By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com
Gaddafi’s reign is over. I am happy for the people of Libya, but I am not as jubilant as the crowds I see partying in the streets. I wonder if the country will go from a dictatorship to a theocracy steeped in radical Islam. I say this because in the early days of the rebellion, there were many reports that connected the rebels with al-Qaeda. I quoted one source in a post I did earlier this week where the headline read “Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.” (Click here for the complete original post.) This was not some one-off story by a single source. A quick Google search showed legitimate news organizations such as The Telegraph, CBS, FOX, Washington Times, Reuters, Huffington Post and LA Times all did versions of rebels in Libya being linked to al-Qaeda.
This makes me wonder, did the U.S. (through NATO) give al-Qaeda its own country? If so, why? Al-Qaeda is not going to spill its own blood and simply leave for another war someplace else. They will want something for toppling Gaddafi, and that is, undoubtedly, power and control in the country they just helped take over. I know the argument that some in the MSM are putting forth about why the U.S. and NATO allies wanted Gaddafi gone. Gaddafi was a bad man who killed lots of people. Rachel Kleinfeld wrote a post for CNN recently that said, “. . . Moammar Gadhafi is a dictator who bombed and shot Westerners in attacks that stretched from London to Berlin to an airplane over Scotland — all the while keeping horrific wars alive across Uganda, Liberia and other parts of Africa. He was working on nuclear weapons just a few years ago. It’s worth some effort from the U.S. — again with allies — to get this country governed right, or we will surely be investing far more to prevent or contain future wars in the region.” (Click here for the complete Kleinfeld post.)
Ok, fair enough, but if Gaddafi was so bad, why did the Federal Reserve allow Libya to get dozens of emergency loans totaling billions of dollars for months after the financial crisis in 2008? (Click here to read one of the many stories on the Libyan loan story.) What gives? And what about the central bank the “rebels” in Libya started shortly after the rebellion? What purpose does this serve? (Click here for more on that story.) Another question, where is Libya’s gold? It had 143.8 tons, which is no small amount considering financial powerhouse United Kingdom has a little over 300 tons of the yellow metal in its vaults. (Click here for more on that story.)
This so-called rebellion seems to be orchestrated by foreign powers, and I do not think their goal is to help the Libyan people. Let me tell you, they are going to need some help. One third of the population is under the age of 15, one half is under the age of 30, and unemployment is running at 20%. Young people with no work and no future is a nasty recipe. Yes, Libya has oil, but that industry cannot employ everyone.
There are calls for help right now by the National Transitional Council (NTC) in Libya to release some of the $37 billion that was frozen at the beginning of the conflict. I hope they will get all their assets unfrozen, but even that will not be enough to quickly turn Libya around. Where will the billions come from for rebuilding and creating jobs? Europe and the U.S. are up to their necks in debt problems, and jobs are needed on those continents. I do not have the answers to the questions, but I do question Libya’s future.