Mr. Nakoula’s supervised release barred him from using aliases. But he resumed work on his movie under the name Sam Baccil, said Jimmy Israel, who assisted with preproduction. Mr. Israel, who still thought Mr. Nakoula had been away battling cancer, placed casting notices on Backstage.com. One advertised 11 roles that included “George: male, 20-40, a strong leader, romantic, tyrant, a killer with no remorse, accent.” Mr. Israel said Mr. Nakoula told him that “Muhammad would be named George to mislead the actors.”You're supposed to believe he is in prison because of the alias?
November 26, 2012
An interview with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the imprisoned filmmaker behind "Innocence of Muslims."
The NYT forefronts the fact that Nakoula is angry and without remorse. I think he should be angry, and the NYT should show far more concern about free speech and political persecution, but there's some detailed material, e.g.:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
267 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 267 of 267Chickelit, I could go all bonkers and threaten you for putting words in my mouth, as poor Lyle did, upthread.... but I won't, because I sense even you realize what you've asserted is ridiculous.
I feel kinda neglected, I thought you were gonna call me a Sullivanist.
OK
So C4 inserts his points into an interview that doesn't make his points. If only Hicks had been as smart as you and said what you wished he had said.
Look I think you often make some very good points. But it helps no one when you put words in the mouths of others to support your points.
One thing about Islam is you can't show a depiction of Mohammad, without drawing the ire of Islam and all that it entails.
Even if this guy weren't trying to demean Islam he would get the Salman Rushdie treatment.
But supposing he made a reverential movie about Mohammad. If he just filmed what happens in the hadiths, Mohammad would come across like Genghis Khan. And a pedophile.
Now, even if Muslims can't depict Mohammad, why should non muslims be held to that same restriction?
Oh for pity sake, it's Ricks, not Hicks, lol. Thomas Ricks, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the NYT and WaPo.
CWJ, what is it with you? Who said Ricks was in any way referring to Nakoula? He was referring to a bogus scandal of some bogus coverup, perpetrated by Fox news, using dupes like McCain and Lindsey Graham and conservative viewers of Fox news.
Why are you so confused?
One problem with all of this is he made the video way back almost a year ago. No parole violation, and no screaming from the muslim community. then as soon as the sh*t hit the fan he was almost immediately scooped up right after Obama and co said the things they did about the evil film that offended the sensibilities of Muslims and was responsible for them becoming murderers. (those crazy muslims!)
The timing was such and so close to the timing of revealing the facts about the video that it stretches credibility that he wasnt picked up becauase of the video and as punishment for it.
A week before the embassy the attacked he was still in violation of his parole, but didn't have any cops breaking down his door in the middle of the night.
The timing strikes me as fishy (to say the least).
OK Ricks not Hicks. Your move, Inga.
CWJ, did you miss my "move" at 7:47PM? Besides we're not playing a game here, we're trying to get at the truth, are we not? I am.
Jr565. And our secretary of state assured the family of one of the victims that they were going to get the film maker.
Inga, because that's not the subject of the post, Nakoula is. Stop changing the subject and answer my original question. How is Rick's interview relevant to Nakoula?
Cedarford wrote:
2. Nakoula stated his political goal with the video was to get Muslims to injure and kill Americans to give them a taste of what Jews and Copts have suffered. He suceeded with deaths and injury to Americans and putting tens of thousands of other Americans in Muslim lands in increased jeopardy. And is apparantly unrepenitant about it in a NYT interview today.
YOu know, that muslims didn't have to actually play along and become savages over a video that no one had heard about.
CWJ, what are you, the thread cop? It's a issue related to the entire Benghazi affair. Threads do tend to weave in and out of the post topic.
Inga wrote:
CWJ, did you miss my "move" at 7:47PM? Besides we're not playing a game here, we're trying to get at the truth, are we not? I am.
Liar liar pants on fire.
Jr. Very adult of you, so nanny nanny boo boo to you, oy.
Cedarford wrote:
his political goal with the video was to get Muslims to injure and kill Americans to give them a taste of what Jews and Copts have suffered. What if your goal was to get christians to go on a murdering spree injure and kill americans to teach the world what Jews and Muslims have suffered? What would you have to do? Utter a word? Draw a picture? Make a joke? Make a movie? Rape nuns? Shoot the pope?
The REAL question is why did it take so little to set this community off?
Inga wrote:
Besides we're not playing a game here, we're trying to get at the truth, are we not? I am.
If you really were then you wouldn't be parroting the administratoins line so vociferously.
his political goal with the video was to get Muslims to injure and kill Americans to give them a taste of what Jews and Copts have suffered.
ANd frankly, if all he has to do to show the world what Jews and Copts have suffered and have people killed is say something mean about the prophet, perhaps he has a point in trying to get the world to notice.
He Set the muslims up totally. How devious of him. He laid the trap and they took the bait. Only what was the the trap. Say something that is apparently true about Islam.
What if I made a movie about how Muslims are a bunch of violent thugs who will start a jihad after I made a movie telling the world how violent they were. And muslims seeing the movie then rioted over it. It would kind of prove my point wouldn't it?
Not a thread cop at all. I asked you a question. Your first response was I wouldn't understand. I encouraged you to answer anyway. You corrected my spelling. I admitted my error. You reply that the post is not what AA titled and said it was. And you're left with saying I'm the thread cop. Got It.
Being as stupid as I am, perhaps I missed one or more of your posts. If so, forgive me. And if so please answer my original question.
It is my intention to prove that the Christians are a bunch of bastards and I'm hoping that they kill a bunch of non believers after I reveal my evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jesus+is+fake+-+here+is+the+proof+1&oq=jesus+is+fak&gs_l=youtube.1.2.0l5j0i5.406.2703.0.5713.8.7.0.1.1.0.203.582.5j1j1.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.zrZk3ODmt0A
Let the killing commence!!!! Wait, where's the killing? WHy isn't anyone storming the embassy and killing our ambassador?
Ok, lets try that again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E
The Bible Is Bullshit christians! Now, go out and kill some people please.
You reply that the post is not what AA titled and said it was. And you're left with saying I'm the thread cop. Got It
11/26/12 8:13 PM
Where did I say that the post is not what AA titled it? Sorry but you are making less sense now than a couple hours ago.
Still no killing.
OK how about this?
http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/serrano-andres-piss-christ-1987.jpg
Its a crucifix. Dipped in urine. C'mon now. I've lit the match now go forth and kill some people. Jesus. I'm getting tired of causing christians to murder people and them not doing it. I'm doing my part, why can't they?
Oh wait, just because I post something offensive doens't give anyone a right to murder ohter peope?
I guess you learn something new every day.
Ok, last chance, surely this will work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeosYvdUuxQ
Jesus is a pedophile, as per scientologists. Kill some people now please.Its on You Tube for god sakes! What do I have to do, inhabit your body and make you go on a killing spree?
Its my goal to have christians murder people, why is it so hard to achieve that goal? And why is Penn & Teller still alive? They said the bible was Bullshit years ago. Surely some embassies could have been destroyed between now and then. WTF?
You christians are just not going along with my plans?
(And by the way, I have it on good authority that L Ron Hubbard screwed goats and was part of Nambla. Don't kill me Tom Cruise!)
Inga thinks that Rick's opinion of Fox News justifies the incompetence that caused the slaughter of 4 Americans.
Then Inga tries to compare it with a war that freed 26 million people.
It is good to know that Inga prefers that an oil-rich nation funds terrorism, rape rooms, the use of chemical weapons on dissidents, and feeding people into wood chippers.
I think it important to note inga's lack of human decency before taking note of any of her Obama-sycophantic opinions.
Inga what did you think of Clinton when he passed the Iraq Liberation Act? How much of that was based on lies?
Did you boo him when he went to the democratic convention and chear leaded for Obama? That lying murderer?
How interesting that so many of you are so eager to speak for me.
Inga please read this paragraph and comment:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
Truth or a lie?
Hey Inga who said this?
You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed.
Truth or lie Inga?
(And just as a little hint, and perhaps an inconvenient truth for you, this was the guy who you probably voted for against George Bush and who were all pissed off about when Bush stole the election.
But again, truth or lie?
OR this:
There is an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security (not an axis of evil though). “There is no more clear example of this threat“than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, simply cannot allow this to happen.”
That son of a bitch George Bush is SUCH A LIAR (ANd people died!). Oh wait....
But you answer me Inga, Truth or lie?
YOu can do it.
Inga@8:02
I never said you were the thread cop. You said I was. NTTAWWT.
"Its an issue related to the entire Benghazi affair"
No the post was about Nakoula, his interview, and why he is in jail. Nothing in Rick's interview related to any of that. Indeed after a fact free reference to Benghazi, he quickly changed the subject to Iraq.
I asked you a question about how your embedded interview was relevant to Noukala, you said I couldn't understand the answer, and have avoided answering ever since.
@CWJ: I known you're trying to get Inga to admit to thread misdemeanors but she actually responds better if you put things in mouth--like words. I think she posted that link because she thinks it's a credible dig at Fox News--recall just a couple weeks ago she was guffawing into her own rum, calling it Faux News. She got chided by one of the women here though so she stopped.
Inga nurses grudges.
Sorry S/B Inga@8:22
Mouth-like words?
Oh. Dear. God.
The whole thing is bogus, the outrage over Nakoula, the outrage about a scandal about ???? The outrage about a coverup about???
As I said if you have to ask the question, you won't understand the answer. I just gave it to you anyway.
Tom Ricks says it, the whole thing has been hyped.
@CWJ: I known you're trying to get Inga to admit to thread misdemeanors but she actually responds better if you put things in mouth--like words. I think she posted that link because she thinks it's a credible dig at Fox News--recall just a couple weeks ago she was guffawing into her own rum, calling it Faux News. She got chided by one of the women here though so she stopped.
This is a little girly chikelet. Stop it.
Chickelit, what are ya my shrink now? Seriously you don't know me well enough to put words in my mouth or "explain" me to anyone. Lord, you are presumptuous.
And what the heck are you talking about regarding some female commenter chiding me, so I stopped? You should know by now, if you presume to know me so well, that no amount of chiding makes me stop when I have something to say. Proves you don't know me at all.
CWJ said...
Mouth-like words?
"if you put things in her mouth...like words? "
Better?
Sheesh.
Maybe phx has a point. What a bunch of pedants.
Chickelit.
Got it.
:
In Ingaworld conservatives kept mum about war deaths but now they clamor about Benghazi
who kept mum about war deaths during Iraq? The media certainly kept us aware of Every. Grim. Milestone.
In the current war in Afghanistan, or as I like to call it Obama's war, not so much. If you went by media coverage you might not even realize we still had troops over there and that they are still dying.
Note, shining a light on something is the opposite of keeping mum. Keeping mum is what the media is doing now.
NOT speaking truth to power is "keeping mum" and I certainly don't hear too many lefties bringing up,that old chestnut. That's about as in style as the hits of the Strawberry Alarm Clock.
Genocide by sanctions under Clinton/Gore. Meaning people died. Did Clinton lie and people died?
Leslie Stahl (CBS Sixty Minutes interview, 11 May 1996): “We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know……………is the price worth it?”
well Inga, was the price worth it for Clinton and Gores lies? or we're they not lies. Maybe you think they were being truthful.
Madeline Albright seemed to think so, and she was after all carrying out Clinton's policies.
Madeleine Albright (US Secretary of State): “I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think the price is worth it.”
Fast forward to the democratic convention. Who was the STAR of the show? He's still got it! Clinton! standing O's all around.
Only, he oversaw the death of more kids than were killed in Hiroshima... All based on a lie apparently. Why then were dems cheering the child mud erred and liar, and not throwing tomatoes at him! Or at the very least speaking truth to power? remember the cry, Not In My name? apparently it should be In My !Name considering the degree to which Clinton was touted as a hero.
All is forgiven, even a little child murder based on a lie.
http://www.addictedtowar.com/docs/sanctions.htm
Inga, the problem with your talking point is it rebou F's on dems far worse than it does on Bush. Because dems aren't innocent on this. They gave the ok for bush to go to war, they gave Clinton the ok to pass the ILA. If it was a lie when bush was in office it was the same lie when Clinton was in office. And all those peaceniks voting for GOre and screaming about stolen elections were voting for a guy who killed more kids than died in Hiroshima. And this was before Bush even did anything that would make him Hitler.
So you want to keep going with that Bush lied and people died talking point Inga?
"The whole thing is bogus, the outrage over Nakoula, the outrage about a scandal about ???? The outrage about a coverup about???"
I do understand that to some people free speech and the appearance that we've got a political prisoner arrested in response to the righteous outrage of Islam is "bogus."
I do understand that to some people being lied to by the President for weeks, after which he expresses righteous outrage himself over being accused of lying for weeks is "bogus."
"Leslie Stahl (CBS Sixty Minutes interview, 11 May 1996): “We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know……………is the price worth it?”
Honestly? The half a million dead children was a lie. Every bit as outrageous as the lie of the war deaths in the Lancet study. And if those dead children exist at all, it's a lie that Clinton killed them. Unless Saddam's own policies are Clinton's fault because he offended Saddam and, being an Arab sort, Saddam was then forced to be a murderous bastard against his will, and was FORCED to build palaces instead of spending his money on water treatment.
That was what it was about... water treatment.
And the world hating America.
I also think that, if it were a medical team left without rescue when rescue was possible some people would sing an entirely different tune.
Lying to the family (and world) about Pat Tillman's death, of course, that he died a hero instead of senselessly by friendly fire, was a profound failure of leadership and a scandal to be flogged in the press for months.
Not "bogus" at all.
All, if we're king to blame bush for Obamas economy, why should we not blame Clinton for Bush's Iraq Policy?
Don't you think the problem may have been that Clinton was SUCH A CONVINCING LIAR? if he hadn't gotten the UN to pass not one but 15 UN resolutions (all based on lies) that said Iraq wasn't in compliance and seeking weapons, maybe Bush wouldn't think that Iraq wasn't in compliance.
If Madeline albright hadn't justified killing half a million Iraqi kids because of punishing sanctions, based on a lie apparently, maybe Bush wouldn't think that Iraq needed to be sanctioned.
If Clinton hadn't bombed Iraq after saying it was Iraq's last chance, perhaps Bush wouldn't think that Iraq had been given multiple chances to comply and after not complying that Clinton had run out of patience. And that Iraq had already been given its last chance.
Maybe if Clinton hadn't passed the Iraq Liberation Bush wouldn't think that it was US policy to seek regime change in Iraq and transitition to democracy.
In other words, Inga, Iraq is Clinton's fault.
Maybe Bush's real flaw was listening to those lying dems and their lying war mongering and if they hadn't passed that situation with containment in free fall into Bush's lap he wouldn't have had to do the only thing responsible when it came to Iraq. Namely, take Sadaam out, once and for all.
HTe funniest thing is, I'm actually the one giving dems credit for not being the most morally bankrupt people on the face of the earth during Clintons administration.. I actually believe that Clinton and Gore, and Albright and the UN all thought Iraq posed a threat and took the actions they did out of principle and not because they were trying to enrich Haliburton. Just as Bush didn't lie, neither did Clinton and co.
You however, in thinking that Bush lied HAVE to also think Clinton lied (because its the same lie, there's no way its truth in Clintons mouth and a lie in Bush's). And if Clinton lied then he killed all those kids based on that lie.
And yet, and here's the kicker.. You and dems vote for Clinton and Gore whenever they ran, and still give then standing O's whenever they appear in public.
I actually voted for Clinton and Gore and even defended their Iraq policies. And yet the dems had to then go and pretend that Clinton never did the things he did.
Synova wrote:
"Honestly? The half a million dead children was a lie. Every bit as outrageous as the lie of the war deaths in the Lancet study. And if those dead children exist at all, it's a lie that Clinton killed them. Unless Saddam's own policies are Clinton's fault because he offended Saddam and, being an Arab sort, Saddam was then forced to be a murderous bastard against his will, and was FORCED to build palaces instead of spending his money on water treatment.
I agree that the numbers of kids killed were highly exaggerated. I'm just using the lefties stats against them.
They were the ones who said the sanctions led to the deaths of half a million kids. so I'm running with it to make my point.
Whatever the number though, the point is that that number was killed because of tough sanctions (and because Sadaam diverted resources from those kids to build his palaces) that we had in place , and which were so tough, because supposedly Iraq continued to not comply.
Ad either this was based on a lie or it was based on truth. As was Clintons bombing of Iraq in 1998. Either he wagged the dog, or he legitimately believed the action was necessary.
And him passing the Iraq liberation Act. Etc etc etc etc.
I actually think he felt it was necessary, and thus the action was justified (as was the war that followed) but I'm not the one arguing Bush lied. If bush lied then Clinton wagged the dog.
If you were a lefty who though Clinton wagged the dog, and then went on to vote for Gore, and then got all outraged when Bush "lied" then not only are you a hypocrite, but a moral cretin who would knowingly vote for someone who wagged the dog based on a lie.
But somehow the neocons are evil? (Not saying this about you by the way)
"If you were a lefty who though Clinton wagged the dog, and then went on to vote for Gore, and then got all outraged when Bush "lied" then not only are you a hypocrite, but a moral cretin who would knowingly vote for someone who wagged the dog based on a lie.
But somehow the neocons are evil? (Not saying this about you by the way)"
I agree. And I realize you weren't directing that at me. I only pointed out the thing about the "dead children" because it's one of my "things." For years the US was flogged on the world stage over how *we* killed all of those poor Iraqi children and then, when it was time to be against Bush all relevant History went *whoosh* down the memory hole.
The international outrage over those children was one of the justifications given by Bin Laden.
Then the howling *whooshing* sound of memory adjustment and suddenly... just like Clinton and Gore and the sure belief that Saddam was a serious threat... it's like it never happened and it was only, ever, nothing but Bush's opportunism and international adventurism.
Bah. So stupid.
Although Inga thinks that whatever Ricks says must be gospel truth and although it's fun to poke at Fox News, Ricks seems to be going after all the media, not just Fox. And this is because he's a great admirer of David Petraeus and furious that he may be implicated in the Benghazi cover-up.
Super-lib website Crooks and Liars is quite upset by what it termed Ricks's "Gen. Petraeus Apology Tour" and what he said to Howard Kurtz on CNN:
I think the media has been in full shark bite frenzy without regard, really. If anything, I find the real scandal here -- or one of the scandals here is how much the media has turned on Petraeus.
Crooks and Liars: I find this observation condescending and insulting.
Etc.
Aridog,
Thanks!
"BTW...there are influential Islamic religious leaders here [and elsewhere] who DO speak out regularly. They receive little or no media coverage."
You're right, I know this because I seek them out--and you're also right about the media by and large ignoring them.
"The courts declared him a mental case and he is at large as we speak."
Any links on this? And is MI law really that different from WA in this regard? If someone got as far as being declared a "mental case" by a court, that would almost certainly imply involuntary commitment and thus make the individual a Prohibited Person as far as owning, or even handling, firearms.
... or hopefully you mean, at large minus his AK?
Inga,
"How interesting that so many of you are so eager to speak for me."
They're just your friends, trying to help out, when they see the obvious difficulty you have trying to make any sense.
"If you read me over time - I am far harsher on Muslims, the Chinese, dysfunctional black-ruled regions, inner city black pathologies and crime tolerance, ill-educated Fundies that embarass the Republicans, certain feminist idiots, parasites, lawyers, far left liberals, communists, militant gays and militant war cheerleaders - than I am on Jews."
Um, C-fudd, lying like a rug doesn't really serve your "cause" very well. Especially when the rest of your post goes to prove that you just lied.
It's Monday, C-fudd's kid must be a girl today, tomorrow who knows? Also noted that C-fudd again mocked the "HEROES" in Benghazi, including the guys who gave their lives fighting off and killing much of a force that greatly outnumbered them.
"If you read me over time - I am far harsher on Muslims, the Chinese, dysfunctional black-ruled regions, inner city black pathologies and crime tolerance, ill-educated Fundies that embarass the Republicans, certain feminist idiots, parasites, lawyers, far left liberals, communists, militant gays and militant war cheerleaders - than I am on Jews."
Um, C-fudd, lying like a rug doesn't really serve your "cause" very well. Especially when the rest of your post goes to prove that you just lied.
It's Monday, C-fudd's kid must be a girl today, tomorrow who knows? Also noted that C-fudd again mocked the "HEROES" in Benghazi, including the guys who gave their lives fighting off and killing much of a force that greatly outnumbered them.
"If you read me over time - I am far harsher on Muslims, the Chinese, dysfunctional black-ruled regions, inner city black pathologies and crime tolerance, ill-educated Fundies that embarass the Republicans, certain feminist idiots, parasites, lawyers, far left liberals, communists, militant gays and militant war cheerleaders - than I am on Jews."
Um, C-fudd, lying like a rug doesn't really serve your "cause" very well. Especially when the rest of your post goes to prove that you just lied.
It's Monday, C-fudd's kid must be a girl today, tomorrow who knows? Also noted that C-fudd again mocked the "HEROES" in Benghazi, including the guys who gave their lives fighting off and killing much of a force that greatly outnumbered them. Finally it's interesting that C-fudd is absolutely unhinged about Nakoula, almost as if he were a jooooo! Fudd even called him a "Blasphemer" with a capital B. My money says C-fudd is a muslim. It would explain a lot, especially the sweaty Jew-baiting. Also despite his laughable claim that he criticize muslims more than Jews he has frequently fellated savage antisemitic terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
"I am far harsher on ... ill-educated Fundies"
Right, by calling them "ball-licking Christian Zionists" bwahahaha.
I made a point of going to that McDonald's on the Champs Elysees for the following reasons:
1) French people had been telling me how McDo in America only hired poor black people. I found that in France they hire poor black and North African immigrants.
2) Its the ultimate American neo-colonial experience. The McDo was packed by the way with Frenchies.
Here is what is known about the Benghazi slaughter. There is no dispute at all on these points, they have been supported with testimony and eyewitness statements to the press:
1) There were threat streams based on actionable intelligence:
a) Ambassador Stevens knew he was on a target list
b) The head of security wanted more security, and protested when security was reduced
2) the Obama administration claimed there was no actionable intelligence
a) 9/11 is still the anniversary of a successful attack on the US that Islamic terrorist organizations are proud of and wish to emulate/perpetuate
b) President Obama did not attend Presidential Daily Brief meetings to go over intelligence and provide guidance for addressing threats
3) Requests for increased security, and requests to not reduce security were denied
a) repeated requests for increased security were rejected, culminating in someone in the chain of command saying "Stop Asking"
4) CIA agents (former SEALs) heard the attack on the consulate
5) They were ordered to stand down
6) The CIA says orders to stand down did not come from anyone in the CIA
7) Two CIA agents did not stand down, but attempted to rescue
8) After failing to rescue, they retrieved one body, but failed to retrieve Ambassador Stevens' body
9) In the rescue/retrieval attempt, they came under attack
10) the attack proceeded for 7 to 8 hours
11) This attack was observed/recorded by two intelligence drones using Full-Motion Video
12) The CIA Agents under attack were in contact with others not in the same location (unknown what level they were in contact with and where: Tripoli? Italy? CIA HQ?)
13) The CIA Agents expected support. They were using laser target identifiers
14) The video of the attack was available to the President stateside
15) By law, the President is to be informed within 15 minutes of an attack on any Ambassador. This is not a law the President can sidestep or ignore. The President is the senior Executor of Laws, but is not above the Law himself.
16) The Intelligence Community correctly identified this as an organized attack, with no connection to a protest
17) The Obama Administration claimed the attack grew out of a protest of a YouTube video
18) The Obama Administration told relatives of the dead CIA agents that they would "get" the person responsible for the video
19) Relatives of the dead CIA agents have been told provable lies by the Obama Administration
20) The Obama Administration continued to claim that the attack on the Ambassador was related to a YouTube Video. This was known to be false before the attack was concluded. The Obama Administration has never adequately explained why they blamed the attack on the YouTube Video.
21) The Obama Administration has attempted to explain their focus on the video as based on the Intelligence known at the time. This has been proven to be 100% false. The Intelligence Community knew the attack was an organized assault. The intelligence drone FMV shows that there was no protest, and that it was an organized assault. The Intelligence Community has clarified that their talking points never mentioned a protest, and specifically mentioned an organized assault by known terrorist organizations.
22) The Obama Administration has offered the only explanation as to why the reference to an organized assault by known terrorist organizations was removed: they claim it would have tipped off the terrorist groups. This explanation has never been mentioned by the Intelligence Community. The Obama Administration has still not explained at all what they were trying to conceal from the terrorist organizations, or what negative result would have occurred from the terrorist organizations being "tipped off" that we knew it was a terrorist attack.
Those are the known facts.
They paint a clear picture of an Administration that deliberately lied to US citizens.
(continued)
Those are the known facts.
They paint a clear picture of an Administration that deliberately lied to US citizens. With President Obama making specific references to his actions having put al Qaida on the run during his campaign speeches, and the temporal proximity to the Presidential Election that was extremely close at the time and extremely close in the results, it is an obvious conclusion that the Obama Administration concealed their actions and statements in order to preserve their political future. The conclusion is so obviously apt and probable that President Obama should either provide an explanation to the contrary, or resign. Absent such an explanation, the media and the populace should be applying pressure for one outcome or the other.
Since the election, the Obama Administration has refused to provide any answers to the questions that existed since before the election. The only explanations given have been inadequate or ridiculous even at first glance (specifically: pushing the video angle so as to not "tip off" the terrorists).
For example, President Obama has attacked the character of those who criticized UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and said that they should "come after" him. But he has refused to answer even the most simple questions about his actions on 11 and 12 September 2012, and why his administration pushed the notion that the video caused protests that resulted in the deaths of the 4 Americans.
Obama has the information that would answer almost all the questions about the issue:
1) Why was security reduced despite actionable intelligence threat streams?
2) Why did the administration initially claim there was no actionable intelligence, when it has been proven there was?
3) How did skipping the PDBs impact security levels in Libya before the attack?
4) What preparations were taken to heighten security on the anniversary of 9/11?
5) Did Obama watch the video of the attack? If not, why not?
6) What orders did Obama give while the attack was going on? To whom? Were they carried out to his satisfaction? If not, was anyone punished?
7) Obama claimed that "as soon as he found out what was happening" he gave orders. What time was this, exactly? If it was not while the attack was occurring, why not? What does the President define as "what was happening"?
8) Was an order given to stand down?
9) If so, who gave it?
10) If not from the President, was that authority delegated, or arrogated?
11) What consequences have been imposed for the stand down order?
12) If no stand-down order was given at all, why were the CIA agents under the impression they were told to stand down?
13) Were there any standing orders to not attempt relief in the case of an attack?
14) If so, why?
15) If not, why were no assets activated to attempt a rescue or combat support?
16) Why did the CIA agents expect combat support (actively designating targets with a laser)?
17) Why did the Obama administration blame a video for protests when Intelligence informed them it was an organized assault by a terrorist organization? Blaming the Intelligence Community for bad Intel or trying to conceal information to not tip off the terrorists are inadequate explanations, already disproven as justification.
18) Why did Susan Rice go on five television shows to push the video angle? Who told her to do that? Who authorized the information she delivered? What wording was written down, and who wrote it, and based on what information? Who participated in the development of the talking points she delivered?
19) Why is the Obama administration not cooperating with investigations into the matter (specifically: why is the President declaring his chosen spokesperson as off limits, why did the SecState visit friends in Australia instead of meeting a scheduled hearing, and why did the Obama administration choose to bring revelations of Petraeus' affair to light days before a scheduled appearance at a Congressional hearing when the information had been known for at least 6 months?)
Kirk, if they had any sense they wouldn't speak nonsense, like you just did:)
Inga said...
Oh. Dear. God.
The whole thing is bogus, the outrage over Nakoula
you were the one outraged by Nakoula. you wanted his head.
So long after it was useful, Easy Annie A. posts about Obama shredding the First Amendment.
And, predictably, after claiming that shredding the First Amendment is ok if it protects her daughter, Inga the Lying Obama Whore now says this is a non-story, even if it means Obama shredded the First Amendment for no goddamn reason.
This is why I drink.
Inga, you do realize that Obama left Americans to die and tried to blame it on this patsy? And that, had your daughter been working at the embassy, Obama would have gladly let her die and blamed the filmmaker, right?
@Lydia:
one of the scandals here is how much the media has turned on Petraeus.
---What does he mean, turned on Petraues?
The fucking NY Times gave a super-discounted rate to Moveon.org. to post a full page ad insulting him and calling him Gen. "Betray us" when he gave a positive assessment of U.S. military actions.
Then the right-wing media claled the NY Times on it.
Then the NY Times denied it.
Then facts were exposed proving the NY Times was lying and had given Moveon.org a super-discount on the ad.
Then the NY Times realized it couldn't lie anymore, said it was "a mistake,", and ZIP! down the memory hole it went.
The left wing media has had its long knives out for Petraeus for years. This is just their glory moment.
Remember when George Bush arrested buffonish documentary director Michael Moore on a technicality. Me neither.
Post a Comment