Hillary Clinton

Thank Sid Blumenthal for Telling Hillary Clinton Benghazi Was a Planned Attack

What did she know and when did she know it? More important: WTF were we doing in Libya to begin with?

|

The worst thing about the endless investigations into the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya—an attack that killed four Americans, inlcuding Amb. Chris Stevens—is that they obscure the larger picture: WTF were we doing in Libya in the first place? President Obama involved us in a war situation (called a "kinetic action" back then, if memory serves) not just without congressional approval but without any sort of consultation. For the entire 21st century, under both Reps and Dems, American foreign policy has been an #EPICFAIL, but current Republicans keep focusing in on small-ball questions about what did Hillary or Obama or Susan Rice know and when did she/he/she know it.

On that last point, it turns out that Hillary Clinton adviser and chum Sid Blumenthal (a.k.a. "the human equivalent of a semen-stained dress") was quick to tell then-Secretary of State Clinton that yes, Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration against the YouTube vid "The Innocene of Muslims" and then no, it was a long-planned attack by an Al Qaeda affiliate. From The New York Times, which sifted through recently released State Department emails that may or may not have been claimed to have gone missing:

[Blumenthal's] memo said the attacks were by "demonstrators" who "were inspired by what many devout Libyan viewed as a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Mohammed originating in America." Mrs. Clinton forwarded the memo to Mr. Sullivan, saying "More info." (Pages 193-195)…

The next day, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what had occurred. Citing "sensitive sources" in Libya, the memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said. "We should get this around asap" Mrs. Clinton said in an email to Mr. Sullivan. "Will do," he responded. That information contradicted the Obama administration's narrative at the time about what had spawned the attacks. Republicans have said the administration misled the country about the attacks because it did not want to undermine the notion that President Obama, who was up for re-election, was winning the war on terrorism. (Pages 200-203).

Score one for Sid Vicious. This exchange suggests that Clinton knew by September 13 that the attacks were not a spontaneous demonstration. Other accounts show that "within 15 minutes" of the attack "that it was terrorism."

National Security Advisor Susan Rice would hit five major talk shows on Sunday, September 16 (Clinton was not available, we were told) and gave variations on the theme that "it was a spontaneous—not a premeditated—response."

Read the emails here.

Full New York Times story here.

So thank you, Sid Blumenthal, for accidentally raising issues that should be raised. You, sir, are a true patriot, even as you were trying to get business contracts for your pals to rebuild Libya.

As I said at the top, I care less about Benghazi coverups than I do about larger issues of foreign policy chaos. Here we are, a dozen years on from the "liberation" of Iraq and there is no question that the entire Middle Eastern region (not to mention a good chunk of North Africa, the broader Arab and Islamic worlds, and Afghanistan too) are worse off than they were before we sent our boys and girls over there.

Hillary Clinton isn't talking about here proposed foreign policy (or about anything else, really, other than guacamole) and the major Republican candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2016 are trying to outdo each other when it comes to what 2008 Republican candidate John McCain used to joke about: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

With one exception, of course—Rand Paul, the guy who spent most the of the past 24 hours talking against Patriot Act renewals. He alone among the GOP hopefuls has dared to ask questions such as "Was it a good idea to invade Libya?" and pointing out "that we negotiated with the Soviets for 70 years and we ended up coming to a peaceful outcome."

And let's not forget the way in which President Obama cynically used the "Innocence of Muslims" canard to push for self-imposed restrictions on free speech while talking at the United Nations. Knowing full well that the shitty YouTube video had nothing to do with attacks that killed soldiers and an ambassador, the Nobel Peace Prize winner still counseled, "I believe [the video's] message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity" and that "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Yes, because the video had so much to do with what again?

Advertisement

NEXT: Patent Lawyers, Crony Capitalism, and the Invention of the Telephone

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That we even had a “Consulate” in Benghazi to begin with beggars belief. Not to mention every U.S. Consulate on the map has a web site, except Benghazi. They couldn’t have made it more obvious that clandestine shit was going down there.

    1. You mean all our consulates don’t have “CIA Annexes”?

      1. Mainly those are at Embassies 😉

        (apparently it’s a favorite game among the foreign service to play “spot the spook” at Embassies)

    2. Look, do you want various rebel groups armed or not?

      1. Of course. Mission accomplished. Now we have more radical Islamists to help with shutting down that dangerous free speech non-sense and more dollars in that wonderful Clinton Foundation. Thanks, Hillary.

