Geeez ,, no talk of this , Big breaking story today .. [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

spence

12-31-2013, 03:30 PM

The New York Times? Really???

How about dropping the snobbery bit and explain what is wrong with the article?
Snobbery? I think the NYT still has some pretty credible journalistic standards. Your GOP site is just regurgitating remarks from House members, the basis of which have gone nowhere in their "investigation."

Interesting. So, wasn't the supposed initial reaction to the video by "extremists." Or did some regular non-extreme folks somehow just happen to get wind of the video and this somehow sparked an event composed by regular non-extreme folks who wanted to stage a peaceful nicey-nice demonstration which was then "quickly" moved in on by unaware, unprepared, and fully armed "actual" extremists? Really???
I think the NYT piece captures the most likely scenario pretty well.

Amazing how something can be made to "fit with the evidence." Isn't that usually the case when you attempt to create a story of deniable plausibility? Yes, things have really contradicted the "fit with the evidence." But it is apparently useless to hash it out once again since any contradictory "evidence" seems to fall on deaf or unreceptive ears.
State took a lot of grief over this event from the non-partisan investigations already complete.

So far, what we've seen is a strained attempt to fit the facts with a conspiracy theory that's gone no where.

-spence

Jim in CT

12-31-2013, 04:41 PM

No, you claimed she said it didn't matter, that's not true...read Jim, think...do a little homework. Have an open mind...

-spence
ok, I claimed she said "it doesn't matter", when what she said was, "what difference does it make".

Now. Spence. Please. Tell. Me. Where. I. Was.. Wrong.

See? I even used monosyllabic words, so that even you would have a chance of understanding the question! You're welcome!

detbuch

12-31-2013, 06:43 PM

Snobbery? I think the NYT still has some pretty credible journalistic standards. Your GOP site is just regurgitating remarks from House members, the basis of which have gone nowhere in their "investigation."

Yes, it is snobbery to dismiss an article because you have a low opinion of the source. You don't address anything in the article--just poo-poo it because it's GOPUSA which has had many very interesting, accurate, and informative articles. Of course, if you don't read it, it ain't no good.

And how do you know where the House investigation has gone? It hasn't been finished and classified intel has not been released. One of those on the committee, Adam Schiff DEMOCRAT disputes the accuracy of the article saying there was an Al Qaeda connection with the militia groups involved in the attack. And he said "The intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda was involved."

I think the NYT piece captures the most likely scenario pretty well.

It is too selective and leaves out too much. It doesn't have access to the House intel info. It doesn't recognize the affiliation between Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sharia

On the other hand the article disputes the Administration's initial claim that the attack was spontaneous--"The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs." No, it wasn't planned to the T like a master military operation, but it was deliberately unleashed at a certain time and place to instigate an inflamed rabble, and who were probably "informed" about the video by "extremists" who were looking for another "spontaneous spark" to riot like those they had already inspired in Egypt and other parts of Libya. And the "spontaneous" rioters, as the Times article reveals, were directed by various militia lieutenants both in allowing the rioters inside the havoc and keeping out anyone who might stop them.

Abu Khattala, the leader of one of the militias, claims not to be affiliated with Al Qaeda but admires it and what it does. He is still, to this day, freely roaming the streets of Benghazi in spite of his being a major instigator. The article quotes four who were interviewed under anonymity because they were afraid of repercussions. How much actual truth can you get from those who fear for their lives?

Ansar Al Sharia is an affiliate of Al Qaeda and was implicated even by the article in the attack. And it had been forming in Libya for some time before the attack.

According to the Washington Times (Omigosh, Really???) "The FBI, which was tasked by the Obama Administration concluded the attack was carried out by a combination of militants with varying degrees of connection to three Islamist groups: Ansar Al Sharia The Muhammad Jamal network, and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."

The NY Times article is helpful in showing how a lack of security leads to tragedy and how gullible trust in Islamic factions revealed the dangerous lack of understanding of the volatile situation the administration was dealing with. The total disregard for connection between various "militant" groups and the major umbrella of ideology inspired by larger Islamic organizations such as Al Qaeda had to be denied in order to carry out the mission in such an unprepared, naively idealistic, rather foolish way. The Benghazi incident was a total bungle, not just by Dept. of State headed by Hillary, but by the Administration as a whole

The refusal to understand the implicit cohesion among "militant" or "extreme" Islamic groups toward the global jihad creates trusts which lead to tragedy. Not understanding the basic religious connection between differing Islamist groups in their mission to bring down the West is an incompetent view which only aids their mission. And it is known that Al Qaeda's, jihadist goals have over the past couple of years been implemented by affiliated groups inspired by Al Qaeda and many of whose leaders came directly from Al Qaeda. It was Bin Laden's plan that his mission was to be carried out by Muslims worldwide, regardless of local affiliations, which would eventually erupt in global jihad.

State took a lot of grief over this event from the non-partisan investigations already complete.

Blaming State and absolving its boss is political whitewash. Apparently the buck in this administration always stops at lower levels. Leading from behind, no doubt.

So far, what we've seen is a strained attempt to fit the facts with a conspiracy theory that's gone no where.

-spence

The NY Times article which you claim captures the most likely scenario does not preclude a conspiracy. It tries to minimize it and distance it from major Islamist "extremists." And it doesn't mention the name Hillary Clinton.

spence

01-03-2014, 10:33 AM

The NY Times article which you claim captures the most likely scenario does not preclude a conspiracy. It tries to minimize it and distance it from major Islamist "extremists." And it doesn't mention the name Hillary Clinton.
Ahhh yes, the old "it hasn't been totally dis-proven either" argument. Let's just keep looking until we find the smoking gun, or the 2016 election...which ever comes sooner.

I don't think the NYT report is dismissive of alQaeda links at all, rather, they get down to what it really means. Sharing some common viewpoints isn't an "affiliation". Having some level of acquaintance isn't "coordination". The important question is if core alQaeda influenced/funded/collaborated etc... in the attack. I've still not seen anything that indicated this is the case.

alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.

Good perspective here...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/12/benghazi-attack-could-anyone-be-al-qaeda.html

The article doesn't contradict the Administration's initial claims of the video, if anything it bolsters them. There appears to be substantial evidence indicating the video played a role, likely the timing for the attack which had only been loosely planned to that point. The fact that heavily armed extremists quickly moved in was a central line to the Administration narrative from the beginning...

-spence

PaulS

01-03-2014, 11:00 AM

Atleast we moved beyond the issue of who changed the talking points.

Nebe

01-03-2014, 11:12 AM

It was George Bush's fault!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

01-03-2014, 12:14 PM

Atleast we moved beyond the issue of who changed the talking points.
I'm sure Jim will get us back full circle.

-spence

Fly Rod

01-03-2014, 06:08 PM

I agree with Nebe...Bush was to busy squeezing utters on the ranch to care...:)

Swimmer

01-03-2014, 06:25 PM

News? HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

-spence

Spence, you laughed!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

01-03-2014, 06:31 PM

Spence, you laughed!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:cheers:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-04-2014, 11:50 AM

Ahhh yes, the old "it hasn't been totally dis-proven either" argument. Let's just keep looking until we find the smoking gun, or the 2016 election...which ever comes sooner.

The NYT article doesn't preclude a larger conspiracy but tries to minimize the blame, or the conspiracy it admits existed, on merely local militias.

You're using the old "it hasn't been proven" argument, even though a mass of evidence suggests otherwise.

And about the 2016 election--let's just stop looking until then. As you like to say, it cuts both ways.

I don't think the NYT report is dismissive of alQaeda links at all, rather, they get down to what it really means. Sharing some common viewpoints isn't an "affiliation". Having some level of acquaintance isn't "coordination". The important question is if core alQaeda influenced/funded/collaborated etc... in the attack. I've still not seen anything that indicated this is the case.

The article that inspired this thread claimed the NYT article found no evidence of an al Qaeda involvement. To which you replied that it helped to confirm the obvious. Now you have evolved to saying that you don't think it was dismissive of al Qaeda links at all. That's progress.

And, yes, by various definitions the sharing of common viewpoints among "extremists" or "jihadists" does involve an "affiliation."

Wiki definition of al Qaeda includes:

"Al Qaeda's operations have devolved from actions that were controlled from top down to actions by franchise associated groups, to actions of lone wolfs.

"Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement . . . or the much more numerous al Qaeda linked individuals . . . it has emerged as a decentralized leadership of regional groups using the al Qaeda "brand."

". . . experts argue that al Qaeda has fragmented over the years into a variety of regional movements that have little connection with one another."

Osama Bin Laden himself said al Qaeda is not what the west portrays it to be. He claims that all Muslims are "the children of an Islamic Nation" and that his group of leaders/teachers are part of that Nation and inseparable from all the public "demonstrations" occurring throughout the world.

He issued various Fatwahs calling for jihad worldwide against those who were enemies of Islam, such as Americans and their allies--to be carried out by all Muslims, not just "all Qaeda." In essence, those calls were a unifying element of most terrorist, jihadist groups.

Wiki says the 2012 Benghazi attack ". . . is suspected of having been carried out by various jihadist networks, such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al Sharia and several other AFFILIATED groups." And that large groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad cooperate with al Qaeda.

Even non-Muslims can be inspired by Bin Laden's rhetoric, as was the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks who was inspired by al Qaeda calling it "the most successful revolutionary movement in the world."

"Core al Qaeda" as you refer to it, is comprised of a relatively few members. But they infiltrate and inspire as well as create various apparently disconnected groups to act with the "al Qaeda brand."

alQaeda seems to have become almost a generic word for terrorism when it suits the agenda.

It has become so because of its success in influencing disparate "terrorist" groups to preach the same jihadist rhetoric it espouses. And because they are all part of the same "Nation" that Bin Laden claims. And to act up in similar types of rallies or "protests" with all too similar results.

As well, "core al Qaeda" has specifically stated that it does not always wish to attach its name to various groups that it is affiliated with and is perfectly willing to let them take full credit, it they wish, for whatever they do. It has increasingly become more prone to do this for security reasons.

Good perspective here...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/12/benghazi-attack-could-anyone-be-al-qaeda.html

The article doesn't contradict the Administration's initial claims of the video, if anything it bolsters them. There appears to be substantial evidence indicating the video played a role, likely the timing for the attack which had only been loosely planned to that point. The fact that heavily armed extremists quickly moved in was a central line to the Administration narrative from the beginning...

-spence

The NYT article as well as this one don't actually bolster the Administration's claims, they try to deflect from the incompetence of the Administrations handling of the affair. Like the magician who actively uses one hand to create "magic" and all the while distracts the viewer from focusing on the other hand which is manipulating the "slight of hand." Both articles focus, on the one hand, on the rather bogus issue of al Qaeda participation rather than, on the other hand, the actual security issues and disregard for calls to help. As Hillary would say "what does it matter" if it was al Qaeda or unconnected local militias? The results are the same. Handling the situation would not have to differ in either case.

But, though focusing on al Qaeda or no al Qaeda distracts from the handling, focusing on your author's assertion that "turning al Qaeda into a radically loose term is different from observing, correctly, that al Qaeda today involves decentralized local affiliates" does something other than bolster the Administrations "narrative." It shows its incompetence in another, more dangerous way. The author of your article makes the statement as if it were a new, profound, revelation.

The fact is, what he describes has been known for quite a while. Witness Wiki's definitions. There have been many articles, interviews, radio talk shows with Middle East "experts" and Jihadist "experts" who have specifically pointed out that al Qaeda is comprised not only of a small "core," but is disseminated through many diverse affiliated groups, many of which, as they did in Benghazi, fly the black flag. It has been known that "core" al Qaeda has long since disguised itself through infiltrated or created groups with other names. And though your author's assertion that the Administration not being aware of the diversity should allow "in a rational political environment, the President's opponents" to "see this as damning", the contrary fact that they don't see the connection, the similarities of the diverse elements, is even more incompetent.

Both your article and the NYT article actually condemn the Administration in their attempt to exonerate it.

For further explanation of al Qaeda involvement see
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/yes-al-qaeda-infiltrated-libya/

See also:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/politico-jumps-benghazi-debate_772398.html

And see also a more lengthy:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/aq-libya-loc.pdf

detbuch

02-20-2014, 06:14 PM

Even the attack on the Cairo embassy was not inspired by the video.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371565/obamas-blame-it-video-was-fraud-cairo-well-benghazi-more-proof-andrew-c-mccarthy

Raven

02-20-2014, 06:43 PM

one politician was talkin junk about rebuilding syria
with what? our looks?

if we don't take a step backwards we'll have
good samaritaned ourselves to death monitarilly

meanwhile CHINA is gonna Spank jAPAN

detbuch

05-01-2014, 09:14 AM

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/hillary-clinton-source-benghazi-video-lie/

Piscator

05-01-2014, 10:03 AM

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/hillary-clinton-source-benghazi-video-lie/

Both her and her husband lie. It's who they are & what they do.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

05-01-2014, 10:45 AM

Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiii:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/04/30/hillary-clinton-source-benghazi-video-lie/
Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion :jump1:

All this smoking gun talk is hilarious. The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations. Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...

Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.

-spence

detbuch

05-01-2014, 05:28 PM

Well, at least that's an unbiased opinion :jump1:

Is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion? Yours seem to be consistently biased in a direction guided by mostly "liberal" media opinion and the avoidance of what you consider biased "extremist" opinions.

All this smoking gun talk is hilarious.

Your sense of humor is rather dark, sardonic, and biased.

The letter doesn't appear to contradict anything from the numerous investigations.

Appearance is that slanted view of the biased observer.

Further, if you actually read the email -- rather than just the snipped being reported -- the author goes into detail specifically about the protests at various sites that certainly were a result of the video...

Of course, that's not really important as 99.9% won't bother.

-spence

Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second bullet point:

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

Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?

And the first bullet point:

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?

And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?

The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.

Raven

05-01-2014, 05:32 PM

shifty = Clinton defines Shifty
and none of them LIE
they just bend the truth

spence

05-01-2014, 06:10 PM

Well, since the memo was sent just after the Benghazi fiasco, it would stand to reason that Benghazi was at least a part of the motivation for writing it. If not, it would be an abnormally strong message. And it desperately tries to tie the "protests" to the video and not to policy as in the memo's second
At the time there were protests in response to the video, some violent, in around a half dozen countries swept up in the Arab Spring...this was a big story.

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

Why would it be necessary to create a talking point for Susan Rice which would emphasize that it wasn't policy failure? And why be so emphatic that it was about a video when they already had much stronger evidence that it was a coordinated terrorist attack not related to the video . . . and an attack planned by Al Qaida affiliates?
The entire purpose for a document such as this is to prepare someone for hypothetical questions they *could* be asked by a media attempting to challenge the Administration's policy...

The context for the email seems to be the regional situation which was largely a response to the video, and the investigations clearly show it was the CIA who ultimately influenced the talking points.

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

Why was that talking point necessary. Haven't we always assumed that we would do everything required to protect our people? Why, if not to deflect from not having done so in Benghazi?
Again, they were trying to prepare Rice to be ready for potential lines of questioning. The embassy staff in Egypt clearly were feeling threatened by the video protest and this is something that they felt deserved being addressed.

And if the memo was not about Benghazi, why was it provided in a request through the freedom of information for Benghazi documents?
Well, that's an aspect of process. I've read that the email wasn't included in a previous request for Benghazi documents as it was assumed it wasn't specifically about Benghazi. Reading the full email rather than the snippets seems to indicate this is partially accurate. Perhaps it should have been, but I don't see anything that would indicate something substantial was withheld.

The memo was about making the administration look good in a bad situation. I understand that the purpose of talking points is mostly to do that. But when they willingly stray far from the truth to paint a picture, or the promise of a picture, of steady, successful leadership in circumstances of abject failure, they are . . . I'll let you provide the word for what they are . . . even a biased one.
Given at the time they didn't know the truth -- as Rice indicated -- I'm not sure how you could accuse them of straying from it.

Is any of the Benghazi conspiracy theory backed by evidence? Most of the systemic mistakes that were made have been long since called out.

-spence

justplugit

05-01-2014, 07:38 PM

I've read that the email wasn't included in a previous request for Benghazi documents as it was assumed it wasn't specifically about Benghazi.

-spence

I heard on the hearings today it hadn't been released previously because it was classified. What would have made it classified if it were such mundane info as they try to make you believe?

spence

05-01-2014, 09:53 PM

I heard on the hearings today it hadn't been released previously because it was classified. What would have made it classified if it were such mundane info as they try to make you believe?

Likely it wasn't declassified rightly or wrongly because do the reason I mentioned above...I would assume most of these communications were classified, as are most dealing with national security. But even if classified I'd also assume that it would have been available to both the Mullen and House investigations long ago...

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

05-02-2014, 05:16 AM

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

And that is the plan isnt it. Let the people who care talk all they want, have the national media totally ignore the story and lie as often as you can ,until the people trying to reach the truth look like the bad guys.
To anybody with a shred of common sense, the lying is incredibly in-your-face. Maybe in the end, karma will bring down the Democratic Party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

05-02-2014, 07:01 AM

spence

05-02-2014, 08:15 AM

One more rant about this because it bothers me to the core.
They lied about the video. The protest in Egypt might've been about the video but the further violence that escalated in regards to the video, was a direct result of the Obama administration lying and continually pushing the video story. Susan Rice did not have to get on every show she could Z,and push that story ,especially knowing that they knew nothing about it. Obama and Hillary did not have to rent time on a middle east TV and apologize for the video . Hillary Clinton told the parents of those dead heroes that the Obama administration would get the guy who made that video. That is despicable!!
And for people to defend that action is totally disgusting.
This is not going away in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Are you just making this stuff up? If it bothers you to the core I'd think you'd try to actually understand the situation.

The protests happened primarily before Rice ever hit the talk shows. The Admin released a video not to apologize but to affirm our tolerance because people were dying in Pakistan.

A huge part of this story that's been lost is how big the reaction to the video really was. I said a half dozen protests above, that's just at US diplomatic missions, there were dozens and dozens of protests globally, many violent, with several dozen killed. Put the email (if you actually read it) in context of reality and it's quite appropriate.

Some are so consumed with attacking Obama and Hillary they want the entire story to be about a lie regardless of the truth...perhaps that is the lie.

-spence

buckman

05-02-2014, 09:03 AM

Are you just making this stuff up? If it bothers you to the core I'd think you'd try to actually understand the situation.

The protests happened primarily before Rice ever hit the talk shows. The Admin released a video not to apologize but to affirm our tolerance because people were dying in Pakistan.

A huge part of this story that's been lost is how big the reaction to the video really was. I said a half dozen protests above, that's just at US diplomatic missions, there were dozens and dozens of protests globally, many violent, with several dozen killed. Put the email (if you actually read it) in context of reality and it's quite appropriate.

Some are so consumed with attacking Obama and Hillary they want the entire story to be about a lie regardless of the truth...perhaps that is the lie.

-spence

The protest became a big story because the Obama administration wanted to be the story. They are responsible for much of the violence in Pakistan and other places . You have your timeframe wrong Spence .
You are the one that makes #^&#^&#^&#^& up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 09:41 AM

"To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad."

.

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

justplugit

05-02-2014, 10:05 AM

Likely it wasn't declassified rightly or wrongly because do the reason I mentioned above...I would assume most of these communications were classified, as are most dealing with national security. But even if classified I'd also assume that it would have been available to both the Mullen and House investigations long ago...

More importantly, doesn't the GOP realize they've cried wolf so many times people just don't listen any more?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Likely" and "Assume" are some pretty wishy wash words. That e mail was only released after Judicial Watch ,the non partisan watch dog group , sued over the Freedom of Information Act.

No,"More importantly ",the Terrorists who killed the 4 Americans, have not been brought to justice as Obama promised, and in addition 4 days after the attack when the bodies were flown home and Hilary met with the parents, when the CIA had already called it a Terrorist attack at 3:15 AM the day of the attack the parents were told it was caused by the video. That is not a "likely " or "assumed" story, it's a fact, I saw the interview with one of the Mothers.

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 10:17 AM

"Likely" and "Assume" are some pretty wishy wash words. That e mail was only released after Judicial Watch ,the non partisan watch dog group , sued over the Freedom of Information Act.

No,"More importantly ",the Terrorists who killed the 4 Americans, have not been brought to justice as Obama promised, and in addition 4 days after the attack when the bodies were flown home and Hilary met with the parents, when the CIA had already called it a Terrorist attack at 3:15 AM the day of the attack the parents were told it was caused by the video. That is not a "likely " or "assumed" story, it's a fact, I saw the interview with one of the Mothers.

Let's put aside the cover-up, which, I can "assume", was "likely" orchestrated to prevent an adverse impact on the election.

Spence, the top military general in that region said he was never ordered to move any of his assets into Libya in the immediate moments after the attack started. Why the f*ck not?

Hilary promised the families o fthe fallen that the murderers would be brought to justice. How many have been arrested?

spence

05-02-2014, 10:27 AM

The protest became a big story because the Obama administration wanted to be the story. They are responsible for much of the violence in Pakistan and other places . You have your timeframe wrong Spence .
You are the one that makes #^&#^&#^&#^& up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

September 9
Egyptian television airs an Arabic-language scene from the Bacile film.

September 11
Protesters in Cairo climb over the walls of the US Embassy and tear down an American flag, replacing it with a black flag inscribed with Islamic emblems. Egyptian police have surrounded the compound to block further incursions.

Protestors in Cairo condemn this film promoted by controversial American pastor Terry Jones as a "humiliation of Muhammad under the pretext of freedom of speech".

September 12

U.S. president Barack Obama says that the United States rejects denigration of religious beliefs.

Sam Bacile, supposed writer and director of the allegedly privately produced film that motivated the attacks, has gone into hiding, while a second person, apparently separately, claims production of the video.

Afghanistan blocks access to YouTube until the video is taken down.

Syrian rebels express outrage that the alleged privately produced video belittling Muhammad is generating more anger among Arabs than the rising death toll within Syria.

September 13

Protestors breach the walls of the U.S. embassy compound in Sana'a, Yemen.

U.S. officials say they are investigating whether the protests over Innocence of Muslims denigrating Muhammad were used as a cover by the Benghazi consulate attackers, rather than being spurred by them.

The US consulate in the suburbs of Berlin, Germany, is briefly evacuated due to suspicions over the contents of an envelope.

Yemeni police fire warning shots in the air and four people are killed. The Egyptian ministry of health says 224 people are injured in demonstrations around the embassy in Cairo. In Kuwait, 500 people gathered and chanted near the embassy.

More details emerge about the "privately" produced anti-Islam film that sparks unrest in the world. Sam Bacile is also the name a Washington-based activist assumed to initiate forwarding the link last week. One reporter points to the suspected real name of "Abano(u)b Basseley".

September 14

Protesters attacked the German and British embassies in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.

At least seven people were killed during protests in Khartoum, Tunis and Cairo.

The United States Consulate in Chennai, India was targeted by Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham resulting in minor damage to the consulate and Injuries to 25 protesters after Police resort to Riot Control methods.

Protesters in Tripoli, Lebanon, set fire to a KFC and a Hardees restaurant, sparking clashes with local security forces. One protester has been killed and 25 people have been wounded, including 18 police officers.

Clashes occurred in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.

In the Sinai, an international observer base near El Gorah is shot at. Two observers are injured.

At least two American Marines and 16 Taliban fighters were killed in a Taliban attack on Camp Bastion airbase in Afghanistan's Helmand province, according to a spokesman at nearby Camp Leatherneck. The attack was a complex and coordinated assault using several types of weapons. The Taliban claimed that it was in response to the film, and have also stated that Prince Harry, who is currently stationed at the base, was the target of the attack. A hangar within the facility suffered considerable damage, with five aircraft destroyed and three others being damaged.

Hundreds of Muslims protesting the film riot in Jerusalem and the Damascus Gate, and hurl stones at police officers.

September 15

At least 4 were killed and 46 injured during protests near the American embassy in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia. The U.S. government pulled out all non-essential personnel and urged its citizens to leave the city.

Egyptian riot police stormed Tahrir Square and arrested at least 220 protesters after four days of clashes in Cairo. A 35-year old man died of birdshot wounds after clashes near the US embassy overnight. Authorities announced the number of injured since the beginning of protests had risen to more than 250.

In Yemen, a statement from AQAP called for Muslims everywhere to attack American embassy personnel.

Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh, denounced the attacks and urged governments and international bodies to criminalise insults against prophets.

Violent protests occurred in Sydney, Australia, where up to six hundred people marched. Several scuffles broke out between security forces and protesters, with rocks and bottles being thrown.

Over 80 people were arrested during a protest near the US embassy on Champs Elysees in Paris, France.

Sudan refused a US government request to station a Marine platoon at its embassy in Khartoum, forcing authorities to pull out all non-essential personnel and advise American citizens to avoid travelling to the country.

September 16
Susan Rice goes on TV

Amazing how Obama started this entire thing. Latest word is the Administration used tax revenue from abortions to secretly fund the video to distract from a much larger conspiracy. *Hint* It's made from people :eek:

-spence

spence

05-02-2014, 10:41 AM

And what, exactly, di dthe administration do, afetr the attack started, to protect our people? There was a special forces team in Croatia (I think?) that coul dhave been on the ground at the embassy in less than 4 hours, according to the generl in charge of that part of the world. We had jets that could have been there in less than that.

Did Obama order the military to do anything? anything at all?

If Obama and Clinton sens someone to a dangerous placem and they come under attack, you do everything you can.

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:

CONNELLY: I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report he said quote "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNELLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNELLY: Okay.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNELLY: Alright, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony?

LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

CONNELLY: I thank you very much, general.

-spence

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 10:53 AM

If you'd pay attention to a single ounce of reporting on the subject you'd know that the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. I believe as a measure they did move some troops closer if there was a follow on event.

Hell, in the House's desparate attempts to troll through this again the idea was shot down yet again...just yesterday Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell said:

-spence

"the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time. "

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 11:15 AM

the military leadership has been very consistent that we didn't have resources positioned to respond in time.

-spence

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-says-forces-gave-tried-help-benghazi-drawing-030646726.html

spence

05-02-2014, 11:49 AM

Have they been "consistent"? Here's another quote from Lovell's recent testimony...U.S. forces "should have tried" to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

""The military could have made a response of some sort," he (Lovell) said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/general-says-forces-gave-tried-help-benghazi-drawing-030646726.html
Read your own article...

A few hours later, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services panel, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., challenged the testimony of Lovell, who was in U.S. Africa Command's headquarters in Germany monitoring the attack.

The general "did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken," McKeon said.

And when pressed during testimony Lovell walked back his statement as I quoted above.

Funny how misleading it is when you only read 1/2 of the story...

-spence

spence

05-02-2014, 12:00 PM

Spence, one simple question...when the attack first happened, neither Obama nor his military leadership had absolutely any way of knowing how long the attack was going to last, correct? So how could he know, at that time, whether or not he could have sent help before it was over. The attack could have lasted for days. They could not have known, at the time the first decisions were being made, how long the attack was going to last.

When an attack is underway, American commanders don't ask (at least, until Obama they didn't ask) "gee, the Americans would probably all be dead before we could get boots on the ground, so why bother? I'm off to Pebble Beach!"

I cannot wait for your response. I sinmply cannot wait...

When you send Americans to a dangerous place, and they come under attack while serving the President, then you move heaven and earth to get them out of harm's way. It doesn't matter that it may be unlikely that you can get help there in time. You do anything you can possibly do. Even if it turns out that it was mathematically impossible to get help there before they were all dead, Obama should still get crucified for not trying. When Americans are under attack in a situation like that, you aren't supposed to do a cost-benefit-analysis before you send in th ecavalry.

You said they couldn't send help "in time". The problem with that Obama apology, is that at the time, no one had any idea what "in time" meant. Right?
I think the issue here is you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500

Make a little effort to try and understand.

-spence

spence

05-02-2014, 12:05 PM

No,"More importantly ",the Terrorists who killed the 4 Americans, have not been brought to justice as Obama promised, and in addition 4 days after the attack when the bodies were flown home and Hilary met with the parents, when the CIA had already called it a Terrorist attack at 3:15 AM the day of the attack the parents were told it was caused by the video. That is not a "likely " or "assumed" story, it's a fact, I saw the interview with one of the Mothers.
The funeral was two days after the attack. At that point they were still investigating. Hell, three days after the funeral Rice's talking points from the CIA indicated the evidence pointing towards the video.

But props to FOX News for using a grieving parent to bump their ratings.

-spence

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 12:26 PM

I think the issue here is you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500

Make a little effort to try and understand.

-spence

Sorry Spence, it was YOU, not me, who quoted Lovell as if he was an authoritative source. Your source, the man you quoted, said we should have done more. I'm sorry if that pokes holes in your theory, but that's your fault for bringing Lovell into this. You did that, not me.

"Make a little effort to try and understand"

I understand you perfectly. All you do is find some source, any source, anywhere, to applaud Obama, no matter what he has done. When, as in this case, that source seems to be critical of Obama, you cast your original source aside and find another source.

Spence, on any issue, you can post sources that praise Obama, I can post sources that attack him. How come you won't post what you think for yourself? Hint: I already know the answer, we all do.

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 01:23 PM

Read your own article...

And when pressed during testimony Lovell walked back his statement as I quoted above.

Funny how misleading it is when you only read 1/2 of the story...

-spence

OK, so when a Republican congressman says that your source doesn't know what he's talking about, that's good enough for you to discredit him?

Spence, you, not I, quoted this guy. I guess you're saying that as long as anyone says Obama is perfect, they are a credible source. When anyone suggests Obama may have acted less than flawlessly, then they don't kno what they're talking about.

You are quoting a Republican to discredit your own source...you cannot make that up.

spence

05-02-2014, 01:49 PM

OK, so when a Republican congressman says that your source doesn't know what he's talking about, that's good enough for you to discredit him?

Spence, you, not I, quoted this guy. I guess you're saying that as long as anyone says Obama is perfect, they are a credible source. When anyone suggests Obama may have acted less than flawlessly, then they don't kno what they're talking about.

You are quoting a Republican to discredit your own source...you cannot make that up.

I'm not discrediting Lovell, rather that when pressed to be explicit on his position he backed down on any talk of "could" or "should."

I can see why Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif was so upset. Here he's thinking they've settled the issue once and for all yet his Republican cronies are pulling out anyone they can -- even someone who may not have been in a good position to know -- to give FOX News and the conservative blogosphere more fodder to confuse people.

Before the court I'd like to present exhibit A - that's your cue to look in the mirror. :wave:

-spence

justplugit

05-02-2014, 01:54 PM

The funeral was two days after the attack. At that point they were still investigating. Hell, three days after the funeral Rice's talking points from the CIA indicated the evidence pointing towards the video.

But props to FOX News for using a grieving parent to bump their ratings.

-spence

Spence, please get your facts straight, the Bodies were RETURNED to the US 3 days after the attack, the funerals were many days later.

The parents were told with Hillary standing there as they took the bodies from the plane 3 days after the attack that the tape was the reason for the attack.

Oh, and you forgot the question of Admiral Lowell at the hearing asked, who would have to order military action the night of the attack. He said the Commander in Chief.
That order never came and the military cannot take action on it's own.

spence

05-02-2014, 02:06 PM

Spence, please get your facts straight, the Bodies were RETURNED to the US 3 days after the attack, the funerals were many days later.

The parents were told with Hillary standing there as they took the bodies from the plane that the tape was the reason for the attack.
The article I read said funeral. I don't see a material difference though, at that point the information was still the same.

Oh, and you forgot the question of Admiral Lowell at the hearing asked, who would have to order military action the night of the attack. He said the Commander in Chief.
That order never came and the military cannot take action on it's own.
You can't order military action if there's no military to act. Our people were out of Libya before the rapid response teams could have arrived so there's no reason to attack.

Given that, what's the point of the question other than create yet another misleading headline?

-spence

spence

05-02-2014, 02:15 PM

Ultimately though, how many investigations do we need? Sweet Jesus now Bohner wants a select committee because of an email that reveals nothing new?

-spence

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 05:10 PM

You can't order military action if there's no military to act. Our people were out of Libya before the rapid response teams could have arrived so there's no reason to attack.

-spence

from your earlier link...

"Over the roughly 12 hours between the start of the attacks and the time the last Americans were evacuated from Benghazi"

12 hours? You're saying that there were zero American military assets that were within 12 hours of Benghazi? And you say I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about? Twelve hours?

If it's true that not one American military asset was within 12 hours of Libya (and no one believes that's true), that's another scandal, given all the threats that were reported in Libya.

Spence, according to you, not only was Stevens denied the extra security he asked for, but we didn't have any military support in the same hemisphere? On the anniversary of 09/11, in Libya, after getting reports of increased threats, Obama/Clinton didn't have a single soldier within 12 hours. That's what you are seriously saying? And you think that's acceptable?

I heard there was a special ops team that was 4 hours out (Croatia, maybe?).

spence

05-02-2014, 07:42 PM

from your earlier link...

"Over the roughly 12 hours between the start of the attacks and the time the last Americans were evacuated from Benghazi"

12 hours? You're saying that there were zero American military assets that were within 12 hours of Benghazi? And you say I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about? Twelve hours?

If it's true that not one American military asset was within 12 hours of Libya (and no one believes that's true), that's another scandal, given all the threats that were reported in Libya.
Once the Americans arrived at Tripoli the threat was far less and I'd assume not requiring special forces. If I remember right they left on an Air Force transport. This wasn't like the fall of Siagon...

Spence, according to you, not only was Stevens denied the extra security he asked for, but we didn't have any military support in the same hemisphere? On the anniversary of 09/11, in Libya, after getting reports of increased threats, Obama/Clinton didn't have a single soldier within 12 hours. That's what you are seriously saying? And you think that's acceptable?
No that's not what I'm saying.

I heard there was a special ops team that was 4 hours out (Croatia, maybe?).
Ok, so let's get this straight:

The Mullen investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The House investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The Military leadership who testified under oath didn't know about your Croatian team.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services didn't know about your Croatian team.

These people are all clearly incompetent because you Jim, heard something.

-spence

Jim in CT

05-02-2014, 09:17 PM

Once the Americans arrived at Tripoli the threat was far less and I'd assume not requiring special forces. If I remember right they left on an Air Force transport. This wasn't like the fall of Siagon...

No that's not what I'm saying.

Ok, so let's get this straight:

The Mullen investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The House investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The Military leadership who testified under oath didn't know about your Croatian team.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services didn't know about your Croatian team.

These people are all clearly incompetent because you Jim, heard something.

-spence

"the threat was far less and I'd assume not requiring special forces."

The point is, Obama could not have known what the timeframe was going to be, at the time he decided not to order the quick reaction forces to get there as soon as possible (unless he did give that order, but I don't think he did).

Spence, you seem to be justifying the actions of the administration, because it turns out that it's unlikely that forces could have helped. That's not the least bit relevant, because Obama didn't know how long the attack would last, right?

"The Mullen investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The House investigation didn't know about your Croatian team.

The Military leadership who testified under oath didn't know about your Croatian team.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services didn't know about your Croatian team.

These people are all clearly incompetent because you Jim, heard something."

Only from Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs...if this piece is true, which maybe it's not. But it's wy we need a meaningful hearing, with everyone there and willing to answer questions. Look, if Obama told special forces to get there ASAP, and the closest unit was on the way but stopped when they learned that it was over, no one would have a problem with that. But if forces were not given the order to go, then regardless of whether or not it turns out they could have got there in time, someone needs to explain why they weren't ordered to go.

Why is that a controversial position to take? Seems to me, that one is only unwilling to ask the question, if one knows that the answer would damage someone they support.

I seem to recall Obama claiming he'd have the most open and transparent administration ever. Let's end this with one hearing that leaves no questions unanswered.

Sorry that Fox is the source of some of this. Could be that Sean Hannity is on a witch hunt. Or it could be that they are the only ones willing to ask anything resembling a tough question to our Dear Leader. An open and honest hearing would answer that once and for all. McCain I not a right wing attack dog, neither is Lindsay Graham. They both claim there are a lot of unanswered questions. McCain is not Ted Cruz or Darrell Issa.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/admission-special-forces-were-only-hours-from-benghazi/

buckman

05-03-2014, 05:02 AM

Jim in CT

05-03-2014, 07:33 AM

Jim , you are assuming the President was available to give orders . From everything I've read he was not. We have no idea where the president was at the time of this attack. If there's nothing to hide then they should tell us where the hell he was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another reason why we need more answers.

The hot question for me is, when (if ever) was the cavalry ordered to get there ASAP? It doesn't take more than 20 minutes to get a quick reaction force off the ground. And it seems to me, that on the anniversary of 09/11, after we had received serious threats, and the Ambassador asked for more security, we'd have the cavalry pointed in that direction and ready to go at a moment's notice. According to Spence's link, it was 12 hours from the start of the attack to when the last Americans left the area. In that time, we could have landed Marines from the continental US. Presumably someone was a lot closer than that.

We got caught with our pants down (State dept, under Hilary, denied Stevens' request for extra security). We likely didn't respond nearly as aggressively as we could have. It happened 8 weeks before a Presidential election, during which one of Obama's major themes was that Al Queda was on the run. You don't need to be Steven Hawking to make a really good guess as to what happened and why.

I feel sick for those families. Hilary sends Stevens to Libya, denies his request for extra security, we did noting to help him during the attack, Obama (at best) was reluctant to call this attack what it was, and we haven't brought anyone to justice for what happened. It's a disgrace (but maybe to be expected when our President thinks he can make everyone like him because he's so charming), and very likely a scandal.

justplugit

05-03-2014, 10:26 AM

You can't order military action if there's no military to act.

-spence

Yes, and the President can't order it if he's not around. Ideally he would go to the Situation Room, but if not ,in this day and age he could be reached anywhere?

All this talk about not ordering military action because there wasn't enough time is bogus as you would need a crystal ball to know how long the fight would last.

The order was never given to try and save 4 American heroes.

spence

05-03-2014, 12:39 PM

Yes, and the President can't order it if he's not around. Ideally he would go to the Situation Room, but if not ,in this day and age he could be reached anywhere?

All this talk about not ordering military action because there wasn't enough time is bogus as you would need a crystal ball to know how long the fight would last.

The order was never given to try and save 4 American heroes.
Yea, he was probably out golfing.

This is just total nonsense. It was reported in 2012 that Panetta and top military advisers were with Obama an hour after the attack planning responses.

This idea that our people died because orders weren't given has not only been repeatedly dis-proven -- as have most of the conspiracy theories -- it's offensive.

-spence

I

Jim in CT

05-03-2014, 03:09 PM

Yea, he was probably out golfing.

This is just total nonsense. It was reported in 2012 that Panetta and top military advisers were with Obama an hour after the attack planning responses.

This idea that our people died because orders weren't given has not only been repeatedly dis-proven -- as have most of the conspiracy theories -- it's offensive.

-spence

I

Spence, I don't know ass much here as I should. Your timeline you posted made no comment, that I saw, about how fast the closest special operations troops got in the air headed to Benghazi. Do you know when that happened? Were special forces in the air within 30 minutes of when the attack started? If so, that answers a key question. If not, Obama deserves to be impeached. I respond with common sense to empirical evidence. The link I posted suggest that there was a special forces team tat was a lot closer than 12 hours away. What orders were given to that team, and when?

You cannot tell me that's an unfair question. I honestly don't know if it has been answered. Do you?

spence

05-03-2014, 04:56 PM

Spence, I don't know ass much here as I should. Your timeline you posted made no comment, that I saw, about how fast the closest special operations troops got in the air headed to Benghazi. Do you know when that happened? Were special forces in the air within 30 minutes of when the attack started? If so, that answers a key question. If not, Obama deserves to be impeached. I respond with common sense to empirical evidence. The link I posted suggest that there was a special forces team tat was a lot closer than 12 hours away. What orders were given to that team, and when?

You cannot tell me that's an unfair question. I honestly don't know if it has been answered. Do you?
First off WND is a tabloid and Aaron Klien an Obama hater. Your article is from 2013 when the DoD released the timeline of events in 2012. It's intentionally manipulative and not supported by facts.

The quotes in the piece don't substantiate the claim made in the headline.

Jim, if you'd take the time to read any of the already published information...you'd know that the special forces training in Croatia were given orders to prepare to deploy to Libya just after midnight, they didn't reach the staging base in Italy until 8pm the next day. An hour later the FAST team from Spain arrived in Tripoli.

i.e. There wasn't a special forces team in Croatia that could have been there in 4 hours.

Perhaps people have watched too much Iron Man and Captain America to think we can just jet people instantly across continents.

-spence

justplugit

05-03-2014, 09:36 PM

[QUOTE=spence;1041179]"Yea, he was probably out golfing."

I wasn't implying he wasn't on the job, but I have yet to read where he was.

"It was reported in 2012 that Panetta and top military advisers were with Obama an hour after the attack planning responses."

Seriously where can I find that info?

"This idea that our people died because orders weren't given has not only been repeatedly dis-proven"- - -

What orders were given?

Jim in CT

05-04-2014, 05:21 AM

First off WND is a tabloid and Aaron Klien an Obama hater. Your article is from 2013 when the DoD released the timeline of events in 2012. It's intentionally manipulative and not supported by facts.

The quotes in the piece don't substantiate the claim made in the headline.

Jim, if you'd take the time to read any of the already published information...you'd know that the special forces training in Croatia were given orders to prepare to deploy to Libya just after midnight, they didn't reach the staging base in Italy until 8pm the next day. An hour later the FAST team from Spain arrived in Tripoli.

i.e. There wasn't a special forces team in Croatia that could have been there in 4 hours.

Perhaps people have watched too much Iron Man and Captain America to think we can just jet people instantly across continents.

-spence

"i.e. There wasn't a special forces team in Croatia that could have been there in 4 hours."

So here is my question. How long after the attack began, was the nearest special forces team (wherever that was) in the air, on their way to Benghazi? Has that question been answered? I didn't see any mention of that in the timeline you posted?

"Perhaps people have watched too much Iron Man and Captain America to think we can just jet people instantly across continents"

I don't fit in that category, I do know a few things here, though I'm no expert on special forces.

It's not possible that there weren't any troops we could have gotten there within the 12 hours that lapsed between the start of the attack and when the last American left. It is a 100% certainty that there was a special forces team closer than 12 hours out. I don't know where they were, but someone was within 12 hours.

It does not tale very long to get a small team in the air within 30 minutes. That's why they are called quick reaction forces.

If some people are overly influenced by Captain America, others are too enthralled with Obama to the point that they are not capable of doubting anything he say or does.

scottw

05-04-2014, 06:20 AM

I don't know why you guys keep asking him to answer questions..it's like asking Jay Carney to answer a question...the answer is always disturbing and incompletely slanted with a tinge of "do some homework idiot" which would apparently involve reciting administration talking points over and over and over....

Goldberg had a great take on Bengazi and Carney recently....

"BENGHAZI MADE SIMPLE

There is an enormous amount of theorizing about what the “real story” behind Benghazi really is. To me it’s always been obvious. The White House was caught off guard — for reasons stemming both from ideology and incompetence — on September 11, 2012. As they have after virtually every other (jihadist) terrorist attack on Americans, they acted as if it had absolutely nothing to do with them. As with the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and other Islamist assaults, there’s always some other reason for the bloodshed, some attempt to claim, at least for a while, that this was an “isolated incident” with no broader implications for the War on Terror or Obama’s foreign policy. Admittedly, even this White House understood that spinning the Benghazi attack as an isolated incident wasn’t going to work (such intense spinning could risk irreparable scrotal torsion). So they went with the story about the video.

Of course, the White House and its defenders insist that they really believed the video was to blame. This strikes me as a lie, for the most part, if not initially than certainly over time. But even if that’s true, that’s no exoneration. As I said, there was a mix of incompetence and ideology at work. As an ideological matter, that this White House could convince itself for hours — never mind weeks — that this terror attack was all about the video is incredibly damning, if true. And, as I argue in my column today, the fact that the once-proud champions of civil liberties under George W. Bush were perfectly happy to throw the First Amendment under the bus is even more damning.

Given that the Benghazi attack came during the thick of the presidential election, it’s no surprise that the White House’s political and ideological instincts overpowered everything else. It’s no surprise, either, that the press’s instincts pointed in the same direction. It’s really non-surprises for as far as the eye can see.

Obviously there are still some unknowns worth knowing, and they might be surprising — like the exact details of how and why the response was so non-responsive. Just because the White House and State Department were unprepared shouldn’t mean that the professional military was too. The exact nexus between the political screw-up and the military’s failure to “run to the sound of gunfire” hasn’t been established."

CARNEY

"On Wednesday, Jay Carney explained — as if he was talking to a room full of children — that the Benghazi e-mail the White House refused to release until the White House was forced to release its Benghazi e-mails wasn’t in fact about Benghazi, even though the e-mail talks about Benghazi. This is Monty Pythonesque of “Dead Parrot” proportions. That’s not a Benghazi e-mail, it’s just an e-mail about Benghazi, in a folder marked “Benghazi” e-mails, idiot.

As I said on Fox yesterday, Jay Carney is a very strange creature for Washington. He’s an extremely confident liar — we’ve got a lot of those! — but he’s not very convincing. Usually, confidence = convincing. As George Costanza (and in his own way Bill Clinton) liked to say, it’s not a lie if you believe it when you tell it. But with Carney, he lies in a way that makes it seem not so much like he believes it but that you’re an idiot for not believing it. There’s a kind of the-joke’s-on-you feel to the way he talks that reminds me of that (X-rated and not safe for work) Onion article, “Why Do These Homosexuals Keep [Fellating Me]?”

Carney actually seems shocked and, well, disappointed to the point of contemptuousness, when reporters won’t believe him. It’s like no one told him he doesn’t have Jedi mind tricks at his disposal.

Carney: These are not the droids you’re looking for, idiots.

Ed Henry, Fox News: But Jay, these look exactly like the droids we’ve been looking for. In fact, the serial numbers match.

Carney: Ed, I understand your network is deeply invested in finding a story here. But the simple fact is that these are in no way the droids you’re looking for. Move along.

Henry: One last follow-up, Jay. The golden droid on the right just said, “Excuse me sirs, but we are in fact exactly the droids you’ve been looking for. Thank goodness you found us.”

Carney: No, no they didn’t. And besides — I used to be a journalist as you know — and it’s common knowledge among real journalists [Carney winks to the non-Fox reporters in the room] that one should never believe what droids tell them.

Jonathan Karl, ABC: Jay, related question: Here is a photo of you from last month holding up a picture of these exact droids with the quote in the caption reading, ‘Carney vows the White House will not rest until these droids are found.’ Also, ABC News has obtained footage of you from this morning, hugging the two droids right there, with you saying ‘Thank Obama we found you!’ Can you explain that?

[Carney rolls his eyes and then desperately tries to telekinetically choke everyone in the room.]

Henry: Uh, Jay are you okay? Why are you squinting? What’s up with that hand gesture . . ."

spence

05-06-2014, 05:54 PM

So here is my question. How long after the attack began, was the nearest special forces team (wherever that was) in the air, on their way to Benghazi? Has that question been answered? I didn't see any mention of that in the timeline you posted?

The article I linked indicates verbal orders were given immediately to move both the FAST teams in Spain and the special ops in Croatia…formal orders followed.

The problem here is that in an attempt to smear Obama all sorts of conspiracy stories were embraced by the blogs and even some reputable news outlets…They did nothing, they were told to stand down etc… and all of this has been proven false even by the House investigation.

I don't fit in that category, I do know a few things here, though I'm no expert on special forces.

It's not possible that there weren't any troops we could have gotten there within the 12 hours that lapsed between the start of the attack and when the last American left. It is a 100% certainty that there was a special forces team closer than 12 hours out. I don't know where they were, but someone was within 12 hours.

It does not tale very long to get a small team in the air within 30 minutes. That's why they are called quick reaction forces.
You're making it sound like they're firemen waiting for the bell to ring and slide down the pole into their boots.

Even the FAST teams in Spain would have to equip for the mission, same goes for the ops in Croatia training. They'd have to stage themselves and you'd probably need a plan. Basing this on flight time along isn't realistic, you know this.

Remember as well that the closest security team in Tripoli did deploy and got there at 1:30am.

If some people are overly influenced by Captain America, others are too enthralled with Obama to the point that they are not capable of doubting anything he say or does.
There's a body of research out there that can't be denied. Multiple investigations seem to be reaching the same conclusions.

-spence

spence

05-06-2014, 06:27 PM

detbuch

05-06-2014, 10:12 PM

Another thing I don't get.

I watched Jane Harman get eviscerated on Fox last Sunday by Brit Hume's assertion that there wasn't *ANY* evidence the attack could have been a response by the video. I'm amazed really that someone with her stature could have been so unprepared for an easy question.

How about the fact that the attack happened after an assault on the neighboring Egyptian embassy?

How about not providing adequate security to the consulate after that attack. Sept. 11 . . . Growing influence of Al Qaeda . . . The attack in Egypt . . .

How about the fact that the following week was rampant with video protests and violence towards US missions in the region?

OK. So you stick to the administration's talking points and disregard other "reports" that the violence in Egypt, as reported in Egyptian press, had more to do with other things than the video, such as the protest over the imprisonment of the blind Sheik. And that mass protests in dictatorial regimes opposed by other dictatorial and extremist opponents are nearly always instigated by one or the other of the opponents, and always by some talking point used to legitimize the violence. When a whole nation or its embassies is attacked over a video rather than retribution demanded by a fatwa against the individual who made the video, it is far, far, more likely that the video is a prop, a tool, used by, in these cases, jihadists, rather than spontaneous peaceful people upset over an isolated insult to the Prophet, or Islam. If normal peace loving Muslims can be so blindly incited to deadly mayhem by such a trifle, why would we be so stupid to trust them? And if it was more "extreme" Muslims, why were we caught so unaware? It wasn't as if there were no warnings or signals or evidence of trouble. I recall you bought the Kool-Aid that Libya was not, as I had put it, a hot bed of terrorism. And that, as the administration claimed, Al Qaeda was decimated, weakened, on the run, losing influence, and Libya or Benghazi was not a dangerous place. We based our policy on such a view?

How about the fact that the NY Times reported interviews with attackers who claimed the video was their inspiration?

That is, on one level, so laughable to believe that a reporter from the NY Times, a representative of the great Satan, was going to get the real skinny, and nothing but the real skinny, from a jihadist. Was the reporter going to be told to his face that he was an enemy. If the video was so offensive that it was cause to kill, not the video maker, but those who represented the U.S., what would the jihadist interviewed by the American reporter be expected to tell him. "Oh . . . it was just the video . . . and I like you so I'll tell you exactly what happened . . . but not in such a way that might make you uncomfortable, or feel threatened. And besides, if I were to kill you, without the aid of some anti-offensive talking point, I might be in deep trouble." And isn't it amazing that the reporter so easily found and got supposed confessions from attackers, but the administration which vowed to get them and bring them to justice has not yet done so. Again, even if the "extremist" attacker did so only because of the video, did he accidentally or "spontaneously" join in the well-coordinated attack? Wasn't there a wider group of like-minded extremists led by those who used whatever psycho babble was available to foment the desired and planned violence and killing?

Why is it so hard to believe that the attack could have been a product of both terrorism *AND* the video?

-spence

It is not "so hard to believe" if the video and terrorism were connected, not separate motivations. If the video was a tool of terrorists, not a separate entity that in itself would cause such mayhem.

And besides, it has been admitted that the video was not the reason for the attack on the Benghazi consulate and the killing of Ambassador Stevens. It would be kind of . . . sort of . . . OK . . . so you really, actually, did believe that it was about the video. So when you went on about the video you weren't trying to mislead the American people before an election, you were, according to the best available analysis, assuming it was the video.

Except that the initial reporting on the ground did not mention a protest. Because there was no protest. Therefore no protest could be reported as happening either before or during the attack. It was reported immediately as an attack. Even a well coordinated one. And Brit Hume was correct in saying there was no evidence that the attack was a response to the video. Your little "hows" and "why's" are not evidence of why the attack took place. The comingling of terror with the video is the marriage of two separate things that don't go together. A spontaneous riot, if such a thing exists, in response to offensive words is an act of rage motivated by revenge. An Islamo-terrorist attack is a calculated offensive, more than a response, motivated by the desire to rid infidels from Islamic domains. Now, the terrorists can use, in this case, the video as a tool to inspire some to attack, but the reason for the attack is not a response to the video, but to terrorize and eliminate the infidel.

Which is why, when in Obama's press conference he talked about the Benghazi attack being a result of the video, then later in the speech mentioned terrorism, the attack is not specifically called an act of terror. By specifying one and mentioning the other, there is an implication that they are related, even that the attack was terrorism. The response to the video could not be terrorism unless it was an instigating tool used by terrorists rather than the reason for a spontaneous "protest" gone bad.

And that's why the talking point in the new memos is so damning:

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

If the "protests" were rooted in the video, not in terrorism, especially in Al Qaeda and its affiliates terrorism, then it is not to be presumed as a "broader failure of policy." So it had to be underscored that it was about a spontaneous reaction to the video, even when there was no such specific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicated terrorism, jihadism, the Al Qaeda brand. And policy was "rooted" on the notion that terrorism and Al Qaeda were not a viable threat.

Since it has been found that the attack was not "rooted" in the video, but was actually rooted in terrorism, and the rise of Al Qaeda, ergo, it WAS the failure of policy.

scottw

05-07-2014, 02:39 AM

. . . OK . . . so you really, actually, did believe that it was about the video. So when you went on about the video you weren't trying to mislead the American people before an election, you were, according to the best available analysis, assuming it was the video.

Except that the initial reporting on the ground did not mention a protest. Because there was no protest. Therefore no protest could be reported as happening either before or during the attack. It was reported immediately as an attack. Even a well coordinated one. And Brit Hume was correct in saying there was no evidence that the attack was a response to the video. Your little "hows" and "why's" are not evidence of why the attack took place.

And that's why the talking point in the new memos is so damning:

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

If the "protests" were rooted in the video, not in terrorism, especially in Al Qaeda and its affiliates terrorism, then it is not to be presumed as a "broader failure of policy." So it had to be underscored that it was about a spontaneous reaction to the video, even when there was no such specific evidence. On the contrary, the evidence indicated terrorism, jihadism, the Al Qaeda brand. And policy was "rooted" on the notion that terrorism and Al Qaeda were not a viable threat.

Since it has been found that the attack was not "rooted" in the video, but was actually rooted in terrorism, and the rise of Al Qaeda, ergo, it WAS the failure of policy.

seems as though the video was and is a "conspiracy theory" of sorts.....and you are right, the new memos are incredibly damning and there are apparently more that the most transparent, honest and open administration in history has not been forthcoming with....

funny to watch him attack others as conspiracy theorist, haters, biased manipulators of facts, timelines and language to political ends

Classic .....Kevin Williamson

"Where’s the scandal?”....Bill Maher shouted, and if you want the voice of the incoherent and self-satisfied progressive id, you could do worse than to take the temperature of Bill Maher. The scandal, if you don’t know, is the White House’s maliciously misleading the American public about four dead Americans killed by preventable al-Qaeda attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 in order to serve its own narrow political purposes. The scandal itself is not very difficult to understand, unless you have a personal commitment to not understanding it. Such commitments frequently are rooted in partisanship and ideology, but in the case of our supine media and Democrats occupying the commanding heights of culture, it may be simple shame. They were intentionally misled by an administration that holds their intelligence in light esteem even as it takes for granted their support."

"But for politicians of President Obama’s genus, truth is simply another multiple-choice proposition, and he and his people chose the version that best suited their immediate needs. One of the many problems with having a government dominated by law-school graduates is that lawyers suffer from a collective delusion that clever argument has a truth of its own, a unique moral weight independent of the facts."

" In other words, the Obama administration did not mislead the American public about Benghazi out of political necessity; it misled the American public out of habit. And why wouldn’t it? From the economic effects of the stimulus bill to the GM bailout to blaming last quarter’s poor economic numbers on the fact that it is cold during the winter, the Obama administration has an excellent record for wholesaling fiction to the American electorate, which keeps enduring it. There is apparently enough collective intelligence in the Obama administration to hold in general contempt the wit and attention span of an American public that has elected it twice. Or perhaps the administration is fooling itself, too. A good huckster knows that he is a huckster, but a great huckster comes to sincerely believe in his own shtick, and perhaps somebody at the White House has read Good to Great."

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 05:14 AM

You're making it sound like they're firemen waiting for the bell to ring and slide down the pole into their boots.

Even the FAST teams in Spain would have to equip for the mission, same goes for the ops in Croatia training. They'd have to stage themselves and you'd probably need a plan. Basing this on flight time along isn't realistic, you know this.

Remember as well that the closest security team in Tripoli did deploy and got there at 1:30am.

There's a body of research out there that can't be denied. Multiple investigations seem to be reaching the same conclusions.

-spence

"You're making it sound like they're firemen waiting for the bell to ring and slide down the pole into their boots. "

Not exactly that. But it doesn't take them hours to get ready, either. A FAST team can be in the air in less than an hour. Read the book Lone Survivor, you'll see how fast 12 SEALs can get a chopper in the air with zero warning.

buckman

05-07-2014, 07:06 AM

What spence fails to recognize is the apologizing for the video and then nonstop blaming of the video incited the violence over the video after the attack .
Hell nobody even heard about the YouTube video until the Obama administration decided to make it into what it wasn't. They should be held responsible for that violence too along with total incompetence over the security.
It's pathetic that there are apologist that will put their commonsense on the line to protect this group of elitist thugs and morons. At least they are in the minority in this country. The rest of his supporters are just waiting for a free ride.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

05-07-2014, 08:07 AM

PaulS

05-07-2014, 08:16 AM

spence

05-07-2014, 08:30 AM

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

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

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

-spence

PaulS

05-07-2014, 08:49 AM

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

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 08:55 AM

Totally untrue, keep that white knuckle grip going.

-spence

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

Am I wrong on that?

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 09:01 AM

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

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

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

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

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 09:11 AM

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

-spence

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

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

PaulS

05-07-2014, 09:31 AM

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

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

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

So what have they found so far? Nothing.

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

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

justplugit

05-07-2014, 09:46 AM

The GOP picked the right guy to head these hearings.

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

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

PaulS

05-07-2014, 10:13 AM

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

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

I'm sure you use to complain about Pres. Bush's vacations :rotf2:

buckman

05-07-2014, 10:45 AM

PaulS

05-07-2014, 10:55 AM

buckman

05-07-2014, 11:04 AM

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

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

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

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

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 11:23 AM

So what have they found so far? Nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough?

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 11:29 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Spence: Good enough for me! Hoo-ray!

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

Tell me I'm wrong?

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 11:30 AM

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

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

PaulS

05-07-2014, 12:06 PM

Tell me I'm wrong?

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

How many embassies where attacked during the Bush admin?

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

PaulS

05-07-2014, 02:52 PM

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

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

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

Jim in CT

05-07-2014, 03:06 PM

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

How many embassies where attacked during the Bush admin?

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

"you aren't concerned with either the lie (or the bungling stupidity) that got us into the Iraq war that caused over 4,500 soldiers death?"

If it was a lie or stupidity, then the list of liars and idiots includes Hilary Clinton (also Senators Biden, Edwards, Boxer, Reid, Schumer, Feinstein, all thos eneocons!), who voted to invade Iraq and who said that Iraq had WMDs. Paul, I was there, so it impacted me more than I bet it did you. But a lot of smart, decent people reached the same conclusion. Husseain signed a treaty ending the first war, and one of the terms wa sthat he give inspectors access. He kept kicking them out. What do you do in that case? Nothing?

"Don't the families of the soldiers deserve to know? "

Know WHAT? The vast majority of professional intelligence analysts reached th esame conclusion. It turned out to be wrong. That doesn't make thos epeople evil. Intelligence, unfortunately, is not an exact science.

"How many embassies where attacked during the Bush admin?"

In how many cases did the ambassador ask for more security and get denied? In how many cases did Bush cover up what happened? I don't blame a President for every bad thing that hapens, you can't control everything. But there's evidence here of some incompetence and dishonesty. I'm sorry if that gets you worked up.

"So let's have more hearings"

Yes, let's. If they don't shed light on anything new, we can at least deny the right-wing nuts the ability to say that Obama wasn't forthcoming.

scottw

05-08-2014, 05:24 AM

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

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

justplugit

05-08-2014, 09:24 AM

I'm sure you use to complain about Pres. Bush's vacations :rotf2:

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

justplugit

05-08-2014, 09:37 AM

Yes, let's. If they don't shed light on anything new, we can at least deny the right-wing nuts the ability to say that Obama wasn't forthcoming.

This whole mess could be cleared up in an hour if Obama and Clinton went before the American people and explained what happened while releasing all the documents pertaining to it , without having Judicial Watch sue under the Freedom of Information Act to get them.

Ahh the transparency.

buckman

05-08-2014, 10:04 AM

This whole mess could be cleared up in an hour if Obama and Clinton went before the American people and explained what happened while releasing all the documents pertaining to it , without having Judicial Watch sue under the Freedom of Information Act to get them.

Ahh the transparency.

It's been like that this whole presidency. Every investigation . Now the Democrats are going to try to block and boycott any investigation the house has. Nothing to hide then be open and
forthright ..... That's what Spence and Paul want .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

05-08-2014, 12:53 PM

It's been like that this whole presidency. Every investigation . Now the Democrats are going to try to block and boycott any investigation the house has. Nothing to hide then be open and
forthright ..... That's what Spence and Paul want .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this the fourth or fifth House investigation? I've lost count...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

05-08-2014, 12:59 PM

Is this the fourth or fifth House investigation? I've lost count...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's just beginning too ;)
It takes time to fight corruption and incompetence of this magnitude
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

05-08-2014, 01:38 PM

Is this the fourth or fifth House investigation? I've lost count...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There have been more hearings than there have been arrests, right?

I do hope this is the last one. Let's make it so open and thorough, that no rational person could suggest we need to re-visit. There are some very moderate Republicans like McCain and Graham, 2 guys who are not party hacks nor are they obstructionist (they have voted for Democratic judicial nominees, more than I can say for some right-wing nuts) who want these hearings.

Let's get it over with.

spence

05-08-2014, 05:14 PM

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

The spell check nazis will have a field day with that.
After the health insurance companies just testified this week and blew away The GOP FUD on the ACA they don't have much else to work with.

The fact that the GOP is starting to actively try and raise campaign cash on Benghazi is repugnant. God Jim, even you have to agree with that.

Some people need to wake up and realize that hatred for Obama and Clinton isn't a winning strategy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

05-08-2014, 07:09 PM

After the health insurance companies just testified this week and blew away The GOP FUD on the ACA they don't have much else to work with. you mean this?

Testifying before a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Committee, Mark Pratt, Senior Vice President, State Affairs America’s Health Insurance Plans, raised questions about the White House’s claim that nearly 8 million Americans have signed up for a health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act.

“Because of the challenges that surfaced with the launch of the Exchanges in October 2013, some consumers were advised to create a new account and enroll again,” Pratt said Wednesday.

“As a result, insurers have many duplicate enrollments in their system for which they never received any payment. In cases where an insurer has a new enrollment for a consumer who previously enrolled, they are not expecting that original policy to be effectuated – even though that data is still reported,” he added.

Simply put, according to Pratt, glitches in the online exchanges that resulted in Americans signing up more than once for the same plan may have created “duplicate enrollments” that are being counted by the Obama administration toward final sign-up figures.

It’s important to note that “sign-ups” are different from “enrollments” as the latter require payment. Further, and despite the fact that the White House tends to use these two terms interchangeably, the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced last week that only 67 percent of the nearly 8 million sign-ups have paid their first month’s insurance premium, meaning only two-thirds of White House’s Obamacare sign-ups are formally enrolled in a plan.

what's 67% -80% of "nearly" 8 million minus the duplicates?...it's not 8 million :smash: it would also be interesting to know how many of those felt "forced" into Obamacare http://finance.yahoo.com/news/policy-notifications-current-status-state-204701399.html...if if Obama was a car salesman, and he'd proudly claimed in a commercial to have sold 8 million cars and it was discovered that of those 8 million, applications had been made twice by the same people for the same car, only 67-80 % of the cars had actually been paid for, many had been forced to buy cars from him due to government regulations or because their cars were taken from them due to new government regulations, many had bought cars because the government offered to subsidize the cost of the car Of the 983,775 people in Florida who selected a private health plan through the exchange, about 91 percent or 893,655 received financial aid to pay for it, according to the report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

how is this different than those third world dictators who rig an election and then celebrate the fact that they got 97% of the vote?

...i love Obama math.... I bet they keep counting you after you are dead too...it's like voting for democrats

The fact that the GOP is starting to actively try and raise campaign cash on Benghazi is repugnant. God Jim, even you have to agree with that. I'm sure it's just beyond the pale..maybe the Dems could counter with a "Clinton Bengazi Defense Fund"... if you'd like I can prepare a long list of tragedies that the Dems have used to raise campaign cash so that you can express similar feigned outrage as you seem brimming.

pretty funny...“Fundraising off the Benghazi tragedy is despicable and insulting and has no place in the national conversation,” Israel said in the statement. “Speaker Boehner and Chairman Walden should immediately take down their BenghaziWatchdogs.com website and stop insulting the memory of the brave Americans who were lost there.”

But directly above Israel’s statement is a humongous “CONTRIBUTE NOW” button, where visitors can click to cough up some cash for the DCCC." some people :no2:

Some people need to wake up and realize that hatred for Obama and Clinton isn't a winning strategy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

both are well established liars and have solid track records of incompetence(which I think you'd call impressive resumes), this isn't about hating them... although it's a simple juvenile exercise to suggest that it's about "hate" whenever their honesty and competence comes into question...it's about distrusting them and questioning their competence...which, given their track record...is pretty sensible:)...enabling liars and incompetents in positions of power is not a winning strategy either :uhuh:

spence

05-09-2014, 08:19 AM

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

Am I wrong on that?
An innocent civilian?

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

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

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

-spence

Jim in CT

05-09-2014, 08:43 AM

An innocent civilian?

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

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

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

-spence

"The guy is a scumbag..."

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

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

"His intentional actions led to violence against Americans "

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

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

RIROCKHOUND

05-09-2014, 09:47 AM

The fact that the GOP is starting to actively try and raise campaign cash on Benghazi is repugnant. God Jim, even you have to agree with that.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boehner wouldn't even strongly oppose that.. At least Gowdy did...

So Jim.
If this investigation finds nothing damning, will you let it go and denounce all who tread on the deaths of 4 Americans for political gain?

Jim in CT

05-09-2014, 11:48 AM

Boehner wouldn't even strongly oppose that.. At least Gowdy did...

So Jim.
If this investigation finds nothing damning, will you let it go and denounce all who tread on the deaths of 4 Americans for political gain?

Ben

"Boehner wouldn't even strongly oppose that.. At least Gowdy did... "

Please. You telling me thatthe Democrats didn't exploitth edeaths of thousands of servicemen in Iraq, to raise money at fundraisers. Political fundraisers involve showing how dangerous your opponent is. If th efacts are corrcet, it's not evil. Benghazi wants to make me give more to the GOP.

buckman

05-09-2014, 12:17 PM

Ben

"Boehner wouldn't even strongly oppose that.. At least Gowdy did... "

Please. You telling me thatthe Democrats didn't exploitth edeaths of thousands of servicemen in Iraq, to raise money at fundraisers. Political fundraisers involve showing how dangerous your opponent is. If th efacts are corrcet, it's not evil. Benghazi wants to make me give more to the GOP.

Democrats are blind to blatant hypocracy Jim . Maybe Brian will man up and admit you're right .....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

05-09-2014, 01:38 PM

Democrats are blind to blatant hypocracy Jim . Maybe Brian will man up and admit you're right .....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If someone tries to personally profit from this, that's one thing. If the GOP wants to use this as a talking point at a fund-raiser, I have zero issues with that. I want the GOP telling voters what the Dems did here (as long as their facts are correct).

spence

05-09-2014, 05:10 PM

"The guy is a scumbag..."

Spence, please tell me where in Obama's oath of office, it says that he only swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as it applies to non-scumbags?
How did he deny the producer of his Constitutional rights? The guy is in jail for violating his probation.

The funny thing is nobody seemed to be outraged when Bush "apologized" to Muslims for actions by Americans, multiple times in fact.

Even if all you say is true (I have no data to refute it), is that a valid reason for Obama to throw this guy under the bus, to blame him for the deaths of 4 Americans?
He didn't blame him for the deaths, he was saying, hey…we ain't smoking the same chit is all.

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

Seriously, I can't believe you actually wrote that.

Imagine for a second if American Catholics spilled innocent blood every time someone said something derogatory about them?
Hyperbole at its best…oy vey.

-spence

spence

05-09-2014, 05:33 PM

If th efacts are corrcet, it's not evil. Benghazi wants to make me give more to the GOP.
Usually your facts are not correct, does that then make YOU evil?

-spence

Jim in CT

05-09-2014, 07:32 PM

How did he deny the producer of his Constitutional rights? The guy is in jail for violating his probation.

The funny thing is nobody seemed to be outraged when Bush "apologized" to Muslims for actions by Americans, multiple times in fact.

He didn't blame him for the deaths, he was saying, hey…we ain't smoking the same chit is all.

The millions and millions of Muslims did ignore it like civilized people do.

Seriously, I can't believe you actually wrote that.

Hyperbole at its best…oy vey.

-spence

'How did he deny the producer of his Constitutional rights"

Hmmm. Let's see....Oh yes! Obama told the world this guy was responsible for what happened in Benghazi, and simultaneously invited every Islamic nutjob to take a shot at him. What do you call that, high-quality representation? Is that Obama's idea of serving this guy?

"The funny thing is nobody seemed to be outraged when Bush "apologized" to Muslims for actions by Americans"

Oh. So you're saying Bush was weak on American exceptionalism, and apologized to jihadists? I thought he was a war-hawk? Can't have it both ways...I love it. Spence says Bush was soft with Muslims...

"He didn't blame him for the deaths"

Obama blamed the guy for the uprising. The uprising led to the deaths. If A caused B, and B caused C, ...am I going too fast?

"I can't believe you actually wrote that"

Most sociologists say that 1% or 2% of Muslims worldwide support jihadists. There's what, 1.5 billion Muslims in the world? Borrow a calculator, do the math. Sorry if that fact doesn't suit your insipid agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless. If you have other facts (such as claiming that gun ownership in Canada isn't all that high, or the Hilary really did get shot at), well, we are all ears...please enlighten me...

Jim in CT

05-09-2014, 07:33 PM

Usually your facts are not correct, does that then make YOU evil?

-spence

Coming from the walking Encyclopedia Britanica, who says that gun ownership isn't all that high in Canada...

Insults are so easy, Spence...

spence

05-09-2014, 07:53 PM

Hmmm. Let's see....Oh yes! Obama told the world this guy was responsible for what happened in Benghazi, and simultaneously invited every Islamic nutjob to take a shot at him. What do you call that, high-quality representation? Is that Obama's idea of serving this guy?
So did Bush invite "every Islamic nutjob to take a shot" at the serviceman who shot the Koran? One example of many...

Oh. So you're saying Bush was weak on American exceptionalism, and apologized to jihadists? I thought he was a war-hawk? Can't have it both ways...I love it. Spence says Bush was soft with Muslims...
Actually, it's you that can't have it both ways.

Obama blamed the guy for the uprising. The uprising led to the deaths. If A caused B, and B caused C, ...am I going too fast?
Obama didn't blame the guy for the uprising, he simply said he doesn't represent the beliefs of America.

And Obama was right. The video producer doesn't represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans.

Most sociologists say that 1% or 2% of Muslims worldwide support jihadists. There's what, 1.5 billion Muslims in the world? Borrow a calculator, do the math. Sorry if that fact doesn't suit your insipid agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless. If you have other facts (such as claiming that gun ownership in Canada isn't all that high, or the Hilary really did get shot at), well, we are all ears...please enlighten me...
If you want to equate a 1% or 2% of Muslims worldwide supporting jihadists with "millions and millions of Muslims resort (ing) to barbaric violence" then you probably don't understand jihad.

As for gun ownership in Canada, the stats speak for themselves.

-spence

detbuch

05-09-2014, 09:45 PM

scottw

05-10-2014, 01:47 PM

Jim in CT

05-10-2014, 03:55 PM

spence

05-10-2014, 06:21 PM

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

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

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

Brilliant!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

05-10-2014, 06:39 PM

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

Brilliant!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your direct quote...

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

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

It's getting boring, Spence.

spence

05-10-2014, 06:43 PM

Read everything again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

05-10-2014, 07:14 PM

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

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

Since the Benghazi attack was not rooted in the video, it was, using the administrations own talking point, rooted in "a broad failure of policy."
One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

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

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

-spence

detbuch

05-10-2014, 10:23 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-spence

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

scottw

05-11-2014, 01:52 AM

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

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

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

-spence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carney did say this...

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

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

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

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

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

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

some movie reviews...

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

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