Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
30 | 31 |
Powered by WordPress.
What is “f%*k all, y’all”?
Colonel Haiku (5c1c4c) — 12/28/2013 @ 7:26 amMaybe, 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 7:34 amYou know the James Rosen treatment, makes me doubt
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:14 amJudge Pauley’s benefit of the doubt.
I have a feeling that Phil won’t be seizing on GLAAD’s offerto provide him with sensitivity training.
Steve57 (791bdc) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:33 amOccupy tolerance!
Steve57 (791bdc) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:46 am3. “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.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/rescue-ice-breaker-now-stuck-global-warming-scientists-trapped-in-antarctica/
Three govts. trying to rescue a fourth’s(the most expert) vessel of fools.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:11 amIs this supposed to be part of the “Wrong but funny answers” post?
htom (412a17) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:14 am“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) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:15 amThat’s 16 mph, Steve. Heart-stopping.
nk (dbc370) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:19 amDid I mention it was a balloon?
Steve57 (791bdc) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:24 amBut, 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:24 amThe 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.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:24 amYes, you did. At comment #8, at 9:15.
nk (dbc370) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:25 amThe Enquirer now, Mark?
nk (dbc370) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:27 amI don’t believe Missy was the first sex doll launched into space, anyway. There have been, what, how many Japanese astronauts?
Steve57 (791bdc) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:35 amThe 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.
Meanwhile…
^ 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:42 am“Sure, you can read the Times. They get lucky occasionally.”
Mojo (6db70b) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:52 amWhatever happened to that discrimination complaint the gay employee of Jesse Jackson filed against him and his organization?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:54 amWhatever 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 11:22 amYou almost pity them, except they will endeavor to get us killed;
http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/ny-times-benghazi-attack-fueled-in-large-part-by-anger-at-an-american-made-video-denigrating-islam/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 12:36 pm#ShakedownFail on A&E
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2013 @ 12:42 pmBandar, you magnificent bastard!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2013 @ 12:43 pm‘welcome to the party, pal;
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/27/saudis-lament-have-been-stabbed-in-back-by-obama/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 12:45 pmClinton slobberbait for Sammy.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2013 @ 2:15 pmWhatever 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 2:49 pmComment 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 3:31 pm26 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 3:37 pmI 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 3:54 pmThey 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
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 4:34 pmhe added yet another one, Ould Slahi, whose prosecutor fooled Jess Bravin of the Journal
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.
steveg (794291) — 12/28/2013 @ 5:19 pmNot my idea of fun, but some of my friends really have had a great time out there.
‘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) — 12/28/2013 @ 5:23 pmSpeaking 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:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367105/fuss-and-feathers-deroy-murdock
Whitey Nisson (aa99c0) — 12/28/2013 @ 5:29 pmYou could hear a pin drop at the RNC;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/27/Silence-on-the-Lambs-Palin-Cruz-Jindal-Had-Duck-Dynasty-Patriarch-s-Back-GOP-Leadership-Didn-t
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 5:33 pmdoes 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 5:37 pmWhen 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 5:42 pmAnd now, for something completely different:
http://therightscoop.com/dave-barrys-review-of-2013-the-year-of-the-zombies/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 6:47 pmI think the homo luvin democrats have captured the man anus man theme, happyfeet.
mg (31009b) — 12/28/2013 @ 6:59 pmAs a single issue, it would get us 95% of the male voters and Anderson Cooper’s mom, happyfeet.
nk (dbc370) — 12/28/2013 @ 7:24 pmThere 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 7:29 pmMr. 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 7:40 pmre: New York Times Benghazi article:
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/?hp#/?chapt=0
It’s probably not really factually wrong in any way, but they shouldn’t act so sure of themselves.
Comments:
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.
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:
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) — 12/28/2013 @ 7:54 pmWonder why this connection is not focused on;
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ex-gitmo-detainee-implicated-consulate-attack_652751.html
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) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:07 pm22. 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:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/us-and-saudis-in-growing-rift-as-power-shifts.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all
Main lead article – right hand column – in the New York Times of Tuesday, November 26, 2013.
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) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:08 pmStrike two, the video they never showed;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/video-from-benghazi-consulate-shows-organized-attack.html
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:11 pmTop men are working as we sleep:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-28/blame-petrogold-how-turkish-government-may-be-casualty-119-billion-golden-loophole
So what does all that NSA snooping get us, audits of so-cons?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:25 pmDelusions of grandeur are certainly bad, JEF proves that much:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/12/28/Peter-King-Rand-Paul-Terrible-Has-Delusions-of-Grandeur
OTOH, delusions of consequence are a blight on the rest of us as well.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:40 pmDo 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?
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:49 pmAccording 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.
Yes, what a curious circumstance, MD,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 8:52 pmI’m wondering why the Will and Grace marathon on the We network doesn’t have a warning label?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:03 pmMaybe A&E could find a family of gays to make into a reality show.
Dick Dynasty?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:09 pmpickles
we’re better than this
let pop culture be pop culture let politics be politics
color me idealistic
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:41 pmAs Breitbart observed ‘politics is downstream for the culture’ the latter shapes the former.
narciso (3fec35) — 12/28/2013 @ 9:43 pmcordcutting 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 10:19 pmwhich I say to you without judgment or rancor
it’s just a thing
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/28/2013 @ 10:25 pmREASONABLENESS!!! One man’s REASONABLENESS is another Man’s anus.
Gus (70b624) — 12/28/2013 @ 10:49 pmMost 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 10:57 pmyou 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) — 12/28/2013 @ 11:52 pmThe normals have been planning this for at least a year.
http://www.examiner.com/article/wedding-took-place-on-2013-rose-parade-float
Last year, for the first time in history, a wedding was scheduled what for to interrupt the Tournament of Roses parade in Pasadena.
Why?
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.
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=196035
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/29/2013 @ 1:23 amGay couple to Marry on Float During Rose Parade.
Old wookie is going to explode when Reggie marries Barry on that flat bed.
mg (31009b) — 12/29/2013 @ 3:00 amdoes 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:24 amAs usual, a sum up of the week’s news;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/duck_duck_a_e_fails_to_kill_its_own_golden_goose_and_some_parrots_get_caught.html
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 7:00 am45. 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 7:09 amIt’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) — 12/29/2013 @ 7:42 amAntwan says two snaps up for teh sweaty mens…
Colonel Haiku (eda58b) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:12 amTypical filthy breeders.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/29/2013 @ 9:01 amBoycott Honda.
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2013 @ 9:30 amWe’re in the best of all possible hands;
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/29/i-read-this-report-i-was-really-incredulous-ex-cia-analyst-rips-nyt-benghazi-report/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 10:35 amI 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 10:56 amDo 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
ENOUGH…
I’m fighting the urge to do violence on my computer.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/29/2013 @ 11:18 amI 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 11:25 amCould there be a way to covertly promote an after parade party at Al Roker’s house?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/29/2013 @ 11:28 amAl Roker is all about his Anus. That’s Culture!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/29/2013 @ 11:40 amyes, I’d rather not dwell on this, I would keep an eye on that Russell gal though;
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/12/black_widow_suicide.php
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 11:42 amNeedless to say, it doesn’t compute;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/ny-times-found-no-evidence-of-al-qaeda-in-benghazi-except-for-those-al-qaeda-flags-on-government-buildings/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:03 pmnarciso @ 67
The New York Times reporter who wrote the aricle was on ABC’s
Issues and AnswersThis Weekwith David Brinkleyand 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:19 pmBin Laden was dead by 2012, but Zawahiri was very much alive, and he sent Azzouz among others to set up a franchise,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:25 pmhttp://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/qatar/qatar-linked-charities-gave-millions-to-al-qaida-us-1.1270010
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:31 pm67. 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:33 pm77. 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:42 pmAnd 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:45 pm76. 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:47 pmAnd 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:48 pmOne 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 12:49 pmI call akin to the Appalachin conference, it appears AQIM took the lead, along with Ansar Al Sharia,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/times-ignores-evidence-al-qaeda-link-benghazi_772386.html
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 3:29 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/29/New-York-Times-Contradicts-Own-Reporting-on-Benghazi
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 4:07 pmMaybe 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:
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) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:02 pmAs 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.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444549204578020373444418316
I have to thank them for saving me the trouble s searching for this article again.
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:06 pm84. 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:08 pmit 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:08 pmThe 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:
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=2
Maybe that’s right, even.
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:17 pmI don’t what is scarier, that they know or they don’t know, page 6;
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/LOC-AQ-Libya.pdf
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:33 pmThere 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:
The website had published a map of his Tripoli jogging route)
September 10:
September 11:
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) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:35 pmThen there’s page 11, which mentions Azzouz, one misses the forest of resurgent Salafism for the trees that Kirkpatrick offers.
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:49 pm91. AL-QAEDA IN LIBYA: A PROFILE.
This is from August 2012.
This one states:
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) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:51 pmIt’s a transliteration, Anas Al Libi, does figure in the report on page 14,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 5:57 pmPage 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
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:05 pmal-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.
Good Allah, I give up,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:16 pm95. 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:23 pmThe one you mean is Abu Anas al-Libi.
Father of Anas, the Libyan.
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:24 pmWell how about no;
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-deal-will-trade-off-jewish-israel-for-1967-lines-report/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:33 pmI suppose with all the NSA news, it’s important to remember those who weren’t Eric Snowden.
http://20committee.com/2013/12/24/meet-the-anti-snowden-captain-john-philip-cromwell/
His Medal of Honor citation is here:
http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/2697/cromwell-john-philip.php
Not a word about ULTRA. It was still top secret.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/29/2013 @ 6:45 pmThanks for posting that honorable citation for such a hero.
red (ac28a9) — 12/29/2013 @ 7:42 pmStephenson’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) — 12/29/2013 @ 7:46 pmIn 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
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-alter/duck-dynasty-and-madonna_b_4492801.html
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/29/2013 @ 7:47 pmWell it was his right, then again, they paid him no mind, Madonna begat Gaga begat Miley Cyrus, turtles all the way down,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 7:54 pm“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) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:08 pmHe seems good at the ‘yelling squirrel’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-alter/
primarily a sports guy, a Olbermann, Lupica wannabe;
narciso (3fec35) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:13 pmnarciso @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) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:25 pmIt 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:29 pmThomas Alter, Huffpo, neutral broker.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:29 pmhmmm that is a very thought-provoking piece by Mr. Alter thank you for linking it, happy
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:33 pmThere’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) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:37 pmI 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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/northwestern-university-p_n_830423.html
The sensitive flowers who inhabit the liberal priesthood is stunned, STUNNED, that Phil Robertson used anatomically correct terms to describe gay sex.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:40 pmWhat passes for a civilized activity in 21st Century America:
http://www.theluxuryspot.com/i-got-vajazzled-and-had-a-camera-crew/
Quoting scripture, not so much.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:48 pmYes, 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:48 pm“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) — 12/29/2013 @ 8:50 pmReligious 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) — 12/29/2013 @ 9:26 pmGood news for you Army football fans, for once.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/29/2013 @ 9:29 pmThat’d be white supremacist heteronormative patriarchy to you, sir.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/29/2013 @ 9:36 pmMy Phone Call To Jason Collins
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2013/05/09/my-phone-call-to-jason-collins-n1591088
RTWT
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/29/2013 @ 9:42 pmSmoking 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) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:09 amThere 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) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:17 amComment 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) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:10 amThe 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) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:12 amnarciso 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) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:13 amI put together, a little something back in the day, that summed up the points;
http://narcisoscorner.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-travesty-of-two-mockeries.html?view=mosaic
narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:25 amNice little blog you got there. Told feets yet?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:53 amWe’re in very capable hands, facepalm;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/12/30/hagel-deployed-to-press-egypt-on-being-inclusive-toward-muslim-brotherhood/
narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:10 amWonder how long it took Numbnuts to realize he was talking to a cleaning lady?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:54 pmSammy, the term MAGIC referred only to decriptions of Japanese diplomatic code. Not naval or military.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/30/2013 @ 4:55 pmNot connected at all;
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/12/ansar_al_sharia_tunisia_denies.php
although he likely sent folks to Benghazi
narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:24 pmThe 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) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:33 pmToday the New York Times ran an editorial congratulating itself for straightening out the facts about Benghazi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/the-facts-about-benghazi.html?_r=0
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:19 amHewitt 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.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:26 amHewitt 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.
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:54 am1. 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 8:00 amNot 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 8:08 amWall Street Journal editorial today:
Global Disorder Scorecard
As the U.S. retreats, a reader’s guide to the world’s traumas
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304475004579278924217394870
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/31/2013 @ 8:43 amAnd who to root for.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/31/2013 @ 8:43 amhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175734
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/31/2013 @ 9:23 amnarciso @ 100 http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-deal-will-trade-off-jewish-israel-for-1967-lines-report/
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 9:32 amMore Mid-East problems:
http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2013/12/bibis-choice/?utm_source=Mosaic+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=98c29a35a4-Mosaic_2013_12_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0b0517b2ab-98c29a35a4-41143713
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/31/2013 @ 9:34 am“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) — 12/31/2013 @ 10:08 am143. 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)
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=4
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:42 amLet’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) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:48 amOne 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:51 am“if the video was part of the plot”
Sammy – You mean if the video was part of the cover story?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:02 pmSammy – Why did the NYT wait more than a year to reveal they had a local stringer on site?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:04 pmI think he did in fact identify himself as journalist, or at least that he only wished tro observe. The article says:
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:07 pmSammy – 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:08 pmBut 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:27 pm148. 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all
They didn’t know much about what had happened in Benghazi. It only says this:
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:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?gwt=pay&pagewanted=all
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:27 pm“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) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:31 pmThis fellow, along with Suliman Zway, were on the beat in Benghazi;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/12/what-i-saw-in-benghazi-1.html
narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:42 pmA day later, we have this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/africa/libya-attacks-came-in-two-waves-official-says.html?pagewanted=all 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.
https://twitter.com/ILPADRINO0
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.
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:42 pm“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) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:58 pmSammy – 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:12 pmSammy – 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.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197628.htm
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:18 pm“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:
So they had two people in Benghazi.
The very first, September 12, 2012, article has:
Was he based in Tripoli? Or did he get evacuated? He is first mentioned October 4, 2011.
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:34 pm“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) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:42 pmOne wouldn’t trust Kirkpatrick, to get coffee, much less a major story like this, so a Libyan stringer,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:46 pmlike Zway would naturally be more well informed, well Alfitory was.
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:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/world/africa/senussi-qaddafi-spy-chief-is-extradited-to-libya.html
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:
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:47 pmThe new article has this even:
The only thing that places a New York Times reporter there that night is this:
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:52 pm161 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)
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:56 pmNo, 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:59 pmYour 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:02 pmSammy-lanche !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:05 pmComment 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
AND
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:10 pmSammy, 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.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:23 pmEnough already with the propaganda.
No, I didn’t think so, he likes the argument clinic,
narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:37 pmin my view, it was a revenge for that drone attack early that summer, Ambassador Stevens was a high value target, in their eyes.
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.
e
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 4:52 pmComment 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:05 pm169. 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:19 pmThe 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:25 pmThe article says:
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=5
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:26 pmWell, now it gets ridiculous;
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/30/key_hillary_backer_says_nyt_benghazi_investigation_is_truth#sthash.Vt5T0sMt.R1Au3TwP.dpbs
narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:34 pmNew York Times Public editor:
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/accuracy-secrecy-and-equality-what-mattered-to-times-readers-in-2013/
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.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/the-facts-about-benghazi.html
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:37 pmThee 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:39 pmOh, another fact: the New York Times also shows here an intelligence failure. In both meanings of the word.
Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:40 pm176. 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:49 pmThey sowed the Arab Spring, and they inherited the wind, Bel Hadj, Bin Qumu, Jashef, et al, this is why they yell ‘squirrel’
narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 6:01 pmhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/30/obama-s-failed-outreach-to-syria-s-islamic-front.html
narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 6:54 pmYou 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:05 pmThe 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:11 pmWell, 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:19 pm168. 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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:20 pm“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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:36 pm“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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:39 pm“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:
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:47 pm“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.
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)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&
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) — 12/31/2013 @ 8:01 pmAnother 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) — 1/2/2014 @ 1:15 pmWater often is used as a base for your favourite low carb smoothie;
smoothie recipes under 350 calories (5c8271) — 1/9/2014 @ 10:20 amit 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.