    3. ‘That we even had a “Consulate” in Benghazi to begin with beggars belief.”

      For the love of christ…. WE DIDNT

      Why does this misconception persist?

      1. First, I wouldn’t take Feinstein’s word for anything.

        That said, it looks the Benghazi facility was a “special mission” and/or “ad hoc consulate”.

        Close enough. And more importantly, “What difference, at this point, does [the terminology] make?”

        1. “R C Dean|2015/05/21 15:38:21|#5316213

          First, I wouldn’t take Feinstein’s word for anything.

          That said, it looks the Benghazi facility was a “special mission” and/or “ad hoc consulate”.

          This is not “Feinstein’s word”. This is her acknowledging that people have repeatedly pointed out that State Department had no “official” facilities in Benghazi.

          No ‘ad hoc’ consulate either. A State office, whatever its function, would have had official protections, and would have been staffed. In this case it was a nondescript house used occasionally by Amb Stevens for what appears to be off-the-record business related to things the CIA was doing in the area.

          this has been disclosed 12 different ways since 2012 and the only reason there’s any “confusion” is because the media has gone Nyah Nyah Nyah “NOT LISTENING”

      2. It should be obvious why it is called a consulate: every news outlet in the US referred to it as a consulate. I don’t think any major news outlet referred to it as a CIA outpost. And the Administration referred to it as a consulate.

        Here’s an exchange between Letterman and Obama himself:

        LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?

        OBAMA: Here’s what happened. … You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam —

        LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

        OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.

        “There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates.” — Susan Rice

  2. It’s a deep, deep burn!

  3. I care less about Benghazi coverups than I do about larger issues of foreign policy chaos.

    Why not both?

    1. I agree. I do not even think the whereabouts of the president during the attacks has been released yet. It is such a minor question, and a very simple one to answer, and yet three years later we still do not know.

      1. I thought it was “went back to bed, next day went to fundraiser in Vegas”.

    2. Why not both?

      Because Benghazi is a fake scandal. Have you not been following the narrative?

      Seriously, it can be both but they are different debates. The wider one of foreign policy should be hammered at all candidates on both sides.

      The Benghazi question should be aimed directly at HRC. If her opponents (both D & R) had any guts they would put together a campaign commercial with shots of the embassy burning and the ambassador’s body being dragged through the streets with a voice over of “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    3. They are related – they are congenital, pathological liars who construct an elaborate fantasy world, lying even when they don’t have to, even when their interests would be better served by telling the truth, refusing to even so much as glance at the real world. We aren’t dealing with Nixonian liars here, we’re dealing with Munchausenists. Entertain their reality at your peril. Or with a fistful of peyote.

      1. All I ever needed to know about Hillary is summed up by the fact that she bristled at the idea that it was somehow unseemly for her to take an $8 million advance on her first book, pointing out that she had been a humble public servant all her life and therefore had earned that money. Setting aside the fact that nobody ever hired her to be Bill Clinton’s wife and therefore she had never been a public servant, humble or otherwise, the fact is that Hillary Clinton seriously believes that she is a humble public servant who gets paid and deserves to get paid $8 million. In what fantasy world do humble public servants make $8 million? You can be a humble servant or you can have $8 million, but you can’t logically do both.
        .
        (The single biggest WTF about the Clintons and about American politics today is: How the fucking fuck are the Clintons worth $f200 million and why the fucking fuck does nobody seem interested in addressing that issue? Are we just going to get it over with and have Imelda Marcos as El Presidente?)

        1. My biggest beef isn’t the money itself (apparently the market pays handsomely for a few words from slutty ex-Presidents and their wives), but the fact that she said they were “broke”.

          If she can’t manage her own considerable goddamn fortune, how the fuck can she possibly hope to understand the financials of the economic powerhouse she wants to preside over?

          1. My biggest beef isn’t the money itself (apparently the market pays handsomely for a few words from slutty ex-Presidents and their wives), but the fact that she said they were “broke”.

            That’s a much bigger beef to me than her lying about being broke.

            She and her husband are raking in fucking vigorish for the incredibly dirty shit they did when Billy Blow-Job was Prez. Their speaking fees, book advances, and “donations” to their “charitable organization” are all debts paid for services rendered.

            If a Republican got up to such blatantly corrupt bullshit the hearings and prosecutions would still be happening and significant effort would be put forth by every wing of the leftist media to make it part of the cultural zeitgeist.

            The supposedly scandal-seeking “muckraking” reporters have let out a collective yawn over the Clintons. I mean fucking Jesus Christ, there is plenty of evidence Clinton sold secrets to the fucking Chinese (uh, fucking treason) and Al dumbfuck Gore was the goddamned bagman.

            1. My biggest beef is that she is a fucking liar.

              I first saw her on 60 Minutes back in 91-92 when she lied about Gennifer Flowers.

              Rose Law Firm Records.

              Cattle futures.

              FBI files.

              And, of course, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” she alledged that was accusing Bill about Monica on the fucking Today Show- and has never been called on by the media.

              She knew. Everyone knows she knew. Never once been called on it.

    4. I really do care about an Administration that lies incessantly about its intentions, its actions, and their consequences.

      The incessant lying makes it impossible to ascertain the depth of the foreign policy chaos, but it has been effective in keeping the public at large ignorant of the extraordinary failures of the Bush/Cheney/Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policies.

  4. That may be *the* punchable face.

    1. Now, now. Sid is quite an attractive lesbian.

      1. Now that you mention it, he really does have lady hands.

        1. Sid is definitely a member of the “men who look like my mom’s friends” team. It is mostly full of aging rock stars (Steven Tyler, Tom Petty, etc). Of of course Phil Simms.

        1. And here I thought I was original!

    2. That may be *the* punchable face.

      Do you mean, punch one off and cover it with nut butter?

    3. If you had to choose between punching Sid or pajama boy, which would you picK?

      1. I’d punch Sid because he sure has it coming. Do I get to hold a roll of dimes in my fist?

  5. Nick has been hitting it out of the rink the past two days.

    1. Rink. Is he Canadian?

      1. Dude! Not coo…arrgghhhh when does the next week start?

        1. Bet you’re just now realizing how often you say that. Because you are judgmental, Mr Judgy McJudgingYouPants, over in your filthy corner judging me.

          I like the Steve Miller Band, and there’s nothing you can do about it. You’re not my real dad!

          1. Filthy?!?

            Your real dad would beat you for liking Steve Miller.

            (I actually like Steve Miller too, don’t tell anyone)

            1. My read father loves Steve Miller. Loves him. Also the Cars, Foreigner, Styx and, memorably, the Eagles. He blew out not one, not two, but three sets of speakers by cranking Hank Williams Jr up too loud.

              I come by my taste in music honestly!

              (Knew it. You knew the words!)

    2. Yet still a swing-and-a-miss on the opportunity for some fabulous scaaaaandalous! alt-text. Benghazi? I didn’t even know him! Does this scandal make my ass look fatwa? That Hillary is such a bitch!

  6. Just curious, but how much money could there possibly have been in rebuilding Libya? Blumenthal has major connections and zero morals, and rebuilding Libya is where he tries to make a buck? Seems like a poor country and one that is pretty dangerous to boot. Surely there was somewhere in the West with more money and less danger that a hack like Blumenthal could have found to engage in crony capitalism.

    1. It doesn’t matter how much money Lybia has if Uncle Sugar is footing the bill for rebuilding it.

    2. He probably thought it would be like Iraq and Afghanistan, with massive-budget construction projects in the pipeline.

      1. Or did he think he had hooks into new oil deals?

    3. He clearly was hoping to skim some of that foreign aid. I mean what a set up that is where you have the ear of the Secretary of State and can influence where that aid goes: right into the pockets of your cronies.

    4. If the US had funneled billions in reconstruction money into Lybia as they are into Afghanistan and Iraq there would have been millions available to siphon off.

      You lack vision of the big picture.

      Also : We should get this around asap” Mrs. Clinton said in an email to Mr. Sullivan. “Will do,” he responded. ”

      Get around this does not mean make public or expose it to light. It means surround that info and keep it corralled. In other words “don’t let it out”. That is probably obvious to most but I was expecting something more subdued when I first read this since this email was not destroyed by Clinton’s email scrub team.

      1. “Get around this does not mean make public or expose it to light. It means surround that info and keep it corralled.

        Oh, please.

        This is dumber than the people who wanted to claim that Hillary targeted the people in Benghazi for death to cover up her schemes.

        There is a distinct difference between “get this around” and “get around this” and asking people to intentionally read it the wrong way just allows her defenders to point to how crazy her critics are.

