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
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
1. "...In 2012, then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich,
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 03:01 PM
Oct 2015
"....
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 that’s 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 nation’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. At the time, President Bush said Gaddafi’s 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 intervened—absent 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. It’s 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. It’s not surprising, and it’s also not acceptable. ...

We want to stop the attacks on our embassies? Let’s stop trying to overthrow governments. This should not be a partisan issue. Let’s avoid the hype. Let’s 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...."
"...In 2012, then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Segami Oct 2015 #1
"our nation spurred on a civil war, destroying the security and stability of Libya." sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #14
K n R Myrina Oct 2015 #2
Yep. Lots of posturing, lots of bombast, lots of CYA but little of substance. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2015 #3
The clown panel of "Republican troglodytes" Segami Oct 2015 #4
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
They were trying to track down all the illicit weapons. joshcryer Oct 2015 #33
Sy Hersh reported on where the weapons in Libya went KoKo Oct 2015 #6
Thanks. The Hersh article is the most coherent and logical explanation in my view, but of JDPriestly Oct 2015 #20
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #7
K & R, can't rec this enough dreamnightwind Oct 2015 #8
Excellent response Thespian2 Oct 2015 #10
( ._.) Marty McGraw Oct 2015 #11
+1000 valerief Oct 2015 #12
I second your statement. JDPriestly Oct 2015 #24
Thanks, Thespian2 Oct 2015 #9
We were assisting allies in removing Qaddafi and... JaneyVee Oct 2015 #15
What was Hillary's excuse for supporting the military coup in Honduras? Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #18
Neo-imperialist apologia, in the service of a partisan agenda. n/t Comrade Grumpy Oct 2015 #21
Coming from you, that's utterly laughable. NuclearDem Oct 2015 #23
A popular revolt supported by 1000s of foreign jihadis? CJCRANE Oct 2015 #35
Did you read the Seymour Hersh article? JDPriestly Oct 2015 #26
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #17
top constituency of the 2016 election (if not all)? reddread Oct 2015 #22
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
kick nt slipslidingaway Oct 2015 #27
This is the most rational, meaningful thread about these hearings on DU. Perhaps the only one. leveymg Oct 2015 #29
The intent is to harangue her AgingAmerican Oct 2015 #30
The result is to immunize her of consequences from her serial ME policy failures. leveymg Oct 2015 #36
K & R Duppers Oct 2015 #31
There was no way they could explore that aspect. Turbineguy Oct 2015 #32
really good post, thank you heads up Oct 2015 #34
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»IGNORING US Destabilizati...»Reply #1