benghazi that's according to a re in general six years after the murder of libyan leader moammar gadhafi. and the white house hence it will make good on president trump's campaign promise to ramp up its use of the kuantan of the bay detention facility in cuba that story and much more coming up right now. it's tuesday july eleventh four pm in washington d.c. and sweets and you're watching r t america we begin today in iraq where the recapturing of mosul from the islamic state has come at a really high price as a result of the operation thousands of civilians have either been displaced or lost their lives both human rights watch and amnesty international are scolding iraqi forces in the u.s. for their role in raising the number of civilian deaths there is r t correspondent ashley breaks with more according to amnesty international close to six thousand civilians have lost their lives during the fight to recapture mozote and i'm told we're two thousand and sixteen the iraqi military backed by u.s. forces launched a campaign to recapture the city and this past sunday iraqi prime minister had

but our judgment was so difficult for the gadhafi regime to deal with. and president bush had, as we say, other things, on his mind, that we simply found out the u.s. senate had enacted the libya claims resolution act under unanimous consent in one minute. it was never introduced. it was never in a committee. much becauseretty if it was in the senate, that would've stopped that. that was a decision that the president of the united states and the u.s. senate made. as a result our judgment was wiped out. our client still got what was called the lockerbie deal. $10 million per, plus extra money for the aircraft. there were other things. we were not frozen out. but the president of the united states made a political decision . congress agreed with it. they thought it was the right thing at the time. we were obviously not very happy about that. the bushc thing is administration had been helping us get the judgment legally and in a very real sense, and by the have never seen any administration, ever do that , not even close. we described that process in the bo

was doomed and there was nothing wrong in getting rid of a dictator like gadhafi what was wrong he was doing it with the military action without preparing the aftermath weed out having a plan on what could be the future of libya and dropping libya you know. like a corpse the day after gadhafi had been defeated we have been asking for the international community starting with friends and u.k. to get involved in the reconstruction of libya institution building. creating a national security force but there was the international community was totally destructive once they it is the once again the phenomenon of the mission accomplished you do the military beat you have success and you've you think that you it's done it's not it's only the beginning if you know the exact security a lot of other countries are opposed to the senate i mean back to today it's really is saying that libya must control some of the ngos saving these drowning refugees i mean what you just said is there's not a hair's breadth between what you said in the british government. does it really realize that there are three

we had some very interested trips and that was to libya to meet with gadhafi and we were part of the process, a small part of the process that ended up in gadhafi flipping and becoming an ally in fighting radical jihadist threat that was out there. the interesting thing is jane asked me about one of the people that we met, musa cusa, who was his intelligence chief, a graduate of michigan state, and a big fan of tom izzo and those types of things. but we took one trip, we went to egypt, we met with mubaric, and arafat and we met with assad, later on we met with gadhafi. little did we ever imagine that four or five years later we would be looking at a threat environment where iraq was a failed state, with isis, that syria was a -- that syria would be a failed state, that libya would be a failed state, that egypt would lose control of the sinai, that we would have changed our policy and started working with the muslim brotherhood. and that -- that is really changed, when you saw those failed states, when the saw the refugees, when you saw the mass migration into europe, the fighters goi

they said over and over look what happened to gadhafi and iraq. the only way for us to survive, it's our final final card. the only way to have a deterrent. they said they would never give up their nuclear weapons program, never give up their missile program and that discussion is off the table. no more negotiation when it comes to nukes is what they told me. >> admiral, people look at kim jong-un and north korea and say this guy's a mad man, but that's rational position, albeit one extremely controversial and one that causes huge problems for the united states here. and now that they have successfully tested an icbm, what does that change from the diplomatic standpoint now? >> well, look. i mean, the options were never good before this launch. they're certainly no better now. from a diplomatic perspective, i don't know that it changes all that much. it certainly ratchets up the sense of urgency they now have extended reach or potential extended reach. but i think the options continue to be very limited. and really you're going to take military op

responsibility is it because the british and the french and americans didn't plan on what to do after gadhafi was gone but then again like we've talked about neither did the libyans who are protesting against him should every last one has of the west or should should libyans do something about it themselves no no i actually this is why i started with the internal factor and failure and then i mentioned the external factor but the external factor we cannot. minimize it because it has intervened and it has created the failed states so there should have been collaborative effort. with libyans to deal with. this on them and demobilization and that we have all of the rebels but that was not the case that was not on the table what we had the light model intervention is basically an ad hoc strategy that we have we have a political mission a u.n. political mission that's up to this moment to the fifth year they only extend its mandate for another three months every three months or a six month they extend it so we don't have a comprehensive long term strategy of what are you going to do with libya you

responsibility is it because the british and the french and americans didn't plan on what to do after gadhafi was gone but then again like we'll talk about neither did the libyans who are protesting against him should every last one has a west or should should libyans do something about it themselves no no i i actually this is why i started with the internal factor and failure and then i mentioned the external factor but the external factor we cannot. minimize it because it has intervened and it has created the failed states so there should have been a collaborative effort. with libya. the national weather service in mount holly new jersey has issued a severe thunderstorm warning for kent county and central don't where central queen anne's county in northeastern maryland northeastern caroline county in eastern maryland so western kent county in northeastern maryland until two forty five am at one fifty two am a severe thunderstorm was located over star on your centreville thirty five miles per hour answered sixty miles per hour wind gusts. source radar indicated impact expects damage to trees

it has been that way for six years, since colonel gadhafi was killed. a french paper reports the men are expected to sign a document that will define the principles on which to advance, like holding elections in 2018. catherine: there is one piece of analysis you have pulled out that is taking a more cynical view of this, perhaps more clear right, saying that france might be looking to gain out of getting an end to the libyan crisis. reporter: nothing ever comes for free, does it? when it comes to diplomatic issues, there is always some sort of game. this is the idea put forth by one researcher interviewed by the conservative newspaper "l 'opinion." bothys france is provided sides, first by providing weapons to the general, but also by recognizing the government. france has played on both sides, and this has put them at odds with the libyan people. it has given macron a unique position of eating able to negotiate or mediate this conflict. ultimately, for france, bringing peace in libya will also ensure french security, the security of the region. cather

civilians only for it to turn into a we fly you don't presume where the united states bombed you know gadhafi his father his fighters his military anyone and wanted with impunity and nobody else could fly up in the skies and it was also an interesting bit about chemical weapons where the united states said that russia has an obligation to stop assad from staging any further chemical attacks the key word here being further because it was never stablished for a fact that assad carried out any chemical attacks by an international body an international investigation take the latest attack that happened in april this year the o.p.c. w organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons which was investigating it then investigators didn't even go to the location to gather soil samples to establish what this chemical attack was what the gas used was they were given those samples by rebels the other thing about chemical weapons is that washington says russia has an obligation by the same logic you can hold the united states responsible if any of its allies like the s.d.f. syrian kurds or for example

of civilians only to turn into a we fly you don't deserve where the united states bombed you know gadhafi his father his fighters his military anyone and wanted with impunity and nobody else could fly up in the skies obviously nobody wants that to happen in syria and the russians will be suspicious of any attempt stablish a no fly zone they've been talking about it with iran and with turkey they've been talking about a lot of things that are happening in syria and how to resolve the crisis while excluding the united states and perhaps that's irks washington it was also an interesting bit about chemical weapons where the united states said that russia has an obligation to stop assad from staging any further chemical attacks the key word here being further because it was never stablished for a fact that assad carried out any chemical attacks by an international body an international investigation take the latest attack that happened in april this year the. nation for the prohibition of chemical weapons which was investigating it then investigators didn't even google to the location to gathe

chaos that has engulfed libya since two thousand and eleven when the former libyan dictator moammar gadhafi was overthrown since then they have been various militias and administrations that has been vying for control of those oil rich country now the latest developments really expose the vulnerability of those in backed government it has been struggling as i say to maintain control it has managed to co-opt some of the various groups there but at the same time it's made little progress in terms of really integrating them and providing lost and security in this latest round of violence we see that there is heavy light and medium weaponry been used we know that power lines have been hit people have been fleeing their homes a lot of residents complaining that their homes have been shelled it has been damaged shops have been damaged roads have been closed and people are struggling to make their way back home. the u.n. has one spraying to urgently prepare for a sharp influx of refugees entering the country by the sea from africa the number of migrants who've already reached spain this year is ed

state department created the migrant crisis going to libya and had the regime change coverage of gadhafi and then the democrats celebrated president trump when he was bombing syria so this isn't anything new this isn't just out of nowhere but i would say that there have been we look at this to a bit too negatively at the same time because there are many people within the republican party and the democratic party who are trying to fight back against the neo con persuasion recently congresswoman tulsi gabbert and kentucky senator rand paul the co-sponsored legislation that aims to prevent the u.s. government from funding rebel and terrorist groups which is a step in the right direction it's the top leadership of both parties that are contributing to the. to the rise of the neo cons once again and this is dangerous for the american and as well as the russian people because let's say donald trump remains a peaceful candidate what about his successor what if a democrat gets in there and then he wants to wage war against russia has made the democrats have said because moscow supposedly committ

defeated extremists in benghazi libya in general six years after the murder of libyan leader moammar gadhafi. and the white house hence it will make good on president trump's campaign promise to ramp up its use of the pantano bay detention facility in cuba that story and much more coming up right now. it's tuesday july eleventh.

we would never have toppled that government in the case of gadhafi he had renounced his nuclear ambitions and he was an ally of this country we replaced him with a governmental system which kills christians kills gays abuse abuses women no women are no longer allowed to own property or to get an education or even appear in public without a veil hillary clinton is an advocate for women know hillary clinton is an oppressive and black lives matter unless you live in libya in which case black lives don't matter at all now mr stone if i may ask you if i may i would also like to ask you about your business partner and longtime associate paul man a fourth who prior to advise ing campaign also worked had worked for almost ten years as a low beast in ukraine and it's what's ironic about mr mann a fourth is that in the united states he's investigated for allegedly russian ties in russia some people believe that he is this western stooge responsible in part for precipitating the current crisis in ukraine how do you assess his work in ukraine well first of all he did not work as a lobbyist he worked

benghazi that's according to a libyan general six years after the murder of libyan leader moammar gadhafi. and the white house hence it will make good on president campaign promise to ramp up its use of the one ton of obey detention facility in cuba that story and much more coming up right now. it's tuesday july eleventh five pm in washington d.c. .

they also has engulfed libya since two thousand and eleven when the from the libyan dictator moammar gadhafi was overthrown and since then they have been various ministers and administrations that has been violent troll of those oil rich countries now the latest developments really expose the vulnerability of those in backed government it has been struggling as i say to take control it has managed to co-opt some of the various groups there but at the same time it's made little progress in terms of really integrating them and providing lost and security in this latest round of violence we see that there is heavy light and medium weaponry being used we know that power lines have been hit people have been fleeing their homes a lot of residents complaining that their homes have been shelled as been damaged shops have been damaged roads have been closed and people are struggling to make their way back home british vacationers have been asked to watch a video on how to survive are terrorists. before booking their flights abroad the video includes scenes of a hotel under siege a clear reference to

got your false flag attack which is a characteristic of gladio we'll look at saddam hussein look at gadhafi look we're right right now about assad every day goes on assad right now oh he's creating weapons of mass destruction is make creating chemical weapons so we have to bomb them again this is all gladio. you see if it was the false flags that have no basis in reality at all and yet the american people buy it time and time again it seems that every time there's a major a major push by assad's regime or the iraqi regime to actually depose the isis base we get an allegation that immediately pops up of chemical weapons being used and then u.s. forces start to shift you know again against against the assad regime right i could scream i could scream i could scream because number one of my very rarely talk to your point it's insightful but this is what happened and you know what. you know what's happening right now with that with that with that whole situation. we created isis. i mean isis is no less than the people up and islam bird no less than google and is a cia creation john mccain for he

policy especially on the russian hysteria that i mentioned a few times earlier on the overthrow of gadhafi on syria asking crucial questions like who is going to fill the power vacuum in syria if assad is ousted what's sad is that it's only tucker carlson asking these questions what does that say about the mainstream media what does that say about an american leftist. liberal and leftist media. having somebody like. no no no how many like max blumenthal. minutely huge for a yet says something it's a step in the right direction of how many other anchors on mainstream media on c.n.n. imus n.b.c. fox or are inviting guests like the hard left is like maxwell with all and particularly people who disagree with you that really important here. but i disagree a lot that's why he's on this program here rob what i think is really interesting i will say go ahead get real quick up before i go to robert i will say that yeah what i will say is that i believe that tucker carlson invited max blumenthal on the show because they agreed on the topics that they were chatting about you're talking. you know one

you know we took we in libya we took out gadhafi in iraq we took out saddam hussein that you know didn't really work out well doing that and so this is a change in policy from the obama policy in the early trump policy. recognition one that the policy isn't working that since. the intervention of russia india. iran has been so powerful in terms of giving assad the backing that he needed that taking out assad is very unlikely right now and the other is a look around at what comes afterwards and i think in understanding that now we have to broker what comes afterwards now rather then thinking we can overthrow assad and then figure out who and. it seems to me crazy for us to be in a proxy war with russia and it seems crazy for me to mean for us to be antagonizing iran at a time you know their major regional player. or in my off on no you're absolutely right and unfortunately with the moment that we're in terms of the tremendous antagonism that the press and the democratic party have against russian interference in u.s. elections or involvement with the trump administration the working with

saying the platitudes, he said we have to look at our policies overseas and the over throwing of gadhafi and how it creates resentment and blowback at home. there are not major politicians in the u.s. who have been willing to say that. >> but that may change. i think people are paying attention to how the atmosphere has shifted. when jeremy corbin did that, when he talked about the underlying causes, he was absolutely savaged in the british press and his comments were described as monstrous by some that it didn't hurt him. it may have helped him because i think there is, at this late stage in the war on terror, and appetite for getting at those root causes just as it resonated in the u.s. when bernie sanders talk about climate change as a security issue. he was marked by the elite opinion makers. but it resonated with a lot of voters. >> let's talk a little bit about the bernie sanders campaign and the kind of ideas he talked about that have become more commonplace, and i want to quote from you, you're saying what was unsalable for decades is now being set out loud by candidates who win

unlike gadhafi and iran and libya, they plan to go nuclear. what we have to worry about in sending him over the edge is if he has no way out. if he feels like it's a military operation and he'd rather go first than end up like saddam. >> let's talk about the first face-to-face meeting between vladimir putin and president trump. hear why putin and not the president may be the one bringing up election meddling. >>> plus, a justice department employee quit over the president's, quote, stunning behavior. hear what she says is the tipping point. >>> and a new york police officer and a mother of three ambushed inside her car. why the nypd says there's evidence this was an assassination. whoooo. looking for a hotel that fits... ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over 200 sites to find you the hotel you want at the lowest price. grazie, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. honey, we do? we need to talk. i took the trash out. i know. and thank you so much for that. i think we should get a medicare supplement insurance plan. right now? [ mal

thesis out there, i would recommend exactly how stupid it was for us to topple moammar gadhafi in libyacountry open it had two vastly consequential events one is that we uncorked africa because libya and gadhafi in particular was a cork an africa and since he was toppled basically we've seen a mass movement from sub-saharan africa, about 9,000 to 10,000 people a month the u.n. recently estimated coming up through africa, trying to cross the mediterranean into europe. this is an africa issue, not a middle east issue. and at the same time we sent the signal to kim jong-un, and every other dictator in the world, get a nuclear weapon, and keep it, because gadhafi tried to get one, we persuaded him to give it up and then we decapitated him that libya story has vast consequences, and if anybody is looking for a ph.d. thesis, i'd recommend it >> tom, i want to ask you about a column you wrote recently where i would argue you took the gloves off the title was trump is china's chump. you said far from being a savvy negotiator, he, trump that is, is a sucker whose shrinking u.s. influence in this

they have gone to school on the likes of moammar gadhafi and saw what happened to him when he negotiatedis weapons of mass destruction. they are not going to willingly give up nuclear weapons. >> director clapper thanks for taking the time. >> thanks for having me. >>> breaking news. we are following fresh protests at the g-20 summit. clashes between police and demonstrators. new reporting about increased russian spying inside the u.s. will it come up with president trump meets vladimir putin tomorrow? >>> president trump is questioning the u.s. intelligence consensus that russia was behind cyber attacks designed to interfere in the u.s. presidential election. ahead of his meeting face-to-face with vladimir putin tomorrow mr. trump said nobody knows who is responsible for the interference adding that it could have been others. let's dig deeper with specialists and analysts. i just spoke with james clapper who oversaw these assessments and the agencies who made the judgment, his words he said russia is prepping the battlefield for interfering in elections in 2018 and 2020. that's an alarm

leader to give up his nuclear arsenal if the last two men to do so ended up dead, saddam hussein and gadhafi in libya. how do you motivate someone to give up their arsenal if the two examples of people who did so ended up dead? >> in my meetings with north korean officials last month in europe, they made very clear that denuclearization was totally off the table. there's nothing the u.s. or south korea could offer to induce them to abandon their arsenal. that's consistent with other meetings na victor cha and others have had with north korean officials. so what we need to do is stop pulling our punches on pressure tactics. there's misperceptioning that north korea is the most cutoff nation on earth and that's flat out wrong. the u.s. has done things to iran that we haven't done to north korea. for example, the u.s. unilaterally has sanctioned last year only the first time we sanctioned as many north korean entities as those we had sanctioned in zimbabwe. >> why is that? because china runs interference for them? why is that the case? >> there was a reluctance particularly by the obama adminis

he's seen people like moammar gadhafi who have given up weapons of mass destruction only to find themselvesead. same thing potentially with saddam hussein in terms of any nascent weapons program or capability he had. so his view -- kim jong un's view is the minute i give up the weapons in a negotiation basically i'm out of here. the americans will take me out. again, we have to kind of balance that where he doesn't believe he can give up the weapons in a diplomatic dance. on the other hand, nicolle, your point is very well taken which is that he in pyongyang, jong un will parse every word by an american president and when he tweets out that he wants china to end this nonsense once and for all, kim jong un undoubtedly believes that is a direct threat to him. it will make him more erratic. make him more likely to lash out. >> eli, you cover this white house and on a day like last thursday when all eyes were on a war between the president of the united states and my colleagues, joe scarborough and mika brzezinski, the national security team was dealing with and analyzing information about the