Obama’s war – just for the hell of it 27

Muammar Qaddafi was a tyrant. Little good can be said of him. He was probably one of the worst Arab heads of state – a class that lends itself to only very small degrees of comparison.

But two things were in his favor.

One was that he wanted friendly relations with America. Or at least he did not want to give America reason to invade his country. President Bush launched an invasion of Iraq in March 2003 largely because (it was generally believed) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Colonel Qaddafi had an arsenal of such weapons; but in December of that year, a few days after the defeated Saddam Hussein was captured, the dictator of Libya declared that he would abandon his WMDs. (In fact he kept quantities of chemical weapons right up to the day of his death in October 2011, but the 2003 declaration was nevertheless a white flag.)

The second thing – Qaddafi was the enemy of al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood, both of which were active dangers to the West.

It would seem, therefore, that the interests of the US and Europe would best be served by his staying in power.

Why then did President Obama go to war against him?

Diana West writes at Townhall:

More than Benghazi skeletons should haunt Hillary Clinton’s expected 2016 presidential bid. It now seems that the entire war in Libya – where thousands died in a civil war in which no U.S. interest was at stake – might well have been averted on her watch and, of course, that of President Obama’s. How? In March 2011, immediately after NATO’s punishing bombing campaign began, Muammar Qaddafi was “ready to step aside,” says retired Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic, U.S. Navy. “He was willing to go into exile and was willing to end the hostilities.”

What happened? According to Kubic, the Obama administration chose to continue the war without permitting a peace parley to go forward. 

Kubic made these extremely incendiary charges against the Obama administration while outlining his role as the leading, if informal, facilitator of peace feelers from the Libyan military to the U.S. military. He was speaking this week at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., where the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi was presenting its interim report. Kubic maintains that to understand Benghazi, the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in which four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed, “you have to understand what happened at the beginning of the Libyan revolt, and how that civil war that created the chaos in Libya could have been prevented.”  …

A short chronology sets the stage:

On March 19, 2011, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, made a dramatic announcement from Paris on behalf of the “international community.” Eyes steady, voice freighted with dignity and moment, Clinton demanded that Qaddafi – a post-9/11 ally of the U.S. against jihadist terror-armies such as al-Qaida – heed a ceasefire under a newly adopted United Nations resolution, or else.

“Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Qaddafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences,” Clinton said. “Since the president spoke, there has been some talk from Tripoli of a cease-fire, but the reality on the ground tells a very different story. Colonel Qaddafi continues to defy the world. His attacks on civilians go on.”

That same day, NATO air and sea forces went to war to defeat the anti-al-Qaida Qaddafi and bring victory to Libya’s al-Qaida-linked rebels. Uncle Sam … joined the jihad.

Through Libyan intermediaries whom he knew in his post-naval career as an engineer and businessman, Kubic was hearing that Qaddafi wanted to discuss his own possible abdication with the U.S. “Let’s keep the diplomats out of it,” Kubic says he told them. “Let’s keep the politicians out of it, let’s just have a battlefield discussion under a flag of truce between opposing military commanders pursuant to the laws of war, and see if we can, in short period of time, come up with the terms for a cease-fire and a transition of government.”

The following day, March 20, 2011, Kubic says he relayed to the U.S. AFRICOM headquarters Qaddafi’s interest in truce talks as conveyed by a top Libyan commander, Gen. Abdulqader Yusef Dubri, head of Qaddafi’s personal security team. Kubic says that his AFRICOM contact, Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, a former U.S. Army attache in Tripoli then serving as point man for communications with the Libyan military, passed this information up his chain of command to Gen. Carter Ham, then AFRICOM commander. AFRICOM quickly responded with interest in setting up direct military-to-military communications with the Libyans.

On March 21, 2011, Kubic continued, with the NATO war heating up, a senior aide to Qaddafi, Gen. Ahmed Mamud, directly submitted a set of terms for a 72-hour-truce to Linvill at AFRICOM. The Benghazi commission made the basic text of these terms available to press.

During a follow-up telephone interview I had with Kubic, he underscored the show of good faith on both sides that created hopefulness that these flag-of-truce negotiations would come to pass. On the night of March 21, Gen. Ham issued a public statement on Libya in which he noted the U.S. was not targeting Qaddafi.

By March 22, Qadaffi had verifiably begun pulling back troops from the rebel-held cities of Benghazi and Misrata. The cease-fire Hillary Clinton said the “international community” was seeking only days earlier seemed to be within reach, with the endgame of Qaddafi’s abdication and exile potentially on the table.

Then, shockingly, Kubic got what amounted to a “stand down” order from AFRICOM – an order that came down from “well above Gen. Ham,” Kubic says he was told – in fact, as Kubic said in our interview, he was told it came from outside the Pentagon.

The question becomes, who in the Obama administration scuttled these truce talks that might have resulted in Qaddafi handing over powers without the bloodshed and destruction that left Libya a failed state and led to Benghazi?

Had talks gone forward, there is no guarantee, of course, that they would have been successful. Qaddafi surely would have tried to extract conditions. One of them, Kubic believes, would have been to ensure that Libya continue its war on al-Qaida. Would this have been a sticking point? In throwing support to Islamic jihadists, including al-Qaida-linked “rebels” and Muslim Brotherhood forces, the U.S. was changing sides during that “Arab Spring.” Was the war on Qaddafi part of a larger strategic realignment that nothing, not even the prospect of saving thousands of lives, could deter? Or was the chance of going to war for “humanitarian” reasons too dazzling to lose to the prospect of peace breaking out? Or was it something else?

Kubic, the military man, wonders why the civilian leadership couldn’t at least explore a possibly peaceful resolution. “It is beyond me that we couldn’t give it 72 hours — particularly when we had a leader who had won a Nobel Peace Prize, and who was unable basically to ‘give peace a chance’ for 72 hours.”

Obama favored the Muslim Brotherhood’s coming to power in Egypt. He welcomed some of its members into advisory positions in his administration. Did the possible “larger strategic realignment” involve the Muslim Brotherhood? Did the Obama administration want it in power in Libya as well as in Egypt? What advice was Obama and Hillary Clinton getting on Libya and Egypt during the violent upheavals of the so-called “Arab Spring”, and from whom? Is there a clue in the fact that Hillary Clinton’s closest adviser was Huma Abedin, whose family has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?  Isn’t there at the very least grounds for suspicion in the light of all this? (See our posts, Extreme obscenity, July 27, 2013, and Hillary of Benghazi, August 27, 2013.)

We think there is. But why Obama and Hillary Clinton should want the Muslim Brotherhood in power in North Africa is another question – one to which there cannot be a reassuring answer.

  • Just discovered this blog and i am like wow the non-sense of atheism strike again. First of all you attack Christians all the way but in the same time you consider yourself conservative and atheist? NON-SENSE. You blame UK secular policies for bringing millions of Muslims in UK. Well the secular atheism society shaped UK today and it will make it majority in the next 70 years. Again, an militant atheist and conservative its LOL.

    • Don L

      Leftist-Socialist policies shaped UK’s muslim condition. But, given the ranting nature of your post…discussion with you is doomed per the principle: You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who is irrational. Incidentally, if English is you first language…you might consider additional schooling.

      • says the deluded atheist

        • Don L

          I do to the ghost-in-the-sky believing loon! LOL.

          • yes YOU are/ conservative atheist is like saying I love Mercedes therefore i don’t have a car…shhh

            • Don L

              ruff, ruff…I ‘bark’ at you! LOL.

    • liz

      You are a classic example of shallow Christian thinking – you see leftist atheists and conclude that all atheists are leftists.
      By that reasoning I could note that many Nazis were Christians and conclude that therefore all Christians are Nazis!

      • you couldn’t avoid insulting me huh….same hypocritical atheist thinking. A true Christian will never be Nazi. Trust me i know better.

        • liz

          Just making a simple, logical observation.
          But apparently all atheists are not only leftists, but hypocrites, too. So anything an atheist says to you can conveniently be ignored.
          And I don’t have to trust you to know about Christians. I was a Christian for probably longer than you’ve been alive. What you think you “know” is not based on any facts whatsoever. It’s subjective belief based on feelings.
          But I’m sure you “know” better than a mere atheist, who only bases opinions on actual, verifiable facts.

          • you were a Christian and even if you left the faith you live by it daily. Christianity is O2 for you. Without faith and faithfull people you wouldn’t bark here. Give me a break with your verifiable facts. You know nothing about facts. Wishfull thinking. Like i said…conservative? and atheist? really??? And what are you preaching on? Christian family? Christian heritage and tradition? What? Its very very funny

            • liz

              You’re suffering from a bad case of projection.
              You say I know nothing about facts, when you cannot name one historical fact that verifies the “story” of the religion you believe in.
              And just because YOU “live by faith”, you presume that it is impossible for ME to live by reason.
              In reality, if it wasn’t for reason, you yourself wouldn’t “bark” here.
              As Thomas Paine once said, “take away reason, and you would be incapable of understanding anything…It would be just as consistent to read even the Bible to a horse as to a man. ”
              And it’s obviously just as pointless for me to try to reason with you as with a horse.

            • again, you generalise things wich you don’t understand. beside you are judging me in things you dont know. you dont know me.

            • liz

              You don’t know me either!

            • LauraAndrei – I repeat what I wrote above since you apparently did not read it:

              Why come on to this site which makes you irritated and indignant? Hurling abuse at us, calling us hypocrites and ignoramuses, telling us that we’re simple minded and intellectually dishonest – what do you hope to achieve? From what you write we deduce that you are ill-informed, have a weak understanding of the subjects you touch on, are not strong on logic, and are unaccountably hostile to us. Stay away from us and then we cannot annoy you. Or do you want to come here merely to hurt our feelings? That won’t happen. If you want to make an argument for something, do so in an intellectually respectable way. Set out your case, bring facts to bear. Then we will engage you in debate. But your bitter, taunting, and ill-tempered attack on us does not impress us, and can only be a waste of your time and energy.

            • “Hurling abuse at us, calling us hypocrites and ignoramuses, telling us that we’re simple minded and intellectually dishonest” Funny you also called me and insulted me, dont you?
              Well from what you wrote i simply deduce you are nothing than non-sense and bad informed.
              Its so funny to see atheists and conservative? So you defend Christian morality or what? Is homosexuality natural?

            • You chose to come and comment on this page, and you made comments that are insulting. But to answer your questions: We do NOT defend Christian morality, we despise it. (It is absurd to say that everyone must love everyone else. It is also unjust.) Look up the word “conservative” and you’ll find it does not have to involve any religion. Nor theories about homosexuality.

            • Don L

              You not be one and also hypocwitical when I call you unchriatian conservative name caller…see! are you and It is so god too. bad informed, bad informed.

            • liz

              You funny!

            • LOL…can you say what do you think about homosexuality?

        • Don L

          It was christians who taught the Nazis how to burn and torture humans…in the name of god and the collective: witch hunting, the inquisition to name just a couple lessons. Pretty NAZI like!

          • liz

            Good points! And that suggests an even better example – the Pope is a Socialist. Does that make all Christians – or even all Catholics, Socialists?

            • Don L

              Boy-o-boy I hate to do this: Not specifically because of the pope…but all religions, being of the collective, are by definition socialistic; therefore so are the members/followers socialistic. That’s why there is such a conflict among the religious and the idea of free-market capitalism.

              The notion of human beings acting on their own self-interest in free-markets, entrepreneurs accepting risk for personal gain – profit or loss – and the general idea of a better life while alive is contrary to the teachings of the church. Like HAL from Arthur C Clarke’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”, the computer goes crazy because it is programmed to tell the truth then given a secret mission…that’s why there are LauraAndreis running around…or most of the republican party that claim to be conservative and like, as Romney just did…SOB.

            • liz

              I know the church is based on the socialist notion of “they held everything in common”, but it has gotten diluted enough by having to co exist with capitalism that most Christians, in spite of their altruistic ideals, don’t take it seriously.
              Just like they agree in theory with the idea of giving up all their earthly possessions and “serving the Lord”, etc, but that never actually happens in reality.
              It just ends up being a mental gymnastic thing they have to do, as you mention, to get around the contradictions.

