RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "One could argue that those who devised and implemented the disastrous Libyan 'regime change' - the likes of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power - should be almost disqualified from playing any future role in U.S. foreign policy."

Hillary Clinton speaks at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., on Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015. (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)
Hillary Clinton speaks at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., on Saturday, Oct. 24, 2015. (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)


Hillary Clinton's Failed Libya 'Doctrine'

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

26 October 15

 

As the long-running Benghazi investigation returns to center stage with another round of Hillary Clinton’s testimony, the former Secretary of State’s larger failure remains obscured – how she once envisioned the bloody Libyan “regime change” as the start of a “Clinton Doctrine,” as Robert Parry reported last July.
(Originally published on July 1, 2015)

ecretary of State Hillary Clinton fancied the violent 2011 “regime change” in Libya such a triumph that her aides discussed labeling it the start of a “Clinton Doctrine,” according to released emails that urged her to claim credit when longtime Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was deposed. And Clinton did celebrate when Gaddafi was captured and murdered.

“We came; we saw; he died,” Clinton exulted in a TV interview after receiving word of Gaddafi’s death on Oct. 20, 2011, though it is not clear how much she knew about the grisly details, such as Gaddafi being sodomized with a knife before his execution.

Since then, the cascading Libyan chaos has turned the “regime change” from a positive notch on Clinton’s belt and into a black mark on her record. That violence has included the terrorist slaying of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, and jihadist killings across northern Africa, including the Islamic State’s decapitation of a group of Coptic Christians last February.

It turns out that Gaddafi’s warning about the need to crush Islamic terrorism in Libya’s east was well-founded although the Obama administration cited it as the pretext to justify its “humanitarian intervention” against Gaddafi. The vacuum created by the U.S.-led destruction of Gaddafi and his army drew in even more terrorists and extremists, forcing the United States and Western nations to abandon their embassies in Tripoli a year ago.

One could argue that those who devised and implemented the disastrous Libyan “regime change” – the likes of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power – should be almost disqualified from playing any future role in U.S. foreign policy. Instead, Clinton is the Democratic frontrunner to succeed Barack Obama as President and Power was promoted from Obama’s White House staff to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations — where she is at the center of other dangerous U.S. initiatives in seeking “regime change” in Syria and pulling off “regime change” in Ukraine.

In fairness, however, it should be noted that it has been the pattern in Official Washington over the past few decades for hawkish “regime change” advocates to fail upwards. With only a few exceptions, the government architects and the media promoters of the catastrophic Iraq War have escaped meaningful accountability and continue to be leading voices in setting U.S. foreign policy.

A Dubious Validation

In August 2011, Secretary of State Clinton saw the Libyan “regime change” as a resounding validation of her foreign policy credentials, according to the emails released in June and described at the end of a New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt.

According to one email chain, her longtime friend and personal adviser Sidney Blumenthal praised the military success of the bombing campaign to destroy Gaddafi’s army and hailed the dictator’s impending ouster.

“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi 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 forwarded Blumenthal’s advice to Jake Sullivan, a close State Department aide. “Pls read below,” she wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic. That’s my hesitancy, since I’m not sure how many chances I’ll get.”

Sullivan responded, saying “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.”

However, when Gaddafi abandoned Tripoli that day, President Obama seized the moment to make a triumphant announcement. Clinton’s opportunity to highlight her joy at the Libyan “regime change” had to wait until Oct. 20, 2011, when Gaddafi was captured, tortured and murdered.

In a TV interview, Clinton celebrated the news when it appeared on her cell phone and even paraphrased Julius Caesar’s famous line after Roman forces achieved a resounding victory in 46 B.C. and he declared, “veni, vidi, vici” – “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Clinton’s reprise of Caesar’s boast went: “We came; we saw; he died.” She then laughed and clapped her hands.

Presumably, the “Clinton Doctrine” would have been a policy of “liberal interventionism” to achieve “regime change” in countries where there is some crisis in which the leader seeks to put down an internal security threat and where the United States objects to the action.

Of course, the Clinton Doctrine would be selective. It would not apply to brutal security crackdowns by U.S.-favored governments, say, Israel attacking Gaza or the Kiev regime in Ukraine slaughtering ethnic Russians in the east. But it’s likely, given the continuing bloodshed in Libya, that Hillary Clinton won’t be touting the “Clinton Doctrine” in her presidential campaign.



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+19 # Shades of gray matter 2015-10-26 09:28
The Clinton Doctrine: Exploit your role as Sec of State to bolster your run for Prez, national interests notwithstanding . They knew GOP would never come after her for overthrowing the Colonel, even though he had become a virtual ally. There may still be more that we don't know behind Libya policy, but Obama seems a willing partner to the mess. Hard to imagine Libya intervention done in isolation from horrifying entanglements in M.E. policy.
 
