Doing Advance Work

News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Monday, August 21, 2017

Trump is a wimp in comparison to Obama who in his last year dropped 26,171 bombs-3 every hour, 24 hours a day-John Pilger, Consortium News

8/4/17, "How the World May End," John Pilger, Consortium News

"In his last year, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study, Obama, the “reluctant liberal warrior,” dropped 26,171 bombs – three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day. Having pledged to help “rid the world” of nuclear weapons, the Nobel Peace Laureate built more nuclear warheads than any president since the Cold War. 

Trump is a wimp by comparison. It was Obama – with his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at his side – who destroyed Libya as a modern state and launched the human stampede to Europe. At home, immigration groups knew him as the “deporter-in-chief.” 

One of Obama’s last acts as president was to sign a bill that handed a record $618 billion to the Pentagon, reflecting the soaring ascendancy of fascist militarism in the governance of the United States. Trump has endorsed this. 

Buried in the detail was the establishment of a “Center for Information Analysis and Response.” This is a ministry of truth. It is tasked with providing an “official narrative of facts” that will prepare us for the real possibility of nuclear war if we allow it." (end of article)

"John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London. Pilger’s Web site is: His new film, “The Coming War on China,” is available in the U.S. from"



Sunday, August 20, 2017

During 2016 campaign GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump had no chance to win, told fellow Republicans to just give up on him. Ryan also protected IRS commissioner who used government power to silence conservative groups-Town Hall, Rep. Louis Gohmert statements

7/6/17, "GOP Senator [Pat Toomey]Explains Party’s Disarray: Nobody Expected Trump to Win," New York Magazine Daily Intelligencer, Ed Kilgore
8/20/17, "Gohmert: During the Campaign, Paul Ryan Told Us to 'Keep President Hillary Clinton Accountable'," Courtney O'Brien

"Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has revealed that during the 2016 presidential campaign, House Speaker Paul Ryan told him and his fellow Republicans to give up on Donald Trump's campaign and just focus their energy on keeping "President Hillary Clinton accountable." According to Ryan, the Republicans had no chance at the White House, so at the very least they should try to retain their House majority.

The directive came during a conference call, Gohmert told The Daily Caller in a video interview and then confirmed again during his appearance on "Fox and Friends" Sunday.

The Texas Republican, as you can imagine, was not thrilled with Ryan's suggestion.
“Are you crazy? We haven’t held anyone accountable. You haven’t even let us hold the IRS commissioner accountable [for using government power to harm President Obama’s political adversaries],” 
an astonished Gohmert said to the speaker on a call.Speaker Ryan has not been conservatives' favorite leader as of late. By late May last year, he had still not properly endorsed Trump, though by then it was clear he was going to be the Republican presidential candidate. Ryan was just "not ready" to offer his support, he told CNN's Jake Tapper.

Gohmert has also spoken out against Ryan in regards to the now failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. During the House Freedom Caucus's discussions with the White House, the Texan claims that the conservative group was nearly ready to strike a deal with the president, but Ryan and then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus advised Trump not to."


Added: Republicans didn't expect Trump to win:

7/6/17, "GOP Senator Explains Party’s Disarray: Nobody Expected Trump to Win," New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer, Ed Kilgore

"Sen. Patrick J. Toomey offered a simple, remarkable explanation this week for why Republicans have struggled so mightily to find a way to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Look, I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win, I think most of my colleagues didn’t, so we didn’t expect to be in this situation, the Pennsylvania Republican said Wednesday night during a meeting with voters hosted by four ABC affiliates across his state.

According to the Washington Post’s Paul Kane, this is almost certainly why congressional Republicans agreed upon a “repeal and delay” strategy for dealing with Obamacare soon after the election:

"They had no real clue how to do anything else. But the lack of advance planning has also been evident in the inability of Republicans in the Executive and Legislative branches to reach any kind of agreement on how to proceed with other very basic agenda items — also achievable without Democratic votes — like “tax reform” and the federal budget."... 


Saturday, August 19, 2017

Ann Coulter: Trump has chosen to surround himself with Goldman Sachs and the ruling class. This is the exact opposite of what his voters had reason to expect. As far as we know, Goldman Sachs doesn't want to end NAFTA or build a wall

8/19/17, "Ann Coulter Rips into Trump For Bannon Firing, Favoring 'Fake News Media' Over Conservative," Content originally published at, via zero hedge

"Ann Coulter, the conservative firebrand who predicted Trump would win, much to the cackling laughter of the Bill Maher audience and panel, railed against Trump in an interview with Mark Simone.

Sounding despondent and admittedly 'depressed' over the recent firing of Steve Bannon, Coulter lashed out at the President, saying 'it's not a good idea to let the media know to manipulate him as President.' Coulter was referencing Trump's defensive posture and annoyance that Bannon had been credited with Trump's election win. Over the past half year, the media, including comedy outlets, had lampooned Trump and Bannon -- painting Bannon as the true, yet sinister, mastermind behind Trump's success.

Coulter almost pined for the campaign era days of Trump, reflectively saying 'finally, after 30 years, we're gonna get a President not controlled by Goldman Sachs,' making reference to the Goldman alumni stacking Trump's cabinet.

Coulter threw down the gauntlet to Trump, saying,  "if you really want to prove to us that Bannon had nothing to do with winning the nomination and then winning the Presidency, what you really want to do now is pedal to the metal on raising taxes on Wall Street (carried interest loophole), start deporting illegals, end NAFTA, bring the jobs back and build the wall."

Ann furthered, "and if he does all those things, okay, I'll say 'My gosh Mr. President you're right. Steve Bannon had nothing to do with your success.'"

The reason why she's depressed over Bannon's departure likely stems from the fact that all loyalists from inside the campaign, save Conway and Miller, have been purged from the White House.
"People like us should be a little depressed today because there's no one on the President's side in the White House anymore. "
She summed up Trump's isolation succinctly, 'it's just you in the White House surrounded by the people you hired from Goldman Sachs. Don't you want to have one guy in the White House on your side?'

Ann then ripped Trump to shreds for calling out 'fake news media' and then giving them exclusive access to him, saying 'he's calling Maggie Haberman (NY Times) everyday.'
"Why isn't he giving all his interviews to Breitbart, Daily Caller? Why isn't he directing his communications director, or press secretary, to call on the conservative media. No, the conservative media is totally dissed in the press briefing room."
In short...
"He's surrounded himself with the ruling class." -- Ann Coulter"...

Comment: Trump said he wasn't beholden to special interests but that wasn't true. His special interests are Ivanka and Jared Kushner who are in the White House every day. Their deeply held globalist-left views align with those held by George Soros, Jamie Gorelick, the EU, and Goldman Sachs. Rather than ending NAFTA Trump is extending it. He tells us now we don't need much of a Wall after all.


Washington Post attacks The Nation for being intellectually honest about ongoing Russia 'hacking' conspiracy theory being used to convince US taxpayers to bomb Russia-Disobedient Media...(Washington Post wants so badly for US taxpayers to bomb Russia it's spun a conspiracy theory that to this day lacks a single person stepping forward with evidence proving how Wikileaks got DNC emails)

8/17/17, "The Washington Post Attacks The Nation For Intellectual Honesty," Disobedient Media, Elizabeth Vos

"Disobedient Media has previously reported on the Guccifer 2.0 persona as analyzed by Adam Carter, and the NGP-VAN metadata analysis performed by The Forensicator. Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on the findings published by the Forensicator, which found that the NGP-VAN files published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona last summer were most likely locally copied in the East Coast of the U.S., as opposed to hacked. We have been very happy that some legacy media has begun to report on this important story, and that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) used the information provided by the Forensicator as the basis for their memorandum to President Trump. Outlets such as The Nation, Salon and Bloomberg have given the issue very fair coverage.

Some establishment press, including the Washington Post, New York Magazine and The Hill have provided very biased reports on the matter. Disobedient Media previously reported the attack on the part of New York Magazine against Patrick Lawrence of The Nation.

It has also emerged today that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks may settle the matter by revealing additional information which would prove the DNC was never hacked by Russia or any other entity. If this takes place, it would not only put an end to increasing U.S. tension with Russia, but would reveal the depth of corruption to which the DNC has sunk, not only as revealed in the content of the DNC emails, but in the prolonged efforts to hide the true origins of this information. To be very clear, the information received by Wikileaks is very likely not the same data that is examined in the Forensicator‘s analysis. 

Adam Carter has also responded to dishonest legacy media coverage of this topic, with an article specifically refuting a number of points made by the New York Magazine. Carter wrote: “Feldman saw fit to omit critical qualifiers that were actually in Lawrence’s article, so, while Feldman’s misrepresentation of the argument was bizarre, the original argument was not.”

The Washington Post also published an article on the Forensicator‘s work, admonishing The Nation’s Patrick Lawrence for his report on the subject. In doing so, the Washington Post makes a number of false and misleading statements regarding The Nation’s report as well as claims made in the Forensicator’s analysis. The Washington Post article even goes so far as to insult The Nation for engaging in ‘an intellectual free-for-all.’ 

That freedom of thought would be hurled as an insult by the outlet which broke the Watergate scandal, towards the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in America, is a severe indictment against the current state of legacy media integrity.

The Washington Post wrote of the Forensicator’s analysis:  

“the piece relies to a significant degree on a finding that hackers working remotely couldn’t possibly have downloaded all the information that they allegedly secured and passed along to WikiLeaks.

The Forensicator never made the statement that this was impossible, only very unlikely. Additionally, his analysis has nothing to do with files which were later published by Wikileaks. Discussion of the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files – which are the subject of the Forensicator’s analysis – are completely separate from any information received by Wikileaks in whatever fashion.

This focus purely on dismissing transfer speeds leaves out a whole host of technical details which provide a strong indication that the most likely explanation for the metadata from the NGP-VAN files is that the information was locally copied on the East Coast of the US, in the physical presence of a computer which had access to DNC data. The Forensicator never claimed to have proven that the information was leaked by an insider. Gross misrepresentations of the Forensicator‘s findings are the latest in a string of legacy media debacles which have unfolded during months of repetitious Russian hacking claims, including the infamous, falsified ‘pissgate‘ dossier. 

The discussion at hand is not in regards to Wikileak’s source; it is a discussion about whether the information published by Guccifer 2.0  was the result of a hack, as the Guccifer 2.0 persona claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC.

At this point there is no publicly available evidence which would indicate the DNC was ever hacked, and authorities have still, to date, not examined the DNC servers. Despite this deeply concerning lack of evidence, Guccifer 2.0 is still referenced as having “hacked” the DNC.

The Forensicator, Disobedient Media, The Nation and others who have honestly reported on this issue have stated explicitly that the metadata in question was only relevant to the Guccifer 2.0 persona’s publication of the NGP-VAN files, and should be understood separately from data which made its way to Wikileaks for eventual publication as the DNC emails. When the Washington Post sarcastically portrays the analysis as having claimed that the DNC was never hacked, the Post’s statement is completely incorrect and mischaracterizes the report entirely. However, should Julian Assange reveal more evidence that the DNC was never hacked, then the argument that there is ‘no proof’ would be utterly nullified.

The Washington Post cites an article published by New York Magazine which was extremely biased in its coverage of this topic, going so far as to stoop to character attacks while providing no substantial evidence to counter the Forensicator’s report. Disobedient Media has reported on New York Magazine‘s disgraceful attack on The Nation.

Worse, The Washington Post then attacks The Nation on the grounds that Breitbart had published a positive article regarding the story written by Lawrence. This is a framing device, where the Post implies that The Nation and the substance of its content is tainted by the reaction of separate outlets. In this way, the content of the report itself is disingenuously framed as ‘tainted’ by the opinions of individuals or groups who had nothing to do with writing the article. 

