Emails Show Hillary Clinton Rejected Libya Peace Talk In 2011.....

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

More on Hillary and her incompetence. Good thing Gowdy included her Libyan Policy besides Benghazi.

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

More on others who think Hillary is inept.

Emails show Qaddafi son offered talks – but Clinton ordered top general to 'not take the call,' source says.....

Exclusive - New emails obtained by Fox News show that in March 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring revolution inside Libya, dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s son Saif was willing to talk peace from the ground in Libya – but a source told Fox News the offer was rejected by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the years since Qaddafi was forced from power, Libya's government has collapsed, and extremist groups including ISIS have exploited the power vacuum. While the Obama administration has promoted the use of "soft power" and diplomacy, the documents suggest the option was not vigorously pursued here.

The source told Fox News that a staffer was sent to look for Jacoby at the Pentagon, and somewhere between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., Clinton instructed Jacoby "to not take the call from Saif and that Ambassador Gene Cretz was the only one she authorized to talk to Saif." At the time, Cretz was the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

While the offer to engage directly with the U.S. government, and its apparent rejection, were first reported by the late journalist Michael Hastings for Rolling Stone in October 2011, the new emails document that the offer was real – and show it was known at senior levels of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who advise the president. The Washington Times in January 2015 reported a five-part series called "Hillary's war" that concluded the Pentagon did not trust Clinton's strategy on Libya. The series included taped conversations between then-Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a critic of the war, and Saif Qaddafi sometime later in May 2011......snip~

Emails show Qaddafi son offered talks – but Clinton ordered top general to 'not take the call,' source says | Fox News

Skeptic Bob · Oct 7, 2015

I'm no fan of Hillary but this is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. If she DID allow the peace talks then the Right would have accused her of negotiating with terrorists.

dimensionallava · Oct 7, 2015

is this still going on? I thought since Mccarthy admitted that this whole thing is just a partisan attack against hillary this garbage was going to stop?

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

dimensionallava said:
is this still going on? I thought since Mccarthy admitted that this whole thing is just a partisan attack against hillary this garbage was going to stop?

Yeah its going on.....What I like is how much the left actually believes McCarthy. But you know what they say. Fools do rush in.

The Democrats prove this all the time. Its part of their DNA.

humbolt · Oct 7, 2015

dimensionallava said:
is this still going on? I thought since Mccarthy admitted that this whole thing is just a partisan attack against hillary this garbage was going to stop?

Exactly who does McCarthy speak for? Aside from the obvious reality that everything in DC is political, I think McCarthy voiced his own opinion. I seriously doubt the FBI's interest in Hillary's problems is politicly inspired.

Grant · Oct 7, 2015

BrewerBob said:
I'm no fan of Hillary but this is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. If she DID allow the peace talks then the Right would have accused her of negotiating with terrorists.

That's hypothetical nonsense.

Grant · Oct 7, 2015

dimensionallava said:
is this still going on? I thought since Mccarthy admitted that this whole thing is just a partisan attack against hillary this garbage was going to stop?

Both involve Libya but both are different issues. It seems Barrack and Hillary preferred bombing Libya rather than discussing peace. Any idea why they would prefer the present situation in Libya?

anatta · Oct 7, 2015

The source told Fox News that a staffer was sent to look for Jacoby at the Pentagon, and somewhere between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., Clinton instructed Jacoby "to not take the call from Saif and that Ambassador Gene Cretz was the only one she authorized to talk to Saif." At the time, Cretz was the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Clinton’s instructions effectively meant no high-level administration official took the call. The following day, on March 19, the U.S. began participating in airstrikes over Libya – Muammar Qaddafi himself would be killed seven months later.

thus began the devolution of Libya into a failed, terrorist state that it is now..with ISIS,and migrants flooding Europe
and the country's oil barely flowing (etc)

Libyan Civil War 2014 - Present | DCJunkies

Hillary fingerprints are allover the Libyan fiasco...

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

BrewerBob said:
I'm no fan of Hillary but this is a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. If she DID allow the peace talks then the Right would have accused her of negotiating with terrorists.

How so.....Gadhafi had given up his Chems and Nuke ambitions. The terrorists get into Libya after Hillary's screw up.

Skeptic Bob · Oct 7, 2015

Grant said:
That's hypothetical nonsense.

Hypothetical? Yes. If you think it is nonsense then you haven't been paying attention to US politics.

Skeptic Bob · Oct 7, 2015

MMC said:
How so.....Gadhafi had given up his Chems and Nuke ambitions. The terrorists get into Libya after Hillary's screw up.

