All errors should be reported to

Friday, May 18, 2018

How to tell people Obama screwed up in Libya

The media was so blind to the ineptitude of Barack Obama and his flunky Hillary that President Trump has to explain to the American people just what a fiasco Obama caused in Libya. Trump and his national security adviser John Bolton did so this week.

And they used the Wile E. Coyote media to get the message through.

Bolton went on Fox News on Sunday to discuss North Korea, and said, "We have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004. There are obviously differences. The Libyan program was much smaller, but that was basically the agreement that we made.."

Alarm bells went off in Pyongyang because of what happened to Libya.

After we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Moammar Gadhafi agreed to end his nuclear program. Iran did as well, but Iran resumed its program after the 2006 elections in which Democrats took over Congress.

Gadhafi played by the rules. Obama killed him in 2011. Iran broke the rules. Obama gave Iran $1.7 billion in unmarked bills, and permission to build nukes.

The New York Times was forced to explain this after Bolton brought it up.

"Why North Korea Is Angered by ‘Libya Model’ in Nuclear Talks," read the headline.

The Times revisionist history is not that Obama reneged on the deal.

"The United States and its European allies began a military action against Libya in 2011 to prevent Colonel Qaddafi’s threatened massacre of civilians. President Obama acceded to arguments from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to join the European-led action," the Times said.

Acceded to arguments?




Trump has his work cut out for him trying to get Kim Jong Un to trust the United States.

Getting the truth about the Libyan deal in the public eye may help.


  1. threatened massacre of civilians?

    Qadaffy was so scared, he wasn't doin' nuffin.

    1. Except being a bit harsh on terms in British and French oil contracts.

      Libya was literally a war for oil, oil for French and British companies.

  2. "We came and saw, and killed him."
    Felonia von Pantsuit.
    -and gave his weapons to ISIS..

    1. "Your change, Madam Secretary."--some guy in Benghazi

      Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty were unavailable for comment.

  3. Libya is both inexplicable and the most catastrophic foreign policy mistake we have ever made. Inexplicable because Gaddafi had renounced nukes and terrorism and was helping us and the Brits with intel; he was popular with his people except for the fundamentalist extremist/separatists at war with him; and he had a pro-West, western-educated, reform-minded son in the wings waiting to take over from him. So why topple him? Toppling him was catastrophic in that the ensuing chaos led to the migrant invasion that spells the end of Europe as part of Western civilization. And, as the article points out, it also makes Kim mistrust us.

    Yet the media has never been curious as to why we joined the French and Brits to topple Gaddafi. Nor seemingly has been Congress. I have been looking for an explanation and all I find is Sarkozy wanted him gone cuz he owed him $35 mil. That doesn't explain British or American involvement. Speculation that Gaddaffi wanted to go off the dollar to gold. That should not have mattered to Obama since he was on record as not caring whether the dollar was the world's reserve currency. Then supposedly Sidney Blumenthal was in an oil deal with a Libyan not favored by Gaddafi. Yes, I think that would possibly have been enough to get Hillary to talk Obama into joining the French-British effort to topple Gaddafi. But no one has come up with a motive for the Brits' involvement. And all this needs much more examination.

    Such a consequential action and so little public curiosity or scrutiny as to its motivation! Why?

    1. The explanation is simple:

      Obama's "ArabSpring" was not about freedom, it was about giving the entire Mediterranean littoral (coastline) to Islam, and getting the Muslims to invade and destroy Europe.

    2. Ok. Who got what?

      And my question "why?" was why so little media or Congressional scrutiny of such a consequential action - even to this day? I used to follow British media every day, no curiosity there either except as to whether Britain had been using Libya for rendition. (It had. So, Britain also was treacherous as to Gaddafi.)

  4. Ghadaffi was killed to stop him from creating a gold backed currency.

    1. Geitner and Obama had said they didn't care if the dollar was no longer the reserve currency. The press didn't make a big deal of that - they should have. But I heard the statements when made by Geitner then confirmed by Obama.

  5. The Obama touch: Everything Barack Obama touches turns to sh*t.

    1. The French and Brits started this one.

    2. You won the the internet today, IQ!

  6. Quietly and barely sensed by reporters is the North Korea problem is not a Trump/Un matter, but Trump has enlisted China, South Korea and Japan in the matter. This goes a long way to reassure North Korea that they won't be subject to internationalist American Democrat treachery as those countries would limit arbitrary US adventurism. This is really needed as there are a lot of "experts" in the West who threw their reputation on NK and won't stop just because NK is no longer hostile.