• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

The Answer to the Benghazi “Scandal”?

As best I can tell, the main bone of contention with those who think that there is a potential scandal behind the Obama administration’s reaction to the attacks at Benghazi is over what was said after the fact, specifically that the admin mentioned the anti-Islamic video, The Innocence of Muslims well after it was known that the video was not related to the events and that they did not sufficiently stress the involvement of terrorist organizations.

Well, perhaps, this is the simple answer as to why (source):

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

[...]

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

[...]

After the hearings on Friday, administration officials disputed the notion that politics or other motives caused the changes.

“The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,” said a senior official familiar with the drafting of the talking points. “There were legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly.”

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

If this is the explanation for the way that the administration handled, then it is hardly a massive cover-up, nor is it a scandal.  Nor would it be, I would note, the first time that an administration did not immediately provide all the information available about an event for national security considerations.

As an aside, in the annals of cover-ups, this would have to rank as a pretty lousy one, since we know (and knew from pretty early on, even with video references ongoing) that terrorism was involved.

Regardless, I am guessing that none of this will end the conspiracy theories.

Related Posts:

About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. He is the author of Voting Amid Violence: Electoral Democracy in Colombia and is currently working on a comparative study of the US to 29 other democracies. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging at PoliBlog since 2003. Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Personally, I never thought there was a “scandal” here, but it did strike me as odd that the Administration continued with a narrative — “the attack was caused by reaction to a move that nobody had ever heard of before 9/11/12 — that made no sense given the facts. If they didn’t want to reveal intelligence sources and methods, then they could’ve just said “we don’t know, we’re still investigating” instead of putting forward a narrative that made less and less sense as the days went on.

    But the media narrative is only one part of this story. There’s also the question of the lack of security for U.S. personnel in Libya in general and Benghazi in particular. And, more importantly, the fact that our intervention in Libya last year now seems to have resulted in a nation that could very well be turning into a breeding ground for terrorism that will have an adverse impact on North Africa, and probably Europe, for years to come.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  2. @Doug Mataconis: I don’t disagree. To note that there is no scandal does not mean that there aren’t important issues here.

    Indeed, some of what you note would have been true even if the Benghazi attack had never happened.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  3. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Regardless, I am guessing that none of this will end the conspiracy theories.

    Why so pessimistic, Steven? After Obama finally provided his long form birth certificate, all the birthers accepted the Kenyan socialist fascist anti-colonial Muslim mulatto as their president, didn’t they?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2

  4. @Steven L. Taylor:

    Indeed, some of what you note would have been true even if the Benghazi attack had never happened.

    The situation in Benghazi had been going downhill for the better part of the year before the attack on 9/11. Indeed, I didn’t know until very recently that this wasn’t the first attack on the consulate compound. There was a much smaller one several months earlier.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  5. Habbit says:

    The United States government knows that the American people are so stupid, that they will readily accept this idiotic explanation without question.

    Anyone with a functioning brain and who keeps up with the area knew relatively who the perpetrators were, and the truth about the extremist attacks hours after they occurred. For the past year, people who aren’t complete morons have been lamenting the retarded Obama administration’s willing financial and military support of extremist groups in Libya, for the stupid goal of reinstituting American and French influence in the region.

    Now to sit back and read the apologist, “But the (Obama) government would never lie to us…” pandering.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 32

  6. john personna says:

    @Habbit:

    You sir or madame, are sadly typical. This part passed right through your head:

    Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

    US national interests be damned, you want to ding the president more than you want the militants addressed.

    (I think Doug is a mini-me on this. He might think he can back off now, but he played it as well.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  7. michael reynolds says:

    It certainly won’t satisfy McCain or Senator Toady (R-SC) because McCain isn’t interested in the truth, he’s interested in relevance. H’e losing his committee assignment, the only thing that gives him a FP platform, the only thing that gets him invited on the Sunday talk shows. It’s afate worse than death for McCain: obscurity.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1

  8. Habbit says:

    @john personna:

    When US interests turn a well-functioning country into a civil war hell hole for the purpose of bringing in more oil money, then US interests and the administration can go straight to hell.

    Go militants! I fully support anyone who fights back against their women and children’s heads being blow off for Western oil interests.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 23

  9. Rafer Janders says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    A few corrections:

    There’s also the question of the lack of security for U.S. personnel in Libya in general and Benghazi in particular.

    No, they had security. They just didn’t have enough security to withstand a coordinated and sustained assault with heavy weapons, including mortars. But in general, diplomatic personnel don’t — and shouldn’t — travel with that much security, since that would interfere with their core mission. Ambassador Stevens would have had to have had the equivalent of a couple of platoons worth of Marines themselves armed with heavy machine gun, mortars, and rockets to have had a chance against that specific attack, but to have that on a day to day basis just isn’t feasible.

    And, more importantly, the fact that our intervention in Libya last year now seems to have resulted in a nation that could very well be turning into a breeding ground for terrorism that will have an adverse impact on North Africa, and probably Europe, for years to come.

    Well that’s just your usual nonsense. How on did US invervention cause the situation in Libya? We didn’t create and sustain the 30 year plus Qaddafi dictatorship that destabilized the country in the first place, nor did we instigate the armed revolt against him. All we did was hasten the end along, but with or without us, Qaddafi was going down, and in fact our support of the Libyan people has made them more, not less, friendly to the US.

    Please, be very specific and show your work: which particular actions that the US took turned Libya into a breeding ground for terrorism, and how? Explain how absent American intervention, there would be no possibility of terrorism emanating from Libya.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1

  10. steve says:

    ” There was a much smaller one several months earlier.”

    To the best of my knowledge, these were all bombings. Given that the security within the compound that night was close to unarmed and unarmored, it suggests that they were worried almost exclusively about bombings.


