Skip to main content

View Diary: Only 206 House Republicans have asked to be on their Benghazi committee (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Dems should not pre-emptively surrender (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Pluto, gjohnsit, Uniprober, hbk

    on this - they should use the committee to get to the bottom of exactly what the purpose of Benghazi actually was.

    •  It's blowback for NATOs Holy War (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy

      …on Libyan oil rights (among other things).

      I don't think Democrats want to go there.

      •  Explain? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Feed the hungry? Clothe the naked? House the homeless? American Jesus says "Nuh-uh."

        by edg on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:31:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Regime change. (0+ / 0-)

          Petro-Dollar protection, private oil exploration, fomenting government rebellion, the usual.

          •  See also, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Egypt. (0+ / 0-)
            •  for vague, meaningless lefty talking points, and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Anne Elk

              by that I mean the ones which are wishful-thinking with no facts or reason to back them up, you just got the three cherries.

              NATO never had a holy war against Libya; we went there to prevent a massacre. How much oil did NATO get (or need; remember, the purpose of NATO has absolutely nothing to do with oil; read it's primary purpose).

              And do a little reading, ok Pluto? Leave stupid to the right.

              Those who quote Santayana are condemned to repeat him. Me

              by Mark B on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:17:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really stupid left talking points. The sort of (0+ / 0-)

                thing you see on Fox from the right. A knee jerk reaction to complex problems and situations. European members of NATO are far (in space and time) from a "Holy War".

      •  Of course the Dems don't want to go there (0+ / 0-)

        and they don't have to.

        All they have to do is make it clear that the hearings will involved getting to the bottom of why the CIA used Benghazi as (yet another) clandestine weapons-running outpost.

        I suspect that if bring Obama down would also involve airing dirty laundry of this type (and dissing the MIC which the GOP is in love with), the Repubs would soon stop talking about Benghazi.

        To everyone's benefit / relief.

        •  All that is classified along with the reason (0+ / 0-)

          …Stevens was in an abandoned Consulate for one day only, ie. gun running with his Turkish counterpart to Syrian "rebels".

          Nobody wants to go there.

          •  I would like to go there (0+ / 0-)

            if Benghazi was a secret CIA outpost why isn't that out there? I mean WTF - part of the whole Fox/GOP package is that Stevens was a poor innocent lowly State Dept dude begging Sec. Clinton for help - different story all together if this was just a cover.

            •  They already accidentally went there (0+ / 0-)

              …once and had to shut down the hearings.

            •  Pluto & Roadbed Guy should be called as witnesses (0+ / 0-)

              because they clearly know something no one else does. What the hell was Amb. Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place?

              •  It's only classified from Americans. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Roadbed Guy

                Just like the TPP and the TTIP.

                To the rest of the world, all three of these are open knowledge.

                •  there's intertubes, dude; ya can't keep things (0+ / 0-)

                  classified in one part of the world. Perhaps it's information only you know.

                  Those who quote Santayana are condemned to repeat him. Me

                  by Mark B on Wed May 07, 2014 at 02:20:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It's really quite shocking (to me at least) (0+ / 0-)

                  how and/or why the underlying facts about Benghazi are being so effectively hidden - both nationally (well OK, that is not shocking at all) and at this site.

                  Especially because a decade ago Kos himself took the lead in exposing the real role of "contractors" at Fallujah.  

                  But when something similar goes down under a Democratic president, it seems like the urge to "elect Democrats" totally - and I mean totally - trumps any latent impulse to actually enlighten the site's readers . . ..

              •  Not really, it's on Wikipedia . .. . (0+ / 0-)
                Within months of the start of the Libyan revolution in February 2011, the CIA began building a meaningful but covert presence in Benghazi.[21] During the war, elite counter-terrorist operators from America's Delta Force were deployed to Libya as analysts, instructing the rebels on specifics about weapons and tactics.[22]:16 Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was named the first liaison with the Libyan opposition in March 2011.[23] After the end of the war, both the CIA and the US State department were tasked with continuing to identify and collect arms that had flooded the country during the war, particularly shoulder-fired missiles taken from the former arsenal of the fallen regime of Gaddafi,[24][25] as well as securing Libyan chemical weapon stockpiles, and helping to train Libya's new intelligence service.[21]

                Multiple anonymous sources reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was used by CIA as a cover to smuggle weapons from Libya to anti-Assad rebels in Syria.[28][22]:56[29][26][30] Seymour Hersh cites a source among intelligence officials, saying The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms. It had no real political role.

                One has to have their head rather far up their ass to pretend to be completely oblivious to all this
                •  Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sweatyb

                  since you have no idea who wrote this or what they really knew.

                  It may be true -- certainly fits what we know about how the CIA functions -- but always has to be approached with some caution due to the anonymity.

                •  But wasn't Gadafi collaborating with the USA (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sweatyb

                  from about 2002 onwards? Libyan intelligence was tremendously cooperative on the subject of Al Qaeda. I don't see that having the CIA in Libya really makes a hill of beans difference to what the US was doing with Libya up until that point. The only point to make though is that the CIA is the single most spectacularly and reliably incompetent Agency in the US government. Their involvement in anything spells disaster. So the Benghazi episode hardly surprises me if the CIA was involved in any way.

                  Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                  by Anne Elk on Wed May 07, 2014 at 04:17:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site