Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess

Exclusive: U.S. officials are pushing a dubious new scheme to “unify” a shattered Libya, but the political risk at home is that voters will finally realize Hillary Clinton’s responsibility for the mess, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Hillary Clinton’s signature project as Secretary of State – the “regime change” in Libya – is now sliding from the tragic to the tragicomic as her successors in the Obama administration adopt increasingly desperate strategies for imposing some kind of order on the once-prosperous North African country torn by civil war since Clinton pushed for the overthrow and murder of longtime Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

The problem that Clinton did much to create has grown more dangerous since Islamic State terrorists have gained a foothold in Sirte and begun their characteristic beheading of “infidels” as well as their plotting for terror attacks in nearby Europe.

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.

There is also desperation among some Obama administration officials because the worsening Libyan fiasco threatens to undermine not only President Barack Obama’s legacy but Clinton’s drive for the Democratic presidential nomination and then the White House. So, the officials felt they had no choice but to throw caution to the wind or — to mix metaphors — some Hail Mary passes.

The latest daring move was a sea landing in Tripoli by the U.S./U.N-formulated “unity government,” which was cobbled together by Western officials in hotel rooms in Morocco and Tunisia. But instead of “unity,” the arrival by sea threatened to bring more disunity and war by seeking to muscle aside two rival governments.

The sea landing at a naval base in Tripoli became necessary because one of those rival governments refused to let the “unity” officials fly into Libya’s capital. So, instead, the “unity” leaders entered Libya by boat from Tunisia and are currently operating from the naval base where they landed.

With this unusual move, the Obama administration is reminding longtime national security analysts of other fiascos in which Washington sought to decide the futures of other countries by shaping a government externally, as with the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and the Iraqi National Congress in 2003, and then imposing those chosen leaders on the locals.

(When I heard about the sea landing, I flashed back on images of Gen. Douglas MacArthur splashing ashore as he returned to the Philippines in World War II.)

Making the Scheme Work

But the new mystery is how this Libyan “unity government” expects to convince its rivals to accept its legitimacy without the military muscle to actually take over governance across Libya.

The Obama administration risks simply introducing a third rival government into the mix. Though the “unity government” drew participants from the other two governments, U.S. resistance to incorporating several key figures, including Gen. Khalifa Haftar, a military strongman in eastern Libya, has threatened to simply extend and possibly expand the civil war.

Immediately after being selected as Prime Minister of the U.N./U.S.-arranged "unity government" Fayez Sirraj reached out to Gen. Kahlifa Haftar on Jan. 30, 2016, a move that infuriated U.S. officials who favored isolating Haftar.

Immediately after being selected as Prime Minister of the U.N./U.S.-arranged “unity government” Fayez Sirraj reached out to Gen. Khalifa Haftar on Jan. 30, 2016, a move that upset U.S. officials who favored isolating Haftar.

The U.S. scheme for establishing the authority of the “unity government” centers on using the $85 billion or so in foreign reserves in Libya’s Central Bank to bring other Libyan leaders onboard. But that strategy may test the question of whether the pen – poised over the Central Bank’s check book – is mightier than the sword, since the militias associated with the rival regimes have plenty of weapons.

Besides the carrot of handing out cash to compliant Libyan politicians and fighters, the Obama administration also is waving a stick, threatening to hit recalcitrant Libyans with financial sanctions or labeling them “terrorists” with all the legal and other dangers that such a designation carries.

But can these tactics – bribery and threats – actually unify a deeply divided Libya, especially when some of the powerful factions are Islamist and see their role as more than strictly political, though the Islamist faction in Tripoli is also opposed to the Islamic State?

I’m told that another unity plan that drew wider support from the competing factions and included Haftar as Libya’s new commander-in-chief was rejected by U.S. officials because of fears that Haftar might become another uncontrollable strongman like Gaddafi.

Nevertheless, Haftar and his troops are considered an important element in taking on the Islamic State and, according to intelligence sources, are already collaborating with U.S. and European special forces in that fight.

After the sea landing on Wednesday, the “unity government” began holding official meetings on Thursday, but inside the heavily guard naval base. How the “unity” Prime Minister Fayez Sirraj and six other members of the Presidency Council can extend their authority across Tripoli and then across Libya clearly remained a work in progress, however.

Prime Minister Fayez Sirraj of the Libya's new "unity government," as selected by U.N. and U.S. officials, is welcomed by naval officers after landing in Tripoli.

Prime Minister Fayez Sirraj of Libya’s new Government of National Accord, as selected by U.N. and U.S. officials, is welcomed by naval officers after landing in Tripoli.

The image of these “unity” officials, representing what’s called the Government of National Accord, holed up with their backs to the sea at a naval base, unable to dispatch their subordinates to take control of government buildings and ministries, recalls how the previous internationally recognized government, the House of Representatives or HOR, met on a cruise ship in Tobruk in the east.

Meanwhile, HOR’s chief rival, the General National Congress, renamed the National Salvation government, insisted on its legitimacy in Tripoli, but its control, too, was limited to several Libyan cities.

On Wednesday, National Salvation leader Khalifa Ghwell called the “unity” officials at the naval base “infiltrators” and demanded their surrender. Representatives of the “unity government” then threatened to deliver its rivals’ names to Interpol and the U.N. for “supporting terrorism.”

On Friday, the European Union imposed asset freezes on Ghwell and the leaders of the rival parliaments in Tripoli and in Tobruk. According to some accounts, the mix of carrots and sticks has achieved some progress for the “unity government” as 10 towns and cities in western Libya indicated their support for the new leadership.

Shortly after being selected by U.S. and U.N. officials to head the “unity government,” Sirraj reached out to Haftar in a meeting on Jan. 30, 2016, but the move upset U.S. officials who favored isolating Haftar from the new government.

Political Stakes

The success or failure of this latest Obama administration effort to impose some order on Libya – and get the participants in the civil war to concentrate their fire on the Islamic State – could have consequences politically in the United States as well.

The continuing crisis threatens to remind Democratic primary voters about Hillary Clinton’s role in sparking the chaos in 2011 when she pressured President Obama to counter a military offensive by Gaddafi against what he called Islamic terrorists operating in the east.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

Though Clinton and other “liberal interventionists” around Obama insisted that the goal was simply to protect Libyans from a possible slaughter, the U.S.-backed airstrikes inside Libya quickly expanded into a “regime change” operation, slaughtering much of the Libyan army.

Clinton’s State Department email exchanges revealed that her aides saw the Libyan war as a chance to pronounce a “Clinton doctrine,” bragging about how Clinton’s clever use of “smart power” could get rid of demonized foreign leaders like Gaddafi. But the Clinton team was thwarted when President Obama seized the spotlight when Gaddafi’s government fell.

But Clinton didn’t miss a second chance to take credit on Oct. 20, 2011, after militants captured Gaddafi, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Appearing on a TV interview, Clinton celebrated Gaddafi’s demise with the quip, “we came; we saw; he died.”

However, with Gaddafi and his largely secular regime out of the way, Islamic militants expanded their power over the country. Some were terrorists, just as Gaddafi had warned.

One Islamic terror group attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel, an incident that Clinton called the worst moment of her four-year tenure as Secretary of State.

As the violence spread, the United States and other Western countries abandoned their embassies in Tripoli. Once prosperous with many social services, Libya descended into the category of failed state with the Islamic State taking advantage of the power vacuum to seize control of Sirte and other territory. In one grisly incident, Islamic State militants marched Coptic Christians onto a beach and beheaded them.

Yet, on the campaign trail, Clinton continues to defend her judgment in instigating the Libyan war. She claims that Gaddafi had “American blood on his hands,” although she doesn’t spell out exactly what she’s referring to. There remain serious questions about the two primary incidents blamed on Libya in which Americans died – the 1986 La Belle bombing in Berlin and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

But whatever Gaddafi’s guilt in that earlier era, he renounced terrorism during George W. Bush’s presidency and surrendered his unconventional military arsenal. He even assisted Bush’s “war on terror.” So, Gaddafi’s grisly fate has become a cautionary tale for what can happen to a leader who makes major security concessions to the United States.

The aftermath of the Clinton-instigated “regime change” in Libya also shows how little Clinton and other U.S. officials learned from the Iraq War disaster. Clinton has rejected any comparisons between her vote for the Iraq War in 2002 and her orchestration of the Libyan war in 2011, saying that “conflating” them is wrong. She also has sought to shift blame onto European allies who also pushed for the war.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confronts Sen. Bernie Sanders in Democratic presidential debate on Jan. 17, 2016.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confronts Sen. Bernie Sanders in Democratic presidential debate on Jan. 17, 2016.

Though her Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, hasn’t highlighted her key role in the Libya fiasco, Clinton can expect a tougher approach from the Republicans if she wins the nomination. The problem with the Republicans, however, is that they have obsessed over the details of the Benghazi incident, spinning all sorts of conspiracy theories, missing the forest for the trees.

Clinton’s ultimate vulnerability on Libya is that she was a principal author of another disastrous “regime change” that has spread chaos not only across the Middle East and North Africa but into Europe, where the entire European Union project, a major post-World War II accomplishment, is now in danger.

Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations.

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

31 comments for “Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess

  1. the lion
    April 4, 2016 at 05:33

    What Just Libya, what about Syria and Ukraine the whole Ukraine mess was funded by the US, just remember among the first words uttered after the Coup, that they were “going to get rid of the Russian speaking sub human scum” that by the way is in fact words of genocide which for you that do not realise it is one of the excuses that to prevent such an action a country does not require UN security council permission to prevent! Under secretary of state Nuland, was complicit in funding over 5 billion dollars to Ukraine activists which included KNOWN Neo Nai groups!

    As for Syria that was started during her watch, it was a State Department operation with Al Qaeda, just a name change to cover up the obvious!Just5 think if it wasn’t for Using Al Nusra Front the group formerly known as Al Qaeda in Iraq there would have been NO ISIS and in all probability no mass Refugee problem in Europe and probably no French and Belgian terrorist attacks!

    Libya exactly the same as well as all the other Arab Spring noting that not one non Baathist states Arab Spring was I fact successful, probably something to do with both funding and making sure their friends were well informed as to what was happening and how to counter it!

  2. HenryCT
    April 3, 2016 at 07:22

    Mr. Parry’s final paragraph, “Clinton may claim she has lots of foreign policy experience, but the hard truth is that much of her experience has involved making grievous mistakes and bloody miscalculations.” weakens an otherwise excellent article. Since the U.S. establishment frequently overthrows foreign governments, those actions indicate policy, not “grievous mistakes.”

    • Hank
      April 8, 2016 at 12:32

      Agreed. Anytime a foreign intervention is called a “mistake”, it’s just an attempt to cover someone’s ass from war crimes. If the intent is to fragment a nation into many pieces that will war against each other and keep that nation impotent, then these types of “humanitarian interventions” ARE a success!

  3. The Basics
    April 2, 2016 at 15:28

    Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Cruz, it doesn’t matter. As long as Americans are in denial that the US is a Rothschild dictatorship along with the rest of Europe, and has been so for at least 100 years, the march to the New World Order will continue, backed my American taxpayer dollars. The remaining independent countries will continue to come under attack by the fake free nations, and then they will throw down the chains of debt on these countries. Democrats will attack under the pretense of being “humanitarian” (Libya, Syria, Yemen) while Republicans will attack under the pretense of “protecting our and their freedoms.” Their orders come from one and the same entity.

    2016 “Elections” – A Lose-Lose just like, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000…etc etc etc. All an illusion for people who can’t handle reality.

    For those that doubt the Rothchilds power, a little preliminary research into them will go a long way. You can even look at Hillary Clinton’s emails to see that she was corresponding with them.

  4. Carlos Mackeral
    April 2, 2016 at 09:57

    The purpose of this imposed Libyan ‘unified’ government is nothing but an attempt by NATO to get to attain legitimacy for their next invasion of Libya under the guise of fighting DAESH (ISIS), who were also planted in Libya for this purpose. In short, the newly installed puppets will formally request NATO’s “assistance” in fighting DAESH, circumventing any need for authorization from the UN.

  5. Douglas Baker
    April 2, 2016 at 00:50

    All Fool’s Day, April, 2016

    From the Hills of Haiti (where the Clinton Foundation leads “non profits” in non service and perhaps winning a “Hades” award down under) to the shores of Tripoli, Mrs. Clinton has stood like Lizzie Bordon giving forty wacks to sovereign nation states rather than parents as Lizzie allegedly did, with the serious question, Will American voters vote for acquittal for Secretary Clinton and give her a pass to be POTUS continuing those that control America’s war on the world?

    • Zachary Smith
      April 2, 2016 at 01:38

      Your post made me wonder if anybody has done a Hillary/Lizzie Bordon comparison. Inspired by the internet tubes….

      Hillary Clinton took an ax
      and gave her server forty whacks.
      She then recalled what she had done
      when Vince Foster got forty-one.
      Hillary Clinton got away
      and for her crimes she has not paid.

      Which reminds me – one of these days I’ve got to waste some time and find out who the dickens Vince Foster was…


      • Lie Seeking Missile
        April 2, 2016 at 16:56

        You are close to the truth Zachary. Henry Ford tried to bring it out almost 100 years ago and was chastised for it. His paper wrote all about Zionist Control of the US Government and US as a whole back in the early 1920s detailing Zionist influence as early as the late 1800s. There is an article which you may find interesting (among many others) called will “Jewish Zionism Bring Armageddon?” Read it for yourself, which is easy to find online and see how he hits the hammer on the head.

  6. Zachary Smith
    April 2, 2016 at 00:19

    “Cleaning Up Hillary’s Libyan Mess”

    The validity of that title is necessarily a function of who is doing the evaluation. After all, as the {old?} saying goes, “one man’s mess is another man’s masterpiece”. From the standpoint of Hillary and her mentors, Libya was a complete masterpiece. As was Iraq and as is Yemen. Muslim nations have been getting smashed, and the US has been the main ‘hammer’. Syria must be reckoned as a partial success, and the outcomes for Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be seen in the not-too-distant future. Not to mention the rabid-dog determination of Israel to destroy Iran.

    Now I don’t know how Israel gained such total control over the US of A, but individual events have caught my eye over the years. The very devout but politically clueless christian fundamentalists of the US have been courted for decades. When Israel gave Jerry Falwell his own private jet that was part of its campaign to elevate the hick preacher to national stature. No doubt there were many other things happening to create the Christian Zionist movement I know nothing about. Nothing except that Israel now owns the US congress and the hearts of substantial parts of the US population. Why else would we continue funding their murders and thefts and deflecting all blame for their monstrous behavior in international forums?

    A gentleman named Oded Yinon published a “Plan” detailing what needed to be done to secure Israel as complete Top Dog in the mideast. There has been a continuous series of US politicians working to make the dream true, and Hillary is merely the latest.

    (I know next to nothing about the Global Research site – the link came up on a search. Hopefully it’s not tarred by neo-nazi or white-power connections)

    “Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy”


    On the face of it, that’s a pretty amazing claim. What worries me is that – by definition – it must have a hard core of truth. I’ve almost no doubt at all that Hillary has a good image of herself – that’s simple human nature. She will look in the mirror and see a person who is practical, efficient, level-headed, and full of dreams for a better future. What worries me is that her idea of “a better future” may not be anything like that of the rest of the world.

    But so what? If, as I fear, Hillary is a true Christian Zionist, she’s working for God and has a mission of leading the peasants to where they really ought to be. A Christian Zionist with access to nuclear weapons scares the hell out of me.

    If anybody has seen any of the woman’s past remarks which would erase those concerns, I’d surely like to see them. All I’ve seen is a total devotion to neocon/neo-liberal doctrines as well as endless smooching of Israel’s heinie. Dying in a nuclear holocaust to force God’s hand with the Second Coming isn’t really high on my To-Do list.

    • Abbybwood
      April 2, 2016 at 11:27

      This will bring you some clarity on the whole “Christian Zionism” issue.

      Christian Zionism Road-map to Armegeddon The Rev. Dr. Stephen Sizer

    • John Hawk
      April 4, 2016 at 09:08

      Global is a highly respected independent organization committed to honest reporting of geopolitical events. There is a deep wealth of well-researched articles on this site.

  7. Akech
    April 1, 2016 at 23:57

    The western corporate elites with interests in controlling the Libyan oil do not have friends! They only have economic interests in Libya which rely heavily on controlling a few selected power-hungry Libyan elites to deliver the unfettered access to the required goods. If any selected elites cannot deliver the goods, their heads will definitely be on the chopping blocks. I hope they do remember that Saddam Hussein was a high valued asset before they descended on him and the Iraqi people. Hussein made the mistake of thinking that he had some power over the state of Iraq and tried to raise his voice at the people who put him in power.
    Libya was a very stable country economically and socially, but the greedy and power-hungry Libyan elites did not see it that way or may be, they bit more than they can chew! Libya will be a permanent failed and corrupt state, loaded with damaging loans from IMF, World Bank and private western banks, just like sub-Saharan African countries with resources, but are rotting in debts, poverty and diseases. These Libyan elites better watch their behinds because daggers are coming!

  8. John XYZ
    April 1, 2016 at 22:53

    It was tragicomic even then, watching the objectives of the intervention shift weekly, until they settled on the video-game ending, with the protagonist characters slaying the final villain in a boss battle, rewarding us with the cut-scene footage at the end. Then, the Hillary Clinton swooped in to deliver the characters the power-ups they had scored, so that they could use them while facing tough new enemies in the sequel game, Syria. I almost feel compelled to include emoticons and exclamation marks while writing all of this. I remember watching intently at the time, because I wanted to see if the new administration had grown up relative to previous ones with regards to foreign conflicts.

    Although I realize that there is a faction of dysfunctional Washington’s leaders which makes it a habit to do so, I wonder if it isn’t a bit rude to speak in terms of controlling a foreign leader who isn’t part of the Washington group which masterminded the fiasco in the first place.

  9. Brendan
    April 1, 2016 at 18:48

    The Americans shouldn’t complain too much about Gen. Khalifa Haftar, after giving him so much support in the past. They were responsible for sheltering him for twenty years near the CIA headquarters, before he returned to a top role in the “rebel army” within weeks of the start of the war to overthrow Gaddafi.

    “A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels
    28 March 2011 ”

    “McClatchy Newspapers published a profile of Hifter on Sunday. Headlined “New Rebel Leader Spent Much of Past 20 years in Suburban Virginia,” the article notes that he was once a top commander for the Gaddafi regime, until “a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s.”

    Hifter then went over to the anti-Gaddafi opposition, eventually emigrating to the United States, where he lived until two weeks ago when he returned to Libya to take command in Benghazi.

    The McClatchy profile concluded, “Since coming to the United States in the early 1990s, Hifter lived in suburban Virginia outside Washington, DC.” It cited a friend who “said he was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.”

    To those who can read between the lines, this profile is a thinly disguised indication of Hifter’s role as a CIA operative. How else does a high-ranking former Libyan military commander enter the United States in the early 1990s, only a few years after the Lockerbie bombing, and then settle near the US capital, except with the permission and active assistance of US intelligence agencies? Hifter actually lived in Vienna, Virginia, about five miles from CIA headquarters in Langley, for two decades.”

    It’s possible that the USA’s objection to Haftar/Hifter is not due to a fear that he would get out of control. It’s more like that, if he becomes more powerful, people would then ask more questions about his background. That would reveal that the war in Libya was made in the USA, and not a rebellion by Libyans to free themselves from oppression.

  10. Chuck
    April 1, 2016 at 17:31

    Why is there never any mention of the petrodollar system in these articles regarding U.S./NATO backed regime change nor the articles regarding the U.S. demonization of Russia?

    “Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar..””

    “According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. … The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.”

    Ellen Brown, “Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,” Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.

    • Daniel
      April 2, 2016 at 15:11

      Great question, one I ask frequently. Why can’t the average citizen know what the government does in his/her name, and why?

