Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya crisis: Benghazi

[Ryan Ruck]

Somewhat rhetorical question... Why is a jackass like Obama anywhere even close to the white house? The answer is a scary one one, having to do with the level of common sense, logic and patriotism of America's citizenry. At least half of our nation's people are either morons or neo-marxists.

At least... Romney calls a spade a spade and says that and gets excoriated for it.

"Hey! You can't say the emperor isn't wearing any clothes! He most certainly is and they're the best looking you'll ever see!"

[American Patriot]

White House Lies Behind The Deaths Of Our Men In Libya, Elsewhere

• Posted by Paul Szemanczky on September 17, 2012 at 4:48pm

**** Let's all take a long piss on Obama's endless apology. In Tunisia, the birthplace of the anti-American wave of revolutions from two years ago, let's faithfully hold the 'stream' right to Libya where they murdered our men while Obama slept cleanly in another country. I guess Obama and Hillary Clinton must have thought it was a joke or a clever ruse. She was sleeping too through the 9/11 anniversary violence. Then the waves of revolution spread and they burned our flag in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Cairo, Libya, Jalalabad, and Tunisia. They attacked the British and German embassies in the Sudan and raised their militant black flags high on all foreign flagpoles. This was evidence of their glee over the Arab Spring in which their new governments allowed greater license to radical Islamist groups to take to the streets and pillage the embassies. A film about the Prophet Muhammad supposedly fueled the mass eruptions on the streets but I believe their actual hatred for western civilization echoes their ignorance and wider transmission of rampaging anger at our democratic republic and the fool in charge of it, President Obama. Why should they tolerate our fool, even if we must?
To their sudden eruption of power and hatred Obama presents no challenge; his weakness is a signal vindication of their willing hand to slap us in the face over and over again. The democratic slogan songs of the Arab Spring in 2012 from Hillary's lips have become a siren's yell of banishment. It reminds me of the 9/11 Trade Towers site eleven years ago. The firemen were rushing into both buildings while the financial workers were fleeing. There remains chaos in all evacuation procedures: one group of U.S. evacuees were being mortared after the Benghazi compound was torched. Marines are being dispatched to embassy compounds, but what about the American schools, businesses, parking lots that have been incinerated by rampaging mobs. All these sites can't be protected at once. When protesters clash with the national police of these embittered nations they mostly drop their arms and resistance ceases under an order of the imam from his mosque. Islam is being defended by the destruction of a foreign embassy, so the embassy burns, and now some smolder, and tomorrow, more will burn. After all, the protesters know, 'The imams never lie'.
Ali Shajerah, one of the protesters at Yemen said: "It is a shame that American aren't protesting in our support against the wrongdoing of their own people," referring to the creator of the video that mocked Prophet Muhammad. The pail (not rosy) lips of Hillary Clinton hesitantly worked to reveal her sadness about the death of her Californian friend U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. She and Obama never hesitate to remind us that their State department people apologized first, even before our men died in Benghazi, Libya, Tuesday night. You could see the fear mingled in salt in Hillary's eyes, and her old, sudden age. While Obama's serious task was performed with transparent fidelity to another lie and apology: he wasn't asleep after being told 6-hours prior that his ambassador in Libya was missing, so his shoulders slumped with his usual modest misfortune slump we've seen time and time before. We have a fool of a president who undresses his 'nation' and dons a tuxedo for a presidential party in Las Vegas, while the corpse of one of his ambassadors lies frozen in a freezer.
The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran condemned Israel and the U.S. for the inflammatory video "calling on Muslims world-wide to unite" forcing more evacuations of U.S. Embassy staff and wider destruction of government buildings where clashes resumed between protesters and security forces. More sparks and Saladin reprisals for the contingents of Marines being relocated to these reckless arenas of hatred who will face death and injury themselves. They will fight as bravely as the SEALS did in Benghazi. Some of them will be cornered and trapped like the SEALS were. But they will receive even less presidential praises than the bloodless body of Christopher Stevens as he was being dragged through the street with his open-eyed stare of the already dead, while Obama was dreaming up even more apologies in a 'holy wars' crisis of fiction and truth in his 4 a.m. mind.
The al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, East Africa, Egypt and Afghanistan will demand more blood and will ignore the steady stream of apologies coming from our administrators for a video film that was just an excuse. They want a Muslim caliphate stretching from the Middle East through Africa and Asia till Sharia law gloats like a giant conquering the threadbare, trackless republic of the United States weakened by this miasma of apologies. The merciful pleadings of a feckless American president preaching his godlike moderation to his empty consulates only ordains more mass confrontation with the violent core of Islam. They want us naked the way Obama has laid us out with all his fearful eloquence. They will take our hide and strip it to ensure a feast for their thirst and hunger as they pursue us by our 'tears of apologies'. Saudi Arabia will fund this rise of militant Islam and Iran will seed the turmoil, and only Israel is prepared to defend against it. The Tea Party membership who loves Israel must be willing to form Lincoln Brigades one day to defend her freedom and to help her fight for it against the new 'fascism-theocracy': Muslim aggression and violent anti-American protests.
Clinton and Obama were at the Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Friday (9/14/12), to eulogize (apologize again) the bodies of Stevens, Sean Smith, and SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty in their flag-draped coffins. Their pro-Islamic message was invisibly tapped to the tarmac at the airport like the seminal fluid of their presidential race, which, of course, is angled to make the most out of any crisis, as stated from the infamous slogan of 2008. The undecided voters in this filthy race to President should be asking themselves: "Is this evidence of a leader of the U.S. who doesn't have things under control?" "Is this costly rioting and destruction of American lives really a quest for democracy and freedom by the Arab Spring countries, or is it a Muslim caliphate signal to Obama to be compliant and more apologetic as the present turmoil expands?" It all began with Obama's shunning of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt three years ago in a speech in Cairo. Libya, like Afghanistan, too are Obama-enhanced Muslim Brotherhood/al Qaeda packages, each going out of control because of Obama's compliance and praises for their revolutions, withal the backing of the propaganda non-journalists of ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS. Obama and Clinton have wedded us to these riotous ambitions of 'destructive Islamist forces' who wish our annihilation in their ambitious prayers in their countless mosques. They will bring us more grief and shame, but as little as possible of that will be reported by the named-lying media networks above.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney understands that the forces being unleashed by the rebellions that have gripped this region since last year necessitated the U.S. to have tried to fashion these new regimes into something "more secular and pro-West in their orientations." Instead, he intones, the domestic forces are so many and the unconstrained violence within them is so uncontained (and migratory between countries) by the Obama administration that our own U.S. diplomats are pulling back and disengaging from these Mideast new governments.
In other words the White House is truly the piss-pot of Mideast foreign policy tumult, as well as the urine stream for 19% Unemployment, and the latest Egan-Jones credit rating demotion from "AA" to "AA-" since we can't ignore the intensity of the avalanche of a "government-made recession coming in 2013", according to Bob Woodward, investigative journalist and author of the newly released account of the U.S. budget process fiasco under Obama called, "The Price of Politics".
Fortunately we have a good half-dozen weeks with Arab help to fill the 1st and 2nd floors of the White House with the urinary stench of Obama administration apologies, as their ripple effects and tributaries will carry over to the undecided voters, and maybe over some of the falsehoods about democracy for which Stevens died in Libya. Maybe even a few of the 2008 followers of Obama here are discontented with the prophesies of inspired bards in Obama's procession of foreign and domestic failures. Maybe their very fear over their leader's and Hillary's performances of late will forbid them from accepting the 'produce' of all these urine-stained apologies.
Let's all line up. The stupid apologies need a good wetting.

