Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing into the assault on the US Consulate in Benghazi. The only Democrat on the Committee who used his time wisely and didn't self-disgrace was US House Representative Dennis Kucinich. From C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot."
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Mr. Kennedy has
testified today that US interests and values are at stake in Libya and
that the US is better off because we went to Benghazi. Really? You
think that after ten years in Iraq and eleven years in Afghanistan that
our country, the US would have learned the consequences and limits of
interventionism. You would think that after trillions have been wasted
on failed attempts at democracy building abroad while our infrastructure
crumbles at home, Congress and the administration would re-examine
priorities. Today we're engaging in a discussion about the security
failures of Benghazi. There was a security failure. Four Americans
including our ambassador, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed.
Their deaths are a national tragedy. My sympathy is with the families
of those who were killed. There has to be accountability. I haven't
heard that yet. We have an obligation to protect those who protect
us. That's why this Congress needs to ask questions. The security
situation did not happen overnight because of a decision made by someone
at the State Dept. We could talk about hundreds of millions of dollars
in cuts for funding for embassy security over the last two years as a
result of a blind pursuit of fiscal austerity. We could talk about
whether it's prudent to rely so heavily on security contractors rather
than our own military or State Dept personnel. We could do a
he-said-she-said about whether the State Dept should have beefed up
security at the embassy in Benghazi. But we owe it to the diplomatic
corps who serves our nation to start at the beginning and that's what I
shall do. The security threats in Libya including the unchecked
extremist groups who are armed to the teeth exist because our nation
spurred on a civil war destroying the security and stability of Libya.
And, you know, no one defends Gaddafi. Libya was not in a meltdown
before the war. In 2003, Gaddafi reconciled with the community of
nations by giving up his pursuit of nuclear weapons. At the time,
President Bush said Gaddafi's actions made our country and our world
safer. Now during the Arab Spring, uprisings across the Middle East
occurred and Gaddafi made ludicrous threats against Benghazi. Based on
his verbal threats, we intervented. Absent constitutional authority, I
might add. We bombed Libya, we destroyed their army, we obliterated
their police stations. Lacking any civil authority, armed brigades
control security. al Qaeda expanded its presence. Weapons are
everywhere. Thousands of shoulder-to-air missiles are on the loose.
Our military intervention led to greater instability in Libya. Many of
us, Democrats and Republicans alike, made that argument to try to stop
the war. It's not surprising given the inflated threat and the
grandiose expectations inherent in our nation building in Libya that the
State Dept was not able to adequately protect our diplomats from this
predicatable threat. It's not surprising. And it's also not
acceptable. It's easy to blame someone else -- like a civil servant at
the State Dept. We all know the game. It's harder to acknowledge that
decades of American foreign policy have directly contributed to regional
instability and the rise of armed militias around the world. It's even
harder to acknowledge Congress' role in the failure to stop the war in
Libya, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Pakistan, the
war in Yemen, the war in Somolia and who knows where else? It's harder
to recognize Congress' role in the failure to stop the drone attacks
that are still killing innocent civilians and strengthening radical
elements abroad. We want to stop the attacks on our embassies? Let's
stop trying to overthrow governments. This should not be a partisan
issue. Let's avoid the hype. Let's look at the real situation here.
Interventions do not make us safer. They do not protect our nation.
They are themselves a threat to America. Now, Mr. Kennedy, I would like
to ask you, is al Qaeda more or less established in Libya since our
involvement?
Patrick Kennedy: Mr. Kucinich, I will have to take that question for the record. I am not an intelligence expert.
US
House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Oh. You don't have the intelligence, you're
saying? Well I'm going to go on to the next question --
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: Mr. Kucinich, I think the other two may have an opinion.
US
House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Well I wanted to ask Mr. Kennedy. Next
question, Ambassador Kennedy, how many shoulder-to-air missiles that are
capable of shooting down civilian passenger airlines are still missing
in Libya? And this happened since our intervention. Can you answer
that question?
Patrick Kennedy: No, sir. I'll be glad to provide it for the record.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: You're saying you do not know?
Patrick Kennedy: I do not know, sir. It's not within my normal purview of operations with the State Dept.
US
House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Does anyone else here know how many
shoulder-to-air missiles that can shoot down civilian airliners are
still loose in Libya? Anyone know?
Eric Nordstrom: The figures that we were provided are fluid but the rough approximation is between ten and twenty thousand.
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: The gentleman's time has expired. Did you want them to answer anything about al Qaeda growth?
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: If anyone there knows.
Committee Chair Darrell Issa: If anyone has an answer on that one, they can answer and then we'll go on.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Yeah, is al Qaeda more or less established in Libya since our involvement?
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Yes, sir. There presence grows everday. They are certainly more established than we are.