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:
John McCain needs to retire, he needs to take his war wounds home and relax.
It is a shame really to watch the deterioration of a man once highly respected in the Senate...as seen on another MSNBC program last night..Michael Steele's response to a clip about Haley Barbours comment regarding the examination of the GOP's failure and need to restructure: "we need to start with a well, proctology exam".... Mr. Steele's comment "they need to get their heads out first"....yup about sums it up....the only message they seem to understand from the public is loss of their seats in Congress...
Are any of you capable of staying on the facts of this story. Five days after the attack on Benghazi Susan Rice appeared on several networks stating it was the result of a video. Charlene Lamb, the State Department Rep. in charge of security for Benghazi, told the House of Representatives, she watched the attacked in real time. The CIA's Chief of Staff in Bengahazi reported to the State Department it was a Terrorist attack. Why did the White House mislead the American people, that is the question? All we read on this blog is how all of you hate the Republicans. I glad my liberal family members and friends are not as shallow as the liberals on this blog
We do not have all the information as most is "classified" and the problem is we have different reasons for wanting answers. I do want them to have an honest - bi-partisan inquiry into Benghazi, but not a "witch hunt". Remember October 10 hearing Issa held with State Department Officials and Democrat Elijah Cummings stated that Issa's letter "completely ignores sworn testimony provided to the Committee, recklessly omits contradictory information from the very same documents it quotes, irresponsibly promotes inaccurate information, and makes numerous allegations with no evidence to substantiate them."
We need to know where our failures were and correct them so we can make every effort to avoid this from happening again. We need to know if the failure to pass the bill to increase funding for security for our embassy played a part in this. Did the CIA operation in Libya play a part in this? Stop trying to demonizing the President - get to the truth and fix the problem and stop politicizing the death of four Americans.
Nobody says it WASN'T a terrorist attack. Obama said in the Rose Garden on Sept 12 that it was an act of terror. Rice never said it was "just a protest that got out of hand."
All of this hoopla is over whether it was inspired by the protests in Eqypt and elsewhere, or whether it was pre-planned.
YES, it is reasonable to believe that terrorists would plan an attack on the Consulate for the anniversary of 9/11. HOWEVER, the fact that the 2nd attack, on the Annex, took place after a 4-hour lull, and was much better armed and organized, reinforces the idea that the initial attack did not have much if any pre-planning.
Further, if I understand correctly, the CIA was monitoring the chatter at the time and that supports the claim that the attack was not planned before that night. Not exactly tweets saying "Hey everybody we're meeting at the consulate. BYO rocket launcher" but something to that effect.
None of that changes the calculus of whether there should have been more security at the consulate. Or whether it was wise of Ambassador Stevens to be there, instead of the more-secure Embassy in Tripolit, on the anniversary of 9/11. All of this argument about whether someone should have used this word or that word in a press statement is a distraction from getting to the truth.
A network
When did this happen? Provide evidence of this claim.
If you want to complain about misleading the American people, maybe you should get your own "facts" straight. (And if all you read on this blog "is how all of you hate the Republicans", maybe you should read the rest of it, too). I'm glad the liberals amongst your family and friends aren't as "shallow" as you think we are; I wish them luck in what I imagine is their ongoing attempt to educate you as to respect for factual accuracy and the practice of critical thinking and analysis.
As for the point you seem to have been trying to make here, as you can hear from the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb, in this five minute clip (which I saved from the four hour video of the hearing held by the House Oversight Committee on 10/10/2012, freely available via c-span.org) she quite specifically describes the nature of their communications with the Consulate in Benghazi during the events of 9/11/2012.
It was NOT a video link-up. In the commotion of the attack, they were keeping the Diplomatic Security Command Center (where Ms. Lamb was located) informed by telephone. The also had to be in contact with other security forces in Tripoli. So they were talking to her, hanging up, calling Tripoli, hanging up, calling her back, etc., all in the fear and confusion created while the attack was ongoing. This is not the same thing as "watching the attack in real time".
The closest she came to even suggesting that it was monitored in real time was when she stated:
She was referring to the aforementioned telephone calls, not a video feed. And, as her testimony (and that of the others before the Committee that morning) made clear, in the confusion of the attack itself it was unclear who those committing the assault were - whether they were civilians, Al Qaeda, a mix, or what. They thought they had appropriate defensive forces in place, and by the time it became tragically obvious that the force/response was not sufficient, there wasn't much else that could be done about it.
The suggestion that right-wingers seem to insist on making (i.e. that the President, the Secretary of State, or State Department officials responsible for ensuring the safety of their colleagues for some reason sat by and/or deliberately permitted those colleagues to be killed and then engaged in a "cover up" to conceal that) is ignorant and OFFENSIVE.
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
This will be pointless, however.
Citations, please. Otherwise you're merely passing gossip.
Or worse.
McCain was even spouting that it took Obama 14 days to mention terrorism (a popular Republican talking point that even Romney found wasn't true). McCain has lost any credibility he had. He said recently that you should not speak about something you know nothing about; yet, he continues to open his mouth and talk and he skips the briefing for an interview op. What a bozo.
Why is it that whatever Obama wants, the Republicans (and Fox news) are the only ones against it?
