Tag Archives: Libya

Reality Check: Lies Justify U.S. Air Strikes on Syria?

The U.S. seems to be stuck on repeat.

Our government and our media have been peddling lies to justify war, from WMDs in Iraq to humanitarian intervention in Libya.

The latest? A U.S.-led missile strike on Syria for the alleged use chemical weapons on civilians. This, just a week after President Trump said we were ready to get our troops out of that country.

Time and time again, history has proven that our government has made the wrong choice in its efforts to overthrow authoritarian governments in the Middle East, from Iraq to Libya, and now Syria.

But this time, the U.S. is meddling in a country where multiple countries are playing out a proxy war, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Not to mention the heightened tensions from our president calling out Russia for its support of the Assad regime.

The big picture question: will we see this war escalate into a global conflict?

This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

So much has happened in Syria in the past two weeks: an alleged gas attack by the Assad regime, missile strikes blamed on Israel hit Syria and killed some 14 people, including Iranians, then President Trump announcing late Friday that the U.S. had launched its own missile attack on Syria in coordination with allies France and the United Kingdom.

Strong words from the president for not only Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, but also for his allies Iran and Russia.

As we reported last week, it was just a year ago that Trump authorized the first missile strike on Syria. So what did this new bombing involve?

Here’s what we know: the missile strikes hit just before dawn in Syria. They were carried out by manned U.S. military aircraft, and targeted an airfield, an alleged chemical weapons storage and manufacture facility, and command and control of the Syrian air defenses.

And while this barrage of air strikes is over, the pentagon did not rule out further strikes later.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis had previously stated that there was no evidence that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad used sarin gas on his own people. Now Mattis seems to be telling a different story.

To be clear, our government is claiming that there is evidence of a chlorine gas attack, and is framing this bombing as a retaliatory measure to stop Assad from gassing his own people, a humanitarian action.

Yet, as the financial times reported last Wednesday, it will take weeks to confirm if deadly gas was used, and by whom.

Again, Mattis said there is no evidence Assad used sarin gas on his own people. And why would Assad? What motive does the Syrian government have to gas attack civilians if it would only risk western retaliation?

Remember, the U.S., U.K. and France have been arming Syrian rebels bombing ISIS and putting boots on the ground in Syria for years. 2017 marked the first direct targeting of Assad’s government, and now this missile strike. Both labeled as humanitarian efforts.

But remember, the U.S. government has a history of taking humanitarian action without evidence.

Remember when Colin Powell and others in the Bush Administration said there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? He didn’t.

The lies continued, with claims that after our invasion of Iraq the extremists would be curtailed. Yet with some 4,500 American lives lost and $2.4 trillion spent, Iraq is still a mess.

And what about Libya? In an episode of Reality Check from early March, we covered the open market slave trade happening there as a result of U.S. intervention. Even former President Obama said the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi was his greatest single mistake in office.

Our elected leaders never seem to learn from these mistakes. And the mainstream media is severely failing in holding them accountable.

Case in point, these latest strikes were authorized by the president, not congress. Congressional leaders were notified by the vice president shortly before the airstrikes were carried out. And many members of congress were angry at the president for not getting congressional approval before taking action against Assad.

Back in 2013, Trump criticized then-President Obama on Twitter for even considering striking Syria without congressional approval, saying:

“The president must get congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”

What you need to know is that history tends to repeat itself, if we let it. Our government could very well be trying to do the same thing in Syria as it has done in Libya and Iraq.

And the trail goes back further. There’s a Wikileaks cable from 2006 detailing how to overthrow Assad, including radicalizing Islamists in the region.

Yet President Trump says this bombing was a targeted attack to stop the use of chemical weapons, that’s it. U.K. prime minister Theresa May took it further, stating that “this is not about regime change.”

It’s hard to believe when history tells a different story.

That’s Reality Check. Let’s talk about that on social media.

 

NOTE: The flag used in the graphics for this episode should have been the Syrian Arab Republic flag with two green stars, not the Syrian Interim Government flag with three red stars.

Vote: Do You Believe Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Actions Fueled The Libyan Slave Markets?

    Please pick one. Participation in this poll will enroll you in Ben Swann Truth In Media's free newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Reality Check: Obama/Clinton to Blame for Slave Markets in Libya?

It’s been three months since the media outcry over the open market slave trading in Libya and yet, the problem persists.

And the root cause of how these slave markets were created, thanks to U.S. foreign policy, has been ignored.

Do you want to end the slave trade in Libya?

We’ll tell you the biggest step toward making that happen… in a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

The video shocked the world. CNN posted the images: men who appeared to be sold at auction in Libya for $400. The grainy undercover video appears to show smugglers selling off a dozen men outside of the capital city Tripoli.

So how did we get here? Most media will tell you that Libya is the main transit point for refugees and migrants trying to reach Europe by sea.