 
+5 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2015-10-26 09:45
Soloman she ain't.
 
 
+21 # jdd 2015-10-26 09:41
It is more disturbing that the Democrats, including Bernie and O'Malley have rallied around or given this warmonger a free pass. The Benghazi hearing were a failure, as Clinton was a able to avoid responsibility for the destruction of Libya and its conversion to a terrorist staging ground, as well as her complicity in pushing the false narrative of a demonstration about a video that went out of control. The failure of the Dem challengers to force Clinton to tell the truth may have handed her the nomination.
 
 
+21 # Karlus58 2015-10-26 11:16
I'm tired of this give us the truth! We should all understand the truth by now. Hey, the truth IS that our ignorant masses stand and cheer on the sidelines for war. They follow immoral leaders, these false prophets as they "shock and awe" and profess to be liberators. Onward Christian soldiers! Christ be damned! Peace is weak thinking.
 
 
+11 # Blackjack 2015-10-26 14:59
Karlus has it pegged. Someone please name a politician of national stature, within the last 40 years, who has had it right regarding national security. . .anybody. . .Dem or Repuke. They have all been classic failures. They are failures because our motives of imperialism and hegemony are out of whack with the needs of the U.S. and, for the most part, the world.
 
 
-4 # CurtW 2015-10-26 09:43
The bombing campaign was a military activity, conducted by the DoD. Hillary headed the DoS. Much of our foreign policy in recent years has been dominated by Pentagon decisions, not by State's. She claimed major credit for something in which she played a minor role.
 
 
+25 # harleysch 2015-10-26 09:54
It is incredible that one can speak of the "Clinton Doctrine" or the Pentagon as responsible for what happened in Libya.

Is the President nothing but a figurehead, a bystander?

Whether or not Obama was the author of regime change in Libya, he is the Commander-in-Ch ief, who is ultimately responsible for policy decisions made regarding Ukraine, Libya or Syria. The Congress has abdicated its Constitution role, as alone possessing the power to declare when military force is used, allowing the President a free hand in deploying U.S. military power. Obama, in the image of Bush, is the "Decider."

Why does almost everyone, from the GOP idiots on the Benghazi Committee, to Robert Parry, who knows better, to many who post on this site, ignore that it is Obama who is ultimately responsible for the war crimes conducted on his watch?
 
 
-2 # Puck 2015-10-26 10:41
Only Congress has the power to declare war(Const. Art. 1 sec. vii), but that power has not been legally construed to require the president to seek congressional approval for the use of military power. Indeed, given that threats to national security can be mounted and set in motion in far less time than Congress could even be called into session, it is essential that the president have the power to use military force WITHOUT congressional approval to protect national security. The DoS administers foreign policy; it does not have the power to order the use of force. Ultimately, the captain of the ship is held responsible for all actions of his command. What is or isn't a war crime is decided by international tribunal, not by bloviating bloggers like us.
 
 
+16 # jdd 2015-10-26 11:48
War was not declared. If you remember, Obama claimed that it was not necessary because "there were no boots on the ground," therefor he was able to bomb away against Qaddafi's forces and whichever civilians (estimated at 25,000) happened to be in the way, acting in effect as the rebel-terrorist air force.
 
 
+14 # REDPILLED 2015-10-26 12:20
Yep. This was yet ANOTHER illegal war of aggression, the supreme crime prosecuted by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals after World War II.

But U.S. media will never inform Americans that ALL their Presidents and their respective administrations have committed war crimes since at least 1943 (starting with the bombing of cities).
 
 
+1 # jdd 2015-10-26 16:27
What is or is not a war is defined by the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Tribunals.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2015-10-26 15:07
"Is the President nothing but a figurehead...?"

Basically, yes. The "shadow government" has been largely in control, especially of foreign policy, since at least 11/23/63.
 
 
+6 # nice2bgreat 2015-10-26 16:44
.
Don't discount the power of the President nor the Presidency.

The Executive Branch has enormous unilateral authority and effect.

It is why electing Bernie Sanders is so important.

Time to take the Presidency.
.
 
 
0 # John Escher 2015-10-26 19:46
Dere friends, Barack und Hill.
 
 
+3 # Bruce Gruber 2015-10-26 09:54
And the "repo" bully mentality goes on ... when will we learn?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1129951/posts
 
 
+1 # kalpal 2015-10-26 10:57
Freerepublic barred me many years ago. Seems I embarrassed too many posters by pointing out their ignorance and stupidity. Anyone who links to it distresses me.
 
