Libya Was About to Unveil a Hugely Successful Project Built W/Out the International Banks

[devil21]

The only evidence that would satisfy you is a video of Gaddafi saying "KILL THE PROTESTERS!" I've shown you video of his security forces firing on the protesters.

That would work. Or maybe some video of bombs actually being dropped somewhere, since that was your original claim in this and other threads. Were there cameras in the country at the time? What people are saying to you is that you know little more than anybody else. You're only regurgitating what you read as if it is undisputable fact. I remember "facts" about Saddam's WMDs. Facts about the Gulf of Tonkin. Facts about the USS Liberty. Lots of "facts" that turn out to be bullshit once it's ok to admit it, after the deed has been done and goals achieved. Im not sure why you believe so fiercely in what the media tells you???

 

[specsaregood]

The only evidence that would satisfy you is a video of Gaddafi saying "KILL THE PROTESTERS!" I've shown you video of his security forces firing on the protesters.

And no evidence that he had any idea it was happening or going to happen. Great reason to bomb an effing country.

Im not sure why you believe so fiercely in what the media tells you???

The same media from the countries currently over there bombing.

 

[BenIsForRon]

And no evidence that he had any idea it was happening or going to happen.

So you think he didn't know it was happening?

Im not sure why you believe so fiercely in what the media tells you???

I'm going on reports from Al Jazeera. You're going on reports from Russia Today. I think I'll leave it up to the rest of the forum to check out the programming from both channels and make a decision on who's more credible.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

So you think he didn't know it was happening?

I'm going on reports from Al Jazeera. You're going on reports from Russia Today. I think I'll leave it up to the rest of the forum to check out the programming from both channels and make a decision on who's more credible.

Latest: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?src=mv

C.I.A. Agents in Libya Aid Airstrikes and Meet Rebels

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 30, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials.

While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.
In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.
American officials hope that similar information gathered by American intelligence officers — including the location of Colonel Qaddafi’s munitions depots and the clusters of government troops inside towns — might help weaken Libya’s military enough to encourage defections within its ranks.

In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, said United States government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities. American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives were not directing the actions of rebel forces.
A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.

The United States and its allies have been scrambling to gather detailed information on the location and abilities of Libyan infantry and armored forces that normally takes months of painstaking analysis.
“We didn’t have great data,” Gen. Carter F. Ham, who handed over control of the Libya mission to NATO on Wednesday, said in an e-mail last week. “Libya hasn’t been a country we focused on a lot over past few years.”
Several weeks ago, President Obama signed a secret finding authorizing the C.I.A. to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels, American officials said Wednesday. But weapons have not yet been shipped into Libya, as Obama administration officials debate the effects of giving them to the rebel groups. The presidential finding was first reported by Reuters.
In a statement released Wednesday evening, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, declined to comment “on intelligence matters,” but he said that no decision had yet been made to provide arms to the rebels.
Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that he opposed arming the rebels. “We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them,” Mr. Rogers said in a statement.

Because the publicly stated goal of the Libyan campaign is not explicitly to overthrow Colonel Qaddafi’s government, the clandestine war now going on is significantly different from the Afghan campaign to drive the Taliban from power in 2001. Back then, American C.I.A. and Special Forces troops worked alongside Afghan militias, armed them and called in airstrikes that paved the rebel advances on strategically important cities like Kabul and Kandahar.

In recent weeks, the American military has been monitoring Libyan troops with U-2 spy planes and a high-altitude Global Hawk drone, as well as a special aircraft, JSTARS, that tracks the movements of large groups of troops. Military officials said that the Air Force also has Predator drones, similar to those now operating in Afghanistan, in reserve.

Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint eavesdropping planes intercept communications from Libyan commanders and troops and relay that information to the Global Hawk, which zooms in on the location of armored forces and determines rough coordinates. The Global Hawk sends the coordinates to analysts at a ground station, who pass the information to command centers for targeting. The command center beams the coordinates to an E-3 Sentry Awacs command-and-control plane, which in turn directs warplanes to their targets.
Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who recently retired as the Air Force’s top intelligence official, said that Libya’s flat desert terrain and clear weather have allowed warplanes with advanced sensors to hunt Libyan armored columns with relative ease, day or night, without the need for extensive direction from American troops on the ground.

But if government troops advance into or near cities in along the country’s eastern coast, which so far have been off-limits to coalition aircraft for fear of causing civilian casualties, General Deptula said that ground operatives would be particularly helpful in providing target coordinates or pointing them out to pilots with hand-held laser designators.

The C.I.A. and British intelligence services were intensely focused on Libya eight years ago, before and during the successful effort to get Colonel Qaddafi to give up his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to do so in the fall of 2003, and allowed C.I.A. and other American nuclear experts into the country to assess Libya’s equipment and bomb designs and to arrange for their transfer out of the country.
Once the weapons program was eliminated, a former American official said, intelligence agencies shifted their focus away from Libya. But as Colonel Qaddafi began his recent crackdown on the rebel groups, the American spy agencies have worked to rekindle ties to Libyan informants and to learn more about the country’s military leaders.

A former British government official who is briefed on current operations confirmed media reports that dozens of British Special Forces soldiers, from the elite Special Air Service and Special Boat Service units, are on the ground across Libya. The British soldiers have been particularly focused on finding the locations of Colonel Qaddafi’s Russian-made surface-to-air missiles.

A spokesman for Britain’s Ministry of Defense declined to comment, citing a policy not to discuss the operations of British Special Forces.

 

[jmdrake]

None of those articles say Al Qaeda is leading the uprising, unless you think "flickers of Al Qaeda" means they're leading.

And during the Egyptian uprising people were claiming the Muslim Brotherhood was just in the background too....until the smoke cleared and the dust settled and the only people in the driver's seat were the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. Put your head in the sand all you want.

Edit: And for the record Gaddafi said the rebels were linked to Osama Bin Laden.

Milan, Italy - Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi on Tuesday ruled out negotiations with anti-government rebels, whom he described as 'terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden,' but warned that if the West were to attack his country, he would ally his forces with al-Qaeda in a 'holy war'.

It's clear to any objective person that this is a fact. Your moving the goalpost from "linked to" to "led by" doesn't change that fact.

 

[jmdrake]

Right about what?

Two bad men are fighting each other. Now a third unsavory party (al-Qaida) is fighting with the first two.

That was my point.

1. There is more than one bad person in the world, and sometimes they fight with each other.

2. It is not necessary to take sides in such a conflict.

Well then your point was a straw man. There were no "reactionaries" (your word) in this thread that claimed Ghadafi was a good leader. Only that in one specific instance he was doing something good for his people and more importantly he was doing it independent of the banks and that might have prompted the bankers to move against him. That's all anyone's been saying.

 

[Razmear]

Bumping because now they want to blow it up:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/En...er-could-be-hidden-weapon/UPI-69881307039136/

Western military sources say that the commanders enforcing the NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya to aid the rebels and pressure Gadhafi, branded a tyrant and supporter of international terrorism for much of his rule, to relinquish power fear he could be hiding tanks and missiles in the 15-foot-wide tunnels.

OK, Western military geniuses, how do you get a tank in and out of a pressurized water pipe? Do they put their missiles in giant zip lock bags before hiding them in the pipes?
I was waiting for the lame ass excuse to bomb the water delivery system. If they hit it, they should be charged with war crimes.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Well then your point was a straw man. There were no "reactionaries" (your word) in this thread that claimed Ghadafi was a good leader. Only that in one specific instance he was doing something good for his people and more importantly he was doing it independent of the banks and that might have prompted the bankers to move against him. That's all anyone's been saying.

I don't agree that this water pipeline was a good idea, I tend to disfavor government projects, bad habit I guess. He was probably doing it more for himself, lol am I supposed to believe this "doing something good for his people" tripe.

And it just came off as a defense of or siding with Gadhafi, and frankly I wouldn't put it past some of the people on this forum to try and invent some reason to make Gadhafi look like a good guy just so they can babble on more about the new world order. We get it, they are bad guys who specialize in fucking things up, especially in the middle east.

Really its enough to oppose these things (bombing Libya) on principle.

 

[Razmear]

The water pipeline supplies drinking water to 4.5 million people, and we're dreaming up WMD excuses to blow it up. This is not a Gadhafi issue, it is one of genocide if we bomb the pipeline.

 

[galantarie]

and DEVIL 21 is right: The media made it appear that Gadhafi fired on his people. That is not true at all:

[video=vimeo;24620625]http://vimeo.com/24620625[/video]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Gaddafi fucked it up by opening fire on peaceful protesters.

This following video would prove to you that that is not true. The Libyan did not open fire on protesters: that was propagated lies:


and see:
and

 

[galantarie]

I don't agree that this water pipeline was a good idea, I tend to disfavor government projects, bad habit I guess. He was probably doing it more for himself, lol am I supposed to believe this "doing something good for his people" tripe.

And it just came off as a defense of or siding with Gadhafi, and frankly I wouldn't put it past some of the people on this forum to try and invent some reason to make Gadhafi look like a good guy just so they can babble on more about the new world order. We get it, they are bad guys who specialize in fucking things up, especially in the middle east.

Really its enough to oppose these things (bombing Libya) on principle.

ANDREW: You are so wrong, this pipeline would eventuall benefit all of Africa. Gadhafi is far more benevolent than you have been taught to think!:

 

[galantarie]

R2P: 'No Confirmation Whatsoever' according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi 'Fired on his Own People'
Saturday, 04 June 2011 06:54

'Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was "No Confirmation Whatsoever" according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi "fired on his own people from the air"

The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians.

Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon. On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, "admitted their utter ignorance as to what's happening on the ground in Libya".'

Read more: R2P: 'No Confirmation Whatsoever' according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi 'Fired on his Own People'
R2P: “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according to the Pentagon that Gadhaffi “Fired on his Own People”
Read the Pentagon transcript

by Global Research

Global Research, June 3, 2011

Responsibility to Protect: The War on Libya was launched but there was “No Confirmation Whatsoever” according the Pentagon that Gadhaffi “fired on his own people from the air”

The war on Libya was launched on the pretext and justification that Gadaffi was killing civilians and that the US and NATO had a responsibility to come to the rescue of innocent civilians.

Below is the transcript of a March 1st Press briefing at the Pentagon.

On the very same day a UN no-fly-zone resolution was being discussed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, “admitted their utter ignorance as to what’s happening on the ground in Libya”

(for further details see Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen, Victors’ Justice and the “Responsibility to Protect”: Who are the Real War Criminals? Global Research, June 3, 2011)

Sec Gates and Adm. Mullen plead ignorance.

Q. Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.

PENTAGON BRIEFING WITH SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES AND ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF MODERATOR: COLONEL DAVID LAPAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MEDIA OPERATIONS LOCATION: PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA TIME: 2:44 P.M. EST DATE: TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011

Federal News Service

01 March 2011 Tuesday

Q: Mr. Secretary, Admiral Mullen just mentioned that in Libya Moammar Gadhafi is waging war on his own people, as you put it. What — is U.S. military intervention realistic? And what specific kinds of options are you considering? Could you describe, for example, the possibility of a no-fly zone or arming rebel forces?

SEC. GATES:

… I would — I would note that the U.N. Security Council resolution provides no authorization for the use of armed force. There is no unanimity within NATO for the use of armed force. And the kinds of options that have been talked about in the press and elsewhere also have their own consequences and second- and third-order effects. So they need to be considered very carefully.

Our job is to give the president the broadest possible decision space and options, and to go into the things that we’re thinking about, the options that we’re providing, I think, have the potential to narrow his decision space. And I have no intention of doing that.

Q: Do you see any evidence that [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.

Q: Mr. Secretary, could you give us your assessment of the situation on the ground? How bad is it? Can the rebels take Tripoli? Are thousands dying?

SEC. GATES: Well, the — I think the honest answer, David, is that we don’t know in that respect, in terms of the number of casualties. In terms of the potential capabilities of the opposition, we’re in the same realm of speculation, pretty much, as everybody else. I haven’t seen anything that would give us a better read on the number of rebels that have been killed than you have. And I think it remains to be seen how effectively military leaders who have defected from Gaddhafi’s forces can organize the opposition in the country. And we are watching that unfold, as you are.

Q: Do you have any requests from rebel leaders for air strikes — (inaudible) — have you heard of any of that?

SEC. GATES: No. ….

Global Research Articles by Global Research

 

[nbhadja]

And Gaddafi fucked it up by opening fire on peaceful protesters.

Yeah and Ron Paul is racist

Don't believe everything you read especially if it is from MSM companies like Fox and CNN.

 

[nbhadja]

Gadaffi is a big threat to the elite so they want him out. The guy is a genious and very good for Africa.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Wikileaks: Libyans seek renewed commitment from U.S. in return for progress on HEU shipmnt

US Embassy Cables/Telex to Washington DC

WikiLeaks cables: Libyan attacks aimed to force out 'Zionist' Marks & Spencer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/20/wikileaks-cables-libya-marks-spencer


HERE"S the CABLE from the Department of State Enbassy Tripoli... Damn Travesty how the US screwed the Libyans over. This whole "No-Fly-Zone" "National-Security" is a complete lie by Washington DC. Washington DC has become Nazi Germany 1930's with their Security/Patriotism/False-Flag OPS.

Wikileaks: Libyans seek renewed commitment from U.S. in return for progress on HEU shipment/Chemical Weapons removal-cleanup
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...om-U.S.-in-return-for-progress-on-HEU-shipmnt

The 2009 HEU shipment from Libya detailed
http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/11/the_2009_heu_shipment_fro.html

And this is what is really going on behind the scenes:
Reference ID
09TRIPOLI941
Created
2009-11-30 17:05
Released
2011-03-22 00:12
Classification
SECRET//NOFORN
Origin
Embassy Tripoli


Subject: Libyans seek renewed commitment from U.S. in return for progress on HEU shipment

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 TRIPOLI 000941

NOFORN
SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/FO AND NEA/MAG. STATE PLEASE PASS TO ENERGY (KELLY
CUMMINS AND SARAH DICKERSON).

E.O. 12958 DECL: 11/30/2019
TAGS PREL, PGOV, MNUC, PARM, PINR, RS, KGIC, KNNP, KRAD, ENRG,
LY
SUBJECT: LIBYANS SEEK RENEWED COMMITMENT FROM U.S. IN RETURN FOR
PROGRESS ON HEU SHIPMENT
REF: TRIPOLI 938

CLASSIFIED BY: Joan A. Polaschik, Charge d’Affaires, U.S. Embassy Tripoli, Department of State. REASON: 1.4 (b), (d)

¶1. This is an action request; see para 13.

¶2. (S/NF) Summary: Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi told the Ambassador November 27 that Libya had halted the shipment of its final HEU stockpiles because it was “fed up” with the slow pace of bilateral engagement. Saif claimed that Libya had not received the “compensation” it was promised in exchange for an end to its WMD programs, including cooperation in the military, security, nonproliferation, civilian-nuclear, and economic spheres. Libya sought a high-level reaffirmation of the United States’ commitment to the bilateral relationship, in the form of a message to Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhafi, in order to move forward on the HEU shipment. Saif al-Islam, who claimed that he was “back” on the U.S. portfolio, said his father did not want to move back to “square one” and wanted to develop a positive relationship with the new U.S. Administration. The Ambassador underscored the gravity of the situation and noted that the Libyan Government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique. He also noted that many of the holdups in the bilateral relationship had been due to Libyan political missteps and bureaucratic bungling. The Ambassador told Saif he would try to get some kind of statement along the lines requested, but the HEU shipment should in no way be held hostage to any specific actions beyond that. Saif assured the Ambassador that once that message was conveyed to Tripoli, he would immediately “fix” the problem. End Summary.

¶3. (S/NF) Once again exhibiting their flair for the dramatic, and after almost one week of stonewalling regarding the decision to not allow the departure of the HEU shipment to Russia, the Libyan leadership authorized a meeting between Saif al-Islam (accompanied by an assistant) and the Ambassador (accompanied by Pol-Econ Counselor) as the Ambassador was departing for the airport to travel to Washington. During the November 27 meeting, the Ambassador expressed his deep concern about Libya’s decision to halt shipment of its remaining Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stockpile to Russia for treatment and disposal. The Ambassador said that Libya’s WMD commitments were the cornerstone of the relationship, and the last-minute, unexplained disapproval of the shipment seemed to renege on those commitments. He emphasized that the Libyans must move forward with the shipment as soon as possible, for security reasons and to preserve the bilateral relationship. The Ambassador pressed Saif to explain why the shipment was held up and insisted that the Libyans must improve communication in times of crisis, stating that Libyan officials cannot simply ignore calls from high-level USG officials and refuse to explain their decisions that negatively affect bilateral interests. This was no way to conduct a relationship. The decision to halt the shipment and create this crisis was intensified by the timing and the international context, given the President’s focus on non-proliferation and the problems engendered by Iran. By its actions, Libya was jeopardizing its relationship with the whole international community.

¶4. (S/NF) Saif al-Islam explicitly linked Libya’s decision to halt the HEU shipment to its dissatisfaction with the U.S. relationship. Saif said the shipment was halted because the regime was “fed up” with the pace of the relationship and what it perceived as a backing-out of commitments to bilateral cooperation. The areas of specific concern were Libya’s purchase of military equipment (non-lethal and lethal weapons), an update on what was being done with Libya’s centrifuges, movement on the Regional Nuclear Medicine Center, and financial assistance for the chemical weapons destruction program, including construction of the destruction facility. Saif pledged to solve the HEU crisis and to allow the shipment to move forward as early as next week if the USG expressed a renewed commitment to the relationship and to deeper engagement. Saif noted that the message needed to be conveyed to (or addressed to) Libyan Leader Muammar al-Qadhafi.

¶5. (S/NF) Saif continued that prevailing domestic opinion and conservative forces were critical of Libya’s decision to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Noting that he personally had played an important role in Libya’s re-engagement with the West, Saif asserted that “If something goes wrong, people will blame me, whether I am in a certain official position or not.” Saif stated that Libya’s decision to give up its WMD programs was contingent upon “compensation” from the U.S., including the purchase of conventional weapons and non-conventional military equipment; security cooperation; military cooperation; civil-nuclear cooperation and assistance, to include the building of a Regional Nuclear Medicine Facility; and the end of “double taxation” and economic cooperation, such as the signing of a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

¶6. (S/NF) Saif noted that Libya was a small, rich country, surrounded by large, powerful, poorer neighbors. Yet Libya, the only Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) signatory in the region, had given up all of its conventional weapons and could not purchase replacement systems or military equipment from the United States. He highlighted Egypt, a non-MTCR signatory, as an example of a neighboring country that receives millions of dollars in U.S. aid and military assistance but did not have to share Libya’s nonproliferation commitments. Relative to such neighbors, Libya’s decision to dismantle its nuclear programs had weakened its ability to defend itself. He stated, “We share rich natural resources -- oil and gas -- along the borders, yet we have no capacity to defend that wealth.” Saif complained that Libya could not purchase conventional weapons from the United States or even from Sweden or Germany due to U.S. holds on the sale of those weapons to Libya -- “even until now, seven years later, there is an embargo on Libya’s purchase of lethal equipment.” He specifically mentioned a problem purchasing “Tiger” vehicles outfitted with American-manufactured engines from Jordan, due to a U.S. legal restriction on Libya’s purchase of American-equipment.

¶7. (S/NF) Inquiring about the status of the centrifuges Libya gave up as part of its WMD commitments, Saif argued that the U.S. had used the “deal” as a public relations coup for the previous administration. He said that the fact that the centrifuges were sent to the United States and are still there, rather than under IAEA surveillance and control was a “big insult to the Leader.” The fact that Libya was never “compensated” for the centrifuges added to the insult. In addition to the centrifuge problem, he complained that Libya had to pay for the destruction of its chemical weapons. Saif insisted that Libya was not able to pay to destroy its chemical weapons stock, noting that the construction of the destruction facility alone was estimated to cost US $25 million. For these and other reasons relating to “non-compensation” for WMD decisions, he stated that certain voices in Libya were pressuring the Leader to withdraw from the MTCR agreement. He lamented that “slowly, slowly, we are moving backward rather than forward.” He told the Ambassador that in order for the relationship to progress, the U.S. needed to make a move. “The ball is in your court,” Saif urged.

¶8. (S/NF) Continuing his lament, Saif said the U.S.-Libya relationship
was “not going well.” Since his last visit to the United States in 2008, Saif said that both sides had deviated from the roadmap that had been agreed upon at that time, which specified cooperation in the military, security, nonproliferation, civilian-nuclear, and economic spheres. He asserted that the roadmap had gotten “lost” due to his own “disappearance” from the political scene and “preoccupation with other issues overseas.” He acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time but that he was back on the political scene -- although he was careful to caveat that he had not yet accepted an official role in the regime.

¶9. (S/NF) Saif raised a few recent incidents that he argued illustrated how things were going wrong. First, he pointed to Muammar al-Qadhafi’s recent trip to New York, which in Saif’s opinion had not gone well, because of the “tent and residence issues and his [pere Qadhafi’s] inability to visit ground zero.” He said that all three issues had been complicated by local U.S. authorities and had humiliated the Libyan leader -- “even tourists can see ground zero without permission, but a Head of State cannot?” Secondly, Saif believed that his father’s UNGA speech had been misinterpreted by U.S. audiences; he specifically focused on statements involving moving the UN Headquarters outside of the United States and various assassination investigations (JFK, Rafik al-Hariri, etc.). Saif stated that the elder Qadhafi meant no offense by his statements, but was merely trying to “pave the way” for any future decisions that POTUS might make related to those issues. Lastly, Saif noted that the Libyan leader was worried about U.S. intervention in Africa. The elder Qadhafi was also against the linguistic and political division of Africa into “North” and “Sub-Saharan” Africa and wanted countries such as the United States to treat Africa as a single entity rather than two blocs.

¶10. (S/NF) Saif said that Muammar al-Qadhafi was serious about deepening engagement with the United States and establishing a relationship with the Obama Administration. Saif said that his father did not want to “go back to square one,” but wanted to move the bilateral relationship forward. Saif emphasized the Libyan leader’s interest in meeting POTUS in a third country if a meeting in the United States was not possible. Such a meeting would help overcome the negative history that our nations shared, would support the rebuilding of trust, and might even help with U.S. Embassy operations and activities in Libya, according to Saif.

¶11. (S/NF) The Ambassador noted that the relationship had seen several advancements and several serious setbacks since Saif’s last visit to the United States, including the August 20 hero’s welcome accorded to Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by Saif himself. Megrahi’s return had severely offended American sensitivities and renewed tensions that set the relationship back. Until that point, there had been significant progress, with a military-to-military agreement signed in January and the positive April visit of National Security Advisor Mutassim al-Qadhafi and his meeting with the Secretary. Although the death of Fathi el-Jahmi had been a setback to the relationship, the U.S. and Libya had found a productive way forward through the establishment of a bilateral Human Rights Dialogue. Regarding concerns about U.S. intervention in Africa, the Ambassador reminded Saif that Colonel Qadhafi and General Ward had had what we believed to be a very productive meeting several months ago, which we had hoped would have dispelled any concerns the Libyans had about U.S. intentions in Africa. The Ambassador explained that Americans were hoping for a more forward-leaning statement by Muammar al-Qadhafi in New York but instead heard a series of remarks that were not agreeable to the American public. As a result, the relationship has been placed on a “low-burner” since August.

¶12. (S/NF) In spite of these issues, the Ambassador said the U.S. had managed to keep moving ahead in the areas of security, military, political, civilian-nuclear, and economic cooperation. However, many of the delays in implementation were due to Libya’s opaque bureaucracy. The Section 505 end user agreement, for example, had languished in the GOL for months, as had Libya’s response on TIFA. Libya’s slow-rolling on visa approvals for official American travelers had delayed movement in areas such as civilian-nuclear cooperation and on the Regional Nuclear Medicine Facility.

¶13. (S/NF) Saif acknowledged that he was disconnected for a long time from the bilateral relationship and recognized that the hero’s welcome for Megrahi had set engagement back. He reiterated that he was “back” on the scene and could serve as the “trouble-shooter” for any future problems. He urged the Ambassador to contact his office directly in times of crisis. He also promised to resolve the visa issue, stating that he understood the importance of a transparent and reliable system of issuance. In their one-on-one discussion afterwards, the Ambassador asked Saif to explain his actions when he accompanied Megrahi back to Tripoli. Saif said he knew what the reaction in the West would be, but that it did not constitute an “official” welcome. He had worked on the release for a long time, he was not a public official, and there were no international media like Al Jazeera present. In addition, Saif claimed that the Libyans would someday find a way to show that Megrahi was innocent. The Ambassador reiterated the damage the welcome had done and said no amount of justification could undo that. Saif nodded his understanding. Saif also replied that if he is confirmed in his new position, he was as yet not sure whether he would retain his current position as head of the Qadhafi Development Foundation.

COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST

¶14. (S/NF) The Libyan Government has chosen a very dangerous issue on which to express its apparent pique about perceived problems in the bilateral relationship, a point the Ambassador underscored with Saif al-Islam. If Saif is to be believed, it appears we might have a way forward. If the Department is willing, we would urge a phone call from the Secretary to Musa Kusa with a message for Colonel Qadhafi comprising a general statement of commitment to the relationship, a commitment to work with the Libyans to move the relationship ahead, and a strong point insisting that the HEU shipment be allowed to go forward immediately and not be held hostage to any further actions.

BIO NOTE

¶15. (S/NF) Saif met the Ambassdor in an office on the Bab Al-Aziziya compound. The office was filled with books, including a high stack of art and interior design books and several brochures distributed by the Embassy’s Public Affairs Section. Saif conducted the meeting in English. He was accompanied by his personal assistant, Mohamed Ismail Ahmed (DOB 07/06/1968), who said that he was born in Alexandria, Egypt, and spent his childhood years traveling abroad with his diplomat father, including in Afghanistan in the late 1970s, where he attended the American School. Ahmed was soft-spoken and spoke fluent English. He asked Pol/Econ chief to provide him with additional information on the status of Libya’s military procurement requests and Letters of Offer and Assistance (LOA’s). POLASCHIK

 

[galantarie]

HOLLYWOOD: THANKS SO MUCH for the accurate info. Bless you.