26-11-2011, 05:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-11-2011, 06:04 PM by Albert Doyle.)
I don't know who was calling for banning besides Bill. I don't think the point is being answered here though. I think Mr Kelly said some things that pretty much suggested CIA was on the side of "revolutionaries". And even indirectly suggested they were of the same bravado and cause as OWS. CIA is surely firmly against OWS and presently plotting against them probably.
Even if the Tunisian revolution was caused by the self-immolation of a fruit stand owner, it was still influenced by the overall awareness of regime change in the region spurred by an illegal war in Iraq. The decision to back Gadhafi is a difficult one since he fully fits the description of tyrant. The problem with his violent replacement is that it empowers a much more sinister and tyrannical movement happening in the region by those very war criminals now seeking widespread reward for their original illegal invasion. It really comes down to a question of which movement causes the most long-term harm to America and its democracy. Clearly Gadhafi was the least harmful and wasn't involved in a corrupted world-wide campaign of invading falsely-accused nations.
To attach valid revolutionary connotations to CIA, as Bill did, is to indirectly endorse the same group that killed the Kennedy's. This vaunted CIA revolutionary zeal is exactly what the Kennedy's were fighting. It's a serious disconnect and misattribution to speak of CIA in those terms. If Gadhafi's Libya was already corrupted by CIA then Gadhafi joins a long list of foreign leaders induced to cooperate with CIA and the US who then end-up having a bad fate. This is hardly "revolutionary".
Even if the Tunisian revolution was caused by the self-immolation of a fruit stand owner, it was still influenced by the overall awareness of regime change in the region spurred by an illegal war in Iraq. The decision to back Gadhafi is a difficult one since he fully fits the description of tyrant. The problem with his violent replacement is that it empowers a much more sinister and tyrannical movement happening in the region by those very war criminals now seeking widespread reward for their original illegal invasion. It really comes down to a question of which movement causes the most long-term harm to America and its democracy. Clearly Gadhafi was the least harmful and wasn't involved in a corrupted world-wide campaign of invading falsely-accused nations.
To attach valid revolutionary connotations to CIA, as Bill did, is to indirectly endorse the same group that killed the Kennedy's. This vaunted CIA revolutionary zeal is exactly what the Kennedy's were fighting. It's a serious disconnect and misattribution to speak of CIA in those terms. If Gadhafi's Libya was already corrupted by CIA then Gadhafi joins a long list of foreign leaders induced to cooperate with CIA and the US who then end-up having a bad fate. This is hardly "revolutionary".