THE LIES OF THE WHITE HOUSE
THAT LEAD THE U.S. INTO LIBYA'S
CRUMBLING STATE

U.S. COMES TO SAVE THE DAY

In 2011, the United States entered into what was advertised as a multinational effort to bring down Muammar Gaddafi, the infamous leader of Libya, and restore peace to the struggling country of Libya. Along with France and Britain, the American military invited itself into Libya's ongoing conflict and revolutionary period. To the American people and the rest of the world media, the need for U.S. intervention in the crisis overseas was justified by the Obama administration as a peace mission. In the words of Obama, the decision to conduct air strikes and further support the ongoing "allied" war in Libya was justified on an illusion of peace. "In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," the President said. "We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries and a plea from the Libyan people themselves... To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and, more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are" (Los Angeles Times).

THE FALLACY BEHIND INVADING LIBYA

The need to invade Libya, as it was portrayed by the White House, was a complete lie from the start. Advertised as a peace mission and an American responsibility, the invasion of Libya was based on economic goals, not humanitarian ones. NATO, without a doubt, committed numerous war crimes during its supposed rescue mission of Libya. The American government told the public that intervention was necessary to not only remove Gaddafi from power, but also to prevent as many civilian deaths as possible (Business Insider). Obama gave the green light for the U.S. military to carry out air strikes on Libya that would specifically target the "evil" Gaddafi and his militants. He promoted the idea that it was in the best interest of the innocent civilians there, and that Gaddafi needed to be stopped (Fox News). Obama stated in Brazil in 2011 that, "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy." What he left out is that Libyan civilians did not call upon any help from the Western world to be saved from their leader, and that it was the civilians instead who would be attacked by NATO forces.

One primary reason that the U.S. found it necessary to intervene in Libya's civil affair was to stop the country from establishing its own form of currency. In March of 2011, it was announced that the Libyan rebels had created a new central bank as well as a new national oil company (Examiner). This new development was seen as a threat to the U.S. economy, as it meant that Libya, having its own distinct currency, could charge countries for oil in the Lybyan Dinar instead of the U.S. dollar. It also heightened the chances of Libya finally reaching a stable economy with little influence from the industrialized world. Moving away from the control of the West was what attracted military attention to Libya, not the fact that its people wanted a new form of government or needed saving.

The United States has a record of getting aggressive with countries who wish to conduct the selling of oil with a means other than Western currency, and the story of Libya is no different. Benghazi was the subject of much debate during the occupancy of Libya, as it was believed to be the city in which Gaddafi would take over and continue his so-called reign of terror over the people. In reality, Benghazi was to be the location of the headquarters of the new central bank established by the rebels (Morning Liberty). No wonder the allied forces were so eager to attack the city - - it was a direct threat to Western control of the global economy. Libya is one of the largest producers of oil, and it contains the largest reserves in Africa (Wikipedia). The American government couldn't possibly function without having some financial control over a resource that it has spilled blood for in the past, so the decision was made to support the chaos in Libya.

LIBYA'S ALLEGED CRY FOR HELP WAS A LIE

Besides the hunger for oil and control of the global economy, there was no valid reason for the U.S. to send troops to Libya. The stories surrounding an escalated protest that got out of hand and turned into a violent situation that needed to be assessed by Western countries was a complete farce. In fact, the idea that a protest is what started all of the panic was born straight out of Washington, not Libya (Town Hall). It has been stated that neither the American troops in Libya nor the actual Libyan government know nothing about the alleged protest, because it did not happen. It was simply fabricated fuel for the fire, and another excuse for the U.S. to weasel its force into Libya without permission. Various sources revealed that an attack on the Libyan consulate was labeled by the White House as a terrorist attack from the get-go, for the sole purpose of making available more weaponry, and more support from the American people to extinguish what they were told was terrorism overseas.

APPROVAL FOR WAR? NOT NECESSARY FOR AMERICA

The decision for America to step into Libya's hell drew great controversy not only because the public was generally opposed to being involved in another war, but furthermore because Congressional approval was never sought by the President to initiate military action. It is no wonder why the executive branch kept pushing off the necessity to gain approval from Congress seeing as the real reason for occupying Libya was not exactly front page news at the time.

AVOIDING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR WAR

In March of 2011, after NATO had already been conducting surveillance of Libyan activity, the United States military along with British and French armed forces began the first phase of what they called Operation Odyssey Dawn. The administration mentioned that their missiles and attacks in Libya were an effort to stop the Libyan regime from attacking its own citizens (CNN). Pandemonium had long been a common theme in Libya, with its long-standing leader, Gaddafi, being a target for more than four decades. During the revolutionary times in 2011, Gaddafi had requested in an appeal letter that the United States withdraw from Libya and end the NATO bombings, stating that the war was unjust. Obama, promoting the idea that U.S. intervention was necessary, still carried on and sent American troops into an already devastated country without any approval from congress. After the American troops had occupied Libya for 60 days, it was brought up that the U.S. troops had now exceeded their stay and that it was necessary for Obama to either withdraw the troops or seek Congressional approval to continue the war efforts. However, neither option was sought out by the administration (Washington Post).

The Constitution states that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, while Congress holds the power to make any declarations of war (Library of Congress). In terms of the War Powers Resolution, the role of that document is to insure that both the judgment of the Congress and the President are necessary before deploying any U.S. forces into a hostile situation. Time and time again, Presidential administrations prove that this Act has little power over what truly takes place in a state of possible war. In terms of the 2011 crisis in Libya, neither the House nor the Senate really gave much of a fight to see that Obama did not have his troops extend the deadline, and so the turmoil continued. Obama then advertised, after the 60-day deadline, that American involvement would be less focused on actual attacks, but more so on "support" for the NATO efforts, including logistical advice and the supplying of drones and aircrafts (Washington Post). Obama and his administration did not go on without receiving a lot of slack for their utter disregard of military law. In June of 2011, a lawsuit was brought against the administration that challenged the "commitment of the United States to war in Libya absent the required constitutional legal authority. (ABC)” Representatives from both dominant parties supported the lawsuit, claiming that the President's decisions regarding Libya completely avoided dealing with Congress in efforts to pursue a war without any type of legal affirmation.

RELEVANT LINKS

US Media Lies About Libya and Gaddafi

The Lies Behind the West's War on Libya

Top 3 NATO Excuses for Invading Libya: NWO Gold, Oil, Central Banking

NATO Continues to Bomb Civilian Targets

Benghazigate: Obama's Many Lies About Libya