Sanders and Clinton Split on “Permanent War”

January 15th, 2016 - by admin

Robert Naiman / The Huffington Post & Robert Parry / Consortium News – 2016-01-15 00:23:11

MoveOn Members On Bernie Sanders:
‘He’ll Say No to Permanent War’

Robert Naiman / The Huffington Post

(January 13, 2016) — As Katrina vanden Heuvel has written [in The Nation], “The conventional wisdom is that [Hillary] Clinton benefits as voters grow more concerned about national security and terrorism. She is the most experienced of all the candidates.” But, vanden Heuvel argued, “as we have seen on domestic issues, experience is a mixed blessing when fundamental judgments have been wrong and counterproductive.”

It would appear that most members of MoveOn agree with vanden Heuvel on this point.

On January 12, MoveOn reported that Bernie Sanders had won their endorsement, with more than 78 percent of the vote in an online poll with record turnout. Hillary Clinton received 14.6 percent and Martin O’Malley received 0.9 percent, with 5.9 percent of votes cast in favor of not endorsing.

One of the top five reasons given by MoveOn members for endorsing Sanders was “He’ll say no to permanent war.”

One MoveOn member wrote, “He was also right about Iraq and I prefer his stance on foreign policy. I feel that he is concerned with getting our country on track and not getting us in more wars.” Another cited Sanders’ backing for “peaceful solutions to prevent war, such as his support for the Iran deal.”

Reporting on the top five reasons, Ilya Sheyman, Executive Director of Political Action, wrote:
Bernie Sanders has been a strong, consistent voice for the principle that war should always be a last resort. He had the foresight to vote against authorizing the war in Iraq in 2002, was a strong supporter of the nuclear deal to prevent war with Iran, and has been a voice of reason against escalation in Syria and other conflicts around the world.

A diplomacy-first foreign policy has long been one of MoveOn members’ top priorities, and Bernie has consistently stood with us against costly, needless, and unwise military escalation that puts our nation’s security and values at risk.

The New York Times reported that the MoveOn endorsement of Sanders was “not a surprise, given the time that the group has spent trying to find someone who could be a strong challenger to Mrs. Clinton from the left,” referring to the earlier MoveOn effort to draft Senator Elizabeth Warren to run. But the Times then noted: “where the endorsement could be helpful is in motivating volunteers and supporters to make calls and rally voters on Mr. Sanders’s behalf.”

MoveOn reports that it has 43,000 members in Iowa. The record turnout in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucus was 239,000; turnout in 2004 was 125,000.

A January 12 Quinnipiac University poll which generated headlines found that Sanders had the support of 49 percent of “likely Democratic Caucus participants,” with 44 percent for Clinton, 4 percent for O’Malley, 3 percent undecided.

The previous December 15 Quinnipiac poll found Clinton at 51%, with 40 percent for Sanders. Ignoring margin of error and assuming that all those numbers were accurate, the headlines were generated by the movement of roughly 8 percent of “likely Democratic Caucus participants,” from Clinton to Sanders. If 2016 turnout is more like 2008 turnout, that’s about 20,000 people. If 2016 turnout is more like 2004 turnout, that’s about 10,000 people.

Supposing that the national MoveOn vote to endorse Sanders was roughly reflective of MoveOn members in Iowa, there’s some 30,000 MoveOn members in Iowa who are already likely Sanders supporters and just need a friendly and familiar voice to nudge them to show up.

Thus, the headline-generating shift in the polls in Iowa is of the same order of magnitude as the number of Sanders supporters in Iowa that MoveOn can plausibly move to show up to the caucuses.

This suggests that the result of the Iowa caucus could upend not only the national media narrative about the candidates, but also the national media narrative about what Democratic voters are looking for from candidates on foreign policy.

If Sanders wins Iowa with MoveOn’s support, then MoveOn could use this to credibly claim, as vanden Heuvel suggested, that on foreign policy Democratic voters don’t value “experience” right now as much as they value “not getting us in more wars” and “peaceful solutions to prevent war,” like the Iran deal.

Robert Naiman is the Policy Director for Just Foreign Policy. Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter:

What Hillary Knew about Libya
Robert Parry / Consortium News

(January 12, 2016) — To justify US “regime changes,” the US government has routinely spread rumors and made other dubious claims which — even when later doubted or debunked — are left in place indefinitely as corrosive propaganda, eating away at the image of various “enemies” and deforming public opinion.

Even though this discredited propaganda can have a long half-life — continuing to contaminate the public’s ability to perceive reality for years — President Barack Obama and his administration have shown no inclination to undertake a kind of HAZMAT clean-up of the polluted information environment that American citizens have been forced to live in.

A recent case in point was the emergence — in the State Department’s New Year’s Eve release of more than 3,000 emails to and from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — of evidence that two key propaganda themes used to advance violent “regime change” in Libya in 2011 may have originated with rebel-inspired rumors passed on by Clinton’s private adviser Sidney Blumenthal.

A March 27, 2011 email from Blumenthal reminded Clinton that “I communicated more than a week ago on this story — [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi placing bodies to create PR stunts about supposed civilian casualties as a result of Allied bombing — though underlining it was a rumor. But now, as you know, [Defense Secretary] Robert Gates gives credence to it.”

Blumenthal’s email, which was slugged “Rumor: Q[addafi]’s rape policy,” then plunged ahead into his new rumor: “Sources now say, again rumor (that is, this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed independently by Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has even distributed Viagra to troops. The incident at the Tripoli press conference involving a woman claiming to be raped is likely to be part of a much larger outrage. Will seek further confirmation.”

A month later, this bizarre Viagra-rape angle became part of a United Nations presentation by then US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice who brought up the Viagra charge in a debate about the evils of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

President Barack Obama at the White House with National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Samantha Power (right), his UN ambassador. (Photo credit: Pete Souza)

A UN diplomat at the closed session on April 28, 2011, told The Guardian that “It was during a discussion about whether there is moral equivalence between the Gaddafi forces and the rebels. She listed human rights abuses by Gaddafi’s forces, including snipers shooting children in the street and the Viagra story.”

On Blumenthal’s other propaganda point, it’s not clear where Defense Secretary Gates got the idea to accuse Gaddafi of “staging” scenes of US-inflicted carnage, but Blumenthal’s email indicates that he was disseminating that rumor which might have been picked up by Gates, rather than independently confirmed by Gates. (It’s also true that the “staging” excuse has been used before when evidence emerges of US bombs killing civilians.)

Media Self-Interest
Yet, regardless of the truth or falsity of such US claims and counter-claims, the chance that someone inside Official Washington is going to review the lies and exaggerations used to rationalize a major US foreign policy initiative — in this case, the violent overthrow of the Gaddafi regime — to, in effect, “clear” Gaddafi’s name is remote at best.

The few cases of the media debunking US propaganda, such as exposing the made-up claims about Iraqi soldiers killing babies on incubators before the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, are rare exceptions to the rule.

Even rarer are cases when the US government admits that it relied on false information, such as the intelligence community recanting its pre-invasion claims about Iraq hiding WMD stockpiles in 2002-03.

The much more common approach is to simply leave the decaying propaganda in place and move on to the next target of opportunity. There is little benefit for anyone to undertake the painstaking work of separating whatever slices of truth exist within the rot of lies and exaggerations that were used to justify some war.

The way mainstream journalism usually works in America is that a reporter who challenges US government propaganda aimed at a foreign “enemy” is putting his or her career at risk. The reporter’s patriotism will be questioned amid suggestions that he or she is a “fill-in-the-blank-with-the-villain’s-name” apologist.

And since the reality — whatever it is — is usually fuzzy, there is almost never any vindication for a brave stance. So, the smart career play is to go along with the propaganda or stay silent.

A similar reality exists inside the US government. Honest intelligence analysts can expect no rewards if they debunk one of these propaganda themes, especially after a number of important US officials have gone out publicly and sold the falsehood to the people. Making the Secretary of State or the Defense Secretary or the President look bad is not a great career move.

France’s Designs
Plus, the propaganda themes, which stress American righteousness in standing up to foreign evil, are useful in obscuring the self-interested motives that often circle around a killing field like the one that Libya has become.

For instance, another Blumenthal memo to Clinton explained France’s political and pecuniary interests in toppling Gaddafi and thus thwarting his ambitious plans to use Libya’s oil wealth as a means of freeing parts of Africa from French domination.

In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons were reporting that “Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver” and the hoard had been moved from the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli closer to the border with Niger and Chad.

“This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).”

Blumenthal then added that “According to knowledgeable individuals, this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.”

The email added:
“According to these individuals, Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:
a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
b. Increase French influence in North Africa,
c. Improve his internal political situation in France,
d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”

In an earlier email, dated March 27, 2011, Blumenthal also discussed the French interests in the conflict, citing “knowledgeable individuals” who said that Sarkozy “is pressing to have France emerge from this crisis as the principal foreign ally of any new government that takes power.”

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this “regime change” by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya’s wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa — or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!

Seeing No Jihadists
In selling the Libyan policy to the American people, it was also important to downplay another part of the crisis: that Gaddafi was right when he warned of the danger from Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate, operating in eastern Libya.

Gaddafi’s original military offensive was aimed at these groups, but the Obama administration’s propagandists twisted the issue into Gaddafi supposedly committing “genocide” against the people of eastern Libya, thus requiring a US-led “responsibility to protect” or “R2P” mission.

However, in the emails to Clinton, Blumenthal conveyed the actual reality — that these supposedly innocent anti-Gaddafi rebels in the east indeed included jihadist elements. He wrote: “Sarkozy is also concerned about continuing reports that radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC [the rebel’s National Transitional Council] and its military command.

