o/t - Who Is To Blame For Benghazi?

[David / Amicus]

We know it can't be Obama or Hillary or any Democrat.

It must be a Republican.

But who?

REAGAN! Remember he bombed Libya all those years ago?

Indict Reagan as a war criminal. Doesn't matter if he's dead.

[MittR...@rnc.com]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:45:58 -0700, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
wrote:

>We know it can't be Obama or Hillary or any Democrat.
>
>It must be a Republican.
>
>But who?
>

It's the republicans for cutting millions of dollars in funding.

The republicans are pitching a fit about 4 dead at our
embassy but were silent when 60 died at our embassies
under Bush.

Here is a radicatl thought: maybe if we din't want anyone
dead at Benghazi maybe we should have kept our nose
out of the region.

>REAGAN! Remember he bombed Libya all those years ago?
>
>Indict Reagan as a war criminal. Doesn't matter if he's dead.

Remember how many died at the Lebanon embassy under Reagan.

[David / Amicus]

Thanks! I knew the GOP had to be at fault!

[David Johnston]

On 5/12/2013 2:45 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
> We know it can't be Obama or Hillary or any Democrat.

Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
perpetrators?

[David / Amicus]

<<Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
perpetrators?>>

But the only reason they did it was because of a video that defamed the
prophet Muhammad [pbuh].

[theget]

No. Obama and Hillary said it was the fault of that filmmaker guy.
You remember, the one they put into prison.

[David Johnston]

On 5/12/2013 9:04 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
> <<Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
> perpetrators?>>
>
>
> But the only reason they did it

<yawn> I see no reason to care.

[David Johnston]

On 5/12/2013 9:10 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 12, 10:25 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 2:45 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>>
>>> We know it can't be Obama or Hillary or any Democrat.
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
>> perpetrators?
>
> No. Obama and Hillary said it was the fault of that filmmaker guy.

Cite.

[theget]

Yup. Four Americans murdered and... wait. What? You see no reason to
care?

Just like Hillary at the hearings.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/09/benghazi-hearing-real-questions-remain

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiXkhbgXxd8

Yeah. I cut her off a little. But... That's the clip I suspect other
Dems will play if they want to get rid of her if she decides to run in
16. I'm pretty sure Reps will use it in the midterms.

[theget]

Somewhat discussed before.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.law-and-order/browse_frm/thread/3fb55ccd119884ff/b6f891d638d3da82?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=benghazi+movie#b6f891d638d3da82

Who did Susan Rice work for?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-card-will-foreign-policy-be-dealt-another-bad-hand/

Who did Hillary work for?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/25/joe-biden-to-father-of-former-navy-seal-killed-in-benghazi-did-your-son-always-have-balls-the-size-of-cue-balls/
"... Clinton told him that the U.S. would “make sure that the person
who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”"

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
"Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory,
despicable material posted on the Internet."

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197711.htm
"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the
Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. "
"To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible.
It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great
religion and to provoke rage."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
"Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with
David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and
began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said,
“Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety
of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As
offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the
United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an
excuse for violence.”"


But he is saying that it precipitated the violence in question.

[David Johnston]

On 5/13/2013 11:39 AM, theget wrote:
> On May 13, 12:39 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 9:10 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On May 12, 10:25 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2013 2:45 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>>
>>>>> We know it can't be Obama or Hillary or any Democrat.
>>
>>>> Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
>>>> perpetrators?
>>
>>> No. Obama and Hillary said it was the fault of that filmmaker guy.
>>
>> Cite.
>
> Somewhat discussed before.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.law-and-order/browse_frm/thread/3fb55ccd119884ff/b6f891d638d3da82?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=benghazi+movie#b6f891d638d3da82
>
> Who did Susan Rice work for?
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-card-will-foreign-policy-be-dealt-another-bad-hand/
>
> Who did Hillary work for?
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/25/joe-biden-to-father-of-former-navy-seal-killed-in-benghazi-did-your-son-always-have-balls-the-size-of-cue-balls/

> "... Clinton told him that the U.S. would �make sure that the person
> who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.�"

>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
> "Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory,
> despicable material posted on the Internet."
>
> http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197711.htm
> "I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the
> Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. "
> "To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible.
> It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great
> religion and to provoke rage."
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

> "Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on �The Late Show with
> David Letterman.� The president said, �Here�s what happened,� and

> began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said,

> �Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety
> of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.� He also said, �As
> offensive as this video was and, obviously, we�ve denounced it and the
> United States government had nothing to do with it. That�s never an
> excuse for violence.�"

>
>
> But he is saying that it precipitated the violence in question.

But one notes that isn't the same thing as saying it was the _fault_ of
anyone except the perpetrators.

Now, let's suppose for a moment that Obama was entirely forthcoming
about why the attack happened and said, for example "They attacked the
installation because it was a CIA rendition site"

Would that be consistent with the national interest?

[David Johnston]

On 5/13/2013 11:23 AM, theget wrote:
> On May 13, 12:38 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 9:04 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>>
>>> <<Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
>>> perpetrators?>>
>>
>>> But the only reason they did it
>>
>> <yawn> I see no reason to care.
>
> Yup. Four Americans murdered and... wait. What? You see no reason to
> care?

Do you care about the 60 Americans who have been "murdered" in various
diplomatic facilities since 2011? What makes those 4 Americans so very,
very special?

[theget]

On May 13, 2:12 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 11:39 AM, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 12:39 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/12/2013 9:10 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >>> On May 12, 10:25 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/12/2013 2:45 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>
> >>>>> We know it can't be Obama or Hillary or any Democrat.
>
> >>>> Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
> >>>> perpetrators?
>
> >>> No.  Obama and Hillary said it was the fault of that filmmaker guy.
>
> >> Cite.
>
> > Somewhat discussed before.

> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.law-and-order/browse_frm/thread...

>
> > Who did Susan Rice work for?

> >http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/09/playing-the-rice-car...

>
> > Who did Hillary work for?

> >http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/25/joe-biden-to-father-of-for...

> > "... Clinton told him that the U.S. would �make sure that the person
> > who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.�"
>
> >http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
> > "Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory,
> > despicable material posted on the Internet."
>
> >http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197711.htm
> > "I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the
> > Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. "
> > "To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible.
> > It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great
> > religion and to provoke rage."
>
> >http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
> > "Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on �The Late Show with
> > David Letterman.� The president said, �Here�s what happened,� and
> > began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said,
> > �Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety
> > of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.� He also said, �As
> > offensive as this video was and, obviously, we�ve denounced it and the
> > United States government had nothing to do with it. That�s never an
> > excuse for violence.�"
>
> > But he is saying that it precipitated the violence in question.
>
> But one notes that isn't the same thing as saying it was the _fault_ of
> anyone except the perpetrators.

Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole. Isn't
it? Shouldn't Obama be more concerned about upholding the freedom of
expression?

I think there are a few people who would like to know who originally
floated the idea that it was the filmmakers... well, maybe not fault.
What should we call it then?

>
> Now, let's suppose for a moment that Obama was entirely forthcoming

Unlikely. But I can accept a pure hypothetical. For a moment.

> about why the attack happened and said, for example "They attacked the
> installation because it was a CIA rendition site"
>

I'd have to agree that they didn't think about the consequences of how
they went about trying to cover things up.

> Would that be consistent with the national interest?

But that wouldn't play to Dem propaganda, would it? No. I don't
think so. Because the admin seems to be pretty careful about trying
to label things as not being terrorism. Like Ft. Hood.

Why couldn't they just be honest and say that some people hate us and
they want to do bad things to us. What is so difficult about
admitting that the people who did us wrong in Benghazi did it because
of their religious beliefs and that their religion is Islam? There.
Was that so hard?

Is it consistent with the national interest to put a person in prison
because he's made a movie that you think is bad and you want to say
that some people were murdered because they were offended by the film,
but that doesn't justify the murdering they did? Sorry. I can't do
those sorts of mental gymnastics. Plus it seems iffy to me on 1st
Amendment grounds.


Oh wait. You think I didn't answer the question? I'm not saying that
everything the US ever can or could do would be legitimate. I'm
suggesting that the attack on us wasn't legitimate in this case and
that we ought to go after the perps.

Or are you suggesting that Obama said what he did because he wanted to
cover up something that might be illegal?

[theget]

Why did you put murdered in quotes?

> What makes those 4 Americans so very,
> very special?

I know about them. I don't like the way the admin handled it. My
lack of concern for the others is evidence only of my ignorance, not
my principles.

