Patterico's Pontifications

10/25/2012

Father of Fallen SEAL: Hillary Told Me They’d Get That Filmmaker Good

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:44 pm

Hillary Clinton told the father of a Navy SEAL killed in Banghazi that the United States was going to find the person responsible and make sure he was prosecuted.

The “person responsible” in her mind, of course, was the guy who made that Mohammed YouTube video:

The Hillary quote is in the second clip. The quote where Joe Biden asks the dad if his son always had “balls the size of cue balls” is in the first.

I agree with Allahpundit:

What I found significant about this wasn’t the “movie protest” versus “preplanned attack” element, it was the fact that Hillary’s promise of vengeance to the father of a fallen SEAL wasn’t that we’d get the jihadis who killed him but that we’d punish the filmmaker. That’s perverse, but in keeping with the fact that she decided to run ads on Pakistani TV apologizing for the film while Islamist cretins menaced American diplomats across the region. Even if you give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she had no intention of prosecuting the filmmaker but was merely telling Woods something she thought would console him, why on earth would she zero in on the filmmaker as the target of blame instead of the degenerates who actually shot his son? She and O need to answer. Let’s see how much they really value free speech. Simple question for both: Is Woods a liar or not?

Will anyone ask that question? Big Media, a ball the size of a cue ball is in your court.

126 Responses to “Father of Fallen SEAL: Hillary Told Me They’d Get That Filmmaker Good”

  1. I know attorneys commenting here have said that considering the crimes Nakoula was convicted of committing they would expect that he’d be rearrested and sent back to prison for vioating these terms of his supervised relief.

    Fine, all well and good. But I’m thoroughly convinced they’d have found something to charge him with no matter what his legal situation.

    And they certainly didn’t need to make a media production out of it. That is, they didn’t need to unless they wanted the Muslim world to see that the film maker was arrested for making the film. That was certainly the message they wanted to send. And for that they needed to turn this into a circus.

    His family didn’t violate any terms of supervised release. But the administration had no qualms about putting them in danger by pinpointing exactly where they were. Now they have to go into hiding.

    This administration did that deliberately because they found it politically convenient. And all to prop up a lie.

    This is beyond despicable, and I just don’t see Nakoula being the worst out of the crew of bad actors in this sordid episode.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  2. Release. Supervised release.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  3. On a side note, isn’t it interesting that the attack took place on September 11th and on September 20th the administration made their video to play in Pakistan. However, given the recent revelation of exactly when the administration knew that it was a terrorist attack and not the result of the You Tube movie, it makes it all the more damning for the administration.

    Dana (292dcf)

  4. I know Obama’s real mindset comes through at moments like this, I thought Hillary would know better unless it was the dictate from above, then I still would have thought she would have known better.
    Even if the filmmaker had broken some kind of law against provoking violence or some such, the people that the govt. needed to get were the murderers.

    Biden’s comments. Usually the stuff he says is dumb but relatively harmless, since no one gives him serious consideration, but this was just so inappropriate.

    I sometimes say stupid things, on occasion even things that were offensive without my realizing it, but then again I’m not trying to live up to being one of the most powerful people on the face of the planet.

    No scriptwriter would ever get away with making this stuff up.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. Easy for you guys to say. You weren’t sniped at, at a Kosovar airfield. And those sluts, Flowers, Jones, Lewinski, trying to make my husband come between my husband and me!

    Hillary Rod Ham Clinton

    The lady is … God only knows.

    nk (875f57)

  6. i’d call them all scum, but that would be an insult to scum.

    this administration and the criminals in it are lower than whale feces at the bottom of the ocean. no matter how imaginative the terminology, it can’t come close to describing the level of willful neglect of the interests of this country and her citizens their actions represent.

    i think a fair trial and a fine hanging are the least they should be given as a reward for their service on our behalf over the last four years.

    b*stards.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  7. Greetings:

    Once we have “progressived” past the Rule of Law, as the Obama administration so obviously has, is “the process is the punishment” not to be expected ???

    11B40 (6e3d25)

  8. Is Tapper the only one with the stones to ask about this?

    JD (8a1df4)

  9. The media has balls the size of quarks.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  10. Democrats sure do hate that First Amendment, don’t they?

    SPQR (768505)

  11. The Fourth Estate certainly seems weedy these days.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  12. Look at it from the Administration’s perspective, they set a kabuki performance in motion only to have a couple of nosy ex-SEALs strong-arm their way in uninvited and screw up the proceedings so much the other team went ballistic and killed the damn Ambassador and then hunted down the SEALs and had to bring out mortars to finish them off.

    Then Team Obama botched the cover up and every thing they touched after that went to hell, the only thing they can do now is spread confusion and multiply misinformation to run out the clock and get them past the election. Plenty of time to designate a scapegoat after Obama is safely reelected.

    It’s no wonder the Administration is pissed off.

    ropelight (09095a)

  13. Usually The president will have a statement with any alligations that inolve him and his saff. I wonder ifthis isreally true or is it afather scorned from loosing his son to a terrorist attack. am researchig this. i am wondering how real this is because ho could all three of them have made thes commnts and seemd cold aout the sattack I am sorry tis person is blaming and not really seeing the difference in congress nd the President. Congress made these decisions and woiuld not place obamas bill to get more security.

    Darlene Tschopp (208b5f)

  14. #15 Engrish Prease

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  15. narciso @11,

    It’s not news that al Qaeda-linked groups instigated the Cairo embassy assault. That was actually reported the same day.

    Here’s a report from September 12th:

    Zawahiri’s Brother at Cairo Embassy Assault

    11:21 AM, Sep 12, 2012 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN

    During the assault on the U.S. embassy in Egypt, demonstrators reportedly chanted “Obama! Obama! We are all Osama!” They yelled this obvious reference to Osama bin Laden as an al Qaeda-style flag was hoisted and the American flag brought down. At least one of the protesters at the anti-American rally knows a thing or two about al Qaeda: Mohammed al Zawahiri, who is the younger brother of al Qaeda’s emir, Ayman al Zawahiri.

    Mohammed al Zawahiri has even claimed credit for sparking the anti-American protest. “We called for the peaceful protest joined by different Islamic factions including the Islamic Jihad (and the) Hazem Abu Ismael movement,” he said, according to CNN. Islamic Jihad is most likely the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), a core part of al Qaeda’s international jihadist coalition.

    The younger Zawahiri has been on a media tour since he was released from an Egyptian prison this past March. And some press outlets have portrayed him as a reformed moderate.

    Mohammad al Zawahiri is a “reformed moderate” just as much as Bashar al Assad is a “reformer” in Syria.

    They just no how to play western leftists like violins. Mohammad al Zawahiri knows our admin and our media is desperate to fall for his good cop routine ans his brother and others play the bad cop.

    Sort of like how Arafat would come to the west and say one thing, then go back to the ME and in Arabic say entirely the opposite. He played both roles, and those fools in Norway gave him a Peace Prize because of it.

    What’s interesting is that CNN sent a correspondent to interview Zawahiri outside US embassy Cairo before any demonstration or violence began. Not once did they mention the stupid YouTube video. The purpose of the planned protest assault was to put pressure on the US to release the blind sheik.

    But while CNN put the video of the interview on YouTube, their reporters went with the “spontaneous anger over a hateful video” lie.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  16. Well it’s more the whole angle involved, not just Zawahiri,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  17. It is significant that your video is from September 10th, narciso. I’ve linked before to an Egyptian press translation posted on PJ Media, also on September 10, announcing the demonstration/assault.

    Essentially, these guys issued press releases announcing they were going to agitate for the US to release the blind sheik. Yet the government tried to say it was a spontaneous response to a movie that doesn’t exist.

    I realize that my prior comment doesn’t really add any information about the cause of this violence. But it does show just how in-the-tank outfits like CNN are for the Obama administration. They know better, yet they’ll bury the truth and go along with the false narrative to help their messiah.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  18. _________________________________________

    that we’d punish the filmmaker

    OMG.

    My initial reaction to this blog entry was that its contents perhaps were from The Onion, or was sneaky propaganda put forth by some ultra-conservative, anti-Obama group.

    I’m speechless because the “get that filmmaker good” mindset plays into a stereotype of loony leftism and loony leftists that exceeds my wildest imagination, or worst fears.

    Such a response is a combination of “Blame America First” intertwined with the mindset of “the poor, sad, pitiful axe murderer didn’t get enough daycare and healthcare as a youngster,” combined with the belief that “the chick with the low-cut top was just asking to be raped.”

    Barack and Hillary, and other like-minded people, are philosophically twisted to a point that enters the realm of the deranged. (BTW, I won’t say anything about the various occasions when Hillary has been caught on film smiling or even chuckling when dealing with deadly serious matters such as Benghazi or Kadafi.)

    Wow. Never did I think the most heavy-handed sarcasm about such people would, in fact, turn out to be an accurate depiction of what makes them tick.

    Mark (66bba6)

  19. Well the significance are all the characters involved from IG, which is a political faction,
    the Justice and Freedom Party, like Bel Hadj’s in Libya

    narciso (ee31f1)

  20. 18. Well it’s more the whole angle involved, not just Zawahiri,

    Comment by narciso — 10/25/2012 @ 9:55 pm

    I realize that. Actually, there are a number of angles to this, not just Zawahiri. But I’m only focusing on a couple.

    Oh, here’s that link to the Sep 10th press translation.

    PJ Tatler: Jihadis Threaten to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo

    Really, the only angle I’m focusing on is the ridiculous notion that what happened in Cairo and then Benghazi was caused by a video. It was an unsupportable lie, an obvious and ridiculous lie, when the Obama administration decided to use it.

    The media knew it too. But they went along with it. And they arrested some guy and put his entire family in danger to try to prop it up.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  21. Yes, I remember that story, in retrospect Romney was remarkably circumspect, on the whole matter,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  22. Sure glad guys like Brian Williams are around to ask 0bama the tough questions!!

    Colonel Haiku (454828)

  23. Here’s Clinton regarding the Islamic militant group taking credit for the attack on a Facebook posting:

    “Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence. I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be,” Clinton said during an appearance with the Brazilian foreign minister at the State Department.

    Minimize the event on Facebook but give all the credit to that huge reach of Youtube.

    These people are scum.

    PC14 (87cbf8)

  24. The reason that the Adninnystration is so afraid of “the video” is that, at some time, the video from the Benghazi attack is going to become public …

    And when it does, we will get to see whether or not there was a mob … or protestors … or protest signs … or synchronised chanting/handwaving like mobs do …

    And my guess is that we will not see anything protest-mob-like … it will be video of an armed assault …

    And *that* has to be terrifying Obama and Clinton and a bunch of other high-ups in the Democrat Party – cuz that video may well be unimpeachable impeachment evidence …

    President Obama – when can we see the video of the Libya attacks ?

    Alasdair (2cd241)

  25. The only thing that counts is our people were left to die. NO ATTEMPT to try and save them.

    Is this still America?

    John Allen (8aafe9)

  26. Meanwhile, Nakoula is in solitary and looking disheveled and dissipated, according to the Daily Beast.

    I guess they’re just waiting for him to die.

    “Will no one rid me of this troublesome filmmaker?”

    Patricia (e1d89d)

  27. It is time for Hillary and Rice to explain themselves. I have defended her a day too long.

    pat (75b00c)

  28. _________________________________________

    Is this still America?

    It’s seems like more of a parallel-universe version or a bad parody of the US. In a way, it has become Jeremiah Wright’s “Goddamn America.”

    blogs.wsj.com, October 25: On her hit HBO show “Girls,” writer-creator-star Lena Dunham hasn’t been shy about talking about sex, life and her twentysomething generation. Her new pro-Obama video aims to be just as bold, or brazen, depending on where you’re coming from politically.

    “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody,” Dunham says in the spot. “You want to do it with a great guy.”

    She’s talking about voting. Or maybe sex. Or maybe both, depending on how private your voting booth is.

    It should come as no surprise that in such a tight election, the clip, titled “Lena Dunham: Your First Time,” has sharply divided viewers. “Please don’t blame yourself for ending Obama’s campaign. Your ad was just the last straw,” one poster warned on Twitter. But another tweeted: “i. love. this.”

    Mark (66bba6)

  29. The sound you here is the chickens about to land.

    On Obama.

    Jcw46 (b4329c)

  30. Comment by Steve57 — 10/25/2012 @ 10:08 pm

    Really, the only angle I’m focusing on is the ridiculous notion that what happened in Cairo and then Benghazi was caused by a video. It was an unsupportable lie, an obvious and ridiculous lie, when the Obama administration decided to use it.

    They probably had some “experts” and/or some foreign countries, telling them just that. Or that the video was exploited by some radical extremists, and that they needed to get rid of it and prevent something like it from happening again. This is stupidity and gullibility, not malevolence

    The media knew it too. But they went along with it. And they arrested some guy and put his entire family in danger to try to prop it up.

    No, he was identified, by the media, before he was arrested. He had initially used a false name, and claimed to be Jewish and from Israel and that Jews had financed the video – which tells you everything you need to know about his true motives and who financed it and why it was done.

    It was financed by people involved with the perpetrators of the attacks.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  31. The media has had their nuts cut off, and they love it.
    Fricking nuetered commies.

    mg (31009b)

  32. Comment by MD in Philly — 10/25/2012 @ 8:07 pm

    Even if the filmmaker had broken some kind of law against provoking violence or some such

    There is no such thing. He was accused of basically technical parole violations, mainly not using an alias in business – and of lying to federal investigators (and there is an obvious possibility of financial fraud)

    the people that the govt. needed to get were the murderers.

    Yes. And he could help get them, because he very probably can give some leads to them that nobody else has. And that should have been the priority.

    But he was never offered such a deal.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  33. Either Nakoula committed financial fraud (rather unlikely, since nobody has complained that we know of) or he was supported by the Moslem Brotherhood/Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Al Qaeda.

    He initially told federal investigators that he had obtained money for the film from his wife’s family in Egypt, according to ABC (and maybe also that it was borrowed, and not an investment – and I think the money he admitted to was $60,000 – probably just one money transfer from Egypt but there probably were more – which was considerably less than was actually spent on the film which was around $250,000, which in turn was far less than his claimed budget to some other people he involved.)

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  34. The president has on many occasions vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of this act and bring them to justice just as he did with Osama Bin dead. But I know that such facts don’t help the narrative here.

    The Emperor (08c3d2)

  35. Well the final conclusive nail in the coffin:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/26/robert-shrum-why-obama-will-win.html

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  36. Sammy, it’s entirely possible, as Walid Shoebat, pointed out, seeing as Nakoula was business partner
    with his brother, that there was ‘encouragement’ for this video, as with Abu Laaban, and the Danish cartoons, it’s also besides the point.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  37. Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 10/26/2012 @ 3:27 am

    Sammy, sometimes it appears that you have some drive to be oppositional, even if only on a minor detail.
    Note the formatting of my original comment:
    Even if the filmmaker had broken some kind of law against provoking violence or some such, the people that the govt. needed to get were the murderers.

    I knew the filmmaker had not violated any such law (that doesn’t exist in the form I put it); my point was that even if such a law existed, and even if he was guilty of it, the primary responsibility of the murders was on the murderers, and they should have been the focus of attention.

    As it is, there are no such laws, which makes the discussion of the filmmaker even more preposterous.

    Yes, in one way it is hard to believe so many stupid and harmful things could be said by so many people in such a short time, but I find it harder to believe, at the moment, that the father made this stuff up (yes, we would like to know if he did).
    If, however, one is constantly operating on the principle of political manipulation and “not letting a crisis go to waste”, then it is pretty easy to see how the one’s reflexes sometimes are out of step with normal human decency.

    gary- it’s way too early in the morning for me to deal with that, even if it is sarcasm. I don’t know the rep of the Daily Beast of Robert Shrum to guide me on interpreting whether it is meant to be serious or sarcasm. I figure once I read PP and PL I have little need to read anything else. Maybe after noon and 15-20 cups of coffee…

    Emperor, I can vow to stamp out all evil during my life or die trying too, but it doesn’t mean much.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  38. Shrum has had a track record right up there with the Cubs in the last century, MD, he might as well
    be ‘the Black Knight’ with the ‘only a flesh wound’

    narciso (ee31f1)

  39. THe EU is sending us this fellow to ‘monitor’ our elections;

    http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Pallieres_Eric_1300193258.aspx

    narciso (ee31f1)

  40. Emperor, Hillary clearly focused on the video, not the terrorists, in her comment. That is bizarre.

    They also went on and on acting like there weren’t any terrorists, which is perhaps why you use the word ‘perpetrators’ instead of terrorists to describe what they promised to bring justice to.

    They even had a chance to help during the attack and decided not to.

    This is a legitimate scandal.

    Dustin (73fead)

  41. And yet they are still pretending, that this was not so,

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/26/panetta-we-didnt-defend-consulate-under-attack-because-of-a-lack-of-intel/

    the last time, an Embassy was compromised this way,
    was Tet 1968.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  42. It was financed by people involved with the perpetrators of the attacks.

    Either Nakoula committed financial fraud (rather unlikely, since nobody has complained that we know of) or he was supported by the Moslem Brotherhood/Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Al Qaeda.

    Complete supposition/asspull stated as fact followed by a false choice.

    JD (8a1df4)

  43. They even had a chance to help during the attack and decided not to.
    Comment by Dustin — 10/26/2012 @ 6:22 am

    Yes, I’m starting to see and hear more along this line. It appears from what I’ve seen that at the very least we could have sent a couple of F-18′s to buzz the compound at supersonic speed which alone might have disrupted the attack.

    Then there are those wondering aloud whether some “Islamic version of Fast and Furious” was in the works which is why things were “lean” and without a big security footprint.
    Along with this, the ongoing question whether a couple of ex-SEAL’s gave their lives “getting in the way” of something.

    A question, reading between the lines, it seems that there were some survivors of the attack, but I don’t think anything has been said about how many, who they were or what they have to say. Anyone know more?

    Thanks narciso for the intel about Shrum.

    I can understand why no one (Hillary, Panetta, etc., even Petraeus) wants to come out right now and spill the beans before the election and be the pariah of 1/2+ of the political class in America. I wonder what would be their future response if Obama won the election, would they continue to cover, or would they all then sacrifice Obama to impeachment? Hopefully we will never find out, and instead see what happens after Obama is defeated. They may then abandon him to his fate.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  44. Why would they behave differently now, then later;

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/25/3067537/everyone-was-wrong-about-benghazi.html

    narciso (ee31f1)

  45. or he was supported by the Moslem Brotherhood/Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Al Qaeda.

    Do you deliberately propose whatever theory is the wildest and most twisted? Do you go through your day to day life thinking everything is a deeply convoluted conspiracy?

    It certainly would be convenient to the narrative if this victim of Hillary and Obama turned out to be a double secret agent of the Islamofascists, but that’s ridiculous. That you have to go that far before the administration starts seeming justified is a great argument against them.

    Also, MD is right that your response to him seemed needlessly combative. Try to understand what others are saying, and why. That’s the most fun aspect of these discussion threads.

    Dustin (73fead)

  46. Also, MD is right that your response to him seemed needlessly combative.
    Comment by Dustin — 10/26/2012 @ 6:54 am

    Hmm, when and how did I say that on this thread?

    Complete supposition/asspull stated as fact followed by a false choice.
    Comment by JD

    Intellectual integrity on display. I’m serious. Stretching things but admitting it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  47. Comment by Steve57 — 10/25/2012 @ 7:58 pm

    I know attorneys commenting here have said that considering the crimes Nakoula was convicted of committing they would expect that he’d be rearrested and sent back to prison for violating these terms of his supervised relief.

    Fine, all well and good. But I’m thoroughly convinced they’d have found something to charge him with no matter what his legal situation.

    They’d have looked for something, but they wouldn’t necessarily have found it.

    But it was easy for them – they just charged him with lying to the FBI, or other investigators, who has asked him questions about how he made the film, which is a crime, even when not under oath (ask Martha Stewart – although in most cases that can also be characterized as obstruction of justice) It’s not a crime, I think, in any state.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  48. Hmm, when and how did I say that on this thread?

    MD, I was referring to this:

    Sammy, sometimes it appears that you have some drive to be oppositional, even if only on a minor detail.

    Instead of understanding a comment your wrote, Sammy reacted in a bit of a kneejerk fashion.

    Dustin (73fead)

  49. Yes, I’m starting to see and hear more along this line. It appears from what I’ve seen that at the very least we could have sent a couple of F-18′s to buzz the compound at supersonic speed which alone might have disrupted the attack.

    It seems to me that they could have gotten actual boots on the ground within three hours. That would have changed the situation considerably.

    Also, the administration had no real way of knowing how long the fight would last. I believe they should have continued trying to help until it was clearly over instead of acting like it was over when they first heard about it.

    Dustin (73fead)

  50. * who had asked him questions.

    I am not sure, as a person on federal parole, he had the option of declining to talk to them.

    And they certainly didn’t need to make a media production out of it. That is, they didn’t need to unless they wanted the Muslim world to see that the film maker was arrested for making the film. That was certainly the message they wanted to send. And for that they needed to turn this into a circus.

    But think for a second:

    Which means that they believed the lie!!

    Or the president did.

    Or they believed it might be true and they were not going to ignore the possibility that it was true…

    at least,

    …that the video, or at least the failure of the U.S. government to do anything about it, was a problem.

    They were leaning towards this idea – that they actually said, that there was a spontaneous, rapidly organized demonstration in Benghazi, which more violent extremists took advantage of, to do what, perhaps, they had been pondering doing for weeks or months but had not set a date or time for.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  51. Steve57: “I just don’t see Nakoula being the worst out of the crew of bad actors in this sordid episode.”

    Of course not. That’s why he should be offered a deal of complete freedom if he will reveal his terrorist connections.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  52. Ok Dustin, I see that, though I wasn’t trying to imply anything about anyone else with my response to Sammy.

    Comment by narciso — 10/26/2012 @ 6:53 am
    I read the article, not sure what to make of it.
    Life gets confusing when one has to figure out if something in the press has an ulterior motive to shape opinion, and if so how. The author of that article seems to be trying to say that as time goes on more and more claims seem to be confused and wrong, rather than getting a better perspective with time. IOW, “Don’t get too upset about it now, wait until the investigation is finished and the book comes out in 3 years”.
    Well, there may be some truth to that, on the other hand such an approach certainly gives Obama and Co. a pass at the moment as the voices mount up.

    Now I have to promise to go get some things done other than post comments on PP.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  53. Saletan is a fool, still gainfully employed, by Slate, while they dismissed Shafer, MD, this account was also ‘overtaken by events;

    narciso (ee31f1)

  54. Comment by narciso — 10/26/2012 @ 7:22 am

    Thanks again, narciso.

    Maybe if Hillary had you doing intel they would have figured it out… or at least had a convincing one version narrative.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  55. Ok Dustin, I see that, though I wasn’t trying to imply anything about anyone else with my response to Sammy.

    That was clear, don’t worry.

    I’m not even trying to imply anything about Sammy. I just think he could recognize there are some more obvious explanations to many circumstances, and also take more time to understand the views he’s reading. Nobody’s perfect and I’ve needed to take more time to do that myself.

    Dustin (73fead)

  56. Here is a good link:

    http://www.therightscoop.com/innocence-of-muslims-film-actually-made-by-terrorists/

    Walid Shoebat….

    There is more to the story of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula than what we are told by the media. Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin, a Palestinian Muslim from Beit Sahour in the Palestinian district of Bethlehem…..

    He means he was a partner in a criminal scheme. That’s not terrorism, but…

    ….why would Nakoula, who claims to be a religious Coptic activist, have extensive connections with Eiad? My cousin hated Copts with a passion and is well-known in the Middle East as a master schemer, probably one of the best the Middle East has produced. He also has multiple contacts with terror networks.

    Eiad is from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem. He is a dubious individual who was well known in the Arab community as the main contact for obtaining authentic, legitimate identifications from passports to credit cards, under many nationalities. He then places these identifications into the hands of dubious characters whose names are not the names written on the passports.

    Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt. Both my cousin Eiad and whoever this man is who pretends to be Nakoula, had multiple, fraudulent identifications and the two connected for a decade in multiple scheming operations—the type that usually links to terrorism……

    Now, I didn’t know this.

    It was just plain obvious to me from the very beginning that this video had to be sponsored by Islamic extremists, or perhaps more exactly, backers of terrorists, probably in the Saudi government carrying out official policy.

    Now, usually, when you’re right, as time goes on, more evidence develops to back you up.

    And that’s what happened here.

    Walid Shoebat says he published this connection between Eiad Salameh and Nakoula back in 2008.

    He also says that, as a matter of fact, nobody can verify that this man is really a Copt. (and he really couldn’t keep all information about his family from becoming known in Egypt = off the Internet)

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  57. Comment by The Emperor — 10/26/2012 @ 5:02 am

    The president has on many occasions vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of this act and bring them to justice just as he did with Osama Bin dead.

    But if he doesn’t know who they are, or has the wrong information, he can’t do that, now can he?

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  58. Sammy,

    What do you consider yourself, politically? Liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent …

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  59. Barking monibat, DRJ. Howl at the moon loonie.

    JD (8a1df4)

  60. Dissociative state, most of the time, I think. No need to beat up on him. I don’t read his comments mainly because my eye cannot stand it. But, you know … I’m worse. I’m always going OT and sometimes hijacking threads.

    nk (875f57)

  61. _____________________________________________

    Sammy, sometimes it appears that you have some drive to be oppositional, even if only on a minor detail.

    I’ve yet to see his being “oppositional” or a contrarian in a way that favors — or gives the benefit of the doubt to — a person of the right or a Republican. Maybe he’s done that, but I just haven’t noticed it.

    I couldn’t give a damn about some obscure film maker (if he even deserves that title) posting a lame video to Youtube. To even give a second worth of time to that, to him, in the context of Benghazi — and the American ambassador expressing concern about a lack of security — is analogous to fretting about how much money was in the wallet of a person who was mugged while walking down a street in a neighborhood with a reputation for crime.

    But keep in mind that liberals, time and time again, often have a hard time identifying who the good guy was, who the bad guy was. Or they’ll transpose the two. So such people have a problem in dealing not just with the American consulate in Libya, but in their approach to so many issues and controversies in general.

    Mark (66bba6)

  62. 14.

    It’s not just weapons that are coming out of Benghazi. Stolen cars, too,m and they were going into the Gaza Strip.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/world/middleeast/15sinai.html?pagewanted=all

    RAFAH, Egypt…. Cars are driven from the chaos in Libya to this small patch of sand amid the fig trees in the North Sinai desert, where Palestinians can pick out their model and haggle over the price. Then they wait in Gaza for delivery through tunnels snaking beneath the border.

    They drove right across Egypt.

    That was last year.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  63. 38. Comment by narciso — 10/26/2012 @ 5:32

    Sammy, it’s entirely possible, as Walid Shoebat, pointed out, seeing as Nakoula was business partner [in crime] with his brother [sic - should be first cousin] that there was ‘encouragement’ for this video, as with Abu Laaban, and the Danish cartoons, it’s also besides the point.

    It’s not besides the point. It goes into how this all happened.

    The video was a red herring.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  64. The provenance of Innocence of Muslims is unquestionably a legitimate subject of inquiry. Sammy and others deserve to be commended for keeping it current.

    Other aspects of Bengazhigate also demand exploration as well, but if the video was a false flag operation, the question of who was behind it and how and when it was intended to be used will help reveal the details of related events.

    Sammy’s link @7:32am detailing Walid Shoebat’s accusations must be examined by serious minds. It points down the path to a complex and devious conclusion.

    ropelight (382d2f)

  65. Maybe a red herring but also as a pretext.

    ropelight (382d2f)

  66. Comment by MD in Philly — 10/26/2012 @ 5:34 am

    I knew the filmmaker had not violated any such law (that doesn’t exist in the form I put it);

    That wasn’t clear to me – I thought you thoughjt that some sort of a law like that might be real. I maybe read it too fast.

    It would have been clearer if only the “if” and not the two words “even if” had been in italics.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  67. The CIA forces was told to stand down, the Libyan forces stood down, this was an ambush,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  68. I agree with Sammy that Walid Shoebat’s claims matter in the big picture. But what matters today is this Fox News Exclusive:

    Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

    The report explains that, after 2 hours of apparent pleading, Wood and Doherty ignored their orders and went to help the Ambassador. They returned to the CIA Annex with survivors and Sean Smith’s body, where they were attacked. They had a laser on the source of the attack and requested support — probably air support:

    According to sources on the ground, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.
    ***
    Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

    They called for help three times and no help came.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  69. “36.The president has on many occasions vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of this act and bring them to justice”

    I believe it is neither wise nor accurate to refer to the attackers as “perpetrators”. This was not a crime, it was a paramilitary assault, an act of war. The attackers used military-grade weapons, they attacked government personnel, and their objective was political and strategic in nature, not say a robbery or simple assault.

    In such circumstances, you do not hunt down the individual perpetrators, you respond with a military assault against enemy assets. Nobody sends forensics experts to a battlefield to match up each bullet fired by each soldier, or tries to arrest the soldiers. You respond in kind.

    The idea that the administration considers this a “crime scene” is simply evidence that they believe a great many things that do not correspond to reality. They’re leftists, that’s what they do for a living.

    Gojira, King of Monsters (5a9950)

  70. Stepped inside to take a break= Glenn Beck is beside himself-

    apparently the powers that be in real time denied help, including not sending a C130 gunship that could have hit targets spotted by one of the CIA guys with a laser pointer

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  71. Sammy:

    It would have been clearer if only the “if” and not the two words “even if” had been in italics.

    Oh, Sammy. Your inconsistent formatting and run-on quotes are an ongoing problem. Do you see how ironic it is for you to complain that someone else used one word that you consider unnecessary?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  72. DRJ – irony, satire, sarcasm, and deadpan humor are list on him.

    3 requests denied. 3 requests denied. Obama went to bed to rest up for Vegas. 3 requests denied.

    JD (b6d8e8)

  73. MD, not only could an AC-130 gun ship have quickly eliminated a mortar team out in the open and under laser designation, but an armed drone circling above could have lunched a missile as well.

    Two drones were involved, the first one was replaced during the attack by a second one, armed or not I don’t know as yet.

    ropelight (382d2f)

  74. As narciso and DRJ mention above, apparently somebody has talked to some of the survivors, and what they have to say is not pretty.

    Two of the four killed were CIA officers who came to the ambassador’s defense and were told to stand down and not get involved, then were denied help???

    Unless there was a very secret approved mission that Stevens was in on, with a paper trail to prove it, I think our “October Surprise” is that the CIC needs to be courts-martialed for dereliction of duty.

    There must be a whole bunch of military in the chain of command who were, and are, thinking WTF?

    Somewhere recently I read about the fall of the Romanian dictator. One moment he was in charge and spewing crap to the crowd below the balcony, the next minute one lone woman shouted “Liar!!”, then everyone joined in. Within a few minutes his military guard was escorting him into custody.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  75. It’s nauseating, isn’t it, MD.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  76. ____________________________________________

    Maybe a red herring but also as a pretext.

    That’s sort of the flip side to Hillary saying recently that you can’t trust things posted to Facebook or Twitter, or something like that. Or where she was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that Islamic fanatics claiming responsibility for Benghazi perhaps really weren’t responsible. That they were just showboating.

    “Oh, but that guy who lives in Cerritos, California and who posted a video to Youtube?! Damn, I bet he has sinister connections to the whole plot and must be held accountable!”

    The idea that the administration considers this a “crime scene”

    Just as they considered Nidal Hasan’s bloody rampage at Fort Hood a matter of “workplace violence,” giving the whole matter a veneer of “oh, the poor dear was unhappy about his life—perhaps he needed counseling, better access to healthcare services, and should have used decaf instead of caffeinated!”

    Mark (66bba6)

  77. Rush Limbaugh is speaking about this now.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  78. Some people defied orders to try to help.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  79. Told to stand down 3 times.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  80. Beck was about to cry over it. Blackfive doesn’t yet have a post referring to this latest bit.

    Hard to believe in one way, but after F+F not really.

    Nietzscheien narcissism- “I am not a mere mortal, I transcend morality, I am the superman, I can do what I want, I have the responsibility to do what I want, for what I want is the best.”
    Crime and Punishment is about to get an addendum.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  81. Sammy,

    Do you comprehend things better when you hear them than when you read them? If so, I understand that but I encourage you to go to the source report at Fox News. (narciso linked it in his comment 64 above, and I linked, too.)

    I think that’s better than letting your information sources be filtered through others. Nothing against Rush Limbaugh but it’s easy to get misinformation when you rely on your hearing and your memory.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  82. Since CIA Chief David Petraeus hasn’t already resigned the evidence indicates he’s been turned to the dark side.

    All of the other principals are already long apprenticed to the Emperor.

    ropelight (382d2f)

  83. MD,

    It’s that old “ends justify the means” thing.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  84. ropelight,

    Maybe, although the fact Petraeus hasn’t gone public suggests to me that they haven’t turned him.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  85. I don’t know what to say, the Sept 14th briefing, was replete with the talking points,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  86. I missed Petraeus briefing on September 14. You’re absolutely right.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  87. DRJ, David Petraeus sat and watched TV as brave Americans were calling out for help. He had two choices: send help or resign his position if help was denied.

    Petraeus stands in disgrace with blood on his hands. He acquiesced in a decision to let Americans die. His only option, his only honorable option, was immediate resignation.

    He didn’t resign, and he continues to acquiesce in the cover up. We expect more than that from our military leaders, they swear an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, not to allow themselves to be used as window dressing in a cover-up.

    ropelight (382d2f)

  88. ______________________________________________

    The CIA forces was told to stand down,

    Yes, I know that huge bureaucracies have multiple layers of decisionmakers and policymakers, and that what happens in one part of an agency may be totally isolated from what happens in another part of it. But between the nonsense that allowed Nidal Hasan to go unchecked — INSIDE the military, no less — until it was too late, and the kumbaya mindset that is the inspiration for “let’s be sponsors at Gay Pride events!”, how much of all of this absurdity is due mainly to a failure of basic common sense? A case of so much I’m-okay-you’re-okay hugs, kisses and blather, that facets of utter stupidity can easily become embedded in an organization and its culture?

    af.mil, June 2012: The Defense Department held a panel discussion today in honor of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, with the Pentagon’s general counsel recalling how difficult it would have been just several years ago to believe that in 2012, gays could serve openly in the military.

    [Jeh C.] Johnson [Department of Defense's General Counsel] noted that while this was DOD’s first LGBT pride event, civilian society and other agencies in the federal government have held such events in June for years. “The CIA, for example, hosted a gay pride event 12 years ago,” he pointed out. “This is the first time in history such an event has occurred at the Pentagon.”

    wired.com, February 2012: An internal FBI investigation into its counterterrorism training has purged hundreds of bureau documents of instructional material about Muslims, some of which characterized them as prone to violence or terrorism. The FBI purged documents according to four criteria: “factual errors”; “poor taste”; employment of “stereotypes” about Arabs or Muslims; or presenting information that “lacked precision.”

    Danger Room uncovered several such documents in the fall, including some instructing FBI counterterrorism agents that “mainstream” Muslims sympathized with terrorists; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult” leader; and that the more “devout” a Muslim was, the more likely he would be to commit a violent act.

    The bureau plans to publish a “touchstone document” in the coming weeks that explains its criteria to ensure new anti-Islam documents won’t enter counterterrorism training in the future.

    Several civil-rights advocates said they appreciated [FBI Director Robert] Mueller’s personal attention. The Wednesday meeting had been scheduled by the FBI’s public-affairs arm, whose deputy assistant director, Jeff Mazanec, briefed the groups for about 40 minutes before Mueller unexpectedly joined.

    Mark (66bba6)

  89. Maybe I’ve misjudged him, but I have always believed Gen. Petraeus to be a brilliant and honorable man operating within a nasty and secretive theatre (mil and intel) and I felt good that he was there. I still am hopeful that he is the one person involved in this who is able and willing to put all the pieces together about it tell the world the truth. I believe he has the reputation both to do it and to be widely believed. I doubt he is willing to come out with it with the election so soon, though, because that could risk the information being treated with suspicion and challenged as a political move– rather than accepted as a patriotic and necessary move. Perhaps the general believes his resignation would make things worse, not better, for what we all know ails the administration and our mid-east “policy” right now.

    Or, maybe I’m giving Petraeus an undeserved temporary pass. I don’t know.

    elissa (106c9c)

  90. Well Elissa, I don’t know how you can stand by such a cover story, in good conscience.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  91. _____________________________________________

    David Petraeus sat and watched TV as brave Americans were calling out for help.

    Some of the biggest blunders of Republican presidents — including Reagan, Bush I and II, Nixon (naturally), Hoover — have been when they leaned left, when they allowed the liberal side of their thinking to get the better of them. So if it can happen to people like that (eg, Reagan going against his publicly stated position and secretly assisting Iran), it’s almost a given that it will happen to people like this…

    newyorker.com, Sept 2008:

    Petraeus is registered to vote as a Republican in New Hampshire — he once described himself to a friend as a northeastern Republican, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller.

    Mark (66bba6)

  92. you must strike while the iron is hot.