  11. Lois Gagnon
    April 1, 2016 at 17:10

    Wasn’t Gaddafi in the process of introducing a sovereign currency, the Gold Dinar backed by real gold? Gaddafi I believe wanted to make it the currency of northern Africa. Now notice they’ve had a private central bank rammed down their throats. How long before the IMF forces a loan on the country to be used to placate which ever political puppets the unifyers put in place and to construct infrastructure for western corporations and extraction of dirty energy resources. The Libyan people of course will not see a dime of benefit from this loan, but will be told they need to tighten their belts for structural adjustments to their livelihood to pay for it all.

    Where have we seen this pattern before?

    • Daniel
      April 2, 2016 at 15:08

      Yes, I’ve read that Gaddafi was securing gold-backed currency – perhaps for the entire continent – to break any reliance on the US$. This, of course, would not do, and so he had to go.

      People better jump off the runaway Hillary train while they still have the chance. She (and her old-guard ilk) are soon to be toast. If not today, then tomorrow.

      • Procopius
        April 7, 2016 at 04:56

        I’ve seen that story, and it simply doesn’t hold up. Gold doesn’t have a stable value without the complicity of many governments and an entire international system. Even if Qaddafi had succeeded in setting up a regional payment system using a gold-based currency it would have been too limited to be useful in international trade. There are good reasons, as we discovered following 1918, why gold is not a good basis for a modern currency. Actually, it’s only been rarely used as a basis for a currency anyway — most ancient currencies were based on a fixed weight of silver.

  12. Skip Edwards
    April 1, 2016 at 13:46

    Isn’t there another story re: Hillary and Ambassador Stevens moving captured arms from the murdered Gaddafi’s Libyan arsenal through the US Embassy to anti-Assad rebels in Syria? Could this have something to do with Stevens murder and the embassy burning? Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras and the list goes on. Simply put Hillary Clinton has been a disaster and allowing high officials to get away with such acts only leads to future, worse acts. Obama’s look forward not back policy with Bush – Cheney atrocities has been a dismal failure, as was his picking Hillary Clinton as Sec of State. Feel the Bern. Bernie Sanders is a chance in a life time to really make much necessary change for the betterment of our country. Let us not let this opportunity pass us by. A Bernie Sanders political revolution is sorely needed.

    • Procopius
      April 7, 2016 at 04:52

      The CIA was moving the arms through Saudi Arabian Adnan Khashoggi’s network, not through the embassy. If they tried to use embassy facilities it would leak in a couple of days. Even the CIA is not that dumb.

  13. Joseph A. Haran, Jr.
    April 1, 2016 at 13:32

    I thank you, Mr. Parry, for your enlightening and well-written report today regarding the mess in Libya. That entire fiasco was, as you assert, created in large part by Hillary Clinton and the Regime-Change Posse Comitatus. The latter is a band of clueless albeit well paid claqueurs pushing war-materiel manufacture, oil acquisition and other hidden agendas in the spirit of the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement; and it continues its rule over the Obama Administration’s foreign-policy roost even to this day.

    Disagreeing with corporate America’s commandos-in-government (the above-mentioned claque) can have serious consequences. This was revealed when one of the best foreign correspondents in the field at that time, Lara Logan of CBS News, was made to walk the plank for having upset the Beltway’s power elite when she called out Obama Administration foreign-policy wonks. Even Glenn Greenwald, whose journalism I respect, jumped on the trendy Lara Logan Bashwagon.

    A weak, half-heartedly compiled ‘Wikipedia’ page [] on Logan–in between long paragraphs focusing on supposed controversies rather than journalistic accomplishment–at least mentioned these awards she received: Radio & Television Association David Bloom Award, 2008; American Women in Radio and Television Gracie Award, 2008, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2000; Association of International Broadcasters’ Best International News Story Award, 2007; Emmy Award, Overseas Press Club Award, and a Murrow Award, 2008; Murrow Award for “Marines on Patrol in Afghanistan” 2010; John Aubuchon Press Freedom Award, 2011; John F. Hogan Distinguished Service Award, 2011; Daniel Pearl Award, 2011. According to the actions of CBS executives, such distinctions pale in comparison to power-elite displeasure.

    Indirect victims of the Libyan mess, such as Logan, don’t seem to be on other journalists’ radar screens–except for purposes of pledging allegiance to those who foment such fiascos as the one in Libya. Power elites, via their compliant corporate enablers in and out of government, were successful in eliminating Logan career-wise. Her subsequent abandonment by journalists is a shame, in my view. It’s a disservice to the profession! During wartime, convoys of ships don’t attempt rescuing sailors who’ve fallen overboard but rather proceed at full speed. Logan was pushed overboard, but the convoy named Journalism merely steamed on. Perhaps there ought to be an award for such collegial disinterest?

  14. fosforos
    April 1, 2016 at 12:08

    If (G.d forbid) she were to succeed in stealing the Demoncrudic nomination this is the commercial with which Ailes or Stone or Rove or any Repugnicon with half a brain will hit her nationwide: her picture alongside that of Johnson and the other CIA dead, and the legend “Benghazi: She Came, She saw, They died–and her Libyan adventure is the reason why they, and the Islamist terrorists, were in Benghazi to begin with.”

  15. Randal Marlin
    April 1, 2016 at 12:06

    She came, she meddled, and U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens died.

    • Abbybwood
      April 2, 2016 at 02:22

      I believe some of her emails revealed Stevens location:

      I just keep hoping and praying that Comey and his team at the FBI are doing a very thorough and objective analysis of Clinton and her email fiasco and that he pins her for her obviously corrupt method of handling her correspondence as Secretary of State.

      But according to this it appears that her four aides who are scheduled to be interviewed very soon have lawyered up with the same attorney whose resume shows many years of work at the “Justice” Department:

      I feel that even if she and her aides skate away from this whole ugly affair untouched that the majority of the American people will choose to reject her in November even if she still becomes the Democrat nominee.

      The thought of her being president is morally repugnant to me.

      • Shafiq
        April 4, 2016 at 22:23

        FBI Director Comey is an honest, smart and tenacious experienced federal prosecutor. He has been supervising a team of 147 agents on this case, something he would not do if there were not some fire behind the smoke. His efforts to finally bring Mrs Clinton to justice may come to naught if Lynch and Obama circle the wagons, but he can make the whole thing public and sink her. As a Republican, he’d be a hero to his party, and to many Democrats and Independents, in doing so. Furthermore, Mr Gowdy has subpoenaed the records and could make them public. He’ll hold his fire until after the nomination, because Sanders would be a more formidable opponent than Clinton, whom they would hammer with 24/7 negative advertisements. I believe that the foreign cash for Mrs Clinton’s favours as Secretary of State is actually more damning than mishandling emails. Read “Clinton Cash”.

      • Procopius
        April 7, 2016 at 04:49

        “I believe some of her emails revealed Stevens location… ” If you seriously believe an Arab militia in Libya was reading Hillary’s emails in real time you need professional help. My opinion, which is worth what you are paying for it, is that the only web site less reliable than breitbart is NewsMax.

  16. Yuliy
    April 1, 2016 at 11:49

    I’m wondering why Bernie is not taking notes…

    • Lex
      April 4, 2016 at 19:23

      He’s trying to run a clean campaign and I commend him on that, but he should be able to bring out facts without taking them out of context (unlike what Hillary’s been doing).

      • Procopius
        April 7, 2016 at 04:44

        I have no contacts inside Bernie’s campaign, but I think he has another motive — not to help the Republicans with negative propaganda about the person who may become the nominee. Even though he’s not formally a Democrat, he certainly wouldn’t want to harm the party’s chance in November. Hillary’s people don’t seem to think that far ahead, only concerned with the immediate (short term) objective.

  17. Sally Snyder
    April 1, 2016 at 11:39

    Here is an article that looks at a recent email from Hillary Clinton’s private server about the situation in Syria:

    This single email gives us a surficial but interesting glimpse into the connection between Hillary Clinton and the Deep State, the real power in Washington.

Comments are closed.