Kucinich: "Want to Stop Attacks on US Embassies? Stop trying to overthrow Governments"

[99th_Monkey]

Want to Stop Attacks on US Embassies? Stop trying to overthrow Governments
By: Kevin Gosztola Wednesday October 10, 2012 4:27 pm

A congressional committee held a hearing on the security failures that led to the killings of four Americans at a US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11. The hearing included two witnesses from the State Department that agreed to begin to share key details on what occurred.

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee that held the hearing, said in his statement the State Department had just yesterday begun to publicly acknowledge the truth that was long suspected. There had been no protest related to any anti-Islam video. What happened was a clearly planned attack by “terrorists on the eleventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.” And he added the hearing had been scheduled to address the concerns of citizens with “direct knowledge of the events in Libya.”

The opening of the hearing featured a prime example of how the United States government engages in secrecy to shield itself from embarrassing information that might invite criticism or scrutiny. Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management at the State Department, was asked directly by Issa whether he was prepared to share with Congress members unclassified “memos” or diplomatic cables. Kennedy said he would not share them because the “totality” of the documents make them restricted. Issa did not buy this mosaic theory intended to conceal information and he said to say an array of unclassified documents are restricted when combined together is to “make everything you do unavailable to Congress.”

COMPLETE ARTICLE: http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/10/10/kucinich-want-to-prevent-attacks-on-us-embassies-stop-trying-to-overthrow-governments-video/

[PDJane]

1. Of course it had to be Kucinich;

Last edited Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)

there isn't anyone else sane enough or blunt enough to say this.

[valerief]

21. +1000

[LWolf]

66. In the modern world,

it's socially and politically incorrect to be blunt, to point out inconvenient truths that make the dominant thinking look foolish, misguided, wrong, or harmful.

Or so I've been told by my boss. That kind of leadership simply isn't wanted.

[PDJane]

68. Join the crowd.

I've been fired twice for 'insubordination.' That actually means I pointed out errors that no-one wanted to know about, essentially.

[abumbyanyothername]

72. Noam Chomsky. nt

[PDJane]

74. Chomsky isn't in congress. Of course Kucinich won't be soon.

[polichick]

2. You mean they don't hate us for our freedom?

[nc4bo]

3. Words from the wise soul!

We really do need more Dennis' in our politics.

Good man!

[joshcryer]

4. I disagree that "we" spurred a civil war there.

Libya would be like Syria right now had there been no intervention.

Is that a preferable outcome?

[leveymg]

9. We spurred a civil war in both countries, Josh.

And that mistake hasn't even begun to hit us yet. Blowback in Benghazi was just the beginning.

[joshcryer]

22. The Syrian protesters went to the streets Jan 26.

While their level of protest didn't reach violent levels until we started intervening in Libya (around March 18, the day before the no fly zone was enacted in Libya) and one can make the spurious argument that it was a "motivating factor" we simply didn't do all that much to make the Syrian people go to the streets en-mass. In fact, the original protests were met with surprising concessions by Assad's government. The people, however, didn't think the reforms were enough and continued protesting into April, at which point the crackdowns began.

Now, there's one distinction between the FSA and FLA. The FLA, after having dozens of people killed, immediately took that as a sign that they should arm themselves, so they went on the offensive, took over an army barracks, went after weapons depots (which thanks to the west and Russia Gaddafi had an ample supply of).

The FSA on the other hand never had that sort of opportunity to defend themselves. Over time they have grown massively but they're still quite ill equipped.

There's actually another distinction due to the much more sectarian elements in Syria, but it's not something I feel like discussing. I am not for intervention in Syria.

Calling the attack a "blowback" is hardly fair given that it's mainly a security problem as opposed to an enemy problem. Benghazians went to the streets after the attacks and denounced such things (which a lot of people posted about here on DU, but it is sad that they felt they had to do that to convince the more cynical people abroad).

[GeorgeGist]

44. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

:thumpsup:

[GeorgeGist]

45. :thumbsup:

[leveymg]

52. The key dates are Feb. 4 (call for Day of Rage), April 8 (start of armed fighting in Daraa) and

April 25, the entry of massed troops to put down the insurrection that included armed military defectors.

The peaceful protests lasted for less than two weeks before the battle for Daraa started on 04/08/11

Same chain of events happened, virtually simultaneously in Benghazi. The pattern in both countries, focused on these two cities, was broadly as follows:

Week One: The Twitter Factor - exile groups promote “Days of Rage.” Largely ignored.
Week Two: Demonstrations grow, calls for overthrow of regime. A few serious casualties.
Week Three: Militants shoot at police and demonstrators during riots, Police/Army overrreact, massacres.
Week Four, and thereafter: Mob Anger, Storming of Gov't buildings, arsenals looted, troops attacked, foreign fighters and al Qaeda carry out bombings, civil war.
Coverage of events by “liberal” western media fixates on Week Three: PR for Islamic Revolution and "humanitarian intervention."

During the period of the first Daraa uprising, the estimates for the number of opposition killed range from 50-220 (with 81 defected soldiers killed), while government casualties are reported to be killed 25 killed and 177 wounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April%E2%80%93May_2011_Daraa_siege

April–May 2011 Daraa siege
Part of the Syrian uprising

Date 25 April – 5 May 2011
Location Daraa, Syria

Result Protests suppressed

Belligerents
Syrian opposition
• Opposition protesters Syrian government
• Syrian Army

Commanders and leaders
Unknown Gen. Maher al-Assad
Gen. Suheil Hassan
Gen. Mohsin Makhlouf
Gen. Ahmed Yousef Jarad
Gen. Ramadan Ramadan[1]

Units involved
4th Division (42nd brigade)
5th Division (12th, 15th, 112th, 132nd brig, 175th reg)
Special forces (35th, 41st regiment)[2]

Strength
100,000 protesters 1,100 (originally)[3]

Casualties and losses
50[4] – 220[5] killed,
600 arrested,[6]
81 defected soldiers killed[7]
25 killed,
177 wounded[8]

The fighting with military defectors was a battle that developed within the context of armed uprising in Daraa. The events of April 8 that led to the arrival two weeks later of large number of government troops are key to understanding how the violence was sparked and why the use of force by the regime escalated. There were three key actions that sparked the crackdown: snipers, the burning of the Ba'ath Party Headquarters by a large, armed mob, and the killing of 19 policemen and security personnel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_%28January%E2%80%93April_2011%29

8 April – "Friday of Resistance"
External videos
Unknown Gunmen Filmed at Syria Demo
(YouTube: Associated Press.)
8 April 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2011.
Protests in Duma near Damascus

On the third Friday called "Friday of Resistance", thousands of protesters took to streets in Daraa, Latakia, Tartus, Edlib, Baniyas, Qamishli, Homs and the Damascus suburb of Harasta, in the largest protest yet.[160][161]

27 anti-government protesters were killed in Daraa and many other were wounded when security forces opened fire with rubber bullets and live rounds to disperse stone-throwing protesters.[161][162] The clashes started when thousands of prayers staged rallies following the Friday prayers. In a telephone call one of the activists told the news agencies that demonstrators, starting from three mosques, have marched to the city's main court where they were confronted by security forces dressed in civilian clothing.[163] A witness told Reuters he saw "snipers on roofs."[164] It was also reported that another resident has seen "pools of blood and three bodies" in the Mahatta area of Daraa.[164] The protesters have also smashed a stone statue of Basil al-Assad, the brother of the current President of the country, and set fire to a Ba'ath Party outpost.[163][164][165] The state-run Syrian Television reported that 19 police officers and members of the security forces have been killed in Daraa.[166]

You may view the original AP Raw Feed from Daraa on April 8 which shows the mob and the snipers, here:

http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Le6WpCSXCyI - (dissected URL version, eliminate the space after youtube._ to reconnect)

Raw Video: Deadly Day of Protests in Syria - YouTube
► 1:13► 1:13

www.youtube.com Apr 8, 2011 - 1 min - Uploaded by AssociatedPress
State-run Syrian TV says 19 police officers and security forces have been killed in southern city of Daraa. (April 8)

[joshcryer]

54. I'm not sure how that establishes that we spurred it.

[leveymg]

59. What it establishes is that there was a common pattern of insurgency. Riots and violence leading

up to regime change follow a well understood dynamic of mass mobilization, provocation, overreaction and de-legitimization. Libya and Syria followed the same pattern of engineered insurrection, almost simultaneously, and the US had an identifiable substantial role in "spurring" events in both countries.

There is no question that the US and other western countries facilitated Libyan and Syrian opposition groups in exile, which produced the twin "Days of Rage" pronouncements that served as a "spur" to the mass demonstrations that errupted shortly thereafter in both countries. This "mass mobilization" phase is part of a well-understood and documented insurgency and counter-insurgency literature that underlies the theory and practice of regime change.

Once mobs are called out into the streets in urban centers of targeted countries, it is merely a matter of provoking the often undertrained and ill-equipped municipal authorities and paramilitary auxillaries into the use of a degree of lethal excessive force that deligitimizes the regime. One description of that dynamic is described here, See, e.g., J. Sullivan and A. Elkus, The Strategic Challenge of Riots Riot Action and Crowd Power, Small Wars Journal (Feb. 13, 2012):

Journal Article | February 13, 2012 http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-strategic-challenge-of-riots

Orchestrated Political Violence or the “Deadly Urban Riot”

Horowitz described a range of orchestrated political violence in his landmark work The Deadly Urban Riot.[4] These violent episodes are all characterized by selective targeting. They include: violent protests, pogroms, feuds, lynchings, genocides, terrorist attacks, gang assaults, and ethnic fights. They can be used individually or an in range of hybrids, such as the contemporary narco-blockades (or narcobloqueos) seen in Mexico’s criminal insurgencies. The blogger Shlok Vaidya has also reported on bandhs, large-scale infrastructure disruption by crowds in India and their usage as a political tool.[5] The culmination of the orchestrated disorder is the deadly urban riot (or communal violence). These can be concentrated (occurring in a single location) or dispersed (occurring at multiple locations in a single neighborhood, city, or region, multiple cities or finally globally networked in multiple cities across multiple regions).

