HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Money, Power and Oil. Exp...

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:20 AM

Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails

by Ellen Brown
3/14/2016

Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails

Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton’s recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a “victory lap.” “We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.




But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding alack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as ‘thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,’ and ‘kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant’.”



Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa.

Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy.

The country boasted the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.



But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country.
Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with “the full spectrum of military operations required.”

The Secretary of State’s victory lap was indeed premature, if what we’re talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention.

But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission Accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails,dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and wasintended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

*A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
*Increase French influence in North Africa,
*Improve his internal political situation in France,
*Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
*Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a “rape policy” involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this “regime change” by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya’s wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa – or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children?

Bingo!


.....big snip.....

Read in full~
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article54422.html

36 replies, 2770 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Money, Power and Oil. Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails (Original post)
RiverLover Mar 2016 OP
FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #1
RiverLover Mar 2016 #2
SammyWinstonJack Mar 2016 #5
tk2kewl Mar 2016 #3
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #4
dchill Mar 2016 #6
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #8
Trust Buster Mar 2016 #7
RiverLover Mar 2016 #9
dana_b Mar 2016 #10
nyabingi Mar 2016 #11
RiverLover Mar 2016 #15
nyabingi Mar 2016 #18
Darb Mar 2016 #12
RiverLover Mar 2016 #14
Darb Mar 2016 #16
RiverLover Mar 2016 #17
chwaliszewski Mar 2016 #13
Victor_c3 Mar 2016 #20
Victor_c3 Mar 2016 #19
polly7 Mar 2016 #21
RiverLover Mar 2016 #22
FourScore Mar 2016 #23
polly7 Mar 2016 #24
FourScore Mar 2016 #25
polly7 Mar 2016 #28
polly7 Mar 2016 #30
Trust Buster Mar 2016 #26
snooper2 Mar 2016 #27
zentrum Mar 2016 #29
RiverLover Mar 2016 #31
zentrum Mar 2016 #32
RiverLover Mar 2016 #33
polly7 Mar 2016 #34
yurbud Mar 2016 #35
riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #36

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:23 AM

1. We came - We saw - We fucked up the whole country

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:54 AM

2. Its so sad.

This must be how Russian or Iranian citizens feel when they learn about horrific things their govt has done to other countries.

Reading these truths makes me ashamed of the US, and our media. And France! WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:28 AM

5. We did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:57 AM

3. Please... No more of this belligerent neocon foreign policy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:28 AM

4. Beat me to it. So many Democrats with their heads in the ground

 

?w=640

I love how her supporters will shred Trump's resume when he brags about all the deals he's made. It reads casino, airline, professional football league, multiple university, and steaks, yes steaks! Holy fuck, what an amazing list of accomplishments!

But her supporters are quick to point out 4 bankruptcies and a gimmick. With respect to her own resume, however, the a double standard How do they evaluate her resume? They don't. Instead, they continue to list the bullet points. Failures are foregiven if she continues to say "I was wrong" and "that was a mistake." "And Iraq, pfft, come on, that was just one vote and it was a long time ago, and besides, she already apologized for it so it's all good, now."

If she wins this primary, she better start to win northern, Democratic states. It would be a nightmare for the Confederate states to have delivered her an insurmountable lead and we see her limp to victory, unable to carry the North.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:03 AM

6. "unable to carry the North."

Don't look now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dchill (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:14 AM

8. Honestly

 

If she wins the Primary, I want to see the northern and west coast, solid blue states outperform the Confederacy. I want her to go into the GE riding a wave. That said, I hope she loses -- which would be a catostrophic fail -- and already voted for Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:10 AM

7. The U.S. played a minor supporting role in Libya. Britain, France, Egypt and the Arab League

 

were the principal architects. Our Commander in Chief at the time was a man named Barak Obama. He made the ultimate decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:21 AM

9. Minor player...Wrong. That was the perception they wanted.

America’s Secret Libya War

The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion on Libya’s revolution, and secretly helped NATO with everything from munitions to surveillance aircraft. John Barry provides an exclusive look at Obama’s emerging 'covert intervention' strategy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html

And Hillary's emails back that up. Along with the real reason, and it wasn't Humanitarianism.

We were hood-winked by Obama who we know now is a neocon, & a neoliberal. Why do you think the large % of Obama's 08 supporters now back Bernie?

We want Democrats to BE Democrats. We're supposed to be saner, & not do evil unto others for profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:21 AM

10. money, power, greed from

Sarkozy's right wing government and then Cameron's government basically ignoring the situation. Obama is now putting a good part of the blame on them (our allies!) for this screw up. It seems his own SOS wasn't doing her job either.

http://www.jordantimes.com/news/region/obama-hits-out-cameron-sarkozy-over-libya-intervention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:25 AM

11. Hillary's obsession with regime change

and her drive to destroy what had been one of the African continent's most prosperous countries is one of the main reasons I went from simply disliking her to outright hating her.

Her laughing about Gaddafi's brutal torture and murder on TV was behavior more apt for a mobster, not a SoS and definitely not a president. Her supporters don't want to talk about this sort of thing, but they can't deny it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:41 AM

15. Its very hard to face that we support such monstrous actions for corporate profit.

Just another facet of the fight for the 99%, here & around the globe. PEOPLE need to matter again, more than PROFIT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:52 AM

18. Very true (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:29 AM

12. Nobody that isn't

 

a partisan hack gives a flying fuck about interpreting complicated geo-political conflicts on the level of the schoolyard.

I know, Bernie will change everything. Even better than Obama could because.......he's a socialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:38 AM

14. No, not because he's a DEMOCRATIC socialist, but because he's a decent human being.

But I can see why some of you are unable to grasp that concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:42 AM

16. That's right, he changed last August.

 

I forgot. We know Bernie is a decent human being. Obama is a decent human being too, and a Democrat.

Cannot wait for the return of the Democratic Underground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:44 AM

17. I cannot wait for the return of "Democrats" & the Democratic Party to stand for something again.

GO Bernie!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:29 AM

13. But, but, but...

freedom! Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chwaliszewski (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:57 AM

20. You beat me to it. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:55 AM

19. But Hillary tons of foreign policy experience!

See!! That makes her the most qualified candidate!!! Never mind that her experience is usually in fucking things up...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:59 AM

21. Great thread, RiverLover, thank you. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:10 AM

22. Thanks for the kick, polly7!



People need to know, so we can make wiser decisions about who exactly is leading US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:18 AM

23. Wait, WHAT?!! "AL QUEDA EMBEDDED IN THE US-BACKED OPPOSITION????"

Am I reading that right???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:19 AM

24. Yes, from the start. Trained and funded. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:23 AM

25. I knew tht was the case during the 80's, but STILL?? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:37 AM

28. Yes, even the NTC 'Prime Minister' (unofficial, of course but given the title regardless) who

gave the UN its figures (lies) to enable the 'no-fly-zone' was western trained and backed. I don't want to overwhelm this good, current thread with the posts I bring out every time someone argues destroying Libya was a good thing so will post a link to older info - sorry, some of the links no longer work as they were from back when it was happening (plus a few newer posts from members here) if you're interested in going through it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1424903

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #25)


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:25 AM

26. The way that Libya has been used as a political football is pretty disgusting IMO.

 

Originally the Republicans, in an effort to politically damage President Obama, criticized him for "leading from behind" in Libya. They claimed that the U.S. should take the lead role in the NATO led 19 country effort.

Now come the Sanders folks. They too have a political axe to grind but with a twist. You see, they have nothing to gain by politically damaging President Obama, they have a need to politically damage Hillary Clinton. So the Sanders folks claim that we should have stood back and watched Gaddafi slaughter with impunity those that opposed Gaddafi's government and it is the Secretary of State that should bear primary responsibility. This is a particularly aggregious political exercise because it's directed at a member of our own Party.

I reject political opportunism and extremism regardless of if it manifests itself from the a Right or the Left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:26 AM

27. Insta Justice

 

Justice Has Been Served!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:38 AM

29. It doesn't get...

...uglier than this. A true acolyte of Kiss-of-death (Kissenger).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:13 AM

31. Kissinger. Yes, she finished the job that Reagan & Kissinger started. Who needs republicans with


'Democrats' like Hillary?


....... Then there’s Libya. Kissinger has long had the secular radical Muammar Qaddafi in his crosshairs (Kissinger, a close ally of Saudi Arabia, prefers to work with Wahhabi theocrats). On April 14, 1986, when the Reagan administration launched an airstrike on Libya in clear violation of international law, Kissinger did the rounds on news shows to justify the bombing. The day after the bombing, Kissinger appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America to voice his “total support.” Attacking Libya, he said, was “correct” and “necessary.” Asked if he was worried about a backlash—increased radicalization, reprisals, or a boost to Muammar Muhammad Qaddafi’s stature—he answered, “The question is whose endurance is greater. I believe ours is.” The bombing, which reportedly killed one of Qaddafi’s daughters, would, Kissinger said, “reduce the incidents of terrorism.”

Kissinger, as he often is, was wrong.

A case can be made that Reagan’s bombing accelerated regional polarization and radicalization, contributing to blowback. As did Hillary Clinton’s completion of the job nearly three decades later.

No matter. “I greatly admire the skill and aplomb with which you conduct our foreign policy,” Kissinger wrote to Secretary of State Clinton in February 7, 2012, letter, not long after Clinton’s bombing of Libya had come to a conclusion and Qaddafi was dead.

Last year, Kissinger, reacting to a question about his role in overthrowing Salvador Allende—the democratically elected president of Chile in 1973—and his illegal, covert bombing of Cambodia—which started in 1969 and continued to 1973—pointed to the Clinton’s bombing in Libya and proposed bombing in Syria.

What’s the difference? he asked.

None, apparently.


http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:41 AM

32. Love the Nation.

In foreign affairs, it's clear—no difference.

And in domestic affairs, a Rockefeller or Reagan Republican.

That's what the DLC aimed for from its inception.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #32)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:14 PM

33. Well, they've succeeded. Tragically.

Biggest con job in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:32 PM

35. crucial story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:36 PM

36. And Hillary wants us MORE deeply involved in Libya and Syria

 

Just grotesque.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread