Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today ..

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wasn't the video produced by an American citizen? What about that, Spence? Obama's job is to represent that citizen. And what does Obama do? Throws him under the bus, and informs jihadists all over the world that this American citizen made an anti-Islamic vodeo. Isn't that putting a target on that guy's head? Is that in Obama's job description - "rather than admit that you got caught looking the wrong way, better to blame an innocent civilian who you are supposed to be representing, even if it puts his life at risk"?

Am I wrong on that?

An innocent civilian?

I believe he was a Coptic Christian born in Egypt and naturalized in the USA. The guy is a scumbag...meth dealer, bank fraud. He had 13 known aliases. Producing and distributing the video was a violation of his probation and then he lied it was funded by Jews and that he was Jewish.

The video is a joke. His entire purposed appears to have been to denigrate Islam with no redeemable value. His intentional actions led to violence against Americans in Egypt, possibly Libya and countless other locations around the region.

What he did was akin to yelling fire in a theater. He may have a right to free speech but that doesn't mean the government can't reject it.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

An innocent civilian?

I believe he was a Coptic Christian born in Egypt and naturalized in the USA. The guy is a scumbag...meth dealer, bank fraud. He had 13 known aliases. Producing and distributing the video was a violation of his probation and then he lied it was funded by Jews and that he was Jewish.

The video is a joke. His entire purposed appears to have been to denigrate Islam with no redeemable value. His intentional actions led to violence against Americans in Egypt, possibly Libya and countless other locations around the region.

What he did was akin to yelling fire in a theater. He may have a right to free speech but that doesn't mean the government can't reject it.

-spence

"The guy is a scumbag..."

Spence, please tell me where in Obama's oath of office, it says that he only swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as it applies to non-scumbags?

Even if all you say is true (I have no data to refute it), is that a valid reason for Obama to throw this guy under the bus, to blame him for the deaths of 4 Americans?

"His intentional actions led to violence against Americans "

Wrong. What led to violence against Americans is the fact that millions and millions of Muslims resort to barbaric violence when someone calls them names, instead of just ignoring them like civilized people would do.

Imagine for a second if American Catholics spilled innocent blood every time someone said something derogatory about them?

[PaulS]

What is pathetic to me is the right's trying to make political points off the death of people who died servicing their county - Pathetic.

How many millions more will be spent with nothing to show for it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is pathetic to me is the right's trying to make political points off the death of people who died servicing their county - Pathetic.

How many millions more will be spent with nothing to show for it?

If they can keep the issue alive into the 2016 election some would argue they've gotten a lot of value for the taxpayer's millions.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If they can keep the issue alive into the 2016 election some would argue they've gotten a lot of value for the taxpayer's millions.

-spence

She's got a lot of dark, ugly skeletons in her closet - Whitewater, travelgate, the FBI file scandal, staying married to that scumbag, attacking Lewinski instead of holding her husband accountable (how's that for women's rights?), lying through her teeth about coming under sniper fire (how in the name of God does that not end anyone's political career), and Benghazi, and the fact that a compelling case can be made that she was a disaster as SecState with few victories or accomplishments under her belt. For example, what has she done to free the Pakistani doctor who helped us get Bin Laden?

That's a LOT. But she'll probably win. A lot can happen between now and then, but at this point, I can't see how she loses. As the media (save for one TV station) portrays anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist, they will portray anyone who disagrees with her a sexist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is pathetic to me is the right's trying to make political points off the death of people who died servicing their county - Pathetic.

How many millions more will be spent with nothing to show for it?

The mirror-image of your statement would be this...I can't believe the left is willing to sweep the deaths of 4 superb Americans under the rug, in order to preserve the reputation of our megalomaniac-in-chief.

Th etruth is somewhere between your statement and mine. I htink there are still un-answered questions. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are not right-wing fanatics, I presume they are truthful when they say we need this hearing. If it turns out that it was nothing more than a political witchhunt, hold them acountable.

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The mirror-image of your statement would be this...I can't believe the left is willing to sweep the deaths of 4 superb Americans under the rug, in order to preserve the reputation of our megalomaniac-in-chief.

Th etruth is somewhere between your statement and mine. I htink there are still un-answered questions. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are not right-wing fanatics, I presume they are truthful when they say we need this hearing. If it turns out that it was nothing more than a political witchhunt, hold them acountable.

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

So what have they found so far? Nothing.

I think the WH shouldn't have said anything until they were 100% clear. However if that happened people would be up in arms about the silence. With the 24/7 coverage, you're dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

And didn't Hillary say in her "what difference does it make" speach something along the lines of .... "as long as we find out who did it, why and how to prevent it from happening again".

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And didn't Hillary say in her "what difference does it make" speach something along the lines of .... "as long as we find out who did it, why and how to prevent it from happening again".

Curious if you think this will ever get accomplished ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So what have they found so far? Nothing.

I think the WH shouldn't have said anything until they were 100% clear. However if that happened people would be up in arms about the silence. With the 24/7 coverage, you're dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

And didn't Hillary say in her "what difference does it make" speach something along the lines of .... "as long as we find out who did it, why and how to prevent it from happening again".

"So what have they found so far? Nothing."

I think they found that the administration, for a time, ignored a lot of evidence and suggestion that it had nothing to do with the video. They learned that once there was a document from the CIA that mentioned the video, they ignored everything else. A very compelling case can be made, that they ignored everything else and focused on the video as long as they could, because that narrative did not indicate a failure in policy. It being an election season, there is no bigger political motivation than winning the presidential election, so that had motive to be less than honest.

It also just came out that back when this happened, Foxnews (naturally) broke that the video had nothing to do with it. There was a 7-page email that circulated among senior Obama staff that dealt with how they should respond to Fox's story. The administration will not release that entire email - how's that for a "transparent" administration we were promised.

There are insane hearings all the time. If the Obama administration has nothing to hide (and it stands to reason they do), they have nothing to fear, other than the inconvenience.

Let's have open hearings, everyone there, everying being honest. If it's nothing more than a witch-hunt, hold the GOP accountable. If the administration did anyhting wrong, hold them accountable.

Fair enough?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let's have open hearings, everyone there, everying being honest. If it's nothing more than a witch-hunt, hold the GOP accountable. If the administration did anyhting wrong, hold them accountable.

Just heard that the The National Republican Congressional Committee has solicited money through a petition called Benghazi Watchdog on its website, which says, “Let’s go after Obama and Hilary Clinton,”

The spell check nazis will have a field day with that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And didn't Hillary say in her "what difference does it make" speach something along the lines of .... "as long as we find out who did it, why and how to prevent it from happening again".

She did say that, and it makes her statement less putrid. But it still matters, because justice always matters, and justice always requires truth, does it not? I'm sure it matters to the families of the victims, to know what actually happened. Then again, she's not a huge fan of the truth, is she?

Hilary: I got off the plane, and immediately came under sniper fire. I had to DIVE! into a Hum-vee!

Reporter: Here is a video of the scene. You are smiling and waving, and casually getting into the vehicle. No gunshots.

Bill Clinton: She was tired, so she's not responsible for what she says.

Spence: Good enough for me! Hoo-ray!

In other words (assuming Bill was being honest, which he wasn't), when she's tired, she becomes delusional, unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy. And she wants to be President? Are you kidding me? I think Presidents need to be able to display some rationality even when tired.

Tell me I'm wrong?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Tell me I'm wrong?

How many time have you brought that up and yet you aren't concerned with either the lie (or the bungling stupidity) that got us into the Iraq war that caused over 4,500 soldiers death? Does the word justice ever come up in regards to this issue? Don't the families of the soldiers deserve to know?

How many embassies where attacked during the Bush admin?

So let's have more hearings. We don't have the truth yet bc the Reps aren't satisfied and think there is a conspiracy that they'll soon uncover.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

You got that right, Jim. Gowdy is a bulldog and nobodies lunch meat.
Having been a Prosecuter in the 7th District of SC , I don't believe he ever lost a case.

What ever it costs to get to the truth will be worth it. If the taxpayers can spend $40 million for Air Force 1 and other expenses to pay for Obama's and Biden's vacations over the last 5 years we can spend the $ to get at the real truth.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

You got that right, Jim. Gowdy is a bulldog and nobodies lunch meat.
Having been a Prosecuter in the 7th District of SC , I don't believe he ever lost a case.

What ever it costs to get to the truth will be worth it. If the taxpayers can spend $40 million for Air Force 1 and other expenses to pay for Obama's and Biden's vacations over the last 5 years we can spend the $ to get at the real truth.

I'm sure you use to complain about Pres. Bush's vacations

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'm sure you use to complain about Pres. Bush's vacations

Yes, I complain about any over indulgence in spending hard earned taxpayer dollars.

[PaulS]

No, the extreme left will think they are pathetic, the extreme right will think they are uncovering a scandal and the 60% in the middle will ignore it and say politics as usual.

[PaulS]

Yes, I think they will find and kill the people directly responsible. I have no idea how many that will be.

Will we ever prevent more deaths from terrorism - never. Our govern. will continue to try but it is impossible and I'm shocked (and thankfull) we haven't had more deaths since 9/11.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Yes, I think they will find and kill the people directly responsible. I have no idea how many that will be.

Will we ever prevent more deaths from terrorism - never. Our govern. will continue to try but it is impossible and I'm shocked (and thankfull) we haven't had more deaths since 9/11.

Our government under this administration has been a string of failures. I wonder why you think that will change when no one is held accountable for these failures .

I think it's Jay Carny who said "The Obama administration at no time was aware of what the Obama administration was doing at that time"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Our government under this administration has been a string of failures. I wonder why you think that will change when no one is held accountable for these failures .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BINGO.....it's like those parents that take their brat(s) out to eat at a restaurant and the kids make a mess and are noisy and disruptive to everyone in the place, but the parents don't see anything wrong in their little angels, they see everyone else as the problem and they sit there and smile at their children as they create mayhem and they glare at the poor waitress cleaning up the messes they look down their noses at the other restaurant patrons just trying to enjoy peace and their meals who might appear disturbed by the obnoxious behavior...GOD forbid anyone say anything to them about their questionable parenting and the antics of their offspring because that would unleash all sorts of insults for attacking their children....it's pretty much like that...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Will we ever prevent more deaths from terrorism - never. Our govern. will continue to try but it is impossible and I'm shocked (and thankfull) we haven't had more deaths since 9/11.

True. There are lunatics out there, and we probably can't stop them all.

[detbuch]

Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."

and since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, all of the administration's talking points were willful and concerted lies, underscored by the memo...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."

Spence, you claim that Obama did not blame the video for the attack.

Look at that quote that Detbuch put up, and tell us if you want to recant. You have fun wit that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you claim that Obama did not blame the video for the attack.

Look at that quote that Detbuch put up, and tell us if you want to recant. You have fun wit that.

I love it, make something up then challenge me to deny it.

Brilliant!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, make something up then challenge me to deny it.

Brilliant!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your direct quote...

"Obama didn't blame the guy (who made the video) for the uprising, he simply said he doesn't represent the beliefs of America.

Am I still making it up that you claim that Obama didn't blame the video for the attack?

It's getting boring, Spence.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Let me try it again. The administration's talking points gives us two options:

"To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."

One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

By the time Rice when on TV there were some 1/2 dozen violent protests at American missions all related to the video. We still don't know if the Benghazi attack was completely independent of the video either. Certainly it wasn't completely about the video but it's still quite possible the timing of the attack was inspired by the violence in Cairo or perhaps taken as an opportunity...as was reported at the time.