As Lawrence specifically pointed out in his article, Disobedient Media was the first outlet to report on this story. We are an independent entity, which focuses on being factual, and to the best of our ability we do not engage in politically biased reporting.

The Washington Post‘s report sank lower when it accused The Nation pejoratively of participating in an “intellectual free-for-all.” Such an accusation indicates that intellectual freedom is an insult, and explicitly appears to accuse The Nation of having committed a ‘thought crime,’ in publishing a report which questioned the Crowdstrike’s statement that the DNC was hacked last summer by Russian Hackers.

The lack of journalistic integrity which emerges from The Washington Post’s coverage of this issue would not come as a surprise to most. The Washington Post has been dogged by allegations that it has a conflict of interest when reporting on deep state rhetoric. The Nation related that The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, had received a $600 million contract from the CIA, saying of the large sum: “That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year.”

Independent journalists including Caitlin Johnstone, H.A. Goodman and others have also been deeply critical of the Washington Post’s connection to the CIA. Johnstone wrote

WaPo continues to violate universal journalistic protocol by failing to disclose that its sole owner has received a 600 million dollar contract directly from the CIA, despite the fact that the CIA is mentioned by name no less than 19 times in the article itself….”

The fundamental issue at play in the reporting of this story by The Hill, The Washington Post and New York Magazine is that they have continued to disingenuously portray The Forensicator as having made absolute claims that were never stated in their analysis. These outlets also engage repeatedly in character attacks against  those few who report on the subject honestly, such as The Nation‘s Patrick Lawrence.

This is an important ongoing story, and Disobedient Media will continue to provide coverage as it unfolds."


Added: The CIA is a major problem: "Three Days of the Condor," a 1975 movie about the CIA way ahead of its time starring Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Max von Sydow, directed by Sydney Pollack. Robert Redford has learned what a smug, murderous bunch of thugs the CIA is and that he's on their hit list. He writes about it and gives his story to the NY Times for publication. At the end of the movie Redford, standing near the NY Times building, tells one of the CIA thugs who's been trying to kill him that the NY Times is going to run his expose about the CIA. As Redford walks away (at 1 min, 05) the CIA thug says, "Hey Turner, how do you know they'll print it?...You can take a walk but how far if they don't print it?" The implication being that Redford would be dead in short order or would have to go into hiding for the rest of his life.  

From You Tube page:


Friday, August 18, 2017

The Swamp confers immunity to Antifa and Black Lives Matter and Death to America. One should hardly be surprised at the arrogant fury of the victors-James George Jatras, Strategic Culture Foundation...(The Republican Establishment Swamp is completely disconnected from this country and is happily watching America burn to the ground)

8/18/17, "The Death Of A Nation," James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation 

"He who says A must say B. When one accepts demonization of part of our history and placing those who defend it beyond the pale of legitimate discourse, one should hardly be surprised when the arrogant fury of the victors is unleashed. That takes two forms: the nihilist street thugs of «Antifa» and «Black Lives Matter», and the authorities (both governmental and media, a/k/a the Swamp) who confer on them immunity for violent, criminal behavior. The former are the shock troops of the latter. 

They’ve been at it for months, well before Charlottesville, across the country, with nary a peep from the [Republican] party that supposedly has uniform control over the federal government.

Our First Amendment rights as Americans end where a black-clad masked thug chooses to put his (or her or indeterminate «gender») fist or club. To paraphrase U.S. Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott, loyalists of the old America have no rights which the partisans of the new one are bound to respect. Where’s the Justice Department probe of civil rights violations by this organized, directed brutality. (Or maybe there will be one, including looking into George Soros’s connection. If not, what’s the point of having RICO?)"...


