Remembering Hillary's "We Came, We Saw, He Died"

For Sheer Ugliness, No US Military Action Can Match the Hillary/Obama Hit on Libya

Here is the link to the video featured in headline. Also, paid subscribers will receive a weekly installment of my book in progress, Empire of Lies: Big Media’s 30-Year War on Truth, 1994-2024. Sign up today!

For the past 12 days or so Democrats have been denouncing President Trump’s Iran action with the confidence God grants only to the insane. They have called that action “unauthorized and unconstitutional,” “a clear violation of our Constitution,” and. said AOC, thinking perhaps the third time a charm, “absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.” In the video above from 2016, Hillary Clinton boasted of the Iran “deal” that led to the impasse of these last two weeks. These are not serious people.

Of course, as even MSNBC has pointed out, every president in memory has taken unilateral military action, but these summary glosses by the media fail to capture just how recklessly Democrats perform when they have power. In 2011, Sandy Ocasio may have been too busy making dance videos to pay attention, but her political idols—Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton— just happened to pull off the the most squalid and senseless military action since the Bay of Pigs. A little refresher is in order.

On March 19, 2011, President Obama authorized a “limited military action” in Libya whose stated goal was “to protect Libyan civilians.” This move made no sense to anyone but the media and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton..

The “why” of this attack is still uncertain. For all his flaws, Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi had recently abandoned his WMD program and his terrorist arm. Obama admitted as much years later. “It’s fair to say that I found the idea of waging a new war in a distant country with no strategic importance to the United States to be less than prudent.” You think?

In the Obama calculus, an atrocity prevented was the military equivalent of “a job saved,” each worthy of a boast but neither capable of being verified. In the case of Libya, however, evidence strongly suggests that Obama was working off a false premise: the “bloodbath” he repeatedly promised was never in the cards.

In his March 28, 2011, address to the nation Obama claimed that if America had delayed just one more day, “Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Obama was either lying or just being stupid. That massacre would come later, and four Americans would be the victims.

Two weeks after Obama’s speech, Alan Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, did the math Obama and Hillary refused to do. Writing in the Boston Globe, Kuperman made the simple point, “The best evidence that Gaddafi did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured.” In Misurata, a city of four hundred thousand retaken by Gaddafi’s forces, only two hundred fifty-seven people were killed in two months of fighting, almost all military age men. Moreover, cell phone cameras failed to capture any images of a massacre.

As Kuperman explained, rebel forces did what rebel forces have been doing since the dawn of the age of mass media: they faked a humanitarian crisis to save their futile cause. Kuperman had no reason to embarrass Obama. A Democrat, he had previously served as legislative director for then Congressman Chuck Schumer.

A month after the bombing started, Obama, along with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s David Cameron, sent a letter to the international press. They now claimed, “The bloodbath that he had promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented.” The only one not promising a bloodbath was Qaddafi. By this time, Obama had to know the pretext for war was false, but he would continue to pursue it for another six deadly months.

As 2011 sped by, the insurgency dragged on, and the only sure casualty was the truth. Among the most insidious myths spread by the Obama-backed rebels, one that the New York Times conceded had “racist overtones,” was that Qaddafi had been using African mercenaries. This falsehood, said the Times, “rebels repeat as fact over and over.”

To reinforce the myth, the rebels put captured black men on public display, itself an illegal act, and claimed they were Qaddafi mercenaries. They were not. Amnesty International investigated and discovered the men were hapless, undocumented laborers from Chad, Mali and West Africa—the Libyan equivalent of DREAMERS--who were showcased and then set loose.

Fired up by rumors of black mercenaries on Viagra-fueled rape sprees, the rebels did some ethnic cleansing on their own. Patrick Cockburn of the Independent saw the evidence up close. “Any Libyan with a black skin accused of fighting for the old regime may have a poor chance of survival,” he concluded. Barack “If I had a son” Obama chose not to notice.

On October 20, 2011, NATO planes attacked a convoy among whose passengers was a desperate Qaddafi. He was hoping to find refuge in his birthplace, the Jarref Valley. That was not to be. Qaddafi fled the shattered convoy on foot and hid in a drainpipe while his bodyguards tried and failed to hold off a local militia.

The militia members took Qaddafi prisoner, indelicately sodomized him with a knife, and captured it all on video. They then threw Qaddafi, still breathing, onto a pick-up truck. When the truck pulled away, he promptly fell off. This Keystone Cops-meets-Mad Max muddle was not quite the image of a new Libya Obama and Hillary were hoping to project. To protect the desired image, the media buried the video.

The Guardian headline captured the giddy mood in Washington: “Obama hails death of Muammar Gaddafi as foreign policy success: President warns other Middle Eastern dictators, particularly Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, that they could be next.” Said Obama in a Rose Garden speech, "The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted."

No one summed up the mood in Washington better than Secretary of State Clinton. White being interviewed by a CBS newswoman, Hillary learned that Qaddafi had been killed. She turned her head toward an aide, laughed, and said, “We came. We saw. He died.” She laughed again at her bon mot and the unnamed female interviewer laughed along with her. This is a video every Democrat needs to see.

If the major media were willing to endorse Obama’s narrative, Kuperman was not. Writing for the Harvard Kennedy School’s International Security journal in 2013, Kuperman unspun the web of deception that the Libyan rebels and their NATO enablers had woven. “The biggest misconception about NATO’s intervention,” wrote Kuperman, “is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its neighbors.”

In fact, Qaddafi did not attack peaceful protesters. The rebels started the violence, and Qaddafi responded. Barely six weeks after the rebellion started, Qaddafi had all but suppressed it at the cost of about one thousand lives. Then Obama and Hillary intervened. At the time, all the cool kids wanted “regime change.”

That intervention prolonged the war seven months and cost roughly seven thousand more lives. At war’s end, rebels killed scores of the former enemy in reprisal killings and exiled some 30,000 black Africans under the pretext they might have been mercenaries.

During the insurrection, the Obama administration had been funneling money to Qatar to help arm the Libyan rebels, presumably to fight Qaddafi. On September 11, 2012, these Islamist rebels, turned their American-funded weaponry on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, killing four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

While the consulate was still under attack, and not wanting to accept responsibility, Hillary excused the fiasco by blaming it on a video. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” said Clinton. “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

Obama waited a week to discuss the cause of the Benghazi attack. For whatever reason, he thought a good place to share his foreign policy was the David Letterman Show.

LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?

OBAMA: Here's what happened. ... You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam

LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.

To sell the idea that the video caused the siege at Benghazi, the Obama DoJ arrested and imprisoned the video maker, a Christian American citizen from Egypt. The media yawned, and AOC took up bartending. Such was the state of American foreign policy in 2012. It was everything the Democrats accused Trump of doing, but immeasurably worse. Again, these are not serious people.