Althouse: "Remember this infamous photo of the Elian Gonzalez raid in April 2000? It may well have cost Al Gore the election because of its effect on Cuban voters in Florida."

September 17, 2012

"Remember this infamous photo of the Elian Gonzalez raid in April 2000? It may well have cost Al Gore the election because of its effect on Cuban voters in Florida."

And: "this equally infamous photo ought to cost Obama this election...."

253 comments:

1 – 200 of 253 Newer› Newest»

ndspinelli said...: Wishful thinking.; 9/17/12, 1:15 PM
TWM said...: But it won't. Because the MSM won't splash it over the airwaves and in the papers/mags 24/7. Solely because there is a Democrat in office.; 9/17/12, 1:15 PM
Larry J said...: That photo ought to be one of many things that cost Obama the election but the sychophantic Lewinski Press will do their best to keep spinning for Obama. Remember back in 2004 when that media bigwig bragged that the Press's support for Kerry was worth 10 points? Well, that explains why Obama is still in the race.; 9/17/12, 1:16 PM
jungatheart said...: Oh. I thought the picture would be of Obama shooting craps the night Ambassador Stevens died.; 9/17/12, 1:16 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Well, I don't think it will alter Florida, because I think Romney will win. However, both Cubans and Jews respond negatively to images of guys in uniform knocking on your door at midnight wanting to take you away.

If only the Press and Hollywood could understand the 1st Amendment as well as Cubans do the 4th.; 9/17/12, 1:18 PM
rhhardin said...: Rush is expounding some theory that I'm not quite following, an effect of multitasking, but it seems to be that the film was an Obama campaign plan from the beginning, in the form of throwing a mideast match around with it.

Sounds unlikely. More likely an internal Islam power play, merely mishandled as usual by Obama.; 9/17/12, 1:20 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: I see this getting no traction out there.

I wish somebody around here understood politics,...; 9/17/12, 1:20 PM
KCFleming said...: The photo of Eastwood's chair is far more damning.; 9/17/12, 1:21 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Do Cuban Americans normally vote GOP anyway?; 9/17/12, 1:25 PM
BTDGreg said...: The impression that I'm getting is that people on the right seem to care about this deeply. Everyone else, not so much. Am I wrong? Part of the problem is that Nakoula is just not a very sympathetic character, unlike little Elian.; 9/17/12, 1:25 PM
TWM said...: "The impression that I'm getting is that people on the right seem to care about this deeply. Everyone else, not so much. Am I wrong? Part of the problem is that Nakoula is just not a very sympathetic character, unlike little Elian."

I think you are correct. But going deeper, those who support Obama, whether they care about it or not, are not going to say so because it hurts him. This of course includes the MSM. Those who might care, are not hearing about it either at all or in such a slanted fashion so as not to understand it. Again, that is the MSM in action.; 9/17/12, 1:28 PM
edutcher said...: I mentioned that photo when the photo of Bacile showed up.

Colonel Angus said...

Do Cuban Americans normally vote GOP anyway?

They hate Fidel and the Demos can't get enough of him.

PS Anyone who wants to tell me Willie is a Centrist needs to take a long hard look at that picture. He did that to make kissy face with Fidel.

Willie was doing what Choom has done on dozens of occasions.; 9/17/12, 1:31 PM
furious_a said...: Wishful thinking, no traction as Crack said and it's not going to change anyone's mind.

Photos of more embassies burning might, however.; 9/17/12, 1:33 PM
Thorley Winston said...: The impression that I'm getting is that people on the right seem to care about this deeply. Everyone else, not so much. Am I wrong? Part of the problem is that Nakoula is just not a very sympathetic character, unlike little Elian.

Another part of the problem is that the second picture isn’t particularly effective because you have to know the identity of the person behind the mask being put into a car. If I saw the picture and didn’t already know that it was a crappy filmmaker, I would have thought that the sheriff’s deputies were arresting a terrorist or criminal who was wearing a mask. If you have to spend a thousand words to explain a picture, it sort of defeats the purpose.; 9/17/12, 1:35 PM
Curious George said...: "TWM said...
Those who might care, are not hearing about it either at all or in such a slanted fashion so as not to understand it. Again, that is the MSM in action."

Well, someone could pay to show it to people.; 9/17/12, 1:36 PM
PatCA said...: People with money should put up that photo with the caption "Free Speech?" in Dem areas.; 9/17/12, 1:37 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/17/12, 1:38 PM
Rusty said...: The damning picture is the one of the dead ambassador being dragged by the hair by the mob.
I'd really like to know what it is about the current resident that makes him re-electable.; 9/17/12, 1:38 PM
Roger J. said...: A mismanaged economy, 4 dollar a gallon gas, and a bungled foreign policy: only reasons I need to vote for Mr Romney.; 9/17/12, 1:38 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The news media are reporting as FACT that this guy's YouTube video, that came out in June, is to blame for everything.

Even though Al Qaeda is telling us they are angry over drone strikes.; 9/17/12, 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Not only is Nakoula not a sympathetic character, we don't know much about him, who really funded this film, I suspect there are layers of information to go through to get to the truth.

BUT if conservatives scream that his free speech rights are being violated because he was taken into "custody" by "brownshirts", we won't get to the truth, will we?

Does everyone here think this guy is telling the truth? Why are conservatives here not interested in getting to the bottom of this whole thing?

Or are you, but your dislike of Obama and your "outrage" over the First Amendment has clouded your thinking?; 9/17/12, 1:39 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Obama mentioned that he killed Osama numerous times during the DNC convention.

The angry middle eastern mob are not yelling at the youtube video guy. They are yelling at Obama.; 9/17/12, 1:42 PM
Bob Ellison said...: rhhardin, I heard there are rumors of an opposite conspiracy theory: right-wingers commissioned the video because they "knew" Obama would flub the response.

There's got to be a fitting theory somewhere. Hey-- maybe the Professor sussed out: some Hollywood producer plans a re-make of The Invisible Man! It's all a publicity stunt.; 9/17/12, 1:43 PM
MB said...: In the background, there appears to be a noose. I don't know what it is.; 9/17/12, 1:45 PM
Brennan said...: BUT if conservatives scream that his free speech rights are being violated because he was taken into "custody" by "brownshirts", we won't get to the truth, will we?

Why not just keep on repeating the truth? Nikoula voluntarily turned himself in for a parole violation.; 9/17/12, 1:45 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Allie said... "Does everyone here think this guy is telling the truth?"

Telling the truth about what? This guy isn't denying he made a film.

The media are lying about why radicals in the mid-east are breaking out in anger.; 9/17/12, 1:46 PM
Known Unknown said...: Does everyone here think this guy is telling the truth? Why are conservatives here not interested in getting to the bottom of this whole thing?

I demand to know who put up financing for "In the Valley of Elah!"; 9/17/12, 1:47 PM
MadisonMan said...: but your dislike of Obama and your "outrage" over the First Amendment has clouded your thinking?

Why is outrage in "quotes"?

I think every American should be alert to anything that cuts away at Freedoms, especially freedom of Speech.; 9/17/12, 1:47 PM
edutcher said...: AllieOop said...
Not only is Nakoula not a sympathetic character, we don't know much about him, who really funded this film, I suspect there are layers of information to go through to get to the truth.

And, since Lefties like Oop are scared purple of the Moslems, throwing somebody off the troika as a sacrificial goat is OK.

It's not like he was somebody respectable.

Like Roman Polanski.; 9/17/12, 1:47 PM
Roger J. said...: Allie--I for one am not nearly as upset about the film and its effect as I am about the failure to protect our embassy personnel in the light of warnings from Libyan officials. Now its entirely possible the Libyans were lying; but the old military guy in me saw what looked all the world like a very coordinated attack on a US Embassy. RPGS, mortars, heavy machine guns, and some very good inside information as to the location of the Ambassador at the time of the attack.

A second point, and at the risk of sounding a bit skeptical: The FBI is investigating. When will their report be published? Some how I am suspecting after November 6. But I do confess to cynicsm here. I hope I am wrong.; 9/17/12, 1:47 PM
TWM said...: "Allie said... "Does everyone here think this guy is telling the truth?"

About what? What is there to get to the bottom of here regarding this guy? He may or may not have made this film, but what if he did?

Free speech means you can do that without being picked-up in the middle of the night and questioned by the government. It also means you shouldn't have to go into hiding because of nutso murdering fools and those who make excuses for them.; 9/17/12, 1:49 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: I am no Obama apologist, but do we know:

1. Why Obama would send County sheriffs to do the work of the president?

2. Whether the film-maker wanted police protection because of the media circus at his house?

3. Whether the guy is even cuffed?

4. Whether this was voluntary or involuntary?

I think a lot of assumptions are being drawn that fit the narrative people want to believe. I guess that's human nature -- juries do it all the time -- but there are too many unknowns about this one photo to convince me this is a game-changer.; 9/17/12, 1:49 PM
Bayoneteer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/17/12, 1:51 PM
TWM said...: "but there are too many unknowns about this one photo to convince me this is a game-changer."

It's not a game-changer, but it should be. And it would be if a Republican was in office.; 9/17/12, 1:52 PM
furious_a said...: Troofer Allie: Why are conservatives here not interested in getting to the bottom of this whole thing?

Joe Biden (two weeks ago): "bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive"
Angry Mob (last week): Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!; 9/17/12, 1:52 PM
Joe Kidd said...: Barack Obama has BLOOD on his hands. The week before, he skipped his intelligence briefings. When he finally was briefed and received notice of the coming US embassy attack, Obama did nothing. No warnings, no alerts, no lock-down, no protection, no US Marines.

NOTHING.

Four Americans dead, US embassies attacked, American flags burned, safe houses compromised, classified documents stolen and Obama STILL campaigned. As the ambassador’s body was being dragged through the streets, Obama partied. Then got a good night’s sleep.

There is no doubt: Obama has BLOOD on his hands.; 9/17/12, 1:54 PM
Anonymous said...: April Apple, the film sparked the protests in an atmosphere that was already ripe for violence and Anti American sentiment, because of many different things that have been happening in that region since 9/11/01 and even before. Al Qaeda, will use ANYTHING they can to incite Muslims. Then they can use the protest as a cover to attack American installations.

They pretend to be our allies, wear the uniform of Coalition forces or Afghan police and army and attack our troops and kill them. These are dangerous people who hate us and want us dead and out of their countries.

My point is, given the volatile atmosphere in the ME, the fanatic adherence to Islam, WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents?

Is the blood of those innocents worth Nakoula's free speech rights, especially since its not CLEAR what his motives were and who his funders were.; 9/17/12, 1:54 PM
Bayoneteer said...: Whatever. And if Gore's aunt had balls she'd have been his uncle too. Gore would have won in the EC if he'd managed to carry his own fuckin' home state too.; 9/17/12, 1:54 PM
Joe Kidd said...: One question remains unanswered:
“Why did President Obama leave our diplomats and embassies UNPROTECTED on the anniversary of 9/11?”
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/551939_10151230382729903_928263594_n.jpg; 9/17/12, 1:55 PM
Bryan C said...: "Part of the problem is that Nakoula is just not a very sympathetic character, unlike little Elian."

He was convicted of fraud a few years ago along with some other people, and agreed to became a federal informant out of what he described as remorse. At some point he may have used a computer to access the Internet, which may have violated the terms of his federal probation. This was months ago. No one had ever heard of him.

On September 11th, he was demonized by Al Q, and soon thereafter by our own government, for saying mean things about a dead guy. As murderous rioters around the world called for his death, his name, his photo, his address, and detailed descriptions of his house were published by law enforcement and the media. People in Hollywood helped track him down. He was taken from his home at midnight, on camera, by armed officers for "questioning" about a work of fiction he had a hand in creating, an issue entirely unrelated to his probationary status. The government insists, over all evidence and common sense, that the sole cause of the 9/11 violence was this man's YouTube video. His life, obviously, remains in danger.

Tell me, in what way is he not sympathetic?; 9/17/12, 1:55 PM
test said...: AllieOop said...
Not only is Nakoula not a sympathetic character, we don't know much about him, who really funded this film, I suspect there are layers of information to go through to get to the truth.

BUT if conservatives scream that his free speech rights are being violated because he was taken into "custody" by "brownshirts", we won't get to the truth, will we?

Does everyone here think this guy is telling the truth? Why are conservatives here not interested in getting to the bottom of this whole thing?

Or are you, but your dislike of Obama and your "outrage" over the First Amendment has clouded your thinking?

Another example of how the leftist fails to understand the right. Neither his argument nor his motives change our principles. And we're against destroying people for holding unapproved opinions.

I guess that "right to privacy" is pretty limited in your view huh? Abortion is covered, but nothing else. Funny how that works.; 9/17/12, 1:56 PM
damikesc said...: Does everyone here think this guy is telling the truth?

Again, if your worst assumptions about his motivations are true...so what?

Is free speech free speech or is it not? You're either calling for anti-blasphemy laws or you are a hypocrite.; 9/17/12, 1:57 PM
TWM said...: "My point is, given the volatile atmosphere in the ME, the fanatic adherence to Islam, WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents."

Ahh, because it's like, you know, FREE SPEECH. And some of us believe it in, even if we don't agree with it.

You're arguing that because those people are going to get pissed we should never say anything bad about them. There's a name for that. What is it again? Let me think. Oh yeah, dhimmitude.; 9/17/12, 1:57 PM
damikesc said...: Tell me, in what way is he not sympathetic?

Well, he didn't drug and then assfuck an underage girl.

That made Polanski "sympathetic" to these toadies.; 9/17/12, 1:58 PM
TWM said...: "Is the blood of those innocents worth Nakoula's free speech rights, especially since its not CLEAR what his motives were and who his funders were."

That might mean something if you were defending his free speech rights when it first happened, before any so so-called motive was thrown up there. Instead it just appears like you are searching for something - anything - to justify your position.; 9/17/12, 2:00 PM
Roger J. said...: Allie: what, other than parole violation is the film maker to be charged with?

I submit the president's middle policy, such as it is, is primarily responsble for these sad events. I continue to support his drone strikes which, IMO, are doing significant damage to AQ. The situation seems to me to be rather analgous to the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam--a crushing military defeat to the VC and NVA, but it did much more political damage to the US in the politial and PR arena--No reason to think AQ doesnt pay attention to those lessons.; 9/17/12, 2:01 PM
MadisonMan said...: It may well have cost him the state. Or then again, maybe not.

Not a fan of that sentence construct. Let's make a possible statement sound like it's true, even though we offer no corroborating evidence.

WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents?

You presuming that the film was the spark that lit the fuse. And the evidence of that is...what? Correlation is not causation.; 9/17/12, 2:01 PM
David said...: Not a sympathetic character, Allie? Kind of like a Jew in Germany in the 1930s. Unsympathetic. Alien. Different. Dangerous. Repression and marginalization are appropriate for these unsympathitic types in your mind Allie. Sadly you have many who agree with you, including our attorney general and president. Thus, as Crack correctly says, no traction. You win Allie. Way to go.; 9/17/12, 2:01 PM
Bryan C said...: "Is the blood of those innocents worth Nakoula's free speech rights"

Yes.

Free speech doesn't kill people. People kill people. I realize you desperately want a scapegoat to make the world seem safe again, but Nakoula didn't murder those people any more than you or I did, Allie. He's a patsy.; 9/17/12, 2:01 PM
shiloh said...: Continually trying to appease/kowtow/gratify her flock notwithstanding, Althouse seriously, do you understand presidential politics? Rhetorical.; 9/17/12, 2:01 PM
furious_a said...: Troofer Allie: Why are conservatives here not interested in getting to the bottom of this whole thing?

By that you mean why the President was skipping daily Intell briefings (after heads'-ups from both the Egyptians and Libyans), fundraising in Vegas, rapping with Pimp-o-Limp and partying with Jay-Z and Beyonce while our embassies burned?

Yes, "getting to the bottom" would be nice.; 9/17/12, 2:02 PM
TWM said...: "Continually trying to appease/kowtow/gratify her flock notwithstanding"

I always love your animal references, Shiloh. But I think you got it wrong. We're a pack now, not a flock. And that concerns you and all the other libs out there.; 9/17/12, 2:03 PM
Curious George said...: "AllieOop said...
April Apple, the film sparked the protests in an atmosphere that was already ripe for violence and Anti American sentiment, because of many different things that have been happening in that region since 9/11/01 and even before. Al Qaeda, will use ANYTHING they can to incite Muslims. Then they can use the protest as a cover to attack American installations.

They pretend to be our allies, wear the uniform of Coalition forces or Afghan police and army and attack our troops and kill them. These are dangerous people who hate us and want us dead and out of their countries.

My point is, given the volatile atmosphere in the ME, the fanatic adherence to Islam, WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents?

Is the blood of those innocents worth Nakoula's free speech rights, especially since its not CLEAR what his motives were and who his funders were."

I thought your position of being "100% behind Roe v Wade" while wanting abortions for gender determination made illegal was the height of stupidity, but I was wrong. This is.; 9/17/12, 2:03 PM
damikesc said...: April Apple, the film sparked the protests in an atmosphere that was already ripe for violence and Anti American sentiment, because of many different things that have been happening in that region since 9/11/01 and even before.

Feel free to suppress your freedoms because some neaderthals get pissy. Forgive others if we do not choose to take that same cowardly track.

Al Qaeda, will use ANYTHING they can to incite Muslims.

So why waste the time or energy trying to avoid "offending" them? As you stated, they will incite Muslims for anything.

They pretend to be our allies, wear the uniform of Coalition forces or Afghan police and army and attack our troops and kill them. These are dangerous people who hate us and want us dead and out of their countries.

Cowering in hopes that they get you last is a notoriously poor strategy.

My point is, given the volatile atmosphere in the ME, the fanatic adherence to Islam, WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents?

Given their love of Osama, Obama's constant mentioning of his death is a more likely cause of this.

Is Obama to BLAME?

Are you actually blaming speech for "causing" deaths? Honestly?

Again, your daughter's sacrifice is wasted on people like you.

Is the blood of those innocents worth Nakoula's free speech rights

Yes. Easily. His rights moreso than most (because protecting "popular speech" is an easy thing to do. It's the unpopular stuff that needs the protection).

especially since its not CLEAR what his motives were and who his funders were.

If I paid him to specifically malign and insult Muslims --- so fucking what? He has every right to do so.

So, when did you turn on the concept of free speech? When did that become a "problem"?; 9/17/12, 2:03 PM
garage mahal said...: Just a little lying about being Jewish so Jews would get blamed for the film. And a little bank fraud, a little meth dealing, a little snitching, a little slander, and a little parole violation.

What's not to love about this guy?

About the only honorable endeavor this guy has undertaken might his porn making?; 9/17/12, 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: David, what a way to twist my meaning. How dishonest of you. He is on parole, he is not clean as the driven snow for pity sake.; 9/17/12, 2:04 PM
damikesc said...: Just a little lying about being Jewish so Jews would get blamed for the film. And a little bank fraud, a little meth dealing, a little snitching, a little slander, and a little parole violation.

What's not to love about this guy?

Just as a reminder: The Left has championed the likes of Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, Ted Kennedy (who only murdered one girl, admittedly), and Bill Clinton (who only raped one woman, admittedly).

They have strict moral standards for their champions.; 9/17/12, 2:05 PM
TWM said...: "What's not to love about this guy?"

Because loving the speaker is so important to a liberal's view on free speech. No love, no speech, that's the Chicago way.; 9/17/12, 2:06 PM
DADvocate said...: Nikoula voluntarily turned himself in for a parole violation.

Uh huh. It looks real voluntary. Who am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes?

I used to be a probation officer. Turning yourself in voluntarily involved you driving down to the probation office, or taking a cab or bus, and walking into the office, usually alone, not being picked up by a half a dozen cops and what have you. Especially for a non-violent crime.

You and Allieoops are just the kind of fools Obama likes.; 9/17/12, 2:06 PM
shiloh said...: "And that concerns you and all the other libs out there."

Indeed, Althouse comforting her flock er preaching to her 90/10 con choir daily is quite frightening! :o

take care, blessings; 9/17/12, 2:06 PM
damikesc said...: David, what a way to twist my meaning. How dishonest of you. He is on parole, he is not clean as the driven snow for pity sake.

OK, so rights are only for perfect folks.

Good to know.; 9/17/12, 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I find is very strange and weird that some here basically want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero, what twisted thinking.; 9/17/12, 2:06 PM
TWM said...: "and a little parole violation."

BTW, my understanding is he was released so I'm thinking he did not violate his parole.; 9/17/12, 2:07 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: A lot of politically indifferent friends saw the photo, but assumed that the filmmaker had asked for protective custody and to go into hiding....

They missed the whole part about the Feds hunting him down and outing him...; 9/17/12, 2:08 PM
garage mahal said...: BTW, my understanding is he was released so I'm thinking he did not violate his parole.

That would up to the judge.; 9/17/12, 2:08 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Allie, It's unlikely anyone in the middle east knew about this small insignificant youtube video.
Up until a few days ago - NOBODY knew about it.
Everyone knows that Obama mentioned in his DNC speech that he killed Osama. The DNC convention was a celebration of the death of Osama.
So, in the name of consistency, Allie, would you want Obama to refrain from his access to free speech?
After all, admitting you killed Osama is powerful incitement fuel.; 9/17/12, 2:08 PM
Roger J. said...: Allie (and Garage): so what offense, other than parole violation should he be charged with? And I stipulate this dude is most definitely not pure as the driven snow.; 9/17/12, 2:09 PM
TWM said...: "I find is very strange and weird that some here basically want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero, what twisted thinking."

I find it very strange and weird, and more than a little sad, that some here basically want to blame everyone but the people do killed our people and sacked our embassies.; 9/17/12, 2:10 PM
Brennan said...: My point is, given the volatile atmosphere in the ME, the fanatic adherence to Islam, WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents?

The film was put on Youtube in July. The protests started on 9/11/12.

Are these abusers of free speech so magnificently awesome that they have the ability to ignite a protest 2 months after their actions?

I think you're giving them a little too much credit and underselling Ayman Al-Zawahiri's desperate situation to keep Al Qaida from dying.; 9/17/12, 2:10 PM
Bayoneteer said...: I call BS on the whole "they were provoked" argument. AQ and the rest require no "provocation". They can dig through Youtube.com anytime they wish and find some thing they can spin as a "provocation" just to help the useful idiots amongst us.; 9/17/12, 2:11 PM
Known Unknown said...: he is on parole, he is not clean as the driven snow for pity sake.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Sam Bacile may be the biggest fuckwad in all of history, but his legal standing is not germane to the acceptance of free speech or not.; 9/17/12, 2:12 PM
campy said...: want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero,

I find it entirely sad and predictable that Oopie want to restrict rights to saints and heroes.; 9/17/12, 2:12 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Don't be ridiculous. The "Nakoula character" is not a saint. What we are elevating to sainthood is his access to free speech in America.

I thought free speech was important to leftists and liberals?

Nakoula is a scapegoat and he is being used by the media and this administration.; 9/17/12, 2:12 PM
TWM said...: "That would up to the judge."

You're right. But if the cops thought he had violated it - based on the restrictions laid out in his parole report - he would have been arrested and held for a court hearing. Which considering the high profile of this thing would have been the very next day.

Thus, my point stands, I don't think he violated parole or he would be in jail.; 9/17/12, 2:12 PM
test said...: AllieOop said...
I find is very strange and weird that some here basically want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero, what twisted thinking.

It's quite an odd position to believe that defending someone's rights equates to turning them into a saint or hero. But attacking others based on a flawed understanding of their principles rather than your own can lead you to unsupportable positions.; 9/17/12, 2:13 PM
Curious George said...: Allie Oop (which probably comes from what the doctor said when he dropped you on your head), not only is your failing to understand the first amendment stupid, but you fail to understand that you argue against yourself "Al Qaeda, will use ANYTHING they can to incite Muslims"

How can someone say that and not understand that banning this movie, or others like it, is pointless.; 9/17/12, 2:13 PM
Bryan C said...: "Al Qaeda, will use ANYTHING they can to incite Muslims. Then they can use the protest as a cover to attack American installations."

Why would Al Q and their cohorts even need some elaborate excuse, on 9/11 of all days? Do you really think it all was just some huge coincidence that this all began on that one particular day?

If they can use ANYTHING (and you're right about that) then why are you and this administration so upset about the movie guy, since it was just his bad luck at being the random SOMETHING they chose to use?

And why is the government making an example of this man when it could just have easily been ANYTHING used as an excuse?

Hell, I expect the lame DNC jokes about dead Osama bin Laden were much more offensive to them. Should the cops drag the President and party leaders in for "questioning", too?

What are we supposed to ban, now?; 9/17/12, 2:14 PM
Roger J. said...: April: to quote the Rahmster: never let a good crisis go to waste, although Rahm does seem to have his hands full in Chicago (apologize for the OT); 9/17/12, 2:14 PM
Known Unknown said...: "I find is very strange and weird that some here basically want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero, what twisted thinking."

I think you're not really reading what most people here are writing.; 9/17/12, 2:14 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: No - the video didn't spark the violence, and esp. not in Libya. The crowds were instigated to the violence to cover a well planned para-military operation, complete with sighted in mortars and RPGs. Anything would have sufficed - what was important was that it was the 11th anniversary of the successful attack on the U.S. by al Queada.; 9/17/12, 2:14 PM
Tank said...: AprilApple said...
Don't be ridiculous. The "Nakoula character" is not a saint. What we are elevating to sainthood is his access to free speech in America.

I thought free speech was important to leftists and liberals?

Now you know better.

If you really thought this, you have not been paying attention.; 9/17/12, 2:15 PM
Tank said...: Sorry, I see now you were being sarcastic.; 9/17/12, 2:15 PM
furious_a said...: So a new condition of First Amendment rights is that someone must be clean and loveable? Nobody tell American Atheists...or Larry Flynt.

Here, Allie, you might as well order yours now.; 9/17/12, 2:16 PM
AllenS said...: Do you really need five sheriff deputies to bring someone in for a half an hour of questioning? Something doesn't add up. I'd like to see the actual parole rules on paper that he reputedly signed.; 9/17/12, 2:16 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Let me add that, even in Libya, angry crowds don't case the consulate and safe house days in advance, bring mortars and RPGs to a demonstration, or even know how to use them effectively.; 9/17/12, 2:16 PM
Oso Negro said...: AllieOop said...
I find is very strange and weird that some here basically want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero, what twisted thinking.

He is probably a reprehensible character, and may well be stirring the shit on behalf of Coptic Christians in Egypt. That notwithstanding, does it bother you in the slightest that he was rounded up in the middle of the night for being an inconvenience to the Federal government? Should the President of the United States concern himself with denouncing makers of bad films?; 9/17/12, 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: April, Osama Bin Laden has been dead for quite sometime now, he was their hero, not their prophet.

They are extremists at worst and volatile easily influenced Muslims at best, after they saw a broadcast showing clips o the film on a TV program in the region the Saturday before the Embassy attacks, the film was not known.

Who knows if Al Qaeda had not planned to have that TV program air just before 9/11 in an attempt to incite Muslims to protest at he Embassy, with the intent of using the protest as a cover to attack the embassy staff?

So many of you here are so focused on blaming Obama, that you are not asking questions about what may have transpired there.; 9/17/12, 2:16 PM
Lyssa said...: Garage said: What's not to love about this guy?

About the only honorable endeavor this guy has undertaken might his porn making?

Alli said: He is on parole, he is not clean as the driven snow for pity sake.

Are the two of you honestly arguing that an American is only entitled to free speech rights if he has lived a life "clean as the driven snow"?; 9/17/12, 2:17 PM
Rocketeer said...: Let's stipulate, for the purposes of argument, the administration's thoroughly unbelievable assertion that this movie is responsible for this latest outbreak of anti-American violence is true.

If Obama's foreign policy is so facile, so fragile, so brittle, so shallow, so feckless and weak that it can be upended by a YouTube video, then we are dealing with an incompetence and malfeasance the likes we have never - and I'm including Carter here - seen.

What; 9/17/12, 2:18 PM
TWM said...: "So many of you here are so focused on blaming Obama, that you are not asking questions about what may have transpired there."

Love the thinking - never go with the simple solution when you can blame a multi-layered conspiracy.; 9/17/12, 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...: No Lyssa, not at all. I'm saying hat we don't KNOW enough about this Nakoul's motives.; 9/17/12, 2:19 PM
Rocketeer said...: You are arguing against Obama, Allie, and you don't even know it apparently.; 9/17/12, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: TWM, I love your thinking, head in sand mentality.; 9/17/12, 2:20 PM
Roger J. said...: Allie: to be clear, I am blaming Mr Obama for an incoherent mid east policy. And as I mentioned up thread I fully support his drone strikes on the AQ leadership--but those strikes also have consequences, and this IMO coordinated attack supports my theory. If you are going to target AQ, you also need to anticipate some reaction, and it is in this regard that I assign blame to Mr Obama.; 9/17/12, 2:20 PM
Tank said...: Allie

His motives are not relevant.

Free speech means you are free to be provocative.; 9/17/12, 2:20 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Are the Middle Eastern protestors burning Nakoula in effigy? Why no - they are burning Obama in effigy.
They are yelling:
"Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!"; 9/17/12, 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Rocketeer, If I am arguing against Obama, so be it. You seem to think that my take on this situation is about protecting Obama, you would be very wrong. It's about protecting innocents, innocents who are now dead.; 9/17/12, 2:22 PM
Lyssa said...: Allie said: I'm saying hat we don't KNOW enough about this Nakoul's motives.

Are you honestly arguing that there are motives which can impact whether or not a person is free to speak his or her mind on a political issue?; 9/17/12, 2:23 PM
TWM said...: "TWM, I love your thinking, head in sand mentality."

<actually laughed at that.

Allie, you are so focused on finding ANYTHING to protect Obama it's starting to get embarrassing for you.; 9/17/12, 2:23 PM
MarkW said...: Not only is Nakoula not a sympathetic character, we don't know much about him, who really funded this film, I suspect there are layers of information to go through to get to the truth.

Let's assume that he is a genuine scumbag. It doesn't matter. Scumbags are guaranteed freedom of speech too. In fact, speech guarantees are especially important for unpopular speakers with messages that may cause offense. Speech that would offend nobody made by well-liked, upstanding citizens doesn't need protection.

My point is, given the volatile atmosphere in the ME, the fanatic adherence to Islam, WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents?

'Free speech' didn't cause deaths, fanatical Islamists did. Are you really in favor of abridging the right to free speech, of allowing government to revoke our 'free passes' whenever fanatical nut-jobs might take it the wrong way?

Fifty years ago, the 'wrong' kind of free speech 'caused' violent reaction by the KKK. Would you have favored limiting pro-Civil Rights speech that might have 'caused' violent reactions by southern racists in the 60's? Would you EVER IN A MILLION YEARS have described civil rights activists as having 'caused' or being in any way responsible for KKK violence!?; 9/17/12, 2:23 PM
Known Unknown said...: I'm saying hat we don't KNOW enough about this Nakoul's motives.

Again, irrelevant.; 9/17/12, 2:24 PM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/17/12, 2:24 PM
garage mahal said...: Are the two of you honestly arguing that an American is only entitled to free speech rights if he has lived a life "clean as the driven snow"?

No, and nobody is stopping Nakoula from making more movies. At least not that I know of.; 9/17/12, 2:25 PM
Known Unknown said...: It's about protecting innocents, innocents who are now dead.

Then you should sincerely direct your questions to the State Department.; 9/17/12, 2:25 PM
Nonapod said...: Some liberals around here seem to be hung up by the fact that this guy seems less than savory. They can't seem to understand that that is irrelevant. Some liberals seem to think it's important to know why he made this movie. Again, that is irrelevant.

This is about free speech.; 9/17/12, 2:25 PM
edutcher said...: Part of this problem is because Commandante Zero took the last 18 months to crow about "his" hit on bin Laden.

Well, Al Qaeda has sent their reply.

Oop and the rest of the good Germans here are desperate to obfuscate the fact that Barry Soetaro was a lot more the cause of this than Sam Bacile.

shiloh said...

Continually trying to appease/kowtow/gratify her flock notwithstanding, Althouse seriously, do you understand presidential politics? Rhetorical.

She understands the Constitution, and its underlying principles.

Which raises an interesting question. The little animal, if we're to believe him, took an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and, unless I'm very mistaken, when one is discharged from the service, they are not absolved of that oath.

So, why does he care more about Presidential politics (and Ann understands them better than he does) than the Constitution he swore to defend?

Unless that's another lie.

mittens cheney fetish Scotty Ras pants down syncophant

lol lol lol

^^^^^^I was too in the Navy^^^^^^

!A #F :C "O; 9/17/12, 2:25 PM
test said...: AllieOop said...
No Lyssa, not at all. I'm saying hat we don't KNOW enough about this Nakoul's motives.

Even better. Not only does she believe rights should be rescinded based on motives, but she won't express what the disqualifying line is. Cue Helms' "I know it when I see it" quote.; 9/17/12, 2:26 PM
Alex said...: Another day, another attempt by Allie to undermine the 1A.; 9/17/12, 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Lyssa, What about speech that is seditious?; 9/17/12, 2:26 PM
Alex said...: 1A rights should be dictated by who has the finest motives.; 9/17/12, 2:26 PM
Known Unknown said...: I don't think GM is seriously arguing for limitations on free speech. In fact, I have no idea what he's doing by telling us what we already know about the shady Mr. Bacile.

Allie, on the other hand, I'm not so sure.; 9/17/12, 2:27 PM
TWM said...: "No, and nobody is stopping Nakoula from making more movies. At least not that I know of."

Except now that he has to be in hiding, I doubt he will make any more. Hell, he's probably just hoping he can stay alive.; 9/17/12, 2:27 PM
Roger J. said...: Allie: check out the alien and sedtion acts and see how that worked out--America went thru this question 200 years ago. So do I assume you advocate charging the dude with sedition?; 9/17/12, 2:28 PM
Tank said...: AllieOop said...

Lyssa, What about speech that is seditious?

The stench of desperation is upon us.

Why not admit you're mistaken.; 9/17/12, 2:28 PM
TWM said...: "What about speech that is seditious?"

This wasn't seditious speech. And we don't enforce that anymore because if we did, most of the Democrat party would be in jail.; 9/17/12, 2:28 PM
Unknown said...: There's a famous case, Schenck vs United States. This is the case in decision of which Justice Holmes made the pronouncement that you cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. My recollection of the case was that Mr. Schenck had been distributing literature against the draft for WWI. IIRC, the literature did not call for violence, but for readers to inform themselves and assert their rights. It seems to me the Supreme Court viewed the circumstances as relevant to the application of law -- in other words, free speech rights are not absolute and the fact that we were going to war made what Mr. Schenck did -- urging people to get informed about and assert their constitutional rights -- sufficiently dangerous not to be entitled to constitutional protection. His prison sentence for publishing and distributing the leaflets was not overturned. Those trumpeting free speech rights here need to consider that their ideal may be a lot rosier that the reality in this country. Professor Althouse is a constitutional law professor and I am just a historian, so she'll probably blow my understanding out of the water. Is the Schenck decision good law or not?

My point is, this fellow who made this film certainly did so with the intention to upset Muslims in the Middle East. He was also on probation for fraud and barred by the terms of his probation from pulling stuff like this. In view of these things, I wonder whether his little enterprise would be entitled to constitutional protection.

I would say the sum of circumstances suggests there was nothing unconstitutional about what was done here. A criminal was hauled in for something he did that appeared likely to have violated his probation. Happens every day.; 9/17/12, 2:29 PM
Known Unknown said...: Lyssa, What about speech that is seditious?

See Brandenburg v. Ohio.; 9/17/12, 2:30 PM
Rocketeer said...: It's about protecting innocents, innocents who are now dead.

It may be uncomfortable for you to see it stated so plainly, Allie, but your take on this is about suppressing free speech, period. Sure, you try to hide it from yourself by using dead innocents as a shield, and "just asking questions" about Nakoul's "motives" but it is always and ever thus with your type. And it is always as disgusting as it is unrealized and unacknowledged.

Just another take on "for the children," no?; 9/17/12, 2:30 PM
Carnifex said...: The devastating ad would be pictures of the rioting with the caption--"While this was going on...", followed by a picture of Zero in Vegas fund-raising with the caption--"Our president was doing this." Fade to black. No more, no less. There could be no response a practical person could make. Only lying liars and the liars that shill for them...Garage, Shiloh, etc.

What story should come out Allie?
So he's not a sympathetic person? I wasn't aware he asked for sympathy. I heard of no such plea, although the mid-night rendition by a dozen LEO's kinda paints him as more sympathetic now, correct?

Ahh! You just want to get to know him? I guess because your into unsympathetic guys. Or is it just morbid curiosity? Something darker? Like trying to conflate him into some mastermind manipulating those poor Islamo-facist into committing murder? Why...he could be a Jew with such devilish powers!

And funding...again, why do you care who funded it. If you're not buying illegal substances what constitutional authority do you cite for you needing to know who paid what for anything? Again, all I see is either a personal desire for what ever dark reason you have, or a public desire to make this guy a scapegoat for the Zero Administration.

This poor schmuck didn't burn, riot, rape, stone, kill, etc. He made a cheesy movie based on historical facts. And even that's not the problem for the ragheads. It's just that someone made a picture of their chief pederast. They're demanding that we follow their religious dictates. Fuck them! We ain't muj, so we ain't goin' to muj hell for making pictures.

Get that through your head! People were murdered for a PICTURE!

And even THAT doesn't cover it because this movie has been out for a month, but the rioting jusy happens on Sept. 11. After we get warnings that they were going to occur! But Zero and the Hildebeast did nothing!!! Like JOE PATERNO!!! They did nothing! That's where your stupid questioning takes us. Not to what the fuck did the administration do, but "Wow! This guy made a MOVIE!!"

That my dear, is trully pathetic diversion.; 9/17/12, 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm asking questions, I'm wondering why you folks are NOT.; 9/17/12, 2:31 PM
Roger J. said...: Has the film maker been charged with any criminal conduct other than, perhaps, violating the terms of his probation?; 9/17/12, 2:31 PM
Cedarford said...: BTDGreg said...
The impression that I'm getting is that people on the right seem to care about this deeply. Everyone else, not so much. Am I wrong? Part of the problem is that Nakoula is just not a very sympathetic character, unlike little Elian.

Spot on.
Right-wing efforts to elevate this guy into a Free Speech Martyr are going to fail.
Not only is this alien grifter unsympathetic, his stated purpose was that he and his backers sought to inflame the Muslims into inflicting harm on Americans.

Blaming the Jews initially appears to be a clumsy tactic to cast Israel as the "enemy of my enemy, therefore also now forced, like America, to now be bigger friends of the Copt cause".

And yes, we do need to find who the backers that agreed with Nakoula that the object was to damage US interests to their own benefit.

This is Sooooooooooo! different from the Elian case!
I would say that a majority of Americans might even favor deporting this asshole and his financiers back to the Middle East as undesirable aliens.; 9/17/12, 2:31 PM
Known Unknown said...: I'm asking questions, I'm wondering why you folks are NOT.

Maybe you're asking the wrong questions.; 9/17/12, 2:32 PM
Alex said...: Allie - go ahead and ask all your questions. But we can also feel free to question your motivations too. Don't you feel saddened that so many of us believe you are against free speech?; 9/17/12, 2:33 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Allie, you do not protect innocents by removing free speech.
If so, then you would agree that Obama's access to free speech should be cut off in the same way as Nakoula's access to free speech.

We should all shut up, because angry Muslims are angry at us.
Crazy you tube videos, drone strikes, bragging about the death of osama etc...everyone should shut up so they calm down. right?
We should appease them.

No one is blaming Obama. We are just shocked at the propaganda being used so that Obama doesn't have to take any responsibility and can go on campaigning as if nothing is happening.; 9/17/12, 2:33 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: Of course he has a right to free speech. Of course his silly film did not cause of the deaths. He knew, however, by making and publishing the film that:

1. His life would be in danger if he was ever outed
2. He was outed
3. He never dreamed his film would be the pretext for world-wide Islamic outrage or that the media would repeat that false canard.
4. The media, after repeatedly falsifying the canard, was all over him (and Mitt) because that took the focus off the real issue, Obama's failure.
5. He was shitting his pants (yes, even and especially at midnight)

It is plausible that he asked to be taken into protective custody and, before the feds/county sheriff said yes, they got him to agree to "voluntarily" talk about his parole. So he says get the hell over here, he wraps himself up into a mattress when walking to the cop's car and then disappears from the media afterward.

I am not convinced this is abuse of his first amendment rights by Obama brownshirts. He had plasible self interest here in being in custody. I remain open to being convinced by better evidence.; 9/17/12, 2:33 PM
Rocketeer said...: I'm asking questions, I'm wondering why you folks are NOT.

Because the rest of us are not closet tyrants.

Contra Plath, not every woman adores a fascist, Allie.; 9/17/12, 2:34 PM
TWM said...: "I'm asking questions, I'm wondering why you folks are NOT."

We are asking questions, just not the same ones you are asking.

Why is our foreign policy full of suckage?

Why was intelligence of attacks evidently ignored?

Why were the embassies and our ambassador bascially left without security?

Why are the State Department and the WH stonewalling?

Why did our president have this film maker picked-up and questioned?

Those are good questions. Why are you not asking them?; 9/17/12, 2:34 PM
Known Unknown said...: I am not convinced this is abuse of his first amendment rights by Obama brownshirts. He had plasible self interest here in being in custody. I remain open to being convinced by better evidence.

This is entirely plausible. I am not so much concerned with the events in Cerritos as I am with some commenters here who wish to suppress speech because of what it might lead to.; 9/17/12, 2:35 PM
Roger J. said...: It seems to me that a parole violation is between the violator and judge--has there been any arrests warrants issued?; 9/17/12, 2:36 PM
Caroline said...: BUT if conservatives scream that his free speech rights are being violated because he was taken into "custody" by "brownshirts", we won't get to the truth, will we?

Why not? How does conservative speech, even if you feel it is over-the-top reactionary, in any way prevent further behind the scenes investigation? It's rhetorical. The answer is it doesn't.

They didn't need to take him in at all to investigate him. One doesn't have to be a conservative or an Obama hater to wonder why this man was picked up in this manner.; 9/17/12, 2:37 PM
Nonapod said...: this fellow who made this film certainly did so with the intention to upset Muslims in the Middle East. He was also on probation for fraud and barred by the terms of his probation from pulling stuff like this. In view of these things, I wonder whether his little enterprise would be entitled to constitutional protection

So you're suggesting people who make films that are intended to be offensive toward Muslims don't deserve constitutional protection. How about people who make films that are intended to be offensive toward Christians?; 9/17/12, 2:37 PM
David said...: Allie i am not twisting anything. Nor do I care if he is unclean. (an old anti Semitic epithet by the way.) I think the guy is a jerk. I'm making an analogy of your world view to the one of the Good Germans who allowed the persecution of the Jews. You can't see the parallel, which is exactly why your mode of thought is so dangerous. Jerks have first amendment rights too. Having the president and the attorney general come down on this guy once his video became a problem is really chilling. You blow right by that in you rush to expedience. You aren't cute when you do that Allie. You are part of a mob.; 9/17/12, 2:38 PM
Roger J. said...: Since I clearly do not understand the issue of parole violation perhaps some of our folks with legal training can explain them.; 9/17/12, 2:38 PM
TWM said...: "It seems to me that a parole violation is between the violator and judge--has there been any arrests warrants issued?"

And the probation office. If he were going to be arrested he would be in jail already. At least normally. Of course these are anything but normal times . . .; 9/17/12, 2:39 PM
Alex said...: Allie is part of the mob that want to lynch this guy and anyone else who would "offend" Islam.; 9/17/12, 2:39 PM
X said...: Lyssa, What about speech that is seditious?

it's legal. can you figure out why?; 9/17/12, 2:39 PM
test said...: Unknown said...
My point is, this fellow who made this film certainly did so with the intention to upset Muslims in the Middle East.

Has this been established? Most inflamatory rhetoric is not intended to provoke (too easy to refute). It's usually shown to the in-group to build anger and suspicion at the target. My first instinct was that this was intended for fringe anti-Islamists.; 9/17/12, 2:39 PM
TosaGuy said...: So this guy is a scumbag, so what.

He always hauled in blindfolded by heavily armed police. The only reason for this was to create this photo so we can show the world we Are supposedly doing something. Instead of showing the world what our concept of free speech is, we showed them that we haul folks in under gunpoint if they make a movie. The details don't matter, those are the thousand words that picture makes.; 9/17/12, 2:41 PM
TWM said...: "Since I clearly do not understand the issue of parole violation perhaps some of our folks with legal training can explain them."

They no doubt vary from state to state, but basically, it would be pretty obvious if he violated the terms of his probabtion or parole - using a computer on the internet was one I believe. And then they would recommend to a judge that his parole be revoked. The judge would have a hearing and decide it. Usually it doesn't take long unless the guy is rich and has some very good attorneys.; 9/17/12, 2:41 PM
test said...: Alex said...
Allie is part of the mob that want to lynch this guy and anyone else who would "offend" Islam.

Rescinding free speech rights on topics which could lead to violence allows the violent to censor speech. Not only is this inappropriate, over the long term it would increase violence as everyone learned such a reaction would have the desired result.; 9/17/12, 2:42 PM
Roger J. said...: TWM: thanks; 9/17/12, 2:42 PM
Revenant said...: It should, but it won't.

Republicans are afraid to make a stink about this sort of thing because it will come back to haunt them when they want to behave similarly.; 9/17/12, 2:43 PM
TosaGuy said...: Sorry for the bad grammar, etc......phone auto correct; 9/17/12, 2:43 PM
Revenant said...: I'm saying hat we don't KNOW enough about this Nakoul's motives.

We know more about his motives than we know about yours. :); 9/17/12, 2:44 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: Tosa Guy,

That also is plausible, maybe convincing. It was done for the photo op, even if he called in for protection, the feds wanted the photo of him getting "marched" to the squad car. He gets what he wants -- out of his house and away from the media, and the feds get what they want -- "proof" that they are addressing the source of the alleged outrage.; 9/17/12, 2:44 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Not only is Nakoula not a sympathetic character, we don't know much about him, who really funded this film, I suspect there are layers of information to go through to get to the truth."

-- The problem is that people on the left ONLY ask these questions when it is convenient for them. The new Obama movie? Maybe that's bad political speech. Citizens United -- also bad political speech. Fahrenheit 9/11? Bowling for Columbine? Good political speech. Dogma? Good religious parody.

So, frankly, it doesn't matter if he made his movie funded by Westboro Baptist. If he got the money legally, then who cares? Frankly, the only people who need to be being arrested are the rioters and murderers, not the guy who made a movie I can't be bothered to even watch.; 9/17/12, 2:45 PM
DADvocate said...: some here basically want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero, what twisted thinking.

How many Christian saints were criminals? St. Peter in Chains church is a half a block from where I sit right now. Guess why he once was in chains. Jesus himself was considered a criminal, pretty much for blasphemy, which is what Nakoula's "crime" is.

You're not very good at this "thinking" thing, are you? You prefer being a voluntary pawn in the Obama's grand scheme. No real thinking involved, just repeat after....; 9/17/12, 2:49 PM
edutcher said...: Once again, I ask a simple question and the little animal does a fast fade.

Maybe I should charge for this service.; 9/17/12, 2:50 PM
Roger J. said...: Since the original point of the post has to do with photographic statements, I would suggest that the picures of the Ambassador's body being dragged thru the streets would be more compelling as some sort of "statement"; 9/17/12, 2:51 PM
Revenant said...: Not only is Nakoula not a sympathetic character

Free speech is, of course, a right reserved for sympathetic characters.; 9/17/12, 2:51 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "My point is, given the volatile atmosphere in the ME, the fanatic adherence to Islam, WHY are we giving a free pass to those who most likely KNEW that their "free speech" would cause the death of innocents?"

-- The Obama administration collaborated in a movie celebrating about the mission to of bin Laden. That may inflame some passions even more. But, you know what is more relevant to the ambassador and others' deaths than the movie? The fact that our administration thought a locked door was sufficient protection at a location that had been previously hit by an IED.; 9/17/12, 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: What if his movie was funded b Al Qaeda? Who cares about Westboro.; 9/17/12, 2:51 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm asking questions, I'm wondering why you folks are NOT.

You are asking question to deflect attention from a very damming situation for your guy Obama.

And do me a favor will you?

Keep saying we are "screaming"... maybe, just maybe, if you keep saying "conservatives are screaming", somebody is bound to hear you and find out how much Obama is fucking up.; 9/17/12, 2:52 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Also, not being a sympathetic character doesn't matter. Just because someone might not be sympathetic doesn't mean police can beat them into confessing or search their property illegally. Rights exist SPECIFICALLY for the unsympathetic. It is specifically BECAUSE some people are unlikable that we have rights.; 9/17/12, 2:52 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "What if his movie was funded b Al Qaeda? Who cares about Westboro."

-- Then we will all be amazed and wonder still why he is being prosecuted for his free speech as opposed to dealing with terrorists. You know, even terrorists get to say crazy things; it's the ACTIONS that we have issues with. I wouldn't care if people chanted daily that they hoped I die. It is when they take ACTION to make that happen that I get concerned.; 9/17/12, 2:54 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Here's a question you should ask: Why is the State department refusing to answer more questions about Libya?

How many, total, embassies have been attacked?

Why are we allowing other nation's to tell us we cannot reinforce our embassies (which, remember, are U.S. soil)?

All of those are infinitely more important than: Hey, do you think that offensive movie was a false flag operation?; 9/17/12, 2:55 PM
Alex said...: Matthew - don't bother. Allie's mind doesn't understand the basic logical process. She knows her meme, the one that the DNC sent out and she's pounding it.; 9/17/12, 2:56 PM
edutcher said...: FWIW, US consulate in Karachi under siege and nearly overrun.

If anything costs Zero the election, this might be it.; 9/17/12, 2:56 PM
Matt Sablan said...: On the bright side, the questions Allie wants answered are the same ones Iran does. Good thing the U.S. media and Federal government have literally pointed to his house. Should make it easy. Wonder what Iran wants to talk to him about.; 9/17/12, 2:57 PM
Zachary Sire said...: So the picture of Elian and the guns was bad? I thought Republicans and Althouse loved guns. That pic should have made everyone happy??

Also, I thought Republicans and Althouse hated illegal immigrants?? Shouldn't they have wanted that brown kid out of here?!

Oh to be a Republican/Althouse! Such conflicting messages!; 9/17/12, 2:57 PM
garage mahal said...: - Then we will all be amazed and wonder still why he is being prosecuted for his free speech as opposed to dealing with terrorists

Nobody is being prosecuted for free speech.; 9/17/12, 2:58 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Here's something worth asking questions about. Like... why the hell after one ambassador was killed are our embassies STILL under protected?; 9/17/12, 2:59 PM
Paddy O said...: "I find is very strange and weird that some here basically want to turn this Nakoula character into a Saint and American hero, what twisted thinking."

Less Sergeant York or Martin Luther King and more Larry Flynt or Lenny Bruce.

Amendments have their own kinds of heroes, indeed even phrases within amendments. First amendment heroes tend to be offensive, precisely because that's the sort of speech that gets banned.; 9/17/12, 2:59 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Nobody is being prosecuted for free speech. "

-- You're an idiot if you believe this. This man was tracked down solely because of being involved in this film, allegedly at the time. The part about the parole or whatever is an excuse, allowing them to operate under the color of authority. Like when a cop breaks your tail light after pulling you over: Corrupt.; 9/17/12, 3:00 PM
Revenant said...: What if his movie was funded b Al Qaeda?

Dumb question. Al Qaeda has the same inalienable right to insult Islam that everyone else does.

You suffer from the delusion that freedom of speech doesn't apply to speech that might cause psychotic people to go on a killing spree. You're wrong, both as a matter of morality and as a matter of law.; 9/17/12, 3:01 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: Roger,

Maybe there is a different picture. The one I saw shows Smith being dragged through the streets, but not Mogadishu-style. I see a guy with his cell phone in his mouth (no pockets), trying to move Smith's unconscious body. I don't know if he is trying to get him away from the crowd and to a hospital or exactly what is happening. He is not obviously desecrating the corpse. It looks like he is actualy trying to use some care. Smith is not being dragged by his feet and the guy doesn't look like he's celebrating.
This shows the result of a horrible event, the death of our ambassador, but it's ambiguous beyond that. We don't know how long it took to find the body, and this could be hours after the AQ types left.; 9/17/12, 3:02 PM
X said...: Nobody is being prosecuted for free speech.

and that doesn't mean the first amendment hasn't been violated.; 9/17/12, 3:02 PM
Roger J. said...: Barry: you are correct with respect to the only picture I have seen--It is possible that the Libyan carrying him was trying to get him to a hospital.; 9/17/12, 3:03 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: What if his movie was funded b Al Qaeda?

Then it would be in the interest of the United States, as so stated and acted upon by this president, to show Muslims we are not enemies of Islam, to share that information with the rest of the world.

Unmask Al Qaida for deceiving the entire world... that is IF they are behind it.

If they are not... remember the lessons of Bush/Iraq... when people say to this day Cheney wanted to connect 9/11 and Iraq so we could attack Iraq.. its has been disputed and argued over and over..

Lesson?... don't lie about what the Intelligence shows.
If the Intelligence does not show Al Qaeda behind the so called inflaming video - dont lie about it and say the intelligence shows it does... when it does not.

My impression is there was intelligence showing what you are hoping... Obama would have released it by now.; 9/17/12, 3:04 PM
DADvocate said...: Here's a video of Jesus and Moses that some friends of my son did a couple of years ago. Try not to riot and kill after you watch it.; 9/17/12, 3:04 PM
test said...: garage mahal said...
Nobody is being prosecuted for free speech.

This is correct. The government is intimidating those considering speech about Muslims, Islam, Arabs, or the Middle East.; 9/17/12, 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: First of all as Gragae says no one is being prosecuted for free speech, secondly what is the FBI investigating?

Also Mathhew, I don't give a damn what Iran wants to know about him, I want to know if he was connected to Al Qaeda.; 9/17/12, 3:06 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Speaking of the movie that Obama collaborated with, here's a fun line via Politico, since Obama released some information but now wants to put the genie back in the bottle: "The dispute over the names puts journalists in an awkward position. Press advocates generally favor broad disclosure under FOIA and a narrow reading of exemptions the government uses to hold back information requested under that law. However, journalists are often privy to the names of officials providing background briefings and sometimes are given sensitive or classified information on condition it not be disclosed."

So, as you can see, press advocates generally favor broad freedoms when it comes to speech. Except when it may embarrass Democrats.; 9/17/12, 3:07 PM
X said...: Obama's government stooge minions have been chilling free speech since at least Joe the plumber.; 9/17/12, 3:07 PM
DADvocate said...: What if his movie was funded b Al Qaeda?

What if the attack on the consulate was funded by the CIA and American supplied weopons were used? What if Obama's doing a wag the dog routine hoping to drum up support and win re-election? What if Hillary plotted all this to discredit Obama and become pres in 2016?

I can come up with as many dumb, irrelevant questions as you.; 9/17/12, 3:08 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Also Mathhew, I don't give a damn what Iran wants to know about him, I want to know if he was connected to Al Qaeda."

-- What rational basis do you have for asking that? Seriously. Take everything we know about him (or allegedly know.) We know he was part of a scam, some people have said he is Coptic Christian. There is no logical reason to assume that he is an Al Qaeda operative or flunky, especially considering if he were, they could have kept the movie under wraps until they wanted it released, as opposed to the early release that really happened. This isn't a question you want answered, it is a hope you want fulfilled so that you can continue to ignore the gaping holes in Obama's preparedness that let people die.; 9/17/12, 3:09 PM
CWJ said...: Allie at 1:54 said

"Al Qaeda, will use ANYTHING they can to incite the muslims."

Then by all and every means we should not do ANYTHING!!!!!!!!; 9/17/12, 3:10 PM
Matt Sablan said...: This, though, is a constant theme we've seen. Any one who is mildly inconvenient to the administration gets a full on look-see from the government. Gibson Guitar? That guy in Vegas, Sheldon what's his name? What's the other guy who had mysterious characters calling around for his divorce records? The Inspector General that Obama called feeble minded?

This is the sort of abuse of power that, were a Republican to engage in it, would be considered Nixonian.; 9/17/12, 3:10 PM
test said...: Zachary Paul Sire said...
So the picture of Elian and the guns was bad? I thought Republicans and Althouse loved guns. That pic should have made everyone happy??

Also, I thought Republicans and Althouse hated illegal immigrants?? Shouldn't they have wanted that brown kid out of here?!

Oh to be a Republican/Althouse! Such conflicting messages!

See what happens when you believe the media narrative? You end up believing stupid shit.

You're currently reading evidence the narrative is wrong, and yet you ignore the evidence because it doesn't fit their narrative. Inexplicably you conclude the conflict between the narrative and reality is proof someone else is confused rather than that the narrative is wrong.

Sad.; 9/17/12, 3:11 PM
Roger J. said...: Clearly a 300 plus comment thead. Enjoy; 9/17/12, 3:12 PM
garage mahal said...: This man was tracked down solely because of being involved in this film, allegedly at the time. T

He admitted he violated his parole. Four other people helped make this film, why weren't they questioned? They weren't on parole maybe?; 9/17/12, 3:12 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Seriously. Think this through; more manpower has been used to secure this film maker for questioning than Obama spent on securing the Libyan embassy. Really, see how there were like, five or six guys in that picture? The ambassador? He had two Marines (who reports say weren't even armed!) and a locked door.

Film maker? He got like, a whole patrol to secure him.

Priorities.; 9/17/12, 3:12 PM
furious_a said...: Troofer Allie: I want to know if he was connected to Al Qaeda.

Others want to know why the President of the United States jetted off to a fundraising event in Vegas while our embassies burned and our diplomatic personnel were lynched.; 9/17/12, 3:13 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "He admitted he violated his parole. Four other people helped make this film, why weren't they questioned? They weren't on parole maybe?"

-- It is being used as an excuse to twist his arm. Before he came forward, the media were showing his front door and endangering his life. He was intimidated into confessing to a crime by the strong arm of political power. There was a time people on the left were wary of using threats and power to get confessions from people.; 9/17/12, 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/17/12, 3:14 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I can come up with as many dumb, irrelevant questions as you.

Wait.. there is no such thing as a dumb question... there are dumb answers, but not dumb questions.

Its simple. If we have intelligence showing Al Qaeda was behind the video we would have shared it by now... the interest of the US and Obama's reelection would happen to happily coincide?.. Oh yea, we would have known by now.; 9/17/12, 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Matthew, it is painfully evident that you and others do not want to get to the bottom of this because it will mess with your narrative and group think, that is PATHETIC and dangerous,considering that we are in a war with terrorists.

Keep your heads in the sand, keep screaming about free speech and ask no questions.; 9/17/12, 3:16 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: ..keep screaming about free speech..

Allie's talking point of the day.

She has to repeat it over and over.; 9/17/12, 3:17 PM
edutcher said...: Also, they're burning documents in the embassy in Beirut - just in case.

Last time that happened, Rommel was rolling down the road to Alexandria.; 9/17/12, 3:17 PM
Revenant said...: He admitted he violated his parole.

The White House, FBI, and a couple of dozen LA cops got involved because a parolee violated his parole by uploading a legal video to YouTube?

See, this is good news. It means there's plenty of fat to cut from both the federal and Los Angeles law enforcement budgets. :); 9/17/12, 3:17 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Allie: I asked you to give me a rational reason why we should be spending efforts to determine if this man has Al Qaeda ties. There is no evidence of this, especially given the fact that Al Qaeda had to go through the trouble of translating his work and was forced to access it via YouTube. You're not making a reasonable argument. You're just saying: "This ridiculous thing has not been definitively disproven! So, let's focus on it."

Give me a fact, an inkling of a reason, that we should spend resources searching for false flag operations.; 9/17/12, 3:18 PM
furious_a said...: Troofer Allie: I want to know if he was connected to Al Qaeda.

Others want to know why, even with credible warnings from the Libyan government, the Obama administration provided a smaller, more poorly-armed security detail to our Libyan ambassador than they did for Mr. Bacile/Nakoula.; 9/17/12, 3:18 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: See, this is good news. It means there's plenty of fat to cut from both the federal and Los Angeles law enforcement budgets.

I like what you did there Rev.; 9/17/12, 3:19 PM
TosaGuy said...: "That also is plausible, maybe convincing. It was done for the photo op, even if he called in for protection, the feds wanted the photo of him getting "marched" to the squad car. He gets what he wants -- out of his house and away from the media, and the feds get what they want -- "proof" that they are addressing the source of the alleged outrage."

It doesn't even have to a staged photo op. That photo will be used across the world by those who want to diminish the US concept of free speech.

Also, this is what real free speech surpression looks like, it is not making WI Capitol protestors mind their manners and fill out a permit form.; 9/17/12, 3:20 PM
DADvocate said...: There was a time people on the left were wary of using threats and power to get confessions from people.

Not really. There was a time when liberals were wary of using threats and power to get confessions. Garage and allie defend this actions of Obama et al because they want to be able to use intimidation and fear for one's life to get confessions and "cooperation," especially if someone has made Dear Leader look bad.

Wouldn't surprise me if some left wing group funded all this to cause trouble and solidify Obama's power, remember Kristallnacht.; 9/17/12, 3:20 PM
furious_a said...: Troofer Allie: Keep your heads in the sand, keep screaming about free speech and ask no questions.

Go buy your ph*cking burkha already, Allie. You've more than demonstrated the fit.; 9/17/12, 3:21 PM
DADvocate said...: Matthew, it is painfully evident that you and others do not want to get to the bottom of this because it will mess with your narrative and group think, that is PATHETIC and dangerous,considering that we are in a war with terrorists.

To get to the bottom of something you have to recognize the truth. Something you're wholly unwilling to do.; 9/17/12, 3:22 PM
Revenant said...: Matthew, it is painfully evident that you and others do not want to get to the bottom of this because it will mess with your narrative and group think

It is painfully evident that you have "prove to the world that you're an ignorant cunt" on your bucket list. Well, go ahead and scratch it off, sweetie -- mission accomplished.

What your sort of fascist never quite understands is that "freedom of speech" applies to our enemies as well as to ourselves. Even if this guy was part of some bizarre conspiracy to piss off the entire Middle East, that is entirely legal and Constitutionally permitted. There is no heckler's veto. :); 9/17/12, 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/17/12, 3:24 PM