• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

I'm far less concerned with Benghazi than I am with why we let ourselves attack Libya in 2011.

Bush gave Saddam notice, let the public know what was happening and why.

It's as if one day, Obomba woke up and said...

I want some shine new missiles. Where can we use these ones?
that's about it. He was led by the "neoliberals" Rice/Powers/Clinton
The French got it going by leading the UN, then Clinton got in to get the Arab League support ( without military interventionism).

Meanwhile Rice was ginning up the false accusations of mass rape by Qaddafi troops (Viagra rape),
Look at the Email I posted last page, you can see Clinton was an organizer and driver of policy to "Qadaffi must go"

Obama was still pretty green on foreign policy, and relied on his NSC, which steamrolled this whole deal into 'Kinetic military action"
which is regime change, getting into their civil war by massive bombardments -but Obama could distance himself to it by claiming it wasn't a war.
Then events took over as they always do (Just like Syria)
 
It isn't justified for us to have stayed there as long as we have. We got our message across about terrorist activity on US soil. let it rest. When we continue to attack with cruise missiles like Clinton did, and now Obama, part of what drives these terrorists is to get even with us, for our act of terrorism.

Has anyone who condones our attack on Libya with those initial Tomahawks, and following missile and air strike even considered how many innocent lives nearby we killed as collateral damage? They call us cowards, because we don't face them man to man on the battlefield with presidents like Clinton and Obama. Then we wonder why they scheme to return the favor by hijacking planes and flying them into buildings.

Clinton did even more collateral damage with missiles and airstrikes than Obama did. In fact, at one point, Clinton entirely depleted our stock of cruise missiles.

How much more would the Afghans hate the US if the US just came, bombed and left?

Or is that that the Afghans hate the US more because the US came, bombed, elevated security, stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight with their own forces, and supported their reforming of their government?

While yeah, some Afghans are going to hate the US regardless, doesn't it seem like they'd hate the US less in the second scenario?
 
How much more would the Afghans hate the US if the US just came, bombed and left?
Bush told other nations "if you harbor terrorists..." If we had just bombed the terrorist camps and left, it probably would have been the best option, ending the military aspect there.

Or is that that the Afghans hate the US more because the US came, bombed, elevated security, stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight with their own forces, and supported their reforming of their government?
What Hillary and Obomba did in Libya is what we should have done in Afghanistan. Cripple the Taliban, then help the tribe village leaders take back what was theirs. Afghanistan never really had a government like Libya did. It's a primary reason why it's so difficult to change them. I think we need to convince the tribe leaders to form a government. We can't do it for them.

While yeah, some Afghans are going to hate the US regardless, doesn't it seem like they'd hate the US less in the second scenario?
We are the enemy of many tries for wiping out the only income they know how mo make. Opium... This is where it would be worth our while to help with irrigation and bringing if other types or crops, rather than treat them like criminals. Other culture, other values, and we need to stay conscious of that. They don't see opium as a bad thing.
 
here ya go vern "Gadaffi must go" ( Obama ) March 2011

Obama on Libya: Gaddafi Must Go; All U.S. Options on Table - TIME

Libya: Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy vow Gaddafi must go April 2011
Libya: Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy vow Gaddafi must go - BBC News

Ann, when I post, I don’t have to “misunderstand’ what the words “proves” or “force” or “mindless” mean. Basically I don’t have to have an alternate definition of words and phrases to post. Not only could you not grasp that the thread is based on a lie you think you’ve proven “drives pick-up trucks=not well funded=no popular support”. As a con, you create a vision of what you want the truth to be and your brain can only register what supports your “vision”. You even confuse your own hyperbole for reality (gadaffi 100% right, failed terrorist state).

As far mindless goes, see how you think you’ve “proven” something when you quote President Obama. President Obama stated a reason he supported the war. There is nothing mindless about that. (uh oh, I think vern is going to contrast this with Bush’s mindless mantra about Iraq). One simply needs to look at Bush lying over and over about WMDs, cons obediently supporting bush’s secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq and attacking any one who dared criticize the policy or even point out the facts ( told ya!). And to prove the mindlessness of cons, everytime Bush “revised” the reason for invading Iraq you “mindlessly” accepted his new and improved version. You and yours obediently and mindlessly attacked the patriotism of critics. You and yours obediently and mindlessly parroted that dems were helping the terrorists win and on and on. That’s what a mindless mantra looks like.

Lets face it, you were unable to grasp that the thread is based on a lie after I explained it several times so explaining the difference of “forced regime change on Iraq” and “helping an organized rebellion overthrow a murderous dictator” will truly be a waste of time.
 
The Guardian is not a reliable source, and they did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites. Why "almost" always, and not "always?"
oh lord, you don't even try to hide your dishonesty. why do cons think flailing at the source is a legitimate response. And then you repost the falsehood that saddam wasn't cooperating.. It just proves for everyone what I already know, you’re not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts. You’re only here to deflect and obfuscate from the facts. here’s the actual UN report.

Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites, 44 of which were new. All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival. The UNMOVIC has identified and started the destruction of approximately 50 litres of mustard declared by Iraq.

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Now that I’ve shreded your "inspection/cooperation" BLATANT falsehood AGAIN, can you post the excuses for not backing up the "general told us/Syria" falsehood. I know you cant back it up, I just get such a kick out of cons posting their lame excuses.
 
So how is it that the Iraq and Afghanistan intervention are any better or any worse than the Libya intervention?

Some are claiming that Iraq and Afghanistan were poor decisions, and those actions should not have been taken, and then in the very next breath, claim that the Libya intervention was a good idea, that it was fully justified.

How does that work, exactly? How does that work and maintain any sort of credibility and any sort of consistency?
Eohrn, I think you’re confusing Bush’s bungling in Afghanistan with criticism of invading Iraq. Few few people didn’t approve of invading Afghanistan. A lot of people criticized Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Few few conservatives criticized Iraq. A lot of conservatives criticized our actions in Libya. I can explain (and I have numerous times) why I approve of our actions in Libya but not invading Iraq. I’ve yet to see a conservative even attempt to explain why they supported Iraq 100% and Libya 0%. And eorhn, if Libya is “a far worse mistake than Iraq” then it will be very easy to explain why conservatives supported Iraq 100% and Libya 0%.

So I would love to see you maintain some sort of credibility and consistency and explain it for us.

As you know, they aren't interested in credibility, or the truth. It's all about protecting their ideology and those who represent it. It doesn't seem to occur to them that if they have to lie in order to support their beliefs perhaps these beliefs aren't worthwhile.
You’re welcome to try too Grant.
 
oh lord, you don't even try to hide your dishonesty. why do cons think flailing at the source is a legitimate response. And then you repost the falsehood that saddam wasn't cooperating.. It just proves for everyone what I already know, you’re not here to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts. You’re only here to deflect and obfuscate from the facts. here’s the actual UN report.

Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites, 44 of which were new. All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival. The UNMOVIC has identified and started the destruction of approximately 50 litres of mustard declared by Iraq.

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Now that I’ve shreded your "inspection/cooperation" BLATANT falsehood AGAIN, can you post the excuses for not backing up the "general told us/Syria" falsehood. I know you cant back it up, I just get such a kick out of cons posting their lame excuses.

It's the wording in the report that you are missing. Don't take that fallacy of since i say the guardian isn't a realiable source, that i discounted the link.

Again:

All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly.


Virtually all cases is not all cases!

I was following the news closely during that period. There were several sites that they did delay our inspections.
 
It's the wording in the report that you are missing. Don't take that fallacy of since i say the guardian isn't a realiable source, that i discounted the link.
Lord, I really don't mind your blatant dishonesty. It only proves me right.

The Guardian is not a reliable source, and they did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites. Why "almost" always, and not "always?"


Again:

All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly.


Virtually all cases is not all cases!

