Getty Images
Five days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Susan Rice appeared on "Face the Nation" to give the public an update on the available information. She explained that it was too early to draw "definitive conclusions," but the "best information we have to date" suggested the violence "began spontaneously ... as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo" in response to the anti-Islam internet video.
The ambassador then added, "But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons." Asked about a possible al Qaeda role, Rice said this was unclear, explaining, "I think this is one of the things we'll have to determine."
For John McCain and other increasingly-hysterical Obama administration critics, Rice was lying and her use of the word "spontaneous" is itself an outrageous scandal. It's not altogether clear why this is causing far-right apoplexy, but this is where we find ourselves at this point.
In an interesting twist, CBS News obtained the CIA talking points given to Rice in preparation of her interview.
CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. [...]
The CIA's talking points read as follows: "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
In other words, what Rice said is, almost to the syllable, exactly what the combined judgment of the intelligence community believed as of the time of her interview. She wasn't lying; she wasn't incompetent; and she wasn't covering anything up.
Yes, the CIA assessment later changed as more information became available, but that only bolsters what Rice said at the time -- that the search for answers was ongoing.
McCain's smear campaign simply isn't based on facts. The senator owes Rice an apology.
Leave a Comment:
Is John McCain so daft as to begin to re-argue it would matter what the definition of is, is? -Kevo
Republicans don't apologize....they double down.
Facts have no bearing on their rhetoric and I'm sure McCain will be even more fierce moving forward.
What you meant to say was...
"I'm sure Sen. Ayotte will be even more fierce moving forward."
Fixed it for you.
It doesn't matter which repub fact-challenged dolt will be even more fierce. Relentlessly stupid is a key requirement to be a repub these days. Reagan would be appalled.
McCain couldn't be bothered to attend HIS OWN CLOSED-DOOR HEARING on the matter yesterday. Why?
Because it was a closed-door hearing--no cameras. McCain doesn't want answers--he wants the spotlight.
The GOteaP is a wounded animal, lashing out blindly and in agony.
McCain is a disgrace. He should quit politics as he has no clue and apparently no moral compass.
Ya and the very same McCain who chose Sarah Palin as a running mate!! He owes the country an apology for that blunder. We've had to go through seeing that truely incompetent on a reality TV show and her book tour as she amassed her bank accounts.
I think it's time for McCain to step down before he embarrasses himself even more so.
Wetstart Johnny didn't apologize to the families of the 117 sailors he killed joking around. Don't look for him to apologize now. Yep, John (war hero) McCain is basically the biggest fraud in Congress. Anybody else would just be emerging from Leavenworth.
an apology would require a degree of honor that mccain left behind him in the hanoi hilton.
jim filyaw..mccain did not bring any honor to the hanoi hilton .in this world, if you kill 167 people, you go to jail. mccain went to jail. kudos to the north vietnamese for saving the american people the time and cost of a trial. john mccain has never had an honorable moment in his life. i despise him.
I am getting there..
All a strategy to get Obama to nominate Kerry SoS, thereby paving the way for Scott Brown to come back in as Senator. How dumb does McCain think Obama is??
Oh, I guess over these four years, he's finally decided Obama beat the pants off him by being stupid....?
I thought Obama was eyeballing Kerry to SoD.
No everyone knows Kerry wants SoS (and should probably get it) but the WH wants Rice there, and will allegedly offer SoD to Kerry as a consolation prize.
it doesn't matter if Kerry is SoS or SoD. Either way his Senate seat will be open. So no motivation on the right there.
Scott Brown won his 2-year Senate term because a less-than-stellar Democratic opponent phoned it in, and he was able to look pretty good for a couple months. Massachusetts is blue. Give them another respectable candidate, and they will vote against Brown again.
IMHO, this is just pure personal vendetta on McCain's part. Yeah, he told that old lady in 2008 that Obama wasn't a Muslim. But ever since he lost that election, it's been "how do I stick it to Obama."
When dementia sets in, reality takes on a whole new meaning.
The "Maverick" won't apologize, he'll just go change his diaper.
Maybe it's just low-T? Ya know, grumpy old man syndrome.
At the center of this entire argument for Republicans, isn't a lie, it's the fact. that they just cannot except. That there were in fact two separate events, happening at the exact same time. I have friends who think this way, and listening to them complain about this, is a lesson in those who cannot comprehend. They have this absurd notion that it has to be one or the other, and not a spontaneous demonstration and an attack that converged on the same location. So any reference to a demonstration to them is a lie, because as Jack once said "You can't handle the truth!"
I have always said the same thing. When Romney came out, he complained about a letter apologizing for the film. However, that letter came from the Egyptian Consulate. I have always felt that they have flip-flop between the two locations to come up with one conclusion. In truth, there were several different events that occurred around the same time. what I can't figure out is why calling this a terrorist act or not is relevant. armed men attacked and killed 4 innocent americans. Is it murder? a terrorist attack? a massacre? Why is the label important. In addition, take a simple crime in the street. The crime happens. It gets reported. Do the police give you a blow by blow of their investigation? No, not normally. They usually say we don't comment on ongoing investigations. One idiot had the audacity to compare this event to the killing of Osama Bin Laden saying we knew details the next day. Well, we planned that attack so I would hope we knew what was going on.
@Blake: Why is the label important? Because by trying to paint the President as someone who didn't acknowledge a terrorist act as a terrorist act, the hard right can then claim that the President is soft on terrorism. Which, as all fact-based observers of reality know, is patently absurd.
Blake, the one-word label is important for them because it would define the event in simple terms - the only terms they can understand. Once (re)defined, they can then frame the debate on their own terms.
An old Republican tactic that is part of building the Big Lie. Too bad for them that a path forward based on sound bytes and twisted statements isn't satisfactory for most of America.
This will end badly for McCain, but he'll never acknowledge it.
One might be hard pressed to find ANY american who is soft on terrorism.
A lot of people owe Rice and the President an apology.
How does one disprove and put to rest a Senator-fueled conspiracy theory that has been Fox-disbursed through society. Members of my family are very angry over Benghazi.
No, the President and Susan Rice need to apologize to the American people for lying to them. Hillary too.
More than that, they need to apologize to the parents of the Seals they let die.
Shooter242 - Your evidence is...?
Shooter242 has no evidence and no reading comprehension. Just confirmation bias and an erroneous assumption that the rest of us live in the suffocating, oxygen-free right-wing media bubble he calls home.
Shooter, I don't watch Fox News all that much, so I don't know what your friends are saying, maybe you can enlighten me. Just exactly why did the President and his administration want the Ambassador dead? There had to be a motive. Didn't there? So far I have not heard anybody tell me what prompted the President to allow the 4 Americans to die. Just what was the Kenyan socialist fascist trying to accomplish by not screaming terrorist attack? I mean it isn't like he is afraid to take out terrorists. One of the biggest criticisms leveled against him is that he is too free with drone attacks. I mean if you don't believe me just ask Osama Bin Laden or any number of other top terrorist organizers, if you can find them.
This has to be the silliest made up scandal involving Obama since we discovered that his mother and grandparents slipped his birth announcement into the Honolulu papers to make sure he could run for President decades later. This is even sillier than claiming the guy who was President of the Harvard Law Review doesn't have any smarts.
Another senior counter terrorism official says a hostage rescue team was alternately asked to get ready and then stand down throughout the night, as officials seemed unable to make up their minds.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57544026/sources-key-task-force-not-convened-during-benghazi-consulate-attack/
EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2COmdA9jL
Good to see reality and facts haven't dissuaded the neighborhood troll from living in his fantasy world. How are the unicorns and elves treating you?
Remember the debates- Obama- "read the transcript" ( making the claim he called it accurately as organized terrorism) the day after the situation).
Now that was before the election, and the GOP was making the point that team Obama was out claiming it was because of a movie trailer. After the election, team Obama, including msnbc, seems to be making the same point the GOP was making, that Obama was talking opposite his team.
Obama is the master out of convincing his minions away from his inconsistencies.
Shooter....the CIA team you're referring to were the SEALs who were killed. They were told to stand down because, again, it was not clearly known if they had the legal authority to get involved in the situation AND for safety reasons. They were not told to repeatedly stand down throughout the night. They had a brief exchange and then made the decision to respond to the attack anyways and were killed because of it.
Ugh no Rusty. He stated in the debates that it was a terrorist attack, but he did not specify whether it was spontaneously started or part of an organized Al'Qaeda operation. The spontaneous uprisings that took place world wide were in response to the movie that aired on Egyptian television- that of the video- and to this day we still do not have evidence that the crowd that formed around the consulate building was not a spontaneous protest group. All evidence reported still states that it was a random group of protestors that Al'Qaeda infiltrated and used as cover to launch an attack. The latter part we did not definitively know until it was investigated.
The story has not changed for those of us who aren't selectively reading and failing at our own comprehension of what other people are saying and meaning.
Cartoon- what you are saying is what thevromney said during the campaign. Romney said that Obama tossed the terror word in, but the clear reference from his team was it was in response to a video trailer. Obama's reply was to read the transcripts. Clearly, he was selling the American people on the concept his team knew it was what it turned out to be.
Nope
He stated that it was an attack, but never specified whether it was spontaneous or part of Al'Qaeda operations. Obama has been consistent on this issue. You are deliberately misrepresenting his statement. Romney made the statement that Obama never argued they were attacks and Obama did. Romney's argument was not that Obama called it a terrorist attack and then later said it wasn't a terrorist attack: his point was that Obama only ever called it a protest and that's just stupid. Everyone knew that the consulate was attacked we just didn't know the why of it. Was it civilians who attacked or Al'Qaeda operatives.
This is the @!$%# that's pissing liberals off: you keep deliberately misrepresenting information in order to spin a narrative that does not represent the information we have.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
I think the issue here might be that your Republican brain insists that if someone says it's a terrorist attack that it must be, by that property, attributed to a group and therefore organized. The concept that Al'Qaeda operatives could have hidden within a group protesting the film and then used that as cover to attack the consulate is escaping you.
Again there were TWO separate issues going on AT THE SAME time.
Thank you Cartoon for taking this nonsense on today!
Shooter's sources are from 11/1/12 and 10/26/12. He is clinging to sourced material that was itself written in the fog of the circumstances. This is the narrative that has been massaged by Murdoch-produced-propaganda-ville. The saner among us realize reported circumstances have since been shifted into another, more precise data set.
Sadly, our fellow loved ones zombitized by the FOX Nation, and also sadly, not by our own American Nation (but I digress); have swallowed it whole!
Anyway, with the predisposed want to historically scar this newly reelected POTUS, and with the many previously uttered concocted reasons for possible impeachment in his first term by the crazies in the House Republican Caucus, I can easily bear witness to a conspiracy within the deepest core of the Republican party to beat and beat again the drum of what I will call Benghazi-lunacy to set up impeachment of this newly reelected President as the Republican goal for the 113th Congress!
And, I'm NOT just saying! -Kevo
Blargh I just feel like screaming Kevo. It's like OK listen up right wingers!
Even if you did prove that the administration said one thing and then said another thing that doesn't mean that the administration was lying OR that there is a cover up. There's also the third possibility that people did not know and the administration was answering on the basis of what it knew at the time.
Absolutely NO ONE on the right has provided evidence that a. a cover up took place or an attempted cover up took place b. that Obama his staff or anyone working within the Executive Branch (DoS, DoD, DoJ) intentionally lied about anything, c. that a protest never happened, d. that the administration could've acted differently within the confines of the law and the information at the time, and e. that increased security presence in the region would've prevented the attack or even helped.
I am sick of this. Either provide evidence for your claims or do not make the claim. This is not an unreasonable request, this is a not Obama fanboyism, this is not people covering the administration or refusing to criticize the administration, this is not partisanship. You're making factually baseless claims, misrepresenting other people's positions, ignoring other possibilities outside of your conspiracies, and coming up with a theory that doesn't accurately reflect any of the information out there. Why the hell should I be forced to accept your narrative when your narrative isn't standing up to criticism? So stop accusing us of being unwilling to criticize this administration when you have failed to prove your narrative correct.
People are acting like what we're asking for- the truth- is somehow such an egregious, over the top, partisan thing to request. What is it with modern day Republicans and their just pure arrogance? Oh everyone who votes Democratic is on welfare, doesn't care about businesses, just wants to get handouts, is lazy and doesn't work hard, and won't blame the president if he's guilty of a crime. I am just so sick of this bull@!$%#. And then the right will have the audacity to turn around and claim that it's us and not them who need to chill the @!$%# out and move back to the center. It's just gotten unbearable.
Chill. The. @!$%#. Out. On. Benghazi. People
Let's put it this way: you were dead set on Solyndra and you were proven wrong. You were dead set on Fast and Furious and you were proven wrong. You were dead set that you were going to win the election and you were proven wrong. How many more times do you have to keep getting things wrong before you realize that you're the problem and not the rest of us.
Nope cartoon. I would suggest that the liberal mind is just too willing to accept Obama saying it was a terrorist attack when it behooves him to say that, then it wasn't when that works better.
Why didn't Obama just come out in the debate and say that they didn't have a clue when he stepped onto the podium? Probably because he did. But then, why did the administration take the references out of the talking points when the weekend arrived. During the debate, did you notice obamas pursed lips and avoidance posture? He knew he was caught in a lie and tried to twist it just enough to make it look true.
