PDA

View Full Version : Libyan Consulate Bombed In Retaliaton Against Film



eddhead
September 12th, 2012, 01:51 PM
Anti-Islam filmmaker in hiding after deadly protests in Egypt, Libya; blames lax security

By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, September 12, 11:03 AM

LOS ANGELES — A California-based filmmaker went into hiding after a YouTube trailer of his movie attacking Islam’s prophet Muhammad sparked angry assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American members of his staff were killed.

Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

Protesters angered over Bacile’s film opened fire on and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. Libyan officials said Wednesday that Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob firing machine guns and rocket propelled grenades.

Bacile said he is a real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. But Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.

In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.

“This is a political movie,” Bacile told the AP. “The U.S. lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re fighting with ideas.”
Bacile said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam’s flaws to the world.

“Islam is a cancer, period,” he said repeatedly, his solemn voice thickly accented.

The two-hour movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.

The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. The14-minute trailer of the movie that reportedly set off the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons
.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.
Muslims find it offensive to depict Muhammad in any manner, let alone insult the prophet. A Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of 12 caricatures of the prophet triggered riots in many Muslim countries.

Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.

“I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good,” said Bacile. “America should do something to change it.”

A consultant on the film, Steve Klein, said the filmmaker is concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Bacile declined to confirm.

Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that “you’re going to be the next Theo van Gogh.” Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

“We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen,” Klein said.

Bacile’s film was dubbed into Egyptian Arabic by someone he doesn’t know, but he speaks enough Arabic to confirm that the translation is accurate. It was made in three months in the summer of 2011, with 59 actors and about 45 people behind the camera.

The full film has been shown once, to a mostly empty theater in Hollywood earlier this year, said Bacile.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



© The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-but-remains-defiant-after-deadly-protests-in-egypt-libya/2012/09/12/b375a3e8-fc92-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

Ninjahedge
September 12th, 2012, 02:19 PM
LOS ANGELES — A California-based filmmaker went into hiding after a YouTube trailer of his movie attacking Islam’s prophet Muhammad sparked angry assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American members of his staff were killed.

What annoys me the most is that these guys have relegated foreigners into a single non-human entity that they can attack with impunity when some part disagrees with them.

That they can KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE is abominable.

I guess that means we now have the right to bomb a nursery school in Libya because they killed our Ambassador?

It is up to the world leaders to condemn this action both in fair conscience and also to prevent a similar situation from happening to them.

eddhead
September 12th, 2012, 02:56 PM
A lot of it is due to a lack of understanding regarding US culture and free speech. I can't remember where (because I am old and feeble minded) but I read somewhere that a Tunesian national tweeted something to the effect that expression against the Profit should be banned in the US in the same way that denial of the Holocaust is. Did you catch that? This person believes speech that denies the Holocaust is prohibited in the US. I wonder how prevelent that understanding is among Islamic fundamentalists.

It is discouraging because fighting campaigns of misinformation and lies is essentially an ongoing, endless task that never seems to end. It is why the Fox News channel gets away with espousing so much Bullshit.

Ninjahedge
September 12th, 2012, 03:09 PM
People know what they know, and believe what they want to believe.

ZippyTheChimp
September 12th, 2012, 05:16 PM
The Soviet government was upset that the US government permitted the film Red Dawn (1984) to be released.

Ninjahedge
September 12th, 2012, 05:24 PM
Did they kill anybody?

ZippyTheChimp
September 12th, 2012, 05:26 PM
I was referring to this:
A lot of it is due to a lack of understanding regarding US culture and free speech.

lofter1
September 12th, 2012, 07:21 PM
The "film" that supposedly led to these attacks is apparently not from some guy named "Sam Bacile" (a person who probably doesn't even exist) but rather from a group centered in Riverside CA.

Some info from an on-going thread at The Dish (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/embassy-attacks.html), which is a good chronicle of today's events, particularly the many stumbles by Romney & Crew ...


[*=left]The Embassy Attacks In Libya And Egypt (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/embassy-attacks.html)

The following are all the posts related to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on US embassies in Libya and Egypt, including Romney's despicable response [excerpts] ...

Wed Sep 12, 2012 - 1:30 pm (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/is-sam-bacile-even-a-real-person.html):

Is Sam Bacile Even A Real Person?






https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1234685638/Goldberg-Headshot-Blog_normal.jpg Jeffrey Goldberg

@JeffreyGoldberg
(https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg)

Would anyone in the Jewish Twittersphere who has ever met 'Sam Bacile' please speak up.





So far very little is known about Sam Bacile, the "Israeli-American real-estate developer" behind the crude new hate-film (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/the-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html), as Laura Rozen reports (http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2012/09/2071/president-obama-condemns-the-killing-of-us-ambassador-to-libya-chris-stevens/):

[T]he man who claimed to have written, produced and directed the $5 million film that reportedly sparked the protests said he blamed lax security at the US government facilities and the protesters for the deaths of the US diplomats.“I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good,” the man who identified himself as “Sam Bacile” told the Associated Press in an interview (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-but-remains-defiant-after-deadly-protests-in-egypt-libya/2012/09/12/b375a3e8-fc92-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html?hpid=z2) from an undisclosed location Wednesday. “America should do something to change it.”

“Bacile, a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam’s flaws to the world,” the AP report said. But it’s not clear that Bacile is who he claims. Israeli officials said they would not confirm or deny that he is an Israeli citizen, under that or other names.
And there were some hints that Bacile may be a pseudonym, possibly for someone affiliated with the Egyptian Coptic diaspora.


Sarah Posner is also going through (http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/6377/who_is_%22sam_bacile%22) the sketchy details about "Bacile", who is apparently now in hiding:

Consider all the contradictions: small ones, true, like in one account he is 52 and in another he is 56. To the AP he is "a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew" and to the Times of Israel he is "Jewish and familiar with the region." And what about that bit at the end of the statement to the Times of Israel--that "even Jesus" should be "in front of the judge"? That sounds like someone who is trying to provoke more than just Muslims. A lot of things don't add up here about the claimed identity of the filmmaker.



Wed Sep 12, 2012 - 3:05 pm (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/is-sam-bacile-even-a-real-person-ctd.html):

Is Sam Bacile Even A Real Person? Ctd

Goldblog, trying to learn more about the mysterious "Sam Bacile", finds (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/) one of his wingnut associates:

Steve Klein, a self-described militant Christian activist in Riverside, California (whose actual business, he said, is in selling "hard-to-place home insurance"), who has been described in multiple media accounts as a consultant to the film.


No, Sam Bacile is not a real name, or possibly even a single person, and not Jewish:

Klein told me that Bacile, the producer of the film, is not Israeli, and most likely not Jewish, as has been reported, and that the name is, in fact, a pseudonym. He said he did not know "Bacile"'s real name. He said Bacile contacted him because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, he said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California. "After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me."

He said the man who identified himself as Bacile asked him to help make the anti-Muhammad film. When I asked him to describe Bacile, he said: "I don't know that much about him. I met him, I spoke to him for an hour. He's not Israeli, no. I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved, Terry Jones (the radical Christian Quran-burning pastor) is not involved. His name is a pseudonym. All these Middle Eastern folks I work with have pseudonyms. I doubt he's Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign."

I asked him who he thought Sam Bacile was. He said that there are about 15 people associated with the making of the film, "Nobody is anything but an active American citizen. They're from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, they're some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are Evangelical."



The on-going thread at The Dish:

" ... all the posts related to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on US embassies in Libya and Egypt, including Romney's despicable response ... "

The Embassy Attacks In Libya And Egypt (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/embassy-attacks.html)

eddhead
September 12th, 2012, 07:53 PM
The Soviet government was upset that the US government permitted the film Red Dawn (1984) to be released.

True and amazing made all the more so by the fact that it came from a Government as opposed to ill-informed individuals.

lofter1
September 12th, 2012, 08:00 PM
7:40 PM

September 12, 2012

AP Identifies Man Who Claims Role In Producing Anti-Islam Film (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/j-christopher-stevens-ambassador-to-libya-killed_n_1876544.html#105_ap-identifies-man-who-claims-role-in-producing-antiislam-film)

A 55-year-old California man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, told the Associated Press that he is the manager of the company that produced the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims."

Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cellphone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula's aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.

Full story here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-anti-islam-film_n_1879195.html):

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Claims Role In 'Innocence Of Muslims' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-anti-islam-film_n_1879195.html)

HoveringCheesecake
September 12th, 2012, 10:53 PM
One of the guys who was killed, Sean Smith, was a moderator/poster at one of the other forums I frequent. Really nice guy. He was on a chat client before the attack as well as the instant it happened:

(12:54:09 PM) vile_rat: assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures
(2:40:22 PM) vile_rat: **** [board censored this]
(2:40:24 PM) vile_rat: gunfire


RIP, Sean.

eddhead
September 12th, 2012, 11:00 PM
That is a horrible shame. I am very sorry for the loss of your friend.

ZippyTheChimp
September 13th, 2012, 08:36 AM
Romney begins to look more foolish and reactionary as new information comes to light about the consulate attack. It may have been a planned retaliatory attack for the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi in June, the #2 man in al Qaeda after bin Laden was killed. Al Libi means "the Libyan."


Libyan Ambassador: "One of the saddest days in my life"

Christiane Amanpour


The grenade assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi Tuesday was originally thought to have been sparked by rage over an anti-Muslim film made in the U.S.

But U.S sources now tell CNN that the operation was planned by an al-Qaeda offshoot that may have used the angry protest outside as a diversion.

The attack killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, 52-year-old Christopher Stevens, as well as three of his colleagues.

Libya's Ambassador to the U.S., Ali Suleiman Aujali, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that he had lost a personal friend in the attack.

“This is one of the saddest days in my life,” Aujali said. “He is a man who knows Libya very well, before and after [the revolution]. He was the man who stood by the Libyan people. He was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. It is a great loss for the Libyan people.”

Stevens played a key role during Libya's revolution last year. He began his job as ambassador only a few months ago.

The Libyan government quickly denounced Tuesday's attack and promised to bring the killers to justice.

Mohammed Al-Megaryef, the head of the ruling GNC party said, "We apologize to the U.S., and to the American people and to the government, and to the rest of the world for what happened yesterday."

The majority of Libyans, 54%, actually approve of U.S. leadership, one of the highest approval ratings Gallup has ever recorded in the Arab World.

Libya has vowed to hunt down the killers and President Obama has insisted they be brought to justice.

Aujali said he’s confident that Libya can deliver.

“In the last few weeks there were also car bombs in Tripoli, and we have been able to capture some of the people responsible for that. And that was a line to lead to us to [the people] responsible and to the financial support they get from overseas.”

Aujali said that it’s imperative Libya find the group that carried out the attack, not just for the sake of the relationship with the U.S., but also for the very stability of the country.

“We must know these cells working in Libya do destabilize Libya – to destabilize our relations with friendly countries.”

A somber U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly condemned the attack.

“Today many Americans are asking - indeed I asked myself - how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated - and at times, how confounding - the world can be. But we must be clear eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group, not the people or government of Libya.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder and CEO of the Cordoba Initiative, told Amanpour, “The Quran states explicitly that no soul shall be responsible for the sins or the crimes of another. And while this film is indeed offensive, and those who have done this have done this deliberately to offend Muslims, we should not kill innocent people."

James Rubin, former assistant secretary of state under president Clinton – and Amanpour’s husband – said of the U.S., “We are a country where the word ‘tolerance’ is built deeply into our system, and we have to make that true both through law enforcement, through education.”

Rubin added, “We can defend somebody’s right to speak but that doesn’t mean we can’t condemn what they say. And we have to be very clear on that. And we can’t let the Arab Spring be hijacked by the extremists and remember that it’s a good news story – a positive development for the people of the Middle East.”

© 2012 Cable News Network



Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack

By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN
updated 5:36 AM EDT, Thu September 13, 2012

A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.

They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of a senior Libyan member of the terror group Abu Yahya al-Libi.

The group suspected to be behind the assault -- the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades -- first surfaced in May when it claimed responsibility for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi. The following month the group claimed responsibility for detonating an explosive device outside the U.S. Consulate and later released a video of that attack (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/world/africa/libya-violence/index.html).

Noman Benotman, once a leading member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and now based at the Quilliam Foundation in London told CNN, "An attack like this would likely have required preparation. This would not seem to be merely a protest which escalated."

"According to our sources, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault; it is rare that an RPG7 is present at a peaceful protest," Benotman said.

"According to our sources, the attack against the consulate had two waves. The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept in a secure location."

That analysis is supported by U.S. sources who say the attack on the consulate is believed to have been pre-planned. The sources say the attackers used the protest as a diversion to launch the attack, although the sources could not say if the attackers instigated the protest or merely took advantage of it.

The sources do not believe the ambassador was directly targeted.

Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif, speaking at a news conference in Benghazi on Wednesday, said that "among the protesters, there were some who infiltrated the march to start chaos."

Benotman, who had earlier warned of the likelihood of renewed attacks against U.S. interest in Libya, said the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades is a prime suspect in the Benghazi attack Tuesday. He believes it is likely the deadly attack was also linked to a video statement released by al-Zawahiri on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In the video, al-Zawahiri confirmed the death of al-Libi -- a prominent member of the al Qaeda-linked group -- adding: "His blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders."

The video released by the Brigades in June showed nighttime explosions around the consulate, interlaced with footage of Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, along with images from the 9/11 attacks. At the time the Brigades claimed it had launched the attack in response to the first reports of al-Libi's death in a drone strike in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Notably, the Brigades said the June 5 attack was also timed to coincide with preparations for the arrival of a senior U.S. State Department official.

"The time frame of attacks shows that the group has been following and actively involved in gathering information about the activities of diplomatic missions in the country," Benotman wrote in a June briefing paper on the group.

He adds that it appears the Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades was also responsible for a rocket attack against the convoy of the British ambassador in Benghazi on June 11 and an attack against the Red Cross in Misrata on June 12.

Libyan and Western security officials tell CNN that al Qaeda has taken advantage of a security vacuum to build up a presence in eastern Libya.

A senior Libyan official told CNN in June that the United States had flown surveillance missions with drones over suspected jihadist training camps in eastern Libya. The official said that, to the best of his knowledge, they had not been used to fire missiles at militant training camps in the area.

Another Libyan official told CNN at the same time that five radical Islamist militant commanders were operating in the Derna area, with 200 to 300 men under their command in camps in the area. Ironically, Christopher Stevens -- the U.S. ambassador killed in Tuesday's attack -- had written extensively about the rise of Salafist factions in and around Derna in a 2008 diplomatic cable.

As CNN has previously reported, one of militant commanders, according to several sources, is Abdulbasit Azuz, a long-time associate of al-Zawahiri. Azuz was dispatched by al-Zawahiri to Libya from Pakistan's tribal areas in the spring of 2011 to create a foothold for al Qaeda in Libya, the sources say.

Azuz is a veteran jihadist who fought the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan in the early 1990s, according to several sources. He later moved to the United Kingdom, where he increasingly came on the radar screen of British security services for his radical recruitment efforts in Manchester.

In the period after the July 2005 London bombings, he was detained in the Belmarsh high-security prison and placed under a control order, according to the sources. He left the United Kingdom in 2009 and traveled to the tribal areas of Pakistan, according to the sources.

According to one source, Azuz has dispatched men as far west as Ajdabiya and Brega in his attempt to build up al Qaeda operations in eastern Libya.

According to Libyan security sources, within the militant ranks in Derna there are 20 to 30 hardcore jihadist fighters who are cause for most concern. One source said a number of Egyptian jihadists are also present in the Derna area, as well as fighters belonging to al Qaeda's North African affiliate, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Another militant whose activities have caused concern in eastern Libya is Sufian bin Qumu, a released Guantanamo detainee who is believed to be operating a camp in a remote area outside Derna. His detainee assessment at the prison camp described him as having a "long-term association with Islamist extremist Jihad and members of Al-Qaida and other extremist groups."

Libyan officials confirmed his presence in the area to CNN in June.

Libyan security services have so far not moved against the militants, casting doubt over their ability to bring security to the country. Many areas are still dominated by brigades that fought to topple Libya strongman Moammar al-Gadhafi and bands of heavily armed young men who have turned to criminality.

Derna has for years been a recruiting ground for al Qaeda. In his 2008 cable, Stevens described the area as "a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters" for al Qaeda in Iraq, and outlined how high youth unemployment, discrimination by the Gadhafi regime and the influence of veteran Libyan jihadists from Afghanistan all played a role in radicalizing a new generation.

In recent months, hardline Salafists have increasingly asserted themselves in eastern Libya. In June hundreds of fighters wielding AK-47s and black Islamist banners converged on Benghazi to call for the imposition of sharia law. This spring al-Zawahiri's associate Azuz was confident enough to address a large gathering in the town square of Derna, an online video of which has been seen by CNN.

Collectively, some of the Salafist and jihadist elements in eastern Libya began to become known as Ansar al Sharia, or "Partisans of Sharia." According to reports, eyewitnesses have claimed Ansar al Sharia was responsible for organizing the demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate. But Benotman told CNN Ansar al Sharia is not really a grouping at all but rather a term applied to an amorphous coalition of Islamist and Salafist groups in eastern Libya with no leadership structure.

Despite concerns over the growing audacity of Salafist-jihadist groups, the victory of secular parties in elections in July had created a measure of optimism about Libya's future.

Benotman tells CNN the reality is that a large majority of Libyans, including the majority of Islamists, are opposed to al Qaeda's ideology of global jihad. He predicts a backlash against the perpetrators of the attack.

"People will curse them for this," he told CNN.

© 2012 Cable News Network.

lofter1
September 13th, 2012, 12:46 PM
One of the guys who was killed, Sean Smith, was a moderator/poster at one of the other forums I frequent. Really nice guy. He was on a chat client before the attack as well as the instant it happened:

(12:54:09 PM) vile_rat: assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures
(2:40:22 PM) vile_rat: F*** [board censored this]
(2:40:24 PM) vile_rat: gunfire

RIP, Sean.


The Man Romney Used (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/a-diplomat-in-the-real-and-virtual-world.html)

THE DISH (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/a-diplomat-in-the-real-and-virtual-world.html)
9/13/2012

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2017c31d41dbc970b-550wi (http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2017c31d41dbc970b-popup)

Sean Smith, one of the Americans murdered in Benghazi was a huge force in the online multiplayer game EVE Online (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Online). He was on Jabber when the attack happened. His last words there, one reader tells us, were "F***", "GUNFIRE". This (http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat) is an obituary from his "alliance leader". A reader writes:

I am a player in EVE Online, part of the coalition where Sean (aka Vile Rat) was such an important player. Here’s an excerpt of the coalition’s jabber announcement channel (which on a normal day is mostly filled up by fleet operation announcements), after his death was made public:

(11:08:36 PM) directorbot@goonfleet.com/directorbot: My people, we have been dealt a grevious blow tonight, as people and as players. I, and all of us who knew Sean, are still reeling. And yet, to my horror, already Vile Rat's death has become a machination in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. I do not speak of politics often because American politics do not matter in an international game of internet spaceships. But this sickens me, and Vile Rat would not have wanted to become a tool for the Romney campaign. Just this morning, he said this in Illum regarding the RNC:

(12:41:07 PM) kismeteer: vile_rat: Was there anyone in that group that you even partially respected?
(12:41:14 PM) vile_rat: on the republican side?
(12:41:17 PM) kismeteer: yeah
(12:41:20 PM) vile_rat: nope. not a one.

And now we see this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/11/romney-obama-handling-of-libya-egypt-violence-disgraceful/): "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said in the statement. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

My fury is boundless. Our friend should not be used in this way. We have only so many ways to make our voices heard, but if enough of us shout loudly enough we can - as we have seen - force the media to notice. Retweet this (https://twitter.com/TheMittani/status/245764389871960064). ALL OF YOU. I will not have Sean's memory desecrated by American presidential politics.



(Photos from Eve Online and Facebook, via Russell Jones (http://videogamewriters.com/eve-online-csm-goonswarm-member-killed-in-libya-embassy-attack-54417))

eddhead
September 13th, 2012, 01:03 PM
I don't even know what to say. Romney's sliminess knows no bounds.

eddhead
September 13th, 2012, 01:12 PM
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder and CEO of the Cordoba Initiative, told Amanpour, “The Quran states explicitly that no soul shall be responsible for the sins or the crimes of another. And while this film is indeed offensive, and those who have done this have done this deliberately to offend Muslims, we should not kill innocent people.".

Those who have critisized the Iman on the Cordoba thread should take note his reaction.

eddhead
September 13th, 2012, 01:22 PM
You have to wonder about somebody who places others in harm's way, while he hides in the shadows of anonymity.

Feds ID California man's role in anti-Islam film

Federal authorities have identified a southern California man once convicted of financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official said Thursday



A federal law enforcement official said Thursday that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was the man behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film denigrating Islam and the Prophet Muhammad that sparked protests earlier in the week in Egypt and Libya and now in Yemen. U.S. authorities are investigating whether the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya came during a terrorist attack.

http://seattletimes.com/html/entertainment/2019140564_apusegyptfilmmaker.html

eddhead
September 13th, 2012, 01:33 PM
And what recourse did he offer to the 4 embassy officials in Libya?

Now that his film has resulted in worldwide chaos, violence and death, he wants protection. Nice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:59 AM EDT
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Calls Police To California Home, 'Innocence Of Muslims' Producer 'Scared Of Retaliation'

By Carey Vanderborg

Police have been sent to the California home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the purported producer of "Innocence of Muslims," an anti-Muslim film that has caused outrage across the Middle East.

The man identified as the producer of the Muhammad film called local police in an effort to protect him and his family from potential harm, authorities told ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-california-home-innocence-muslims-producer-scared-retaliation/story?id=17224705#.UFHqfrKDooF), as some media reports apparently listing his address have circulated.

Sheriff's deputies were sent to the Cerritos, Calif., home of Nakoula, 55, overnight Thursday, but have since left, ABC News reported. Nakoula has been identified in several media reports as the man purportedly behind "Innocence of Muslims," a controversial film that may have triggered anti-U.S. violence and protest in several cities in the Mideast.

California law enforcement officials told ABC News that Nakoula, who is also known to authorities as Bacily Nakoula, was frightened for his life and "scared of retaliation" against his family.

Sheriffs from the Cerritos police station were reportedly called to the home to keep Nakoula safe and to provide a uniformed presence to assist the members from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, according to official reports obtained by ABC News.

While Nakoula confirmed to the Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EGYPT_FILMMAKER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-13-09-27-02) in an interview outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced "Innocence of Muslims," he denied that he directed the film, and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, identified only as "Sam Bacile."

In an article, the AP said that when the newswire tried to contact the filmmaker, who identified himself as "Bacile," the cellphone number traced to the same address near Los Angeles, where the AP found Nakoula.

A senior official told ABC News that in addition to the home security, they have also sent local law enforcement officers to the production company, "Media for Christ," on Hamilton Avenue in Duartes, Calif., to keep watch on the facility. The studio submitted the request for a film permit, Duarte City Manager Darryl George told the Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/anti-muslim-film-cast-arabian-desert-adventure.html).

Protests continued on Wednesday and even into Thursday morning as hundreds of protesters angered by the anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. embassy compound in Yemen's capital and burned the American flag.

As of now, American missions have been attacked in three Arab nations -- Yemen, Egypt (http://www.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/426/egypt) and Libya. Officials are reportedly struggling to restore law and order, according to the Associated Press (http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2012/09/13/protesters-storm-us-embassy-in-yemen?s_cid=rss:protesters-storm-us-embassy-in-yemen).

lofter1
September 13th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Oy!!!




... The production company, "media for christ," ...


wwjd???

lofter1
September 13th, 2012, 01:53 PM
Those who have critisized the Iman on the Cordoba thread should take note his reaction.

The Moo Queen is going totally Mitt-sy over this, treating Rom-knob like a media-crucified savior.

But I'd not advise that anyone with a low tolerance for BS should go to her site to view her regurgitations.

Ninjahedge
September 13th, 2012, 02:14 PM
Here's the thing.

As much as I hate it, the guy that made this flik should be protected just like everyone else.

Anyone is allowed to HATE him, but we have a standard of free speech that allows anyone to say anything (aside from "I will kill the President"... Irony?).

The key is, differing viewpoints, even inflammatory biased ones, are allowed. He should be protected, and condemned for the needless damage he did to our relations, as well as our diplomats lives.

I do not LIKE this guy, or what he had to say. But where do you draw the line between him, Salman Rushdie, or any individual that decides to draw a picture and call it "Mohammed"?

