Libya: The Clintons' War
Obama unwisely allowed Clinton to drag him and the U.S. into Sarkozy's war of re-election and oil interests. Even the standard "U.S. national interests" are absent in Libya.
[Black Star News Editorial]
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonishing China on human rights abuses as she did this week, is tantamount to a Mafia don going to a Police Convention to talk about curbing crime.
Physician heal thyself.
Clinton was the chief promoter of war on Libya together with France's unstable president Nicholas Sarkozy who recently confessed to watching hundreds of movies a year. What time does he have for serious matters? Bombarding Libya may be one big cinema for him.
Cynically, Sarkozy, Clinton and Britain's David Cameron lied to the world about wanting to "rescue Libyan civilians" --even though in France, Sarkozy's own party promotes anti-African policies-- to secure United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. It was much in the same way that Colin Powell used fake "evidence" to get the United Nations to okay war on Iraq.
A Google search will show that this newspaper is one of the few to have written from the get-go that Resolution 1973 was a ruse to allow the invasion of Libya from the air. We have written countless editorials that remain consistent. The U.S. and now NATO evolved into the airforce of the pro-monarchy al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents in Benghazi as we predicted.
The eventual transition was as clear as daylight. Only an ignoramus would believe that the West would intervene in Africa to save the lives of civilians.
The Libyan war was one that President Barack Obama didn't want and traveled to Brazil at the outset. He unwisely allowed Clinton to drag him and the U.S. into Sarkozy's war of re-election and oil interests. Even the standard "U.S. national interests" are absent in Libya.
Years ago, Nelson Mandela infuriated Bill Clinton when he helped end the Western embargo against Libya by visiting Muammar al-Quathafi. Mandela talked al-Quathafi into normalizing relations. Libya eventually settled the Lockerbie tragedy with the families of the victims and even dismantled its infant nuclear weapons program. When Obama recently visited New York, Bill Clinton told him that the late Ron Brown would be "proud of you" for what he was doing in Libya, during the dedication of a building to Brown.
Proud of President Obama for bombarding a country and ignoring a peace proposal crafted by the African union? One sense that there is an element of payback here now that Mandela is out of the picture. It's also as if the Clintons wanted to deliberately pull Obama into a war that would be seen purely as his own--unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, both launched under George W. Bush.
The New York Times promotes Benghazi as if the insurgents are similar to the Facebook/Blackberry revolutionists of Tunisia and Libya. Nothing could be further from the truth. Benghazi slaughtered captured dark-skinned Libyans and migrant workers from the rest of Africa. A Google and YouTube search will show horrific killings.
The New York Times, which has correspondents throughout Libya, and Clinton, ignored these inconvenient truths. Black lives don't command much premium to some non-Black folk. It was only this week that The Times started writing about the executions and witch hunts going on in Benghazi--crimes that people who follow the news on various websites, already knew about. Scores of Africans have reportedly drowned as they try to escape the fighting--Yet the "paper of record" turned paper-of-war does not even consider calling for a ceasefire as the African Union proposal promoted by South Africa's President Jacob Zuma outlined.
Of course, if people of African descent were in charge of the Editorial pages of The New York Times, the coverage of the atrocities against Black people by Beghazi would warrant more exposure and more outrage.
We can't expect anything better from Clinton. In the heat of the 2008 Presidential campaign, she claimed she would beat candidate Barack Obama because her supporters were "hard working" White Americans. Even after she trailed badly and was advised to step aside she wondered why she should was being pressured. Anything could happen she said--she reminded voters that Robert Kennedy was assassinated late during a presidential campaign.
Yes. This is the same politician who now as Secretary of State admonishes China about "human rights" when the U.S. and NATO continues to bomb Libya back into the 18th century, on behalf of ruthless opportunists in Benghazi, supported by greedy oil interests completely indifferent to the loss of human life provided the people don't look like them.
Benghazi told The Financial Times, as a Google search will reveal, that Libya's oil concessions, post-Muammar al-Quathafi, would be doled out based on the level of support each Western country gives the insurgents in getting rid of al-Quathafi. Of course the story was not mentioned in The New York Times, which is the 21st century version of PRAVDA. The Soviet newspaper manufactured lies routinely. The Times is much more sophisticated. It simply ignores inconvenient truths by not writing about them or by not adequately focusing on them.
Syria continues to mow down innocent civilians. Will the U.S., France, and Britain seek a "no fly" zone in Syria in order to bomb Bashar al-Assad at his command center?
In Yemen, the government of the U.S.-sponsored general continues to slaughter pro-democracy demonstrators.
Human rights? Tell that to the oppressed majority Shiite Muslims in Bahrain, now occupied by Saudi Arabia.
Repeat that farce to Saudi Arabia itself and to Qatar, the large oil field run by a single family while it cynically calls for and finances regime change in Libya.
Repeat that lie to brave civilians in Uganda, who have confronted the U.S.-backed and armed tyrant Gen. Yoweri Museveni, for the last several weeks.
We rest our case.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
No Record Exist!!