Thursday, August 17, 2017

CBS News asks 3 Trump voters in Georgia: 'Has your support for Trump lessened one bit?' 'Absolutely not, Not at all, No.' CBS News: How do you explain your support for Trump given criticism he's received on race issue? African American Trump voter responds: 'I think for myself, period. Nobody's going to tell me what to think or how to think. He's not going to lose my support anytime soon'-Rush Limbaugh

8/17/17, "CBS News Talks to Trump Voters and Can’t Believe What They Found," Rush Limbaugh

"RUSH: You know, yesterday on this program we made mention of the fact that on the CBS Evening News on Tuesday (8/15), the entire broadcast was devoted to Trump and Charlottesville and the whole newscast. There was not one other story. So last night — I don’t know if the suits at CBS heard us talking about that or not, but they decided to go out and try to find some Trump supporters, gave them some time maybe to balance what they had done the previous night. 

They found two black and one white Trump supporter, three people, and I want you to hear what these sounded like. The names involved here, correspondent Mark Strassman, the three female supporters for Trump are Janelle Jones, Ellen Diehl and Lucretia....Anyway, these three women, two black, one white, CBS found them to talk about Trump controversy, here’s the first bite. 

STRASSMAN: Has your support for Trump lessened one bit?

(Lucretia) HUGHES: Absolutely not. 

DIEHL: Not at all. 


STRASSMAN: Not one bit? 

JONES: No, I don’t look at him as, you know, my pastor or my moral leader. I look at him as the leader as it relates to governmental issues.

DIEHL: We’re not looking for somebody charming. We’re looking for a man who knows how to turn things around, and he’s got a track record of turning things around. 

RUSH: Sound bite number two. 

STRASSMAN: When you saw Charlottesville, what did that say about where we are as a country? 

DIEHL: It wasn’t necessarily a completely black-white issue, but I think that the media is turning it into a black-white issue. It’s definitely a left-right issue, but it’s left fringe and right fringe. 

STRASSMAN: The Confederate statues don’t bother you? 

(Lucretia) HUGHES: No. It’s history. I wasn’t born back then. You wasn’t, either. So why is that affecting us? If anything, we should grow and learn from it just like Martin Luther King said. You don’t judge people by the color of their skin. You base that on their character.

RUSH: See, these people understand something here. And these people at CBS, I guarantee you they were genuinely shocked that they were able to find them, and then what they said. Remember people in the media do not really think people like this exist. They have an arrogance about them that is just automatic. Whatever they believe and think, they assume 80% of the country is the same way, and that’s how they go about reporting these stories.

But this woman, that was Lucretia, by the way, who said, “No, I wasn’t born back then, you weren’t either. Why is that affecting us? If anything, we should grow and learn from it like Martin Luther King said.” What does she know? She knows that black people who were never slaves are fighting white people who were never Nazis over a Confederate statue or statues that Democrats put up. And now for some reason the Democrats don’t want to live with what they did and it’s now become Trump’s fault. And these people are not buying it. Sound bite number three. 

STRASSMAN: How do you explain what your support is for a president, given the criticism that he’s had on this race issue?

(Lucretia) HUGHES: I think for myself, period. Nobody’s going to tell me what to think or how to think. I’m not gullible and I’m not blind. It’s my decision if I’m going to support someone or not, not go by what other people has to say. And to me, what I’ve seen, and what I love, I’m not– he’s not going to lose my support any time soon.

JONES: I’ve been a Republican before Donald Trump. I will be a Republican afterwards. I honestly don’t think we will see this issue of racial divide addressed until we remove identity politics out of the political process

STRASSMAN: These Republican women say if a president deserves blame for making racial tensions worse, it’s Obama, not Trump for the identity politics they say Democrats have practiced for the last eight years

RUSH: And that’s exactly right, by the way. So there you have three Trump voters, two of them black and one white, all females, Trump voters. They’re not idiots. They’re not racists. They’re not Nazis. They’re not members of the Klan. They’re independently intelligent. They’re not mind-numbed robots being led down the path by Steve Bannon or anybody else. They make up their own minds. Exactly contrary to the way the media depicts Trump voters

The media depicts Trump voters as the people in Charlottesville, for example."


CBS images from 


Referenced above:

8/16/17, CBS: ""I Think for Myself": Trump Voters Voice Their Support Despite Charlottesville Comments," Strassman, Atlanta, Ga.

"With the president under fire for remarks about Charlottesville, CBS News checked in with some Republicans who voted for him. Janelle Jones, Ellen Diehl and Lucretia Hughes say their support for President Trump has not lessened.

"I don't look at him as my pastor or my moral leader," said Jones. "I look at him as the leader as it relates to governmental issues."

"We are not looking for somebody charming," Diehl said. "We are looking for a man who knows how to turn things around and he's got a track record of turning things around.""...


Slavery is bustling in Libya in 2017 thanks to US taxpayer funded bombing in 2011 which destroyed most of Libya's civil society-Consortium News, James W. Carden...(US taxpayers have been forced to become greatest cause of misery and death in the world. As such, we're also slaves)

Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama dropped at least 26,171 bombs in 2016. He left office having authorised ten times more drone strikes than George W Bush. In 2015, Obama dropped 23,144 bombs on Muslim majority countries. Apparently it helped the Taliban, who per recent Foreign Policy magazine analysis control more territory in Afghanistan than at any point since 2001.

August 17, 2017, "Refusing to Learn Lessons from Libya," Consortium News, James W. Carden

"Exclusive: Official Washington never likes to admit a mistake no matter how grave or obvious. Too many Important People would look bad. So, the rationalizations never stop as with the Libyan fiasco, observes James W. Carden." 

"In recent weeks, the Washington Post’s Cairo bureau chief Sudarsan Raghavan has published a series of remarkable dispatches from war-torn Libya, which is still reeling from the aftermath of NATO’s March 2011 intervention and the subsequent overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

April 2011, McCain in Benghazi
On July 2, Raghavan reported on what amounts to Libya’s modern-day slave trade. According to his report, Libya is “now home to a thriving trade in humans. Unable to pay exorbitant smuggling fees or swindled by traffickers, some of the world’s most desperate people are being held as slaves, tortured or forced into prostitution.”

The numbers help tell the tale. “The number of migrants departing from Libya is surging,” writes Raghavan, “with more than 70,000 arriving in Italy so far this year, a 28 percent increase over the same period last year.”

On August 1, Raghavan returned to the pages of the Post with a disturbing portrait of life in Tripoli, reporting that: “Six years after the revolution that toppled dictator Moammar Gaddafi, the mood in this volatile capital is a meld of hopelessness and gloom. Diplomatic and military efforts by the United States and its allies have failed to stabilize the nation; the denouement of the crisis remains far from clear. Most Libyans sense that the worst is yet to come.”

Raghavan notes that “Under Gaddafi, the oil-producing country was once one of the world’s wealthiest nations.” Under his rule, “Libyans enjoyed free health care, education and other benefits under the eccentric strongman’s brand of socialism.” It would be difficult not to see, Raghavan writes, “the insecurity that followed Gaddafi’s death has ripped apart the North African country.”

Taken together, Raghavan’s reports should come as a rude shock to stalwart supporters of NATO’s intervention in Libya. Yet the embarrassing fervor with which many embraced the intervention remains largely undiminished – with, as we will see, one notable exception.

An Upside-Down Meritocracy

Anne Marie Slaughter, who served as policy planning chief at the State Department under Hillary Clinton, emailed her former boss after the start of the NATO operation, to say: “I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have never been prouder of having worked for you.” 

Five months after the start of NATO operation against Gaddafi, Slaughter went public with her approval in an op-ed for the Financial Times titled “Why Libya Skeptics Were Proved Badly Wrong.” Proving, if nothing else, that the foreign policy establishment is a reverse meritocracy, Slaughter holds an endowed chair at Princeton and is also the well-compensated president of the influential Washington think tank New America.

President Obama’s decision to intervene received wide bipartisan support in the Congress and from media figures across the political spectrum, including Bill O’Reilly and Cenk Uyghur.

