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
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIgnoring U.S. Destabilization of Libya, GOP Benghazi Hearing Asks Clinton All the Wrong Questions
Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)
Ignoring U.S. Destabilization of Libya, GOP Benghazi Hearing Asks Clinton All the Wrong QuestionsDemocracy Now
MELVIN GOODMAN: So what really needs to be discussed is, what is the role of military power in the making of foreign policy? Why does Hillary Clinton think that Libya is not a disaster? And why was Hillary Clinton pushing for the military role in Libya in the first place? These are important issues.
As far as the hearings were concerned, she testified off and on for nearly 11 hours. She handled herself extremely well, and she essentially exposed the fact that these were a group of Republican troglodytes doing their best to marginalize her and humiliate her. And they totally failed.
AMY GOODMAN: Mel Goodman, the justification at the time, that Gaddafi was going to commit a massacre in Benghazi. Can you take us back toagain, it was September 11thanother September 11th2012. I think there is so little talked about, about what actually was happening there, that people dont realize exactly what the context was.
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, in the wake of Gaddafis death, there was total chaos in Libya. And essentially, there was a civil war being waged between forces in the western part of the country, based around the capital, Tripoli, and forces in the eastern part of the country, based around Benghazi. And what we have learned, essentially, over the last 34 years of foreign policymaking, that when you use military power in areas that are not stable, you usually create a worse situation. Israel invades Lebanon in 1982, and the creation of Hezbollah takes place. We arm the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and this leads to groups like the Haqqani faction, the Hekmatyar group, and even al-Qaeda. We go into Iraq, theres the Sunni Awakening. Now were dealing with the Islamic State. So we took a very bad situation, where there was factionalism in Libya, and made it much worse by removing the only person who seemed to hold it together, even though he did it with incredible violence and threat, but Gaddafi was holding that nation, to the extent it was a nation, holding it together. So, we were a major force and a major reason for the instability that took place. We should never have been in Benghazi. All of the other international institutions, both government and nongovernment, had pulled out of Benghazi.
So, what we need to know is why Stevens was there in the first place, what the CIA was doing, and why there was novirtually no security around the diplomatic facility, which was just a transitional facility, and because it was a TMF, it wasnt even eligible for an upgrade in security. It didnt come up on the radar screen. And to blame her for that is ridiculous. But to know what her position was on why military force was a good idea is important, particularly since she is going to be the Democratic candidateshe established that last week in the debate. And theres a very good chance shell be occupying the White House for four to eight years in the near term.
As far as the hearings were concerned, she testified off and on for nearly 11 hours. She handled herself extremely well, and she essentially exposed the fact that these were a group of Republican troglodytes doing their best to marginalize her and humiliate her. And they totally failed.
AMY GOODMAN: Mel Goodman, the justification at the time, that Gaddafi was going to commit a massacre in Benghazi. Can you take us back toagain, it was September 11thanother September 11th2012. I think there is so little talked about, about what actually was happening there, that people dont realize exactly what the context was.
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, in the wake of Gaddafis death, there was total chaos in Libya. And essentially, there was a civil war being waged between forces in the western part of the country, based around the capital, Tripoli, and forces in the eastern part of the country, based around Benghazi. And what we have learned, essentially, over the last 34 years of foreign policymaking, that when you use military power in areas that are not stable, you usually create a worse situation. Israel invades Lebanon in 1982, and the creation of Hezbollah takes place. We arm the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and this leads to groups like the Haqqani faction, the Hekmatyar group, and even al-Qaeda. We go into Iraq, theres the Sunni Awakening. Now were dealing with the Islamic State. So we took a very bad situation, where there was factionalism in Libya, and made it much worse by removing the only person who seemed to hold it together, even though he did it with incredible violence and threat, but Gaddafi was holding that nation, to the extent it was a nation, holding it together. So, we were a major force and a major reason for the instability that took place. We should never have been in Benghazi. All of the other international institutions, both government and nongovernment, had pulled out of Benghazi.
So, what we need to know is why Stevens was there in the first place, what the CIA was doing, and why there was novirtually no security around the diplomatic facility, which was just a transitional facility, and because it was a TMF, it wasnt even eligible for an upgrade in security. It didnt come up on the radar screen. And to blame her for that is ridiculous. But to know what her position was on why military force was a good idea is important, particularly since she is going to be the Democratic candidateshe established that last week in the debate. And theres a very good chance shell be occupying the White House for four to eight years in the near term.
Video at the link.
This take is less about the sham hearings and more about the consequences of military interventionism. It would be good if we could have a discussion about the wisdom of relying on military power so heavily in foreign policy rather than getting dragged into the mud of a partisan witch hunt.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 816 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ignoring U.S. Destabilization of Libya, GOP Benghazi Hearing Asks Clinton All the Wrong Questions (Original Post)
portlander23
Oct 2015
OP
Yep. All this stuff is a diversion from the real scandal, our disastrous military intervention.
Comrade Grumpy
Oct 2015
#3
Octafish
(55,745 posts)1. Thank you, Mr. Goodman.
So, what we need to know is why Stevens was there in the first place, what the CIA was doing, and why there was novirtually no security around the diplomatic facility, which was just a transitional facility, and because it was a TMF, it wasnt even eligible for an upgrade in security. It didnt come up on the radar screen. And to blame her for that is ridiculous. But to know what her position was on why military force was a good idea is important, particularly since she is going to be the Democratic candidateshe established that last week in the debate. And theres a very good chance shell be occupying the White House for four to eight years in the near term.
K&R
blm
(113,043 posts)2. It was a covert CIA op under direction of Gen Petraeus, not State Dept.
GOP won't go there.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)3. Yep. All this stuff is a diversion from the real scandal, our disastrous military intervention.
And the CIA spookery around it.