Angry Mob Does What Obama Could Not, Dives Ambassador Stevens Killers Out Of Benghazi

From The Telegraph:

Up to four people were reported dead in clashes which broke out when the last and biggest militia was attacked in the early hours of Saturday morning. Earlier, members of Ansar al-Sharia, the militant group accused of responsibility for Mr Stevens’ death, were forced out of their strongholds in the city.

The deaths and promises of retribution by militia leaders presage more trouble to come. But for the moment the headquarters of the freelance groups that have held sway in Benghazi since the revolution that toppled Col Muammar Gaddafi are claimed to be in the hands of police and army units loyal to the newly elected prime minister, Mustafa Abushagur.

The protests in Benghazi on Friday evening, estimated at 30,000-strong, featured pro-American slogans and banners, unusual for demonstrations in Arab countries. Though many protesters said they were attending “for Benghazi, not for America”, some held up placards commemorating Mr Stevens, who lived in Benghazi last year while co-ordinating American support for the revolution.

“We demand justice for Stevens,” said one, and “Libya lost a friend” another.

The march was given the title “Rally to Save Benghazi”. Its aim and that of another, smaller demonstration in Tripoli was to demand the government, which Mr Abushagur is still forming, take control of security in the country and disband the militias or co-opt them into the army under a unified structure.

This administration just go around to calling in a terrorist act, there’s no reason to believe that they are pursing any sort of offensive strategy. Thank goodness for the Libyans…

L.A. Times Still Refusing to Release Video of Obama’s Party With Radical Islamists
Michelle Obama Claims Barack And Bill Clinton Have A "Bromance"
  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    Well, this is what is supposed to happen, people running their own countries.

    If the USA got involved, how many innocent people would get killed as “collateral damage?”

    If you’re winning by doing nothing, then do nothing.

    • jim_m

      Heavens yes. Imagine if we had not apologized!

    • Brucehenry

      Wizbangers will not be satisfied until Americans kill Arabs and are killed by Arabs, AGAIN.

      • jim_m

        Hey! We’d be satisfied with President who got his security briefings and increased security when appropriate and who did not apologize for American civil rights and who did not act like a fascist thug having people arrested for making movies.

        It really isn’t a lot. But I understand if you prefer to live under oppression. You think that your side will control it.

        • Brucehenry

          Sure you would. The idea that you would ever “be satisfied” with anything Obama does is laughable.

          Blowing shit up with expensive American hardware is the goal. Fuck the consequences.

          • jim_m

            Hey, if obama did what I thought was right he wouldn’t be the Marxist dictator wannabe that he is. If he were not that person I probably would be satisfied with some of the things he did.

          • retired.military

            I will be satisified with Obama when he leaves office. I would be satisfied with Obama if he resigned. I will be satisfied with Obama WHEN he loses this election.
            See Bruce. The right can be satisfied with things Obama did.

        • Brucehenry

          BTW, good job cramming four talking points into a one-sentence paragraph.

          • jim_m

            Thanks. I couldn’t find a way to work in his support for infanticide or Marxist redistribution or his ballooning of the deficit and failure to submit a budget that can pass a dem controlled senate. I’ll try to do better.

        • President Obama did not have anyone arrested for making a movie. The person who is credited with making that disgusting film is a convicted felon, and he is free from prison under certain conditions, among which is a ban on his use of the Internet. That person was picked up by local authorities as part of an investigation to see if the person had violated the terms of his parole. The investigation was the result of the fact that the aforementioned is found on the Internet.

          • Brucehenry

            Nor did he “apologize for American civil rights,” but what are facts to Jim? He’s got talking points to spew!

          • jim_m

            The initial statements from the dept of state which they went on about for 16 hours straight) were all about how the movie was a wrongful use of speech and that the government deplored it as irresponsible. Many people, not just the right, saw these pronouncements as an apology for free speech and not a defense of it.

            That along with comments on the left that this was the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater make it clear that the admin does not support free speech )at least not for people that make obama’s life difficult and may even force him to miss a fund raiser or a tee time)

          • Brucehenry

            Ya mean THIS statement, Jim?

            The embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions of those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

            Oh yeah, what an abject “apology for American civil rights.”

          • TomInCali

            how the movie was a wrongful use of speech and that the government deplored it as irresponsible.

            Which was exactly the same thing that Romney said:

            And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.

            So no, not many people, including the right, saw these pronouncements as an apology for free speech.

          • jim_m

            Sorry David. Anyone believing that the LA Sheriff’s Police were required to drag this guy off in the middle of the night to investigate a parole violation is either naive or lying. That stunt was for the benefit of the obama admin that needed to scapegoat someone and their narrative at the time was that the riots and murders were a product of the film. The arrest was in line with obama’s statement deploring the “disrespecting” of religion. The arrest was done with the fig leaf of the parole issue but only a fool believes that it was not about suppression of speech.

          • Brucehenry

            Got that, David? ONLY A FOOL believes, and interprets events, differently than Jim and his fellow nutbars.

          • Sorry, Bruce, but I’m understanding Jim’s point. He’s right – there wasn’t any need to photograph him like that, and no reason to pick him up at midnight.

            (And is there any certainty HE was the one who posted the trailer up on Youtube?)

            What it DID provide was a photo op, and an image that could be used to imply ‘See? We’re doing something about this man that has offended you.’ As the saying goes – a picture’s worth a thousand words. That picture, distributed in papers in the ME, MIGHT help calm things down.
            I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it – but that mob’s a good sign that at least SOME in the ME know that the US isn’t their enemy.

          • jim_m

            And since it is claimed that the federal code is so complex that everyone commits 3 felonies a day without knowing it, who can be sure that when the time comes the government will not be able to gin up some bogus charges against them? It seems a rather simple task to create a climate of fear of government retaliation and selective enforcement of the law to keep the public at heel.

            And Bruce would fall into the category of liars above.

          • Brucehenry

            “It is claimed” by whom? Alex Jones? Jerome Corsi?

            Now we’re getting somewhere with your paranoia, Jim. Are you getting the feeling you’re being watched? Do you think the FBI is tailing you? Are you hearing clicks on your phone line? It might be the CIA! Are black helicopters hovering over your house?

          • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

            That claim of “three felonies a day” was a title of a book by Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU lawyer, and it’s a pretty valid claim.


            I enjoy the delicious irony of jim_m citing an ACLU stalwart. Maybe he’s becoming enlightened.

          • Brucehenry

            The authorities say that they waited until most of the press — who had surrounded this guy’s house like paparazzi at a Kate Middleton booby display — had left. The pickup, and the pickup TIME, had been prearranged with the guy. The photo was taken by the one photographer who was still hanging out there, not the police.

            So there’s your explanation for the photo and the pickup time.

            And now look, if you are on probation, and you do something very publicly in violation of your probation, chances are it will come to the attention of probation authorities. And, I suggest, they might feel obligated to make a public example of you, since you publicly violated parole. Not that sinister, just cops being assholes like usual.

      • Vagabond661

        Yeah that evil Bush has a drone hit list and he killed Bin Laden and Gaddafi and we are paying the pri……oh wait never mind.

        • Brucehenry

          Never mind is right, genius, nobody mentioned Bush.

        • Actually, the use of drones to kill terrorists was started during the previous presidential administration.

      • Bruce, that is not completely true. I am happy about the aforementioned event in Benghazi.

    • UOG

      If you’re winning by doing nothing, then do nothing.”

      Sure, but the stuttering repetition over the course of more than a week of “no evidence of pre-planning,”and “a protest that spiraled into some more” is all the evidence I need to know that what has now happened in Benghazi was a much as a surprise to the Obama Administration as the original terrorist attacks.

      That’s not winning Chico. I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama was still using his line about “the investigation is ongoing” in today’s stump speeches… if he mentioned it at all.

    • Chico has a valid point. The residents of Benghazi were the people best able to go after the murderers of Ambassador Stevens. The outcome was a positive one for the USA.

    • retired.military


  • 914

    must have been close to 3 am?? lol

  • “Dives”? Journalism is only getting worse around here. Now Typos are the latest low.

    • Professional journalists make typos, too.

    • jim_m

      Spell Check is not your friend.

      • retired.military

        Dives is a word. In fact word didnt give me a grammar error either. LOL

        • jim_m

          Exactly my point.

    • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

      Did you understand what he meant? If so, then move on.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Don’t you have some celebrity gossip to report on, our some cheap Chinese crap to peddle? Or are you too busy running your non union grocery?

  • retired.military

    I think you meant DRIVES.

  • KenWD

    I’m sure the Obama Administration has considered swearing out a warrant for their arrest.