What went on with who and how regarding Libya

[notadmblnd]

Last edited Wed Dec 23, 2015, 01:16 AM - Edit history (2)

Here are snips of an very extensive article (3 parts) from the Washington Times this past Jan (before HRC decided to run- if I'm not mistaken) in regards to what went on with who and how. Enjoy!

“U.S. policy during the revolution supported regime change through peaceful means, in line with UNSCR 1973 policy and NATO mission goals,” the State Department said.

‘President is not getting accurate information’

Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Mrs. Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Gadhafi. Joining her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F. Kerry.

Mrs. Clinton’s main argument was that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times.

Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Gadhafi as Libya’s leader and that she repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials.

Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department[/b[ and CIA,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all

Listen to the tapes: Intel undercuts Hillary Clinton’s primary argument for Libya military action

http://www.washingtontimes.com/listen-tapes-libya-clinton/

See also Hillary Clinton’s ‘WMD’ moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/

*****For those that find the source offensive- perhaps you will find these more acceptable?****

Yes. Hillary, too. She was the real mover behind the Libya-Syria operation. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=389069

Hillary Defends Her Failed War in Libya http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/


Opinion
Hillary’s Libyan Disaster Is A Bigger Scandal Than Who Emailed Her

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/hillarys-libya-disater-is-a-bigger-scandal-than-who-emailed-her/#ixzz3v7KU1LVf


Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/10/25/1150015/-Benghazi-Blowback-Confirmed-US-Intel-Confirms-Attack-Linked-to-Pipeline-of-Libyan-Jihadis-to-Syria

Behind Petraeus’s Resignation https://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/10/behind-petraeuss-resignation/

[artislife]

1. Libya, please correct the title

I will now go back and read the content.

[notadmblnd]

2. thanks

[bigtree]

3. first, a defense of Trump here, just to bash Hillary

...now props for Gadhafi.

Gadhafi was already staging attacks on his political opponents, including arrests and airstrikes.

You used a well-known conservative rag to prove your point? This is what passes for opposition to our Democratic candidates these days. You can find plenty of opposition in the right-wing press. Question should be, what are the motives of the writers? It certainly can't be more sincere than the opportunistic use of these conservative-based charges just to bash our Democratic nominee.

[notadmblnd]

4. Obviously you did not read the article, you just jumped in with the nasty attitude.

It is verifiable with a credible source. It does not promote or Defend Gadaffi. It does speak about Gadaffi though.

It is about dishonesty and the fact that our own military had doubts and didn't trust HRC. So how you can justify replying as you did- I have no idea. Is there anything substantial you like to contribute- please share. I feel certain that others will judge your article(s) based on their merit. As it is right now, you got nothing to back up your claim.

Typical attack the messenger. I'm hardly surprised. If you can rebut it credibly and civilly, please do so.

[bigtree]

5. fuck the article, fuck trump

...fuck propping up dictators here just to bash our Democratic candidate.

I expect that from the Moonie Times, starting to become predictable here.

Btw, how often DO you believe our military has told us the truth?

[notadmblnd]

6. Thats one hell of a rebuttal there bigweed, er I mean tree. The article has nothing to do with Trump

I take it- you got nothing. Have a great evening!

[leveymg]

7. The articles are essentially accurate, but you could have gotten the same facts from the WaPo

The response attacking the source was predictable.

[notadmblnd]

8. If you have a link could you please post it

Perhaps those folks who are slamming the messenger will accept it as valid. However, at this point, I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't find something wrong and attempt to discredit that source too.

[leveymg]

9. Just DU Google my screen name Libya Hillary

I've posted frequently on the subject going back to 2012. I'm on my phone so it's not easy to pull something up myself.

[notadmblnd]

10. Thanks again.