Here's the expose of Paul Ryan's many fabrications. You have just enough time to watch it before you watch Mitt Romney take over as the Lyin' King. I'll repost this video at some later point.
Update: "Binders full of women" -- is that another term for a corset?
Update 2: In tonight's debate, Mitt stumbled badly on the question of whether Obama had labeled the Libyan embassy attack an act of terror. Apparently, Team Romney has spent too much time trapped in the internal prison of the right-wing blogosphere. On this issue, right-wing bloggers became so enmeshed in their frenzy of conspiracism that they never bothered to look up the facts.
While making the video embedded above, I had to find out just when Obama first described the attack as terrorism. On such occasions, Google (for all its faults) is our friend. Within two minutes of searching, I had read a transcript of Obama's briefing in the Rose Garden the next day. Within ten minutes, I had downloaded a Voice of America video containing the relevant footage.
The right's behavior has been confounding. Why on earth did they fasten on the embassy attack as grounds for one of their ginned-up pseudoscandals? I followed those events closely as they unwound. I knew that the administration had -- from the beginning -- warned that the Benghazi event (unlike the spontaneous protest in Cairo) might well have been planned long before that video became known.
On September 12, many news reports quoted administration officials who said that the Libyan incident appeared to be planned well beforehand. Memeorandum (a site which most conservative bloggers watch closely) linked to those articles. Did every right-wing blogger somehow miss all of that reportage?
And didn't it occur to Romney and Ryan to double-check? Again: All they needed was a computer, an internet hookup, and two minutes. Instead, they let the Breitbart brigade do their thinking for them.
Modern partisan politics is disturbingly insular. The right-wing blogsosphere is a house of mirrors, and the people living within that house see only endless reflections of themselves. And they're fine with that. They want no other view. Left-wing bloggers inhabit a similar house -- but at least their domicile has a few windows.
Will the Zionists attack Iran just before the US presidential election?
That would trigger efforts by both major candidates to show how supportive they are, including the present commander-in-chief.
What do you reckon?
posted by b : 7:04 AM
On the Benghazi attack I think the scumbags have a point.
Its not that Obama official position was incorrect. Its that "someone" has been promoting a false narrative which the media has cooperated in putting out there. Instead of viewing the attack as a carefully planned terrorist attack, a lot of americans think it was the unplanned actions of a mob motivated by a video.
Well cui bono?
As per usual, they hate you for your freedoms, not your drones.
posted by Anonymous : 7:45 AM
b: That won't happen.
Not all Israelis want war, of course, but those who do want Romney to win. Romney is down with war. That's really one theme that became clear in my research for this video -- the Republicans derailed a congressional cry for sanctions against Iran because it didn't contain the equivalent of the same war resolution that allowed Bush to attack Iraq. Well, they wouldn't be vying for such a provision unless war were in the cards.
Are the AM Hate Radio show hosts in denial of the facts too?
Or are they just flat out evil knowing full well the vile spew they dispense is lies?
One of the purveyors of hate has left the air but the local AM station lost no time finding a replacement to sing the same song.
posted by Mr. Mike : 9:27 AM
I don't know what to make of Unger's article but it contains a lot of specifics and I wouldn't be surprised if the Benghazi attack had an outside organizing group -- I recall a Libyan government official insisting it was an outsider job.
Unger did a previous article on Abu Zubaydah who I know you did some posts on. It was that account of him being captured by the CIA in Pakistan and two CIA agents pretended to be from Saudi intelligence, hoping it would scare him. Turns out he is glad to see them and gives them a cell phone contact for a Saudi prince whom he claims he had allegedly told of a major al Qaeda attack to occur on 9/11. When he discovered they were not Saudis but CIA Zubaydah reportedly then tried to kill himself and the Saudi prince -- and several other identified Saudis -- later died in suspicious circumstances.
Now it seems that Unger based that account on details provided by Gerald Posner whom I recall you citing as a CIA mouthpiece so it made the whole story kind of interesting, pointing as it did to Saudi foreknowledge of 9/11.
There is now a story up that the US government has denied in court that Zubaydah had any involvement with al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks.