According to Time, “In each of the last three years, 150,000 people have made the dangerous crossing across the Mediterranean Sea from Libya. For four years in a row, 3,000 refugees have died while attempting the journey, according to figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the U.N.’s migration agency.”

What’s more, according to a September report by the United Nations Human Rights Agency, there are estimates that “400,000 to almost one million people” are now bottled up Libya. “Detention centers are overrun and there are mounting reports of robbery, rape, and murder among migrants.”

Read just about any mainstream report on what is happening in Libya, and what you will not hear is who is responsible for the utter failure of Libya.

The policies that have created some of the most horrific conditions in the world fall squarely on the shoulders of former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Keep in mind, in 2003, under the Bush administration, the long time leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, had entered into an agreement where Gaddafi would give up any weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. would leave Gaddafi and Libya alone.

But under Obama and Clinton, the U.S. broke that agreement. In 2012 the U.S. insisted that there was an “Arab Spring” uprising taking place in Libya. There was not. As I reported at the time, the fighters attempting to overthrow Gaddafi were al Qaeda fighters.

Under Obama and Clinton, on March 21st of that year, a no fly zone was imposed over Libya. And then, seven months later, with the U.S. tracking a Gaddafi convoy, the Libyan leader was caught and killed in the streets.

Was Muammar Gaddafi a dictator? Yes. No question.

But was Libya under Gaddafi a relatively peaceful place? Yes.

Gaddafi actually promoted a Pan-Africanism, spoke out against anti-black Arab racism and was pushing for unified African currency.

Bragging about her so-called accomplishments after the fact, Hillary Clinton famously said… “We came, we saw, he died.” The problem is, so many others are dying now as a result.

In an interview after the leaving the White House, former President Obama called the overthrow of Gaddafi his greatest single mistake in office. While that is difficult to argue, what is truly stunning about that statement? The policy to overthrow Gaddafi was attempted again for the next four years by the Obama administration as they attempted to overthrow the Assad regime, even as Libya continued to slip deeper into chaos.

And that’s what you need to know. Because Obama is no longer president, Clinton is no longer secretary of state and Gaddafi is no longer alive.

The answer to how Libyans should fix what is happening in Libya is beyond me. But the answer as to what the U.S. should do about Libya is not.

If we want to prevent these chaotic failed states around the world, the U.S. must stop intervening and thereby creating them through the toppling of governments in the Middle East and Africa.

That’s Reality Check. Let’s talk about that, right now, on Twitter and Facebook.

Trump on Gaddafi in 2011: U.S. Should ‘Immediately Go into Libya, Knock This Guy Out’

In 2011, Donald Trump posted a videoblog, seen above, in which he passionately argued in favor of U.S. intervention in Libya, calling for Muammar Gaddafi to be taken out in a series of surgical strikes.

Gaddafi, in Libya, is killing thousands of people. Nobody knows how bad it is and we’re sitting around. We have soldiers all over the Middle East and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage. And that’s what it is, it’s a carnage,” said the Republican presidential candidate.

[RELATED: Trump Calls NATO ‘Obsolete’]

Now we should go in. We should stop this guy which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives. This is absolute nuts. We don’t want to get involved and you’re going to end up with something like you’ve never seen before. Now, ultimately the people will appreciate it and they’re going to end up taking over the country eventually. But the people will appreciate it and they should pay us back. But we have to go in to save these lives. These people are being slaughtered like animals,” he added.

Trump concluded, “We should, on a humanitarian basis, immediately go into Libya, knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively, and save the lives.

[RELATED: GOP Establishment Reportedly Considering Contested Convention to Counter Trump Win]

At CNN’s February 25 Republican presidential debate in Houston, rival GOP candidate and U.S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz accused Trump, who now says that taking out Gaddafi was a mistake, of flip-flopping.

You know, it’s interesting, Donald just said that he never came out in favor of toppling Gaddafi in Libya. … You can see and hear the exact words from Donald’s mouth. And I assume when he sees that interview, maybe he forgot about it, but I assume Donald will apologize where he sees that he said exactly that,” said Cruz, referencing the above-embedded video, according to Breitbart.

Trump said at that debate in February of this year, “But let me just tell you, Syria, he’s saying that I was in favor of Syria. He said I was in favor of Libya? I never discussed that subject. I was in favor of Libya? We would be so much better off if Gaddafi were in charge right now.

The fact check site PolitiFact gave Trump’s claim that he had never supported intervention in Libya a “pants on fire” rating.

For more election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Obama Defends US Involvement in Libya, Blames Europe for Aftermath

by Jason Ditz

A new round of wide-ranging comments on his assorted wars in The Atlantic saw President Obama defending America’s involvement in the 2011 NATO-imposed regime change in Libya, saying he had a UN mandate and it only cost $1 billion, which “is very cheap.”

And while Obama conceded that Libya turned into a “mess” in the aftermath, he sought to shift blame for that onto Europe, particularly Britain and France, saying he had “more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”

He was particularly open about France’s involvement, saying then-President Nicholas Sarkozy wanted to brag about all the flights France was launching, dispute waiting until the US wiped out all air defenses in the country. Obama said allowing France to take credit for more than they actually did was a way to “purchase France’s involvement” in the war.

He also took shots at British Prime Minister David Cameron, who he said “stopped paying attention” in Libya after the war, and ended up “distracted by a range of other things,” as well as other unnamed nations who were pushing the US to act but didn’t “have any skin in the game.”

Pentagon: Number of ISIS Fighters in Iraq, Syria Declining

By Jason Ditz

Desperate to claim some “progress” in the ongoing ISIS war, US defense officials are claiming that their assessment on the size of the ISIS force between Iraq and Syria has declined, and that the best estimates are now between 19,000 and 25,000 fighters.

In 2014, the intelligence estimate was that they believed there were around 20,000 ISIS fighters, though they later conceded that it could’ve been “as high as 31,000,” though there was never really a good effort to square the rather broad estimates.

In that regard, the claim of declining fighters might simply be untrue, with the 2016 estimate just the lower half of the over-broad 2014 estimate. US officials say they aren’t sure the reason of this, but say it could be a combination of the massive number of people they’re killing in airstrikes and efforts to make it harder to get into Syria.

The estimate also does not account for the soaring number of ISIS fighters outside of Iraq and Syria, with large numbers now in Libya, and significant affiliates also setting up shop in Yemen and Afghanistan. All told, ISIS is definitely getting bigger.

Jim Webb, Weighing Third-Party Bid, Says Clinton’s Policies Caused ‘Chaos in Libya’

Former Democratic Senator from Virginia Jim Webb, who said that his “views on many issues are not compatible with the power structure and nominating base of the Democratic Party” as he dropped out of the party’s 2016 presidential primary, is still considering launching an independent run for the White House.

On Saturday, he unleashed an attack via Facebook on Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record as Secretary of State, saying, “Hillary Clinton should be called to account for her inept leadership that brought about the chaos in Libya, and the power vacuums that resulted in the rest of the region. She’ll need better answers than the recent nonsensical comment that she advocated taking out Muammar Qadaffi in Libya in order to avert a situation like Syria. The predictable chaos in Libya was bad enough, but it also helped bring about the disaster in Syria. Who is taking her to task for this?

[RELATED: Jim Webb Withdraws from Democratic Primary, is Considering Independent Run]

Webb added, “Clinton talked at this last DNC debate about her failure as Secretary of State as if she was successful. While she held that office, the U.S. spent about $2 billion backing the Libyan uprising against Qadaffi. The uprising, which was part of the Arab Spring, led directly to Qaddafi being removed from power and killed by rebel forces in 2011. Now some 2,000 ISIS terrorists have established a foothold in Libya. Sophisticated weapons from Qaddafi’s arsenal—including up to 15,000 man-portable, surface-to-air missiles have apparently fallen into the hands of radical Islamists throughout the region. For a Secretary of State (and a Presidential administration) this is foreign policy leadership at its worst.

Webb, a highly-decorated Vietnam War veteran, Emmy Award winning journalist, and former Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, is expected to announce whether he will run for president as an independent at the beginning of 2016.

According to The Washington Post, in the key swing state of Virginia, a University of Mary Washington’s Center for Leadership and Media Studies poll found Webb at “between 13 and 19 percent” as an independent when pitted against theoretical Republican and Democratic challengers, suggesting that even a failed independent bid by Webb could impact the outcome of the 2016 presidential race.

Bloomberg Politics’ Ben Brody wrote, “Since dropping out of the race for the Democratic nomination, Webb has continued to maintain his Webb2016 website, which he has updated with posts about the possibilities of an independent run. On Twitter, he and his fans have been promoting a #WebbNation hashtag. A run by Webb, who often manages his own social media accounts and has also used them recently to promote a petition in favor of his run and to deliver kudos to Bernie Sanders in his battles with the Democratic National Committee (‘nothing more than an arm for the Clinton campaign,’ Webb tweeted), could further complicate the already unpredictable 2016 election.

For more election coverage, click here.

US Special Ops Kicked Out of Libya

by Jason Ditz

A US military ground operation began and ended without much fanfare earlier this week in Libya, the Pentagon admitted today, in a shockingly bungling effort to secretly establish a presence of US special forces in the country.

A group of about 20 US soldiers, armed with assault rifles and bulletproof vests, but conspicuously not wearing uniforms, showed up in the Wattiya airbase just south of Tripoli Monday. Pictures of the US troops were published by the Libyan Air Force on their Facebook page.

The Air Force pointed out the troops arrived with no coordination and apparently no approval, though the Pentagon claims to have gotten an okay from some government faction or other, but apparently not the right ones, as local commanders quickly demanded that the US troops leave, and the Pentagon says they did to “avoid conflict.”

Pentagon officials further claimed the deployment was a “training mission” aimed at enhancing ties with the Libyan National Army, but didn’t explain why they sent the troops in wholly unannounced, nor why the troops were clearly combat-ready but out of uniform.

Recent conferences on Libya among NATO members, including one earlier this month in Rome, have had several nations talking up the idea of sending troops. It is surprising to learn, then, that the US went first, bungling their way into Libya and almost immediately getting chased out.

State Dept. Acknowledges Security In Libya Has Been A Struggle Since Hillary’s Ill-Fated Intervention

By Steve Guest State Department spokesman John Kirby said that Libya “has struggled” to maintain a secure country since Hillary Clinton pushed for intervention to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

During Friday’s State Department briefing, Kirby claimed, “There’s a concerted effort by the international community to do what they can, to do what we must to try to get better security and stability there in Libya.”

The reporter asked Kirby, “What is your assessment did the security situation in Libya get better or worse after the intervention in 2011?”

Kirby responded, “After the intervention in 2011? I think we’ve all seen that Libya has struggled since 2011 but what I can tell you there is concerted effort by the United States and by many in the international community and we’re grateful to Italy for hosting this for hosting this conference early next week.”

“There’s a concerted effort by the international community to do what they can, to do what we must to try to get better security and stability there in Libya.”

The reporter followed up, “Is it correct that you can’t assess whether it got better or worse security wise in Libya since 2011?”

Kirby insisted, “What I can tell you is the situation in Libya remains fluid and it remains dynamic and we know that groups like ISIL try to use ungoverned spaces there as they have in Syria to try to propagate their own twisted form of ideology and violence.”

“What I can tell you is that the international community is working very, very hard to try to get better governance in Libya because we all understand what the stakes are.”

Follow Steve on Twitter

 

 

This article was republished with permission from The Daily Caller Foundation.

Ted Cruz: The Middle East was Safer Before The U.S. Toppled Hussein, Gaddafi

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) said on Thursday that he believes the Middle East was safer under the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi than it is now after intervention from the United States.

During an interview with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Cruz said his foreign policy is “the Reagan approach.” He said he promotes “peace through strength,” and he believes the U.S. “should be defending vital national security interests of this country.”

[pull_quote_center]We’ve seen a consistent mistake in foreign policy, we’ve seen Democrats and a lot of establishment Republicans in Washington get involved in toppling Middle Eastern governments, and it ends up benefiting the bad guys. It ends up handing them over to radical Islamic terrorists.[/pull_quote_center]

[RELATED: Truth in Media: The Origin of ISIS]

Scarborough asked whether Cruz believed the Middle East was safer when Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq and Muammar Gadhafi was in power in Libya, a question Scarborough said he has asked rival Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) along with other Democratic and Republican foreign policy experts.

“Of course it was,” Cruz answered. “That’s not even a close call.”

“Why won’t people say that?” Scarborough replied. “Because I couldn’t even get Rand to say it, but it’s important to admit, is it not, because isn’t this possibly where we’re guided in the future that maybe we don’t topple secular regimes, as offensive as they are.”

[RELATED: Reps Gabbard, Scott Introduce Bill to End U.S. Effort to ‘Overthrow Syrian Government of Assad’]

Cruz noted the cases of Egypt and Libya where the U.S. toppled dictators and as a result, Islamic terrorists were able to gain power, something he said President Obama along with rival candidates such as Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio promoted.

[pull_quote_center]Then you look at Syria. It seems Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and people like Senator Rubio have not learned the lessons of Libya and Egypt, because what are they trying to do – topple Assad. Now Assad is a bad man, he’s a monster, but if they succeed in toppling Assad, ISIS will take over Syria. It will be worse.[/pull_quote_center]

[RELATED: Reality Check: Proof The U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria]

“My view, instead of getting in the middle of a civil war in Syria, where we don’t have a dog in the fight, our focus should be on killing ISIS,” Cruz said. “Why? Because ISIS has declared war on America. They’re waging jihad. We shouldn’t keep trying to find these mythical moderate rebels, that we keep being told – like the purple unicorn – they’re going to exist, but they turn out to all be jihadists.”

For more election coverage, click here.

Jason Stapleton Explains the Hillary Scandal

Is Hillary Clinton guilty of lying to Congress and conspiring with some of its members to secretly sell weapons to Libyan and Syrian forces? Were those same weapons used to attack and kill our ambassador and 3 other Americans during the assault on Benghazi?

Until today, most of it was wild speculation. But Judge Andrew Napolitano says he now has proof “to a moral certainty” that proves just that.

Listen to Jason Each Day: Subscribe on Itunes

Licensed arms dealer Marc Turi has released emails proving that Mrs. Clinton, as well as a host of high ranking diplomats and members of Congress, conspired to ship guns to rebels in Libya and Syria without the approval of Congress and unbeknownst to the State Department.

According to Judge Napolitano, Hillary “ran a secret state department within the state department.”

If the Judge is correct Hillary Clinton has committed multiple felonies should face the music. Is there truly justice for the politically protected? Time will tell.

Listen to Jason Each Day: Subscribe on Itunes

Trey Gowdy: Benghazi Committee Lacks Authority To Subpoena Hillary’s Private Server

On Wednesday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said that while the House has the authority to subpoena Hillary Clinton’s private server, his committee has a “more limited jurisdiction.”

In an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Gowdy explained that although the Benghazi Committee lacks the authority under House rules, “most experts believe” that the House as an entity could issue a subpoena for the server.

I would think if you’re interested in national security breaches, and also the completeness of the public record, that you would want a neutral, detached arbiter as opposed to her own lawyer,” Gowdy said. “The lawyer’s obligation is to the client. I want someone with an obligation to my fellow citizens to say the public record is complete. I can’t just take her lawyer’s word for it.

Clinton’s personal email on a private server, which she used to conduct government business during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, was revealed in a report from the New York Times on March 2.

The Committee issued subpoenas on March 4, for all emails related to the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, from both Clinton and her staff members’ personal accounts.

On March 27, Gowdy released a statement revealing that Clinton deleted all of her emails, and wiped her server clean. Gowdy explained that while it is not clear exactly when Clinton chose to delete the emails, he believes it was after the State Department first requested that she make her emails public in October 2014.

On March 31, the Benghazi Committee formally requested a transcribed interview with Clinton. The interview would include questions over Clinton’s use of private email for government business, along with questions on why Clinton chose to delete all of the emails on her server, after she was aware that they had been subpoenaed by the Committee.

While Gowdy’s request said that the Committee was willing to schedule the interview at a time that was convenient for Clinton, it gave a deadline of May 1.

Politico reported that a spokesperson for the Committee said that Clinton has yet to answer the request for either the interview about the emails, or a public hearing on the 2012 attack in Benghazi.

Gowdy told Hewitt that including Clinton, he plans to interview several others, regarding the Benghazi attack, such as former  CIA deputy director Michael Morell, Clinton’s chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills and Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. The interview list will also include Sidney Blumenthal, who according to Politico, is a “longtime confidant of the Clintons whose hacked emails to Hillary Clinton first revealed the existence of her private account.”

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that it obtained letters, which revealed that congressional investigators wrote to Clinton in Dec. 2012, asking about her use of private email for government business.

The Times noted that it was not until March 2013, two months after Clinton left office, that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the author of the letter, received an answer from the State Department, which “ignored the question and provided no response.”

Truth in Media: The Origin of ISIS

In the latest episode of Truth in Media, Ben Swann investigates the origins of the militant group referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The name ISIS is one that every American knows,” Swann said “The biggest threat to our national security since Al-Qaeda, right? They are a brutal, savage group known for public beheadings and mass executions. They are the face of the new war on terror.”

Swann pointed out that while the U.S. Military is currently conducting airstrikes in Syria, in a supposed attempt to take out ISIS targets, the White House and U.S. military leaders are discussing possible boots on the ground in Iraq. These talks are arising just three years after President Obama declared that the war in Iraq was over.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told USA Today that in order to defeat ISIS, he believes the United States is looking at “a 30-year-war.”

As the U.S. goes to war in an attempt to defeat yet another terrorist group, the biggest question is: Who exactly is ISIS and where did they come from?

Angela Keaton, the founder of Antiwar.com, said that ISIS is “entirely a creation of the United States’ behavior in Iraq.”

That’s how we got to where we are, because of war, because of occupation, because of torture,” Keaton said. “The United States government completely destabilized and wrecked Iraq. They caused it to fail miserably and that is entirely the fault of the United States government. There is no one else to blame.”

Swann explained that when the U.S. first invaded Iraq, it “blew the country apart.” By destroying the existing government, toppling Saddam Hussein, and destroying the infrastructure, the U.S. “left behind a power vacuum” that would never have existed under Hussein.

Daniel McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, said that the impact caused by the actions of the United States is a “historical fact that media just won’t discuss.”

This has to do with U.S. action in the region, which destroyed the infrastructure, which destroyed Iraq society, which destroyed the Iraqi government,” McAdams said. He explained that while there were a lot of people who weren’t “as happy as larks” while living under Saddam Hussein, they also weren’t at odds with Hussein in the same way they were with the government established by the U.S.

The militant group ISIS was formed as a small insurgent group in Iraq in 2006. Swann noted that while they tried to create problems for the U.S. military, they had no money and no real ability to recruit.

It wasn’t until 2009 that ISIS shifted its focus from Iraq, where it was largely unsuccessful in developing a foothold, and focused on the civil war in Syria,” Swann said.

While in Syria, ISIS still struggled to gain a foothold. Swann attributed this to the fact that two larger groups fighting against President Bashar al-Assad were overpowering them: al-Nusra Front – or al-Qaeda – and the Free Syrian Army.

Then, came a pivotal moment that most Americans aren’t even aware of,” Swann said. “In June 2013, a Northern General for the Free Syrian Army spoke out on Al Jazeera Qatar and stated that if international forces did not send weapons, the rebels attempting to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would lose their war within a month.”

Swann noted that just months before this occurred he had personally confronted President Obama on the issue of why the U.S. was covertly funding Syrian rebels. Although Obama acted as if he was proceeding with caution, politicians such as Senator John McCain demanded action.

Within a matter of weeks of the Syrian general making his plea for international help, the U.S., the Saudis, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and Israel began providing weapons, training and money to so-called rebel groups like the Free Syrian Army,” Swann said.

In September 2013, American media outlets began reporting that weapons were being given to Syrian rebels. CNN reported that while the weapons are not “American-made,” they were “funded and organized by the CIA.”

However, Swann said that things began to fall apart when less than one year after the U.S. supplied Syrian “freedom fighters” with weapons, those weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters.

Those ISIS fighters came from the group McCain insisted would help the U.S. overthrow Assad: the Free Syrian Army. Swann explained that the army was not only sending the Islamic State weapons, it was also sending them fighters.

The Free Syrian Army has lost most of the land that it ever claimed and it’s entirely incompetent,” Keaton said. “The only thing that it has been good at is currying favor with western leaders.”

Swann said that it wasn’t until June 2014 that ISIS went from being a “no-name group in Syria” to a group that was “heavily armed and trained by U.S. and Coalition Special Forces.” This revitalized group made a dramatic entrance by crossing back over the Syrian border into Iraq and capturing Mosul and much of the northern part of the country.

One of the most important facts that mainstream media ignores time and time again is that ISIS was able to grow so fast, because of all the U.S. military equipment they were able to seize – equipment that our military left in Iraq,” said Swann. “Truckloads of Humvees, tanks and weaponry that instead of taking or destroying, the U.S. government simply decided to leave behind.

However, even when the U.S. government became aware that ISIS fighters were capturing U.S. equipment, it did nothing. Swann attributed the lack of action to the fact that ISIS fighters were taking the equipment back into Syria to continue fighting Assad, which was what the U.S. government wanted.

How is it that the United States, with all of its intelligence capabilities, didn’t know this threat was coming?” McAdams said. “How many billions did we spend, maybe a hundred billion on total intelligence community budge over the year? How did they have no idea?”

Swann said that the answer is simple: “The U.S. did know who ISIS was, but the so-called Islamic State was doing what the Obama administration wanted.”

The ISIS fighters continued to do what the Obama administration wanted, and in late summer 2014, they were labeled what Swann called, “the new boogeyman in the war on terror.”

Over the past few months, the U.S. government, who acted like they had never even heard of ISIS, suddenly, with the help of media has turned the Islamic State into the new focus of the war on terror,” Swann said. “Now, as ISIS has continued its rise, recruitment is exploding and the group is becoming stunningly wealthy.”

Swann noted that in response to the “ISIS threat,” the U.S. began “conducting airstrikes on Syrian oil fields, instead of going after those buying the oil.”

McAdams pointed out that ISIS makes $2 million a day off of selling oil, and the United States’ response, of “undercutting the competition” by blowing up oil fields makes no sense. He questioned why the U.S., which is known for sanctioning “anything that moves,” when it’s angry, is not placing sanctions on the banks or the oil companies that are involved.

Swann added that in addition to those questions, Americans should also be asking, “Why is the U.S. sending $500 million to the Free Syrian Army to fight ISIS when the FSA is one of the biggest suppliers of fighters and weapons to ISIS?” and “Why are we sending new and more powerful weapons to the FSA like anti-aircraft missiles – weapons that we know will be in the hands of ISIS?

Swann maintained that while the mainstream media will say that ISIS is the “creation of American inaction,” the reality is that they are the “product of direct action.”

This direct action started with “the action of creating a power vacuum in Iraq” and manifested into the “arming violent Jihadists, hoping they would overthrow a leader in a neighboring Middle Eastern country.”

McAdams described the U.S. government as a victim of its own insane policies, due to the fact that it is “very good at blowing things up, but really bad at putting them back together.”

In determining whether or not McAdams’ statement was true, Swann listed three facts:

Fact #1: “Our government armed Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and created al-Qaeda.”

Fact #2: “Our government put Saddam Hussein into power – we helped supply and create chemical weapons for him to use against Iran in 1980 – and then we overthrew him in 2003.”

Fact #3: “Our government trained rebel fighters in Syria who would become the group today known as ISIS. We have watched them commit every violent atrocity you can imagine to people living in Iraq and Syria, and now we want American taxpayers to fund a 30-year war with them.”