I'd be willing to wager Benghazi has had more government investigative focus than even 9/11. Think about that for a while, it really puts everything in perspective.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

By the time Rice when on TV there were some 1/2 dozen violent protests at American missions all related to the video. We still don't know if the Benghazi attack was completely independent of the video either. Certainly it wasn't completely about the video but it's still quite possible the timing of the attack was inspired by the violence in Cairo or perhaps taken as an opportunity...as was reported at the time.

I'd be willing to wager Benghazi has had more government investigative focus than even 9/11. Think about that for a while, it really puts everything in perspective.

-spence

these are pretty much the same lies Carney told that had the press corps incredulous

as Detbuch pointed out the only "protest" occurring prior to Benghazi was the Cairo incident which was "announced on August 30 by Jamaa Islamiya, to release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Egypt's prime minister Hesham Kandil said "a number" of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate"........, so much for spontaneous protests....

"On June 29, newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi pledged to free Omar Abdel-Rahman, who he described as a political prisoner.[31] On August 2, Egypt formally requested that the United States release Abdel-Rahman.[32]

On August 30, according to Eric Trager, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya called for a protest at the US embassy in Cairo on September 11 to demand the release of Abdel-Rahman.[33]

On September 8, El Fagr reported on a threat to burn down the US embassy in Cairo unless Abdel-Rahman was released. Raymond Ibrahim described this threat as a unified statement by Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.[34]

A DHS report released on September 11 and reported by Fox News on September 19 indicated that a web statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release Abdel-Rahman "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The Web statement was apparently posted on an Arabic-language forum on September 9, two days before the attack, and was in reference to the embassy in Egypt." I guess the administration didn't see it coming

also.......... On September 10, 2012, at least 18 hours before the attack in Benghazi, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, which called for attacks on Americans in Libya in order to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan in June 2012.[5] It is uncertain how much prior knowledge of the attack al-Zawahiri had, though he praised the attackers on October 12, 2012 in another video. oops...missed that one too, wait.... maybe this is the video to blame??...no, can't be, Carney said Behghazi had nothing to do with 9/11 or US policy

the others occurred after Benghazi...after the Administration blamed the video for Cairo and Benghazi, neither of which were rooted in the video....

Carney did say this...

"In his press briefing on September 14, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this [the Benghazi attack] was not in reaction to the film."lie[183] He went on to say: "There was no intelligence that in any way could have been acted on to prevent these attacks. lie It is – I mean, I think the DNI spokesman was very declarative about this that the report is false. The report suggested that there was intelligence that was available prior to this that led us to believe that this facility would be attacked, and that is false lie ... We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack lie. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy." lie...probably just a coincidence...the timing and all

if you read through the list of other "protest" following Benghazi...

Yemen
In Yemen, the protests started on September 13, after Abdul Majid al-Zindani, a cleric and former mentor to Osama bin Laden, called on followers to emulate the attacks in Egypt and Libya. probably nothing to do with 9/11 and/or US policy

Greece
About 600 Muslim protestors in Athens tried to march on the U. S. Embassy, but were stopped by Greek police. No injuries were reported, although three cars were damaged and three storefronts were smashed. The protestors chanted "we are all with Osama". probably nothing to do with 9/11 and/or US Policy

Sudan
Also after Friday prayers on September 14, protesters started fires and tore down the flag in the German embassy. Demonstrators hoisted a black Islamic flag at the German embassy, which read in white letters "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet".[53] Although it was initially assumed that the attacks were to a target of opportunity related to the protests against the film Innocense of Muslims, the incident is now reported as a long-planned deliberate attack against Germany preachers encouraged the riots by referring to Germany's defending Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in 2012 during the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy; well, at least they had a good reason


read that and think about it for a while "no intelligence" might be accurate...just in a different "context"...
frankly...offering or accepting the idea that a cartoon or an obscure film has more to do with this than US Policy, perception of US Policy and/or the Anniversary of 9/11 is just mind-bogglingly dishonest..."seems" as though the subsequent protests and violence "were rooted in" the success of the Benghazi attackers and the reaction of the administration(which essentially dumped fuel on the fire with their little video effort)...that is very troubling..

some movie reviews...

