The State Department spokesmen said something like this:
“There as been a certain amount of instability in Libya after the departure of Gaddafi”. – This is a slight paraphrase but ‘certain amount of instability’ and ‘departure of Gaddafi’ are exact quotes – see the report on RT.
A ‘certain amount of instability’ is one way of describing the chaos once prosperous Libya has descended into since the 2011 NATO ‘ouster’ of Gaddafi (who was in fact brutally murdered after being captured). There is no functioning central government. The country is riven by rival militias. Torture of prisoners held by various armed groups is rife. ISIS has popped up in one of the major cities – Sirte. This post we did around this time last year provides some links to various sources which give a feel for the chaos.
As for ‘departure of Gaddafi’. This is the same line we had with the overthrow of President Yanokovich in Ukraine. He is supposed to have just ‘departed’ too. – Most people would ‘depart’ when faced with an extremely violent thousands-strong mob screaming blue murder at you and attacking policement with firebombs just yards from your office. The US of course fed that mob. The cookies of US State Department official Victoria Nuland  can be understood as a metaphor for the billions spent in subverting the country.  Same with Gadaffi. He ‘departed’ after being bombed by NATO and butchered on the battlefield. According to this report (in the Telegraph) US and French forces directly contributed to this murder with the SAS acting in an advisory role. (The Telegraph writer calls Gadaffi a ‘despot’; was he doing that before the revolution when the UK was trying to sell arms to him? But that is another question). So much for ‘departure’. The bombing of Libya was based on a distortion of UN resolution 1970; the resolution permitted military action to protect civilians. But this was twisted with a piece of legal sophistry to say that since Gaddafi was a risk to civilians the resolution permitted an operation to overthrow his regime. (Strange that the UK and the EU were so willing to sell quite so many weapons to someone whom they later described as being such a threat to civilians).  At any event where would the US State Department and their lackeys in the British government be without the passive voice? They organise coups and bomb the blazes out of people then say ‘oh, he departed’. It is of course surreal.
Who swallows these lies? One answer is 90% of the Western media 90% of the time. Does the population? It is difficult to know.