Kucinich offers insight on uncovered Pentagon Qaddafi tapes Fox News Video

[jakeXT]

Last edited Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Secret recordings show US military and a Democratic congressman distrusted Hillary Clinton on Libya
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026157088

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Daily mail and fox?

[Roy Rolling]

2. Propaganda

So the propaganda wing of the Republican party is in full gear trying to smear Clinton.

Even Fox so-called News viewers must be tiring of the endless grasping at straws with a dubious theme.

[JDPriestly]

3. My big question about Bengahzi is not whether the attack on the consulate could have been

thwarted or the questions Republicans have asked. My question is why in the world the Turkish and American ambassadors were meeting there in the way they were. It wasn't safe, and the American ambassador knew that. Why did they meet there?

I have a lot of questions related to that.

On edit. I had to listen to this video twice because it is typical Fox News reporting. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

So why should Kucinich believe Ghaddafi's son? Ghaddifi's son's statement was just an opinion. The intelligence in the military and the CIA and State Department, it seems, differed. That is not surprising. The facts were probably not easy to discern.

I agree with Kucinich that we should be told the truth about the real reasons for the diplomacy and war policy our government conducts and advocates for. But my take on the Libya situation is that the facts were confusing.

Is the point that somehow the arms that were lost or scattered from Libya are now in the hands of Jihadists around the world? Is the point that we failed to secure the weapons that were in the Libyan arsenal and are now paying for that?

And to what extent is Fox News trying to make it look like members of Congress are free to examine foreign policy issues on their own? Is this interview with Kucinich supposed to make Fox viewers thinkn that Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu is just normal congressional fact-finding?

I'm very confused by this typically poor reporting on the part of the Washington Times and Kucinich.

We are supposed to believe one of Ghaddafi's sons? He gave his opinion. Was it true? Who knows?

[jakeXT]

4. Turkey was a gateway for weapons transfers to Syrian 'rebels', we certainly can't ask him anymore

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports.

Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.
The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city.
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html

[JDPriestly]

5. IIf true, my intuiton was on again. It's a conspiracy theory which I harbor with utterly no

evidence to back it up.

The congressional investigation into Benghazi was a lot of hooey to keep Libya in the forefront. But the ISIS rebels get their ammunition and weapons from somewhere. Where could it be?

I wish that our government was more truthful and trustworthy. The conspiracy theories that we are left to think up to fill the void of information are certainly more problematic than the truth would be. Why can't we have honest government?

I still don't think I know the truth. My worst suspicions are being corroborated to some extent, and that is very troubling.

I was very opposed to our supporting any rebels in Syria, not because I like Assad. I don't. But because the rebels are/were very likely even worse than Assad. And now we have ISIS.

But we still don't have the truth.

[jakeXT]

6. You could also win a Youtube contest and money/support from a sheikh/benefactor

It’s not uncommon to see bearded, robed sheiks mingling with Syrian rebels in some of the fancier hotels of Antakya, the southern Turkish city that has served as something of a rear-base for Syrian rebels and activists.

These benefactors sometimes ask to see YouTube proof of the rebels’ military prowess. And the fancier the video, rebels say, the better.

For other brigades, it’s also a matter of hearts and minds. Some hope their brand image–everything from their logo to responsiveness on Twitter–can help them win the favor of dissident Syrians who have grown critical of an armed rebellion they see as having strayed from the goals of a peaceful uprising.

Islamist brigades, perhaps because they are better-funded, tend to have the most sophisticated logos and video productions. The Syrian Islamic Front, an alliance of more than ten Islamist fighting units formed late last year, has quickly built up its online presence. One if its member groups, which eventually branched off to form a front of its own, Ahrar al-Sham, was one of the first Syrian Islamist battalions to dabble with creative logos and videos.

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013/05/02/for-some-syrian-rebels-its-a-battle-of-the-brands/

[JDPriestly]

7. Like time-travel back to the time of the Arab invasions into Europe after Islam began.

Horrors. A lot of Westerners are aware of the Christian Crusades, but not of the Muslim aggression across North Africa and into Europe -- I have read even into Rome -- in the early period of the Muslim religion.

An interesting documentary could be made on the history of the spread of the Muslim religion if one does not already exist. They used force.

In contrast, and many DUers are shocked when I say this, the Christian religion was essentially pacifist as far as we can tell. Jesus preached forgiveness, not fighting back. Not until Constantine did Christianity adopt violence. The Muslim religion was, from the beginning, from the time of Mohammed, ready to use violence. Self-defense was the argument. But the early Christians were martyrs who refused to respond to violence with violence. I have posted on this many times.

I'm a Unitarian so I believe in tolerance toward all religions. But this history is not well known although it is very basic. Christianity was at least after the fall of Rome a pacifist religion until Constantine. Mohammed himself engaged in war, arguably in self-defense. But there is no equivalence between the basically pacifist teaching of Jesus and the militarism of Mohammed. They were very different when it came to approving the use of violence.

Not that it is so important considering how militaristic the West has become.

[KoKo]

9. Interesting thoughts from you "J.D." ....what we don't know seems to keep bubbling up

and we are told it is Fox News/RW and so don't pay attention to that Propaganda.........

Yet...there are questions...from reasonable people who ARE NOT RW....that don't get answers.

anyway....thanks for putting this out there...for those of us who care to puzzle over.

[JDPriestly]

10. Puzzle is the right word. There may be a completely reasonable explanation for their meeting

in Benghazi, but then what was it. Was it not safe to meet at one of their embassies in Tripoli? Was it simply that one of them was there for some reason and they needed to talk -- urgently -- so they met in Benghazi? Or was something going on that we are not supposed to know about. And if we are not supposed to know about it, why aren't we supposed to know about it?

There may be no story there at all. But if not, we should be told why not. Why did they meet in Benghazi? There may be some correspondence or e-mails or transcripts of phone conversations that reflect the planning for the meeting. I remember reading an interview of the guard at the door of the American embassy. It was printed in the Dayton, Ohio newspaper around the time of the 2012 election -- maybe shortly after that. At least that is what I remember now. (And memory is not entirely reliable when it comes to dates that you read news articles.) That guard said that the ambassador came down to the door and asked the guard about the security precautions earlier in the evening.

It may be that I am rehashing questions that have been answered. I would be happy to learn that is the case. The House committee on this issue did not, as far as i know, ask the questions I have been asking. They were interested in a cover-up about things that clearly were not covered up -- like whether the deaths could have been prevented.

Anyway. This is a story that opens up a lot of unanswered questions.

[KoKo]

8. Interesting....Thanks for Posting. Unlike others

Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

I always felt that Kucinich was a "Voice for Truth"...but like others who were Anti-War Invasions...he has been "Thrown Under the Bus" for awhile now. Like Cindy Sheehan who lost her Son in Iraq who lived in a Ditch outside the Fake Bush Farm/Ranch/Photo Op/Media Circus where she stood for her Son Casey who was KILLED.

Oh never mind. People know about Iraq and the Peace Movement...no point repeating..

We need to look inside our Own House to Understand what's going wrong with America...and why many of us feel there's something that is going so wrong and hurting so many citizens that there's TRUTH to be found on both sides...and that OUR SIDE IS BETTER...just doesn't work with the Average American, anymore, these days.

[Hulk]

11. Really disappointed with Kucinich....

This was a guy I supported early on for the presidency in '08, and to see him on fox-nonsense, supporting their vendetta against the Clintons and anything "Democrat" is a real discouraging let down.

His message maybe should be investigated, and the public has a right to know what reality is. fox-nonsense wants to make it all about "blame" and smearing either Clinton or Obama, or better yet, both. Kucinich is a pawn in the propaganda machine, and he should certainly know better. Sometimes I think he actually thinks fox is legitimate in any sense, as he's on their pay roll. Is he that hard up for "a name" for himself? Does he need the money that bad that he would actually put his reputation on the line to support this pathetic witch-hunt network? I guess so.

Dennis, you are a real disappointment. You are a lot smaller than your height might suggest, at least in my book.