Libya : A no lie zone

[Bill Kelly]

I don't know who was calling for banning besides Bill.

BK: Well I guess I misunderstood your assertion that, "I find Mr Kelly's pro-CIA swagger a little offensive and inappropriate for this site."
And I apologize. And thank Maggie for sticking up for me.

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".

BK: I thought the CIA was an extension of the US government, who were with Gadhafi until he ordered his army to kill those who opposed him, and after they pretty much destroyed a half dozen towns and cities and were a few miles from Benghazi, where they were ordered to hunt down and kill every rat house to house - then the President, at the urging of the Sec State Hillary, agreed to the UN, Arab Union and NATO accords and stop him. The CIA failed to predict the uprising, as they failed to predict the entire regional revolution.

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.

BK: What's the cause of OWS again? I thought they were rebels without a cause, and the CIA is surely and firmly uninterested in OWS as they have no domestic responsibilities and the idea they are plotting against them is ridiculous.

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.

BK: Mohamid Bouazizi wasn't thinking about Iraq when he killed himself.

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".

BK: I don't think the CIA is a separate and complete entity, but is made up of many people, different divisions with different tasks and as J. J. Angleton put it, "A house has many rooms, I don't know who shot John."

JFK was the revolutionary, as he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

BK
Revolutionary Program