Hillary and Henry v. Bernie and You

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustrations: Latuff on Israel building a wall around itself and young Hillary as a "Goldwater Girl" [If it was before your time, 1964 Goldwater was the "war" candidate and "negro" hater, and Johnson was the "Peace" Candidate and Civil Rights activist]

Hillary and Henry v. Bernie and You

by

Leonard Trotsky

We have an unusual situation with the publication as most of our readers are in Germany or Russia and the United States is a poor third, most of the time. Perhaps that is why we need to keep explaining what is really going on in the primaries here as they seem very confusing overseas and completely misunderstood here.

We have been asked first why we do not write this publication in German. Well, most Germans who will find their way to this publication read English far more easily than we can write in German. Too many cases and declensions to handle for one thing and the colloquialisms are extremely strange to us with our late 18^th to early 20^th Century study of German. As far as Russian is concerned, the Alphabet is an insurmountable barrier. So there.

Since the last edition, strange things have been surfacing, so we will also attend to them. For example, James Clapper, spymaster general, recently said that they need to monitor more than telephones as there are other input and output devices that need monitoring against attack. When he got to thermostats, we gave up on him. If the Chinese want to hack into my thermostat, I hope they manage to set it to a comfortable temperature.

Recently a group of Kurds marched on the offices of CNN. It is not clear what their purpose was. They were asked a few times, but they did not seem to know either. Perhaps they wanted some bombs and they saw a lot of bombs on CNN.

A few things need to be mentioned before the primary season news goes any further. Madeline Albright, whom we thought was dead, surfaced and pronounced that "there is a special place in Hell for women who do not support other women." Whew. At first thought, that must be a very crowded place in Hell, but she was referring to those who do not vote for Hillary in the new Hampshire Primary. This is the same steadfast moral voice who said that the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children every year because of the U.S. Was "worth it" to get rid of the "murderous dictator" Saddam Hussein. Now even some of Georgie Bush II's servants state that with all the evil things we say he did were totaled up, the same thing "happens every day" now in Iraq. I think his name was Crocker. Maddy later withdrew this and said "that's not what I meant" – ABOUT THE VOTING, NOT THE DEAD CHILDREN IN IRAQ.

The Gloria Steinem opens her mouth wide enough to say that so many young women are supporting Sanders because "that's where the boys are." Her interviewer, Bill Mahrer, asked "Do you know what you would say about me if I said something like that? Come off it."

She replied "You know me better than that, Bill," and touched him knee, I think.

Well, I guess it's better than the Palin factor. Anyone endorsed by sarah palin will finish no higher than second. This is much like the ex-Cubs factor in American baseball: whichever team has the most ex-cubs on it will loose. At any rate, Trump figured that out, I think.

So, now we will start with the sanest part of the primary season and go until it becomes too crazy for words. Hillary Clinton was attacked early on by Donald Trum as being the "worst Secretary of State in the history" of the United States. At the time, we just figured he had never heard of John Foster Dulles, but then there is also Henry Kissinger whom she praises at great length. Kissinger is the one who was behind getting rid of Sianook and making possible the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia. (Yes, he goes at least that far back.) He got rid of Allende in Chile and gave us Pinochet. He decided he should be both head of the National Security Council and Secretary of State and Pat Nixon was reputedly worried that he wanted to be first lady. He is the inspiration for Hilary. Regime change as a foreign policy. Today, Assad is the "murderous dictator" as was Gaddafy previously. All three countries today are the result.

Hillary claims to have been brought up in a rough Chicago neighborhood. It was Park Ridge, a Northwest suburb, relatively yuppie-like. Someone of her ilk would not have last ten minutes in the neighborhood I grew up in and mine was not particularly rough. Now Blagoyavitch, that was a different matter.

So now the Blacks are getting involved in the Primary and, it would seem, support Hillary. Sanders was demonstrating for civil rights before the Clintons even thought of it, but the blacks leaders are only now figuring that out. See, right after the civil rights legislation, the Vietnam war fight started. At the time, Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl". Of course, she found out that Bill was available, drove down to Arkansas, and has been a democrat ever since. Maybe even before. Again a different matter. Too complicated for American politics.

At any rate, most Americans are very tired of the political situation. Sanders therefore becomes popular. Very popular. He is also knowledgeable and concerned with Wall Street and capitalistic oppression of the people. Therefore, he will get a great deal of support, but the Democratic Party is unlikely to allow him to become its nominee.

Now, the real insanity is on the Republican side, especially the primaries. Donald Trump does not act like a typical politician, swears, throws out bigoted remarks, and is flamboyant. He does well because people of the more ignorant type, but who are just as angry with how they are treated by their government (but who are unaware that the government is owned by Wall Street) flock to him. There, of course, are others. Ted Cruz with his "moral ism" as an "Evangelical". If you ask what is an Evangelical, the answers will be varied, but "heart" and "Jesus" are always a part of it. Frankly, the most frightening character of the entire bunch is John Kasich, current Governor of Ohio, who actually seems sane enough to actually beat a Democratic party's candidate (who may well still be Joe Biden).

Now, coming up is the North Carolina primary. What comes out of that is simply too silly to observe, you will see things such as porn stars endorsing evangelicals, and so on. We will simply pass on that.

One thing to keep in mind: Russia really needs to take over Eastern Ukraine quickly before Trump suggests putting a wall around it.

This is viewer supported news

DONATE

During Thursday's Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders picked up on a point that Hillary Clinton made during last week's face-off in New Hampshire about her admiration for former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. "She talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger," Sanders said. "Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country. … I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger." Clinton responded that Sanders has failed to answer questions about whom he would have advise him on foreign policy. Sanders told her, "Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger. That's for sure." We get reaction from economist Jeffrey Sachs, whose recent article is headlined "Hillary is the Candidate of the War Machine," and from Congressmember Gregory Meeks, Democrat of New York and chair of the Congressional Black Caucus political action committee, which has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I want to go back to the debate last night in Milwaukee, when Bernie Sanders picked up on a point that Hillary Clinton made during last week's debate in New Hampshire—that is, Clinton's admiration, and his admiration for her, talking about Henry Kissinger.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference, in the last debate and, I believe, in her book—very good book, by the way—in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country. I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger.

And, in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people—one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So, count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.

GWEN IFILL: Secretary Clinton?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger. That's for sure.

HILLARY CLINTON: I—that's fine. That's fine.

AMY GOODMAN: That's Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debating last night in Milwaukee. The significance of what Bernie Sanders raised, Professor Sachs?

JEFFREY SACHS: He's raising the basic point that when Hillary Clinton says she has experience, her experiences of regime change, that's the Henry Kissinger mode of operation. It is to back the CIA and the military-industrial complex for violent regime change. She's done it now three times, that has led to disaster: Iraq, Libya and now Syria. No responsibility. Most of it's secret, except when The New York Times gives a little bit of a public window to what's happening. That experience is a dreadful experience, and it is a significant mark against her candidacy.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Gregory Meeks?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS: Yes. Well, let me—first, let's go back to Libya, because I don't know where Mr. Leeds [sic] was—

AMY GOODMAN: Well, could you—could you respond, though, on this issue of using Henry Kissinger as an example?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS: Well, Henry Kissinger, I will tell you, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I talk to all people, especially if someone has an expertise in one area or another, so that I can dissect and determine what did happen, what has happened in the past, utilize advice, take in and take out. I know that I talk to all, because that's the best way for me to make a decision, as opposed to just leaving someone out. So if I was going to be or was appointed secretary of state, I think that I would talk to as many secretaries of states that had been alive to figure—get from them what they did, when they did it, how—their advice. It's similar to when you have a transition team. And even if it's a different party, you talk to your former colleagues to find out what they did and how they did it. And sometimes, you might find a bit of advice that you could utilize, and some you may not.

And I think that what she was talking about was that, for example, one of the things that was important was the opening up of relationships and dialogue with China. It was extremely important. Just as Mr. Sanders admitted and said today the same thing: There's a huge difference when we talk and open up a dialogue with Cuba. And we would want to make sure that those kinds of things are happening. So, if—

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, interestingly, on that issue of China that Hillary Clinton raised, how important Henry Kissinger was, Bernie Sanders replied that it was about offshoring jobs, companies moving to China. Jeffrey Sachs?

JEFFREY SACHS: I think the problem for Hillary is that she has a record. She has a foreign policy record, which is not an enviable one. And she has a domestic record of going with the special interests.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break here and come back for another five minutes, and then I know Congressmember Meeks has to leave. This is Democracy Now!We're talking to the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus political action committee, Queens Congressmember Gregory Meeks, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, economist, a professor at Columbia University. Stay with us.

---

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional 

The Select Idiot Committee

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustration: When I first saw this, the caption was something like "See, just don't bomb OUR terrorists. It costs too much to create them, ok?"

The Select Idiot Committee

by

Czar Donic

Last week was a demonstration of what we have in charge of our country. All the television "news" networks televised every minute of the absurdity.

We should remind you of what we said several years ago: trying to get rid of Qaddafi was stupid. It was and now just about everyone agrees.

However, a Republican, with a couple exceptions, can not admit that any use of military aggression by the United States is stupid or wrong. I have no doubt that if a President wanted to bomb Brazil the congress would vote in favor of it. Still, they had to find fault with something to do with it, so they focused on e-mails. (She used e-mails.)

For a short time, it almost seemed that something of substance would emerge. A Republican from Illinois, Peter Roskam, read from a list of "talking points" that someone in her office prepared listing a timeline of actions she took to precipitate and foster the invasion. Furthermore, she had complained to her staffer that he had left out a few things and mentioned them. However, it was time for a vote and the matter was dropped with NO indication that he disapproved of those actions anyway.

Nobody mentioned that our stance at the United Nations was that we simply wanted to "protect innocent civilians." Even more, nobody mentioned that it was this blatant lie that led Russia and China to veto any further motions by the U.S. In any other areas. In short, they learned the hard way that they could not, and decided they would not, ever trust us again.

For Putin, it became clear that this was not a new order of things. In fact, it is one of the reasons (others are given in previous editions of the Absurd Times) to actively interfere in Syria and protect its ally.

The rest of the world has seen refugees fleeing Libya and either dying or seeking asylum in Europe. Hundreds of thousands. This did not happen under Gaddafi.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan, those matters are now understood around the world (with the exception of parts of the U.S.). If anyone thinks there will be some change in attitude now on the part of Putin, or of China, they are subhuman.

As far as Nation Building goes, our guest exclaims "We can't even re-build Baltimore." How do we really think we are going to rebuild some other country? Work on Detroit. Tell Nitwit Yahoo that Palestinians did not start the Holocaust in WWII. Better yet, just send the lot of these morons to a loony bin, or a black site somewhere.

Finally, ISIS decided to tell Palestinians that they should use knives. Now when did they think of that? Maybe Nitwit Yahoo suggested it to them? Makes about as much sense as all the above.

FROM DEMOCRACY NOW:

Former secretary of state and current Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton underwent a marathon day of testimony Thursday before the House Select Committee probing the 2012 attack in Libya, which killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Throughout the hearing, Clinton defended her record on Benghazi in the face of Republican criticism. Republicans say Clinton ignored pre-attack warnings and mishandled its aftermath, even though seven previous congressional probes have found no wrongdoing. Clinton handled Republican questions with a calm demeanor, and afterward panel chair Trey Gowdy, Republican congressmember of South Carolina, admitted the hearing failed to turn up anything new. Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst, says the Benghazi hearing has ignored the real issue for Clinton to address: the U.S. bombing of Libya that destabilized the country and set the stage for the fatal 2012 attack. "What was learned was irrelevant," Goodman says. "What was relevant wasn't discussed."

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Former secretary of state, current Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton spent more than eight hours Thursday testifying before the House Select Committee probing the September 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya, which killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Throughout the hearing, Clinton defended her record as secretary of state on Benghazi in the face of Republican criticism.

HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I would imagine I've thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I've lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been racking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done. And so, when I took responsibility, I took it as a challenge and an obligation to make sure, before I left the State Department, that what we could learn—as I'm sure my predecessors did after Beirut and after Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and after all of the other attacks on our facilities—I'm sure all of them, Republican and Democrat alike, especially where there was loss of American life, said, "OK, what must we do better?"

AMY GOODMAN: The panel was the eighth such committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks, and the hearings largely covered much of the same ground as previous proceedings. Clinton supporters have criticized the Republican-led effort as an attempt to damage the Democratic front-runner's presidential campaign. In his opening statement, committee chair Republican Trey Gowdy addressed those charges.

REP. TREY GOWDY: Madam Secretary, I understand there are people, frankly, in both parties, who have suggested that this investigation is about you. Let me assure you it is not, and let me assure you why it is not. This investigation is about four people who were killed representing our country on foreign soil.

AMY GOODMAN: Elijah Cummings and other Democrats pushed back on Gowdy's assertion, casting the continued investigation as politically motivated. Referencing an interview Gowdy did Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, Cummings said Gowdy wasn't being truthful when he said he had zero interest in investigating the Clinton Foundation and Clinton's emails other than for evaluating them for information. Gowdy and Cummings then had this tense exchange.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: You issued a subpoena to Sidney Blumenthal on May 19th, 2015, compelling him to appear for a deposition June 16, 2015. You issued this subpoena unilaterally, without giving the Select Committee members the opportunity to debate or vote on it. You sent two armed marshals to serve the subpoena on Mr. Blumenthal's wife at their home without having ever sent him a request to participate voluntarily, which he would have done. Then, Mr. Chairman, you personally attended Mr. Blumenthal's deposition. You personally asked him about the Clinton Foundation, and you personally directed your staff to ask questions about the Clinton Foundation, which they did more than 50 times. Now, these facts directly contradict the statements you made on national television—

REP. TREY GOWDY: No, that's not—

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: —this past Sunday.

REP. TREY GOWDY: No, sir. With all due respect, they do not. We're—we just heard email after email after email about Libya and Benghazi that Sidney Blumenthal sent to the secretary of state. I don't care if he sent it by Morse code, carrier pigeon, smoke signals. The fact that he happened to send it by email is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he was sending information to the secretary of state. That is what's relevant. Now, with respect to the subpoena, if he had bothered to answer the telephone calls of our committee, he wouldn't have needed a subpoena.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Well, would the gentleman yield?

REP. TREY GOWDY: I'll be happy to, but you need to make sure the entire record is correct, Mr. Cummings.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Yeah, and that's exactly what I want to do.

REP. TREY GOWDY: Well, then go ahead.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: I'm about to tell you. I move that we put into the record the entire transcript of Sidney Blumenthal. If we're going to release the emails, let's do the transcript. That way the world can see it.

AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration has been criticized for its handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. The White House initially said the consulate was attacked by protesters denouncing a short American film insulting the Prophet Muhammad. But it later turned out the attack was carried out by well-armed militants. The militants first attacked the diplomatic mission, then a secret CIAannex. Republicans say Clinton ignored pre-attack warnings and mishandled its aftermath. While previous reports have been scathing over security failures and have led to firings at the State Department, none have accused Clinton or other top officials of wrongdoing.

Well, joining us for more is Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Center's National Security Project. His latest book, National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Mel Goodman. Can you start off by talking about the significance of the hearing yesterday, what was learned, what wasn't learned, and what you think are the key questions to be asked that may have never been asked formally by any of these committees?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Thank you, Amy. What was learned was irrelevant. What was relevant wasn't discussed. And it was those areas that concern me. Why was the CIAoperating a base out of Benghazi? Why was the State Department operating a transitional mission facility, a TMF—it wasn't a consulate—in Benghazi? Why was Ambassador Stevens, who was aware of the security situation, in Benghazi in the first place? So, none of these questions have been asked.

And remember, when the plane flew these survivors out of Benghazi to get them back to Tripoli, for every State Department official on that plane, there were five or six CIAemployees. And my sources tell me that the CIA was there to buy back weapons that we had given to Gaddafi in the first place. So the question all of this begs—and this is where Hillary Clinton's remarks did concern me—is that we created a disaster in Libya. It was the decision to conduct regime change, the decision to go after Gaddafi, which eventually led to his death. And remember, Hillary Clinton welcomed that news with the words "We came, we saw, he died."

Now, there is a link to what Putin is doing in Syria, because, remember, we had to tell the Russians that we had very limited objectives, a very limited mission in Benghazi, so that they would not veto the U.N. resolution. And then, essentially, Putin finds out that our mission really was to go after Gaddafi, creating this instability, this discontinuity, this chaos in Libya.

So what really needs to be discussed is, what is the role of military power in the making of foreign policy? Why does Hillary Clinton think that Libya is not a disaster? And why was Hillary Clinton pushing for the military role in Libya in the first place? These are important issues.

As far as the hearings were concerned, she testified off and on for nearly 11 hours. She handled herself extremely well, and she essentially exposed the fact that these were a group of Republican troglodytes doing their best to marginalize her and humiliate her. And they totally failed.

AMY GOODMAN: Mel Goodman, the justification at the time, that Gaddafi was going to commit a massacre in Benghazi. Can you take us back to—again, it was September 11th—another September 11th—2012. I think there is so little talked about, about what actually was happening there, that people don't realize exactly what the context was.

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, in the wake of Gaddafi's death, there was total chaos in Libya. And essentially, there was a civil war being waged between forces in the western part of the country, based around the capital, Tripoli, and forces in the eastern part of the country, based around Benghazi. And what we have learned, essentially, over the last 34 years of foreign policymaking, that when you use military power in areas that are not stable, you usually create a worse situation. Israel invades Lebanon in 1982, and the creation of Hezbollah takes place. We arm the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and this leads to groups like the Haqqani faction, the Hekmatyar group, and even al-Qaeda. We go into Iraq, there's the Sunni Awakening. Now we're dealing with the Islamic State. So we took a very bad situation, where there was factionalism in Libya, and made it much worse by removing the only person who seemed to hold it together, even though he did it with incredible violence and threat, but Gaddafi was holding that nation, to the extent it was a nation, holding it together. So, we were a major force and a major reason for the instability that took place. We should never have been in Benghazi. All of the other international institutions, both government and nongovernment, had pulled out of Benghazi.

So, what we need to know is why Stevens was there in the first place, what the CIAwas doing, and why there was no—virtually no security around the diplomatic facility, which was just a transitional facility, and because it was a TMF, it wasn't even eligible for an upgrade in security. It didn't come up on the radar screen. And to blame her for that is ridiculous. But to know what her position was on why military force was a good idea is important, particularly since she is going to be the Democratic candidate—she established that last week in the debate. And there's a very good chance she'll be occupying the White House for four to eight years in the near term.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break and then come back to this discussion. We're speaking to Mel Goodman, who is a former CIA and State Department analyst, about the questions, the key questions, about U.S. presence in Libya, to begin with. The real lessons we can learn about what took place on September 11, 2012, don't start and end on that day. This is Democracy Now! We'll be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "History Repeating," The Propellerheads, featuring the legendary Shirley Bassey, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. In 2012, then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, spoke at a House committee hearing a month after the attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. He stated, quote, "The security situation did not happen overnight because of a decision made by someone [at] the State Department." He went on to criticize U.S. policy in Libya.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: 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 nation's 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 those verbal threats, we intervened—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 Department was not able to adequately protect our diplomats from this predictable threat. It's not surprising, and it's also not acceptable. ...

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 nations They are themselves a threat to America.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Ohio congressman, former Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich testifying in 2012. This week is the fourth anniversary of the death of Muammar Gaddafi. He died close to a year before the Benghazi attack. Our guest is Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, director of the Center's National Security Project. Can you follow up on what Kucinich is saying and what you think are the critical lessons today that we have or have not learned, Mel Goodman?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, I think Kucinich was spot-on. And I would go back to 2003. When we invaded Iraq—under false pretenses, because it was a total corruption of the intelligence process—remember that Gaddafi had been in power for about three decades. Mubarak had been in power for about two or three decades. Libya was stable, Egypt was stable. Saddam Hussein had been in power for several decades, and there was a certain stability in Iraq. The important thing is, these countries were not national security problems for the United States.

Then we use military power in a totally unacceptable fashion in Iraq, and this created the current situation that we're dealing with, in which you have total instability in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq. We now have a power we need to deal with: Iran—and I give high praise to John Kerry for the nuclear agreement with Iran, but we helped to make Iran such an important player by going to war in Afghanistan in an extended fashion, which removed Iran's enemy on the east, and then going into Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, Iran's enemy on the west. So we've been the source of tremendous instability. In many ways, I think, if you look at the Middle East—and there's an apocalyptic character to what we're seeing in the Middle East—we are the major independent variable. And we do that because we use force.

