• 3 hours Facebook Scrubs Over 2 Billion Fake Accounts
  • 9 hours Dow Scrambles To Avoid Fifth Straight Weekly Loss
  • 1 day Is This The World’s First Truly Democratic Stock Exchange?
  • 1 day India’s Wealthiest Set To Hold $23 Trillion By 2028
  • 1 day First Quarter Profits Slip For World's Top Oil Companies
  • 1 day The Yuan May Be China's Biggest Weakness
  • 2 days Hedge Funds Having A Banner Year
  • 2 days Disney Heiress Asks “Is There Such A Thing As Too Much?”
  • 2 days BHP Turns Bullish On EVs
  • 2 days Investors Turn Bullish On America’s Nuclear Decommissioning Business
  • 3 days The $90M Inflatable Rabbit Redefining Modern Art
  • 3 days Huawei’s Fate In The Air
  • 3 days Tesla Slashes Prices Again
  • 3 days The Modern History Of Financial Entropy
  • 4 days Italy’s Central Bank Embraces Sustainable Investing
  • 4 days Trump Lifts Metals Tariffs To Cool Simmering Trade War
  • 4 days Researchers Push To Limit Space Mining
  • 4 days Could China Start Dumping U.S. Treasury Bonds?
  • 5 days Is Winter Coming For HBO?
  • 5 days Rise Of EVs Signals Peak Gasoline
Strong U.S. Dollar Weighs On Blue Chip Earnings

Strong U.S. Dollar Weighs On Blue Chip Earnings

Earnings season is well underway,…

How Millennials Are Reshaping Real Estate

How Millennials Are Reshaping Real Estate

The real estate market is…

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

House Benghazi Hearings: Too Much Too Late

Last week the US House of Representatives called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appear before a select committee looking into the attack on a US facility in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The attack left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

As might be expected, however, the "Benghazi Committee" hearings have proven not much more than a means for each party to grandstand for political points.

In fact, I would call these Congressional hearings "too much, too late."

Four years after the US-led overthrow of the Libyan government - which left the country a wasteland controlled by competing Islamist gangs and militias - the committee wants to know whether Hillary Clinton had enough guards at the facility in Benghazi on the night of the attack? The most important thing to look into about Libya is Hillary Clinton's e-mails or management style while Secretary of State?

Why no House Committee hearing before President Obama launched his war on Libya? Why no vote on whether to authorize the use of force? Why no hearing after the President violated the Constitution by sending the military into Libya with UN authorization rather than Congressional authorization? There are Constitutional tools available to Congress when a president takes the country to war without a declaration or authorization. At the time, President Obama claimed he did not need authorization from Congress because the US was not engaged in "hostilities." It didn't pass the laugh test, but Congress did next to nothing about it.

When the Obama Administration decided to attack Libya, I joined Rep. Dennis Kucinich and others in attempt to force a vote on the president's war. I introduced my own legislation warning the administration that, "the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya."

We even initiated a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia asking the courts to rule on whether the president broke the law in attacking Libya.

Unfortunately we got nowhere with our efforts. When it looked like we had the votes to pass a resolution introduced by Rep. Kucinich to invoke War Powers Resolution requirements on the president for the use of force in Libya, Speaker Boehner cancelled the vote.

Why were there no hearings at the time to discuss this very important Constitutional matter? Because the leadership of both parties wanted the war. Both parties -- with few exceptions -- agree with the ideology of US interventionism worldwide.

Secretary Clinton defended the State Department's handling of security at the Benghazi facility by pointing out that there are plenty of diplomatic posts in war zones and that danger in these circumstances is to be expected. However she never mentioned why Benghazi remained a "war zone" a year after the US had "liberated" Libya from Gaddafi.

Why was Libya still a war zone? Because the US intervention left Libya in far worse shape than it was under Gaddafi. We don't need to endorse Gaddafi to recognize that today's Libya, controlled by al-Qaeda and ISIS militias, is far worse off - and more of a threat to the US - than it was before the bombs started falling.

The problem is the ideology of interventionism, not the management of a particular intervention. Interventionism has a terrible track record, from 1953 in Iran, to Vietnam, to 2003 in Iraq, to 2011 in Libya and Syria. A real Congressional hearing should focus on the crimes and mistakes of the interventionists!

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment