Category: Benghazi
US Trotskyism: Behind the Socialist Masquerade

Friday, October 14, 2016

US Trotskyism: Behind the Socialist Masquerade
Behind the Socialist Masquerade.
By Zoltan Zigedy / Source: Marxism-Leninism Today.
Ashley Smith recently wrote an essay (Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution) ostensibly about Syria and imperialism but more properly understood as a rekindling and re-statement of anti-Communist “leftism.”

Smith, an ideologue of the International Socialist Organization, unveils his true target when he inveighs against the “Stalinists”: “Stalinist groups like the Workers World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Freedom Road Socialist Organization…”
Not content with these examples, Smith, in McCarthy-like fashion, feels the necessity to name further names. He sees the UK’s Stop the War coalition as also duped by the Stalinists, along with the US United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC). Jill Stein of the Green Party and her Vice Presidential partner, Ajamu Baraka, are similarly infected with the “Stalinist” virus.
Laughably, he ominously links the recent bold, fact-finding mission to Syria organized by the US Peace Council to the “American Communist Party,” an association meant to conjure up the specter of Stalin; but it is an untenable association with a moribund CPUSA that has long distanced itself from “Stalinism” and the Soviet legacy with a fervor equal to the US Trotskyist groups.
Without re-visiting the old ideological wars (Trotsky has been dead for 76 years, Stalin for 63 years, and the Soviet Union for 25 years), it is nonetheless useful to point out a common characteristic shared by US Trotskyist organizations: they invariable live and breathe anti-Communism. Since the Cold War began, they traded on their distance from the “enemies” of Western Imperialism. The grip that these groups often had on middle class youth was predicated on the denial of Red connections.
For a university student, the McCarthyite stigma of Communism could be evaded by joining an anti-Communist organization that proclaimed that its anti-Communism was even more radical than Communism!US Trotskyism is part of the “Yes, but…” left. Yes, Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, etc. etc. are bad, but we’re not like that! Like you, we’re against them, too! We’re the unthreatening, friendly advocates for change…
In the Cold War period and after, this was a safe tactic to appear radical without poking the bear of repression. Of course it didn’t always fool those entrusted with thwarting even the most lame rejection of capitalism. Communists victimized by Cold War repression often joked that a US socialist was someone without the guts to be a Communist. The easy assimilation of much of the Trotskyist intellectual apparatus into the anti-Communist hierarchy and the subsequent entry of many into ruling circles certainly underscores the opportunism of this tactic.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union, US Trotskyism has been in crisis. With the departure of a foil of sheer evil, the appeal of anti-Communist radicalism has lost its punch. Apart from the intellectual Neanderthals serving Eastern European reaction (sponsored by the New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, and a few other inveterate anti-Communist organs), the epithet “Stalinist!” means little in current discourse.
Ashley Smith hopes to revive its relevance for the twenty-first century. He sets out to buttress Trotskyism as a thin and tortured alternative to the anti-imperialism of the “Stalinists.” As with his Cold War predecessors, Smith hopes to trade on distancing Trotskyism from the rivals or antagonists of US and European Imperialism. In the absence of a Soviet Union, capitalist Russia will suffice as the source of evil.
And Syria’s Assad will play the role of the bloodthirsty despot– a mini-Stalin– in this Trotskyist fantasy. Smith offers an unvarnished choice: “Which side are you on? Do you support the popular struggle against dictatorship and for democracy? Or are you with Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime, his imperial backer Russia, his regional ally Iran and Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah from Lebanon?”
It is breathtaking how simplistically, but presumptuously Smith characterizes the Syrian tragedy. It is equally astonishing to recognize how wrong he gets it. To be so blind to sources of information apart from Western reporters in Beirut, Amman, and Ankara, to rely principally upon a London-based, unfiltered, and non-independent anecdote collector like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and to credit US and European sponsored “revolutionaries” implies an indifference to the pursuit of truth.
Whatever grievances Syrians may have had against Assad, it is hardly credible to hail an armed struggle that began literally weeks after the alleged peaceful demonstrations that Smith praises. No insurrection has ever proceeded so swiftly and effectively against security services and a modern army without outside assistance. We now know from revelations exposed by the US media’s fixation on the Benghazi fiasco that the CIA was vigorously engaged in shipping weaponry to Syria from stockpiles snatched from its Libyan venture. We know that regimes on the Arabian Peninsula were equally vigorous in supplying military equipment and recruiting volunteers.