I was following the news closely during that period. There were several sites that they did delay our inspections.

sorry lord, you've proven your "memory" has no integrity. The report says saddam was cooperating. you harping on the phrase "virtually all cases" doenst address the fact that saddam was cooperating. go ahead and back up with actual UNMOVIC reports where "they did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites." We both know you cant so if you want to skip the part where you try to pretend you don't have to back up your claims and go ahead and post the hilarious excuses, everybody would appreciate that.
 
Lord, I really don't mind your blatant dishonesty. It only proves me right.






sorry lord, you've proven your "memory" has no integrity. The report says saddam was cooperating. you harping on the phrase "virtually all cases" doenst address the fact that saddam was cooperating. go ahead and back up with actual UNMOVIC reports where "they did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites." We both know you cant so if you want to skip the part where you try to pretend you don't have to back up your claims and go ahead and post the hilarious excuses, everybody would appreciate that.

Believe as you wish. I assume you aren't very old, and probably have no "at the moment" memory of when all these events occurred. One thing that prompts me to say that, is your having to correct the spelling of Qaddafi, to how you believe it should be spelled, of my words in your sugnature.

I spell it the same way the NY Times, Bloomberg, Britannica, and other prominent sources do.

Britannica:

Muammar al-Qaddafi
Libyan statesman

Also known as

Muʿammar al-Qadhdhāfī
Moammar Gadhafi
Muammar al-Gathafi
Muammar Kaddafi
Muammar Khadafy

Muammar al-Qaddafi | Libyan statesman | Britannica.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...s-killed-as-libyan-forces-take-surt.html?_r=0

Clinton Confidante Sent Bad Intel on Qaddafi - Bloomberg View

I'll bet most people think of you as an odd-ball or worse for having to change the spelling in someone's quote. And some of us, for immortalizing me in your signature.
 
Ann, when I post, I don’t have to “misunderstand’ what the words “proves” or “force” or “mindless” mean. Basically I don’t have to have an alternate definition of words and phrases to post. Not only could you not grasp that the thread is based on a lie you think you’ve proven “drives pick-up trucks=not well funded=no popular support”. As a con, you create a vision of what you want the truth to be and your brain can only register what supports your “vision”. You even confuse your own hyperbole for reality (gadaffi 100% right, failed terrorist state). As far mindless goes, see how you think you’ve “proven” something when you quote President Obama. President Obama stated a reason he supported the war. There is nothing mindless about that. (uh oh, I think vern is going to contrast this with Bush’s mindless mantra about Iraq). One simply needs to look at Bush lying over and over about WMDs, cons obediently supporting bush’s secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq and attacking any one who dared criticize the policy or even point out the facts ( told ya!). And to prove the mindlessness of cons, everytime Bush “revised” the reason for invading Iraq you “mindlessly” accepted his new and improved version. You and yours obediently and mindlessly attacked the patriotism of critics. You and yours obediently and mindlessly parroted that dems were helping the terrorists win and on and on. That’s what a mindless mantra looks like.

Lets face it, you were unable to grasp that the thread is based on a lie after I explained it several times so explaining the difference of “forced regime change on Iraq” and “helping an organized rebellion overthrow a murderous dictator” will truly be a waste of time.
Qadaffi was "100% right" about what would happen in Libya if he was overthrown. his words are prescient and correct.
Libya is a failed terrorist state.
This is indisputable, I'm not going over Iraq or whatever you are trying to say about the thread title.
The thread title is a small part of a large sequence of events.
The fact you cannot understand even the very basics about Libya is really a waste of my time..

You're boring vern, you need to catch up with the reality of Libyan civil war 2011 , and Libyan Civil war of 2014 - present.
I've given you more then enough link to get started.
 
Believe as you wish. I assume you aren't very old, and probably have no "at the moment" memory of when all these events occurred. One thing that prompts me to say that, is your having to correct the spelling of Qaddafi, to how you believe it should be spelled, of my words in your sugnature.

