Dr. Ron Paul on “What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi”

Although he left the U.S. Congress in January, Dr. Ron Paul continues to fight the good fight for strategically sound and morally defensible U.S. foreign policy, in the Middle East and elsewhere.  We append below a statement that Dr. Paul issued recently about the pseudo debate in Washington over the September 2011 attack on the U.S. “facility” in Benghazi, Libya. 

What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi

By Dr. Ron Paul, http://www.the-free-foundation.org/tst5-13-2013.html

Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.

Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?

Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.

It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.

Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration’s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was “killing his own people” and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President’s editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.

Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.

Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.

The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

 

16 Responses to “Dr. Ron Paul on “What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi””

  1. fyi says:

    The Leveretts:

    It is the American people who do not wish to learn the real reasons of Benghazi.

    Consider: US sold her jobs abroad to (partially) defray the costs of her empire.

    With the financial collapse in 2011, US economy became one analogous to that of Japan’s.

    Now you are asking them to admit that 20 years of policies domestically and internationally have failed.

    And left the US far worse.

    Not going to happen.

  2. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    May 15, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    “I think you are not aware of the differences of opinion, regarding the way forward for the UK in the Middle East, between what Blair and Brown were doing, and what the Conservatives hoped to do.

    UK policy when new gov’t came in, was to seek better British relations with Syria. And Iran. And Hezbollah. And Hamas. Obviously, the Israel lobby in the US did not like this aspect of intended British foreign policy.”

    Please provide a few concrete steps the new gov’t took in this regard.

  3. James Canning says:

    Bravo, Ron Paul. I of course opposed US (and UK) military intervention in Libya, because I assumed it would result in numerous armed gangs causing chaos for many years to come.

  4. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Are you familiar with Wafic Said? And with Wafic Said’s efforts, largely behind the scenes, to imprve Syria’s relations with France and the UK?

    Are you familiar with efforts to develop small, chic hotels, in Syria? To promote “up-market” tourism in Syria, especially from Britain, France (and later, the US)?

  5. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Someone in the Iranian government “threw a spanner” into the gearbox of Hague’s plans to improve Britain’s relations with Iran. Unless, that is, the ill-advised decision to announce a trebling of production of 20 percent uranium, was a policy choice by Iran intended to wreck Hague’s plans.

  6. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    I share your interest in the rapidly growing Turkish business connection with Iraqi Krudistan. Growing “by leaps and bounds”.

  7. James Canning says:

    Iraqi Kurdistan. Fast-growing economically, partly due to Turkish investment etc etc etc.

  8. James Canning says:

    We heard rather a lot of noise from Hillary Clinton, about how the US was going to help promote “democracy” in Libya.

    Growth of al-Qaeda in Libya, thanks to American military intevention, is a bit of an annoyance, when one is promoting the success of the “freedom agenda”.

  9. James Canning says:

    Spiegel.de reports today the growing concern in the German foreign ministry, that the US will intervene militarily in Syria. And repeat the blunders of 2003 in Iraq.

  10. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    May 15, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    “Someone in the Iranian government “threw a spanner” into the gearbox of Hague’s plans to improve Britain’s relations with Iran. Unless, that is, the ill-advised decision to announce a trebling of production of 20 percent uranium, was a policy choice by Iran intended to wreck Hague’s plans.”

    Stop right here! Was this the extent of the good intent? That if Iran makes this or that energy/medical/industrial sovereign decision like a dozen other countries, then good turns into bad?

    I am not surprised if Iran’s government did not put too high a value on this kind of good intentions. Hague should try it on Belgium, or Brazil see how they like it.

  11. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Yes, we can “stop right there”. If you think Iran can enrich as much urnaium as it pleases, to whatever purity it pleases, you are dead wrong.

    Willaim Hague was not going to advocate Iranian stockpiling of 20 percent uranium, to facilitate building nukes. Full stop.

  12. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon – – Belgium and Brazil are not suggesting serious interference in the shipping lanes of the Persain Gulf.

  13. BiBiJon says:

    James Canning says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    you’re being incoherent.

  14. James Canning says:

    BiBiJon,

    Incoherent about what? You made the argument that Iran should be able to do whatever it wants with its nuclear programme, in emulation of Brazil and Belgium. Didn’t you?