Al Queda laughing at American Government

[Pliny]

Of course, we all know that Benghazi was a debacle that spontaneously erupted because of an "offensive video".

I can't help but think that the fundamentalist Islamic movement and perhaps the whole Muslim and Arabic world is thinking that the American Government is either stupid or intentionally lying to its citizens.

Are American citizens embarrassed by the efforts of the current administration to deflect from the truth?

[BubberMiley]

I think the American citizens are embarrassed by the efforts of the GOP to fabricate a controversy in order to weaken the democratically elected administration and inadvertently make al Qaeda stronger than it is. Fortunately, the American citizens have so far seen through this charade and made sure the Republicans lost the last election accordingly.

[Pliny]

I think the American citizens are embarrassed by the efforts of the GOP to fabricate a controversy in order to weaken the democratically elected administration and inadvertently make al Qaeda stronger than it is. Fortunately, the American citizens have so far seen through this charade and made sure the Republicans lost the last election accordingly.

Of course pointing fingers is what the current Administration does best next to fabricating propaganda.

[kimmy]

I actually have not been following the Benghazi stuff because as far as I can tell it seems like a bunch of Breitbart/Tea Party nonsense.

I gather that the far right are convinced that there must have been some kind of secret "stand down order that came straight from the White House" that prevented the military from acting, much like the 9/11 Truthies are convinced that there was some kind of secret "stand down order that came straight from the White House" on 9/11 that prevented the military from acting?

Here's your chance, Fox/Breitbart fans of MLW: present a reasonable argument about why more people should be paying attention to the Benghazi stuff.

-k

Edited May 11, 2013 by kimmy

[Bitsy]

As this article explains there is some parsing of stand down. Was the word stand down mention in witness testimony?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/08/benghazi_hearing_gregory_hicks_says_stand_down_order_is_true.html

[silver72]

My view is ever since JFK was murdered, the USA government has been going down hill and they haven't hit bottom yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

Stranger still is the amount of time non-Americans still spend worrying about what most Americans have dismissed as last years news. I doubt that the "whole Arab and Muslim world" (???) thinks twice about it either.

If Hillary Clinton runs for prez in 2016, it will be revisited then in the usual pugilistic way.

Edited May 11, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

Stranger still is the amount of time non-Americans still spend worrying about what most Americans have dismissed as last years news. I doubt that the "whole Arab and Muslim world" (???) thinks twice about it either.

If Hillary Clinton runs for prez in 2016, it will be revisited then in the usual pugilistic way.

I think that's what Jay Carney said. Old news. So is George Bush.

[Pliny]

I actually have not been following the Benghazi stuff because as far as I can tell it seems like a bunch of Breitbart/Tea Party nonsense.

I gather that the far right are convinced that there must have been some kind of secret "stand down order that came straight from the White House" that prevented the military from acting, much like the 9/11 Truthies are convinced that there was some kind of secret "stand down order that came straight from the White House" on 9/11 that prevented the military from acting?

Here's your chance, Fox/Breitbart fans of MLW: present a reasonable argument about why more people should be paying attention to the Benghazi stuff.

-k

Benghazi! What's that?

[Pliny]

My view is ever since JFK was murdered, the USA government has been going down hill and they haven't hit bottom yet.

It started about 1913, actually.

[TimG]

present a reasonable argument about why more people should be paying attention to the Benghazi stuff.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/11/nyt-uh-oh-benghazi-might-actually-be-a-scandal/

The ugliest dimension of the story still trying to claw its way out of the Republican media ghetto is the narrative about the unseemly rush to pin the blame for the terror attack on a video, and the subsequent railroading of one of the world’s lousiest film makers into jail for essentially political reasons.

This was both ugly and cowardly: ugly because the administration absolutely knew that the attempt to blame the film for Benghazi was at best baloney and at worst a deliberate lie. Cowardly because there is a difference between cringing and sensitivity, and the panicky response to the film was definitely on the wrong side of the line. A reflexive moral crouch and a knee jerk apology reflex is not a sign of a sensitive and statesmanlike approach to cultural misunderstandings; it telegraphs weakness to our enemies and says that if you push us we fold.

I don't know about you but I find it appalling that a government is allowed to get away with blaming a bystander to cover up its own incompetence. Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

It started about 1913, actually.

No, it started in 1776.

[Bitsy]

I don't know about you but I find it appalling that a government is allowed to get away with blaming a bystander to cover up its own incompetence.

Hardly, a bystander.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-is-not-a-political-prisoner/

[silver72]

It started about 1913, actually.

Really, I wasn't thought of or my parents then.

[TimG]

Hardly, a bystander.

You should notice that I did not use the words 'innocent bystander' in my original post - this was intentional.

The reasons for him being but in jail are less important than the fact that he was scapegoated.

Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

March 19 2003, the invasion of Iraq. Al Queda laughed all the way to the bank that day. But by then we were already well down a hill the west crested in Iran on 19 August 1953.

[Pliny]

Hardly, a bystander.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-is-not-a-political-prisoner/

It has been established that the film, and thus Nikoula, had nothing to do with the planned Benghazi terrorist attack. It was not a spontaneous uprising. Nikoula is a diversion from any actual responsibility for the events in Benghazi.

There is no connection whatsoever.

The truth of the matter is that the terrorist attack did not fit the Administration's political campaign narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run. The State Department, the WH and the CIA all conspired to draft the "spontaneous uprising" scenario and disseminate it through the media via the UN Ambassador Susan Rice. But that cover up is only the aftermath.

Why was such a story invented? What was it supposed to hide? That Al Qaeda was not on the run? That there was no organized planned terrorist attack implying it was entirely spontaneous? Or did this "idea" that Al Qaeda was on the run contribute to the attitude to ignore or simply not acknowledge the serious nature of the event and do nothing when something could have been done? Of course, the Administration will try and forward the fact that nothing could have been done to save the lives of those men. So the big question is did the idea that nothing could have been done exist at the time of the attack and therefore nothing was done or did someone actually say don't do anything?

What difference, at this point, does it make? It could be negligence resulting in the death of a high ranking official and three other Americans. It is important the facts must be known if this type of incident is to be prevented in the future.

My opinion is that the Democrats actually believed their own rhetoric that Al Qaeda was dysfunctional and thus unable to successfully pull off the attack making the responsible agencies complacent and to them the "spontaneity" of the attack left no time to effectively respond. If they had not had this arrogant attitude warning signs may have have been apparent to them and preventative security measures taken before the attack. Or during the actual attack some resources may have been available that could have been put into action but weren't. Those are the details that need to be filled in.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Pliny

[Argus]

The Republicans have no ideas, no vision, no imagination. So all they can do is bang on their desks and make wild assed accusations. Oh, and hold more votes to repeal Obamacare. I think they've voted to repeal it about 50 times so far. Between voting down Obamacare every week, doing their best to make sure every schoolkid has a fully automatic assault rifle in their backpack, and demanding every faggot and abortion doctor be executed, the Republicans basically don't have much time for anything else. You know, like, uh, the economy and stuff.

[TimG]

The Republicans have no ideas, no vision, no imagination.

The trouble is neither do the democrats. Their solution to everything is more taxes and government spending. It does not take a lot of imagination if one thinks there is an endless pool of other people's money.

[Argus]

The trouble is neither do the democrats. Their solution to everything is more taxes and government spending. It does not take a lot of imagination if one thinks there is an endless pool of other people's money.

Gee, all they want to do is return to those fiscally prudent days of the '50s, where the government paid its bills. Is something wrong with that?

Oh, I know, I know. You'll say it should just cut taxes. Of course, cutting taxes enough to make ends meet basically means cutting people off food aid, off welfare, off pensions, off medical care, off home heating subsidies, etc. The only thing Republicans want to spend money on is the army and the police.

They kind of remind me of the famous emperor who ignored the poverty of his people, and when one of his aides said "Lord, you spend all your money on the army, and nothing on the people!" He said "That's right. That way I will be ready when the revolution comes!"

Edited May 12, 2013 by Argus

[TimG]

Gee, all they want to do is return to those fiscally prudent days of the '50s, where the government paid its bills. Is something wrong with that?

I missed the democratic plan to roll back entitlements to what was the norm in the 50s. Of course, that illustrates the entire problem with the democrats: they have no interest in controlling spending. They just want to raise taxes.

Don't take my comments to mean I support the tax cutting nonsense from republicans. I am simply saying that the democrats are just as idiotic.

[Argus]

I missed the democratic plan to roll back entitlements to what was the norm in the 50s. Of course, that illustrates the entire problem with the democrats: they have no interest in controlling spending. They just want to raise taxes.

Don't take my comments to mean I support the tax cutting nonsense from republicans. I am simply saying that the democrats are just as idiotic.

This is not the fifties. We're supposed to be more enlightened today than to simply let people die for want of a little money for basic medicine, or to let old people freeze in the dark eating dog food. You want to cut back spending. From what I understand, the US spends even more on corporate welfare than Canada does. How many hundreds of billions go each year to tax write offs and grants to corporate America?

What did Canada get when Harper cut corporate taxes last year? The treasury lost $11.5 billion per year. What did the country get in return? Not increased spending by corporate Canada. Not increased investment by corporate Canada. Not increased hiring from corporate Canada. They pocketed the money, or shipped it overseas.

In the fifties, the rich and corporations paid taxes. I know that's a strange concept given we've been subjected to decades of corporate propaganda telling us that taxing them kills jobs, but it seemed to work well back then. In fact, used to be ONLY the rich landowners, the "job creators" paid taxes at all! And that seemed to work pretty well too! Income tax for the masses, as you know full well, was only implemented as a wartime measure.

[TimG]

This is not the fifties.

You are the one who tried to claim that the democrats where simply bring back the fiscal responsibility of the 50s. What you clear have forgotten is the 50s also meant that less money was spent on entitlements.

How many hundreds of billions go each year to tax write offs and grants to corporate America?

I disagree with the entitle premise of corporate taxes. Taxes on profits should be collected when it is transferred to the owners or out of the country. The corporate tax fetish of the left is largely an excuse to avoid facing the reality that their pet entitlement programs are unsustainable.

[Michael Hardner]

I missed the democratic plan to roll back entitlements to what was the norm in the 50s. Of course, that illustrates the entire problem with the democrats: they have no interest in controlling spending. They just want to raise taxes.

Don't take my comments to mean I support the tax cutting nonsense from republicans. I am simply saying that the democrats are just as idiotic.

Hi TimG - I found an interesting new tool that gives a high level comparison of US govt expenditures.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1960USpn_14ps1n#usgs302

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2014USpn_14ps1n#usgs302

The government is not spending that much more of a % of GDP although it's pretty high, even compared with the end of the Nixon administration - which was a major recession if I recall - at 20%.

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree with the entitle premise of corporate taxes. Taxes on profits should be collected when it is transferred to the owners or out of the country. The corporate tax fetish of the left is largely an excuse to avoid facing the reality that their pet entitlement programs are unsustainable.

Unsustainable at what levels ?