There is soooo much wrong with this glib statement, I don’t even know where to start. At a Commander-in-Chief Forum, Hillary Clinton claimed no lives were lost in Libya when she took out Gaddafi. In the strictest sense, that is true, but… it directly led to and caused the loss of four Americans in Benghazi.
She claims that Trump and her both saw Libya the same way. I’m not sure what Trump’s stance was on that, but it doesn’t matter. Taking out Muammar Gaddafi was the wrong thing to do at the time. He was backing down and cooperating with the US. He was taken out specifically for a political agenda by Clinton.
Remember how she laughed over his death: “We came, we saw, he died.” No candidate for the presidency should laugh and crow over killing someone else, even if it is the enemy. Especially if that someone else was someone who had just disarmed voluntarily the way Gaddafi did. He was a really bad guy and a total loon… but he would have been very valuable to us in the Middle East. Plus, Libya would not have melted down the way it did and given rise to ISIS. There’s always that little point.
Hillary Clinton declared during NBC News’s Commander-in-Chief forum that no lives were lost in Libya when she made the move to take out dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Even so, the former secretary of state did not mention the fact that 11 months later four Americans — including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens — were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi that arose from the instability that the overthrow created.
“With respect to Libya, again, there’s no difference between my opponent and myself,” Clinton stated, attempting to dismiss her hawkish-foreign policy record. “He’s on record extensively supporting intervention in Libya when Qaddafi was threatening to massacre his population. I put together a coalition that included NATO, included the Arab League, and we were able to save lives.”
“We did not lose a single American in that action,” she declared.
Clinton went on to say: “And I think taking that action was the right decision,” she continued. “Not taking it and permitting there to be an ongoing civil war in Libya would have been as dangerous and threatening as what we are now seeing in Syria.” Uh no… it would not. In fact, there is a strong argument Libya would have been a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
I have long contended the mess that Clinton created over there was twofold. She was gun running with the CIA, handing guns to radical Islamists that are our enemies, not our allies. Even the ones that claim to be allies want us dead. The second was that she was planning some kind of lucrative business deals in Libya with Sidney Blumenthal. That didn’t work either. Everything she touched over in Libya was literally a bloody mess. Now she’s trying to spin it as a success. No one’s buying the bullcrap the Hildabeast is selling here.