Even US and Western European sources concede that the most numerous and most effective anti-Assad fighters are not democrats or reformists, but radical fundamentalists driven by religious fervor and feudal ideology, hardly the idealistic revolutionaries portrayed by Smith. In fact, US and European advisors complain of the difficulties of vetting anti-Assad forces sufficiently credible to receive advanced weapons. The few recipients of US supplied anti-tank missiles have displayed a troubling propensity to pass them on to the worst of the worse jihadist.
Smith shows an enormous conceit, from his secure perch, joining Western politicians in intuiting the sentiment of the Syrian people. Cavalierly dismissing the Syrian elections, he– along with the Western media– somehow divines that most Syrians hate Assad and that the opposition overflows with democratic, progressive sentiment. Where we have evidence of an independent vote– for example, the May, 2014 national election vote of Syrian refugees in Lebanon– the Washington Post’s rabid anti-Assad reporter, Liz Sly, conceded that uncoerced refugees supported Assad.
One has to notice that, unlike previous chapters of the so-called “Arab Spring,” there are no embedded Western reporters recording the march of democracy or the defeat of tyranny. Cannot CNN find any democrats in the Syrian opposition? Are there no freedom-loving fighters for NBC reporters to interview?Of course the Assad regime’s invitation to allow Western reporters goes cynically unaccepted. To find on-the-spot reporting from Syrian battle zones, one has to turn to Lizzie Phelan, an independent UK journalist whose frequent front line footage appears most often on RT (her recent 20-minute cab ride through Aleppo gives a decidedly different picture of the city from that rendered by Western media reporting a Syrian “Stalingrad” from afar).
Smith does not hesitate to embrace the Libyan debacle as a pro-democracy revolution as well. One would think that the disastrous destabilization of Libya would serve as a sobering tonic for Smith’s fantasies. As with Syria, the pro-democracy revolutionaries were largely a figment of the imagination of US and European politicians and journalists, a group that our erstwhile “socialist” seems happy to join. But that is not just my opinion or the opinion of other “Stalinists.” On Wednesday, September 14, the UK parliament’s cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee released a report on the UK’s 2011 intervention in Libya. According to The Wall Street Journal, the committee found that the engagement was “based on ‘serious erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding’… [and] failed to identify that the rebels included a significant Islamist element and that the [Gadhafi] threat to civilians was overstated.” (my italics) It is striking that the UK government can shed its illusions, but Ashley Smith clings to his.
It is no accident that Ashley Smith’s long essay makes only a passing mention of workers or class. Like most US Trotskyist organizations, ISO draws support significantly from the petty-bourgeoisie. Thus, the question of workers and their fate never arises in his argument. There is no notice taken of the Syrian General Federation of Trade Unions, a supporter of Assad, an opponent of class collaboration, a leader in Arab trade unionism, and a pillar of the class struggle trade unionism of the World Federation of Trade Unions. There is no attention to either the opinions of workers or the effect of a violent insurrection upon the working class. These issues are of little count for one who calls for all to “collaborate with Syrian revolutionaries” who exist only in the minds of political romantics.
Rather than concern himself with the fate of Syria’s working class, Smith prefers to repeat the US and European media’s obsession with civilian-targeted barrel bombs and poison gasses, claims that have defied objective verification. But he exceeds Western fear-mongering by attributing the entire UN estimate of 400,000 deaths in the war to “Assad’s massacre.” Recently, a delegation organized by the US Peace Council visited Syria and met with a number of Syrians, their organizations, and even oppositionists. They left the US with the notion that Syrians should decide the fate of Syria. They returned with the same notion, but even more strongly felt.
But, in addition, they returned with the view that events in Syria are far more complicated than the simplistic picture presented by the US State Department. They returned with the idea that peace in Syria would not be secured through the intervention of foreign powers or by supporting media-manufactured fantasies. Unfortunately, many on the left like Ashley Smith and some in the more conservative peace groups do not want to hear the Peace Council report, preferring to embrace the self-serving constructions of the regime-changers.
October Surprise: Did This US Reporter Suggest Russia Was Behind NYC Bombings?
worker | September 20, 2016 | 8:21 pm | Analysis, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, political struggle, Russia | Comments closed
02:40 21.09.2016(updated 04:17 21.09.2016)
Get short URL1091302
Given the Democratic Party’s repeated attempts to paint Russia as a provocateur in the upcoming US election, it should come as no surprise that the mainstream media would suspect the Kremlin of involvement in the New York and New Jersey bombings. Clinton’s refusal to dismiss the absurd idea, however, may be a new low. On Saturday evening, an explosion rocked Chelsea in downtown Manhattan, injuring 29 people. Earlier in the day, a smaller blast took place in New Jersey. The primary suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami, has been arrested and faces fives charges of attempted murder, two gun charges, as well as federal charges of use of weapons of mass destruction and bombing a place of public use.

But prior to Rahami’s arrest, Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein speculated wildly as to who was behind the attack. “Are you concerned that this weekend’s attacks or potential incidents in the coming weeks might be an attempt by ISIS or ISIS sympathizers, or really any other group, maybe the Russians, to influence the presidential race in some way, and presumably drive votes to Donald Trump, who is, as you’ve said before, widely seen as perhaps being somebody who they would be more willing to – or see as an easier person to be against?” she asked Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton on Monday. This isn’t the first time that the mainstream American media has made baseless accusations about a Russian role in shaping the upcoming US elections. Hacks into the Democratic National Committee have been attributed to the Kremlin without any evidence, and multiple efforts have been made to link Republican candidate Donald Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Last month, the Washington Post warned of a potential “October surprise,” claiming that Moscow may release doctored intelligence in an effort to smear Clinton. “Perhaps they’ll show that the Clinton Foundation has been funding the Islamic State, or they’ll have Hillary Clinton admitting that she didn’t care about those Americans who died in Benghazi after all,” reads the op-ed by Dana Milbank. Rather than outright refute Epstein’s absurd insinuation that Russia was behind the bombing, Clinton danced around the subject. “I don’t want to speculate,” she said, before shifting into a discussion on defeating Daesh. The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, Wired, and dozens of other outlets have pushed the narrative, launched by the Clinton campaign, that Russia has attempted to influence the US presidential election and that it favors the Republican candidate.

Read more:

After FBI grilling, Hillary Clinton calls husband’s chat with Attorney General ‘chance meeting’
worker | July 4, 2016 | 8:18 pm | Analysis, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, political struggle | Comments closed

Hillary Clinton could be indicted on federal charges in advance of the Democratic convention. © Jonathan Alcorn
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said her husband Bill’s meeting with US Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Phoenix, Arizona’s Sky Harbor Airport was not related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s email probe and was nothing more than a “chance meeting at an airport tarmac.”

READ MORE: Hillary Clinton interviewed by FBI over classified email scandal

Clinton made the comments during her first media interview since being interrogated by the FBI for more than three hours on Saturday.

The former secretary of state spoke with NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press over the phone, telling him firstly she had been “eager” for the FBI interrogation and was “pleased to have the opportunity to assist the department in bringing its review to a conclusion.”

The FBI grilling came more than a year after Clinton admitted using a private email server for official emails, hundreds of which were classified, during her time as America’s top diplomat.

Clinton refused to comment, however, on news reports that a decision not to file charges against her would be announced in the coming weeks: “I am not going to comment… I have no knowledge of any timeline – this is entirely up to the department.”

Lynch, who was nominated to her current position by President Barack Obama in 2014, declared earlier this week she would accept recommendations from career prosecutors and the bureau she oversees in response to backlash for her ‘Sky Harbor summit’ with the former president on Monday.

READ MORE: ‘I don’t know’: US AG Lynch claims ignorance on Clinton email probe timeline 

Lynch said the meeting was purely “social” with grandchildren as the main topic. The two go way back after ‘Grandpa Bill’ appointed her as a US attorney in 1999 during his presidency.

Hillary Clinton echoed Lynch’s words during her Meet the Press interview, telling Todd she first heard about the incident from the news and described it as “a short, chance meeting at an airport tarmac.”

She laughed off the idea that her husband and the Attorney General discussed the Department of Justice’s review of her email probe.

