Fidel Castro's 1994 Characterization of U.S. Political System Revisited

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro and supporters in 1994

In a January 28, 1994 speech in Havana--which the U.S. corporate media wasn't too interested in broadcasting--then-Cuban President Fidel Castro described the U.S. Power Elite's two-party political system in the following way:

"The United States also has one party, because the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are more alike than two drops of water.

"The empire is a single-party structure...The empire's role of world police is determined by a single-party structure. Just look at what's happening now, in 1994, now that the cold war is over and there's no socialist bloc, the Pentagon's funds haven't been touched, its budget hasn't been cut by so much as a red cent. Why else would it need such enormous armed forces if not to act as a world police force, if not to intervene worldwide. It's crystal-clear; the U.S. government cuts everything but the defense budget. It is truly incredible, completely bereft of logic, and after it has said the cold war is over. It looks like it is getting ready for a hot war against the Third World countries. That's why it wants military bases all over the place, because it wants to intervene everywhere..."

In the same speech, Castro also asserted that "because Cuba stands firm, because Cuba defends its sovereignty, because Cuba defends its independence, Cuba must be punished, blockaded, starved into surrender, blown up from within, so as to wipe out even the memory of Cuba because the U.S. government won't forgive Cuba for the way our heroic people have stood firm for the last 35 years." Castro also complained in 1994 that "they invade us through their mass media, they make us see not what we are interested in seeing but what they want us to see" and "through the transnational news agencies they control almost all the news and they give their self-interested versions of what is happening in the world." 

Democratic Party Leader Obama's 1990's Joyce Foundation Connection

"Non-profit" foundations that fail to pay a fair share of local, state and federal taxes, like the Chicago-based Joyce and MacArthur foundations, are supposed to be just politically non-partisan "charitable" organizations. Yet during the 1990's, both Joyce Foundation and MacArthur Foundation executives apparently helped launch Democratic Party leader and future Democratic President (and possible 2020 Democratic Party vice-presidential nominee/candidate?) Barack Obama's politically partisan office-seeking career; by arranging to have Obama sit on the Joyce Foundation's board of directors in 1994. As David Garrow noted in his 2017 Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama book:

"...Barack...talked [in 1994]...with Sokoni Karanja about a prospective leadership training and development project...Eighteen months earlier Sokoni had been awarded a $320,000 MacArthur Foundation `genius grant' and the Woods Fund already had committed a further $72,000 toward his effort...

"...Barack's range of acquaintances was growing too, and one of the most significant new onews was Deborah Leff...producer at ABC News before being recruited as president of the Joyce Foundation in 1992. Thanks to a family timber fortune, Joyce for a quarter century had been a significant grant maker...

"...Leff recommended Barack...as a...new board member...Barack's election to Joyce's board was announced just after Thanksgiving 1994."

The same book also recalled:

"Equally significant was Debbie Leff's recommendation of Barack to a pair of fellow presidents of prominent Chicago foundations, Adele Smith Simmons at MacArthur and Patricia A. Graham at Spencer. One year earlier publishing billionaire Walter Annenberg had pledged $500 million...Wieboldt Foundation executive director Anne Hallett had left that post to create a new national network...Professor Bill Ayers...immediately queried Hallett and new Joyce Foundation education program officer Warren Chapman about Annenberg's potential...They submitted a final proposal...requesting $49.2 million...Hallett and Ayers reached out to Patricia Graham at Spencer...

"A Chicago entity would be needed to administer the Annenberg grant...and Graham in turn asked her fellow foundation presidents Adele Simmons and Debbie Leff to join her. The three women met for breakfast in mid-December [1994], and then held several more meetings with Hallett and Ayers in early January [1995]...A local board for the new organization would have to be chosen, and Debbie strongly recommended Barack...Pat Graham agreed to ask Barack, and invited him to meet her for a mid-February [1995] dinner at a well-known Italina restaurant...

"At dinner that night with Barack, Pat Graham...popped the question, explaining how she, Debbie, and Adele all wanted him to chair the new Chicago Annenberg Challenge board...At another breakfast meeting, Pat, Debbie, and Anne introduced Barack and Bill Ayers to each other...Ayers was well known in Chicago...His father Thomas G. Ayers...had...been...the longtime head of Commonwealth Edison...

"...By mid-March [1995] a board...was in place, and at its first meeting, Pat Graham's motion to elect Barack as their chair was unanimously adopted...The Chicago Annenberg Challenge reached the midpoint of its five years in mid-1997, jsut as the board mad its largest allocation of dollars to date. Notable was a grant of $750,000 to Bill Ayers's {project]..."

Did Obama Falsely Claim Involvement in Columbia Students' 1980's Anti-Apartheid Divestment Movement?

Former Democratic President (and possible 2020 Democratic Party Vice-Presidential Nominee?) Barack Obama (who's now a Multi-Millionaire) apparently once claimed that he was "deeply involved" in the Columbia University students' anti-apartheid divestment movement during the 1980's. Yet according to David Garrow's 2017 Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama book:

"Obama would dramatically exaggerate his involvement in Columbia's divestment activism on several occasions, telling one interview that `I was a leader on the issues both at Occidental and at Columbia.' Talking about his two years there to a second questioner, Obama asserted that `while I was on campus, I was very active in a number of student movements,' and particularly `I was very active in the divestment movement on campus.' Several years later, on his first visit to South Africa, Obama declared that `I became deeply involved with the divestment movement,' and `i remember meeting with a group of ANC leaders' or at least `ANC members one day in New York City.' There are no contemporary records or other participants' memories that attest to any such encounter..."

During the 1980's in New York City, though, Obama did befriend Genevieve Cook--whose father was the Director General of Australia's Office of National Assessments [ONA], the country's top intelligence agency, between 1981 and 1989 and an Australian ambassador to the United States after 1989 for a few years (including the year that Australian troops joined U.S. troops in attacking Iraq in the 1991 "Kuwaitigate"/Gulf War) As David Garrow noted in the same 2017 book:

"...Sometime prior to New Year's Eve [in late December of 1983], his [Obama's] friend Andy Roth invited him to a party that Andy's brother was hosting on their 6th-floor apartment at 240 East 13th Street. Jon worked at Chanticleer Press...and other invitees included Genevieve Cook, a 25-year-old...who had worked at Chanticleer...She was born in 1958 to parents who were Australian: Helen Ibbitson, the daughter of a Melbourne banker, and Michael J. Cook, a conservative diplomat who would go on to head up Australia's top intelligence agency before serving 4 years as ambassador to the United States. Her parents had divorced when Genevieve was 10-years old, and Helen then married Philip C. Jessup Jr. an American lawyer and executive living in Jakarta during the 1970's...While she was at Swarthmore, her mother and stepfather Phil had moved from Jakarta to New York, and by late 1983 Genevieve was temporarily living in their spacious apartment on Park Avenue just below 90th Street...

"At the Roth brothers' party, Genevieve...and Obama struck up a conversation that lasted several hours after they discovered their mutual ties to Indonesia and expatriate similarities..."

1981-1989 Director-General of Australia's ONA Michael J. Cook

Why Millionaire Bernie Sanders Endorsed Hawk Democrat Biden For President In 2020

Democratic Party Loyalist  Sanders and Democratic U.S. Senate Leader Schumer

Some folks on the U.S. left have claimed in recent years that Millionaire Bernie Sanders is still some kind of a "politically independent socialist." But Democratic Party loyalist Sanders recently endorsed Hawk Democrat Joe Biden to be the next president of the United States.

In 2016, Sanders also ended up endorsing in the November 2016 general election for U.S. president another Hawk Democrat, Hillary Clinton, that he previously campaigned against in the Democratic Party's presidential primaries. And in his 2018-published post-2016 campaign book, Where We Go From Here, Sanders indicated how, in exchange for endorsing the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee, he was later able to join the Wall Street and Zionist lobby-backed Corporate Democratic Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, as part of the Democratic Party's leadership group in the U.S. Senate:

"...It is no small thing to be part of leadership...In addition, being chairman of outreach would give me additional resources as we traveled around the country...I asked Chuck to put me on the team...He concluded that it made sense for THE PARTY...Chuck Schumer became Senate Democratic leader in 2017 when Harry Reid retired. Harry served as majority leader when Democrats controlled the Senate. He and I were friends...I have known Chuck Schumer for 28 years, going back when we were both in the House of Representatives and served together on the House Banking Committee...We're friends and have worked well together."

In his same 2018 book, Millionaire Sanders recalled how he has apparently spent most of his adult life in perpetual individual political office-seeking, within U.S. imperialist society, in the state of Vermont; rather than actually working very much as an authentic grassroots anti-imperialist/antiwar left or peace movement community Movement organizer:

"As I assumed my place in the Senate Democratic Leadership, I thought back to the...road that got me to this position...I started in electoral politics in 1971, when...I ran for the U.S. Senate in Vermont...One year later, I ran for governor of Vermont...In 1974, I ran for Senate again and...in 1976, I ran for governor again...In 1981...friends suggested that I run for mayor of Burlington...A late endorsement by the Burlington Patrolman's Association, considered to be a conservative group, probably put us over the top...

"In Burlington...I won re-election in 1983 and 1985...In 1987...we won that election as well.

"In 1986, I ran for governor of Vermont...In 1988, I ran for an open seat in the U.S. Congress...In 1990, I became...elected to Congress. I ended up...in the House for 16 years.

"In 2006, Vermont's Senator Jim Jeffords retired, and I ran to replace him...In 2012, I won re-election...And now I was a member of the Senate Democratic Leadership..."

