The Innocence of Hillary

hillary-clinton3When the father of Tyrone Woods finally got a moment with the Secretary of State of the United States, she assured him that justice would be done for his murdered son.

“We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods.

The video that the Secretary of State and past and future presidential candidate was referring to was a YouTube trailer for “The Innocence of Muslims.”

At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary told the families, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Even in the presence of the families of the murdered Americans who died because of her, Hillary Clinton was still making lying about Islamic terrorism and apologizing to Muslims into her two major priorities.

Two days earlier, Hillary Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State had told the Libyan ambassador that Ansar Al-Sharia, a group linked to Al Qaeda, was responsible. The morning of the receiving ceremony AFRICOM had sent the State Department a list of suspects, including Al Qaeda members, responsible for the Benghazi attack.

In January, Hillary had blamed “imperfect information.” As she makes her rounds promoting her book, she’s fighting to keep the video lie alive.

In “Hard Choices,” Hillary claims that there were “scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives. It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.”

Since it’s impossible to disprove a negative, it would be equally inaccurate to state that none of the attackers were influenced by a frustrated passion for Hillary Clinton. Since there’s no way to disprove the possibility that at least one of the attackers was motivated by the video, by love for Hillary or by hallucinations induced by bath salts, it’s inaccurate to state that none of the attackers carried a torch for Hillary, were angry at a YouTube video or were tripping on bath salts.

You expect to hear that kind of argument from a college freshman who just took Logic I and is trying to explain that she didn’t finish her essay because nothing can truly be finished. But you don’t expect to have to listen to this kind of childish drivel from the frontrunner for the presidency of the United States.

The Benghazi attack wasn’t carried out by a disparate group of loners with their own motives. It was an assault by a heavily armed Jihadist group whose motive was, in their own words, to ensure that “there will be nothing ruling in this country other than the laws of Allah.”

US diplomatic facilities are outposts of infidel law that don’t answer to Allah. They had to be destroyed.

Al Qaeda’s first successful attack on the US targeted embassies in Africa. Credit was claimed by a previously obscure group tied to Al Qaeda.

The attack on the Benghazi mission was similar to the failed 2008 attack on the US embassy in Yemen which used RPGs, snipers and car bombs in another carefully planned assault by an Al Qaeda affiliate. The difference was that US diplomatic facilities in Yemen were heavily fortified and defended while the Benghazi mission couldn’t have had worse security if Al Qaeda had been hired to protect it.

And considering the complex affiliations of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade that was hired, and then not paid, to protect the mission, that is conceivably what did happen.

On September 11, 2012, Islamist groups carried out attacks against US embassies in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. The Egyptian attack was organized by the brother of the Al Qaeda leader. The attacks in Yemen and Tunisia had also been organized or promoted by Al Qaeda terrorists and supporters.

These attacks were less heavily armed, but their goal was to remove the flag of the United States and raise the war flag of Jihad over these small outposts of US soil on Muslim land. These were not protests. They were motivated by the same pretext as Osama bin Laden’s original declaration of war on the United States for “occupying” the “holy land” of Saudi Arabia.

Al Qaeda’s attacks on US diplomatic facilities have been motivated by Bin Laden’s fatwa that “After Belief there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the Holy land.”

Like Hillary, Rice and Obama, Al Qaeda’s propaganda has been known to change, but its objectives have remained consistent. Their first US embassy attack took place in August 1998. Every few years there have been attacks by Al Qaeda affiliates against US diplomatic facilities around the world. From Saudi Arabia to Syria to Pakistan to Turkey, the attacks routinely came around every two years.

By September 11, 2012, the US was due for another attack on its diplomatic facilities. On September 13, 2006, the US embassy in Damascus had been attacked. On September 17, 2008, the US embassy in Yemen had been attacked. In 2010, the Pakistani Taliban had targeted the US Consulate.

It should not have been very difficult to spot the pattern.

Hillary’s defenders pass around a list of attacks on US diplomatic facilities under Bush. But the vast majority of those attacks were stopped by guards and defenses. The casualties were usually locals.

In Yemen, the attackers dressed in police uniforms and set off multiple car bombs to breach the embassy grounds.  They had RPGs and grenades and had even set up a sniper ambush. And they still did not succeed in killing a single American diplomat, let alone in overrunning the facility.

The only American citizens killed were Yemenis related to a wanted US Al Qaeda terrorist.

That was what an attack on a US diplomatic facility looked like under Bush. That is what should have happened in Benghazi if Hillary had done her job. Instead the Benghazi facility had a “weak perimeter” and “incomplete fence” even according to the board that Hillary set up to whitewash her conduct.

But according to Hillary, she was “not equipped to sit and look at blueprints, to determine where the blast walls need to be or where the reinforcements need to be.”

There are shades of Obama in that arrogant disdain. Hillary admitted that the facility was in the top upper ten highest risk locations.  And yet she couldn’t be bothered to check into its security. Are we to believe that she will be equipped to look at war plans if she becomes the President of the United States?

Hillary was also unequipped to read cables from Ambassador Stevens begging for extra security. According to her, they were only addressed to her as a “procedural quirk.”

So Hillary is innocent. Completely innocent. Some people below her may have screwed up by denying support and security to the Benghazi mission. And none of them were fired either.

They too were innocent.

The Benghazi attackers were only innocently reacting to a “hateful video.” The only guilty perpetrator that Hillary could find had uploaded a YouTube video.

In the innocence of Hillary there is a preview of her administration. When things go wrong, someone else will be at fault because she wasn’t equipped to look at the numbers or the maps. The buck won’t stop with her except as another “procedural quirk.”

Someone else will always be the guilty party. If Los Angeles gets nuked, a protester burning a Koran will be locked up. If a passenger jet is bombed, someone offending Muslims on Twitter will be punished.

There will always be someone else to take the fall. Someone who isn’t a Muslim terrorist or Hillary Clinton.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Judahlevi

    First, we know Hillary is going to run for president. This is not speculation – she is running.

    Second, we also know that she has accomplished nothing of merit in the various positions she has had. Nothing.

    So, what are we left with? That she is a woman and wants to be the first woman to be president (making history again). Is that enough? For leftists who think that gender defines someone, it is all they need. For PC zealots, it is “time” for a ‘woman’ to lead.

    In other words, Hillary’s entire presidential campaign will be based on sexism.

    • Americana

      It will be interesting to hear what we get out of the principal Benghazi suspects who was just caught in Benghazi (from CNN). It will also be interesting to see how our court system functions for these guys. I’m inclined to want them tried by a military court:
      __________________________________________________________________

      (CNN) — U.S. special forces working with the FBI captured a key suspect in the deadly 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

      Libyan militia leader Ahmed Abu Khatallah was captured over the weekend near Benghazi, U.S. officials said. His is the first arrest and detention by the United States in connection with the Benghazi attack.

      Abu Khatallah will be brought to the United States to face charges “in the coming days,” said Edward Price, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

      Abu Khatallah, who faces three federal criminal charges, will be tried in U.S. courts, said Attorney General Eric Holder.

      U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. citizens died in the September 11, 2012, attack, which became a political flashpoint.

      “We retain the option of adding additional charges in the coming days,” Holder said. “Even as we begin the process of putting (Abu Khatallah) on trial and seeking his conviction before a jury, our investigation will remain ongoing as we work to identify and arrest any co-conspirators.”

      • J.B.

        What will we get out of the captured terrorist? Another distraction from Obama’s endless crimes, scandals and failures. Exactly as planned.

    • Jimmy Young

      Well Hillary is nothing but a Zionist stooge. Zionism like communism came from the khazars.

      • Jeff Ludwig

        Zionism arose because the Jews were praying for 2000 years. Also, there were Christian Zionists like William Blackstone, the British supported the idea, the movement for national self-determination throughout Europe reinforced Zionism’s legitimacy, and the monumental efforts of Theodor Herzl (who was not a communist or a khazar) brought aabout Zionism. The comment about Hillary reveals to me Mr. Young that you hate Jews. Thus I am banning you from ever again eating a corn beef sandwich. You are a bigot.

    • BagLady

      Never mind Hillary. Let’s here who the Reps are fielding.

    • Lightbringer

      Well, if PC zealots believe that it’s “time” for a “woman” to lead, I’ve got just the woman for them — Sarah Palin. At least she has a track record of success in all of her past endeavors, and she loves this country. She’s also a lot smarter than the Hildebeest.

    • carpe diem 36

      Also everyone knows that she is a liar , that she has blood of four people, and more, on her hands, that she is so far to the left that we must not let her anywhere near wing president. She accomplished a lot as sc,y of state by doing nothing but harm to this country.

  • JDinSTL

    Daniel,

    You would expect that kind of fatuous logic from someone who flunked the District of Columbia Bar Exam

    • trickyblain

      She passed the Arkansas Bar, though. It’s currently ranked as the 7th hardest in the nation (California is #1). Missouri, fyi, comes in at 43rd.

      • J.B.

        Lawyers are some of the stupidest people on the planet. A child could pass the CA bar exam.

  • De Doc

    How anyone can believe or respect this flip-flopping liar and carpet bagger is beyond me. At least Bill had enough charisma and charm to play well the role of film-flam politician, but Hillary? Dull in character, visciously defensive, and always looking to blame others for her own failures.

    • HenDanK

      The Clintons are like the Kardashians. No one likes them, yet everyone knows about them. There was a headline on Drudge about the ratings decline with the Kardashians. Let’s hope America has had enough of the Clinton antics as well.

  • truebearing

    Innocent Hillary. Now there is a world class oxymoron.

    Among the many reasons to be disgusted by Hillary’s innocent act is that she is trying to make herself the victim of Benghazi. All of the mean conservatives are expecting her to tell the truth and take responsibility. They’re calling her a liar, and worse. You can’t do that to a woman…

    Yes, another reason to be disgusted with Hillary is that she is trying to use being a woman to defend herself. Not overtly, but subtely. Hillary can’t read those blueprints. That’s a man’s job. Hillary can’t make sure the construction of a consulate meets State Department codes. That’s a man’s job. Hillary can’t make good decisions about hiring security. That’s a man’s job. Hillary shouldn’t be expected to control her emotions and not shout “what difference does it make?” Men are expected to control theiremotions. Hillary can’t handle the job of being the president. That’s a man’s job. Ooops!

