This question must be asked: Is there some Benghazi bot embedded in Republican brains that recycles every few months, triggering a monstrous electrical cascade in their amygdalas, inducing screams of "BENGHAZI!!" This occurred to me after the news came out yesterday that Darryl Issa plans to form a "special select committee" to further investigate....Benghazi!
According to one Issa tweet released yesterday, likely after the Benghazi bot seized control of his brain:
Today I announced a subpoena requiring Secretary Kerry to testify at a public @GOPoversight hearing on May 21. #Benghazi
Then later in the day, we were treated on the CBS Evening news to a South Carolina imp named Gomer Gowdy, yelping that the truth will out! Yessiree! "We will get to the bottom of Benghazi!"
Issa’s subpoena is in response to the revelation of new emails sent by Obama administration officials in the hours following the attack in 2012. This, development is described by goofy Republicans as a “smoking gun” that proves the White House was misleading in its description of the causes of incident that led to four American deaths. The emails referred to 'talking points' for Susan Rice and implicated a vile video that was released days earlier, as being the real trigger.
During several cycles of "Benghazi madness" likely induced by the bots, the GOOPrs went ape shit and demanded answers. Well they finally arrived at the end of December last year when The New York Times released the results of its own extensive investigation. The Times report ('Deadly Mix In Benghazi, False Allies, Rude Video', December 29) based on multiple reliable sources, concluded the video WAS responsible, and incited anti-American rage but it wasn't Al Qaeda involved.
Rather, it was one of the militias with which the U.S. had made common cause to oust Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi. In retrospect, this also shows the wisdom of the U.S. not compounding previous errors by making alliances with the Syrian rebels to take down Assad, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-agaist-radical-jihadists-you.html I would also add that it discloses the wisdom of not making alliances with fascists and nationalists in the Ukraine - though it looks like that cow has already escaped the barn.
Anyway, as the Times piece stated:
"Months of investigation centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefitted directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in part by anger at an American -made video denigrating Islam."
The piece went on to delve into the basis in much more detail while also noting the (usually) garrulous Issa "had no comment" and that the incident "shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies in convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-American sentiment."
Meanwhile, in the wake of the report, Benghazi bots evidently triggered rage in the brain of Peter King (R- NY) who flipped out at the NY Times editorial board, calling them "apologists for terrorists". It didn't matter that an exhaustive investigation had proven the video was responsible, /something I already concluded in an earlier (Sept. 14, 2012) blog post ('Getting a Grip on Reality - The Fake Film And Muslim Outrage') Therein I noted:
"Now, as 11 Muslim nations – from the Sudan, to Egypt to Yemen, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia go up in flames and riots, and 4 Americans have been left dead in Libya (Btw, NO Marines! There were two former Navy Seals killed and a civilian USAID worker apart from Ambassador Stevens). Questions are being asked as to: Who started it?, and What was this film? – what was the nature of it?
Some deluded nabobs have posed the issue as “free speech”, and that the film maker – who until recently remained hidden – had the right to portray what he wanted, without fear of distant uprisings, bloodshed or reprisals. But that specious speech cover does not apply to a film 'maker' who lies about his identity and especially the film title itself (in misrepresenting it and the film's featured characters to the actors), as well as the origins of the financial backers.
In the wake of the investigation by Brian Ross of ABC News, e.g.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/anti-islam-film-producer-guilty-drug-fraud-charges-17231542
we now know this "movie" and its dubious maker were the ones that triggered Benghazi.
Did the Repukes ever accept this? No, they did not. They didn't accept it for the same reason most of them don't accept human caused global warming. Facts and reality are too painful for them, so they have to invent their own reasons.
With reality the casualty on Benghazi too, look for these goofballs to have no problem squandering tens of millions of your tax dollars on a lengthy investigation that will go nowhere. Given it's all about politics, in this case trying to diminish Hillary's chances, they will likely stretch it all out until 2016.
Do the Repukes ever feel any shame regarding their insane actions and costly paranoia, as on Benghazi? How can they when bots are running their brains? Let us also recall Einstein's famous words defining insanity:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/55721/benghazi-wtf
Showing posts with label Darryl Issa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darryl Issa. Show all posts
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Monday, December 30, 2013
Now We Know: Benghazi Was Incited by Anti-Muslim Video - NOT Al Qaeda!
It's been over a year for the truth to finally emerge after all the hair-on-fire screeching over Benghazi by the Repukes last year before the general election. To refresh people's memories, an attack occurred on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 - costing the life of Ambassador Christopher J. Stephens. The disgusting Repukes then attempted to turn it into a 9/11 style Al Qaeda terror attack that caught Obama sleeping at the switch as well as Susan Rice. It cost Rice her job at State, and even put Hillary under intense scrutiny with hearings by the eternally outraged Re-punk,. Darryl Issa (CA).
Knowing that a vile anti-Muslim video had surfaced in the days before, I never bought any of this politically inspired bunkum. Indeed, in my Sept. 14, 2012 blog post ('Getting a Grip on Reality - The Fake Film And Muslim Outrage') I noted:
"Now, as 11 Muslim nations – from the Sudan, to Egypt to Yemen, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia go up in flames and riots, and 4 Americans have been left dead in Libya (Btw, NO Marines! There were two former Navy Seals killed and a civilian USAID worker apart from Ambassador Stevens). Questions are being asked as to: Who started it?, and What was this film? – what was the nature of it?
Some deluded nabobs have posed the issue as “free speech”, and that the film maker – who until recently remained hidden – had the right to portray what he wanted, without fear of distant uprisings, bloodshed or reprisals. But that specious speech cover does not apply to a film 'maker' who lies about his identity and especially the film title itself (in misrepresenting it and the film's featured characters to the actors), as well as the origins of the financial backers.
In the wake of the investigation by Brian Ross of ABC News, e.g.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/anti-islam-film-producer-guilty-drug-fraud-charges-17231542
we now know this "movie" and its dubious maker add to a steaming pile of vile horse shit. A better characterization might be a 'drive by' on celluloid.) The guy who made the film wasn’t a "Sam Bacile" (the identity he originally gave) or a Jew at all, but a twice- convicted felon (for meth making and financial crimes) and Xtian Egyptian.
This twice-convicted (and until recently, imprisoned) methamphetamine maker and bank fraud perp, Nakoula Basselly Nakoula, adopted the nom-de-plume “Sam Bacile” for the purposes of avoiding responsibility for his disgusting film (which will remain unnamed), and portrayed himself as an “Israeli Jew”, implying Jews were behind the making of the film. All not true! Nakoula was no Jew but a member of the Egyptian Coptic Church. His wife’s Coptic Xtian relatives in Egypt funded this disreputable film.
What of the film itself? As the ABC Ross report notes, the actors-actresses said they were duped and had been told they were to appear in a flick called ‘Desert Warrior’. The scripts given them also were headed by this false title. Meanwhile, the names of the characters in the script were all fake, i.e. they were not the same as what "Bacile" would insert after production. (According to one actress interviewed, the names - of the actually intended characters, were dubbed in, post-production. Can anyone say FRAUD?)
For example in the actors' script the Prophet Mohammed was called “George”. Actress Cindy Garcia , interviewed by Ross, who made script-based (fictional) child molestation accusations against “George” (as she pointed out to Brian Ross) had no remote idea the references were to be later altered. For example, she wasn't aware that whenever she addressed the character "George" in her lines, the name would subsequently be changed (dubbed) to "Mohammed'. In other words, all the actors were lied to by this dirt bag Nakoula, who some rightists now wish to defend – even as he’s caused infernal havoc and bloodshed across the already unstable Middle East. And worse, as they seek to blame Obama for what this effing turd incited!
Let's get this straight once and for all: Any movie made under "bait and switch" false pretenses, to the extent the partaking actors are lied to concerning the film content, characters, is NO work of cinematic art but a TERRORIST act - especially when it incepts the violent reactions it did!"
In the wake of that, within weeks, the idiot media (most of them) hyped the Al Qaeda connection as assorted Repukes - especially Mittster Romney- screamed and pounded for justice. A question on possible 9/11 Benghazi connections to Al Qaeda was actually asked during the 2nd Presidential debate by Candy Crowley.) Almost every Repuke and lax media nabob - to a man -asserted that saying the video was responsible amounted to foolishness. But I never bought this folderol, nor did I post any blog retractions.