[American Patriot]

I'm hearing on Hannity, the two Navy SEALS who died were not employed by the Embassy or Dept of State.

They stepped up to defend him, and died.

They died as heroes trying to save the Ambassador.

Fuck the White House and it's LIES.

[Ryan Ruck]

I'm hearing on Hannity, the two Navy SEALS who died were not employed by the Embassy or Dept of State.

They stepped up to defend him, and died.

They died as heroes trying to save the Ambassador.

Fuck the White House and it's LIES.

Yep and one more time for emphasis...

FUCK OBAMA!

And God Bless those SEALs.

[American Patriot]

U.S. says two former Navy SEALS also died in Libya attack




WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:28pm EDT

(Reuters) - The United States on Thursday identified two additional victims of this week's deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as former Navy SEALS who died trying to protect their colleagues.


U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty died in Tuesday's assault on the Benghazi consulate, which also killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, a State Department information management officer.


"Our thoughts, prayers, and deepest gratitude are with their families and friends. Our embassies could not carry on our critical work around the world without the service and sacrifice of brave people like Tyrone and Glen," Clinton said in a statement.


The statement identified both Woods and Doherty as former Navy SEALS with lengthy experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. It did not say in what capacity they were working in Benghazi.


"I am enormously proud of the men and women who risk their lives every day in the service of our country and our values. They help make the United States the greatest force for peace, progress, and human dignity that the world has ever known," Clinton said in her statement.


U.S. officials had confirmed that Stevens and Smith died in the attack, but said they could not confirm the identities of the two other victims pending notification of their families.


Three other U.S. personnel were wounded in Tuesday's attack, which took place amid a wave of anti-U.S. protests across the Middle East against a low-budget, anti-Islam film produced in the United States.


U.S. President Barack Obama has vowed to work with Libyan officials to seek justice for those responsible for the Benghazi attack, which presented Obama with a new foreign policy crisis less than two months before he seeks re-election.


The U.S. Navy's SEAL (Sea, Air and Land) teams are among the most storied of U.S. special operations forces.


Doherty's family, through a public relations firm, had released information about him, including comments from friends.


"Don't feel sorry for him, he wouldn't have it," wrote Brandon Webb, who identified himself as a former SEAL and friend of Doherty's.


"He died serving with men he respected, protecting the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and doing something he loved."


ABC News interviewed Doherty last month. At the time, he said he was working with the State Department on an intelligence mission to round up shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and destroy them, according to an ABC News report.

[American Patriot]

Ex-SEALs, online gaming maven among Benghazi dead

2:26 PM, Sep 14, 2012 | comments


Sean Smith, left, and Glen Doherty died in the recent attacks on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, Libya. Courtesy U.S. Department of State and Doherty family

[American Patriot]

Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruths

In a familiar pattern, White House claims about what motivated the killing of the US ambassador in Libya are now contradicted

• Share
• Tweet this
• Email

• 
• 
  
  • Glenn Greenwald
    
  • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 September 2012 10.46 EDT
  • Jump to comments (…)

Damage inside the burnt US consulate building in Benghazi. Libya said it has made arrests and opened a probe into the attack. Photograph: Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images