Cartoon- read some more of your rant. Did Solyndra not go bankrupt? Take a minute and compose yourself. Where team Obama screwed up, just say so and move on. Don't try so hard to defend the indefensible. Fast and furious- so ou must be saying the agent died with friendly fire and it was irrelevant that the US government provided significant arms to the cartels? You're getting so angry you are becoming incoherent. Pretty soon, you'll be denying Biden plagiarized a Brit politician and Clinton had sex with "that woman"...
Solyndra did go bankrupt. Was that the scandal? Nope. The scandal was that Solyndra took billions of dollars from the US government (which it did not) and that this was done as favoritism by the Obama Administration because the owner of the company had once donated to his campaign. The company took the majority of its' money under Bush who started the green energy loan program in question. The company went bankrupt under Obama and then suddenly conservatives wanted to pretend it was cronyism. The House investigated it hoping to prove the conspiracy true and came up that the administration did nothing wrong and that the company went bankrupt under normal market demands.
Fast and Furious: the government didn't provide weapons to cartels. The BATFE was monitoring sales that took place in Arizona that then were tracked across the border, but they were prevented in stopping the trafficking and that then lead to the death of a DHS agent. That wasn't a scandal so much as it was a representation of the stupidity of gun laws. But the conspiracy was that the BATFE was selling these guns to Mexican drug gangs so that the government could use that as evidence that guns were going to Mexico so that the government could implement stricter gun laws. The BATFE was investigated, along with the FBI and DOJ in general, and the House found out that not only had the administration done nothing wrong, but that the conspiracy wasn't even close to being true.
I'm not angry Rusty. Thank you though for your arrogance and condescension that you think you know other people's emotions. If you wanted to know what makes me angry though it's that type of attitude. The complete arrogance and unwillingness for right wingers to understand that they are factually wrong about issues and to ignore reality in lieu of their own bat@!$%# crazy ideology. I think you need to calm down a second, research these subjects, go back and listen to the hearings, and then come back here once you actually understand what happened in these cases. Conservatives were proven wrong both times. You're wrong this time. Stop digging holes for yourself and defending the indefensible. Admit that you're wrong and move on. We have issues that we have to tackle as a country and your relentless conspiracy theories prevent us from tackling these issues.
Because if you actually read what Obama said there isn't anything intellectually inconsistent with his statements. You are inferring everything else on the basis of your personal interpretation and then projecting that outward as if it's fact. It is not fact. It is subjective opinion that you're misrepresenting as fact.
The only references that were taken out were those pertaining to specific Al'Qaeda groups because the various intelligence agencies did not want that information to be public. Conspiracy busted using common sense- oy!
See how Rusty keeps posturing around everything, not addressing anything directly, not providing facts for what he asserts is true, and doubling-down on debunked talking points? Obviously he's lying.
This is what happens when you project opinion outward as if it is fact. Your subjective belief isn't objective reality, Rusty. Try to start engaging your brain and thinking critically instead of clogging your ears and screaming la lalalala.
Can the republicans keep this feigned "outrage" up for another four years? Are they trying to take the public eye off of their tax protection for the wealthy. The old bastard John Mycane needs to cut the buls*it and get to the real problems facing this nation and stop watching Foxnot News for his talking points. Would'nt it be a hoot if the President nominated him for Secretary of State.
Double post
There are no apologies in deuchebag ville.
You people are unbelievable.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/16/petraeus-to-testify-knew-libya-was-terrorism-from-start-source-says/
Fox News? I'm shocked.
"You people are unbelievable."
Coming from someone who is willing to believe *anything* Faux Snooze says, that's, well, unbelievable.
Shooter - check your facts the acting CIA director confirmed that she spoke from information that they provided. He just confirmed it yesterday. In addition, CBS reported that they have in their possession those very talking points. The same ones provided to Congress.
LMAO... omg are you serious? All Fox News references huh? Well, that explains it all!
Have you got something that says they are wrong?
Your back with your delusions? Already read those and they aren't compelling.
Talk about unbelievable????? Come on Shooter... At least cite a NEWS source!!! Fox??? That's just laughable to use!!!
So since "Rice's talking points weren't provided by the CIA" how do you explain that they were almost word for word what the CIA provided to the House intelligence committee?
Of course they Fox says it was all a cover up and smoke and mirrors.... They also said Romney was going to win! Were you dumb enough to believe that? (Yes, we know that answer already!)
Shot, did you even read the report you're citing? It says Petraeus "suspected" it was terrorism from the beginning, but publicly said the exact same thing Rice said two days later. The headline is spin.
Shooter, like McCain, doesn't have time for inconvenient things like FACTS or reading anything other than what Fox tells him to say! What a complete stooge!
And they've now changed their headline, without noting it was updated/edited. Classy.
Look people, do a little search on your own. NBC is reporting most of what Shooter listed. That Petraeus knew it was a terrorist attack very early and that someone removed references to al Qaida from the CIA talking points. Granted, Rep. King is the source but if he is misrepresenting Petraeus' testimony, there were plenty of Democrats in the room.
Just because it is on Fox News, does not mean it is not accurate. Checking another news source is a fairly simple task.
Please. The first version was spun and shot spun it more. The facts as they are reported here simply don't make any kind of case for blaming Rice.
The fact that you provide Fox "News" as a source illustrates your lack of verifiable sources.
And your inside information is coming from whom? Broadwell, perhaps???
Obama claimed during the debate he called it correctly the day after the attack. Now, the question is whether rice was operating on her own t he next weekend, or was she sent out with talking points from Obama? The former casts serious doubts on her judgement, the latter makes Obama a liar.
In a sane world printing her actual words would end this whole farce---in a sane world.
I'm not surprised you Foxiphobes missed the CBS cite. Your attitudes are bigoted.
Shooter, I hope your AIM is better than your sense of the truth, otherwise, you're going to "shoot" yourself in the anus. FOX News was the outlet that won the court case that recognized LYING on the airwaves as protected free speech! Trust them if you WANT to.
Rusty, go to a local auto outlet and get some Bondo...your "rust" is showing some holes, you may want to sand it down a bit.
Say what you will about MSNBC -- partisan, yes, they admit it; they also can verify their stories, UNLIKE Fox.
Nope. Of course Robby and Shooter get it wrong (like always)
First off we don't know yet what Petraeus stated. What we know is what the Democratic and Republican Party came out screaming immediately following the private briefing. Be it Robby and Shooter to not tell you that they are inferring their statements as "true" based on word of mouth. Good god.
The lies you guys keep telling is incredible.
What Petraues said is that he suspected Al'Qaeda to be involved from the beginning, but that was not confirmed until the investigation was completed. Up until that point the understand was that Al'Qaeda elements or extremist elements were present during the protest. In other words Petraeus is agreeing that there was a protest and that it had gotten out of hand. It was then used as cover for those extremist elements to launch an attack. Nothing in Rice's statement contradicts or comes into conflict with Petraeus' testimony.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cbs+petraeus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
God this is just laughable. Blaming it on McCain would be partisan, not sexist you idiot. His gender doesn't play a role here. And you're the one who whines all the time about people throwing out the term sexist and racist and yet here you're doing so intentionally to obfuscate reality. Are you really that glib?
Yes they were. The talking points being reviewed by other agencies and then being edited to conform with what all intelligence communities believed to be true isn't the same as them not being provided by the CIA. You completely made this up
hahahahahaha OK so let me get this straight: the people who gave Rice her talking points- the other intelligence officials you're trying to blame- then apparently aren't part of the government or intelligence community because their talking points did emphasize a spontaneous protest. Shooter just contradicted himself in the space of 2 sentences.
And now the final stupidity. You do realize that even if Rice's statements were false that wouldn't be evidence of a cover-up or White House involvement, yes? Good lord. You people are just insane.
Mark- read the transcript. It was the guy you voted for that made the claim. Go back and watch the debate. Was he lying then or is he lying now? It's what isn't reported on msnbc that shows the gaps.
Nope. Rusty just wants to strawman. The question is if you were so right Rusty why would you have to selectively edit information?
Cartoon- you are so silly. I understand the nomiker. I'm not editing, just saying what happened. I know it doesn't fit your desired paradigm. Sometimes, you just have to sit back and say your dude didn't quite get it right.
Republicans don't apologize-- and they CERTAINLY don't apologize to black women working in the administration of That One.
These republicans these days are shameful! My 85 year old Mother a life-long republican says and I quote"I'll never be a republican again, it's ridiculous the way they act" 86 in march 2013! And all this racist talk needs to stop "THEY DISGUST ME" Thank you!
Hypocritical ®s.
I harken back to the start of the Iraq war, with the very same critics (McCain) stating that "we went to war based upon the intelligence we had." But now, I guess, it's different. What a disingenuous dbag.
Apparently you aren't smart enough to recognize the difference between a Clinton CIA director saying "slam dunk", and watching events unfold on real time video. Not surprising.
Shooter, weren't you one of the people crowing about the Fox expose on Shirley Sherrod and how she needed to be fired??? The FACT is they lied and distorted that... So you want facts about Fox lying and creating BS about people..... There you go!!!
You need to get an actual NEWS source and get better informed!
Translation: Kill the Messenger!
Translation: Buy the messenger a brain and turn off their Fox programming.
Ah, Beaker, he got the "Abby" brain...remember a B&W Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman?
Shirley Sherrod? Isn't she the one that the Obama administration fired after some unfounded allegations were made against her by a right wing goofball?
Beaker??? Response? Any thoughts on the inept administration not getting to the core before firing a worker? Pure incompetence. Evidence of an administration that had never ran anything.
Thats exactly what I heard on the tapes and the anti Obama media kept taking out parts of Rice's statement to suite their purpose. Leave her the hell alone!
Yes S. Rice deserves an apology. And I hope the media will expose other facts, including the Republicans voting not to give President O the additional funds he requested, I think 440 million for embassy security in '11 and '12. Just how many embassy attacks and deaths occurred during George Bush's watch, something like 11 embassies and 38 people. The mis-steps during the Bush administration as it relates to embassy attacks and deaths completely overwhelms Benghazi. Yet once again the Republicans are "exploding" a sensitive situation (for the families involved, our nation and our nation's security) for their own benefit.
While I am the last person to defend John McCain for his behavior as a politician, blaming the Forrestal disaster on him is a bit unfair. No doubt he pulled a few wet starts in his time. (As did almost every pilot of the era from what I gather from family friends both pilots and deck crew alike.) the fact is a errant missile was the cause.
The Forrestal Disaster, July 29, 1967
At the time of this incident Lt. Cdr. McCain already had flown several bombing missions over North Vietnam from the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. As he was in his A-4 Skyhawk, loaded with two, 1,000-pound bombs and waiting on the carrier deck for his turn to launch, a Zuni missile accidentally fired from another aircraft, swooshed across the carrier deck and struck either McCain's plane or one next to it.
That triggered a fire and a series of bomb and missile explosions that killed 134 sailors. McCain himself barely escaped alive. He quickly leaped from his plane into the pool of burning jet fuel that immediately surrounded him. About 90 seconds later he was blown 15 feet back when the first bomb “cooked off” and exploded, killing several nearby firefighters.
James M. Caiella has written a scholarly article about the disaster, which appeared in the Fall 2003 issue of Foundation magazine, a publication of the National Naval Aviation Museum, located in Pensacola, Fla. Caiella, who is now associate editor of Proceedings and Naval History magazines, published by the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, generously shared with us copies of some key documents which he obtained from the Navy under the Freedom of Information Act. They include a typed transcript of the sworn testimony that McCain gave less than two weeks after the disaster, on Aug. 5, 1967, and also a written statement he submitted prior to his testimony, describing the first moments of the disaster:
McCain said that he rushed to help another pilot who had gotten out of his plane and had jumped into the flames and rolled clear, but was still on fire.
That first bomb explosion was 90 seconds into the fire. Soon it ignited other bombs and other missiles. Later, on the hangar deck below the main flight deck, McCain said he and another officer, along with “a lot of fine enlisted men,” pushed several bomb carts overboard to keep them away from flaming fuel that was curling down from above. He later “noticed that I had a hole below my left knee with some metal in it, and two small shrapnel cuts in my thigh and shoulder.”
The Forrestal was badly damaged and put out of action for two years. A little more than a month after the disaster, McCain was flying missions from another carrier, the USS Oriskany.
Thank you for your history lesson. McCain was, indeed, not responsible for the Forrestal damage. At one time I used to like this guy, but I think his time has passed. I just hope he doesn't slip into birtherism to remain in the spotlight. Sad.
That is the official story, but I say it is a cover up. Wetstart Johnny's daddy and granddaddy covered the whole thing up so he could run for President decades later. There is no honor among Republicans. Anyway my source is unimpeachable. I read it in a chain email. If the left had its own Rush Limbaugh everybody would agree with me. :)
I've always wondered how McCain could have survived even a 500 lb. bomb going off and being blown back "fifteen " feet. The flight deck was covered with airplanes winding up and ordinance being loaded. Quite literally, the most dangerous place on earth. The force from a 500 or 1000 lb bomb is enormous. It's nothing like you see in movies where bombs land and people 30 feet away shrug it off and walk away.
More than one eyewitness spoke and wrote about McCain and his habit of doing "wetstarts", where fuel was pooled in the engine, then ignited to throw a fireball out the back of the plane. Several of his shipmates said that did that on the Forrestal that day.
McCain was the son of Admiral John S. McCain, a decorated WWII submariner, and Commander in Chief of the Pacific from 1968-1972 (CINCPAC). In other words, the top guy in the Navy in Vietnam at the time young McCain was shot down. I don't doubt that, even had McCain been involved in causing the incident, he would have had anything happen to him.
It's seriously time for this man to retire.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests fixie8
The CIA's talking points read as follows:
** "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
**This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
**The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."
Deleted, 'cause it seems the dang post went through the FIRST time.
They don't apologize and especially to African Americans.
Please quit replying to Shooter...he does this for fun...his comments are worthless. With noone paying him any attention maybe he and Romney will just go away.
Just remove him from your side of the discussion by clicking on that faint little exclamation point to the lower right of his message; then click on "ignore this author." His useless remarks will show up to those who are amused by him, but the rest of us can commune in peace.
I'm weary of tolerating trollery.
Remember when Sen. McCain stood up for the President and told a woman that POTUS wasn't a Muslim and that POTUS was a good man that he just had disagreements with? What happened to that guy? How could he have let the tea-baggers drag him into this garbage? While I don't agree with his politics, there was a time when I respected Sen. McCain. That is no longer the case.
This is my problem with "News Outlets" that have little regard for the truth. They allow misleading information to be presented to the public in the guise of news. The viewer turns on "the News" expecting information with some proximity to the truth. Fox is to Traditional News Reporting as The Star Reporter is to The New York Times.
If the Fox viewer has to continually over anlayze everything they transmit to make sure they are not being mislead, then why even bother watching Fox? Now we have to watch Fox (as painful as that can be) because so many others are being misinformed and now we have to work overtime to unravel all the misinformation they put out there. Sadly, this gives Fox more viewers leading to more advertising dollars, leading to a continuance of their policies that do not serve the good of the country. In my view this is unpatriotic. Misinformation and less than truthful reporting is not beneficial to anyone (except those making money doing it).
I heard on CNN last night that a CIA official at yesterday's meeting revealed that Rice's talking points initially included the fact that Al Queda was involved but that this fact was expunged by the administration. I don't know if it's true, but I sure hope not.
Because it wasn't Al Quaida, but local militants?
Apparently most of you have never prepared reports. The simple fact is that unless you can PROVE something beyond any doubt, you don't put it in a report if it's speculation.
I'm sure there were many people that said it could be Al Quaida or even was them. However, I'm sure there were others that said it was a local group with no ties. So you never report on things you are not 100% sure of or later idiots will say, but you said it was xxxxx.
Oh for god's sake. Doesn't anybody have a brain any more?
Janay- as Obama said- "read the transcript". Referring to his reference calling it like it was, vs the talking points his administration gave to Rice. I don't think the honesty problem is with rice. She was just speaking from her talking points provided her. My problem is why Obama would hang her out that weekend,then make her look the fool during the debate. If you watch his body and face language then, he is very stressed and obviously knowingly trying to convince his faithful of a lie.
Rusty, this is the third or fourth time you have mentioned something about President Obama's body language and facial expressions... You do know that everyone is laughing at you, right?
And why is it that no one can tell us who put together those talking points for Ms. Rice. She could say this as fact:
She said it was "fact," not speculation, not drawn conclusion, fact. And today NBC reports:
Someone should be able to say, "I prepared the talking points and gave them to Ms. Rice." Why is that so hard?
But still, the larger issue is all the security requests leading up to the attack and what, if anything, the White House did in response in light of all the prior attacks? No answer there yet.
"Someone should be able to say, "I prepared the talking points and gave them to Ms. Rice." Why is that so hard?"
So you are saying.. that if your boss didn't know exactly who had prepared the final remarks for a speech she gave and then a firestorm like this erupted that YOU would put up your hand and say, "It was me!!!". Yeah, right......
If I had done my job, it would be easy to say "It was me." If I had failed at my job, it would certainly be tougher but it would be the right thing to do. While not on this level, I have owned up to my mistakes before.
Well obviously, someone didn't do their job... You even said, "While not at this level"... so be real, would you have put up your hand and taken the blame?
And even if you did….. Wouldn't people just like yourself just start yelling about how the administration had found a "sacrificial lamb" to “take the fall for Rice” and how they were hanging that poor person out to dry when it was “really" Rice’s fault? Quit kidding yourself, you and all the others arguing this are just being partisan hacks!
As someone who's been in and around military organizations my entire adult life I can tell you, in a situation like this, in a situation involving a crisis that is unfolding minute by minute, day by day, there is not ONE person who prepares the report and hands it to a spokesman. There are MANY people working on their particular bit of expertise area and sending the information up to the next higher person in the chain. That person reviews quickly and adds their bit plus the bits from the many others who have also contributed their briefs.
Yes, it's reviewed by higher ups, sometimes by one person but it's put together by a team. So, when ONE WORD of the report gets exploded publicly: "she said it was FACT. She said VIDEO", there ISN'T ONE person who can stick their hand up and say, that's me.
This is the CIA. You really think one person was responsible for putting together the intel report for the administration? Seriously?
Petraeus has to ultimately take the responsibility for any screw ups re Benghazi.
And Rice never said that the attack was not carried out by 'extremist elements' -- exactly what the CIA talking points said:
"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162248/-McCain-s-Rice-rage-would-be-better-directed-at-the-CIA
80sGirl, I don't think "one person" prepared the report. What I would "assume" (and I fully understand the danger in that word) is that the CIA would provide a "finished" product to the administration (even if it was still evolving).
It seems that product was changed or edited by the Administration before giving it to Ms. Rice. I am talking about that person or persons. This would be only a very few people at most. If not, then there are tons of problem with an Administration that would allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to alter a CIA document before giving it to an Ambassador who is going on 5 talk shows to represent the President.
Someone should be able to say, "I prepared the talking points and gave them to Ms. Rice." Why is that so hard?
That was your question, the one to which I responded. I recognize that people on the right want desperately to make this event a bumper-sticker sized scandal but the point is, it's not that simple.
Even Patreous has said that Rices' comments in tv interviews "reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly."
Everyone wants to find out what happened. Can we please just allow those who actually have some knowledge investigate and report back when and what they can? At this rate, with McCain and his cronies and their ginned up faux outrage, it will never be resolved if the GOP will not accept anything but finding Obama guilty, guilty, guilty of being re-elected.
Fair enough. My "I" was meant to be generic, "we" may have served the purpose more adequately.
In the end, I still say (as noted in my original post) the bigger question is what was done in response to all the prior attacks on the consulate, in Benghazi, and the request for more security.
Nope and you have provided zero evidence that suggests this or proves it to be true. What we know is that her talking points were drafted by a combination of different people which King also acknowledged (funny how you don't mention that 'eh mr. i'm factually biased and i never skew anything ever?). In order for it to be the White House Robby it has to be someone from the White House staff. Now mr. I think i'm always so unbiased and fact based please tell me WHERE you got that information, hmmm?
You also do realize that when speaking people often say "in fact" when they aren't necessarily stating a legitimate fact, yeah?
I mean my god have we gotten this stupid people? Where is your ability to critically analyze? Even IF she was saying it was spontaneous you DO realize that you have ZERO evidence to contradict that assertion, yes? You DO realize that Al'Qaeda being present in the crowd still does NOT negate it being spontaneous. You also do realize that this is WORD OF MOUTH you're going by from King's recollection about a briefing that took place 2 months ago, yes? You're aware his memory can be subject to decay and faulty or that King could even be lying to make his information fit with the narrative he wants it to fit with, yeah??? Seriously people on the right wing you need to come back to reality here. This is nuts.
Yes Robby never mentions this, ever. Neither did Shooter. So apparently there is a cover-up going on here and it's being perpetuated by Republicans.
And notice that this was never mentioned by either individual as well:
Referring to Rice's statements about Benghazi. So apparently even in her own MTP statement she was acknowledging the very thing both Shooter and Robby are saying was omitted. Quaint.
I never said my comments aren't skewed. I think we all are biased by our experiences, background, viewpoint, etc.
I didn't say "White House," I said "Administration." Although I have heard reports since posting my comment that the CIA report went through a lot more agencies than I'd have thought.
I would hope that someone speaking as a professional in such a serious situation would only use the term "in fact" when they meant "in fact."
We could go back and forth on who meant what when but even when asked directly on the View, the President didn't say it was a terrorist attack. Now, should he be given some license as President to take the edge (as well as classification) off comments because he speaks to the World, not just US - certainly, he should.
As stated twice before now, the bigger issue is what was done in response to all the prior attacks in Benghazi and the request for more security because this part "ain't" politics.