Remembering Hillary's War
Next week Hillary Clinton's confidant Sidney Blumenthal will testify in front of Congress about Benghazi. The session will be closed to the media.
Like all the past investigations, this one is unlikely to turn up anything worth mentioning, mostly because they are investigating the wrong events and asking the wrong questions.
ISIS took over another town in Libya this week. Last month the Islamic State took over the city of Sirte, the hometown of Muammar Gaddafi. They've controlled the eastern city of Derna since last year.
ISIS has gained so much momentum in Libya that they've essentially declared war on Libya Dawn, the militia group that controls the capital of Tripoli. Libya Dawn has admitted that they are losing to ISIS due to a lack of ammo and weapons.
Even though we arrived at this situation in a very different way, the end results should still look familiar.
Leaked memos show that the western powers had been plotting regime change for Libyan government for years and those Libyans that plotted were put in positions of power in the new government.
Four years ago President Obama decreed: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”
The president told us it was to prevent genocide. Opponents were accused of being indifferent to suffering (as if bombs are the cure to suffering).
The evidence of these genocidal actions by the Gaddafi government were proven false by Human Rights Watch, even while the bombs were still dropping.
Nevertheless, the Libya model was pushed as a model for future wars.
Sarkozy and Cameron took a victory lap in Libya. War advocates mocked the anti-war crowd.
Vice-president Joe Biden described the action as a "prescription" for the future.
New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof wrote: “Libya is a reminder that sometimes it is possible to use military tools to advance humanitarian causes.”
Former Obama official Anne-Marie Slaughter argued that intervention was a matter of upholding “universal values,” and wrote “Why Libya sceptics were proved badly wrong," especially those that said “in a year, or a decade, Libya could disintegrate into tribal conflict or Islamist insurgency, or split apart or lurch from one strongman to another.”
Behind all of this was Hillary Clinton.
In fact, Hillary was so instrumental in this war that the Washington Post in 2011 dubbed it "Hillary's War".
She advocated for supplying weapons and military training to rebel forces, some of whom were al-Qaeda and affiliated with the Islamic militants who later assaulted the U.S. compound in Benghazi.
In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebels would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven.
The leader of ISIS in Libya is a former U.S.-backed rebel.
Today the Libya war advocates are quiet. On the same pages of the NY Times where we were recently heroes a different message is printed: “Libya is falling apart. Politically, financially, the economic situation is disastrous.”
Libya is now in a state of complete collapse. Conditions have deteriorated to the point that “hardly any Libyan can live a normal life."
At the U.N. the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has said there were indications of war crimes being committed in Libya.
Amnesty International calls the conditions there 'Rule of the Gun'.
Weapons looted in the post-war chaos wound up in the hands of Boko Haram, which then committed all sorts of atrocities.
And those humanitarian reasons that were so important to us five years ago?
Free speech? Same as under Gaddafi. Women’s rights? “Lacking.” Gay rights? Homosexuality is punishable by death. Religious freedom? Libya is now the worst state in North Africa to be a Christian and bans Jews from entering the country. Ethnic tolerance? Tribal warfare has defined the fighting since 2011 and black Africans are frequently singled out for violence.
Republican congressmen will continue to chase a phantom scandal about Benghazi next week, while probably ignoring a disastrous foreign policy disaster that Hillary orchastrated, the results of which threatens to destabilize the entire region.
While Republican presidential candidates are being asked whether they would have invaded Iraq in 2003, perhaps the media could take a moment to ask Hillary a few more pertinent questions.
For instance, "Given what you know now, would you still have attacked Libya?"
And, "Why isn't Washington currently doing anything about the rise of ISIS in Libya?"
And, "What would be your response if ISIS takes over Tripoli?"
geez, i can't wait for hillary's presidency...
so that the united states can continue its awkward stomping like a giant nocturnal stumblebutt, kicking over countries as it blindly continues its quest for a midnight snack, groping in the dark trying to locate the refrigerator where the milk of human kindness is kept.
More like a...
vampire groping in the dark looking for its next victim to drain.
now I want to read your secret piece of writing,
probably a political horror novel that you hide under your pillow. What a sentence ...
sorry, i destroyed all of the evidence...
of the lurid political novel that i wrote several years back. it was terrible, but it was good to get it out of my system and burn it to set it free.
no way, burning books is a no no, even your own,
what a pity. I am reading Chris Hedges last book and it's so intense I can't read more than half a chapter at the time. He has a lot to get out of the system and it's so straight it knocks you out. There is so far nothing unreal or radical about it, just plain straight logic deduction from what is actually happening. It is very good for me to read, because I understand what he says and he weaves a lot together in a coherent picture.
No more book burning, Mr. Shikspack. (Das ist verboten, ok? :-)).
a German, you are right, and it is natural, to have the reaction you have, to burning books.
Pauline Kael, on the other hand, in her review of the film Fahrenheit 451, wrote this:
Kael goes on to belittle her friend's horror at the book-burning, in a Kael cold intellectual superiorist way.
Problem is, pace Kael, most people, even these days, who burn books, don't do so because the books are but useless tabloid rubbish, but instead out of some white hot fury that what is contained in the books should be classified as some sort of "Evil."
And that is why, until humans can be cleansed of such nonsense, that I am more or less with you, that it's best not to burn a thing.
But probably, here, joe is okay. Burning his own stuff. Written by his own hand. And set aflame, through no coercion.
Then again, I once had a friend who wanted to burn his novel. He'd decided it was shite. Instead, I took it into my possession. Several years later he approached me, and wanted it back. I gave him a copy. He published it, with a few natural changes. And made money. It was a good book, too.
heh, I just wanted to poke a little fun at Joe and now you
have even made a better argument. I hope his wife took the book and kept it in a safe. May be years from now Joe wants it back, publishes it and makes a fortune..
No really, I think one is always one's own harshest critic and I suppose, if Joe had written such a thing, he was too and that's something one has to protect oneself against, one's own critical mind. I should have become a professional archivist, I really like to keep ... books at a safe place for good.
heh, not to worry, it really was bad...
but i could create another bad novel just like it at the drop of a hat. B)
Thank God ! ... you crack me up :-) /nt
My son's a potter
and so is my sister in law. I have come upon both of them gleefully smashing and turning their unsatisfactory creations into rubble. As a artist out of frustration and loathing I have slashed, ripped up, stomped and demolished canvases and drawings that I created. Sometimes it's a way of disengaging with the endless loop of a creation gone bad. It's part of a closure process and can be liberating as it frees you to move to the next. Cathartic
On the other hand it might be better to put the offending creation away like in the basement and after time has elapsed you might come upon it and think hey this was pretty good. Tainted perception as there is a huge gap in what your mind creates and what you produce. A mentor artist once told me that it takes two people to paint a picture one to paint it and one to hit the painter on the head with a hammer when it's time to stop. A trick I learned is to look at my painting's using a mirror you get a whole new perception of what you've made.
Botticelli in his later years fell under the spell of Savonarola and legend has it burned many of his beautiful pagan humanist paintings in the bonfire of the vanities. Thank god his magical Primavera, which is one of my favorite works of art, was not destroyed. Fire as censorship is a whole different kettle of fish. We're Botticelli's masterpieces his to destroy or did they come through him and belong to humanity? Did he consign his painting's willingly? Maybe because once he became a religious zealot his art certainly took a turn for the worst. imo. When people start the bonfires burning it's always bad news.
Bonfire of the Vanities
wow, what a comment, thank you so much
amazing what I can learn here and what kind of comments are bubbling up. Now I have to read it again and then again. Thanks.
Her "Mission Accomplished" moment....
Or at least one of them.
"I am proud to stand here on the soil of a free Libya."
GWB redux for our FSC.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
There is something
so inherently evil in the way she said that. And that laugh. Horrifying.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I once saw a video
of HRC at a town hall meeting in Pakistan that was really revealing. She was berating a group of women from villages that we're being bombed and droned. The women said to her that the US needs to stop killing our people who live in the villages your destroying. She got angry and told them this is a war! and you people are harboring the enemy. She did the crazy psycho laugh and flung her hands up in disgust at these women who had come to the 'town hall meeting' as delegates from their various villages. I cannot find this video anymore it has apparently been scrubbed off the internet.. I should have bookmarked it. It was a shocking and scary to see her naked inhumanity. Gave a whole new definition of her famous 'It takes a village'.