Almost immediately after President Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden, top government officials, including then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and top terrorism adviser John Brennan, made numerous false statements about what took place. That included the claim that Bin Laden was killed after he engaged in a "firefight", that he used his wife as a human shield to protect himself, and that he was living in luxury in a $1m mansion.
None of those claims, central to the story the White House told the world, turned out to be true. Bin Laden was unarmed and nobody in the house where Bin Laden was found ever fired a single shot (a courier in an adjacent guest house was the only one to shoot, at the very beginning of the operation). Bin Laden never used his wife or anyone else as a shield. And the house was dilapidated, showed little sign of luxury, and was worth one-quarter of what it was claimed. Numerous other claims made by the administration about the raid remain unanswered because of its steadfast insistence on secrecy and non-disclosure (except when it concerns Hollywood filmmakers).
Would it have mattered had the White House been truthful about the Bin Laden raid from the start? It would have undoubtedly made no difference for many people, who simply craved Osama bin Laden's death without regard to how it was done. But it certainly would have made a difference for at least some people around the world in terms of how they perceived of these actions and whether they approved – which is presumably why the White House was so eager to insist on these falsehoods and to ensure that the world's perception was shaped by them. (Please spare me the "fog of war" excuse: when the so-called "fog of war" causes the US government to make inaccurate claims that undermine its interests, rather than bolster them – as always happens – then that excuse will be plausible.)
There's obviously an enormous difference between killing someone in a firefight and shooting him in cold blood while he's unarmed. The morning after the Bin Laden killing was announced, I wrote that although I'd have preferred he be captured and tried, "if he in fact used force to resist capture, then the US military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture." At least one legal scholar has changed his mind about the legality of the killing, in the wake of evidence that Bin Laden was killed while lying on the ground, unarmed and severely wounded.
But no matter. The White House's initial statements about what happened, false though they turned out to be, forever shaped perceptions of that event. Many people are unwilling to change their minds even in the wake of new evidence, while many others hear only of the initial claims made when news coverage is at its peak and never become aware of subsequent corrections. Combine that with the generalized "Look Forward, Not Backward" mentality popularized by President Obama – as embodied by John Kerry's "shut up and move on" decree to those asking questions about what really happened in the Bin Laden raid – and those initial White House falsehoods did the trick.
We now see exactly the same pattern emerging with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the killing of the US ambassador. For a full week now, administration officials have categorically insisted that the prime, if not only, cause of the attack was spontaneous anger over the anti-Muhammad film, The Innocence of Muslims.
Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that "these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region." On Friday, he claimed:

"'This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to US policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at US policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.'"

On Sunday, UN ambassador Susan Rice, when asked about the impetus for the attack, said that "this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo," and added: "In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated." In other interviews, she insisted that the Benghazi violence was a "spontaneous" reaction to the film.
Predictably, and by design, most media accounts from the day after the Benghazi attack repeated the White House line as though it were fact, just as they did for the Bin Laden killing. Said NPR on 12 September: "The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad." The Daily Beast reported that the ambassador "died in a rocket attack on the embassy amid violent protests over a US-produced film deemed insulting to Islam." To date, numerous people believe – as though there were no dispute about it – that Muslims attacked the consulate and killed the US ambassador "because they were angry about a film".
As it turns out, this claim is almost certainly false. And now, a week later, even the US government is acknowledging that, as McClatchy reports this morning [my emphasis]:

"The Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that last week's assault on the US consulate compound in Benghazi that left the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead was a 'terrorist attack' apparently launched by local Islamic militants and foreigners linked to al-Qaida's leadership or regional allies.
"'I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,' said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
"It was the first time that a senior administration official had said the attack was not the result of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video that has been cited as the spark for protests in dozens of countries over the past week .'The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved,' Olsen said." [My emphasis]

Worse, it isn't as though there had been no evidence of more accurate information before Wednesday. To the contrary, most evidence from the start strongly suggested that the White House's claims – that this attack was motivated by anger over a film – were false. From McClatchy:

"The head of Libya's interim government, key US lawmakers and experts contend that the attack appeared long-planned, complex and well-coordinated, matching descriptions given to McClatchy last week by the consulate's landlord and a wounded security guard, who denied there was a protest at the time and said the attackers carried the banner of Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamist militia."

Indeed, Libya's president has spent the week publicly announcing that there is "no doubt" the attack was planned well in advance and had nothing to do with the video.
CBS News reported Thursday morning that there was no anti-video protest at all at the consulate. Witnesses insist, said CBS, "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack." That, noted the network, "is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident." The report concluded: "What's clear is that the public won't get a detailed account of what happened until after the election."
The Obama White House's interest in spreading this falsehood is multi-fold and obvious:
For one, the claim that this attack was just about anger over an anti-Muhammad video completely absolves the US government of any responsibility or even role in provoking the anti-American rage driving it. After all, if the violence that erupted in that region is driven only by anger over some independent film about Muhammad, then no rational person would blame the US government for it, and there could be no suggestion that its actions in the region – things like this, and this, and this, and this – had any role to play.
The White House capitalized on the strong desire to believe this falsehood: it's deeply satisfying to point over there at those Muslims and scorn their primitive religious violence, while ignoring the massive amounts of violence to which one's own country continuously subjects them. It's much more fun and self-affirming to scoff: "can you believe those Muslims are so primitive that they killed our ambassador over a film?" than it is to acknowledge: "our country and its allies have continually bombed, killed, invaded, and occupied their countries and supported their tyrants."
It is always more enjoyable to scorn the acts of the Other Side than it is to acknowledge the bad acts of one's own. That's the self-loving mindset that enables the New York Times to write an entire editorial today purporting to analyze Muslim rage without once mentioning the numerous acts of American violence aimed at them (much of which the Times editorial page supports). Falsely claiming that the Benghazi attacks were about this film perfectly flattered those jingoistic prejudices.
Then, there are the implications for the intervention in Libya, which Obama's defenders relentlessly tout as one of his great victories. But the fact that the Benghazi attack was likely premeditated and carried out by anti-American factions vindicates many of the criticisms of that intervention. Critics of the war in Libya warned that the US was siding with (and arming and empowering) violent extremists, including al-Qaida elements, that would eventually cause the US to claim it had to return to Libya to fight against them – just as its funding and arming of Saddam in Iraq and the mujahideen in Afghanistan subsequently justified new wars against those one-time allies.
War critics also argued that the intervention would bring massive instability and suffering to the people of Libya; today, the Washington Post reports that – just as the "president of Afghanistan" is really the mayor of Kabul and the "Iraqi government" long exercised sovereignty only in Baghdad's Green Zone – the central Libyan government exercises little authority outside of Tripoli. And intervention critics also warned that dropping bombs in a country and killing civilians, no matter how noble the intent supposedly is, would produce blowback in the form of those who would then want to attack the US.
When the White House succeeded in falsely blaming the consulate attacks on anger over this video, all of those facts were obscured. The truth, now that it is emerging, underscores how unstable, lawless and dangerous Libya has become – far from the grand success story war proponents like to tell. As McClatchy noted in Thursday's report:

"Libya remains plagued by armed groups nearly a year after the US-backed ouster of the late dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Yet the facility was primarily defended by local guards who may have been complicit …
"Since the fall of Gaddafi last year, Libya's security has been dependent on a group of armed militias, including Ansar al-Shariah, that represent a wide variety of political strains and interests and remain heavily armed with weapons looted from Gaddafi storehouses. Interior Ministry forces and the Supreme Security Committee have been accused of complicity in recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on mosques and shrines affiliated with the moderate Sufi strain of Islam."

Then, there are the garden-variety political harms to the White House from the truth about these attacks. If the killing of the ambassador were premeditated and unrelated to the film, then it vests credibility in the criticism that the consulate should have been much better-protected, particularly on 9/11. And in general, the last thing a president running for re-election wants is an appearance that he is unable to protect America's diplomats from a terrorist group his supporters love to claim that he has heroically vanquished.
The falsehood told by the White House – this was just a spontaneous attack prompted by this video that we could not have anticipated and had nothing to do with – fixed all of those problems. Critical attention was thus directed to Muslims (what kind of people kill an ambassador over a film?) and away from the White House and its policies.
The independent journalist IF Stone famously noted that the number one rule of good journalism, even of good citizenship, is to remember that "all governments lie." Yet, no matter how many times we see this axiom proven true, over and over, there is still a tendency, a desire, to believe that the US government's claims are truthful and reliable.
The Obama administration's claims about the Benghazi attack are but the latest in a long line of falsehoods it has spouted on crucial issues, all in order to serve its interests and advance its agenda. Perhaps it is time to subject those claims to intense skepticism and to demand evidence before believing they are true.

[American Patriot]

White House: 'What Happened in Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack'

Reuters

• Share
• Print article
• Email article
• Comments

John Hudson and Alexander Abad-Santos 627 Views 2:14 PM ET
In a statement that suggests the White House and State Department may not be totally in sync, White House spokesman Jay Carney said today "It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," referring to the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other U.S. personnel. That brings the White House view more in line with the assessment of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who has long said there was "no doubt" the attack was a premeditated terrorist plot. On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice surprised some journalists when she rebutted Magariaf's assessment on ABC's This Week, saying the attacks were spontaneous. “What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response to what happened in Cairo,” Rice told Jake Tapper, referring to protests of an anti-U.S. film in Egypt. Now Carney is saying the "best indication we have now" is that the attacks may have had an Al-Qaeda connection, the view Magariaf has had all along. Carney was not ready, however, to say the attacks were "significantly pre-planned."
So why does it matter if the attacks were pre-mediated or not? Other than pursuing the truth, it's also about holding the administration accountable, as The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald noted earlier today. "The claim that this attack was just about anger over an anti-Muhammad video completely absolves the US government of any responsibility or even role in provoking the anti-American rage driving it," he wrote. "After all, if the violence that erupted in that region is driven only by anger over some independent film about Muhammad, then no rational person would blame the US government for it, and there could be no suggestion that its actions in the region – things like this, and this, and this, and this– had any role to play," referring to instances where civilians were killed by U.S. forces.
Still, the investigation is ongoing at this point and U.S. officials are resisting any claims that the attacks were "significantly" pre-planned. In the coming days, we'll hopefully find out what the administration means by "significantly."

[American Patriot]

[American Patriot]

Pretty damned idiotic acting if you ask me... but there's the so-called trailer that allegedly caused the problems.

It didn't cause anything.

[American Patriot]

These asses lie through their teeth!

Sep 19, 2012 12:50pm
The Attack on Benghazi and the Hatch Act — Today’s Q’s for O’s WH — 9/19/2012