His health plan...people like what's in it--the GOP wants to kill it even though it was modeled after one of their guy's plan
His tax plan...people like taxing the rich--the GOP wants to protect the rich just like Ayn said
His Susan Rice pick...people say sure--the GOP wanted their iffy Rice as a pick and nobody complained
the trend of false equivalence is ongoing ... it's no more apparent when we have situations that arise like this and instead of supporting our president and our people we get how this republican senator views it or some pundit trying to move away from the facts ... this is deliberate ... it amounts to sour grapes and spoiled children ... the president was correct to call out the senators ... they were behaving childish and political ... they should be supporting our president and trying to show honor and dignity to the offices they hold and the people they represent ...
Facts?! Facts are so 20th Century.
McCain is doing a great job in showing that he is anything but the hero so many people wish to call him.
It is asured now, that John McCain was brainwashed, while in the POW in Nam. He has slid off, of sanity so badly, that if there were any dought, it was removed, now and forever!
Condi Rice mislead, Amb Rice did not. Amb Rice repeated the same intelligence McCain and Graham received at the time. Amb Rice appeared on the Sunday shows 5 days after the attack before the smoke even cleared and the investigation began. Condi Rice went around the country for a year spreading lies. Amb Rice said based on the current intelligence we believe the attack was caused by the anti-Muslim movie. Which makes sense considering there were protests and riots around the world over the movie including at our embassy in Egypt. Amb Rice also clearly said we would have a more definitive answer once the investigation is complete
Melvin, your such a Hate Monger.
And you sir, are incorrect!
The GOteaP is a wounded animal, lashing out blindly and in agony.
Clearly, her initial response should have been, "I have no comment. And who do you think you are asking me for a comment??" Whadda yutz.
Well, there goes the respect I had developed for McCain due to his refusal to go along with the "Muslim Terrorist Sympathizer" Obama smear promoted by his party.
Sane, level-headed Republicans are going up, and loonies are going down.
You blew it, Senator.
I think McCain is just afraid Obama's "Rice" will be better at the job of Sec.of State than the republican "Rice" of the bush administration. I guess you might call it a case of sour Rice's....Just a thought......
So...McCain is just playing the Rice card?
< d&r >
After what John McCain did to the Navajo he should point the finger back at himself. How dare he lie and attack an innocent person just to vent his anger! He is a vile, greedy man... Read what John McCain is really like! http://acsa2000.net/cain2004.org/Dine-Navajo-PressRelease.htm
McCain is a scumbag. We dodged a bullet when he wasn't elected President.
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, so perhaps my middle-aged mind has retrieved the wrong file, but --
Isn't this the same bunch who self-righteously and rather loudly objected to the formation of an independent investigating committee for the original 9/11 ?? and refused to grant the one that was eventually constituted subpoena power? and that Bush and Cheney would only talk to in camera and with no record?
Isn't that the bunch who is demanding a select committee for this worst-thing-ever-to-happen-to-America?
The real culprit in Benghazi is the Republican Party that has created this atmosphere of throw everything at the wall and see what sticks; that's what emboldened the distributor of that hateful video to try to stir up that crazy mess that resulted in nothing more than a smokescreen for the embassy attack. Republicans never condemned the video release becuase they knew it designed to cause unrest that their party could blame on the current administration.
This is a baldfaced political attempt to take Rice out of the running for Sec. of State so that nomination will go to Kerry, who they would quickly approve leaving his Massachusetts Senate seat open for Brown to win in a special election.
The ONLY scandal I can think of would be to say that the Obama administration knew this attack would happen and so prior to it happening, they floated this story of an obscure video to take the blame for it.
The idea being the administration knew any radical Islamic protestors would not need to see this video to go wild...just a mention of something that doesn't have to truly exist would cause an upheaval.
In the first line of Obama's comments in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi attack were "No act of terrorism"... It seems to me that any situation where a bunch a people with an arsenol of various weapons are attacking the building where you are sheltered would cause terror, and is therefore an act of terrorism. Having said that, he never gave any specific information about event because that information was not available yet. This is exactly how I would want our officials to precede.
Furthermore, the politicizing of this terrible event to gain talking points for your political party, in spite of the fact that the father of the ambassader killed was publicly against the politicism of this event, is a disgrace. What has become increasingly clear to me is that those who are trying to use this to gain political advantage don't give a damn about the four people who died.
Didn't realize my other comment made it onto here, so I restated my comment hoping to make it clearer - Here's why I blame the Republican Party for this tragedy: Their embracing of every crazy tactic imaginable encourages the party's wackos to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. That's what the distributor of that hateful video was doing trying to stir up unrest that could be blamed on the Obama administration. Really all it ended up being was a smokescreen for the Embassy attack. We should be condemning the Republicans for their desperate tactics, but I don't think even Rachel can connect these dots in a way that doesn't have them screaming conspiracy theory!
Guess who won't read or pay attention to the CIA generated talking points; the same people who won't apologize for this grievous mistake.
It's unfortunate that this country's politicians slap one another around verbally, completely forgetting that they've made terrible decisions based on assumptions, silly ideas and lies. Example: I'm sure John McCain supported the war on Iraq based on inaccurate assumptions of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
ahhhh another witch hunt!