Senile Joe Biden was guilty of bloody crimes long before the Ukraine:
Do not stop at impeaching former President Clinton. Throw-in then-Senator Joe Biden, too. Long before Democrats placed all of their hopes on the Ukraine —— Biden claimed credit for President Clinton’s Balkan Adventure.
To be fair to Biden neither he nor his son made a buck in the Balkans. The Balkan Adventure was a straightforward foreign policy decision designed to kill Christians for Muslims.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Biden said that he was the catalyst that changed conditions in the Balkans. True, or untrue, Biden said he was the guy who told Bill Clinton what to do in Bosnia. Biden later watered down his catalyst comment. At the time I assumed Clinton told Biden “Stop horning in on my glory.”
If Biden was telling the truth he had to tell Clinton to use NATO to bomb Christians.
NOTE: The filthy Chicago sewer rat is safe from everything —— safe from killing Americans in Benghazi, safe from television mouths, safe from the law, and safe from impeachment. Even Obama’s so-called political brilliance is safe from criticism.
Not so with Senile Joe Biden and blood soaked Hillary Clinton. The old clown and the old hag are taking another run at the presidency. Not a naive ambition when you look at the rest of the wannabes.
I do not not have a prayer of seeing Biden or Clinton paying for their crimes. Television press barons will see to that.
The best I can do is cite their guilt in the hope a few younger American voters will learn exactly what voting for scum will get them:
Only in the most Orwellian of worlds could the same people who boasted laughingly of killing Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi greet Trump's take-out of Iranian terrorist Gen. Qassem Suleimani with pious outrage – but that, alas, is the world we inhabit.
In focusing on the obvious fiasco at Benghazi, we overlook the Obama administration's larger assault on Libya. Given the Democratic hysterics of the past week, the time seems right for a little reflection on this extraordinary misadventure.
In his March 2011 address to the nation, Barack Obama laid out the case for America's surprise military intervention in Libya. "We knew that if we … waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
The last time Gadhafi had gotten much play in the America media was 2003 when he was persuaded to abandon his WMD program. As recently as April 2009, Gadhafi's son had a friendly meeting with Hillary Clinton in Washington.
In September 2009, a Senate delegation led by John McCain met with Gadhafi in Tripoli and described his regime as "an important ally in the war on terrorism."
In early 2011, the goodwill Gadhafi had mustered suddenly lost all value. Obama asked America to believe he was committing the United States to war to prevent a Rwanda-sized stain on "the conscience of the world."
Instead of directing the attack against Gadhafi, an old-school Arab tyrant, Obama deferred to NATO and then lent America's ample air power to aid the Libyan insurgency.
As happened in Kosovo in 1999, the major media refused to challenge a Democratic president's account of impending genocide. Obama inflated the horror and assigned blame to just one of the two culpable parties, much as Clinton did in Kosovo.
For the Libyan conflict, Alan Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas and author of "The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention," did the calculations the media refused to do.
Writing in the Boston Globe just two weeks after the president's address on Libya, Kuperman made the simple point, "The best evidence that Gadhafi did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured."
No political partisan, Kuperman previously served as a legislative assistant to Democrat House Speaker Tom Foley and legislative director for then-Rep. Chuck Schumer.
What did happen in Libya, Kuperman explained, is that rebel forces, fearing imminent defeat, followed the Kosovo playbook and faked a humanitarian crisis.
On March 14, Soliman Bouchuiguir, president of the Libyan League for Human Rights in Geneva, told Reuters that if Gadhafi attacked Benghazi, there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.'' Four days later, the U.S. military started bombing.
On March 21, the New York Times reported, "The rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Gadhafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior."
That said, the Times and the other mainstream media largely kept their doubts on the back pages. Democrats in Congress kept quiet as well.
A month after the bombing started, Obama and his allies sent a letter to the international press, claiming, "The bloodbath that [Gadhafi] had promised to inflict on the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi has been prevented." In reality, the only people who promised bloodbaths were the rebel spokesmen and the Western leaders.
This absurd self-fulfilling fabrication would have been amusing were it not so lethal. By this time, Obama had to know the pretext for war was false, but he would continue to pursue it for another six deadly months.
"The biggest misconception about NATO's intervention," wrote Kuperman after the fact, "is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its neighbors."
In fact, Gadhafi did not attack peaceful protesters. The rebels started the violence, and Gadhafi responded. Barely six weeks after the rebellion started, Gadhafi had all but suppressed it at the cost of about 1,000 lives. Then NATO intervened.
On Oct. 20, 2011, NATO planes attacked a convoy among whose passengers was a desperate Gadhafi. He was hoping to find refuge in his birthplace, the Jarref Valley. That was not to be.
Gadhafi fled the shattered convoy on foot and hid in a drainpipe while his bodyguards tried and failed to hold off a local militia.
The militia members took Gadhafi prisoner, indelicately sodomized him with a knife, and captured it all on video. They then threw Gadhafi, still breathing, onto a pickup truck. When the truck pulled away, he promptly fell off.
This Keystone Cops-meets-Mad Max muddle was not quite the image of a new Libya the new Libya was hoping to project, so the prime minister claimed his troops killed Gadhafi in a crossfire. Lying had worked well in the past. Why stop now?
The Guardian headline captured the giddy mood in Washington: "Obama hails death of Moammar Gadhafi as foreign policy success: President warns other Middle Eastern dictators, particularly Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, that they could be next."
Ever the comedienne, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton summed up the administration's attitude best. Upon hearing of Gadhafi's death, she boasted laughingly on camera, "We came. We saw. He died."
My guess is that the families of Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith do not share Hillary's sense of humor.
