Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: IGNORING US Destabilization of Libya, GOP Benghazi Hearing Asks Clinton All the WRONG QUESTIONS [View all]Segami
(14,923 posts)1. "...In 2012, then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich,
"....
a Democrat from Ohio, spoke at a House committee hearing a month after the attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. He stated, quote, "The security situation did not happen overnight because of a decision made by someone [at] the State Department." He went on to criticize U.S. policy in Libya.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We owe it to the diplomatic corps, who serves our nation, to start at the beginning. And thats what I shall do. The security threats in Libya, including the unchecked extremist groups who are armed to the teeth, exist because our nation spurred on a civil war, destroying the security and stability of Libya. And, you know, no one defends Gaddafi. Libya was not in a meltdown before the war. In 2003, Gaddafi reconciled with the community of nations by giving up his nations pursuit of nuclear weapons. At the time, President Bush said Gaddafis actions made our country and our world safer.
Now, during the Arab Spring, uprisings across the Middle East occurred, and Gaddafi made ludicrous threats against Benghazi. Based on those verbal threats, we intervenedabsent constitutional authority, I might add. We bombed Libya. We destroyed their army. We obliterated their police stations. Lacking any civil authority, armed brigades control security. Al-Qaeda expanded its presence. Weapons are everywhere. Thousands of shoulder-to-air missiles are on the loose. Our military intervention led to greater instability in Libya.
Many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, made that argument to try to stop the war. Its not surprising, given the inflated threat and the grandiose expectations inherent in our nation building in Libya, that the State Department was not able to adequately protect our diplomats from this predictable threat. Its not surprising, and its also not acceptable. ...
We want to stop the attacks on our embassies? Lets stop trying to overthrow governments. This should not be a partisan issue. Lets avoid the hype. Lets look at the real situation here. Interventions do not make us safer. They do not protect our nations They are themselves a threat to America...."
a Democrat from Ohio, spoke at a House committee hearing a month after the attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. He stated, quote, "The security situation did not happen overnight because of a decision made by someone [at] the State Department." He went on to criticize U.S. policy in Libya.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We owe it to the diplomatic corps, who serves our nation, to start at the beginning. And thats what I shall do. The security threats in Libya, including the unchecked extremist groups who are armed to the teeth, exist because our nation spurred on a civil war, destroying the security and stability of Libya. And, you know, no one defends Gaddafi. Libya was not in a meltdown before the war. In 2003, Gaddafi reconciled with the community of nations by giving up his nations pursuit of nuclear weapons. At the time, President Bush said Gaddafis actions made our country and our world safer.
Now, during the Arab Spring, uprisings across the Middle East occurred, and Gaddafi made ludicrous threats against Benghazi. Based on those verbal threats, we intervenedabsent constitutional authority, I might add. We bombed Libya. We destroyed their army. We obliterated their police stations. Lacking any civil authority, armed brigades control security. Al-Qaeda expanded its presence. Weapons are everywhere. Thousands of shoulder-to-air missiles are on the loose. Our military intervention led to greater instability in Libya.
Many of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, made that argument to try to stop the war. Its not surprising, given the inflated threat and the grandiose expectations inherent in our nation building in Libya, that the State Department was not able to adequately protect our diplomats from this predictable threat. Its not surprising, and its also not acceptable. ...
We want to stop the attacks on our embassies? Lets stop trying to overthrow governments. This should not be a partisan issue. Lets avoid the hype. Lets look at the real situation here. Interventions do not make us safer. They do not protect our nations They are themselves a threat to America...."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
IGNORING US Destabilization of Libya, GOP Benghazi Hearing Asks Clinton All the WRONG QUESTIONS [View all]
Segami
Oct 2015
OP
"our nation spurred on a civil war, destroying the security and stability of Libya."
sabrina 1
Oct 2015
#14
Yep. Lots of posturing, lots of bombast, lots of CYA but little of substance.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Oct 2015
#3
Benghazi was a covert CIA station with strong indications it was Petraeus' baby
riderinthestorm
Oct 2015
#5
No skin off their ('uglican) backs. They are already bought and paid for. It's the taxpayers
erronis
Oct 2015
#13
Thanks. I've been asking these questions, and now, finally from Mel Goodman's testimony and
JDPriestly
Oct 2015
#16
Truth! And that is why they wouldn't go there. They really don't care about what happened, they
kelliekat44
Oct 2015
#19
Benghazi!! is a convenient, bipartisan diversion that like Whitewater cut off lines of investigation
leveymg
Oct 2015
#28
Thanks. The Hersh article is the most coherent and logical explanation in my view, but of
JDPriestly
Oct 2015
#20
The permanent government: the Pentagon, intel agencies, foreign policy mandarins. Not elected, but
leveymg
Oct 2015
#37
knr! We removed a dictator and helped the country to hold elections ...
slipslidingaway
Oct 2015
#25
This is the most rational, meaningful thread about these hearings on DU. Perhaps the only one.
leveymg
Oct 2015
#29
The result is to immunize her of consequences from her serial ME policy failures.
leveymg
Oct 2015
#36