    “Anyone with a functioning brain”

    Who served in the Middle East or has read widely on the area knows that nothing is ever exactly as it seems. You also know that the players there have been very good at misleading us about who is responsible for what.

    Steve

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  11. Rafer Janders says:

    @Habbit:

    When US interests turn a well-functioning country

    Qaddafi’s Libya was a well-functioning country?

    Sure, that’s why its citizens supported an armed rebellion as soon as they had the chance, I guess.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

  12. john personna says:

    @Habbit:

    WTF, you are a Qaddafi man!

    But regardless, you have the timeline wrong: Eight-month struggle: Timeline of Libyan revolution

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  13. Habbit says:

    @john personna:

    This part passed right through your head:

    No, you just have a hard time with reading and comprehension. Which is why you prefer information to be force fed in to your miniscule little mind. Hours after the attacks, I and many other people who keep up with the area and who have friends in countries in North Africa knew who and what was up, and were calling the Obama administration out on its crap soon afterwards.

    Even Doug admits to not having a clue on what has been going on in Libya since US/French “regime change.”

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16

  14. @Rafer Janders:

    Well, when you overthrow a dicator that’s been in power for 40 years and have no idea what the post-revolution plan is and no idea who the “rebels” that you were dealing with actually are, you’re kind of rolling the dice it would seem to me. That’s the problem with American foreign policy regardless of who’s in power, it never considers the consequences of what we might be doing.

    Personally, I opposed the intervention in Libya because it did not implicate American national interests and also because the President failed to even try to get Congressional permission before committing American forces to the mission. I stand by that position. Since we went anyway, though, it would have been nice if someone in charge in Washington had had even the slightest idea what they were doing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  15. Habbit says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    But in general, diplomatic personnel don’t — and shouldn’t — travel with that much security, since that would interfere with their core mission.

    It’s amazing how you really have no idea at all about what you’re talking about.

    Well that’s just your usual nonsense. How on did US invervention cause the situation in Libya? We didn’t create and sustain the 30 year plus Qaddafi dictatorship that destabilized the country in the first place, nor did we instigate the armed revolt against him. All we did was hasten the end along, but with or without us, Qaddafi was going down, and in fact our support of the Libyan people has made them more, not less, friendly to the US.

    I would bet my life with one hundred percent confidence you had no idea what a “Li-bee-yuh” was until several months ago. You clearly don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19

  16. john personna says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    That doesn’t follow the chronology either. There was no secure dictator, ousted solely by foreign interests.

    There was a revolution on Europe’s doorstep, and they took the lead on how to deal with it, which side to back. America came late, and joined the European and rebel cause.

    Anything else is a false history.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

  17. Habbit says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Sure, that’s why its citizens supported an armed rebellion as soon as they had the chance, I guess.

    Lol

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  18. john personna says:

    @Habbit:

    My sister has been to Libya, post revolution, and had a fine time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  19. One my of favorite things on the internet: pseudonymous comments with special, secret, insider knowledge!

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0

  20. gus says:

    @Doug Mataconis: The GOP in search of a ‘scandal’ like that’s what they were elected for. These sore losers are going to be cooking up a scandal a week for the next 4 years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  21. Rafer Janders says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    That’s unresponsive. You said that American intervention resulted in such a nation. But absent American intervention or not, Qaddafi was being overthrown sooner or later, and it was Qaddafi, not the US, that caused Libya to be in the situation it’s in due to 30 years of his dictatorship. So again, I ask, how specifically did US attacks cause Libya to be a breeding ground of terrorism? Are you claiming that absent US support for the overthrow of Qaddafi, current-day Libya would not be a breeding ground of terrorism? Show cause and effect man, don’t just throw out vague unthought out allegations which don’t correlate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  22. Habbit says:

    @john personna:

    How many people do you know living in Libya? How many friends do you have living in Tunisia near the Libya border who cannot leave, and who are now living in terror due to the West’s destabilization of the country? You have friends with family in Syria? What about Egypt?

    It’s just funny to me that your “history” is what comes from the fingers of white news reporters in a broadcasting room thousands of miles away who, like you, never knew “Lib-yuh” existed until sometime last year.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

  23. Habbit says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Especially when you post it in blog form!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  24. Rafer,

    Perhaps chaos was inevitable after the downfall of Qaddafi. I would prefer that we not have been responsible for it even in the slightest. And, again, the fact that we went into the situation with no idea in the slightest of who we were dealing with and no idea what the post-Qaddafi landscape would look like is problematic to me. Thankfully, we aren’t making the same stupid mistake in Syria.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  25. Habbit says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Oh, and for the record, the other story isn’t difficult to discover once you stop hopelessly believing Obama gives a flying flip about you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  26. john personna says:

    Here’s some Realpolitik for ya:

    France, Britain, among others supported coalition combat operations in Afghanistan. For that reason alone, not to mention the bare manliness of it, we owed them one. We’d have to be total dicks to not show up for their war with Qaddafi.

    It would be like your friend was there for you in the last few scraps, and you say, sorry some people believe this fight is not in my direct interest.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  27. Habbit says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    aspdfjaskldhf lahsdlfkas kdjfhaks jdfkajsdhf kasdfh

    Which Marvel or DC universe do you live in where the stuff you type was actually occurring?

    Jesus freaking Christ, grow a brain, man.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  28. john personna says:

    @Habbit:

    So now we know that you just support some OTHER faction in Libya.

    Well, we are talking about US national interest here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  29. de stijl says:

    There is no answer to the Benghazi “scandal” because the events in Benghazi are not the impetus for the scandal. They could give two sh!ts about Benghazi – they just want a scalp – preferably Obama’s.

    If you saw Rep. Rohrabacher video of the House Benghazi hearing, his voice quavering in faux-righteous indignation that :

    “What is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed, read that LIED, to the American people in the aftermath of this tragedy. Now President Obama has the gall to float the name as possibly secretary of State, the name of the person who is the actual vehicle used to misinform the American people during this crisis.”

    and this especially:

    “This is not simply a cover up of a third-rate burglary,” he alleged. “We have four of our personnel DEAD, and it is not a McCarthy-era tactic to demand accountability and to demand that American people are not misinformed about it to the point that they don’t know what the threat is.”

