Lyndsey Graham Who Was Directly Lied To Says House Benghazi Report Full of C R A P

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10272077

Show me where Susan Rice said protesters were not involved in the Benghazi attacks and that it was a terror attack carried out by Al Queda.?

I didnt say she said protesters were not involved in the Benghazi attacks. She said what the CIA told her and Republicans in Congress to say. She
Should not have gone out and altered the CIA talking points. That being said, what I really said, was that she did not blame the protestors for the attack. She could not blame the protesters because the investigation was just getting underway according to the CIA.


I said she did not blame the protesters and she did not. You posted one of the interviews where she did not blame the protesters and she tagged the possibility that al Qaeada was involved in the attack.


It was not her message to blame anybody the morning Susan Rice spoke. And she certainly could not blame a protest when she acknowledged that al Qaeda could have been the extremists that came with heavy weapons.

OS 10272127

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

What do you think 'escalated the violence' means?

And who escalated the violence?

Rice tells the truth based on what the CIA and FBI told or knew at the time.

"Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

If she was trying to sell a false narrative that a protest over a video was the sole blame she would not mention al Qaeda at all,

And you recognize now that she does mention al Qaeda as one group that may eventually get blamed for the act of terror that Obama mentioned in the Rise Garden.

Here is my post that erases the myth that Obama did not refer to Benghazi as an act of terror in the Rose Garden:

Obama was referring to the attack on 9/11/2001, not bengazi

Obama's address was mourning the loss of four Americans who were killed the day before in an act of terror.

I can cite the address - all you do is lie about it:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya The White House

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


In the same paragraph Obama refers directly to "this terrible act". He is not referring to ten years earlier. You can quit your lie anytime.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10272077

Show me where Susan Rice said protesters were not involved in the Benghazi attacks and that it was a terror attack carried out by Al Queda.?

I didnt say she said protesters were not involved in the Benghazi attacks. She said what the CIA told her and Republicans in Congress to say. She
Should not have gone out and altered the CIA talking points. That being said, what I really said, was that she did not blame the protestors for the attack. She could not blame the protesters because the investigation was just getting underway according to the CIA.


I said she did not blame the protesters and she did not. You posted one of the interviews where she did not blame the protesters and she tagged the possibility that al Qaeada was involved in the attack.


It was not her message to blame anybody the morning Susan Rice spoke. And she certainly could not blame a protest when she acknowledged that al Qaeda could have been the extremists that came with heavy weapons.

OS 10272127

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

What do you think 'escalated the violence' means?

And who escalated the violence?

Rice tells the truth based on what the CIA and FBI told or knew at the time.

"Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

If she was trying to sell a false narrative that a protest over a video was the sole blame she would not mention al Qaeda at all,

And you recognize now that she does mention al Qaeda as one group that may eventually get blamed for the act of terror that Obama mentioned in the Rise Garden.

Here is my post that erases the myth that Obama did not refer to Benghazi as an act of terror in the Rose Garden:

Obama was referring to the attack on 9/11/2001, not bengazi

Obama's address was mourning the loss of four Americans who were killed the day before in an act of terror.

I can cite the address - all you do is lie about it:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya The White House

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


In the same paragraph Obama refers directly to "this terrible act". He is not referring to ten years earlier. You can quit your lie anytime.

Susan Rice is sent out there that Sunday morning to deliberately mislead the American public. She follows a Libyan official who states without reservation that it was a terrorist attack that was preplanned and carried out, with her statement that extremists "joined in and escalated the violence" Joined in? How could the extremists have "joined in" with something that never existed? At that point the White House knows full well that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack itself yet Rice is on all those talk shows with the same narrative...that unknown extremists took advantage of an existing protest over the YouTube video to launch an attack...something that they know is untrue.

Kindly explain why if Obama is specifically referring to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror...numerous key members of his Administration then go out over the next week to deny knowing if it WAS an act of terror?

"On Sept. 13, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States."

The next day, a State Department spokeswoman said, "We are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated." But she ended with this: "Obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating."

On Sept. 16, five days after the attack, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said, "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

On Sept. 20, Carney told reporters, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

It wasn’t until Sept. 21 that everyone in the administration as a whole stated publicly that the attack was planned and executed by a terrorist group." Politifact

So is it your contention that Obama called it an act of terror the next day after the attacks but then members of his own administration didn't get the memo on that? The truth of the matter is that people like Rice and Jay Carney are selling the whole protest over a YouTube video as hard as they can right up to the point where the White House starts getting major push back on that story as the news media and the Congress learn that there was no protest that day in Benghazi. Only THEN does the narrative from the White House change with Jay Carney saying it was "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack...yet Obama goes out the very next day and STILL tries to sell the video narrative.

 

[BlindBoo]

The transcripts are included in this thread and in everyone of them Ambassador Rice always claimed it was an extremist element that carried out the attacks.

And in every one of them she prefaced that claim by claiming the attack was the result of a protest over the YouTube video that extremist elements took advantage of.

You can't re-write what she said to fit your narrative.

"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video."

"What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this [the alleged copycat protest] was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

Ah Boo...what you posted backs up my contention completely. What have I re-written to fit my narrative?

Ambassador Rice never claimed "the attack was the result of a protest". Her speculation that day was that the attacks came from "extremist elements"

"BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. 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-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

That was Susan Rice's interview on "Face the Nation", Boo...do you STILL want to claim she never said the attacks followed a protest? You have to remember that when Rice was sent out to do those Sunday morning talk shows by Ben Rhodes that the White House had already been told by numerous sources that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack and that the attack that did take place was planned and carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terror group.

She said the same thing on all the shows. She clearly blames the attack on extremist who came to what they believe was a copy cat demonstration of one Cairo.

 

[Oldstyle]

And in every one of them she prefaced that claim by claiming the attack was the result of a protest over the YouTube video that extremist elements took advantage of.

You can't re-write what she said to fit your narrative.

"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video."

"What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this [the alleged copycat protest] was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

Ah Boo...what you posted backs up my contention completely. What have I re-written to fit my narrative?

Ambassador Rice never claimed "the attack was the result of a protest". Her speculation that day was that the attacks came from "extremist elements"

"BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. 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-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

That was Susan Rice's interview on "Face the Nation", Boo...do you STILL want to claim she never said the attacks followed a protest? You have to remember that when Rice was sent out to do those Sunday morning talk shows by Ben Rhodes that the White House had already been told by numerous sources that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack and that the attack that did take place was planned and carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terror group.

She said the same thing on all the shows. She clearly blames the attack on extremist who came to what they believe was a copy cat demonstration of one Cairo.

I know that, Boo...but what none of you Obama fluffers is willing to admit is that the Administration knew that there was no protest over a YouTube video that day in Benghazi yet they kept on pushing that narrative. The Ben Rhodes emails that they reclassified to hide them shows exactly what the White House was attempting to do.

 

[Oldstyle]

You can see from Rice's comments on each of those shows that it was a "canned" message. She blames the attack on "extremists" (being very careful to avoid using Al Queda or Al Queda affiliated) spontaneously taking advantage of a protest over the YouTube video to launch an attack. She's been sent out there to put out the narrative that the Obama White House wants the media to run with in the weeks leading up to the election...namely that it wasn't a planned Al Queda attack (because of course, Obama has made Al Queda being "on the run" a major plank in his campaign stump speech) but was a reaction to the YouTube video that escalated into violence that killed our Ambassador in our consulate.

She puts out the message that it was about the video and wasn't a pre-planned attack...which is what the White House wants the media to run with...and then ends with a statement that basically is a disclaimer to everything that she just stated...namely that there is an ongoing investigation and at that point they don't know what happened! It's a rather artful deception if you don't pay attention. It's only when you see the Ben Rhodes email that preps Rice for those talk shows and the multiple revisions to the CIA talking points that were demanded by the State Department and the White House that you begin to see how hard the Obama White House worked to deceive both the Congress and the American people.

 

[BlindBoo]

You can't re-write what she said to fit your narrative.

"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video."

"What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this [the alleged copycat protest] was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation.

September 16 Benjamin Netanyahu Susan Rice Keith Ellison Peter King Bob Woodward Jeffrey Goldberg Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts NBC News

Ah Boo...what you posted backs up my contention completely. What have I re-written to fit my narrative?

Ambassador Rice never claimed "the attack was the result of a protest". Her speculation that day was that the attacks came from "extremist elements"

"BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. 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-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

That was Susan Rice's interview on "Face the Nation", Boo...do you STILL want to claim she never said the attacks followed a protest? You have to remember that when Rice was sent out to do those Sunday morning talk shows by Ben Rhodes that the White House had already been told by numerous sources that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack and that the attack that did take place was planned and carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terror group.

She said the same thing on all the shows. She clearly blames the attack on extremist who came to what they believe was a copy cat demonstration of one Cairo.

I know that, Boo...but what none of you Obama fluffers is willing to admit is that the Administration knew that there was no protest over a YouTube video that day in Benghazi yet they kept on pushing that narrative. The Ben Rhodes emails that they reclassified to hide them shows exactly what the White House was attempting to do.

You can see from Rice's comments on each of those shows that it was a "canned" message. She blames the attack on the "extremists" (being very careful to avoid using Al Queda or Al Queda affiliated) taking advantage of a protest over the YouTube video to launch an attack. She's been sent out there to put out the narrative that the Obama White House wants the media to run with in the weeks leading up to the election...namely that it wasn't an Al Queda attack (because of course, Obama has made Al Queda being "on the run" a major plank in his campaign stump speech) but was a reaction to the YouTube video that escalated into violence.

They didn't know. They had conflicting reports.

What is it about the concept of "Talking Points" do you not get?

Al Qaeda specialized in high profile attacks culminating in an attack on the US Pentagon and the WTC, if all they can pull off is an attack on an under construction Consulate Building in Benghazi, then they are on the run.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah Boo...what you posted backs up my contention completely. What have I re-written to fit my narrative?

Ambassador Rice never claimed "the attack was the result of a protest". Her speculation that day was that the attacks came from "extremist elements"

"BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. 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-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

That was Susan Rice's interview on "Face the Nation", Boo...do you STILL want to claim she never said the attacks followed a protest? You have to remember that when Rice was sent out to do those Sunday morning talk shows by Ben Rhodes that the White House had already been told by numerous sources that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack and that the attack that did take place was planned and carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terror group.

She said the same thing on all the shows. She clearly blames the attack on extremist who came to what they believe was a copy cat demonstration of one Cairo.

I know that, Boo...but what none of you Obama fluffers is willing to admit is that the Administration knew that there was no protest over a YouTube video that day in Benghazi yet they kept on pushing that narrative. The Ben Rhodes emails that they reclassified to hide them shows exactly what the White House was attempting to do.

You can see from Rice's comments on each of those shows that it was a "canned" message. She blames the attack on the "extremists" (being very careful to avoid using Al Queda or Al Queda affiliated) taking advantage of a protest over the YouTube video to launch an attack. She's been sent out there to put out the narrative that the Obama White House wants the media to run with in the weeks leading up to the election...namely that it wasn't an Al Queda attack (because of course, Obama has made Al Queda being "on the run" a major plank in his campaign stump speech) but was a reaction to the YouTube video that escalated into violence.

They didn't know. They had conflicting reports.

What is it about the concept of "Talking Points" do you not get?

Al Qaeda specialized in high profile attacks culminating in an attack on the US Pentagon and the WTC, if all they can pull off is an attack on an under construction Consulate Building in Benghazi, then they are on the run.

Seriously, Boo? They killed our Ambassador!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a group that's "on the run"? You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Dude!

 

[Oldstyle]

And what part of the 12 revisions to the "talking points" before the State Department and the White House deemed them suitable for release don't you get? At what point does a talking point become total garbage? When it's been sanitized to the point of uselessness?

 

[BlindBoo]

Ambassador Rice never claimed "the attack was the result of a protest". Her speculation that day was that the attacks came from "extremist elements"

"BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. 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-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

That was Susan Rice's interview on "Face the Nation", Boo...do you STILL want to claim she never said the attacks followed a protest? You have to remember that when Rice was sent out to do those Sunday morning talk shows by Ben Rhodes that the White House had already been told by numerous sources that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack and that the attack that did take place was planned and carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terror group.

She said the same thing on all the shows. She clearly blames the attack on extremist who came to what they believe was a copy cat demonstration of one Cairo.

I know that, Boo...but what none of you Obama fluffers is willing to admit is that the Administration knew that there was no protest over a YouTube video that day in Benghazi yet they kept on pushing that narrative. The Ben Rhodes emails that they reclassified to hide them shows exactly what the White House was attempting to do.

You can see from Rice's comments on each of those shows that it was a "canned" message. She blames the attack on the "extremists" (being very careful to avoid using Al Queda or Al Queda affiliated) taking advantage of a protest over the YouTube video to launch an attack. She's been sent out there to put out the narrative that the Obama White House wants the media to run with in the weeks leading up to the election...namely that it wasn't an Al Queda attack (because of course, Obama has made Al Queda being "on the run" a major plank in his campaign stump speech) but was a reaction to the YouTube video that escalated into violence.

They didn't know. They had conflicting reports.

What is it about the concept of "Talking Points" do you not get?

Al Qaeda specialized in high profile attacks culminating in an attack on the US Pentagon and the WTC, if all they can pull off is an attack on an under construction Consulate Building in Benghazi, then they are on the run.

Seriously, Boo? They killed our Ambassador!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a group that's "on the run"? You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Dude!

Yeah and that was a terrible tragedy, but in light of the fact that al Qaeda carried so many high profile attack on Embassies, a Warship, our military and financial centers, the attack in Benghazi doesn't seem to have been carried out by the same group of people. It's almost like they were only al Qaeda in name only. Furthermore, the President warned us when he announced that bin Laden had been killed that the fight was not over.

 

[BlindBoo]

And what part of the 12 revisions to the "talking points" before the State Department and the White House deemed them suitable for release don't you get? At what point does a talking point become total garbage? When it's been sanitized to the point of uselessness?

I've been watching politics since Nixon and I think most all talking points are garbage meant to convey a particular point of view. Not a crime. Not a scandal. The real scandal is the way the so called liberal media ignored the actions of the GOP's candidate while Americans were under attack.

 

[Oldstyle]

"BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--

BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.

SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. 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-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

That was Susan Rice's interview on "Face the Nation", Boo...do you STILL want to claim she never said the attacks followed a protest? You have to remember that when Rice was sent out to do those Sunday morning talk shows by Ben Rhodes that the White House had already been told by numerous sources that there was no protest in Benghazi prior to the attack and that the attack that did take place was planned and carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terror group.

She said the same thing on all the shows. She clearly blames the attack on extremist who came to what they believe was a copy cat demonstration of one Cairo.

I know that, Boo...but what none of you Obama fluffers is willing to admit is that the Administration knew that there was no protest over a YouTube video that day in Benghazi yet they kept on pushing that narrative. The Ben Rhodes emails that they reclassified to hide them shows exactly what the White House was attempting to do.

You can see from Rice's comments on each of those shows that it was a "canned" message. She blames the attack on the "extremists" (being very careful to avoid using Al Queda or Al Queda affiliated) taking advantage of a protest over the YouTube video to launch an attack. She's been sent out there to put out the narrative that the Obama White House wants the media to run with in the weeks leading up to the election...namely that it wasn't an Al Queda attack (because of course, Obama has made Al Queda being "on the run" a major plank in his campaign stump speech) but was a reaction to the YouTube video that escalated into violence.

They didn't know. They had conflicting reports.

What is it about the concept of "Talking Points" do you not get?

Al Qaeda specialized in high profile attacks culminating in an attack on the US Pentagon and the WTC, if all they can pull off is an attack on an under construction Consulate Building in Benghazi, then they are on the run.

Seriously, Boo? They killed our Ambassador!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a group that's "on the run"? You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Dude!

Yeah and that was a terrible tragedy, but in light of the fact that al Qaeda carried so many high profile attack on Embassies, a Warship, our military and financial centers, the attack in Benghazi doesn't seem to have been carried out by the same group of people. It's almost like they were only al Qaeda in name only. Furthermore, the President warned us when he announced that bin Laden had been killed that the fight was not over.

So now you want to go with a narrative that although Al Queda was responsible for attacks on our embassies, a warship, our military and financial centers...that you don't think Benghazi should be included with those because they were Al Qaeda "in name only"?

With all due respect, Boo...when you're being forced to perform logical gymnastics like you are here...don't you think it's time to quit?

 

[Oldstyle]

And what part of the 12 revisions to the "talking points" before the State Department and the White House deemed them suitable for release don't you get? At what point does a talking point become total garbage? When it's been sanitized to the point of uselessness?

I've been watching politics since Nixon and I think most all talking points are garbage meant to convey a particular point of view. Not a crime. Not a scandal. The real scandal is the way the so called liberal media ignored the actions of the GOP's candidate while Americans were under attack.

The main stream media didn't ignore anything...one of the main leads by the media in the days after the attacks was how terrible it was for Romney to attack the President for what happened in Benghazi so soon after a tragedy like that taking place. What they failed to realize however is that everything Obama WAS being attacked for he deserved and then some! Instead of checking on the veracity of what the Administration was telling them about Benghazi the main stream media was devoting time and space to the White House's claim that Romney's attack was unwarranted.

 

[Dot Com]

oh bejeezus Oldtyle is up to his old scatter-shot cheap hack posting antics 'twas ever thus

As to the OP, where did she go? She prolly abandoned this thread because it has ZERO merit. That ever occur to you Repub-voters/Fox-watchers

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10273281

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

Is it your contention Oldstyle that there were no "natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video " taking place around the world?

Take notice you are citing Obama using the plural when stating the word 'protest".

How do you know Obama included the CIA suspected protest in Benghazi in the plural use of the word "protest".

You don't know. Why do you argue the point that you do know?

 

[BlindBoo]

She said the same thing on all the shows. She clearly blames the attack on extremist who came to what they believe was a copy cat demonstration of one Cairo.

I know that, Boo...but what none of you Obama fluffers is willing to admit is that the Administration knew that there was no protest over a YouTube video that day in Benghazi yet they kept on pushing that narrative. The Ben Rhodes emails that they reclassified to hide them shows exactly what the White House was attempting to do.

You can see from Rice's comments on each of those shows that it was a "canned" message. She blames the attack on the "extremists" (being very careful to avoid using Al Queda or Al Queda affiliated) taking advantage of a protest over the YouTube video to launch an attack. She's been sent out there to put out the narrative that the Obama White House wants the media to run with in the weeks leading up to the election...namely that it wasn't an Al Queda attack (because of course, Obama has made Al Queda being "on the run" a major plank in his campaign stump speech) but was a reaction to the YouTube video that escalated into violence.

They didn't know. They had conflicting reports.

What is it about the concept of "Talking Points" do you not get?

Al Qaeda specialized in high profile attacks culminating in an attack on the US Pentagon and the WTC, if all they can pull off is an attack on an under construction Consulate Building in Benghazi, then they are on the run.

Seriously, Boo? They killed our Ambassador!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a group that's "on the run"? You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Dude!

Yeah and that was a terrible tragedy, but in light of the fact that al Qaeda carried so many high profile attack on Embassies, a Warship, our military and financial centers, the attack in Benghazi doesn't seem to have been carried out by the same group of people. It's almost like they were only al Qaeda in name only. Furthermore, the President warned us when he announced that bin Laden had been killed that the fight was not over.

So now you want to go with a narrative that although Al Queda was responsible for attacks on our embassies, a warship, our military and financial centers...that you don't think Benghazi should be included with those because they were Al Qaeda "in name only"?

With all due respect, Boo...when you're being forced to perform logical gymnastics like you are here...don't you think it's time to quit?

The attack in Benghazi looks like it was planned a few hours ahead of time where as all the other al Qaeda attacks were well planned, for months if not years. Sorry if reason is logical gymnastics for you. Every radical Islamic group claims to be al Qaeda.

 

[Camp]

And what part of the 12 revisions to the "talking points" before the State Department and the White House deemed them suitable for release don't you get? At what point does a talking point become total garbage? When it's been sanitized to the point of uselessness?

I've been watching politics since Nixon and I think most all talking points are garbage meant to convey a particular point of view. Not a crime. Not a scandal. The real scandal is the way the so called liberal media ignored the actions of the GOP's candidate while Americans were under attack.

The main stream media didn't ignore anything...one of the main leads by the media in the days after the attacks was how terrible it was for Romney to attack the President for what happened in Benghazi so soon after a tragedy like that taking place. What they failed to realize however is that everything Obama WAS being attacked for he deserved and then some! Instead of checking on the veracity of what the Administration was telling them about Benghazi the main stream media was devoting time and space to the White House's claim that Romney's attack was unwarranted.

What you fail to realize is that no single politician has a right to break a long time tested tradition of keeping his mouth shut during a crisis when Americans and American military persons are under attack and in harms way. Romney showed disunity, confusion and dissent when unity and support were called for. He had ample opportunities to voice his opinions through appropriate channels. He chose to make the crisis a political opportunity which made the country appear to have a weakness of will.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 10273281

On Sept. 20, Carney told reporters, "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials."

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

There is one of the many flaws in Oldstyle's rationale that there was a deliberate scheme to sell a false narrative by the White House after the attack that Obama called an act of terror the following morning.

Let's recall that OldStyle started with this myth:

OS 10227243

Except for the people in the Obama Administration that blamed terrorism on a YouTube video...right, Candy?

Yet today in post 10273281 Oldstyle is posting that Carney told reporters that it was self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack"

So Oldstyle has advanced a small step toward reality (Not there yet by any means) by hopefully abandoning the 'blamed terrorism on a YouTube Video' line of attack from days ago to the WHite House spokesmen telling right wing idiots that it was obviously a terrorist attack.

But after Carney spoke Oldstyle fails to comprehend what the President said sometime later in the day, Obama correctly said that "protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

After misreading what Obama actually said, Oldstyle goes on another foolish rant about how there was supposedly no protest activity in Benghazi. Well so what if there was or if there was not protest activity in Benghazi. Obama's point was very clearly that there were protests around the world over the video and that 'extremists' used the video and the protests as an excuse to directly harm US interests. Obama didn't tie or link or state in anyway that he thought there was a protest going on in Benghazi.

And perhaps we can teach Oldstyle what the phrase used "as an excuse" means. That is not blaming the video or the protest over the video for the attack in Benhgasi or anywhere else there were attacks on US interests. It is saying that it is wrong to blame the video as an excuse to commit violence from random acts of violence during a protest to commit an act of terror - as Obama and Jay Carney stated over a span of nine days or so that has Oldstyle so fired up over absolutely nothing. .

 

[Oldstyle]

oh bejeezus Oldtyle is up to his old scatter-shot cheap hack posting antics 'twas ever thus

As to the OP, where did she go? She prolly abandoned this thread because it has ZERO merit. That ever occur to you Repub-voters/Fox-watchers

You make these very vague claims about the validity of my posts, Dottie but whenever you're challenged to explain what's not valid about them...you tend to disappear. "Scatter-shot"? Yet I seem to hit the mark...

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 10273281

But that same day, Obama told an audience at a town hall meeting, "What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

Is it your contention Oldstyle that there were no "natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video " taking place around the world?

Take notice you are citing Obama using the plural when stating the word 'protest".

How do you know Obama included the CIA suspected protest in Benghazi in the plural use of the word "protest".

You don't know. Why do you argue the point that you do know?

Yes there were protests over the YouTube video...they simply didn't happen to take place in Benghazi! The Obama White House knew that there was no protest prior to the attack on our consulate LONG before they finally admitted it! They essentially tried their best to blame the attack on the YouTube video but were at some point forced to admit that it was a planned attack by an Al Queda affiliated terror group because so many sources kept contradicting their narrative. They deliberately lied to the American people and to Congress. Jay Carney lied when he said there was only one revision to the talking points and that was "stylistic". Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Susan Rice were all lying when they said that the attack was caused by the YouTube video. The Ben Rhodes email proves that as do the emails that went back and forth between the State Department...the White House...and the CIA when they were trying to "sanitize" the intelligence talking points to make it less harmful before the coming election.

 

[Oldstyle]

And what part of the 12 revisions to the "talking points" before the State Department and the White House deemed them suitable for release don't you get? At what point does a talking point become total garbage? When it's been sanitized to the point of uselessness?

I've been watching politics since Nixon and I think most all talking points are garbage meant to convey a particular point of view. Not a crime. Not a scandal. The real scandal is the way the so called liberal media ignored the actions of the GOP's candidate while Americans were under attack.

The main stream media didn't ignore anything...one of the main leads by the media in the days after the attacks was how terrible it was for Romney to attack the President for what happened in Benghazi so soon after a tragedy like that taking place. What they failed to realize however is that everything Obama WAS being attacked for he deserved and then some! Instead of checking on the veracity of what the Administration was telling them about Benghazi the main stream media was devoting time and space to the White House's claim that Romney's attack was unwarranted.

What you fail to realize is that no single politician has a right to break a long time tested tradition of keeping his mouth shut during a crisis when Americans and American military persons are under attack and in harms way. Romney showed disunity, confusion and dissent when unity and support were called for. He had ample opportunities to voice his opinions through appropriate channels. He chose to make the crisis a political opportunity which made the country appear to have a weakness of will.

A "weakness of will"? Seriously, Camp? Mitt Romney pointing out that the Obama Administration had a WEAKNESS OF POLICY somehow showed "disunity, confusion and dissent"? This is America. It isn't the Soviet Union. When our leaders make mistakes American citizens can and should call them out on it. Hillary Clinton's State Department fucked the pooch with security for our diplomats in Libya and it's OBVIOUS that they knew that was the case even as the flames were dying down at our consulate. An initial version of the talking points the CIA put out had made references to Al Queda and to “at least five other attacks” on foreign interests that had occurred in Benghazi prior to attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. But, following Victoria Nuland’s (State Department Head of Communications) input, those references were removed from a final version the White House gave to former U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice for dissemination on several news talk shows. They gave us a "disinformation" campaign that anyone from the old Pravda would have been proud of!