Susan Rice
-
You guys are probably going to have to give this one up. At least you should, but you won't.
The charge is that she knowingly misled or was incompetent in some way when she spoke about the Bengazi attacks on the Sunday shows on September 15th. That's what McCain and Graham are alleging in their press conference. The Obama administration has always maintained that she was relating the best available intelligence they had at the time.
So let's go to the transcript:
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.
-
Now we have the actual CIA briefing she received that morning:
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Rice, who was considered a likely nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying on "Face the Nation" (video) on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack "began spontaneously" - suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack.
The CIA's talking points read as follows:
"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens."
-
So what are McCain and Graham talking about? Where's the cover up? Where's the incompetence? Her statements on September 15th match almost exactly with what she was told in the intelligence briefing.
Rice clearly did exactly as you would expect her to do. She went out and relayed what she was told by the intelligence community. It turned out that the intelligence community had some things wrong, but she doesn't know this on September 15th. The intelligence community doesn't know this on September 15th.
McCain and Graham's charges are completely false. There is no evidence of a cover-up and no evidence that she handled this incompetently. She did exactly as she should have done.
-
Wait.......
I thought the president, in his infinite wisdom knew it was a terrorist attack 5 minutes after it happened, no?
So was he stupid or lying or was she? OR BOTH????????
Figure he may as well nominate an obvious stooge.
WSS
-
Ooh, boy. Someone's been drinking! You really are in the fever swamp now, aren't you? That sounded just like a halfwit's call in to Rush.
Yes, the president called it an act of terror. Because when a bunch of people storm over the walls of your embassy and kill your ambassador and three others that's an act of terror. This is not the point. The point is the genesis of the attack, and whether or not it was planned or grew out of a demonstration, or some combination of both. That's the point.
The accusation from McCain and Graham is that she was lying or incompetent when she made those statements on September 15th. Yet her statements align exactly with the briefing she received from the intelligence community on the 15th. We know this because we know what was in that briefing.
What's stupid or untruthful about relating what the intelligence community told you was the best available information at the time, and that we didn't know everything yet? Because that's exactly what she did. Read the above transcript. Read the CIA briefing notes. What other possible conclusion could you come to?
This is another instance of what everyone has been talking about since the election: the right-wing lives in its own reality, with it's own information, and is increasingly impervious to reason or evidence. This is a pretty obvious instance where they've got no case but seem willing to take up a few months of the nation's time pretending they do.
Shameless.
-
Anyone want to explain what Susan Rice did wrong on those Sunday shows on the 15th?
-
If ObaMao/Stalin/Wilson "said" that the murders of Americans in Benghazi was
a terrorist act, why the hell was rice lying her ass off days later?
as well as, Obamao did too.
Dang, when a Republican prez tells the truth, it's a "lie",
when a Dem prez tells a lie, it's a "truth".
When our soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, it's
a terrible, heartwretching tragedy....
but under Obamao/Stalin/Wilson, you liberal leeches don't give a shit.
Liberal leeches were worried sick about their Constitutional RIGHTS because
of "evil" Bush and Cheney.
Under Obamao? They don't give a shit about the Constitution.
Big trouble, especially when ObaMao bribed his way to OUR WH.
And yet, heckbunker is frantically trying to talk about anything else outisde of ObaMao scandals.
Figures. It's a mental aberration, methinks.
-
She didn't have a clue what she was talking about. She just says what Obama tells her to. Nothing more then a mouth piece.
-
She didn't have a clue what she was talking about. She just says what Obama tells her to. Nothing more then a mouth piece.
She didn't have a clue what she was talking about. She just says what Obama tells her to. Nothing more then a mouth piece.
I don't think so.
Obama is as clue free as anybody.
What they all did, for a long time, was to lie about that stupid video.
And on top of that went on a nother apology tour of sorts.
Groveling to anyone it may have offended.
We all know that.
Beyond that it wasn't even really terror.
