Oh, and the evidence that Libyan people needed protecting from imminent danger of their own government firing on them? Remembering that this pre-emptive NATO action was to "stop Gaddafi from launching a massacre of his own people."
No evidence was ever produced.
On 1 March, two weeks after the accusations, when asked if he had seen any evidence that Gaddafi intended to fire on citizens, then US Sec of Defense Robert Gates said, "We've seen the press reports but we have no confirmation." And US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen added, "That's right. We've seen no confirmation whatsoever."
So NATO attacked Libya on the basis of a press report.
Gates had some sense of what was right because he also stated that "the UN Security Council resolution provides no authorisation for the use of armed force." Gates would be gone by June, replaced by ex-CIA director Leon Panetta.
On 31 March, as NATO strikes in support of the rebels began, more questions were asked of Gates and Mullen by the US Senate Armed Services Committee. "Was al Qaeda involved in Libya?" Mullen answered, "We haven't seen anything, other than aspirational, from al Qaeda leadership." Gates said that Gaddafi was "trying to "gen' up the narrative that the opposition is in fact led by al Qaeda."
When asked "Do either one of you believe that the Libyan people would stand for an al Qaeda-led Libya?" "Absolutely no evidence to support that," said Gates, and Mullen, "No, I don't."
Gates, in explanation, added that "the real power in Libya is in the hands of these tribes, and even Gaddafi realises that, and I just don't understand how it would be possible for these tribes to want to cede any of that authority to some outside crowd like al Qaeda."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