      2. Pretty sure “get this around” means to disseminate it to whatever Top Men they deem need to know.

    5. There are fortunes to be made in poor countries with vast natural resources. This fact has been driving imperialism since the 18th Century.

  7. OT – Haven’t posted much for a while, it seems I’ve missed the latest of Bo’s descent into madness. I mean, obviously he’s been a pedant and obnoxious for a long time, but the AM links thread was just absurd. Calling Irish racist for posting about the Baltimore riots? Irish is one of the last people on this site I would suspect of being racially prejudiced, at this point it seems like Bo has pretty much dropped the facade and is straight up openly trolling people.

    1. It sort of happened a while ago…its block or scroll past now.

      1. I feel like it’s been gradual, and certainly started worsening a while ago (especially around the time when he accused his critics of all being “psychopathic Gamergaters”) but it seems even worse since I last saw him argue with someone. Bo when he first started posting here wasn’t this ridiculous, even if he was obnoxious.

        1. The Bo Scroll Effect is why I started asking for collapsible threads.

          1. I’ve found I either need to immediately scroll down quickly when I encounter Bo-dominated subthreads, or I get the car accident effect – you want to look away, but just can’t.

          2. If I’m on phone, my finger actually cramps up scrolling past Botardation.

            1. Collapsible threads are an idea whose time has come. With a little agitation, we could convince Sullum to defect, sneak into the office after hours and give collapsible threads to us as a birthday present.

              1. I assume he’ll accept payment in the form of weed?

                1. He appears to have plenty. Quincy can make him a lifetime supply of lube. Do you think he’d go for that?

                  1. Quincy is a lube guy? Noted.

                    1. Wait, what? Does he sell in bulk?

        2. Indeed. But I think it might be point-of-no-return at this time.

          1. It sure seems that way.

    2. I’m blaming Irish. In fact, he’s on a long fucking timeout in the corner.

      We all know what Bo does. And Bo made Irish dance good and hard. He tried the same shit with me last week by accusing me of being a neglectful parent. Some things are so absurd that they should only be ignored.

      Hear that, Irish? You’re on timeout! Go to your room, and don’t come out for any reason! Nicole will let you know when your timeout is over.

      1. “He tried the same shit with me last week by accusing me of being a neglectful parent.”

        Solely out of curiosity, what was his basis for this accusation?

        1. He’s retarded?

          1. Well, other than that.

            1. BTW Lady Bertrum’s very civil, and polite attempt to talk Bo off the ledge was about it for me – very nice and patient and just got bile and fart gas back for her pains.

              1. It was a learning moment for her.

        2. I struck a nerve with him, and he was trying to punch back, but doesn’t know how.
          So he decided that because I spend time on Reason, I’m neglecting my family.

          So, in other words, no basis, but that didn’t stop him from repeating it several times, hoping to get a reaction.

          1. Hey, Nikki didn’t let you out yet – back in timeout!

          2. That’s … a bit presumptuous on his part? Grasping at straws for sure

            1. Like I said, he doesn’t know how. It’s a symptom of his lack of social skills.

        3. The basis is that he knows Playa has kids. Any straw is worth grasping at when you’re a moron.

      2. “We all know what Bo does. And Bo made Irish dance good and hard.”

        Yeah, people make the mistake of assuming there was a “descent” from an honest and sincere (if pedantic) person, to someone trying simply to score troll points.

        He was ALWAYS a troll. He was always just baiting people for pointless arguments. He just masked it earlier in his bullshit rhetorical facade and people bought it (to a degree)

        He throws in the occasional neutral comment simply as window dressing. He’s not here for anything other than to get a charge out of pointless confrontation. he will go after anyone that responds.

        1. Every time you argue with Bo, it brings him closer to orgasm. Irish is in the men’s room right now cleaning the jizz out of his hair.

        2. I’ve definitely been guilty of this. Sometimes it’s just…so…hard…not to respond.

          *downcast fish eyes*

      3. It’s like being a den mother!

    3. There are still people who engage him, I guess hoping that this time he won’t go Bo. But, c’mon folks; you’ll do better engaging the guy on the corner in the sandwich board.

      1. That’s actually useful. I like to know about sandwiches.

        1. “Artisan Mayo Club Sammiches, turn left!”

      2. I do not want to sound too outrageous, but at this point I think someone should tell Bo to go pound sand.

          1. I will take the compliment even though you are a terrible father.

        1. Yup- when it got really bad, the unanimous “Fuck off Lone Wacko” worked

  8. How often do “spontaneous demonstrations,” even in the Muslim world, include attacks with RPGs, mortars, and vehicle-mounted weapons? The first official description was always an obvious lie.

  9. “American foreign policy has been an #EPICFAIL, but current ”

    Hit and run’s resident hipsters explained Twitter to me yesterday. I now get this. Nick is adding “useless noise” into the fray!

  10. This woman is beginning to make Obo look like probity incarnate!

    1. She will be like 10,000x worse than Obama if she gets elected. This witch is obviously one of the most vile and corrupt people to ever seek the presidency of the United States and the scandals are already so great and numerous that she cannot even try to hide it any longer. So she just stays quiet unless she needs to come out occasionally just to say something incredibly idiotic.

      If there are enough stupid people in this country to actually elect this woman, then we are headed for some very bad times. We will look back to Obama and think of his 8 years as some kind of golden age of enlightenment and prosperity.

      1. Stupid or ill-informed and/or team players. If she’s the Dem nominee she’s going to get widespread support from academia. And, those are not stupid people. Ignorant, yes, but not stupid.

        1. Sometimes it’s the smart ones who are best at talking themselves into believing really, really dumb things.

        2. You know who else enjoyed the widespread support of academia?

          1. Emma Sulkowicz?

          2. Stalin?

          3. Steely Dan?

  11. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. This election will be interesting in part because there is so much material for attack ads. And it doesn’t matter if the GOP does them, because PACs and conservative media and individuals will. A few suggestions:

      ? The “what difference” clip, with bloody images from Benghazi and flag-draped coffins.

      ? Hillary as champion of women, but paying her female employees less, attacking Bill’s victims, and laughing about successfully defending a child rapist.

      ? The “dead broke” millionaire who wants to “topple the 1%,” but takes $300,000 from colleges for a speech.

      So much more.

      1. ? The “what difference” clip, with bloody images from Benghazi and flag-draped coffins.

        Dude, where’s my h/t. (joking in case you think I’m really offended)

        1. Sorry, I only skimmed the thread! Mea culpa.

  12. While I agree that the entire region is a shit storm, I reject the premise that the invasion of Iraq was the catalyst to said shit storm. No doubt the unknown unknowns (Thanks Donald!) surrounding it have contributed to the overall instability, empowered Iran, and let loose billions of dollars worth of U.S. weapons, but it was a cauldron of repressed hatred, violence, poverty, backwardness and insanity prior to W’s war.

    That kind of cra-cra always finds a way.

    1. True. Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t exactly the Switzerland of the region.

      1. Shit, man…it got to 122 in Baghdad when I was there, not even close to that in Lucerne….oh, wait…

        1. My father once bought a hammer in Lucerne…

          The shopkeeper put it in a large stout bag for him…

          When my siblings and I saw him exit the store, guess what we asked him.

          Go on, just ask.

          1. Just know that if this ends in a pun I will drown 11 of the cutest puppies and kittens I can find.

            What did you ask him?

            1. What’s in the bag, dad?

              1. What’s in Baghdad? why, some wonderful architecture, and lovely people, that’s what

                1. Bugs Bunny approves of this message.

                  My heart weeps for the doggies and kitties that lost sons and daughters due to this post…

    2. Hitchens made a similar argument (and yes, I know he was an apologist for the war). But he argued that the death of Saddam, whenever that occurred, was going to result in an implosion of the Iraqi state.

    3. I think catalyst is the right word. It sped up what probably would have happened at some point – though I don’t think it would have been this bad. The Iraq War gave all the jihadis a perfect example of “Evil American Imperialism” to rally people behind and turned what would have been mostly a local conflict whenever the Iraq powder keg eventually exploded into a much more regional one as thousands of foreign jihadists poured in to fight the evil US.

      1. Possibly. But Egypt imploded because the price of subsidized bread increased exponentially during the financial crisis – not because of Iraq. My point being, the whole region was/is rotten with corruption, backwardness and violence with little real civil order. The collapse of the region is far ranging from Tunisia to Yemen. I’m not sure we can draw a straight line.

        During the Cold War both the US and USSR empowered dictators in proxy wars to protect our supposed interests. That long term suppression – longer considering European imperialism – retarded the development of civil order.

      2. Still, hard to see how you avoid Arab Spring and its consequences in Syria, unless you double down on supporting the autocrats (and make Assad your ally).

        ISIS has no problem attracting jihadis to fight the Kurds, Shia, Alawi, Iranians, disobedient Sunni and whatnot, without needing the US to rally against. So, say Saddam dies, and Iraq explodes as Shia rebel and Iran starts feeding them. A Sunni Jihad is more than likely.

  13. “This exchange suggests that Clinton knew by September 13 that the attacks were not a spontaneous demonstration. Other accounts show that “within 15 minutes” of the attack “that it was terrorism.””

    In fairness to Mx. Clinton, who the fuck is Sidney Blumenthal and how the fuck would he know?

    No, Hillary knew because this knowledge was clear from intelligence sources on the ground, and as papaya said, demonstrations, even in the wellspring of civilization don’t include RPGs, mortars and vehicle mounted machine guns.

    Nope, the benghazi narrative was too tempting an opportunity to not signal your disdain for American notions of free speech, and also to cover up America’s failed foreign policy decisions in regards to Libya.

    1. “Hillary knew because this knowledge was clear from intelligence sources on the ground,”

      The original memos from CIA about the causes of the attacks were clear

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..explainer/

      on the 14th and the 15th, State and the White House started pushing back hard against the CIA asking for more about the Video, and other explanations OTHER than ‘al-Q’, and insisting that we should be more skeptical of a ‘terrorist’ connection.

      Petraeus refused to play ball with the politics, and Mike Morell stepped in to Edit the talking points to WH approval.

      1. to be fair – that last point should be “state approval”. The main fight seemed between state people and CIA, with the WH supporting state, but not making the demands directly

    2. Plus, the Obama re-election campaign kept evoking “Osama bin Laden is dead and GM is alive” as short-hand for arguing they had defeated terrorism.

    3. Anybody who fell for the spontaneous demonstration story for more than a few minutes is incapable of critical thought. The story made no sense. Even if the video were the ostensible offense, it would have been merely an excuse, a phony casus belli. I googled the video immediately after the story hit the wires, and YouTube had just a few hundred hits. I seriously doubt that many of them were from Benghazi, which is not known for its widespread use internet.

      There was no way this crappy video was the cause of a coordinated assault on a US consulate. Nope, it was a test of how gullible the American people are and how pliable the American media is.

  14. Calling Irish racist for posting about the Baltimore riots?

    I’m sure as Hell not going to read all that (I wondered how AM linx got to ~500 comments, but was too lily-livered to look).
    Was he on his Grand Inquisitor of Libertarianism high horse, or was it some other prissy tantrum?

    1. Prissy tantrum, with a splash of Boquemada thrown in.

      1. “Boquemada”

        You are tempting me to go back and look – that is good stuff, that is.

        1. Never go back. Don’t do it. Reminds me of a story some geezer told me and my buddies once when we got in trouble for doing something we probably shouldn’t have:

          A nervous young pilot was flying lead on a bombing mission in Viet Nam, accompanied by a grizzled old backseater who had already flown many similar missions. As they flew over the target site, they began to take hostile fire and the young pilot was required to put every ounce of his courage and training to the test as he evaded AAA and SAMs to get close enough to deliver his ordnance. Thanks in part to the grizzled vet’s nonpareil weapons operation, they successfully completed their run and began to return to base.

          Adrenaline still pumping, the younger officer let out a shaky sigh, and the older officer replied with, “Hey, did you like that? Think it was pretty fun?”

          “Yeah!” Answered the younger. “What a rush! Feels good to know the training works!” And he let out a laugh.

          “Hell yeah!” Said the older. “You wanna go back and hit ’em again?”

          “Yeah! Let’s go back!” Shouted the young pilot.

          At this point, the grizzled vet smacked the novice on the back of the helmet as hard as he could, shouting, “No! You fucking idiot, you never go back! If you go back, you fucking die!” And an important lesson was learned that day.

          Never ever go back.

  15. He was always just baiting people for pointless arguments.

    Hence “MNG Junior”.
    ARFARFARFARF THROW THE STICK!
    No. I’m not throwing that slimy, slobbery stick for you to chase.

    1. What’s saying he’s not MNG?

      1. Don’t you need John to make that call – were they not arch-foes?

        1. MNG was never Bo-level retarded.

          1. Yes, he was.

    2. Dead on target!

      I almost forgot MNG…

      Screw you for making me remember.