'No Labels'/Her camp has scrubbed massive amounts of data,
so bookmarks may not have necessarily have helped you.
(I still find it hard to believe that she could possibly be elected, with about 48% of likely voters in some polls, saying that they absolutely would not consider voting for her. But, who knows?)
Apparently, the entire DLC 'New Dem' roster, photos, etc., formerly listed on the DLC website, has been scrubbed.
Good news, though--I've got a few of those 'New Dem' roster/photo 'screenshots.'
Still, I never imagined that they would go to the lengths that they've apparently gone to, in order to scrub derogatory material that could hurt them with the Dem Party Base.
No Labels' 'True' Goal--Austerity (My Words)
From the 'No Labels' Website, Two Of Their Four Goals:
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Well we have no TV
we do have internet radio and Thom Hartman is irritating the shit out of me. Husband has his muffin and coffee every morning before getting to work and listens to a local progressive radio station here in Portland OR that starts the day off with a dose of Thom Hartman . It carries Thom Hartman as well as great local and global alt. music. Thom Hartman does not seem liberal or progressive. He gives people who call in a lot of crap if they don't toe the Democratic Party line. How sad that two legs better now is not only what Dem pols offer but what the so called progressive community is hooked to and refuses to see what is actually being implemented by these owned pols and there facilitators like Thom Hartman from the so called left.
They are propagandists of the fake left. They are not as overt as the right wing looney's are but they do keep keep the Dem. partisan sheple in line, that's their job. Nothing matters other then kicking the RW's ass. Sorry you don't like Hillary the psycho killer? Well tough luck she's the one and only candidate that you get. All resistance is futile as the process is rigged and you will accept your new boss the same as the old boss. It's pragmatic and the way it has always been and always will be, amen. Take heart as this new boss is a woman even though she's a throw back fascistic female boss. She is someone you can self identify with, disregard Thatcher or Catherine the Great they are nothing like Hillary. She may be a global psycho killer, free market extremist but she's a woman and a Democrat and as a bonus she's a bad ass who will fight the good fight against her enemies who ever they are.
Labels are nothing but hype that the media and polls of mass deception fling out to keep you believing that this is reality. It is all you can get and resistance is futile and aids and abets some mythical worse evil that is waiting in the wings. They are all evil including Thom Hartman and other so called progressive voices that parrot the fictitious party line. Their are no labels other then fascist or totalitarian that apply to what we are told is pragmatic moderate reality that could you know be worse.
I agree. Hartmann can be interesting when
he discusses some topics, and he seems like a nice guy, but (above all) he comes across as a partisan Democrat to me and Mr M.
(My point being that it appeared to us that ideology and policy were secondary to Party politics, for him.)
Actually, when we first heard him, part of his moniker was:
'the Radical Middle'
Here's an excerpt from a Goggle search:
Here's an excerpt from that, since it's not readable:
Anyhoo, we were major fans of his for quite a number of years--we listened to him on a union-run internet radio channel called "IE America" before "Air America" made it onto the airwaves. And both Mr M's and my own conversations with him were always very respectful, cordial, etc., even if he retreated back into Dem Party talking points from time to time.
But, eventually, after hearing so much misinformation and spin about the ACA for months on end, and after he went on to endorse the current Administration the second time around--we just lost interest, and quit listening to his show altogether.
That is, except for once in a blue moon--I guess for old times sake, LOL!
Heck, there was a time when I was on 'Cloud 9' because Air America was on the air. One of my favorite shows was The Majority Report with Sam Seder and Janeane Garofalo--now that was a pair!
When Sam went to his online show, he became more conventional and/or cautious, IMO. I think that what happened to Randi Rhodes [after her FSC remark got her axed from the Air America lineup] may have scared him, and other lefty talkers. I dunno. But many of them seemed to lose their nerve and verve.
Sigh . . .
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving."--Author Unknown
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.