Clinton rages at Ron Johnson, rejects any notion of blowback in Libya

[compromise]

Hillary got really pissed at Sen. Ron Johnson (who voted for Rand's resolution opposing military intervention in Libya, co-wrote a letter with Rand to tell Obama to get out of Libya immediately and voted for Rand's legislation to end foreign aid to Libya, Pakistan and Egypt). She pretty much said she didn't care what the reasons were for the attack, and therefore will do nothing to prevent them in the future.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rGLQ63qUHHo

[Lucille]

Is anyone in CONgress mentioning this?:

In Algeria, More Blood on Hillary Clinton’s Head
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/22/in-algeria-more-blood-on-hillary-clintons-head/


I am mystified why, after the uproar of over the 4 Americans killed last September in Benghazi, Libya, that there is so little outrage against Hillary Clinton over the 37 dead hostages in Algeria. Clinton was gung-ho on bombing Qadaffi out of power and she gloated after he was killed. The attack in Algeria was only possible because of sophisticated weaponry captured after the fall of the Libyan government.

The Algerian government warned that this type of catastrophe would be inevitable if western powers intervened to overthrow the government of Libya. The New York Times noted a few days ago that the Algerian government’s attitude was “‘Please don’t intervene in Libya or you will create another Iraq on our border,’ said Geoff D. Porter, an Algeria expert and founder of North Africa Risk Consulting, which advises investors in the region. ‘And then, ‘Please don’t intervene in Mali or you will create a mess on our other border.’ But they were dismissed as nervous Nellies, and now Algeria says to the West: ‘Goddamn it, we told you so.’ ”

The result of the U.S. government’s intervention in Libya provided terrorist groups with more weapons than anything done by the two-bit offenders prosecuted for “material support of terrorism” in the past decade.

If Hillary Clinton cannot be indicted for “material support for terrorism,” then there is no justice….

[pochy1776]

How is the Obama administration gonna spin this? Isolationist republicans? We need more liberty republicans on the helm.

[Lucille]

A Clinton Scorned - "What Difference Does It Make"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-23/clinton-scorned-what-difference-does-it-make


Hell hath no fury... After an extensive 24,500 word hearing, it would appear we are not really any closer to knowing who knew what when and why we weren't told. However, while the invisible hand of the word-cloud fairy found it useful to highlight the words 'People', 'Think', and 'Know', perhaps it was Hilary's infuriated outburst (clip below) when pressed on what happened that sums it all up in her eyes: "What Difference Does It Make?" It seems that once again 'they' know what is best for us to know and not know... Furthermore, her discussion of the US growing presence in Africa fits tightly with our previous comments on the next investing horizon.
[...]
But perhaps the only relevant statement in the entire theatrical presentation was the following:


...we don't have assets of any significance right now on the African continent. We're only building that up.

And so what do we need in Africa?

What countries will welcome us there, give us, both our military and civilian teams, a good, safe base out of which to operate?

So we're focusing just on Africa, and particularly North Africa right now

Why is Africa suddenly so important to the US State Department (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/beijing-conference-see-how-china-quietly-took-over-africa)? Perhaps it has something to do with this...

Related:

Russia Accuses West Of Arming Mali "Al-Qaeda" Rebels
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-23/russia-accuses-west-arming-mali-al-qaeda-rebels


Define irony? Here is one, or rather two, tries.

Back in the 1970s, it was none other than the US that armed the Taliban "freedom fighters" fighting against the USSR in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, only to see these same freedom fighters eventually and furiously turn against the same US that provided them with arms and money, with what ended up being very catastrophic consequences, culminating with September 11.

Fast forward some 30 or more years and it is again the US which, under the guise of dreams and hopes of democracy and the end of a "dictatorial reign of terror", armed local insurgents in the Libyan war of "liberation" to overthrow the existing regime (and in the process liberate just a bit of Libya's oil) - the same Libya where shortly thereafter these same insurgents rose against their former sponsor, and killed the US ambassador in what has now become an epic foreign policy Snafu.

But it doesn't end there as according to Russia, it is the same US weapons that were provided to these Libyan "freedom fighters" that are now being used in what is rapidly becoming a war in Mali, involving not only assorted French regiments, but extensive US flip flops and boots on the ground.
[...]

Russia said on Wednesday the rebels fighting French and African troops in Mali are the same fighters the West armed in the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

"Those whom the French and Africans are fighting now in Mali are the [same] people who overthrew the Gaddafi regime, those that our Western partners armed so that they would overthrow the Gaddafi regime," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference.

"It's important to lift one's head a bit and look over the horizon, look at all those processes more widely, they are interconnected and carry very many threats," Lavrov said, speaking of unrest across the Middle East that could play into the hands of militants.

"This will be a time bomb for decades ahead," he said.


Like Bovard (http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/01/22/in-algeria-more-blood-on-hillary-clintons-head/) said, "If Hillary Clinton cannot be indicted for 'material support for terrorism,' then there is no justice…."

[Lucille]

Too bad Gillespie (http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/3-incredibly-outrageous-evasions-by-hill) wasn't grilling her:


Clinton's statement may set a new standard for politically motivated evasions of basic truth and decency. Seriously: What difference does it make? Just for low-stakes starters, there's a guy in California who was put in jail basically because the Obama administration said his stupid, irrelevant video trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims" was to blame for anti-Americanism in Libya and beyond. President Obama went to the United Nations and bitch-slapped free expression in front of a global audience on the premise that "Innocence" was the cause of the attack on Benghazi. Our own U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, took to the talk shows to peddle a line that was either wilfully misleading or simply totally wrong (Rice was the admin's point person in early appearances about Benghazi partly because, as Clinton explained yesterday, she doesn't like doing Sunday morning shows!).

Contra Clinton, it makes a great deal of difference because understanding how this all happened is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen over and over and over again.