Rice: We didn't intend to mislead on Benghazi

[Soggy in NOLA]

Where does she blame the film producer?

But let’s remember what has transpired over the last several days. This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that-- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a-- a spontaneous reaction to a video, and it’s not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

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

Or are you saying that the protest in all those ME countries was not the response to the video!

Furthermore doesn't the President go to the UN a few days later and say that he will defend the 1st Amendment rights even for offensive material such as that video?

Id say that is blaming the video...and if you are blaming the video, you are blaming the producer of the video...and if you continue to use such immature debating tactics that are designed to confuse, I will discontinue the conversation with you.

Are you seriously denying that that was the reality of the situation across the ME? Simply saying the Satanic Verses or the Cartoons (or this particular video) caused riots is simply stating facts. Notice she condemned the violence and not the first Amendment. If your cognitive dissonance causes confusion then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position.

The hack in this one is strong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

and

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...eneral-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The point of me bring up Austrilia is what do they have to do with a video made in the USA?

As you cans see in the speech to the UN Obama clearly blames the video.

Boo and the rest of the left know full well that Obama was lying - they applaud him for it.

 

[Jarhead]

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

and

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...eneral-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The point of me bring up Austrilia is what do they have to do with a video made in the USA?

As you cans see in the speech to the UN Obama clearly blames the video.

Boo and the rest of the left know full well that Obama was lying - they applaud him for it.

anyone who is tossing out "he said act of terror" and "she never said it WASNT al-queda" is showing us that they are the simple minded people that the Obama administration was hoping they would be.

 

[Jarhead]

Where does she blame the film producer?

But let’s remember what has transpired over the last several days. This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that-- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a-- a spontaneous reaction to a video, and it’s not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

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

Or are you saying that the protest in all those ME countries was not the response to the video!

Furthermore doesn't the President go to the UN a few days later and say that he will defend the 1st Amendment rights even for offensive material such as that video?

Id say that is blaming the video...and if you are blaming the video, you are blaming the producer of the video...and if you continue to use such immature debating tactics that are designed to confuse, I will discontinue the conversation with you.

Are you seriously denying that that was the reality of the situation across the ME? Simply saying the Satanic Verses or the Cartoons (or this particular video) caused riots is simply stating facts. Notice she condemned the violence and not the first Amendment. If your cognitive dissonance causes confusion then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position.

lol....so the day after our Ambassador is killed in an attack, Obama was in the rose garden talking about unrelated mob scenes and protests.

You are either disingenuous...or a complete tool.

 

[emptystep]

Can you provide a quote or something that will back up the claim that she denied that it was al Queda? Was she ever asked "Was this the work of al Queda?" How about the term extremist? You do believe that al Queda is an extremist group right? Did she ever not qualify her statments by saying we will wait until the investigation is complete?

If she wanted to wait until the investigation was complete...then why didnt she wait until the investigation was complete? Why did she offer an explanation that did not have evidence to support it if she were waiting for the investigation to be complete?

No one asked her if Humpty Dumpty did it either...why would they if she never mentioned that Humpty Dumpty was a possibility?

Is Humpty Dumpty an extremist?

Death from Above!!! (Does that answer your question?)

 

[Oldstyle]

No, that's a twisted reading. The right said they intentionally misled the public and Rice was saying in a diplomatic way "it was all in their head".

DID NOT MEAN TO MISLEAD.......CAN NOT MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THEN THEY DID. It is just a matter of whom set them up.

She was saying they misled themselves. Plain as day, if you don't have ideological blinders on.

LOL...how exactly does one mislead themselves? If you are told that 1 and 1 is 2 and you go on five Sunday morning talk shows and state that to the best of your knowledge 1 and 1 is 1...then you are either an idiot...or you are a liar.

 

[Claudette]

WOW. Talk about ideological blinders.

Lying is lying and Rice sure lied her ass off at the behest of the administration.

To bad the CIA fucked up the lie.

 

[Jarhead]

DID NOT MEAN TO MISLEAD.......CAN NOT MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THEN THEY DID. It is just a matter of whom set them up.

She was saying they misled themselves. Plain as day, if you don't have ideological blinders on.

LOL...how exactly does one mislead themselves? If you are told that 1 and 1 is 2 and you go on five Sunday morning talk shows and state that to the best of your knowledge 1 and 1 is 1...then you are either an idiot...or you are a liar.

Know the facts she admitted to....THEN criticize.

She admitted to seeing the classified report that said it was a preplanned attack by al-queda connected people. She also saw the unclassified report that mentioned nothing about al-queda.

According to her, She opted to NOT question why the stark differences and went out there saying "it was, in fact, a protest gone bad"...(paraphrased).

Now....according to Jay Carney...he went with the talking points....and even Obama agreed that they ALL went with the talking points.....

Fine.

Except for one thing.....

Despite Rice AND Obama AND Carney knowing that the talking points were starkly different than the classified report.....not one of them asked why the changes?

Are we expected to believe that the President ONLY looks at talking points when an Ambassador is assasinated and does not speak face to face with the intelligence community?

Really?

You believe that?

Really?

Anyone believes that?

Really?

 

[BlindBoo]

The point is they did not "opted to pin it on an American irresponsibly exercising his first ammendmen right"

The protest over the video lasted much longer than one day. It was Muslims in Australia protesting.

Actually, there was not protest over the video at all in Benghazi - as you already know.

{"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi," Rice said. }

Rice: 'No protest' in Benghazi - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

The issue here is one of integrity; you , like the rest of the left - are utterly devoid of integrity.

A free society depends on the honor and integrity of the people; but when I look to the left, I see those like you - who haven't a hint of honor, who seek to "win" by any means. You don't even consider not lying, "facts" have no special interest to you - anything that promotes the party, true or false is irrelevant to you and the rest of the left.

Our society is doomed, we cannot survive when sociopaths are the majority.

This

"But let’s remember what has transpired over the last several days. This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world."

was in reference to the entire Arab world not just Benghazi.

That you would try and infer otherwise does indeed show your lack of integrity and honor.

 

[BlindBoo]

You are not proving you point. If this was, and it was, an organized attack then what did it have to do with USA 1st amendment rights? Absolutely nothing.

Now that we know that the attacks were organized, I mean now we all know, what makes you think that the rest of the protests were not coordinated? Especially considering they pretty much lasted one day and there was protest in Australia. What does Australia have to do with a video made in the US?

The point is they did not "opted to pin it on an American irresponsibly exercising his first ammendmen right"

The protest over the video lasted much longer than one day. It was Muslims in Australia protesting.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

and

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...eneral-assembly-text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The point of me bring up Austrilia is what do they have to do with a video made in the USA?

As you cans see in the speech to the UN Obama clearly blames the video.

Clearly he blames the violent protest over the video on the video. So are you saying that the video did not spark violence across the Arab world? Or that he was lying about that? Are the Radical Mulsims in Australia not as hatefilled as their counterparts in the ME?

 

[Jarhead]

The point is they did not "opted to pin it on an American irresponsibly exercising his first ammendmen right"

The protest over the video lasted much longer than one day. It was Muslims in Australia protesting.

Actually, there was not protest over the video at all in Benghazi - as you already know.

{"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi," Rice said. }

Rice: 'No protest' in Benghazi - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

The issue here is one of integrity; you , like the rest of the left - are utterly devoid of integrity.

A free society depends on the honor and integrity of the people; but when I look to the left, I see those like you - who haven't a hint of honor, who seek to "win" by any means. You don't even consider not lying, "facts" have no special interest to you - anything that promotes the party, true or false is irrelevant to you and the rest of the left.

Our society is doomed, we cannot survive when sociopaths are the majority.

This

"But let’s remember what has transpired over the last several days. This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world."

was in reference to the entire Arab world not just Benghazi.

That you would try and infer otherwise does indeed show your lack of integrity and honor.

You continue to neglect the forum of which such words were used. They were used during interviews and press conferences related DIRECTLY to the assasination of an Ambassador and 3 other Americans. Rice did not go on the talk shows to discuss Muslim Protests....and Obama and Hillary did not meet the press in the rose garden to discuss Muslim Protests. There are Muslim Protests every day...and have been since the Arab Spring......I dont see Obama meeting the press to discuss those.....These forums were specifically scheduled to discuss the Benghazi situation.

You are being quite disingenuous and therefore making it impossible to debate the topic.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Liars lie... and sycophants parrot....

Welcome to Libworld, where Obama is King and Newspeak is the dominant language.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually, there was not protest over the video at all in Benghazi - as you already know.

{"In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi," Rice said. }

Rice: 'No protest' in Benghazi - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

The issue here is one of integrity; you , like the rest of the left - are utterly devoid of integrity.

A free society depends on the honor and integrity of the people; but when I look to the left, I see those like you - who haven't a hint of honor, who seek to "win" by any means. You don't even consider not lying, "facts" have no special interest to you - anything that promotes the party, true or false is irrelevant to you and the rest of the left.

