US Ambassador to Libya and 3 staff members killed

[bayonetbrant]

I need to find out more about this supposed film.  When was it made?  Where was it shown?  Only to find out how close it all was to the attack. 

Bison, here are some more details.  And let's just say - it weeeee-eeeerd.

From The Atlantic yesterday
The Movie the Muslim World Is Furious About Might Not Even Be a Movie

First off, no one has been able to obtain a full-length copy of the film. The only evidence of its existence is in a 13.5 minute trailer on YouTube that is riddled with red flags. As BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray noticed, "The video is a compilation of the most clumsily overdubbed moments from what is in reality an incoherent, haphazardly-edited set of scenes." Just look at the horrid way the desert backdrop is green-screened into the background. This is a film with a $5 million budget?

The Tinseltown pros over at The Hollywood Reporter quickly pounced on the claim. "Though Bacile claims he spent $5 million on the movie — a figure that would put the film's on par with the Toronto festival entrant Julianne Moore-starrer What Maisie Knew — the 13 minutes of footage available online look unprofessional," wrote Jordan Zakarin. "Furthermore, Bacile has virtually no footprint in the Hollywood community. The writer-director-producer has no agent listed on IMDBPro and no credits on any film or TV production." Piling on, the Associated Press took a deeper dive after admitting to being deceived by Bacile. "Several Hollywood and California film industry groups and permit agencies said they had no records of the project," reported Shaya Tayefe Mohajer and Stephen Braun. So there's a lack of evidence of it being a real film. So who is this guy Sam Bacile?

That's an even bigger problem. As The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg discovered when he contacted Steve Klein, a consultant on the film, Bacile was lying about his name and identity. "He's not Israeli, no," said Klein regarding his colleague. "I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved ... His name is a pseudonym ... I doubt he's Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign." Digging further, the AP notes that "The name Bacile also does not appear in searches of California state licenses, including the Department of Real Estate." Maybe Israeli officials know who he is? Nope! "Officials in Israel also said there was no record of Bacile as an Israeli citizen," reports the AP.

(There's more, but this is the meat of it)

And then the follow-up today
What We've Learned from the Cast & Crew of the Anti-Islam Movie

The Associated Press and Buzzfeed both had important, revealing interviews with people supposedly involved. The AP spoke with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, who claims to be the manager of the company who made the movie. Buzzfeed spoke to a man going by the name Jimmy Israel, who worked for a short time on the movie as a producer. Israel found the movie because a friend was supposed to direct until Bacile showed up. He stuck around for a few days to try and help with production. This is what we were able to learn from the two stories:

Nakoula and Bacile are probably the same person. A cell phone number the AP used to speak to someone claiming to be Bacile traced back to the same location they met Nakoula. According to court papers, Nakoula has a number of aliases, including, "Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others." Jimmy Israel thinks they're the same person, too. He says when he asked Bacile for a legal name for registration with the Screen Actors Guild, Bacile said the name Bacile gave him was "Abnob Nakoula Basseley." He was also around 55, the same age the AP gives Nakoula. 

If they are the same person, Nakoula's online activity likely violates a previous court order. The AP discovered Nakoula is currently not allowed to go on the internet or use a computer without approval from a parole officer:

Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

The movie was originally about Coptic Christians. Israel said he found the project when it was still called Desert Warriors. He was told by his friend and Bacile the movie was about, "the historical persecution of Coptic Christians." Nakoula admitted to being a Coptic Christian to the AP, too.

The budget wasn't anywhere close to $5 million. It was closer to $100,000, tops, according to Israel. "Israel suggests that, despite earlier reports that the film had millions of dollars of outside financing, the total outlay for the project couldn't have exceeded $100,000."

The movie played for at least a day in an old L.A. theater. The AP confirmed the movie did play "for a least a day, and possibly longer, several months ago," at the Vine Theater, a "faded Hollywood movie house," according to the AP. Also, this implies there's a finished, complete project somewhere.

(the italics are replaced text that was bold in the original; trying to differentiate from the headlines I posted earlier)

[OJsDad]

US Embassy in Yemen today was stormed.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/13/13840461-yemen-protesters-repelled-after-storming-us-embassy?lite&;

[Bison]

And it continues.

[LongBlade]

And it continues.

So much for looking strong on foreign policy.

[bayonetbrant]

So much for looking strong on foreign policy.

I gotta ask, though - what is it you actually want him to do?  Start shooting people?  That's going to stop a riot?  Seriously?  I mean look, I'm not a fan of the President at all, but right now we're pretty option-constrained.  He may be responsible for some of those constraints, but (in)actions 14 months ago can't be undone now.  The key question is "what do we do now?"

We can
a} hunker down and hope for the best
b} withdraw and cut off a key line of engagement with the governments that (by and large) are friendly to us
c} hold foreign aid to be contingent on increased security from host nations and hope they don't see it as blackmail
d} beef up security with Blackwater
e} nuke 'em from orbit, just to be sure

I've heard a lot of people pissed off about what happened - and I don't disagree a bit - but no good, solid, concrete recommendations about what to do differently.  "Send in the Marines!"... to do what, exactly?  Shoot people?  Tear gas and sticky foam might help, in the short term.

But the bottom line is that we are dealing with a backwards society of savages who violently riot at the slightest provocation and show no desire to join a modern, tolerant, free-thinking and open-minded world in which a variety of viewpoints are met and engaged with reason and discussion instead of RPGs and Molotov cocktails.  Until the societies themselves want to change, these sorts of flare-ups will continue to happen, and the societies that engender them will continue to trail the rest of the world in economic, social, scientific, and intellectual development.  And it will be completely their own fault.

[LongBlade]

I gotta ask, though - what is it you actually want him to do?  Start shooting people?  That's going to stop a riot?  Seriously? 

I do not believe we have put forward a strong message. I think we have delivered the lines and gone through the motions but I don't think we have presented the image of a properly outraged nation.

I am no kool-aid drinking fan of Reagan, but compare Obama's message yesterday with how Reagan might have reacted.

Further, it's not about the immediate options. This has been building up for years. The Apology Tour started four years ago. Leading from behind compounded it.

Every talking head on TV tells me that the predominant culture in the greater middle east is impressed by messages of strength, not weakness. We are now reaping the seeds of weakness which were sewn about four years ago.

Let's shift to politics - Obama has been touting his foreign policy experience and how he is better qualified than anyone else.

How does that image look now?

Thus my comment: so much for looking strong on foreign policy.

[Greybriar]

....I gotta ask, though - what is it you actually want him to do?....

I think he could start by getting rid of Hilary Clinton.

[OJsDad]

Brant,

   I think you answered you own question.  If a sizable portion of the population of some of these countries don't want want to be part of the rest of the world, then that is fine with me.  However, we need to stop having any presence there.  ie, no diplomatic exchanges, no trade, do not allow their citizens to come the the US.  Let it be know that we will not interfere with their country or do any business with them, but if they come outside of their country to attack us or our people, where ever they may be, then they will suffer the consequences.  If they truly want to be on their own, fine, don't come crying to us for aid.  As for those that don't support the radicals and be hurt by such actions, then it's time that they stood up and took control of their own countries.

[bayonetbrant]

I think he could start by getting rid of Hilary Clinton.

I heartily disagree.  I think she's been the most competent SecState we've had in a while, and has been one of the few legitimate success stories in the Obama administration.  I don't know that she would've been a good President, but she's been a top-notch Secretary of State.

[bayonetbrant]

However, we need to stop having any presence there.  ie, no diplomatic exchanges, no trade, do not allow their citizens to come the the US. 

Without any sort of exchanges or interactions with them, how would you expect them to know anything about the benefits of moving their society forward a few hundred years?  Without allowing their citizens to come to the US, how do you expect them to go back home and spread the values and benefits of our way of life to their people?

don't come crying to us for aid.

I think it depends on what kind of aid.  Again, showing off our ability and means to provide compassionate care in a crisis - like floods, earthquakes, etc - is a very positive form of engagement that can, and should, be continued.  Military aid?  Maybe not so much.

As for those that don't support the radicals and be hurt by such actions, then it's time that they stood up and took control of their own countries.

Absolutely.  But keep in mind that you're talking about societies with a 9000-year-old tradition of "authoritarian-rule-by-strongman" and about 6 weeks of anything remotely resembling popular rule.

[Bison]

Well you could start with a strong condemnation of the assination of an Ambassador.  That would be something better then apologizing.  Just for starters.  Then you could start to have an honest discussion of the role that the US support of the Arab Spring played in prepping the field for days like we've had in the last few and I'm sure many more to come.  Realize it wasn't a two bit film no one ever heard of that was the root cause here.  I don't know, but its becoming apparent that this Administration to include Clinton are out of their league.

[LongBlade]

I don't know, but its becoming apparent that this Administration to include Clinton are out of their league.

Up until now I haven't paid Clinton's performance much thought, so it's difficult for me to give her an evaluation. As best I can tell, she manages to find a way to be on the other side of the world when Obama does something dumb or controversial. Give her credit for that.

Tuesday, however, she and Obama had a distinctive deer-in-the-headlights look while delivering their speeches. I know I'm repeating myself, but they both looked like they had just had their world views stood upon their heads. Neither appeared strong in delivering their respective messages. They just looked there.

We have cultivated an international image of deference and submission for the last four years. I am sorry to say that I'm not surprised we're now finding it difficult to assert ourselves in a moment of crisis.

[bayonetbrant]

Tuesday, however, she and Obama had a distinctive deer-in-the-headlights look while delivering their speeches. I know I'm repeating myself, but they both looked like they had just had their world views stood upon their heads. Neither appeared strong in delivering their respective messages. They just looked there.

The difference is, you could tell Hillary had been up all night.  She was tired, but knew exactly what was going on.  Obama was still trying to figure it out.

[mirth]

I think he could start by getting rid of Hilary Clinton.

I heartily disagree.  I think she's been the most competent SecState we've had in a while, and has been one of the few legitimate success stories in the Obama administration.  I don't know that she would've been a good President, but she's been a top-notch Secretary of State.

I have to agree with this. She has been an effective SecState. Far more so than I expected when she took the job. It pains me to acknowledge it because I have no love of Hillary Clinton.

[Bison]

She has been according to media reports getting more of a cold shoulder and shrug off with some of the major players lately.   China for instance.  But this isn't really about her, she still takes marching orders and follows them from the Oval Office.  If the reports are true that Panetta, Gates and Clinton forced the hand of the President to take out Osama, perhaps she needs more credit than I'm giving her.  Though her experience was pretty thin before getting the appointment as a consolation prize to unite the Clinton wing behind the last election.