 
0 # Bruce Gruber 2015-10-26 11:55
Saw the planes and heard the story from Lockheed personnel while doing work on site back ten years ago.
 
 
+3 # jsluka 2015-10-26 15:27
"When will we ever learn?", from "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" written by Pete Seeger in (1955) and famously sung by the Kingston Trio (1961) and Peter, Paul, and Mary (1962). We have certainly learned nothing about war - or at least preventing it - in the half-century since then.
 
 
+2 # Bruce Gruber 2015-10-27 03:48
BUT!! We have Bernie reminding us of the angst and anger, frustration and perception, dreams and determination, participation and enlightenment that formed the basis of commitment we cherish.

A unique understanding of the 'amazing grace' we place on the concept of republican democracy is our heritage. The struggles for equal rights, fought separated group by separate group, have empowered and motivated the world's peoples to our shores. We and they are ALL "dreamers" of what is possible.

Practically speaking, it is a hard road to ride. Resistance, inertia, uncertainty, fear and retribution enforce the 'pain' of change. But the old songs have carried us through the ages. Every once in a while we are reborn, rekindled, and reawakened to the cadence and harmony of hope.

There MUST be better days! I FEEL THE BERN!
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2015-10-26 10:14
quagmire in a quagmire - unknown poet
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2015-10-26 10:54
It's amazing to me that this readership thinks the Secretary of State holds all the power in foreign policy decisions. We have not, I assume, we have not received clearance to be briefed at the highest levels, and I assume we have no idea Libya's position re: our problems and responsibilitie s, and general hegemony in the Middle East either. Suddenly Hillary is the evil warmongering bitch. I seem to remember the entire country went marching off to war happily with Bush/Cheney and Obama, probably under the threat of death, continued so our plutocratic Kings could keep on keeping on. Instead of pointing fingers at Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, why not work on clean election legislation for openers, then get our collective asses down to the soup kitchens (any other day than Thanksgiving or Christmas please.)
 
 
+6 # bardphile 2015-10-26 11:33
Right. It's fun to pile the blame on individuals, but dangerous if we get too focused on personalities. Still, she bragged about killing the Colonel when it looked like a success, so she'll have to take the political consequences of a policy that failed bitterly.

I was in high school when another president who had big intentions in domestic policy quit in disgrace over his disastrous war policy. Obama is an introspective, aware person, or used to be; will his memoirs read like McNamara's, or like Cheney's? The former, I would think.
 
 
+9 # dbrize 2015-10-26 12:55
Quoting Skyelav:
It's amazing to me that this readership thinks the Secretary of State holds all the power in foreign policy decisions. We have not, I assume, we have not received clearance to be briefed at the highest levels, and I assume we have no idea Libya's position re: our problems and responsibilities, and general hegemony in the Middle East either. Suddenly Hillary is the evil warmongering bitch. I seem to remember the entire country went marching off to war happily with Bush/Cheney and Obama, probably under the threat of death, continued so our plutocratic Kings could keep on keeping on. Instead of pointing fingers at Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, why not work on clean election legislation for openers, then get our collective asses down to the soup kitchens (any other day than Thanksgiving or Christmas please.)


While you are commendably working the soup kitchens some of us will be working to prevent any more loss of innocent lives (including woman and children) from drone attacks and bombing runs.

Some of us will hold the SOS and Obama accountable for policy decisions that led to more turmoil in Libya that existed before.

Questions: No briefing required.

Name the country in the region where we've deposed a leader and it's better today?

Is Hillary a "warmongering bitch"? Those are your words. My answer is Hillary's own words, "We came, we saw, he died" followed by laughter. What war has she not supported?
 
 
+2 # jsluka 2015-10-26 15:29
Hey, that's the next POTUS yer talking about there! (LOL - or maybe COL, that's 'cry out loud').
 
 
+11 # Khidr 2015-10-26 12:07
Sudan, Somalia, Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,Yemen, (Iran future uncertain) regime changes, death, destruction, mayhem, refugees crises goes on. In my opinion Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Obama, Clinton, Netanyahu,Blair , Cameroon are all war criminals and should be tried at the International Court for crimes against humanity. Domestically we should try all the Neo cons, Neo Liberals, war hawks, AIPAC, for the international & domestic crimes and their part in planning, aiding & abetting in these crimes.
 
 
+3 # Dongi 2015-10-26 16:44
Right on, Khidr. They should be tried and if convicted, imprisoned for decades. All of them!!
 
 
0 # Bruce Gruber 2015-10-27 03:51
And, the oil rigs keep pumping ...
 