The New Republic said that the film "includes not a single artistically redeemable aspect" with "atrocious" directing, "terrible" sets and acting consisting of "blank eyes and strained line readings".[109] The New York Daily News called it an "obscenely inept vanity project" that is "far beneath any reasonable standard of movie-making."[110] Muslim filmmaker Kamran Pasha stated, "I am of the opinion that it is a film of questionable artistic merit....


the administration may have been the movie's biggest promoter if you think about it Spence

[spence]

Read everything again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

How do the talking points operate in the context of Benghazi? It is Benghazi which is in question now. And it was Benghazi which was the BIG story, the main context, at the time the talking points were made.

And the "broader situation" included a broader context than the focus on the video. There was a long train of events over a long period of time that were all part of the "broader situation" involving radical Islam, jihad of the sword, terrorism, Al Qaeda, and more, which spread into various violent "events" worldwide. And the leaders of those events were partly responsible for the "Arab spring" and were certainly about coopting it and using it as the means to further advance their hegemony in Muslim lands. The administration's talking points certainly wanted to "infer" that its policy was steadfastly and competently addressing the broader picture. They were intended to "infer" that there was this isolated glitch in the administration's lead, from behind, against terrorism and the rise of democracy in the Middle East. It had killed Bin Laden, Al Qaeda was decimated, on the run, ineffectual. The temporary glitch in the picture was the result of a video, not failure of policy.

By the time Rice when on TV there were some 1/2 dozen violent protests at American missions all related to the video. We still don't know if the Benghazi attack was completely independent of the video either.

Again, it is vital to make the distinction of how the video was related to protests. If the relationship was strict, if the video in itself was the cause of the violent protests, if they were the "spontaneous" expressions of offended Muslims acting on that offense, and not instigated by Al Qaeda or its affiliates, it might be "inferred" that administration policy was not at fault. But if the video was a tool of "extremists" of the Al Qaeda brand (or even taken by them "as an opportunity" as you say), then failure of policy was to be "inferred." And certainly, the Benghazi attack was not "rooted" as the memo put it, in the video, but was carried out by those with whom the administration was not concerned. It was a la the memo, a "broader failure of policy"

Certainly it wasn't completely about the video but it's still quite possible the timing of the attack was inspired by the violence in Cairo or perhaps taken as an opportunity...as was reported at the time.

It was completely about a well coordinated terrorist attack by Al Qaeda affiliates. There was no protest before the attack, or remonstrations against the video during the attack. the influence of the video, if any, was very peripheral and unnecessary. If it had any influence, it is far more likely that influence was fueled by Al Qaeda brand rather than spontaneous reaction. The timing . . . 9/11.

I'd be willing to wager Benghazi has had more government investigative focus than even 9/11.

And yet all that "government investigative focus" didn't retrieve the memo. It was by the limited but singular focus of a private group. To a great extent, the government investigations were not focused. They went in different tangents by different investigators, many of whom were not "investigating" but rather were obstructing. A lot of it was blather. On the other hand, much was found that was damning of the administration's handling and policy. And, like Watergate, it took time to develop in a meaningful way. Watergate took 2 years to culminate in Nixon's resignation. There was no talk from the Democrats about "old news" or moving on. They persisted, and with the help of media, and private investigating, they got their man. Most of the current media are not as adversarial to Obama as they were to Nixon, so the outcome for Obama will probably minimal. For Hillary--who knows?

Think about that for a while, it really puts everything in perspective.

-spence

Ah . . . the "perspective" thing. The "context of the broader situation," as you put it, can lead to a broader "perspective." If one wants to get out of the little pigeon hole of protecting Obama and Hillary, and being willfully blind to their manipulation of "context" and "perspective" in order to achieve and maintain power, one might perceive wrongheaded policies which endanger us.

[PaulS]

Wasn't another Benghazi report just released? How many more to go?

Did this one find anything?