Getty Images
It's fair to say facts and evidence stopped being part of the smear campaign against Susan Rice a while ago, but it doesn't make this ABC report any less embarrassing.
Pop quiz: Who said this about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, shortly after it happened?
"The violence in Benghazi coincided with an attack on the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, which was also swarmed by an angry mob of protestors on September 11, 2012."
Was it U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice? No, it was the United States Senate.
In fact, the Senate passed a resolution on the attack in Benghazi the day after it happened, and it was updated 10 days later, co-sponsored by every member in the chamber. The resolution references "an angry mob of protestors," but makes no mention of "terrorists" or "al Qaeda."
Why is this important? Because for Rice's conservative critics, she deserves condemnation for saying what senators were saying, and using language similar, if not identical, to the Senate's own resolution. Perhaps Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Kelly Ayotte can explain why Rice reflecting the collective judgment of the intelligence community the week of the attack is outrageous, but the Senate's resolution is not?
On a related note, the Wall Street Journal reports today that the CIA omitted references to al Qaeda from the talking points -- not, as McCain has suggested, the White House, and NPR added that the initial draft "had a reference to al Qaeda but it was removed by the Central Intelligence Agency, to protect sources and protect investigations, before the talking points were shared with the White House."
In other words, the Republican criticism manage to look increasingly baseless by the day.
Leave a Comment:
A clear case of whim and caprice projected tantrum-style by Republican politicians who have no policy proposals themselves, who can't bother to realize we are all Americans first and party hacks never if we embrace good judgment, and who don't have much respect for the collective intelligence of the American people! -Kevo
Well, thankfully that will end the GOP lunacy on this issue and make them snap to their senses, apologize for putting Ambassador Rice through this, and swiftly confirm whoever the president chooses to nominate for Secretary of State.
Oh, don't I wish it would be so. But obsessions are very tenacious. And obstructionism is a habit with Republicans.
And the sun rises in the west and we're all going to get ponies!
/snark
I think Rachel's theory makes too much sense for them to let it go. They want Kerry out so they can try for his seat. I hope there is a good Dem to run against Scott Brown if Kerry leaves for a WH position.
McCain responded by calling the comparisons between the two remarks "pathetic." Not exactly sure how it's pathetic to draw an exact comparison but there you have it.
This is not and never has been about Susan Rice not being qualified for Secretary of State, she's actually a fine choice and will do a great job. The R's are trying to smear her so that the President will nominate John Kerry instead to open up his Democratic senate seat with the hopes that will clear the way for Brown to retake the seat that he lost to Warren. Funny how they are making fools of themselves in the (hopefully unsuccessful) process.
Republicans are slowly becoming a group of people that look for things that are not there.
Scandals in Benghazi...Weapons in Iraq...Obama administration gifts...if it's not there you can bet Republicans will try to find it.
But as Bill Clinton said at the DNC "It takes brass to attack a guy for doing what you did"
People died, Obama lied.
Hey Shooter - do us all a favor and just put your empty bumper sticker phrase on your beat-run's bumper! -Kevo
Ah Shooter, I guess I shouldn't bother asking you to explain yourself.
Still trying to decide which side is the most foolish.
How quickly you have forgotten that it was Bush who lied and people died.
I was waiting for you to show up with your ridiculous saying. Please explain: even if "Obama lied" (which he didn't), how could lying about who did it after it happened have caused people's deaths?
Your phrase is just stupid.
But it rhymes! That's got to count for something, right? Shooter worked really hard on that saying and you shouldn't make fun of the differently abled. It's really the best he can do given his... condition.
Bush lied and lots and lots and LOTS of people died...
... and if Mr. Romney was in office Americans would be in Libya for 10 years not finding these terrorists like we were in Iraq.
Stupid statement. How do you back that one up. Any facts?
Lets check the transcripts from fox news on those dates also , so fox news can be outraged that fox news was saying the same things that the cia and ambassador rice were reporting to americans
Who do conservatives imagine the u n ambassador gets their briefings from any way? Maybe one of these $ million talking heads can figure how to ask the 3 mccain stooges THAT overly obviouse question?
Better still, check the transcripts from Al Jazeera and the Arab media for the terrorist group claiming responsibility for the attack - you will not find one. What you will find are reports on the protests over the video from around the world. If these terrorists held to form they would have claimed responsibility and the Arab media would have broadcast that on every newscast for a week. Given the choice of providing the public with CONFIRMED information about a protest and UNCONFIRMED information about a planned terrorist attack the sound choice is to go with the confirmed reports, which is what the Obama Administration did.
How stupid is this nation? I guess one measure would be to assign it to be proportional to the length of time this nonsense continues. It's actually boring to the point of eye-rolling at this point. The banality and stupidity makes me wonder how anybody maintains any interest in it.
You may have hit on something. We rallied in 2008 to get Obama elected. The far right rallied in 2010 to give us some real nut jobs. We rallied again in 2012 and re-elected Obama and got rid of some of the nut jobs.
They might figure if the suppression won't work then a little voter depression will?
This Benghazi/Rice bullshhit is unbelievable. I can't even pay attention anymore. How long has it been known about the dumba$$ talking points, the CIA, ...? It seems like forever, and yet, everyday some supposedly "new" thing comes out that says exactly what was "new" long ago.
Why people take the time to respond to that fu king idiot Airball is beyond me. The dude needs the attention and people here just keep giving it to him. If he's going to be responded to, make it mockery, ridicule, and insult. Because that's all his posts are and it's all he deserves. Proof: Look at his last one.
We pay attention because the last time questions like this came up we ended up in Iraq for 10 years searching for WMDs and Al Qaeda. 4,200+ Americans and countless Iraqis dead later we found no WMDs and Al Qaeda everywhere BUT Iraq so paying attention to make sure this does not happen again is worthwhile - tedious, but worthwhile. The fact that these Senators making the most noise now saw fit to say nothing about lies leading up to Iraq when saying something could have saved lives is hypocrisy at its worst. Hang in there, Disgusted, your time and attention is not in vain and some service men and women can thank you for it.
I'm not talking about not paying attention to the Senators and people of import. I'm talking about the fu king idiots that post on this forum. Look at their posts. They're beyond idiotic; they're beyond mildly retarded. They're severely retarded. Ignore those asswholes and they go away.
Look, this isn't about Iraq-esque big issues. This is about the obstructionist Republican party and their Useful Idiots (like the morons posting in this forum) diverting attention from their failed conservative economic stances and ginning up a fake scandal so their loyalists have something to be angry about. Ignore the mother fu kers. Or simply mock and insult them; it's all they deserve.
Disgusted #8.4
I think you can tell by my posts that I am on your side so please relax a little. All I am saying is that there is a real issue here to resolve because the last time the issue was not resolved until 4,200 Americans and countless Iraqis died. Ignore it or mock it at your pleasure but railing against it will only encourage it. Focus on the source issue until it is resolved and the 'retarded' posts will go away. Agreed, friend?
Yeah, I know you're on my side. This isn't going to lead to a damned war. This is nothing but Republicans ginning up some dumba$$ faux controversy. What will encourage it is giving it oxygen to the boneheads to bring it up in forums like here. We actually have institutional organization like MediaMatters, ThinkProgress, etc. to deal with the nonsense of Fox-generated garbage. The issue has pretty much died down in the press. What I get irritated about is the people who just keep responding to the fu king idiot wingnut trolls who say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW, ever.
Stop responding to these idiots, and they go away.
None of the senators came out and said anything about this attack being the result of a movie. Thats what this administration did and Rice was the 'point man' for it. Where did that story about the movie causing all this come from? Was that in the CIA report? This is what makes them look foolish in my opinion.
The Republican leaders' tantrum-like reactions to these things is what makes them look foolish.
I ain't drinking the water around DC!
The fact that its only the Repuclicans that are outraged by this tells us 2 things.
The libs dont care about the truth about American lives when its their Messiah's name at stake.
And the fact that they don't believe there was any Cover up means that, well, the Cover up worked on them.
Yeah. Or it could be that you haven't met the burden of proof yet. But, ya know, why let facts get in the way of partisanship?
What evidence do you have of a cover up or lies? Remember to make that assertion you have to have PROOF of the assertion. What you personally believe or what your personal opinion is IS NOT PROOF that something happened. You have to have something tangible, something empirical that other people can look at and test and reason for themselves. Failure to provide an effective argument on your side does not automatically equate to Obama worship on our side.
Cartoonthenews,
Here is your burden of proof:
Ms Rice had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi, but she put herself into the discussion when she went on the Sunday morning talk shows to represent the White House and the President. The President scolded Mitt Romney during
the foreign affairs debate by saying, "the suggestion that anybody in my
team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador -- anybody on my team -- would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive." Using the President's own words, "Read the transcript, Candy." The way Ms Rice handled the talking points with the premise she must have known of the classified talking points is the issue. Classified or not classified, the video was not part of the script and she chose to use that element. She also interjected the President's claim that "We've decimated al Qaeda." Really, on September 11, 2012? Where is that in the talking points? It appears Ms Rice was playing politics with the talking points.
Ms Rice on Face the Nation – September 16 - "First of all, Bob, I think the American people expect in times of challenge overseas for our leaders to be unified and to come together and to be steadfast and steady and calm and responsible and that certainly what President Obama has been. With respect to what I think is a very empty and baseless charge of weakness, let's be plain, I think American people know the record very well. President Obama said when he was running for President that he would refocus our efforts and attentions on al Qaeda. We've decimated al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is gone. "
President Obama on 60 Minutes – September 12 - In an interview with
President Obama the same day, "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft
presses the president on early accounts that the attack stemmed from a
spontaneous protest, saying it didn't "sound like your normal demonstration."
"We're still investigating exactly what happened," Mr. Obama said.
"I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.
And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking
to target Americans from the start."
This is a better explanation than a demonstration sparked by a video then joined by "extremists" with weapons and mortars and RPGs, complete opposite of what Ms Rice stated.
According to Senator Feinstein, the talking points stated:
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the United States embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against United States diplomatic posts in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.
(No talking points stating a video)
There are indications extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
(No talking point stating,"We've decimated al Qaeda")
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
The investigation is ongoing and the United States government is working with Libyan authorities to bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of United States citizens.
Is that enough evidence? Stop the Obama worshipping.
She never asserted any such premise. You're confusing subjective inference with an actual assertion of fact. This never happened. What she stated was that to the best of her knowledge the attack was the result of a spontaneous uprising taking after the uprising that had been in response to a video in Cairo and that terrorist elements were present in the crowd which resulted in the attack.
Yes it was
We have decimated Al'Qaeda. Decimated doesn't mean eliminated you do know this right? We took Al'Qeada from a multi-national organization with thousands of members and knocked them back to a few regional rag-tag groups that are not well funded, well organized, and well lead. The attack is not evidence that Al'Qaeda no longer exists or that Al'Qaeda hasn't been decimated. They are a terrorist organization which means that they will continue launching attacks until every member is captured or killed. Since we are never going to capture or kill every member a logical person would assume that we're talking about a reduction in the threat, not elimination. And there has been zero evidence that supports the idea that Al'Qaeda has increased it's threat potential as opposed to decreased. Rice's statement about Al'Qaeda was not in reference to the attacks in Benghazi so the talking points you are referring to would not be relevant. You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts of this situation, putting words in her mouth, and then concluding subjectively that she was playing politics. All of which you have failed to provide evidence for.
No it's not the complete opposite of what Ms. Rice said. First off the quoted section you give from Mrs. Rice statement isn't the statement she gave about Benghazi. You have deliberately framed this conversation to be disingenuous about her statement. Secondly her actual statement was that to the best of her knowledge this was a spontaneous uprising with extremists elements taking after the uprising in Cairo. What was it that sparked that uprising in Cairo? The YouTube video. Ergo the protests in Benghazi were after the video just as they were in Cairo. Giant leap in logic it took there heh.
Because she wasn't talking about Benghazi when she talked about the decimation of Al'Qaeda.
Lastly none of this is evidence that a cover-up took place or that anyone lied. At the very worst you'd be saying that you believed Rice played politics by talking about the decimiation of Al'Qaeda when she was asked about Middle East terrorism and that she erroneously concluded that because the protest in Benghazi was taking place after the protests in Cairo and those protests took place because of the video that this therefore meant the protests in Benghazi were because of the video. In which case you'd be saying she made too big of a leap in logic in one part and didn't stay to the talking points when addressing issues not having anything to do with the talking points. At best that's a gaffe. That isn't evidence of a lie or a cover-up now is it. The only way you could be making the assertion of a lie or a cover-up is if you have EVIDENCE that this happened. The burden of proof has not been met. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that a lie took place or that a cover-up took place. All I have seen here is that you're misrepresenting what someone said and then making WILD leaps in logic to assume the intention of that person's statement and are then broadly and fallaciously applying that to everyone else.
I don't worship Obama. I use my brain to come to conclusions based on the facts and evidence presented to me. I presume that people are innocent until it is proven that they are guilty. You haven't proven this so therefore I don't believe you. Meet your burden of proof and then I will believe you. Until them get off your damn high horse.
And let's not forget, she said exactlly what the CIA told her to say. And that has been stated by the CIA involved. You know, the people that told her. There was an ongoing investigation. We still had "operatives" in the field, "harms way", and didn't want them to know what we were listening to. That has also been steted by the CIA. But there are some righties, most actually" that believe we are the only ones with TV or internet. And also check who the people were and what the equiptment was in that conselate. You'll find, 98% CIA and many computers and listening stations.
There was an ongoing investigation.
Another FACT the gop refuse to ever acknowledge , the investigators could not even get to the sight a week after this all went down , it was STILL to dangerous to go there
The ambassador was warned the day before to leave by the LOCAL MILITIA , who were part of their security detail , THE MILITIA NEW WHAT WAS COMING apparently , the cia , and their crew , figured they could take them on I guess , they were wrong
Of course this all comes down to oil , the cia , etc , are not there on a peace mission , who ever was financing these attacks are the same people trying to get a piece of the oil action
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-libya-attack-business-idUSBRE88P10U20120926
That suggests the Benghazi attack may not have a lasting impact on business and, like in Iraq, foreign investors in the longer term may be willing to invest there despite security concerns if they see high returns.
CRACKDOWN ON MILITIAS
Many investors, including Chinese companies expected to bid for infrastructure projects, may not be deterred as violence has been directed mainly at Western targets.
The whole world knows conservatives can be played like cheep fiddle chicken littles after all , as most people know , follow the money
I sincerely hope Libya is not going to become another proxy war between us and/or China and/or Iran. We've already got what 5 wars going on right now between us and these 2 governments?
The obama team seems to present a sane stance in that regard , thankfully ..But we all know big money oil and the cia can do a lot of damage under cover ...The Libyan people seem to favor America , but that can all change when a conservative dictator is put into place , right here or there , unfortunately
Wrong the talking points were not updated , they were removed from talking points . Before amb rice had them . Lets not play tit for tat , msnbc and all others except fox covered this story . Let me remind you gen petraas saw them first ,and after he saw them they were changed . The answers will come out the truth, and will be told . The story is not goingto get old although liberal media is trying to bury it and change the story . 4 people died for no reason this is terrible and upsetting . If it was a freind of your or family member you would understand more .
They knew it was an act of Terrorism with in 24 hrs. They spewed garbage that blamed it on a video for a week. 3 days before the attack BO told the world that Terrorism was Dead and they had him to thank for it. Then boom, now what do we do Mr. President? Oh yeah, Election is coming up so lie lie lie.
There is plenty of proof out there if you cared to look, but you wont, instead just deny deny deny.
America knows the truth. Dont fool yourself.
No they suspected that terrorists elements may have been involved within 24 hours. Those suspicions weren't confirmed until 2 weeks later after the FBI had concluded a preliminary investigation of the situation. Barack Obama never claimed that terrorism was dead. Provide any evidence that the president lied or anyone else lied.
You state that there's plenty of proof: OK great. That means it won't be hard for you to produce that evidence and prove your argument. That's all you have to do. Show me where the president deliberately lied. That's all you have to do.
We all know the right wants nothing more than to blame Amb Rice and President Obama. They care nothing about the facts that have given. They can't be bothered with fact and truth if they don't blame this President. That's all it's been about since 2009. That's all it will contiue to be about. And we all know, if Fox Lies didn't say it, it can't be true.
Why didn't the terrorists claim responsibility within 24 hours of the attack on Arab media like they always do? Why didn't the terrorists claim responsibility 6 days after the attack on Arab media when it would have embarrassed the United States immensely? No, the CONFIRMED information that Ambassador Rice presented were the reports related to protests over the video. Later investigation concluded a planned terrorist attack and the US is still investigating to find these terrorists and bring them to justice. When they do, we will know all.
You see?
The wingnut idiots just keep on keepin' on. Never do they bring anything new. Same ol' shhit. Has Fox Talking Point X been addressed ad nauseam? It doesn't matter that it has over and over. They stick with all the nonsense that's already been answered ad nauseam. Every one of them does this. Over and over and over and over. And over and over and over...
How long do keep responding to these fools? They don't deserve your time. They deserve your mockery, and that's it.
You can ignore the truth all you want. Doesnt make less than the truth.
Yeah, i know, you only scream personel attacks because you can't put a real rebuttal together. It's ok.
You do realize stating that someone doesn't know the truth and refuses to learn it is a personal attack, yeah? So you just attacked someone personally and then stated that a personal attack is what someone does when they don't have a response. Ergo you just stated you don't have a real response.
Great job.
Ah... The Republican (most of them anyway) lunacy continues. Yes, all media outlets have their fair share of bias. I will not disagree with it.
However... Fox News is just out there in idiot land. How many times in one day can they just tell the story, throw it up, eat it, say it again and it just continues. As a test, I turn it on for 5 minutes a day... any time. And, what are they saying? The same damn thing. It is the most angry network on Earth. And, it doesn't end there...
True story. Before the election, here in my state, our local Fox station had been accused of being biased toward Republicans and Mitt Romney in general. Every single story was that anything Republican was perfect. The Democrats were worthless, crooks, etc. So, viewers wrote in through their various means... On air, they responded and said they were not. I watch other networks... I have never seen this.
For all of these outraged people about 4 people dying... Have they ever been a victim of violence? Have their families? Do they care about all of the people that die here in the U.S. every single day? Or, how many people died on September 11th of 2001? Or, the lives lost during the wars we have been in?
Yes, it was a tragedy. It is being investigated. The guilty parties who killed them will be brought to justice. What are the three words here that make the most sense?
Tragedy. Investigated. Justice.
I was once told by someone... "If I really knew what went on the world, it would make me sick." I believe that. And, perhaps, that is why some things just cannot be revealed. But, who am I?
I believe this is a current blog from Maddow bringing the topic up again. You know the Maddow that is, how did you qoute it? "Every single story was that anything Democrats was perfect. The Republican were worthless, crooks, etc."
Leftist are progressive alright, progressively ignorant.
Logic and coherence just aren't your strong points, are they?
Yes , the talking point introduce by the op points out how full of $hit you and your politicians are on the subject , you should try reading it , because you have yet to actually defend it
Cartoonthenews,
She never asserted any such premise. You're confusing subjective inference with an actual assertion of fact. This never happened. What she stated was that to the best of her knowledge the attack was the result of a spontaneous uprising taking after the uprising that had been in response to a video in Cairo and that terrorist elements were present in the crowd which resulted in the attack.
- “ Read the transcripts, Candy.” I believe the city of Benghazi is mentioned by Ms Rice.
September 16 with Jake Tapper – ABC News:
TAPPER: It just seems that the U.S. government is powerless as this -- as this maelstrom erupts.
RICE: It's actually the opposite. First of all, let's be clear about what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region...
TAPPER: Tunisia, Khartoum...
RICE: ... was a result -- a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting. We have also been very clear in saying that there is no excuse for violence, there is -- that we have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.
Classified or not classified, the video was not part of the script and she chose to use that element.
Yes it was
- I disagree. According to Senator Feinstein, the talking points stated:
- The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the United States embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against United States diplomatic posts in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.
( No talking points stating a video)
- There are indications extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
(No talking point stating,” We’ve decimated al Qaeda")
- This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
So either Senator Feinstein is lying or you had access to the talking points prior to Ms Rice going on the Sunday shows.
- The investigation is ongoing and the United States government is working with Libyan authorities to bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of United States citizens.
She also interjected the President's claim that "We've decimated al Qaeda." Really, on September 11, 2012? Where is that in the talking points? It appears Ms Rice was playing politics with the talking points.
We have decimated Al'Qaeda. Decimated doesn't mean eliminated you do know this right?
- So explain me why she would claim that, “We’ve decimated al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is gone.” Based on what you stated and I agree with you the word decimated does not mean eliminate, then why would Ms Rice believe that was relevant to the discussion about Benghazi? Her talking points were quite clear based on Senator Feinstein’s statement. To me if she goes beyond the talking points in regard to four dead Americans, she is playing politics. Talk all you want about other administrations and what happen under their watch, but show me where these administrations were trying to be less than straight forward on the situation. It is amazing that the American people had a picture of the President and his staff on the front page of news papers and web sites showing them watch bin Laden get killed by Navy Seals, but this administration cannot five days after the Benghazi attack tell the American people what happen. If this was not a terrorist attack and this attack was based on a video, I do not see the reasoning for her bring up al Qaeda and bin Laden.
This is a better explanation than a demonstration sparked by a video then joined by "extremists" with weapons and mortars and RPGs, complete opposite of what Ms Rice stated.
No it's not the complete opposite of what Ms. Rice said. First off the quoted section you give from Mrs. Rice statement isn't the statement she gave about Benghazi. You have deliberately framed this conversation to be disingenuous about her statement. Secondly her actual statement was that to the best of her knowledge this was a spontaneous uprising with extremists elements taking after the uprising in Cairo. What was it that sparked that uprising in Cairo? The YouTube video. Ergo the protests in Benghazi were after the video just as they were in Cairo. Giant leap in logic it took there heh.
- I will say state it again, “Read the transcripts, Candy.” Just do a little news web site browsing and you will find all five talk show transcripts?
What are you smoking? General Patreaus claimed it was a terrorists attack on September 12; of course that information was classified, but the President can be on TV on September 12 with Steve Kroft. Read his comment about Cairo.
“Read the transcript, Candy”
President Obama on 60 Minutes – September 12 - In an interview with
President Obama the same day, "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft presses the president on early accounts that the attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest, saying it didn't "sound like your normal demonstration." "We're still investigating exactly what happened," Mr. Obama said. "I don't want to jump the gun on this. But you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start."
Because she wasn't talking about Benghazi when she talked about the decimation of Al'Qaeda.
- Then why bring up the issue during during her discussions? What is the relevance besides put in a plug for the President? Her job was to to inform the American people what happen five days previous in Benghazi. Period. And Ms Rice failed to do it.
Lastly none of this is evidence that a cover-up took place or that anyone lied. At the very worst you'd be saying that you believed Rice played politics by talking about the decimation of Al'Qaeda when she was asked about Middle East terrorism and that she erroneously concluded that because the protest in Benghazi was taking place after the protests in Cairo and those protests took place because of the video that this therefore meant the protests in Benghazi were because of the video. In which case you'd be saying she made too big of a leap in logic in one part and didn't stay to the talking points when addressing issues not having anything to do with the talking points. At best that's a gaffe. That isn't evidence of a lie or a cover-up now is it. The only way you could be making the assertion of a lie or a cover-up is if you have EVIDENCE that this happened. The burden of proof has not been met. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that a lie took place or that a cover-up took place. All I have seen here is that you're misrepresenting what someone said and then making WILD leaps in logic to assume the intention of that person's statement and are then broadly and fallaciously applying that to everyone else.
- Wow! It took you all that to at least give these crazy conspirators that a “gaffe” as you call it is a possibility. I never claimed Ms Rice lied. I claim she misleads and probably the correct scenario she tried to play politics in the middle of a presidential election and got caught. I will give you that, if it is a gaffe, then Ms Rice with all that is going on with this issue needs to get on TV instead of behind closes doors and say, “I apologize to the families of the four dead Americans and to the American people, if I made it look I was misleading about the information about the attack in Benghazi. I was not. If I could do it over I would used different words, but it was not my intention to mislead. I hope you accept my apologize.” It that happens, this is a non-issue.
I don't worship Obama. I use my brain to come to conclusions based on the facts and evidence presented to me. I presume that people are innocent until it is proven that they are guilty. You haven't proven this so therefore I don't believe you. Meet your burden of proof and then I will believe you. Until them get off your damn high horse.
- I do not worship President Obama; I hold our elected officials accountable. I also use my brain and it appears you are at least giving the benefit of doubt that there is a possibility that Ms Rice may a made a gaffe on the Sunday shows and I have provided evidence for you to think Ms Rice was in the wrong. I believe people are innonce until proven guilty. This is not the court of law. The only burden of proof is a government official coming forward and addressing the American people. I would like to see President Obama and/or Ms Clinton address the American people and take Ms Rice off the hot seat. Unfortunately for Ms Rice that it appears not in her future. Someone is playing politics with Ms Rice, go figure! I need to jump off my horse…
I'm glad you worked so hard on that only so that you can be ignored.
Senate Resolution? Are you kidding me?
The problem is not so much with Susan Rice herself, except in that she allowed herself to be used as a pawn by the Administration. Pres. Obama clearly stated that Ambassador Rice "had nothing to do with Benghazi" and was simply repeating on multiple Sunday shows the talking points the Administration had provided to her. Why send out someone unassociated with Benghazi to deliver talking points? Even the most ardent Obama backers can figure that one out: To control the message, ie. to protect the messenger from having to answer any possible probing questions.
Let's bring together a few bits of information...
In discussing the intelligence on Benghazi, Secretary Clinton now characterizes those early days after the attack as a time when information was "fluid" and unstable. It's not unusual for early information on an incident to be incorrect and in need of review and correction, she says. Yet in view of this, she and the Obama Administration latched onto the YouTube video narrative and RAN HARD WITH IT.
Susan Rice's prepared talking points got down to specifics: She explained the incident was a "copycat" protest of what was happening in Cairo -- a protest that was a response to "a very offensive video." In Benghazi, it began as a small number of people gathered around the consulate to replicate the Cairo protest. From there, "clusters of extremists with heavier weapons highjacked the protest" and the incident escalated. Where did this specific detailed information come from?
Two days after Susan Rice made the talk show circuit, Director of National Counterintelligence Matt Olsen didn't back up the "video protest gone sour" story. What did he know that the Administration didn't? And yet for days afterwards, Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama placed their focus on the hateful anti-Muslim video and on the need for more religious tolerance.
Libyan President Magarief was plainspoken that the attack had been a "pre-planned act of terrorism" which had "nothing to do with" the video. Yet as evidence mounted IN CONTRADICTION to the YouTube story, Secretary Clinton brushed aside such evidence, emphasizing that it would be best to await the results of ongoing investigations and how it was unwise to jump to conclusions without all the facts. (Why didn't she use this same standard when it cam to the YouTube story?)
On the subject of the video, the Accountability Review Board report simply stated that it had "concluded there was no protest prior to the attacks." What we're all waiting for is to know what intelligence was relied on, what evidence was so compelling, that the Administration would run hard with the YouTube story -- even to the point of feeling a need to downplay other explanations of how the incident began.
...and don't tell me your evidence is a Senate Resolution.
(Correction: Matt Olsen should have been listed as Director of National Counterterrorism -- not 'Counterintelligence')