“Both of their planes, as I understand it, were landing on the same tarmac at about the same time, and the Attorney General’s husband was there, they said hello, they talked about grandkids, which is very much on our minds these days, golf, their mutual friend, former Attorney General Janet Reno, it was purely social,” the former New York Senator said.

When asked if she thought her husband should have known better, she replied, “Well, I think hindsight’s 20/20. Both the attorney general and my husband have said that they wouldn’t do it again even though it was, from all accounts that I have heard and seen, an exchange of pleasantries. But obviously, no one wants to see any untoward conclusions drawn, and they said they would not do it again.”

An all-white, all-female panel of political commentators speaking with Todd after he aired his Clinton interview slammed the Phoenix meeting.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein appeared on CNN’s Sunday talk show “Reliable Sources,” but was not asked about the email probe, instead talking about her Green New Deal, which would create millions of jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030.”

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson weighed in on the controversy over Trump’s controversial tweet about Clinton.

READ MORE: Trump tweets ‘Clinton corrupted’ with six-pointed star, drawing accusations of anti-Semitism

The former New Mexico governor told CNN’s program “State of the Union” that Trump “has said 100 things that would disqualify anyone else from running for president but it doesn’t seem to affect him. The stuff he’s saying is just incendiary. It’s racist.”

Hillary Clinton Destabilized Libya so the West Could ‘Exploit the Country’
worker | February 3, 2016 | 7:55 pm | Analysis, Benghazi, Imperialism, political struggle | Comments closed
Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, has recently announced her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary Clinton Destabilized Libya so the West Could ‘Exploit the Country’

© AP Photo/

As the United States begins to warn of the growing threat of Daesh in Libya, political analyst Hafsa Kara speaks to Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear about Washington’s role in destabilizing the North African nation – and the personal involvement of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Speaking before the anti-Daesh coalition in Rome, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that the terrorist organization was being defeated in Syria and Iraq, but gaining ground in Libya – a scenario for which the US and NATO bear responsibility.

“One of the reasons ISIS is in Libya is precisely because of the NATO onslaught of 2011 which led to a power vacuum in which terrorist organizations such as ISIS actually thrive,” journalist and political analyst Hafsa Kara tells Loud & Clear host Brian Becker. “It was hugely predictable that this would happen given the Iraqi scenario of ten years before.”

Much of the blame for Libya’s chaos can be placed directly on then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, currently the Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunner for the 2016 election.

“She was the flagbearer, if you will, of the NATO operation,” Kara says. “Hillary Clinton was very much in favor it, and she applauded it and she supported it, and she sort of sold it to the US public…She is very central to the ouster of Gaddafi and the consequence chaos that ensued.

“And it’s utterly shameful that the person currently running for the highest office in the US is someone who gleefully celebrated the lynching and the extrajudicial assassination of a 70-year-old man,” she adds, referring to former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

While the West bombed Libya on the pretense of protecting civilians, the true aim of the campaign may have been more self-serving.

“The endgame was always designed to benefit US interests, and that was primarily the goal regardless of how many people died.”

At the time of his ousting, Gaddafi was helping Africa to become a more independent continent, free from the influence of imperialism.

“When you think about it, Africa is the wealthiest continent on the planet, and without African natural resources, almost all of Western industries couldn’t function,” Kara says. “A destroyed Libya, which is incredibly oil- and gas-rich…is actually a much, much better source for Western corporations to exploit the country and region…”

While Secretary Kerry has expressed shock that Daesh is gaining a foothold in Libya, its growth should have come as no surprise.

“Wherever the US has spread or has expanded…that is where ISIS has actually thrived. So it is no surprise that as a result of not only the US, to be honest, but of the Western bombing campaign of Libya, that ISIS, and organizations that are affiliated to it, have actually thrived in Libya.”

As the anti-Daesh coalition meets, is there any hope that it can restore order to the nations it has helped destroy?

“I hope they don’t do anything,” Kara says. “Whatever these countries will do in the region will make a bad situation worse.

“Any further Western intervention will make a very bad situation far, far worse.”

Response to: Rand Paul makes more sense than the Democrats’ left champion
worker | October 31, 2015 | 9:58 pm | Analysis, Benghazi, Bernie Sanders, Economy, Immigrants' Rights, political struggle, Russia | Comments closed


By James Thompson


Glen Ford makes some excellent points in his article “Rand Paul makes more sense than the Democrats’ left champion.” It is true that Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State is indefensible. She presided, along with Pres. Obama and the vile right wing demagogues in the Republican Party, over the destruction of a sovereign nation, Libya, and the assassination of its head of state, Moammar Gadhafi.


Some people, including the reprehensible Donald Trump, have argued correctly that Libya would be better off with Gadhafi in power rather than the chaos which is Libya today.


Although Bernie Sanders has a long history of opposing aggressive, imperialist US wars of intervention and occupation, Mr. Ford slams him for pledging to support the Democratic Party even if he does not achieve the nomination for president. Would Mr. Ford prefer for Sen. Sanders to support the Republican Party nominee? If so, which Republican nominee does Mr. Ford favor? Or perhaps Mr. Ford would prefer for Sen. Sanders to pledge his support to the Green party nominee. However, from the article it appears that even though Mr. Ford does not endorse Rand Paul for president, it appears possible he might prefer Sen. Sanders to pledge his support to Sen. Paul. Let’s examine these possibilities.


Although the world outside of the United States of Anarchy recognizes clearly that Donald Trump is an opportunistic demagogue, he is one of the front runners in the Republican Party race for the presidential nomination. On some foreign policy issues, his positions are pretty sound. He has said that he opposes the US involvement in the Middle East and calls for the US to be hands-off Russia and not to interfere with Russia’s attempt to stamp out the evil ISIL and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East. At the same time, Mr. Trump is virulently anti-immigrant and has proposed ridiculous schemes to build walls around the United States to keep immigrants out. Anyone with any memory left recalls that his abominable TV show made him famous for two words “you’re fired!”


Does Mr. Ford want Sen. Sanders to support this demagogue who is anti-worker and anti-immigrant and dances to the tunes that Adolf Hitler used to whistle?


Mr. Trump’s main rival is Ben Carson, an African-American neurosurgeon. Dr. Carson is a reprehensible racist who routinely attacks Islam. Does Mr. Ford think that Dr. Carson should be endorsed by Sen. Sanders? Does Mr. Ford think that Dr. Carson could bring peace to the Middle East?


Of course, the rest of the runner-up’s for the Republican nomination are all barbaric right-wingers who advocate war and hatred. Perhaps one of these cretins strike Mr. Ford’s fancy.


Perhaps Mr. Ford thinks that Sen. Sanders should endorse the Green party nominee, Dr. Jill Stein, for president if Mr. Sanders doesn’t get the Democratic Party nomination. Although she is a principled candidate, the Green party has ballot access in less than 50% of the states and therefore cannot win the 2016 presidential election under any circumstances. In my humble opinion, Karl Marx would make a very principled presidential candidate. However, unfortunately he cannot be elected since he is dead.


Now we must consider Mr. Ford’s favorite, Dr. Rand Paul. Dr. Paul, like Mr. Trump, has some laudable foreign policy positions. Although Mr. Ford speaks of former Secretary of State Clinton’s evil, he fails to tell the whole story of Dr. Paul. Dr. Rand Paul, like his father, Dr. Ron Paul, are both darlings of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is an organization of right-wing anarchists. Although they oppose US involvement in foreign wars, which is admirable, they have a few skeletons in their closet. They oppose the federal government in all its forms. That means that they are opposed to public education, healthcare, housing and any federal programs that might drain a few dollars from the oceans of money compiled by the bourgeoisie. They are opposed to any regulation of the excesses of corporations. Indeed, some sources indicate they are closet supporters of slavery. Does this mean that Mr. Ford thinks that an individual who is a closet supporter of slavery is better than Sen. Sanders whose campaign has championed the economic interests of the 99%?


Although the US political situation may be viewed as chaotic and anarchic at best, Mr. Ford’s commentary is not helpful to the interests of the working class and only serves to obfuscate the issues central to the class struggle.

Benghazi Mother shouts “She’s lying! She’s absolutely lying!”
worker | October 22, 2015 | 7:40 pm | Benghazi, political struggle | Comments closed
Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton listens while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Benghazi Mother Loses it On Air: ‘She’s Lying! She’s Absolutely Lying!’

© AP Photo/ Evan Vucci

On Thursday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before Congress about the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi. But Patricia Smith, the mother of the one of the victims, likely won’t be satisfied with any of Clinton’s answers.

Sean Smith was one of the four Americans killed during the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya. Ahead of Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House committee on Benghazi, CNN landed an interview with Smith’s, mother, Patricia Smith.

“She has not called me,” Smith said, referring to Clinton. “She has not contacted me. She has not given me any information, except to tell me that I am not a member of the immediate family and I do not need to know.”

But she became especially irate after being shown a clip of Clinton’s earlier testimony.

“She’s lying!” Smith said. “She’s absolutely lying.”

“I saw on TV the bloody fingerprints on the walls over there,” she added. “I asked specifically, ‘Are those my son’s fingerprints crawling down the walls?’ Somebody’s got to tell me!”

Smith reiterated her frustrations to Sky News on Thursday.

“Why wasn’t there security for my son and the ambassador and the other guys? There was supposed to be security,” she said.

Smith also claimed that her son warned her before the attack about his own suspicions.

“The night before, he called me and he said ‘mum there’s trouble here…there’s people walking around and taking pictures of everything. Something’s going to happen.'”

“I’m calling Hillary a boldfaced liar,” she added.

Thursday marks the eighth congressional panel held to investigate the Benghazi attacks. While the probes did unveil Clinton’s problematic use of a private email server, it has done little to find her guilty of any wrongdoing in relation to the Libya incident.

Many have accused the committee of being politically motivated, especially after comments made by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy earlier this month.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable,” McCarthy told Fox News, touting his own credentials for being House Speaker. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee.

“What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”

The committee maintains that it feels Clinton could have done more to prevent the attack.

Read more:

Benghazi may be Hillary Clinton’s Waterloo
worker | March 3, 2015 | 9:24 pm | Africa, Analysis, Benghazi, Imperialism, International, National, political struggle | Comments closed

Connecting the dots


By James Thompson


As government officials pour over former Secretary of State Clinton’s private emails, some of us may want to look at the bigger picture. Certainly, Ms. Clinton’s judgment (or lack thereof) in conducting the business of the US government on her private email channels may send a chill down many people’s spines. However, this may just be the tip of the iceberg.


Although Ms. Clinton has not formally announced her candidacy for the Democratic Party nomination for president in the 2016 elections, most pundits maintain that she is the clear frontrunner just as they say Jeb Bush is the front runner for the GOP.


There has been a lot of controversy over the attack on Benghazi and Ms. Clinton went on record accepting the blame for what happened.


Let us put the attack on Benghazi into perspective. It occurred on September 11, 2012 and it was a horrible tragedy. However, it is important to remember that just one year prior, in 2011, the US engaged in a vicious attack on Libya with the aim of destabilizing the government there. At the urging of the Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton, NATO embarked on a US-led massive bombing campaign against Libya. Up until that time, Libya had one of the best infrastructures in that part of the world. The US and NATO were hugely successful in smashing that nation and deposing its leader.


Many people in the US were surprised at what happened next. However, what happened next was not surprising.


Whenever you suddenly destroy a nation, as George W. Bush destroyed Iraq, that nation will always descend into chaos and anarchy. If you destroy the infrastructure and government of a sovereign nation, you must expect there will be blowback.


Many buffoons on the right bray about the breach of security at Benghazi which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of US officials and personnel. However, it was not just the breach of security which led to the tragedy. It was the imperialist policy of the US government which sought to bring about “regime change” that resulted in the attack on Benghazi.


The anarchy and chaos created by the 2011 attack on Libya produced fertile grounds for right-wing terrorist organizations like ISIS/ISIL which led to the 2012 attack on Benghazi.


Just as George W. Bush has blood on his hands, Hillary Clinton has blood on her hands.


Voters should consider these facts when they read mainstream media reports that a Bush-Clinton race for the presidency of the United States is inevitable. If they do, it will be inevitable that other candidates will capture the US people’s attention. If the DP and GOP persist in nominating Bush and Clinton, the US people will inevitably turn to new parties since the US people will not want to elect either of the two candidates that have blood on their hands.