I'm not saying it was the right choice. I am saying if she made that choice the Right still would have criticized her for it. Do you honestly believe the Republicans would have rallied around her choice?

anatta · Oct 7, 2015

Grant said:
Both involve Libya but both are different issues. It seems Barrack and Hillary preferred bombing Libya rather than discussing peace. Any idea why they would prefer the present situation in Libya?

the millon $ question. I have to assume arrogance of power - Much the same way Hillary meddled in Syria with her
"Friends of Syria" initiative, that weakened Assad in favor of organizing international opposition ..

Hilary is a screw up. She has no success as Sec of State -all she can point to is 'frequent flier miles'

American · Oct 7, 2015

Grant said:
Both involve Libya but both are different issues. It seems Barrack and Hillary preferred bombing Libya rather than discussing peace. Any idea why they would prefer the present situation in Libya?

I thought Obama and Clinton were all anti-war and stuff. :shrug:

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

humbolt said:
Exactly who does McCarthy speak for? Aside from the obvious reality that everything in DC is political, I think McCarthy voiced his own opinion. I seriously doubt the FBI's interest in Hillary's problems is politicly inspired.

Mornin HB. :2wave: I think he tried to throw the Demos a bone to get those Demos to vote him in as speaker. According to this morning. McCarthys #1 came out and said he doesn't have the 218. Plus he is going to retire.

anatta · Oct 7, 2015

BrewerBob said:
I'm not saying it was the right choice. I am saying if she made that choice the Right still would have criticized her for it. Do you honestly believe the Republicans would have rallied around her choice?

Libya would have been a blip. The correct' choice would have been to stay out of it, or work for a peaceful transition from qadaffi.
Bombing the crap out of Libyan civilians for a "humanitarian war" led to Libya as a terrorist state.

The "regime change" of Qadaffi by the west/NATO was a deliberate choice, despite the hubris espoused:

penned by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy:

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force,” they wrote in their editorial. “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.[…]It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.”

Within a month, the true aim of the intervention to assassinate Gaddafi was confirmed when NATO forces bombed the personal residence of Saif Al-Arab Gaddafi, Muammar’s youngest son in an admitted attempt to kill the Libyan leader himself

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-assassination-of-gaddafi-grtv-backgrounder/

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

BrewerBob said:
I'm not saying it was the right choice. I am saying if she made that choice the Right still would have criticized her for it. Do you honestly believe the Republicans would have rallied around her choice?

Naturally they wouldn't rally around her. Why would they? After all Hillary has said about Republicans. She is lucky any of them give her any respect. I certainly wouldn't advocate to do so.

Moreover she was outplayed and out maneuvered by the French. A clear case of incompetence.

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

annata said:
Libya would have been a blip. The correct' choice would have been to stay out of it, or work for a peaceful transition from qadaffi.
Bombing the crap out of Libyan civilians for a "humanitarian war" led to Libya as a terrorist state.

The "regime change" of Qadaffi by the west/NATO was a deliberate choice, despite the hubris espoused:

penned by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy:

Within a month, the true aim of the intervention to assassinate Gaddafi was confirmed when NATO forces bombed the personal residence of Saif Al-Arab Gaddafi, Muammar’s youngest son in an admitted attempt to kill the Libyan leader himself

https://www.corbettreport.com/the-assassination-of-gaddafi-grtv-backgrounder/

Yeah AT, :2wave: and then they said the same about Assad. Same 3 dip****s to. BO peep Hillary and the French. Which was after Hillary and Pelosi were talking about how Assad was a reformer.

humbolt · Oct 7, 2015

MMC said:
Mornin HB. :2wave: I think he tried to throw the Demos a bone to get those Demos to vote him in as speaker. According to this morning. McCarthys #1 came out and said he doesn't have the 218. Plus he is going to retire.

I've never thought McCarthy would make it. He carried Boehner's water for too long. And I agree that he's looking for votes where ever he can find them. He has to know that if he doesn't carry the day on the first vote, he's a goner as Speaker.

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

annata said:
the millon $ question. I have to assume arrogance of power - Much the same way Hillary meddled in Syria with her
"Friends of Syria" initiative, that weakened Assad in favor of organizing international opposition ..

Hilary is a screw up. She has no success as Sec of State -all she can point to is 'frequent flier miles'

I noticed the French, were in on that too. Again, why were we listening to the French? They are even more incompetent than Hillary is.

In the emails of Hillary Clinton, another story of the French intervention in Libya.....

Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, was kept informed of the situation in Libya in 2011 and 2012. The emails show that Nicolas Sarkozy had prepared and wanted the war for military and economic reasons, the DGSE (French intelligence) actively participated on the ground in the creation of the transitional government, and Bernard Henri-Levi played the role of commercial representative of the Elysee.

Henry-Levi finally joined the Clinton Foundation and at the time of the Libyan revolution, partnering with some American businessmen to try to carve out markets in post-Gaddafi Libya (we have already told this story on Mediapart ). Sidney Blumenthal was therefore sent to flood his friend Hillary Clinton with memos on the situation in Libya from February 2011 through December 2012. These messages, which have recently been disclosed by the US Senate Commission of Inquiry on the attack in Benghazi that killed US ambassador Chris Stevens, are highly significant.

A mixture of confidential information and geostrategic analysis, policy advice for Hillary (including how to provide cover for her after the victory of the rebels) and recommendations on this or that Libyan politician, these notes are not disinterested, because Blumenthal was covertly trying to promote the interest of his group of businessmen. But he also delivered to “America’s First Diplomat” everything he could glean about Libya at a time when the Gaddafi regime was as opaque as the opposition fighting it......snip~

Hillary Clinton emails reveal how French destroyed Libya | Veterans Today

dimensionallava · Oct 7, 2015

Grant said:
Both involve Libya but both are different issues. It seems Barrack and Hillary preferred bombing Libya rather than discussing peace. Any idea why they would prefer the present situation in Libya?

the thing i don't like about this argument is that it implies the republicans had another option where things would be better, which is like criticizing specifically the republicans for invading afghanistan, as if democrats wouldve reacted to that situation any differently. which only leads to wild speculation, conspiracy theories, and impossible to prove "what if" scenarios

Iraq however was heavily contested by the democrats and fairly questionable, arguably illegal tactics were used by the bush administration to invade Iraq. Yet 11 years later there are no "iraq hearings" or "WMD" hearings only benghazi and libya hearings

eohrnberger · Oct 7, 2015

annata said:
thus began the devolution of Libya into a failed, terrorist state that it is now..with ISIS,and migrants flooding Europe
and the country's oil barely flowing (etc)

Libyan Civil War 2014 - Present | DCJunkies

Hillary fingerprints are allover the Libyan fiasco...

MMC said:
How so.....Gadhafi had given up his Chems and Nuke ambitions. The terrorists get into Libya after Hillary's screw up.

Now this really IS a war of choice, and it wasn't a good choice to go in there and cause this trouble.

With Obama's famous 'leading from behind' (what an oxymoron from a foreign policy moron).

And yet, no one's being held accountable for it. Until now, backed by email documentation no less.

So all those lefties who shouted 'Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!' as if that was any sort of reason to dismiss this, get to apologize (1 say at leat once for each time they shouted 'Benghazi!'), there really was fire with all that smoke.
(good thing I'm not holding my breath)

ocean515 · Oct 7, 2015

dimensionallava said:
the thing i don't like about this argument is that it implies the republicans had another option where things would be better, which is like criticizing specifically the republicans for invading afghanistan, as if democrats wouldve reacted to that situation any differently. which only leads to wild speculation, conspiracy theories, and impossible to prove "what if" scenarios

Iraq however was heavily contested by the democrats and fairly questionable, arguably illegal tactics were used by the bush administration to invade Iraq. Yet 11 years later there are no "iraq hearings" or "WMD" hearings only benghazi and libya hearings

Rubbish.

Learn something about what was going on in Iraq, directly from the sources on the ground. This Bush conspiracy stuff is BS.

IAEA and Iraq - Global Special Weapons - Nuclear, Biological Chemical and Missile Proliferation News

Global Special Weapons - Nuclear, Biological Chemical and Missile Proliferation News

UNSCOM Reports to the Security Council

anatta · Oct 7, 2015

MMC said:
I noticed the French, were in on that too. Again, why were we listening to the French? They are even more incompetent than Hillary is.

In the emails of Hillary Clinton, another story of the French intervention in Libya.....

Hillary Clinton, then US secretary of state, was kept informed of the situation in Libya in 2011 and 2012. The emails show that Nicolas Sarkozy had prepared and wanted the war for military and economic reasons, the DGSE (French intelligence) actively participated on the ground in the creation of the transitional government, and Bernard Henri-Levi played the role of commercial representative of the Elysee.