I spell it the same way the NY Times, Bloomberg, Britannica, and other prominent sources do.

Britannica:

Muammar al-Qaddafi
Libyan statesman

Also known as

Muʿammar al-Qadhdhāfī
Moammar Gadhafi
Muammar al-Gathafi
Muammar Kaddafi
Muammar Khadafy

Muammar al-Qaddafi | Libyan statesman | Britannica.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...s-killed-as-libyan-forces-take-surt.html?_r=0

Clinton Confidante Sent Bad Intel on Qaddafi - Bloomberg View

I'll bet most people think of you as an odd-ball or worse for having to change the spelling in someone's quote. And some of us, for immortalizing me in your signature.
blah blah blah, deflect deflect deflect deflect. Lord, I wanted they typical excuses you use to not back up anything you posted not deflection. I can get dishonest deflection from anybody. Now back up ""they did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites." and the "general said " narratives. You we invaded Iraq because you believed that. This a debate forum. You don't do anything that tells me you understand that.

(I will correct qadaffi for you so that will give you one less thing to whine and deflect about. )
 
Qadaffi was "100% right" about what would happen in Libya if he was overthrown. his words are prescient and correct.
Libya is a failed terrorist state.
This is indisputable, I'm not going over Iraq or whatever you are trying to say about the thread title.
The thread title is a small part of a large sequence of events.
The fact you cannot understand even the very basics about Libya is really a waste of my time..

You're boring vern, you need to catch up with the reality of Libyan civil war 2011 , and Libyan Civil war of 2014 - present.
I've given you more then enough link to get started.

I tried to help you ann, I showed how you believe things simply because you want to believe them. I'm just not seeing jihadists subjugating North Africa. And I knew you finally figured out the thread is based on a lie. see you say you don't want to discuss it anymore. That's "con speak" for "vern was right" because cons never get tired of posting something when they think I'm wrong.

The more you reject reality the further you get from it.
 
I tried to help you ann, I showed how you believe things simply because you want to believe them. I'm just not seeing jihadists subjugating North Africa. And I knew you finally figured out the thread is based on a lie. see you say you don't want to discuss it anymore. That's "con speak" for "vern was right" because cons never get tired of posting something when they think I'm wrong.

The more you reject reality the further you get from it.
you aren't looking at "Sinai Province", the Tunisia shootings or the continual unraveling of Libya as a hell on earth.
You aren't seeing the transversing of jihadists from Syria to Libya and back - the so called "caliphate". You are lost .
How did ISIS in Libya come to pass?
 
You we invaded Iraq because you believed that. This a debate forum. You don't do anything that tells me you understand that.
There were a lot of factors. The first gulf war was never over, just a cease fire agreement based of Saddam agreeing to getting rid of WMD, and proving so. He never complied, and so much was unaccounted for. We were looking for what we knew he had before, but he never produced. But hid, or gave to someone else. There was a general who claimed it was shipped out across the border into Syria.

(I will correct qadaffi for you so that will give you one less thing to whine and deflect about. )
LOL...

I could care less that your arrogance makes you think you have to change something already correct.

Don't do it for me.

I was just pointing out your arrogant mistake.
 
There were a lot of factors. The first gulf war was never over, just a cease fire agreement based of Saddam agreeing to getting rid of WMD, and proving so. He never complied, and so much was unaccounted for. We were looking for what we knew he had before, but he never produced. But hid, or gave to someone else. There was a general who claimed it was shipped out across the border into Syria.

mmmm, you have an endless supply of empty factless rhetoric. But I didn't ask for that. I asked you to back up your "they did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites." and the "general said " narratives that you posted. I know you cant. I just don't know if you know.
 
.
How did ISIS in Libya come to pass?

that's easy. bush forced regime change on Iraq (I'm not sure you understand what 'forced' means). If he doesn't do that, there is no ISIS. mmmm, lets contrast Iraq and Libya. There is a small outpost of ISIS in Libya because the victors in a civil war chose to fight each other. ISIS controls large swaths of Iraq because we forced regime change on Iraq, left behind a corrupt govt that excluded the highly organized and motivated sunnis.

I have to ask, have you figured out yet the thread is based on a lie?
 
that's easy. bush forced regime change on Iraq (I'm not sure you understand what 'forced' means). If he doesn't do that, there is no ISIS. mmmm, lets contrast Iraq and Libya. There is a small outpost of ISIS in Libya because the victors in a civil war chose to fight each other. ISIS controls large swaths of Iraq because we forced regime change on Iraq, left behind a corrupt govt that excluded the highly organized and motivated sunnis.

I have to ask, have you figured out yet the thread is based on a lie?
not an" outpost" it's the largest ISIL affiliate outside of Syria/Iraq
ISIS in in Afghanistan also. 'Outpost' reads like there is no interaction with Syria/Iraq - in fact jihadists roam back and forth from the Levant
all the way thru Egypt, an into Libya.
Boko Haram is also pledged to al-Baghdadi, AQIM gets weapons from Libya. Libya is part of the nexus, not an 'outpost'

Libya Dawn ( Tripoli) was never a part of the "victors (NTC) it was militias that won the battle for Tripoli airport, and used that as a springboard which eventually forced the gov't to move to Tobruk i.e. a 'rump' gov't
 
Last edited:
that's easy. bush forced regime change on Iraq (I'm not sure you understand what 'forced' means). If he doesn't do that, there is no ISIS. mmmm, lets contrast Iraq and Libya. There is a small outpost of ISIS in Libya because the victors in a civil war chose to fight each other. ISIS controls large swaths of Iraq because we forced regime change on Iraq, left behind a corrupt govt that excluded the highly organized and motivated sunnis.

I have to ask, have you figured out yet the thread is based on a lie?

And how, exactly, do you prove that without regime change in Iraq there would have been no ISIS?
 
And how, exactly, do you prove that without regime change in Iraq there would have been no ISIS?

oh jack, I thought you were making such progress when you called out the "typical conservative" who wanted to pretend gadaffi didn't blow up the pan am flight. ISIS is made up of the disgruntled sunnis that Iraq's president excluded from the govt. And jack, it bothers me I have to tell you that. That's something you should just know like gadaffi blowing up the pan am flight.
 
oh jack, I thought you were making such progress when you called out the "typical conservative" who wanted to pretend gadaffi didn't blow up the pan am flight. ISIS is made up of the disgruntled sunnis that Iraq's president excluded from the govt. And jack, it bothers me I have to tell you that. That's something you should just know like gadaffi blowing up the pan am flight.

I'll ask again. What proof is there Qaddafi ordered or financed that bombing? I lived this history. I was in the military when much of this history unfolded.

It is believed to be him because it happened when we were exercising navel rights in the Gulf of Sidra. We had already attacked Libya several times over this. The men caught, could have been acting alone. They may have been seeking revenge for the collateral damage of 15 civilians we killed in 1986, in events surrounding our exercise of the Gulf of Sidra.

In 1973 and 1980, Libya fired upon US planes flying across his claimed "Line of Death." Reagan, once president, wouldn't tolerate this. The rest of the world recognized a 12 mile limit, and Not Qaddafi's line of death. Starting late in 1981, we started military exercises in this region. We were attacked, and we attacked back. There were no more incidents after 1989. We already put Qaddafi in his place.

Qaddafi had the integrity to fight with his military. I don't believe he used terrorists.

He was also accused of this:

4 Guilty in Fatal 1986 Berlin Disco Bombing Linked to Libya - NYTimes.com

Which was two weeks after we killed an unknown number of people in Libya. Again, it could have been a revenge attack for our collateral damage.

As much as people want to pin these actions on Qaddafi, there isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we throw our system of justice out the window for what we believe rather than what we can prove?
 
I'll ask again. What proof is there Qaddafi ordered or financed that bombing? I lived this history. I was in the military when much of this history unfolded.