    Rohrabacher is saying this is bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra because he and his cohorts are looking for any scandal that delegitimizes Obama and his administration. And if, by God, he has to plumb the depths of hyperbolic vitriol to do it, he most certainly will.

    The goal is impeachment, delegitimazation, and humiliation. Imprisonment may be a bridge too far, but a boy can hope, can’t he? The means to achieve that goal can be anything that the Boys of Breitbart or Drudge can dredge up. It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to stick.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1

  30. Habbit says:

    @john personna:

    I supported the legitimate government of Libya that was in the process removing extremist factions from Benghazi until our genius leaders decided to intervene and turn the country into a craphole.

    Why do you continue to talk about things you know absolutely nothing about?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

  31. Habbit says:

    “Regime change” is only considered disastrous and unplanned when its done under George Bush, not Barack Obama.

    Pathetic.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16

  32. john personna says:

    @Habbit:

    Shrug. Qaddafi should have done something to make France and Britain feel better about him. Possibly not rubbing it in their faces with bimbo bodyguards and etc.

    People underestimate the effects of animosity between leaders.

    But certainly we’ve established that America didn’t jump in and start a regime change on its own. It was a grudging and pretty much last minute arrival in the UN/European initiative.

    You blame America for joining, not instigating the whole thing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  33. Habbit says:

    @john personna:

    Get the f**k out of here, bro. The leader of a sovereign nation shouldn’t have to bow down to the interests of the West or be removed so they can siphon up the country’s oil for free, at the cost of civil war and ethnic cleansing.

    You’re a sick person.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 17

  34. john personna says:

    @Habbit:

    Again, shrug. “The leader of a sovereign nation” should not let rebels get a toehold, opening the door for just that kind of foreign influence.

    When the South rebelled against the US, they sought British assistance.

    The Confederacy, and its president Jefferson Davis, believed from the beginning in “King Cotton” — the notion that British dependence on cotton for its large textile industry would lead to diplomatic recognition and mediation or military intervention

    It’s the way things work.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  35. David M says:

    I’m not sure feeding the troll is at all worthwhile, even compared to the usual suspects.

    Habbit: “Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the same person…Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney want to go to war with Iran”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  36. michael reynolds says:

    @Habbit:

    Was Qaddafi chosen by the people of Libya? No. Which means he was not the legitimate leader of a damned thing. The only legitimate governments are those which hold power by the will of the people, by the consent of the governed. He was a thug and dictator and a murderer of Americans.

    I’m very pleased that he’s dead. The world is a better place with that piece of excrement rotting in a hole in the ground. And I’m very pleased that we were able to help him into that hole. Money well spent.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0

  37. Habbit says:

    @john personna:

    Stop spewing idiocy and educate yourself. The extremists were all but defeated until the West realized they were close to losing out on a(nother) cheap oil deal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13

  38. Habbit says:

    @David M:

    You’re right, after this comment, I’m ignoring you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

  39. Habbit says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Are you from Libya?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  40. Habbit says:

    You people are so funny.

    The United States government is evil…

    …regardless of whether it’s Bush Jr. I running it, or Bush Jr. II (Obama.)

    Have fun supporting your entity that is getting those big, badtewwawists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

  41. michael reynolds says:

    @Habbit:

    I don’t have to be from Libya to know that unelected governments are not legitimate governments. They may be juntas or dictatorships, any number of different things, but legitimate? No.

    There is exactly one path to legitimacy: you allow free speech, you allow the formation of political parties, you allow access to the media and then you sashay your faux-field-marshall-MIchael-Jackson looking self, all bedecked with your phony ribbons, and you ask the people to let you hold power on their behalf. Until you do that you are no more legitimate than a mafia don.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

  42. Andre Kenji says:

    John Persona is right. Libya is an important source of energy(Natural Gas) for Europe. Sarkozy even promised a Nuclear Reactor to Qadaffi. It would be very difficult to keep these deals if Qadaffi have massacred Benghazi.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. Dave says:

    @Habbit:
    Kind of amusing point of view coming from a Gaddafi supporter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  44. Habbit says:

    @michael reynolds:

    You’re so silly, it’s pathetic. Was King Idris a legitimate government, then? I mean, your definition of “legitimate government” pretty much falls under “supported by the United States.” Piss poor definition if you ask me.

    (Idris was the dude who the United States helped set up as the “king” of Libya so we could field a military base there.) I tell you this because I know you don’t know anything about Libya other than what Hillary Clinton tells you.

    Nevermind that Libya had the highest living standards in nearly all of Africa, free education, easy access to health care, the country was debt free, cheap gas… All that nice s**t was so horrible, Hillary Clinton had to take al-Qaddafi’s son to task when they met…………… oh wait. And about those thug… well, looks like you’re wrong again. As far as murdering Americans, looks like if you provide the CIA and Israel with information on Iran’s nuclear programs long enough you get off scotch-free for that.

    What is it with white people and thinking they are the spokesperson for every other people group in the world? You’re not Libyan. You’re not from Libya. You don’t know any Libyans. You’ve never been to Libya. You don’t know anyone who has been to Libya. You had never heard of Libya before a year and a day ago. You don’t know anyone who had heard of Libyan before a year and a day ago.

    Stop talking as if you speak for all Libya and Libyans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

  45. Habbit says:

    @Dave:

    Yes, I am (was) a supporter of al-Qaddafi. Any country’s leader who has the balls, and ultimately would give his life to say “F**k you” to our imperialist government deserves the upmost respect.

