Brother Khadaffi lent $8 million dollars to Louis Farrakhan, a Press Association report says. “Mr Farrakhan portrayed Gaddafi as a fellow revolutionary and long-time friend to the Nation of Islam, which used £1.9 million it borrowed from Libya in the 1970s to acquire its opulent headquarters on Chicago’s South Side. Years later, a £3 million loan was used to pay back taxes and costs for the home of the movement’s former leader Elijah Muhammad.”
The leader of the Nation of Islam asked “where are all the bodies?”
He dismissed allegations that Gaddafi had violently cracked down on his own people, saying the Libyan leader was “killing traitors”. “Do you really think that Brother Gaddafi really was going to slaughter 700,000 people?” Mr Farrakhan said. “If that were true … where are all the bodies?”
The Chicago Tribune says “Minister Louis Farrakhan is continuing his defense of embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, saying he’s a friend who’s lent the Nation of Islam $8 million over the years. ”
But bodies are something that keep turning up, or reminders of them at least. Recently Khadaffi’s Foreign Minister — and the suspected mastermind of the Lockerbie bombing — sought and received asylum in the UK. He is now a friend.
David Cameron is facing furious demands to put Gaddafi’s ‘envoy of death’ on trial after his defection to Britain.
The Prime Minister was last night accused of handing Musa Kusa – who masterminded the Lockerbie bombing and numerous other atrocities – a ‘get out of jail free card’.
It is estimated that housing and guarding the former Libyan foreign minister will cost taxpayers here more than £1million a year.
But Mr Cameron hailed the defection of Kusa as a ‘serious blow’ to the ‘crumbling and rotten Gaddafi regime’.
Last night sources said two more senior Gaddafi figures are in Tunis discussing deals with British and French intelligence officers, while at least eight others have defected to Tunisia.
In all, 12 former henchmen could be ready to defect to Britain. But as MI6 and the Foreign Office welcomed Kusa, critics said he should face justice like Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy who fled to Britain in 1941.
Hess, it may be recalled, was for the decades the sole inmate of Spandau prison, which guarded not so much Hess’ person, as the secrets he took to his grave. Those were reputed to include the names of high ranking Britons who were prepared to surrender to and deal with Adolph Hitler. The worst kind of corpse, Farrakhan should be reminded, is the political corpse that untimely comes to light.
The restrictions of communication in prison for Hess were quite harsh. He was allowed only a half hour visit by his family once a month, which he considered degrading and refused such short visits until 1968. After that, in the 70s he was visited by members of his family once a month, and in the 70s on “humanitarian grounds” visitation rights were extended to one hour per month. Hess was never allowed to discuss anything related to the period of World War II nor the Nazi regime, and his letters and all communication were subject to censorship, which was common practice. He was allowed to write one letter per week of up to 1200 words, which he did every week.
Such a regime and circumstances contributed to conspiracy theories, related to the secrecy of British files (not to be revealed until 2017), and possible revelations about his mission damaging to the British.
These defections came as the Obama administration announced a “dual track” policy in Libya, in which the policy aim was to overthrow the Duck of Death while promising to take no military steps to achieve it. If that sounded like wanting to buy something without having to pay for it, the confusion was soon cleared away by spokesmen.
Despite having CIA agents on the ground and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s exit as stated policy, U.S. officials continue to say the NATO-led military mission in Libya is only for its authorized humanitarian purposes.
The seeming discrepancy is part of a delicate diplomatic posture by the Obama administration on the complex overseas operation that involves a U.N. Security Council resolution, a multinational military force and the symbolism of presidential statements and actions. …
Obama’s dual-track policy, with the military coalition protecting Libyan civilians while the United States pursues “as a political, diplomatic and economic policy” the end of Gadhafi’s rule, is the best fit for the Libya situation, Carney insisted, citing the international backing for the military mission through a U.N. Security Council resolution and Arab League support.
Critics complained that it is both dishonest and a mistake for the military objective to differ from the policy objective.
At a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Rep. Chris Gibson, R-New York, said the mission’s “military and political goals are not harmonized,” while Coffman called it “just the most muddled definition of an operation probably in U.S. military history.”
For Minister Farrakhan the issue was perfectly clear. I got the money, he’s my friend. Farrakhan’s decision to unapologetically keep the money stands in interesting contrast to humanitarian rhetoric of politicians who only yesterday were glad to associate with the Duck of Death. “What kind of brother would I be if a man has been that way to me and us, and when he is in trouble I refuse to raise my voice in his defense?” Farrakhan asked rhetorically.Bravo, minister. Bravo. And by the way, do you plan on paying it back?
But a thief may be a Judas and suffer no loss in character. After all, it’s not like you’ve got a reputation to lose or anything. And perhaps dishonesty and virtue differ only in timing. As GK Chesterton once said, “thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.”
“No Way In” print edition at Amazon
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Join the conversation as a VIP Member