And this belief in regime change—and sadly enough, it goes back to President Eisenhower in 1953, when we used American power in collusion, conspiratorial collusion, with the British, Operation Ajax, to overthrow the only real democratically elected government Iran has ever had. And, of course, Kennedy followed this up in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, which the CIA IG called a "perfect failure." Then you jump forward or leap forward to Chile, again a democratically elected government, but it was socialist, so Nixon and Kissinger target that. Go to Reagan and Iran-Contra.

So if you look at American history, you have the United States essentially trying to create an empire with a base structure that involves over 800 facilities all over the world. There's no country that has more than a half-dozen facilities. And Britain and France can claim that in former colonial areas. Russia can claim a few facilities in former Soviet republics, plus Tartus in Syria. But it's the United States that has this huge facility, a forward strategy to project power in order to destabilize situations when it becomes convenient for United States' interest.

AMY GOODMAN: Mel Goodman—

MELVIN GOODMAN: And this is essentially wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: I daresay the Obama administration would say they intervened in Libya to prevent Gaddafi—this is before 2012—committing a massacre of the Libyan uprising, in the same way that they would say they have intervened in Syria for the same reason, to prevent Assad from killing his own people. Your response to both? And what would have been a peaceful alternative?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, in the case of Libya, I think there could be an alternative, because Gaddafi had negotiated with the United States in the past. In fact, the reference to Gaddafi giving up his nuclear weapons is extremely important, because that was done in very delicate, private negotiations. And the CIA played a major role in that, even though that's not well known.

So, the essential element is that we should realize that the use of military power should always be the last resort, and, frankly, I think President Obama does understand that. I don't think he's been comfortable with the expansion of power. When the so-called surge happened in Afghanistan in 2009 and he went to West Point to give the important speech that he gave, he made it clear that he was putting the troops in, but it was temporary. In 18 months, he was going to start taking them out. And he knew he needed to get troops out of Iraq. He wanted to get all the troops out of Afghanistan. He led from behind, according to his aides, in Libya, so that was somewhat halfhearted. But the fact is, we used military power in these places, and now they're less stable than they were before.

And to talk about nation building is particularly silly. We can't rebuild Baltimore, so what are we going to do in Aleppo and Mosul and Benghazi and Tripoli? We have to be more balanced and more restrained with our use of power. And Hillary Clinton should have been forced to discuss that yesterday, but I don't think that panel was interested in American national security. These were a bunch of "gotcha" questions that got this country nowhere.

AMY GOODMAN: Mel Goodman, you're a former CIA and State Department analyst. Let's talk about the role of the CIA, for example, in Libya. The CIA and the State Department, are they merging? And does that endanger diplomacy, when people in other countries think it's the same thing?

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, the problem, I think, is even greater than that. The merger that's taking place, particularly under this director, John Brennan, is the merger between the CIA and the Pentagon. I left the CIA in the 1980s because of the politicization of intelligence under Bill Casey and Bob Gates. But what John Brennan has done is created the CIA as a paramilitary institution that is really doing the bidding of the Pentagon. He said in his confirmation hearings he was going to give up drone warfare, that that properly belonged in the Pentagon—if we should be doing it at all, which is another question. But not only has he not done that, we've expanded the use of the drones. Now he's merging intelligence analysts and operatives, which will further politicize intelligence.

So what I worry about is the CIA that was created by Harry Truman to challenge the Pentagon, to challenge intelligence briefings by the Pentagon, to try to get an understanding of why we need arms control and disarmament—and there, the CIAand the State Department, and when we had an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which Bill Clinton got rid of, the CIA did some very good work. But if you look at the last 10 years, if you look at politicized intelligence, the phony case to go to war, people like Mike Morell, a deputy director, who was called the "Bob Gates of his generation" by Politico, and we certainly know what that means—the politicization of all the intelligence to invade Iraq, secret prisons, extraordinary renditions, torture and abuse. This is what needs to be addressed, but I think, frankly, President Obama has been intimidated by this process, intimidated by the very military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about in 1961.

AMY GOODMAN: Melvin Goodman, I want to thank you for being with us. The issues, some of them, you raise, we're going to raise with our next guest. Melvin Goodman is former CIA and State Department analyst, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Center's National Security Project. His latest book is National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism.