Posts tagged Libya
Pure Failure in Benghazi, 60 Minutes reports: Our team was unguarded, and then abandoned when attacked. Damning report.
Good for 60 Minutes. Maybe there are still some real journalists out there in the #oldmedia.
According to this report, supported by interviews with key people involved in defending Ambassador Stevens and his team, the CIA compound was “defended” only by local Libyan militia members (who fled as soon as Al Qaeda descended on the building) and an unarmed American security detail.
What kind of absolutely boneheaded security planning is this? Get the local boys to man the turrets while they learn the lay of the land and talk to to their buddies? And an unarmed American security detail? Why unarmed?
Then when the fight begins, with our team heavily out gunned, no support was called in? In fact the assistant to the ambassador was specifically told that no help was on the way. Again why? We had no one off the coast ready to offer cover in the event this sort of thing happened? I am sure we did. If we didn’t (which I can’t imagine) this is a logistical disaster on a colossal scale. But for whatever reason we didn’t send anyone in. No hell-fire missiles were shot by drones which undoubtedly were patrolling the skies above Benghazi. No, the ambassador and his team were basically left to die Alamo style, as quietly as possible.
Don’t forget. The American public was told that the attack was a spontaneous act of violence born from a protest against an anti-Muslim movie that almost no one saw. This is a lie which was told over and over in the critical weeks after the attack.
Benghazi was a gross failure of the Obama administration with potentially huge impact on the soon to be held 2012 US presidential elections. Likewise it was also as big a failure for Hillary Clinton’s State Department with potentially as big an impact on her likely run for president in 2016.
The below video is an important report. We commend 60 Minutes for it and we are pleased that it appears that not all of the mainstream media, an entity we often call the “crony media,” can be cowed by Washington.
Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org
About Nick Sorrentino
Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.
No comment, other than…
After a couple days I finally had a chance to see this video from September 1st which I had open in a few browser tabs waiting for me. Hillary Mann Leverett was included in a panel discussion regarding the buildup to yet more warmongering, this time for Syria, held on the quickly fading mainstream media station MSNBC. A classic study of intelligence verses msm spin in which Hillary Mann Leverett shinned using tactics basically extinct in today’s lapdog media, honesty, facts and logic. Enjoy!
Written by Daniel McAdams
Lapdog Regime Journalists versus a Bona Fide Expert: Watch the Sparks Fly!
RPI Academic Board Member Hillary Mann Leverett absolutely destroys the conventional wisdom-mongering and regime lapdog “journalists” on Obama’s march to war on Syria. Watch the smug bootlickers discount the sole voice of reason — an expert on the region rather than a talking head:
Thanks to Travis Holte for link.
Posted by Judy Morris
CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’
The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city.
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian rebels.
Read the rest at The Telegraph,here.
Posted by Judy Morris
What REALLY Caused the Coup Against the Egyptian President
The protests in Egypt against president Mohammed Morsi were – according to the BBC – the largest in history.
The Egyptian military threw Morsi out in a coup today.
(The U.S. backed Egypt’s previous dictator, as well).
Support of Western intervention in Syria was also one of the main causes of the recent enormous protests in Turkey … which came close to toppling the Turkish leadership.
Indeed, the American government has been providing arms, money and logistical support to Al Qaeda in Syria,Libya, Mali, Bosnia and other countries – and related Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries. So moderate Arabs all over the Middle East and North Africa are becoming furious at U.S. interventionist policies.
Note: The coup is a set-back for the U.S., because Egypt – unlike Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran – isn’t on the 20-year-old list of countries targeted for regime change.
Read the rest at Zero Hedge, here.
Image added to original post.
Written by Daniel McAdams
Jeb Presents Hillary Neo Con of the Year Award
Neo conservatism does not just cross party lines, it is the party line. Both major US parties share the same foreign policy, which is “humanitarian interventionism,” pushing “democracy” at the barrel of a gun, militarized diplomacy, covert and overt support of subversive NGOs overseas, and so on.
The trillions of dollars spent to pursue their pipe dreams destroys our economy and makes us hated and resented throughout the world. They are never right. Their every promise is a lie.
What a perfect example of the two-headed snake that is both major political parties than this news that Jeb Bush is to award Hillary Clinton with the “2013 Liberty Medal.”
Here is Jeb Bush on Hillary Clinton:
“Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy. “These efforts as a citizen, an activist, and a leader have earned Secretary Clinton this year’s Liberty Medal.”
Let’s have a look at just a few of the fruits of Hillary Clinton’s “engaging the people across the world in democracy”:
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton embrace — the epitome of the neo con control over US foreign policy.
The U.S. exports many things, such as jobs, manufacturing and services. The most expensive U.S. export comes directly form the government, democracy, which cost millions of lives.
By Ron Paul
The Real Meaning of President Obama’s National Security Speeches
The president will continue and even expand drone attacks overseas because they are “less deadly” than ground invasions. He promises to be more careful in the future.
He is entertaining the introduction of “kill courts” which will meet in secret to decide who is to be executed without trial or charge. He promises these will have sufficient oversight.
He will seek a new and updated Authorization for the Use of Military Force to expand his legal authority to wage war wherever and whenever he wants. He promises it will one day be repealed.
He will continue to indefinitely detain at Guantanamo individuals who have been neither charged nor convicted of any crime, and who cannot even be tried because they were tortured and thus the evidence is tainted. He promises to “commit to a process of closing GTMO.”The speech speaks of more war and more killing and more interventionism all masked in the language of withdrawal.
The president warns of the threats of the new al-Qaeda affiliates that have sprung up in places like Iraq without explaining that it was the US invasion of Iraq that opened the door to their entry in the first place. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, just as there was little extremism in Libya before the US attack on that country in 2011.
The president claims that “unrest in the Arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria.” However, it was the US-led attack on Libya that resulted in extremists gaining power there, with many fighters afterward spreading unrest and destruction by joining the wars against the Syrian and Malian regimes. The extremists brought to de facto power in places like Benghazi were responsible for the murder of the US ambassador, yet the president says nothing about that unintended consequence of his interventionist policies.
He calls for even more interventionism in the future, but he promises that it will be a different kind of interventionism. He wants the US to shape democratic transitions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya while actively supporting those seeking to overthrow the government in Syria.
He wants to take nation-building to a whole new level, urging that the US “help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship.” He promises to battle extremism overseas by “training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.”
What the president does not seem to understand is that we do not have the money to build schools, upgrade education, modernize economies, and encourage entrepreneurship overseas at a time when our national debt is $16 trillion. And besides, isn’t it a deeply flawed idea that the US government can achieve all of these remarkable results overseas when we know what a disaster these big government undertakings have produced at home? What we reject at home as Soviet-style central planning is fully embraced as effective foreign policy overseas. Should it really be the US government’s role to “modernize economies” or “encourage entrepreneurs” anywhere? Those are activities best left to the private sector, whether here at home or in far off lands.
President Obama’s speech is not at all what it seems. It is a call for more empire and more power to the executive branch. The president promises that “this war, like all wars, must end.” Unfortunately the war on the American taxpayer never seems to end. But end it will, as we are running out of money.
Written by Ron Paul
On occasion one stumbles across a post that rings true to the thoughts one is currently thinking. This post on godfatherpolitics.com rang true to my thoughts entertained this evening.
There was a day, I think back when the dinosaurs were still alive, when journalism schools taught their students about asking hard questions and the importance of being the public’s watchdog against all-too-often-corrupt government.
Woodward and Bernstein were held up as examples, but also people like Edward R. Murrow, Edna Buchanan, Jack Reed and William Marimow, journalists who were smart and tough enough to pin down the politicians and bureaucrats and hammer them until they gave up the information the public needed.
Journalistic role models were typically old guys and gals who had risen through the ranks of crime and government reporters to finally earn that esteemed title of editor, men and women who had devoted their lives to finding the truth, who weren’t afraid to take a phone call from the Secretary of State and demand “what the —- does the president think he’s doing?”
Those journalists, if they ever truly existed as a breed rather than unique individuals, are long gone. What we have now is a cadre of go-along types who mostly regurgitate whatever pablum is doled out by the local government press office.
The old saw about “accuracy, accuracy, accuracy” has been replaced by “lie three times and we’ll say it’s true.”
It’s much easier to just rewrite the press release and file your story. Save the real investigations for the interesting topics, like baby hippo twins born at the zoo.
Case in point, President Obama’s recent million-dollar fantasy golf weekend where he got to play against Tiger Woods. The Washington press corps was incensed at not having access to the president — so much so that they issued a statement of protest saying they would continue to demand “tranparency” from the Administration.
