View Single Post
Old 05-11-2014, 01:52 AM   #130
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
One item I do think has to be given to the Administration is that the talking points were in context of the broader situation which included Benghazi. This can be inferred by reading it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carney did say this...

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

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

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

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

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


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

some movie reviews...

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


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

Last edited by scottw; 05-12-2014 at 03:10 AM..
scottw is offline