Hillary's drive for war in Libya armed al-Qaeda-backed rebels

By driving the administration to intervention in Libya, arms from the U.S. and our allies in the region ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda-backed militias, according to a report in the Washington Times.

The paper has detailed Clinton's previously unknown actions in the lead up to the war in three part series. Today is the final installment.

The question that many in Congress might want to ask is if Clinton's determination to intervene in Libya eventually led to the attack on our compound in Beghazi.

Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power, that weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to al Qaeda, fearing that well-armed insurgents could create a safe haven for terrorists, according to secret intelligence reports obtained by The Washington Times.

The reports included a 16-page list of weapons that Libyans supposedly tracked to the rebels from Western sources or their allies in the region. The memos were corroborated by a U.S. intelligence asset familiar with the documents as well as former top Gadhafi regime official Mohammed Ismael.

NATO has given permission to a number of weapons-loaded aircraft to land at Benghazi airport and some Tunisian airports,” the intelligence report said, identifying masses of weapons including tanks and surface-to-air missiles.

That report, which was prepared in English so it could be passed by a U.S. intelligence asset to key members of Congress, identified specific air and sea shipments observed by Libyan intelligence moving weapons to the rebels trying to unseat the Gadhafi regime.

“There is a close link between al Qaeda, Jihadi organizations, and the opposition in Libya,” the report warned.

In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebels would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven.

Those fears would be realized a little over a year later when a band of jihadist insurgents attacked the State Department diplomatic post in Benghazi and a related CIA compound, killing four Americans including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Today, more than three years after Gadhafi fell from power and was killed, Benghazi and much of the rest of Libya remain in chaos, riddled with violence among rival tribes and thriving jihadi groups.

We should be wary of anything said by ex-Libyan officials, who may try to retroactively absolve themselves of blame.  Gaddafi was killing plenty of civilians as it was, and the question of whether he intended to commit genocide is still open, in my opinion.  The man acted irrationally at times, so anything was possible.

That said, Hillary Clinton has to own up to the Libyan fiasco.  Regardless of what you think of Gaddafi's intentions, supplying weapons to the jihadist militias was extremely dangerous.  The fact that we may have helped facilitate this transfer smears a lot of blood on Clinton's hands – including, indirectly, the blood of the four Americans who died in Bengahzi.

The press was uninterested in Obama's past when he ran for president in 2008.  Will there be a similar blackout on information regarding Clinton's actions in the lead-up to our intervention in Libya?

You can bet on it.

By driving the administration to intervention in Libya, arms from the U.S. and our allies in the region ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda-backed militias, according to a report in the Washington Times.

The paper has detailed Clinton's previously unknown actions in the lead up to the war in three part series. Today is the final installment.

The question that many in Congress might want to ask is if Clinton's determination to intervene in Libya eventually led to the attack on our compound in Beghazi.

Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power, that weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to al Qaeda, fearing that well-armed insurgents could create a safe haven for terrorists, according to secret intelligence reports obtained by The Washington Times.

The reports included a 16-page list of weapons that Libyans supposedly tracked to the rebels from Western sources or their allies in the region. The memos were corroborated by a U.S. intelligence asset familiar with the documents as well as former top Gadhafi regime official Mohammed Ismael.

NATO has given permission to a number of weapons-loaded aircraft to land at Benghazi airport and some Tunisian airports,” the intelligence report said, identifying masses of weapons including tanks and surface-to-air missiles.

That report, which was prepared in English so it could be passed by a U.S. intelligence asset to key members of Congress, identified specific air and sea shipments observed by Libyan intelligence moving weapons to the rebels trying to unseat the Gadhafi regime.

“There is a close link between al Qaeda, Jihadi organizations, and the opposition in Libya,” the report warned.

In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebels would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven.

Those fears would be realized a little over a year later when a band of jihadist insurgents attacked the State Department diplomatic post in Benghazi and a related CIA compound, killing four Americans including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Today, more than three years after Gadhafi fell from power and was killed, Benghazi and much of the rest of Libya remain in chaos, riddled with violence among rival tribes and thriving jihadi groups.

We should be wary of anything said by ex-Libyan officials, who may try to retroactively absolve themselves of blame.  Gaddafi was killing plenty of civilians as it was, and the question of whether he intended to commit genocide is still open, in my opinion.  The man acted irrationally at times, so anything was possible.

That said, Hillary Clinton has to own up to the Libyan fiasco.  Regardless of what you think of Gaddafi's intentions, supplying weapons to the jihadist militias was extremely dangerous.  The fact that we may have helped facilitate this transfer smears a lot of blood on Clinton's hands – including, indirectly, the blood of the four Americans who died in Bengahzi.

The press was uninterested in Obama's past when he ran for president in 2008.  Will there be a similar blackout on information regarding Clinton's actions in the lead-up to our intervention in Libya?

You can bet on it.