Quoted Text

Man behind anti-Muslim film sentenced to prison
By GREG RISLING, Associated Press – 11 hours ago  


LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California man behind an anti-Muslim film that led to violence in many parts of the Middle East was sentenced Wednesday to a year in federal prison for probation violations in an unrelated matter, then issued a provocative statement through his attorney.
The sentence was the result of a plea bargain between lawyers for Mark Bassely Youssef and federal prosecutors. Youssef admitted in open court that he had used several false names in violation of his probation order and obtained a driver's license under a false name. He was on probation for a bank fraud case.
Shortly after Youssef left the courtroom, his lawyer, Steven Seiden, came to the front steps of the courthouse and told reporters his client wanted to send a message.
"The one thing he wanted me to tell all of you is President Obama may have gotten Osama bin Laden, but he didn't kill the ideology," Seiden said.
Asked what that meant, Seiden said, "I didn't ask him, and I don't know."
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder accepted the plea agreement and immediately sentenced Youssef after he admitted to four of the eight alleged violations, including obtaining a fraudulent California driver's license. Prosecutors agreed to drop the other four allegations under the plea deal, which also included more probation time.
All parties agreed that none of the violations had to do with the content of "Innocence of Muslims," a film that depicts Mohammad as a religious fraud, pedophile and womanizer.
However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale argued Youssef's lies about his identity have caused harm to others, including the film's cast and crew. Deadly violence related to the film broke out Sept. 11 and spread to many parts of the Middle East.
"They had no idea he was a recently released felon," Dugdale said Wednesday. "Had they known that, they might have had second thoughts" about being part of the film.
He said they have had death threats and feel their careers have been ruined.
Seiden said his client admits to being the film's scriptwriter but had no other involvement except what he described as being a "cultural adviser."
Youssef, 55, was arrested in late September, just weeks after he went into hiding when the deadly violence erupted.
Enraged Muslims had demanded severe punishment for Youssef, with a Pakistani cabinet minister even offering $100,000 to anyone who kills him...............................>>>>......................>>>>......................http://www.google.com/hostedne.....4c0289aa2bd1b519032d

Quoted from Shadow

It took the DNC a month but they finally figured a way to try and spin their way out of the lie. By the way there was no demonstration.

Quoted from Shadow

Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Hannity and Limbaugh were mastubating profusely yesterday.

Hannity is foaming at the mouth.

Quoted Text

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."

Quoted Text

Susan Rice and the “Spontaneous Protest"

At his news conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama postured as the young Galahad striding out onto the schoolyard to stop a pair of bullies from beating up a girl.

Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham had charged U.N. Amb. Susan Rice with misleading the nation when, five days after the Benghazi attack in which Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed, she appeared on five TV shows to say it had all resulted from a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video.

Susan Rice, thundered Obama, "made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. ... But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."

The indignation here is more than a bit cloying. After all, Rice's rendition of the worst terror attack on the U.S. since 9/11 was utterly false.

There never was a protest.

Rice misled the nation. No one now denies that. The question is: Did Rice deceive us, or was she herself misled or deceived?

Far from being a convincing defense, Obama's remarks call into question the competence or the truthfulness of the White House itself.

Consider again what Obama said.

Susan Rice "had nothing to do with Benghazi."

But if she "had nothing to do with Benghazi," why was she sent out "at the request of the White House" to explain Benghazi?

Who at the White House programmed Rice? Did she push back at all when fed this bullhockey about Benghazi? Or does she just parrot the party line when told to do so?

Why did the White House not send Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or National Security Adviser Tom Donilon? Or did they decline to go?

The president says Rice "gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her."

And who might be the source of that "intelligence" about the protest in Benghazi, when there was no protest in Benghazi?

Rice was scripted to tell the nation it was not a "preplanned" attack, when that is exactly what it was. The CIA knew it within hours, because two of its former Navy SEALs died in the attack, and other CIA people survived and got out the next morning.


Here we come to the heart of the matter.

Though journalists, CIA personnel and State Department people listening in real time all knew from intercepts and reports back from our people on the ground that this was a terrorist attack involving automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, the fabricated story – that it came out of a protest, a protest that never happened – was pushed relentlessly by the administration.

Jay Carney pushed it two days after the attack. Petraeus pushed it on the Hill three days after the attack. Rice went on five TV shows five days after the attack to recite it chapter and verse. Obama held off calling it a terror attack for weeks in TV interviews and mentioned the video half a dozen times at the U.N. on Sept. 25.

Another question arises from the press conference.

When Obama said Rice "gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her," was that also the best intelligence the president of the United States had?

If it is, if five days after the attack Obama was that clueless about what actually happened in Benghazi, he ought to clean house at his intelligence agencies.

From the outside, it appears everybody was on board to describe the attack as "spontaneous" and attribute it to the video.

Yet none of this was true. And many inside knew, during or right after the attack, the truth about what had happened and were leaking it to the press. That brings us to the question: Why?

Why would the administration hierarchy collaborate in putting out a phony story denying there had been a terrorist attack and attributing it to a spontaneous riot that never happened?

Two answers come to mind:

One, the "spontaneous protest" cover story would enable Obama to keep pushing his campaign line that he had gotten Osama bin Laden and that al-Qaida was "on the run" and "on the path to defeat." A successful al-Qaida-type attack in Libya would have contradicted his best foreign policy claim.

Second, if it was a spontaneous attack, an attack no one could have foreseen, predicted or prevented, then that would absolve the administration of responsibility for failing to see it coming, failing to provide greater security, failing to have forces prepared to deal with it when our guys were being shot and killed for seven hours.

What was behind the cover-up is what Congress needs to find out.

Quoted from Box A Rox

The Conspiracy, the Cover Up, that Only Exists in Right Winger's Imagination!!!

"Intelligence officials told CNN that the intelligence community, not the White House, changed the
now infamous Benghazi talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before her appearance
on several morning news shows in September.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers in a closed door hearing last week that the CIA’s
original assessment on the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was that it was carried out by al Qaeda affiliated
groups. But he reportedly said that analysis was later taken out after an interagency review in favor
of a more general assessment that “extremists” carried out the attack to broaden the scope and not
tip off terrorists to U.S. knowledge on the matter."

It appears that this entire issue amounted to  no more than Right Wing Political Hysteria!  

Quoted from CICERO

That resolves that!LOL  
"Intelligence officials told CNN" - Who are these shadowy "officials"?