Swann came to the conclusion that it isn’t the U.S. government being held hostage by crazy policies; rather it is the American people.

It is time that we reject the destruction of people groups around the world for the sake of foreign policy that makes so-called defense contractors rich, and perpetuates violence, death, and the destruction of entire people groups,” Swann said. “This is the central issue of our time – because humanity is greater than politics.”

Benghazi Committee Subpoenas Hillary Clinton’s Private Emails for Investigation

On Wednesday, the House Select Committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, issued subpoenas for the emails of Hillary Clinton, who used her private email account for government business, during her four years as U.S. Secretary of State.

The Washington Post reported that the Committee is asking for all e-mails related to the Benghazi attack “from all Clintonemail.com accounts and any other staff members’ personal accounts.”

The Associated Press reported that Clinton had a personal email server, which could be traced back to her home in Chappaqua, New York, and that the “unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official running her own email server” would have given Clinton “significant control over limiting access to her message archives.”

Jamal Ware, the Committee’s communications director, released a statement on Wednesday, announcing the Committee’s decision:

The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation. The Committee also has issued preservation letters to internet firms informing them of their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents.”

According to the Washington Post, after finding evidence that Clinton was using her personal email address to conduct government business, the Committee also found evidence suggesting that “at least a small group of Clinton staffers” used personal emails to “conduct government work and correspond with the secretary.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, defended Clinton, saying that her use of private email has been public knowledge for several years. He said he sees this as “an effort to go after Hillary Clinton, period.”

Patrick Peterson, chief executive of the Cybersecurity company Agari, told the Los Angeles Times that Clinton’s use of her private email raised several red flags, in terms of security and vulnerability.

We pay taxes to guarantee entire staffs monitoring this stuff, and here they are running off and doing it on their own,” Peterson said. “The real irony is she might have made it harder for us as a populace and citizens to legally discover her email contents, but this potentially increases the chances that China and Russia can get in.”

Clinton’s use of her private email for government business during her time as Secretary of State was first revealed by the New York Times on Monday. According to the Times, it wasn’t until two months ago that Clinton’s advisors “reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.”

The Associated Press noted that the questions surrounding Clinton’s decision “left the Obama administration in an awkward position,” and that the White House has said it is Clinton’s responsibility to “make sure any emails about official business weren’t deleted from her private server.”

 

March 9, 2015: UPDATE: Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Fired Ambassador for Using Private Email

March 10, 2015: UPDATE: Benghazi Chairman: There are “Huge Gaps” in Hillary Clinton’s Email Records

March 12, 2015: UPDATE: Fact Check: Holes in Hillary’s Email Story

“Hillary’s War” Backfires As US-Backed Libyan Rebel Leader Starts ISIS Offshoot in Libya

In February of this year, US Senator Rand Paul said that the US-led effort to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 destabilized the region and created what he called a “jihadist wonderland.” Said Rand Paul in comments quoted by The Wall Street Journal, “Gaddafi was a secular dictator… Not the kind of guy that we want to have representing us in country, but he was secular. He didn’t like radical Islam, and he kept them down because they were a threat to him. What happened when we toppled the secular dictator? Chaos. More radical Islam.” Senator Paul called the Libyan intervention “Hillary’s war,” noting the fact that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for the US to get involved in the conflict, and said that it had empowered and armed extremists that would later turn against the United States.

Now, The Washington Times is reporting that former US-backed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group leader Abdelhakim Belhadj has joined ISIS in an effort to lead a beefing-up of the terror group’s presence in Libya. ISIS has been attempting to spread its influence into Libya, beginning in late 2014 when ISIS occupied the Libyan city of Derna and began training fighters there. The Washington Times notes that ISIS’ strategy for expansion includes the incorporation of existing jihadist groups into a global caliphate, with the integration of Belhadj’s reported Libyan ISIS franchise falling in line with that plan.

Frank Gaffney, Jr. wrote in The Washington Times, “Belhadj’s ties to al Qaeda were controversial during the run up to US airstrikes in support of the Libyan rebels, but this did not prevent him from maintaining a high profile at the time, including being made head of the Tripoli Military Council, a position he held until resigning to run for office in May 2012. Belhadj has a reputation for involvement in the international jihad has well, playing a role in the 2004 Madrid train bombings, and accused by investigators of being involved in the murder of two Tunisian politicians at behest of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Newsweek notes that thousands of foreign fighters have flooded into Libya over the past few days in an effort to bolster Belhadj’s growing ISIS army. A “Libyan Dawn” coalition, made up of Belhadj’s group, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the al-Qaeda linked terror group Ansar al-Sharia, currently controls Tripoli and claims to be the official government of Libya, though the western-backed government of Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni has obtained UN recognition, setting up an intense conflict as ISIS begins its push for dominance in Libya.