    If the facts don’t come out before the election, it won’t really matter much if or when the details are revealed. We’re not in Kansas anymore.

    ropelight (382d2f)

  93. I can’t find anything Nakoula here, but Walid Shoebat gives his background as to why he should know what he is talking about:

    http://www.shoebat.com/shoebat-foundation/evidence-of-my-credentials/

    My connection to a family of terrorists is iron-clad. Evidence of family connection is publicly documented information: ….

    ….FINANCIAL TERRORISM, MAJOR FRAUD AND CONTRABAND

    The following family members are wanted by the Los Angeles Police:

    …..8—Eiad Salameh Shu’aybat my first cousin (Salameh’s son) is wanted by the United States for major fraud most likely linked to financial terrorism. He was involved in a passport fraud operation (provided to me by Farid my brother), Enfamil milk scam, and holds an illegal Israeli passport that was fraudulently obtained to smuggle himself in and out of Israel proper. His United States citizenship was also obtained by fraudulently by claiming to be a Mexican farm worker. In fact a litany of stories on embezzlement and fraud can be tracked on Eiad.

    Here is one small example of a scam he did totaling $617,267 :

    He quotes something from 2001 that looks more like fraud than terrorism, so this is not where he links him to terrorist groups, or to Nakoula.

    He does quote something else that links him both to a Christian and to terrorism:

    Police has issued a warrant for his arrest. Eiad was well connected with Hilarion Cappucci, a Christian Syrian born terrorist, and a major explosives smuggler (On Hilarion, see Armed Struggle and The Search For State, page 349). This can be viewed online:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=xTi_UKhBzGYC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=Cappucci+%22Armed+Struggle+and+The+Search+For+State%22&source=web&ots=PchU0Je8z4&sig=YAxjakW4MN9Mk-zHWPfNlQOpZwM&hl=en

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  94. Comment by elissa — 10/26/2012 @ 9:54 am

    I have always believed Gen. Petraeus to be a brilliant and honorable man operating within a nasty and secretive theatre (mil and intel) and I felt good that he was there. I still am hopeful that he is the one person involved in this who is able and willing to put all the pieces together about it tell the world the truth. I believe he has the reputation both to do it and to be widely believed. I doubt he is willing to come out with it with the election so soon…

    Or, maybe I’m giving Petraeus an undeserved temporary pass. I don’t know.

    He might have been following some orders earlier when he testified on Sept. 14th.

    We don’t know what his exact role was in all this – was he even in the chain of command?

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  95. ==If the facts don’t come out before the election, it won’t really matter much if or when the details are revealed==

    I disagree. As in Watergate I think it will matter a great deal whenever it is the facts come out. I also think it’s pretty obvious that the facts in their own way are coming out to the people for whom facts (and decency) matter in elections. Of course, the little tattooed liberal girl who wants Obama to be “the first time”, the SEIU thugs and the code pink vulva costume wearers won’t care–ever.

    elissa (106c9c)

  96. I am willing to suspend judgement on Petraeus for the moment. I think it is conceivable that he could have thought that resigning at the time would not have helped, he perhaps would have been held to secrecy about why he resigned, and once gone he would be replaced by a lackey. So, I’ll wait and see a little.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  97. Comment by DRJ — 10/26/2012 @ 9:28 am

    I missed Petraeus briefing on September 14. You’re absolutely right.

    I think I was led to it by something somebody said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, September 16.

    I said I didn’t he could be part of a cover-up, and therefore there really was Sooper sekrit intelligence that there was a spontaneous demonstration that didn’t originate in the White House.

    Why this should be believed above everything else, I don’t know, but I speculate that it came from what treated as a highly reliable source, probably Saudi intelligence.

    And I said that’s what comes from trusting the man who probably murdered Vincent Foster.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  98. I mean what I call the deputy leader of the Unfree World, the Co-Chairman of the Axis of Evil, the point man on the Arab Spring for the Saudi monarchy, Saudi Arabian National Security Adviser and recently appointed chief of intelligence, prime contender in the race for King, former Ambassador to the United States, son of a Negro slave woman, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

    (As nk said in comment 5 here:

    http://patterico.com/2012/10/24/benghazi-or-mourdock-the-l-a-times-knows-whats-important/

    If a slave woman gave birth to the child of her Muslim master, she and the child would be free, no longer slaves. That’s in the Hadith, too. And you can see it in the various shades of color of the Saudi royal family…

    Correct.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  99. The story about spontaneous demonstration was not invented in the White House. Some people seem to want to believe that but I think there really was Sooper sekrit inteligence to that effect. Petraeus role, by the way, might have been in trying to debunk that for all we know. He’s not in charge of operations. I think the deputy director may be. The daily intelligence briefing may not pass through his hands at all.

    I think the sources must have been something rated highly credible. There must have been some sort of Sooper sekrit intelligence to get them to overcome first hand information. But intelligence officials, or some kind of officials or analysts, have told the New York Times only that the sources were:

    1) Libyan press reports

    2) Informants – sooper sekrit ones, of course. Who vetted them?

    3) Intercepted communications, which we know means a call to Al Qaeda in Mali in which a person from Ansar al Sharia said there had been a demonstration. And we know other calls indicated this was planned. Some source told some media outlet this was cherry-picking.

    As I said, that idea about this starting from a protest about a video was the cover story.

    All this information came from the perpetrators.

    We see that the guy who was in command of the attack on the scene who gave an interview to the New York Times last week repeated the spontaneous demonstration story.

    It was in last Friday’s paper. (Oct. 19)

    Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam….

    The only correction in that article in a week is this:

    An earlier version of this article misidentified the beverage that Ahmed Abu Khattala was drinking at the hotel. It was a strawberry frappe, not mango juice, which is what he had ordered.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)

  100. 92. Maybe I’ve misjudged him, but I have always believed Gen. Petraeus to be a brilliant and honorable man operating within a nasty and secretive theatre (mil and intel) and I felt good that he was there. I still am hopeful that he is the one person involved in this who is able and willing to put all the pieces together about it tell the world the truth.

    …Or, maybe I’m giving Petraeus an undeserved temporary pass. I don’t know.

    Comment by elissa — 10/26/2012 @ 9:54 am

    I don’t know. It appears to me that a lot of people knew they had royally screwed up that night and over the course of a couple of days wove together a cover story they thought they could maintain. If the CIA was maintaining a safe house, if they had a team of (usually former military) operators who could have responded (and some did in the form of Woods and Doherty) then clearly they were conducting some sort of operation.

    And the order to stand down would mean they didn’t want to reveal the operation.

    Of course, it appears the CIA building was no secret; the attackers had it’s location dialed in for it’s mortars.

    I have seen cover stories manufactured and maintained to protect the reputations of rising stars in the Navy. One embarrassing incident years ago was blamed on an “intelligence failure,” naturally. Supposedly the CO hadn’t received timely intelligence, explaining his failure to act. When he had received it. He just failed to act because he made a boneheaded decision. But the street story was “intel failure.”

    One of the intel officers involved, who knew the truth, actually wrote an article for PROCEEDINGS using that false cover story in an article about “intel failing to support the warfighter.” He was hated, but he was a blatant suck-up who thought that’s how careers are made.

    In a way he was right. Just not about his career. That article helped maintain the CO’s cover, and that CO went on to bigger and better things.

    But that was a fairly minor incident. It was just slightly embarrassing at the time; it didn’t have lethal consequences. And only a few people knew the truth. There was no evidence they could use, like a burned out consulate, for American corpses, and a bunch of UNCLAS messages or emails, and several hundred eyewitnesses to the unclassified event.

    Petraeus has always struck me as a bright man, so if he thought he could protect himself and whatever his agency was doing with this laughable lie the administration obviously got their heads to cooked up he must have been acting out of desperate hope.

