Category Archives: Keystone Kops Investigations

A Principled Left Should Tell You What To Go Do With Yourself.

Over at Common Dreams, there is a piece titled “Why a Principled Left Should Support the Benghazi Inquiry” by Ajamu Baraka.

And if you thought that didn’t bode well, here’s the subtitle:

The GOP want to destroy Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in one fell swoop, but there’s a deeper issue to investigate that deserves public scrutiny: How the US/Nato invasion of Libya unleashed widespread violence across North Africa and beyond.

So basically let me sum this up for you. You can’t understand Boko Haram without understanding how the operation against Qaddafi’s Libya and the weapons we provided the rebels energized all sorts of crazy radicals in Africa. Oh, but Boko Haram is older than that operation. Also, there are emails that may indicate the administration mislead the public, if by “mislead” you mean “pre-emptively PR spin to counter any possible assertion that the attack was a direct result of U.S. policies,” which I guess is true because nothing is completely a result of U.S. policies. Also, if by “the administration” you mean “one guy in the administration.” Oh, and if by “emails” you mean “an email.”

He also says that… oh fuck this, I’ll just quote him.

The response from the Democrats has been predictable. Democrats already lined-up behind a Clinton campaign understand that no matter what comes out this inquiry, Benghazi has the potential to become a permanent yoke that wears down the Clinton candidacy. But in another bizarre display of political and ideological subordination to the Democrat Party and its rightist elite, elements of the left have also expressed opposition to this inquiry.

One would think that those on the left would support this inquiry, as limited and partisan as it will be, on the democratic principle that the people have a right to know what occurred before, during and in the aftermath of the attack. But even more importantly, by demanding a more comprehensive examination of all the activity of the U.S. in Libya in the aftermath of the destruction of that state, including the mission of the CIA in Benghazi, the left can and should raise serious questions that expose the dangerous strategy of empowering anti-democratic, right-wing forces, from al Qaeda-connected jihadists in Syria to neo-fascists in Ukraine.

Holy fucking shit I can not believe a Lefty human being living in the U.S. over the age of 40 actually wrote that. Limited? Really? Like Ken Starr was limited to investigating Whitewater, then spent YEARS digging into every orifice the Clintons had in order to come up with SOMETHING they could use against him? Partisan? You’d better fucking believe it’s partisan. The only difference now is this has race mixed into it, something you’d think Mr. Baraka would understand, since he’s done a whole lot of work talking about racism in the U.S.. He honestly tries to convince us in this essay that he thinks this is aimed at Hillary Clinton, but not at Barack Obama. Then he flips it around again.

I welcome the hearings and could not care less about the implications for the candidacy of Hilary Clinton or the reputation of Barack Obama.

Neither do I.

I am more interested in curbing the right-ward militarist trajectory of U.S. policy.

You’re a little late for that, and if you think that trajectory is going to be changed by a Tea Party-driven investigation centered in the Republican Majority in the U.S. House, you’re out of your goddamn mind.

As an African American the plight of the more than 200 school girls captured by Boko Haram holds a special outrage for me. But I am also outraged by the murder of people defending their rights to self-determination at the hands of U.S.-supported thugs in Odessa Ukraine, outraged by the fact that people are daily terrorized by the constant buzz of U.S. drones that kill women and children in wedding parties and individuals who may “act” like they might be so-called terrorists, outraged that people can call themselves moral and even progressive and support the brutal Israeli occupation and de-humanization of Palestinians.

Yeah, you’re a goddamn clear-eyed humanitarian. Except for the continued inability of minorities in the U.S. to get the benefits they need, especially in states that (in a shocking coincidence) not only have shitty Medicaid benefits, they also refused the Medicaid expansion and are suppressing the shit out of minority voters! By the way: before someone accuses me of valuing the lives of people in the U.S. over people outside of it, read on, there’s a little lesson for you at the end here.

And I am outraged knowing that U.S. policy-makers don’t give a damn about the school girls in Nigeria because their real objective is to use the threat of Boko Haram in the Northern part of the country to justify the real goal of occupying the oil fields in the South and to block the Chinese in Nigeria.

You display a stunning ignorance as to why this is happening, even as you’re so outraged by it.

Exposing the whole sordid story of the destruction of Libya and the role of Al-Qaeda as the “boots on the ground” for U.S. geo-strategic objectives in North Africa and the Middle East represents the only strategy that an independent and principled left could pursue in wake of the fact that the hearings are going to occur. Anything other than that is capitulation, something that the left has routinely done over the last six years, and some of us still struggle against in the hope that one day the “responsible” left will eschew the privileges that stem from its objective collaboration with the interests and world-view of neo-liberal white power and re-ground itself in authentic radical principles and the world-wide struggle against Western domination.

Let me say this in the clearest, most concise manner possible.

ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.

The Benghazi hearings are about electing Republicans and defeating Democrats. Period. The overthrow of Qaddafi was as much about local politics in the EU as anything else (a big part of it being an attempt to bail out BP because of their massive losses in the US after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which was destroying pension holdings in the UK). We pulled out of Viet Nam because a domestic political shift made it politically untenable to remain there. Same for Iraq. Same for Afghanistan. If you want to make a long-term change in the behavior of people towards something that’s far away from them, find the intersection between the effects that thing produces and how they live their lives and hammer on that. You do not do it – ever – by giving political cover to your enemies.

All that the Left would do by supporting the Benghazi investigations is help the GOP to continue bashing anyone to the left of Ted Cruz. Assisting the party that is actively encouraging the disenfranchisement of your base is not the way to win in politics unless you are attempting to start a revolution. If that’s what you’re trying to do, you’re a horrible human being because you’re (from a position of authority and privilege yourself) saying that you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and by eggs you mean people who have virtually no power or voice in this world. Way to go!

Finally in the spirit of the title, I’d just like to say this:
bagofdicks

Meet the New Ken Starr

Brace Yourselves
<em>Updated below</em>

So the House Majority has decided it’s time to go for the throat, and that Benghazi is the issue that will be on point. The following from is a puff piece describing the Chairman of said committee:

For once, Rep. Trey Gowdy had no questions to ask. It was Sep. 19, 2013, well into a full day of House Oversight Committee hearings on the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. The morning had been spent on the facts gathered, then and later, by the State Department. After that the panel heard from the family members of victims—from people like Patricia Smith, whose 34-year old son Sean had been killed in the attack.

“When you were testifying, I couldn’t help but think about this dichotomy of death,” said Gowdy. “That sometimes, it walks slowly to the front of your life—it gives you time to get your affairs in order, you’ve had a good life, you have time to say goodbye to the people you love. It just walks slowly and knocks gently on the front door. And then sometimes it kick downs the door.”

Patricia Smith was transfixed. She had not come to Congress expecting to hear low country poetry about her son. But here it was, spooling out on C-Span, and here came more of it. “I can’t offer you closure,” said Gowdy. “What I hope we can offer you is the truth. Facts. Justice. And let you do with that what you need to do as you walk down that road called grief.” He insisted, “From church, to the grocery store, to Costco—frankly, to the golf course—I am asked about Benghazi.”

Smith finally interjected, forgetting to use her microphone: “Get answers, please!” Gowdy said that he would. It was the most compelling moment of a day that the White House was largely able to ignore. And it was resonant in a way that Chairman Darrell Issa’s post-game response—to tweet a photo of empty Democratic chairs in the room, as if the other party had taken a respite to spit on some graves—was not.

So what we have here is a man who is eminently conversant with wielding style in the courtroom. Substance, not so much.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) slammed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for creating a select committee to investigate the deaths of four American officials in Benghazi. In an e-mail to supporters Friday, Warren called the committee “shameful” and “no-holds-barred political theater,” accusing the GOP of exploiting a tragedy for political gain. And for Warren, it’s a bit personal.

In the email, Warren notes that she is particularly concerned about Boehner’s selection of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) to chair committee. She recalls testifying before Gowdy in 2011 when she was setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “I know a little bit about the way Trey Gowdy pursues oversight,” she writes. “I was on the other end of it when I was setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and I was called to testify before the House.”

Warren says Gowdy lacked basic knowledge of the new agency and was a grand-stander, pushing empty political points rather than conducting a serious investigation. She goes out of her way to make Gowdy appear foolish, quoting a Huffington Post account of the hearing that describes Gowdy as mistakenly suggesting that Warren had written rules that were, in fact, direct quotes from a bill passed by Congress.

Despite claims that this will solely focus on Benghazi, I’m betting this is going to be the Whitewater/White House Travel Office/Vince Foster/Lewinski/Where’s Waldo investigation all over again, and the Beltway media is already salivating. I still have a copy of the Starr report somewhere (it is as salacious in its details as it can be), and the playbook that produced it was essentially one sentence: “keep pushing until you find any mistake, and then beat them to death with it.” We may find that not having any sex scandals to focus on may turn out to be Obama’s detriment. People can empathize with being horny, but most people’s eyes glaze over when confronted with the multi-layered process of producing government communications (let alone government policy).

God damn, but I feel for Senator/Secretary* Clinton. You should not have to face this kind of rabid crazy twice in one lifetime.

Update: Rep. Gowdy is even more of a jerk than I thought. Remember the GOP attacking the Park Service for closing the monuments? Yeah, that was him.

* Not sure what the protocol on former titles is, or which takes precedence

Okay, I’m confused.

So I’m reading this article in the New York Times about the shakeups in the CIA, and a question crystallizes in my mind that’s been there for months… Wasn’t the Director of Central Intelligence roughly equivalent to this “National Intelligence Director” that they’re proposing, and couldn’t a small alteration of the job description meet the 9/11 Commission’s reccommendations??? What’s up with that???

From the CIA’s website:

The Central Intelligence Agency was created in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act by President Truman. The National Security Act charged the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) with coordinating the nation’s intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence which affects national security.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, this National Intelligence Director thing is an attempt to un-do what the old party did and/or re-do it with the current administration’s stamp (funny how much of a tradition that is).

Speaking of liking to “do” things, Mr. Goss is a real winner, all sarcasm intented. Take a look at this:

The report did not mention Ms. Miscik by name, but it criticized the intelligence directorate’s leadership and senior managers, among other things, for devoting too much time and attention to providing updates for policy makers, thus “squandering scarce analytic resources that could be put to better use.”

Because, of course, there’s no need to keep the policy arm of the Bush administration informed.

Oil for Food, again.

An article over at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has some good food for thought (Sorry for the repeated food references. Must be a quitting smoking thing, 2 1/2 weeks!). It’s a critique of Fox’s blatant fantasizing in which it lays blame for Iraqi hunger, world corruption, the common cold, and Barney at the feet of Kofi Annan, but the author also makes a few points about the “scandal” I hadn’t considered, and states a few others I’d already known with singular clarity.

Hm, isn’t when we really get our shit together on an argument about the time the Republican Attack Machine pulls some bit of misdirection? Look for another social scandal involving homosexuals wanting to get married, a murder, a teacher, Christians being persecuted for openly admitting they’re Christian (boy I’d love a don’t ask, don’t tell policy on religion to be in place for a month, so those crying persecution would get the tiniest taste of how it feels) a young light-skinned female, or a cult. Perhaps involving a cultist homosexual teacher (male) who murders a light-skinned female (who, before her untimely demise was actively involved in fighting Christian Persecution, or for the persecution of Christians, depending on how sympathetic she is with the focus groups) because he was obsessed about getting her out of the way so he could marry her husband, then killing the husband and himself because he (#2) turns him (#1) down.

The scary part is that they’d be salivating over that story. Wow this country is depressing.