Empty chair:

"There are two kinds of people in this world," Eastwood told the mag a month before his “empty chair” speech at the Republican National Convention. "'I' people and 'we' people. I've always tried to be a 'we' person. I think that our president is an 'I' person. He speaks as though he killed Osama bin Laden himself."

And speaking of: This F'n' Guy managed to brag on himself when eulogizing the dead.

He talked about how important the foreign service is and what a great job it does representing the U.S. abroad. He also had a line about how he understands the value of the foreign service because he spent so much time as a kid growing up abroad.

Posted by: Ace at 02:45 PM | Comments (178)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

No Marines, no bulletproof windows. No nothing-- except "lock and key security," also known as "no security."

The administration "explains" this by saying it was an "interim facility." Apparently you don't have to fear attacks at an "interim facility." It's like a Church in the Highlander series.

Except it's not.

But it would be crude politics to say something like "Obama should have provided security at the 'interim facility.'"

How was he to know there was any danger? It's not like Benghazi has long been a, what are the right words?, an Al Qaeda stronghold or anything.

Oh wait. That's right, it always has been an Al Qaeda stronghold.

Now he's sending in ships and helicopters and Marines.

I guess to secure the dead bodies.

But remember, the real story of the day is "Mitt Romney criticizes Obama and the Cairo Embassy and the media doesn't like it one bit."

No Reason To Worry About Benghazi... Except for the State Department warning people about violence and kidnappings and assassinations in Benghazi.

By the way, there was also an IED attack on the office in June.

I guess those locks held at that point. So, they probably got overconfident about their door-locks.

Via @morgenr.

By the Way: In Las Vegas, Obama delivered a beautiful eulogy for the dead embassy staffers, in the form of his own version of Amazing Grace. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (270)
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

It's fake... but somewhat accurate. But largely fake. Note Update.

If this is what the riots are about -- well, then, some members of the Religion of Peace seems to have had a hand in the "blasphemy" themselves.

Now, the movie itself is real. Ish. It's a very cheap production. 90% of it is taped against a crude greenscreen, with static photos layered in to be the scenery.

A character named Mohammad does not seem to appear in it.

I think if you watch from 2:31 to 2:55 you can see the clear, crude, amateurish, stupid overdub, changing the name of the character to "Mohammad" from something else entirely.

I can't tell at all that the voice goes from a native speaker of English to a non-native (Arabic) English speaker at all.

They then dub a woman at 3:45 to say "Mohammad," even though she plainly doesn't.

At 9:05-9:06, they dub a woman to say "Is your Mohammad a child molester?," even though she clearly doesn't. The scene does in fact seem to reference Mohammad's marriage to a 9-year-old-- but it's been souped-up with an overdub for those who have difficulty with subtext.

At 10:27, another extremely crude overdub occurs.

Clear overdubs occur when referencing the wife of Mohammad, at 12:45.

A lot of the real dialogue does suggest a parody of the life of Mohammad. Like, at around 10:00, real dialogue asks if "The Master" is "gay." And "dominant."

Here's what I think happened: Someone made a very bad, very cheap "Life of Brian" spoof of Mohammad. Let's say they called the character "Hamad."

This is a guess, but the name appears to have two syllables (note in the second overdub I mentioned above they have to stutter the film to fake a third and fourth syllable).

As in Life of Brian, they had a main character who was not, supposedly, the figure being spoofed.

Which these guys would take to be Blasphemy anyway, of course. But they weren't sure that enough people would understand that "Hamad" is supposed to be a spoof of Mohammad, so they "helped" their flock understand it by crudely overdubbing in the name "Mohammad" and various other provocations.

But that makes the overdubbers here guilty of blasphemy-- they themselves turned this into a forbidden depiction of His Undepictableness.

Check it out, tell me if I'm going wrong.

Hmmm... Although the overdubs are, as is clear to the eye and ear, clearly overdubs, it's possible -- possible -- the someone in the production is responsible for the overdubs.

If you take this...

And it appears he fooled the 80 cast and crew members who worked on the film, Innocence of Muslims, who claimed in a statement that they were misled by the producer.

'The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer,' they said. 'We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose.

'We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.'

...it's possible a game was played where they were given a script, which didn't mention Mohammad, and then someone dubbed in "Mohammad" in post-production.

It's all so crudely done, though.

In this scenario, the actors would be hired on under the understanding the film is about "Hamad," but, in post-production, overdubs make it clear it's about Mohammad.

Thanks to Lauren for that.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:32 PM | Comments (247)
Post contains 630 words, total size 4 kb.

Diplomacy.

And is Egypt’s government sorry about the attack on our embassy? No. Kandil says the attack was “regrettable” — but not because rioting over a film is barbaric. Rather, it is “regrettable” because “the people who produced this low film have no relation to the (U.S.) government.” So rioting against the filmmakers is fine, and if there were any nexus to the government, rioting at our embassy would be fine, too.

… Which brings us to the second part of Kandil’s statement: “We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film’s producers within the framework of international charters that criminalize acts that stir strife on the basis of race, color or religion.” Translation: We’re not holding the American government responsible … yet — but if it fails to punish the filmmakers, then all that “regrettable” stuff might not be so regrettable.

As Allah noted yesterday, this idea of an international law forbidding blasphemy against Mohammad is dear to the Islamists' hearts.

If speech is illegitimate because it offends religious sensibilities, then we’re on the doorstep of yelling “blasphemy.” In practical effect, that’s what the embassy is pushing: There’s not a syllable wasted here on condemning the cretins who climbed the embassy walls and tore down the flag — on 9/11. The denunciation is reserved for the blasphemers, who in this case turn out to be Egyptian expats who made an amateur film about Mohammed that’s presumably being used by Islamist demagogues over there to whip up the crowd. Every now and then, the Organization of the Islamic Conference pushes a blasphemy resolution at the UN designed to carve out international exceptions to free speech laws for insults to religion, i.e. Islam. The statement from the embassy is precisely the mentality they’re trying to cultivate. All that’s missing is a call for criminal penalties, but that’s less important to the anti-blasphemy bloc than western officials groveling to their sensibilities. Mission accomplished.

So: Is it the position of the left, the Democrats, the State Department, and President This F***in' Guy, that an anti-blasphemy law would be good and advisable? Which religions would be protected under its auspices -- would the Christian religion, so long a favorite target of artists and academics, be on the list?

What would the artists think about that? Would the academy agree to no longer "blaspheme" against the Christian religion?

Are we all okay with that?

Or would we restrict prosecutions to only insults to Islam?

I'm not exaggerating here. The left doesn't want to call it "blasphemy" laws, because they know, as "civil libertarians" they're against such things, but what they keep proposing, again and again, is precisely that. They should be required to answer to the word that correctly describes their position, and defend it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (248)
Post contains 494 words, total size 4 kb.

I was watching the "news" accounts of the ongoing Obama-fiasco in Libya and Egypt this morning, and I couldn't help but come to one headline/twitter friendly conclusion:

"Obama Apologized. American Ambassador Eulogized. First Amendment Marginalized."

Perhaps I should add a subsidiary clause to the phrase: maybe something like "Media Sanitized" in reference to the way they are scrambling to protect their precious president as he speaks softly and stumblingly slams his little stick in the Muslim Brotherhood's front door.

But I'm not writing this post to focus on media bias. Others do that, and they do it better than I do. I'm writing this post for a different reason.

I'm angry. more...

Posted by: Jack M. at 12:05 PM | Comments (202)
Post contains 790 words, total size 5 kb.

The media is trying desperately to make Libya and Egypt all about Romney and not Obama.

National Journal tries to undercut Romney's version of events but fails to take into account the deletion of tweets by the embassy in Cairo.

The protests and killings in Cairo and Benghazi have sparked a political clash between Republican nominee Mitt Romney and the Obama campaign. Romney, citing a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, has accused the Obama administration of making the equivalent of an apology to protestors after they breached the embassy grounds. A timeline of events suggests that is wrong -- that the embassy statement came hours before its grounds were breached.

Not covered in the timeline National Journal produces? This Tweet that was eventually deleted by the embassy.

This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy

Emphasis mine.

Contra National Journal, when Romney said the embassy apologized after the breach he was on solid ground because he was relying on the later tweet that reaffirmed the apology like language after the mob breached the embassy grounds, tore down our flag and flew the flag of our enemies in its place...on 9/11.

This is why the deletion of public records (which official government Twitter feeds are) is so dangerous.

Updated [ace]: The National Journal has now stealth-edited their factual error down the memory hole, without acknowledgement. He's got the screengrabs at his site (first link above).

Bonus [ace]: One thing I use twitter for is directly questioning the malefactors of the press. It's useless, because they ignore me (as they do all non-liberal speakers), but there is a carthartic function to it, I guess.

Another Bonus [ace]: The Traitor Malor (just kidding) writes of Reaping the Whirlwind at his Traitor Blog (just kidding, again).

It's a good piece:

The President's Libyan policy encouraged extremists to overthrow their government, and thereby to cast down the only security apparatus that country had known. That policy saw police forces replaced with militias. It saw militias acting like mobs.

This is the dirty secret, largely untold in American media, of the Arab Spring. Loose the extremists, arm them, invite them to fight each other, and then have no way to control them after the dust settles. President Obama embraced this policy, but he did not have the skill or experience to understand where it would lead.

President Bush was rightly criticized for inadequately planning for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. President Obama similarly failed to plan for the aftermath of the overthrow of Khaddafy. He put the mob in charge in Libya and then hoped for the best.

That's not a coherent foreign policy. That's an abdication of duty.

I'm just about done with both the Bush Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine.

Obama said, a while ago, "sometimes I believe my own bullshit." And his bullshit in this case is that the Scorpion will, one day, if he's just passionate enough about Islam and Arab revolutionaries, act contrary to its Nature.

Bush posited that inside each Islamist was a Son of the Enlightenment just waiting for an invitation to come out.

Obama posits the same thing. If we just arm up the Islamists and set them loose to murder their oppressors (and, by the way-- second look at oppressors?), then they will unzip their Islamist skin and come out as Sons of the Enlightenment.

These are not Sons of the Enlightenment and never will be. They are Sons of the Inquisition, and, more directly, Sons of Naziism.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:33 AM | Comments (213)
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.

I had another post up, but I'm taking that down for the moment, to post this story as it breaks.

He'll have the audio up soon. Here's some of the text (not all of it, have to leave him some):

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Â…pointing out that the RepublicansÂ… *unintelligible* Â…ObamaÂ….

CBS REPORTER: ThatÂ’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah thatÂ’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off onÂ…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You canÂ’t say that..

Via @benk84.

And I'm linking "What About Your Gaaaffes?" because it's still spot-on and these cuts never got the play they deserved.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (408)
Post contains 176 words, total size 2 kb.

Mike Barnicle: Hey, let's prosecute the guy who made that movie (which doesn't even seem to be the reason for the attacks) for murder.

UPenn "professor of religion:" You know, freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free to say whatever you believe.

What they are calling for is Anti-Blasphemy Laws, which Muslim countries have, and Western (Christian) countries do not.

And of course they're not calling for Anti-Blasphemy Laws for all religions; just the de facto state religion of the US, Islam.

Because if one religion -- and only one -- is afforded official state protection, that is the state religion.

Which, in case we still care, the Constitution forbids. So this is offensive to not just one clause in the first Amendment, but pretty much all of them.

Another One: Let's ban this movie as a Hate Crime.

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (380)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

via @tookiew. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:30 AM | Comments (152)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Sure, why would anyone think there might be some violence on 9/11?

By the way: In Bengazi, a staffer wrote (in an online gaming forum; he was an EVE player)...

"(12:54:09 PM) vile_rat: assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures."

It seems the embassy staff knew something was coming -- why was Obama not doing something about this? Such as... evacuating the staff? Sending in Marines?

Intelligence ignored? Straight from the mouth of an embassy staffer looking right at the guy casing the compound?

On 9/11?

Additionally, the US was warned that extremists might attempt to burn down the embassy. On Monday.

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

This explains why they had, in this case, evacuated most of the staff. What it doesn't explain is why the administration was otherwise so flat-footed -- including in Benghazi.

Libya Attack Pre-Planned, Coordinated With Muslim Brotherhood: So claims one report.

It sure does look that way.

But the important story here isn't what Obama failed to do to forestall the attacks, but what Romney said in response to his failure.

Right?

Muslim Brotherhood Calls For Worldwide Attacks: They say "protests." They mean attacks.

Tick Tock: So, some precautions were taken -- the embassy was moved to a safehouse.

Problem is, that was also compromised. Likely by our allies, the Freedom Fighters of Libya.

CNN Report On Coordinated Muslim Brotherhood Attack: Here.

Posted by: Ace at 08:33 AM | Comments (433)
Post contains 373 words, total size 3 kb.