Yet the casus belli used to justify the intervention, as a U.K. parliamentary report made clear last September, was based on a lie: that the people of the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi were in imminent danger of being slaughtered by Gaddafi’s forces.

The report, issued by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, states that “Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

The report also noted that while “Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi…this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as ‘an intelligence-light decision.’”

Even as it became clear that the revolution had proved to be a disaster for the country, the arbiters of acceptable opinion in Washington continued to insist that NATO’s intervention was not only a success, but the right thing to do. It is a myth that has gained wide purchase among D.C.’s foreign policy cognoscenti, despite the judgment of former President Barack Obama, who famously described the intervention as “a shit show.”

Still Spinning

A full year after the commencement of NATO’s campaign against Gaddafi, former NATO Ambassador Ivo Daalder and NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stravidis took to the pages of that reliable bellwether of establishment opinion, Foreign Affairs, to declare that “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.” 

According to Daalder and Stravidis, “the alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime.”

In 2016, a Clinton campaign press release justifying the ill-starred intervention, claimed “Qadhafi and his regime made perfectly clear what their plans were for dealing with those who stood up against his reign, using disgusting language in urging his backers to cleanse the country of these rebels. This was a humanitarian crisis.”

Astonishingly, the campaign “Factsheet” goes on to assert that, “there was no doubt that further atrocities were on the way, as Qadhafi’s forces storming towards the county’s second biggest city.” Yet there is, as both the U.K. parliamentary report and a Harvard study by Alan J. Kuperman found, no evidence for this whatsoever.

“Qaddafi did not perpetrate a ‘bloodbath’ in any of the cities that his forces recaptured from rebels prior to NATO intervention — including Ajdabiya, Bani Walid, Brega, Ras Lanuf, Zawiya, and much of Misurata — so there was,” writes Kuperman, “virtually no risk of such an outcome if he had been permitted to recapture the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi.”

Nevertheless, the myth persists. Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid, the author of Islamic Exceptionalismcontinues to insist, against all evidence, that the intervention was a success.

“The Libya intervention was successful,” says Hamid, “The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.”

In this, Hamid is hardly alone. Left-activists in thrall to a Trotskyite vision of permanent revolution also continue to make the case that NATO’s intervention was a net positive for the country.

In a recent interview with In These Times, Leila Al-Shami claimed that “If Gaddafi had not fallen, Libya now would look very much like Syria. In reality, the situation in Libya is a million times better. Syrian refugees are fleeing to Libya. Far fewer people have been killed in Libya since Gaddafi’s falling than in Syria. Gaddafi being ousted was a success for the Libyan people.”

That danger in all this is that by refusing to learn the lessons of Libya (and Kosovo and Iraq and Syria) the U.S. foreign policy establishment will likely continue to find itself backing forces that seek to turn the greater Middle East into a fundamentalist Sunnistan, ruled by Sharia law, utterly hostile to religious pluralism, the rights of women, minorities and, naturally, U.S. national security interests in the region." 

"[For more on this topic, see’s “Hillary Clinton’s Failed Libya ‘Doctrine.’”]"

"James W. Carden served as an adviser on Russia policy at the US State Department. Currently a contributing writer at The Nation magazine, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Quartz, The American Conservative and The National Interest."


Added: Murderous neocon McCain is given hero's welcome in Benghazi, Libya in April 2011 for his role in diversion of millions of US taxpayer dollars to weapons for Libyan "rebels." "Mr McCain called on critics of intervention to tour Benghazi to see a 'powerful and hopeful example of what a free Libya can be.'" On Sept. 11, 2012, heavily armed Islamist militants in Benghazi, Libya, attacked the US Consulate and a nearby CIA compound, killing 4 Americans. 

4/22/2011, "'Let's get this thing over with,' says McCain as he calls for more help for rebels in Libya," Daily Mail 

McCain said more "help" is needed, ie, US taxpayers should buy even more weapons for Benghazi "rebels." 



Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.