Okay, let's say that in Washington, Paris and London, no one loved Gaddafi. What is astonishing here is that so many people in the West consider that because we don't love a particular leader, it is perfectly fine to use our missiles, bombers and special forces to ravage the country and overthrow its government. There are many leaders of countries we don't like. There are even more we've scarcely heard of but could quickly learn to hate once the mainstream media go after them. In short, Americans in particular have interiorized the neocon ideology. National boundaries, international law, mean nothing. The United States has the privilege to decide which national leader can stay and which must go. By whatever means necessary. This is a drastically alarming mindset, whatever the faults of Gaddafi. It is truly alarming that the population of the most aggressive power in history can so easily be persuaded to hate a leader or country about which they are profoundly ignorant.
I will just say this. Like many human beings, Gaddafi had virtues and faults. All those who echo that he was a "bloodthirsty dictator" would have a hard time providing the evidence to prove that statement. He was blamed for the 1988 terrorist attack that brought down PanAm flight 10 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Numerous independent researchers have concluded that he was framed by the United States (see my book). He was not responsible for the "Bulgarian nurses" case which caused a scandal a few years ago. Both the French and the US governments had tried to assassinate Gaddafi in the past, mainly because of his support to various revolutionary movements.
Hillary's emails disclose that she and her advisors hoped that her regime change success in Libya would be a main argument in favor of her election as President. They suggested using Libya as the basis of a "Clinton Doctrine." It is no secret that she bore major responsibility and indeed wanted to claim that responsibility. As Secretary of State, she not only pushed Obama into the war, she sabotaged efforts to find a peaceful solution and finally gloated over the brutal murder of a foreign head of state. This indicates that she aspires not only to be President, but also to be a War President.
I recommend "Queen of Chaos" especially for the chapter on Libya, which is the moral heart of the book.
JB: Yes, I want to read it. I'm learning things right and left. So much to talk about. One aspect of the email "flap" is that Libya was part of Hillary's larger political agenda to achieving the presidency? That's a scary thought. Is this revelation getting the attention it deserves?
DJ: Certainly not all the attention it deserves, although it has been reported, for instance by Robert Scheer:
"That Clinton had strenuously supported the bombing that destabilized Libya beyond recognition as a nation was confirmed in an email to her from her confidant Sidney Blumenthal, who on Aug. 22, 2011, proclaimed the start of the bombing as 'a historic moment' and added 'you will be credited for realizing it.' Blumenthal went on to predict that '[w]hen Gaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation home. " You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. " The most important phrase is: 'successful strategy.' "
Clinton approvingly forwarded this message to her top State Department assistant, Jake Sullivan, noting that it's premised on being said "after [Gaddafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic." Sullivan replied that "... it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point. "You can reinforce the op-ed in all your appearances, but it makes sense to lay down something definitive, almost like the Clinton Doctrine."
This was revealed too late to be in my book. But it clearly indicates that State Department officials were planning to exploit the bloody destruction of a country and its leader for political purposes.
JB: Do you think that knowing this can affect the primary race? Or are our fellow citizens so cynical that it won't affect how they look at Hillary? In fact, one could make an argument that this is an example of how effective she is, how she gets things done.
DJ: I tend to believe that most people are not cynical, insofar as they think they are doing the right thing. The problem is that what most citizens believe about the world comes from biased sources, so that what they think is the right thing is really the wrong thing. Americans are notoriously ignorant of history and geography, much less the history and politics of the Middle East, Africa, Asia. When you don't know why your neighbors are yelling at each other, you don't grab your rifle, go break down their door and start shooting. Americans are sure to know even less about why they are shooting in Syria, Ukraine or Yemen, so the simple wise advice is to keep out. Hillary wants to rush right in.
Hillary has skillfully marketed herself, with help from her friends. I have noted elsewhere that she is not a presidential candidate because of her experience. Rather her experience was designed to make her a presidential candidate. A CV with Senator from New York and Secretary of State looks unbeatable. But the record is actually disastrous. The problem with ordinary people is not so much cynicism as political consumerism. Hillary is a well-packaged product, with a massive advertising campaign promoting her as "our first woman president." The problem is not so much cynicism as gullibility. But we must hope that people's basic common sense will warn them that they are being deceived, and dangerously deceived. There are signs in the country of a return to common sense, and we must keep encouraging them.
JB: Indeed, Diana. I definitely feel more well-educated on the disturbingly dark side of Hillary Clinton. And I'm happy to share what you've taught me with our readers. Thanks so much for talking with me.
***
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
5
3