Now, thanks to a New York Times investigation and story ('Deadly Mix In Benghazi, False Allies, Rude Video', December 29) we now know the video WAS responsible, and incited anti-American rage but it wasn't Al Qaeda involved. Rather, it was one of the militias with which the U.S. had made common cause to oust Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi. In retrospect, this also shows the wisdom of the U.S. not compounding previous errors by making an alliance with the Syrian rebels to take down Assad, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-agaist-radical-jihadists-you.html
As the Times piece states:
"Months of investigation centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefitted directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in part by anger at an American -made video denigrating Islam."
The piece went on to delve into the basis in much more detail while also noting the (usually) garrulous Issa "had no comment" and that the incident "shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies in convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-American sentiment."
This provides the cautionary lesson for the U.S. not to meddle in Middle East affairs or states - whether by indirect interjection (via NATO air attacks and supplying rebels, as in Libya) or direct, as was contemplated months ago when the thought of using Syrian rebels to attack Hafez Assad was bruited in tandem with a cruise missile assault. It also provides another domestic political lesson, of ignoring political grandstanding by known demagogues such as Darryl Issa, Peter King (R, NY), Lindsey Graham, and their assorted clones.
Will we learn from this? Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, the fathead fool and dickhead Peter King (R- NY) has flipped out at the NY Times editorial board calling them "apologists for terrorists"- for calling for clemency for Snowden. See,
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/gops_peter_king_flips_out_on_the_new_york_times/
This asshole still claims Snowden is a “traitor” - despite the fact Ed has done more to protect this nation's honor and principles than the fat bag of blowhard gas has done in all his years sitting in congress. The real traitors are pigs like King, and we need to call them out and say so!
Knowing that a vile anti-Muslim video had surfaced in the days before, I never bought any of this politically inspired bunkum. Indeed, in my Sept. 14, 2012 blog post ('Getting a Grip on Reality - The Fake Film And Muslim Outrage') I noted:
"Now, as 11 Muslim nations – from the Sudan, to Egypt to Yemen, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia go up in flames and riots, and 4 Americans have been left dead in Libya (Btw, NO Marines! There were two former Navy Seals killed and a civilian USAID worker apart from Ambassador Stevens). Questions are being asked as to: Who started it?, and What was this film? – what was the nature of it?
Some deluded nabobs have posed the issue as “free speech”, and that the film maker – who until recently remained hidden – had the right to portray what he wanted, without fear of distant uprisings, bloodshed or reprisals. But that specious speech cover does not apply to a film 'maker' who lies about his identity and especially the film title itself (in misrepresenting it and the film's featured characters to the actors), as well as the origins of the financial backers.
In the wake of the investigation by Brian Ross of ABC News, e.g.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/anti-islam-film-producer-guilty-drug-fraud-charges-17231542
we now know this "movie" and its dubious maker add to a steaming pile of vile horse shit. A better characterization might be a 'drive by' on celluloid.) The guy who made the film wasn’t a "Sam Bacile" (the identity he originally gave) or a Jew at all, but a twice- convicted felon (for meth making and financial crimes) and Xtian Egyptian.
This twice-convicted (and until recently, imprisoned) methamphetamine maker and bank fraud perp, Nakoula Basselly Nakoula, adopted the nom-de-plume “Sam Bacile” for the purposes of avoiding responsibility for his disgusting film (which will remain unnamed), and portrayed himself as an “Israeli Jew”, implying Jews were behind the making of the film. All not true! Nakoula was no Jew but a member of the Egyptian Coptic Church. His wife’s Coptic Xtian relatives in Egypt funded this disreputable film.
What of the film itself? As the ABC Ross report notes, the actors-actresses said they were duped and had been told they were to appear in a flick called ‘Desert Warrior’. The scripts given them also were headed by this false title. Meanwhile, the names of the characters in the script were all fake, i.e. they were not the same as what "Bacile" would insert after production. (According to one actress interviewed, the names - of the actually intended characters, were dubbed in, post-production. Can anyone say FRAUD?)
For example in the actors' script the Prophet Mohammed was called “George”. Actress Cindy Garcia , interviewed by Ross, who made script-based (fictional) child molestation accusations against “George” (as she pointed out to Brian Ross) had no remote idea the references were to be later altered. For example, she wasn't aware that whenever she addressed the character "George" in her lines, the name would subsequently be changed (dubbed) to "Mohammed'. In other words, all the actors were lied to by this dirt bag Nakoula, who some rightists now wish to defend – even as he’s caused infernal havoc and bloodshed across the already unstable Middle East. And worse, as they seek to blame Obama for what this effing turd incited!
Let's get this straight once and for all: Any movie made under "bait and switch" false pretenses, to the extent the partaking actors are lied to concerning the film content, characters, is NO work of cinematic art but a TERRORIST act - especially when it incepts the violent reactions it did!"
In the wake of that, within weeks, the idiot media (most of them) hyped the Al Qaeda connection as assorted Repukes - especially Mittster Romney- screamed and pounded for justice. A question on possible 9/11 Benghazi connections to Al Qaeda was actually asked during the 2nd Presidential debate by Candy Crowley.) Almost every Repuke and lax media nabob - to a man -asserted that saying the video was responsible amounted to foolishness. But I never bought this folderol, nor did I post any blog retractions.
Now, thanks to a New York Times investigation and story ('Deadly Mix In Benghazi, False Allies, Rude Video', December 29) we now know the video WAS responsible, and incited anti-American rage but it wasn't Al Qaeda involved. Rather, it was one of the militias with which the U.S. had made common cause to oust Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi. In retrospect, this also shows the wisdom of the U.S. not compounding previous errors by making an alliance with the Syrian rebels to take down Assad, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-youre-agaist-radical-jihadists-you.html
As the Times piece states:
"Months of investigation centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefitted directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in part by anger at an American -made video denigrating Islam."
The piece went on to delve into the basis in much more detail while also noting the (usually) garrulous Issa "had no comment" and that the incident "shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies in convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-American sentiment."
This provides the cautionary lesson for the U.S. not to meddle in Middle East affairs or states - whether by indirect interjection (via NATO air attacks and supplying rebels, as in Libya) or direct, as was contemplated months ago when the thought of using Syrian rebels to attack Hafez Assad was bruited in tandem with a cruise missile assault. It also provides another domestic political lesson, of ignoring political grandstanding by known demagogues such as Darryl Issa, Peter King (R, NY), Lindsey Graham, and their assorted clones.
Will we learn from this? Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, the fathead fool and dickhead Peter King (R- NY) has flipped out at the NY Times editorial board calling them "apologists for terrorists"- for calling for clemency for Snowden. See,
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/gops_peter_king_flips_out_on_the_new_york_times/
This asshole still claims Snowden is a “traitor” - despite the fact Ed has done more to protect this nation's honor and principles than the fat bag of blowhard gas has done in all his years sitting in congress. The real traitors are pigs like King, and we need to call them out and say so!
Monday, October 22, 2012
‘ARGO’, Iran –Contra and What Bob Schieffer Needs To Ask Romney Tonight
Seeing the excellent movie ‘ARGO’ (produced by George Clooney & Ben Affleck) brought back the tense period (over 1979-80) of the 52 American hostages, held 444 days by Shi’ite zealots at the U.S. Embassy in Iran. It also brought back memories of what led to that dire standoff, and what nasty deals followed in its wake. Rather than delve into the movie, which I won’t do because I think many more people need to see this superb film, let me offer some perspectives on the Iran –Contra conspiracy which was implemented by Reagan cronies such as Oliver North, John Poindexter, Albert Hakim and Caspar Weinberger. All the charges against these characters and others are listed on page xiv of the Introduction to the Iran –Contra Report (1994) published by Random House at the behest of Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. (Note: Weinberger – “charged with four counts of false statements and perjury was pardoned by George Bush” That would be George Senior).
The basic facts to take away concerning the conspiracy were these
- Shipping Israeli Hawk and TOW missiles to Iran from 1985-86 to obtain the release of American hostages held in the Middle East. This was despite an embargo on such sales.
- The money from the sales of these arms was to be funneled into Nicaragua to support the Rightist “Contras’, a violation of the then Boland Amendment, and basically exposing the Reagan administration’s covert support for paramilitary activities conducted against the Sandinista government.
As noted in Walsh’s Introduction (p. xv):
“The Iran and Contra operations were merged when funds generated from the sale of weapons to Iran were diverted to support the Contra mission in Nicaragua. Although this diversion may be the most dramatic aspect of Iran-contra, it is important to emphasize that both the Iran and contra operations, separately, violated United States policy and the law.”
Violation of policy was via the Boland Amendment. Named for Rep. Edward Boland (D-MA) The amendment restricted U.S. aid to the contras and “prohibited the use of U.S. funds for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua.”
But even Rep. Boland likely couldn’t conceive of the dastardly lengths to which the Reaganites would go even before his amendment was in the public domain. I am referring, of course, to the “October Surprise” whereby Reaganites (known at the time also to be strongly supported by the Republican Heritage Council with Nazi links- see, e.g. Russ Bellant’s book: ‘Old Nazis, The New Right and the Republican Party’, 1991, pp. 41-44)) used back channels to make a secret deal with Iran to postpone release of the 52 American hostages in return for arms sales after the election.
Corroborating this, on July 18, 1981 the then USSR's TASS news agency reported the emergency landing near the USSR-Turkish border of an Argentine-registered transport aircraft leased and flown by Israelis, carrying a full load of US weaponry and military spare parts. The US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, Nicholas Veliotes, subsequently investigated this occurrence and concluded that the downed aircraft was on its third such flight in a series of shipments of US weapons to Iran which had been authorized by high officials in the Reagan Administration
The claims to the effect of a Reagan “October Surprise” were also made by former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr, former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger—and all have stood by the allegation despite efforts to naysay their credibility or the facts.
There have been connected allegations that the plane crash that killed the Portuguese Prime Minister, Francisco de Sá Carneiro, in 1980 was in fact an assassination of the Defence Minister, Adelino Amaro da Costa, who had said that he had documents concerning the October surprise conspiracy theory and was planning on taking them to the United Nations General Assembly.
Before people start talking “tinfoil hats” let’s examine what was at stake and in particular the federal conspiracy law as it would relate to the later arms-for-hostages dealings of Iran-Contra. As noted on p. 56 of The Iran –Contra Report:
“The federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, states that ‘it is a crime to conspire to defraud the
This would have been violated under three criminal actions by the perpetators (ibid.):
1) “Using government resources, the conspirators conducted an unauthorized covert program in support of the contras.”
2) “North and Poindexter used their Government positions to create a hidden slush fund under the exclusive control of the conspirators”
3) “By secretly pursuing their own ends, the conspirators outraged the Iranians they were attempting to persuade and thus jeopardized the success of the Iran initiative.”
In terms of the scale and scope of the deal, on p. 338 of the Iran-Contra Report we see “3300 TOWs for hostages”, then on p. 339, we note: “In fact, 1,000 TOW missiles had been delivered to Iran between February 15 and 17, 1986.”
These facts are germane and important because they disclose that if such back doors channels were available over 1985-86 they also likely were available 5 years earlier to secure the October Surprise deal and Reagan’s election. Imagine then, before you scowl in disbelief, what likely would have unfolded before the 1980 election had those hostages been released then- as opposed to exactly TWENTY minutes after Reagan was inaugurated!
Past is Prologue, dear readers, and in terms of the Repuke betrayal of our nation and violation of its security and international dealings, they have shown themselves to be willing to do so again and again. Thus, Reagan’s October Surprise to secure for himself the election – which turned this nation into a debtor – and then five years later using arms sold to the Iranians to jeopardize security again even as he destabilized Nicaragua via the use of the contras. Then again on Sept. 12, 13 as Romney tried to use the Benghazi incident for political gain. (And which I believe he likely will try to do tonight, unless Schieffer puts the hammer down.)
And then today, we beheld Chief House Whore Darryl Issa releasing a document “dump” to try to embarrass Obama at tonight’s debate - but which has had the unintended effect of compromising our relations with Libya, as well as Turkey and other nations in the Middle East.
Anyway, the question (actually 2) Bob Schieffer needs to ask Romney tonight is:
“Where are you going to get $2 TRILLION to add to the Pentagon budget without massively adding to the deficit? And how do you intend to use it?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)