This page was last updated on May 8, 2014.
There were other embassy attacks; Dan Sainovich; Beaver County Times; May 7, 2014.
Confusion I had dealing with “Dan/Danny Sainovich” letters from Industry/Ohioville is over. After he read an April 2011 critique of one of his letters, Mr. Sainovich was kind enough to clear things up. In an e-mail note, Mr. Sainovich wrote, “I thought I would shed some light on Dan vs Danny Sainovich. Danny is my father and we both live in Ohioville. His name is Danny and mine is Dan - you are correct that we do have opposite views on politics. Actually there is no jr or sr but we have come to an agreement to use jr and sr so that folks don’t get us mixed up.”
Previous critiques of Mr. Sainovich’s letters are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mr. Sainovich is/was an administrative organizer for SEIU District 1199P. According to its 2012 LM-2 report, SEIU National Headquarters spent $113.8 million for “Political Activities and Lobbying.” In 2010, 2008, and 2006, that figure was $55 million, $67 million, and $27 million, respectively.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“In response to Luke Beradelli’s [sic] letter published on May 5, I wonder if Mr. Beradelli [sic] was so concerned about the embassy attacks under the Bush administration?”
[RWC] Mr. Sainovich is trying to be clever and divert the story. First, read the Berardelli letter yourself and you’ll see it didn’t condemn the Obama administration for the attack on the Benghazi embassy. The letter was about the subsequent cover-up of the circumstances for political purposes. Though to this day the White House claims the cause of the Benghazi attack was some irrelevant Internet video that caused a peaceful demonstration gone awry (“coincidently” on September 11th), everyone in a position to know knew the night of the attack it was a well-planned terrorist attack, likely by an al-Qaeda affiliate. This is how every segment of the intelligence community has testified before Congress. Our ambassador and three other embassy personnel were killed.
So why did the White House stick to the immediately-discredited video claim? It was two months before the 2012 presidential election and the White House had been claiming al-Qaeda was on the run and nearing irrelevance. During his speech to the 2012 Democrat convention just four days before the Benghazi attack, President Obama said “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat; and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Mr. Obama repeated this statement at a Las Vegas campaign event the day following the attack and throughout the rest of his campaign. If the circumstances had been as the White House would like us to believe, how could it be blamed for something no one could foresee? It doesn’t take a genius to see the truth about the attack blows a huge hole in this claim and could have had a negative effect on Mr. Obama’s reelection. On the other hand, everyone would expect the U.S. to be prepared for a terrorist attack, especially on the anniversary of 9/11 and after continuing warnings by the ambassador the security situation was deteriorating and his requests for more security personnel. Not only did the State Department deny the requests, it actually removed some security personnel about a month before the attack.
“And as to Judicial Watch being a conservative, non-partisan education foundation -- that is the most hilarious statement made. First, if it was neutral, it would not be conservative nor liberal. Second, if you go to their website, Judicial Watch is in no way neutral. It would appear to be an arm of the Republican Party.”
[RWC] Second, Mr. Sainovich tries to make Judicial Watch an issue. The issue is what the White House documents say, not who asked for them.
“Judicial Watch is listed as a 501(c)3, which means it acts as a tax-free non-profit to educate the electorate -- another ridiculous claim. This whole 501(c)3 tax haven needs to be addressed, but that is another day and letter.”
[RWC] Though not a 501(c)3, Mr. Sainovich works/worked for a “tax-free non-profit” (SEIU) that spent $113.8 million for “Political Activities and Lobbying” in 2012. I’ll go out on a limb and guess Mr. Sainovich doesn’t want that “tax haven … addressed.” Again, though, the issue is document content, not the requesting party.
“I will also agree that there are liberal-based groups doing the same. I just hope that Mr. Beradelli [sic] was so intent on justice when President Bush had 13 Benghazis.”
[RWC] Again, Mr. Sainovich tries to change the issue under discussion.
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.