    The truth is that even Hillary doesn’t think she is qualified to be the president. Not in an open, fair and square competition. She intends to be an affirmative action president, like Obama. She gets a handicap because she’s just a woman. If she can’t throw out the opening day pitch without looking like an old woman, so what? Neither could Obama.

    Hillary feels deeply entitled to power. She thinks that as the first woman to run for president, she can do no wrong because women are entitled to power. Her problem is that unlike a Margaret Thatcher, she has shown no capacity to handle power effectively. If elected, she will be just as corrupt, incompetent, dogmatic, and dishonest as Obama, but if she gets in trouble, she knows she can always have her husband run the country.

    • Larry Larkin

      You can bet your bottom dollar that Shrillary was getting lessons in crying “misogyny” from failed Australian ex-Prime Minister Julia Gillard last week.

      Dullard was a failed student union president, failed lawyer, and eventually failed politician, but in every case her response was to blame “misogynists” for pointing out that she was incompetent.

      • truebearing

        Yes, we “failurists” are heartless in our insistence that a leader must have the ability to effectively lead.

    • fiddler

      “Yes, another reason to be disgusted with Hillary is that she is trying to use being a woman to defend herself.”

      Hey it worked against Rick Lazio right? People were immediately coming to her defense when Rick walked over and “got in her space” in the debate. Yup use whatever works.

      Someone earlier on this site said that when 2016 rolls around all of the “racists” so characterized by MSMBC will immediately become “sexists”. Use whatever has that emotional appeal to urge the mentally feeble among use to exercise their right to vote. Yes go to the highways and byways, find and sign up people to vote. Bring them to the polls! And whisper in their ear that the Right is mean, don’t believe anything they say. It’ll all be better once the first woman president reigns!

      • truebearing

        We’re still racists. We just get an extra label.

        • Steve

          Don’t forget, idiots too.

          • Webb

            We be raciss idiots now!

          • Steve

            Seems like it’s been for a good while.

          • Webb

            Loooooong time we been like dis. De black man keep puttin us down!

          • truebearing

            You don’t need to share your identity, but we appreciate you offering.

    • Chavi Beck

      Totally agree: she’s a terrible example for our daughters.

      Hillary’s presidency will set back America’s women much the same way Obama’s has done for black people. We were much closer to a colorblind society in 2008.

  • Shel Zahav

    Hillary thinks that hard choices are what she does when Bill comes calling.

  • logdon

    She’s in bed with the MB as is Obama. That is cristal clear.

    Despite the evidence and production of that evidence she appears to be untouchable.

    Why?

    • kasandra

      Ummmm, because we have a totally corrupt media and a Democrat Party that cares more about checking the “right” race/gender boxes than the nation’s interest?

      • logdon

        I call it ‘The narrative’ and it is a globalised franchise.

        No one dare utter a peep when Islam sticks it bony hand of death and destruction into affairs.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Hillary was her husbands BIMBO CZAR for 8 years, she is most definitely qualified to be our next Commander in Chief. Oh, she also knew that Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible to be POTUS and did nothing about it and thus fell on another sword for another powerful man. She loves being abused by powerful men

  • Servo1969

    I wonder if Hillary knows anything about this?

    I don’t know if it’s baloney or not but here it is:

    “In a SHOCKING discovery, CGI Federal – the Canadian Company that built the Obamacare website – appears to have a connection to the “Innocence of Muslims” video the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attacks.”

    http://shoebat.com/2014/06/17/company-botched-obamacare-website-tied-benghazi-video/

  • montlasky

    Hillary has respect for none other than Hillary!

  • Hard Little Machine

    Hillary’s competence and seriousness is as deep as a Hallmark card.

  • liz

    “Childish drivel” is right. And it’s all we have ever heard, or can expect to hear, from Hillary, Obama, or any of the other Marxists infesting our government.

  • nimbii

    From being thrown off the Nixon investigations to Benghazi she has been at best derelict in her duties and at worst a willful outlaw.

  • Habbgun

    The video wasn’t even an issue. If the Islamists want to find something to be offended about over thousands and thousands of Internet videos they will find it.

    That a secretary of state looked at the parents of dead servicemen and said it was the fault of an infidel that their son died is beyond evil. We of course now know how much this administration actually values the lives of veterans.

    Has anyone investigated how the video suddenly came to light. Nakoula was a very easy patsy. There may have been some kind of database search matching videos to parolees, convicts, etc Even if this video is not a total setup would Democrats have been able to sell this if Nakoula was mentally ill or homosexual? Kind of proves they found a narrative and not an actual perpetrator of anything..

    • Americana

      Nakoula Basseley has never denied that he wrote and directed the video. There are even news videos where those actors who chose to accept parts in the film realized he wasn’t a serious filmmaker. Several of the actors claim that it was an intentional bait and switch by Basseley.

      • Habbgun

        Where did I even say he didn’t make the film? I am not implying it is a government setup. (You wish I did don’t you? Then you could jump around and go see they’re crazy, they’re crazy and feel superior).

        What I’m saying is that he was an easy patsy for the government. If he was not a parolee they couldn’t have done their little scenario, acted outraged and marched him to prison in the dead of night. It was an obscure film by an incompetent filmmaker so why would Islam be worked up about it? Seems very convenient for the administration.

        I do notice you totally ignore the rest. Isn’t it obvious the administration has no business condemning freedom of speech?

        • Americana

          If you claim he was an “easy patsy for the government” and are giving him the out of claiming the government looked for someone to be a patsy then you are excusing him for what role he played in the international deaths that occurred thanks to his film. You’re also excusing the fact that the film was meant to serve a larger purpose. It was never going to simply be a Coptic Christian’s giving the finger to Mohammed.

          Sure, we should honor freedom of speech. We should also recognize the perils of free speech viz Islam. How we eventually kick that lack of free speech in Islam to the curb is tricky. I like how the British Jewish comedian Sacha Baron Cohen handles himself on that score along w/a bunch of other Muslim comics. But I’ll let those guys rip the Muslims a new one instead of guys like Basseley. Ther’es absolutely no way OUR government participating in such a LOW-BUDGET PSY OPS operation, NO WAY.

          • Habbgun

            Yes I am excusing him. He is a nobody. Worse gets said every day by Leftists on campus about Israel and conservatives and Republicans. Islam does not get the hecklers veto. If people want to face the Islamic need to control infidels head on they have the right. The Copts have every right to criticize Islam. They have first knowledge what it is about.

            The admins job is not to decide whether Sasha is a genius or Nakoula is a talentless punk. It is to protect serviceman in the field.

            I wrote more but for some reason Disqus flagged it. I am so glad you exposed yourself. Now we all can see what you are about.

          • Americana

            Yes, our government’s job is to protect servicemen in the field. Under that caveat, now, what would happen if this video had just been released this week that Balad Air Base was overrun? I’ll leave you to ponder that possibility.

            We can’t fix stupid in the Muslim world. We can’t fix crazed in the Muslim world. That Muslim code that means Mohammed can’t be discussed as a real human being is going to be haunting our lives for quite a while until some things change significantly.

          • Habbgun

            Yehhhh!!!! That would really put our people in more jeopardy. I’m sure an army beheading everyone in their way is not a problem until a video is uploaded to the Internet. Every Iraqi who helped Americans during the surge is now at risk. That is a bigger issue than assuaging Islamic feelings.

            Are you thinking of converting to Islam? I’m sure a lot of Leftists are. You sure seem to worry about what offends it as opposed to what saves lives.

          • Americana

            Who’s talking about ASSUAGING MUSLIM’S FEELINGS? Way to twist the import of my post. There’s far more likelihood at the moment that the ISIS folks might attempt to capture at least a significant number of American hostages rather than executing everyone immediately they overran the Balad base. What would happen if that video suddenly reappeared on the internet? I think we’d see a lot more Islamic barbarism toward American captives especially if they believed that the American government had participated in making the film and renaming the film. Thinking about converting to Islam? What a HOOT. No, I think I’ve done enough for the counter jihad. I’m not interested in participating on the inside.

          • Habbgun

            We defend American servicemen by giving them the means to defend themselves with weapons or we pull them. We don’t leave them exposed like Hilary did. We don’t put every American in jail because the Isamicists are bigger sociopaths than common criminals.

            You are talking about assuaging Muslim feelings. Either you give them the hecklers veto or you don’t. If you agree with Hilary that the video inflamed everything then defend her. I know your way of arguing though. You will say I don’t agree with Hilary blah, blah, blah……I have my own important (very important) opinions and go off on a tangent. Then you’ll accuse everyone else of going off on a tangent. Boring that.

            Here go ahead. Tell us all how Hilary could look at the parents of dead soldiers, blame Nakoula and be in the right. Either that or give it up. I won’t even argue this anymore. I know I’m right.

          • truebearing

            You’re right.

          • truebearing

            You twist your own posts. No need for help there.

            The video is irrelevant to ISIS. They can trump up a thousand grievances, so they hardly need that crappy video. That Hillary keeps harping on it as the cause of Benghazi shows her fear of the consequences of Benghazi and her fear that the real truth will come out. She appaerently feels she can’t find another scapegoat for some reason. She’s never had that problem in the past.

            ISIS could blame Obama for failing to have a stustus of forces agreement in Iraq. It would have kept Maliki more balanced with regard to sharing power more equally and not shutting the Sunnis out entirely. But Obama has an instinct for doing the worst thing possible, or coversely, the thing that will lead to the greatest enabling of radical Islamists.

          • reader

            “I think I’ve done enough for the counter jihad.”

            Really? And what exactly did you do to this effect?

          • truebearing

            “If you claim he was an “easy patsy for the government” and are giving him the out of claiming the government looked for someone to be a patsy then you are excusing him for what role he played in the international deaths that occurred thanks to his film. You’re also excusing the fact that the film was meant to serve a larger purpose. It was never going to simply be a Coptic Christian’s giving the finger to Mohammed.”

            Nice logic salad. If Habbgun claims he was a patsy then he is excusing him for causing international deaths? That is paralogical nonsense. If Basseley was a patsy, then by the definition of “patsy” he was set-up and falsely accused, therefore isn’t responsible for anything, other than a really awful video.

            So what if the film was intended to “serve a larger purpose?” Basseley has a right to attack Muslims. They are killing Coptics with monotonous regularity. This was his way of fighting back. That he had a purpose for his video doesn’t prove that the nutjob Muslims attacked Benghazi over it. Look up “non sequitur.” There is NO proof that the video had anything to do with anything, other than provide a truly moronic CYA for Obama and Hillary.

            So now we need to curtail people’s free speech because Muslims get offended at everything? I guess Hillary can’t run for president then. She claims the Bible was her biggest influence, LoL. That means she is a person “of the book.” Of course it also means she’s a terrible liar, but we already knew that.

          • J.B.

            Nobody was killed because of Basseley’s video clip, trolltard.

      • truebearing

        So what? That only suggests that he was unethical. It doesn’t clear Hillary or Obama from their ultra lame lies that it triggered Benghazi. It takes a true simpleton or a leftist troll to believe, or pretend to believe, that that stupid video caused anything other than a laugh at its awful production values.

        • hiernonymous

          The trailer was screened on Egyptian TV on 8 Sep. Shortly thereafter, riots and demonstrations aimed specifically at that video had broken out in about 30 countries. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo was attacked as a direct result, followed by attacks on diplomatic missions in several other countries. I don’t think they were laughing at the production values.

          • reader

            “the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was attacked as a direct result”

            yes, I’m sure you have the direct evidence of that. so, again, make yourself available for the select committee, since nobody else in the entire us government has it.

          • hiernonymous

            I wasn’t aware that there was a select committee looking into the matter. I thought its charge was to look into Benghazi. Was there a change?

            That said, evidence includes statements from the organizers of the protests, from the Egyptian government, and the embassy itself. Cairo II had already been evacuated as the protests escalated over the preceding day or two.

            Were you really unaware of all of this?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ah yes.

            The Al Qaeda protesters who suddenly developed an urge to attack America after a video.

            That explains September 11.

          • hiernonymous

            It explains the massive wave of protests and attacks on and after September 11, 2012.

          • Habbgun

            Means not a thing. Nakoula is not at fault. Hilary and the state
            department are the ones that are culpable. Arguing if the video or the usual hatred for all life Islamists have is the issue means
            nothing. Its like saying the police are responsible for your safety in
            cases of murder but not manslaughter.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And the September 11, 2001 ones as well, if we assume that Al Qaeda has a time machine.

          • hiernonymous

            Since we don’t assume that, we’ll have to stick to 2012.

            If you have an argument to make, stop being so lazy and make it.

          • Webb

            Sucks to be a troll driven to come onto this site to start arguments that only prove the point of the article.

          • hiernonymous

            Does it? Then find something else to do.

          • truebearing

            You’re all mouth and spleen in this debate. Get a grip.

          • hiernonymous

            “Debate?” If you say so.

          • Judahlevi

            The argument was made – you just didn’t get it.

            You are the one being lazy.

          • hiernonymous

            Feel free to elaborate, if you can.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’ll have to assume that Al Qaeda began attacking America in 2012?

            I’ve heard of liberal revisionist history, but this is a little ridiculous even for your gang.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’ll have to assume that Al Qaeda began attacking America in 2012?”

            Are you reading poorly, or dishonestly? Or is this another example of “humor?”

            As I said, if you have an argument to make, get around to it. At issue is the fact that the video sparked a massive wave of protests, demonstrations, and attacks in Sep 2012.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I am trying to understand the bizarre thinking of someone who claims that Al Qaeda began attacking Americans in 2001 based on a video from the future.

          • hiernonymous

            “I am trying to understand the bizarre thinking of someone who claims that Al Qaeda began attacking Americans in 2001 based on a video from the future.”

            Who made that claim, and where?

            The claim in play is that the video inspired widespread protests and attacks in Sep 2012.

          • J.B.

            The terrorists never used the video clip as an excuse. The Obamaburo did.

          • Habbgun

            Yes but if we concede the video was only an excuse we concede Hilary should have protected the embassy except for the fact that if the videos weren’t an excuse and there was a heavy armed presence in the area anyway Hilary failed to protect the embassy.

            We are now deep in doctrinaire Leftist logic. Incompetence equals leadership.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            By Al Qaeda… which had been attacking the US since the 90s

          • Americana

            Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization began attacking us on behalf of the Palestinians since whenever…

          • Habbgun

            Yeah….genius. The Sunni and Shia fight because they can’t wait to be the first to donate food to the Palestinians and they are so passionate they fight wars over it. The idea that Moslems care so much about the Palestinians is undercut everyday we see atrocities when they fight each other. The Politically Correct Term is empathy challenged.

            You sound desperate and shrill. Did your resume to OFA get turned down.

          • Americana

            The Sunni Iraqis and the Shia Iraqis aren’t fighting against the Palestinians in the Palestinian territories. You shouldn’t get so desperate to deflect the truth of the matter you end up directing the focus elsewhere. You can’t pretend that one of the aims of al Qaeda isn’t directly related to the solution of the Palestinian statehood issue.

          • Habbgun

            But the Moslems are the worldwide terrorists. Seems you try to ignore globally and collaborate locally. C’mon give up your farm to a poor Palestinian. I’m sure they’ll be compensation.

            By the way answer the question. Is Hilary competent or incompetent?

          • Americana

            We’re not talking solely about jihad globally at the expense of talking about jihad locally. The Palestinian jihad is a LOCAL jihad. It’s not in aim of a Caliphate. It’s in aid of the founding of a Palestinian state which was promised. If Israel doesn’t want to meet that obligation, fine, go ahead let Israel make the announcement. There’s been enough sitting on the fence.

            Once again, you’ve outed yourself that it’s all about land that Israelis have and that you don’t want given back. This should have been very clear from the beginning that land that was captured wouldn’t necessarily become a permanent part of Israel. It makes it no easier in terms of a peace settlement for Israelis to continue the settlement building if you’re going to then turn around and complain you were forced to give that stolen land back under a peace treaty. Buyers beware. Provenance is everything.

          • Habbgun

            No one forced Israel to do anything. They voluntarily gave it back. One back in enemy possession it became a base for enemy action. That is the case any time any land is given to Moslems. Israel had no problems with Lebanese Christians on their border but Lebanese Christians were ethnically cleansed by the Moslems. You always conveniently forget Islam is the aggressor. Doctrinaire as always. I never thought land for peace would work but I am an American and it was the Israelis that always argued it would work. They were wrong. I was right. I am right about Al Qaeda also. It is a terror operation operating according to orthodox Islamic tenets and it will be destroyed only be methods that worked before and they ain’t pleasant.

          • Americana

            I never forget that Islam can be the aggressor. I just refuse to play the ‘Hide The Jihad’ game by the rules you wish. Would the various Lebanese wars have occurred if there had been a Palestinian state and a hundred thousand Palestinian refugees weren’t displace there so that Lebanon didn’t end up being used as a terrorist base?
            _____________________________________________________

            (From WIKI, but it’s relatively concise)

            The establishment of the state of Israel and the displacement of a hundred thousand Palestinian refugees to Lebanon changed the demographic balance in favor of the Muslim population. The Cold War had a powerful disintegrative effect on Lebanon, which was closely linked to the polarization that preceded the 1958 political crisis, since Maronites sided with the West while Left Wing and pan-Arab groups sided with Soviet aligned Arab countries.[8]

            The militarization of the Palestinian refugee population, with the arrival of the PLO forces after their expulsion from Jordan during Black September, sparked an arms race amongst the different Lebanese political factions[citation needed] and provided a foundation for the long-term involvement of Lebanon in regional conflicts. Fighting between Maronite and Palestinian forces began in 1975, and Left Wing, pan-Arabist and Muslim Lebanese groups later allied themselves with the Palestinians.[9] During the course of the fighting, alliances shifted rapidly and unpredictably: by the end of the war, nearly every party had allied with and subsequently betrayed every other party at least once.[citation needed] Furthermore, foreign powers, such as Israel and Syria, meddled in the war and fought alongside different factions. Peace keeping forces, such as the Multinational Force in Lebanon and UNIFIL, were also stationed in Lebanon.)))
            _____________________________________________________

            You can’t lump all these Muslims terrorism activities into the one-size-fits-all category. Palestine is a very specific situation. You don’t get extra points for conflating it w/other jihads or other land grabs in the region or by failing to call the Palestinians by their self-identified name. I’m not forgetting that Islam can be self-aggrandizing.

          • Habbgun

            Blah, Blah, Blah……Deflection is the left wing white trash argumentation. Verbosity when cornered is a technique. Just get a Marxist started and you’ll see what I mean.

            Anyhoo…..I told you it was the Israelis I knew who wanted the land for peace deal. They were the ones who believed just as you do (or pretend to) that it was all a local problem. Some even believed it had more to do with the Cold War than their own existence. They were wrong.

            Land for Peace will never work. It can not work. It did not work.

            Now let’s not worry about Israel.

            Let us worry about who might be our next common President.

            Was Hilary incompetent? Did she adequately garrison an embassy she had responsibility for? YES OR NO!!!

          • Americana

            Let’s simply ignore the whole Middle East peace situation. Verbosity, thy name was Osama bin Laden. Here’s his 9/11 manifesto (only in part, — the top half — because I can’t take the whole thing.):

            In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

            “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” [Quran 22:39]

            “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan.”[Quran 4:76]

            Some American writers have published articles under the title ‘On what basis are we fighting?’ These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth – as an explanation and warning – hoping for Allah’s reward, seeking success and support from Him.

            While seeking Allah’s help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

            (Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
            Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

            As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

            (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

            a) You attacked us in Palestine:

            (i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

            (ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

            When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) – and we make no distinction between them.

            (iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

            (b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

          • Habbgun

            Yeah you’re right. Let’s not worry if a very likely Presidential candidate is incompetent or not. Let’s pretend what we both have to say about the ME is so very important in the scheme of the world and it’s not a way of killing time like a sticom or a beer.

            The truth is what is important is that a woman named Hilary Clinton was in position to make important decisions. That woman may get to be even more important.

            Now let’s answer the PERTINENT QUESTION. Was Hilary Clinton competent or incompetent in how she had the embassy garrisoned? Is the Hilary we are all so supposed to be Ready For not able to do the most basic demands of government? Or maybe she can. I’m not shocked you don’t answer this. Doctrinaire Leftists would never answer such a question.

          • Americana

            You must not have read this State Dept. PDF about whose responsibility it is to determine security protocols for U.S. diplomatic missions abroad:

            http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84179.pdf

            Several things coalesced to produce this perfect storm of an event. Amb. Stevens preferred NOT to have uniformed security for his security detail and he turned down additional uniformed security twice. This may have been the second most important factor in this debacle on top of not having a terribly secure facility. Amb. Stevens wanted a low profile w/his security detail for the sake of less friction. But considering everyone in Lbya would know that he’d have a security force w/him, it’s not evident to me why he wouldn’t settle for **whatever additional security** he could get. As for any other operational role Hillary played, in advance of Benghazi or the night of Benghazi, those Rapid Response Forces are the responsibility of the military. They’ve got nothing to do w/Hillary’s choice as to their location and readiness status. If the U.S. Armed Forces had known that they’d have been in a position of not having adequate time to get some reinforcements there, I’m sure they would have changed their ready stance before Benghazi.

          • Habbgun

            Americana, Americaca, whatever….says Hilary is not at fault for Benghazi.

            All those words just to get to the answer everybody already knew he would say.

            Here’s how the city slickers in the ad agencies do it farm boy:

            Ready for Hilary

          • Americana

            So you’re going to sidestep the issue of the whole structure of how diplomatic security is handled (theres a PDF)? Or did you just miss the PDF entirely? Look around, I posted the link (whether it’s above or below our present latitude in this thread, I haven’t got a clue). But it is HERE in the thread. if you DID SEE THAT PDF and youve failed to respond to it, then I’ve got nothing to say but talk about evasiveness… Hillary isn’t blame free but you can’t blame her for how the diplomatic security system is presently arranged.

          • Americana

            Have I given you and J.B. and Daniel et all sufficient time to read this PDF on how diplomatic security protocols are handled? I’d like you and sundry others to state their understanding of this material before we go any further down the road of discussing whose job it is to decide on locations, improvements to the facility, the manning of the facility, etc.

          • Americana

            The Lebanese would not be happy w/you saying they don’t rate as far as them falling victim to the Arab/Palestinian/ Israeli contretemps. Making sure that people understand that the Lebanese wars have almost all been linked to over a hundred thousand displaced Palestinians shifting the demographics of Lebanon in negative ways is not a matter that can be dismissed as ‘Blah, Blah, Blah..’ Lebanon would not have become the fount of terrorism if not for those hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians.

            Land for peace has not REALLY been tried. At least not in the most significant, meaningful way of a signed peace agreement and each people withdrawing to their new borders or being willing to function as an alien under a foreign g(overnment). When a signed peace agreement and withdrawal doesn’t work then we can say that there’s no way a decent peace settlement can’t quell this violence.

          • Habbgun

            For a verbose little man you sure seem to not answer questions.

            How about Hilary incompetent or not?

          • Americana

            The attacks from the ’90s — both the larger ones like those on the American embassies in Africa and the individual targeting of American citizens like Leon Klinghoffer — were in support of the Palestinian jihad. Just because they were in close proximity to al Qaeda capabilities in North Africa doesn’t mean they weren’t in aid of the Palestinians. Geographic location alone isn’t the key to identifying the purpose behind jihadi terrorist events.

          • hiernonymous

            The riots, protests, and attacks plainly were far beyond activity attributable to AQ. You’re asserting something you haven’t established or supported.

          • Americana

            Daniel, it’s infuriating when you play this sophistry card. The 9/11 attacks were directed at AMERICAN TARGETS on AMERICAN SOIL on behalf of the Palestinian jihad. The PALESTINIAN JIHAD is what we face. Jihad attacks that occurred as jihad fallout from other aspects of the EXPANDED conflict once we’d conquered Iraq and injected ourselves into Afghanistan can’t be conflated as being identical to the causation of 9/11.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Actually the attacks occurred as a result of a global Caliphate movement born out of two Islamist movements, one in Saudi Arabia, one in Egypt.

            It just took a while for a conflict that had been going around the world to finally reach the United States in a way that Americans noticed.

            The attacks on America, on Nigeria, on Israel, on the UK and on China all stem from an Islamic supremacist ideology.

          • Americana

            Daniel, this sophistry from you is just stupid. Everyone is aware that the only connection between the two events is that the U.S. is the victim of jihad. But the first jihad we faced, and which we still face, is the PALESTINIAN JIHAD behind 9/11. The fact we are now facing other sources of jihad because of our expansion of our wars in the Middle East is another animal entirely.

          • reader

            Interesting logic. You were the one who brought up the riots elsewhere to excuse the Benghazi lies, right? Are you arguing with yourself? I sense bipolar personality coming.

          • hiernonymous

            “You were the one who brought up the riots elsewhere to excuse the Benghazi lies, right?”

            Why, no. I brought up the riots, etc, in response to the assertion by truebearing that the videos didn’t inspire anything except laughter for the bad production values.

          • truebearing

            They didn’t. The video was convenient cover for planned events. Any fool should be able to see that, but then, you aren’t just any fool.

            Tell me about the Al Qaeda time machine. It sounds fascinating. Is it like a magic carpet? Or is there a genie involved? Surely Al Queda would have needed a video like that to rile them up enough to murder 3000 Americans. It couldn’t have just been their insane religion.

          • Americana

            No, absolutely, it wasn’t just their insane religion that caused them to decide to use jet planes as bombs. Or rather, it was their insane religion, but it’s part of an ongoing jihad over the Palestinians. Stop playing ‘Hide The Jihad.’ 9/11 was undertaken on behalf of PALESTINIANS because they still don’t have a state in the Middle East.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No.

            9/11 had nothing to do with the Pallies, though Bin Laden did occasionally mention them. If OBL had cared about them, he would have been attacking Israel.

            His religious basis for declaring war on America was the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

            His real agenda was to set the stage for a larger conflict to overthrow Arab governments.

            That’s why Al Qaeda hardly targeted Israel, but spent a lot of time targeting America which had links to Arab rulers.

          • Americana

            Do I actually have to go off and procure the statement Osama bin Laden made about the reasons for 9/11 yet again? OK then, off to do that….

            If Osama bin Laden had an effective means of targeting Israel on behalf of Palestinians, he might have done so but he realizes the Palestinians are doing fine on that score all by themselves. As the stories here keep saying, the rocket fire into Israel is relentless even though it’s infrequent.

            Osama targeted America because we have the strongest ties militarily to Israel. We are her military backstop in the region even without a terribly specific military treaty on that score. As for his targeting of Arab governments to overthrow them, that would have occurred in ISOLATION from the U.S. and would never have affected us if we hadn’t chosen to intervene in those countries. Yes, he targeted us because of our presence in Saudi Arabia in Islam’s holiest places, but that was easily solved by the U.S. moving its troops to bases in Qatar.

          • Habbgun

            Absolutely go off and get Osama’s statement and read it aloud. Absolutely tell us what we can say and do that will not offend the enemy. Absolutely chastise us and make sure that we get the #$##@#@! Nakoula or whoever else angered the enemy by saying something they didn’t like.

            You have a real skill at being a go between. There is a word for someone with those skills but it escapes me….hmmm…..thinking….thinking. Oh that’s right. Collaborator.

          • Americana

            Habbgun, if I’m able to facilitate a Palestinian state that allows Israel to live safely and in peace, I’ll happily consider myself a collaborator. Do I believe both sides will have to give back in order to make each other more whole? Yes. You find that objectionable, be my guest. I find it a whole helluva lot more objectionable that Palestinian kids are being taught to become suicide bombers at age 4 because there’s been no creation of a Palestinian state. I’ve got many ideas about how the two states can move forward but it takes honesty from both parties.

            If you don’t want honest pursuit of a two-state solution, fine, go ahead, let’s have Israel make this announcement once and for all that there will never, EVER be a Palestinian state and see what happens. Let’s stop the farce and opt for the honesty and let’s just see what happens. I think you’ll find that the Palestinians are well aware that this is Israel’s game plan and that’s why the ferocity keeps growing. But let’s do this your way and just let ‘er rip w/an announcement that Palestine is off the table. For good.

            Being a go-between is a necessary part of the process. There’s NOTHING DISHONORABLE about being a facilitator. If you’ve been all teary and enflamed over Ambassador Stevens’ death, are you suddenly going to stop screaming about his death because you realize he was a “collaborator?” Or is it OK w/you that our diplomats are collaborators w/other nations but you won’t accord the same privilege to the Palestinians? I’ve mentioned that by calling them rock apes and all the rest you aren’t showing yourselves to be any better than they are. You observe whatever behavioral standards you want. But when it comes to standards of truth on certain particulars, there’s the truth and then there are half-truths at best and at worst there are lies.

          • Habbgun

            Go between. Collaborator. Yeah whatever. I’m not all teary about Stevens. I’m teary about the men who went with him because they stand up whether the government is wrong or right or whether they agree or disagree.

            Don’t threaten me with the Palestinians. They aren’t going away if there is a one state or a two state or a three state solution. They’ll be finding excuses for terror as long as Islam believes in the House of War and the House of Peace. They’ll be fighting in Kashmir and among Shia and Sunni and raiding Christian villages in Africa. Five Pali states won’t change anything. Nor do you really care. Jews are not your problem and I agree with that. Christians theoretically can be your problem but you’re a leftist and that means finding domestic enemies first.

            Let’s get back to a common problem for Americans. How about a yes and no answer?

            Was Hilary incompetent or competent? She is directly responsible for the embassy. Did she adequately protect it yes or no. You’ll never answer it. Doctrinaire Leftist/Islamoleftists never answer a straight question.

          • Americana

            I don’t believe the consular compound was adequately defended, not in manpower and not in integrated design of the facilities for utmost defensibility and not in its choice of location. (Was this facility chosen though because it was close to the CIA safe house? I can only assume that was the underlying reality behind choosing those buildings. I’d love to have someone confirm that for me. If I were on the Benghazi committee that is one of several questions I’d be asking about its choice.)

            Do I believe it’s her responsibility to decide whether a diplomatic facitliy meets reasonable militarily defensive capabilities? No, I don’t.

            According to this State Department PDF, this is the job of the State Department’s Security Department:

            http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84179.pdf

          • Americana

            It doesn’t matter if they’re fighting in Kashmir or India or Pakistan if they’re NOT fighting against us. We need to establish a Palestinian state and see where that leads viz the Palestinian jihad. Jews/Israelis are our national problem because we are expected to back their moves politically both at home and abroad. In fact, I’m pretty goddamn mad they’ve pretended for the past 30 years to be willing to hold peace talks w/the Palestinians if this is ultimately their POV — no state, no way. I don’t have domestic enemies; I’ve got domestic obstructions.

          • Americana

            Here’s the 9/11 manifesto of Osama bin Laden:

            n the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

            “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” [Quran 22:39]

            “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan.”[Quran 4:76]

            Some American writers have published articles under the title ‘On what basis are we fighting?’ These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth – as an explanation and warning – hoping for Allah’s reward, seeking success and support from Him.

            While seeking Allah’s help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

            (Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
            Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

            As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

            (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

            a) You attacked us in Palestine:

            (i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

            (ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

            When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) – and we make no distinction between them.

            (iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

            (b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

          • Habbgun

            You’ve outed yourself three times in this thread. First claiming Hilary was in the clear because the Copts are somehow guilty of incitement because the Sunni Muslims chose to riot. You specifically blamed Nakoula as fomenting some sort of threat. As if the Copts after hundreds of years under Moslem thumb are any threat at all.

            You never did make a case that Hil made any attempt to secure the embassy (because of course she didn’t).

            Now you are back to the Jews give up land just because.
            For someone who claims to be a free thinker you make a picture perfect example of either a doctrinaire Leftist or doctrinaire Islamist (although the only difference between the two is what they yell at the general public. They sound alike on campus).

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You conveniently left out where on Egyptian TV it was screened.

          • hiernonymous

            It was shown on an Nas. Not sure epwhat was “convenient” about the level of detail in my post. I sense a deflection coming.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That’s a good start.

            Now tell the nice folks at home what sort of channel Nas is.

            If you’re reluctant, here’s a hint. It was shut down after Morsi was shut down.

          • hiernonymous

            How tiresome. If you have a point to make, make it.

            Here is what TB said:

            ” It takes a true simpleton or a leftist troll to believe, or pretend to believe, that that stupid video caused anything other than a laugh at its awful production values.”

            My guess is that your intention is to move the goalposts.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I am less concerned with what TB said than your suggestion that the Salafis were reacting to something on Egyptian TV rather than the fact that they put it there.

            See the cartoon scandal which was equally manufactured.

          • hiernonymous

            “I am less concerned with what TB said than your suggestion that the Salafis were reacting to something on Egyptian TV rather than the fact that they put it there.”

            The obvious answer is that it may well have been Salafis who chose to put it on the channel, but the impact was on an audience far wider than Salafis.

            So the goalposts have been moved from “the video didn’t cause any reactions” to “it was Salafists who used the video to cause the reactions.”

            It’s quite correct that a Saudi-owned religious channel brought the video to the general public. Whether bin Kadasah & Co put the video on to incite outrage, or simply to boost ratings for the channel, it was their action that took the trailer from being a little-seen youtube piece to something seen by millions, and sparked the chaos of the ensuing weeks. We don’t disagree on that point.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The audience that it had the impact on was Salafi. That was why the black flag accompanied the attacks.

            There is no goalpost moving. The video did not ’cause’ a reaction. It was part of the propaganda for a pre-existing planned attack.

          • Americana

            Do you even know what it is you’re suggesting in this post?It doesn’t even make sense to suggest what you did in your last sentence.

          • truebearing

            Al-Zawahiri called for an attack against Americans in Libya 18 hours before the attack. I suppose having your leader call for an attack on 9/11 was an insignificant coincidence. A stupid video is a much more likely cause.

          • Americana

            If you think those jihadis spent a mere 18 hours planning the Benghazi attack you’ve got another think coming… Just because Ayman al Zawahiri called for an attack doesn’t mean this wasn’t already in the works. They’d had jihadis go through the compound taking PICTURES umpteen days before in preparation for this attack. They know that there were more people on the street that night than simply the jihadi attackers.

          • truebearing

            The protest over the video was supposedly spontaneous, according to Hillary and Susan Rice. Now you’re saying they are lying?

            You assume that Zawahiri’s message was the first his followers knew of the plan to attack. Al Qaeda knows what it is doing. Al-Zawahiri wouldn’t call for an attack when there wasn’t time to prepare. His message was likely for PR, or was the final order to proceed.

            “They’d had jihadis go through the compound taking PICTURES umpteen days before in preparation for this attack.”

            Good point. They were planning the attack before the video was dubbed in Arabic and used as an excuse to rile up MB supporters in Cairo. The planning you accurately insist was necessary had to have started before the video was even known. Good job. You just defended my position and destroyed hiero’s lame defense of the video as the cause of the Benghazi raid.

          • hiernonymous

            Given that 18 hours is a ridiculously short amount of time to plan such an attack, that al Zawahiri was not an operational commander of the elements involved in Libya, that the timing of the Innocence screening left time for the 2-3 days of planning that is believed to have taken place for the attack, and that the attackers on the ground cited Innocence as the motive behind their attack, and failed to mention al Libi, then, yes, right now the stupid video seems the more likely motivator. As I mention elsewhere, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but you’ve shown no reason to discount the Ansar claims that the video was a primary motivation.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The attack had been planned long before and the attackers knew their targets in detail.

            The New York Times report you are relying on that claimed that the attackers had cited the video has been discredited and is rarely cited even by liberals.

          • hiernonymous

            “The New York Times report you are relying on that claimed that the attackers had cited the video has been discredited …”

            Wrong.

            Not only is the article still cited in the wake of the 2013 challenge, the reporting and conclusion I cite is still supported by notorious liberal Daniel Pipes.

            Similarly, there was a challenge based on the assertion that there was no discussion of the trailer in Libyan social media during the leadup to Benghazi, a challenge answered here.

            Nor was the NYT the only source of corroborating reporting. Note this AP report from October relating eyewitness accounts:

            There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

            One of the consulate’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.”

            Time also carried first-hand accounts from guards.:

            Locked out of the cantina, Mikhlaf ran south towards the Tactical Operations Center, hiding behind a sandbag levy. But after 20 minutes, one of the attackers found him and others quickly gathered around. They hit his head repeatedly as they taunted him. “You are not a Muslim,” they shouted. “You help the people who are against Allah and say bad things about the Prophet.”

          • Habbgun

            Doesn’t matter if the video did lead to it. Hilary is the one tasked
            with making sure the embassy is defended and good men stay alive. If the
            video had wide exposure than she had even more reason to be on alert.

          • truebearing

            That’s true, but the left likes to ignore her failures before the attack. They can’t find a ridiculous enough video that explains them.

          • truebearing

            Riots and demonstrations were a daily event in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was looking for any excuse to keep their supporters riled up. That video was repeatedly shown to get the nutjobs frothing for the anniversary of 9/11.

            Obama had a MB member as an advisor. Given that Obama spent $70,000 airing the video in Pakistan, for no rational reason, and where no one would otherwise have known about it, it is entirely possible Obama’s people are the ones who gave the video to Morsi.

            Obama helped topple Mubarak so the MB had a clean shot at power. He did the same thing in Libya when he helped topple Khaddafi. Both Mubarak and Khaddafi were enemies of the Islamists, and Obama made sure they fell. Then he began supplying Al Queda with Stingers and other dangerous weapons. There is a lot more to the those protests than that idiotic video.

            None of the intelligence people on the ground in Benghazi bought the video ruse. The CIA listened to calls made on consulate cell phones to their commanders, so they knew the Benghazi raid wasn’t about the video. Your attempt to defend this idiocy is beyond pathetic.

          • hiernonymous

            “Riots and demonstrations were a daily event in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was looking for any excuse to keep their supporters riled up. That video was repeatedly shown to get the nutjobs frothing for the anniversary of 9/11.”

            While riots and demonstrations of the scale of Sep 11 were most certainly not daily events in Egypt, it’s interesting that you’ve now shifted your story from “It takes a true simpleton or a leftist troll to believe, or pretend to believe, that that stupid video caused anything other than a laugh at its awful production values.” to “That video was repeatedly shown to get the nutjobs frothing…” You do understand that “laugh” and “froth” are not synonyms.

            “Then he began supplying Al Queda with Stingers and other dangerous weapons. There is a lot more to the those protests than that idiotic video.”

            Umm – wait. Obama gave Stingers to al Qa’ida? And that somehow fueled the Cairo protests? Could you elaborate on both your understanding of this chain of events, and on your sources?

            “The CIA listened to calls made on consulate cell phones to their commanders, so they knew the Benghazi raid wasn’t about the video.”

            You are falling into a classical logical fallacy of the false dilemma, or bifurcation. There are two separate issues involved in the origin of the Benghazi attack that you are conflating into one. The first is whether the attack originated as a demonstration or whether it was planned in advance. The second issue is whether the video had anything to do with motivating the attack.

            Your comment indicates that you are falling into the common error of assuming that the idea of the video as motivation is inextricably linked to the idea of the attack as a demonstration run amok.

            We know that the attack in Benghazi was planned, though it was a very opportunistic attack – the planning was only a couple of days, not a long-planned operation. (There was conflicting reporting that night – it turns out that some of the attackers attempted to persuade bystanders to start a demonstration during the lead-up to the attack, and there were reports of a demonstration after the attack, and local reporting mentioned a demonstration, but that goes to why there was some confusion, and nobody is arguing that a demonstration actually took place before the attack) You seem to feel that evidence of such planning – such as the use of cell phones to report the progress of the attack to a chain of command – is also evidence against the video as motivation. That’s logically incorrect, and also runs counter to statements made by representatives of the group responsible for the attack, who themselves cited the video as a significant reason it was undertaken.

          • truebearing

            You ignore that the event took place on the anniversary of 9/11. That is the primary motivator of the attack. The video was just an excuse for Obama, Hillary, and the Islamists. unless you are arguing that Al Qaeda’s leader has no influence on Al Qaeda, you will have to explain the following with something more convincing than a crappy video:

            “On September 10, 2012, at least 18 hours before the attack in Benghazi, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released a video to coincide with the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, which called for attacks on Americans in Libya in order to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan in June 2012.[5] It is uncertain how much prior knowledge of the attack al-Zawahiri had, though he praised the attackers on October 12, 2012 in another video.[123] On September 14, 2012, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released a statement arguing the attack was revenge for the death of al-Libi, though they did not claim official responsibility for the Benghazi attack.[5]It was later reported that 3 operatives from the group did take part in the attack.[5] Further, an intercepted phone call from the Benghazi area immediately after the attack reportedly linked senior Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb commander Mokhtar Belmokhtar to the attack.

            And there is another real motivation that you need to ignore to protect Obama and Hillary:

            “The imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, a pro-al-Qaeda militia calling for the release of The Blind Sheik, was implicated in the attack by Noman Benotman of the Quilliam Foundation.[1][129][130] CNN,[1] the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,[131]Commentary Magazine[130] and The Daily Telegraph[129] have listed this group as a chief suspect. USA Today reported that protests in Cairo which preceded the attack on Benghazi were intended to protest the imprisonment of Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and announced as early as August 30.[132][133] Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi had called for release of the Blind Sheikh in his inaugural address.”

            And then there is this credible assessment (as opposed to your time machine explanation):

            “Two days after the attack, CNN reporter Sarah Aarthun quoted an anonymous senior U.S. administration official: “It was not an innocent mob. The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_the_U.S._Diplomatic_mission_in_Benghazi

          • Americana

            Yes, hieronymous. This is the correct blend of the two elements to the day’s events — a demonstration by Benghazi residents that then melded seamlessly into the onset of the al Qaeda attack at 9:40 p.m.

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t think that there was even a demonstration by the Benghazi residents – at least, not prior to the attack. There are eyewitness reports that some of the men loitering in the area that turned out to be part of the attacking group tried to incite locals to protest, presumably as cover or as a distraction, but the local media reports that there was a demonstration previously are now generally considered to have been mistaken.
            There were enough such reports that initial confusion was understandable, particularly in light of concurrent events in Cairo. but I am pretty sure that there were no demonstrations independent of the attacking group assembling, shouting, and moving to the attack.

          • J.B.

            There was no demonstration prior to the attack.

          • J.B.

            Cairo has nothing to do with Benghazi, trolltard.

          • Americana

            Ah, I was wondering when you’d get around to trying to frame the American government as having pulled a false flag operation and CLAIM THAT THE U.S. GOV’T aired the video in Pakistan. The REALITY WAS THAT THE U.S. government was forced to spend $70,000 in Pakistan running an advertisement of Pres. Obama and Sec/State Clinton trying to tamp down the violence triggered by this film. I guess if you believed that story about the U.S. gov’t trying to popularize a NON-EXISTENT FILM, you must believe all the Shoebat malarkey then about a nefarious, shadowy government-run internet channel that hosted his Mohammad video that disappeared a few days afterward. No government promotes a film that’s only trailer length… No government promotes films period unless they’re ones the government made.

            Actually, hieronymous is right. There was a demonstration that had formed around the consular compound that afternoon while the actual attack by the jihadists occurred well after dark at 9:40 p.m. just after Ambassador Stevens had retired for the night.

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Actually, it’s not impossible to prove a negative. It’s merely very difficult, from a statistical standpoint.

    If someone says, “There is not denomination higher than a $10 bill,” it’s fairly easy to prove that this negative is false, simply by pulling a $20 bill out of one’s wallet.

    If someone says, “You’re a racist,” you are the only member of a set of one, namely [you]. Therefore, all the anecdotes about your life and your philosophy will prove nothing. It does become impossible, in this case, especially if the accuser refuses to believe your life’s anecdotal evidence.

    Concerning Benghazi, it’s not impossible to disprove that there were attackers in Benghazi who weren’t influenced by the video. Statistically, and politically, it would be difficult, however. Those in the set [Benghazi attackers who were not influenced by the internet video] would likely lie, and say that they were.

    • hiernonymous

      Isn’t it interesting, though, that a terrorist who claims that he is inspired by the qur’an is taken at his word, and his word as proof of the evil inspirational value of the qur’an, but when a terrorist says that he was inspired by the video, he must be concealing his true motives?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Much like Germany was taken as its word when it wanted
        Lebensraum, but not taken at its word when it claimed that it was under attack by Poland.

        One is a general ideological worldview, the other is specific incident propaganda.

        • hiernonymous

          That’s a fair point.

      • J.B.

        Which terrorist are you referring to? Obama or Hillary?

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        What is interesting is the willingness of the Left to provide such terrorists with an excuse for killing Americans.

        For the most part, the video was a non-event, even in the Islamic world. But it is a huge event for the Administration, when it’s trying to hide its incompetence.

        • Americana

          The video was a non-event in the Muslim world? Are you kidding me? Hundreds were killed worldwide and many different cities held huge demonstrations. I bet the only ones not demonstrating were the little old mom and pop donkey drovers who lived out in the sticks.

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2012/sep/21/tension-anti-islam-film-muhammad-cartoons

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Hundreds? Out of a global Muslim population of how many?

            It was a non-event …

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The demonstrations, the genuinely violent ones, were organized by Al Qaeda.

            And you might to read up on how the Danish cartoon controversy was set off with fake cartoons created by the Muslims who organized the outage.

            http://europenews.dk/en/node/7143

          • Habbgun

            So we have a huge event and an unprotected embassy. Care to elaborate how Hilary is not incompetent?

          • Americana

            The attack was not “huge” but it was significantly large and they had the right heavy weaponry to make the attack successful. The consular compound was not “unprotected.” It was protected by what the State Department’s Diplomatic Ssecurity Service felt was adequate protection. But that limited number of Americans was meant to be backed up by the Muslim militia that had been contracted for additional diplomatic security. The State Department is presently opting for a smaller number of highly trained individuals to be able to handle attacks like this w/the expectation they can hold on until Rapid Response Force help arrives. Even so, when they were talking about sending in reinforcements, they were only talking about sending 10-20 men depending on where the group was being sent from. The attack’s timeframe didn’t allow for the RRF backstop to kick in. Do I really need to rehash what the Joint Chiefs did to change up the RRF distribution of forces after the horror of Benghazi? They put an RRF team at Sigonelle Air Base and they added RRF teams to each Navy vessel that hosts a Marine Expeditionary Force.

        • Habbgun

          If it is as big an event as they say it is then she was even more incompetent in not securing the embassy rather than less incompetent.

          Besides how did they even know what the video contained if their hard drives keep crashing.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    If they sent her to the gallows I would buy everyone a drink.

  • joshuasweet

    She is as innocent as the Nazis that were following orders. She is just a part of the whole the Obama administration is the true criminal element, their treason more than grounds enough to take them all to trial.

  • IngeC

    Great analysis as always as well as a good observation of Hillary and her excuses!
    If Benghazi did not happened under Hillary’s watch and her complicity in it – there may be a chance that her white house run would be an easier one.
    Her time as SOS was a total flop; of no meaningful accomplishments to speak of other than being the best ‘flier miles’ participant.
    Her complicity in the ‘manufactured’ Arab Spring; the killings in Benghazi due to her complicity and refusal to provide adequate security; her complicity in the weapons smuggling in Benghazi to Syria via Turkey – has disqualified her as a potential successor of Obama. Not that she ever had any credentials to be a president before then.
    The American public has awakened to the disaster that is Hillary and her phony qualifications to occupy the white house. Americans don’t take lightly the murders of americans when they could have been rescued.
    Americans are well aware of the tinderbox that is the middle east – also with the complicity of Hillary Clinton.
    The muslim (not Coptic Christian as was claimed) was not arrested due to his video spoof – but rather to a parole violation. He was also an informant to Eric Holder.
    Hillary should not be enabled to even come close to the presidency; her overrated qualifactions and empty resume disqualifies her for this position.
    Sure, she has her admirers as they all do but, after Obama whom she shares the ideology is enough to last a life time.
    She needs to retire from public life and stay retired, play grandmother to her future grand child and maybe forge a connection with her husband.

  • FrontPgSubscr

    ‘The Innocence of Hillary’ — – that kind of fits.

  • bigjulie

    The Democrat blueprint for selling a new candidate is really getting torn and worn. It’s the same crap, “Obama is one of the smartest men ever to seek the Presidency”! No proof of any of this is ever offered, only baseless quotations from “spokespersons”! Attempts to locate any real proof of the claim are buried away under millions of dollars worth of legal hassle for anyone who tries. Now, with several years of tolerance for Hillary’s gaffes and mistakes, the almost exact same garbage is being trundled out in favor of her, despite the fact that millions of Americans are already only too familiar with her penchant for getting it wrong. Not even a dribble of any truth is offered for “Hillary is one of the smartest women in America”, as millions of us now have proof positive that she is actually something of a doltish jerk, at best, and definitely has zero talent or respect enough to be a true leader of this battered, but still fighting bastion of freedom and liberty.
    Instead, Democratic Party leadership keeps right on treating the American people as a bunch of slow-witted simpletons too stupid for even an unvarnished attempt to “con” them once again. The Republican leadership is the same. Both the Democrats and Republicans have not even an inkling that the political situation in America is rapidly approaching critical mass! Instead, we are stuck with platitude-mouthing idiots like Boehner, McConnell, and McCarthy who don’t even have the brains to see and learn from what happened to their buddy, Cantor and the continued growth of the Tea Party folks despite regular pronouncements of its death.
    Vote-counting will be more critical than ever in the 2014 mid-terms. We had better be preparing poll watchers and ballot overseers for this one…when they are trying to convince us that Hillary is the “smartest woman in America” or somesuch garbage, both parties have “jumped the shark” in attempting to convince the voters of their own intelligence.

    • truebearing

      It’s easy to be one of the smartest when the pool is leftists. Obama has one of the best throwing arms in America, if you have to choose from mom jean wearing pathological liars with a murky past that include a lot of homosexuals.

      • hiernonymous

        Homosexuals and people who wear “mom jeans” are notably unintelligent? How did you reach that conclusion?

        • truebearing

          Reading skills failing you again? The throwing arm bit was an analogue, and a bit of Obama humor.
          I can see you are a literalist. Does each comment now require a set of instructions on how to read various forms of expression?

          • hiernonymous

            The ‘humor’ ended with a suggestion that homosexuals made the pool of competition less impressive. Explain that away.

          • truebearing

            The universe of “mom jean wearing pathological liars with a murky past that include a lot of homosexuals” suggests an effeminate man. I’m not trying to explain it away. I see your attempt to make my joke at the expense of the intelligence of homosexuals failed miserably, so you had to go to the bench for a pinch-hitter.

            Are you saying Obama doesn’t have an effeminate throwing action? Is it what you would teach your players to do, assuming you really are a coach?

            Don’t waste your time on political correctness with me. I go out of my way to violate every corrupt rule of that absurd pseudo-morality.

          • hiernonymous

            “. I see your attempt to make my joke at the expense of the intelligence of homosexuals failed miserably,”

            Your “joke” was structured in such a way to imply that your description of the pool in question was a stand-in for the “leftists” of your original comment. If you insist that yet another awkward “joke” misfired, and that you didn’t mean that at all, it’s hardly worth arguing with you about it.

            ” Is it what you would teach your players to do, assuming you really are a coach?”

            I don’t find sexual orientation to be in any way germane to mr athletes’ skills. I don’t teach my athletes how to throw anything. You seem remarkably unfamiliar with competitive swimming.

            “Don’t waste your time on political correctness with me. I go out of my way to violate every corrupt rule of that absurd pseudo-morality.”

            “Homosexuals throw like girls” is simply bigotry. Do you remember your advice about the time to stop digging?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Your “joke” was structured in such a way to imply that your description of the pool in question was a stand-in….”

            Finally the liberal Joke Police have arrived to correct all the politically incorrect jokes with detailed analyses that are about as funny as Hillary’s Marxism-Leninism grad paper.

          • Steve

            So you don’t have a problem with Jew jokes?

          • reader

            Aren’t you a self-proclaimed Catholic with multiple nicks, Steevo? You never joke about the Jews, you can’t really joke at all, Steevo. You just trivially hate the Jews, so the joke’s on you.

          • Steve

            I just asked a question. Jokes about homosexuals, blacks, hispanics…etc are merely “politically incorrect” and said groups should just get over it. But Jew jokes are off limits?

          • Judahlevi

            Only if they are not funny.

            Do you want to share one?

          • Steve

            So you think truebearing’s homosexual joke was funny?

          • Judahlevi

            It doesn’t matter.

            Are you going to tell a Jewish joke or not?

          • Steve

            Sure it matters. You guys always laugh at other people’s expense but scream like banshees when your group is ridiculed.

          • Judahlevi

            First, I am ‘one guy’ not the plural “you guys.” I am not a group, I am an individual.

            Second, a funny joke does not ridicule – it is designed for humor, not to be insulting.

            Are you the kind that judges people only by what their skin color, religion or gender are?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ” but scream like banshees when your group is ridiculed.”

            Why must you use racial slurs?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Are you by any chance that joke?

          • Steve

            Are you suggesting that I’m a homosexual? If I were, is there something wrong with that?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Do you feel that there’s something wrong with you being homosexual?

          • truebearing

            How long have you been a homosexual?

          • Americana

            Take your act on the road, ladies.

          • truebearing

            So you think Obama is a homosexual? I thought he was just effeminate.

          • reader

            You’re clinging to your straw man, Steevo, and YOU are a joke. Forget the homosexuals and the Jews.

          • Webb

            Stevie, old boy, who do you like better for president in 2016, Skankles or Cannibal Mammy?

          • truebearing

            I don’t know any, but I have a great black joke for you. Want to hear it?

          • truebearing

            And notice how he misquotes me to make it work.

            i think there may be too much chlorine in his gene pool.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I still think he’s a bot running off a server in Doha.

            There is just no way he would pass a Turing Test.

          • Americana

            No, I’m pretty sure he’d ace a Turing Intelligence Test.

          • J.B.

            It’s bigoted to notice that Obama is effeminate?

          • truebearing

            “Your “joke” was structured in such a way to imply that your description of the pool in question was a stand-in for the “leftists” of your original comment. If you insist that yet another awkward “joke” misfired, and that you didn’t mean that at all, it’s hardly worth arguing with you about it.”

            Calm down. How was I supposed to know you like mom jeans and throw like a girl?

            How would I know you coach swimming?

            No, I’m reasonably familiar with competitive swimming. I had a number of friends on the swim team, and when we wanted to take a break, myself and my fellow wrestlers would pop in next door to the pool and watch the swimmers. I’m not sure why my familiarity with competitive swimming matters to you, though.

            Why do you have quotation marks on “Homosexuals throw like girls”? I didn’t say that. I said “Obama has an effeminate throwing action.” That is a statement of fact. I guess you think facts are bigoted. I’m not surprised.

            i’m not digging and I’m not in a hole. You are trying to impose your idiotic PC mentality onto me, but it won’t work. I despise political correctness and don’t care what you think. Girls throw like girls, and some presidents throw like girls. These are simple facts.

          • hiernonymous

            “How would I know you coach swimming?”

            For starters, I’ve mentioned it before. Since you knew I coached, and you felt you had a sufficient grasp on the subject to question my veracity, I assumed that you’d taken the trouble to know what there was to know before shooting off. My mistake, you were just engaged in a bit of bluster.

            The quotation marks were to set off an identifiable summary that served as the subject of the sentence. Claiming that the president throws in an effeminate manner, and then claiming that he would still stand out among homosexuals, is a clear claim that homosexuals throw in an even more effeminate manner. If you think “homosexuals throw like girls” is not a fair encapsulation of that, I’m open to an alternative. At any rate, by describing the pool of people among whom Obama’ deficient throwing style would stand out as including “a lot of homosexuals,” you were plainly making a bigoted comment.

            If you disagree, perhaps you can explain why you included that “lot of homosexuals” in the comment to begin with.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Claiming that the president throws in an effeminate manner, and then claiming that he would still stand out among homosexuals, is a clear claim that homosexuals throw in an even more effeminate manner.”

            I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.

            And even more fun at comedy clubs.

          • Habbgun

            He had that great show “Technicians of cultural attitudes indicative of a non-serious vein of self and audience consciousness while maintaining a non-gender position of rest in an ecologically sustainable vehicle getting an acceptable beverage free of capitalist exploitation.”

            The one funny moment in the show is when he comes out as the first ever transgendered singer and tries to kill audience members who are there for the drag act.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s the hit of the single network in Oceania when it isn’t showing Big Brother reruns.

          • Americana

            Opinuendo is always the freakin’ mother of gratuitous intellectual mojo invention. Whether it’s ever been welcome at comedy clubs as a first tier act is debatable.

          • Americana

            I bet hiero lightens up just fine when there’s no one’s reputation on the line. I’m readying a burka and garbage bag routine for the comedy circuit in my town when they have a comedy throw down. It’s not nearly as tasteless as it sounds. I’ll let you guys know how it turns out.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “if you have to choose from mom jean wearing pathological liars with a murky past that include a lot of homosexuals”.

            Hiero seems to be viewing that as a personal attack.

          • truebearing

            He is getting a tad hysterical over it. Maybe he thought Obama looked very attractive in his momjeans, or threw that lame pitch with a lot of “nuance.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Who are we to judge Hiero’s leg thrills while watching MSNBC.

          • Americana

            Wouldn’t think he’d consider it a personal attack until those charges are actually laid at his door. I think he probably considers it to be outside the context of any legitimate argument. But he fails to realize it’s a form of argument in and of itself. It cracks me up that it’s taken this long to arrive at the WHOLE SPIEL of Obama’s criminal behavior. That he’s a mom jeans wearer. That he’s not a major league pitcher. That he’s a pathological liar. (What are his lies again? That he’s an American citizen?) That it took this many years for you guys to compile the full list says something.

          • Habbgun

            Awwww…..that guy who loves to hang around, take comments out of context and give back nasty, snarky comments is all offended. That’s so sad.

            Here let’s see if you can find some context in this…..
            Future unknowns can know obvious fun facts.

          • J.B.

            If you actually believe that, you’re even dumber than I thought – and I think you’re plenty dumb right now.

  • Distantsmoke

    Actually it’s the “Innocence of the Left”. They have claimed that every negative thing that has happened in the last 6 years is GW Bush’s fault. Yet at the same time, 9 months into his (Bush’s) Presidency, the left blamed him for 9/11. And they still blame him for 9/11. I can’t wait to hear their argument for blaming Bush for Obamacare.

  • Steve

    Hey righties, we’ve only got the 14th Benghazi investigative committee going on now and they still haven’t found jack. When are you guys going to stop insulting people’s intelligence?

    • Bill_H2

      When are you going to stop insulting your own intelligence. Stone-walling (i.e. withholding evidence) is not morally equivalent to revealing the truth.

      • reader

        he does not have one – so never, i’m afraid.

      • Steve

        What evidence is being withheld?

        • J.B.

          The fact that the lie about the video was a White House creation from the beginning. The subpoena that got the memo instructing Rice and all involved to blame the video instead of Obama’s policy failures is now public record after two years of stonewalling. Hillary and Obama still haven’t admitted they lied from the start.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “When are you guys going to stop insulting people’s intelligence?

      When you stop commenting?

    • UCSPanther

      If there is someone who is insulting peoples’ intelligence here, it is loudmouthed, belligerent party hacks like you…

    • Americana

      Here, Steve, take a stab at this Shoebat expose about how ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ film came to be such a world-wide phenomenon:
      __________________________________________________________________

      After NPN3 caused the video to gain more than four million views of its 1:32 long trailer, NewsPoliticsNow3 took down the video on or before 9/20/12. The skids of Sam Bacile’s YouTube channel had been sufficiently greased; his video was off and running. NPN3 had done its job of priming the pump; then it vanished.

      The evidence that NPN3 is a creation of Stanley is captured in the following screenshot:

      Screen shot reveals NPN connection to Stanley as well as CGI merger with Stanley in 2010.

      And the evidence of Stanley’s working for the Feds is ironclad. The CGI press release announcing the completion of the merger identifies Stanley as a company that…

      …provides services to the U.S. federal civilian, defense and intelligence agencies.

      The Obama Administration played its role accordingly. It’s important to remember the words of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the first “Istanbul Process” meeting she chaired along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary-General on July 15, 2011. Hillary said, as relayed byShoebat.com:

      …we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

      As an agent of Stanley Associates, NPN3 would have been needed as a front, as an agitprop agent. The Obama administration needed to be involved in making the video go viral while creating the perception that it“had absolutely nothing to do with it”. The video was supposed to invoke “peer pressure and shaming” without the hint of government involvement.

      After all, these were the words of Hillary Clinton herself and how she envisioned it.

      Here is a screen shot of the NPN3 YouTube channel on September 15, 2012 in which the 1:32 long trailer garnered more than 4.5 million views. By September 20th, the channel was gone:

      NewsPoliticsNow3 screen shot from 9/15/12. Over four million views of its 1:32 trailer.

      The one person who has a history with both Stanley Associates and CGI Federal’s role in developing the Obamacare website is the company’s President Donna Ryan. Here is an excerpt from her bio:

      Ms. Donna A. Ryan has been the President of CGI Federal Inc. since September 28, 2011. At CGI Federal Inc., Ms. Ryan is responsible for leading CGI’s strategy, growth and client delivery across the Civilian, Defense and Intelligence Sectors of the U.S. Federal Government. As a member of CGI’s Management Committee, she also participates in the development and execution of CGI’s global strategy. Ms. Ryan had been Senior Vice President at Stanley, Inc. since August 2010.

      August of 2010 is when the acquisition of Stanley by CGI was finalized, according to what appears to be aCGI PowerPoint presentation, which also refers to CGI as:

      A global leader in IT, business process, and professional services, CGI partners with federal agencies to provide end-to-end solutions for defense, civilian, and intelligence missions

      Ryan has a history that includes being a Senior VP with Stanley and President with CGI Federal. While holding both titles, Ryan also made several trips to the White House.

      Prior to Stanley Associates’ apparent involvement with the NPN3 YouTube channel upload of the short 1:32 video on September 11, 2012, the name “Innocence of Muslims” was never used. When casting for the movie was being done, it was entitled “Desert Warrior”. The alleged June 30th screening at the Vine Theatre was entitled “Innocence of Bin Laden” and the two videos uploaded to the Sam Bacile YouTube channel were identified only as “Muhammad Movie Trailer” and “The Real Life of Muhammad” respectively. Here is a September 17, 2012 screen shot of the Sam Bacile YouTube Channel:

      Note the names of the video (Neither is identified as “Innocence of Muslims”).

      In conclusion, strong probable cause exists to suggest that it was Stanley’s NPN3 that created the name “Innocence of Muslims” which became the signature of the Obama administration’s outrage, broadcast all over the world. It was the “Innocence of Muslims” title that the Obama administration pointed to for leaving a trail of libel, murder, and American blood in its wake. Regardless of Nakoula’s role in producing and uploading the video, he didn’t give the video the title that would live on in infamy.

      REFERENCES
      [1] In a series of videos posted to YouTube by a man going by the handle of “Montagraph”, an image capture of the NPN avatar ties back to Stanley Associates, as the screen shot above demonstrates. Two other entities must be brought into the equation first – Stanley Associates, Inc. and a YouTube channel identified as NewsPoliticsNow3, no longer in existence.

      Keep in mind that Shoebat.com has made the case that “Innocence of Muslims” was about agitprop and that the Obama administration was involved – to varying degrees – in the production and covert marketing of the video. In a Shoebat.com exclusive, Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress who appeared in the video, told us that the filmmaker – Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – informed her that he is a Muslim, not the Coptic Christian he was portrayed to be.

      Putting something up on the internet in the hopes of it going viral can be a futile endeavor, even when it’s an excellent product… or… video. When it’s a third-rate, two-bit video – as “Innocence of Muslims” was, a substantial delivery system would almost definitely be necessary. That’s where NewsPoliticsNow comes in.

      The filmmaker’s son Abanob Nakoula created the Sam Bacile YouTube channel and posted two videos in July of 2012.

  • Chaz22

    Hillary isn’t so much innocent” as is ignorant . She sort of reminds me of Michele Bachmann in the way she delivers . No wonder Bill looked at other woman –.
    I’d like to see her in an interview where she is asked some bold and direct questions about Muslims . Is she a ” pretender ” too ? That is, someone who tries to insist that hard-core Muslims are not to be condemned because their religion i only SOMETMES not a ” religion of peace ” and that muslims are not a problem as long as we treat them decently . We’ve heard it al before ; the great pretenders , and strangely enough among those the worst is our own government and military . EQUALITY !! –don’t talk disrespectfully about Islam ! Ignore the elephant in the room .

  • Ellman48

    “You expect to hear that kind of argument from a college freshman who
    just took Logic I and is trying to explain that she didn’t finish her
    essay because nothing can truly be finished. But you don’t expect to
    have to listen to this kind of childish drivel from the frontrunner for
    the presidency of the United States.”

    Unqualified to be a US Senator or Secretary of State, how can she possibly be qualified to be Commander-In-Chief? Hillary can’t tolerate the military. She detested them and wanted their uniforms banished from the WH when she was FIRST LADY!

    It’s difficult to tell who is the bigger liar, her or the slick one. Just remember that, as with Obama, when you vote for President you vote for a ‘package’. All the radicals who now torment us came with the Obama Package. All the incompetents who support Hillary will be part of the HC Package.

    Pray that the Sheeple wake up before Nov 2016!

  • Ellman48

    “Someone else will always be the guilty party. If Los Angeles gets nuked,
    a protester burning a Koran will be locked up. If a passenger jet is
    bombed, someone offending Muslims on Twitter will be punished.”

    If I were a betting man I would bet that in less than 20 years Western Civilization will evaporate to be replaced by a new Dark Age like that which followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. People have debated since then whether the barbarians conquered Rome or whether the Romans defeated themselves. Perhaps the same question will be debated after the USA disappears and is replaced by the Caliphate of Islam.

    For what it’s worth, I say we will bring the caliphate on ourselves and the associated Age of Darkness.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    The New York Times report you are relying on was discredited and serious questions have been raised about it.

    I assume that is why you chose not to link to the source or even describe the source you were citing.

    • Americana

      As hieronymous noted in another post, the NY Times story still stands and is confirmed by several other news outlets. Look for that post. Or maybe I’ll just go up and grab and repost it here.

    • Americana

      This post of hieronymous’ should be here as a response:

      (GREENFIELD) “The New York Times report you are relying on that claimed that the attackers had cited the video has been discredited …”

      (HIERONYMOUS) Wrong.

      Not only is the article still cited in the wake of the 2013 challenge, the reporting and conclusion I cite is still supported by notorious liberal Daniel Pipes.

      Similarly, there was a challenge based on the assertion that there was no discussion of the trailer in Libyan social media during the leadup to Benghazi, a challenge answered here.

      Nor was the NYT the only source of corroborating reporting. Note this AP report from October relating eyewitness accounts:

      There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.

      One of the consulate’s private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him “an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet.”

      Time also carried first-hand accounts from guards.:

      Locked out of the cantina, Mikhlaf ran south towards the Tactical Operations Center, hiding behind a sandbag levy. But after 20 minutes, one of the attackers found him and others quickly gathered around. They hit his head repeatedly as they taunted him. “You are not a Muslim,” they shouted. “You help the people who are against Allah and say bad things about the Prophet.”

  • BagLady

    … and this is why we need people like Snowden. (Your accusation that he is a Russian spy will need a bit more proof than you provide).

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Yes to every sentence.

  • Americana

    So you would be able to sit there and answer questions in minute detail from a bunch of hypocritical Congressmen (especially Congressmen like Newt Gingrich who was known for daytime BJs) about what you did sexually? I’d be much surprised if you could do so. I’d clam up faster than a tick w/its head embedded in a dog. My sexual conduct is no business of theirs. It was simply beyond ludicrous that the Republicans attempted to make that into a scandal.

  • Debbie G

    Poor Hillary–her book is bombing! (no pun intended)

  • USARetired

    Based on her actions and lies today, she has not been innocent since age 3!

  • whatalife1

    Strange technocratic, therapeutic system in which “they” are the doctors and “we” are the patients…and lord help us if we complain…