We Came, We Saw, He Died

By Jim ONeill January 31, 2015

“We came, we saw, he died.”—Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughingly gloating over the death of Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011)

Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC). [A] reporter asked if [Clinton thought] Qaddafi’s death had anything to do with her surprise visit to show support for the Libyan people. “No,” she replied, before rolling her eyes and saying “I’m sure it did” with a chuckle. —Corbett Daly, “CBS News” 10/20/11

“... there was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal.”—Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

As flagrantly tasteless as Hillary Clinton’s play on the “veni, vidi, vici” riff was, it crosses over from being tasteless into being chilling when seen in the light of recent reports by the US Army intelligence community and others.

One of Gaddafi’s sons, Seif, warned the US military’s Joint Chiefs through back channels that the “freedom fighters” that the US was supplying weaponry and ammunition to were not freedom fighters at all, but were instead rabid jihadists, “gangsters and terrorists,” intent on overthrowing the Gaddafi regime so that they could install a more radical Islamist regime in its place—similar to the way that long-time American ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was thrown to the wolves in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ah yes, results of the vaunted “Arab Spring”—a term I file away with other leftist lies and cant such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the Nazis were/are a right-wing movement (“Socialist Workers Party”—hello?). But I digress.

Gaddafi was willing to abdicate and wished to broker a deal with the US, according to reports, but Secretary of State Clinton wanted war, and by God a war she would get. According to former CIA officer Claire Lopez:

“The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures.”

Instead of brokering a peaceful deal with Gaddafi, the US began smuggling arms and ammo to Libyan “freedom fighters” (read that as radical Islamists). I thought that the US was supposedly fighting al Qaeda, not supplying them with weapons, but what do I know?

In any event, ignoring the various US intelligence agency reports that were informing her of what was actually happening in Libya, Clinton doggedly stuck to her own pet narrative, which she funneled to the White House. According to “The Washington Times:”

Instead of relying on the Defense Department or the intelligence community for analysis, officials told The Times, the White House trusted Mrs. Clinton’s [narrative], which was then supported by Ambassador to the United Nations Susan E. Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power, as reason enough for war.

Clinton’s, Rice’s, and Power’s narrative was that the US (and its European allies) needed to attack Libya in order to prevent Gaddafi from committing genocide on the Libyan people. Despite on-site US intelligence reports that disagreed with the Obama Administration’s fairytale, it nonetheless became the version of events in Libya that was dutifully disseminated to “we the people” by the mainstream media.

Genocide huh? Well I’m not buying it. If Clinton and crew found the possibility of genocide so heart-wrenching, then I would have directed their attention to Sudan (even the State Department could have found it—it borders on Libya for God’s sake), where large-scale slavery and genocide has been an ongoing affair for some time. Or what about Nigeria—check out the entry on that country on “Genocide Watch.” (Interestingly both of those genocides involve Muslims slaughtering Christians—now why do you suppose the US State Department and the mainstream media choose to largely ignore them? Hmm).

So what was the real reason Hillary and her pals insisted on raining destruction on Libya? Was it something as simple as feeding the insatiable appetite of the military/industrial complex, or was it because Gaddafi’s plans for a gold-based pan-African currency threatened bankster elites? Or was it to foster chaos in Libya so that various Islamic cults near and dear to the Obama Administration, like the Muslim Brotherhood, could gain momentum in that country? Perhaps “we the people” will finally find the truth when Ms. Clinton appears before Congress, again.

[E, RALA]

f