Email 41 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

TAPPER: In the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, the Pentagon and the State Department both made statements they then had to correct, the Pentagon involving whether or not there were Marines at the embassy in Tripoli — there were not — and the State Department regarding the presence of security firms at the Benghazi compound. Why was there such confusion? And is the White House or anyone conducting any sort of internal investigation into what went wrong?
CARNEY: Well, there is an ongoing investigation into what happened in Benghazi that’s being led by the FBI. And –
TAPPER: Not that one. I’m not talking about the criminal act. I’m talking about the — obviously, there wasn’t adequate security, that — along the lines of what went wrong and what the administration could have done better.
CARNEY: I think I would refer you, for questions about security at the Benghazi diplomatic facility and broadly speaking at diplomatic facilities — consulates, embassies — around the world, to the State Department. In terms of the statements that were corrected by Defense of State, I would refer you to those departments.
You know, from our perspective, we got out to you the information that we had as soon as we had it and it was available. And our assessment of what happened has been based on the best available information that we’ve had.
There is an ongoing investigation, led by the FBI, now going back to specifically happened in Benghazi, and we await the results of that investigation for more information about the protests and the attacks and what precipitated them and who participated in them, with the primary objective here of fulfilling the president’s commitment that those people responsible for the deaths of four Americans be brought to justice.
TAPPER: What reason could there be? Or let me — let me rephrase that, who made the decision that there should not be in Marines in — at our diplomatic posts in Libya? More than half of our diplomatic posts have Marines. I understand they’re not there to protect people; they’re there to protect classified data. But it doesn’t hurt to have them there. Who make that decision?
CARNEY: Well, I think security at diplomatic facilities is overseen by and run by the State Department. So I’d refer you to them about how decisions are made and what the allocation of resources was in Benghazi and elsewhere. I think they’re the best people to answer that question.
TAPPER: Is the president concerned that there was a failure by someone in the administration to ensure adequate security measures, whether through –
CARNEY: The president is concerned that violent actions were taken that lead to the deaths of four Americans. You can be sure that he’s concerned about that. And he is absolutely concerned that we take the necessary measures to make sure that those who killed Americans are brought to justice. And he has been focused from the beginning on ensuring that adequate security reinforcements be brought to bear at embassies and consulates and diplomatic facilities where that’s deemed necessary. Again, there’s an investigation — a broad investigation into what happened and how and why in Benghazi. And we have — will await the results.
TAPPER: Is that about the perpetrators of the violence?
CARNEY: Well, I think it encompasses everything that happened — I mean, I’m sure that they will look at everything that happened there. I mean, I would refer you to the FBI for details. But look — I mean, Jake, I think what happened in –
TAPPER: It was the anniversary of 9/11, an unstable country with roving bands of individuals who are armed, a government that says it itself cannot provide security; it’s not ready to do so yet.
And it would just seem not that complicated to discern that there need to be some sort — serious security effort there to protect our diplomats.
CARNEY: Jake, I appreciate the question, and I understand it. And I — and I can simply say that there is an active investigation into what happened in Benghazi that led to the killing of four Americans. And the president has taken action to make sure that we have reinforced security at facilities as deemed necessary and is very focused on ensuring that we bring to justice those who killed Americans abroad. But I appreciate your question, and I think that, you know, we are awaiting the results of the FBI investigation.
TAPPER: OK. On one other subject, did the president have any response to the Office of Special Counsel report on Secretary Sebelius violating the Hatch Act?
CARNEY: I have not spoken to him about it. I think that Secretary Sebelius has responded to that and made sure that what was an — you know, her remarks were extemporaneous. The Health and Human Services Department has since reclassified the event to meet the correct standard. The U.S. Treasury has been reimbursed. And Secretary Sebelius has met with ethics experts to ensure that this never happens again. The error was immediately acknowledged by the secretary and promptly corrected, and no taxpayer dollars were misused.
TAPPER: Is it safe to assume that as far as the president’s concerned, that’s the end of the matter?
CARNEY: Well, I think it’s safe to assume that action has been taken by the secretary and the department to remedy what was, you know, the result of an inadvertent error based on extemporaneous remarks. And she acknowledged it immediately, promptly corrected it and ensured that no taxpayer dollars were used and that the event — the department reclassified the event to make sure that the correct standards were met.
TAPPER: Thank you.
-Jake Tapper

[American Patriot]

Fifty Marines are there now... a little too late.

What Happened in Benghazi Was a Battle

• By Spencer Ackerman
• Email Author
• September 12, 2012 |
• 6:31 pm |

Libyans walk on the grounds of the gutted U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012. Photo: AP/Ibrahim Alaguri

Updated 7:42 pm.
It was not a simple mob that attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, killing four Americans. Benghazi was the scene of a pitched battle, one in which unknown Libyan assailants besieged American diplomats with small-arms fire for over four hours, repelling several attempts by U.S. personnel to regain control of it.
Nor was what happened in Benghazi a simple story of Americans assaulted by the Libyans they helped to liberate from Moammar Gadhafi last year, American officials say. Libyan security forces and a sympathetic local militia helped the Americans to suppress the attack and get the diplomats inside to safety.

That account is the first official telling of Tuesday’s events. It’s preliminary, as much of what has been initially reported in the media on Wednesday has proven incorrect. And it was provided to reporters late Wednesday afternoon by Obama administration officials who would not speak for the record.
Now, a team of 50 Marines has arrived in Libya to secure the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, where the Benghazi staff was ultimately evacuated. And Google is even assisting by blocking some access to a provocative, anti-Islam video that may have provided a pretext for the attacks. But all that comes too late for the Benghazi consulate, and for four Americans there who died, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Beginning at 4 p.m. Washington time on Tuesday, unknown Libyans began an assault on the group of buildings used by the State Department as a Benghazi consulate. That apparently took the consulate by surprise: The diplomats there received no indication of an attack brewing when it reviewed its security posture ahead of Tuesday’s 9/11 anniversary. The compound lacked a Marine guard force, as is present at U.S. embassies in foreign capitals. Nor did it have other typical diplomatic security features, such as bulletproof glass and reinforced doors. Libyan guards were said to be outside the walls providing an outer layer of security, with a State Department security detail of undisclosed size within.

The attack, with small arms fire, set the main building aflame with three people inside, including Amb. Christopher Stevens. A consular official responsible for securing the complex, who initially left the building to escape the flames and thick smoke, found information-management officer and gamer Sean Smith dead inside.
A still-unknown number of American security personnel, dodging small arms fire and flame, attempted unsuccessfully to regain control of the main building 45 minutes after the attack began, retreating to an adjacent building annex. By 5:20 p.m. Washington time, Libyan security forces, assisted by what was described as a sympathetic local militia, regained control of the main building, and assisted an evacuation of the staff of approximately 25 to 30 to the annex. But by 6 p.m., the assailants began to attack the annex with small arms fire. It was there that two other, as-yet-unidentified U.S. nationals died.

It was not until 8:30 p.m. D.C. time that the attack was suppressed. But the security forces had lost track of Stevens.
Administration officials said that Libyans transferred Stevens to a Benghazi hospital at some point during the fighting. It is unknown if he was dead or alive when he reached the hospital, or what ultimately killed him. His body was ultimately transferred to American personnel at Benghazi airport, where a chartered U.S. flight was called in to evacuate the Benghazi diplomatic staff to the embassy in Tripoli.
All told, four U.S. nationals are dead and another three are wounded; it is not believed, contrary to early media reports, that any are U.S. Marines. The wounded and dead have been taken to American military hospitals in Germany, and the human remains will be taken back to the United States.
U.S. officials declined to speak to any motivations behind the assault. Much speculation has turned to a now-viral movie that criticizes the Prophet Muhammad as a tyrant and a sexual deviant. The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed a consultant on the film, “a self-described militant Christian activist,” who said the film’s producer was credited under a pseudonym, “Sam Bacile.” The reason for the pseudonym, Goldberg reported, was “because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, [the consultant] said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California.”
The Associated Press appears to have tracked down “Bacile.” He is 55 year-old Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a convicted fraudster who was sentenced in 2010 to 21 months in federal prison. He was also ordered to pay $790,000 in fines, and told not to use computers or the internet for five years without his probation officer’s okay.
The anti-Islam Florida pastor Terry Jones is said not to be involved in the film, but Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones this morning to persuade him to revoke support for the film.
Google is taking another step. Bloomberg reported that Google will not remove a 14-minute clip from the film available on YouTube, as a YouTube statement said the clip was “clearly within our guidelines.” But it will restrict access to the film on YouTube in Egypt and Libya. Reuters reported that the Afghanistan government has already blocked YouTube access to prevent any potential provocation inside that country.
Administration officials have said they have not yet received indications that Afghanistan, which has already experienced riots ostensibly motivated by affronts to Islam, will soon experience related attacks. But U.S. embassy personnel worldwide have been told to beef up their security as they see fit as a precaution.
For now, in Libya, a Marine Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team or FAST team has the mission to secure the embassy in Tripoli and to assist with any necessary evacuations of U.S. personnel out of Libya. Based out of Rota, Spain, it will not assist in a hunt for the perpetrators of Tuesday’s attack that President Obama has promised will occur.
Defense Department personnel have not, as yet, addressed the composition of that force. Much of it is likely to fall within the command of Army. Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. troops in Africa. American drones and other military intelligence assets, some of which may not be under Ham’s command, are also likely to be used. Which means the next battle of Benghazi could be even more intense than the last.

[American Patriot]

Libya Premier Says Pursuing Suspects in U.S. Mission Attack

By Brigitte Scheffer and Tarek El-Tablawy on September 20, 2012




Libya is pursuing suspects in the fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi who have fled abroad and the government is focusing efforts on improving security, Prime Minister-elect Mustafa Abushagur said.


Abushagur, who was named premier this month, said that eight Libyan nationals had been arrested in connection with the assault and that Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamist militia, was one of the groups thought to be involved. Several suspects are currently being sought after crossing the border into Egypt, Abushagur said in an interview today in his office in Tripoli, the capital, vowing that “these crimes will not go unpunished.”


An attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11 left four Americans including the ambassador, Chris Stevens, dead. More than a year since Muammar Qaddafi was toppled, Libya is still mired in political unrest and economic insecurity. The economy contracted by 61 percent last year as oil production and exports were disrupted by the rebellion, according to the International Monetary Fund.


While the country has a “very specific” plan on how to secure the nation, the government currently is unable to force militias that played a key role in the uprising to disarm, Abushagur said. “Security is a top priority for the next three to six months and 70 percent of our efforts are dedicated to stabilizing Libya,” he said.
Consulate Arrests

Libyan officials have blamed the consulate attack on militants taking advantage of unrest stoked by an amateur film made in the U.S. denigrating the Prophet Muhammad. The film sparked protests in several Arab nations, underscoring the challenge the young governments in the so-called Arab Spring nations face in ensuring political stability and economic development while addressing anti-Western sentiment.


Libya’s stability is also threatened by well-armed militias. The country’s previous government under the National Transitional Council, which handed over power to the recently elected General National Congress, was unable to disarm the groups.


“We are very sorry for the deaths of four American nationals on our soil,” he said. “Chris Stevens was a great man and cared for our country.”
Planned Rallies

Abushagur’s comments come a day ahead of planned mass rallies in the eastern city of Benghazi against the armed groups. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns is due to meet him later today in “a show of strength and cooperation with the Libyans against extremists and others who want to derail the democratic process,” Abushagur said.


Burns, Abushagur and the Cabinet were due to attend a memorial service for Stevens and the three other Americans today in Tripoli.
“We have made concrete efforts to achieve a great deal of security in the country,” Abushagur said, adding that he was waiting for the full report on the attack on the consulate and nearby safe house to which the Americans had fled before their deaths.
He said authorities believe that as many as 100 people attacked the consulate, though “only 10 to 15 were carrying weapons.” Ansar al-Shariah, which advocates the establishment of an Islamist state in Libya, has denied involvement in the attack.
Speaking to reporters in Tripoli today, Burns stressed “the determination of the U.S. to do exactly what Chris Stevens tried so hard to do, and that is to help Libyans realize the promise of the revolution and to not allow it to be hijacked by extremists.”
New Government

Abushagur, 61, moved in the 1970s to the U.S., where he earned a Ph.D. in electrical engineering at the California Institute of Technology. He returned to Libya in March 2011, working as an adviser to the National Transitional Council. He was named deputy prime minister in November and was declared the first elected prime minister-designate in the modern history of Libya on Sept. 12.
“The new Cabinet has to be formed and presented to the General National Congress by Sept. 30,” said Abushagur. “There is a 10-day period to finalize the choice of ministers.”
One critical task facing Abushagur will be to stabilize the economy, which continues to be affected by unrest and protests. An air traffic control strike at Tripoli on Sept. 16 forced airspace over the city to be shut down for roughly a day.
“We want to create a business-friendly environment and will be reviewing many of the laws that are currently in place,” said Abushagur.
The IMF projects that economic growth will return in 2012 after oil output rebounded to near pre-war levels following the fall of Qaddafi. Oil has typically accounted for more than 70 percent of the country’s GDP and roughly 90 percent of government revenues, according to the organization.
‘Historic Juncture’

“Libya is at a historic juncture, and the authorities face the twin challenges of stabilizing the economy and responding to the aspirations of the revolution,” the IMF said in a May report. “The short-term challenges are to manage the political transition, normalize the security situation and exercise budget discipline while maintaining macroeconomic stability.”
Abushagur said that none of the current Cabinet ministers were guaranteed jobs in his administration, stressing that “no minister is indispensable.”
“We need ministers who can perform the job they are given,” he said.
Abushagur said the new government will focus on providing basic services to the people, including health care, education and coping with a dilapidated national infrastructure. It will also push to diversify the economy away from oil and create a financial hub for the region, he said.
Libya “has a lot to offer foreign investors and we will create a good business climate,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brigitte Scheffer in Tripoli at bscheffer@bloomberg.net Tarek El-Tablawy in Cairo at teltablawy@bloomberg.net

[American Patriot]

Time to take off the gloves. lol


World Watch September 20, 2012 3:52 PM

• Print
• Text

As protests rage, Muhammad satires keep coming

• More

By

Joshua Norman

Topics

World Watch

Pakistani Muslim demonstrators burn a U.S. flag during a protest against an anti-Islam film in Quetta on September 20, 2012.
(Credit: BANARAS KHAN/AFP/GettyImages)
(CBS News) German satire magazine "Titanic" announced intentions on Thursday to publish a cover depicting an angry Muslim about to stab former German First Lady Bettina Wulff, and the publisher wouldn't say in an interview with a leading German publication whether or not the Muslim is the prophet Mohammad.
The news comes fresh on the heels of a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, publishing new cartoons of Mohammad amid violent protests in the Muslim world against an anti-Muslim film produced in the U.S. by a Coptic Christian immigrant.
Some conservative Muslim clerics insist any depictions of their prophet - satirical or not - are so blasphemous that the person who publishes or creates them deserves to die. A small portion have acted in retribution for those perceived insults, with sometimes deadly consequences.
That can leave publishers with a weighty decision: If potentially Mohammad-mocking material could further inflame tensions with possibly violent consequences, is it fair to question their calls to publish that material?
Most Western countries consider the right to free speech as sacred as some clerics consider their prophet's image sacred. Yet there are limits.
The most famous legal case over free speech in the U.S. was the Supreme Court decision in Schenck v. United States in 1919, in which the case for using a "clear and present danger" concern by the government to shut down free speech was first established. Later, this was amended to take into account the speaker's "intentions," thus making it harder to legally limit speech.
There are no recent successful cases in the West of a legal challenge against the publication of purely satirical images. Even Pope Benedict XVI backed down from a legal challenge against Titanic when they published a cover image depicting the pope soiling himself.
Titanic publisher Leo Fischer said his intentions with the recent publication were in fact not to mock Mohammad, but instead he told the Financial Times he wanted "to warn other poorly made defamatory films" like the one currently being protested in the Muslim world.
He told Der Spiegel: "I consider the view that European Muslims are nothing more than sword-swinging crazies to be racist. I am relying on their understanding -- and on their indifference."
However one interprets the Titanic image, or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, they are legal, so the questions becomes whether or not they're ethically correct.
In France, the reaction has largely been to defend the publication of naked Mohammad cartoons by Charlie Hebdo, but Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius likened the act of doing so to "pouring oil on the fire."
Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane Charbonnier says the responsibility for any potential ensuing violence over the cartoons are not his fault, but are instead the fault of the people committing the violence. He claims no responsibility for their actions.
"The accusation that we are pouring oil on the flames in the current situation really gets on my nerves," Charbonnier said at a recent press gaggle, according to Der Spiegel. "After the publication of this absurd and grotesque film about Muhammad in the U.S., other newspapers have responded to the protests with cover stories. We are doing the same thing, but with drawings. And a drawing has never killed anyone."

[vector7]

From Drudge:


Pakistan explodes in protest; 17 killed...
'DAY OF LOVE'...
PROTESTS IN IRAN, INDONESIA, IRAQ, SRI LANKA, BANGLADESH, LEBANON, KASHMIR...
'Obama, our patience has its limit... Don't blame us if your citizens die'...
French embassies, schools closed in 20 countries...
France bans protests against Muhammad cartoons...

[American Patriot]

Attack Americans and you will die. It's just that simple. Those of us who took the oath to defend this country and the Constitution WILL do it. I'm one person, but there are MILLIONS of us that haven't been brainwashed by the Progressives of this country. If the Muslims start attacking Americans the Muslims will die. That's your final warning. Americans won't stand for these threats any longer.

Muslims don't want peace, they want to rule. I will never be rules by them.

Malaysian protesters burn US flag over anti-Islam film
Posted: 21 September 2012 1848 hrs

	Malaysian Muslim demonstrators march towards the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur to protest against an anti-Islam film on Sep 21. (AFP/Saeed Khan)

KUALA LUMPUR: About 3,000 Muslims marched on the US embassy in Malaysia on Friday, burning an American flag, over a US-made film that has sparked anger in the Islamic world.

