Home | About | Donate

Back to Benghazi: How Not to Have a Debate About US Foreign Policy


Back to Benghazi: How Not to Have a Debate About US Foreign Policy

Jim Naureckas

In the 2012 presidential election, the biggest foreign policy issue was the killing of the US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens in September of that year–an incident known by its location: Benghazi. Now, as we gear up for the 2016 presidential race, it looks like the biggest international issue is going to be–Benghazi.


Take a complicated issue (like the Benghazi incident), give it a simplistic narrative (it's Clinton's fault), beat on the issue incessantly, disenfranchise middle-of-the-road voters with the tiresome process while throwing red meat to the base, and you have the vacuous Republican Party platform.


"Kochroaches" just sounds better than Murdoch roaches unless you rhyme Koch with Murdoch which is probably a good idea. But "Murdoch-and-Koch roaches," though most accurate, doesn't ring right to the ear. At least Chairman Gowdy of the select Benghazi roach committee who has been supported all the way by these moneybag guys according to my old neighbor on High Knob Mountain James Carville finally shaved his whiskers before the big hearing.

Benghazi, Benghazi-- I'm glad that Hillary squashed the roaches by maintaining humorous calm through eleven hours. But why should everything be about Benghazi? If anyone-- Donald Trump?-- seriously wants to discredit Hillary in the eyes of the nation he will look into the regime change perpetrated in The Ukraine by two of Hillary's deputies, one glamorous and the other not. These three women seem to have started the Ukraine War.


Plausible deniability is a fancy term for lying. Most of what the State Department does is arrange assassinations (that is, when their partners in global crime, the CIA doesn't beat them to it) and then argue the case that these incursions into other nations' governing systems were necessary, spread Democracy, or "saved lives."

I think it's time that informed readers take as a given the fact that 90% of corporate media (with media now a direct arm of the Armed Forces and its make-war imperatives) is scripted by spooks of one stripe or another.

Only someone skilled in disinformation would say something as obscene as this, and then lie about the fallout:

"It was written by David Tafuri, who used to work for the State Department helping to facilitate the occupation of Iraq, and then worked as a lawyer for the Libyan forces on whose behalf the United States intervened to overthrow the Libyan government of Moammar Gadhafi. Unsurprisingly, his main complaint about US intervention is that there wasn’t enough of it."


Nothing like some down-home misogyny, right?

Those three women are puppets, fool. The ones who start wars are the generals, bankers, and weapons contractors... and oil barons.


Thanks for calling this Shakespearian actor (Aguecheek and Elbow) a fool. But a misogynist? Don't think so. Actually, I felt myself falling in love with Hillary Clinton a bit as I listened to her testimony, but that doesn't mean that she hasn't and won't start wars. Nor that you aren't a roach.


David Tafuri is the microcosm of the MSM, presstituted, Fourth Reich. If he did not sell out, he would not be allowed access to the N.Y. Times.

If Mr. Tafuri had written an article for the N.Y. Times with the headline: FORGET BENGHAZI: HOW ABOUT LIBYA'S GOLD DINARS.

You can be sure the N.Y. Times Editor would have thrown it out ! The brainwashing never ends, Goebbels would be proud !


This Benghazi affair psy ops in action nothing more. They have to make a public showing that there outrage over what happened because "americans were killed" so as to ensure people focus on that outrage and ignore the deeper state at work.


Good historical review and analysis, JonnyJames.

There's a good reason Obama never intended to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes as he planned so many of his own.

Has Obama bombed any hospitals yet this weekend?


Sioux Rose clearly does not think women are capable of this amount of cunning. She is probably more of a misogynist anyone...
Also she never blames actual people that could be held accountable It's always the amorphous ever shifting 'other'.....


Someone needs to explain to me how this Qaddafi guy was soooo bad and nasty. Under his, admittedly not exactly Jeffersonian-democratic regime, wasn't the living standard in Libya not the best on the African continent?


Some of the basic questions that never seem to come up-Why was the ambassador traveling across Libya to Benghazi on Sept 11? I would think on this day there would be a stay low order. Also what is the CIA doing there?--going back decades the CIA seems to be a catalyst for a lot of aggression in the world. Is their role to ignite fires to keep the military industrial complex well funded? And after watching some of these hearings I think these republicans must be Hillary supporters,and the same could be said of the interview of Clinton by Rachel Maddow. How fixed is this stuff?


That's a give with Rachel. Rachel is enamored with all things military and belongs to the DNC. I didn't bother watching the interview. I chose to watch my Royals win the pennant instead.


I think everyone here already understands but let's make it clear for the sake of history. It was always about regime change and Mrs. Clinton admitted it in her testimony. From Moon of Alabama:

When asked by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) about a video clip that read, “We came, we saw, he died [meaning former Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi]. Is that the Clinton doctrine?” Clinton replied, “No, that was an expression of relief that the military mission undertaken by NATO and our other partners had achieved its end.”


Yes, the standard of living and much else was very different in Libya under gadaffi's leadership, not only in Africa but most other nations as well, including the good-old USA!

"Gaddafi wrote, “They want to do to Libya what they did to Iraq and what they are itching to do to Iran. They want to take back the oil, which was nationalized by these country’s revolutions. They want to re-establish military bases that were shut down by the revolutions and to install client regimes that will subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to imperialist corporate interests. All else is lies and deception.”


Libya under gaddafi was a great threat to global vulture capitalism and war-machine, and our "great ally" the terrorist state of Zionism, it therefore had to be destroyed - along with Iraq, Syria, and Iran, also on the wish-list for destruction by the depraved.

"Here are some Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:
• There was no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free … for all its citizens.
• There was no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms –this was all for free.
• Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
• A home was considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi’s Green Book it states: “The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.”)
• All newlyweds in Libya would receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.
• A portion of Libyan oil sales is or was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
• A mother who gives birth to a child would receive US $5,000.
• When a Libyan buys a car, the government would subsidizes 50% of the price.
• The price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per liter.
• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local could purchase 40 loaves of bread.
• Education and medical treatments was all free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.
• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government would fund them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.
• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.
• Libya had no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globally." http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-884508

How about some debate on these notions of society? how about some Congressional "commissions" on how society was changed/improved by Gaddafi's programs? Instead we get millions wasted and empty words by the ignorant.......
IF some of these things were focused-on by our so-called "leaders" Americans and the rest of the world would be much better off! Instead our leaders are corrupted by the power of money and profits over people - the rule of the parasites.


Lots of cords on Hillary.


Is this a coronation, or an election? A beauty contest to sell more mainstream media ads for women's incontinence pads? A lesson on how to prepare for a Senate grilling?

Who rules in a democracy, the people or a public employee?

Who employs politicians, the people or Wall Street?

Do lawyers know more about global warming than scientists?

Who gave politicians the right to start unpopular, for profit wars?

Who gave the mainstream media the right pick our candidates and decide who our enemies are?

What happens to democracy when a public employee decides what she or he will do with people's money?


Can somebody post a link to the speech where Bernie Sanders says that the US bombing of Libya was a huge blunder and a crime, the same as US efforts to destabilize Syria, and that if elected president he will put an end to this insanity?

Because I really want to read that speech because I'm sure it's AWESOME.

Because I'm SURE that Sanders will NOT be JUST LIKE OBAMA.

People would NEVER fall for that AGAIN.