Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


phleshdef's Journal
phleshdef's Journal
April 4, 2016

Congress critters and Senators have to release thorough financial disclosures EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that was passed in the wake of the Nixon Watergate scandal and the Saturday Night Massacre. It created mandatory, public disclosure of financial and employment history of public officials and their immediate family. It also created restrictions on lobbying efforts by public officials for a set period after leaving public office. Last, it created the U.S. Office of Independent Counsel, tasked with investigating government officials.

The most basic criticism of the Ethics in Government Act has been that it repels good people because of its excessive levels of disclosure.


This is why I always thought concern over Kerry and McCain's taxes was idiotic. The same goes for Bernie. Anyone that has spent decades as a public official subject to this law has been releasing relevant financial information since this law was passed. This is just one of the many reasons the "criticism" aimed at Bernie Sander's over his tax returns is disingenuous nonsense.

Romney, of course, wasn't subject to these disclosures and thats why his tax returns were important. Otherwise, I would defend him on it as well.

Of course, when Sanders does ultimately put the information out there and there is nothing interesting to see, I'm sure the people running their mouths about it today will give a full throated apology right?
October 23, 2015

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Feb 16, 2006, 12:31 PM
Number of posts: 11,936
Latest Discussions»phleshdef's Journal