PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Embassy Attacks


Bonnie
09-14-2012, 05:00 AM
News article regarding the recent U.S. embassy attacks and murders...very disturbing if it's true that our State Dept. had credible info 48 hrs. before the attack, and also disturbing about the security breach regarding the "safe" house there in Libya.

THE INDEPENDENT - London

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination
Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

Kim Sengupta Friday 14 September 2012

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya.

In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed.

A mob of several hundred stormed the US embassy in the Yemeni capital Sanaa yesterday. Other missions which have been put on special alert include almost all those in the Middle East, as well as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Burundi and Zambia.

Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.

There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa'ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Senator Bill Nelson, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: "I am asking my colleagues on the committee to immediately investigate what role al-Qa'ida or its affiliates may have played in the attack and to take appropriate action."

According to security sources the consulate had been given a "health check" in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs."

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."

Mr Stevens, it is believed, was left in the building by the rest of the staff after they failed to find him in dense smoke caused by a blaze which had engulfed the building. He was discovered lying unconscious by local people and taken to a hospital, the Benghazi Medical Centre, where, according to a doctor, Ziad Abu Ziad, he died from smoke inhalation.

An eight-strong American rescue team was sent from Tripoli and taken by troops under Captain Fathi al- Obeidi, of the February 17 Brigade, to the secret safe house to extract around 40 US staff. The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. "I don't know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries," said Captain Obeidi. "It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa."

Libyan reinforcements eventually arrived, and the attack ended. News had arrived of Mr Stevens, and his body was picked up from the hospital and taken back to Tripoli with the other dead and the survivors.

Mr Stevens' mother, Mary Commanday, spoke of her son yesterday. "He did love what he did, and he did a very good job with it. He could have done a lot of other things, but this was his passion. I have a hole in my heart," she said.

Global anger: The protests spread

Yemen

The furore across the Middle East over the controversial film about the Prophet Mohamed is now threatening to get out of control. In Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, yesterday around 5,000 demonstrators attacked the US embassy, leaving at least 15 people injured. Young protesters, shouted: "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God," smashed windows of the security offices and burned at least five cars, witnesses said.

Egypt

Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi yesterday condemned the attack in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador. In a speech in Brussels, Mr Morsi said he had spoken to President Obama and condemned "in the clearest terms" the Tuesday attacks. Despite this, and possibly playing to a domestic audience, President Obama said yesterday that "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy".

Demonstrators in Cairo attacked the mission on Tuesday evening and protests have continued since.

Iraq

Militants said the anti-Islamic film "will put all the American interests Iraq in danger" and called on Muslims everywhere to "face our joint enemy", as protesters in Baghdad burned American flags yesterday. The warning from the Iranian-backed group Asaib Ahl al-Haq came as demonstrators demanded the closure of the US embassy in the capital.

Bangladesh

Islamists warned they may "besiege" the US embassy in Dhaka after security forces stopped around 1,000 protesters marching to the building. The Khelafat Andolon group called for bigger protests as demonstrators threw their fists in the air, burned the flag and chanted anti-US slogans.

Others

There was a Hamas-organised protest in Gaza City, and as many as 100 Arab Israelis took to the streets in Tel Aviv. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai postponed a trip to Norway, fearing violence. Officials in Pakistan said they "expected protests". Protesters in Tunis burnt US flags.

flo
09-14-2012, 06:00 AM
Will be interesting to see what media outlets pick this story up. Thanks for posting it, Bon.

My heart goes out to Ambassador Stevens' family and the loved ones of the other 3 Americans murdered. What a black day.

NateR
09-14-2012, 06:13 AM
It's also disturbing that our President is skipping his security briefings during these attacks so that he can stay on the campaign trail.

Bonnie
09-14-2012, 06:25 AM
Is the Arab Spring turning into a nightmare for Israel and America? The expression, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't," comes to mind seeing what is happening now in Egypt. Is this what the Egyptian people had in mind when they ousted Mubarak...the Muslim Brotherhood? I've been watching the news stories, some people, like John McCain, think we shouldn't give up on democracy in the Middle East, others think we should withdraw from that part of the world and withdraw all our financial aid. Is democracy realistic for the Middle East and these other Muslim countries, or, are we just kidding ourselves?

What do you think?

Bonnie
09-14-2012, 06:46 AM
It's also disturbing that our President is skipping his security briefings during these attacks so that he can stay on the campaign trail.

Oh, didn't you hear, unlike Bush, he doesn't "need" to be briefed every day by his intelligence advisers. :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-alone-this-president-does-not-need-intel-briefers/2012/09/13/c11e1a52-fda5-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

Obama alone: This president does not need intel briefers

By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: September 13The Washington Post

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States.

According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. “As I’ve told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day,” Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush: “Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.” (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes that Bush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he “decided he would prefer to read less.”)

Vietor’s reply is quite revealing. It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obama’s PDB is “not briefed to him.” In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not need briefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

Truly sophisticated consumers of intelligence don’t see it as a sign of weakness to “be briefed” by the experts. Most of us, if we subscribed to a daily report on, say, astrophysics, would probably need some help interpreting it. But when it comes to intelligence, Obama is apparently so brilliant he can absorb the most complicated topics by himself in his study. He does not need to sit down for up to an hour a day with top intelligence officials, or hold more than 100 “deep dives” in which he invites CIA analysts into the Oval Office and gives them direct access to the commander in chief to discuss their areas of expertise. Such meetings are crutches this president does not need. Written briefings, questions and comments are enough. Obama has more important things to do — such as attend Las Vegas fundraisers.

No doubt the intelligence community has adapted to its diminished access to the commander in chief and is finding a way to get the president the intelligence he needs. Members of the community have endured a lot these past 3 1/2 years — accusations of torture from the Oval Office; more than 100 criminal investigations from the Obama Justice Department that resulted in zero — zero — criminal charges being filed; a president who is quick to claim credit for killing Osama bin Laden while denying credit to the CIA interrogators who made the mission possible. They’ll survive not being invited more frequently into the Oval Office.

But the hubris of a president who believes he does not need to meet regularly with them is astounding. When President John F. Kennedy gathered every living American Nobel laureate for dinner at the White House in 1962, he declared it “the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Apparently, in this administration’s view, Kennedy had it wrong — the most extraordinary collection of talent and knowledge ever gathered in the White House is when Barack Obama reads his daily intelligence brief alone.

Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly online column for The Post.

rearnakedchoke
09-14-2012, 03:18 PM
very sad ...... thoughts and prayers to the victims families ...

rockdawg21
09-14-2012, 08:10 PM
University of Texas in Austin was evacuated this morning due to bomb threats from the film. Terrorists are such cowards, if they have a problem take it to the film makers. That'd be like me murdering my neighbors because I didn't like a decision made by our President. On that note, I picked up this:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/296794_4257129702950_1281540799_n.jpg

Bonnie
09-14-2012, 08:56 PM
They just showed the flag draped coffins coming home at Andrews, and a small gathering with the President, and SOS, Hillary Clinton along with families and collegues of these brave Americans. These things are always so sad.

The one thing I didn't care for was after Hillary Clinton recognized and spoke a little about the four men, she then went into a more lengthy, stern speech about everything from the film, to what happened, and the responsibility of these foreign leaders to protect us. This was the speech I wanted to hear from her yesterday instead of the one we got. I just didn't think it was appropriate for this moment; this moment was to welcome home, for the last time, these four brave American men who died in service to our country. God bless them. :sad:

Bonnie
09-14-2012, 09:11 PM
University of Texas in Austin was evacuated this morning due to bomb threats from the film. Terrorists are such cowards, if they have a problem take it to the film makers. That'd be like me murdering my neighbors because I didn't like a decision made by our President. On that note, I picked up this:

I didn't realize that is what was going on. I had the tv on, but wasn't really paying close attention at the time. I thought this film was made in California. They said last night, they found out this guy, who had many aliases and addresses, was really Egyptian and part of the Coptic Christians Church. He told people involved with the film that he was from Israel and that Jews had given money to finance the film. Hearing that, I'm suspicious now...was the film really about his "anti-Muslim" feelings, or was the goal really to stir up radical muslims to violence against Americans and possibly Israel?

From what has come out about the attack in Libya, that was an organized plan of attack with insider help. They seem to be saying the protest and violation of our embassy in Egypt was different, but I don't think it's a coincidence that both occurred on the anniversary of 9/11.

NateR
09-15-2012, 12:00 AM
but I don't think it's a coincidence that both occurred on the anniversary of 9/11.

Yeah, I don't believe the date of the attacks is a coincidence at all.

It's also despicable to me that the Obama Administration would be verbally attacking an American's free speech rights in order to appease terrorists.

Bonnie
09-15-2012, 04:58 AM
Yeah, I don't believe the date of the attacks is a coincidence at all.

It's also despicable to me that the Obama Administration would be verbally attacking an American's free speech rights in order to appease terrorists.

They keep talking about this film, giving it legs, as if this is the reason why all of this is happening. These protestors admitted they haven't even seen the film, they've just been told about it. I can't believe how this is being handled! This is what WH Press Secretary, Jay Carney had to say today: :rolleyes:

Carney: Anti-Islam Video Completely to Blame for ‘Unrest’

Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman 09.14.2012 - 2:05 PM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/14/carney-anti-islam-video-completely-to-blame-for-unrest/

White House spokesman Jay Carney just held a press briefing that was equal parts absurd and horrifying. Even as American embassies are mobbed by radicals, and our flags are torched and replaced with Islamist banners, Carney continued to repeat — almost as if he were trying to convince himself — that the riots are purely a reaction to a low-budget anti-Islam Youtube film. Nothing to do with the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. Nothing to do with support for al-Qaeda or Islamic terrorism.

“Let’s be clear: these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region,” said Carney. “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”

“The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that many Muslims find offensive,” added Carney. “It is not a response to 9/11.”

And it continued on like that for the rest of the briefing:

“The unrest around the region has been in response to the video.”

“What we have seen is unrest around the region in response to a video that Muslims find offensive.”

“We are working to ensure that our diplomatic personnel and our diplomatic facilities are secure as we deal with the response to this video, which we believe is offensive and disgusting.”

“The cause of the unrest was a video. And that continues today, as you know, as we anticipated. And it may continue for some time.”

“The reason why there’s unrest is because of the film. This is in response to the film… this is not a film that the United States government had anything to do with. We reject its message and its contents we find it both reprehensible.”

“My point was simply that we are responding to and coping with and dealing with…unrest brought about by this offensive video.”

“The unrest we’ve seen is a reaction to a film with which the U.S. government has had no involvement, which we’ve denounced as offensive. As I said yesterday, it can be difficult to see in some countries why the U.S. can’t simply eliminate this expression…but as you know…it’s one of our fundamental principles.”

“We find the video reprehensible and disgusting…This video has nothing to do, has nothing to do with the American government. It has nothing to do with who we are or what we believe.”

Even if the video fueled the protests, how did a low-budget Youtube film that nobody had heard of before last week get dubbed into Arabic and distributed around Muslim countries? The answer is fanatical Islamist leaders who used the film to incite outrage on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

And if you believe the video was the sole drive behind the protests, then why were U.S. flags replaced with the flags of al-Qaeda? Why were terrorists groups reportedly involved in organizing the protests weeks in advance — before the film even came to light?

The Obama administration does not want to talk about terrorism, because it wants to pretend it defeated terrorism by killing Osama bin Laden. They don’t want to mention al-Qaeda, unless of course it’s in the context of a drone our military dropped on one of its leaders. But as the embassy attacks illustrate, the Islamic terror threat has not disappeared. It hasn’t been vanquished by the lofty speeches of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning president, or eradicated by his policy of covert assassinations. The fact that the White House hasn’t seemed to grasp this is what made today’s briefing so tone-deaf, and so startling.

rev
09-15-2012, 09:34 AM
This will somehow be Bush's fault.

rearnakedchoke
09-15-2012, 03:37 PM
Yeah, I don't believe the date of the attacks is a coincidence at all.

It's also despicable to me that the Obama Administration would be verbally attacking an American's free speech rights in order to appease terrorists.

yeah ... its so despicable that he is trying to stop violence and killing around the globe ... the idiot that made this movie had one motive and that it to piss people off and cause this crap ... if you have watched the film, he duped the actors and everyone in the film into making what he made .. and i don't even think he is american ... i think he is eqyptian ... but whatever ..

Neezar
09-15-2012, 04:22 PM
No doubt the intelligence community has adapted to its diminished access to the commander in chief and is finding a way to get the president the intelligence he needs. Members of the community have endured a lot these past 3 1/2 years — accusations of torture from the Oval Office; more than 100 criminal investigations from the Obama Justice Department that resulted in zero — zero — criminal charges being filed; a president who is quick to claim credit for killing Osama bin Laden while denying credit to the CIA interrogators who made the mission possible. They’ll survive not being invited more frequently into the Oval Office.


Hadn't even thought of it from that point of view. Cherry picking.

Neezar
09-15-2012, 04:24 PM
yeah ... its so despicable that he is trying to stop violence and killing around the globe ... the idiot that made this movie had one motive and that it to piss people off and cause this crap ... if you have watched the film, he duped the actors and everyone in the film into making what he made .. and i don't even think he is american ... i think he is eqyptian ... but whatever ..

:huh:

Which do you think would (logically) piss off the terrorists more: Killing bin Laden or someone making an independent YouTube film?

huan
09-15-2012, 04:36 PM
blaming a movie that has been out months after the killings just happen to kick off on 9/11 is hilarious.

I guess we can blame Bill Maher's Religulous for the Westboro Baptists now...

VCURamFan
09-15-2012, 05:07 PM
yeah ... its so despicable that he is trying to stop violence and killing around the globe ... the idiot that made this movie had one motive and that it to piss people off and cause this crap ... if you have watched the film, he duped the actors and everyone in the film into making what he made .. and i don't even think he is american ... i think he is eqyptian ... but whatever ..
Much like the idiot who burned the American flag & is protected under the 1st amendment, right? Or the idiot who publishes Neo-Nazi literature?

Just because it's a stupid, ignorant thing to say doesn't change the fact that he's 100% protected in saying it.

NateR
09-15-2012, 05:21 PM
yeah ... its so despicable that he is trying to stop violence and killing around the globe ... the idiot that made this movie had one motive and that it to piss people off and cause this crap ... if you have watched the film, he duped the actors and everyone in the film into making what he made .. and i don't even think he is american ... i think he is eqyptian ... but whatever ..

So, if a Michael Moore movie makes me angry and I kill somebody over it, then it's Michael Moore's fault not mine? The only reason that idiot makes movies is to piss people off, so isn't it the same thing?

Freedom of expression is one of the founding principles of this country. By speaking out against free expression, the President makes our country look weak and divided. In the long run, that is going to cost more lives than these riots.

Besides, the film is just a convenient excuse, I'm fully convinced these riots were planned out long before. The Obama Administration is just working overtime to cover up the fact that al Qaeda is alive and well post-Osama bin Laden.

Tyburn
09-15-2012, 05:34 PM
Is the Arab Spring turning into a nightmare for Israel and America? The expression, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't," comes to mind seeing what is happening now in Egypt. Is this what the Egyptian people had in mind when they ousted Mubarak...the Muslim Brotherhood? I've been watching the news stories, some people, like John McCain, think we shouldn't give up on democracy in the Middle East, others think we should withdraw from that part of the world and withdraw all our financial aid. Is democracy realistic for the Middle East and these other Muslim countries, or, are we just kidding ourselves?

What do you think?

Well...most of us dont understand President Barack Obama over Egypt certainly.

Hosni Mubarack was an allied force to the United States, and whilst he was also a dictator, the administration quite literally left him to the mob. Now they have an Islamic Brotherhood in power in Egypt with a boarder to Israel...thats just...real clever isnt it?

The one thing that the west havent realized yet is that, firstly, Democracy only amounts to "ellected dictatorship" and secondly, They dont realize that sometimes people DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM...sometimes the Will of the People is really not a wise thing to indulge

I NEVER understood why America and England allowed what became of poor Hosni I really dont.

The best rule of thumb is a benign and well loved dictatorship, it has to be said. It is stable, everyone knows the state of play, everyone is fine with the state of play. Sometimes "Revolutions" just give birth to other monsters, no better then the monsters they decapitated.

There are two things to note about this attack...firstly, I concure that this was a planned event, and that it was to do with marking 9/11 and not to do with the film. HOWEVER, I think the general mood has everything to do with the film, and its a case of "any excuse"

This is going to turn shockingly bad for Barack Obama, who must know what Israel will do in the next two months...and how do we think that will go down in the arab world? Not well...Egypt and Jordan provided safety for Israel when she angered the arabs because they WERE relatively liberal...Egypt getting a more conservative form of Islam is not going to be so relaxed when their better friends the Iranians get an airstrike up the arse....

I dont really see how Barack Obama can hope to win the ellection now...embassies bombed, ambassidors dead, and Israel about to go AWOL over Iran....and all when Obama should be talking the talk and walking the walk....if he says its wrong, he will anger the islamists and it will get worse, if he says its okay and does nothing, the Americans will think he has no bottle...if he aggrees with Israel, the rest of the world are going to roll their eyes at the Americans flippent foreign policy and say it has more exceptions then rules...if he condemns Israel he can say good bye to his cherished Jewish Vote.

Lets see him talk himself out of this one....all Romney has to do is stand back and watch...I think the Democrat campaign is about to come crashing down, and GOD willing, it will take the current administration with it.

Tyburn
09-15-2012, 05:57 PM
It's also despicable to me that the Obama Administration would be verbally attacking an American's free speech rights in order to appease terrorists.

:laugh:

Firstly...Barack Obama would rather this film never have been made, because the response to it makes his life more difficult...this has nothing to do with appeasing terrorists...it has to do with making his campaign trail easy enough...why? coz without the film he wouldnt have to deal with these new terrorists.

Secondly...Does your government not have the right to express its opinion? if it dissagrees with this film, should it keep stum? Would that not be to exert a form of tyrany over your Government?

Finally...there is a case where a large number of Americans think because they have the freedom to do whatever they want, they SHOULD do it, just because they can. I'm not sure why anyone would bother to make films to poke fun at other peoples religions, unless they were deliberately intending to cause distress. Just because you can...doesnt mean you should...and whilst the response is on the people who respond...let us make quite clear that the self discipline not to rise to a taunt should be equaled by the ability not to be so imature as to make the taunt in the first place.

America often acts without thinking of the consequences, and her people, often move emotively without engaing rationale. We all remember how just a few years ago, despite knowing that burning Qurans would not stop the spread of Islam and would only make matters worse and more unsafe for the troops on the front...a worryingly large number of people ON THIS VERY FORUM, considered it perfectly justified, simply to quell their own rage, and to make a two fingered gesture which was most unbecoming, and entirely GODless in its malice.

So...in summery...Obama is only thinking about himself...not about the American people, and not about the Terrorists. The film makers and those who think abusing the freedom they have been granted, on an emotive whim, without the slightest thought about consequences beyond their selfish need to express themselves in a degrading and appaulingly rude manner, is quite deliberate, and just as inexcuseable as the violence the results due to reception by a people with next to no self control over religion period.

Finally...the film and the embassy violence, are not as connected as everyone is making out. 9/11 will be the reason for any planned attack, but general riots with no purpose and anti-americanism views will be due to the negative properganda of films like the one being dicussed.

Bonnie
09-15-2012, 06:09 PM
yeah ... its so despicable that he is trying to stop violence and killing around the globe ... the idiot that made this movie had one motive and that it to piss people off and cause this crap ... if you have watched the film, he duped the actors and everyone in the film into making what he made .. and i don't even think he is american ... i think he is eqyptian ... but whatever ..

How is what they are doing going to stop this mindless violence? They've mishandled this situation from the get-go, constantly getting on tv, apologizing, placating, they've made us look weak and pathetic! All they've done is to validate these radicals' "reasoning" for all this violence by constantly mentioning and blaming this film. Do you honestly think these protestors have seen that film? When asked, they've said they haven't seen the film, but were "told" about it. Who is telling them about it? Who is encouraging their violence?....their radical Islamic leaders perhaps. And I guess it's just a fluke all this started on Sept. 11?!

It's being reported that the Benghazi compound was previously attacked this summer with an IED so it was already a target before this film came out. They knew where the safe house was. This attack was not a "spontaneous" one spurred by some little known Youtube film. What happened in Egypt, those protests had to be planned too. This film is just being used to fuel the situation, but it didn't cause what was already there.

rearnakedchoke
09-15-2012, 07:00 PM
Much like the idiot who burned the American flag & is protected under the 1st amendment, right? Or the idiot who publishes Neo-Nazi literature?

Just because it's a stupid, ignorant thing to say doesn't change the fact that he's 100% protected in saying it.

yeah .. i guess you're right

rearnakedchoke
09-15-2012, 07:05 PM
Lets see him talk himself out of this one....all Romney has to do is stand back and watch...I think the Democrat campaign is about to come crashing down, and GOD willing, it will take the current administration with it.

LOL .. this election is all but over for romney ... he was the worst possible choice for the republicans ... for all the talk of tea party this, tea party that over the last few years .. the GOP goes and nominates Mitt? at first i thought this was gonna be a close election but i think the gap will be bigger this time than in 08

huan
09-15-2012, 07:27 PM
LOL .. this election is all but over for romney ... he was the worst possible choice for the republicans ... for all the talk of tea party this, tea party that over the last few years .. the GOP goes and nominates Mitt? at first i thought this was gonna be a close election but i think the gap will be bigger this time than in 08

lol, a bigger gap than in 08? if you mean in the GOP's favor, you're probably right. the most accurate electoral college prediction model heavily favors romney. and it has a track record of being 100% correct since its inception in 1980.

NateR
09-15-2012, 10:45 PM
Secondly...Does your government not have the right to express its opinion? if it dissagrees with this film, should it keep stum? Would that not be to exert a form of tyrany over your Government?

When they are on duty, government officials and members of the military do NOT have the right to express their personal opinions unless they are specifically asked for it. And even then, their personal opinions should NEVER interfere with the performance of their duties. Those agencies exist to protect democracy, not to practice it. That's just how it's always been.

flo
09-16-2012, 12:26 AM
LOL .. this election is all but over for romney ... he was the worst possible choice for the republicans ... for all the talk of tea party this, tea party that over the last few years .. the GOP goes and nominates Mitt? at first i thought this was gonna be a close election but i think the gap will be bigger this time than in 08

Nice try, rnc. I love it how the looney left just announces "the election is all but over", hoping that delusional statement will somehow keep people from voting for Romney in November. I can't wait for Nov. 6th!!

BTW, Obama's convention bounce is gone and once again, Romney is leading in the presidential match-up according to the latest Rasmussen polls.

Tyburn
09-16-2012, 10:29 AM
When they are on duty, government officials and members of the military do NOT have the right to express their personal opinions unless they are specifically asked for it. And even then, their personal opinions should NEVER interfere with the performance of their duties. Those agencies exist to protect democracy, not to practice it. That's just how it's always been.

Since when was any Government (outside of a Jaunta) bound by any kind of Military Law whatsoever. :huh: Are the disciplinary procedures for members of your Government and associated branches...even...for example, the Department of Defence...not based on Civil Law?? Do you really haul them before a Court Mashal??? :blink: That would be extraordinary

The Government Structure is made of Civil Servants, not Military Personnel...they are Civilians...NOT soldiers....Even the top level of the Military it could be argued are only Military in title...how else do you justify someone with zero military experience being incharge of the entire armed force...thats absurd if to be taken as anything more then a token.

BUT it is interesting that you give that answer...because there is an argument of professionalism in politics...the problem with this, is that politics on the whole is nothing but the practise of lies to decieve a nation, and the world, into getting exactly what the rulling elite want. That is why its an ellected dictatorship...but a dictatorship non the less.

Tyburn
09-16-2012, 10:33 AM
Nice try, rnc. I love it how the looney left just announces "the election is all but over", hoping that delusional statement will somehow keep people from voting for Romney in November. I can't wait for Nov. 6th!!

BTW, Obama's convention bounce is gone and once again, Romney is leading in the presidential match-up according to the latest Rasmussen polls.

:laugh: In England...all the Tabloids representing the left have gone very silent...they stirred up shyte when poor Romney came across to visit just before the Olympics...but since then they've gone quiet

The papers of the Right keep saying that on points Barack Obama is begining to slip behind in favour. You know when the papers of the Left stop reporting things and pretend they dont exist that they realize that their position is fast going

In the international world everyone is expecting it to be a close fight with Romney winning it :happydancing:

Bonnie
09-16-2012, 07:33 PM
For some reason, the Obama administration seems mulishly determined to keep saying the Benghazi attack in Libya was "spontaneous" sparked by the Cario protests over this film, while the Libyan government says it was definitely a preplanned attack.

Who do you believe?

(Click links to see "full" articles):

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/09/libyan-president-no-doubt-consulate-attack-preplanned-135664.html

Libyan president: 'No doubt' attack 'preplanned'

Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf said Sunday that 50 arrests have been made in connection with last week's "preplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

"The way these perpetrators acted and moved -- I think we, and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined," Magariaf said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"And you believe that this was the work of Al Qaeda, and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that what you’re telling us?" CBS host Bob Schieffer asked.

"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

More details emerge on U.S. ambassador's last moments

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.

He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.

"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.

Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area

Tyburn
09-16-2012, 07:38 PM
I believe the Libyan Governments view is correct....but its a more frightening prospect for the United States Administration which is trying to avoid being toppled during the next General Ellection :)

I suppose that by the time shyte hits fan, Obama will be gone from office and may not see it as his problem what happens in the future, should this attack have been pre-planned and cause another wave of terrorism, it wont be his job.

Tell me...what honours do they bestow upon Presidents leaving office?? In England...a terrors of the commons are often blessed with a seat in the house of lords where they can continue to distroy the country :laugh:

Bonnie
09-16-2012, 07:47 PM
I believe the Libyan Governments view is correct....but its a more frightening prospect for the United States Administration which is trying to avoid being toppled during the next General Ellection :)

I suppose that by the time shyte hits fan, Obama will be gone from office and may not see it as his problem what happens in the future, should this attack have been pre-planned and cause another wave of terrorism, it wont be his job.

Tell me...what honours do they bestow upon Presidents leaving office?? In England...a terrors of the commons are often blessed with a seat in the house of lords where they can continue to distroy the country :laugh:

An "Adios"! :laugh: Oh, and usually a presidential library named after them.

Here is an interesting article I saw on Drudge. I think it probably sums up how the Obama administration and his Middle East policies are viewed by Israel:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-foreign-ministry-u-s-ignored-arab-radicalization.premium-1.465210

Israeli Foreign Ministry: U.S. ignored Arab radicalization

Foreign Ministry official on signs of 'radicalization' in Arab world: ‘We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses.’

By Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis | Sep.16, 2012 | 1:01 AM

For months before the most recent attacks on U.S. embassies in North African states, Foreign Ministry and U.S. State Department officials had been arguing over developments in these countries. Senior figures in Jerusalem claimed that Washington was burying its head in the sand and ignoring the increasing radicalization in states such as Tunisia and Egypt.

Stay informed on all latest news and analysis from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world - subscribe now to Haaretz digital editions. Use our special offer for the High Holy Days - 3 MONTHS FREE with purchase of an annual subscription.

The Obama administration, which since the beginning of the Arab Spring has aided, directly or indirectly, the forces that brought down the dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Lybia, now finds itself in a position of helplessness. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi, in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed, and the storming of the U.S. embassies in Tunis, Sanaa and Cairo, proved the great hostility to the United States and the unwillingness of these country's new leaders to challenge domestic public opinion.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials say their conversations with their Washington counterparts have focused on what Jerusalem terms "radicalizing trends" against not only Israel but also against the United States and the West in general.

One of the most recent such meetings took place a week ago, during a visit to Jerusalem by the acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, A. Elizabeth Jones.

"The Americans were constantly trying to supply explanations and excuses for events in the post-revolution Arab states, and simply ignored the problems," one senior Israeli official said, adding, "In practice the administration's ability to affect events in the Arab world has decreased immensely."

The Foreign Ministry official presented the example of Tunisia, which was expected to be moderate despite the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. Several weeks ago Israel's ambassador to Poland, Zvi Rav-Ner, reported that the Tunisian ambassador to Poland had been called back to Tunisia unexpectedly, ending her posting there. Rav-Ner added that all five women serving as ambassadors of Tunisia in various countries had been recalled at around the same time.

The Israel embassy in Washington was instructed to report the matter to the State Department and determine whether it was aware of the development. Several days late U.S. officials reported that the measure was technical only, involving the replacement of all ambassadors from the previous regime, and had nothing to do with gender discrimination.

The Foreign Ministry conducted its own examination and determined that many male ambassadors from the previous regime had not been recalled. "We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses," said the senior official.

A similar pattern emerged as to Israeli efforts to prevent a clause being added to the new Tunisian constitution outlawing normalization or contacts with Israel. The Foreign Ministry asked the United States to intervene, but was not satisfied by the response. "They told us, 'Don't worry, it's going to be all right, the clause will be left out,' but the clause is still in there," the official said.

Israel has also called American attention to the fact that for the past year Egypt has been dragging its feet over talks on reopening the Israeli embassy in Cairo. U.S. appeals have failed to speed things up.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials said the latest riots at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, and the weak condemnation of President Mohammad Morsi, demonstrated that despite its massive military and economic aid to Egypt the United States had failed to achieve any real influence over the Muslim Brotherhood. "Only now, after what happened to their embassies, the Americans are beginning to understand the situation," the senior official concluded, "to hear the president of the United States declared that Egypt isn't an ally, but also isn't the enemy - that's a real earthquake," he said.

In related news, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has launched a new public relations offensive in the United States. He has recorded interviews that will be broadcast today on important Sunday-morning political shows on CNN and NBC, all in an effort to persuade the American public that setting "red lines" for Iran will cool Tehran's enthusiasm for its nuclear program and reduce the likelihood of a wider military confrontation. Netanyahu is expected to point to the violent demonstrations at U.S. embassies around the world and to say, "Think what would happen if these people had nuclear weapons."

Tyburn
09-16-2012, 08:10 PM
An "Adios"! :laugh: Oh, and usually a presidential library named after them.

Here is an interesting article I saw on Drudge. I think it probably sums up how the Obama administration and his Middle East policies are viewed by Israel:

:laugh: Oh...if only we could do that with ours...Maggie Thatcher...can you believe it...is STILL in the House of Lords....(The SENIOR House which has to sign off...OR REJECT...the laws created and discussed in the Commons....where she was Prime Minister aproximately a quarter of a century ago!!)

:laugh:

Benyamin Netenyahu has never really gotten on with Barack Obama, it has to be said...and Barack Obama has not really supported Israel vocally...For example, when the Turkish Flotilla was invading the water territory, Obama paid them off!! When Israel moved to develope a housing establishment on the west bank, Obama told them off!! He's done F All about Palestine either...and ad far as the Israelis are concerned...he isnt dealing with Iran.

You do realize that Israel is mere weeks away from launching airstrikes on parts of Iran...they will move BEFORE the US Ellection so to cause as much problems for Obama as possible...they plan on buying his silence with threatening his Jewish Vote.

Bonnie
09-16-2012, 08:19 PM
:laugh: Oh...if only we could do that with ours...Maggie Thatcher...can you believe it...is STILL in the House of Lords....(The SENIOR House which has to sign off...OR REJECT...the laws created and discussed in the Commons....where she was Prime Minister aproximately a quarter of a century ago!!)

:laugh:

Benyamin Netenyahu has never really gotten on with Barack Obama, it has to be said...and Barack Obama has not really supported Israel vocally...For example, when the Turkish Flotilla was invading the water territory, Obama paid them off!! When Israel moved to develope a housing establishment on the west bank, Obama told them off!! He's done F All about Palestine either...and ad far as the Israelis are concerned...he isnt dealing with Iran.

You do realize that Israel is mere weeks away from launching airstrikes on parts of Iran...they will move BEFORE the US Ellection so to cause as much problems for Obama as possible...they plan on buying his silence with threatening his Jewish Vote.

Look at this video of Amb. Susan Rice talking about these attacks and our current relationship with Israel, saying, "it's never been better". :rolleyes: The things she is saying are absolutely ridiculous!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1843960658001/did-us-policy-or-anti-muslim-film-spark-mideast-violence

Tyburn
09-16-2012, 08:25 PM
Look at this video of Amb. Susan Rice talking about these attacks and our current relationship with Israel..."never been better". :rolleyes: The things she is saying is absolutely ridiculous!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1843960658001/did-us-policy-or-anti-muslim-film-spark-mideast-violence

You know we have a REAL problem looming here...

I see tensions between Israel and Iran and I dont like it....I also see Tension between Germany and Greece...There is the issue of Syria and the Arab Spring...There is the issue of a new wave of Anti-Americanism on the verge of a Presidential Ellection...The Austrailian Republicans moving against the commonwealth and China and Japan squabbling over south pacific islands.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Iran ALREADY HAS Nuclear weapons and are waiting for Israel to conduct an airstrike so they can retaliate in a nuclear capacity? Israel is rather predictable...if she feels threatened she will attempt to assert control...all you need is a few enlightened individuals in Iran and you could, in effect, set a trap.

I find the international stage at the moment VERY frightening :sad:

Bonnie
09-16-2012, 08:29 PM
Benyamin Netenyahu has never really gotten on with Barack Obama, it has to be said...and Barack Obama has not really supported Israel vocally...For example, when the Turkish Flotilla was invading the water territory, Obama paid them off!! When Israel moved to develope a housing establishment on the west bank, Obama told them off!! He's done F All about Palestine either...and ad far as the Israelis are concerned...he isnt dealing with Iran.

You do realize that Israel is mere weeks away from launching airstrikes on parts of Iran...they will move BEFORE the US Ellection so to cause as much problems for Obama as possible...they plan on buying his silence with threatening his Jewish Vote.

Article about it:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/16/netanyahu-iran-guided-by-leadership-fanaticism/

Netanyahu: US must draw a 'red line' with Iran over nuclear weapons

Published September 16, 2012-Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a direct appeal to American voters on Sunday to elect a president willing to draw a "red line" with Iran, comparing Tehran's nuclear program to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and reminding Americans of the devastating repercussions of failed intelligence.

His remarks were an impassioned election-season plea from a world leader who insists he doesn't want to insert himself into U.S. politics and hasn't endorsed either candidate. But visibly frustrated by U.S. policy under President Barack Obama, the hawkish Israeli leader took advantage of the week's focus on unrest across the Muslim world and America's time-honored tradition of the Sunday television talk shows to appeal to Americans headed to the polls in less than two months.

Tehran claims its nuclear program is peaceful. Netanyahu said the U.S. would be foolish to believe that, using football metaphors and citing example of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to appeal to his American audience.

"It's like Timothy McVeigh walking into a shop in Oklahoma City and saying, 'I'd like to tend my garden. I'd like to buy some fertilizer ... Come on. We know that they're working on a weapon,'" Netanyahu said.

The past week, Netanyahu has called on Obama and other world leaders to state clearly at what point Iran would face a military attack. But Obama and his top aides, who repeatedly say all options remain on the table, have pointed to shared U.S.-Israeli intelligence that suggests Iran hasn't decided yet whether to build a bomb despite pursing the technology and that there would be time for action beyond toughened sanctions already in place.

Netanyahu disagrees, estimating that Iran is about six months away from having most of the enriched uranium it needs and warning that letting them reach the "goal line" would have disastrous consequences.

Obama's Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has said he is willing to take a tougher stance than Obama against Iran, although his campaign has declined to provide specifics. He has also aligned himself personally with Netanyahu, casting the Israeli leader as a longtime friend.

Meanwhile, Obama is reported to have a strained relationship with Netanyahu, chastising Israel for continuing to build housing settlements in areas disputed with the Palestinians.

America's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, responded Sunday by saying there is "no daylight" between the U.S. and Israel and that Obama "will do what it takes" to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But, she said, "we are not at that stage yet."

"Our bottom line — if you want to call it a red line — the president's bottom line has been that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon, and we will take no option off the table to ensure that it does not acquire a nuclear weapon, including military," Rice later said.

But Netanyahu has said that's not enough and employed historical examples known to most Americans to make his case: President John F. Kennedy's demand that the Soviets remove its missiles sites in Cuba "maybe purchased decades of peace," Netanyahu said. And absent a similar "red line," then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein faced a U.S. attack in 1991 after invading Kuwait.

"Maybe that war could have been avoided," Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu also pointed to America's inability to prevent the 9/11 hijackings as proof that intelligence can fail.

He insisted that his motivations were not political but reflected a key sense of urgency. Israeli officials point to Iranian enrichment of uranium, a key ingredient in building a bomb, the movement of Iranian nuclear research facilities to fortified underground bunkers impervious to attack and Iran's refusal to open its facilities to U.N. inspectors.

"I think that there's a common interest of all Americans, of all political persuasions, to stop Iran," he said. "This is a regime that is giving vent to the worst impulses that you see right now in the Middle East."

Rice said the window to act "is not infinite" but that the sanctions "reached their high point in July." Rice says that for the first time the Iranian economy is shrinking at a rate of negative 1 percent, Iranian oil production has dropped 40 percent over the last several months and their currency has plummeted 40 percent in that time as well.

"This pressure, even to use the Iranians own words, is crippling," Rice said, adding "What is clear is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon."

Netanyahu and Rice spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and NBC's "Meet the Press." Rice also spoke on Fox News Sunday and appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Bonnie
09-16-2012, 08:44 PM
You know we have a REAL problem looming here...

I see tensions between Israel and Iran and I dont like it....I also see Tension between Germany and Greece...There is the issue of Syria and the Arab Spring...There is the issue of a new wave of Anti-Americanism on the verge of a Presidential Ellection...The Austrailian Republicans moving against the commonwealth and China and Japan squabbling over south pacific islands.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Iran ALREADY HAS Nuclear weapons and are waiting for Israel to conduct an airstrike so they can retaliate in a nuclear capacity? Israel is rather predictable...if she feels threatened she will attempt to assert control...all you need is a few enlightened individuals in Iran and you could, in effect, set a trap.

I find the international stage at the moment VERY frightening :sad:

It is frightening and I was just about to ask the question, "Who doesn't believe Iran already has nuclear weapons or is close to having them?" Oh, wait, apparently our President doesn't.

If they don't already have them, I believe they're not far from it. And you could be right about them just waiting for Israel to strike and then say they are justified... Scary scary stuff!!!!

Tyburn
09-16-2012, 08:49 PM
them just waiting for Israel to strike and then say they are justified... Scary scary stuff!!!!

:unsure-1: I am very worried about that possibility :unsure-1:

Bonnie
09-18-2012, 05:46 AM
Why isn't main stream media doing it's job of asking hard hitting questions of the practices and policies of the Obama administration? Why aren't they asking questions like, "Why does an advisor/aide to the President get a full security detail, but our Ambassador to Libya is basically left defenseless on the anniversary of 9/11?"

Instead, the main stream media continues to actively suppress legitimate news stories of anything that would be negative for this President, and are acting as his agents for his campaign and his administration. They are a disgrace!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/valerie-jarrett-pat-caddell-libyan-embassy

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation - by Ben Shapiro 14 Sep 2012

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?

“This country has reached the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”

Caddell points out that Americans are already unhappy with President Obama on foreign policy aside from the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Caddell, along with Republican pollster John McLaughlin, runs Secure America, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “We’ve just finished two polls coming out in the field today,” says Caddell, “but we already know that people feel strongly about Iran; they feel strongly about the administration’s policy with regard to Islamic extremists. They don’t like the Obama administration’s handling of these issues. And this election won’t only be about the economy. The American people aren’t stupid. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Caddell does reserve heavy criticism for the Republican establishment, which he believes has ignored foreign policy issues for far too long. “When three quarters of the American people believe Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, you can see that Americans care about this issue. And people overwhelmingly believe that Obama’s sanctions policies will not work. The pronounced minority who disagree with those positions seem to be centered in the mainstream media – and ground zero seems to be at NBC and MSNBC.”

Here's another article I found. I just copied a part of the article, see the link for the full article:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/08/The-Audacity-of-Cronyism-Jarrett-Plouffe-Donilon

The Audacity of Cronyism: Jarrett, Plouffe, and Donilon - by Patrick Caddell8 Sep 2012

It’s hard to know which is worse: the arrogance of the Obama administration in assuming that its White House staffers can get away with anything, or the apathy of the media in not holding those staffers accountable.

Actually, let’s scratch the word “apathy” and call it what it really is: abjectness. The media have been abject in their willingness, even eagerness, to serve the political interests of this administration and its re-election effort.

Let’s consider the cases of three staffers, all at the top rung of the White House ladder: Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Senior Adviser David Plouffe, and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.

Valerie Jarrett has been a mentor and ally of Barack Obama for two decades; by all accounts, she has an unshakable bond not only with him, but also with Michelle Obama. And now her clout is apparent to all: aprofile of Jarrett, written by Jo Becker and appearing in Sunday’s New York Times, was headlined, “The Other Power in the West Wing.” As in, there’s the President, and there’s Valerie Jarrett.

The Times story, all 3300 words of it, was one of those stories that everyone in DC thought they had to read; as another Times reporter, Jodi Kantor, tweeted on Sunday, “The political world pauses as one to dissect Jo Becker’s profile of Valerie Jarrett."

Indeed, Becker’s story was full of grist for Beltway mills. One anonymous presidential adviser (who sounds a lot like re-election campaign guru David Axelrod) pronounced that “Valerie is effectively the chief of staff... She’s almost like Nancy Reagan was with President Reagan, but more powerful.” And a “former senior White House official” (who sounds a lot like ex-White House chief of staff Bill Daley) added, “She is the single most influential person in the Obama White House.” Whoa. Wait a second. Did the former official really mean to say that Jarrett was “the single most influential person in the Obama White House”? If so, where does that leave the President? Is it possible that Jarrett, working with Michelle Obama, is more powerful than Mr. Obama? No, that doesn’t seem possible--unless, of course, it is possible.

If the former senior official quoted above is Bill Daley, he should know about Jarrett’s vast power. As the Times article recalls, he was basically pushed out of the White House by Jarrett after a battle over the Obamacare contraception mandate. That mandate infuriated Catholic and conservative groups, but it has been championed by Jarrett inside the White House and by feminist groups across the country--and Jarrett and the feminists have prevailed. So, in assessing Jarrett’s power, we can include in her coalition the nation’s feminists as well as Mrs. Obama. And inside today’s Democratic Party, that’s big power. No wonder the man who currently holds the title of chief of staff is so obscure--he has learned that you last longer if you keep a low profile.

Look, Jarrett’s defenders might say, there’s nothing wrong with being powerful. Somebody has to be powerful. And that’s true, but there is something wrong with abusing power. Consider this passage from Becker’s Times piece, describing Jarrett’s ways: “She can also be imperious — at one event ordering a drink from a four-star general she mistook for a waiter—and attached to the trappings of power in a way some in the White House consider unseemly for a member of the staff.” Attached to the trappings of power how, exactly? Here comes the answer:

A case in point is her full-time Secret Service detail. The White House refuses to disclose the number of agents or their cost, citing security concerns. But the appearance so worried some aides that two were dispatched to urge her to give the detail up.

She listened politely, one said, but the agents stayed.

So let’s get this straight: Jarrett gets a security detail from the US Secret Service (USSS). That means 24/7 protection, at a cost of millions of dollars a year. Of course, it also means an air of importance for Jarrett--her own taxpayer-funded entourage. The idea that someone such as Jarrett--who officially plays no role in national security or counter-terrorism--would receive USSS protection would be laughable if it weren’t, in fact, real. It’s like a tale out of the Versailles Court of the Sun King--the sort of anecdote that provokes the peasants, eventually, to revolution. But in the meantime, before the deluge, Jarrett plans to live it up; surrounded by agents with guns, she is queen of her own court. In other words, for pure conspicuous consumption, Jarrett puts her fellow Chicagoan, the laughably self-important Desirée Rogers, to shame.

As an aside, on the issue of who merits government security, we might recall the case of Molly Norris. In 2010, the Seattle-based cartoonist took part in the international “Draw Muhammad” campaign and, after she receiving death threats, the FBI told her that she was on her own. That is, the US government could not--more precisely, would not--protect her. Instead, Norris was advised to leave her job, change her name, and go into hiding. And that’s what she did; what choice did she have?

At the time, some of us wondered how Uncle Sam could let the jihadists win a victory such as this inside the United States. Now we know that government security resources were, in fact, spread thin--because Jarrett was being well taken care of. Bottom line: Norris faced real threats and received no protection, while Jarrett faces no threats--at least no threat that 100 other West Wing aides haven’t also received, and none of them have details--and yet she receives all the insulation from the world that her ego demands.

In the wake of the USSS revelation, the press could be asking all sorts of questions: Who made this decision? How much is this costing? Does Jarrett drive her own car--or do those same Secret Service agents chauffeur her around? Most likely, the MSM will not ask any of these questions. Yes, as was said of Becker’s Times piece, the political world will stop to read it, but most readers will be reading it with an eye towards power calculations in DC, as opposed to cost calculations for the taxpayers, or any concern about the modesty of public officials.

Bonnie
09-18-2012, 10:09 AM
Article:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/17/obamas-security-breach-in-libya-is-ignored-by-american-media/

Obama’s Security Breach In Libya Is Ignored By American Media

The Right Politics written by Scott Paulson - September 17, 2012 2:08 PM

As the liberal American press and ultra-liberal bloggers inundate the Internet and newsprints with criticisms of what Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential challenger to President Barack Obama, said about Obama during the Libyan attacks and murders, throngs of foreign press and few American outlets tell the real story involved with the White House’s role in the incidents that we now know could have been prevented.

After the American media grabbed and held the pro-Obama headlines against Romney’s comments and took Obama’s “Romney shoots first and aims second” quote to iconic proportions, the rest of the world is reporting that the Obama administration knew about the planned-attack on the Benghazi, Libya Embassy where four Americans, including United States Ambassador Christopher Steven was murdered.

That strong allegation needs to be “the story”, not the political-trouncing of Mitt Romney, a man who has nothing to do with the White House, the U.S. Embassy, or the deadly and non-deadly attacks on our United States Embassy’s around the world. “The story” obviously involves the White House and the president within – Barack Obama – not the Massachusetts challenger.

The reporters and bloggers who have made Mitt Romney the story – instead of the attacked-United States Embassy, the innocent Americans who were attacked, and the White House with its president in abstention as he continually treks the campaign trail regardless of the duties left behind in Washington, D.C. – are guilty of letting another American tragedy remain buried.

All attention must be given to the more-than-strong suggestions that the Libyan attack didn’t “just happen” to have happened on September 11 – the commemorative day of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City – but were planned well-in-advance.

While the movie trailer of “Innocence of Muslims” may have added fuel to the venom’s fire regarding the protests throughout the Middle East, the murderous attack on the U.S. Embassy and its American occupants in Benghazi, Libya was no accident – simply orchestrated by a few who had no plan or memory of 9/11.

Reports from a number of knowledgeable sources are being widely-circulated regarding the United States State Department’s having received knowledge of the attack in Benghazi as early as September 9 – two days before the four Americans were killed. That’s “the story”. There were also similar reports that the attack in Cairo was revealed prior to its occurrence. The knowledgeable sources report that no warning was given to persons in the U.S. Embassies in Cairo or Benghazi after the State Department was warned. In Libya, there were approximately 30 people in the main consulate building who could have been warned but weren’t.

Additionally, Wanis el-Sharef, Libya’s deputy interior minister, told the Associated Press that the heavily armed militants “used” a protest of an anti-Islam film as a “cover” in their deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy while screaming “God is great!”

Yet, American reporters and bloggers waste their printed space writing about their belief that Mitt Romney stepped on Obama’s toes with a political misspeak.

So what!

That is no reason to ignore – or totally replace – “the story”. And anyone who doesn’t realize that has no business reporting or blogging whatsoever. Save the “OMG, a politician dissed another politician” for a slow news day. And the way things are going in this country, there is no clear sign of a slow news day coming anytime soon. There’s a story here, and it’s being ignored by people who wouldn’t challenge President Barack Obama and his White House if their lives depended on it. And, ironically, their lives may depend on reporting “the story” instead of their worthless “Romney piece”. It’s absolutely maddening and totally ludicrous that they are ignoring “the international story”.

If for no other reason, in the name, honor, and memory of United States Ambassador Christopher Steven, information management officer Sean Smith, private security guard and former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, and security personnel Glen Doherty, allow “the true story” to be told.



About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political news and commentary for CBS Local and Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.

rearnakedchoke
09-18-2012, 01:55 PM
Why isn't main stream media doing it's job of asking hard hitting questions of the practices and policies of the Obama administration? Why aren't they asking questions like, "Why does an advisor/aide to the President get a full security detail, but our Ambassador to Libya is basically left defenseless on the anniversary of 9/11?"

Instead, the main stream media continues to actively suppress legitimate news stories of anything that would be negative for this President, and are acting as his agents for his campaign and his administration. They are a disgrace!


:

like i said, this election is over ... if only mitt were latino, it'd be better for him ..

Bonnie
09-18-2012, 07:40 PM
like i said, this election is over ... if only mitt were latino, it'd be better for him ..

I'm hoping if Nancy Pelosi keeps saying that, Obama voters will end up staying home thinking he's got it! :laugh:

It would be interesting to see how things would go if he were latino. Even better, what if he were African American? That would be a fascinating contest to watch! :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
09-18-2012, 08:02 PM
I'm hoping if Nancy Pelosi keeps saying that, Obama voters will end up staying home thinking he's got it! :laugh:

It would be interesting to see how things would go if he were latino. Even better, what if he were African American? That would be a fascinating contest to watch! :laugh:

well, herman cain had a chance, but he didn't last a week into the process .. and if he made it this far, he woulda been eaten alive .. i have said this before .. there are only 2 republicans that coulda beaten BHO .. bobby jindal and eric cantor !!!!!

Bonnie
09-18-2012, 08:39 PM
well, herman cain had a chance, but he didn't last a week into the process .. and if he made it this far, he woulda been eaten alive .. i have said this before .. there are only 2 republicans that coulda beaten BHO .. bobby jindal and eric cantor !!!!!

Well, our choices are what they are now. In all seriousness, RNC, I'm very very concerned about what will happen if Obama is re-elected for another four years.

rearnakedchoke
09-18-2012, 09:43 PM
Well, our choices are what they are now. In all seriousness, RNC, I'm very very concerned about what will happen if Obama is re-elected for another four years.

i hear ya .. the way i see it is this ... i could be wrong .. who knows ..... the republicans want obama out so bad, that they steered away from their true platform in nominating romney .. i think they put someone in their who they think could have a shot at beating obama and not someone who stands true to conservative ideologies ... again, this is the POV of a canadian .. sure, people will say, what is the use of having nominated someone who had no shot at winning??? true, but at least they would have stayed true to their beliefs ...

flo
09-19-2012, 04:00 AM
well, herman cain had a chance, but he didn't last a week into the process .. and if he made it this far, he woulda been eaten alive .. i have said this before .. there are only 2 republicans that coulda beaten BHO .. bobby jindal and eric cantor !!!!!

rnc, you're a good guy but that statement just shows how little you know about American politics.

Nice try, though!

flo
09-19-2012, 04:22 AM
Thanks for posting about this, Bonnie. I'm just shaking my head. Incredible, isn't it, that this administration was so inept as to not increase security for our embassy people in the ME (particularly Libya and Egypt) on the 9/11 anniversary. Then they have the gall to say the protests, riots and murders are due to this little-viewed film clip. Of course, we all know the big Obama slogan during the convention and afterwards was "Osama Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive!". There is no subtlety or gravitas to this administration. So how's that slogan working out? I haven't heard it since our people were slaughtered in Benghazi.

So yeah, they weren't on the ball enough to provide adequate security for our diplomats in the ME and other hot spots, but Obama's advisor, Valerie Jarret has full 24/7 Secret Service protection.

'Nuff said.

Bonnie
09-19-2012, 07:29 AM
Thanks for posting about this, Bonnie. I'm just shaking my head. Incredible, isn't it, that this administration was so inept as to not increase security for our embassy people in the ME (particularly Libya and Egypt) on the 9/11 anniversary. Then they have the gall to say the protests, riots and murders are due to this little-viewed film clip. Of course, we all know the big Obama slogan during the convention and afterwards was "Osama Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive!". There is no subtlety or gravitas to this administration. So how's that slogan working out? I haven't heard it since our people were slaughtered in Benghazi.

So yeah, they weren't on the ball enough to provide adequate security for our diplomats in the ME and other hot spots, but Obama's advisor, Valerie Jarret has full 24/7 Secret Service protection.

'Nuff said.

Joe Biden was shouting it loud enough, maybe they heard him way over there and he's the one who ticked them off.

And now their response as they burn our flag and embassies: "Obama, Obama we are all Osama"

flo
09-19-2012, 09:23 AM
Joe Biden was shouting it loud enough, maybe they heard him way over there and he's the one who ticked them off.

And now their response as they burn our flag and embassies: "Obama, Obama we are all Osama"

At least we can appreciate the karma of the jihadist that died from inhaling the smoke of the flag he had just burned... (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/america_basher_backfire_dKswUjW6LBShGc2uKrGyIM)

rearnakedchoke
09-19-2012, 03:10 PM
rnc, you're a good guy but that statement just shows how little you know about American politics.

Nice try, though!

i probably don't know much about US politics ... even though i don't .. i dont' think it is good policy to not worry about 47% of the people and focus on the rest ... mitt has been saying some dumb things .. like he doesn't even care and doesn't want to win the election ....... i know that is not true .. but hey .. what do i know .. :laugh:

PRShrek
09-19-2012, 03:37 PM
i probably don't know much about US politics ... even though i don't .. i dont' think it is good policy to not worry about 47% of the people and focus on the rest ... mitt has been saying some dumb things .. like he doesn't even care and doesn't want to win the election ....... i know that is not true .. but hey .. what do i know .. :laugh:

The problem is that a significant portion of the population feels that foreign policy and economics are things only nerds care about, they will vote for whoever keeps that EBT card topped up. If the next administration doesn’t do something about that we will be in serious trouble. If you think it is good policy to avoid talking about real problems, if you think it is dumb to tell people something they may not want to hear, then I guess that explains why you’re an Obama supporter.

rearnakedchoke
09-19-2012, 05:35 PM
The problem is that a significant portion of the population feels that foreign policy and economics are things only nerds care about, they will vote for whoever keeps that EBT card topped up. If the next administration doesn’t do something about that we will be in serious trouble. If you think it is good policy to avoid talking about real problems, if you think it is dumb to tell people something they may not want to hear, then I guess that explains why you’re an Obama supporter.

i hear ya .. but thats the point .. mitt said those things behind doors to his rich donors ... do you think that is something he would actually say if he knew the cameras were on? i doubt it he'll defend what he said when it comes to the televised debates ..

flo
09-19-2012, 05:51 PM
i probably don't know much about US politics ... even though i don't .. i dont' think it is good policy to not worry about 47% of the people and focus on the rest ... mitt has been saying some dumb things .. like he doesn't even care and doesn't want to win the election ....... i know that is not true .. but hey .. what do i know .. :laugh:

Do you pick up the democratic talking points before you post on the forums? :laugh: What about Obama's video, where he talks about believing in "redistribution" and how he would accomplish that? Did you miss that one?

Your distortion of what Romney said is very good spin, however. Keep trying, you've got 48 more days. :rolleyes:

flo
09-19-2012, 06:02 PM
i hear ya .. but thats the point .. mitt said those things behind doors to his rich donors ... do you think that is something he would actually say if he knew the cameras were on? i doubt it he'll defend what he said when it comes to the televised debates ..

To his rich donors? You say that like it's a bad thing, who do you think would be at a campaign dinner, hobos? It's not like Obama doesn't do the same thing, lol! It's too bad you aren't as concerned about Obama's gaffes when he thought he was off-mike, like telling Pres. Medvedev that he'd "have more flexibility after the election" regarding missile defense. Do you understand the implications of that statement and Medvedev's reply?

Mitt HAS said it when the cameras are on. You see, like Dethbob said, we conservatives believe there should be a safety net for those who can't care for themselves. Other that that, we believe in self-reliance. Under Obama, government entitlements have increased to a point that is unsustainable. We are quickly going the way of Greece only with 30 x their population. If that happens, believe me, it will affect Canada.

PRShrek
09-19-2012, 06:27 PM
Under Obama, government entitlements have increased to a point that is unsustainable. We are quickly going the way of Greece only with 30 x their population. If that happens, believe me, it will affect Canada.

I’m sure rnc will be much less smug about things when millions of hard working Americans start streaming across the border looking for work!

I’m only partly kidding. An Obama win would mean things are already much worse than I think they currently are, and they would get much much worse after that.

Bonnie
09-19-2012, 06:40 PM
i probably don't know much about US politics ... even though i don't .. i dont' think it is good policy to not worry about 47% of the people and focus on the rest ... mitt has been saying some dumb things .. like he doesn't even care and doesn't want to win the election ....... i know that is not true .. but hey .. what do i know .. :laugh:

I think he was really talking about Obama's base when he made that 47% statement. I don't think he truly meant to include others that make up that 47% total, but it doesn't change the truth about what he was trying to say. There are a certain amount of people who WANT the government to pay for them and those people are going to vote for Obama, not him, and that's the TRUTH, and that's what he was saying!

At least we can appreciate the karma of the jihadist that died from inhaling the smoke of the flag he had just burned... (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/america_basher_backfire_dKswUjW6LBShGc2uKrGyIM)

Wow. Maybe that particular U.S. flag was made in China. :Whistle:

http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/do-you-know-where-your-american-flag-was-made/

rearnakedchoke
09-19-2012, 06:41 PM
haha . didn't realize i was smug ... so my apologies ... i just thought we were having a good conversation ... i know this hits home more for you all as it is an american election .. and i have little to gain or lose from the outcome ... and yes, obama has made plenty of gaffes in his speeches and some of them make threads here (more so at the outset of his presidency) ...

NateR
09-19-2012, 06:56 PM
well, herman cain had a chance, but he didn't last a week into the process .. and if he made it this far, he woulda been eaten alive .. i have said this before .. there are only 2 republicans that coulda beaten BHO .. bobby jindal and eric cantor !!!!!

I always find it humorous when non-Americans or liberals think that they know who makes a good conservative candidate in an American election, as if they actually understand what American conservatives really stand for.

rearnakedchoke
09-19-2012, 07:05 PM
I always find it humorous when non-Americans or liberals think that they know who makes a good conservative candidate in an American election, as if they actually understand what American conservatives really stand for.

do you think Mitt Romney represents American conservatives? honestly? my opinion? obviously more then any dem, but of all the choices, do you think his nomination best represented those of American conservatives?

PRShrek
09-19-2012, 08:58 PM
do you think Mitt Romney represents American conservatives? honestly? my opinion? obviously more then any dem, but of all the choices, do you think his nomination best represented those of American conservatives?

Conservatives are not a mindless cult who think in talking points, there are a range of ideals under the Conservative banner and I think Romney appeals to a lot of them.

A lot of liberals are enamored with the ‘not a real conservative’ meme, hoping to sow division on our side. The only person the left ever certified as a true conservative was John McCain.

flo
09-19-2012, 10:34 PM
Conservatives are not a mindless cult who think in talking points, there are a range of ideals under the Conservative banner and I think Romney appeals to a lot of them.

A lot of liberals are enamored with the ‘not a real conservative’ meme, hoping to sow division on our side. The only person the left ever certified as a true conservative was John McCain.

Well said, PR, well said.