When they finally got a chance to ask the president a question after he’d blown a million taxpayer dollars on yet another vacation, during a time when the government is raising taxes and running huge deficits because it can’t live within a budget, the press members all clamored to know … did the president beat Tiger?
So much for asking tough questions and ensuring transparency. …
Compare the press corps’ outrage over the Tiger blackout to its utter lack of interest in the dearth of information about the September 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead. “Meet the Press” host David Gregory summed up the media’s attitude best: “Cover-up of what?”
“Transparency” on Benghazi doesn’t exist, and the media couldn’t care less so long as they get to cover the president’s round of golf, which mostly entails the press corps hanging around the clubhouse ordering daiquiris on their news outlet’s dime.
The majority of today’s journalists are lazy, sycophantic and dishonest about the job they are doing.
We need to find a real-life Perry White if we’re ever going to hold the government accountable.
As in the cold war, a division of labour requires that western journalism and popular culture provide the cover of a holy war against a “menacing arc” of Islamic extremism, no different from the bogus “red menace” of a worldwide communist conspiracy.
By Ezra Van Auken
As you may know, former Congressman Ron Paul has a weekly talk show, which he uses to deliver opinions on current issues including the economy, civil liberties and foreign policy; this week former Rep. Paul explained some much needed information into the newest Western war of Mali. The retired Texas Congressman first acknowledged that President Obama made a daring statement during his inauguration speech, “A decade of war is now ending.”
Responding to the message of ending war, Paul said, “As he spoke, the US military was rapidly working its way into another war, this time in the impoverished African country of Mali.” So far, the U.S. has provided C130s to the French for transportation of soldiers, deployed trainers to assist in training Mali soldiers and officials have agreed to fueling missions for the French fighter jets. Ramping up even more of a presence in northern Africa, the New York Times reported that AFRICOM’s top officials are seeking the go-ahead to build a drone base in Niger – just east of Mali.
Although American boots are not engaging in gunfire, Ron Paul explained, “Even if US involvement is limited, and, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, US boots on the ground are not being considered “at this time,” this clearly is developing into another war. As usual, the mission is creeping.” Overall, the stern non-interventionist believes that this war will eventually snowball into something more like the Afghanistan war.
Paul alluded to French officials during the first days of invasion and how they said Mali’s military intervention would be a quick response, fast paced mission that wouldn’t last long. “France announced that it would be forced to send in thousands of troops and would need to remain far longer than the few weeks it initially claimed would be necessary.” To accompany the claim that Mali’s war will turn into another prolong occupation, France’s Defense Minister told France-5 that Mali would be a “total reconquest”.
Jumping back a year or so, Dr. Paul detailed the events leading up to Mali’s war driven country. “When Gaddafi was overthrown in Libya, many fighters from Mali who had lived in Libya and been trained by Gaddafi’s military returned to their home country with sophisticated weapons and a new determination to continue their fight for independence for northern Mali.” Paul then said, “Thus the France-initiated action against Libya in 2011 led to new violence and instability in Mali that France decided it must also address.”
Overall, the former Congressman is calling out blowback for being the reason of instability – by attacking Libya and destabilizing the country – this havoc poured into Mali once extremists were on the move.
Paul summarized his daily talk show on Monday by saying, “By placing that authority in Congress, the people’s branch of government, they intended to blunt the executive branch’s enthusiasm toward overseas adventurism.”
Somewhat agreeing with the clause of Mali being blowback is Michael Scheuer, a former CIA official – however Scheuer thinks this was far from unintended blowback. Scheuer wrote on his online website non-intervention.com, “In Mali, the interventionist establishment already is lying about “unintended consequences”. The ex-CIA official called out Wall Street Journal’s Shiraz Maher, going on to say, “Now, I have never heard of Professor Maher but, clearly, he is an intellectually dishonest jackass.” Scheuer pointed out that “Just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no way to truthfully argue that “unintended consequences” are at work in Libya, Mali, or elsewhere in Africa.”
According to Scheuer, the events in North Africa and the Sahel aren’t seen as a positive to the U.S., Canada and Europe – but Scheuer says these wars were easily predictable because of Libyan intervention.
Regardless of blowback being intended or not, one thing is clear and that is, U.S. and European officials have boiled a greater force in the African region since toppling Gaddafi.
Spotted on http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/