by Jack
These are just some random thoughts on today’s news….
New York City has lifted the street travel restrictions. The blizzard Juno that’s been dumping snow on 7 states along the Eastern Seaboard somehow lightened up by the time it hit New York. A citywide Winter Weather Advisory, will remain in effect until Tuesday, Jan. 27, at 6 PM. The current forecast calls for 1 to 2 inches of snow. Northern winds of 15 to 25 MPH are forecast, with gusts of up to 45 MPH possible. Temperatures in the 20s are expected, with visibilities of one-quarter to one-half mile at times. This is far from the up to 3 feet of snow that had been predicted.
Next, has anyone noticed the ads on TV saying its time for President Obama to stop with the political correctness and call Islamic terrorism for what it is?
Seems this call for truth in politics is gaining traction and here’s an example why people are getting fed up: January 15th on national television, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, following the lead of Obama, White House spokesman Josh Earnest and Attorney General Eric Holder, hemmed and hawed when pressed on the issue before saying: “Islamic extremism is not the only kind of extremism we face.” When pressed to give examples of those other kinds they couldn’t come up with any. (Epic fail)
Look, everyone knows there are many millions of non-violent Muslims that are perfectly content to live in Western society and that’s just great! This is as it should be. But, in trying to acknowledge this peaceful group the politically correct crowd bends over backwards to remove the name of the driving force behind almost all of the world’s terrorism…Islam. It’s beyond silly when liberals can’t bring themselves to say “Muslim terrorist.” Sometimes this spin has them twisting like pretzels to avoid being completely truthful.
Yesterday, I heard radio talk-show host Jerry Doyle saying “Can you imagine fighting WWII this way?” He was referencing the above and added that not all the Nazis were bad either, but if you were a Nazi back in the day you had to take the flack for what the [bad] were doing…period. There was no equivocating in WWII. Being a Nazi was bad, whether you manning the ovens at Dachau or teaching high school in Berlin!
Dr. M. Sabieski, a professor of philosophy, took this a little further, “the militant Muslim is the person cutting off the head, the moderate Muslim is the one who holds the victims feet.” That’s a pretty strong view and probably too polarizing, but it’s not without some merit. That’s a painful truth that some can’t handle.
Many of our uber-liberals (Obama) are virtually obsessing over political correctness in order to appease the non-violent Muslims. Yes, many of them are sitting on the sidelines while the radical Muslims wage war on Western values and hit all sorts of targets of opportunity. But, should they be lauded for sitting on the sidelines every time a militant blows up a bus?
History tells us, the fight against terrorism is best fought with a united front. Logic says, its in the best interests of ALL those who benefit from our freedom, rights and justice not to sit quietly on the sidelines. This is especially true if it’s members of their Muslim faith that are waging war on us. Because the longer this Islamic terrorism continues, the more it will spread and the more violent it will become. Without some mitigating factors happening
eventually all Muslims are going to be looked at like the “Nazis.” When that happens it’s going to be a fight to finish. A worst case scenario.
However, there’s no need for this battle to go that far. If we have a common understanding, and a united front early on, civilized people can work together to reign in the militants and we can put an end to the global terrorism in the name of Allah. The concept is so right and so simple….and yet it’s almost impossible to get consensus.
Jack,
Why do you continue to suggest that liberals were behind the drive to stop using the term “Islamic terror” for reasons of political correctness, when you know that this push was made by the Bush administration in order to delegitimize terrorist groups?
Being a Nazi was bad, whether you manning the ovens at Dachau or teaching high school in Berlin!”
How about teaching school in Iowa, Illinois, Georgia?
You are being most extraordinarily dim … ignorant … simple … dim … whichever … all.
The situation, certainly, and the solution … positively … are entirely beyond you.
Other people are seeing to it. Don’t meddle.
Libby, since we are so dim, why don’t you tell us the solution? I mean it couldn’t possibly be a united front, cause that’s what I said. It couldn’t possible be Muslims who enjoy Western rights taking a stand against Muslims that oppose them, cause that’s also what I said. So, please, lets hear your brilliant ideas for once.
“Other people” are tossing freedom and the stability needed for even a modicum of peace out the window and inciting violence everywhere. Talk about dim! They (You) actually believe they (You) are working toward nirvana.
How about teaching school? It’s been controlled by the “your people, “meddling progressives, for at least fifty years…and parents are leaving in droves! Our educational standing in the world has dropped significantly in that time. That’s what comes when you abandon the basics of education for green propaganda, fairness, gender studies, and political activism.
Your “people” suck!
Poverty increased…check!
Lousy jobs market…check!
Vanishing middle class…check!
Failing schools…check!
World in chaos and more violent…check!
Trickle up poverty, violence, discord, division! Stand down already!
Jack subtleties and nuance are not understood by our liberal friends.
Bush applied a softer peddle to acknowledge those who are not waging war without abandoning his strong resolve and resolute commitment to defeating the enemy. He was not afraid to identify and name our enemy.
Obama has changed the language in training manuals, completely outlawed certain words, chosen to pander and cave to the enemy, supported our enemies, and today, said the Taliban is not a terrorist organization.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
I agree. Thanks Tina, you are always the voice of reason and common sense. I was thinking today about the White House trying to claim the Taliban were not terrorists and yet its only been a few weeks since they attacked little kids in school and slaughtered over 100 people. Nah, that’s not terrorism is it?
Chris, oh right, it was Bush’s fault again….sorry, how could I have not guessed that one?
Q. Will there ever come a time when its not Bush’s fault?
“How about teaching school? It’s been controlled by the “your people, ….”
and
“Jack subtleties and nuance are not understood by our liberal friends.”
Think again. You can’t say anything around here that requires anybody to make any kind of connections at all. I was alluding to the fact that the Nazi philosophy had lots of adherents here, and in Britain … and that it was the work of our “elites” which kept both countries from succumbing.
The same can be said for those violent Jihadis … and you, with your ignorant flailing and your bigotry … are no help at all.
“Libby, since we are so dim, why don’t you tell us the solution?”
Is there one? You need to stop thinking like this is “a problem” with “a solution”. It is not.
You also don’t seem to comprehend that Muslims themselves are bearing the brunt of all this violence, those 100 school kids for instance. And that this violence is largely sectarian. I just found out that the Yemeni thing came about because the Saudis are pushing Wahabism onto those Shia Yemenis, and they don’t like it.
You know what we need to do: back off, and leave them to it.
***
I seem to recall that what you’d now describe as high and low Anglicans spent nearly two hundred years kicking the shit out of each other. Now, you can read your Barbara Pym and be entertained by the very polite disdain in which they hold each other.
Jack, I was not saying anything was Bush’s “fault.” On the contrary; I was giving him credit! He was right to decide to stop using the terms “Muslim” and “jihadist” to describe Islamofascist terrorists. Refusing to play by the enemy’s terms is a very effective strategy.
You and others here continue to ignore that this decision was made by the Bush administration in order to falsely imply that this is totally an Obama policy. It is not. You knew that was my point, but you ignored it because it doesn’t suit your narrative.
Furthermore, you have recently expressed a desire to be more sensitive to the Muslim community. Do you not see how comparing Muslims to Nazis severely hurts your efforts? You claim to want unity, but why would moderate Muslims want to unite with you on anything when you equate their religion to a fundamentally racist and fascist ideology? There are non-fascist and non-racist Muslims; there are no non-racist or non-fascist Nazis, by definition.
Seeing Tina even use the words “subtleties” and “nuance” is hilarious given the context of this conversation. There is nothing “subtle” about analogizing Muslims with Nazis. Radical Muslim terrorists, sure. But Muslims as a whole are more analogous to Germans under Nazi rule, if you must make that comparison at all. There were good Germans. There are good Muslims. There were, and are, no good Nazis.
No good Nazis? Not one? Now Chris you’re being a Naziphobe. Surely there were some in the party that only had the best of intentions, why can’t you just assume that based on statistical probability? (Note to Chris. I am being sarcastic, but I’m trying to make a reasonable point, did you miss it?)
Jack, there’s no reasonable point there to miss. The Muslim religion does not require hatred of any particular race of people. The Nazi ideology does. The comparison is offensive, but more importantly, it isn’t factually accurate. It is completely unhelpful in assessing the threat, and counterproductive in achieving unity.
I may have misspoke; there may be a reasonable point in there, but it is obscured by the Nazi analogy, rather than revealed by it. Those who don’t already agree with you will be put off rather than illuminated. Good satire uses satire to reveal truth, not to distract from it by offending potential allies.
I don’t know Jack. You’re the big history buff but I think our friend Chris needs a course on the alliance between radical Muslims (Muslim Brotherhood) and the Nazi’s in WWII…shared hatred for the Jews and tyrannical tendencies drove the alliance. More here, here, and here.
Funny how Chris has decided how all Muslims interpret the religion when those who follow it are at odds.
Muslims also fought with the allies against Hitler.
When people were willing to distinguish between black hats and white hats they didn’t have to play silly word games. You’re either in the camp that respects others liberties and lives or your not. White hats win is a good strategy.
Tina: “Funny how Chris has decided how all Muslims interpret the religion when those who follow it are at odds.”
What are you talking about? My entire point is that not all Muslims interpret the religion the same way. How can a grown woman have such terrible reading comprehension?
I am well aware that some Muslim countries allied with Hitler. That no more makes modern Muslims equivalent to Nazis than it makes modern Germans equivalent to Nazis.
“Muslims also fought with the allies against Hitler.
When people were willing to distinguish between black hats and white hats they didn’t have to play silly word games. You’re either in the camp that respects others liberties and lives or your not. White hats win is a good strategy.”
Do you see what you’re doing here? You’re not outright saying that “Muslims” as a group are the “black hats,” but that’s clearly the implication of your statement. At other times you distinguish moderate Muslims from the radicals but here and elsewhere you clearly imply that Muslims as a group are evil. You’re the one playing “silly word games” and talking out both sides of your mouth. And you continue to ignore the fact that it was the Bush administration who cautioned against using the term Muslim to describe the terrorists, not the dreaded liberals.
Your arguments suck.
Chris: “My entire point is that not all Muslims interpret the religion the same way.”
That’s difficult to buy since you have such a fit when violent radical interpretations cannot be identified and discussed as enemies of freedom and human rights for fear of insulting others.
“How can a grown woman have such terrible reading comprehension?”
How can a supposedly educated young man?
Comparisons can be made between radical Islamists and the Hitler Nazi movement. Both have/had goals of absolute tyrannical control. Both murder and terrorize in the name of their cause. Both seek political, societal, legal and religious authority. Both hate the Jews (And the West that supports them).
“You’re not outright saying that “Muslims” as a group are the “black hats,” but that’s clearly the implication of your statement.”
What was that about reading comprehension? You couldn’t be more wrong but I’m not in the least surprised that’s what you WANT to believe is true.
“And you continue to ignore the fact that it was the Bush administration who cautioned against using the term Muslim…”
More evidence that you interpret what I write to match your assumptions and prejudices.
I clearly pointed out the difference in comment #5. I have not ignored it at all. You choose to ignore the extreme to which Obama has chosen to refrain from use of the term. His extreme stance tries to pretend that the terrorists come from all religions…everybody is just the same. Sorry but that is quite simply BS. There is no other threat to equal the radical Muslim threat today.
You don’t even get my arguments so I’ll take that parting shot as a compliment for me and a big fat adolescent fail for you!
Tina: “Comparisons can be made between radical Islamists and the Hitler Nazi movement.”
Of course. I have no disagreement with that.
But that is not what Jack said.
He made a comparison between Muslims and Nazis. Not between radical Islamists and Nazis.
Do you see the difference?
Chris, more accurately, I was making a comparison between the [reasons] why we didn’t like the entire Nazis Party and reasons why some at this point may not be entirely thrilled with Islam. As more Muslims gravitate to extremism, even from within the US, it pushes the acceptance of Muslims as peaceful more in question. It makes a “normal” person wonder about the division between radical and moderate Muslims.
If they were not born into Islamic extremism, make a wild guess where they come from? Moderate Islam. And would not a prudent person notice this transformation and then harbor the tiniest bit suspicion about Muslims if they were not able to sort out who among them is moderate and who is a radical?
So, it logically follows that as more and more acts of Islamic terrorism occur it only multiplies the reasons for moderate Muslims to do what they can to fight against radical Islamic terrorism. It’s more reasons for them to join us in a united front against the radicals. Because, if they sit on the sidelines they’re eventually going to see their religion get a bad label for all this stupid slaughtering in the name of Islam. This is essentially what the President of Egypt said a few weeks ago. This is what several enlightened Muslims have said.
Chris, of course I don’t need your validation, but I’m trying very hard to make this situation clear for you and I’m hoping it is practical enough that even you would have to agree.
Chris your talking down to me again and I don’t appreciate it.
I just re-read Jacks piece and he clearly distinguished between Muslims that would join us to stand united against the terrorists and those who would join terrorists. His point was that we had better stand united against them fearlessly.
You read only to mine for words that feed your prejudice and disdain. You don’t communicate, Chris, because your receiver’s broken!
Thank you Tina, Chris does hunt for words he can use against us. Chris’ receiver is indeed broken. I can only hope he gets it fixed, and the sooner the better.
Jack: “Chris, more accurately, I was making a comparison between the [reasons] why we didn’t like the entire Nazis Party and reasons why some at this point may not be entirely thrilled with Islam.”
Yes, and that’s an incredibly offensive and unhelpful comparison, for the reasons I already laid out.
“As more Muslims gravitate to extremism, even from within the US, it pushes the acceptance of Muslims as peaceful more in question. It makes a “normal” person wonder about the division between radical and moderate Muslims.”
Wonder away. But the Nazi comparison doesn’t help at all.
“So, it logically follows that as more and more acts of Islamic terrorism occur it only multiplies the reasons for moderate Muslims to do what they can to fight against radical Islamic terrorism. It’s more reasons for them to join us in a united front against the radicals.”
Once again: you know what doesn’t promote unity? Comparing people you want to unite with you to members of the Nazi party. There were no “moderate” Nazis. The ideology itself was based on hatred and bigotry.
I hope I have made it clear why I find this analogy unhelpful and offensive; this is the last I will say on the matter.
Thanks for giving me the last word Chris, a rare privilege when exchanging thoughts with you. I get what you’re saying and I would agree with you, except you misunderstood me and that’s not what I said or meant. You raised an argument that is not in question.
Chris, so Y-O-U still missed the point of my article. At the risk of boring our readers, I will try one last time to clarify my thoughts.
Its not that Muslims [are] the same as Nazis, nor did I infer they were, its that a risk of comparison could be made at some future point. Hold that thought.
What I said, and what is the undeniable truth is, [if] the Muslim faith continues on its current trajectory, where so much violence is done in the name of God, surely there will come a time when Muslims in general are persona no grata in civilized society. How could it be any other way? They are not immune to bad PR! This radical violence will destroy their good will and good intentions and some day they could be seen as unwelcome as the radicals.
“The Nazi comparison doesn’t help at all.” Chris
So you say, but lets keep it in context shall we? The analogy was only based on a continued escalation of current bloody events, how can you continue to miss this important point? You are not dense.
Within radical Islam you have this ideology “based on hatred and bigotry” as you previous said about Nazis, or do you deny that radical Muslims slaughtering innocent people are not hateful or bigoted? I think we can agree they are – just like the Nazis. Right? Put the verbs describing them side by side those describing Nazis and you have a mirror image. Hatred of Jews caused many Muslims to side with the Nazis during WWII. They had a bigoted mutual hatred of the Jews or would you deny this?
There are many good reasons we want to be always truthful. How can we not acknowledge the driving force within radical Islam is essentially, ad majorem dei gloriam?
You can’t be a supporting wall under a single roof and say you have nothing in common with the other wall or walls.
Chris…I’m saying that if the usurping of power by radicalism in Islam is not abated and their violence escalates and spreads, eventually, who knows exactly when, but sometime there will come a point when the radicals will have poisoned the Muslim faith and done it so much damage that people will look at them with scorn and disdain. ( Non in cautious futuri. )
I would expect no less if it were radical Christians doing the same thing to Christianity. This is not about a faith, it is about actually deeds done in the name of Allah that are inconsistent with civilized society. We’re talking about real crimes against humanity, not abstract theory. Make no mistake we are fighting FOR civil rights and against oppression. This is made necessary by the sheer numbers of the practitioners of oppression, their goals and their expansionism.
Do not try to diminish the truth with foolish political correctness. Moderate Muslims need to hear the truth, just as we need to hear their side, their concerns and their protestations about the usurpers of their faith and support them as we would hope they would support us. Right?
Todd Beamon wrote recently about Egypt’s new president. I quote from his article, “In a bold yet little-reported speech, the President of Egypt has directly confronted Islamic leaders in his country and challenged them to stand against extremism in their religion.
“We are in need of a religious revolution,” President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi told imams on New Years Day at al-Azhar University in Cairo. The speech commemorated the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad.
“You, imams, are responsible before Allah,” el-Sisi said. “The entire world … is waiting for your next move … because [the Islamic world] is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost — and it is being lost by our own hands.”
I am saying no more than Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi. If you disagree with what I have to say then you’re essentially telling President el-Sisi he’s wrong too.
Don’t bother to reply because you said you were not going to say another word, remember? ; )
Okay I’m fed up with the “Bush did it first” argument…so, I googled! I don’t have the access of a journalist but the earliest entry I found was in 2006:
Call for Bush to Stop Using ‘Islamic Fascist’:
He was talking to Arab Americans assuring them, through insinuation, that Bush meant to insult Muslims over the past six years.
Alinsky is everywhere in the Democrat Party. it was Democrats that started the narrative and then bullied the point clear through election day and beyond.
In July 2008 NPR attempts to sort it out claiming the Bush administration “finally realized that doing so actually pays those groups a compliment in the eyes of some Muslims.”
In July of 2008…he was all but done! NPR also acknowledged the opinions of others:
Gee opinions vary, who’da thunkit!
In September 2008 Bush spoke at the U.N. and focused on terrorism. He did avoid words like Muslim and Jihad but was clear about the origin of the global threat and the need to stand united against them:
Then in April 2010 Haaretz announced:
(And drone strikes and support of militant/violent incursion, and the drawing of meaningless red lines, and the excuse of a video for a violent Muslim terrorist attack in Benghazi…)
The “Bush did it first” argument distorts reality, on both sides, and was likely a campaign tactic.
Tina: “the excuse of a video for a violent Muslim terrorist attack in Benghazi…”
At this point it would be insulting to us both to refrain from calling you what you are, and what you know you are: a liar. You know for a fact that the terrorists who attacked Benghazi DID claim to be motivated by the anti-Islam video, and that Susan Rice was correct in describing their stated motives. Yet you continue to falsely suggest that the Obama administration made up this “excuse” simply to help Obama’s (and possibly Hilary’s) election prospects, conspiracy theory which has never made a lick of sense.
This continued, blatant dishonesty shows a profound lack of respect for your readers and yourself.
This Fox News article adds to Haaretz’ info on the “shift” in rhetoric under Obama and explains how it built upon Bush’s outreach to the Muslim world:
“Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.
But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized him for describing the war against terror as a “crusade” and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan “Operation Infinite Justice” — words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America’s enemy as “Islamic extremists” and “radical jihadists.”
Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.
“I did recommend that, in my judgment, it’s unfortunate because of the way it’s heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion,” Hughes said. “Whenever they hear ‘Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,’ they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That’s the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have.”
Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush’s former deputy national security adviser, said Obama’s efforts build on groundwork from Bush’s second term, when some of the rhetoric softened. But by then, Zarate said, it was overshadowed by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and a prolonged Iraq war.
“In some ways, it didn’t matter what the president did or said. People weren’t going to be listening to him in the way we wanted them to,” Zarate said. “The difference is, President Obama had a fresh start.””
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/obama-bans-islam-jihad-national-security-strategy-document/
Claiming that the attack on Benghazi had nothing to do with the anti-Islam video would be like claiming that the attacks on Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with the political cartoons the terrorists found offensive. I don’t see anyone ignoring the fanatics’ stated motives and claiming that the French president just made up that “excuse” to deflect blame in that case. Susan Rice said that the Benghazi attack was motivated by the video because the attack was motivated by the video. Period. The only thing she got wrong was that there was no protest prior to the attack.
Chris changing your rhetoric from the gutter language you’ve now chosen to “refrain” from using to the superior tone that is also often your fair does not help your cause or your case. You are simply wrong and history will prove it so.
Readers who would like to remain up to date and fully informed might enjoy reading the following:
“Clinton’s Libya war push armed Benghazi rebels with suspected al Qaeda ties”
“Source: Clinton Directly Involved In Terrorist Group “Security Force” At Benghazi”
“Federal Agencies Stonewall House Committee’s Benghazi Investigation”
I have absolute respect for my readers! For instance, I think our readers are perfectly capable of looking at the evidence and facts presented by you or me and deciding for themselves about Benghazi.
You, on the other hand, have a profound need to call me, and others who comment here, “liars.” This shows you have very little respect for anyone unless they agree with you and implies a sense of arrogant superiority on that doesn’t really go over well either.
Tina, I read the articles you provided.
Not one of them contradicts the fact that the terrorists who attacked Benghazi explicitly stated that they were motivated by the video, and that Susan Rice was right to say they were motivated by the video.
You did not contradict this fact because you cannot contradict this fact.
You will not support your false allegation that the Obama administration invented the video story as an “excuse,” because you cannot support this false allegation.
And yet you will continue to push this false allegation, because you are a liar. The only trust you have in your readers is the trust that they are just as dedicated to partisanship over truth as you are, and will not question your lies no matter how much proof is put in front of them.
Chris we’ve been through this several times. I have posted entire timelines showing the WH KNEW this was not a “spontaneous protest” inspired by an “anti-Islamic’ video before Susan Rice made that the big story on the Sunday shows. There were no protesters as video clearly showed and Chris Stevens last communication indicted. Whatever part this video played, if any, was insignificant and irrelevant. This was a 911 anniversary. The weaponry used by the attackers and their association to the terrorist organization, Ansar al-Sharia shows they were not random protesting villagers. Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said it was a planned terrorist attack and also later said the idea that it was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control’ was “completely unfounded and preposterous.” Leon Panetta said it was a terrorist attack.
All of this and much, much more make the Susan Rice appearances on the Sunday shows look contrived and the content of her message pathetic.
YES! I will continue to push the allegation because as far as I’m concerned the one act little theater performance by Susan Rice was an attempt to cover for incompetence or something much more nefarious. I am interested in what happened and have not swallowed hook, line and sinker the most ridiculous excuse ever contrived by an administration.
You are free to think whatever you like, and do, also in a very partisan fashion.
You are a small minded bomb tosser Chris, and not a very good one at that.
More information I had not read is at Frontpage Magazine, “Benghazi Terrorists: ‘Dr. Morsi Sent Us’”
The sloppy investigation following this attack was insufficient. Attempts to brush the event aside and withhold information makes getting to the truth difficult but not impossible. More considered thinking here.
Tina, yes or no question:
Did the terrorists who attacked Benghazi claim that they were motivated by the anti-Islam video?
You know the answer, but somehow I doubt you will admit it.
Another easy one: was the 2012 election primarily about foreign policy, or the economy?
Did Obama call the event an “act of terror” the day after it happened?
And one more: Did Republicans’ efforts to smear Obama over Benghazi in the months prior to the election have any effect whatsoever on the election? Did they help or hurt Obama’s chances?
Since Obama won anyway, even though by that point the administration had called Benghazi a planned terrorist attack, isn’t the idea that Obama refused to call it a terrorist attack to help his election chances completely nonsensical? Obviously he didn’t need to do that to win, did he?
As far as I have been able to determine the organization that took credit for the attack, and was named by the Libyan president, said nothing about the video when they announced responsibility. Had it been a big factor wouldn’t it have been part of their message? The answer to your question is “NO!”
As far as I can tell, a supposed single participant, when asked a question (Possibly a leading question?), said the video motivated him. If thee is other hard evidence I haven’t seen it.
I don’t see this testimony as a compelling reason for the administration to shove all other evidence and testimony aside to advance the narrative to the American public that the video was THE MAIN CAUSE for the attack. Talk about nonsensical!
If this supposed evidence originated with the media and if it was gleaned from an interview it’s suspicious since the administration was telling the public they were “still looking” for the perpetrators. Why was it so easy for a journalist to find this guy but our government could not capture him and bring him to justice?
The administration advanced a suspicious narrative that a spontaneous protest about the video accelerated into a violent attack but evidence in direct conflict with that narrative suggests that story line is specious. There is no evidence that a protest of any kind was happening that night in Benghazi.
Republicans rightly wanted answers to questions and had a right to seek answers concerning the deaths of our Ambassador and several other Americans, particularly in light of the odd behavior and conflicting messaging of the administration. Calling that a “smear tactic” is itself a smear tactic.
People in politics do all kinds of things to cover their tracks. Bill Clinton’s administration was up to its ears in such shenanigans, the definition of the word “is” being one of the most ridiculous. Your questions rise from your partisan defensive perspective and have nothing to do with the truth about what happened at Benghazi. The administration’s bungling, irresponsible response and messaging prompted questions and investigations. Americans deserve to know the truth.
You support the party that smears the opposition on a regular basis. You have become a serious participant in this Alinsky technique, as evidenced by your own smears on the reputations, intelligence, education, and form of participants here. As far as I’m concerned you don’t have a leg to stand on in terms of “smears.”
Regarding your last paragraph, before you ask such questions it would be smart to get how the opposition sees the possible cover up. You missed the mark completely. There also would not have been any way for Obama to know prior to election day that he would win so that last question is just stupid.
“Hillary Clinton Libya War Push Armed Benghazi Rebels,” Jeffrey Scott Shapiro – Washington Times
Part three of a three part series…if Hillary runs this story will become more important than ever.
Tina: “As far as I have been able to determine the organization that took credit for the attack, and was named by the Libyan president, said nothing about the video when they announced responsibility.”
Ok, but we did not know for sure initially whether this group was responsible. There were conflicting reports.
“As far as I can tell, a supposed single participant, when asked a question (Possibly a leading question?), said the video motivated him. If thee is other hard evidence I haven’t seen it.”
Many reporters on the ground in Benghazi also reported that the attackers said they were motivated by the video.
The CIA, relying on its sources, also concluded the same thing.
Now not all in the CIA agreed, but the official talking points took the side of those who said there was a protest beforehand. This was soon corrected by the CIA, and then a few days later was corrected by the White House.
How is that a scandal? The administration almost immediately corrected themselves when new information came to light. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Certainly this was much better handled than the conflicting info that led us into Iraq and was not officially acknowledge as flawed for years.
“The administration advanced a suspicious narrative that a spontaneous protest about the video accelerated into a violent attack but evidence in direct conflict with that narrative suggests that story line is specious. There is no evidence that a protest of any kind was happening that night in Benghazi.”
Yes, and again, the administration corrected that only days after Rice’s interviews. Why would they do that if they were trying to mislead the public? What would be the point? Wouldn’t the whole exercise be counter-productive to Obama and Hilary’s election chances? If they had known there was no protest originally, wouldn’t it have been better just to say that upfront?
“There also would not have been any way for Obama to know prior to election day that he would win so that last question is just stupid.”
It’s a completely valid question. Of course Obama didn’t know he was going to win, but he did know what the important factors were going to be in the election. He is a savvy politician. The election was never going to be about foreign policy. Everyone who was paying even a little bit of attention in September 2012 knew that much. Lying about Benghazi would not have gotten him anything. It doesn’t take hindsight to see that, it just takes regular sight.
The truth is that if the video had even a little to do with the attack (which it did), than the conservative blogosphere is MUCH more wrong than Susan Rice ever was. Conservatives have spent years saying that the video had NOTHING to do with the attack, which is provably, factually untrue, and has been for a very long time.
Chris: “Many reporters on the ground in Benghazi also reported that the attackers said they were motivated by the video.”
And you don’t find it odd that journalists were interviewing the people that attacked our embassy and killed our ambassador? Why weren’t these people arrested and questioned? In fact why too was the supposed investigation of the scene so sloppy and inadequate?
“Now not all in the CIA agreed, but the official talking points took the side of those who said there was a protest beforehand.”
I find it odd that after seeing evidence that the talking points were altered, and after acknowledging that not all at the CIA agreed, you still lack even
a modicum of curiosity or suspicion. It seems an incredibly naive position to me.
“How is that a scandal?”
Simply THAT does not represent scandal. You lack the curiosity to question at all and so will not find the potential of scandal. I would be wasting my time to try to point out the politics involved in the decision making before, during and after the 911 anniversary attack.
“Certainly this was much better handled than the conflicting info that led us into Iraq and was not officially acknowledge as flawed for years.”
There is no real comparison to be made. Your premise about what led us into the Iraq war is based entirely on radical left talking points. It has nothing to do with the war strategy of the Bush administration or the bipartisan belief that WMD were there and Saddam would use them. I’ve posted the quotes and video; there is no disputing this FACT!
This was NOT better handled in any way shape or form. It represents failure of leadership before during and after the event and, if what I see proves to be accurate, an egregious display of personal ambition trumping service to country in the capacity of the respective jobs.
“If they had known there was no protest originally, wouldn’t it have been better just to say that upfront?”
That’s what an honest person would do. None of the people involved in this have shown themselves to be honest in my opinion and most have shown arrogance and self serving motivations.
“Lying about Benghazi would not have gotten him anything.”
Covering up incompetence when Americans died on the other hand could have represented a bomb shell! You haven;t seen enough elections, or election tactics, Chris.
“The truth is that if the video had even a little to do with the attack (which it did), than the conservative blogosphere is MUCH more wrong than Susan Rice ever was.”
Oh, please! The “truth?” The video was at best a miniscule element of this attack. It did provide a convenient excuse for all of the bumbling errors and the resulting tragedy.
Conservatives are doing what I’d expect any citizen to do in light of what happened.