Quote:Micah Zenko finds a nugget in yesterday's Benghazi hearing of Hillery Clinton:

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."

The video clip in question is here and should be watched by everyone to understand what an evil character Hillary Clinton is.

But the point, Zenko says, is that she admits that Obama and Clinton as his Secretary of State lied when they claimed to wage war on Libya for some "humanitarian reasons":

What is now totally forgotten is that regime change WAS NOT the intended military mission of the Libya intervention in March 2011. As President Barack Obama stated in a speech to the nation on March 28, 2011, "The task that I assigned our forces [is] to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone," adding explicitly, "Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."

If there are any competent opponents to her candidacy for president they should pick up on this and use it to destroy her: "You want a president that is lying to you about going to war? About getting your sons and daughters killed?"

Drew Phipps Wrote:I'm no apologist for Clinton. She was in that mess up to her neck and the truth about Benghazi has yet to be told. However, if you parse those phrases like a lawyer would, they're not strictly inconsistent. Obama speaks of the US forces and the extent of their purpose; Clinton speaks of NATO, its allies, and thier purpose.

It was NATO's planes that fired upon Ghaddafis' convoy. Ghaddafi himself was injured in a friendly fire grenade incident, captured by Libyan rebels, and apparently beaten to death. It should be known that Time magazine said that those particular rebels were in close phone contact with their leaders from their headquarters in Benghazi. http://world.time.com/2012/10/18/how-did-gaddafi-die-a-year-later-unanswered-questions-and-bad-blood/

So it would seem that the US's purpose is to enable its dangerous allies to effect "regime change" (and do the dirty work that entails) while US hands remain clean. If you put that historical fact in context, it might explain Russia's intervention in Syria, to avoid a repeat of Libya.

(I suspect that the GOP's purpose in all these investigations and hearings is too keep the issue simmering until the Democrats commit to her, then the truth about what the State Dept./CIA was doing there will finally be "leaked.")

Paul Rigby Wrote:Bengazi? Based upon what I've seen, it would appear that the CIA stopped and discredited a State Department programme to recover the weaponry distributed to overthrow Gaddafi.

Magda Hassan Wrote:

Paul Rigby Wrote:Bengazi? Based upon what I've seen, it would appear that the CIA stopped and discredited a State Department programme to recover the weaponry distributed to overthrow Gaddafi.

They needed them in Syria. Along with some of their jihadists to manufacture opposition to Assad.

Drew Phipps Wrote:Paul, why would the CIA want to "stop and discredit" the State Department's covert repurposing weapons to a second theatre?

Quote:Bengazi? Based upon what I've seen, it would appear that the CIA stopped and discredited a State Department programme to recover the weaponry distributed to overthrow Gaddafi.