Democrats and Republicans Are Both Missing the Big Picture On Benghazi and Libya
Source: Washington’s Blog
Democrats and Republicans have very different views about Benghazi, Libya.
Republicans say the Obama administration is to blame for the death of Ambassador Stevens – and have created a special committee to investigate Benghazi – while Democrats by and large say that the is nothing but politics.
The truth is bigger than either side is admitting …
First, Pulitzer prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the story of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam under Nixon and the torture scandal under Bush – says that Benghazi was really a CIA outpost for running weapons capture from Libya after Gaddaffi was overthrown into Syria … approved on a bipartisan basis by both Democrats and Republicans.
Second, it has been confirmed that the U.S. backed Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya so that they would overthrow Gaddaffi.
Third, as we noted right after Gaddaffi fell, the Obama administration’s stated reason for going into Libya makes no sense. Now, RAND Corporation political scientists theorize that Obama might have decided to bomb Libya – not for any reason having to do with Libya or Gaddaffi themselves – but rather “to keep the Arab Spring going“.
The U.S. ousted Gaddaffi and then left, and Libya has now descended into chaos.
The Washington Post argues that America fighting the Libyan war is a bigger scandal than Benghazi itself:
Republicans have a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline. On Sunday, a disputed vote in parliament led to the swearing-in of a new prime minister — the sixth since former dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 with the help of U.S. and NATO air forces. The new leader, an Islamist from the city of Misurata, replaced pro-Western prime minister Ali Zeidan, who was driven out of the country this year after his government proved unable to stop a militia from filling a tanker with stolen oil.
From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.
The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.