Our society is doomed, we cannot survive when sociopaths are the majority.

This

"But let’s remember what has transpired over the last several days. This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world."

was in reference to the entire Arab world not just Benghazi.

That you would try and infer otherwise does indeed show your lack of integrity and honor.

You continue to neglect the forum of which such words were used. They were used during interviews and press conferences related DIRECTLY to the assasination of an Ambassador and 3 other Americans. Rice did not go on the talk shows to discuss Muslim Protests....and Obama and Hillary did not meet the press in the rose garden to discuss Muslim Protests. There are Muslim Protests every day...and have been since the Arab Spring......I dont see Obama meeting the press to discuss those.....These forums were specifically scheduled to discuss the Benghazi situation.

You are being quite disingenuous and therefore making it impossible to debate the topic.

When she spoke directly about the attack in Benghazi on all the talk shows, she always qualified it with the fact that the investigation was not complete and that they must wait until it is complete before the facts can be determined. That is a fact and not at all disingenous. Furthermore her statement about the video and the consequences throughout the ME was part of her presentation. What is disingenous is trying to take that or part of that message and claim that she was refering exclusively to the attack in Benghazi.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The essence of the stupidity here on the Right is that there was nothing to be gained by the administration BY misleading.

Without a motive, the alleged wrongdoing makes no sense.

Obama had EVERY reason to lie. He failed in Libya and got our Ambassador killed JUST before the National election. He couldn't let it be know we knew it was AQ that preplanned and carried out the attack as it would prove just how inept he was.

He and the State Department refused for 6 months to increase security. On the day of the attack he and the State Department refused to send help as the attack unfolded.

Hell even the Libya Government ask for more security. The local Commander of the Security force ask for weeks for more security FROM the Americans.

No that's all nonsense. Rightwing propaganda used to lead to an absurd conclusion.

The idea that moments after this attack, the Obama administration decided to intentionally attempt to tell an easily debunked lie,

because there was a month to go before the election and it was so important to conceal a terrorist attack,

that has no plausibility whatsoever.

But the Right has to pretend it's plausible, because otherwise, nothing else in the rightwing story that's been made up about Benghazi makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[emptystep]

Here's question. If the Obama administration screwed up so bad and got Americans killed in Benghazi and did nothing to save them why is the intel community not raising a fire storm. Why is the current CIA director going with Rice to meet the the gang of three (still working on the right word here)? I thought the military hated Obama? Not a single one coming out against the administration?

 

[GuyPinestra]

The essence of the stupidity here on the Right is that there was nothing to be gained by the administration BY misleading.

Without a motive, the alleged wrongdoing makes no sense.

Obama had EVERY reason to lie. He failed in Libya and got our Ambassador killed JUST before the National election. He couldn't let it be know we knew it was AQ that preplanned and carried out the attack as it would prove just how inept he was.

He and the State Department refused for 6 months to increase security. On the day of the attack he and the State Department refused to send help as the attack unfolded.

Hell even the Libya Government ask for more security. The local Commander of the Security force ask for weeks for more security FROM the Americans.

No that's all nonsense. Rightwing propaganda used to lead to an absurd conclusion.

The idea that moments after this attack, the Obama administration decided to intentionally attempt to tell an easily debunked lie,

because there was a month to go before the election and it was so important to conceal a terrorist attack,

that has no plausibility whatsoever.

But the Right has to pretend it's plausible, because otherwise, nothing else in the rightwing story that's been made up about Benghazi makes any sense whatsoever.

So Beaner, nonsense and rightwing propaganda?

The FACT that security was downgraded?
The FACT that requests for more were denied and/or ignored?
The FACT that it was viewed in REAL TIME via drone?
The FACT that no aid/rescue was sent?
The FACT that 3 months later the TRUTH is STILL being withheld?

You sir, are an idiot of the highest order...

 

[Oldstyle]

The essence of the stupidity here on the Right is that there was nothing to be gained by the administration BY misleading.

Without a motive, the alleged wrongdoing makes no sense.

Obama had EVERY reason to lie. He failed in Libya and got our Ambassador killed JUST before the National election. He couldn't let it be know we knew it was AQ that preplanned and carried out the attack as it would prove just how inept he was.

He and the State Department refused for 6 months to increase security. On the day of the attack he and the State Department refused to send help as the attack unfolded.

Hell even the Libya Government ask for more security. The local Commander of the Security force ask for weeks for more security FROM the Americans.

No that's all nonsense. Rightwing propaganda used to lead to an absurd conclusion.

The idea that moments after this attack, the Obama administration decided to intentionally attempt to tell an easily debunked lie,

because there was a month to go before the election and it was so important to conceal a terrorist attack,

that has no plausibility whatsoever.

But the Right has to pretend it's plausible, because otherwise, nothing else in the rightwing story that's been made up about Benghazi makes any sense whatsoever.

Yet it's become very apparent that is EXACTLY what the Obama Administration chose to do following the Benghazi attacks. They told an easily debunked lie and trusted a compliant main stream media and the Democratically controlled Senate to allow them to stone-wall any investigation until after the election.

They sent Susan Rice out five days after the attack to do the Sunday morning talk shows repeating what they KNEW was a false narrative.

Then Barack Obama holds a news conference and scolds Republicans for impugning Ambassador Rice's reputation who in his words "...had nothing to do with Benghazi." Gee, Barry...that might have been true IF YOU HADN'T SENT HER OUT THAT SUNDAY MORNING TO LIE FOR YOU!!!

 

[Jarhead]

The essence of the stupidity here on the Right is that there was nothing to be gained by the administration BY misleading.

Without a motive, the alleged wrongdoing makes no sense.

Obama had EVERY reason to lie. He failed in Libya and got our Ambassador killed JUST before the National election. He couldn't let it be know we knew it was AQ that preplanned and carried out the attack as it would prove just how inept he was.

He and the State Department refused for 6 months to increase security. On the day of the attack he and the State Department refused to send help as the attack unfolded.

Hell even the Libya Government ask for more security. The local Commander of the Security force ask for weeks for more security FROM the Americans.

No that's all nonsense. Rightwing propaganda used to lead to an absurd conclusion.

The idea that moments after this attack, the Obama administration decided to intentionally attempt to tell an easily debunked lie,

because there was a month to go before the election and it was so important to conceal a terrorist attack,

that has no plausibility whatsoever.

But the Right has to pretend it's plausible, because otherwise, nothing else in the rightwing story that's been made up about Benghazi makes any sense whatsoever.

No one said it ws a bright move by the Obama team.

But look what happened....the truth didnt come out until AFTER the election.

So it seems a VERY plausible move on his part.

 

[Oldstyle]

Here's question. If the Obama administration screwed up so bad and got Americans killed in Benghazi and did nothing to save them why is the intel community not raising a fire storm. Why is the current CIA director going with Rice to meet the the gang of three (still working on the right word here)? I thought the military hated Obama? Not a single one coming out against the administration?

Let me see if I've got this straight? You're actually amazed that the new CIA Director...someone who was just appointed by Barack Obama...is going with Rice to answer questions? Were you naive enough to think that Barry would appoint someone who WOULDN'T go along with the narrative they're trying to sell?

Gotta tell you, Empty...some of your posts show you to be, shall we say...not the sharpest tool in the shed?

Oh and by the way? The CIA is not the military.

 

[emptystep]

Here's question. If the Obama administration screwed up so bad and got Americans killed in Benghazi and did nothing to save them why is the intel community not raising a fire storm. Why is the current CIA director going with Rice to meet the the gang of three (still working on the right word here)? I thought the military hated Obama? Not a single one coming out against the administration?

Let me see if I've got this straight? You're actually amazed that the new CIA Director...someone who was just appointed by Barack Obama...is going with Rice to answer questions? Were you naive enough to think that Barry would appoint someone who WOULDN'T go along with the narrative they're trying to sell?

Gotta tell you, Empty...some of your posts show you to be, shall we say...not the sharpest tool in the shed?

Oh and by the way? The CIA is not the military.

So this guy is selling out the CIA?
--------
Meet Michael J. Morell - The Daily Beast
His CIA career began in 1980, when he was 21-years-old. He was an economic analyst with a salary of $15,193. For 14 years, he served as an analyst and manager of East Asia intelligence, and was promoted to director of the CIA’s office of Asian, Pacific, and Latin American analysis in 1999.

He’s been in the room with the big guys for over a decade. For a time, he served as the executive assistant to former CIA director George J. Tenet, and was in charge of presidential briefings for parts of both Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies. As chief of the staff that produces the president’s daily brief, his job was to sit down every morning with the president and fill him on the latest intelligence.

He was with President Bush on 9/11.

He was Bush’s intelligence advisor at the time, and, according to The Wall Street Journal, had “been at the center of nearly every fight against al Qaeda and has seen the limits of U.S. intelligence.” As such, he served as “the CIA’s devil’s advocate before the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.”