Some
Hillary Clinton backers now downplay the then-Secretary of State’s role
in what has become a disastrous “regime change” war in Libya, but that
was not what her sycophants were saying four years ago, recalls Larry C.
Johnson.
By Larry C. Johnson
I am going to share with you four devastating emails sent and
received by Hillary Clinton on the subject of Libya. You can find these
posted at Wikileaks. It is clear in reading these exchanges that, in the
glow of the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Hillary embraced the call to spike
the football and clearly was planning to use Libya as evidence of her
leadership and skill that qualified her to become President.
The attack on our diplomats and CIA officers in Benghazi on 11
September 2012 however, destroyed that dream. The dream became a
nightmare and Hillary has scrambled to pretend that she was not the
mover-and-shaker that destabilized Libya and made it a safe haven for
ISIS, aka radical Islamists.
Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013,
about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept.
11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)
Let me take you through these chronologically. First up is an email
from James “Jamie” Rubin, the husband of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. (You
might want to have an air sickness bag handy.) Jaime wrote on 18 July 2011:
“Again, congratulations are in order for Friday’s recognition of
the Transitional National Council in Istanbul. It is a pleasure to see
the State Department again leading the administration on this. Syria,
too, but that is a subject for another. day.
“I suspect that you have been pushing very hard within the administration on Libya. From the outside, the White House doesn’t seem like it cares very much. In general, the NSC seems uncomfortable with creative applications of American power and influence. And we all know the military and the Pentagon resist limited military operations, especially airpower-only engagements. So, it must be you and your colleagues at State. Well done. . . .
“First and foremost, this is winnable. The killing of Bin Ladin
aside, the administration really needs a solid, substantial success. . .
.
“Second, unlike in the Balkans or Afghanistan, Paris and London are
fully committed, as are most Europeans, with the exception of Germany,
which is a disgrace but not really relevant in the end. . . .
“Third, beyond the moral component of preventing a slaughter,
defeating Qaddafi is one of the few concrete and unique ways the West
can contribute to the Arab Spring. . . .
“Fourth, even a small success like the one that is coming in Libya
will turn around the steady decline in American influence in the region
and around the world. I suspect that you know this, but European elites, Gulf elites, East Europeans and many others regard the Administration as weak.