In his 2018 book Where We Go From Here, Senate Democratic Leadership member Sanders also indicated why--despite the claim of some folks on the U.S. left that Sanders is still some kind of "politically independent socialist"--this perpetual political office-seeker, who recently endorsed Hawk Democrat Biden for U.S. president, has actually been a Democratic Party loyalist and politically partisan Democratic Party partner for many years:

"...In Washington, I have been a member of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the 16 years I served there and a member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate for the last 12 years. Today, of course, I am a member of the Democratic Senate leadership team...

"In Vermont, I am strongly supported by the Vermont Democratic Party and have helped lead the effort to get Vermont Democrats elected to office, including the sate's last Democratic governor, the present lieutenant governor, and many members of the legislature. My campaign has made significant financial contributions to Vermont Democratic candidates, as well as large donations to the Vermont Democratic Party's coordinated campaigns...Given that reality, the state Democratic leadership and I agree that it would be absurd to have a Democrat run against me...For my last two Senate races, I have run in the Democratic primary, won it...and appeared on the ballot as an Independent. This is a strategy that works well for Vermont Democrats, for me..."

Millionaire Democratic Party loyalist Sanders's "strategy" of posing as a "political independent" on the November ballot in Vermont--despite perpetually running in the Democratic Party's primary in Vermont--may be "a strategy that works well for Vermont Democrats" and for him. But for grassroots anti-imperialist/antiwar left U.S. peace movement activists who--unlike Hawk Democrat Biden supporter Sanders--are authentic political independents, Sanders's historical "strategy" for individually monopolizing a Vermont seat in the U.S. Congress for decades seems morally unethical and politically manipulative. Which might be one reason why most anti-imperialist/antiwar left and U.S. peace Movement activists who are politically independent were not surprised after Sanders ended up endorsing Hawk Democrat Joe Biden for U.S. president in 2020.

Hawk Democrat Joe Biden's Pre-2010 Record On Foreign Policy Issues Revisited

Most U.S. peace movement and anti-imperialist/anti-war left movement supporters in the United States opposed the Democratic Clinton administration's decision to militarily attack people in Serbia in 1999 and the Republican Bush II-Cheney administration's decision to militarily attack and occupy Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

Yet former U.S. Vice-President and 2020 candidate for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination, Multi-Millionaire Joe Biden, supported the decision of the U.S. power elite's government officials to use its Pentagon war machine to attack Serbia in 1999, to attack Afghanistan in 2001 and to attack and occupy Iraq in 2003, when he was a U.S. Senator.

As Jules Witcover recalled in his 2010-published Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption book:

"With [Bill] Clinton assuming the presidency in early 1993, Biden...called for NATO air strikes on Serb positions...Biden joined his Delaware Republican colleague, Senator William Roth, in calling on NATO to bomb the Serbian heavy artillery...To Biden's chagrin, Milosevic remained Yugoslavia's...leader...In March 1999 Biden introduced a resolution in the Senate authorizing Clinton to take action...and with Clinton's approval NATO air strikes began. At one point Clinton told Biden he was considering halting the bombing, but Biden urged him otherwise...Biden continued to make trips to the Balkans, insisting that Milosevic be seized and turned over...for trial as the war criminal Biden had proclaimed him to be...

"...The Foreign Relations Committee [Joe Biden] moved quickly to demonstrate his solidarity with Bush administration in its response to...9/11. In October [2001] he [Biden] called Secretary of State [Colin] Powell before the committee and lauded him and the president...In early January [2002] he flew to the war zone...On leaving Kabul, Biden...emphasized that in his view U.S. participation in a multinational military force was essential to restore order against the Taliban, not simply as a peacekeeper but `with orders to shoot to kill. Absent that,' he said, `I don't see any hope for this country.'...

"...Biden held full Foreign Relations Committee hearings on July 31 [2002] and August 1 [2002]...Biden, in opening the hearings, seemed to accept the idea that the Iraqi dictator had the fearful weapons [of mass destruction]...Biden said, `These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power.'...

"...House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt persuaded his Senate counterpart, Tom Daschle, to urge fellow Democrats to vote for the Bush use-of-force resolution in October [2002], providing a congressional green light for the eventual invasion of Iraq...On October 10, 2002, the Bush war resolution passed the House, 296-133, and the next day the Senate, 77-23, with Biden voting for it...Biden then joined Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's eventual 2004 presidential nominee, and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York...in voting for the Bush resolution on the same dubious grounds...Biden resisted the notion, raised in the fall [of 2005] by Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, for an immediate drawdown of American forces in Iraq. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Biden said...`the hard truth is that our large military presence in Iraq is necessary.'...When liberal Democrats in Congress in 2007 sought to cut off funding for the war...Biden refused to use denial of funding as a tool to end the war..."

And as a U.S. Vice-President between 2009 and 2017, "Biden's recommendation...was a key ingredient in Obama's initial decision in his first few weeks as president to send 21,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan [in 2009]...," according to the same book.

Despite his pre-2010 record of pushing for and/or supporting morally wrong and militaristic White House foreign policy decisions prior to 2010 that violated the UN Charter, international law and the Nuremberg Accords, the 77-year-old Hawk Democrat Biden apparently still believes he's morally qualified to try to continue to position himself to become president of the United States on January 20, 2021. Yet, ironically, as Jules Witcover observed in his 2020 Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption book:

"According to an interview with Newsweek...Biden...told Obama [in 2008], `The good news is that, I'm 65 and you're not going to have to worry about my positioning myself to be president...'"

Perhaps the now multi-millionaire former U.S. president Obama-- whose Hawk Democratic administration initially escalated U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, continued to militarily occupy Iraq, waged drone war in Pakistan, waged war for regime change in Libya and initiated a covert war for regime change in Syria between 2009 and 2017--might not be worrying about Biden now attempting to position himself "to be president" in 2021?

But, given Joe Biden's pre-2010 record on foreign policy issues, U.S. peace movement and anti-war/anti-imperialist left activists should, perhaps, be worrying now about what kind of foreign policy decisions Hawk Democrat Biden will make if he moves into the White House oval office on January 20, 2021?

Revisiting Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton Administration's 2011 War for Regime Change in Libya: Conclusion

Nelson Mandela with Libyan government leader against whom Hawk Democrats launched 2011 war. 

The Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration ended its Operation Odyssey Dawn overt military attack on Libya on March 31, 2011. But, along with other NATO government administrations, it continued to wage its overt war for regime change in Libya under the code name “Operation Unified Protector,” after Apr. 1, 2011.

So Libyan government leader Qaddafi then sent a letter on Apr. 6, 2011 to Democratic President Obama requesting that the Democratic Party leader put an end to NATO intervention in Libya.

But instead of agreeing to end U.S. military intervention in Libya, on Apr. 7, 2011 the Obama-Biden-Clinton administration again demanded that Qaddafi abdicate power and live in exile; and it continued to wage its war for regime change in Libya until Qaddafi was finally murdered on Oct. 20, 2011, in violation of international law.

According to the 2015 RAND Project Air Force Precision and Purpose study, during the Operation Unified Protector phase that began in early April 2011, “U.S. forces flew more than 7,100 total sorties…which represented nearly 27 percent of the total sorties during the” NATO “operation.” But, according to the Sowing Chaos: Libya In The Wake of Humanitarian Intervention book, “more than 2,000 residents” of the Libyan “city of Sirte,” were “killed in NATO air strikes;” and, by waging its war for regime change in Libya in 2011, “NATO handed over part of Libya’s territory to Al Qaida.”

In his 2016 Sowing Chaos: Libya In The Wake of Humanitarian Intervention book, Paolo Sensini noted that “the jury is still out as to whether the war on Libya was fought” by the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration “on behalf of fossil fuel interests or on behalf of banking interests.” But Sensini also observed that “by means of Obama’s Executive Order 13566,” Libyan financial assets  belonging to “the Central Bank of Libya (CBS), the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), the Libya Foreign Bank, and the Libyan National Oil Company (LNOC)” were “frozen,” prior to the start of its Operation Odyssey Dawn military attack; and “in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Qaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.”

What has been determined, though, is that the Libyan “rebels” who, with the military support of Democratic Party leaders (like Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton), were finally able to overthrow the Qaddafi-led government by the fall of 2011, were apparently illegally armed and trained by government of Qatar. As the 2015 RAND Project Air Force Precision and Purpose study revealed:

“…The U.N…raised concerns about…Qatar making arms transfers in violation of the arms embargo…The U.N….was `clearly informed that several countries, including Qatar, were supporting the [Libyan] opposition through the deliveries of arms and ammunition.’…Between the beginning of the [Libyan] uprising and July 2011, `approximately 20 flights had delivered military material from Qatar to…[the opposition] in Libya, including French anti-tank weapon launchers (MILANs)…

“…Qatar had personnel on the ground in Benghazi training the opposition. Rebel forces openly remarked…how Qatar had been with them from the beginning.

“Operating in the range of 50 to 150 personnel on the ground at any one time, Qatar’s Special Forces (SF) were used to train the opposition in a variety of small arms and tactics…The SF provided…the means for rebel forces to successfully engage pro-Qaddafi forces. On the ground direct assistance…was conducted with the main rebel brigades. These advisory teams…provided the main link between rebel ground units and NATO’s air power…This was used to supplement NATO targeting…

“The first official admission of Qatar’s involvement in training the opposition forces came in late October [2011]…Qatari Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces Major-General Hamad bin Ali Al-Attiya remarked, `We were among them [the Libyan opposition forces] and the number of Qataris on the ground were hundreds in every region.’ He also noted that Qataris had been `running the training and communication operations’ and that `Qatar had supervised the rebels’ plans…`We acted as the link between the rebel and NATO forces.’…A team of 60 Qataris assisted the opposition in setting up command centers in Benghazi, Zintan, and Tripoli…Opposition forces were also flown back to Qatar for training…”

The pretext for launching the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration/NATO and Qatari governments’ 2011 “humanitarian military intervention” in Libya, despite the African Union’s March 11, 2011 call for no external foreign intervention in Libya, was that this war for regime change in Libya was needed to save the lives of Libyan civilians. Yet, as Seumas Milne observed in an op-ed column, titled “If The Libyan War Was About Saving Lives It Was A Catastrophic Failure,” that appeared in the Oct. 26, 2011 issue of the London Guardian, prior to the launching of the U.S./NATO’s “Operation Odyssey Dawn” on March 19, 2011 and “operation Unified Protector” after Apr. 1, 2011, “the death toll in Libya” was “perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by U.N. estimates).” But, according to the same column, during the 8 months that followed the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration/NATO’s overt “humanitarian” military intervention in Libya, “as NATO leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations,” estimates of the numbers of new dead “range from 10,000 up to 50,000;” and “of these, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by NATO bombings and NATO-backed forces on the ground.”

In addition, in his Oct. 26, 2011 London Guardian column, Seumas Milne also, for example, noted:

“On Tuesday, Human Rights Watch reported the discovery of 53 bodies, military and civilian, in Qaddafi’s last stronghold of Sirte, apparently executed—with their hands tied—by former rebel militia.

“Its investigator in Libya, Peter Bouckaert, told me yesterday that more bodies are continuing to be discovered in Sirte, where evidence suggests about 500 people, civilians and fighters have been killed in the last 10 days alone by shooting, shelling and NATO bombing…

“That has followed a 2-month-long siege and indiscriminate bombing of a city of 100,000 which has been reduced to a Grozny-like state of destruction by newly triumphant rebel troops with NATO air and Special Forces support…

“…African migrants and black Libyans have been subject to a relentless racist campaign of mass detention, lynchings and atrocities on the usually unfounded basis that they have been loyalist mercenaries. Such attacks continue, says Bouckaert, who witnessed militias from Misrata this week burning homes in Tawerga so that the town’s predominately black population—accused of backing Qaddafi—will be unable to return…”

Nearly 5 years after Democratic Party leaders like Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton launched their war for regime change in Libya, Chris Stephens noted in a Feb. 16, 2016 London Guardian article, titled “Five Years After Qaddafi, Libya’s Torn By Civil War And Battles With ISIS,” that “civil war” in Libya “has raged since the summer of 2014;” and “it is a war that has left 5,000 dead, the economy in ruins” and “half a million homeless.” So, not surprisingly, a Libyan medical student then told the London Guardian reporter that in Libya “some people say they want to go back to the time of Qaddafi.”

And as recently as July 9, 2019, even Al Jazeera now reported that “the battle between rival groups for the Libyan capital has killed more than 1,000 people since” April 2019, “the United Nations said;” and “the World Health Organization (WHO) said in a brief statement on Tuesday that 1,048 people, including 106 civilians, have been killed” in Libya since April 2019 and an additional 5,558 have been “wounded, including 289 civilians.” The same July 9, 2019 Al Jazeera article also noted that:

“Fighting has emptied entire neighborhoods of civilians. Thousands of African migrants captured by Libyan forces funded and trained by the European Union are trapped in detention centers near the front lines. An air raid on one facility last week killed more than 50 people mainly migrants held in a hangar that collapsed on top of them. Libya slid into chaos after the 2011 NATO-backed uprisings…”

2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Sanders and 2016 Democratic Party presidential Nominee Clinton at 2016 Democratic National Convention

(end of article)

Revisiting Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton Administration's 2011 War for Regime Change in Libya: Part 2

In his 2016 book, Sowing Chaos: Libya In The Wake of Humanitarian Intervention, Paolo Sensini noted that as early as Feb. 28 [2011], “Hillary Clinton made her first reference to the prospect of exile for Qaddafi.” The same book also indicated how the media was apparently used by the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration to apparently fabricate a “humanitarian” justification for its late March 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn military attack in support of regime change in Libya:

“On Feb. 23 [2011]…the [anti-regime Libyan] rebels killed a number of loyalist civilians and military personnel. The video images of the bodies were falsely presented by the Western media as evidence of the massacre of 10,000 unarmed civilians, carried out by Qaddafi’s black mercenaries. More lies would soon be disseminated. Another video showed `mass graves’ on Tripoli’s beach. These alleged shocking images, it was discovered, recorded a routine task—the shifting of remains at the Sidi Hamed cemetery. These two stories were clearly propaganda stunts. This didn’t prevent Obama from thundering against intolerable levels of violence on Qaddafi’s part…

“…The satellite TV station, Al Arabiya, spread the news of 10,000 dead and at least 50,000 wounded or maimed in Libya…Reports appeared about Libyan airstrikes against Tripoli and Benghazi. There was talk also of `mass graves.’…Have we seen any photographs or video footage of the February [2011] massacre of thousands of people in Tripoli? None. Images of the Libyan air force bombing three districts of Tripoli? Not one witness was produced…The Russian armed forces monitoring the skies of Libya reported that they had no evidence of any Libyan airstrikes against civilians…

“What about the seaside mass graves story? What we saw was a cemetery, Sidi Hamed, with individual (!) graves. The contents of the graves had been moved well before the crisis erupted. It was a routine operation…The remains are shifted to make room for new graves. Such operations take place every one or two decades…What of the massacres that Qaddafi is said to have ordered in eastern Libya in February [2011]? No evidence of these either. Not one image of these alleged massacres (not even a shaky, blurred shot) has been produced…When the revolt broke out, the police resisted the attack on their buildings…Some of the `rebel’ groups…used heavy arms to attack police stations…

“We owe the military action to a media campaign on a grand scale…The lies had to be repeated incessantly…Ghassan Bin Jiddo—director of Al Jazeera’s office in Beirut--…was disgusted at the conduct of his colleagues. He submitted his resignation on Apr. 23, 2011, accusing Al Jazeera of conducting a massive campaign of falsification of the facts…Bin Jiddo’s complaints above all addressed the manner in which the reports coming out of Libya were distorted and manipulated…Following Bin Jiddo’s lead, other colleagues quit their jobs…The Western press failed to relay this story…

“…The story of the 10,000 protesters slaughtered by Qaddafi went mainstream globally. The impression for most people was that the story was true, despite the absence of video footage, photographs or other tangible proof.

“Despite the lack of convincing evidence…the European Union and the United States immediately…called for military intervention to halt the slaughter.

“They had not even a second’s worth of footage to back them up. The reports were pure propaganda…”

Yet on March 3, 2011, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Democratic President Obama issued a statement which asserted that “Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power and leave.”

But even after the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration ended the “Operation Odyssey Dawn” phase of its 2011 war for regime change in Libya on March 31, 2011, the Libyan “rebels” that it was illegally supporting were still unable to overthrow the Libyan government that Qaddafi still led.So, not surprisingly, according to Paolo Sensini’s Sowing Chaos: Libya In The Wake of Humanitarian Intervention book, “American government officials told the Washington Post (March 30, 2011) on condition of anonymity that, `President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups.'”

Yet the same book also observed that “a FOIA document reveals” then-U.S. Secretary of State and later 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary “Clinton was aware in March 2011 that, on a routine basis, the rebel militias in Libya summarily executed captured fighters as pro-government mercenaries,” in violation of international law.

Nelson Mandela and Libyan leader whose regime Democratic Party leaders helped overthrow 

(end of part 2)

Revisiting Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton Administration's 2011 War for Regime Change in Libya: Part 1

Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power: Pushed For War For Regime Change in Libya in 2011

As Paolo Sensini recalled in his 2016 Book, Sowing Chaos: Libya In The Wake of Humanitarian Intervention, “on March 11 [2011], the African Union, meeting in Addis Ababa, rejected all external intervention in regard to the Libyan crisis” and “in just a few days” Libyan troops loyal to the Qaddafi regime in Libya “had retaken control of most of the country.” And the same book also observed that in the middle of March 2011 “pro-Qaddafi demonstrations were to be seen in many” Libyan “cities” and “to all appearances, Qaddafi’s victory was at hand.”

Yet despite the African Union’s March 11, 2011 rejection of external foreign overt military intervention in regard to the Libyan civil war, after Libyan troops loyal to the Qaddafi regime regained control of Brega on March 13, 2011 and regained control of Ajdabiya on March 16, 2011, the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration and its NATO allies began to overtly intervene militarily in Libya; and to overtly launch a 2011 war for regime change in Libya in the following way, according to the Sowing Chaos book:

“The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on March 17 [2011], imposing a no fly zone upon Libya…Soon after, the American Odyssey Dawn operation commenced. Naval units in the Mediterranean launched hundreds of Tomahawk missiles…”

As the 2015 RAND Project Air Force study, titled Precision and Purpose (which Johns Hopkins University Adjunct Professor and RAND Arroyo Center Strategy, Doctrine and Resources Program Director Karl P. Mueller edited), also noted:

“By March 14 [2011], Qaddafi’s troops were bearing down on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi…On March 19 [2011]…the United States fired over 100 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMs) at central nodes of Qaddafi’s air defense system along the Libyan coast…With Libya’s air defenses crippled, the coalition proceeded to fly multiple air strikes…including some B-2 bomber sorties launched from bases in the continental United States…The United States flew the vast majority of strike sorties…By midweek, the United States, added A-10 `Warhogs’ and AC-130 Spectre gunships to further enhance coalition capabilities against regime forces on the ground…

“…Operation Odyssey Dawn…was the code name for U.S. operations…Although the Defense Department named the U.S. intervention Operation Odyssey Dawn, Congress never endorsed the intervention…During Odyssey Dawn, the 603/617 Air Operation Center enabled more than 2,000 sorties and identified more than 1,400 targets…

