Tertius wrote:
The administration was prompting unrest in Muslim countries. Their thought was that 20 demonstrations would hide the truth about Ambassador Stevens being set up by the administration.
Let's see.. President Obama secretly has a film made guarantied to incite riots in Muslim countries to cover up the assassination of an American ambassador with whom he had homosexual relations.. ..
As interesting as that sounds.. I'm as interested in your ability to get both arms up your own ass to pull out such a bizarre conspiracy. ...
Yep and Bush II gets the blame for Obama's failure to make headway on recovering from the great recssion and Bush II gets the blame for Obama's failure to extract the US from Afghanistan. Next up, it's Bush II's fault Ambassador Stevens was murdered.
So Bunghy, you do not agree with "Obama's favorite war" in Afghanistan? We Should have just left Al Quaeda continue on there after 9/11? They are such a great conclave of human debris who is still killing and and trying to kill Americans.
I will give you the benefit of doubt on the Iraq war although we did dispose of another piece of human debris there.
I did not say Obama had the film made. He could have gotten a better movie made than that.
I am only saying the first I can find a public mention of the film came from the administration. Then the protest started. Twenty odd protest followed the administration's drumbeat about the film.
Two out of three ain't bad. We are in a very slow recovery from Bush II's great recession, and
I'll take a slow recovery over a very bad recession any day, as most people probably would.
We should have been out of Afghanistan before 2009, but Bushy had to go into Iraq and
that kind of messed up the timeline. OTOH, all the big boys have come a cropper in Afghanis-
tan, and there's no reason to think that we'll be any different, so might as well leave sooner
rather than later. And remember Saddam was once our "human debris." Now for the third
one, Bush has no responsibility for the attack in Benghazi. If we hadn't been so eager to
get rid of Qaddafi, that probably wouldn't have happened, but it's too late now. That's
the way the old imperialist game goes.
Tertius wrote:I did not say Obama had the film made. He could have gotten a better movie made than that.
I am only saying the first I can find a public mention of the film came from the administration. Then the protest started. Twenty odd protest followed the administration's drumbeat about the film.
Not surprised you didn't hear of it. The Muslim world did. And they reacted . . . before the Libya attack.
CAIRO -- September 11, 2012
Protesters scaled the wall of the heavily-fortified US embassy in Cairo Tuesday, angry over a film that Egyptian media reported was produced in the US and mocks the prophet Muhammad.
Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the embassy, alternating religious slogans with chants against the US or President Obama. Some climbed over the wall and tore down the American flag, raising instead a black flag with an Islamic inscription that is often associated with Islamic extremists.
...
Most of the protesters said they had never seen the film, but heard about it from Egyptian television channels, newspapers, or Facebook. One religious channel broadcast what it said was a clip from a film produced in the US by Egyptian Christians who had emigrated there.
Some protesters said they heard the film was supposed to be broadcast in the US today. They said the protest was not related to the anniversary of 9/11.
It was all over Egyptian media. They stormed the U.S. embassy. You didn't hear about it?
And all reports from Libya indicate that the Libyan militants who attacked our embassy in Benghazi attacked because they were angry over that same video.
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
There were also anti_American riots and demonstrations in the Philippines, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and other places.
Tertius wrote:I did not say Obama had the film made. He could have gotten a better movie made than that.
I am only saying the first I can find a public mention of the film came from the administration. Then the protest started. Twenty odd protest followed the administration's drumbeat about the film.
Not surprised you didn't hear of it. The Muslim world did. And they reacted . . . before the Libya attack.
CAIRO -- September 11, 2012
Protesters scaled the wall of the heavily-fortified US embassy in Cairo Tuesday, angry over a film that Egyptian media reported was produced in the US and mocks the prophet Muhammad.
Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the embassy, alternating religious slogans with chants against the US or President Obama. Some climbed over the wall and tore down the American flag, raising instead a black flag with an Islamic inscription that is often associated with Islamic extremists.
...
Most of the protesters said they had never seen the film, but heard about it from Egyptian television channels, newspapers, or Facebook. One religious channel broadcast what it said was a clip from a film produced in the US by Egyptian Christians who had emigrated there.
Some protesters said they heard the film was supposed to be broadcast in the US today. They said the protest was not related to the anniversary of 9/11.
It was all over Egyptian media. They stormed the U.S. embassy. You didn't hear about it?
And all reports from Libya indicate that the Libyan militants who attacked our embassy in Benghazi attacked because they were angry over that same video.
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
There were also anti_American riots and demonstrations in the Philippines, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and other places.
these were the same day. The Egypt demonstrations were a diversion from what occurred in Libya. But you are correct I know of statements from the Obama administrations before the Egypt protest. The film was brawcast on Egypt TV on 9 Sept. it is my understanding only 10 people saw the entire film.
If Obama loses the Clintons are toast and I believe any political aspirations she's had are gone. There is no doubt that the BLAMER in CHIEF will through her under the bus and just keep running over her for years.
I actually liked her up to the Assault Weapons Ban and her dislike for firearms.
Attachments
644662_540087662675474_1752769541_n[1].jpg (129.91 KiB) Viewed 654 times
WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.
Obama didn't specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.
Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.
The White House now says the attack was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed the "fog of war" for the early conflicting accounts.
The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.
Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.
The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault."
The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: "There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations" but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.
Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming only from one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.
U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that "it was clear a group of people gathered that evening" in Benghazi, but that the early question was "whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd."
But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress.
"The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. "It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why ... though we don't want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions" after such events in the future.
"The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying," said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
"How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don't know," he said. "That raises suspicions that there was political motivation."
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus' closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that an unruly mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA's early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.
Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it's also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.
Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.
Apparently Tertius is still posting the same stuff in a failed attempt to make a point.
His ignorance of not knowing that the film caused riots in Islamic countries around the world does not change the fact that Egyptian media broadcast information about the video, causing riots to erupt in Islamic countries around the world.
The fact that he heard it first from the administration does not change the fact that it happened before the administration ever mentioned it.
The fact that he has concocted this lunatical conspiracy does not change the fact that local media reports the militia in Libya attacked the American consulate in Benghazi because they were angry about the film.
Why he keeps referring to his lunatical fabrication as if it were even tangentially related to reality is beyond me. I guess once the wingnuts latch on to another episode in their fabricated mythology, no amount of rational thought or logic will ever make them give it up.
Stinger wrote:
Tertius wrote:I did not say Obama had the film made. He could have gotten a better movie made than that.
I am only saying the first I can find a public mention of the film came from the administration. Then the protest started. Twenty odd protest followed the administration's drumbeat about the film.
Not surprised you didn't hear of it. The Muslim world did. And they reacted . . . before the Libya attack.
CAIRO -- September 11, 2012
Protesters scaled the wall of the heavily-fortified US embassy in Cairo Tuesday, angry over a film that Egyptian media reported was produced in the US and mocks the prophet Muhammad.
Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the embassy, alternating religious slogans with chants against the US or President Obama. Some climbed over the wall and tore down the American flag, raising instead a black flag with an Islamic inscription that is often associated with Islamic extremists.
...
Most of the protesters said they had never seen the film, but heard about it from Egyptian television channels, newspapers, or Facebook. One religious channel broadcast what it said was a clip from a film produced in the US by Egyptian Christians who had emigrated there.
Some protesters said they heard the film was supposed to be broadcast in the US today. They said the protest was not related to the anniversary of 9/11.
It was all over Egyptian media. They stormed the U.S. embassy. You didn't hear about it?
And all reports from Libya indicate that the Libyan militants who attacked our embassy in Benghazi attacked because they were angry over that same video.
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
There were also anti-American riots and demonstrations in the Philippines, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and other places.
These facts are clear:
More security was requested.
Attacks in Libya had been increasing not decreasing.
More security was requested again and again.
The Obama administration rejected again and again request for more security.
Not only did the Obama administration reject request for more security but ordered out of Libya two thirds of the security.
The security ordered out by the Obama administration was not paid out of the State Department budget like Marines are.
The security ordered out were special forces paid by the Department of Defense.
There were no protest at all at the consulate.
The attack was planed.
The armed attackers kept the few that escaped under fire all the way across town.
The Under Secretary responsible for security just happened to be on duty, at night, in Washington, DC during the entire attack.
She, in charge of security, knew the truth real time what happened as it happened.
Ambassador Stevens was murdered.
Ambassador Stevens personally arranged the arming of those that over threw the Libyan government.
Some of those same terrorist that the Obama administration gave weapons to murdered Stevens.
Stevens objected to who the Obama administration was arranging to get weapons.
Ambassador Stevens was gay.
The Muslim terrorist knew they got weapons from Obama via a gay man.
Of all the Muslim protest none were at the consulate yet only there did a planed attack occur.
With the State Department knowing real time there was no video protest the Obama administration sent out to five different TV Sunday shows to lie.
Tertius wrote:These facts are clear:
More security was requested. And?
Attacks in Libya had been increasing not decreasing. And?
More security was requested again and again. And?
The Obama administration rejected again and again request for more security.
No, that's not fact. That's a right-wing distortion and lie. It's been testified to that the decisions not to return the sixteen-man security contingent to the embassy in Tripoli (not Benghazi) was made by mid-level State Department supervisors.
Your constant bungling of the facts does not change the facts.
Not only did the Obama administration reject request for more security but ordered out of Libya two thirds of the security.
Not fact. The Obama administration didn't order it. It was a standard State Department act of normalization of diplomatic relations. The security team was replaced, man for man, by Libyans trained by the State Department.
The security ordered out by the Obama administration was not paid out of the State Department budget like Marines are.
Partial fact. The SST was loaned to the State Department by the Pentagon, but it wasn't ordered out of Libya by the Obama administration. "As has been said before ...."
The security ordered out were special forces paid by the Department of Defense. And?
There were no protest at all at the consulate. And?
The attack was planed.
"Planed"? You were in on it? How do you know this? Do you have reliable sources? Planned five minutes in advance? An hour? Five days?
The most reliable information suggests that the attack was due to anger of the anti-Islamic film mentioned about a million times.
The armed attackers kept the few that escaped under fire all the way across town. And?
The Under Secretary responsible for security just happened to be on duty, at night, in Washington, DC during the entire attack. And?
She, in charge of security, knew the truth real time what happened as it happened.
And what was the "real truth" that she knew?
Ambassador Stevens was murdered. And?
Ambassador Stevens personally arranged the arming of those that over threw the Libyan government. And?
Some of those same terrorist that the Obama administration gave weapons to murdered Stevens. BS speculation.
Stevens objected to who the Obama administration was arranging to get weapons. BS speculation.
Ambassador Stevens was gay. And?
The Muslim terrorist knew they got weapons from Obama via a gay man. BS speculation.
Of all the Muslim protest none were at the consulate yet only there did a planed attack occur.
A "planed" attack? Again?
And who says it was "planed"? How long was it "planed"?
With the State Department knowing real time there was no video protest the Obama administration sent out to five different TV Sunday shows to lie.
Really? Which five? What lies?
None of your babble-mixture of irrelevant facts and knee-jerk speculation changes any of the facts.
Muslim demonstrations occurred worldwide in angry reaction to the anti-Islamic film.
They happened. Your beliefs can't make them disappear.