Plus there is a small possibility that what the admin did could be,
well not corrected because that is too much to expect. Nor do I
expect to see them hang their heads in shame because that would be too
much to expect. But perhaps other people will think that they should
be ashamed of how they handled the situation and demand to know what
really happened and why and that is a small enough victory that I
might hope for it.

But not you.... you see no reason to care. Wait. What? Really? What
makes those four Americans so very very unspecial to you?

[David Johnston]

On 5/13/2013 3:39 PM, theget wrote:

>> But one notes that isn't the same thing as saying it was the _fault_ of
>> anyone except the perpetrators.
>
> Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
> filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.

It seems like an appropriate place to send a con artist who was trying
to get people killed.

>
> Oh wait. You think I didn't answer the question? I'm not saying that
> everything the US ever can or could do would be legitimate.

I didn't ask whether it was legitimate. I asked whether there could be
a legitimate national interest in trying to obscure the facts about a
CIA installation.

[David Johnston]

On 5/13/2013 3:49 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 13, 2:14 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2013 11:23 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On May 13, 12:38 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2013 9:04 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>>
>>>>> <<Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
>>>>> perpetrators?>>
>>
>>>>> But the only reason they did it
>>
>>>> <yawn> I see no reason to care.
>>
>>> Yup. Four Americans murdered and... wait. What? You see no reason to
>>> care?
>>
>> Do you care about the 60 Americans who have been "murdered" in various
>> diplomatic facilities since 2011?
>
> Why did you put murdered in quotes?

Because I was quoting you.

>
> But not you.... you see no reason to care.

...why the perpetrators did it. Yes.

>Really? What
>makes those four Americans so very very unspecial to you?

The large amount of company they have.

[theget]

On May 13, 8:38 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 3:39 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >> But one notes that isn't the same thing as saying it was the _fault_ of
> >> anyone except the perpetrators.
>
> > Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
> > filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.
>
> It seems like an appropriate place to send a con artist who was trying
> to get people killed.

Please provide evidence or a cite that says he was trying to
accomplish this. Quotes from the admin aren't evidence since it's
pretty obvious they lied about him already.

>
>
>
> > Oh wait.  You think I didn't answer the question?  I'm not saying that
> > everything the US ever can or could do would be legitimate.
>
> I didn't ask whether it was legitimate.  I asked whether there could be
> a legitimate national interest in trying to obscure the facts about a
> CIA installation.

It could be. But not at the cost of trashing the 1st Amendment. If
that's what they were up to they're far more idiotic than I give them
credit for.

[theget]

On May 13, 8:40 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 3:49 PM, theget wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 2:14 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2013 11:23 AM, theget wrote:
>
> >>> On May 13, 12:38 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/12/2013 9:04 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>
> >>>>> <<Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
> >>>>> perpetrators?>>
>
> >>>>> But the only reason they did it
>
> >>>> <yawn>  I see no reason to care.
>
> >>> Yup. Four Americans murdered and... wait. What? You see no reason to
> >>> care?
>
> >> Do you care about the 60 Americans who have been "murdered" in various
> >> diplomatic facilities since 2011?
>
> > Why did you put murdered in quotes?
>
> Because I was quoting you.
>
>
>
> > But not you.... you see no reason to care.
>
> ...why the perpetrators did it.  Yes.

It could be useful to know, so that we can thwart other attempts.

>
>  >Really?  What
>  >makes those four Americans so very very unspecial to you?
>
> The large amount of company they have.

Please tell me, in the other murders, did the US gov't attempt to
cover things up?

[David Johnston]

On 5/13/2013 7:33 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 13, 8:38 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2013 3:39 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>> But one notes that isn't the same thing as saying it was the _fault_ of
>>>> anyone except the perpetrators.
>>
>>> Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
>>> filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.
>>
>> It seems like an appropriate place to send a con artist who was trying
>> to get people killed.
>
> Please provide evidence or a cite that says he was trying to
> accomplish this.

Please provide a credible reason for posing as an Israeli building
settlements in the disputed lands in order to insult Islam that doesn't
involve him trying to get people killed.

>>
>>
>>
>>> Oh wait. You think I didn't answer the question? I'm not saying that
>>> everything the US ever can or could do would be legitimate.
>>
>> I didn't ask whether it was legitimate. I asked whether there could be
>> a legitimate national interest in trying to obscure the facts about a
>> CIA installation.
>
> It could be. But not at the cost of trashing the 1st Amendment.

The first amendment has nothing to do with that.

>
>
>

[David Johnston]

Please provide evidence that Obama and Co were certain that the video
had nothing to do with the timing of the attack.

[theget]

On May 13, 10:50 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 7:33 PM, theget wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 8:38 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2013 3:39 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >>>> But one notes that isn't the same thing as saying it was the _fault_ of
> >>>> anyone except the perpetrators.
>
> >>> Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
> >>> filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.
>
> >> It seems like an appropriate place to send a con artist who was trying
> >> to get people killed.
>
> > Please provide evidence or a cite that says he was trying to
> > accomplish this.
>
> Please provide a credible reason for posing as an Israeli building
> settlements in the disputed lands in order to insult Islam that doesn't
> involve him trying to get people killed.

Possibly some sort of money scam or confidence game.

> >>> Oh wait.  You think I didn't answer the question?  I'm not saying that
> >>> everything the US ever can or could do would be legitimate.
>
> >> I didn't ask whether it was legitimate.  I asked whether there could be
> >> a legitimate national interest in trying to obscure the facts about a
> >> CIA installation.
>
> > It could be.  But not at the cost of trashing the 1st Amendment.
>
> The first amendment has nothing to do with that.

Either the guy's movie made those people do it or not. If you think
the movie made them do it surrender your first speech rights.

If you think the guy should be punished because he made some religious
nuts angry then you're skating on thin ice.

No. I tend to see what Obama and Hill did as being opportunistic at
best and maybe something worse. It doesn't look to me like the prez
upheld he oath of office. But that's just me. I wonder what will
happen if I make a movie about it? Perhaps they'll take my phone
records or make some other fed agency look into my finances?

[theget]

I don't think that's good enough for an officer of the fed gov't to do
the things he did and to say the things he said.

He took an oath and the oat he took includes supporting the 1st. He
didn't.

They don't have to be certain it had nothing to do with the attack.
How could they be? There's no proving a negative and that's the
standard you're saying they should meet.

And even if the video had something to do with the attack, I'd like to
know if as a country we're moving to a new standard where someone's
violence can be blamed on someone who offended them?

[David Johnston]

On 5/14/2013 8:20 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 13, 10:52 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2013 7:34 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 13, 8:40 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2013 3:49 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 13, 2:14 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2013 11:23 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On May 13, 12:38 am, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2013 9:04 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> <<Has it occurred to you that it might be the responsibility of the
>>>>>>>>> perpetrators?>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> But the only reason they did it
>>
>>>>>>>> <yawn> I see no reason to care.
>>
>>>>>>> Yup. Four Americans murdered and... wait. What? You see no reason to
>>>>>>> care?
>>
>>>>>> Do you care about the 60 Americans who have been "murdered" in various
>>>>>> diplomatic facilities since 2011?
>>
>>>>> Why did you put murdered in quotes?
>>
>>>> Because I was quoting you.
>>
>>>>> But not you.... you see no reason to care.
>>
>>>> ...why the perpetrators did it. Yes.
>>
>>> It could be useful to know, so that we can thwart other attempts.

Not bloody likely. It's not like the United States is going to get out
of the Middle East.

>>
>>>> >Really? What
>>>> >makes those four Americans so very very unspecial to you?
>>
>>>> The large amount of company they have.
>>
>>> Please tell me, in the other murders, did the US gov't attempt to
>>> cover things up?
>>
>> Please provide evidence that Obama and Co were certain that the video
>> had nothing to do with the timing of the attack.
>
> I don't think that's good enough for an officer of the fed gov't to do
> the things he did and to say the things he said.

WHich of course has nothing to do with Benghazi. As for the other
attacks, since they didn't happen during Obama's re-election campaign,
naturally nobody paid attention to them.

[David Johnston]

On 5/14/2013 8:15 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 13, 10:50 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2013 7:33 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On May 13, 8:38 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2013 3:39 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But one notes that isn't the same thing as saying it was the _fault_ of
>>>>>> anyone except the perpetrators.
>>
>>>>> Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
>>>>> filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.
>>
>>>> It seems like an appropriate place to send a con artist who was trying
>>>> to get people killed.
>>
>>> Please provide evidence or a cite that says he was trying to
>>> accomplish this.
>>
>> Please provide a credible reason for posing as an Israeli building
>> settlements in the disputed lands in order to insult Islam that doesn't
>> involve him trying to get people killed.
>
> Possibly some sort of money scam or confidence game.

WHy would posing as an Israeli help with that?

>
>>>>> Oh wait. You think I didn't answer the question? I'm not saying that
>>>>> everything the US ever can or could do would be legitimate.
>>
>>>> I didn't ask whether it was legitimate. I asked whether there could be
>>>> a legitimate national interest in trying to obscure the facts about a
>>>> CIA installation.
>>
>>> It could be. But not at the cost of trashing the 1st Amendment.
>>
>> The first amendment has nothing to do with that.
>
> Either the guy's movie made those people do it or not.

Which has nothing to do with obscuring the facts about a CIA installation.

[theget]

I didn't suggest that we were going to get out. I'm suggesting that
understanding the attackers might be useful to us.

> >>>>    >Really?  What
> >>>>    >makes those four Americans so very very unspecial to you?
>
> >>>> The large amount of company they have.
>
> >>> Please tell me, in the other murders, did the US gov't attempt to
> >>> cover things up?
>
> >> Please provide evidence that Obama and Co were certain that the video
> >> had nothing to do with the timing of the attack.
>
> > I don't think that's good enough for an officer of the fed gov't to do
> > the things he did and to say the things he said.
>
> WHich of course has nothing to do with Benghazi.

Then what are we discussing?

> As for the other
> attacks, since they didn't happen during Obama's re-election campaign,
> naturally nobody paid attention to them.

Did someone try to blame those on some filmmaker too?

[theget]

Did Obama and Hill blame the film or not?

[David Johnston]

On 5/15/2013 6:50 AM, theget wrote:

>>>>>>> Oh wait. You think I didn't answer the question? I'm not saying that
>>>>>>> everything the US ever can or could do would be legitimate.
>>
>>>>>> I didn't ask whether it was legitimate. I asked whether there could be
>>>>>> a legitimate national interest in trying to obscure the facts about a
>>>>>> CIA installation.
>>
>>>>> It could be. But not at the cost of trashing the 1st Amendment.
>>
>>>> The first amendment has nothing to do with that.
>>
>>> Either the guy's movie made those people do it or not.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with obscuring the facts about a CIA installation.
>
> Did Obama and Hill blame the film or not?
>

<shrug> Unless they start instituting a censorship regime, who cares?

[David Johnston]

And how does Amicus's pseudo-joke about the film aid in that pursuit?

>
>>>>>> >Really? What
>>>>>> >makes those four Americans so very very unspecial to you?
>>
>>>>>> The large amount of company they have.
>>
>>>>> Please tell me, in the other murders, did the US gov't attempt to
>>>>> cover things up?
>>
>>>> Please provide evidence that Obama and Co were certain that the video
>>>> had nothing to do with the timing of the attack.
>>
>>> I don't think that's good enough for an officer of the fed gov't to do
>>> the things he did and to say the things he said.
>>
>> WHich of course has nothing to do with Benghazi.
>
> Then what are we discussing?

Let me try this another way. If Obama thought that the video did have
something to do with why the militia group attacked, then why would that
not be sufficient reason to say that the video may have have something
to do with why the militia group attacked? If the con artist was in
fact in violation of the terms of his parole, then why would not be
sufficient reason to send him back to prison?

>
>> As for the other
>> attacks, since they didn't happen during Obama's re-election campaign,
>> naturally nobody paid attention to them.
>
> Did someone try to blame those on some filmmaker too?
>

Nobody asked any questions about them.

[theget]

It's nice to know that you're even a little bit worried about the IRS
thing too.

Why did they blame the film and who put them up to it?

[theget]

On May 15, 1:56 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:

> > I didn't suggest that we were going to get out.  I'm suggesting that
> > understanding the attackers might be useful to us.
>
> And how does Amicus's pseudo-joke about the film aid in that pursuit?

Which particular statement of his are you referring to?

> >> As for the other
> >> attacks, since they didn't happen during Obama's re-election campaign,
> >> naturally nobody paid attention to them.
>
> > Did someone try to blame those on some filmmaker too?
>
> Nobody asked any questions about them.

Strange. I just did.

[David Johnston]

Probably because the attack happened in the same timeframe as some
disturbances that were sparked by the publicity accorded to the film.

[David Johnston]

On 5/15/2013 5:18 PM, theget wrote:

>>>> As for the other
>>>> attacks, since they didn't happen during Obama's re-election campaign,
>>>> naturally nobody paid attention to them.
>>
>>> Did someone try to blame those on some filmmaker too?
>>
>> Nobody asked any questions about them.
>
> Strange. I just did.
>

No you didn't. You asked about the film maker who obsesses you.

[theget]

Who thought that was a good idea? And what were they trying to cover
up?

[theget]

I think you just contradicted yourself. In fact I just did ask about
them. See ante.

[David Johnston]

Who thought what was a good idea?

[theget]

Blaming the film?

[David Johnston]

That wasn't a question about them. It was a question about Benghazi,
which is still the only thing that matters to you.

[David Johnston]

The CIA.

http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/4028765-74/talking-points-cia#axzz2TcMJvpo5

[D.F. Manno]

In article
<5aa9d3a6-625f-40ac...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:

> Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
> filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.

1) Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that the Obama administration
was involved in the arrest.

2) Is it not the government's responsibility to jail people who violate
parole?

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[theget]

On May 18, 6:25 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <5aa9d3a6-625f-40ac-97a5-aa434cb2a...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
> > filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.
>
> 1) Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that the Obama administration
> was involved in the arrest.

I thank you for suggesting another fertile area of investigation for
congress.

>
> 2) Is it not the government's responsibility to jail people who violate
> parole?

It is, but I wonder if the person in question was treated
commensurately to his offense. Yes, I know that the law will allow
whatever happened to him, but don't we want everyone treated equally?
Or at least as equally as possible. Oh wait. The Obama admin? Let's
submit the IRS' targeting of organizations that have the wrong
political views as our first exhibit.

We could even say that it's been a trope on LOMS that certain minority
communities aren't treated equally by government. It seems not to
make things better for anyone involved.


Plus I wonder why the film maker got blamed at all. Just another
attempt to throw the First Amendment under the bus? Or what massive
level of stupid were they ineffectually trying to hide? Like little
kids who hide in a corner when they break something. Except in this
case it was lives.


Another day another sniff of something in the air....
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/05/18/epa-target-of-new-bias-investigation.html

"Republican lawmakers yesterday began an investigation into whether
the Environmental Protection Agency greatly favored left-leaning
environmentalists over conservative groups when granting fee waivers
for requests to access information."

But don't worry. I'm sure that the whole IRS and AP and Benghazi and
EPA will all go away. It's all political posturing anyway. Nothing
to see here citizen. Empty your pockets and move on. I mean move
along.

[David Johnston]

On 5/18/2013 9:47 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 18, 6:25 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <5aa9d3a6-625f-40ac-97a5-aa434cb2a...@gb2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>> Then it's very odd that the admin was so eager to make sure the
>>> filmmaker went to prison, even if he did violate his parole.
>>
>> 1) Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that the Obama administration
>> was involved in the arrest.
>
> I thank you for suggesting another fertile area of investigation for
> congress.
>>
>> 2) Is it not the government's responsibility to jail people who violate
>> parole?
>
> It is, but I wonder if the person in question was treated

> commensurately to his offense.Yes, I know that the law will allow

> whatever happened to him, but don't we want everyone treated equally?

Actually having to serve out your term after violating your parole is is
quite standard.

[theget]

Not what I've heard. But I don't have a cite. Do you?

[David Johnston]

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-consequences-of-breaking-parole.htm

[theget]

I think this might be a little ambiguous. It's not clear to me that
it answers the question definitively. It might support your position,
but I think it might also support mine. I tend to lean toward mine,
but I'm probably biased.

I did a quick search and found this, I don't know how accurate it is,
but it raises some interesting questions and makes me want to know,
even more, whose idea it was to blame some film and its maker.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110912-633018-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-goes-to-jail.htm?p=full

[David Johnston]

Only if you think a fraudster pretending to a fake id in order to look
for investors was only a technical violation of his parole like being
late for check-in.

I tend to lean toward mine,
> but I'm probably biased.
>
> I did a quick search and found this, I don't know how accurate it is,
> but it raises some interesting questions and makes me want to know,
> even more, whose idea it was to blame some film and its maker.
> http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110912-633018-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-goes-to-jail.htm?p=full
>

I already answered that. The idea was in the initial talking points
document they got from the CIA.

[theget]

It's not going to be the same for each violation. Is it?

>
> I tend to lean toward mine,
>
> > but I'm probably biased.
>
> > I did a quick search and found this, I don't know how accurate it is,
> > but it raises some interesting questions and makes me want to know,
> > even more, whose idea it was to blame some film and its maker.

> >http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110912-633018-innocence-of-m...

>
> I already answered that.  The idea was in the initial talking points
> document they got from the CIA.

These? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-emails/index.html
Can you please be specific about which talking point it was and what
the actual talking point that blames the film?

[David Johnston]

Page 4, "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the Cairo embassy"

[David Johnston]

On 5/20/2013 1:48 PM, theget wrote:

>>>> http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-consequences-of-breaking-parole.htm
>>
>>> I think this might be a little ambiguous. It's not clear to me that
>>> it answers the question definitively. It might support your position,
>>> but I think it might also support mine.
>>
>> Only if you think a fraudster pretending to a fake id in order to look
>> for investors was only a technical violation of his parole like being
>> late for check-in.
>
> It's not going to be the same for each violation. Is it?

I don't understand the question.

[MittR...@rnc.com]

>Who Is To Blame For Benghazi?
Notice how republicans bitch about four dead at Benghazi but ignored
the sixty dead at US embassies under Bush?

[theget]

> > These?http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/white-house-benghazi-...

> > Can you please be specific about which talking point it was and what
> > the actual talking point that blames the film?
>
> Page 4, "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the Cairo embassy"

That is quite a leap. I can see how they did it, but then the film
was at best indirect. I'd like to know who got them all to say it was
the film.

[theget]

Not all violations will get the same punishment, will they?

[theget]

I have already responded to this point, but since you insist, I'll
repeat myself. This is only evidence of my ignorance not evidence of
my principles.

[David Johnston]

Not in the least. The protest at the Cairo embassy was in fact against
the hoax film.

[David Johnston]

On 5/20/2013 8:05 PM, theget wrote:

That would depend on what their original sentence was.

[David Johnston]

Oh come on. Your only question about it was how you could blame it on
Obama.

[theget]

How did they get to a protest in Benghazi?

[theget]

And on what the violation was too I think.

[theget]

Well no. To be fair the things that happened during Bush's presidency
have to be blamed on Clintion.

What?

It' worked for Obama, right?

[David Johnston]

So as you see, it's not just a matter of not knowing about the other
embassy attacks. It's also a matter of not caring.

[David Johnston]

So then you do not understand the meaning of the word "inspired"?

[David Johnston]

Nakoula was convicted of using false identities to kite checks. He gets
out on parole with one of the conditions being that he not adopt false
identities. He then adopts a false identity similar to one of the 13
previous aliases he used in his criminal career, and begins to make a
film, claiming that he has 100 Jewish investors in the project. When
questioned by federal authorities about what he's up to, he lies to them.

So is this honestly a minor violation of his parole?

[theget]

I don't see that.

[theget]

I think I do. I'll have to go back and read about it, but I think the
time line might be off a little, and I wonder who at CIA came up with
this idea. And why.

[theget]

Actually, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula
he was on probation. I think the facts are murky.


According to this there was some concern about him being a flight
risk, otherwise he might've not been locked up right away because his
offenses were non-violent.
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-man-behind-anti-muslim-film-ordered-jailed-012117266.html
But it also seems to be the case that he didn't skip out on his
probation.

[David Johnston]

Why do you think the facts are murky? Do you think there's some doubt
that he used a false identity?

[theget]

> > Actually, according tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula

> > he was on probation.  I think the facts are murky.
>
> Why do you think the facts are murky?  Do you think there's some doubt
> that he used a false identity?

The facts were murky to me because most people I've heard speak of
this said he was on parole when it seems he was on probation.

[David Johnston]

And this is important, why?

[theget]

I find in general that when 'minor' mistakes are made, it's an
indication of other problems. But this particular problem isn't
related to issues regarding the admin. There seem to be differences
in how they are treated. And no, I don't think I understand the
differences.

[David Johnston]

Said problem being the tendency to brainfart and say probation instead
of parole and vice versa.