Networked Disorder

Contemporary disorder, protest, riots, and communal violence can be events can be focal, distributed, or networked. That is, they can occur in a range of settings due to advances in Internet Communications Technology (ICT). New media, such as social networking sites and tools allow mobs to coordinate and synchronized their actions.

ICT acts, in this context, as a force multiplier. As Jack McDonald notes, historically, one of the major advantages of the state was information dominance. The state and its bureaucracies used superior access to information as a tool to mass larger amounts of resources against its opponents. Politically “neutered” populations gradually ceded the ability to make violence to the state and its security services. Of course, this ability never really went away, but always lay dormant—contingent on perceptions of the state’s power and legitimacy. The ability of individuals to organize themselves using person-to-person (P2P) technologies enhances the traditional small core of rioters always seen at the forefront of violent disturbances. The essence of flash-mobbing is the ability to create highly focused bursts of intense violence. This resulting “democratization” of violence allow a few people to turn a large city upside down.[6]

McDonald is also echoed by the netwar literature pioneered by John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt.[7] Perhaps the most important insight of the netwar literature is that riots and street revolutions are a product of diverse groups of actors—activists, opportunistic looters, anarchist “black bloc” members, and other networks—coalescing on a single spot. Indeed, in revolutionary “coup d’street” as the fabric of order and state dominance breaks down, direct action—whether for political purpose, criminal gain, or sheer boredom—becomes more viable. The implications of this convergence, as Bruce Crumley notes, is more violence spread around a larger geographic area and with actors not typically seen in the typical American and European riot experience, such as well-off students and professionals in addition to the stereotype of the typical aggrieved slum-dweller.[8][div]

[99th_Monkey]

12. While there may be some truth in what you say

I felt compelled to post this from more of a big picture perspective:
i.e. how we keep slaughtering, maiming and pillaging ME nations
willy nilly, under some powerful delusion that we are "fighting against
terrorism", when it is WE/US who are the real terrorists. One of the
most striking aspects of this delusion is imagining that somehow these
people we are invading & massacring at will, either don't have families
or loved ones WHO WILL NEVER FORGET, WILL NEVER FORGIVE us
for what we have done.

By any sane estimate, we have killed well over a million people in ME
nations. So you do the math, in terms of how many family members
and loved ones are now "out there" -- thanks to our military actions
-- who are seething with rage against their US oppressors.

This I think is the point Kucinich is making here, and perhaps Libya is
not the best example of our stupidity, but it is still in the ballpark.

[pampango]

14. Agreed. People naturally protest against life under a dictator when they get the chance.

We should not be amazed that the Arab Spring eventually happened nor suspect that Arabs protesting life with no freedoms must be the result of an outside force giving them ideas.

Arabs are humans like the rest of us - they kind of like having a say in how they are governed rather than have some self-selected guy with the support of the military and security services always telling them what to do. We would not be happy with that kind of life. Neither are they.

[lalalu]

5. I use to like Kucinich and thought he had some good ideas.

Somewhere he went overboard.

So when a dictator is committing genocide and killing his own people should we always remain neutral? There is no doubt our recent wars were over oil, Bush having some personal daddy issues, and Cheney rigging government contracts for his buddies. Yet I think Kucinich advocating we should completely disband the military and never interfere in foreign humanitarian issues is naive. There were people who thought the same about Germany in the 1930s and we know that was a mistake.

The real issue is getting rid of all the private contractors fronting as US military and removing the profit they make from war. No one in congress wants to even touch the issue of how privatized our military has become.

[leveymg]

8. His problem isn't with overthrow of dictators, it's creation of failed states overrun by terrorists

armed with sophisticated weapons looted from the old regime's arsenals. It's called blowback, and it is the result of badly thought out policies of regime change in places like Libya and Syria.

[lalalu]

32. Kucinich has advocated the complete dismantling of our military.

That is ridiculous and lazy. I clearly remember in 2008 when he told Maher he would completely do away with the military. A typical response from a member of congress who doesn't want to do the job of reform.

Kucinich has been nothing but talk for too many years and it is why he lost the election. He is just reiterating the same thing without going after the real underlying issue driving out policies.

The privatizing of our military was started by Reagan and has grown but you will never ever hear any member of congress address that issue.

[leveymg]

49. And before the 1976 election, Jimmy Carter talked about nationalizing the oil industry. But, given

the opportunity when confronted with a phony oil crisis in 1979, Carter was unwilling to press that point home. If in a position to ever do anything of the sort with the military, I'll bet that Dennis wouldn't, either.

I think you may be confusing rhetoric with program in this case. As for privatizing the military, Machiavelli got it right in the 16th Century: the wise Prince never relies upon mercenaries.

[lalalu]

56. Good points

[eridani]

57. You can stop bullshitting about the election right now, and stop glorifying John Boehner

A small piece of the Cleveland area containing the Kucinich house was combined with another congressional district consisting mainly of Toledo and environs, by a small strip of Lake Erie beach that is under water at high tide. This pitted him against another progressive, Marcy Kaptur. Her previous supporters voted for her; his previous supporters voted for him. In the new CD, there were far more of the former than the latter. This bit of gerrymandering was arranged by Boehner to get rid of Kucinich.

[sabrina 1]

11. So why do we support brutal dictators in eg, Uzbekistan who kill and torture their own people?

Our ally, Karamov in Uzbekistan makes Gadaffi look like Santa Claus. So why do you think we are so selective about the 'dictators' we decide to support or not to support?

I think most of us know the answer to that.

We have a history of supporting Dictators. Show me one Democratically elected leader in a ME or Latin American country this country supported. We don't support them, we back coups against them and have done for decades.

Name one intervention in recent memory that was for 'humanitarian' reasons. Our interventions are for the control of resources. We do not intervene for humanitarian reasons ever.

Libya was about oil, Iraq was about oil. We made the humanitarian situations in both these countries worse than they were under their former governments.

Kucinich is right because he knows the facts.

[lalalu]

28. We do so for the profit which I addressed.

Kucinich is delusional if he thinks any nation can survive without a military. The military must have oversight just like any other entity. The problem is that congress, including Kucinich have not done their duty, just as Americans have not done their duty in putting responsible people in congress. Our voting numbers are dismal and members of congress know this.

[sabrina 1]

30. Having a military and misusing it are two different things.

Our military is all over the world right now. What are they doing in over one hundred countries? The only reason to have a military is for defense and since we have the most powerful military in the world, we don't have much to worry about regarding being attacked. So why are we all over the world, stirring up trouble, backing dictatorships, like the Bahrain Royal Family currently engaged in brutalizing its own people.

We can buy any oil we need, why this policy of invading countries, propping up dictators, occupying countries we don't belong in, when there are alternatives to getting what we need as a nation?

When is there going to be a discussion of these failed policies that seem to be putting us in more, not less danger?

Kucinich is right. He has seen it all from the inside, he has tried to address these issues in Congress. But the MIC and Major Corps are making too much money from killing and torturing and invading. We agree, we are doing it for profit, but why does it keep going on without someone doing something to put an end to it?

Ultimately it is the fault of the people who refuse to elect decent, honest politicians when they have the chance to do so.

[lalalu]

34. I completely agree with your last sentence.

Maybe I have just become so disgusted but I no longer trust even Kucinich. The privatizing of our military is the real issue and even people like Kucinich have sat by for years and let it happen. Most people don't realize how much work once done by actual military personnel is now outsourced to private companies. They are making billions on war.

[leveymg]

6. Here's what Dennis actually said. You won't hear this from anyone else in DC.

Here is the full statement he made prior to questioning Ambassador Kennedy:

Mr. Kennedy has testified today that US interests and values are at stake in Libya and that the US is better off because we went to Benghazi. Really? You’d think that after ten years in Iraq and after eleven years in Afghanistan that the US would have learned the consequences and the limits of interventionism. You would think that after trillions had been wasted on failed attempts at democracy-building abroad while our infrastructure at home Congress and the administration would reexamine priorities.

Today we’re engaging in a discussion about the security failures of Benghazi. There was a security failure. Four Americans, including our ambassador, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed. Their deaths were a national tragedy. My sympathies are with the families of those who were killed. There has to be accountability and I haven’t heard that yet. We have an obligation to protect those that protect us. That’s why this Congress needs to ask questions.

The security situation did not happen overnight because of a decision made by someone at the State Department. We could talk about hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts for funding for embassy security over the last two years as a result of a blind pursuit for fiscal austerity. We could talk about whether it is prudent to rely so heavily on security contractors rather than our own military or State Department personnel. We could do a, “He said, She said,” about whether the State Department should have beefed up security at the embassy in Benghazi. We owe it to the diplomatic corp, who serves our nation, to start at the beginning and that’s what I shall do.

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. No one defends Gaddafi. Libya was not in a meltdown before the war. In 2003, Gaddafi reconciled with a 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 or armed brigades to 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.

It’s easy to blame someone else, like a civil servant at the State Department. We all know the game. It’s harder to acknowledge that decades of American foreign policy have directly contributed to regional instability and the rise of armed militias around the world. It’s even harder to acknowledge Congress’ role and the failure to stop the war in Libya, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, the war in Yemen, the war in Somalia and who knows where else. It’s harder to recognize Congress’ role and the failure to stop the drone attacks that are still killing innocent civilians and strengthening radical elements abroad.

We want to stop 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 nation. They are themselves a threat to America.

After calling out Congress for being derelict in its duty, Kucinich asked Ambassador Kennedy what he knew about Al Qaeda’s growing presence. Kennedy had no answer. Kucinich also asked Kennedy how many shoulder-to-air missiles (MANPADs) were on the loose. Kennedy had no answer.

Another witness, Eric Nordstrom, Regional Security Officer for the State Department, answered ten to twenty thousand. And Lt. Col. Andrew Wood said Al Qaeda’s ”presence grows every day. They are certainly more established than we are (in Libya),” which served to accentuate Kucinich’s point.

The US did not make Libya safer by intervening. It only served to further ignite conflict and now there are militias running around with weapons that are on the loose and they are able to commit great acts of violence.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to get through to readers here, my fellow DUers. We have learned nothing from the failures of the policy of regime change, and we are creating the next great foreign policy catastrophe in Syria with something even worse to follow by provoking war with Iran.

[99th_Monkey]

15. THANK YOU!! +1000 nt

[sabrina 1]

18. And those of us who opposed the intervention in Libya are not surprised by those answers, mainly the

one from Wood, that Al Queda's presence grows every day in Libya. We were criticized for refusing to believe that Libya was ever part of the genuine grass roots uprisings that took place in Egypt and Tunisia. But it as clear from early on that the Western allies were taking cover under those revolutions to take control of Libya's resources and that there were CIA, British Intel (they were even caught) French, Qatar soldiers, most likely US Mercenaries, Blackwater et al (this way we can deny that we have 'troops' on the ground) on the ground, arming anyone willing to join the Regime Change mission of the western nations.

The denial of facts was pretty stunning. Eg, the Egyptian and Tunisians were never armed. But from early on in Libya, the arms began to appear, just like Syria which is following the same recipe and as always, these terrible interventions end up killing innocent civilians and we don't seem to care.

[joshcryer]

26. Thanks for the full statement, that's the part I disagree with.

The police, for instance, were reinstated, many even worked throughout the revolution. The problem is that while the civil war was going on a lot of arms were able to flow. Obviously the well meaning rebels having guns wasn't necessarily bad (they were working to liberate the country), but still the arms were allowed to get into the hands of more anti-American radical extremists.

It takes time to disarm a population after a civil war when everyone and their mother has a gun. They have been working hard to do this (and once you see someone or a group with arms then you can sort of profile them and question their use, whether it's legitimate or not).

If you recall some of the Libyan rebels (still armed post-revolution) attacked the Benghazi extremist headquarters. This is not a country that is fraught with Al Qaeda insurgence, this is a country that is fighting against it at every turn. Any other analysis I think is just untrue.

[leveymg]

50. It is really three countries. W Libya and Tripoli are very westernized, the central region (Sirte)

is a bedouin enclave that benefited from the material indulgences of Gadaffi (his family is from that area) but is still rather insular and cut-off from the rest, while coastal Eastern Libya (Benghazi to Tobrook) has long been a hotbed of tribal separatism, and is an ungovernable mixture of Islamic fanaticism, sophisticated smugglers and many generations of professional mercenaries. All of them were useful to a cutthroat pirate king like Moammar, but the country is not governable today as a functioning, modern democratic state.

In short, the nice smiling faces holding signs requesting US AID in perfectly printed English in Tripoli are not representative of Libya.

[freshwest]

7. Daryl Issa? Dennis Kucinich?

[joshcryer]

25. Strange bedfellows, eh?

[freshwest]

33. I adore Dennis, but can't see giving that fucking Issa any fodder. When it comes to scum like him,

The 'a broken clock is right twice a day' doesn't apply. Bad company to be keeping. But Kucinich is leaving and getting in the last word. The priniciple of not interfering with other governments is a valid one, but in looking at the details that came out after the ambassador's death, it doesn't apply.

Here was a case of the Libyan people who were sick of being terrorized by out of control radical right wing militias and wanted them prevented from running roughshod and enforcing their extreme religious views on the populace. The Libyan people didn't support these militias and the militias that did the attack were a government without public approval for the attack. They were the remnants of the former regime or religious wackjobs, or both.

One can argue two wrongs don't make a right in Libya. But Issa and the weirdos who elected him are only doing this to hurt Obama's election chances. Just as Issa started his farce about Holder to try to divert him from going after the election fraud. The news media does not report anything positive about the Obama administration and we need to realize that.

And Issa can go to hell with the rest of the wingnuts.

[Zorra]

10. Rep. Kucinich has a precious gift for speaking truth succinctly.

A very good and rare breed of legislator.

His voice in Congress will be sorely missed by all progressives everywhere. I imagine the 1% will figure out how to get rid of the other few genuinely progressive Dems in Congress, just like they did Dennis, over the next few years.

[sabrina 1]

13. I agree, he has been a consistent voice of truth since Bush took over the presidency,

It's too bad he was often one of the very few. Imagine if a majority in Congress had backed him up how different this country and others, would be today.

He will be badly missed in Congress. Otoh, how much can just a few people like him accomplish in DC? When he told the truth about the 'agreement' Congress was pushing for Bush with Iraq, (that there was a clause in it proving it was, as we all suspected, all about oil) even his own party threatened to sanction him for telling the people what we had a right to know.

Maybe people like him and Feingold and others, can accomplish more outside of DC than they ever could in the current atmosphere there where telling the truth can be a career ending activity.

[tama]

16. I see he knows where the problem is:

Monetary reform

In the aftermath of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Kucinich has called for the Federal Reserve System to be put under control of U.S. Treasury.[100] Additionally, banks shall no longer be allowed to create money, putting an end to fractional-reserve banking.[101] He cites Stephen Zarlenga as the initiator of that proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich#2012

[99th_Monkey]

17. I hope he runs for US Senate

someday, given the opportunity i.e. where there's no
real Democrat holding the office.

[Dont call me Shirley]

23. Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, Anthony Weiner and on and on

[Egalitarian Thug]

40. Big Business couldn't get rid of him for decades, it took the "business friendly" Democratic Party

working with the republican'ts to get him out of office.

[rudycantfail]

19. I'm glad I can still

occasionally find truths like this here on DU. Thanks for posting this.

[Warpy]

20. Kooch, you've got this one all wrong

It's not overthrowing governments that is the main problem. After all, the governments of Libya and Egypt were more than ready for that.

It's that we've propped up so many conscienceless bastards all over the world and given them the green light to oppress the hell out of the citizens just to keep raw materials flowing and trade routes open.

That's the harvest we're reaping, not the one of helping the people throw those bastards off their backs.

[joshcryer]

27. Exactly, we propped up Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Gaddafi was even doing rendition for us.

We are the ones who created the mess in the first place by repressing the people in North Africa and the Middle East. It's funny how we forget that.

edit: and to be absolutely sure, the CIA actually intervened to stop Gaddafi from being overthrown in his early years! So all three countries that rose up were dictatorships that we created.

[99Forever]

24. A very good, very decent, very honest man...

... Dennis Kucinich. The rarest of breeds in the cesspool that is our nation's government.

~~If only.~~

[jtuck004]

29. Why don't you go stand next to Malala Yousafzai's hospital bed and tell her that.

You gutless son of a bitch.

There are some very brave people dying to help others get out from under fascist and radical regimes, work towards peace, while you sit on your ass and tell people to just go sit in a box and others will leave you alone.

That's bad advice.

[sabrina 1]

31. Name one intervention that was for humanitarian purposes.

Dennis is right as always. But I will await your list of humanitarian interventions, along with your explanation as to why we are supporting fascist, brutal dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Uzbekistan, eg.

You don't seem too informed about our foreign policies so I'll go with Kucinich who actually is informed on the subject.

[lalalu]

36. Our military is involved in many humanitarian interventions.

I think it is unfair to ignore what they do. Most of it is done around the world with little notice. When Japan had the earthquakes and tsunamis they requested our help. I have a relative in the Air Force who had just left and returned to help. I have a nephew who left the Coast Guards because of the horrible rescue missions he was involved in and that includes some of the worst in Haiti. Some of the interventions and rescues our military does at sea would make your hair stand on end. I have a sibling who was a medic and was involved in treating many victims in rescue missions.

I agree with you about the policies and our involvement in countries you mentioned and it is something more Americans should be concerned with. I just think it is unfair when the entire American military is painted as some evil entity. Especially since a lot of countries call us when things get bad.

[jtuck004]

43. Well, Nazi Germany comes to mind...

But I am sure you want to practice selective history, so how about soldiers who helped set up schools, an ambassador who loved that country and was killed by people who think they can run it better than the current government? Does that mean everything is done correctly, or most interventions aren't about oil or other commodities? No, but that was a silly and disrespectful thing to say to people who have given their lives in service to their country. Especially by some suit that never had the guts to enlist, just wants to take potshots at people who put their lives, family, and country on the line..

What country did we invade that caused two airliners of people to be flown into a building? You think Obama sent more soldiers to Afghanistan to support a dictatorship?

How about any girl that tries to go to school in Afghanistan or Pakistan - every single one of them is bucking against the Taliban who is the effective government in many places.

When Malala stood up to them, told them that she wanted to be educated and go to school, they shot her in the head.

You go sit with that asshole - I'll go sit with people that have spirit.

[sabrina 1]

51. How about Afghanistan being used as a chess board by the two super powers which when they were

finished playing war games there, they left completely destroyed? Then they walked away leaving a country in chaos. And that is WHEN the Taliban took over and at the time, everyone was only too thrilled that they did so. Do you know anything about Afghanistan before we created what later became Al Queda? Back in the sixities, before the Soviet Union and the US used it as a battleground, girls had no problems going to school. But after it was destroyed, the entire infrastructure destroyed, the vacuum that was left was filled by the Taliban.

What country did we invade that caused 9/11? How about US troops all over the ME? Let me ask you, how would you react if the Chinese had troops all over North America? What excuse could they possibly have for sending troops to this country? What excuse do you think we have for stationing troops in the ME even before we began the War in Iraq? How about the sanctions before that which killed nearly half a million Iraqi children and which Madeleine Albright said 'was worth it'. Half a million children!

I think you need to go study the history of our Cold War policies and the destruction they have wrought on millions of human lives in the ME, Africa, Latin America.

We are not the innocent little country that was minding its own business and which got attacked out of the blue.


Nazi Germany was nearly seventy years ago. I am talking about the past six decades or so. As for the soldiers, they are not responsible and I see no one, including Kucinich, blaming them for anything. We are talking about those responsible for sending them into these wars and I love how people who cannot defend this atrocious policies, always use the troops to try to divert attention away from the actual topic. Far too many soldiers have been victims of these wars also. But the war mongers profit and never see a battlefield themselves. Same as it has always been throughout history. The problem is, this country was supposed to change all of that.

[jtuck004]

55. You asked for an example and got one. I can't help it if the coupon expired.

I see what we are allowed to see of the bad, I agree. That doesn't negate the fact that sometimes governments need to be faced and either removed or worked with. (we sit and type safely, drive our cars and have inflated values in our homes because we buy their cheap oil - I have real trouble finding people who will just turn their backs on this, which makes them complicit.). We can't quit, though we can get smarter and figure out better ways to effect change. Like getting the profit motive out.

I think his little byte of a statement loses something from an upholstered government chair, on a government salary, well dressed, well-fed, safely in the heart of lots of security primarily because people who serve our higher purposes, sometimes with a gun, sometime not, but almost always with all or a portion of their lives did go topple and trade with governments.

ymmv

[ronnie624]

69. There would have been no World War II

if US companies had not built Hitler's war machine for him.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. You don't get it. It's about transitioning to peace.

We act like the job is done after we kick a dictator's ass.

Winning the peace isn't even planed for.

After WWII we had the Berlin Air Lift. Today's policies would have left millions of Germans to starve which would have left them hating us to this day.

We went from "winning hearts and minds" to "death to all who oppose us".

But then, Republicans can't STAND the idea of "free food".

[eridani]

58. In 1975, female university students in Kabul wore miniskirts

US policy in the late 70s was directed toward overthrowing the leftist urban governments, hoping to elicit Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and turn it into their Vietnam. To that end, our government used the religious reactionary rural population against them, trained them in sabotage, armed them, and funded the Pakistan ISI sponsored madrassas which spread the really vicious Wahabi brand of Islam over the tribal areas of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan. The CIA stood by approvingly as these assholes burned down girls's schools. Ever since then, a war of all against all, with shifting alliances, has pretty much taken over that entire area. Women never, ever win that war. We never entered this part of the world to fight fascism, but to promote it. Now it's out of hand. Why do you think more war is the answer?

[jtuck004]

60. Though I agree with some of what you said, our problems were mostly caused by

our turning our back on our friends after we stuck our nose in it. I know what interviews say now, though I doubt anyone had the prescience to know that it would turn into Russia's Vietnam - I think that is giving too much credit. We were just trying to sap Soviet resources, and that was the result.

Regardless, the Mujahideen were on our side, but when we left the Taliban grew in power (and Al Qaeda) grew in power. When we pulled funding the Madrasses got it from other sources, Saudi's, etc, (who got it from our oil purchases) and without our involvement they got progressively more fundamentalist and dangerous. When we invaded, after we allowed the Taliban to come to power, the Mujahideen saw more in common with the people fighting the invaders, and began to join them.

As things stand, we can't fix what we broke, mostly because of our own arrogance. We send armies over, train them to kill and disrespect our enemies even if they have to blow up our friends doing it, and then wonder why things don't get better. Those rifles with the Christian bible verses inscribed, still there. Does anyone think that we are going to ever be able to work with a country we disrespect in every conceivable way? We can't even fix our own problems with racism in this county - it seems unlikely that we are going to learn to respect friends outside our borders.

But if we walk away, again, it will be no different, except that the networks are stronger, the enemy has more experience, and we have given more people a reason to hate us.

I don't think we have humbled ourselves enough to fix the problem we created, but we have to engage, at least at a level where we can gain information (I would say intelligence, but that would be too ironic), try our best to support people who are fighting against the religious fundamentalists and for democratic ideals.

Or we go home and just wait for whatever attacks will be coming. And they will continue coming. And that's a lot harder to defend against.

[eridani]

61. Excuse me, but the mujahadeen TURNED INTO the Taliban.

If we leave, the rural reactionary xenophobes will go back to their main prior occupation of making and breaking alliances with neighboring clans. They never gave a shit about anything outside of their narrow world before we intervened.

The terrorist networks that we need to worry about are in London, Hamburg, Jakarta, Madrid, etc. For some reason, we never invaded any of those countries, but somehow manage to maintain intelligence operations there anyway. Not to mention our very own Christian terrorist networks.

[jtuck004]

62. They were separate, distinct groups, and opponents, until they began to unite against our

aggression. Some still are, and want the Taliban gone. Believe what you wish. Our military and news policy for "strategic interests" dictated that we conflate them so we can shoot 'em all, but that's not accurate. And there are a number of progressive people in there that want change, and some are putting skin in the game. But the opponents are on that religious crusade thing, willing to die to enforce their fascism. Similar to Republicans, except Republicans want everyone else to die.

And when we "left", as I think I am hearing we should now, it grew into the terrorist hiding and training location, partly from the weapons and money we funneled into the place, for the people who flew airliners full of our neighbors into the World Trade Center. I have seen no evidence to indicate that it won't do that again. Americans always think that if they screw around with something and then leave it alone it will forget. Bet they don't.

Even if they don't break bad, I think it would be naive to think these good people would just go back to their former life in the hills after the involvement of the British, the Russians, and Us. Might want to read up on the wireless networks the sheepherders are now using in that formerly narrow world. It ain't just brightly dressed ponies and incredibly resilient people writing in the mud any longer.

I think we have more to fear from ourselves than any of those threats, (who is the enemy when you are giving trillions of dollars in support to the corporations who brought you a financial crisis through their fraud?), especially our inability to pull our heads out of our collective past and face a very different future. We don't have that conversation and there are several big challenges out there that could make all this sacrifice look very small.

[eridani]

63. Really? Can you please post a list of the flight schools in Afghanistan?

The terrorist training that matters goes on in the developed world. Rural reactionaries everywhere mainly want to be left alone.

http://www.truthout.org/120408R
Despite such foreign connections, the Afghan rebellion remains mostly a homegrown affair. Foreign fighters - especially al-Qaeda - have little ideological influence on most of the insurgency, and most Afghans keep their distance from such outsiders. "Sometimes groups of foreigners speaking different languages walk past," Ghazni resident Fazel Wali recalls. "We never talk to them and they don't talk to us."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/03/30/afghanistan/index.html
This latter-day domino theory of al-Qaida takeovers in South Asia is just as implausible as its earlier iteration in Southeast Asia (ask Thailand or the Philippines). Most of the allegations are not true or are vastly exaggerated. There are very few al-Qaida fighters based in Afghanistan proper. What is being called the "Taliban" is mostly not Taliban at all (in the sense of seminary graduates loyal to Mullah Omar). The groups being branded "Taliban" only have substantial influence in 8 to 10 percent of Afghanistan, and only 4 percent of Afghans say they support them. Some 58 percent of Afghans say that a return of the Taliban is the biggest threat to their country, but almost no one expects it to happen. Moreover, with regard to Pakistan, there is no danger of militants based in the remote Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) taking over that country or "killing" it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23943.htm
As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in the United States to ask President Barack Obama to immediately end the occupation of my country.

Eight years ago, women's rights were used as one of the excuses to start this war. But today, Afghanistan is still facing a women's rights catastrophe. Life for most Afghan women resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western mainstream media.

In 2001, the U.S. helped return to power the worst misogynist criminals, such as the Northern Alliance warlords and druglords. These men ought to be considered a photocopy of the Taliban. The only difference is that the Northern Alliance warlords wear suits and ties and cover their faces with the mask of democracy while they occupy government positions. But they are responsible for much of the disaster today in Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. support they enjoy.

[jtuck004]

65. No,but I can point to the graves in this country. The above is entertaining, but

ignores a lot of history to make irrelevant points, some of which seem to contravene what was posted earlier.

But since you already know everything you want to know, see ya.

[eridani]

70. Saudi Arabia was mainly responsible for the graves in this country n/t

[arely staircase]

35. I agree with the sentiment generally, but not in this specific instance.

eom

[99th_Monkey]

42. I understand what you're saying

I tend to think Libya is the one intervention in ME that makes
any sense. and maybe Afghanistan initially, but not for
11+ fucking years.

Plz also see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021515102#post12
or post # 12 above, for fuller explanation of why -- despite my feelings about
Libya -- I still posted Kucinich's speech.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. What is really sick is the media can't look at this guy without seeing "The boy mayor"....

....they have NEVER taken him seriously.

(Looking over at my Kucinich for President bumper sticker)

[malaise]

39. Duh! n/t

[hrmjustin]

41. we are going to miss him in congress.

[sulphurdunn]

46. This snarky gentleman, Mr. Kennedy,

is the former chief of staff of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq that looted billions of dollars and whose incompetence fueled the insurgency that killed hundreds of American soldiers and God only knows how many Iraqis.

[99th_Monkey]

47. Ouch! Why pray tell are his bloody hands anywhere near any levers

of governmental power under the Obama Administration?

Is he considered one of those "career professionals"
who are "above politics"?

I think not.

[sulphurdunn]

48. People like Mr. Kennedy

are indeed above politics. They are permanent keepers of the imperial flame. They provide continuity to empire which transcends itinerant politics. They have no more concern for an elected representative like Dennis Kucinich than they do for something on the bottom of a shoe.

[rogrot]

53. "Democracy building abroad" is a euphemism

and, if this is true, until the truth is told, nothing will ever change in the Middle East------------------------------not until the last drop of oil is extracted. When it's gone, we'll be gone, too.

[21 December 2012]

64. Kucinich has found his million-dollar baby----again!

He's definitely, been here before:

&playnext=1&list=PL9A90835DC1E86A5D&feature=results_video

[upi402]

67. And he was blacklisted from the Democratic nomination debates?

Ever wonder what's up?

rec

[flvegan]

71. Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich.

"Progressives" and "liberals" aside.

[99th_Monkey]

73. Me too. ~nt