So, I'm left wondering about these two conflicting tales and what official story line the US (ie CIA) really wants to push here. Any thoughts?
posted by wxyz : 9:27 AM
wxyz -- I'll stay clear of anything 911 related right now. But the Unger article definitely adds to my own suspicions.
There was just something too damned coordinated about the right-wing blog posts on Benghazi. If you visit memeorandum often, you can tell that there are occasions when all the wingnut writers "got the memo." To switch metaphors, they all start singing the song they've been told the sing.
The whole "Innocence of Muslims" project always reeked of spookery. The most damning evidence was that one article which described the one and only screening the film received in Hollywood. They came right out and said that the whole thing was a trap designed to catch Bin Laden sympathizers. Nobody took the bait, but suppose someone had. What would happen next? Why would average citizens think they were accomplishing something if they had an Al Qaida sympathizer in a dark, sleazy theater on Hollywood Blvd?
The whole thing makes sense only if we posit that the film-makers were NOT average citizens.
So it's hardly unlikely that someone in the intel community has been working with Team Romney, feeding intel to the Rovians.
But if they expected the current degree of pseudoscandal to rock the public, they misjudged. There's nothing here to arouse the undecideds or to cause any Obama supporters to switch.
I'm intrigued and worried by Unger's talk about a "phase two."
The 47% controversy sort of derailed the investigation into Pam Geller and her ties to the Egyptian Costics and "Innocence of Muslims." I really wish someone would dig a little deeper. I keep checking googlenews for the latest, and still not much.
The script really should be flipped on this-pronto. kc
posted by Anonymous : 12:31 PM
Joe - "That won't happen."
I wouldn't be so sure. Netanyahu in effect told the world at the UN that war with Iran was inevitable, soon. Say the Zionists start a war with Iran before the election. Would Romney assure voters that nothing divides him from Obama on the matter, and that in this time of national trouble the president can count on his unquestioning support? I don't think so. Conventional wisdom that Obama would be the one to benefit politically might not apply.
The Zionists would do their usual thing of calling the White House a den of pro-Arab forces stabbing western values in the back. (Comparison with Mein Kampf intended.) No level of support is ever enough. If the US drop 20 nukes on Iran, it should have been 50. If 50, it should have been 100, plus 100 on Russia for aiding Syria. Thanks to lack of purpose and backbone in the US, an Israeli pilot has been lost. Where the fuck were the Americans? Do those pussycats want to keep their warheads in their silos or what? Stuff like that. World war. Romney wins. Ratchet gets turned another peg. That's if there's time before the apocalypse. Not realistic?
Is there an expert on hasbara in the house? An Israeli attack on Iran would not be prepared by means of an across-the-board monotonic increase in war rhetoric. There might be some articles such as the one at the Torygraph's website printed under the name of this prick yesterday, though.
posted by b : 3:32 PM
wxyz, Zubaydah is alive and breathing in Guantanamo. He has major mental problems due to shrapnel injuries and severe interrogation. Much of his interrogation tapes were destroyed (Ali Soufan asserts that these interrogation methods were damaging in legal areas, as well as being ineffective techniques). Posner is a hard one to trust on anything (as are the troofers)-but I don't believe that his word has much weight in why he is not being charged. More than likely, much of the evidence has been destroyed to cover up the brutality Zubaydah suffered. Zubaydah is an embarrassment to the Gov when it comes to interrogation methods. Other interrogators have spoken out about the brutality-namely Ali Soufan. you can read a little testimony on this here: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da14945e6&wit_id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da14945e6-1-2
I wouldn't necessarily dismiss one for the other when it comes to Unger, but I haven't had much time to read his latest.
posted by Anonymous : 4:09 PM
I'm sooo glad I'm old! I wouldn't be young now for all the money on the world. You poor babies (and how brave you are to have chosen this miserable time to be young!).
posted by LandOLincoln : 5:26 PM
Thanks kc. Yes, I think the torture videos were uppermost in the minds of US officials. But I am still left with wondering what do they do with him now if they insist he is not al Qaeda? Release him?
They clearly also rely on the public having short memories (Bush claimed Zubaydah gave them intel on Iraq and al Qaeda thus justifying the invasion).
It's Orwellian, like some official politburo history rewrite where lead characters no longer exist and actual events never occurred.