He also tried to smear Jim Thompson of Free Republic of advocating violence.
Charles of LGF was too lazy to even get Jim Robinson's name right.
The Official Underzog website
Posted on 11/17/2012 1:17:37 PM PST by Qbert
Yes, the right wing is still trying to turn the Benghazi attack into a cut-rate Watergate scandal, despite David Petraeus’s testimony backing up everything the administration said. Jennifer Rubin, the right wing hack masquerading as a Washington Post blogger, leads the charge with yet another determinedly stupid article: BREAKING: The President Knew the Truth About Benghazi - Right Turn.
For some reason, the right wing echo chamber is obsessively fixated on whether the President “knew it was a terrorist attack,” and they’re going to keep hammering away at this empty nothing-burger until it’s flatter than Mitt Romney’s approval ratings.
Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?
This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.
It’s absolutely bizarre that people like Rubin continue pushing this false dichotomy. In actual fact, there is no contradiction here. This was a terrorist attack that was motivated by the anti-Islam video. And we know this because the New York Times reported it from Benghazi on October 15.
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence. …To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.
The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.
At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. ‘We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,’ the spokesman said. ‘The response has to be firm.’
The right wing is trying to fool America into jumping aboard their crazy train, pushing a false line of attack that they know is false — that the anti-Islam video was not the reason for the attack, and that President Obama, for some reason (maybe he just hates America?), deliberately lied about this in order to cover for his jihadi friends.
It’s yet another attempt to demonize President Obama and make him out to be a dangerous secret subversive radical, who sympathizes with people who kill American citizens.
Really! That’s the conspiracy theory they’re trying to push here. It’s just beyond ludicrous, and it gets stupider and more deranged every single day.
UPDATE at 11/17/12 11:48:36 am Since Jennifer Rubin asked:
How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?
I don’t expect it to make any difference to the false narrative they’re pushing, but here’s the answer. It’s really not that difficult to figure out — in fact, Petraeus actually told the hearing yesterday why the assessment was toned down: Petraeus Says U.S. Tried to Avoid Tipping Off Terrorists.
WASHINGTON — David H. Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.
Not without a workable alternative executable within our means. Agreed.
We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them.
Nor I, but to what end? There I have my doubts when closet anti-Semites like Zero and Hillary are involved.
If that was our policy, then wouldn’t it make sense to arm the Syrian rebels too? It may have been an unannounced policy, but it wouldn’t be out of line with our intent to help what some people must have perceived as “freedom fighters’.
Well, no. Syria is a rather different kettle of fish. First of all Erdovan of Turkey hates Assad to pieces, and he is Zero's buddy. Second, it is a Russian client State with a port open to them on the Mediterranean. So to go supporting the rebels there is stepping on Putie's shoes rather heavily. He reportedly called it a "red line in the sand." I have little doubt he took a very dim view of it unless the Syrian "rebels" we were helping were hard line communists, which is always possible with this crew. In either case, I wouldn't want to be risking WWIII just yet. Third, Syria is at least nominally a secular state, as were Egypt and Libya before Zero got the Mubarak and Ghadaffi respectively. The policy has replaced those secular thugs with religious zealots with messianic and eschatological aspirations.
I didn’t want us involved in these efforts from the get-go. Once we did, this natural progression seems reasoned from the opposing point of view.
Rationalized, yes, reasoned, no.
In this environment, I just don’t see the possibility of gun running to Syria to be all that surprising, or scandalous.
Then why isn't anybody in the press or in Congress addressing it? Here's why: the people getting the guns hate our guts, and have said so. They want us dead. Zero is running guns to our enemies, just as he did for the Sinaloa cartel. That's high treason.
Oh, but these Islamic-terrorists-that-hate-our-guts aren't as bad as AQ! This is the Muslim Brotherhood, which of course makes them "our" friends (Huma, Huma, Huma). What with Morsi hanging in Gaza this week while they rain missiles on Ashdot, that should get your attention.
I think the reason the consulate was attacked is that AQ wanted sole control over the use of those weapons. Yet there is also the possibility that they were acting on behalf of the Russians to S-T-O-P that flow and chasten the CIA but good. That's why I think Zero didn't respond while our people were dying. He didn't dare take that chance with Putie and knew that he had to take his lumps for his play on Syria. Stevens' visit with the Turkish ambassador was the delivery of the "goodbye and good luck" message.
The whole think including gun running seems a mistake to me, but scandalous? I’m not convinced of that.
Are you now?
He also tried to smear Jim Thompson of Free Republic of advocating violence.
Charles of LGF was too lazy to even get Jim Robinson's name right.
Like LGF just found out, they’re not going to be able to keep up with the stories.
re: Syria
I would argue that you are trying to insert the USA into a fight in which we are not really involved or relevant. The rebels are being aided by a coalition of Turkey and the Gulf Arab states.
While we may be providing some surplus weapons, the control of them will be those guiding the rebels.
Not only that but, there is no need for us to be involved. We have trained special forces in all those nations noted above. Using well known Green Beret principles, they are advising the rebels and making headway.
Evil is as evil does. Four men died and CJ wants to protect his messiah.
There are three major scandals here that can't be answered with goofy excuses and transparent lies.
The Nytimese reported: "[The] fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video . . . ."
The Nytimese reported: "[A] spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah [said] . . . ."
Well if the Nytimese patented anonymous sources said it then it must be true.. the puzzle is solved.
that’s enough (3)—I’m sure there are more.
You would argue wrong. All I am describing is what the USA has already done. As to relevance, Putin made it clear that he believes we already are.
While we may be providing some surplus weapons, the control of them will be those guiding the rebels.
What we were providing were Ghadaffi's weapons by the boatload (literally): including 20,000 hand held SAMs, RPGs, heavy machine guns, and possibly chemical weapons. In the hands of Hizbullah, that is something not to be disregarded.
We have trained special forces in all those nations noted above.
We have Special Forces in Syria without Congressional authorization? News to me. Sources please.
No, you little green nerfball. It’s avout why o hussein allowed 4 Americans to be murdered and would have allowed over thirty more to be murdered right along with them...you stupid jerk!
-——We have trained special forces in all those nations noted above.———
The trained special forces in Syria are Arab, trained by Americans. I did not intend to say they are our troops. They are Qatari and maybe some Saudi as well.
http://rt.com/news/stratfor-syria-secret-wikileaks-989/
Stratfor leaks: NATO commandos in illegal special ops in Syria
The information comes from a hacked email from leading private US intelligence agency Stratfor, whose correspondence has been released by Wikileaks since February 27. The email appears to be written from the address of Reva Bhalla (bhalla@stratfor.com), the company’s director of analysis, for internal use, and details a confidential Pentagon meeting in December. The consultation is alleged to have been attended by senior analysts from the US Air Force, and representatives from its chief allies, France and the United Kingdom
The author of the letter claims that US officials “said without saying that SOF [special operation forces] teams (presumably from the US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey) are already on the ground, focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.” A little later the US army experts expand on the role of the undercover commandos: “the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”
Looks more like an eschatological wet dream to me.
What makes YOU think Israel has been ‘comfortable’ with ANY of this arab spring bs?
Every move this administration has made has been anti-Israel and to strengthen Israel’s enemies...which is its goal.
There's a big difference between being comfortable and dealing with a greater evil at the expense of transient hazard. There is also a big difference between being comfortable with something and tolerating it. In either case, our people would be rubbing shoulders with theirs even in Syria, so I would presume some degree of coordination would be necessary to prevent the spook equivalent of a friendly fire incident. Hence the question.
Further, our guys aren't all Zero's happy anti-Semitic warriors. So for this to go there is likely to be a bigger picture, even if it is some eschatological wet dream a la Ahmadinejad or proto Sabbatean young Turks. I just don't like not seeing it.
If Chuckle-head read the British press he would know that...
Stuck in a hotel this weekend without FoxBusiness (only CNN in a Texas hotel - go figure). All of a sudden CNN has learned about Bengazi and the fiscal cliff.
Palin said, "history teaches that those with the guns usually prevail when a coalition overthrows a tyrant." And she warned the rebel command is an outgrowth of the Islamic Libya Fighting Group, some of whose commanders have links to Al Qaeda.
Reported by the LA Times, 8-26-2011.
I agree with your boilerplate U. S. foreign policy point.
I also agree with your point about the cover-up being the problem, and this looking much like Watergate to this point. Perhaps we’ll find out in time why, but like you said, over forty years later and we still don’t know the why of the Watergate break in. We have had some theories raised, but I don’t think any of them were deemed the winner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.