    On the other hand, you’re an Obama supporter which is much worse.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13

  46. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Habbit:

    I supported the legitimate government of Libya

    This… says… it… all. So you were one of Ghaddafi’s sycophants, eh? Your real problem is somebody took away the teat you’ve been sucking on for all these years. I’d feel sorry for you but I can’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  47. michael reynolds says:

    @Habbit:

    I’m not implying that we don’t make deals with and do business with illegitimate rulers — the king of Jordan comes to mind. We make deals with China which also lacks a legitimate government. I’m just saying you can’t start rattling on about Qaddafi being the legitimate government of a sovereign nation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  48. Habbit says:

    @Andre Kenji:

    Muammar al-Qaddafi was also in the process of shifting oil contracts, satellite contracts, and other really expensive things the West wouldn’t have liked to lose towards China, India, and Russia, away from France and the United States.

    Sounds like a perfectly “legitimate” reason to bomb the hell out of the country, turn it into an extremist hell pit, and install our own “legitimate” dictator who will “grant” us access to the country’s resources. Go Amurriccaa!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  49. Kingdady says:

    @Doug Mataconis: So what’s the right amount of exposure? The “emerald city” approach in Iraq, with Americans bunkered up, made it hard to interact with the locals. But if militants can find and kill a US ambassador, we might have had too little security in Benghazi. But what’s the “right” amount?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  50. Habbit says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    You support blowing up little children.

    My side of the fence looks much better.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  51. Habbit says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Who are you to decide the “legitimate” government of a nation in which you have never been to or heard of, or have no ties to?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  52. michael reynolds says:

    @Habbit:

    Dude, you’re just going in circles.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  53. stonetools says:

    Please folks , you are arguing with a guy who is the self confessed supporter of a murderous, megalomaniac dictator. Its not worth it. Let’s just ignore Mr. Habbit , and hope he comes to his senses someday.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  54. Habbit says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Also, if Jordan is the only country that crosses your mind when it comes to this particular subject, please stop commenting. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman… none of these United States allies offer elections for positions of actual power, none of these United States allies “allow free speech, allow the formation of political parties, you allow access to the media.”

    In fact, in many of these countries, activism and protests are occurring and being surpressed by the families that [the United States give millions of dollars to for a fake show of] control their respective states.

    REGIME CHANGE GOT DAMN IT.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  55. Habbit says:

    @stonetools:

    Obama 2012!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  56. Rafer Janders says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    So, to my original question of how you can back up your statement that “And, more importantly, the fact that our intervention in Libya last year now seems to have resulted in a nation that could very well be turning into a breeding ground for terrorism” — my emphasis on the word “resulted”, because in plain English that’s what you are claiming, that it’s the US that is specifically to blame — it turns out you have no answer. You are unable to back up your statement that US action caused “a breeding ground for terrorism”, retreating instead into vague wishes that it could all have been ponies and unicorns. Typical, really.

    And, again, the fact that we went into the situation with no idea in the slightest of who we were dealing with and no idea what the post-Qaddafi landscape would look like is problematic to me.

    Yes, it’s a shame we couldn’t predict the future. Of course, we never can, so I’m not sure why that’s any more relevant here than elsewhere.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  57. C. Clavin says:

    Benghazi.
    Solyndra.
    Fast and Furious.
    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  58. Habbit says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    You have no grounds to accuse Doug of backing up any statements when each of mine towards you, with links provided, have gone unanswered. al-Qaddafi had all but cleaned house of the extremist rebels in Benghazi, until our foolish president decided to intervene.

    Was Libya a terrorist breeding ground while al-Qaddafi was in power? No.

    Who were the “rebels” al-Qaddafi was fighting in Benghazi? Extremists. It’ a well known fact (to people who keep up with the region and not attention deficient people like you) that Benghazi has always been an area where extremism and anti-al-Qaddafi sentiment frequently sparked. It was mostly his treatment of political prisoners and activists in Benghazi that gained al-Qaddafi his recent reputation as a “tyrant”… but you small-minded fools won’t stop to think for a second as to why?

    He did not want Islamic extremism to spark a takeover of the country, so he ruled very firmly. And now we see why.

    If you can access JSTOR, Forging Democracy at Gunpoint from Jeffrey Pickering and Mark Peceny is a good read. I could e-mail you a PDF as well, but I doubt you’ll read it, since you’re ignoring my other, shorter sources that show how incorrect you are. As far as Libya specifically, as I linked before, there are numerous articles from March detailing al-Qaddafi’s forces retaking of Benghazi, until Obumbler and Sarkidiot had S/RES/1973 passed through the Security Council and proceeded to financially and military assist Islamic extremist elements into overthrowing the legitimate government.

    You’re just one of those people that’s interested in soundbites and bashing George Dubya and Romney.

    And you don’t know a damn thing about North Africa, please shut up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12

  59. Habbit says:

    @Habbit:

    *militarily

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  60. Tillman says:

    Okay, how is it OTB’s anti-spam defenses catch me trying to make a second post every damn time but this lout can post four times in a row?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  61. Mr. Replica says:

    @Tillman:

    Okay, how is it OTB’s anti-spam defenses catch me trying to make a second post every damn time but this lout can post four times in a row?

    Isn’t it obvious?
    It’s a conspiracy.

    While I do not have any evidence of this, it’s obviously a cover-up for the fact that Mr. Joyner hates The Big Lebowski, The Dude, White Russians, and Jeff Bridges.
    Why else would he allow another person to post four posts in a row, and stop you from posting two?
    Nothing else answers this profound injustice. It’s obviously a cover-up of huge proportions and a evil conspiracy against you.

    If anyone wishes to question my theory, you are an idiot. You have become complacent. Think for yourself, question authority.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  62. anjin-san says:

    He did not want Islamic extremism to spark a takeover of the country, so he ruled very firmly.

    So now you are an apologist for the man who was responsible for the murder of 189 Americans in the Lockerbie bombing? Nice to see your true colors.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    You too, grow a brain.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  64. Habbit says:

    @Tillman:

    If your second posts are as useless as your first, it’s a wonder you’re even allowed the initial one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  65. Habbit says:

    @Mr. Replica:

    So the BBC, ABC News, Wired, New York Times, United Nations, and professors from Kansas State University and the University of New Mexico are conspiracy theorists?

    F**k. This means I need to get all my information solely from “Outside the Beltway.”

    Nice try avoiding responding to my links and sources. Maybe the normal half-wit idiot that handjobs the Democrats or Republicans here wouldn’t take you to task for it, but I sure will. :) But I’m expecting you’ll ignore this because you have no legitimate response other than to divert the issue with sixth grade word games.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  66. Mr. Replica says:
  67. Habbit says:

    @Mr. Replica:

    Denial sucks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  68. anjin-san says:

    @ Habbit

    I’m curious. How does the removal of an organization in Iran from a terror list excuse your shilling for Gadhafi?

    Hint – “I’m confused and full of unfocused anger” is not an answer…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  69. anjin-san says:

    Why a Benghazi Cover-Up Makes No Sense

    The Economist: “At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a ‘cover-up’ over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal.”

    “Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging.”

    Guess these guys are not getting their marching orders from Fox…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  70. Just Me says:

    “At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a ‘cover-up’ over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal.”

    I can see several goals for why the administration preferred the “it was a movie” defense over the terrorist act it was.

    Most of them involve controlling the narrative in order to keep it from hurting Obama’s reelection goals.

    Just because the economist or others say “well there can’t be any reason for him to lie” doesn’t mean there aren’t any, it just means they don’t see them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  71. @Just Me:

    I can see several goals for why the administration preferred the “it was a movie” defense over the terrorist act it was.

    I think part of the problem with all of this is, however, pretending like the choices are binary: video or terror with no middle ground between the two. If one reads what was said, one find that this was not the case.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  72. Whitfield says:

    When will there be arrests and consequences? Obama needs to set a deadline and then if there is no satisfactory conclusion, send in a team!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  73. john personna says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Not only that, we can see how tying the deaths to the movie argued for moderation across the world stage. Obama said to the UN “see, this is what happens when you go nuts.”

    The American right, Just Me included, tell the world “no, it’s separate.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  74. john personna says:

    BTW, it may not be clear above that I was not actually a Libyan intervention advocate, as such. More, I found it unsurprising for those reasons listed above.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  75. @john personna: Indeed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  76. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    No, I’m not the confused one here. With your answer, it’s obvious have no clue as to what goes on outside your sad little rhetoric-filled mind. And I bet you consider yourself “informed.” Good luck living life scouring the Internet for sources that match yours exactly, a sign you can’t put comprehensive thought together on your own. Unfortunately, your pathetic narrative is typical of the average American.

    “Lead me, lie to me. Justify my matrix.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  77. Habbit says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    As opposed to pretending like there’s only one choice… that Obama and his administration are saints. I mean daaaaamn, there’s nooooo reason at alllllll that Presidennnttttt Obammmmaaaa would have to lieeeee to lilllll’ olllll’ meeeee beffoorreeee the eleecccttiioonnnnn. Do they grow people’s brains in factories these days?

    Unfortunately, the real scandal is not where the blame for this lies, it’s that because of Barack Obama and Nicholas Sarkozy Libya is now an extremist breeding ground, because they idiotically removed the only element of power that was keeping it from becoming so. If you people would read a damn book or two, instead of JUST letting the White House shove whatever “one reads what was said” into your susceptible, pandering little brains, you wouldn’t be so brainwashed in your defending of such obviously maladroit leadership.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  78. Habbit says:

    @Habbit:

    …”where the blame for this…” should be “…who to blame for these…”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  79. anjin-san says:

    @ Habbit

    Good luck living life scouring the Internet for sources that match yours exactly

    My daily reading:

    OTB
    The Economist
    WSJ
    SF Chron
    Political Wire

    I also check out Fox on a fairly regular basis.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  80. anjin-san says:

    As opposed to pretending like there’s only one choice… that Obama and his administration are saints.

    With one sentence, you have shown why you should not be taken seriously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  81. Unsympathetic says:

    If number of foreign service personnel killed is the metric by which you want to judge the president, Obama is BETTER than Reagan and GWB.

    If Republicans want to point the finger at anyone for reduced embassy security, Republicans need to point that finger at themselves — security costs money, and Republicans have thruout Obama’s presidency cut the budget for that item.

    There’s no scandal here. Republicans, time to get over the nonsense. You lie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  82. Dave says:

    @Habbit:
    You really seem to have no insight into how confused and irrationally upset you sound. By the way, besides the bbc link, what evidence do you have that Gaddafi had all but ended the revolt? It’s true that he was advancing on Benghazi, but that’s not the same thing as saying he had taken it and that the rebels could not have continued fighting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  83. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    Congratulations! You forgot to mention you only finish reading the articles where you preconceived ideas are supported.

    With one sentence, you have shown why you should not be taken seriously.

    You’re commenting on an article related to Middle East and North African foreign policy, and using emotional outbursts like “YOU SUPPORT SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTED KILLING AMERICANS,” yet you have absolutely no clue in the world who the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq are, and are confused as to why I would reference the group in response to your pathetic attempt to distract from the issue at hand.

    Have you ever heard of the Iran hostage crisis? I’ll wait while you Google it.





    One of the major disagreements between the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (an Iranian terrorist group,) and the Ayatollah Khomeini (the Supreme Leader of the Iran, this country in the Middle East that the United States government is itching to invade) was how to handle the American hostages. You see, the Ayatollah, horrible man he is, wanted to negotiate the release of the hostages, but the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq could not have that. Execution is what they wanted, fortunately they didn’t get it. The group has also been involved in assassinating six Americans, as well as attempting to assassinate others, including Douglas MacArthur the Second.