Henry-Levi finally joined the Clinton Foundation and at the time of the Libyan revolution, partnering with some American businessmen to try to carve out markets in post-Gaddafi Libya (we have already told this story on Mediapart ). Sidney Blumenthal was therefore sent to flood his friend Hillary Clinton with memos on the situation in Libya from February 2011 through December 2012. These messages, which have recently been disclosed by the US Senate Commission of Inquiry on the attack in Benghazi that killed US ambassador Chris Stevens, are highly significant.

A mixture of confidential information and geostrategic analysis, policy advice for Hillary (including how to provide cover for her after the victory of the rebels) and recommendations on this or that Libyan politician, these notes are not disinterested, because Blumenthal was covertly trying to promote the interest of his group of businessmen. But he also delivered to “America’s First Diplomat” everything he could glean about Libya at a time when the Gaddafi regime was as opaque as the opposition fighting it......snip~

Hillary Clinton emails reveal how French destroyed Libya | Veterans Today

I have to look thru it more carefully. I know the French were pushing this ( UN Resolution) and now it looks like they thought it would be a benefit to them.

But thi is all new from the Emails ( like Blumenthal was),and I haven't bee able to integrate it -exactly what all the French motives were.

It's good to know, but in the final analysis, Hillary was a driving force behind removing/killing Qadaffi.
Qadaffi for all his problems was a reliable allie on terrorism - he warned al-Qaeda would flood Libya if he was overthrown.

The fact Hillary didn't get this, plus all her correspondence with Blumenthal, looks to me like she was willingly led by both
the French, and her sycophant Blumenthal.
Her arrogance in "we came we saw he died" ( he quote of qaddafi's demise) is further proof she never did understand how badly this was screwed up.

She makes some excuses in her book "hard choices" that somehow if we had only engaged the NTC this would have worked out shows
just how misguided and craven she is

During the dying days of his four decade rule, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi cast an ominous prophecy. If his regime fell, jihadists would subjugate northern Africa, inflicting widespread violence and terror.
“Al-Qaeda considers all the people to be infidels,” Mr. Gaddafi declared in a speech weeks before NATO began its military intervention in Libya. “They deem all people their enemies. They know nothing but killing.”

The Islamists would pour in from Afghanistan, Algeria, and Egypt, he warned, saying, “These are beasts with turbans.”

MMC · Oct 7, 2015

eohrnberger said:
Now this really IS a war of choice, and it wasn't a good choice to go in there and cause this trouble.

With Obama's famous 'leading from behind' (what an oxymoron from a foreign policy moron).

And yet, no one's being held accountable for it. Until now, backed by email documentation no less.

So all those lefties who shouted 'Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!' as if that was any sort of reason to dismiss this, get to apologize (1 say at leat once for each time they shouted 'Benghazi!'), there really was fire with all that smoke.
(good thing I'm not holding my breath)

Heya EB.:2wave: The Demos and Hillary are desperate now, so they show some poutage and ramble their mouths off to deflect with the issue. Like always and with most things concerning the left. Its all about the deflection. Although, this is how much the French was involved.

Amid these fifty memos, which sometimes include factual errors and misinterpretations since they were written in “real time” as the situation was changing every day in Libya since the outbreak of the rebellion in Benghazi on 17 February 2011, there is an alternative reading of the role of France in this conflict. Alternative because it does not correspond at all to the official version put forward by Nicolas Sarkozy and his entourage. Alternative because it raises many questions about the real objectives of the French government that did everything it could to overthrow the Gaddafi regime.

1. Sarkozy sees an opportunity to restore the military prestige of France. <<<<< :lamo
2. “How the French created the National Transitional Council, or how money talks “.
3. Sarkozy, concerned about the influence of the Islamists, demanded that BHL assess that issue.
4. French Special Forces trained the rebels
5. Sarko of Arabia.
6. The DSGE worked closely with the rebels.
7. French businessmen: “Humanitarian” thieves.
8. Bernard Henry-Levi as Sarkozy’s commercial representative
9. “Qaddafi will be summarily executed”
10. Sarkozy wants contracts for French enterprises
11. The French demand 35% of Libyan contracts and push for the partition of the country.....snip~

Hillary Clinton emails reveal how French destroyed Libya | Veterans Today

Now.....when did the French think they had to the Right to Demand anything. Why wasn't the French told to STHU and take their pansy asses back to France?

Quite interesting that the French wanted Gadhafi summarily executed. May be we should do that to their Leader. See if they want to start something. See if they want to man up like they did with Libya. Lets see them try that **** with us.

Emails Show Hillary Clinton Rejected Libya Peace Talk In 2011.....

Trump Grump Whisperer