Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy is under investigation for allegedly receiving millions of euros in illegal election campaign funding from Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. This must be placed in the broader context of war crimes by Western heads of state, Gilbert Doctorow explains.
By Gilbert Doctorow
The relationship between Sarkozy and Gaddafi fits the pattern of the old mafia joke: “You’re my friend. I kill you for nothing.”
Two news items jostled for attention on the front pages of mainstream newspapers and news bulletins of the main television channels on the Old Continent last week. One was the Sergei Skripal “nerve agent attack” and Theresa May’s attempts to find support among EU leaders for a common stand against Russia as perpetrator. The other was the arrest and questioning of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy over allegations that he took 50 million euros in cash from Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafi in 2007 for the election campaign that won him the presidency.
The Skripal story of “the Russians did it” had its day in court in Brussels on Thursday and Friday during the summit of EU leaders at the European Council, the EU’s chief executive body. The deliberations ended in verbal support for May: the EU said it was recalling its ambassador to Moscow for four weeks of consultations. As EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker explained at a press conference, however, the EU faces important challenges which require active coordination with Russia, so channels of communication must remain open.
But then on Monday, Germany, Poland and France expelled four Russian diplomats; the Czech Republic and Lithuania expelled three; Denmark, Italy, and The Netherlands two apiece; and one each from Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Finland, Sweden and Ireland. (The U.S. topped them all with 60 Russian diplomats expelled and the closing of Russia’s Seattle consulate, further undermining the Democratic Party narrative that President Donald Trump is a Russia “puppet.”) On Tuesday, NATO kicked out 13 Russians, further weakening the safety net protecting against East-West conflict.
These demarches were presented as an act of solidarity with the UK over the Skripal case. But these flea bites could be better described as the EU response to Vladimir Putin’s overwhelming victory in the presidential elections of March 18, which concerns all EU states far more directly than a so-far totally unproven and highly questionable allegation against Russia by the Brexiting United Kingdom. Following the predictable Russian symmetrical measures in the coming days, the Skripal case is likely to disappear from the headlines, until the results of the forensic investigation into the poisoning of the ex-double agent are completed and made public.
By contrast, the story about Sarkozy’s arrest and 23-hour interrogation by judicial police over the course of two days was just gaining traction, with French media in particular split down the middle over whether an indictment and trial is warranted.
The Sarkozy case has unusually split the governing elites of France and Europe. As a result, a great deal of information has been released into the public domain, including in The Guardian, The Daily Mail, Le Figaro and Le Monde. Even the American Time magazine devoted several pages of factual, as opposed to editorializing, coverage in a March 21 piece.
The facts of the case have dribbled out over a long time, especially from 2012 when Sarkozy decided to run again for the presidency. That brought attention to the story of Libyan financing of his 2007 election. Incriminating documents were disseminated by investigative French media and ultimately Sarkozy lost at the polls to Francois Hollande by several percentage points. Sarkozy later directly blamed the stories of Libyan financing for his defeat.
The Sarkozy affair must be placed in the broader context of investigating alleged war crimes by Western heads of state. So long as we choose only to look forward as Barack Obama insisted on immediately after taking office, when he closed the book on investigations into the George W. Bush administration, and not look into the recent past, we are condemned to an endless succession of “road accidents” yielding only chaos and death in the Middle East, and possibly in the wider world.
The Sarkozy Story
The wheels of justice turn slowly and may or may not grind finely. The current charges against Sarkozy go back to the days when he still occupied the office of Minister of the Interior in the government of Jacques Chirac and campaigned to succeed Chirac in the presidency as candidate of the center-right Union for a Popular Movement party (UMP). Sarkozy is said to have concluded a written agreement with Gaddafi’s intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi to provide 50 million euros to his campaign in exchange for unspecified French assistance to rehabilitate Libya’s international standing. The choice of Sarkozy to perform this mission was not arbitrary: he had over a long time spoken favorably of Islam and attempted when in power to integrate France’s Islamic minority, including its religious hierarchy, into the national landscape.
A number of intermediaries on both sides were appointed to facilitate the secret transfer of funds including in cash, according to the French outlet Mediapart. Following his election, Sarkozy very warmly welcomed Muammar Gaddafi in Paris on December 10, 2007 for a state visit during which the Libyan leader was permitted to set up his tents in gardens close to the Elysée Palace. At the time, this hosting of someone seen as a dictator in France created controversy in the French media, all the more so as the visit coincided with the anniversary of the convention on human rights.
In the midst of the Arab Spring of 2011, Libya was one of the last dictatorships in North Africa to come under attack from self-proclaimed democratic rebels. France was among the loudest calling for Gaddafi to step down and be replaced by a transition government.
When the Colonel’s armed forces appeared to have taken the upper hand, and victory over rebel forces in Benghazi and the east of the country was imminent, NATO, led by France, entered the conflict, initially under UN authorization to impose a no-fly zone for the stated purpose of protecting civilians from an anticipated massacre, one that was later questioned by a British parliamentary committee. This intervention in fact went well beyond its authorization and facilitated the overthrow of the Libyan regime, resulting in the brutal murder of its leader, who died amidst gang violence with a shot to the head. Chaos and disintegration of the state have continued to this day, with two power centers still vying for control of land and international recognition.
The fall of the Libyan dictator has special piquancy today because in his final months Gaddafi had reminded France and Europe of the important service he was performing for them: holding back the hordes of would-be asylum seekers from North and sub-Saharan Africa as well as containing a jihadist threat. As it turned out, that warning was not exaggerated. With the chaos that followed Gaddafi’s murder, Libya became one of the main jumping off points for millions of immigrants on their way to Europe, compounding the problem that otherwise has been created by the civil war in Syria and strife throughout the Middle East extending as far as Afghanistan. It has also become a center for jihadist operations.
In March 2011, prior to the final assault on the regime, Gaddafi’s son gave an interview to Euronews in which he issued veiled warnings to the French to desist from their encouragement of the rebels, whose spokesmen Sarkozy had received in Paris. “We can reveal a lot of things. Secrets. … So the French should behave, or there is going to be a big fiasco in France,” he said. Others in Gaddafi’s entourage were less discrete and spoke of a large financial contribution to Sarkozy’s election in 2007.
In 2012, when Sarkozy prepared his next presidential bid, the investigative French news website Mediapart published the 2007 master agreement and several other documents relating to Libyan funds being passed to Sarkozy’s chief of staff, Claude Guéant. One of the pieces of evidence was a film of Ziad Takieddine, a Lebanese businessman who introduced Sarkozy to Gaddafi. Takieddine explains in the film how he handed cases of cash to Sarkozy and Guéant.
Also in 2012 rumors emerged that Muammar Gaddafi was killed not by the rebels who surrounded and mutilated him but by a French secret service agent who infiltrated the mob and shot him in the head, acting on express orders of Sarkozy.
In 2013, when Sarkozy no longer enjoyed immunity from prosecution, a judicial inquiry was opened in France with a view to possible charges for “active and passive corruption, misuse of power, forgery, abuse of public money, money laundering, and complicity in and concealment of these offences.” The inquiry did not at the time lead to any proceedings against Sarkozy, though it was not closed either.
In the meantime, Guéant had claimed that the documents obtained by Mediapart were false. However, a French court concluded that some were authentic and could be used in the investigation.
In the past week, Sarkozy was arrested and held for questioning in a unit of the judicial police in the Paris suburb of Nanterre. He was subjected to 23 hours of interrogation over the course of two days, allowed to go home to sleep under bail conditions. He was barred from contacting Guéant and others from his former associates who were being interrogated separately. These include a former minister and close ally of Sarkozy, Brice Hortefeux.
In a separate but related line of investigation against Sarkozy, in January British police arrested a French businessman who is suspected of having funneled money from Gaddafi to Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign. Alexandre Djouhri appeared in a London court and was released on bail. He was subsequently returned to pre-trial detention in February under a second warrant for his arrest issued by France. Djouhri is to appear in a hearing scheduled for later this month.
On the same day Sarkozy was released from custody, the former president took to the air waves on state channel TF1 to give his side of the story. One-sixth of the French electorate, approximately 7.3 million people, viewed his broadcast. On the next day, his remarks were debated at length in the country’s leading newspapers, Le Figaro on the right, long-time supporter of the UMP (later renamed the Republican Party), and Le Monde, on the left, long-time supporter of the Socialists.
A Background of Impunity
The Sarkozy affair falls into a succession of attempts to bring to justice the leading perpetrators of war crimes since the start of the new millennium: George W. Bush and Tony Blair. So far, the record is not promising on justice being done.
In the United States, during Bush’s presidency, Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush in the House of Representatives on June 10, 2008. Fifteen of the articles related directly to the invasion of Iraq, starting with the false evidence used to obtain authority for military action. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee where it died. For his efforts, Kucinich was gerrymandered out of his Ohio electoral district and is only now trying to make a political comeback in local politics in his state of Ohio.
In the UK, an investigation into the decision by Blair’s government to join the U.S. in the 2003 invasion of Iraq went much further, though it took a very long time to reach a decision. It took still longer, nearly four years, to publish it while the authors of the report wrestled with the government over what documents could be made public given the possibility they would severely damage relations with the United States.
The so-called Chilcot Inquiry was launched in 2009 by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The remit took in not only the start of the war but how it was prosecuted all the way to 2009.
The Inquiry held open sessions from November 2009 to February 2011. It had the authority to request any British document and summon any British subject to give evidence. Its prime witness was Blair himself, who was called upon twice to undergo questioning. Other witnesses included former cabinet ministers and other politicians, senior civil servants, diplomats and high ranking military officers.
The Chilcot Inquiry’s final report was published on July 6, 2016, nearly seven years after the probe began. It consisted of 12 volumes plus an executive summary. The report was highly critical of the case for war made by the British government and military. It found that the legal basis for war was not satisfactory. It concluded that the Blair government had overestimated the UK’s ability to influence US decisions on Iraq. It faulted the war preparation and planning, and concluded that the UK’s objectives in the war were not achieved.
British media described the Chilcot Report as “damning,” and a “crushing verdict” on the Blair government.
On the day of the report’s release, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who had spoken out against the war in Parliament from the beginning but was ignored by Blair, said in a speech to Westminster: “I now apologize sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003.” Corbyn denounced the war as “an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext.”
Blair, the major villain in the report, acknowledged some of the criticisms with respect to preparation, planning and the relationship with Washington, but insisted he had acted out of good faith in the best interests of the nation.
For Blair, the report was a bloody nose, and nothing more. He was not contrite about the heavy price for the wanton destruction and loss of life that the invasion caused.
However, the Chilcot Report did honorably achieve what it set out to do: it established responsibility for disastrous decisions, it found that the invasion was not justified by any urgent threat to British interests, and that the UK had undermined the authority of the UN Security Council. It was a rebuke, better than anything achieved in the U.S., where there has never been a reckoning over the disaster of Iraq. Indeed, Bush has been rehabilitated by of all quarters, the Democratic Party, enlisting him in its fight against Donald Trump. Neoconservatives in think tanks and the media who pushed for the war have suffered no consequences. They’ve kept their jobs or been promoted.
This Time, with Sarkozy, it May be Different
On Sunday, The Mail reported that: “Sarkozy, 63, is facing a criminal trial and could be jailed over the donations.” But why would the French establishment impose such shame on a former president, bringing disrepute to the country?
It must be said that Sarkozy, unlike Blair or Bush, lacked warmth and charisma. On the contrary, this little Napoleon, as many viewed him, had an undisguised taste for ostentatious luxury, which exceeded by far his personal pocketbook until he fell in with his third wife, former super model and popular singer Carla Bruni. He had also left a trail of controversial public statements that were indelibly burned into the popular memory.
Perhaps Sarkozy’s ugliest known altercation with the common man took place on February 23, 2008 at an International Agriculture Show, when he responded sharply to someone who refused to shake his hand with the vulgar dismissal “Casse-toi, pauv’ con” (get lost, you poor schmuck). At a minimum, his comment was regarded as un-presidential.
To be sure, Sarkozy had a long and successful political career during which he held many contradictory positions which suited various segments of the electorate and which changed over time. He extolled Islam on a visit to Riyadh and was long an advocate of Muslim integration in France. He backed the notion of state appropriations for the construction of mosques, to ensure they were not financed and run from abroad. And yet, he was always tough on immigration and used inflammatory language when addressing the issue of violence by Arab and black minorities in the French suburbs.
However, questions of his domestic policies and presence or absence of charisma do not bear on Sarkozy’s present predicament. The unique challenge he has faced from the beginning is that his accusers have not all been murdered like Gaddafi. In particular, the Libyan dictator’s highly educated second son and political heir, Saif al-Islam, is very much alive to avenge the family’s loss. Bush and Blair never had to contend with a challenge to their narrative of the Iraqi adventure from the circle of Saddam Hussein.
That the charges against Sarkozy have reached their present critical point cannot be separated from the recent release of Saif from captivity by one of the armed bands which held him for six years, nor can it be separated from his declared intention to run for president in elections to be held in Libya later this year. This development in Libya has mobilized the surviving regime members and those who were go-betweens with Sarkozy. The witnesses include Abdallah Sanoussi, former director of Libyan intelligence services, and Bashir Salah Bashir, the former CEO of Libya Investment, the country’s sovereign wealth fund.
The second factor working against Sarkozy is the wave of popular repugnance in France with the old, corrupt political class that swept Emmanuel Macron to power last year and overwhelmed the candidate from Sarkozy’s Republican Party, Francois Fillon. Fillon was caught out on the petty venality that has long typified French politics. In this sense, the Sarkozy case comes amidst a popular mood of house cleaning.
Why This is Worse Than Chirac
In considering Sarkozy’s prospects, it bears mentioning that in 2011 ex-President Jacques Chirac, under whom Sarkozy served as minister at several points in his career, was found guilty of embezzlement and breach of trust when he was mayor of Paris in a prosecution delayed for years by the President’s constitutional immunity. Chirac was accused of lavish entertainment at public expense, appointment to government jobs of party hacks, inflation in the number of such positions and similar measures to buy public support for his party and for himself.
The criminal prosecution of Chirac ended in the first conviction of a former head of the French state for corruption. Chirac was given a two-year suspended prison sentence. Moreover, leniency towards Chirac seemed justified given his frail health and memory loss related to a neural disorder.
Of course, the charges against Chirac were child’s play compared to those being leveled at Sarkozy today: illegal acceptance of foreign donations to his electoral campaign, accepting contributions which were double the allowable amount to campaign in the second round of voting.
Moreover, there were no foreign policy implications to the felonies committed by President Chirac as there are now with Sarkozy, who promoted an illegal aggression on a sovereign state, destroying it in the process, and opened the gates to mass illegal immigration and the spread of jihadism by deposing and possibly having Gaddafi murdered.
Even the U.S. has gotten into the anti-Sarkozy act. Hollywood actor George Clooney’s wife Amal Clooney was quoted as saying recently: “Gaddafi is not guilty, it’s Sarkozy who is guilty.” The human rights lawyer of Lebanese-Libyan descent has also been a practitioner of criminal law in her high visibility professional career. She is known to be close to Ziad Takieddine, the French Lebanese who, as noted above, claims to have been an intermediary carrying funds from Gaddafi to Sarkozy.
When he left the interrogation and got into his car on his way home, Sarkozy is reported to have looked disheveled and haggard. During his televised defense on TF1, he looked nervous. And well he might, because to defend himself against the accusations Sarkozy had to muster a day-by-day recollection of his meetings with the various go-betweens who alleged bringing him cases of cash in 2007. He had, in particular, to discredit Takieddine, his main accuser.
The newspaper of the right, Le Figaro, issued a verbatim account of Sarkozy’s defense the day after he was released. In its weekend print edition it published a full page on the Sarkozy affair. At the head of the page, was an article devoted to Sarkozy’s dinner with friends and close family at his favorite Italian restaurant in the fashionable 16th arrondissement immediately after his television appearance.
The newspaper claimed that the former President had “electrified his supporters” and he was inundated by text messages not only from the Republican Party but from ministers, including several now serving in the Macron government. At the start of the gathering, we are told all present were busy reading incoming messages on their mobile devices. One message from Alain Juppé, long-time leader of the right, mayor of Bordeaux and Sarkozy’s rival for presidency, bears mention: “I watched TF1, I found Nicolas Sarkozy extremely combative. I also felt that he was deeply wounded, and I understand that. His argumentation seemed to me to be consistent.”
An article to the right of the page quotes one of Sarkozy’s close supporters and official spokesman for the Republican Party, Gilles Platret, who put the investigation into Sarkozy in a different light. He called it an attack on France and its presidency: “He [Sarkozy] was right to return the discussion to fundamentals. It is not so much the person who is being accused. It is the image of the presidential role. Can it be that a deceased dictator can still have an impact on the national sphere with accusations..?”
Platret regretted that the accusations “give a sad color to the French political life.” He was confident that Sarkozy will “reestablish the truth in this affair….He began to do just that this evening.” Platret reminded readers that Sarkozy achieved a great deal for France during his presidency: “History will recall this with a big letter H.” But the Figaro journalist added a word of caution: “Unless the courts decide otherwise.”
The greater part of the Sarkozy page in the weekend edition of Le Figaro was a point for point discussion of the charges against the ex-President. It called attention to the 2007 interview with Saif al-Islam on Euronews, which said he was carried off by the revolution and is now living in Egypt. It highlighted the key role of Takieddine as witness against Sarkozy. It also recealled the written agreement signed by the head of Libyan intelligence on financing Sarkozy, published by Mediapart in April 2012. Figaro said this document was found to be a forgery by investigators in another case, as Sarkozy argued in his televised defense.
The paper mentioned still another Libyan accuser, the former Oil Minister Choukri Ghanem, whose personal notebook was taken by French judges and is said to mention the financing of Sarkozy. Ghanem was never interrogated. He was found drowned in the Danube at Vienna in April 2012. The death was determined to be “accidental” by the Austrian police. Figaro points to the testimony given by Gaddafi himself when bombs were already falling on Tripoli, in which he mentioned financing the French but without any details.
The Figaro article tried to place the whole affair in a geopolitical context. It noted that around the year 2000, Gaddafi had sought respectability. He received President Chirac in Libya in 2004, and a year later Sarkozy, accompanied only by two translators. Gaddafi believed that Sarkozy would be the next president of France and was quoted by one of the interpreters as saying: “It is a good thing to have a brother, a friend at the head of France.” Tight relations were knit as well with the close advisers to Sarkozy, Claude Guéant and Brice Hortefeux. As soon as he took office, Sarkozy launched his Union for the Mediterranean, an organization intended to promote North-South dialogue that was France’s answer to the EU’s Eastern Neighborhood Policy initiated by Germany.
Figaro then weighed the evidence against Sarkozy. It noted that no written proof of transfers of funds by Libya exists. It said that the sums transferred are described variously by different witnesses ranging from the 35,000 euros in cash dispensed in 2007 to some employees of the UMP party, all of which is a drop in the ocean, while accusers speak of between 20 million dollars and 50 million euros. As for the travel restrictions placed on Sarkozy by the judges, and the ban on association with his colleagues now undergoing separate interrogation, the paper remarked that the opportunity to coordinate their testimony existed ever since 2013 when the first accusations appeared. Figaro told the Sarkozy story with a distinct bias toward the ex-president, but without fully endorsing his innocence.
Le Monde’s Alternative Take
Le Monde had a different and more dangerous take on Sarkozy. In a piece published on March 22 headlined, “Libyan financing: the blind spots of Nicolas Sarkozy’s defense,” the first paragraph says that the former president’s argument “is sometimes specious, with dead ends on material elements to the case.” It said Sarkozy focused his efforts on discrediting Takieddine, “But he skirts around numerous substantive elements gathered by the investigators since 2013.”
In his televised defense, Sarkozy had rejected the notion that he had ever worked to advance the interests of the Libyan state. He reminded viewers that he had been responsible for getting UN approval to use military force against Gaddafi. Le Monde agreed but pointed out that Sarkozy’s had a honeymoon with the Libyan leader at the start of his presidency.
Sarkozy’s core defense is that there is no material proof to support any of the claims made that Takieddine transferred the funds. Sarkozy accused Takieddine of stealing from the Libyan state and said there is no evidence he ever met the man at any time between 2005 and 2011.
Takieddine is suspected of having been involved in other French electoral financing going back to the campaign of Edouard Balladur in 1995. But he is the one who helped form the relationship between France and Libya beginning in 2005 and was involved in other cases relating to France, in particular the liberation of Bulgarian nurses held in Libya on charges of AIDS contamination. Takieddine says he was then dropped by Sarkozy as an intermediary in favor of the French businessman Alexandre Djouhri, and so he first turned state witness in the Balladur case, then in 2012, came forward as a witness in the developing scandal around Sarkozy.
Le Monde said that no mention of a meeting with Takieddine in the ex-president’s personal agenda does not mean such a meeting never took place. The agenda was offered to judges by Sarkozy in another court case over alleged corruption during the 2007 electoral campaign. One can imagine that Sarkozy had no interest in noting in his agenda a meeting with Takieddine two months after the first revelations by Mediapart of alleged Libyan financing.
Le Monde is giving Sarkozy no slack. His every word and action is weighed against the possibility, if not likelihood that he is lying.
We will see shortly whether the French courts have the stomach to take the investigation of Sarkozy through to prosecution and conviction and possible jail time, unlike the American response to its own engineers of Middle East disaster.
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book, Does the United States Have a Future? was published in October 2017. Both paperback and e-book versions are available for purchase on www.amazon.com and all affiliated Amazon websites worldwide.
Sarkozy all I can say regarding that pompous imperial neo-liberal jack ass is “LOCK HIM UP, LOCK HIM UP!” lol I honestly don’t see what Carla Bruni sees in that arrogant gargoyle
“Since the end of his presidency in 2012, Sarkozy and members of his former inner-circle have been investigated in multiple other corruption probes. He is currently awaiting trial over the Bygmalion scandal in which he is accused of misusing up to €20 million in public funds for his failed re-election campaign in 2012.
“If the investigation over Libyan money embezzlement goes to trial, Sarkozy could be facing five years in jail if found guilty.
“If he does go to prison, some might say that Mr Bling-Bling gets off light considering the trail of death and destruction in his wake. Because the potentially bigger scandal is that Sarkozy mobilized an illegal NATO war on Libya in 2011 which led to the murder of its head of state.
“During that blitzkrieg on Libya, NATO carried out some 26,500 bombing sorties over seven months. To put that in perspective, recent figures show that the Saudi-led bombing campaign on Yemen has carried out 16,000 sorties over three years.
“Notably too, of the 19 nations that participated in the pulverizing of Libya, it was the French who most prominently led the highest number of air strikes. French warplanes were responsible for some 35 per cent of all attacks.
“What happened in Libya was a veritable war of aggression – a supreme war crime. America’s Obama and Clinton, as well as Britain’s Cameron, are certainly foremost subjects for war crimes prosecution. But the chief culprit for NATO’s devastation of Libya is Nicolas Sarkozy.”
France’s Bling-Bling Sarkozy Haunted by Ghost of Gaddafi
By Finian Cunningham
“While the emails do raise questions about Hillary Clinton’s veracity, the real story is how French intelligence plotted to overthrow the Libyan leader in order to claim a hefty slice of Libya’s oil production and ‘favorable consideration’ for French businesses.
The courier in this cynical undertaking was journalist and right-wing philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, a man who has yet to see a civil war that he doesn’t advocate intervening in, from Yugoslavia to Syria. […]
According to the memos, in return for money and support, ‘the DGSE [French CIA] officers indicated that they expected the new government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya.’ The memo says that the two leaders of the Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil and General Abdul Fatah Younis, ‘accepted this offer.’
Another May 5 email indicates that French humanitarian flights to Benghazi included officials of the French oil company TOTAL, and representatives of construction firms and defense contractors, who secretly met with Council members and then “discreetly” traveled by road to Egypt, protected by DGSE agents.”
Protecting the civilian population of Libya was sold to the U.N. Security Council, and Resolution 1970 was passed.
“Almost before the ink was dry on the resolution, France, Britain and the U.S. began systematically bombing Qaddafi’s armed forces, ignoring pleas by the African Union to look for a peaceful way to resolve the civil war. ‘Sarkozy urged the Libyans to reserve 35 percent of their oil industry for French firms—TOTAL in particular—when he traveled to Tripoli that month.’
In the end, Libya imploded and Paris has actually realized little in the way of oil, but France’s military industrial complex has done extraordinarily well in the aftermath of Qaddafi’s fall. […]
True to his word, France has thrown up one obstacle after another during the talks between Iran and the P5 + 1—the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany. […] France seems to have its finger in every Middle East disaster, although, to be fair, it is hardly alone.”
Lots of French arms sales and fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, U.A.E. Understandably, France did not like the Iran nuclear agreement. Peace means no more arms sales, and we can’t have that. It’s onward and upward to more war! The money is too good to give up.
“Peace means no more arms sales, and we can’t have that. It’s onward and upward to more war! The money is too good to give up.”
How is it that people here understand this to be true, yet every time I point out that it indicates the solution to all our troubles I am greeted with deafening silence?
The wars, crime, corruption, chaos, lack of liberty and equality and fraternity – all are consequences of us actively or passively allowing unlimited fortunes on this planet. People speak of revolution, but after every revolution in the past the inequality has regrown, the situation returns to the 99% underpaid working families fighting the 1% overpaid overpowered for their rights – – and all because the people never change their thinking and go on allowing unlimited personal fortunes!
What about this I have said is so hard to understand?? Why does no one see the great good sense of striking the root cause of 99% of humanity’s unnecessary suffering??
So he’ll get done for taking money from the very guy whose demise he helped engineer…..and we witter on about the Russians??? We are screwed. WW3 is soon upon us.
“…..and we witter on about the Russians??? We are screwed. WW3 is soon upon us.”
Yes. There is this news today that Madame May and Madame Merkel agreed to counter these bad, aggressive Russians; how they are poisoning people all over their countries with all these chemicals they have.
This spectacle we are watching is beyond belief. These are the leaders of these two foremost Nations of The West!
Sarkozy, Bush & Blair should all be facing trial in the Hague for War crimes & crimes against humanity & sentenced to death as a fitting punishment for the murderers that they are! But this will never happen? Why? Because these criminals are beyond justice, as they were just serving as “useful, greedy idiots” for the Deepstate Obligarchy & Bankers, who run things, on a Global scale? Key to this is the protection of the US Petrodollar, economic system of recycling dollars for oil? Any threats to this system are to be eliminated? Gaddafi & Libya attempted to bypass this system & were destroyed? Saddam Hussein in Iraq tried & was destroyed? Iran & Syria are trying to bypass the corrupt Petrodollar system & are currently being targeted for regime change! Venezuela, is also being setup to fall? Russia & China are now under attack in a unprecedented global psy-ops campaign by this American & European Deepstate, because they dare to stand up too & challenge the US Petrodollar system with a alternative system of Yuan dollars & Gold exchange for oil that completely bypasses this corrupt US Petrodollar system & bypasses the US soft power sanctions! President Putin & President Xi need to watch their backs as they will be targeted for assasination by these evil tyrants? One only needs to follow the money as in Sakorsky’s case, to really understand the true situation? When the US Petrodollar system finally collapses & it will collapse, that’s the end of the American Empire & it’s hegemonic ambitions, as it will be totally bankrupted & unable to pay its debts or fund its over extended, overpriced MIC? No more ability to print endless, worthless money as US dollars will only be fit for using as toilet paper? The writing is on the wall & it’s spelling the downfall of the US Petrodollar system ? It’s inevitable!
Just curiosity (lol) – but is the period key on your PC defunct? Or do you feel everything is in question now? Just asking?
Beastly ugly Amal Alamuddin, who is in a Deep State publicity arrangement with Hollywood two-bit reality star George Clooney is money laundering arms dealer Ziad Takieddine’s niece.
Whole family of arms dealer scum.
No Clooney twins exist nor was equine Amal Alamuddin ever pregnant. Wore padding in early months then hid.
“Ziad Takieddine, an inscrutable French-Lebanese businessman, has long led a chequered business and private life.
He has now emerged as the man most likely to bring about the downfall of the former French president Nicolas Sarkozy.
A Druze originally from Baakline, 45 kilometres south-east of Beirut, Mr Takieddine finds himself at the centre of an increasingly complex set of threats to Mr Sarkozy’s reputation, and perhaps also his liberty.
Running an upmarket ski resort in the Alps brought him into contact with influential political figures. From tending to the sporting and apres-ski comforts of the wealthy and powerful, he turned to the murkier world of arms dealings, acting as a go-between for French defence manufacturers and client states.
Now 67, Mr Takieddine is no stranger to high society, diplomacy and celebrity. His father and an uncle served as Lebanese ambassadors; his niece, the international human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin, is married to the Hollywood actor George Clooney. He has known fabulous wealth.”
b.e…. thanks for backgrounder & link
Sarkozy seems like a grasping non-entity in the maelstrom of other current crises ongoing. Today we hear that Julian Assange has been basically rendered incommunicado in the Ecuadorian embassy with his internet privileges totally cut and visitors denied to him. Clearly this is a consequence of some power play by London and/or Washington to finally nab the man. He is such a marked man that not even Russia would try to make a deal to harbor him. Sheltering Snowden is undoubtedly one of the major axes that Washington has been grinding against Putin for the past several years.
What flabbergasts me is that most Americans have no idea of why Washington has declared the man an enemy of the state. They simply assume he has done something very nefarious that compromises their security as free American citizens. Just talking with a sibling who is a retired non-academic administrator at Stanford (some evidence of intelligence, right?) about the sins of Zuckerberg and Fakebook, and she thinks he’s done no worse than the dangerous Julian Assange. How does one get through to such California liberals? Their model of the universe has deviated sharply from reality in recent years. They could never accept that Obama betrayed his voters and that Hillary’s election was not a preordained vindication of militant feminism–which was qualification enough, policy be damned.
Most people are allergic to openness, or looking much deeper than the surface. Plato noticed that long ago. Makes them dangerously vulnerable to bullshit. For many of them, their whole life turns into bullshit, “not worth living” as Socrates put it.
Life is that tough examination that no one merely passes with flying colours. So entire sections of the test are often skipped. Had to take a few crash courses myself. But yeah, the unxamined life isn’t just not worth living…it’s not really living at all.
I used to think the problem in the U.S. was the poor education of the masses. Actually, it’s the “educated” class that is proving to be the biggest obstacle to making progress in this country. People who are not the decision-makers but are materially very comfortable and can’t see the forest for the trees. They read the New York Times and listen to NPR and think they are getting all the information they need because they don’t want to look beneath the surface, as you noted.
Very bizarre in this world where so much truth is available at our fingertips.
I’d like to think the “educated” would know some history and be imbibed with skepticism and curiosity. As you say Nancy…so much to explore with simple research skills and some fingertips. How can educated people be satisfied with the “presentation” of cable news and the funny papers? Don’t they discern something lacking and crave for more depth? What about books? My world view was shaped mostly by books and personal experience well before I started exploring the internet relatively recently (2010). The internet has just broadened, deepened, and mostly confirmed the world view I already possessed.
I suppose I was fortunate to know and admire a few professors who very much impressed upon me the importance of what they termed “intellectual curiosity” and “intellectual honesty”. Two of the most important concepts every person who aspires to “education” should take to heart.
That would have shown that militancy has none of the virtues of feminism. The first members of a disadvantaged group empowered by oligarchy are the sell-outs to oligarchy. If the feminists must prove their militancy then they are not even qualified to vote. Perhaps this should be analyzed in US elections since WWII.
Gaddafi’s main mistake was not paying off Hillary Clinton as well as Sarkozy. It’s very interesting that a similar Arab Spring protest broke out in Bahrain around the same time as it did in Libya; the comparison is very interesting. Clinton immediately sent emails to the US Embassy in Bahrain demanding that they not meet with or support the opposition leader. Bahrain had donated $32 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Bahrain’s crackdown on dissent during the Arab Spring was just as brutal as anything seen in Libya:
“Newly released emails from Hillary Clinton’s time as U.S. secretary of state reveal that her staff helped grant access to Clinton Foundation donors, including the Bahraini al-Khalifa monarchy accused of killing and torturing hundreds of people during the 2011 Arab Spring-inspired uprising there. The monarchy of Bahrain – which hosts a major U.S. military base that’s home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet as well as CENTCOM – gave the foundation US$32 million.” – Telesur 22 Aug 2016
It is still somewhat strange that Libya was thrown to the wolves, given that Gaddafi had given the neocon alliance everything it wanted in 2003 – unlike Iraq, it had opened up its oilfields to US and British oil corporations, and despite having significant stockpiles of chemical weapons and nuclear materials (HEU and yellowcake), it was declared WMD-free, embraced by Bush, Blair and Sarkozy, feted by Condi Rice in 2008, excused for any involvement in the Lockerbie bombing (which Libya may or may not have been involved with at all) – so what went wrong? Did Gaddafi, like Assad in Syria, turn down some US oil/finance deal that upset Wall Street and Washingtion (in Syria, that was turning down the Saudi-US pipeline deal in favor of an Iran-Gazprom deal c.2009-2010).
Wikileaks cables give some clues, and there’s the fact that the Clinton Foundation was not paid off, and Hillary Clinton had a successor in mind, one Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, who looked to be more closely allied with US and British interests. On 15 March 2011, Jibril (who had been a Gaddafi insider in 2008, but later had a falling out) met with Hillary Clinton in Paris, as reported by the BBC:
“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril and discussed ways the US can aid efforts to depose embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. . . The talks in Paris lasted for about 45 minutes, a US official said but gave no details of what options were discussed. The developments came as G8 ministers met in Paris to consider calls for a no-fly zone over Libya.” – BBC 15 March 2011.
Literally one week earlier, Clinton had emailed the Bahrain embassy (8 March 2011) demanding that they not talk to the Bahrain opposition! She seemed very hungry for regime change in Libya, and Obama seemed to have been reluctant to go along with it (later Obama called the Libya intervention his greatest foreign policy debacle).
There are some interesting cables at Wikileaks – Gaddafi seems to have been reaching out to Iran, trying to run Libya independently, pushing for various currency deals, pan-African notions, the same kind of pan-Arabism that Nasser supported – certainly not the compliant pro-US pro-British puppet that they’d been hoping for, not a GCC monarchist in other words. Was that why Clinton & Co. decided to depose him?
P.S. Here’s another reason the US would be upset with Gaddafi, his son was trying to broker peace among Palestinian factions, which would have upset Clinton backers like Haim Saban:
SAIF AL-ISLAM AL-QADHAFI’S PALESTINIAN ADVENTURISM
Date:2010 February 10, 08:52
“(S/NF) In a nod to his father’s dream to serve as grand regional mediator, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi appears to be increasingly interested in helping to broker reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, possibly in hopes of achieving a compromise prior to the Libyan-hosted Arab League Summit in March. One of Saif’s close advisors and confidantes recently told us that Saif believes Libya has the best chance to forge a compromise between the Palestinian parties due to its neutrality. . .”
“(S/NF) S/NF) Comment: Saif’s adventurism among the Palestinians is not new — he has made public statements on Israeli-Palestinian issues in the past — and is reminiscent of his father’s attempts to mediate in conflicts across the region and on the continent.”
Just too independent for Washington’s taste, plus causing problems for Israel, since the last thing Israel wants is a unified Palestinian opposition in Gaza and the West Bank – but I bet that if Gaddafi had dropped $32 million into the Clinton Foundation coffers, like Bahrain did, he’d still be around today.
Thanks for connecting those very credible dots, nonsense factory!
Doctorow’s article is very welcome ’cause it shines a light on how things seem to work at the top of each of our so-called first world “democracies”.
There seems to be no moral core at the center of power in these countries – ours included – that values truth; serves the public interest; seeks sustainable, stabilizing solutions to critical issues.
The heads of government seem like marionettes serving the huge oligarchies, while taking working people to the cleaners in the process.
I guess I must be naive to have expected better………
Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya was a proponent for a one-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
The Gaddafi Isratin proposal intended to permanently resolve the conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution. First articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi, at the Chatham House in London, the Isratin proposal was later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself.
Its main points of the Isratin proposal are:
– Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the “Federal Republic of the Holy Land”;
– Partition of the state into 5 administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
– Return of all Palestinian refugees;
– Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
– Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state;
– Recognition of the state by the Arab League.
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s proposal was eventually incorporated in Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s White Book of 8 May 2003, which served as his official guide to address the Arab–Israeli conflict and how to solve it.
Despite the suggestion of “Federal Republic of the Holy Land” as the name of this hypothetical new state, the name Isratin, a portmanteau of the names “Israel” and “Falastin” (“Palestine” in Arabic and Hebrew), has been used as a “working title” for the notion of a single state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Palestinians and Jewish inhabitants of all three having citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity.
Muammar Gaddafi again championed the “Isratin proposal” in “The One-State Solution”, a January 2009 op-ed article for the New York Times, as the “only option” for a solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The timing of the article approximately coincided with the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the U.S. and with the cease-fire that apparently marked the end of the Gaza War (2008–09). Gaddafi argued that this solution would avoid the partitioning of West Bank into Arab and Jewish zones, with buffer zones between them.
Living in an Apartheid state established by war and ethnic cleansing, Israeli Jews have generally tended to view a one-state solution as a demographic threat that would dilute the prevailing Jewish majority within Israel. Current support among Israeli Jews, and Jews generally, for a one-state solution is very low. However, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past, Jewish public opinion in Israel and abroad can shift dramatically in a context of war.
Several Israeli Jewish politicians, including former defense minister Moshe Arens, current President Reuven Rivlin, and right wing figures like Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely and Uri Ariel, have voiced support for a one-state solution that would require Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory, with differing views on how to dispose of the Palestinian Muslim population.
Right wing Israeli Jewish politicians and political commentators have advocated outright annexation of the West Bank, granting its Muslim Palestinian population Israeli citizenship while maintaining Israel’s current status as a Jewish state. In 2013, Likud Knesset Minister Hotovely argued that Israel should annex the West Bank as a historic part of the Land of Israel.
Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party, included in many Likud-led coalitions, has argued for official Israeli annexation of Zone C of the West Bank. Zone C, agreed upon as part of the Oslo Accords, comprises about 60% of West Bank land and is currently under Israeli military control.
Proposals from the Israeli right for a one-state solution by means of annexation generally tend to avoid advocating annexation of the Gaza Strip, due to its large Muslim Palestinian population.
Netanyahu’s proposed “demilitarized Palestinian state” would most likely be a further demolished and blockaded version of the Gaza open prison, with Israel having seized all remaining Palestinian territory to the Jordanian border.
There are obvious concerns that Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis war in the region could be used as a pretext for advancing Israeli annexation of the West Bank and expulsion of its Muslim population.
Israeli Muslims have expressed tenuous support for a one-state solution. Many Israeli Muslims have been concerned that a two-state solution would result in Israeli Jewish pressures for them to move into a Palestinian state, causing them to lose their homes and access to their communities, businesses and cities inside Israel.
In any case, the “regime change” war in Libya and the murder of Gaddafi in October 2011 eliminated a prominent proponent of a one-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Interestingly, an April 2016 Israeli army radio report claimed that Gaddafi sought Israeli help to halt NATO air strikes in the last days before his murder. According to the report, a diplomatic envoy from an unidentified third state tried to convince Israel to use its influence with France and the US to stop the air assault on Libya. Israeli leaders reportedly decided against taking any action.
Thanks for this detail.
It is a tragedy that opportunities were missed. Not surprising that Israel wanted to fragment Libya.
What is your view of the most practical one-state and two-state solutions?
The Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis “dirty war” in Syria very precisely aims at the disintegration of Syria in order to a) perpetuate Israel’s annexation of Syrian territory in the Golan Heights, b) provide a “credible “threat” to justify U.S. military aid to Israel, and c) prevent resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Alleged “threats to Israel” provide a perpetual excuse for the Israelis to delay a negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The best solution is one negotiated in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and accepted by the majority of Jewish and Muslim people in Israel and Palestine.
The practical basis for all negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Resolution 242 (S/RES/242), adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.
East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were all occupied by Israel in the 1967 conflict. Resolution 242 unequivocally insisted on withdrawal from occupied territories.
Israel annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in 1980–81.
The UN Security Council has rejected the de facto annexation in UNSC Resolution 497, which declared it as “null and void and without international legal effect”, and continues to regard the Golan Heights as an Israeli-occupied territory. .
The preamble of Resolution 242 refers to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security”.
Operative Paragraph One of Resolution 242 “Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
Resolution 242 is one of the most widely affirmed resolutions on the Arab–Israeli conflict and formed the basis for later negotiations between the parties. These led to Peace Treaties between Israel and Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), as well as the 1993 and 1995 agreements with the Palestinians.
After denouncing it in 1967, Syria “conditionally” accepted the resolution in March 1972. Syria formally accepted UN Security Council Resolution 338, the cease-fire at the end of the 1973 War, which embraced Resolution 242.
The ultimate status and boundaries will require negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, according to Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
In addition to a negotiated one-state or two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Syria wants the return of the Golan Heights.
The first high-level public talks aimed at a resolution of the Syria–Israel conflict were held at and after the multilateral Madrid Conference of 1991. Throughout the 1990s several Israeli governments negotiated with Syria’s president Hafez Al-Assad. While serious progress was made, they were unsuccessful.
An estimated 20,000 Israeli settlers and 20,000 Syrians live in the Golan Heights today. The non-Jewish residents, who are mostly Druze, have nearly all declined to take Israeli citizenship.
In the Golan Heights there is another area occupied by Israel, namely the Shebaa farms. Syria and Lebanon have claimed that the farms belong to Lebanon. In 2007, a UN cartographer came to the conclusion that the Shebaa farms do actually belong to Lebanon (contrary to the belief held by Israel). The UN then said that Israel should relinquish the control of this area.
There are around 526,000 Palestinians living in Syria. Most were expelled and displaced from their homeland during the 1948 war. In 1967, Palestinian refugees fled the Quneitra Governorate in the Golan Heights. In 1970, as a result of Black September, some Palestinian refugees fled from Jordan to Syria. In 1982, in the wake of 1982 Lebanon War, a few thousand Palestinian refugees left Lebanon and found shelter in Syria. Palestinians hold most of the same rights as the Syrian population.
Many Palestinians have been displaced within Syria or have fled the country since the start of the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. “dirty war” in Syria in 2011. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency or UNRWA, Palestinians are among those worst affected by the Syrian conflict.
The demographics of Israel don’t seem to favor a one state solution, although if implemented equitably(a big IF) I believe it might have worked out at one time.I doubt whether all those religious Jews are very popular with the secular community(Jews as well as Palestinians). The relationship seems much like that of the establishment in the GOP and the evangelicals in the U.S. who have so much religious fervor that they keep procreating in disproportionate numbers.
One thing is very clear: The current path of Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis terror war, replete with Western-backed terrorist proxy armies rampaging across borders, will never yield a better future for Israelis and Palestinians, or any other people in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region.
American “folks” (Obama’s idiot word), kept amused with bread and circuses, distracted by periodic “incidents” in the “homeland” (or some European capitol), have allowed the whole grisly onslaught to unfold for nearly two decades under presidents George W. Bush (2 terms), Barack Obama (2 terms), and now Donald Trump.
The game is rapidly coming down to the nuclear wire. Looks like we’re all due for another spectacular “incident”.
Thanks Bob Van Noy
war crimes trials are needed urgently for these powerful villains
Thanks back to you Stephen J your detailed and consistent work now going on for years is much appreciated.
More info on the Treachery by the “Elites” with our Tax dollars at link below:
May 13, 2017
The War Gangs and War Criminals of NATO to Meet in Brussels
“The unique challenge (Sarkozy) has faced from the beginning is that his accusers have not all been murdered like Gaddafi.”
The key word in the above sentence is “unique.” Understanding contemporary geopolitics as a form of organized crime is useful and clarifying, if distressing.
I believe there needs to be Mass Arrests of the past and present war criminals in power. They are getting away with murder because they run the Corrupt System. See link below:
“Gaddafi’s alleged contributions to his 2007 campaign suggest that Sarkozy’s reasons for becoming involved had little to do with a humanitarian desire to ‘protect’ the Libyan people – as Sarkozy had claimed at the time – and more to do with silencing a key witness to his illegal behavior, Gaddafi himself.
“In 2012, reports surfaced – based on comments made by Mahmoud Jibril, former interim Prime Minister of Libya following Gaddafi’s overthrow, on Egyptian TV – that Gaddafi’s gruesome death, which was captured on video, had been carried out by the French secret service. Jibril had stated that ‘it was a foreign agent who mixed with the revolutionary brigades to kill Gaddafi.’
“Reports from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra later asserted that the foreign agent had been French, citing diplomatic sources in the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Those same diplomatic sources had further stated that Gaddafi had openly threatened to reveal the full details of his ties to Sarkozy, including his financing of Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign, once NATO first voiced support for the 2011 uprising.
“Sarkozy, however, was interested in more than keeping his shady dealings with Gaddafi from public scrutiny. Leaked emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed that Sarkozy – like other countries backing Western intervention in Libya – had several goals in deposing Gaddafi. As the Foreign Policy Journal reported in 2016, these included increasing French influence in North Africa, obtaining Libyan oil, increasing Sarkozy’s popularity domestically, and demonstrating French military power.
“In addition, Gaddafi’s large gold and silver reserves were seen as a threat to the French franc and its circulation in North Africa. Gaddafi’s plan to establish a gold-backed currency, to use to sell Libya’s oil, strengthened this economic threat to France as well as to the hegemony of the American petrodollar.”
Was Nicolas Sarkozy’s Role in Taking Out Gaddafi More Personal than Geopolitical?
By Whitney Webb
Let him face the law
Will Nuclear War be the next LAST act of the maniacs in power?
March 27, 2018
The Self Righteous War Criminals That Murdered Millions
Countries have been destroyed by these murdering self righteous war criminal hypocrites (past and presently) in positions of power, and the corporate media has ignored the killing of millions by these reprobates. Instead, we are expected to believe that an “attempted murder” was committed in Salisbury, England and that Russia is to blame, despite there being no proof….
[read more at link below]
You have done an amazing amount of work, Stephen J. to make such a comprehensive blog! Thank you for sharing it.
Libya was a war crime and the criminals are free.
I wrote the article below in 2011. See link.
October 30, 2011
“The War Criminals Who Bombed Libya”
Libya has been bombed non-stop for around eight months all in the name of a “humanitarian mission.” The main perpetrators of this atrocity are the so-called “civilized political leaders” of the western world. Their partners in war crimes are NATO and the Al-Qaeda  led rebels. The propaganda merchants for the war were mostly the mainstream media who gave credibility to its illegality and mostly covered up the Al-Qaeda led connection to the rebels. The victims of this war are the Libyan people, men women, and children. Their homes destroyed and reduced to “smithereens.”  Thousands killed or maimed all in the name of a “humanitarian mission,” and a “responsibility to protect.” Orwellian doublespeak is the vocabulary of this political filth that rule over us: Killing civilians and children  in order to save them! Destroying a country in order to protect it! And “proud” of their obscene and dirty work in the process. No words are strong enough to describe the sick hypocrisy and insane rhetoric coming out of the mouths of these so called political “leaders” who call themselves “The Friends of Libya.”…
[read more at link below]
In other news, the pro Israeli power bloc in the United States has a complete lock on virtually every member of the House and the Senate and funds campaigns (and opponents if a congressperson dares get out of line) to the tune of billions of dollars every election cycle.
See the books, articles and essays by Paul Findley, Greg Felton, James Petras, Gilad Atzmon, Alison Weir, Mearsheimer & Walt.
PS: slightly off topic — Currently the great Jeremy Corbin (arguably the finest major politician in the world today) is under a relentless and brutal smear campaign because he had the courage to adroitly and poignantly stand up to some of the Russophobia that’s engulfing the UK over the Skirpal “poisoning.”
Corbyn’s in desperate need of any kind of assistance whatsoever that fair-minded folks can offer during these troubling and dangerous times.
Good references, and they do prove the point. I have read Findley, Weir, and Meersheimer & Walt. They are never noted in mass media because of the truth of their observations.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to draw a lot of heat for everything he stands for–especially over the past couple of years since rising to Labour leader in Britain. He sure appears to me to be a genuine anti-war socialist (an actual lefty). I think he’s also rare (for politicians) in the way he smartly discusses matters in down-to-earth conversational tones….not talking “at” you like the phony Obama.
Re-the Skripal farce, readers might like to know that a doctor at the hospital emergency unit in Salisbury has apparently written to the Local news paper (not part of MSM) and said that there were no cases of illness among the staff there. Further, a member of the public (in fact an off duty nurse) touched and assisted the Skripals as indeed did the ambulance crews with no ill effect. The policeman who was said to be gravely ill after coming into contact with these two has now left hospital and appeared on TV in full uniform and looked a picture of health! This so called deadly chemical does not appear to be so deadly after all. Apart from the doctor who wrote indignantly to his local paper, the medical staff treating the Skripals have said nothing about their condition, so they must have been silenced by the security services. Perhaps the most important aspect of this bizarre affair is, WHO decided that these two people had been affected by a chemical agent and when? People collapse every day in the UK from all sorts of things including and in particular home made drugs and the like and the hospital staff have no idea what the person is suffering from. Yet all of a sudden someone declared they (Skripals) had been attacked by a Russian nerve agent and one has to ask, HOW DID THAT PERSONS OR PERSONS KNOW?
At this point, it is not clear that there was any poisoning at all. All indications point to a false flag operation. The Skripals may have been in on the scam themselves. Keeping them from public view is part of the operation.
I agree, the Salisbury incident on March 4 seems scripted: May’s and Johnson’s exaggerated righteous indignation over the attack; the speedy identification of an obscure nerve agent; the pat allegations against Russia and then the excessive measures taken by the UK and allies that are disproportionate to the crime, especially in the absence of evidence. Also very peculiar is that on March 5 the US imposed new sanctions on North Korea for the murder of Kim Jong Nam. Kim Jong Nam was poisoned by VX nerve agent in the International Airport in Malaysia over a year ago.
It may be just coincidental, but articles I read by Dmitry Orlov and Julie Hyland contain information that is very intriguing. Orlov mentioned an American British television series called “Strike Back” and some episodes that aired not long ago involving a Russian scientist poisoning his colleagues with Novichok. An article by Julie Hyland raised some interesting connections between SCL (the parent company of Cambridge Analytica), and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory located in Porton Down, the UK Ministry of Defence, the US State Department, the Pentagon and NATO. Ms. Hyland stated that SCL “promoted itself as the first private company to provide psychological warfare services to the British military”. We need more whistleblowers like Christopher Wylie to expose immoral and illegal activity in organizations. And then we need justice systems to work and punish those individuals involved.
There is some solace in the fact that the French msm is debating the affair instead of sweeping it under the carpet. It could also be a reminder to Macron of the pitfalls of being complicit in any contemplated regime change in Syria. Hopefully. it will also reignite the much suppressed debate in Britain over Tony Blair’s sinister role in Iraq’s regime change and bolster Jeremy Corbyn’s position. Once again. Gilbert Doctorow has given us a comprehensive picture of a complex situation.
Thanks to Gilbert Doctorow for informing us of this development in France. One can only hope that Sarkozy will be held accountable, but of course he is one major politico among international legions to have indulged in such corruption. Over here in USA, could we possibly see indictment of Clinton for the role she played in Libya’s destruction and Gaddafi’s killing? I hope Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi succeeds in getting some justice. And all this focus on “dictators” and “autocrats” is simply propaganda wordplay to conceal the corporate dictatorship under which we live in the US. I’m afraid that there is no Hercules to clean our Augean stables given the full blown corruption that prevails in this hypocrisy of “freedom” we supposedly enjoy.
mike k, you are (sadly) correct. As cynical as one thinks one has already become is difficult not to be shocked by the sheer criminal degeneracy of what appears to be the norm in modern political leaders.
Neither Blair or Bush can be considered warm or charismatic. It’s simply that they have better P.R. reps in the fawning Western media than does Sarkozy.
Ha! You are so right!
A short note on the Skripal – case, also mentioned in the article.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has requested that Britain shows proof that they are innocent in poisoning two Russian citizens in Salisbury. Russians claim that there are circumstances in the case that point to the British intelligence services.
A brilliant move – prove the negative as you have asked us to do.
Yes, Lisa…I was hoping that would happen. The counter charge will now have to be debated in the British press and parliament where Dr David Kelly’s ghost awaits retribution.
Khaddifi’s ghost wants its own revenge.
I felt that should be the first Russian response from the very beginning. You facilitated or allowed an assassination attempt on Russian citizens within your borders. Please prove that your government operatives were not involved, and provide every stitch of evidence. It is your country that has the means and the motives to have done this deed. But Russia seems reluctant to take an aggressive stance against any Western power, even in defending itself against the most egregious slander. They seem to think that by being aggreeable the West will be reasonable, but it’s only taken as a weakness.
Realist,…I tend to think the delay in the counter attack was part of Putin’s strategy. Not overreacting presents a stark contrast with hysterical Western media which should bolster his argument with skeptics. Had he done this immediately it could have well been drowned in the hysterical reaction. Now, his request for proof should force the media to consider the possibility of internal treachery and even though Putin’s challenge will almost certainly be dismissed in a huff of phony indignation it may still receive more traction among the general public.
Yes, even if waiting for EU reprisals was an error, it may show the extremity of US dictatorship of the West, and its use to advance the zionist policy of pushing Russia out of the Mideast.
Bob H, I agree with you on Russia’s response. Also, in retaliation to the expulsion of their diplomats, I don’t think Russia is going to respond in kind to all the countries – probably against U.S. and U.K. only. All these Vassal States are controlled and obey the diktat from Washington. If Russians do go all out in their response, all those countries are going to pull out of World Soccer Cup immediately – I think it is preplanned.
But can Russia avoid such happening? I am afraid, they may not. There are still eleven weeks to go for the World Soccer Cup. If Russians are able to conciliate this time, U.K. and U.S. will stage or cook up some other event. It must be clear by this time that the leadership of “The West” have absolutely no humanity or morality left in them. They are like hardened criminals now; once you loose it, it is just about impossible to revive it.
Sports is the event where all Nations, whether they are friends or enemies, come together. Unfortunately, The West has been in the process of destroying that event too, for some time now.
Dave, “vassal states”…nice summary of a sad reality
Truth is murdered every day in the courts of America. The congress and supreme court and executive branches are just gatherings of liars and criminals of the worst sort, with mass murders being among their proudest accomplishments.
To my recollection, there has been a UN resolution for protecting the Libyan civilians and establish a no fly zone. This goal has been pushed by the US, mainly HRC, and other nations, not just France:
Turning this mission in to regime change is the real crime, where the French had been very adamant about killing the Libyan president. This has been quite evident by the French air force being the first to attack Libya, with the primary target of the president’s residence. The French military has never been the first to attack….
I’ve asked my Libyan friend and this is what he said:
“It’s very strong rumour and in my opinion must have some truth to it. Some ex rebells have recently said that french SF operative was on the ground when they captured Gaddafi and he was the one who shot him dead. Gaddafi did threaten Sarkozy at the time to tell all about his election campaign.”
He pretty much confirmed the statement in the article, about who killed Libyan president. It’s not like the rebels would have not done it, but why take chances I guess…
So, Sarkozy may spend some time in jail for soliciting/accepting foreign funds, but he should not be only one. Others, who pushed for intervening in Libya and willfully destroyed a UN recognized government should be in jail at best….
There is no real justice of any kind in “civilized” countries. The governments in these countries are criminal enterprises from top to bottom. Laws are just corrupt tools of oppression in these modern mafia states. The no exit nature of these houses of mirrors was brilliantly portrayed in Franz Kafka’s novels. Seeking justice in these tyrannies is a fool’s errand.
Yes, seeking justice through government institutions is a fool’s errand. Where the judiciary are primary targets of corrupt influence, and are already universally corrupt, law is useless in opposing such corruption. A federal racketeering lawsuit against partisans is a dangerous tricky game, for they have supporters in law enforcement who know endless criminals big and small, and the politicians and crooked judges all claim immunity. Nearly all judges state and federal firmly and truly believe in political gangsterism (not far from the Repub definition of a republic), and can penalize or counterattack complainants. It is very laborious to get evidence, and corrupt judges dump such cases with mere gestures and no mention of law or evidence, so it becomes a costly symbolic gesture to prosecute them.
Thank you for seeing the big-picture whole, mike k.
I know the author means well, but he does not see he is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic and inviting others to feel they have valuable special knowledge by learning the details of this one case of wealthpower giants doing what wealthpower giants do. Someone here recently said “… while we sit here chatting” – personally, I believe we are granting ourselves a license to endlessly discuss what the 1% overpaid overpowered do, while we refuse to go near what would solve the great and evergrowing problems about to kill us all and this pretty planet.
maybe I’m just in a bad mood because of my cancer. or maybe I’m just in a bad mood because I’ve spent the morning consoling my devastated facebook friends in Palestine who have been so brave for so long but are losing hope and feeling death is better than life in Gaza. even as I type this, mike, my eyes are filling with loveleaks for their children and my heart is breaking again for them.
but maybe it isn’t just bad mood. maybe this is true:
people are disgusting for their bovine acquiescence to dysfunctional, obsolete overpayunderpay economics
they are disgusting for not being horrified by the extreme horrors this causes
they are disgusting for a million trivial tv shows amidst the horrors
they are disgusting for a billion trivial conversations amidst the horrors
they are disgusting for not being in earnest to get out of the mess
they are disgusting for actively ignoring their ubiquitous knowledge that money is power so they can keep on shoveling overpower to the least scrupulous
they are disgusting for not picking up on the hints that have been thrown out to them
they are disgusting for fiddling while the world burns
they are disgusting for their vanity, their self-flattery, their egotism, their prejudice, their violent beliefs
they are disgusting for their denial, for their facile head in the sand behavior, for the poverty of their horizons
they are disgusting for their epic lack of shame at not being fair
they are disgusting for thinking they have some right to go on seeking agreement on answers to all the wrong questions
they are disgusting for their failure to prioritize sanely
they are disgusting for straining gnats whilst swallowing the camel of overpay
they are disgusting for using division of labor as an excuse to allow overpayunderpay
they are disgusting for keeping fairpay justice in chains in the darkest dungeon
they are disgusting for their epic failure to install simple mechanisms to counter for the ceaseless, automatic drift of wealth from earners to non-earners
they are disgusting for their avoidance of getting real and going after the root of all horrors
they are disgusting for their devotion to silence on superextreme economic unjustice
they are disgusting for their overpowering love of having the chance to have otherearned wealth
they are disgusting for their selfdestruction
they are disgusting for many reasons there is no longer any point in listing
most of all they are disgusting for erecting a wealthpoverty, masterslave situation whenever they have an egalitarian opportunity so they can indulge their taste for sadomasochism for a few centuries and then when they get tired of that, have a killfest, and then do it all again
Scuttle the Ark, Noah
Thanks E. Leete for sharing your thoughts and feelings so fully and openly, on this eve of our probable nuclear self-incineration. Indeed, what have we got to lose in deeply sharing at a time like this? Many are rapt in a cloud of denial and avoidance of the harsh reality of humanity’s incipient massive failure and collapse. But for those of us who have discarded these inauthentic defenses in favor of facing the whole truth, however traumatic or depressing it may be, sharing what is in our hearts and minds is a necessary correlate of traversing this dark river of history unfolding around us.
I salute all those here on CN and elsewhere who have the courage and dedication to truth to look into the growing darkness without hiding their eyes from it. I think there is a deep meaning and value in what we do to share our unclouded vision of reality with others, whatever the probable outcome of our present cultural descent into madness may hold for all of us. Every true and loving act has infinite value beyond the passing moments of history.
Thank you again, mike k. We must never be afraid of being fully human. There is yet another quote I love, though I cannot remember who said it: “What will people think? – in these 4 words lies tyranny.”
I am so afraid that on Friday, Land day in Palestine, when the March of Return will happen, that Israel is going to carry out yet another blood bath. I have read they are planning to use live fire on peaceful protests close to the border. I am beyond worry for my friends because Israel knows they can slaughter with impunity.
I have been reading your comments for well over a year now; I like reading them. Your comments get to the core of moral problems in these over consuming Western Societies governed by 0.1% very violent Corrupt Elite who own and run the show today; the model they are bent upon enforcing on the whole planet by force.
Do you keep these comments somewhere in your files? Your comments are brief and easy to read for overwhelming majority of the people who are only trained to read short messages on Twitter. May be your comments can be published like in Semizdat, the underground dissident press, in the Soviet Union.
Once again my positive nature finds it impossible to believe and hope that justice will be served. I’m sorry but the justice that these elites deserve in my judgement will be enforced under the double standards rule of law, and nothing more. Although I am sure I will be awoken to be informed that Sarkozy has paid the price for his indiscretions the news footage will show him riding away in his large and comfortable limousine for what all that’s worth.
Yes, the cause of US foreign wars since WWII is the corruption of the federal government:
1. The need of right wing tyrants for a foreign enemy to pose falsely with the flag and demand power as fake protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty;
2. The corruption of democratic institutions by economic power, allowing the MIC and zionists to bribe Congress to start wars for factional profits.
Eliminating US warmongering requires:
1. Amendments to the Constitution to restrict funding of mass media and elections to individual contributions, limited and registered;
2. Renegotiation of the NATO treaty to be purely defensive, or its repudiation;
3. Undertaking foreign military action solely under UN auspices;
4. Prosecution of US war criminals and corrupt politicians, and banning of lobbyists;
5. Purging our corrupt Congress and judiciary, and monitoring public officials and their families and associates for corruption during their lives;
6. Repurposing about 80 percent of the military to building infrastructure in developing nations;
7. Signing the treaty of Rome to submit to ICC jurisdiction in most matters;
8. Amendments to the Constitution to provide checks and balances within all branches and severely limit executive powers;
9. Regulation of business so that bullies and scammers do not rise to control economic power
10. Elimination of foreign aid to governments that bribe US politicians for wars, such as Israel.
This will never be done by the corrupt Dem/Rep duopoly of the oligarchy, which collects and feeds bribes to politicians and judges in return for favors. The bribes buy mass media airtime, so the decisive factor is the zionist control of mass media and thereby elections. Law is useless in opposing such corruption because the judiciary are universally corrupt. We cannot stop the wars, establish a humanitarian democracy, nor achieve benefits for the people, until the oligarchy is deposed; this is the greatest problem of civilization. Getting there requires:
1. Executive overreach to investigate and dismiss corrupt officials, hold new elections, etc;
2. Infiltrating military/intel/police/national guard to deny enforcement to oligarchy during revolts;
3. Starting new parties that truly represent members, and making coalitions to gain majorities;
4. Boycotting all military companies and Israeli products, denouncing zionists and militarists;
5. Refusing to take mortgages or keep large sums in banks or investments;
6. Refusing to watch or pay for mass media;
7. Campaigning for foreign rejection of US products, currency, and NATO.
The United States is beyond hope of any reform. How about just starting over from scratch?
That would be easier in many ways, but the disorder of revolution usually prevents more than incremental progress, and patching a tested structure that failed in places, ensures that the repaired structure still contains the parts that work. It also gains the support of traditionalists and the majority fearful of change. But your point is good.
I agree that revolution would not be pretty, but unfortunately the U.S. is collapsing under the weight of its arrogance and corruption. I don’t see much that’s working well for anyone but the ruling rich. The illusion of American exceptionalism still exists for some but it’s rapidly fading.
Cuba strikes me as an example of a revolution that has been beneficial for the majority of its citizens. It certainly has been incredibly difficult and hasn’t achieved all of its goals (largely because of U.S. “meddling”) but in many important areas like healthcare and education Cuba has far surpassed the U.S. The majority is materially better off than they were under Batista.
But equally important is the fact that their society is working toward a better world for all, rather than the few who are clinging to a failing system that might well destroy our planet in our lifetimes.
Yes, if the US right-wing had not pretended that Cuba was a “threat of communism” we could together have worked out compromises of socialism and free markets that are superior to either extreme. I once suggested to the ambassador of Cuba that they thereby set an example for the US. But they are less able to do so due to constant US subversion, and the US oligarchy-controlled politicians and secret agencies will never act in the interest of the people of the US. Shining examples on our doorstep are subverted as threats, solely to the US oligarchy.
The US oligarchy causes all “risk” of its subversion, and is the primary security threat to the US.
Sam overtime you have posted many good ideas to be considered for a solution to fix our dysfunctional government. I wish it were you drafting together legislation to make this place a better world. Joe
Thank you, Joe, perhaps we should assemble a group to draft such amendments and legislation, or make our various proposals more public. Having just finished LaFeber’s Inevitable Revolutions on US-sponsored violence in Central America (to 1984), ending the warmongering is at the forefront for me, but domestic issues are not far behind.
Inevitable Revolutions looks to be a worthy read Sam. One reviewer (R. Albin) wrote in part:
“Lafaber devotes the last 2 chapters to an incisive and scathing description and analysis of the Reagan/Bush years. This is a sad tale of ideological blindness, simplistic belief in the value of military power, overemphasis on Presidential executive power, and simple stupidity. As Lefeber is careful to point out, US actions had the effect of markedly exacerbating the conflicts in Central America. The consequences were horrible. In El Salvador in the early 1980s, our client government may have been responsible for as many as 50,000 deaths. Since El Salvador had a population of about 4.5 million, this would be the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of deaths in the USA.”
Inevitable Revolutions concludes with Reagan reversion to military aid to violently suppress progressive revolts and subvert progressive governments in Central America. The Repub line was “stability” before economic progress, and they claimed to fear “communist influence” but in fact they seek oligarchy at home and abroad. Our supplies of the bananas and coffee there were never threatened. Reagan was ignorant and an enemy of progress and democracy.
Those countries were never given more than a few dollars per capita per annum by the US. Cuba sent doctors and the USSR sent far more but insufficient aid, only when asked. All appeals of progressives to negotiate, whether in power or in revolt, were denied by the Repubs, and the US trained the death squads and supplied the arms. A disgraceful betrayal of US ideals.
Central America is the best modern history to show the political priority of the US other than getting zionist campaign bribes, and that is defending the dictatorship of the rich (oligarchy). That is the history to bring young minds to real understanding of US corruption by money.
Excellent game plan, Sam. Number six would make the Army Corps of Engineers our most important military asset (as it should be), no longer the strategic assets, or special forces and such. It will also afford an opportunity to youngsters to get acquainted with the blue-collar world of real work. I now see the World as the ancient Greeks saw their World, in that there are other more powerful, unseen forces at work upon this planet and its human societies. I think a spiritual, mental, and physical “upgrade” is in the works for this poor old World and its denizens. I see signs and hints of this. I know it ticks people off when I talk like this, but I’m really just connecting dots and drawing conclusions. After all, one does not just produce thoughts and “inspirations” (literally “breathing into”) like one would whittle a piece of wood. Ideas have mysterious beginnings. I see USA, Russia, China being drawn together in cooperation on New Silk Road infrastructure projects to the mutual benefit of the whole World, and war will simply drop by the wayside, in preference for peace and cooperation for healing/building. I’ve at last achieved peace-of-mind that this will be done, is being done despite opposition from the war-mongering Trans-Atlantic Establishment.
Yes, there is no impediment to US-Russia-China cooperation, as shown by US-China rapprochement. When there are complex business dependencies, no one wants instability let alone war.
It is primarily the US oligarchy that leads to secret wars in this hemisphere, and the zionist/KSA bribes that lead to US wars in the Mideast. All of those wars are bad for business, and the excuses are no more than that. There is no threat to the US anywhere except where it attacks people for profit.
The threats are seen only by oligarchy. We can prevent war only by eliminating the US oligarchy.
Many thanks Gilbert Doctorow for this very timely article. The French have always been nearby for America in troubled times. Here again they have an opportunity to show the way toward better or at least more honest times, by thoroughly exposing just who Nicholas Sarkozy is and what he has done.
Hopefully the French will find the courage that the Americans and British could, or would not discover.
Thank you Nat and CN.
It is especially interesting that the Sarkozy case involves foreign money buying influence, the most common foreign corruption of democracy. Not surprising that the evidence-free US allegations (of hacking in the DNC case, of mysterious acoustic attack in the Havana case, and of CW in the Skripal case) steer well clear of the well-proven means of corruption of US government by bribery (by Israel and KSA). When the bribery is by zionists or KSA, even when admitted, there is nothing at all in our zionist mass media.
Thanks as always Sam F. I found this link from the past…
Thanks; an interesting and complex web of intelligence, smuggling, and insider politics is described. This begins to reveal the complex collusions among politicians and dark state figures.
Dans mon experience, les Francais ne sont que des laches, autant que les Americains et les Anglais. Where are our French readers? How come they have nothing to say, neither in French nor English, or any other language? Vivent les droits de l’homme? Human rights, Monsieur Macron? Sarkozy was not alone in turning a functional country into a living hell on earth. “We came; we saw; he died!” Sarkozy, Clinton, Obama, Cameron. Better yet, when those who attempt to flee the living hell are left to drown, or channeled into networks of slave labor of all sordid types, while the pillars of human rights close their borders, herd those who made it into tent cities in Calais and other places…the stench of hypocrisy becomes overwhelming. For shame. Baudelaire: “Hypocrite lecteur, mon frere”. Now the readers get to give the lessons that should be the example set by the great state men and women. Thank you again, Consortium.
don’t blame people, we all follow as we did in WW2, sometimes petain, sometimes Degaule, because we only knows what medias tell us.
I never found any article like this one in french medias. the question is: what do we do now, deliver Sarkosy to Lybian justice?
how many dead people for that?
and don’t forgot the mentor, Bernard Henri Levy!
N’oublions pas surtout, mes cheres Francais catholiques nazists (hypocrites? Non!) le role de votre cher Saint Pierre. Gardez pres de vous votre commentaire en attendant le jour ou vous lui raconterez tout.