Although there was no violence, angry demonstrators declared their willingness to sacrifice their lives to defend the honour of Prophet Mohammed and warned "there will be consequences" over the film.

"We will not allow the prophet to be insulted. We are willing to sacrifice our lives and property," said Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, an official with the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), which spearheaded the march.

About 60 percent of Malaysia's 28 million people are Malay-Muslims.

Protesters shouted "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest) and held up signs denouncing the film, America and Jews.

One placard read: "Obama, our patience has its limit. Don't blame us if your citizens die. Blame yourself. U started it!"

Demonstrators handed a memo to an American embassy official, demanding a US apology, "maximum sentences" for the movie-makers and an investigation into whether there was a "planned agenda to provoke hatred and anger towards Muslims".

However, PAS officials said they were not behind the flag burning, and condemned it.

The protest forced the closure of a busy main road in the heavily congested capital Kuala Lumpur for nearly two hours.

The low-budget "Innocence of Muslims", produced by a US Christian activist, mocks Muslims and Prophet Mohammed.

Western, and particularly US, diplomatic missions have been under siege around the world since a trailer for the movie gained attention this month on YouTube.

This week France also found itself in the firing line after the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo printed a batch of cartoons caricaturing Prophet Mohammed.

On Friday, hundreds of protesters also condemned the film at a separate demonstration nearby, organised by the youth wing of Malaysia's ruling party.

The US embassy in Malaysia had closed for a half-day on Friday ahead of the planned protest, while the nearby French embassy closed for the entire day.

Anti-French and anti-American protests also erupted in Indonesia on Friday.

Protesters gathered outside US and French missions, which were closed across the country on the Muslim holy day amid fears of violence, targeted American fast food outlets and scuffled with police.

In Medan, North Sumatra province, dozens of protesters from the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) burnt an American flag outside the US consulate.

Outside the French consulate in Surabaya, capital of East Java province, some 200 protesters from another Islamic group chanted "crush America, crush France".

They earlier scuffled with several hundred policemen in riot gear outside a nearby McDonalds. They sealed the entrance to the restaurant with tape, which carried the slogans "death to the filmmakers" and "boycott American products".

About 50 protesters demonstrated outside the US embassy in Jakarta after Friday prayers, where some 200 policemen were stationed.

Some 50 demonstrators gathered at the French embassy in the capital, where they chanted "death to France", "France is evil" and "crush France".

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring International Law for the United States
  
• Obama: Anti-Colonial President, Plans for the next term
  
• The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated both the Clinton and Obama Administrations
  
• Freedom of Speech in America
  
• The Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam
  
• Attempts to Push Sharia Law on America
  

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations



by John Nolte 22 Sep 2012 post a comment

Not only are we seeing the White House and State Department call more attention to the Mohammed-mocking "Innocence of Muslims" than any terrorist network ever could've hoped for, but the President's \indefensible scapegoating of the film and filmmaker to draw attention and blame away from U.S. security failures apparently knows no bounds.

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president's speech to the UN General Assembly next week:

"UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World."

"As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable[.]

My God, between the media and the Obama White House, we are finally witnessing Orwell's "1984" blossom to life.

As our economy slows, incomes shrink, unemployment creeps up, and poverty explodes -- the media assures us we're in "recovery" and that our frustrations should be taken out on "Emmanuel Goldstein," also known as "America's Successful."

As Obama's appalling policy of disengaging in the Middle East comes to fruition in the form of the region exploding and al-Qaeda's targeted assassination of an American ambassador -- the media spends two weeks savaging Mitt Romney and directing our sorrow, rage, and helplessness on "Emmanuel Goldstein," also known as "A Stupid Filmmaker."

For weeks this administration, aided and abetted by The State Media, has shamelessly lied to us about what happened in Libya. Moreover, in order to cover up and distract for unforgivable security lapses, this hapless filmmaker has been targeted for all of the blame -- certainly more blame than the Administration's failure to secure a consulate on 9/11 (of all days), but even more blame than the actual murderers.

And now, even though we know the truth about what really happened in Libya, it won't stop. It will never stop. Because Obama knows his media will never make him pay a political price for lying and scapegoating.

At all costs, the media quietly whispers amongst themselves, Obama must be reelected.

The most troubling and Orwellian element in of all this is that the Administration's lies are now becoming truths. As we saw in Pakistan and elsewhere yesterday, Obama's scapegoating and calling unnecessary attention to this film appears to be turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. How many millions of Muslims are hearing about the film that might not have if Obama didn’t need his Emmanuel Goldstein? Now that our government has ensured every Islamist radical on the planet knows about this film, how much easier is it for extremists to use it to foment chaos?

Donchaknow, it's the "in-thing," what all radicals are doing this season! Don’t you watch the American media?

And so, next week, as Obama condemns this film, and therefore the American ideal of freedom of speech, before the entire world -- all in an effort to quadruple-down on a brazen lie that's already been exposed as such -- it will truly be the ultimate Big Brother moment of this presidency.

[American Patriot]

He needs to be shut down.

I don't see why people are up in arms about this.

[Avvakum]

He needs to be shut down.

I don't see why people are up in arms about this.

Our dumbed-down schools have for some time been producing people who are seriously lacking in critical thinking. Aside from the acting in this 'movie', it's actually true that Mohammad was a Warlord and a Demoniac/Pedophile False Prophet, as reprsented in the Film.

If people in the West actually knew or cared about these facts, Islam would not have the increasing hold it has on the World today.

[American Patriot]

That should have read "I don't see why people aren't up in arms over this".....

The truth is that people DO know and care about the facts. 50% of us anyway. The other 50% are the so-called Progressives and Liberals who want to let "everyone" have a say in things.

The problem is our own system is being used against us now and we know it.