 
+7 # MDSolomon 2015-10-26 13:25
Hillary was just doing what she was told, by the central bankers for whom she works. Job #1 is destroying any nation that still controls its own central bank and currency. After using 9-11 as a premise to wipe out Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia, and Libya, there are only five sovereign nations left: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and Sudan--the official enemies list. http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-view-from-top-of-power-pyramid.html
 
 
+3 # cmp 2015-10-26 13:45
"Clinton Doctrine?"

Was it not Putin who initially set up the Iranians talk about a nuclear treaty with the US? .. And, was it not the same, who initilally worked with Syria to surrender their wmd?

Iraq is now buying almost all of it's weapons from Russia. .. And, the Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani is asking to do the same.

.. The Ukraine has been taking Western backed IMF loans, since the 90's.. How's that working out?

.. And mean while, Libya still burns. The "Clinton Doctrine" seems very highly dependent on Russia to clean up on it's death, destruction and continued misery.
 
 
+4 # geraldom 2015-10-26 14:19
It appears that diehard Bernie supporters have gotten through to him via people calling in to his campaign office. He's actually fighting back against her:

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-getting-a-little-more-pointed-on-175507987.html

When it comes to foreign policy, national security policy, and support for Wall Street and powerful corporations, HRC is their man (or should I say woman). Support for endless wars, continuation of U.S. world hegemony, illegal spying on U.S. citizens by the NSA and other intelligence agencies, powerful trade agreements like the TPP and the TTIP, will be a major part of her agenda. Her so-called recent statement that she did not support the current version of the TPP is just proof that she will say anything to win the presidency.

The biggest differences between HRC and the Republican Party, and be sure that they are important differences, will be the kind of judges that will be chosen to populate the federal court system, most especially SCOTUS, and possibly fighting for women's rights.

When it comes down to the Black-Lives-Mat ter movement, I am not certain whether she will act to support and protect the lives of black people and other minorities from police brutality or police murders. All I know is that if a black Democratic president and two black AGs have done little if anything to change what's been going on, I don't have much faith in HRC to do anything about it.
 
 
+5 # Activista 2015-10-26 14:56
"Clinton did celebrate when Gaddafi was captured and murdered." - Gaddafi being sodomized with a knife before his execution...
... most people knew that the goal in Libya and Syria is to destroy the country via civil war. Clinton is responsible.
 
 
+8 # Dongi 2015-10-26 16:50
She is a wicked woman like the witch from the west. She rolls up the bodies like a modern Genghis Khan and, somehow, many democrats still support her. Just what do they seek? Endless war?
 
 
+5 # John Escher 2015-10-26 19:34
Does power corrupt? Does absolute power absolutely corrupt? Did Hillary Clinton go from best student at Wellesley College to what Robert Parry describes here? Did Barack Obama go from editor of the Harvard Law Review to a warmongering murderer of innocents while spouting off all the time about our military as "the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen." Why would that be true? A higher rape rate?

Since I'm posing questions, here's another. Does anyone read Robert Parry? Why aren't his articles at the center of the current electoral process where they belong?
 
 
+3 # Bruce Gruber 2015-10-27 04:04
“First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal wrote on Aug. 22, 2011. “When Qaddafi 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 forwarded Blumenthal’s advice to Jake Sullivan, a close State Department aide. “Pls read below,” she wrote. “Sid makes a good case for what I should say, but it’s premised on being said after Q[addafi] goes, which will make it more dramatic. That’s my hesitancy, since I’m not sure how many chances I’ll get.”

Sullivan responded, saying “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.”


Insert 'Haldeman' and 'Nixon" as appropriate to envision Machiavelli grinning and clapping with enthusiasm at our blindness to the reality of entitlement.

Where is Senator Warren?
FEEL THE BERN!
 
 
+3 # old codger 2015-10-27 14:06
America needs Sanders desperately ! The choice between the clown Trump and the incompetent Clinton is depressing !

It's a choice between which one would be the greater disaster !
 
 
0 # Bruce Gruber 2015-10-30 07:21
BUT ... the mainstream media, owned by the 1%, can barely allow Bernie's name to be mentioned on he air. Their burying of Bernie's efforts to combat racism

(https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/sanders-shares-the-stage-with-muslim-student-as-he-slams-racism-and-bigotry-in-political-speech/)

doesn't fit the neocon plan to perpetuate war and division in the Middle East ... nor world-wide women's rights issues ... nor public awareness or debate on the effects of plutocratic domination of information and politics.

Next (and before the 2016 election) stay alert to the increasing control of social media expression. Like China, Egypt, Korea, NYC, etc. - shutting down cell phones or 'adjusting' internet access are the tools designed to LIMIT or shut down free speech ... to maintain "order and control".
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN