US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks

[Guest American Woman]

Nor have you seen any support for those who do it. In that at least I am consistent.

Nope. Hardly. 'Strongly speaking out against' the one while simply 'not showing support' for the other is hardly being consistent.

Yes and I will.

you're welcome.

[Guest American Woman]

If we don't support freedom of expression for views with which we disagree, then we don't support it at all.

Sure, it sounds a little like a platitude. But I think it's crucial.

It's exactly true. Not having freedom of expression if it offends or upsets someone is not to have freedom of speech at all, as just about everything is sure to upset or offend someone.

[waldo]

Not having freedom of expression if it offends or upsets someone is not to have freedom of speech at all, as just about everything is sure to upset or offend someone.

freedom of expression/speech... or freedom of provocation?

[Shady]

Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, and you are certainly entitled to yours. That I did not explain myself to your satisfaction is of no concern to me.

You know what else is like noses? YouTube videos. They're all over the place. Luckily, one has the option of watching them, or not watching them.

[Shady]

freedom of expression/speech... or freedom of provocation?

All of the above. One's free speech can definitely be provocative. Luckily, we have the freedom to choose whether or not we want to listen to it.

[Bitsy]

You know what else is like noses? YouTube videos. They're all over the place. Luckily, one has the option of watching them, or not watching them.

Can you clarify? Are you saying that this video should not have been watched by Muslims?

[Guest American Woman]

All of the above. One's free speech can definitely be provocative. Luckily, we have the freedom to choose whether or not we want to listen to it.

Yep. Of course free speech can be provocative; "freedom of speech" would be rather pointless if people weren't actually free to say what's on their minds. I'm sure such freedom has resulted in a lot of "provocative" views and opinions being put out there. I dare say Martin Luther King's speeches were provocative.

[Shady]

Yep. Of course free speech can be provocative; "freedom of speech" would be rather pointless if people weren't actually free to say what's on their minds. I'm sure such freedom has resulted in a lot of "provocative" views and opinions being put out there. I dare say Martin Luther King's speeches were provocative.

Exactly. It reminds of the quote from Voltaire. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Sadly, many people just don't understand this concept of freedom. For a quote that's more related to this situation, I think former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said it best, "Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."

[Shady]

Can you clarify? Are you saying that this video should not have been watched by Muslims?

No, I'm saying that nobody is forced to listen to anyone else's speech.

[jbg]

freedom of expression/speech... or freedom of provocation?

Let's say you know that I'll punch the plaster out in my house if I am exposed to an Al Gore movie trailer. Does that mean that your posting of "An Inconvenient Truth" is provocative?

[kraychik]

freedom of expression/speech... or freedom of provocation?

In other words, you have such contempt for Muslims that you believe they cannot control themselves if someone lampoons their prophet and religion. Perhaps we should criminalise females from wearing short skirts when walking within five hundred metres of a mosque, for fear that it will "provoke" Muslims into another rage? You want a double standard, because we all know you would never suggest that an obscure YouTube film trailer ridiculing Jesus be seen as a "provocation".

Your comment above constitutes a teachable moment. It reveals the contempt the left has for the very groups of people it claims to care about. And for that I thank you.

[kraychik]

I hope you'll feel better when you find out nobody apologized, but that you were just lied to by your Republican brethren.

It was a political apology, and is part of a broader policy of appeasement that Obama kicked off when he started the infamous "Apology Tour" with his speech at the American University of Cairo (a hotbed of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism) "seeking a new beginning" with the "Muslim world". Just because Obama and Clinton didn't use the words "sorry" or "apologise" doesn't mean it wasn't an apology.

Edited September 24, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Yep. Of course free speech can be provocative; "freedom of speech" would be rather pointless if people weren't actually free to say what's on their minds. I'm sure such freedom has resulted in a lot of "provocative" views and opinions being put out there. I dare say Martin Luther King's speeches were provocative.

In the words of the SCOTUS from 1949 (emphasis mine), “Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.”

Of course, the left (represented by esteemed MLW contributors such as waldo) has nothing but contempt for the basic freedoms of speech and expression.

[bleeding heart]

Your comment above constitutes a teachable moment. It reveals the contempt the left has for the very groups of people it claims to care about. And for that I thank you.

Why then do you not think my quite different view on this subject "reveals" the left to you?

[Guest Peeves]

It was a political apology, and is part of a broader policy of appeasement that Obama kicked off when he started the infamous "Apology Tour" with his speech at the American University of Cairo (a hotbed of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism) "seeking a new beginning" with the "Muslim world". Just because Obama and Clinton didn't use the words "sorry" or "apologise" doesn't mean it wasn't an apology.

I blame the orchestration of the rioting directly on Iran.

It was just more of the same, perhaps encouraged by the perception of the Potus using to his advantage his Muslim blood, his kin to an Indonesian half sister and his apologetic position." My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

So Obama, how's by you? Think appeasement is going well?

Aside from the reasonable conclusion that the (Hoo ha!) deliberate, intended, planned, premeditated and {hoo ha! again!},spontaneous uprisings occurred on the serendipitous finding of a blaspheme in the "Great Satan", caused the Islamist uprisings on Sept. 11. If so, so what? Just how little does it take anyway?A word from an imam, Crap!

Offending is not against the law. However strange as that may seem, In Canada blasphemy IS against the law.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Peeves

[bleeding heart]

and his apologetic position." My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

So Obama, how's by you? Think appeasement is going well?

How is his statement "appeasement"?

It's the same thing Bush said. Virtually identical.

I thought it was supposed to be true, in fact, that Americans are not the enemy of the Muslims.

[Wilber]

Exactly. It reminds of the quote from Voltaire. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Sadly, many people just don't understand this concept of freedom. For a quote that's more related to this situation, I think former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said it best, "Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."

That was Voltair's choice. My question is do we have the right to impose that on someone else without their consent and without any consequences on our part.

Have to leave at that for awhile.

[kraychik]

My question is do we have the right to impose that on someone else without their consent and without any consequences on our part.

Who is imposing what on who?

[Wilber]

Who is imposing what on who?

The oportunity to die so you can mouth off.

[punked]

Who is imposing what on who?

You are imposing your view that all speech must be free on another culture.

[kraychik]

You are imposing your view that all speech must be free on another culture.

The fact is exactly the opposite, of course, where Muslims are demanding that we adjust OUR freedoms of speech and expression to conform to THEIR standards. They are doing this through terrorism, and they are being enabled by those in our society who engage in apologism and tacit support for their behaviour.

I am certainly not imposing anything on anyone.

Edited September 24, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “Fuck Off” And “Have A Good Life” (emphasis mine)

From: Michael Hastings


Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:32 AM


To: Reines, Philippe I 


Subject: Request for comment



Hey Philippe:

A few quick questions for you. Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked?

Let me know if you have a second.Michael

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:


Good morning Michael

I'm adding my colleague Toria Nuland who I believe you know. She has addressed much of your questions below during her daily press briefings, so I'll let her weigh in to remind you of what's already been thoroughly answered. As far as the tone of my email, I think you're misreading mine as much as I'm misreading yours as being needlessly antagonistic.

But on your questions pertaining to CNN's handling of the diary:

• You know that all USG personnel were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. So I'm not sure why you're asking why State didn't find the diary first.

• On material, I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told anyone about.

• In terms of the media's responsibility, I'll start with the outlandish statement that I believe the media does have responsibilities. Your question seems to imply they have none and any expectation of responsible behavior is too much to ask. To be specific:I believe CNN had the responsibility to act as human beings and be sensitive to their loss when they first approached the family.

I believe CNN had a responsibility to not make promises to the family it would not keep.

If that's too much to ask, I believe CNN had at the very least a responsibility to make their intentions on the use of Chris's diary clear to the family from the outset.

I believe CNN had a responsibility to not deceive its own viewers for more than 48 hours on the source of their reporting, using convoluted attribution they themselves had to clarify, before admitting it was the diary they were relying on.

I believe that when they finally did admit to using Chris's diary, they had a responsibility to their viewers and to the family to explain why they broke their pledge.

I believe that many within CNN agree with everything I'm saying.

More than anything else, I believe that CNN - since they had already read every word of the diary before calling the family on Friday the 14th, the day Chris's remains were returned home - had all the information they needed at that point to make an editorial decision on whether the contents of the diary compelled them to report on it. I believe the time to invoke their standards to justify using the diary came six days late. I believe that CNN, if they felt strongly that they had an obligation to use the diary should never have presented the family with a choice in the first place that they'd later disregard.

I don't believe that CNN should get credit for issuing a flimsy confession only when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I believe the statement CNN issued late last night, 24 hours after Anderson Cooper's ill-conceived statement on air, basically says they agreed not to use it until they didn't feel like it anymore, and only admitted to it when they were about to be caught. I don't believe that's much of a profile in courage.

Lastly, I believe that you of all people, after famously being accused of violating agreed upon ground rules and questionable sourcing, would agree that it's important for a news organization to maintain its own integrity if it is to be trusted. That begins with keeping its word. If you can't manage that, then don't give it.


I realize that the way this works is that you only you get to ask me questions, but I have one for you: if you were in Benghazi, went to the scene of the attack, found the ambassador's diary, read every word of it, would you have called them and asked their permission to use it, then when you weren't granted that permission agree that you wouldn't use it in any way, and then a few days later just change your mind?

If the answer is yes, then you obviously agree that CNN handled this perfectly fine.

If the answer is no, if you would have decided its contents demanded reporting immediately, how would you have handled this differently then CNN?

And you should feel free to use every word above, in its entirety. Though I suspect you won't.

Philippe

______________________________________

From: Michael Hastings

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM


To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J


Subject: Re: Request for comment

Philippe:

Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to CNN offensive.

From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism.

I don't know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN.

The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.


All the best,


Michael

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:


Why do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to?

______________________________________

From: Michael Hastings

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM


To: Reines, Philippe I 
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J


Subject: Re: Request for comment 



Why don't you give answers that aren't bullshit for a change?

______________________________________

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:


I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole.

How's that for a non-bullshit response?

Now that we've gotten that out of our systems, have a good day.

And by good day, I mean Fuck Off

Wow, did the leftist Buzzfeed just have a contentious exchange with an Obama administration low-level aide in pursuit of a real scandal? Most of the media has been doing everything possible to downplay the incompetence of the Obama administration in its security preparations (virtually none) and ridiculous response (it wasn't premeditated! we promise!), while pretending that Romney "spoke too soon" and "politicized" the events. Surprisingly, this story is actually on Buzzfeed's politics homepage. In the words of Ben Shapiro, "This is how tough questions from the press are answered by the Obama administration. No wonder they don’t like doing press conferences."

[GostHacked]

Some interesting fallout from this whole attack. The current administration had to back off the 'spontaneous' bit and admit it was a planned attack, and also not related to this stupid video either.

So something is going on behind the scenes and people are still lead to believe that this video is responsible for it. Well that will work for many who have not been paying attention. And it's been working because we pages of that here in this thread even after the notion of the movie being the cause has been tossed out the window.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/29/kerry-defends-rice-against-attacks/

A top Republican called Friday for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to resign over her "misleading" statements on the Libya terror attack -- escalating a brewing battle between lawmakers and the administration over the changing narrative.

Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, told National Review that he thinks Rice should resign over the controversy. He was referring to her repeated claims during interviews on the Sunday after the attack that the strike was a “spontaneous” reaction to protests in Cairo over an anti-Islam film -- though officials now acknowledge it was a coordinated terror attack.

"She is America's foreign policy spokesman to the world," King said. "The fact is she gave out information which was either intentionally or unintentionally misleading and wrong, and there should be consequences for that. And I don’t see how she didn’t know how … that information was wrong.”

[punked]

Some interesting fallout from this whole attack. The current administration had to back off the 'spontaneous' bit and admit it was a planned attack, and also not related to this stupid video either.

So something is going on behind the scenes and people are still lead to believe that this video is responsible for it. Well that will work for many who have not been paying attention. And it's been working because we pages of that here in this thread even after the notion of the movie being the cause has been tossed out the window.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/29/kerry-defends-rice-against-attacks/

There is nothing interesting about Peter King one of the misinformed congressmen in the US saying anything. This is the man who thinks fact checkers are out to get him because he doesn't care about facts.

Edited September 29, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

There is nothing interesting about Peter King one of the misinformed congressmen in the US saying anything. This is the man who thinks fact checkers are out to get him because he doesn't care about facts.

How about instead of attacking him, you focus a little more on the misinformation of the administration and Ms. Rice?