“Accordingly, he [Sarkozy] asked [a] sociologist … who has long established ties to Israel, Syria, and other nations in the Middle East, to use his contacts to determine the level of influence AQIM and other terrorist groups have inside of the NLC. Sarkozy also asked for reports setting out a clear picture of the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the rebel leadership.”

Blumenthal added:
“Senior European security officials caution that AQIM is watching developments in Libya, and elements of that organization have been in touch with tribes in the southeastern part of the country.

“These [European] officials are concerned that in a post-Qaddafi Libya, France and other western European countries must move quickly to ensure that the new government does not allow AQIM and others to set up small, semi-autonomous local entities — or ‘Caliphates’ — in the oil and gas producing regions of southeastern Libya.”

In other words, the danger of Islamic terror groups exploiting the power vacuum that the Obama administration and its Western allies were creating inside Libya was well understood in March 2011, but the supposed “R2P” mission pressed ahead nevertheless.

The “R2P” advocates also turned a blind eye to evidence that black Africans working for Gaddafi’s government were being systematically rounded up and murdered. As Blumenthal reported to Clinton, “Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting.”

These so-called “mercenaries” were contractors from black Africa where many people viewed Gaddafi as a champion of the continent’s development, independent of the former Western imperial powers and the harsh demands of the International Monetary Fund. While some of these blacks were part of Gaddafi’s security structure, others were involved in construction projects.

Whatever their assignments, executing prisoners of war is a war crime — and the image of US-backed rebels singling out black Africans for execution turns the pretense of an “R2P” mission on its head — or perhaps all those noble humanitarian arguments were just phony from the start.

As Brad Hoff of the Levant Report wrote, “historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the US backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.”

Reality’s Hard Sell
But it probably would have been a hard sell to the American people if the US government explained the dark side of the “R2P” mission — that it involved systematic executions of blacks and rapacious Western officials grasping for oil and gold — as well as creating a vacuum for jihadists. Instead, it worked much better to promote wild rumors about Gaddafi’s perfidy.

It is in this way that US citizens, the “We the People” who were supposed to be the nation’s sovereigns, are treated more like cattle herded to the slaughterhouse.

Some of us did try to warn the public about these risks. For instance, on March 25, 2011, days before Blumenthal’s emails, I described the hazard from the neocon “regime change” strategies in Libya and Syria, writing:
“In rallying US support for these rebellions, the neocons risked repeating the mistake they made by pushing the US invasion of Iraq. They succeeded in ousting Saddam Hussein, who had long been near the top of Israel’s enemies list, but the war also removed him as a bulwark against both Islamic extremists and Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf. …

“By embracing these uprisings, the neocons invited unintended consequences, including further Islamic radicalization of the region and deepening anti-Americanism. Indeed, a rebel victory over Gaddafi risked putting extremists from an al-Qaeda affiliate in a powerful position inside Libya.

“The major US news media aided the neocon cause by focusing on Gaddafi’s historic ties to terrorism, including the dubious charge that he was behind the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988. There was little attention paid to his more recent role in combating the surge in al-Qaeda activity, especially in eastern Libya, the base of the revolt against him.”
[See’s “Neocons Regroup on Libyan War.”]

Though the 2011 concerns about Al Qaeda have since morphed into worries about its spinoff, the Islamic State, the larger point remains valid regarding Libya, which descended into the status of failed state after Gaddafi’s ouster and his brutal torture-murder on Oct. 20, 2011. Secretary Clinton greeted the news of Gaddafi’s demise with glee, exulting, “we came, we saw, he died” and then laughed. [See’s “Hillary Clinton’s Failed Libya Doctrine.”]

More than four years later, the Obama administration still struggles to piece together some order from the chaos in Libya, where Western governments have even abandoned their Tripoli embassies. Meanwhile, the Islamic State and other jihadist groups continue to expand their control of Libyan territory.

In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad has hung on despite continued efforts by the Obama administration and its regional Sunni allies to remove him. The four years of war — waged mostly by jihadists armed and financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Western powers — have killed a quarter million people and made millions homeless, now spreading the Mideast’s disorders into Europe where the refugee crisis is dividing the European Union.

Of course, in the US mainstream media, the Syrian deaths and destruction are blamed almost entirely on Assad, much as the conflict in Libya was blamed on Gaddafi and the US invasion of Iraq was blamed on Saddam Hussein. In the world created by US propaganda, it is always some other guy’s fault.

In the Syrian case, the major decaying propaganda theme that continues to contaminate public understanding of the crisis has been the accusation that Assad “gassed his own people” with sarin on Aug. 21, 2013.

Although independent evidence has long been pointing in the direction of a rebel provocation, perhaps aided by Turkey, the old rotting propaganda is routinely dug up by neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks to justify why “Assad must go!” [See’s “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case.”]

In the case of Libya, Blumenthal’s emails provide a useful window into what was actually happening behind the scenes — and what Secretary of State Clinton knew.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.