It is believed to be him because it happened when we were exercising navel rights in the Gulf of Sidra. We had already attacked Libya several times over this. The men caught, could have been acting alone. They may have been seeking revenge for the collateral damage of 15 civilians we killed in 1986, in events surrounding our exercise of the Gulf of Sidra.

In 1973 and 1980, Libya fired upon US planes flying across his claimed "Line of Death." Reagan, once president, wouldn't tolerate this. The rest of the world recognized a 12 mile limit, and Not Qaddafi's line of death. Starting late in 1981, we started military exercises in this region. We were attacked, and we attacked back. There were no more incidents after 1989. We already put Qaddafi in his place.

Qaddafi had the integrity to fight with his military. I don't believe he used terrorists.

He was also accused of this:

4 Guilty in Fatal 1986 Berlin Disco Bombing Linked to Libya - NYTimes.com

Which was two weeks after we killed an unknown number of people in Libya. Again, it could have been a revenge attack for our collateral damage.

As much as people want to pin these actions on Qaddafi, there isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we throw our system of justice out the window for what we believe rather than what we can prove?

lord, the help you need I cant provide.
 
lord, the help you need I cant provide.

Why?

Because my standard for evidence is greater than a hunch?

Because I don't convict just because I don't like someone?

What proof do you have?

What proof do you think I haven't seen?
 
Why?

Because my standard for evidence is greater than a hunch?

Because I don't convict just because I don't like someone?

What proof do you have?

What proof do you think I haven't seen?

Lord, I deal with obfuscators like you all the time. If you want to debate whether your new hero gadaffi is responsible for the pan am flight then feel free to post something to back up your "narrative". That's not my job. Its yours. But we both know you are not here to have an honest and intelligent conversation. you're here to obfuscate and deflect. So tell us again how your hero gadaffi had 'integrity to fight with his military' . And you 'believe' he didn't use terrorists. Hey remember when you believed saddam "did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites." I asked you back that up. You simply repeated it . And lord, I proved it was a lie. Oh and I asked you to back up your '"general told us/Syria" falsehood. You didn't back that up either. So you just don't get to post what you "want to believe" because you've proven integrity is not your strong suit..
 
Lord, I deal with obfuscators like you all the time.
Careful... Your ignorant bias is showing... You are assuming your bias as fact...

If you want to debate whether your new hero gadaffi is responsible for the pan am flight then feel free to post something to back up your "narrative". That's not my job. Its yours.

Qaddafi is hot my hero. He has some pretty bad qualities.

I am one who defends the truth, not matter how ugly it is. To use past assumptions as an excuse for immoral actions are not acceptable in my book.
What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

Are you supporting dictatorial type justice? Guilty till proven innocent?

But we both know you are not here to have an honest and intelligent conversation. you're here to obfuscate and deflect. So tell us again how your hero gadaffi had 'integrity to fight with his military' . And you 'believe' he didn't use terrorists.
I see it is you who wish not to have a rational, honest, and intelligent conversation.

Just review our incidents militarily with Qaddafi. It appears your history in that area is weak, or nonexistent.

Hey remember when you believed saddam "did delay us for days, and even weeks at times at the sites." I asked you back that up. You simply repeated it . And lord, I proved it was a lie.
I'm not one who takes time to seek the internet for evidence about incidents I already debated years back. I remember those events. I remember the delays. I remember debating these things back then.

I find people often accuse others of how they feel.

Is Saddam your hero?

Oh and I asked you to back up your '"general told us/Syria" falsehood. You didn't back that up either. So you just don't get to post what you "want to believe" because you've proven integrity is not your strong suit..
That should be a simple search. Did you look?

In seconds, I found this:

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - The New York Sun

You can look for other stories yourself. You must be a young pup if you don't remember these events as they unfolded.

As hard as I looked, I cannot find any evidence that Qaddafi was named as committing these actions, except by a man who might gain his seat upon removal.
 
Back
Top Bottom