    Leading me to believe whatever they’re trying to hide must be huge. And embarrassing.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  101. 102. We see that the guy who was in command of the attack on the scene who gave an interview to the New York Times last week repeated the spontaneous demonstration story.

    It was in last Friday’s paper. (Oct. 19)

    Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam….

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 10/26/2012 @ 11:02 am

    Sammy, give it up. This “sooper sekrit intel” fantasy of yours is just that; a fantasy.

    Everybody knew the perpetrators were using that “Innocence of the Muslims” BS. They always do that. These violent mobs are not spontaneous. AQ, MB, the EIJ, etc., can always produce a mob when they need one. And always under circumstances that lets them blame the West. (Or whatever local group they feel like blaming, like Christians in Pakistan.)

    It’s part of their good cop/bad cop routine that allows them to play leftist fools like Obama. Because as evidenced by his craven and historically illiterate Cairo speech he’s always ready, willing, and able to blame the West, too.

    But there was no “sooper sekrit intel.” We had all the information we needed that night to understand the “what,” if not the “who” that the WH is trying to divert attention toward to maintain the fiction of a fog of war.

    The NYT is not a source of intel. Khattala, the guy in the interview, also said he was only at the embassy assault to direct traffic. Anyone believe that?

    It’s no more believable than this “hateful anti-Muslim video” horse manure the administration siezed upon to present to the public as fact.

    You have a fundamental misconception of what a cover-up is. It’s a lie, but a superficially plausible lie based upon connecting dots that at first brush appear to add up.

    At least that’s what a competent cover-up looks like. Not this one.

    Just because they used this ridiculous and pathetic story does not at all mean they believed the lie or had “sooper sekrit intel,” like you imagine for no reason whatsoever.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  102. Khattalah is a bit player, but he showed up in that hotel, like the groundhog in ‘Caddyshack’ and spun that story to Kirkpatrick, Serrano, et al.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  103. but I speculate that it came from what treated as a highly reliable source, probably Saudi intelligence.

    And I said that’s what comes from trusting the man who probably murdered Vincent Foster.

    Oh good Allah.

    JD (436368)

  104. Since Vincent Foster died with fresh seaman in his shorts, and was found with rug fibers from head to foot all over, and the Secret Service’s time-stamped record of his leaving the WH that fateful afternoon has been suppressed along with the video of his car leaving the WH parking lot, anyone who’s looking for Foster’s killer might want to establish just how he came to leave WH that day, where he went, and how his body came to be dumped in Fort Marcy Park.

    ropelight (382d2f)

  105. narciso @ 105, Khattala may be a bit player, but he’s been trumped up by this administration. In any case, he’s not so much of a bit player that he’s been reduced to crossing guard while the other salafis/jihadis start shooting at stuff.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  106. 107. Comment by ropelight — 10/26/2012 @ 11:45 am

    Since Vincent Foster died with fresh seaman in his shorts,

    That’s not true.

    I doint know where that comes from. That’s not in any official report, and Christopher Ruddy didn’t say any such thing. In fact, I am not even sure I ever heard that before – but those does sound like maybe one of the things claimed.

    and was found with rug fibers from head to foot all over,

    Rug fibers, yes, of course.They had to wrap him up in a rug if they wanted to carry him in the street.

    and the Secret Service’s time-stamped record of his leaving the WH that fateful afternoon has been suppressed along with the video of his car leaving the WH parking lot,

    That’s not the only Secret Service record nobody’s been able to get.

    As he schemed to get Saudi Arabia to buy $6 billion in commercial aircraft from American companies, Bill Clinton used one of the oldest
    White House ploys, the supposedly unplanned chat with the president himself. Among Clinton aides, this is known as a “preorganized” encounter. The
    pigeon was Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States. Sandy Berger, the deputy national security adviser, invited the prince to the White House in July for a talk about the Saudi plane purchase, then eagerly sought by both the United States and Airbus, the European consortium. “If you’ve got a
    few minutes,” Berger told Bandar, ‘the President would like to see you.”

    Bandar couldn’t say no, of course, and Clinton was ready with the hard sell. Tell King Fahd, the president said, the deal is important to me
    personally.

    It worked. Bandar went to Saudi Arabia for a visit and returned in August with the good news. The conventional wisdom had been that the
    Saudis would split the deal between Airbus and Seatlle-based Boeing

    - start of an article by Fred Barnes on page 10 of the March 14, 1994 New Republic.

    Some points to note:

    1) Naturally if things took place as I said, it wouldn’t be announced was not scheduled in advaance or that the meeting concerned the fact that Vincent Foster’s had just been killed in
    the Saudi Arabian Ambassador’s residence.

    2) Fred Barnes was told this story directly by high White House aides. This is declared to be
    routine, not only for Clinton, but for other Presidents – the only thing different in the Clinton Administration, he indicates, is the *name* his aides have given to it.

    Fred Barnes wrote the White House watch column in the New Republic, and this was one of his columns.

    3) This was leaked right at the time other Foster case leaks happened.

    4. The explanation for the meeting is almost certainly not true. The plane deal had been settled already.

    5. Fort Marcy Park was right across the street from the Saudi Arabian Ambassador’s residence, and would have been the nearest piece of federal property..

    I was never able to find out any conformation of that July 1993 meeting – and any date and time – usinmg the freedom of Information Act. TGhe Secret Service I beleive claimed they had no covered records. The White House counsel’s office which they said had records said it was not covered by the FOIA. I tried an indirect route asking for State Depoartment reciords of any meetings at teh white house by Prinmce Bandar (if this legitimate there might be such records) My request was finally answered early in the Bush Administration but was no help. I did not get any report of a meeting at the White House in July 1993. Of course if the topic concerned a confession and explanation as to the killing of Vincent Foster and a request for help in covering it up, there wouldn’t be one.

    The two Americans reported to have been presenmt at that meeting are known liars willing to break laws: Bill Clinton and Sandy Burglar.

    By the way,

    President Clinton knows Prince Bandar for a long time:

    << . .But Gov. Clinton may have had some Saudi resources of his own.

    Mr. Clinton was a Georgetown University classmate of Turki bin Feisal, the current head of Saudi intelligence.

    Sources in Arkansas say Mr. Clinton's famous networking skills also put him in contact with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to
    the U.S. University of Arkansas officials participated in a Clinton-Bandar meeting in the spring of 1991, when they and Mr. [David] Edwards
    joined the governor in delivering a request for a major gift to the ambassador. According to a 1991 gubernatorial disclosure statement, Mr. Clinton and Prince Bandar were also together on June 23 [1991], when they traveled from Aspen to Little Rock on a jet leased by the Saudis.

    Despite such contacts no progress in raising money was made until Governor Clinton received the Democratic presidential nomination. One
    month later, Mr. Edwards handled an anonymous lead gift to the university of $3.5 million for a Middle East studies program.

    Individuals familiar with the gift say it came from the Riyadh Chamber of Commerce. According to the Cyprus-based Arab Press Service, the
    gift was approved by Saudi Arabia's King Fahd at the recommendation of Prince Turki.

    - editorial page article by Micah Morrison "Who is David Edwards" on page A14 of the Wednesday, March 1, 1995 Wall Street Journal.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  107. My cutting and pasting didn’t come out so good. More later.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  108. Comment by ropelight — 10/26/2012 @ 11:45 am

    anyone who’s looking for Foster’s killer might want to establish just how he came to leave WH that day,

    He had just read my printed out e-mail message, dated the previous day, which warned tem not to fire FBI Director William Sessions because if he was fired reporters would be released from their pledges of confidentiality (The White House spent a considerable amount of effort trying to get him to voluntarily resign) and that he would be freer they would be free to wriute what they knew about Waco, particularly how he had been kept from the scene and how his water cannon plan had been rejected in favor of tear gas – and for proof that reporters knew more than what they wrote they should read the current day’s (July 19) Wall Street Journal editorial.

    It was kicked up to his level because the White House was keeping a close watch on the Girgente report about the Crown Heights riot (I don’t know if you can call it a pogrom if only one person was killed) which Governor Mario Cuomo was keeping completely under wraps until its official release and some close Clinton allies, like Bill Lynch and Al Sharpton, had been involved in the events.

    And my e-mail message had started out about Crown Heights saying that Janet Reno should not cover up the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum like she did Don Aronow.

    This whole thing must have panicked Vincent Foster.

    where he went,

    To the Saudi Arfabian Ambassador’s residence – or rather the temporary building next door (it was undergoing renovattions) His home was also used for secret meetings and it was where the Ambassador kept locked briefcases full of money.
    (not records, like he told reporters. This makes no sense. What, he has no file cabinets? Money makes sense)

    Foster attempted to blackmail the Ambassador (he knew some things) so he would give him money to pay for a lawyer.

    He forgot however, about diplomatic immunity.

    and how his body came to be dumped in Fort Marcy Park

    President Clinton told teh Ambassador to take him there, and he would take care of the rest. It was just across the street.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  109. Foster had probably also heard that fired FBI Director Willioam Sessions had scheduled a press conference.

    I tried to retreive an article about Vincent Foster from the July 22, 1993 New York Times. That account waster replaced” by one that appeared August 22, 1993.

    The July 22, 1993 article mentiones that Bernard Nussbaum noticed that foster suddenly didn’t look happy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  110. 105. Comment by narciso — 10/26/2012 @ 11:26 am

    Khattalah is a bit player, but he showed up in that hotel, like the groundhog in ‘Caddyshack’ and spun that story to Kirkpatrick, Serrano, et al. </i.

    He could only have appeared to protect someone else. They were looking for some other guy before – the one from Egypt who had organzied Al Qaeda training camps in Libya.

    My point however, was, he told that story about there being a demonstrtation about the video.

    That’s where it comes from

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  111. Twilight zone

    JD (436368)

  112. Cue the theme music from Twilight Zone, JD, its most appropriate.

    SPQR (768505)

  113. Comment by Steve57 — 10/26/2012 @ 11:22 am

    The NYT is not a source of intel.

    I think it’s a whole lot better than the CIA.

    Khattala, the guy in the interview, also said he was only at the embassy assault to direct traffic. Anyone believe that?

    The point is, WHAT lies is he telling?

    It’s no more believable than this “hateful anti-Muslim video” horse manure the administration siezed upon to present to the public as fact.

    As I said, I think there was a lot of Sooper Sekrit intelligence backing up that idea.

    You have a fundamental misconception of what a cover-up is. It’s a lie, but a superficially plausible lie based upon connecting dots that at first brush appear to add up.

    At least that’s what a competent cover-up looks like. Not this one.

    They were probably some people in the CIA too close to some sources.

    So much Sooper sekrit intelligence poured in, it was hard for dissenters to argue against it.

    Just because they used this ridiculous and pathetic story does not at all mean they believed the lie or had “sooper sekrit intel,” like you imagine for no reason whatsoever.

    Some people didn’t believe it. Susan Rice probably did. They attempted to combine two versions – demonstration with planned attack.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  114. At the beginning Obama knew what it was, like he told 60 Minutes.

    From the Rush Limbaugh show, Thursday, October 25, 2012:

    RUSH: …So here’s what we’ve got. Friday night, CBS Evening News. It’s a portion of David Martin, the national security correspondent, report about what Obama said about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi and when he said it.

    MARTIN: Shortly after he spoke to State Department employees about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes for a previously scheduled interview.

    OBAMA: How’s it going, guys?

    MARTIN: It had been about 14 hours since the attack, and the president told Kroft he did not believe it was due simply to mob violence.

    OBAMA: You’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.

    RUSH: He told Kroft that in an interview on September 12th. They didn’t air that. They edited that out of 60 Minutes. That did not air. Now, remember, Susan Rice from the regime’s staff, UN ambassador, she went out and said that what happened in Benghazi was an offshoot of what happened in Cairo. The protests in Cairo started the protests in Benghazi, which got out of hand, which led to the four deaths. She said that a week later. Days before she said that, Obama told CBS News it wasn’t that. It had nothing to do with Cairo. It was people targeting Americans. CBS sat on that. All the while Obama is out blaming this on a video. They had him on tape saying this, and they didn’t air it. Here’s what did air. September 12th, CBS 60 Minutes. This is from the website. They posted online portions of an interview between Steve Kroft and Obama, and during a discussion about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Kroft and Obama had this exchange.

    KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades. That doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

    OBAMA: Right. As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this, but you’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure that our embassies are secured around the world, and then we are gonna go after those folks who carried this out.

    RUSH: The folks, gonna go after the folks who carried this out. Are we making too big a deal out of this? I don’t think so. He didn’t once blame the video in the 60 Minutes interview, not in this section, anyway, with Steve Kroft. So my only question here is: “Why did CBS sit on it?” He’s out there blaming the video for how many days? It was eight or nine days, and six different references to it in one speech at the UN, and they had him on tape. And then at the Candy Crowley debate it comes up and they still didn’t reveal what they knew! I don’t know why they revealed it Friday night. Their national security correspondent, David Martin.

    Because of Candy Crowley’s “fact check”

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  115. The Administration didn’t invent the video story.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  116. Sammy, the video story was just that; a story.

    They didn’t invent the story. They just found it useful in perpetrating the cover-up. But it was still a lie, and they knew better.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  117. Sammy,

    I know you rarely respond to my comments and I’m not even sure you read them, but please take a break from commenting today.

    Please.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  118. Tyrone Wood’s father Charles Wood made a powerful statement this afternoon.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  119. Sununu is really representing you guys well. The mask is coming off. You republicans are scary. Would like to see the look on all your faces on the 6th Nov when mitt romney loses this elections. Am gonna be here then.

    The Emperor (9ae02a)

  120. SQUIRREL!

    JD (436368)

  121. Meanwhile, The Emperor has no response for the actual thread – about a President who can’t be bothered to green-light reaction forces to defend his own ambassador from a terrorist attack … because it would show his campaign theme of the end of Al Queda to be a lie.

    Eh, what’s a handful of dead people versus Obama’s reelection?

    SPQR (768505)

  122. .

    Big Media, a ball the size of a cue ball is in your court

    Nothing to be done, they’ve got brains the size of a gnat.

    .

    Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and Aviary Enthusiast (8e2a3d)

  123. 3. Comment by Dana — 10/25/2012 @ 8:05 pm

    On a side note, isn’t it interesting that the attack took place on September 11th and on September 20th the administration made their video to play in Pakistan. However, given the recent revelation of exactly when the administration knew that it was a terrorist attack and not the result of the You Tube movie, it makes it all the more damning for the administration.

    What they knew that was definitely more than a mob was Benghazi (which actually was missing the mob altogether) but not the other things. Of course if you applied some common sense, you would understand that the video really had nothing to do with anything that was happening, but common sense is not evidence, as they say.

    This video was used as an excuse all over the Islamic world – from Pakistan to Libya. It had the effect of making everything look unplanned in advance.

    They bought into it – and they tried to argue there’s no logical reason to get angry with the United States over the video.

    Sammy Finkelman (a1f34f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4284 secs.