Patterico's Pontifications


Unrelated Links: NSA Phone Surveillance Suddenly Constitutional; Phil Robertson Suddenly Unsuspended

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:59 pm

NSA decision.

Phil Robertson.

192 Responses to “Unrelated Links: NSA Phone Surveillance Suddenly Constitutional; Phil Robertson Suddenly Unsuspended”

  1. What is “f%*k all, y’all”?

    Colonel Haiku (5c1c4c)

  2. Maybe, as Iowahawk says, GLAAD got a payoff from A&E. First off, no skin off anybody’s nose except A&E’s. Second, payoffs pave the road to loss of relevance, as PUSH found out when it tried to shake down Nike the way it had managed to shake down Coke.

    nk (dbc370)

  3. You know the James Rosen treatment, makes me doubt
    Judge Pauley’s benefit of the doubt.

    narciso (3fec35)

  4. I have a feeling that Phil won’t be seizing on GLAAD’s offerto provide him with sensitivity training.

    Steve57 (791bdc)

  5. Occupy tolerance!

    Steve57 (791bdc)

  6. 3. “benefit of the doubt”

    IOW, the govt. is so incorrigibly inept that it couldn’t possibly both connect the dots and navigate the labyrinth of Kafka-esque non-responsibilities in time to prevent terror.

    Three govts. trying to rescue a fourth’s(the most expert) vessel of fools.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  7. Is this supposed to be part of the “Wrong but funny answers” post?

    htom (412a17)

  8. “Missy” has been launched into space. This is believed to be the first inflatable sex doll ever launched into space.

    Apparently Missy was sent into orbit in a balloon filled with 300 cubic feet of hydrogen, and achieved an ascent velocity of 1400 feet per minute.

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m about to burst with pride.

    Steve57 (791bdc)

  9. That’s 16 mph, Steve. Heart-stopping.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. Did I mention it was a balloon?

    Steve57 (791bdc)

  11. But, unfortunately, she never achieved orbit. Escape velocity from Earth’s gravity must be 17 mph or something. Not only that, at 100,000 feet, she popped and fell back to Earth. Sigh.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. The following is in honor of A&E and all the various people and groups who latch onto liberal activism. Whether the source is accurate or not — although it has been surprisingly correct about other major scandals over the past few years — this is a fitting story for the left, for the way it has made, and is making, a mockery of (and inculcating dysfunction in) so many aspects of American life., December 26, 2013: “I’VE had enough!” Furious first lady Michelle Obama hurled those fight­ing words at her husband after he publicly humiliated her by flirting with a leggy blonde foreign leader at South African icon Nelson Mandela’s memorial ser­vice, sources say.

    In a bombshell world exclusive, The ENQUIRER has learned that in the wake of the mortifying incident, Presi­dent Barack Obama and his wife are now sleeping in separate White House bedrooms. Sources say an enraged Michelle is also preparing to boot her hubby of 21 years out of their ritzy Chicago home – and seriously discussing divorce.

    An Oval Office insider [said]: “Mi­chelle will stay in the White House for the rest of Barack’s term for ap­pearances’ sake, but she made it clear they’ll be leading separate lives. She’s moving into one of the va­cant bedrooms in the family’s private living quarters, and she’s preparing to move his clothes and personal things out of their million-dollar house in Chicago.”

    Sources say Michelle, 49, hit the roof after her lusty hubby was pho­tographed brazenly flirting with Denmark’s dishy female prime min­ister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, during the service for former South African president Mandela. Obama, 52, laughed and whispered with the 46-year-old Danish beauty throughout the solemn ceremony, at one point cavalierly caressing her shoulder. The two also playfully snapped a “selfie” photograph together while Michelle shot daggers at them.

    Obama’s outrageous antics with her made him the butt of international ridicule, with American media outlets going on the attack.

    Meanwhile, The ENQUIRER has learned the first couple plans to live nearly 5,000 miles apart when their days at the White House come to an end. Obama reportedly plans to settle in his native Hawaii, where his presidential library and political center will be located. Sources say he’ll live with his longtime pal Bobby Titcomb, who was busted for soliciting a prostitute in 2011. Michelle will remain in Wash­ington, D.C., until the couple’s youngest daughter Sasha, 12, finishes high school. Daughter Malia, 15, is a high school sophomore.

    Mark (58ea35)

  13. Yes, you did. At comment #8, at 9:15.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. The Enquirer now, Mark?

    nk (dbc370)

  15. I don’t believe Missy was the first sex doll launched into space, anyway. There have been, what, how many Japanese astronauts?

    Steve57 (791bdc)

  16. The Enquirer now, Mark?

    nk, there was a time in the distant past when I actually fell for the notion that an outfit like the New York Times (or the MSM overall) was a bit — just a bit — more reliable, honest and objective than, for example, supermarket tabloids. That day has come and gone.


    AP, December 28: From the governor to the state’s congressional delegation and local university leaders, Hawaii has spared no effort in laying the groundwork for a potential library, gently pressing Obama’s sister and close friends, and setting aside prime oceanfront real estate just in case Hawaii’s favorite son chooses Oahu to host the monument to his legacy.

    But as the gears start to turn in the Obama machinery that will eventually develop the library, the focus has increasingly turned to Chicago, where Obama was first elected and came into his own as a national political figure. It is a place many of his advisers and staunchest supporters call home.

    So Hawaii officials have resigned themselves to the likelihood that the library, which will house Obama’s records and artifacts, will go to Chicago. If that’s the case, Hawaii is hoping for second-best: a presidential center, institute or think tank that can serve as a secondary base of operations for a young, ambitious ex-president.

    With [Hawaii’s] governor’s blessing, a University of Hawaii professor, Robert Perkinson, is coordinating the statewide campaign with a small budget granted by the university. Perkinson has made the case directly to Obama’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who has served as a liaison between Hawaii and Washington, two people briefed on those discussions said. Perkinson’s team has also pressed the case with Bobby Titcomb, Obama’s childhood friend. Titcomb and Obama golfed together four times last week during the president’s annual Hawaiian vacation.

    ^ As a resident of the blue-berserk LA area, I’m relieved we’re home to the Reagan Library and, even with his own flaws and tarnished record in mind, the library for Richard Nixon. Chicago (sorry, Elissa) or Hawaii is welcome to anything associated with Jeremiah Wright’s and Bobby Tibcomb’s buddy.

    Mark (58ea35)

  17. “Sure, you can read the Times. They get lucky occasionally.”

    Mojo (6db70b)

  18. Whatever happened to that discrimination complaint the gay employee of Jesse Jackson filed against him and his organization?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  19. Whatever happened to that discrimination complaint the gay employee of Jesse Jackson filed against him and his organization?

    I’ll bet GLADD told him, “Look, we don’t s#!t in our own nest,” so GLADD sat down with Rainbow/PUSH and they settled it shakedown outfit to shakedown outfit. It probably turned out that GLADD didn’t have any black executives, so deals were struck in both directions.

    JVW (709bc7)

  20. #ShakedownFail on A&E

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  21. Bandar, you magnificent bastard!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  22. Clinton slobberbait for Sammy.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  23. Whatever happened to that discrimination complaint the gay employee of Jesse Jackson filed against him and his organization?

    According to the Clerk of the Circuit of Cook County, it was voluntarily dismissed by Bennett with leave to refile, with costs. That does not usually happen if the case has been settled.

    It was a pretty sordid thing — some of the allegations were that Jackson kept this guy essentially as a harem eunuch cleaning up his motel rooms after his trysts with his girlfriends. It did not sound like either sexual harassment or sex discrimination, except possibly in Bennett’s imaginings that he should be also be a Jackson concubine.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 12:36 pm

    Shirley has got to be kidding us.

    Is the NYT competing for the title of Obama lapdog of the year, or for the media outlet with greatest drop in reliability in a year?

    That is just ridiculous.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  25. 26 MD — according to the wife, they’re trying for “most annoying website of the year” with their recent cutback in the number of articles you’re allowed for free.

    So maybe a trifecta?

    htom (412a17)

  26. I don’t know, htom. With articles like the one linked they could do us a favor and put them all behind the pay wall and then die a slow (or not so slow) death.

    But then I was never a NYT fan, so I wouldn’t miss it.

    I believe I remember once seeing (last millennium before the internet), in the Philly Inquirer, an editorial credited to the NYT that said that what we needed was another John Wesley.

    That was my high point of respect for the Philly Inquirer and the NYT.

    They are really recycling the claim that the Benghazi attack was linked to a YouTube video???

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  27. They never learned the lesson of Times Select, ala Spinal Tap, MD, the Inquirer was good for Mark Bowden, and well I’m thinking, and his last book, was very treacly indeed, among other things not including his usual notes section,

    It did illustrate that yet another trope, the innocent Gitmo detainee went by the wayside, as
    he added yet another one, Ould Slahi, whose prosecutor fooled Jess Bravin of the Journal

    narciso (3fec35)

  28. So GLAAD got their executive retreat to Key West paid for. Oils, lotions, leather and sweaty sweaty men rubbing up all over each other on the dance floor.
    Not my idea of fun, but some of my friends really have had a great time out there.

    steveg (794291)

  29. ‘Googles do nothin’ steveg, exhibit A, in how the Panopticon failed, was the Tsarnaev bros, the whole world is under surveillance, yet they not only did the act, but continued on that parade of mayhem, for an ungodly period, and then the folks that let it happen, cheered themselves, stepping over the bodies of the maimed,

    narciso (3fec35)

  30. Speaking of sweaty men, as steveg was doing just a moment ago, has anyone else seen the Obamacare ad that is aimed at “the gay community”?

    Just click on the following link and scroll down three or four pages:

    Whitey Nisson (aa99c0)

  31. does the Republican party really need to own the vagina-is-better-than-man-anus narrative?

    I can see how Palin might have some vested interest in that.

    But the rest not so much.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  32. When the media and the government, are so tied at the hip, there is no daylight between them, when the former is paymaster for large portions of the latter, serves as praetorian guard for same, it is no longer a private enterprise, it is an extension of the government’s coercive power, Judge Roberts might call it a ‘tax;

    narciso (3fec35)

  33. And now, for something completely different:

    narciso (3fec35)

  34. I think the homo luvin democrats have captured the man anus man theme, happyfeet.

    mg (31009b)

  35. As a single issue, it would get us 95% of the male voters and Anderson Cooper’s mom, happyfeet.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. There is a problem with the way the phone metas meta data question is being analyzed.

    The thinking seems to be if it can be taken for one purpose, it can be taken for all purposes.

    I would say, the expectation of privacy (more now maybe than in 1979, because in 1979, everybody’s long distance bills contained a list of calls)
    is that it won’t be examined for anything except a situation where it could be subpoenaed.

    But it shouldn’t be necessary for it to be legal to require that it actually be subpoened.

    It should be enough that it is looked through for that kind of purpose. They’re trying to find terrorist networks. They don’t find much because the terrorist organizations are careful. But sometimes terrorists make mistakes, as did Zazi who called a number he had used in Pakistan.

    It’s already understood the data could be used for that kind of purpose. So the legality should hinge upon what’s actually being done with the information that the government gets.

    It would not be acceptable say, for the government to post the call records online and let anyone search it for a fee.

    The way it is now it is probably more secure and private than if it was held by the telephone companies. If that becomes the answer, it’ll be subpoenaed for all kinds of purposes. And the telephone companies will have it – I think the NSA originally subpoeaned it because the telephone weren’t saving the information any more, and the only real problem was this very fact was being kept secret.

    The only thing that is needed is to find some way to guarantee better that use of this data stays limited to the kinds of purposes it has been used for till now: terrorist and criminal investigations.

    Maybe also there should be more care in putting people on a no-fly list. Security clearances – well for security clearances they invade privacy anyway – the whole thing is mostly worthless of course.

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  37. Mr. Feets – Team D is working hard to win the delegitimization of all religions except Islam. It’s not a walkover, whether you want to make it all about the anus or religious Christmas carols at VA hospitals or prayer at public meetings. Then again, you’re smart enough to already know that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  38. re: New York Times Benghazi article:

    It’s probably not really factually wrong in any way, but they shouldn’t act so sure of themselves.


    Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests.

    The problem with this sentence is that while no organization in Benghazi called themselves Al Qaeda, Al Sharia was part of the same network. But in any case it would be more accurate to say Moslem Brotherhood. They all fade into each other.

    Anger at the video motivated the initial attack.

    That’s what some people told the New York Times a couple of days later.

    That was the cover story. And the CIA was getting the saame disinformation from some people in the Libyan government and “intelligence partners”

    I’ve been saying all along this was not made up in the White House. There really was Sooper Sekrit intelligence – and the same intelligence was obtained by the New York Times. The New York Times reported that already in the fall of 2012.

    But the New York Times should think a little bit here. That has to be disinformation. It writes:

    The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

    If it was not spontaneous, it couldn’t have been inspired in any way by the video, or the Cairo events, because nobody knew about them till a few hours before!

    Now I think actually of course that the video was part of the plot, because if the Moslem Brotherhood or Saudi Arabia didn’t create that video, it shouldn’t have existed, but still no ordinary members of Al Sharia were informed about it before.

    By the way, they should not say the attack was not meticulously planned. That’s lumping together the attack, with the looting that took place later, a lot of which was not planned in any detail. The attackers weren’t actually even really interested in that, but only in killing Americans and chasing them out of Benghazi..

    It most definitely was planned, because if not they shouldn’t have been able to kill the Ambassador.

    They shouldn’t have known he was going to be there at all that day; they shouldn’t have gotten into the grounds; they shouldn’t have known wheer he would flee to, and they shouldn’t have known that the “safe room” was vulnerable to a fire and set a fire. And they shouldn’t have known about the other location and planned an attack on taht too.

    The story is good on one point. It says all the CIA briefings were about some other possible dangers but not about what actually happened. Which is what I was already pretty sure of. Of course, the moles were protecting themselves. The CIA was really was really anxious to get that into the talking points. That’s what the State Department objected to, and indeed they should have objected to.

    By the way just the other day 4 Americans were briefly taken prisoner in Tripoli, Libya, by some militia, but released. I wonder, was this connected to the upcoming New york Times article?

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  39. Wonder why this connection is not focused on;

    three guesses and the first two don’t count. now it was sort of inconvenient he was hired to train some of the rebel forces, no;

    narciso (3fec35)

  40. 22. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2013 @ 12:43 pm

    Bandar, you magnificent bastard!

    If bandar in any way helped that article – say by putting a few thoughts [e.g. random looting = attack not meticulously planned] into the minds of editors at the New York Times (not to mention his possible reposibility for the attack in the frirst place and for spreading the video story – who’s the “intelligence partners” referenced in one of the versions of the talking points)

    …it wouldn’t be the only front page New York Times article this year he had something to do with.

    There was this:

    Main lead article – right hand column – in the New York Times of Tuesday, November 26, 2013.

    U.S. and Saudis in Growing Rift as Power Shifts WASHINGTON — There was a time when Saudi and American interests in the Middle East seemed so aligned that the cigar-smoking former Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, was viewed as one of the most influential diplomats in Washington.

    I think he’s mentioned at the start because he wouldn’t allow the New York Times to name him as a source. But the NYT still wanted to gte his name in there somewhere.

    Later down in the article we get:

    In recent days, Saudi officials and influential columnists have made clear that they fear the agreement will reward Iran with new legitimacy and a few billion dollars in sanctions relief at exactly the wrong time. Iran has been mounting a costly effort to support the government of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, including arms, training and some of its most valuable Revolutionary Guards commandos, an effort that has helped Mr. Assad win important victories in recent months.

    The Saudis fear that further battlefield gains will translate into expanded Iranian hegemony across the region. Already, the Saudis have watched with alarm as Turkey — their ally in supporting the Syrian rebels — has begun making conciliatory gestures toward Iran, including an invitation by the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, to his Iranian counterpart to pay an official visit earlier this month.

    Which Saudis said all that? Only the New york Times knows for sure.

    This was all at the time when they first, cancelled a speech at the UN General Assembly, and then turned down a seat on the United Nations Security Council after having been elected to it.

    I think only a power struggle or ongoing political debate within the Saudi givernment can explain that. They didn’t know what policy they are goinng to wind up with and wanted to pretend there is no politics within their government.

    Sammy Finkelman (117043)

  41. Top men are working as we sleep:

    So what does all that NSA snooping get us, audits of so-cons?

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  42. Delusions of grandeur are certainly bad, JEF proves that much:

    OTOH, delusions of consequence are a blight on the rest of us as well.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  43. Do ya’ all know that Terry Bradshaw sat on the bench in college behind Phil Robertson, until Robertson decided football wasn’t that important to him and quit, opening up the starting spot for Bradshaw?
    According to Bradshaw, and Robertson on separate occasions, Robertson apparently had the tools to be a pro quarterback and there was even some talk about getting him to play pro ball after he had quit college.
    But he figured if he played football he would miss duck hunting season.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  44. Yes, what a curious circumstance, MD,

    narciso (3fec35)

  45. I’m wondering why the Will and Grace marathon on the We network doesn’t have a warning label?

    Warning: Attempts will be made to make the homosexual lifestyle appear normal or even desireable. Do not mistake Will and Grace for a portrayal of the actual gay lifestyle.
    Parental guidance is suggested.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  46. Maybe A&E could find a family of gays to make into a reality show.

    Dick Dynasty?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  47. pickles

    we’re better than this

    let pop culture be pop culture let politics be politics

    color me idealistic

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  48. As Breitbart observed ‘politics is downstream for the culture’ the latter shapes the former.

    narciso (3fec35)

  49. cordcutting is where the culture is right now

    you losers what are still subscribing to cable are not “the culture” you’re just losers who spend your money foolishly

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  50. which I say to you without judgment or rancor

    it’s just a thing

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  51. REASONABLENESS!!! One man’s REASONABLENESS is another Man’s anus.

    Gus (70b624)

  52. Most issues are easy. Some are not. Bill Clinton got some head from a subservient 23 year old employee. War on Womyn or JUST SEX? Bill Clinton was having sexual cigar relations with a young woman who thought she was blowing Mick Jagger. All well and good. Bill Clinton was BETRAYING HIS WIFE. Yet 99.9% of libs and imbeciles do not want to acknowledge. And I know why. Nearly all of YOU libs have no moral code. NO values. It’s all about YOU!!!!!!! You are pathetic losers. Bill Clinton betrayed his WIFE, his spouse, the Mother of his child. And LIBS don’t care. Libs care about….THEMSELVES. Libs have opinions about those who ARE NOT LIBS. Those peeps are EVIL and Libs hate them.

    Gus (70b624)

  53. you losers what are still subscribing to cable are not “the culture” you’re just losers who spend your money foolishly

    Says the guy what names himself after a tap dancing penguin.


    papertiger (c2d6da)

  54. The normals have been planning this for at least a year.

    Last year, for the first time in history, a wedding was scheduled what for to interrupt the Tournament of Roses parade in Pasadena.


    To put a fig leaf over these two fudge packers, inflicting themselves and their ilk on the culture of this country.

    And just for shins and googles I’m going to use the search term “Fudge packers to desecrate the Rose parade” to see if anyone on this great blue marble has the kahones to call it what it is.

    Pay dirt. But just one.
    Gay couple to Marry on Float During Rose Parade.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  55. Old wookie is going to explode when Reggie marries Barry on that flat bed.

    mg (31009b)

  56. does the Republican party really need to own the vagina-is-better-than-man-anus narrative?

    Well, why not?

    The Democrats/liberals have seized the cigarette/anti-cigarette agenda, and so there’s no reason that — if only for health reasons — the Republicans/conservatives shouldn’t tout the anus/vagina agenda (ie, one of the two parts of the human body, for reasons of hygiene and non-durability — not to mention odor — should be reserved for, er, uh, waste removal and not other things).

    Phil Robertson deserves accolades for putting the issue in stark, non-politically-correct terms. Perhaps only the rather obscure, marginalized (and impossible-to-take-seriously) Howard Stern has been as candid about the basic mechanics of certainly the “G” and “B” in GLBT.

    Mark (58ea35)

  57. 45. The scandal in Turkey seems to involve changes in zoning laws and real estate development, but that may just be the money laundering part of it.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  58. It’s simple, papertiger. Nobody, spectators or participants, shows up at the Rose Parade, and nobody tunes in to it on TV. So easy. All you have to do to make the point is do nothing. I have been doing it all my life. I have never watched a Rose Parade. I have watched the Boondock Saints, I & II, though.

    nk (dbc370)

  59. Antwan says two snaps up for teh sweaty mens…

    Colonel Haiku (eda58b)

  60. Typical filthy breeders.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  61. Boycott Honda.

    nk (dbc370)

  62. I sort of want to call in live to Al Roker and ask his opinion, given that the Rose Parade is mostly for allowing Midwestern American children a glimse of flowers to warm them through their Arctic sub zero weather, should it be used as a forum to promote the GLAAD politics and perversion?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  63. Do the “gay pride parade” in the search box.

    It auto completes as

    gay pride parade san francisco
    gay pride parade san diego
    gay pride parade chicago 2013
    gay pride parade los angeles
    gay pride parade long beach
    gay pride parade palm springs
    gay pride parade atlanta
    gay pride parade nyc 2013
    gay pride parade new orleans
    gay pride parade west hollywood
    gay pride parade winston salem nc
    gay pride parade washington dc
    gay pride parade wausau
    gay pride parade winston


    I’m fighting the urge to do violence on my computer.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  64. I looked for a sign out front of the Honda dealership about how proud they are to sponsor the gay pride parade.

    Apparently not that proud.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  65. Could there be a way to covertly promote an after parade party at Al Roker’s house?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  66. Al Roker is all about his Anus. That’s Culture!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. yes, I’d rather not dwell on this, I would keep an eye on that Russell gal though;

    narciso (3fec35)

  68. narciso @ 67

    The New York Times reporter who wrote the aricle was on ABC’s Issues and Answers This Week with David Brinkley and he said it was a matter of semantics.

    The only way he can understand Republicans (and others) criticizing this is that they use the term “Al Qaeda” in a broader way, but the attack on Benghazi was not done by the organization founded by Osama bin Laden and run by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

    Well, anyway, the truth is, we don’t really have the order of battle.

    But does he really think militant Islamists spontaneously organize(d) themselves and that there is not necessarily any kind of connection – at least historical – between every single one of them???

    That is a fundamental misunderstanding. There is nothing the slightest bit natural or organic about the existence of militant Islamists.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  69. Bin Laden was dead by 2012, but Zawahiri was very much alive, and he sent Azzouz among others to set up a franchise,

    narciso (3fec35)

  70. 67. 74. Flags can be used by people who feel sympathy to an oorganization but don’t actually belong to it, so that wouldn’t prove anything. Neither would finding an Al Qaeda member commected in some way to the militia group that did the attack, as you could say he had joined another organization.

    But that’s the problem here.

    The Islamists deliberatly split themselves up into separate organzations and even have official disagreements (often over tactics) They have to have “disagreements” in order to “explain” why they split. Unfortunately, even Darrel Issa acknowledge they were separate, not realizing that that’s obviously in order so that a crackdown would not be 100%.

    It’s like separating Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

    Sometimes they really do separate over time, because there’s different people in charge and there is a natural tendency of such evil autocratic organizations to splinter, like the way the Communists in China splintered from the Communists running Russia, or for that matter, Tito from Stalin.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  71. 77. Qatar is the home of Al Jazeera, which did very much pro-Al Qaeda and anti Iraq propaganda and transmitted the messages from Osama bin Laden – AND also the home of the U.S. Air base used as the logistics, command and basing hub for the U.S. entral Command and any attack on Iran would be directed out of it.

    Kind of unthinkable for anybody important in the U.S> government to doubt their loyalty as ally.

    Meanwhile they are also conducting joint exercises with the Iranian Navy. This is even under the new Emir.

    And they diercted U.S. Aid to Syria to the wrong people. Perhaps Saudi Arabia now has their own pet group of Islamists. A raid was conduicted on the warehouse of the U.S. backed Free Syrian Army (using the deception taht real Al Qaeda people were going to seize them) and now the general fled the country – to, where else? – Qatar! – His deputy is in sweden.

    The U.S. cut off further aid to the Free Syrian Army for the time being,

    Qatar seems to be successful, not in remaining neutral, but on being on BOTH SIDES in the war on terror!

    Who’s side are they really on? Probably the side that’s less stupid.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  72. And there’s another thing about the Benghazi story in the New York Times. The New York Times story actually said there was no international support of any kind!!

    And of course accepted the video theory, because that’s what people in Benghazi who had reason to know something of he attack told the New York Times in the days after the attack.

    Q. Does the New York Times have any idea who commanded it? Does it believe there was no General – or call him a Colonel – directing all of that?

    The Americans who defended themselves against then – this would be mostly at the second site, but this was true even for the mission – knew this had to be carefully planned. They had enough military training and background to know successful attacks do not happen without preparation.

    The New York Times didn’t talk to them – maybe they couldn’t – but they didn’t and they didn’t rely on what others had reported or what Congress said.

    So, if they has no idea who was the commmander – how can they say no international support? And where did they get their arms, and their money?

    And it has been well reported last year how Ansar al Sharia was organized by someone who came from Egypt and belonged to the Moslem Brotherhood or one of its offshoots – of which Al Qaeda (Egptian Islamic Jihad) is one.

    The only thing you can say is that everything was in place in Benghazi some time before September 11, 2012. You can’t say there was no help.

    That only indicates lack of information.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  73. 76. No, I don’t think Zawahiri sent anybody to to Libya.

    I think Zawahiri is a just a front man – and that’s why Pakistan is so much against drone strikes, because if Zawahiri is killed – what’s their excuse for Islamic terrorism still continuing to exist?

    Maybe we’ll look further.

    To some people in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  74. And as for the video inspiring it, this was clearly disinformation – the only problem with what some Republicans were saying is that they implied the Administration made it all up about the connection between the video and the attack – and they didn’t!

    They wanted to blame the White House and the State Department and not the CIA for the video theory, since the CIA is largely not staffed by political appointees of the current Administration.

    But the New York Times knew from first hand knowledge that it wasn’t made up by the administration, because they got the same disinformation themselves in Benghazi.

    Maybe that fact inspired the article.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  75. One of the problems with the attack on the mission in Benghazi is that it had too many “fathers”

    All of them red herrings.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  76. I call akin to the Appalachin conference, it appears AQIM took the lead, along with Ansar Al Sharia,

    narciso (3fec35)

  77. Maybe the fundamental thing wrong with the New York Times story is they don’t have anyone higher ranking than Ahmed Abu Khattala involved in the attack, whom the article states:

    had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi..

    But Abu Khattala was merely the highest ranking person present at the scene of the attack – he almost certainly was not its supreme commander, who wouldn’t have shown up in person.

    And it did have to have a SUPREME COMMANDER.

    By the way, some key words here are “known” which maybe should really be replaced by the word “acknowledged,” and “terrorist” because the CIA would probably only call a group a terrorist group if it had been involved in helping at least one previous terrorist attack.

    Abu Khattala denies involvement and he’s got a lot of mysterious protection in Libya from various militias.

    He gets this protection, he’s not regarded by anyone as a big boss, and he’s the top ranking person involved in the attack?

    Maybe the highest ranking person the New York Times both knows about and is reasonably sure, but that’s not the same thing as the actual highest ranking person involved in the attack.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  78. As the WEEKLY STANDARD reports, some names previously floated in the New York Times are missing from this account.

    One name: Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, who set up training camps in the Libyan desert — and there were people with military training involved in the Benghazi attacks.

    I have to thank them for saving me the trouble s searching for this article again.

    Militant Link to Libya Attack / U.S. Tracks Egyptian Operative Freed From Prison in Wake of Arab Spring – By Siobhan Gorman And Matt Bradley October 1, 2012 Wall Street Journal

    …..In an interview, Mohammed al-Zawahiri [brother of the leader of Al Qaeda, who openly called for the release of world trade center bomber leader Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman] denied that, saying that though imprisoned with Mr. Ahmad, he isn’t helping him. “These are all accusations without proof,” he said.

    Mr. Zawahiri denied resuming past militant activities. “This is always what they say,” he said. “This is meant to scare us away from exercising our political rights.”

    As for Mr. Ahmad, associates say he now lives in Libya. Western officials believe that besides financing through al Qaeda’s Yemeni wing, he has tapped into its system for smuggling fighters. At his camps, militants are believed to be training future suicide bombers, say current and former U.S. officials, who add that he has established limited links with jihadists in Europe.

    U.S. officials working with Libyans to investigate the consulate assault in Benghazi have identified some of the attackers and believe some are associates of Mr. Ahmad. Also believed present were militants affiliated with other groups, including Ansar al Sharia, a local group, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which has origins in Algeria…

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  79. 84. Appalachin conference.

    Till then, there were some denials of the existence of the Mafia.

    But even that was misleading, because the true organization was The Outfit, and it wasn’t all-Italian.

    That’s a very good comparison.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  80. it is striking that his militia, is only mentioned in passing in the Library of Congress report, Bin Qumu, who is dismissed in a sentence, is a more likely focus of organizing,

    narciso (3fec35)

  81. The New York Times article says this about Bin
    marciso @ 89:

    …Bin Qumu, who is dismissed in a sentence, is a more likely focus of organizing,

    Here’s what today’s New York Times story has to say about him:

    The C.I.A. kept its closest watch on people who had known ties to terrorist networks abroad, especially those connected to Al Qaeda. Intelligence briefings for diplomats often mentioned Sufian bin Qumu, a former driver for a company run by Bin Laden.

    Mr. Qumu had been apprehended in Pakistan in 2001 and detained for six years at Guantánamo Bay before returning home to Derna, a coastal city near Benghazi that was known for a high concentration of Islamist extremists.

    But neither Mr. Qumu nor anyone else in Derna appears to have played a significant role in the attack on the American Mission, officials briefed on the investigation and the intelligence said.

    “We heard a lot about Sufian bin Qumu,” said one American diplomat in Libya at the time. “I don’t know if we ever heard anything about Ansar al-Shariah.”