New Truth in Media Episode: The Origins of ISIS Releases Next Week

Wednesday, February 25, 2015 the Truth in Media Project will release its newest episode, “The Origins of ISIS”. This episode will delve into the truth behind where ISIS came from in the first place and why the Islamic State is not a product of American “inaction” in Iraq and Syria but rather the product of “direct action”.

Sign up to receive the new episode direct to your inbox http://truthinmedia.com/newsletter

Libya and ISIS: “Not A Failed State, A Collapsed State” Thanks To U.S. and Nato

Washington D.C.- With all the talk about ISIS beheading 21 Coptic Christians in Libya over the weekend, mainstream media is pushing for more U.S. intervention.

While media and politicians are wringing their hands over the threat that ISIS now poses in Libya, which is directly across the Mediterranean Sea from Europe, they are not discussing “why” ISIS has such a foothold in Libya. Despite what the American public is being told, Libya is not a failed state, it is a collapsed state. One that was collapsed by the United States and Nato almost exactly 4 years ago.

In the video above, Ben Swann breaks down the timeline of events in which Nato and U.S. systematically crushed the nation of Libya and talks with Vijay Prashad, author of ‘Arab Spring, Libyan Winter,’ about America’s influence and policy, which he says has allowed for the growth of ISIS in the region. Prashad and Swann also discuss how blow-back is accelerating across the world.

Rand Paul releases own State of the Union speech

After President Obama gave his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, Senator Rand Paul released his own State of the Union speech online.

Paul starts by saying, “All is not well in America,” and from here he outlines what he thinks is wrong in the country.

The first thing Paul says is needed in America is “new leadership.” He does not mean get rid of the president, rather this is a call for a limit to the number of terms congressmen and other high ranking officials can serve. Currently, the U.S. has 11 people in the House or Senate who have served 35+ years as political leaders. Paul says by eliminating the limitless number of terms these leaders can have, new blood will flow into Washington, bringing fresh and new ideas.

As the president took time in his speech to outline his plan to continue to fight the war on poverty, Paul says he believes the war on poverty has failed. “Income inequality has worsened under this administration, and tonight, President Obama offers more of the same policies,” said Paul. “Policies which allow the poor to get poorer, and the rich to get richer…[Americans] don’t want a handout but a hand-up.”

Then, Paul takes a jab at Congress for their failure to balance the national budget, asking how Congress cannot balance a budget like every other American household? Paul says if Congress cannot balance the budget for one reason or another, an amendment should be added to make balancing the budget a mandatory act of Congress.

After mentioning an increase in the national debt, Paul calls out Hillary Clinton and what he calls her war in Libya. “Libya is now a jihadist wonderland,” says Paul, who then says we are more at risk for terrorist attacks “than ever before,” because of the actions in Libya.

Shortly afterward this mention, he says we need to not worry about the Middle East since war has been in the region for thousands of years, and instead we should worry about our issues here in the U.S.

Then in an odd instance, Paul seems to advocate for universal healthcare, but not President Obama’s version of healthcare. “It is a noble aspiration and a moral obligation to make sure our fellow man is provided for, that medical treatment is made available to all.”

While President Obama may have limited the choice of doctors available to some citizens, Paul says we should have the option to choose which doctor we want within our healthcare plan. “Everyone knows our healthcare system needed reforming, but it was the wrong prescription to choose more government instead of more consumer choice and competition. Obamacare restriction freedom…” Paul’s answer to fix the president’s healthcare plan, “Let’s try freedom again, it worked for over 200 years.”

A moment was also taken to propose a flat tax, as well as a cut to national spending.

In the last minutes of his speech, Paul rehashes many of his main talking points which have been seen in the news and heard in his many speeches. He wants to hold political leaders accountable for their actions, he asks how we can trust members of Congress since they only have a 10 percent approval rating, and then says the government has no right to collect our phone data and he backs this up with a mention of the Constitution.

Before ending, Paul says he will propose an audit of the Pentagon to “seek ways  to make our defense department more modern and efficient without breaking the bank.”

The speech does not seem to be a response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, rather it appears to be a gathering of all of Paul’s talking points over the last few years, compiled into one consistent speech. He doesn’t offer many counterpoints to the president’s speech, or alternatives to what the president said. Instead, he tries to strengthen his political stance on a few issues, and he attempts to reach the moderates who are upset with the state of politics in Washington.

Stolen Airplanes in Libya Raise Fear of 9/11-Style Attacks

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.

Over the past two weeks, intelligence reports of the stolen planes were handed out within the U.S. Government. Among the reports was a warning that one or more of the airplanes could be used in an attack later this month on the date marking the anniversaries of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, D.C. and the terrorist attack in Benghazi, said U.S. officials familiar with the reports.

“We found out on September 11 what can happen with hijacked planes,” said an official.

Read more here.