“…The heaviest concentration of Tomahawk strikes took place near Tripoli and Misrata…U.S. Navy FA-18 G Growlers providing electronic warfare support, took place some 10 miles south of Benghazi…In the early hours of March 20 [2011], three B-2 Spirit bombers flying from Whiteman AFB targeted…near Sirte…The next day, Air Force F-15E strike Eagles…conducted strikes against fixed targets near Sirte…

“As many as 3,123 USAF personnel and 153 aircraft deployed to support Operation Odyssey Dawn; those aircraft flew…2,132 sorties. U.S. aircraft had employed 764 weapons and fired an additional 2,169 rounds of ammunition…On March 31 [2011], Odyssey Dawn drew to a close, and military operations in Libya continued under Operation Unified Protector…Of the 199 sea-launched cruise missiles fired in the first 10 days, 192 were American…”

Air Force Major General Who Planned 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn Aerial Attack ON Libya

Secret planning of the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration’s initial Operation Odyssey Dawn aerial attack on Libya to overthrow the Qaddafi regime (in apparent violation of both international law and the U.N. Charter, and without the authorization of the U.S. Congress) was apparently begun in mid-February 2011, around the time that the first street protests by Libyan opponents of then-existing Libyan government were held in Benghazi on Feb. 15, 2011. According to the 2015 Rand Project Air Force’s Precision and Purpose study, “in mid-February [2011],” the U.S. Major General who was the Operation Odyssey Dawn Air Component Commander, a woman named Margaret Woodward, “directed [AFAFRICA Director of Space Forces] Colonel [Vincent] Jefferson and her Air Operations Staff to begin planning for possible operations in Libya…”

At least four other women apparently also played significant historical roles in urging that U.S. Major General Margaret Woodward’s Operation Odyssey Dawn aerial attack on Libya plan be implemented in late March 2011. As the same 2015 RAND Project Air Force study, for example, recalled:

“In the weeks following the outbreak of fighting in Benghazi…Samantha Power, an aide on the national Security Council, and Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, were early and outspoken advocates of intervention within the U.S. government. Michele Flournoy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, worked more quietly behind the scenes…They gained traction with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the second week of March [2011]…President Obama agreed to authorize action…On March 17 [2011], the President authorized intervention…The willingness of the President…to assist with the overthrow of Qaddafi was clear well before his March 18 [2011] speech…On March 28 [2011], Obama raised Qaddafi’s downfall to the level of public policy…Three senior Obama administration officials (National Security Council staff member Samantha Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and Secretary of State Clinton) played important roles in convincing the President to go beyond the…approach…advocated by those reluctant to see America engaged in another war…”

Michelle Flournoy: Pushed For War For Regime Change In Libya In 2011

(end of part 1)

How Corporate Democratic Obama-Biden Administration Failed to Create Jobs For U.S. Workers

In 2019 some Democratic Party politicians have been claiming that their Billionaire-donor-funded political party serves the economic class interests of U.S. workers when a Corporate Democratic President occupies the White House oval office. Yet according to Jack Rasmus's 2012 Pluto Press book, Obama's Recovery: Recovery For The Few, during the first term of the 2009-2017 Corporate Democratic Obama-Biden Administration in Washington, D.C.:

"...More than a million additional jobs were...lost between December 2008 and June 2010 after Obama's $787 billion stimulus was introduced. Construction jobs declined from 6.83 million in December [2008] to 5.78 million by June 2010, a loss of 1.05 million jobs. Similarly, manufacturing jobs over the same 18-month period fell from 12.98 million to 11.60 million, a decline of 1.38 million...There was essentially no actual jobs creation program in Obama's initial economic recovery proposals of January 2009, or in the final version that was eventually passed by Congress in February 2009...For the entire year [of 2009], the first of Obama's term in office, total foreclosed properties were a record, 3,240,867, almost a million more than in 2008..."

The same book also indicated how the Corporate Democratic Obama-Biden Administration apparently served the special economic interests of Wall Street investment banks when a Corporate Democratic President occupied the White House oval office between 2009 and 2017:

"At the top of Obama's economic recovery priority list was the bank bailout--not job creation, not housing...It was no accident that the banking and finance industry was the single largest campaign contributor to Obama's 2008 election.

"...In 2008...the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP...was $700 billion in funds provided by Congress to the U.S. Treasury to buy banks' bad assets...

"The TARP approach to bank bailouts proved ineffective and politically risky...The $700 billion...raised taxpayer ire. TARP was too visible and thus was dangerous politically for administration and Congress alike. Using the Federal Reserve to bail out the banks was far less visible and preferable politically.

"...It wasn't until July 2010 that...it became public the Fed had spent $9 trillion on the bank bailouts up to that date...The Fed was insulated from electoral--and therefore Congressional--pressure to a large extent...The Federal Reserve could simply print money in the worst situation, if necessary, to bail out the financial sector...The U.S. government undertook...bank stress tests...in March [2009]...to...artificially boost bank stock prices...

"With more capital on hand from the stock appreciation and offerings, the banks loaned out the additional funds...to speculators like hedge funds, private equity firms and the like. The latter were busy speculating in Chinese property, foreign currencies, derivatives, swaps and similar investments. The banks that loaned them the funds in turn made nice profits, which further boosted their stock prices. Banks thus turned once again to the speculative investing that got them into trouble in the first place. The government turned a blind eye to the practice...The Fed charged the banks a mere 0.25 percent for banks to borrow funds from it. The banks then lent the money to speculators globally and received returns of 6 to 10 percent on average. Free money from the Fed for above-average market returns...

"So the method by which the banks and other financial institutions were effectively `rescued' or bailed out was...via...the Fed, through means of near zero cost loans, with interest paid to the banks on those loans, and via measures that artificially boasted bank stocks...such as phony stress tests and suspension of reasonable accounting rules..."

Black Worker "Not Seasonally Adjusted" Unemployment Rate Increases To 9.9 Percent In August 2015

Between July and August 2015, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all Black workers in the United States (youth, male and female) increased from 9.7 to 9.9 percent; while the jobless rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 8.6 to 8.9 percent during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” Bureau of Labor Statistics data. In addition, the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age increased from 31 to 32.4 percent between July and August 2015; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 8.7 to 9.1 percent.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” total number of unemployed Black workers (youth, male and female) in the United States increased by 33,000 (from 1,887,000 to 1,919,000) between July and August 2015; while the “not seasonally adjusted” number of Black workers who still had jobs decreased by 120,000 (from 17,649,000 to 17,529,000) during the same period.

Between July and August 2015, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latina female workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 7.3 to 7.4 percent; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Latino workers (youth, male and female) in the United States was still 6.6 percent in August 2015. In addition, the “not seasonally adjusted” number of unemployed Latina female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 11,000 (from 766,000 to 777,000) between July and August  2015; while the “not seasonally adjusted” total number of Latino workers (youth, male and female) who still had jobs decreased by 134,000 (from 24,478,000 to 24,344,000) during that same period.

The “not seasonally adjusted” number of Latino workers (youth, male and female) in the U.S. labor force decreased by 256,000 (from 26,334,000 to 26,078,000) between July and August 2015; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino males over 20 years-of-age was still 4.9 percent in August 2015. In addition, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latino youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age increased from 20.9 to 21.8 percent between July and August 2015; while the “not seasonally adjusted” number of Latino youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age who still had jobs decreased by 111,000 (from 1,033,000 to 922,000) during the same period..

The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 13.8 percent in August 2015; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all youths (Black, Latino, white and Asian-American) between 16 and 19 years-of-age in the United States was still 16.5 percent during that same month

The “not seasonally adjusted” number of Asian-American workers in the U.S. labor force decreased by 74,000 (from 9,181,000 to 9,107,000) between July and August 2015; while the unemployment rate for Asian-American workers was still 3.4 percent in August 2015, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age in the United States was still 4.5 percent in August 2015; while the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 3.8 percent during that same month. In addition, the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all white workers (youth, male and female) was still 4.5 percent in August 2015; while the “not seasonally adjusted” total number of white workers who still had jobs decreased by 435,000 (from 118,603,000 to 118,168,000) between July and August 2015..

Between July and August 2015, the “not seasonally adjusted” number of female workers over 16 years-of-age in the U.S. labor force decreased by 303,000 (from 73,696,000 to 73,393,000); while the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all female workers over 16 years-of-age in the United States was still 5.3 percent in August 2015.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all female workers over 20 years-of-age was still 5.1 percent in August 2015; while, the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all male workers over 16 years-of-age in the United States was still 4.9 percent during that same month. In addition, the official “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 4.4 percent during that same month.

Between July and August 2015, the “not seasonally adjusted” total number of workers in the United States who still had jobs decreased by 494,000 (from 149,722,000 to 149,228,000); while the “not seasonally adjusted” total number of workers in the U.S. labor force decreased by 1,137,000 (from 158,527,000 to 157,390,000) during the same period. In addition, a total of 8,162,000 workers in the United States were still unemployed in August 2015, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; and the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all U.S. workers (male, female and youth) was still 5.2 percent during that same month.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ September 4, 2015 press release:

“….Manufacturing and mining lost jobs….The rates for adult men (4.7 percent), adult women (4.7 percent), teenagers (16.9 percent), blacks (9.5 percent), Asians (3.5 percent) and Hispanics (6.6 percent) showed little change in August…

“The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) held at 2.2 million in August and accounted for 27.7 percent of the unemployed….The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in August at 6.5 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time unemployment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job…

“In August, 1.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force….These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey….Among the marginally attached, there were 624,000 discouraged workers in August….Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them….

“Manufacturing employment decreased by 17,000 in August….Job losses occurred in a number of component industries, including fabricated metal products and food manufacturing (-7,000 each)….Employment in mining fell in August (-9,000), with losses concentrated in support activities for mining (-7,000)….Employment in other major industries, including construction, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, and government, showed little change over the month….