    Maybe that’s right, even.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  82. I don’t what is scarier, that they know or they don’t know, page 6;

    narciso (3fec35)

  83. There are some new details in the New York Times story.

    For instance, the attack began right after a police car that was parked in front of the compound left at 9:42 pm Libyan time. They know this from American diplomats who viewed security camera footage.

    They also have diary excerpts from Ambassador Stevens:

    September 6, while in Tripoli:

    Security vacuum. Militias are power on the ground. Dicey conditions, including car bombs, attacks on consulate. Islamist ‘hit list’ in Benghazi. Me targeted on a prominent website (no more off compound jogging).

    The website had published a map of his Tripoli jogging route)

    September 10:

    (about Benghazi) Much stronger emotional connection to this place. The people but also the smaller town feel and the moist air and green and spacious compound.

    September 11:

    …Never ending security threats…

    At 7 a.m. uards had spotted a man taking photpgraphs with a cell phone. He and two others fled in a police car. They were wearing the uniform of the Supreme Security Committee, a quasi-official militia.

    The person he saw at 6:40 pm. was the Turkish consul.

    At 8:30, British diplomats came there to drop off their vehicles and weapons before heading back to Tripoli. (!)

    The attack began with a few dozen fighters against 5 Americans and 3 Libyans. The armed defenders could not get to the main villa, where Stevens was.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  84. Then there’s page 11, which mentions Azzouz, one misses the forest of resurgent Salafism for the trees that Kirkpatrick offers.

    narciso (3fec35)


    This is from August 2012.

    This one states:

    For instance, Ansar al-Sharia, a katiba (battalion in Arabic) headed by Sufian Ben Qhumu, a former al-Qaeda operative believed to have links with the al-Qaeda’s clandestine network in Darnah, is thought to be responsible for several bombings that targeted former public servants.

    The spelling Mafia strikes again! Look at all these spelling variations!

    Wherever have you seen the Arabic word “bin” spelled “ben” like in Hebrew?

    (it’s “ben” in Hebrew, except for Yehoshua (Joshua) bin Nun, and one time in Deuteonomy (25:2) where bin appears where the word doesn’t mean “son” but someone having the quality of.)

    That ‘mistake” here has to have been on purpose. (to defeat computer text searches).

    I don’t think the David D. Kirkppatrick or the New York Times today thinks that Sufian Ben Qhumu / Sufian bin Qumu was the head of Ansar al Sharia.

    And indeed that may have been disinformation, designed to get the NSA to eavesdrop on the wrong person.

    He must have bene eavesdropped on. They must not have found anything. And therefore he must not have been involved personally. Saying he was the threat must have been disinformation.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  86. It’s a transliteration, Anas Al Libi, does figure in the report on page 14,

    narciso (3fec35)

  87. Page 11: Again, possibly disinformation. Jamal is missing from this document.

    You have to remember: This August, 2012 document couldn’t be all inclusive, because if it had been, the attack might have been prevented, or anticipated.

    The fact that a surprise attack happened, indicates that the United states government, as a whole, was NOT on top of things.

    One big complaint of the Kirkpatrick article is that they were looking at the wrong people.

    The quote basically says, (and hints it knows more but they have to limit themselves to open sources) that CNN reported in December 2011 that
    al-Qaeda’s leadership has sent experienced jihadists to Libya in an effort to build a fighting force, including veteran operative “AA” -whom it explains is probably Abd al-Baset Azzouz, and that CNN further sais that he had already recruited 200 militants in Libya’s eastern region.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  88. Good Allah, I give up,

    narciso (3fec35)

  89. 95. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:57 pm

    It’s a transliteration, Anas Al Libi, does figure in the report on page 14,

    I know it’s a transliteration, and absolutely nobody transliterates the Arabic word for son as “ben”

    Something is very wrong.

    Somebody is making a whole lot of delibereate spelling changes. Somebody didn’t want people comparing what is in here with other U.S government or published reports.

    Let’s see now Al-Libi – whom this report spells Anas al-Liby.

    His real name was Nazih Abdul-Hamed Nabith al-Ruqari’i.

    All that al-Libi means is that he’s from Libya. It’s not a real name but a nomme de guerre. Abu something means he’s the father of the boy whose name follows the word Abu.

    This seems to be a different al-Libi than the Abu Yahya al-Libi who was reputed to be al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, who was killed in Pakistan in a drone strike on Monday, June 4, 2012, whose death later became one of the possible motivations for the Benghazi attacks.

    (I think they prepared several different cover stories to explain the motivation, some more plausible than others, and then went with the really implausible video story when that seemed to fly for a while.)

    This is al-Libi is mentioned in an Arabic language newspaper in Algiers dated september 11, 2011 that predicted that All Qaeda was getting ready to announce its presence in Libya. It didn’t.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  90. The one you mean is Abu Anas al-Libi.

    Father of Anas, the Libyan.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  91. I suppose with all the NSA news, it’s important to remember those who weren’t Eric Snowden.

    In mid-1943, life seemed to be going well for John Philip Cromwell. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a career submarine officer, Cromwell had recently been promoted to Captain and was serving as the skipper of a submarine squadron in the Pacific. As such, he commanded a “wolf pack” of several U.S. Navy submarines that hunted Japanese warships and freighters in the vast expanse of the Western Pacific. Although never fully grasped by the American public, U.S. Navy subs did more than any other part of the American war machine to ultimately cripple Japan’s war effort. Simply put, in the Pacific, the U.S. Navy managed to do to Japan what the German Navy failed to do to Great Britain: strangle the enemy’s war economy through gradual attrition of the fleet and merchant navy by submarines.

    The biggest reason for this American success was intelligence, specifically SIGINT. Thanks to a top secret program codenamed ULTRA, the U.S. Navy knew the locations of Japanese naval and merchant vessels and, armed with this information, American submarines were able to wreak devastation on the enemy’s merchant fleet and tonnage. ULTRA, which was based on the decryption of Japanese naval codes and ciphers, was the indispensable element in the American submarine campaign against Japan, although very few personnel knew this. During World War II, the U.S. military took concepts like compartmentalization and “need to know” seriously.

    …By the middle of the month, Sculpin was on station off Truk and ready to engage the enemy. Its effort to attack a Japanese task force on the morning of 19 November was cut short by a faulty depth gauge, which led to the Sculpin surfacing right in front of the Japanese destroyer Yamagumo. While the submarine managed to dive again, numerous enemy depth charges forced Sculpin to the surface, into a one-sided gunfight with the Japanese destroyer. While Sculpin put up a good fight, cannons on the Yamagumo blasted her decks clean, killing most of the command group. The surviving deck officer made the decision to abandon ship and scuttle the submarine.

    Some forty-one sailors from the Sculpin managed to escape the sinking vessel and were taken prisoner by the Japanese, but Captain Cromwell was not among them. When the word went out to abandon ship, John Cromwell stayed on the sinking submarine. The forty-two year-old husband and father knew he had no choice but to go down with the Sculpin. Not only had he been briefed on the impending invasion of Tarawa, but more importantly, he knew about the ULTRA secret, the U.S. Navy’s unmentionable ace in the hole against Japan.

    Knowing he could not let the enemy, who was prone to torturing prisoners, find out about ULTRA, Captain Cromwell elected to go down with the boat; according to all survivors’ accounts, he did so calmly, stoically. The full story of John Cromwell’s heroism and sacrifice only became known to the U.S. Navy after the war, when Sculpin survivors emerged from Japanese captivity.

    Soon after, Captain Cromwell’s widow accepted her late husband’s Medal of Honor, the country’s highest valor decoration. To this day, John Cromwell is the highest-ranking U.S. Navy submariner to receive the Medal of Honor.

    His Medal of Honor citation is here:

    Not a word about ULTRA. It was still top secret.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  92. Thanks for posting that honorable citation for such a hero.

    red (ac28a9)

  93. Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon suggests one of the problems, that the Allies had was not relying on the knowledge that they had broken the codes too much, so that the enemy wouldn’t figure it out,

    narciso (3fec35)

  94. In April 1989, the Pepsi Corporation announced that it was canceling plans to broadcast a television commercial that featured Madonna, then arguably the most popular singer in the world. Madonna had released the music video for “Like a Prayer” a month earlier, and was entering a $5 million ad blitz with Pepsi. The corporation faced relentless pressure from Reverend Donald Wildmon to end its relationship with the controversial singer, and eventually caved to the pressure. The “Like a Prayer” video featured stigmata and burning crosses, but no specific derogatory terminology toward any group.

    This was far from Wildmon’s first religious protest. Throughout the ’70s, he and his American Family Association protested dozens of targets including: Disney World for not preventing LGBT community groups from hosting “gay days” at the theme park; the film The Last Temptation of Christ, for its controversial take on Jesus Christ; and popular TV shows like M*A*S*H* and Dallas for “promoting immoral lifestyles.” Wildmon convinced General Mills, Dominos Pizza and Ralston-Purina to pull ads from Saturday Night Live, because the show didn’t comply with Wildmon’s vision of “Biblical ethic of decency” for America.

    If you were involved in American popular culture in any way and you had a different take on Christianity from Wildmon, chances are he was protesting you.

    This public history of demanding “political correctness” and obedience from television networks adds thick irony to the Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty drama.

    Duck Dynasty and Madonna

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  95. Well it was his right, then again, they paid him no mind, Madonna begat Gaga begat Miley Cyrus, turtles all the way down,

    narciso (3fec35)

  96. “This public history of demanding “political correctness” and obedience from television networks adds thick irony to the Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty drama.”

    I’m missing the irony. People complained about stuff then. People are complaining about stuff now. Hold the presses!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  97. He seems good at the ‘yelling squirrel’

    primarily a sports guy, a Olbermann, Lupica wannabe;

    narciso (3fec35)

  98. narciso @107, you beat me to it.

    When I impose an individual mandate on PETA members so they have to buy my shotgun shells so I can hunt ducks on the public dime, or make vegan chefs fix me up a ham sandwich, we’ll talk Mr. feets.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  99. It can be demonstrated that I fully supported the right of A+E to ban Robertson and Duck Dynasty if they wanted to (providing there were no contractual issues preventing them).

    But if you want to see who is in the group listening to the Duck Commander, and who is watching to see just how close to nude and pornographic Miley Cyrus can get, you’ll find me in the former.
    That’s all.

    A+E just has the problem of wanting to keep everybody happy at the same time, and if they can’t keep everyone happy they are conflicted over who to make the most unhappy.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  100. Thomas Alter, Huffpo, neutral broker.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  101. hmmm that is a very thought-provoking piece by Mr. Alter thank you for linking it, happy

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  102. There’s a touch of irony, a publication that is hemorrhaging cash, berating a show that is making money hand over fist, for a network,

    narciso (3fec35)

  103. I think what I most enjoyed abut the Phil Robertson dust up is how the the same people who would happily push for a public library system to sponsor the Vagina Monologues accused the Duck Dynasty star of being crude.

    Northwestern University Professor Under Fire After Class Sex Toy Demonstration

    The sensitive flowers who inhabit the liberal priesthood is stunned, STUNNED, that Phil Robertson used anatomically correct terms to describe gay sex.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  104. What passes for a civilized activity in 21st Century America:

    A few weeks ago we wrote a post on Vajazzling, a relatively new concept in vaginal adornment…

    Quoting scripture, not so much.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  105. Yes, because it was not to endorse, if you deride Christianity, you get a multiyear contract on HBO, which you funnel back to your sponsor, you see how it works?

    narciso (3fec35)

  106. “Someone might be offended by your display of the flag,” say the gender studies professors.

    Shortly after they give their students a homework assignment to make plaster casts of their genitalia to hang in the student center.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  107. Religious Christmas carols or merely Christmas greetings are offensive social constructs of the heteronormative patriarchy and hence part of the rape culture and must be banned.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  108. Good news for you Army football fans, for once.

    …“We wanted to try something different this year,” said West Point head coach Rich Ellerson, who had always wanted to coach high school-level football while being paid millions of dollars. “Every single year we try to run the ball straight up the middle into the opponent’s defensive line, with admittedly, little success.”

    The Army Black Knights, aspirants to NCAA Division I football, could have simply rested on their laurels after an impressive 3-8 record this season, with games where they scored many field goals and succeeded in occasionally moving the ball towards the opponent’s goal instead of away.

    …“The forward pass has the potential to change everything we know about football!” claimed Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen, who disconcertingly sprang from behind a curtain as if on cue. “FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL! Who needs a military when you have football!”

    …Sources confirm the team is feverishly working on throwing the football forward — practicing the incredible movement through last night and into this morning — in the hopes of using it against Navy this afternoon.

    Still, Ellerson says there are some nagging issues.

    “Of course, our quarterback doesn’t know how to hold the ball properly, and we don’t have any wide receivers, but I’m counting on the element of surprise!” said Ellerson while making made a supplicating motion…

    Read more:

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  109. That’d be white supremacist heteronormative patriarchy to you, sir.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  110. My Phone Call To Jason Collins

    People often write to me expressing their dissatisfaction with President Obama and his policies. They also like to write to me asking how I will do things differently if I am elected president in 2016. For example, they ask whether I would have taken the time to call Jason Collins after he “came out” – becoming the first openly gay active player in the NBA. The answer is a definite “yes.” I would have called him immediately. And here is what I would have been able to say to the White House Press corps if later asked about our conversation:

    “I told Jason I could have been much prouder of him. One of the extraordinary measures of social regression that we have seen in this country has been the insistence that the interests of the LGBT community be interjected into every aspect of American life. Now, the agenda is even present in kindergarten sex education classes in Massachusetts. At first, it was placed there by those who insisted that such educational classes would be fully optional for objecting parents. Now, parents who show up at these schools objecting to the sexualization of their children are threatened with prosecution for trespass. None of this would be happening if homosexuals were content to live their lives privately and peacefully without imposing their agenda upon those who respectfully disagree with them.

    “I reminded Jason that everyone deserves full equality. But I also reminded Jason that the so-called LGBT community already has full equality, not just partial equality. For example, he had a right to marry his fiancé of seven years. But just because he decided to relinquish that right, it does not mean the courts need to create a new right for him to exercise. The polygamists tried that in the 1800s and the Supreme Court rightly said ‘no’ to their legal arguments. Given that there is far greater historical acceptance of polygamy than so-called gay marriage, he has no broad right to marry anyone he chooses. So I urged Jason not to use his newfound platform to push this issue. I will have more to say about substitutionary rights – the idea that when you relinquish a right, you get to select a new one – in a future press conference. But now back to Jason……..


    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  111. Smoking is a legal activity. Drinking is also. Being in porno, legal activity. Now with the advent of Obamacare a whole host of activities which are legal will be judged on the basis of how they impact the public health (whatever that is). Use your imagination.
    Marijuana USE. Over eating. Professional wrestling. You break a leg, the state has to pay for it. Nevermind that they’ll steal the money from all of us to do it, because that’s not the way the powers that be will look at it.

    But let’s stick with smoking as an example.
    If Square Bob Spongepants was brought to the air by Marlboro, liberal hypocrits would object because those commercials might entice somebody’s precious child to take up the habit. In fact that type of advert would be deemed evil, directed at children like that.

    So how is it any part of right to advertise homosexuality at the Rose Parade?

    It’s evil. It’s dispicable. It’s every part wrong.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  112. There was a book a number of years ago, The Revenge of Conscience, which made the argument (if I understood correctly-didn’t actually read the book) that people do have an innate sense of right and wrong and if they approve of things they really shouldn’t, then somehow they need to feel that something else is wrong and oppose it, I guess an inherent need to think of ourselves as morally good, hence we do things like try to make up for our eagerness to abort human babies by advocating kindness to stray cats.

    Nothing wrong with being kind to stray cats, but it is not an adequate substitute for being kind to baby humans, even in utero.

    I guess akin would be the furor over the pollution of people’s lungs with second hand smoke, while the pollution of people’s minds and souls runs amok.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  113. Comment by Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:45 pm

    The biggest reason for this American success was intelligence,..

    I think that’s true of every war, and that’s why the United states did not have such success in Vietnam, or in Iraq [they always knew where U.S. troops were but the U.S. didn’t know the opposite, and they also knew U.S. tactics]

    And for that matter, in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.

    Knowing he could not let the enemy, who was prone to torturing prisoners, find out about ULTRA,

    He couldn’t let his superiors fear that he had. I in the Pacific, it was called “Magic”

    Writing so many years later, in 2013 people kind of lose these distinctions.

    I read also in his obituary that Dwight D. Eisenhowrs’ son coujld not be captured during the Korean War. Eisenhower said that if he became president, he might have to resign.

    Also I think in World War II Eisenhower himself.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  114. The Medal of Honor citation says he possessed “secret intelligence information of our submarine strategy and tactics, scheduled Fleet movements and specific attack plans.”

    I guess code breaking could be considered part of “submarine strategy and tactics.”

    They didn’t 100% leave it out.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  115. narciso at 103.

    one of the problems, that the Allies had was not relying on the knowledge that they had broken the codes too much,

    In the Atlantic, they would always send airplanes to “spot” the German submarines or ships.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  116. I put together, a little something back in the day, that summed up the points;

    narciso (3fec35)

  117. Nice little blog you got there. Told feets yet?

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  118. Wonder how long it took Numbnuts to realize he was talking to a cleaning lady?

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  119. Sammy, the term MAGIC referred only to decriptions of Japanese diplomatic code. Not naval or military.

    Steve57 (be5be1)

  120. Not connected at all;

    although he likely sent folks to Benghazi

    narciso (3fec35)

  121. The CBS Evening New2s tonight reported the New York Times – and if this was all you knew, you’d think it was highly probable neither Al Qaeda not any other international terrorist organization had anything to do with it the video was important and it was spontaneous – that is, unplanned.

    It was stronger than the New York Times reporter himself. He had said Susan Rice was wrong. CBS quoted the Obama White House spokesman in Honolulu as saying it “does not contest the conclusions of the New York Times report” which to me sounds like they are trying to make White House agreement sound stronger than what it is.

    They did have some person saying that most social media mentions of the video ghappened after the attack. They pointed out some Republican(s) in Congress disagreed, but without really letting it be clear that this disagreement was credible.

    They seem to be bending over backwards because oof the Lara Logan mistake.

    They mentioned Khattalah – but the point is Khattalah could not have bene the supreme commander and his not having links just means they aren’t known. There is no such thing as a natural America-hating double-talking Islamist, who gets protection.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  122. Today the New York Times ran an editorial congratulating itself for straightening out the facts about Benghazi.


    The Facts About Benghazi


    Published: December 30, 2013

    An exhaustive investigation by The Times goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack on the United States mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
    The report by David Kirkpatrick, The Times’s Cairo bureau chief, and his team turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or another international terrorist group had any role in the assault, as Republicans have insisted without proof for more than a year. The report concluded that the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and other support during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and that it was fueled, in large part, by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

    In a rational world, that would settle the dispute over Benghazi…

    It doesn’t settle anything. Even trhe Democrats in Congress agree there is more information.

    The New York Times doesn’t know of any connection, but they don’t know who was behind the attack. This was not organized on the spur of the moment – the attackers were too well trained, and well armed, and knew too well what to do.

    It probably indeed was not anything called Al Qaeda, as the links are to Egypt, where Al Qaeda does not officially exist, but the Moslem Brotherhood, and some splinter and fake splinter organizations do, of which Al Qaeda is one.

    Saying Al Qaeda has no connection is like saying Al Qaeda has no connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and for the same reason: lack of or disregrading of information. Osama bin Laden wasn’t linked to the 1993 attack for a few years.

    And if you want to know my thought, I don’t really think Al Qaeda actually even exists – it doesn’t function independently. Zawahiri is not the bog boss, and neither was Osama bin Laden – he was just the Director, and later functioned mainly as a a consultant,

    It is true that people took part in the benghazi attacks who were supposed to be friendly to the United States. That just tells you what a collossal intelligence failure occurred here!

    Neither was the video important – except as disinformation.

    An important Democrat said the New York Times was lied to (although he may have been speaking about other detauils) He said people were telling them things against teh facts for tehir own reasons (canbnot remember teh quite)

    Of course what is being lost is that the New York Times was told this video story within days of teh attack – and this was also going to the CIA.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  123. Hewitt talked about this some last night with a Congressman on the House intelligence committee, who basically said he was shocked to see such claims and could only think it was part of the rehabilitation of Hillary.
    Hewitt suggested the writer of the article be called before the House committee to testify about his sources, etc., (apparently with the intent to discredit the article by revealing truth), but the Congressman wasn’t too keen on the idea, thinking it might serve to make the claims more credible just be bringing him before the committee.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  124. It’s really pretty obvious where the New York Times story came from, but you have to understand that everybody is at least a little bit wrong.

    It all stems from just a few assumptions. Other than that, the report is actually pretty accurate.

    It’s some of the New York Times’s logic that is wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  125. 1. The New York Times was told about the video within days of the attack, and doesn’t realize it was disinformation. Other people don’t realize that such disinformation existed, and was not invented in the White House.

    Everybody who doesn’t realize this is going around in circles. the New York times probably can’t even begin to imagine that disinformation about a video could have been organziwed so quickly – and it probably wasn’t. It may also not understand why such a lie would be useful to the terrorists.

    They terrorists did not want people to think this was planned in advanace or that there was outside help – precisely the main points maded in the New York Times article.

    So not wanting us to think it was planned, they needed an “immediate cause”. This, in the end, centered around the video.

    The video was probably, of course, produced at the instigation of the terrorists. There is no other explanation for its very existence, and posting on the Internet, especially since there wasn’t a real movie that anybody knows about, except for a few people who claimed after the attack to have seen it. If they did it was totally incoherent miscellaneous footage.

    The terrorists or their sponsors commissioned the video, maybe as part of something that they would find a use for later. But they didn’t want to make a cause celebre out of it until just before the attacks, because that might alert us – and even then attention was centered on Cairo where nothing really bad happened. It only became knmown a few days before and couldn’t have caused this in any way – unless you believe no extensive planning went into the attacks in Benghazi, which is precisely the dinformation the planners wished to convey.

    How is it that nobody but me seeems to understand this? Everybody’s wedded to some understanding of this that falls apart.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  126. Not understanding they were the targets of disinformation – not just now – but back in September, 2012, is mistake number one by teh New York Times.

    Logic Error number 2: The New York Times actually seems to think (and there were people in the U.S. government who also thought along these lines) that only an organization identified as Al Qaeda is both able and willing to plot terrorist attacks. This is a fundamental error about organizational structure.

    It is indee probably tghat The Al Qaeda people the CIA was watching, and briefing the satgte Department about, probably had little or nothing to do with this.

    One cause of this was that there are probably restrictive conditions for targeting foreigners. the only people they are watching are cinnected with Al Qaeda. And they were helped in this belief probably by Prince Bandar.

    Now while official Al Qaeda probably had at best minimal role (some funding from Yemen mainly)
    this now while does not mean there were no international terrorist connections.

    A third problem is assuming no unknown unknowns, that it stops with Khattala.

    Further proof that it doesn’t stop with Khattalah is that he is being protected by people in Libya.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  127. Wall Street Journal editorial today:

    Global Disorder Scorecard

    As the U.S. retreats, a reader’s guide to the world’s traumas

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  128. And who to root for.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


    The official said that during the initial talks between Netanyahu and Kerry, before the peace talks restarted, Netanyahu agreed to release 82 terrorists in several batches, none of them Israeli Arabs.

    Subsequently, the same official told Channel 2, Kerry and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas held talks of their own during which Abbas demanded the release of 104 terrorists, including Israeli Arabs. Kerry’s deception was that, instead of telling Abbas that Israel only agreed to release 82 terrorists, he then went back to Netanyahu and tried to convince him to change his position.

    The Channel 2 report added that Netanyahu told Kerry that in any case Israel would not release Israeli Arab terrorists as a gesture to Abbas, but it may consider releasing Israeli Arabs in exchange for the release of Jonathan Pollard. Kerry promised to consider the issue, but not beyond that and, has yet to give Netanyahu an answer on the matter.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  130. narciso @ 100

    This all sounds very reasonable to Kerry – minimal concessions.

    This a pair of concessions, one by the PA one by Israel.

    The PA would agree to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state. the problem with that is that it rermoves the whole basis for Arab rejectionism – and it is a dagger at the heart of Hamas.

    Israel is quite right to insist on it, and wait for that, but it highlights exactly what the problem is.

    Netanyahu has some other complaints – like why are they treating murderers as heroes, and HOW IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WANTING PEACE?

    The concession that Kerry wants from Israel is also minimnal, and would not be an obstacle. It is that negotiations about territory start with the default of the 1967 bnorders. Since the PA is doing that anyway, it is no real concession on the part of Israel at all.

    Of course this is not something Israel could ever ultimately agree to, as it includes Jerusalem and built up areas nearby, and demolishing them is literally insane, not to mention the importance of protecting various holy sites, but all this is is only the map you begin with and it is alreday the basis for calculating possible exchange of territory.

    Of course in reality you also actually need something where the Palestinian state will not be fully independent, or else the peace will not work. The nature of its government needs to be guaranteed for one, and a cold peace is probably not possible, but only a military and political alliance.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  131. “And who to root for.”

    Sammy – Yesterday on twitter the NYT claimed to have had a reporter on the ground in Benghazi talking to the attackers during the attack. Any idea who the reporter was rooting for, whether the reporter had warned people in advance or called for help? How did the reporter know where and when to show up? The NYT has not been forthcoming answering such obvious questions or identifying the reporter.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  132. 143. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 10:08 am

    Yesterday on twitter the NYT claimed to have had a reporter on the ground in Benghazi talking to the attackers during the attack.

    During the attack? I had thought they had somebody asking questions a few days later.

    But yes, that’s what the latest article says.

    One important caveat: the attack went on for hours, and the reporter didn’t arrive there right at the start, and he actually wasn’t able to get too close.

    The article says (unlike virtually every other New York Times article you cannot get this on a single page iin he Internet)

    A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

    It doesn’t say who were the sentries, attackers, or maybe who claimed not to be part of the attack. Note that he earned of the video for the first time from the attackers or their protectors. If he didn’t know about the video, and yet knew something was going on at the Benghazi residence of the U.S. Ambassador, who did? Not even someone following the news from Cairo.

    The actual demonstrators in Cairo didn’t say anything about it – it was only the people running the Twitter feed of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo who were focised on that.

    Also note, this reporter, who probably did not identify himself as a journalist, wasn’t being allowed in, which means ordinary Libyans weren’t being allowed in. That would be to hide what was going on and because they didn’t want to kill any Libyans and because it was an organized group, not a random crowd. Not till later, when they did let people go in to loot, and left the scene.

    Being told about the video that night – both him and other Libyans, is all quite plausible, actually, if the video was part of the plot.

    How did the reporter know where and when to show up?

    Ansar al Sharia had blockaded streets earlier in the day, and there was a fire, and he probably had some sources in miliitias or in the police, who told him something was going on at the location where the U.S. Ambassador would stay when he visited Benghazi. Word gets around.

    He probably did not know how serious it was, or he might not have headed there. He could have thought, this is something like what went on in Cairo.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  133. Let’s try part of this again:

    It doesn’t say who were the sentries: Attackers, or maybe who claimed not to be part of the attack.

    Note that he learned of the video for the first time from the attackers or their protectors. (if I read that right.)

    If he didn’t know about the video, and yet knew something was going on at the Benghazi residence of the U.S. Ambassador, who in Benghazi knew about the video?

    Not even someone following the news from Cairo would know.

    But some guards preventing people from getting too close to the action were all prepared with speeches about the video? I think that is actually quite plausible, if the video was part of the plot.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  134. One problem here is that people think, or can think, the New York Times is simply lying, when that’s not the explanation at all.

    (although somewhere in their ranks there could be a person or two peddling falsity to help some politician(s)

    It may be 100% true that the attackers came equipped with their (FALSE!) video explanation right at the start.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  135. “if the video was part of the plot”

    Sammy – You mean if the video was part of the cover story?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  136. Sammy – Why did the NYT wait more than a year to reveal they had a local stringer on site?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  137. I think he did in fact identify himself as journalist, or at least that he only wished tro observe. The article says:

    The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road, adjacent to the compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass anyone trying to join the mayhem.

    All sorts of people were rushing there, because of a false report the attackers spread [and all this wasn’t planned?!] that the Americans had shot and killed a Libyan, or wounded Libyans, who had come only to protest.

    Also, Abu Baker Habib, a Libyan-American friend of Christopher Stevens was callig for help from some of the most important militia leaders. Some of them did their best to stop or dissuade their members from going there.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  138. Sammy – What I think really happened is that Hillary had Huma make some phone calls to some friends to find out what really happened and did not like what she found out. That’s why the Administration stuck with the bogus spontaneous demonstration over a video story, Al Qaeda is on the run, and Hillary avoided talking about it or testifying about it until after the election.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  139. But they didn’t want to make a cause celebre out of it until just before the attacks, because that might alert us – and even then attention was centered on Cairo where nothing really bad happened.

    Sammy – I guess I missed the new policy under Obama that the U.S. does not consider it really bad when one of its overseas embassies is stormed, even if no lives are lost. Is that call Smart Power?

    It may be 100% true that the attackers came equipped with their (FALSE!) video explanation right at the start.

    Sammy – It would be completely unthinkable to believe that members of a mostly peaceful medieval death cult in Cairo were in communication with brethren in Eastern Libya about the stupid tweets emanating from U.S. Embassy and the storming of said embassy as well as other matters, especially since many of us here in the U.S. watched that twitter stream live.

    That is pure crazy talk and unpossible.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  140. 148. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:04 pm

    Sammy – Why did the NYT wait more than a year to reveal they had a local stringer on site?

    They did reveal that they had a stringer.

    Just not, I think, that he had to get close to the action while it was all going on.

    Th first story did not mention any stringer. It was by David D. Kirkpatrick and was titled: Anger Over a Film Fuels Anti-American Attacks in Libya and Egypt.

    They didn’t know much about what had happened in Benghazi. It only says this:

    In Benghazi on Tuesday, protesters with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades attacked the United States Consulate and set it on fire, Libyan officials said. Some news reports said American guards inside the consulate had fired their weapons, and a brigade of Libyan security forces arriving on the scene had battled the attackers in the streets as well.

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed late Tuesday that a State Department officer had been killed in the Benghazi attack, and she condemned the violence. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” she said. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

    The death in Benghazi appears to be the first such fatality in a string of attacks and vandalism against foreign and especially Western diplomatic missions in Libya in recent months.

    Since the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya’s transitional government has struggled to rebuild an effective police force, control the weapons that have flooded the streets and restore public security.

    Local Islamist militant groups capitalizing on the security vacuum have claimed responsibility for some attacks, and some reports on Tuesday suggested that one such group, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility for that day’s assault.

    Ansar al Sharia later denied it when it turned out the video story had more life.

    Here something that has some detail that might have come from a stringer:

    Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEVEN LEE MYERS

    Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by an Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle [!} that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  141. “They did reveal that they had a stringer.”

    Sammy – Where do those stories say they had a stringer? Try again without weasel words.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  142. This fellow, along with Suliman Zway, were on the beat in Benghazi;

    narciso (3fec35)

  143. A day later, we have this: In Libya, Chaos Was Followed by Organized Ambush, Official Says by SULIMAN ALI ZWAY and RICK GLADSTONE

    Datelined Benghazi. I think their stringer gets a byline. This is his Twitter account.

    He says he is in Benghazi and is a freelance journalist mostly working for American print media, and seems to e mst connected to tghe New York Times.

    Parts of Mr. Sharif’s account were not consistent with what other Libyan witnesses have said, and his version has not been corroborated by American officials, who have said it remains unclear how and where Mr. Stevens was killed. Many Libyans considered Mr. Stevens a hero for his support of their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

    Two Libyans who were wounded while guarding the consulate said that, contrary to Mr. Sharif’s account, there was no indication within the consulate grounds that a mass protest, including members of armed groups, had been brewing outside. The guards spoke on condition of anonymity for their personal safety, and one of them said he realized the dangers only about 9:30 p.m., when protesters crashed through the gate and “started shooting and throwing grenades.” The other guard said that he had been drinking coffee inside the compound just before the attack, and that it was so quiet “there was not even a single ant.”

    Datelined Benghazi September 13 – and there are interviews with Libyan witnesses.

    From that, it’s pretty clear the New York Times has a reporter on he scene.

    What’s new is that their reporter (Suliman Ali Zway?) went to the scene while it was still going on, and was told this was all because of a video. and that that was the first he had heard about a video, nor did Libyans rushing to the scene because of the false story the attackers circulated about innocent peaceful or unarmed Libyans being shot know about it. They too learned about it from the sentries or guads posted attackers.

    This was a prepared piece of proganda – prepared obviously before the video became famous.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  144. “From that, it’s pretty clear the New York Times has a reporter on he scene.”

    Sammy – From that it is clear Zway was reporting second hand on the attack. My questions remain.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  145. Sammy – If, as the NYT attempts explain, the attack was merely a spontaneous demonstration by well-armed participants who became slightly overexuberant, and is really a nothingburger of a story, how do they explain the Obama Administration’s ongoing efforts to obstruct Congressional oversight activities into events surrounding the attacks, in particular, restricting access to American personnel on the ground in Benghazi?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  146. Sammy – Your timeline on references to the video is also off. Hillary mentioned it in her statement regarding the death of the Ambassador on 9/11/12.

    Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  147. “From that, it’s pretty clear the New York Times has a reporter on he scene.”

    156. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:58 pm

    Sammy – From that it is clear Zway was reporting second hand on the attack. My questions remain.

    I meant on the scene in Benghazi.

    He’s mentioned also in the article that appeared on September 13, 2012, on page A1 of the New York Times, where it says:

    David D. Kirkpatrick reported from Cairo, and Steven Lee Myers from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Osama Alfitory and Suliman Ali Zway from Benghazi, Libya; Mai Ayyad from Cairo; Eric Schmitt and Scott Shane from Washington; and Alan Cowell from London

    So they had two people in Benghazi.

    The very first, September 12, 2012, article has:

    Suliman Ali Zway contributed reporting from Tripoli, Libya.

    Was he based in Tripoli? Or did he get evacuated? He is first mentioned October 4, 2011.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  148. “I meant on the scene in Benghazi.”

    Sammy – Which is completely irrelevant and unresponsive to questions related to the NYT claims of having a reporter interviewing attackers during the attack, so why even bring this guy reporting third hand information up?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  149. One wouldn’t trust Kirkpatrick, to get coffee, much less a major story like this, so a Libyan stringer,
    like Zway would naturally be more well informed, well Alfitory was.

    narciso (3fec35)

  150. March 6, 2012 – co-bylined article datelined Benghazi.

    March 17, 2012 – contributed reporting from Tripoli. Alsi July 1, but July 6 from Benghazi.

    September 5, published September 6, 2012:

    David D. Kirkpatrick reported from Beirut, and Suliman Ali Zway from Tripoli, Libya.

    Is maybe Osama Alfitory the person who went to the villa?

    After the article published September 13, 2012, he’s not mentioned in the paper until October 6/7 2013 where he is located in Tripoli.

    He is also mentioned at the end of the article this week:

    Suliman Ali Zway and Osama Alfitori contributed reporting from Benghazi, and Mayy El Sheikh from Cairo.

    So it could be Osama Alfitori who was there that night and maybe the New York Times kept it secret.

    Would it make him sympathetic to the terrorists? No, because the news became widely known in Benghazi.

    The attackers’ guards were letting some people in and some not.

    Khattalah stayed outside for a long time, but people would come out to see him, evidentaly for instructions.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  151. The new article has this even:

    A group of about 20 young men who had been hanging around the headquarters of the February 17 Brigade did try to help the Americans. But they ran into the attackers’ sentries on Venezia Road.
    “They pointed their guns at us and said, ‘This is none of your business, go back,’ ” said Sherif Emrajee el-Sherif, 18, a petroleum engineering student who was among those who tried to help the Americans… (He and at least one other rescuer ultimately entered the compound with Americans from the C.I.A. Annex, and Mr. Sherif was shot in the leg in gunfire inside.)

    The only thing that places a New York Times reporter there that night is this:

    A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  152. 161 Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:46 pm

    One wouldn’t trust Kirkpatrick, to get coffee, much less a major story like this

    Look at this from the new article (not so good reasoning)

    … Later, Mr. Abu Khattala appeared to prepare for another phase of the attack. One young fighter with him told another to “cleanse ourselves for another battle” — an apparent reference to a subsequent attack on the C.I.A. Annex.

    That phase appears to have been improvised (!) that night. After the Americans fled from the mission to the C.I.A. Annex, it, too, came under a sporadic, low-grade attack for the first time, suggesting that the assailants had just learned [!!] of it.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  153. No, the reason it only came under attack later, was that the first priority was killing the ambassador, and the CIA, because they thought the site and the existence of the annex was unknown to potential attackers, would not go one the alert.

    The same way that the first planbes crashed into the World Trade Center, which would not alert people in other locations. Vice versa it would of course. Same thing here, they couldn’t attack the CIA annex first.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  154. Your timeline on references to the video is also off. Hillary mentioned it in her statement regarding the death of the Ambassador on 9/11/12.

    The propaganda about this being connected to the video was being circulated in a couple of ways, and it was responsible for the tweets from Cairo.

    By the way, her use of “justify” is peculiar.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  155. Sammy-lanche !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  156. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:12 pm

    If, as the NYT attempts explain, the attack was merely a spontaneous demonstration by well-armed participants who became slightly overexuberant,

    The newspaper story, I don’t know about the editorial, is quite clear there was never any demonstration. It was a surprise attack. David
    Kirkpatrick seems to think if it was a surprise to the people being attacked, it was surprise to the attackers, too, and that if there was something more to it, he would know..

    The thrust of he article is:

    1) they were motivated by the video

    2) which they’d just heard about


    3) had no connections to anyone outside of Libya.

    and is really a nothingburger of a story, how do they explain the Obama Administration’s ongoing efforts to obstruct Congressional oversight activities into events surrounding the attacks, in particular, restricting access to American personnel on the ground in Benghazi?

    I’m not sure they try to explain that. The New York Times didn’t talk to them either.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  157. Sammy, Sammy, Sammy, while some people in Benghazi may carry The Handbook to Explosives in their coat pocket, this notion that they just happened to show up with a huge artillery of missiles that can take down airliners is a little bit of a stretch for a spontaneous reaction.

    There had been many other recent prior attacks, including an attempted assasination of a high-ranking British diplomat.

    We know you want Hillary to win in 2016, but c’mon.
    Enough already with the propaganda.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  158. No, I didn’t think so, he likes the argument clinic,
    in my view, it was a revenge for that drone attack early that summer, Ambassador Stevens was a high value target, in their eyes.

    narciso (3fec35)

  159. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:23 pm

    We know you want Hillary to win in 2016, but c’mon.

    No, I don’t. And I didn’t in 2008. But between teh State Department and the CIA the State Department is right. But Hillary wanted to get along. She did use careful words, you notice.

    If Hillary had been honest, she would have fought the talking points over more than just the matter of the State Department having been briefed.

    Bin Qumu and other people known by the United states to be associated with Al Qaeda played the same role in the Sepetmber 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks as General Patton did in the D-Day invasion.


    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  160. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:37 pm

    in my view, it was a revenge for that drone attack early that summer, Ambassador Stevens was a high value target, in their eyes.

    No, I think that was another red herring. Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video calling for revenge for the killing of the al-Libi in Pakistan. but I think that was totally a red herring..

    That’s what I meant when I said about this attack having too many fathers – another father being the video. And there might be some others that didn’t get much attention. The date was another.

    I don’t think al Qaeda or any of them go in for primitive revenge, nor could they, most of the time, carry it off.

    I think Stevens was targeted because he was interfering with the shipment of SAMs and other sophisticated weaponry to the Islamist groups in Syria – and they wanted everybody from the United States out of Benghazi. And Obama gave them what they wanted.

    And I think a good suspect is the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who got put in charge of the Saudi reaction to the Arab spring and the opposition in Syria. He also had probably killed Vincent Foster, which Hillary would have known, of course.

    Qatar was backing a different faction, and they were both active in Benghazi and possibly responsible for the CIA getting things so wrong there.

    Turkey was also involved as the transhipment point. Stevens met the Turkish consul and.or maybe somebiody else from Turkey – it was said be the Turkish ambassador, which is wrong, it;s been said to be the local Turkish intelligence chief.

    This was part of the effort to get Turkey not to let these weapons get into Syria. The ship, or one ship, hsd already sailed.

    Hillary dodged a question about this by pretending it was about weapons being sent to Turkey, IIRC.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  161. 169. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:23 pm

    169.Sammy, Sammy, Sammy, while some people in Benghazi may carry The Handbook to Explosives in their coat pocket, this notion that they just happened to show up with a huge artillery of missiles that can take down airliners is a little bit of a stretch for a spontaneous reaction.

    I know that. And they wouldn’t have come close to doing the damage that they did, if this was unplanned. Nor would all sorts of other funny things have happened, if this wasn’t a long planned conspiracy.

    David Kirkpatrick does assume the planning went back a bit. He notes that the whereabouts of Khattalah are unknown for the day before the attack. But the week before he was at his regular job.

    But David Kirkpatrick seems to think that planning only began when knowledge of the video reached Benghazi.

    So the article tries to argue some people in Benghazi knew about the video as far back as Friday morning, September 7, 2012.

    The only thing is, it wasn’t shown on Egyptian television until Saturday, September 8, so who cares how many people watch the station on Friday??

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  162. The New York TImes knows that Abu Khattalha is lying about just about everything. They know the claim by a number of Benghazi Islamists that the CIA killed the Ambassador is bizarre and without evidence.

    Why should the New York Times think that, on this one point: motivation by the video – the attackers are telling the truth??

    Because the lie couldn’t have been prepared? The lie was prepared! The video was prepared, and even if you don’t want to believe that, the publicity campaign for the video, which had been uploaded back in July, was prepared.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  163. The article says:

    The leaders of Ansar al-Shariah, the hard-line Islamist group allied with Mr. Abu Khattala, declared in a statement read on television the morning after the attack that they had not participated in it. But they lauded the assault as a just response to the video. They, too, insisted that a “peaceful protest” had “escalated as a result of shooting that came from the consulate, which led to the ambassador’s death by suffocation.”

    Almost exactly the CIA talking points that Susan Rice used!

    It was not made up in the White House. There was Sooper Sekrit intelligence. But it was all disinformation from the attackers.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  164. New York Times Public editor:

    I’d say the story is being wildly misread all around; it’s neither an exoneration of the Obama administration as some on the left think, nor a whitewash, as the right would have it. Have those talking the loudest really read the story or are they just contributing to the hollow sounds of the echo chambers?)

    I’d say most people just don’t understand the story.

    It’s not awhitewash of the Obama Administration.

    It’s a whitewash of the international sponsers of the attack.

    Every single propaganda point – every important piece of disnofmation – that somebody wanted them to believe they believe: to wit, there was no outside help, because al Qaeda doesn’t seem to have had anythinmg to do with it, and because Abu Khattalah had no known terrorist associations of any kind, and because it was motivated by the video (and we all knowledge of the video didn’t go back very far in time)

    I don’t know if the concluding paragraph of tgheir editorial is meant to support Hillary Clinton, but it’s a fact, and an indictment of President Obama for not noticing this (as well as Hillary Clinton of course for not saying anything in public, or even privately to members of Congress, even Democrats.)

    The report is a reminder that the Benghazi tragedy represents a gross intelligence failure, something that has largely been overlooked in the public debate. A team of at least 20 people from the Central Intelligence Agency, including highly skilled commandos, was operating out of an unmarked compound about a half-mile southeast of the American mission when the attack occurred. Yet, despite the C.I.A. presence and Ambassador Stevens’s expertise on Libya, “there was little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests,” a State Department investigation found. The C.I.A. supposedly did its own review. It has not been made public, so there is no way to know if the agency learned any lessons.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  165. Thee were incompetents and/or moles in the CIA, and President Obama allowed them to manuever the resignation of the new director he had appointed, David Petraeus.

    Jill Kelley knew a lot of diplomats.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  166. Oh, another fact: the New York Times also shows here an intelligence failure. In both meanings of the word.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  167. 176. The key Hillary backer here is David Brock!

    You know who David Brock is? He undertook the assignment of investigating who was responsible for the Anita Hill leak, and tghen instead wrote abook about Anita Hill ()Negative portrayel for he was still under cover)

    You know who probably was the leaker? Bill or Hillary Clinton. They were Yale Law School graduates. Theer was a round robin letter by Yale Law School graduates urging her to go public.
    Yale Law school graduates knew the tales she’d been telling.

    Now David Brock heads Media Matters.

    He doesn’t seem to say much about it.

    There is one point on which the article would seem to help Hillary Clinton. That’s that the State Department was not properly briefed about the dangers. That happens to be true.

    But I think it’s walking a tightrope for anyine to think that can be publicized without getting into everything else that was wrong.

    Hillary Clinton does not really want to say there was an intelligence failure.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  168. They sowed the Arab Spring, and they inherited the wind, Bel Hadj, Bin Qumu, Jashef, et al, this is why they yell ‘squirrel’

    narciso (3fec35)

  169. You know, it was Bradley Manning who started the Arab Spring through Wikileaks – unintentionally.

    He wanted to expose some alleged eveil-doing on the part of the United states. There wasn’t any, really.

    But he did expose some evil doing in Tunisia, as chronicled by U.S. diplomatic cables.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  170. The Islamic Front pulled out of the outreach, because it’s ap uppet organization of Saudi Arabia – and Prince Bandar doesn’t want any U.S. interference – and he doesn’t want the U.s. to realize it either by the way, hopeless as you might think the U.S. not realizing that is.

    In the meantime, Saudi Arabia has promised Lebanon $3 billion to build up their military.

    There’s a danger here they would wind up doing everything they say, good or bad.

    By the way, I read that Newsweek is planning to re-start print publication. Maybe they realized nobody will even know they exist if they don’t have a print publication. Maybe they’ll re-start my subscription – I lost contact with them when they went digital. I thought I was already registered with them.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  171. Well, Eli Lake is good, so is Dettmer, Dickey has been intermittently good, most of the others are hacks, like Tomasky, Frum, et al

    narciso (3fec35)

  172. 168. The New York Times actually tries to backdate when people in Benghazi first heard of the video. Maybe four days before!

    It’s kind of ridiculous. It just shows their confusion.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  173. “There is one point on which the article would seem to help Hillary Clinton. That’s that the State Department was not properly briefed about the dangers. That happens to be true.”

    Sammy – It’s not true if you ignore the repeated requests for additional security which were denied, the fact that that the Consulate did not meet State Department security guidelines, and the security warning from Ambassador Stevens, but other than that it looks to be completely true.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  174. “The New York Times actually tries to backdate when people in Benghazi first heard of the video. Maybe four days before!”

    Sammy – I don’t know what these four days you speak of are, but you keep casually ignoring senior members of the administration were mentioning the video the day of the attack instead of your claim of waiting several days earlier in the thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  175. “There is one point on which the article would seem to help Hillary Clinton. That’s that the State Department was not properly briefed about the dangers. That happens to be true.”

    187. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:36 pm

    Sammy – It’s not true if you ignore the repeated requests for additional security which were denied,

    That was coming from people in the State Department. That’s a separate issue. Hillary Clinton apparently wanted to close the whole mission, so didn’t want to add security.

    But all the briefings that the CIA was so proud about were about threats that it would sound like, you’d have a lot of notice if they built up.

    The article states:

    “We heard a lot about Sufian bin Qumu,” said one American diplomat in Libya at the time. “I don’t know if we ever heard anything about Ansar al-Shariah.”

    the fact that that the Consulate did not meet State Department security guidelines, and the security warning from Ambassador Stevens, but other than that it looks to be completely true.

    Two totally different things.

    The dangers looked more long range than they were, that was the problem.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  176. “The New York Times actually tries to backdate when people in Benghazi first heard of the video. Maybe four days before!”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:39 pm

    Sammy – I don’t know what these four days you speak of are,

    September 7 through September 11, 2013. But the article can’t actually trace any knowledge of the video by anybody in Benghazi earlier than Sunday September 9.

    By Sept. 9, a popular eastern Libyan Facebook page had denounced the film. On the morning of Sept. 11, even some secular political activists were posting calls online for a protest that Friday, three days away.

    Three days later!

    during the attack, apparently an attacker had tried to claim a Friday morning show in Egypt, but it hadn’t been mentioned yet on Egyptian TV.

    but you keep casually ignoring senior members of the administration were mentioning the video the day of the attack instead of your claim of waiting several days earlier in the thread.

    The mention of the video I think had to had to do with Cairo. And perhaps somebody was connecting it to Benghazi. The New York Times actually linked the video to Benghazi in a headline in the morning paper (but not inside)

    Hillary Clinton was claiming people not at the scene were linking it to the video. wWhen she says people tried to jusify it, that means people not involved.

    I now read that Ansar al Sharia mentioned the video the next day on Libyan TV, and they had posted guards that night telling everybody it was about the video.

    But it definitely got stronger over the course of the week.

    Sammy Finkelman (b9404b)

  177. Another thought on why the Benghazi attack was not revenge fir killing al-Libi.

    If that’s what it was, or that’s what they wanted to pretend it was, why did the guards posted outside the mission say it was about the video?

    You’d think they’d want the United States to think it was revenge if it was revenge.

    But, rather the motive was something they wanted kept secret and they also wanted us to think it was unplanned. Linking it to a video that nobody had heard of a few days before would fit the unplanned thesis.

    They wanted it to be thought it was unplanned so we wouldn’t look for outside help. Money and advice.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  178. Water often is used as a base for your favourite low carb smoothie;
    it owns the minimum amount of carbs of most -infact zero.
    Be careful not to burn out your blender by making your smoothie too
    thick. By replacing one or more meals with green smoothies
    everyday, you give your body optimum nutrition while staving
    the need to snack unnecessarily during the day.

    smoothie recipes under 350 calories (5c8271)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5747 secs.