          • You sir are deluded in your hypocrisy that it doesnt really make sense to reply you…for instance
            “atheism is not a political ideology. Incidently Islam is.” Conservative atheist…Conservative and atheist…2 systems…conservative and atheist…and atheist churches, atheist meetings, atheist preaching….and you dare to lie yourself telling me that is not a political ideology. Try better. Second of all again it show how reduced and simple minded you are by inserting nazism with inquisition. Wake up reality. Russel and Marx, 2 atheists, served the perfect table for nazism. Just read some quotes from these 2 atheists.
            Funny, ironic that a coward and intelectual dishonest person like you , lying himself at the best…tells me that i have a selective memory. Go educate yourself or wake up to reality. You are deluded

            • LauraAndrei – You don’t like atheism, and you don’t like conservatism. So why come on to this site which makes you irritated and indignant? Hurling abuse at us, calling us hypocrites and ignoramuses, telling us that we’re simple minded and intellectually dishonest – what do you hope to achieve? From what you write we deduce that you are ill-informed, have a weak understanding of the subjects you touch on, are not strong on logic, and are unaccountably hostile to us. Stay away from us and then we cannot annoy you. Or do you want to come here merely to hurt our feelings? That won’t happen. If you want to make an argument for something, do so in an intellectually respectable way. Set out your case, bring facts to bear. Then we will engage you in debate. But your bitter, taunting, and ill-tempered attack on us does not impress us, and can only be a waste of your time and energy.

  • Don L

    I need to sue Jillian Becker & the Atheist Conservative website to recover my costs for broken watch bands! When I read these kinds of articles, never seen on any media, including FOX, my blood boils and I tend to slam my left fist, watch on left wrist, into my right palm…the damned watch flys off and I have to head to the jewelers to have the little post replaced…$35/pop.

    The brain wants to explode. That Obama is allowed to stay in office is beyond comprehension. He has surrounded himself with intellectual losers and he pretends to be intellectual in chief.

    As I recall those “Libyan” days, a bunch of names all got lumped together in promoting the Libyan fiasco. Anothy Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin, very close to Hillary, and Cass Sustein’s wife (he is the most dangerous man in America…next to Obama) Samantha Power; with Power being the driving force behind the military action and heavy into UN humanitarian idiocies.

    Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about Samatha Power:

    Her advocacy of humanitarian intervention has been criticized for being tendentious and militaristic, for answering a “problem from hell” with a “solution from hell.” Furthermore, Power’s advocacy of deploying the United States armed forces to combat human rights abuses runs contrary to the idea that the main purpose of the military is the furnishment of national defense.

    Advocate for military intervention in Libya –

    [She] is considered to be a key figure within the Obama administration in persuading the president to intervene militarily in Libya. Power argues that America has a moral obligation to examine all tools in the toolbox (diplomatic, economic, political, and military) to respond to mass atrocity, and she has argued that there may be circumstances in which military intervention may be appropriate to prevent genocides.

    Within the White House, Power strongly pressed for U.S. intervention on humanitarian grounds. She has been described as instrumental in convincing Obama to push for a UN Security Council resolution to authorize a coalition military force to protect Libyan civilians. Power has previously argued that “you don’t get any extra credit for doing the right thing”. “It’s up to us” to change that calculus, she said. “My prescription,” she said, “would be that the level of American and international engagement would ratchet up commensurate with the abuse on the ground.”

    Here’s what you need to know about the people Obama has surrounded himself with: All participants in Obama’s administration are from the Island of Schiffer…hence the well understood expression, “you have Shiffer brains”.

    And, over several years…Jillian you owe me about $1200 for watch band repair! LOL.

    • liz

      Beyond comprehension is right.
      This whole thing smells like a huge pile of that “schif” they have for brains. The corruption is so obvious, a 3rd grader could see it. But no investigative reporting here, of course! (Except by conservatives, who nobody listens to).
      The divide between reality and what is paraded before the public is a huge chasm that staggers the comprehension. Our own president supports terrorists with money, positions in government, military support, and allows them to murder Americans, while we are forced to listen to his “outrage” over despicable video makers, and speeches about how the future does not belong to those who disrespect Islam.