-food-pact/ : “Gundersen told SolarIMG that high-level people he knows in the State Department said Hillary Clinton signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing for the United States to continue buying food from Japan, despite that food not being properly tested for radioactive materials.” It’s the TPP of the 0bama/Billary Destitutional Duarchy’s TREASONOUS $haft!!
    $he CAME, $he $aw, WE DIED!!!

  20. W. R. Knight
    July 1, 2015 at 12:25

    The situation isn’t much better in Iraq or Afghanistan, and now they want to do the same thing in Syria, Iran, Ukraine and Russia. What the hell is wrong with this picture?

    • Stefan
      July 1, 2015 at 14:09

      That depends on our presumption I believe.

      If we assume that USA has good intentions, then we are rightly confused about the strategy.

      On the other hand, if we assume that USA are acting in nefarious purposes, then the strategy makes sense.

      • Andrew
        July 2, 2015 at 06:04

        That’s really the key, isn’t it, Stefan.

        And it is critical. The hypothesis that our leaders have good intentions leads to logical contradictions. Whereas the hypothesis that our leaders have bed intentions leads to a logical consistency.

        And that is really a proof that our leaders do not have good intentions.

        And a very significant indicator that they indeed have evil intentions.

        And so by chossing such leaders, the ones that choose are indeed agreeing to these intentions.

        The information is there, often enough, in the press. Pretty obvious.

      • Procopius
        July 5, 2015 at 07:42

        I don’t know. I believe in the maxim, “Never infer stupidity when evil is a sufficient explanation.” With the Kagans and Victoria Nuland in charge of our foreign policy we know our purposes are nefarious. By the way, did you notice Obama appointed Robert Kagan (Victoria’s husband) an adviser to the National Security Council a few months ago? What’s John Brennan doing these days? The thing is you need to evaluate a strategy by its outcomes, not its nominal purposes. America hasn’t had a coherent strategy since Truman put MacArthur in charge of the forces in Korea and he decided to use them for his own purposes, mainly start a war with China. We ended up succeeding in our strategic goal in Korea. No, children, don’t listen to the chickenhawks, we restored the status quo ante, with a more defensible truce line than we had before (not much, but still …). Since then our “strategy” has been incoherent and unsuccessful. Well, OK, you can say Gulf War I was successful because, as Chenery explained at the time, it would have been complete idiocy to remove Saddam Hussein. I find myself wondering, when did the military stop studying strategy? When did civilian academics become the only people who are considered competent to establish goals? What did that get us? MAD.

    • Kiza
      July 3, 2015 at 03:21

      Failing upwards when you stuff up.

      After we, the US, did a cakewalk in Iraq and then another cakewalk (or rather we came, we saw, he died) in Libya, then Syria, all these places are now hotbeds of stability, democracy and human rights. We even established a local cake takeout store called ISIS, which may grow to start delivering its home-made cakes all the way to the US, not to mention the EU.

      Well, it looks like it is time to get our hands really dirty and to confront the big villains, China and Russia.

      Oops, but Iraq is a total and utter mess, Libya is an unbeliveable mess, Syria is on the edge of the same abyss. Nevermind, when you fail on a small job, then grab a much bigger, thousand times more difficult job and claim that you must and you will succeed on this one. The past track record does not count.

      Single word: incompetence.

      • william
        July 3, 2015 at 17:36

        Kiza, in general a good comment, but your one word conclusion for all the mess, “incompetence,” is wrong. It was not incompetence but deliberate lying. The chief war mongers are well know: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al., who consciously and traitorously manipulated a weak president into a war of aggression against Iraq because the destruction of Iraq was an important step in a long range plan to have the U.S. spend its treasure and shed the blood of its young people to ensure the long term hegemony of Israel in the Middle East, ensuring the establishment of “Greater Israel” in the near term.

        • Kiza
          July 4, 2015 at 10:43

          Bill, yes it was deliberate lying in all US wars, from Spanish War through Pearl Harbour of WW2 all to today. Whilst the US leaders were always lying us into wars, they were never as incompetent as now, both parties of course (the Coca Cola Party and the Pepsi Party). The most potent symptom of the decline is this lack of leaders’ capability to complete a job – they wrecked Libya to get its oil and can they get oil now? The second most potent symptom is the total and deep corruption of the system, at all levels, everywhere you poke a stick there is rot. The corporates of finance, military-industrial and pharma have eaten out the US like worms inside a carcass.

Comments are closed.