      1. So you’ve forgotten Neu Mexican as well. Another argue-for-the-point-of-arguing poster gone after reg.

  16. I will say = i’m genuinely surprised the NYT has taken the lead on some of these “hillary scandal” stories.

    i commented a while back (late 2014 i think – before the Email thing at least) that if you looked at the Hillary headlines churned out by the Times that it was like a series of journalistic foot massages.

    they assigned this girl Amy Chozick to produce hillary-pap, and they managed to write like 100 stories none of which even got remotely close to things like “policy” or “experience” or “her political history”

    Now, by contrast, they’re kicking her in the soft spots almost daily. I think she either must have pissed someone off, or they’re gunning for a surprise Warren entrace, or something…. who knows.

    1. “I will say = i’m genuinely surprised the NYT has taken the lead on some of these “hillary scandal” stories.”

      I have to agree. Initially, they were the typical “people are saying” type articles, but it seems they’ve actually got a reporter on the beat doing real digging.

      1. They’ve finally imagined what a Hillary presidency will actually look like and they’re afraid – very, very afraid of the truth which is they’ve been carrying water for years for an incompetent, immoral cunt. And when (not if) she eventually reaches maximum #EPICFAILURE (thanks, Nick) they want some distance – some plausible deniability.

        1. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the dog days of the 2016 season, if another non democrat challenger shows a spark of a chance and the Times has to grapple with negative reporting vs an editorial endorsement.

    2. I am sure there are actual investigative reports who want to be Woodward and Bernstein and the Clinton’s have just become too easy a target for them. It is interesting that their stories are being printed, however. She must have set them off somehow.

      1. This. There has to be some behind the scenes crap that went down to cause the NYT to leave the plantation. They’ve published nary a single critical word of Obama despite his myriad scandals/incompetence. But now they’re hard hitting Dem slayers?

        At the very least, they’re trying to clear the field for a preferred more ideologically driven leftist a la Senator Pocahontas. Knowing of course that Clinton will drop leftism like a hot rock if she can personally benefit some way from it. Call me cynical

  17. At some point, even the NYT` editorial board has to exhibit some small degree of selfawareness.

  18. More importantly, has getting rid of Ghadaffi made either America, or the rest of the world, any safer.

    I keep hearing about boatloads of refugees fleeing Lybia being murdered in the Mediteranean.

  19. I expect the situation in Lybia to get worse over the next year and a half. By the election Benghazi is going to be overshadowed by the fact that Lybia is going to be swarming with ISIS fighters and everyone is going to wonder why the fuck we went in there in the first place.

    By then it will be blindingly clear what a collosal failure Obama’s entire mid-east strategy has been.

  20. “WTF were we doing in Libya in the first place?”

    More specifically, WTF was a US consulate doing in Benghazi? Seriously. Benghazi has a population of around 600,000, negligible trade with the US, very few US expatriates, and very few residents who could get a US visa. Further, it is surrounded by desert and ocean, so the population served is pretty much limited to Benghazi proper. There are numerous cities around the world that have vastly larger populations to serve, have significant trade with the US, significant numbers of US expatriates, and locals eligible for a US visa.

    It simply makes no sense that the Benghazi SoS operations were those of a typical consulate.

    1. Further, it is surrounded by desert and ocean

      So, it’d be easy to ship things out of Benghazi?

  21. What were we doing in Libya?

    Leading from behind the skirts of Hillary, Susan, Samantha, and ValJar, with His head up His a$$.

  22. We were in Libya because it was primarily a CIA operation with the (at the time) Libyan government’s OK, and the consul was very well thought of by the government. The main CIA compound was down the road and they were the US forces that responded to the attack. In fact, at the time the consulate wasn’t even operational. It’s very normal to have our CIA in trouble spots. The public doesn’t know how many nations the CIA operates in (for obvious reasons), but it’s estimated as over 120 countries. (There are about 200 nations in the world depending on how you count them.). But this is interesting:

    ” “SOF [Special Operations forces] were deployed to 134 countries” during fiscal year 2013, Bockholt explained in an email.”

    I understand that the public is looking for conspiracies, and I’m subject to them as well, as we aren’t told what goes on anywhere, but this really isn’t one. Now the BS from Texas about the US invading that state, or the ‘OMG! There are UN forces on US ground’.. Those are really whack!

  23. Thank you, Nick.

  24. pointing out “that we negotiated with the Soviets for 70 years and we ended up coming to a peaceful outcome.”

    After failing to defeat them militarily.

    Although we did make it as far as Lake Baikal (from Vladivostok).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.