[seacapt]

Since some here are more concerned about the politics of he said /she said than the actual incident , here's a picture for ya

Attached Images

 

[GeneV]

Well, most of them, anyway. Brunhilda Brunhillary wasn't exactly supportive of Dubya after 911.

Jim, would you care to explain what you mean? She supported his war. She was critical a few years later.

[gokenin]

Hilary's response was fine IMHO. Given the predictably savage response to it, don't you think it was wise to explain the US adminstration does not share the views of or endorse the video ?

WHAT IS fascinating is that, as if in lock-step with the religious fanatics and hooligans, the US Embassy condemned not the violation of its diplomatic post or the incitement, but rather America. Yes, the US Embassy condemned America by blaming freedom of speech that “hurt religious feelings.” Freedom of speech in America, especially as it pertains to religion, has always been held to be a fundamental principle of American law and culture. In one of the most famous Supreme Court cases, Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), Newton Cantwell and his two sons were arrested for distributing offensive religious literature to Catholics. They were charged with “inciting a common law breach of peace” because they had handed out pamphlets that condemned the pope and mocked organized religion.

The Cantwells were accused of “breach of peace” because their pamphlet led several Catholics to physically attack them. In a unanimous decision the judges found in favor of the Cantwells: “Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts – freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.”
Terra Incognita: Disgrace, traged... JPost - Opinion - Columnists

From an Israli newspaper today when a statement is issued by the US embassy it is seen as a statement from the United States not just as a statement from a private citizen. Should it not be the intent of the United States then the President should demand the removal of everyone that made a statement before he did that was contradictory to his stated policy.

[les3547]

So let me throw out the little after 9/11 comment there at the start of your timeline and are you then saying that every terrorist event from . . . are acceptable to you because of what the United States and its Allies have done in the past ?

No, violence isn't acceptable, all of it is horrible. But Americans, like people of all nations, are ethnocentric. We believe we are the greatest, and so find it easy to turn a blind eye to the baloney fed us by our leaders who've been hiding for decades the extensive meddling we've done in the affairs of sovereign nations. We've been arrogant, subversive, imperialistic, warmongering, and, very often, doing what Eisenhower warned us against doing . . . furthering the interests of a huge US military-industrial complex.

Regarding the Middle East, from our wholly unfair support of Israel to take over land that was already occupied, to the latest utterly evil, self-serving, oil-securing lie of a war in Iraq to secure oil interests for the US, we've done plenty to piss off people who see their common bond as Islam. How would you like it if a Megapower nation came to your neighborhood and set up an Indian nation right in the middle of it? They are entitled aren't they since they lived there before you did? And then, as the new Indian nation grows and leaves you in poverty, Megapower provides money, weapons and military support so the Indian nation can further oppress, and take away even more of your land. Or what if Megapower invades your neighborhood pretending you are a threat, but really they just want to make sure they have access to your resources? How much affection would you have for Megapower?

So yes, blind hatred for us is wrong, but we've also invited it, and continue to invite it by tolerating ignorant jerks producing insulting movies and burning Korans. It's all stupidity, but we shouldn't act like saints in all this, pretending the anger we see is nothing but evil Muslims. I personally am so thankful someone like Obama is trying to humble the US, and I am equally horrified at knowing the old arrogant crowd is wiggling with anticipation at getting behind the wheel again to reincarnate American military-industrial imperialism.

---

Last edited by les3547; 09-12-2012 at 02:19 PM.

[gokenin]

Regarding the Middle East, from our wholly unfair support of Israel to take over land that was already occupied,

So yes, blind hatred for us is wrong, but we've also invited it, and continue to invite it by tolerating ignorant jerks producing insulting movies and burning Korans. It's all stupidity, but we shouldn't act like saints in all this, pretending the anger we see is nothing but evil Muslims. I personally am so thankful someone like Obama is trying to humble the US, and I am equally horrified at knowing the old arrogant crowd is wiggling with anticipation at getting behind the wheel again to reincarnate American military-industrial imperialism.

first off let's simply overlook the fact that the "Israeli" nation has existed in some form since roughly 1200 BCE and has been enslaved and forced into exile from their lands at least three times in recorded history so it's rather simplistic to think that this issue started with the U.N. mandate of 1949 and the return of historic land to Isreal to create a state that had already existed there.
Second point who's freedom of expression can we restrict am I allowed to censor people's opinions I am opposed to? Either you allow everyone to say whatever they want or you restrict and curtail what people can say in violation of the constitution , let's ignore the fact that the film in question was evidently made by an egyptian and edited by other Egyptians and then blamed on the US which had no participation in the making of the film.
As for the third point I don't even know how to respond to that to be honest with you , thankful that the President of our nation apologizes and tries to humble his nation in the eyes of the world is something that you find as something to be thankful for?

[Parallax]

Jim, would you care to explain what you mean? She supported his war. She was critical a few years later.

Right after 911 there were several things she said that made it clear she wasn't on his side. One specific example is when asked on more than one occasion about her support she said thing like "I support the troops, if not the war" (not an exact quote, but close).

[ihasa]

WHAT IS fascinating is that, as if in lock-step with the religious fanatics and hooligans, the US Embassy condemned not the violation of its diplomatic post or the incitement, but rather America. Yes, the US Embassy condemned America by blaming freedom of speech that “hurt religious feelings.”

What the statements attempted to get across IMHO is that the USA (rightly) enshrines free speech as a key principle, but does not endorse 'as a nation' every retarded little statement that is made by any particular individual. Kind of like the saying 'I don't agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it'. None of the embassy or Whitehouse statements I have heard have 'condemned freedom of speech', only the particular 'opinions' shown in that film.

In the face of an angry mob of hard-line muslims who probably aren't the most worldly people, and probably don't understand English very well let alone the US constitution, this is a difficult, but important, thing to try and get across particularly in the face of continued protests.

---

Last edited by ihasa; 09-12-2012 at 11:18 AM.

[boriscleto]

Facing criticism for its aggressive and politically-charged response to Tuesday's violent attacks on the American embassies in Egypt and Libya, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign is quietly advising Republicans how to respond to questions about the campaign's handling of the episode.
In talking points currently being pushed to Republican leaders and top surrogates, the Romney campaign recommends attacking President's Obama "foreign policy of weakness" and dismissing questions about how the campaign responded to the crisis last night.

So what kind of presidential advice does the Romney campaign have for Republicans on how to cover his ass on his latest foot-into-mouth insertion?

"Did Governor Romney 'jump the gun' last night in releasing his statement?"
"No. It is never too soon to stand up for American values and interests."

Daily Kos: Romney campaign 'quietly advising' GOP on how to cover Mitt's ass

Daily Kos: Romney campaign planned attack on Obama, but after 9/11, so it wouldn't be*tasteless


Willard trying really hard to be serious. Fail.

[les3547]

first off let's simply overlook the fact that the "Israeli" nation has existed in some form since roughly 1200 BCE and has been enslaved and forced into exile from their lands at least three times in recorded history . . .

And this should be the Palestinians' fault, concern, and responsibility because . . . . ??? Besides, the land should be returned to the Canaanites who the Jews stole it from.

As for the third point I don't even know how to respond to that to be honest with you , thankful that the President of our nation apologizes and tries to humble his nation in the eyes of the world is something that you find as something to be thankful for?

And you don't? I can't understand your befuddlement. Apparently being humble is a weakness to you, while to me it is recognizing our interests are not the most important interests on the planet. Nothing to apologize for? What do you think invading Iraq and involving our allies in a war ON A LIE for no other reason than to help secure and further US interests calls for? Why do you think Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize before he did anything to deserve it? Because we scared the crap out of the world when we betrayed the trust of our fellow nations with that invasion. It was for that we needed a leader to sincerely and humbly express our regret. Of course, all the arrogant SOBs want to reestablish the US as a world bully who apologizes to no one, forces other countries to capitulate, and takes what she wants.

[GeneV]

Yes there is some disagreement as to the timeline with several sources now saying that they were issued "about the same time". Personally I don't care who spoke first although one seems to follow the other.

Ken, you really should care, because attacking the President's response before there even is one is ridiculous and petty. Quite a few Republicans have come down on Romney for seeming unpresidential.

"It's bad," said a former aide to Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "Just on a factual level that the statement was not a response but preceding, or one could make the case precipitating. And just calling it a 'disgrace' doesn't really cut it. Not ready for prime time."

A third Republican, a former Bush State Department official, told BuzzFeed, "It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately — a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation."

Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement

Speaking on Fox News, conservative columnist Peggy Noonan was also blunt. "I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours," she said. “Sometimes when really bad things happen, when hot things happen, cool words or no words is the way to go.”

David Gregory, who was very generous to Gov. Romney over the weekend tweeted his disgust:

Romney appears to have launched a political attack even before facts of embassy violence were known. Then uses day to issue vague FP vision

[jeffkrol]

Rogers told Jackson there was a "high likelihood" that the attack had an affiliation with "al Qaeda elements in Libya."

Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said there had been threats that Islamic militants might try to take revenge for the death of al Qaeda's No. 2 commander Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan in June, and he said the U.S. consulate should have been better protected.

Confirming al-Libi's death for the first time in a video posted online Monday, al Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahri called on Muslims in al-Libi's native Libya to take revenge for his death.

Some authorities are looking at the possibility that the attack may have been planned to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and this week's killing in Yemen of Saeed al-Shihri, who was second in command of al Qaeda in the ArabianPeninsula, Milton reports.

U.S. officials believe the militants were using the demonstration against the video as a cover to get into the consulate and then take as much revenge as they could on Americans, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

"Absolutely it's a terrorist attack," Rogers told Jackson. "This was not done by the Libyan government. It was done by an external group we believe has at least extremist ties, maybe al Qaeda ties, and the style and the signature of the attack clearly would be something that we have seen before and would be in line with something al Qaeda would do."

I'm waiting for no, it was the "ruskies"..... LOL

U.S. officials: Deadly Libya attack likely planned - CBS News

Jihadists will want the world to believe that the attack is just a part of the protests against an amateur film produced in the U.S., which includes crude insults regarding the Prophet Mohammed. They will want the world to think that their actions represent a popular Libyan and wider Muslim reaction; thus, reversing the perception of jihadists being outcasts from their own societies. Since there were similar protests in Egypt against the film, it is possible that more protests may erupt in Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The jihadists may also feel that by killing U.S. citizens, they will win the support of local populations. They are wrong.

This attack was committed by a small group of extremists who do not represent the Libyan population. They seek to destroy any reconstruction attempts in my mother country. As often is the case, extremists try to take advantage of the absence of security in a country that has just gotten out of a civil war. They try so hard to destabilize the peace that the majority of the population have fought so hard to establish.

Ambassador Stevens himself was well known for advocating peace and stability in Libya. The recent election results in the country are testament to his conviction that Libya can achieve progress. That Libyans did not vote the radicals into office in the elections proves that Libya is not a nation of extremists. The extremists' response to their electoral defeat comes in a language they relish: Violence.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/opinion/benotman-libya-attack/

bit more:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/united-nations/2012/09/12/libyan-security-o...GhM/story.html

Yee HA.. lets just put our best boots on and go blow them up.. then march to Moscow...

[GeneV]

I'm waiting for no, it was the "ruskies"..... LOL

U.S. officials: Deadly Libya attack likely planned - CBS News

What terrorists want us to believe about Libya - CNN.com

As I indicated earlier, I see the President finding out who did it and taking discrete action. Like Michael Corleone, he will visit them soon. (Good and bad things about that analogy). The Libyan government has promised cooperation, so unilateral moves may not even be necessary.

[GeneV]

Right after 911 there were several things she said that made it clear she wasn't on his side. One specific example is when asked on more than one occasion about her support she said thing like "I support the troops, if not the war" (not an exact quote, but close).

I'm still curious what you are talking about, because my recollection was the first time she parted company with him and said something like that was 6 years later on the Surge.

[jeffkrol]

Interesting language..............

And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.

It is especially difficult that this happened on September 11th. It's an anniversary that means a great deal to all Americans. Every year on that day, we are reminded that our work is not yet finished, that the job of putting an end to violent extremism and building a safe and stable world continues. But September 11th means even more than that. It is a day on which we remember thousands of American heroes, the bonds that connect all Americans, wherever we are on this Earth, and the values that see us through every storm. And now it is a day on which we will remember Sean, Chris, and their colleagues.

May God bless them, and may God bless the thousands of Americans working in every corner of the world who make this country the greatest force for peace, prosperity, and progress, and a force that has always stood for human dignity - the greatest force the world has ever known. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.

A martyr for a better Libya

Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. They included Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals.

This is an attack that should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world. We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we've lost.

All over the world, every day, America's diplomats and development experts risk their lives in the service of our country and our values, because they believe that the United States must be a force for peace and progress in the world, that these aspirations are worth striving and sacrificing for. Alongside our men and women in uniform, they represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation.

In the lobby of this building, the State Department, the names of those who have fallen in the line of duty are inscribed in marble. Our hearts break over each one. And now, because of this tragedy, we have new heroes to honor and more friends to mourn.

Chris Stevens fell in love with the Middle East as a young Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in Morocco. He joined the Foreign Service, learned languages, won friends for America in distant places, and made other people's hopes his own.

In the early days of the Libyan revolution, I asked Chris to be our envoy to the rebel opposition. He arrived on a cargo ship in the port of Benghazi and began building our relationships with Libya's revolutionaries. He risked his life to stop a tyrant, then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses.

[jeffkrol]

I'm still curious what you are talking about, because my recollection was the first time she parted company with him and said something like that was 6 years later on the Surge.

as heard on Wikipedia:

During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

But, she said, the Bush Administration "really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that."[82]

In a November 29, 2005 letter to her constituents, Senator Clinton said, "There are no quick and easy solutions to the long and drawn out conflict [the Bush] Administration triggered ... I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."[83]

On June 8, 2006, Clinton said of the US airstrike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: "I saw firsthand the terrible consequences of Zarqawi's terrorist network when Bill, Chelsea and I visited the hotel ballroom in Amman, Jordan last November where Zarqawi's followers had detonated a bomb at a wedding, killing and wounding innocent people. We owe our thanks to our men and women in uniform and others in Iraq who have been fighting Zarqawi and other insurgents and who are responsible for today's success."[84]

On June 15, 2006, Clinton charged that President Bush "rushed to war" and "refused to let the UN inspectors conduct and complete their mission ... We need to be building alliances instead of isolation around the world ... There must be a plan that will begin to bring our troops home." But she also said, "I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment which I think does not put enough pressure on the Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain."[85][86]

Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture.[87] On February 5, 2007, Clinton said: "Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage ... You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."[88] On February 17, 2007, Hillary Clinton announced the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007.[89] This act would compel President Bush to begin relegating troops from Iraq within 90 days of remote passage, or, according to Clinton, Congress would have to dismantle their authorization for the war. The Act would also end the blank check to the Iraqi government and submit them to harsh consequences if boundaries are violated. Lastly, the Act would require the Secretary of Defense to verify the condition, in terms of supplies and in terms of their training, of all Iraqi troops before they are sent.[90]

In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[91] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush.

Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By late November 2007, with still more evidence that the surge and other tactics and developments had led to a significant lessening of the civil violence in Iraq,[98] Clinton acknowledged the successes but said that the underlying equation had not changed: "Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference. The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks. We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it."[99]

At the January 16, 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Clinton, along with Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards, maintained that they cannot guarantee the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of their first presidential term due to continuing support roles. However, all three pledged to begin the withdrawal of combat brigades within 60 days of taking office. Additionally, Clinton used the opportunity to ask Senator Obama to co-sponsor legislation to prevent President Bush from signing long-term agreements with the government of Iraq without the express consent of congress, stating: "So I've introduced legislation that clearly requires President Bush to come to the United States Congress. It is not enough, as he claims, to go to the Iraqi parliament, but to come to the United States Congress to get anything that he's trying to do, including permanent bases, numbers of troops, all the other commitments he's talking about as he's traveling in that region."[