The freedom we demand and fought for is double-edged. As much as it allows us to express ourselves and keep our own thoughts and the right to express them, it does the same for hateful, intolerant and selfish individuals that seek to win their own Jihads on the backs of others.

eddhead
September 13th, 2012, 02:46 PM
The Moo Queen is going totally Mitt-sy over this, treating Rom-knob like a media-crucified savior.

But I'd not advise that anyone with a low tolerance for BS should go to her site to view her regurgitations.

Too late, I have already been there. She really is psycho.

@ Ninja - Of course you are right in much the same way that the KKK is afforded the right to free speech. But that does not make him (or them) any less despicable.

ZippyTheChimp
September 13th, 2012, 11:38 PM
Edited title. The Benghazi attack was at the consulate. The embassy is in Tripoli, the capital.

lofter1
September 14th, 2012, 12:09 AM
An additional edit, removing these words, would be more accurate:

"... In Retaliaton Against Film (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25844&page=2)"

And "Bombed" is questionable as well. Perhaps Attacked, Stormed, Overtaken ...

(I see that the original thread title was from an AP article, which only goes to prove that you can't believe everything you read in the paper)

HoveringCheesecake
September 14th, 2012, 12:55 AM
Yeah, we are all pretty angry that Sean is being used by the Romney campaign. Suffice it to say, he had no love for their ilk.

ZippyTheChimp
September 14th, 2012, 07:11 AM
The other inaccuracies should remain; they're part of the story.

lofter1
September 21st, 2012, 11:30 PM
Benghazi Anti-Militia Protest:
Libyans March Against Armed Groups After U.S. Embassy Attack

HUFFINGTON POST (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/benghazi-anti-militia-protest_n_1903846.html)
By Maggie Michael
September 21, 2012

BENGHAZI, Libya — Hundreds of protesters angry over last week's killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya stormed the compound of the Islamic extremist militia suspected in the attack, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building Friday.

In an unprecedented show of public anger at Libya's rampant militias, the crowd overwhelmed the compound of the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade in the center of the eastern city of Benghazi.

Ansar al-Shariah fighters initially fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually abandoned the site with their weapons and vehicles after it was overrun by waves of protesters shouting "No to militias."

"I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform," said Omar Mohammed, a university student who took part in the takeover of the site, which protesters said was done in support of the army and police.

No deaths were reported in the incident, which came after tens of thousands marched in Benghazi against armed militias. One vehicle was also burned at the compound.

For many Libyans, the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the last straw in one of the biggest problems Libya has faced since the ouster and death of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi around a year ago – the multiple mini-armies that with their arsenals of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades are stronger than the regular armed forces and police.

The militias, a legacy of the rag-tag popular forces that fought Gadhafi's regime, tout themselves as protectors of Libya's revolution, providing security where police cannot. But many say they act like gangs, detaining and intimidating rivals and carrying out killings.

Militias made up of Islamic radicals like Ansar al-Shariah are notorious for attacks on Muslims who don't abide by their hardline ideology. Officials and witnesses say fighters from Ansar al-Shariah led the attack on the U.S. consulate, which killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

After taking over the Ansar compound, protesters then drove to attack the Benghazi headquarters of another Islamist militia, Rafallah Sahati. The militiamen opened fire on the protesters, who were largely unarmed. At least 20 were wounded, and there were unconfirmed witness reports of three protesters killed.

Earlier in the day, some 30,000 people filled a broad boulevard as they marched along a lake in central Benghazi on Friday to the gates of the headquarters of Ansar al-Shariah.

"No, no, to militias," the crowd chanted, filling a broad boulevard. They carried banners and signs demanding that militias disband and that the government build up police to take their place in keeping security. "Benghazi is in a trap," signs read. "Where is the army, where is the police?"

Other signs mourned the killing of Stevens, reading, "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend." Military helicopters and fighter jets flew overhead, and police mingled in the crowd, buoyed by the support of the protesters.

The march was the biggest seen in Benghazi, Libya's second largest city and home to 1 million people, since the fall of Gadhafi in August 2011. The public backlash comes in part in frustration with the interim government, which has been unable to rein in the armed factions. Many say that officials' attempts to co-opt fighters by paying them have only fueled the growth of militias without bringing them under state control or integrating them into the regular forces.

Residents of another main eastern city, Darna, have also begun to stand up against Ansar al-Shariah and other militias.
The anti-militia fervor in Darna is notable because the city, in the mountains along the Mediterranean coast north of Benghazi, has long had a reputation as a stronghold for Islamic extremists. During the Gadhafi era, it was the hotbed of a deadly Islamist insurgency against his regime. A significant number of the Libyan jihadists who travelled to Afghanistan and Iraq during recent wars came from Darna. During the revolt against him last year, Gadhafi's regime warned that Darna would declare itself an Islamic Emirate and ally itself with al-Qaida.

But now, the residents are lashing out against Ansar al-Shariah, the main Islamic extremist group in the city.
"The killing of the ambassador blew up the situation. It was disastrous," said Ayoub al-Shedwi, a young bearded Muslim preacher in Darna who says he has received multiple death threats because has spoken out against militias on a radio show he hosts. "We felt that the revolution is going in vain."

Leaders of tribes, which are the strongest social force in eastern Libya, have come forward to demand that the militias disband. Tribal leaders in Benghazi and Darna announced this week that members of their tribes who are militiamen will no longer have their protection in the face of anti-militia protests. That means the tribe will not avenge them if they are killed.

Activists and residents have held a sit-in for the past eight days outside Darna's Sahaba Mosque, calling on tribes to put an end to the "state of terrorism" created by the militias.

Militiamen have been blamed for a range of violence in Darna. On the same day Stevens killed in Benghazi, a number of elderly Catholic nuns and a priest who have lived in Darna for decades providing free medical services, were attacked, reportedly beaten or stabbed. There have been 32 killings over the past few months, including the city security chief and assassinations of former officers from Gadhafi's military.

Darna's residents are conservative, but they largely don't fit the city's reputation as extremists. Women wear headscarves, but not the more conservative black garb and veil that covers the entire body and face. In the ancient city's narrow alleys, shops display sleeveless women dresses and the young men racing by in cars blare Western songs.
And many are impatient with Ansar al-Shariah's talk of imposing its strict version of Islamic law. The group's name means "Supporters of Shariah Law."

"We are not infidels for God sake. We have no bars, no discos, we are not practicing vice in the street," said Wassam ben Madin, a leading activist in the city who lost his right eye in clashes with security forces on the first day of the uprising against Gadhafi. "This is not the time for talk about Shariah. Have a state first then talk to me about Shariah."

"If they are the `supporters of Shariah' then who are we?" he said. "We don't want the flag of al-Qaida raised over heads," he added, referring to Ansar al-Shariah's black banner.

One elder resident at the Sahaba Mosque sit-in, Ramadan Youssef, said, "We will talk to them peacefully. We will tell them you are from us and you fought for us" during the civil war against Gadahfi. But "if you say no (to integrating into the) police and army, we will storm your place. It's over."

Officials in the interim government and security forces say they are not strong enough to crack down on the militias. The armed factions have refused government calls for them to join the regular army and police.

So the government has created a "High Security Committee" aimed at grouping the armed factions as a first step to integration. Authorities pay fighters a salary of as much as 1,000 dinars, around $900, to join – compared to the average police monthly salary of around $200. However, the militias that join still do not abide by government authority, and critics say the lure of salaries has only prompted more militias to form.

Officials and former rebel commanders estimate the number of rebels that actually fought in the 8-month civil war against Gadhafi at around 30,000. But those now listed on the High Security Committee payroll have reached several hundred thousand.

"All these militia and entities are fake ones but it is mushrooming," said Khaled Hadar, a Benghazi-based lawyer. "The government is only making temporarily solutions, but you are creating a disaster."

lofter1
September 21st, 2012, 11:37 PM
jomana karadsheh ‏
@JomanaCNN (http://twitter.com/JomanaCNN)

Some Libyans comparing tonights events in #Benghazi (http://twitter.com/search/?q=%23Benghazi&src=hash) with start of the revolution #Feb17 (http://twitter.com/search/?q=%23Feb17&src=hash) 2011. #Libya (http://twitter.com/search/?q=%23Libya&src=hash)

http://twitter.com/JomanaCNN

lofter1
September 21st, 2012, 11:48 PM
Libyans storm militia bases in Benghazi

Fighters of Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia forced to evacuate base
after mass public demonstration against armed groups.

AL JAZEERA ENGLISH (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292205259561409.html)
September 21, 2012

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2012/9/22/201292205458299734_20.jpg
Protest leaders said the country's chronic insecurity stems from failure to disband brigades of former rebels [AFP]

Demonstrators in Libya have stormed the headquarters of the Islamist Ansar al-Sharia group and evicted its fighters from the site in a sweep of militia bases in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Friday's action against the group appeared to be part of a co-ordinated sweep of militia headquarters buildings by police, government troops and activists following a mass public demonstration against armed groups earlier in the day.

Chanting "Libya, Libya," hundreds of demonstrators entered the compound, pulling down militia flags and torching a vehicle inside the headquarters, Ansar al-Sharia's main base in Benghazi - once the base of forces of former leader Muammar Gaddafi.

The crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, crying "No more al-Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"

They tore down the banner of group while chanting “no no to the brigades”.

Armed fighters made a stand at another heavily fortified compound in the eastern city, firing on demonstrators with heavy machine guns and wounding several people, protesters said.

Ansar al-Sharia has been linked to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi last week in which the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died. The group denies any involvement.

The group is also believed to be behind several attacks in recent months.

The raids led to three deaths and 20 injuries, according to the al-Hawari hospital.

"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," said Hassan Ahmed, a demonstrator.

"They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled."

"This place is like the Bastille. This is where Gaddafi controlled Libya from, and then Ansar al-Sharia took it over. This is a turning point for the people of Benghazi."

Adusalam al-Tarhouni, a government worker who arrived with the first wave of protesters, said several pickup trucks with the group's fighters had initially confronted the protesters and opened fire. Two protesters were shot in the leg, he said.

"After that [the fighters] got into their trucks and drove away," he said. "When we got in, we found four prisoners in the compound and set them free."

Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from Benghazi, said: "We went there to see their slogans and basically what they're saying is that they refused insults to the Prophet but they also refuse terrorism in their city."

"They have also called for the disbanding of the militias, chanting: 'What are you waiting for?'. They're asking the government how long it will take before they do that."

The groups, cited as helping to topple the Gaddafi regime, have been accused of kidnappings and killings.

Rafallah Sehati

A standoff around the base of Rafallah Sehati, an official brigade of the ministry of defence, left 10 people wounded.

It was not immediately clear who had started the shooting.

Ismail Salabi, leader of the brigade credited with securing the nation for parliamentary elections, told Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid that his vehicle was shot at four kilometres from the base.

Salabi, speaking to our correspondent, described the attack as an "assassination attempt".

The chief of staff and defence minister both alluded to "Gaddafi loyalists" as being responsible for the raid.

The wounded, however, refute such allegations, saying instead that the government and its brigades responded in a violent manner reminiscent of the days of Gaddafi.

Protests against video

Also earlier on Friday, inside the square, which was a key battleground in the uprising that overthrew dictator Muammar Gaddafi last year, around 3,000 supporters of the ultraconservative Salafist group gathered.

Waving black Islamic flags, they chanted against a US-made video that mocked Islam and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published by a French satirical weekly.

"Our demonstration is in support of the messenger of Allah and to condemn the abuse of Islam and Muslims carried out by any given country, chief among them France and the US," a group member told the AFP news agency.

"It wasn't enough for them to produce a film denigrating the Prophet in America, off goes France insisting on publishing cartoons in its newspaper that are offensive to our Prophet. We will never tolerate that."

But President Barack Obama insisted it should not be allowed to tar the reputation of all Libyans.

"I think it is important to understand that that's not representative of the attitudes of the Libyan people towards America," Obama said.

lofter1
September 21st, 2012, 11:55 PM
Learning about what freedom means must be difficult for many (for those of us over here, it's tricky enough) ...




"Our demonstration is in support of the messenger of Allah and to condemn the abuse of Islam and Muslims carried out by any given country, chief among them France and the US," a group member told the AFP news agency.

"It wasn't enough for them to produce a film denigrating the Prophet in America, off goes France insisting on publishing cartoons in its newspaper that are offensive to our Prophet. We will never tolerate that."



Comprehending that words & images can be published without government sanction or intervention must be a mind bender after living under 40 years of supreme rule.

No tolerance towards anything disagreeable or different isn't the best start, IF the goal is democracy.

stache
September 22nd, 2012, 03:04 AM
Why does that chick have knockers and a beard? :confused:

lofter1
September 22nd, 2012, 02:20 PM
Improvised bullet proof vest under the t-shirt?

stache
September 22nd, 2012, 11:21 PM
The Mam patrol?

Ninjahedge
September 24th, 2012, 08:49 AM
I just wish someone would be able to knock some sense into these guys regarding the concept of "freedom of the press".

"Look you dumb arse craps, the government does not SANCTION or ENDORSE these things. This is one thing that you gain as a RIGHT when you have freedom. If you think that the US Government made this movie, then you really need to read more".

I am sure that would clear everything RIGHT up.


Can I use CAPS one more time?

stache
September 24th, 2012, 11:30 AM
"Look you dumb arse craps, the government does not SANCTION or ENDORSE these things. If you think that the US Government made this movie, then you really need to read more".

I am sure that would clear everything RIGHT up.


Problem being I bet that information is not available to them.

Ninjahedge
September 24th, 2012, 12:47 PM
Worse yet, they are being TOLD that it is all being done by America and Americans and do not know any better.

Ignorance loves company, and is quite at home being told what it wants to hear.

eddhead
September 24th, 2012, 04:13 PM
In at least some cases they are aware that the US Govt is not explictly endorsing or creating these messages. In some of the verbatim interviews I listened to, the general sentiment was that the US should pass a law prohibiting defamation of the prophet, and that free speech should not apply to religon. I am not sure just how prevelent that thought is, but it to some degree it does exist.

ZippyTheChimp
January 23rd, 2013, 07:25 PM
Rand Paul:
If I had been president....
Let's stop right there for a good laugh.

eddhead
January 24th, 2013, 09:00 AM
Don't laugh too hard. Remember what they said about Reagan in the '70's.

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2013, 09:19 AM
Reagan would never have gotten through today's GOP primary. And unfortunately for the GOP, someone like Rand Paul can.

eddhead
January 24th, 2013, 11:40 AM
Reagan would never have gotten through today's GOP primary.

Yes, that is totally true, Reagan would never pass the right wing litmus test today.

But I would remind you that the Reagan of 60's and 70's was pretty much considered in the same light as Rand Paul is today. Looking back on it, he may not have been the nut job that many Tea Party candidates are today, but when measured within the context of his time, he was pretty extreme. He supported Goldwater, opposed civil rights, was too extreme to be considered a viable option to run against Nixon, was almost recalled for his conservative views in California, and initially laughed at as a potential candidate in 1976. Yet as exteme as he was viewed, he managed to almost managed to unseat a sitting president in the 1976 primary and did defeat a sitting president in 1980.

Granted, Paul is not Reagan and I would be surprised if he ever won a presidential election, especially considering the changing demographics of American society. I mean Texas might be a blue state inside of ten years. But still, I would not be shocked if it happened. I simply do not have faith in the wisdom of the American electorate, a high percentage of whom tend to be low-information voters. As you yourself have noted in the past, even the worst presidential candidates manage to get between 46% - 48% of the general vote. It really does not take much to put someone over the top.

So even though Paul is not Reagan, and even though Reagan of the 1980's would be too moderate to run on the GOP ticket today, I do think that Paul is not that far off from where where Reagan stood in 1968 relative to the times. It is certainly a long shot, but not out of the question.

Ninjahedge
January 24th, 2013, 12:31 PM
Reagan won more on his acting than his position.

It has been that way for a while now.

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2013, 12:43 PM
As you yourself have noted in the past, even the worst presidential candidates manage to get between 46% - 48% of the general vote.Did I say "worst candidate?" I probably said "the loser" of an election. For a worst candidate, see the bottom of the post.

Reagan ran a smart campaign in 1980, in tune with the times. The incumbent Jimmy Carter was weakened by the economy and the Iran hostage situation, and saddled with a far-left Wing that had gotten out of touch with the population. A major realignment followed, and the two Parties became more polarized, and although a slight bump back during the Clinton years, have largely remained polarized.

I think there's more similarity between the GOP of today and the DEM of 1980 than the GOP of 1980 - not in policy, but in their position in the political landscape. The majority of people now support abortion, gay marriage, and some sort of rational gun policy. They are tired of social debates, and want to see things actually get done.

I think a better similarity is Rand Paul and Michael Dukakis.

eddhead
January 24th, 2013, 12:43 PM
Ninj - Don't kid yourself, by the time Reagan ran for national office, he had already established himself as an extreme right wing politician, and it is on that platform that he ran for president.

Reagan ran and won by tapping into an undercurrent of caucasion anger and resentment known as the voice of the silent majority. Remember supply-side (trickle down) economics? Do you think the ideological message there was any different than the GOP message of today which is directed against 'takers' and '47% ers'? The biggest difference between than and now are the demographics. The silent majority is not as much of a majority as it used to be.

That and the fact that the Rand Paul's of the world are completly bonkers. But than again, as I stated, there was a time when Reagan was viewed the same way.


EDIT: Zippy's comments about the state of the economy in the 1980's and Iran are fair points. But that too can happen again.

You can argue that the current state of our economy is at least as bad as it was in 1980, and while our geopolicatal posture is stronger now than it was than, there is at least as much turmoil in the world, and the potential for a Iran hostage situation is there even today.

I would also remind you that Obama too is being pulled left by the liberal wing of the party. I for one welcome the shift, but it does not come without political risks. The senate for instance is already pushing back on a very tepid gun control proposal.

I am not sure I understand the Paul vs. Dukakis comparsion though. It is kind of a false equivlency. Dukakis was not nearly as extremely left as Paul is right.

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2013, 01:16 PM
Don't kid yourself, by the time Reagan ran for national office, he had already established himself as an extreme right wing politician, and it is on that platform that he ran for president.

Reagan ran and won by tapping into an undercurrent of caucasion anger and resentment known as the voice of the silent majority.A lot of the silent majority were disaffected Democrats - actually came to be known as Reagan Democrats. As I said, a significant political realignment.


Remember supply-side (trickle down) economics?At the time of double-digit inflation, it was viewed as a welcome change.


Do you think the ideological message there was any different than the GOP message of today which is directed against 'takers' and '47% ers'?Absolutely different. Reagan was a total optimist, at a time when we just went through a divisive war, impeached a president, and sat by helpless as a two-bit country held American hostages for over a year.

Statements by candidates Reagan and Bush in April 1980, after the failed Iran hostage rescue attempt:
This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united” and to pray.

Bush:
I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision,

Contrast with the subject of this thread.

What's the GOP message today? Government is a problem, and should get out of the way. We have to arm citizens to the teeth against impending government tyranny. Anything optimistic in this?


I am nos sure I understand the Paul vs. Dukakis comparsion though. It is kind of a false equivlency. Dukakis was not nearly as extremely left as Paul is right.Dukakis was out of touch with the majority. Clinton understood this.

So is Rand Paul. You said it yourself - demographics.

eddhead
January 24th, 2013, 02:34 PM
A lot of the silent majority were disaffected Democrats - actually came to be known as Reagan Democrats. As I said, a significant political realignment.

Fair point. But the Reagan Democrats weren't just disaffected Democrats, they were disaffected whites, mostly males and suburban white housewives. They did indeed realign to the right. I guess the fact they stayed there does mitigate the likelihood of a similar paradigm shift occurring again. But a small number remained aligned to the democratic party and their votes are at risk.

The Obama majority is small and fragile; 51% in the last election. It wouldn't take as much of a shift to affect the outcome of a future election. It could happen


At the time of double-digit inflation, it was viewed as a welcome change.

And today we have stagflation, unemployment and high deficits. Equally concerning to much of the voting electorate.


Absolutely different. Reagan was a total optimist, at a time when we just went through a divisive war, impeached a president, and sat by helpless as a two-bit country held American hostages for over a year.

Statements by candidates Reagan and Bush in April 1980, after the failed Iran hostage rescue attempt:

Bush:

Contrast with the subject of this thread.

Again, fair point. Still, we shouldn't confuse the optimism that typified the Reagan candidacy with ideology. Granted, Reagan turned out to be more pragmatic as a president than he was as a candidate, but still, name a political personality of his era that was more conservative than candidate Reagan


What's the GOP message today? Government is a problem, and should get out of the way.

Interesting that you bring that up. That message directly emanates from a central Reagan tenet on the usefulness of government. In fact candidate Reagan is probably the father of the whole "Government is the problem" movement Do you remember this line from one of his speeches?

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

What does that say about how Reagan felt about government.


We have to arm citizens to the teeth against impending government tyranny. Anything optimistic in this?
Do you remember the term "welfare queens"? Anything compassionate about that?


Dukakis was out of touch with the majority. Clinton understood this.

Dukakis was portrayed as being out of touch, but I am not so sure he really was. Besides, being out of touch does not necessarily disqualify one from being president.

The candidate Dukakis ran against didn't even know what UPC readers in supermarkets were used for. Was anyone more patrician or out of touch than George H W Bush? Did it cost him the election? Remember this line"

"Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth


You said it yourself - demographics.

Yup - that is the biggest difference between than and now, and the biggest mitigant.

Ninjahedge
January 24th, 2013, 02:46 PM
Edd, as much as you wish it to be a contest of actual issues, it has been more a demographic contest of who people FEEL best with.

The paramount example of that is the 2000 election when we were not really fighting anything big, the economy was good, and people ad a pretty good feeling about the SotU in general. Look to the skits that parodied the election and the debates and you see two innocuous individuals promising more of the same (GWB vs AG).

And people reacted not to the actual issues expressed, as they were almost identical in the 30 second soundbite, but they voted more towasrd the guy they felt "comfortable" with.

We do not elect brilliant people anymore. Not based on their expressed intelligence. We also do not elect 100% on policy, as many of the ones promised are never realized.

We vote more on who we feel comfortable with, and, unfortunately, "we" feel better with pretty people.

The one picture I remember CLEARLY from Dukakis was his troll-like shot poking his head from a tank hatch. And Kerry crawling through in a static suit? What about wind surfing?

What did EITHER have to do with his abilities? The issues? But that is what we ALL saw the most, what people remembered then and now, and that is one of the strongest influences we have for the election of our leadership now.

eddhead
January 24th, 2013, 03:06 PM
Ninj - For the most part, I don't disagree. But I don't quite understand how that contradicts what I wrote.

There is a lot of validity to the argument that the "Cult of Personality" impacts presidential elections, and that people tend to vote for who they like over who they think is best suited to run the country. That is one reason why I have so little regard for the low-information American electorate, and all the more reason why nut-jobs like Paul have a long-shot's chance at being president.

Paul might not be the right guy - he has the personality of wet cement, but someone like Paul Ryan whose views are at least as extreme and out of the mainstream has a chance to tap into that undercurrent of white anger I described earler. He has personality, looks, and appears likeable. People are easily fooled by the likes of him.

Marco Rubio is another example. He happens to be as dumb as a post, but he is hispanic and if he hits the right cord can pull conservative hispanic voters over to the GOP.

EDIT: Ninj - one thing to remember about the 2000 election. The popular vote was won by Gore, not Bush. Also, th SCOTUS basicall stole the electoral vote and election from Gore as well. Maybe that was not the best example. ;)

Ninjahedge
January 24th, 2013, 03:42 PM
Edd, I know what you are saying and I am not disagreeing.

But if people actually voted on history, background, qualifications and intent then that 1% would not have mattered.

They put in a SLIGHTLY above average intelligence "born again" (1st generation) southerner into office.

So long as he did not say that he hated babies, there was not too much else that was actually a "decider" for that election. Gore was a cold fish that took many years of working the public circuit AFTER his loss to regain a personality.

So issues are important, but I have not seen many that matter a rats patuckus discussed with any seriousness in the last few elections. Everything is vague, emotional, and not really able to be accomplished in our current political waters.

The only (sad) point that I have for this thread is that although all the points and positions expressed did shape our political landscape in various ways, I doubt seriously they had much to do in shaping the public opinion enough to get them elected.

From my childhood I do not remember Reagan as being a "radical" anything. He was like the Grandfather thumping his chest and saluting the flag. The electorate has a very short and selective memory, and if they feel good about someone they will be willing to forget a hell of a lot.

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2013, 04:40 PM
Do you remember the term "welfare queens"? Anything compassionate about that?Who said compassionate. I said Reagan was an optimist. He plugged into the majority opinion, which was not exactly compassionate about what went on in the 1960s. Many people saw the various civil-rights movements as un-American, and as a result of compassion, Democrats lost the South to this day.

Reagan pushed for an expanded military, again plugging into sentiment that US power was eroding, with Communist states popping up everywhere. Reagan was seen as extreme mostly by political pundits, but to the voting public of the time, he was closer to center.

And he could surprise - like his opposition to the California Briggs Initiative.


Dukakis was portrayed as being out of touch, but I am not so sure he really was. Besides, being out of touch does not necessarily disqualify one from being president.

The candidate Dukakis ran against didn't even know what UPC readers in supermarkets were used for. Was anyone more patrician or out of touch than George H W Bush? Did it cost him the election? Remember this line"

[I][B]"Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouthDukakis was out of touch because that's where his Party was, not so much personal cluelessness. A weak candidate defined him and beat him.

I think you're overlooking my point - Paul running for president has only one thing in common with Reagan running for president - the name of the Party.

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2013, 04:44 PM
So issues are important, but I have not seen many that matter a rats patuckus discussed with any seriousness in the last few elections. Everything is vague, emotional, and not really able to be accomplished in our current political waters.The last election was almost completely issue-driven.

eddhead
January 24th, 2013, 05:39 PM
[
Reagan pushed for an expanded military, again plugging into sentiment that US power was eroding, with Communist states popping up everywhere. Reagan was seen as extreme mostly by political pundits, but to the voting public of the time, he was closer to center.

Reagan became closer to the center in the eyes of the public in the 70's. Before than most of the voting public viewed him as a right-wing buffoon, more associated as the lead in "Bonzo Goes To Collage" than as a competent politician.

So take out the word 'Communist' and plug in "Islamic Facist", and see if you don't get some traction. I am not saying it is justified, but there are people out there who believe this shit.


And he could surprise - like his opposition to the California Briggs Initiative.

Which he later publically regretted and withdrew his support for.


I think you're overlooking my point - Paul running for president has only one thing in common with Reagan running for president - the name of the Party.

So if instead of Paul, you plugged in Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio, would you still feel that way? Reagan became a moderate AFTER he assumed office. Prior to that he was viewed as being just as extreme as the tea party of today is.

This is a guy who supported Goldwater when most of the GOP abandoned him.

Ninjahedge
January 25th, 2013, 08:58 AM
The last election was almost completely issue-driven.

Are you saying that they were properly addressed, understood, and voted upon by the electorate?

I am not saying there were no issues. What I am saying is that as much as they were talked about, the things that were voted on had little to actually do with the core of the issues.

It was more a "what do you FEEL about this (issue)" than a "what do you KNOW about this (issue)" election.

Ninjahedge
January 25th, 2013, 09:02 AM
Edd, the more people you represent, the more "moderate" you become at risk of offending a portion of your constituency by maintaining your original positions on everything.

The key with Reagan is that he was more attractive. Flat out. Paul will not win, regardless of how he changes his platform, because he is too old, too short and too ugly. It would take a rather serious issue (attack from China?) to be able to convince the american people to vote for anyone that they did not only agree with, but liked the "cut of their jib".

ZippyTheChimp
January 25th, 2013, 11:46 AM
Are you saying that they were properly addressed, understood, and voted upon by the electorate?I'm not even going to attempt to figure out how much the electorate "understood" or "felt" about the issues. If you know this, please explain where you got it from.

All anyone can generally say about an election is whether it is issue-driven or personality-driven. There are certainly elements of both in any election, but if the last one was personality-driven, Obama probably would have lost. He wasn't exactly popular during the cycle; even his supporters were somewhat disappointed.

If the election was personality-driven, Romney's performance at the first debate probably would have propelled him to the presidency. I think that first debate fooled a lot of GOP pundits into thinking that Romney was going to win. There were a lot of stories afterward about Obama being exposed as weak. Romney suddenly looked reasonable as a president - a quality I said early in the election cycle that was necessary to remove an incumbent.

But that didn't happen. The dialogue returned to issues, and the things that Romney said at the debate were seen to be distortions and lies.

Ninjahedge
January 25th, 2013, 01:01 PM
I'm not even going to attempt to figure out how much the electorate "understood" or "felt" about the issues. If you know this, please explain where you got it from.

By listening. ;)

(I know! Me? LISTEN??!?!? :D )


All anyone can generally say about an election is whether it is issue-driven or personality-driven. There are certainly elements of both in any election, but if the last one was personality-driven, Obama probably would have lost. He wasn't exactly popular during the cycle; even his supporters were somewhat disappointed.

Debatable. Literally and humorously. (As per your next comment)


If the election was personality-driven, Romney's performance at the first debate probably would have propelled him to the presidency. I think that first debate fooled a lot of GOP pundits into thinking that Romney was going to win. There were a lot of stories afterward about Obama being exposed as weak. Romney suddenly looked reasonable as a president - a quality I said early in the election cycle that was necessary to remove an incumbent.

But he was not able to sustain that discrepancy. Obama's policies did not change, but his presentation did.


But that didn't happen. The dialogue returned to issues, and the things that Romney said at the debate were seen to be distortions and lies.

Mainly because PR is fickle. If you cannot maintain it, it can turn on you.

Do not get me wrong Zip, I am not 100% against what you are saying. I just believe that superficial means of decision are employed more in the general public opinion than actual facts. Add to it, many make their decision long before they hear what is being proposed. The campaign, more times than not, is just to convince people that their original decision was right and get them out to vote.

ZippyTheChimp
January 25th, 2013, 01:44 PM
Debatable. Literally and humorously. (As per your next comment)Of course, you understand that when I state "all you can say," it's in context with my first statement. Right?


But he was not able to sustain that discrepancy.What discrepancy? Romney presented an image of himself - personality. That didn't change. What changed was the focus on what he was saying - issues.


Obama's policies did not change, but his presentation did.His presentation on? Issues.


Mainly because PR is fickle. If you cannot maintain it, it can turn on you.PR works for both personality and issues, so not relevant to this particular discussion.


The campaign, more times than not, is just to convince people that their original decision was right and get them out to vote.Voter enthusiasm works for both personality and issues. Again, not relevant.

If you want an example of an election that was personality-driven, go back four years.

eddhead
January 25th, 2013, 07:35 PM
Edd, the more people you represent, the more "moderate" you become at risk of offending a portion of your constituency by maintaining your original positions on everything.

The key with Reagan is that he was more attractive. Flat out. Paul will not win, regardless of how he changes his platform, because he is too old, too short and too ugly. It would take a rather serious issue (attack from China?) to be able to convince the american people to vote for anyone that they did not only agree with, but liked the "cut of their jib".

Reagan won the 1980 election for the reasons outlined in Zippy's (and I dare say) my previous post. His looks really had nothing to do with it. He tapped into an undercurrent of middle class discontent, focusing on revisiting America's glory days. He also had charisma; something Carter sorely lacked.

I think you are confusing Rand Paul with his Father. Rand is about 50. But again, he has the personality of wet cement.

Ninjahedge
January 27th, 2013, 12:00 AM
I may be at that Edd (Ron?)

But, as you yourself have said... Reagan had "personality".

As Kennedy proved, personality goes a LONG way in a Media driven nation. (not that Kennedy was bad, but Nixon was no dummy either...)

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2013, 12:54 AM
The Wisdom of Crowds (http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706)

ZippyTheChimp
November 11th, 2013, 08:45 PM
After a year of twists and turns, and attempts to make political points with a "Benghazi conspiracy," the whole thing crashes and burns.

After months of working on the story for 60 Minutes, Jeff Fager, the chairman of CBS News and executive producer of “60 Minutes,” said Thursday, “We’re surprised to hear about this, and if it shows we’ve been misled, we will make a correction.”

CBS had known that Dylan Davies was interviewed by the FBI. It would have been a straightforward matter to verify his story, as the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/60-minutes-broadcast-helps-propel-new-round-of-back-and-forth-on-benghazi/2013/10/31/fbfcad66-4258-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html) did.

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/business/media/accounts-differ-to-fbi-and-cbs-on-benghazi.html

Media Matters has been doing extensive coverage of this, including:

From "Proud" To Pulled: A Timeline Of 60 Minutes' Benghazi Trainwreck (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/08/from-proud-to-pulled-a-timeline-of-60-minutes-b/196801)

Look for Lara Logan to be fired, but she's not the only one who should be.

eddhead
November 12th, 2013, 12:36 AM
I hope not. After what she went through in Egypt she deserves a pass.

But you're right. Someone(s) in a managing editorial position approved the story after reviewing her source. That person(s) is as much to blame as she.

ZippyTheChimp
November 12th, 2013, 01:42 AM
I don't think she deserves a pass.

This is a speech she gave in 2012, one month after the Benghazi attack, at a Better Government Association event. You can watch the entire clip, or go to the 21:35 minute mark, where she speaks about Benghazi.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXEsXAqO-DQ


And when I look, what's happening in Libya. There's a big song and dance about whether this was a terrorist attack or a protest. And you just want to scream for God's sake, are you kidding me? The last time we were attacked like this was the USS Cole, which was a prelude to the 1998 embassy bombing, which was a prelude to 09/11.

And you're sending in FBI to investigate. I hope to God you're sending in your best clandestine warriors who are going to exact revenge, and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. Ambassadors will not be murdered. And the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.

She was involved with the 60 Minutes report from the beginning, and this is the mindset she took with her.

ZippyTheChimp
November 26th, 2013, 08:57 PM
A few days ago in a Newsweek article, it was suggested that Lara Logan's husband may have had some influence in shaping the 60 Minutes report:


Lara Logan's Mystery Man (http://www.newsweek.com/lara-logans-mystery-man-162631)

Today:


Lara Logan to take leave of absence from ‘60 Minutes’

By Paul Farhi, Updated: Tuesday, November 26

CBS News has ordered “60 Minutes” correspondent Lara Logan and her producer to take an unspecified leave of absence in the wake of an internal review that found numerous flaws in their reporting of a story about the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Logan’s Oct. 27 story on “60 Minutes” relied on the account of a British security contractor named Dylan Davies, who said he was an eyewitness to the attack. In fact, Davies — who was promoting a book about the episode published by a CBS subsidiary — was nowhere near the American facility on the night of the attack.

Following an internal review, Al Ortiz, executive director of standards and practices at CBS News, wrote that the “60 Minutes” story was “deficient in several respects.” Ortiz concluded that Logan and producer Max McClellan “did not sufficiently vet Davies’ account” of his actions on the night of the attack.

In the wake of Ortiz’s report, CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager said he asked Logan and producer McClellan to take a leave of absence from the network. Both have agreed, Fager wrote in an internal memo obtained by The Washington Post.

Among Ortiz’s findings, also contained in an internal memo obtained Tuesday:



●Logan’s report aired without “60 Minutes” knowing about statements Davies made about his whereabouts on the night of the attack to the FBI and State Department investigators. Davies told the investigators that he had not witnessed the attack, contrary to what Logan reported.

●Davies’s statements to the FBI and the State Department “were knowable” before the story aired. “But the wider reporting resources of CBS News were not employed in an effort to confirm his account,” Ortiz wrote. “It’s possible that reporters and producers with better access to inside FBI sources could have found out that Davies had given varying and conflicting accounts of his story.”

●The fact that Davies had lied to his employer, Blue Mountain Group, about where he was on the night of the attack “should have been a red flag in the editorial vetting process.”

●Logan’s assertions that al-Qaeda operatives had carried out the attacks and controlled the hospital where J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was taken “were not adequately attributed in her report.”

●“60 Minutes” erred in not disclosing on the air that Davies’s book, “The Embassy House,” was published by an imprint of Simon & Schuster, part of the CBS Corp. The book has been withdrawn from circulation.

●It was “a conflict” for Logan to make a speech in October 2012 in which she argued that the United States was playing down the threat from al-Qaeda and urged military action to avenge the Benghazi attack.

The “60 Minutes” story began to unravel after The Washington Post reported on Oct. 31 about the existence of an “incident report” that Davies had written for Blue Mountain in which Davies acknowledged that he spent most of the night at his beachside villa. It fell apart altogether when the New York Times revealed Nov. 7 that Davis had admitted as much to the FBI in an interview.

After defending the story for nearly two weeks, CBS and Logan retracted it and apologized on Nov. 8.

In his memo, Fager wrote, “There is a lot to learn from this mistake for the entire organization. We have rebuilt CBS News in a way that has dramatically improved our reporting abilities. Ironically, ‘60 Minutes,’ which has been a model for those changes, fell short by broadcasting a now discredited account of an important story, and did not take full advantage of the reporting abilities of CBS News that might have prevented it from happening.”

© 1996-2013 The Washington Post

ZippyTheChimp
May 9th, 2014, 11:31 AM
Welcome back, Benghazi. How we missed ye.


Editorial


Center Ring at the Republican Circus

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD MAY 8, 2014

The hottest competition in Washington this week is among House Republicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal. Half the House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/08/boehner-refuses-to-address-nrcc-fundraising-off-of-benghazi/) has asked to “serve” on the committee, which is understandable since it’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any real work while waving frantically to right-wing voters stomping their feet in the grandstand.

They won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted to create a committee to spend “such sums as may be necessary” (http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hres567/BILLS-113hres567ih.xml) to conduct an investigation of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The day before, they voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/gop-to-open-assault-on-white-house-over-irs-and-benghazi.html), the former Internal Revenue Service official whom they would love to blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there wasn’t.

Both actions stem from the same impulse: a need to rouse the most fervent anti-Obama wing of the party and keep it angry enough to deliver its donations and votes to Republicans in the November elections. For a while it seemed as if the Affordable Care Act would perform that role, but Republicans ran into a problem when the country began to realize that it was not destroying American civilization but in fact helping millions of people.

Party leaders needed something more reliable, so they went back and revived two dormant scandals from last year, the embers of which were faithfully tended by Republican adjuncts on Fox News and talk radio. Their hope is to show that the administration is corrupt and untrustworthy, and if Hillary Rodham Clinton also gets roughed up in the process, so much the better.

Four Americans, including the United States ambassador, died in Benghazi, and their deaths have been crassly used by Republicans as a political cudgel, wildly swung in the dark. They have failed to provide proof for any number of conspiracy theories about the administration’s failures, including the particularly ludicrous charge from Representative Darrell Issa that Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, told the Pentagon to “stand down” and not help defend the American compound.

In fact, investigations by two congressional committees (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/21/issas-suspicions-that-hillary-clinton-told-panetta-to-stand-down-on-benghazi/) (including one run by Republicans) found that there was never any kind of “stand-down order” or request. But Mr. Issa and others keep repeating it because, for their purposes, the facts don’t matter.

Now Republicans are frothing about a newly released email message (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/world/email-suggests-white-house-strategy-on-benghazi.html) showing that the White House wanted Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to go on television in 2012 and make the case that the attack was not a failure of administration policy. The message should have been turned over earlier because all it shows is a routine attempt to spin the news in the most favorable way to the White House. Though it is not the slightest evidence of a cover-up, it has become the foundation for the committee’s existence. Demonstrating the panel’s true purpose, Republican political operatives are already raising money (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/newest-benghazi-controversy-political-fundraising-n100456) by stoking donor anger on Benghazi.

Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.

Similarly, the Justice Department should not press Ms. Lerner’s contempt citation before a grand jury. She invoked her Fifth Amendment rights at a hearing last year and refused to testify, but Republicans claim, without foundation, that she waived those rights by first proclaiming her innocence. Her refusal, they said, was contemptuous of Congress. Little nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s fury.

© 2014 The New York Times Company


http://images.dailykos.com/images/82118/large/foxbenghaziobamacare.png?1399307568
Charts the number of times the words - Obamacare, Bundy, Benghazi - were used at Fox News.

"Obamacare" has almost disappeared as an election campaign issue, except in the depths of the Tea Party. It had been predicted that the confirmation hearing for Sylvia Mathews Burwell as Secretary of Health and Human Services would be a war. Instead, there were a lot of no-shows among the GOP, and those that were there seemed to want to get through it without too much press. It was conducted the way they used to be - you know, professionally.

"Bundy" had a big spike, but the people that want to make big-bad-government an issue find out again that the players carry a lot of unpleasant baggage.

So now "Benghazi" is back. It'll be with us until the midterms, and beyond if Hillary Clinton decides to run.



Fox News’ #Benghazi Boner In One Easy Chart (http://thedailybanter.com/2014/05/fox-news-benghazi-boner-in-one-easy-chart/)

lofter1
May 9th, 2014, 03:47 PM
Benghazi & Bundy: What will the GOP grab onto next in its effort to obscure their goal and hide the fact that they are just a bunch of Know Nothings (aka the gang espousing "NO! Nothing!!")?