    Muammar al-Qaddafi offered billions of dollars to the families of the victims of the PAN AM flights to compensate for the actions of his officials, but I guess since the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq offers the United States and Israel intelligence on Iran’s nuclear programs, and with the support of the Mossad, every so often sneaks into Iran to assassinate scientists, that’s a better justification to befriend them.

    Oh wait, George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all shook hands with Muammar al-Qaddafi, and each claimed they were satisfied with the direction the Libyan government was taking regarding its treatment of political prisoners, etc.

    What fickle “friends” we are.

    This is all common (so I thought) knowledge.

    There are also reports of Mujahedeen-e-Khalq operating in Syria, amongst the many other militant extremist groups the Western governments think will do our bidding once (or if, I should say,) Bashar al-Assad is toppled.

    I now await your pathetic pandering, excuses and handjobbing of the Obama administration. Make me laugh, I’m looking forward to it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  84. Habbit says:

    @Dave:

    Hahaha You’re pretty funny. “Besides this source of information that answers the question I’m asking, provide me with another one to back up the claims that I’m reaching deep into my ass and pulling out of.”

    Keep your jokes coming, man. :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  85. Dave says:

    @Habbit:
    So you answer is “No, I don’t have any sources showing the conflict would soon end, just a BBC dispatch stating there was an offensive going on and to me that means it was all gonna end up just the way I wanted it to except for those damn Americans and Europeans.” Yep, I think we’re done here. Good luck, fella.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  86. Habbit says:

    @Dave:

    No, fella, you were done after your first comment. A simple Google search will show you you are the only person in the world denying what everyone was reporting. Every single news source you look through, including the BBC one you deny, will tell you that al-Qaddafi had pushed the extremist forces back to the Benghazi, and it was only a matter of time before he took control of the city. This is the reason S/RES/1973 passed. It’s amazing you consider yourself informed on this subject, yet you really have no clue of even the simple timeline of events.

    Stop being so willfully ignorant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  87. Jon Hendry says:

    @de stijl: “The goal is impeachment, delegitimazation, and humiliation.”

    And this is the thanks Obama gets for letting bygones be bygones, as far as the Bush administration’s war crimes went.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  88. Jon Hendry says:

    @Just Me: “Most of them involve controlling the narrative in order to keep it from hurting Obama’s reelection goals.”

    Um, how so?

    I don’t see how “4 people dead” is so much better, politically. What’s the advantage?

    I also don’t see how it would be so terrible for Obama if the explanation was terrorists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  89. anjin-san says:

    emotional outbursts

    Yep. People murdering Americans does that too me. Guess you are more forgiving.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  90. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    Forgive me for not caring.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  91. anjin-san says:

    So Habbit, are you saying you care about dead and maimed brown people too? Hard to reconcile that with you view that the US should tolerate/support despots in the middle east as long as they keep people we consider to be terrorsits at bay…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  92. anjin-san says:

    You have to wonder if Habbit is Jenos. Same massive overcompensation for a serious inferiority complex.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  93. Rob in CT says:

    Habbit is coming at this from the Left (or at least I’ve only ever seen Lefties argue like this in the past ~15 years). The US government is evil, any who oppose it are good. Which is how you get a straight-up “I supported Qaddafi.”

    It’s simplistic, binary thinking.

    I mourn not for Q, nor do I think the passing of his government is clearly a bad thing (nor do I think it’s clearly good – too soon to tell). I think our intervention was unfortunate. I understand why it was done: a mixture of feeling like we owed our allies and a bit of white-knight syndrome regarding Benghazi. The European motivations were likely a mixture of $$ and worries about refugees. I don’t think anyone here was especially noble. I also don’t see a clear villain, frankly.

    But some people just have to have a villain. Better yet if said villain is always the villain

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  94. grumpy realist says:

    @Rob in CT: I’d put Habbit in the class of “confused”, myself….that magical spot where the ultra-left has bent around so much that it meets the ultra-right. Also usually includes beliefs that the moon landing was faked, that a giant UFO lives off the coast of Bermuda and eats ships and airplanes, and that the car companies are secretly concealing from Teh American Peeple the invention of a car that runs on water.

    Same Old Silliness, in other words.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  95. Rob in CT says:

    I “knew” (online conversations only) an old commie who managed to work himself into such an anti-imperialistic dog USA lather that he was defending that Columbian “rebel” group that basically exists on kidnappings. FARC.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  96. Jenos Idanian Who Has No Pony Tail says:

    Just remember: Susan Rice was dispatched to give the administration’s spin on Benghazi AND she had nothing to do with it, nor any special knowledge. She had no clue that the talking points she was robotically parroting had been edited by party or parties unknown to remove crucial details, and did not realize the information she was giving was BS.

    Which makes her eminently qualified to be Secretary of State, and anyone who objects is a racist, sexist, obstructionist, and probably several other types of -ist too. Possibly a taxidermist.

    That seems to be the Obama administration’s position.

    But if she fails, I hear Jeff Dunham might be hiring. She’s shown she can be a pretty good ventriloquist’s dummy, and she’d probably get along great with Achmed The Dead Terrorist…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  97. anjin-san says:

    She had no clue that the talking points she was robotically parroting had been edited by party or parties unknown to remove crucial details

    Sounds a lot like you and Fox talking points…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  98. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Once again, instead of actually addressing what I say, you go for the cheap shot.

    You’re getting sadly predictable. And that’s just pathetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  99. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    If extremist groups challenge the power of the legitimate and sovereign leader of a nation IN that nation, I support the legitimate and sovereign leader of that nation doing whatever he wants to captured extremists.

    If several small extremist group incited minor riots in several United States cities, while attempting overthrow of the United States government, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney, McCain, whoever the f**k is in charge would put them down ten times more violently than al-Qaddafi or al-Assad have the ability to do.

    Or should whatever administration in power acquiesce? That’s what you claim al-Qaddafi should have done, and what you likely think al-Assad should be doing… give up their legitimate power to fanatical Islamist sects who believe their region is too heavily influenced by Westernism and wish to return to traditional rule of law.

    Minor riots instigated by extremists have been popping up in Benghazi for forever, only for al-Qaddafi to forcefully put them down, so why only in February of last year, did the West suddenly start to care?

    I mean, s**t… there was that Africa-EU summit thingie in November 2010 al-Qaddafi said he was becoming less and less interested in doing business with countries that took advantage of Africa’s resources without returning the favor in economic development (Europe), and more interested in shifting his business towards China, Russia, and India. And damn… he had already begun to give out major telecommunications contracts, oil contracts, satellite contracts, railway contracts, etc. etc. to China, while resisting France’s efforts to strike deals… but naaaah, that could not have possibly have had anything to do with the Western Security Council nations’ persistence to bomb the hell out of the country.

    Give me a freaking break.

    Your simple mind cannot comprehend colors outside of black and white… Obama good, al-Qaddafi bad. Obama authorizing murder to secure business contracts good, al-Qaddafi authorizing murder to retain control of the country bad. Because our intentions are “good,” if you don’t fall in line with them, you are “bad.” You’re like a robot.

    I don’t support Obama burning off a four year old girl’s face and blowing off her friend’s arms and legs in other, independent nations that are NO threat to ours, so that BP, Exxon, Total, and other mega-oil corporations can be “granted” access to more oil contracts. Unlike you.

    You are a slimeball, a worthless human being who views non-Americans lives as insignificant compared to the life of an American. Disgusting. For every little “brown” child Obama gives the order to murder, rather than our naive soldiers used like pawns, I wish American government officials’, their sick corporate buddies’, and people like you lives could be substituted in return.

    It’s easy to sit behind your computer in your mom’s basement and laugh at the deaths of someone else’s kid, when there is no threat to your own. Absolutely sick.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  100. David M says:

    @Habbit:

    I mean, s**t… there was that Africa-EU summit thingie in November 2010 al-Qaddafi said he was becoming less and less interested in doing business with countries that took advantage of Africa’s resources without returning the favor in economic development (Europe), and more interested in shifting his business towards China, Russia, and India. And damn… he had already begun to give out major telecommunications contracts, oil contracts, satellite contracts, railway contracts, etc. etc. to China, while resisting France’s efforts to strike deals… but naaaah, that could not have possibly have had anything to do with the Western Security Council nations’ persistence to bomb the hell out of the country.

    You do realize that China, Russia and India are on the UN Security Council, and China & Russia have veto power? Your ranting is so nonsensical that the lack of coherence drowns out any valid points.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  101. Habbit says:

    @Rob in CT:

    It’s funny you mention refugee problems, when one of the issues the European Union has been having with the North African countries is they don’t believe the regions leader’s have been doing enough to limit illegal immigration of Africa and into Europe anyway.

    For the most part, your comment is reasonable. However, I do not, and will never agree with reverting countries back to pre-civilized states so we can have access to their oil, while footing the bill to taxpayers and claiming we’re “saving” civilians while we are the main cause of their deaths then, and now, while the country remains in a state of civil war.

    Also, the only villain here is money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  102. Habbit says:

    @David M:

    You are so stupid it’s incredible. But wait, you don’t even know the basic timeline of the events of the Libya “revolution,” it’s unreasonable for me to expect you to know Russia and China abstained from voting on S/RES/1973.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  103. Habbit says:

    @Habbit:

    illegal immigration from* Africa

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  104. anjin-san says:

    @ Habbit

    If extremist groups challenge the power of the legitimate and sovereign leader of a nation IN that nation, I support the legitimate and sovereign leader of that nation doing whatever he wants to captured extremists.

    So you are a “Up with Hitler, down with Colonel Von Stauffenberg” kind of guy. Got it.

    I mean, I hate to give in to Godwin’s law, but you are a target the size of about 50 barn doors.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  105. David M says:

    A reminder to the adults in the thread, Libya not a War for Oil, something that should be immediately obvious:

    [Was this a war for Libya’s oil?] That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  106. JAG/ Just a GURL says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Well that video that nobody saw on youtube… and few people saw in the USA
    Was AIRED on Sept 10th … on a NATIONAL Broadcast in Egypt, after being subtitled….

    The maker of the film was not getting enough hits on this video…
    so he sent it to a broadcaster in Egypt… where he was from…..

    ———————————————- here is the article about how the video was aired….

    But the film only really picked up steam when it was posted to “Nacopticas,” a blog run by an Egyptian-American lawyer and Coptic Christian named Morris Sadek. Also on Sadek’s site: a photo of himself alongside Terry Jones, the Florida pastor infamous for having burned copies of the Koran.

    Sadek is known for his anti-Muslim screeds, and for having had his Egyptian citizenship revoked in May 2011 after he allegedly called for attacks on Egypt. Sadek, who lives in the U.S., has filed multiple, unsuccessful lawsuits to regain his citizenship.

    But Sadek’s promotion of the film didn’t stop with his blog. In an interview with the Associated Press, he told the wire service he promoted the film on Egyptian television stations as well. Sadek did not respond to request for comment from U.S. News.

    A broadcast on one station, an Egyptian channel called Al-Nas, appears to have been the tipping point for the film.

    Al-Nas is an immensely popular, and very religious channel whose motto is “a channel that will take you to heaven.”

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/12/how-innocence-of-muslims-spread-around-the-globe-and-killed-a-us-diplomat

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  107. Habbit says:

    @David M:

    Three cheers for you not being able to read!

    From yours truly,

    I mean, s**t… there was that Africa-EU summit thingie in November 2010 al-Qaddafi said he was becoming less and less interested in doing business with countries that took advantage of Africa’s resources without returning the favor in economic development (Europe), and more interested in shifting his business towards China, Russia, and India.

    Holy s**t Sherlock, it’s literally right there.

    So now that I know you didn’t even bother reading my comment, it’s also obvious neither you (nor Juan) thought it would be a good idea to read the Bloomberg article he attempts to discredit. [Addendum: See addendum below.]

    Judy Pasternak, Jim Snyder and Nicole Gaouette

    The companies were worried that their Libyan holdings were at risk, with their contracts threatened if payments to Qaddafi’s government were channeled to terrorism victims by courts or potentially worthless if Qaddafi ordered them out of the country.

    Libya was “an exceptionally difficult place in which to operate,” the cable [more about this cable later] said. The state-owned National Oil Corp. was seeking a bigger share of the oil the companies produced than called for in negotiated agreements, raising “serious questions about NOC adherence to the sanctity of existing contracts,” according to a cable from a U.S. embassy official on Oct. 26, 2007.

    Too easy.

    For what it’s worth, your pal Juan seems like a nice guy, albeit somewhat misinformed. (Note… you just seem like a half-wit.)

    He (nor you) seem to have never heard of the National Oil Corporation of Libya.
    He (nor you) seem to know that oil (and many other industrial corporations) were increasingly complaining about dealing with Muammar al-Qaddafi. [Addemdum: I decided to read the Bloomberg article sourced by David's Juan Cole after I finished my initial comment. There in, I discovered the article links to a Wikileaks cable, one which I have before read, and one which supports evidences to me that neither Professor Cole nor David have a handle on what they are talking about. Both lead to believe that Western oil contracts in Libya were a simple and safe matter, when the case is completely opposite.]

    Chris Stevens

    1. (SBU) Summary: Although an alluring market for the oil and
    gas industry, Libya is an exceptionally difficult place in which
    to operate. In their daily operations, international oil
    companies (IOC’s) face numerous challenges on visas, staffing
    and taxation issues, and their profit margins are comparatively
    narrow. The situation is likely to worsen in coming years, as
    Libyan authorities seek to extract additional concessions from
    energy companies operating in the country to maximize Libya’s
    profits, even at the expense of continuing to attract further
    participation by reputable IOCs in the critical oil and gas
    sector that is the nation’s lifeblood. End Summary.

    You are really confused, man, but let me help you out.

    I live this subject. North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, East Asia. Anything about these regions, everything about these regions. I read it all. I will travel each and every one of the countries that exist in these areas before I die.

    With that being said, your first page-found Google searches will not assist you in this discussion. You will have to do better than that, ma’am.

    Please don’t think you can enter this argument with half-ass research such as the garbage you procured above.

    Deutsche Bank Research

    In Libya, the oil sector is dominated by the state-owned National Oil
    Corporation
    (NOC). According to the US energy information
    administration (EIA) the participation of international oil companies
    in Libya‟s oil concessions is expected to be cut to 20% from 49%.
    These high government stakes in energy projects and the potential
    revision of contracts (e.g. Eni, Occidental Petroleum Corporation,
    Repsol and Total had to accept a lower share of revenues from oil
    and gas production in Libya
    in 2008/2009) are potential deterrents to
    foreign investment in the North African energy sector.

    It’s almost offensive how lazy you are to quote the tripe you did and expect that to back your argument.

    Juan Cole

    The Western country with the biggest oil stake in Libya, Italy, was very reluctant to join the war. Silvio Berlusconi says that he almost resigned when the war broke out, given his close relationship to Qaddafi.

    This is somewhat true, Italy was late to join in (the end of April, if I remember correctly) on the airbombing of Libya. After it was certain al-Qaddafi stood no chance against the NATO-supported extremist groups, ENI losing out on previous oil contracts to France and Britain became a pressing issue to the Italian parliament.

    Furthermore, Juan’s articles seem to draw interesting commentary and much informed commentary… which of course you ignored in your frenetic attempt to show me up.

    For example,

    Chester Freeman

    Having billions of dollars in bids is not spectacular in the oil industry, Libya or in any other major oil producing country. ENI (Italy) relied on Libyan oil for more than 22 percent of its oil consumption. The Libyan stakes in ENI alone were worth more than the BP contracts which account for less than 5 percent of total Libyan output.

    DGS

    My sense/nonsense was that intervention became preceived UK and French national interest after both governements, apparently misjudged the significance of the threat the rebels posed to Qaddafi’s regime early on, and made fairly strong statements in support of their aims.

    ErikW65

    Juan is using evidence that the US oil companies worked for an exemption from sanctions for Qaddafi as evidence they did not want to see him removed. This view assumes that the oil companies did not mind having their access threatened, or being forced to lobby congress for favors. I don’t believe that’s a logically supportable position.

    This comment has become longer than I initially intended, therefore I will analyze the second article from Professor Cole later.

    Also, please remember, I insult you because you are stupid, not because I don’t know what I’m talking about. I look to anjin-san for that kind of spectacle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  108. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    See the last two sentences above. :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  109. anjin-san says:

    @ Habbit

    By all means, keep telling yourself how clever you are. It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it -

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  110. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    However, it’s much less dirty than giving blowjobs to a president who kills five year old children.

    Also, after reading a little more about Professor Cole, he claims to have done consulting work for the Pentagon. Haha I’m sure there’s no correlation between that and his admiration of NATO killing Libyan civilians.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  111. David M says:

    @Habbit:

    And that’s why no one should ever take you seriously, your lack of knowledge is stunning, and you consistently make clearly erroneous assumptions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  112. Habbit says:

    @David M:

    Is there a point to your comment?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  113. anjin-san says:

    @ Habbit

    So at the end of the day, you resort to fantasies about men giving blowjobs?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  114. Habbit says:

    @anjin-san:

    Yes, actually… but only when it comes to you being the result of the blowjob.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1