HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Debunking Jim Jordan's na...

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:20 AM

 

Debunking Jim Jordan's narrative about Clinton's Youtube video statement.

This took me all of 15 minutes to do...

Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed. They included Sean Smith, a Foreign Service information management officer, and our Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals.


Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.


http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/09/197654.htm

Those are excerpts from Secretary Clinton's statement the day after the attack.

So why did she say "some have sought to justify it because of the video". Well, if Jim Jordan would've shut his mouth for a minute and actually listened yesterday... this is what she was trying to get through his thick skull...

Initial intelligence suggest that Ansar al-Shariah was the group behind the attack...

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Also, witnesses to the attack itself claimed Ansar al-Shariah was behind it....

Ansar al-Shariah, the brigade of rebel fighters that witnesses say led the attack on the United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, holds that democracy is incompatible with Islam. It has paraded the streets with weapons calling for an Islamic state, and a few months ago its leader boasted publicly that its fighters could flatten a foreign consulate.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/attack-by-fringe-group-highlights-the-problem-of-libya-militias.html?_r=3&hp&pagewanted=all

Witnesses also claimed that they saw the leader of Ansar al Shariah

Libyan authorities have singled out Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of the Benghazi-based Islamist group Ansar al-Shariah, as a commander in the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, last month, Libyans involved in the investigation said Wednesday.

Witnesses at the scene of the attack on the American Mission in Benghazi have said they saw Mr. Abu Khattala leading the assault, and his personal involvement is the latest link between the attack and his brigade, Ansar al-Shariah, a puritanical militant group that wants to advance Islamic law in Libya.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/africa/libya-singles-out-islamist-as-a-commander-in-benghazi-consulate-attack.html

THEN, this is where the video comes in. Ansar Al Shariah issued a vague, sort of denial as being the group behind the attack and THEY themselves said it was a spontaneous uprising over the youtube video.

Ansar al Shariah, an Islamist group in Libya that has been accused of executing last night’s attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, issued a statement on the assault. The statement, which has been translated by the SITE Intelligence Group, is neither a full denial nor a full claim of responsibility. The group stated that it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” leaving open the possibility that its members were involved. Ansar al Shariah then claimed that the attack “was a spontaneous popular uprising” to a video released on YouTube that denigrated the Prophet Mohammed.

Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn’t participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala’a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn’t participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.

Ansar al Shariah wants you to believe that this attack was part of a “spontaneous popular uprising,” and not an assault linked to an organized Jihadi-Salafist group that has launched attacks in Benghazi in the recent past, including against at least one foreign consulate. To believe that, you also have to believe that a group of demonstrators, armed with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, spontaneously showed up in front of the US Consulate, and then overran the security and killed the US ambassador and three Americans. While this is certainly possible, it isn’t likely.


http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/09/ansar_al_shariah_issues_statem.php

Also, it should be important to note that the leader of Ansar has been arrested and charged with playing a significant role in the attack.

U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday that a Libyan man, Ahmed Abu Khattalah, has been charged with playing a significant role in last year's attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

He is the first person known to be charged in connection with the attack, though officials say other charges have also been filed.

He has been described as the founder of Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan extremist group. Investigators have said for months that they believe he was at the U.S. consulate during the attack.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/us-charges-libyan-role-deadly-attack-benghazi-consulate-f6C10861451

So, getting back to the statement that Jordan was picking at...

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet"

That statement is 100% true. Ansar al Shariah did in fact seek to justify the attack because of the stupid YouTube video. We've arrested and charged their #1 and he will face trial in the US soon.

Again, this is the kind of stuff that always happens right after an incident such as this. Anyone who is a reasonable person understands the concept of the "fog of war" and should assume that a lot of theories and stories are going to be put out there before all the facts are really known. But the whole thing that Clinton said in her statement about the video were relevant and true.

6 replies, 2552 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Debunking Jim Jordan's narrative about Clinton's Youtube video statement. (Original post)
phleshdef Oct 2015 OP
DURHAM D Oct 2015 #1
emulatorloo Oct 2015 #4
spanone Oct 2015 #2
emulatorloo Oct 2015 #3
justiceischeap Oct 2015 #5
emulatorloo Oct 2015 #6

Response to phleshdef (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:33 AM

1. off topic but...

Has anyone figured out who was in that picture (two men) that one of the congressman showed Hillary yesterday? I think it was Cong. Pompass that waved the pic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:47 AM

4. Been wondering about that pic too. Implication was terrorist meeting with a CIA

or state dept representative within the Benghazi compound.

Hard not to assume the photo was fabricated and/or the people in the photo aren't who he said they were and/or it was not taken when and where he said it was.

No luck with a Google search.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 10:34 AM

2. if anyone watched 10 seconds of the hearing yesterday, they know that 'truth' was not invited

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Original post)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:40 AM

3. In true Republican fashion, he lied about her quote.

She said "some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet" which is a true statement.

Jordan's version was to pretend she said something completely different.

He suffers from a willful lack of reading comprehension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:52 AM

5. The thing that struck me most about Jordan's questioning yesterday

was that he seemed to want to parse words and yet didn't seem to have the fundamental understanding of the words implications that he was trying to parse. He did the same thing in later rounds of questioning (I can't remember the word he picked on then--every time he came up, I left the room).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:04 PM

6. Yep, I personally think he was trying to bait Clinton into giving a word parsing soundbite

Huge fail on his part. HRC never said what he claimed he said, she did well pointing that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread