Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Legacy in Libya—A Failed State and Thousands of Dead Refugees!
Recent articles in the media portraying the horrendous deaths of African refugees transiting through Libya have once again placed a black stigmata upon Hillary’s non-existent legacy at the State Department. It is important in the world of national security to understand consequences of action or non-action. No country has better defined the limits of Hillary’s skills and intelligence than Libya. I am not talking about the well-versed narratives of Benghazi. Rather I am talking about the recent human tragedies multiplied into the thousands of ignominious episodes arising in different parts of Africa and resulting in illegal Libyan trading of refugees throughout the continent.

Without a central government of any authority, Libya has transmuted from a well-organized, even somewhat prosperous country under Colonel Qaddafi to one that has deteriorated into tribal conflicts marked by ancient blood feuds and a currency of transaction that considers dead or living refugees fleeing oppression or poverty into a monetary gain.

Hillary, along with the disingenuous, incompetent “Genocide-spouting” Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Advisor Susan Rice were the main proponent of dislodging a tenured leader for reasons that were at best naïve, if not completely distorted. However, ignoble Gadaffi may have been, he did provide for a unified society where tribal blood feuds were transformed into a patronage system which effectively allowed him to maintain control over a vast desert and keep some modicum of viability in Libya. Now, we and the world can witness, once again, what happens when an U.S invasion into a country has led to countless deaths of all types of Africans fleeing their respective dysfunctional countries from Somalia, Nigeria to Libya itself.  This also happened in Iraq, Afghanistan when again we were without legitimate interests other than the palaver of ‘we must get rid of despots.’
It is very easy to exert force and displace authoritarian leaders. It is much harder to think beforehand and exam the short and long term consequences of such an action. Hillary is known to be a certified ‘war hawk’ in the clearest sense of the word. Rather commit herself to the grueling intellectual /emotional examination of short and long term consequences of invading a country like Iraq and Libya, she reflexively kowtows to the neocon hysteria of war and more wars as evidence of American resolve and power. At the same time, many of the senior military officers who command our forces have always cautioned and tempered these civilian outcries for ‘action and more action’.
Over thirty years serving in national security, I have never met a competent senior military officer who urges war as a solution to economic/political conundrums. Usually, its those people who are ensconced in the national security apparatus that have urged military decapitation without really comprehending its direct and distant manifestations. However, inaction in the time of obvious mass slaughter is equally malfeasant.
Let me explain what I mean.

When the Hutus were about to slaughter the Tutsis with the help of the Chinese sending machetes and the French [Mitterand’s son] helping to gun down Tutsis, President Bill Clinton had sufficient warning to prevent this unconscionable slaughter of 800,000 innocent civilian victims. But he, under the direction of his wife, Hillary Clinton, refused to intercede in this eventual “African Genocide”. Either way, Hillary has shown herself to be inept in Foreign Policy by personal and professional disposition. 
She is bereft of intellectual gravitas. What she does well is to create the appearance of a dutiful Wesleyan College student who listens and absorbs the lessons of history. Yet she is completely incapable of formulating any type of coherent strategy or tactics. It may be inborn disorder of intellectual perspicacity. Whatever the reason, she speaks articulately about all matters that appear to be serious. Then when the time comes to act effectively and decisively, she fails time and time again; as if she were some form of an ‘idiot savant’ who knows the facts but misunderstands the reality of what she did or did not do.
That is her problem. Now it is our problem.
America has to really probe in depth into Hillary’s palaver not to embarrass her personally but to exam carefully why she has consistently appeared like Zelig in the span of historical change; but when called to action, she fails for want of trying or understanding the political dynamics of her action and inactions. She has refused to really understand her historical failures. Instead she has surrounded herself with high priced sycophants who will reassure her like Voltaire’s Candide—‘that what she has done is for the best’.

Noise and process are Hillary’s strong suites. The rest is vacuous shell of misunderstandings and failed actions upon the mantle of history. She has proven herself without any effective reality testing to be a person without gift or talents except the one: to self-aggrandize and tolerate ad hominum abuses.
I do not decry her for being a woman, a politician or any other persona she might want to assume. What I am simply saying is that Hillary has played out her part in history and has like many who have never been held accountable, she has failed by all accounts.... and will continue to do so, if elected to anything more than Jeb Bush’s having awarded her some nonsensical recognition as “A Great American”.

BTW, Jeb can also fit comfortably within the skeleton of the politically spoiled idiot savant, [as do his other three brothers].
 America, it’s time to demand new candidates and a new way of our maintaining our role as a Super Power in the 21st Century….other than brute force and military decapitations.
Our Republic deserves better and should strive to achieve it at all costs!


  1. I don't think Hilary will be the nominee. The Dems glomed onto Obama because of Hilary's hawkishness and lack of depth or charisma. She's only a strong candidate to bankers who she makes promises too... She has money and name recognition but when a non-hawk Dem appears who can capture the base it will run to that person like they ran to Obama...and now regret.

    The two to watch and who are high on the Koch bros. list are Scott Walker and Rand Paul.

    I think both are far better than any of the other Republicans. We'll have to see if the Dems field an alternative to Hilary but I think several could try. I like Brown in California more than before, and he's developed into a problem solver more concerned with solutions than politics --- the antithesis of Hilary.

    Hilary's strategy is to appeal to working Dems harmed by the New Economy her husband forged.... And since she left Arkansas hasn't given the time of day to anyone making less than $50 million a year!

    She thinks the public will believe anything because they did that with her husband, but she doesn't understand he is a sociopath pathological liar with great charm that she lacks entirely.

  2. As for Libya you don't have to be a hawk to have advocated to crush Kadaffi. I'm anything but a hawk [although I am a Nazi] and would have done the same and more with Kadaffi. I'm not that concerned what happens after him. This issue at the time was his slaughter, rampaging through his country like Santa Ana going from fort to fort and killing all who surrender....

    I don't care if who emerges after him is miserable. Once he undertook the slaughter there was no going back and Libya couldn't be put back together.

    Look American policy rarely ever is focused on stabilizing failed states... The only example I know of was Angola in 2001 when CIA gathered up all the remaining rebels in party camps and made the country safe for oil production again. That plan came from a proposal first made by American anthropologist Joseph Opala, who argued to DIA that the rebels in Sierra Leone could be rounded up into "party camps" [my term not his] and without his knowing about it CIA implimented this in Angola when Bush Jr. came in.... It ended 25 years of war.

    But if the US and NATO wanted to address Libya today they could put their thinking caps on and do something. Nothing has happened because it's not anyone's job, and someone needs to be tasked to do it.

    1. Dr. Opalla realized that negro rebels could be pacified by setting up camps and providing booze, girls and drugs.....

      It was a great idea and it works with negros!

    2. Baloney. Show me the evidence that Qaddafi was committing mass slaughter. There were incidents, but relatively minor compared to what was being portrayed in western media. Saif (Qaddafi's son) did admit on Libyan TV that certain police got out of hand (like we see here in the USA every day), but that they would be held accountable. As for the claims of Libyan jets strafing protesters on the ground, as widely reported by the lying western press, even Sec.Def. Gates had to admit there was no evidence of this.

      Let me suggest that, like the coke dealer who doesn't snort his own supply, CIA operatives shouldn't believe their own propaganda!

    3. As if "responsibility to protect" (R2P) is a sound foreign policy to begin with. As Libya demonstrates today, the road to hell is indeed paved with the "good" intentions of goody-two-shoe banshees like Samantha Powers...

  3. If America wanted to focus on a failed state it might think about Mexico for crying out loud.

    I remember all the way back to 1987 or so when the Mexican government kidnapped an American DEA agent, Enrique Camerena, and then delivered him to the Guadaljara Cartel who tortured him so badly they had to use a Medical Doctor to keep him from passing out under the torture...

    And as horrible as that was the US government and Reagan didn't lift a finger to blame anyone in the Mexican government or hold anyone accountable except the Mexican Doctor, who was kidnapped by the DEA and brought to Phoenix to stand trial.

    The US government is feckless about Mexico and lets them shit and piss all over allowing savage cartel criminals to range everywhere in America kidnapping, raping, and taking back to Mexico 30 billion in drug profits....

    What's worse is that all the progress of insurgency in Mexico from the 1960s and 1970s was erased in the 1990s and through today by the US open door immigration policy.

    This immigration of tens of millions of poor Mexicans has ended the rural insurgencies and land seizures which formerly racked the Mexican government and would have resulted in a civil war with the rise of the population of the last 20 years if it were not for US policy to allow all these people into the US instead.

    This is why the Mexican elites promote illegal immigration to the US.... Without it there would have been a revolution.

    1. As for Rwanda....

      The Clintons are to blame for holding up assistance and for blocking necessary measures which are triggered by the term "genocide," which they refused to acknowledge.

      Bill stopped his plane at the airport in Rwanda for an hour or two to apologize when he made his great Africa journey in which he was mobbed by a crowd in Ghana which nearly tore him limb from limb out of negro "enthusiasm."

      The end of their trip was a ten day layover in Botswana, a wonderful place for a safari or vacation. There they were hosted by the US Ambassador there at the time, Robert Krueger of New Braunfels, Texas, an old friend of mine and my family always supported his electoral campaigns. I've never asked Ambassador Krueger about his long visit with the Clintons, however I would not have envied him. I imagine they all spent their time counting elephants and other matters. The Clintons can be very amiable and pleasant company.

    2. The Hutto attacks on Tutsi in the Rwanda massacre was ended when the Tutsi militia tore through Rwanda ending it, and I assume it was US Covert Action which brought that about in the same way that British Covert Action ended the war in Sierra Leone....

      And of course the Tutsis under Paul Kagame then invaded eastern Congo where the fleeing Huttus had gone...and this and subsequent attacks by these Tutsis has been yet another holocaust...this time on the Huttus, and it was another previous holocaust on them by the Tutsis in the 1980s which prompted the Huttu massacres on Tutsis in 1994.

      So you see both sides have been slaughtering the other and it's only that one event in 1994 which the American public is aware taking one frame from a motion picture role of film and thinking it's the whole story...

      It isn't.

  4. That last picture is good and yes Jeb is idiot, he could be Brezhnev... Scott Walker is best option, he would rob everything from those Mexicans coming in and they would be happy, his only disadvantage could be because he maybe does not know how to cry. But even that is good, he would use that only for special moments. Only problem is that i think that ruling scum would want Jeb, Brezhnev is Brezhnev, politics is politics.

  5. She has gotten away with this stuff for 40 years. Like most of them, they were no shows when God handed out integrity as part of your character.

    If the last two decades did not tire the voters of the Bush Clinton crime syndicate then we are in deep excrement.

    I like Walker, I like Paul. I have benefited from being a union member but its time to be a right to work nation. The days of the unions are over, put a knife in it.

    1. you cannot talk like that before 15$ per hour is achieved...

  6. Will Americans' need for another "feel good" moment (to elect the first woman President) supercede their ability to reason, and compel them to vote for Hillary?
    And of the aforementioned, I wonder what percentage of American's take enough of an interest in U.S. foreign policy, and are able to; reason and come to the same conclusions as you Dr P?

    Or will they just vote female?

    Will they buy the spin that Hillary is very concerned about the shrinking middle class as opposed to maintainIng the status quo of Wall St. and the ruling elite like Rich who got his pardon from Bill?

    Time will tell.

  7. But if we end up with Hillary, we'll deserve her : /

  8. - first article about Hillary

  9. Qaddafi may have been as mad as a basket of Ferrets but Libya had a lot of good stuff going on. Free education all the way up to phd even if you went abroad, interest free Bank loans, starter homes for newly married couples and free health care. Regarding Libya and other similar states US and British foreign policy always takes the same form. It is like having a crazy guy at the end of your street, who you sell a shotgun and a machete then when he starts beating his wife and kids and causing trouble at the Pub.You go in blow up his house and all his neighbour's houses then steal his gas and electricity and rebuild the houses for some friends. Hilary like Bill appears to be made of Teflon I do not know what she would have to do to be discredited. I think she will be your new Prez as the elites like her and more simply she will raise the most cash for her election and the most money always wins. The only thing that might stop her, was if there was some Stephen King character from the 'Dead Zone', who shakes hands with her and thinks she will bring about Armageddon while having a hissy fit!

  10. I see that during a congressional hearing 'Bloggers' were compared to ISIS ( 'We would have got away with it but for those pesky kids!' D. Cheney on 9/11) Also that one of Dick's companies Haliburton has been awarded a $385m contract for 'Detention Centres' (that's a lot of detention!) What with all the bullets purchased, it is swirling around into a plan albeit a stoopid one. Maybe each Blogger will be assigned an armed Amazon Drone when they buy their conspiracy books. They always say there is a bullet with your name on it, my neighbours the Hollowpoints are very worried about these developments.

    1. I agree it's a quality post bill! You nailed any thoughts I may over had and more! As is Dr P's post! What seems the stand out fact in the main post is when it comes to leadership in a country Col Gaddafi knocks other leaders into a cocked hat! His welfare policies and keeping the tribal tensions to a minimum etc ect! Sound like the leader most of us in the West would crave for!! I wouldn't even label Hillary an "idiot savant" as she clearly lacks no talent in any subject except possibly the accumulation of air miles!!! Once again great posts all round