How To Terminate An Ally And Destroy A Country
Libya/Benghazi | By Keith Putbrese
|
PART 1
It will be amusing once current events enter into history, that Mrs. Bill Clinton (a/k/a “Hillary”) had offered competence and successful accomplishment as her qualifications for the Presidency. It will become a historical hilarity if those “accomplishments” are measured against the “brand” affixed to her by her husband: ** The Change Maker **.
The more important changes made were when Hillary was Secretary of State and the disasters resulting from such “changes” are now beginning to reveal themselves. The depressing tale of Libya/Benghazi is one example.
Libya B.H.C. (Before Hillary’s Changes)
In February, 2011, Moammar Gadhafi had situated 12 tanks and 2,000 loyalist troops outside Benghazi. The forces would defend against rebel attacks and its small size was designed to convey that Gadhafi intended to use minimum force to defend against the attacking al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood rebels. His seasoned troops had easily repulsed an earlier attack and Gadhafi had reason to anticipate that he would soon be dining once more with the Italian Prime Minister at one of their “Bunga Bunga” events featuring Ruby the Heart Stealer. All was soon to “change”, however.
Following his own revolution in 1969 that had brought him to power, a youthful Gadhafi had waged a war of terror against the U.S. When, in retribution for a terrorist act, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Gadhafi’s desert camp (narrowly missing the dictator), Gadhafi became more subdued and, with the additional “maturity” acquired, soon announced that Libya would follow a policy of peace and accommodation with the U.S. In 2003, Gadhafi directed that Libya’s weapons of mass destruction be dismantled; he also stated Libya intended its relationship to be one of mutual cooperation and accommodation. Moreover, the adage that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” applied and al Qaeda was the enemy of both Libya and the U.S.
Not only did both countries become allies, but Libya regularly provided valuable intelligence to the U.S. that enabled it to kill or capture many top al Qaeda officials and to foil planned attacks. Mousa Koussa, Gadhafi’s head of intelligence, worked closely with the CIA in its battles with al Qaeda and Koussa would often confer with top American officials, even meeting at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
A Viper’s Hiss
Gadhafi had nevertheless delayed entry into Benghazi. Perhaps he had that cold feeling of dread that overtakes one when the hiss of an unseen viper is heard or the rattle of an Arkansas rattlesnake. Gadhafi’s own intelligence service had warned him that something seemed amiss; that a “change” seemed to have taken place and al Qaeda might no longer be America’s enemy. Perhaps Libya could no longer count on U.S. assistance in its battle with the rebels. Nevertheless, the U.S. would certainly stay out of the fight?
Apparently it would not. It was not until later that Gadhafi’s son and heir apparent, Seif Gadhafi, was to learn that the U.S. had already begun to surreptitiously supply arms and money to the rebels. To justify this change, Secretary Clinton had falsely proclaimed to the White House and the U.N. that Gadhafi was engaged in genocide; that Libyan forces were”killing thousands” and Libyan airplanes were bombing civilians indiscriminately. This later proved to represent the Clinton trademark of outright lies designed to advance her agenda. Could this have been advancing a Huma Abedin agenda as well?
Soon, the U.S., in conjunction with the U.N., was dropping bombs on Gadhafi’s loyalist troops. According to Seif, his father found this difficult to comprehend. Why would the U.S. “change” its’ support to the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood rebels in their attack against someone that had been a useful American ally? Indeed, rebels that were prominently flying the black flag of jihad, expressing not only their enmity to the apostate Gadhafi, but to America as well.
The Horsepersons of the Apocalypse
This amazing state of affairs originated in the plotting of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a small group of her closest advisers: Huma Abedin (Deputy Chief of Staff), Cheryl Mills (Chief of Staff) and Susan Rice, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Only the four horsemen of the Apocalypse could match the havoc that these four were about to inflict.
Obama would remark that Libya “was Secretary Clinton’s matter” – and, unfortunately she believed it. Hillary worked energetically to switch (change) support to the Islamic rebels and even as Gadhafi’s loyalist forces were moving on Benghazi, Hillary was flogging her mount to Paris to meet with the spokesman for the rebels, Jibrail Mammoud. Pale horse, pale rider – shortly after that meeting, Clinton pledged America’s support to the rebels. When Benjamin Franklin stated that our newly adopted Constitution created a Republic, he had added presciently: “if you can keep it”. Our tattered Republic was trashed by Clinton’s unilateral action; as a result of the efforts of one individual (and her inner circle) and over the opposition of Secretary of Defense Gates and senior Pentagon officials (and just about everyone who was aware of the change ) the U.S. threw (changed) its support to the jihadist Libyan Transnational Council. Obama, while posing as uninvolved, delivered one of his “learned” speeches “advising” all that the fall of Gadhafi and U.S. support of the rebels would “stop violence on a horrific scale”; that these changes were based upon an “international mandate” and “plea from the people” (I am not making this up).
Accuracy In Media: “Changing Horses”
The “accurately” titled Accuracy In Media, in shock, reported that the U.S. had switched horses “in mid-stream”. The State Department proclaimed that the U.S. would now support the al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood rebels; that is to say, the U.S. would henceforth support the “patriotic, freedom loving al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood freedom fighters”. Accuracy In Media, further reported that, upon making the change, the U.S. simply cut off all communications with the Gadhafi regime. The rider of the pale horse even ordered a Pentagon General to refuse to take a call from Seif Gadhafi and, in short order the State Department followed suit, directing that all calls from the Gadhafi regime be rejected.
Confusion, Mistrust and Secret Recordings
The inexplicable and capricious actions of Clinton and her small inner circle had an obvious potential for thunderous adverse consequences – obvious that is to everyone except the Clinton State Department and Obama administration. Clinton’s actions were so alarming to the Pentagon that it took the unprecedented action of establishing its own surreptitious lines of communication with the Gadhafi regime. So did a U.S. Congressman.
Secret recordings of conversations between Libyan officials and the Pentagon that were made (and provided by Libyan intelligence to the Washington Times) demonstrate that the State Department was engaging in Hillary’s favorite past-time, falsifying intelligence reports provided to U.S. officials and members of Congress. A Pentagon official attempting to explain the situation to Seif Gadhafi stated bluntly that State’s reports to the Congress were “full of stupid, stupid facts”.
“False Justification for Intervention”
Liberal Democrat (then Congressman) Dennis Kucinich, who had participated in some of the surreptitious telephone conversations with Seif Gadhafi, later told the Washington Times:
“There was a distortion of the events that were occurring
in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially
wrong and illegal (emphasis added).
Death Sentence
Unable to establish official contact with his former ally and with the Pentagon relegated to a “stand down” role, it was clear that Gadhafi was finished. He requested a cease fire of 72 hours (essentially a request that the U.S. and U.N. suspend bombing his troops) in order to discuss a voluntary abdication. That request was ignored; it simply went unanswered. Dennis Kucinich sent letters to both Obama and Secretary Clinton advising them that Gadhafi was willing to negotiate an end to the conflict on terms that appeared to favor administration policy. Those letters too were ignored! General Ham, then head of AFRICOM, recommended negotiation as well. His messages went unanswered..
Venimus, Vidimus – et Martuus est
Gadhafi began to search for an escape route. Too late, he was captured. His final appearance on television showed him being pushed forward by rebels, a bloody, beaten and confused ex-dictator who was shortly to be tortured, sodomized and murdered. The ride of the pale horse had ended, but war, famine and pestilence were about to go into full gallop. The riders thereafter appeared on television just long enough for Hillary, modifying Caesar’s famous “Veni, Vidi, Vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered) to proclaim: “We came, We saw -- He died” followed by her unbalanced creepy cackle.
AIM’s Summation
Accuracy In Media provided an excellent summation of the events in its Interim Report by the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (April 22, 2014):
“The U.S. failure to even consider Gadhafi’s request for
talks, and its determination to enter and pursue this war in
support of al-Qa’eda linked rebels, presents the appearance
of a policy intent upon empowering Islamic forces with no
measurable benefit to U.S. National policy.” (Emphasis added)
THE CHANGE MAKER
PART II
Following the “Changes”
Impact on Christians
The Libyan people, claimed by Obama to be pleading for intervention, in fact, deemed it wise to get the hell out of Dodge. Especially the Christian community that could otherwise expect to be murdered by America’s new rebel friends, friends who had an expertise in beheading, burning, disembowelment and other artistic endeavors perfected by the al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS Islamists.
Chaos
In fact, it should have been anticipated that the murder of our most important ally in the region – until then a stabilizing force – followed by the ascension to power of the Islamic rebels, would result in Libya’s descent into chaos. Following Gadhafi’s “removal”, large numbers of armed al Qaeda controlled militia moved freely throughout the area almost immediately.
Impact on Diplomatic Personnel
According to a Washington Times article (Geopolitics, 3-7-16), assassinations began to take place regularly in Benghazi; even the British Ambassador was the subject of a terrorist attack that barely failed. The U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi – the U.S. Special Missions Compound – was an obvious target for a terrorist attack. According to Judicial Watch, at least 77 requests for additional security were sent by Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff to Secretary Clinton. All were either rejected or ignored. Even the U.S. embassy in Tripoli sounded the alarm. Yet there was no response from Clinton or anyone else at the State Department. The International Red Cross and the United Kingdom shut down their offices in Benghazi and departed and even when a bomb was exploded outside the wall of the U.S. Compound, there was no response to the pleas for additional security.
The Re-election Mantra
Nothing, apparently, was to distract from Obama’s re-election mantra that, due to his heroic leadership, Osama Bin Laden was dead and al Qaeda was on the run. Nor was the escalating violence to be permitted to conflict with Hillary’s fervent desire to establish as a major accomplishment the “removal” of a Middle East despot, followed by a “democratic” remake of Libya. It wouldn’t look right if the U.S. had to suddenly send in military personnel to protect the Special Missions Compound from the same people that Secretary Clinton had just befriended and freed from the restraints imposed by our recently deceased ally. As a result, when September 11 (that “trigger” date) arrived, no security precautions had been taken. The attack on this vulnerable diplomatic outpost was inevitable and its success a likelihood.
Islamic Empowerment,/b>
Accuracy In Media, in its Interim Report on Benghazi, pointed out that the change in U.S. support from the Libyan government to the al Qaeda linked rebels resulted in the empowerment of Islamist forces with no benefit to American interests. This was acknowledged by the gloating statement (Washington Times and Wall Street Journal) of Abu Baraa al Tunisi, ISIS spokesman:
“We are certainly taking advantage of the chaos that
is occurring in Libya now to gather our forces and
put our plans together. We do not waste the chance
of the security and political vacuum and instability
to expand our territories and stretch our empire”.
THE CHANGE MAKER
PART III
By any objective standard the conduct of the Change Maker can only be described as bizarre from the beginning. All of the “changes” she initiated ended in catastrophe. She was instrumental in secretly supplying arms to the Libyan rebels – arms that were later used against American soldiers. She worked feverishly to secure U.N. cooperation to the abandonment of an American ally. She was instrumental in transferring taxpayer dollars to the rebels, rebels largely composed of al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi Islamists. She secretly met in Paris with the spokesman for the rebels whereupon she pledged American support of the rebels, a “change” harmful to American interests with deadly consequences that should have been anticipated. Rather then supporting loyalist forces, the U.S. and the U.N. actively engaged in the bombing of Gadhafi’s loyalist troops. She ignored pleas for additional security at the Diplomatic Compound and, when under siege, failed to send help.
The massive “changes” may have been dictated by sheer overwhelming incompetence. Surely, however, other influences were in play. Some possibilities are reviewed in the attached APPENDIX.
THE CHANGE MAKER
PART IV
The State Department Wasn’t Prepared For The Attack
Despite all of the violence that developed in Benghazi following the death of Gadhafi; despite the attacks on other Embassies and U.S. interests; and despite the pleas for additional security emanating from the Special Missions Compound, there was a complete failure of readiness on the part of the State Department for the attack on the Compound and there was no “what if” planning for its chaotic aftermath. It is apparently difficult to calculate “what if” if one is preoccupied with calculating “how much”.
No Was There A Military Rescue Response
Even more incredible, when the September 11 attack took place, there was no military response that came to the rescue of the American Ambassador, the staff at the Special Missions Compound and the personnel at the nearby CIA Annex. Both facilities were left on their own. The six members of the Global Response Staff situated at the Annex comprised the only truly professional fighters available to defend both the Compound and the Annex. And, despite the inaction of the White House and Pentagon, defend they did, saving over 20 lives, but at the cost of the lives of two of the accomplished and courageous defenders: Tyrone Wood and Glen Doherty. The lives of Ambassador Stevens and aide Sean Smith were also lost; the surviving defenders believe that, had their aid not been delayed (by “political” considerations), Stevens and Smith would also have been saved.
In explanation of the administration’s failure to provide assistance to the embattled defenders, Clinton and Obama have claimed that there were no “assets” available at the time that could have provided survival assistance to that diplomatic outpost. That is a lie. Contrary to the Hillary/ Obama fabrications, there was a fully armed Marine Force Recon Team at Sigonella, Sicily that could have been to Benghazi in a few hours. There were also units in Spain and Croatia that were available and ready to move. The Sigonella troops were suited up and ready for deployment just hours after the attack and, that same evening, the Pentagon was notified by the Chief of Staff, Department of Defense, that the available forces were “spinning up” (in preparation for departure) “even as we speak”.
General Thomas McInerny and Admiral James Lyons have each questioned why, as a minimum, fighter aircrafts could not have been sent to make low passes over the Compound in full afterburner - a tactic often used successfully to disburse similar mobs. No military aid was, however, to be provided to those trapped in the Compound and the Annex. And available means to provide aid, had deployment been ordered, would have in any event been hindered by the State Department. While the onslaught was taking place, State Department personnel in Washington were “discussing” that no uniforms should to be worn by rescuers - civilian suits should be worn in order to not “alarm” the Libyan government; nor was any heavy equipment or armored vehicles to be employed. And in any event, the State Department maintained, Libyan government consent to any rescue operation should first be obtained. Secretary Clinton need only have requested and likely would have been granted, such cross border authority. She never made the request. (Ttruly, this is not made up but is based upon facts elicited by Judicial Watch, Accuracy In Media, the Washington Times and other non-dormant media outlets.)
It is a mordant irony that when extraction assistance was finally provided the beleaguered occupants of the Compound and Annex, it did not emanate from Washington; it was provided by loyalist troops that had served under Gadhafi. Apparently they had survived the “ferocious bombing” ordered by Sydney Blumenthal, dutifully carried out by the Change Maker. They served to escort the survivors to the airport for their return to the United States. No aid or assistance originated with the Clinton State Department
It is now claimed by the State Department that U.S. military forces in the region could not, in any case, have reached the Compound in time to save the Ambassador and others. Whether or not that is true, the answer was not known at the time of the attack and the claim is simply an after-the-fact excuse of the type relied upon by incompetents. After all, what difference does it make.
The Evening of the Attack on the Consulate
When the attack on the Consulate took place, the roles played by Obama and Clinton were in sharp contrast to the “dancing-in-the-end-zone” that took place following the killing of Osama Bin Laden. In that case, there was a river of unauthorized leaks providing details of the raid, with Obama pounding his chest in celebration of his heroism in killing Bin Laden. This time, however, Obama inexplicably disappeared for the evening and rest of the night, with no recorded reappearance. While he has since refused to answer questions about his whereabouts that evening; we do know that the next morning he strode gallantly up the gang plank to depart and carry out that activity at which he is among the very best – presiding over fund raising events. Events at which he discharges the most important of his presidential obligations - committing to the welfare of those who commit to contribute the most to his campaigns. This “primary” responsibility, no doubt, required lengthy preparation the preceding evening during the time the attack was taking place and could explain his otherwise mysterious absence.
In contrast, Hillary did make some appearances that evening. We were to learn, thanks again to Judicial Watch and the facts extracted thru FOI requests and judicial proceedings, that Clinton’s efforts that night were primarily directed to formulating the scam that an “evil anti-Muslim video” was the cause of the attack. This canard would thereafter be pursued for days and, in some cases, weeks.
The Aftermath --Libya Today
On March 30, 2015, the Washington Times Bill Gertz, quoting the Libyan ambassador, reported that Libya was in real danger of becoming an ISIS garrison and an ATM for ISIS operations in Syria and Iraq. On June 17, 2016, CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged that the U.S. has not been able to reduce the terrorist capabilities of ISIS, nor its global reach, noting its ability to operate terrorist “franchises” throughout several regions. Rowan Scarborough, writing in the Washington Times, describes the “Islamic State in Libya” as “the terrorist group’s largest such franchise, with as many as 6,000 fighters who threaten the shaky government in Tripoli”. CIA Director Brennan describes the branch in Libya as the most advanced and most dangerous of the “franchises”. All of these changes were made possible by the Hillary Clinton, branded by her husband to be forever known as: ** The Change Maker **.
Oh What A Web We Weave (etc.)
Documents released by the State Department in response to FOIA filings (see http//jwatch.us/benghazi.docs ) show that one of the administration’s first actions following the attack was to contact You Tube regarding what would forever be characterized as that “hateful video”. On September 16, several days after the attack, Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds of national TV talk shows to assert that the attack was spontaneous, sparked by that “hateful video”. She felt a need to add that the violence was “not premeditated or preplanned”. The State Department’s own internal memos, however, show efforts by Obama’s Communications adviser to expand, orchestrate and “reinforce” the theme that the attack was “rooted in an Internet video and not a failure of policy”. The night of the attack , Hillary sent an e-mail to her daughter stating: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda like group”. The same night Clinton told the Libyan prime minister that the terrorist group “Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility. According to a document only recently pried loose from State, Clinton, within 24 hours of the attach, advised the prime minister of Egypt: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack - not a protest (emphasis added). There is more -- a cable sent the day following the attack by the Defense Intelligence Agency to the State Department Command Center, advised that the attack was conducted by a Salafi terrorist group. An agency report sent the morning of September 12 (within hours of the attack) reiterated that the attack involved the Brigade of Captive Omar Abdul Rahman and had been planned for at least 10 days in advance to coincide with the 9-11 date of the attack on the World Trade Center. The DOD Report was sent to Hillary Clinton as well as to Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House.
Sang Froid
Despite everything to the contrary, Obama, obsessed with his “legacy”, continued to advance the falsehood that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the release of an evil video by a simpleton critical of Muhammad. The Change Maker even arranged for a television commercial in which “we” (the American public) apologized to offended Muslims for that “hateful video” (paid for by the American taxpayer). The deceit goes on until it becomes tiresome: Speaking before the United Nations, Obama again blamed the video and sternly admonished the world: “The Prophet [Muhammad] must not be defamed” -- expertly intoned with the usual posture of righteousness. Indeed, Obama had spoken -- America you are not to criticize Muhammad. The Koran, that “sacred” text, directs that the words of Muhammad are equal to those of the “holy” Koran and are therefore, “infallible and unchanging”.
The video “narrative” continued to be advanced long after it had become rancid. The most disgusting act of all – and the most revelatory of Hillary’s true character, was when she greeted the mother of Sean Smith and the parents of Tyrone Wood, who were at the airport to receive the bodies of their sons killed in defense of the Compound and Annex. At this profound moment of overwhelming grief, Hillary - representing America - was not reflecting on how she could best assuage their anguish, but, her mind always in the scheming mode, was calculating how she could best continue to advance the scam of that “hateful” internet video. She told each of the parents that the video was the cause of the attack and assured them that the creator of the video would be punished.
No act could be more brutally indecent, more lacking in morality. Well, perhaps – when the parents of Tyrone Wood and the Mother of Sean Smith later related the assurances given them, Hillary recognized that this by then discredited falsehood could damage her aspirations for higher office. Accordingly, she denied saying any such thing to either of the parents. She would not say that the parents were lying, however. But certainly, she was not.
Somewhere on a rocky hillside in Arkansas, cold blooded venomous creatures slither out to warm themselves on the rocks in the sunshine. There is one large outcropping which is barren, however, patiently awaiting the return of the Queen of cold blood, the **Change Maker **.
(Editor's note: the author is a retired businessman who now lives in Natural Bridge, Virginia).
| | | | | |
|