It was an attack on an American interest by a group Linked with Al Queda.
A group that the president claimed he had on the run.
Look we all enjoy assassinating a bad guy.
But somebody, if they're that smart, should realize there will be repercussions and they should prepare for them.
Remember somebody thought it was a good idea to assassinate arch Duke Ferdinand.
WSS
-
I thought that I would stop by to see what kind of bullshit lies were being spread and here we gowe have this boards flaming lib promoting another piece of shit who will follow Obama and lie to the public on her own free will.
For anyone to except this type of behavior and set it aside, has used poor judgement and that person lacks respect nor should anything they say or write have any authority.
-
About what I expected.
Someone address the actual question. Someone tell me what she should have said on those Sunday morning shows, if not for what the intelligence community told her to say in the briefing that morning.
Steve? What should she have said? Where's the lie?
-
The attack was clearly not a spontaneous demonstration. There were rockets and mortars. No 1 in their right minds could have come to the video conclusion. Not even Obama appointees.
She may have been ordered to lie, but lie she did.
WSS .
-
If the republicans where so interested in getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, why did most skip a classified briefing on Wednesday? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/?hpt=hp_t2
"The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place."
"According to a Democratic aide on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, only three of the eight GOP members of the committee attended the two hour briefing that ran from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET. By contrast, seven of the nine Democratic members were there.
McCain's press conference took place at noon."
-
Well for 1 reason it's that it wasn't a big deal until the bullshit started. Do the Republicans hope to get political points? Sure. Did somebody f*** up seriously? Yes.
WSS
-
Well for 1 reason it's that it wasn't a big deal until the bullshit started. Do the Republicans hope to get political points? Sure. Did somebody f*** up seriously? Yes.
WSS
Well for 1 reason it's that it wasn't a big deal until the bullshit started. Do the Republicans hope to get political points? Sure. Did somebody f*** up seriously? Yes.
WSS
Try again, my man. Where's the lie? You've shown you can call her names. You've yet to show her that you can prove anything in the big boy world.
Where's the lie that you're alleging? Why is she a "stooge?" McCain and Graham are going to hold her confirmation up because they say she was either incompetent or lying in September 15. Give me proof of that.
Haven't these allegations since been disproven? And shouldn't you react to that new information? After all, what are the Republicans all yelling about after yesterday's briefing? They're now upset with the CIA for telling the White House what they told the White House because it doesn't fit their preferred narrative. And today Petraeus is going to walk in there and probably tell them the same thing: sorry, fellas, but that was our best estimate at the time.
So where was she doing anything but her job?
-
She was doin her job. Her job was lying.
I'm not calling her anything she is not.
WSS
-
And I really don't expect a straight answer but do you believe this was a spontaneous attack that's that's stemmed from a protest?
Yes or no?
WSS
-
No.
Because I never give straight answers?
You must not be following this stuff closely. No one is disputing that those talking points ended up being wrong about the genesis of the attack. But they were also not drawing any firm conclusions. And that's what they were being told today.
Petraeus told Congress today behind closed doors that he thought it was terrorism, but when the talking points were drawn up for the White House by the intelligence agencies - the ones Susan Rice was working off of - they did not make a conclusion about it. He also said there was no political interference in making that determination.
"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," Schiff said. "He completely debunked that idea."
Schiff said Petraeus said Rice's comments in the television interviews "reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly."
Again, so who in your mind is telling Susan Rice to lie? Why are the intelligence agencies telling Susan Rice to lie? I really find this to be bizarre.
-
The woman gets the briefing from intelligence community, then goes out and relates it almost word for word to the public.
Honestly, Steve, no one even follows why there would even be an incentive to lie. The right's fixation on this is all based on a false premise anyway - that the Obama administration refused to call this terrorism because they wanted to keep a clean sheet, or something. It's nuts.
If the intelligence community knew this was a terrorist attack on day one they would have said so. But that's not what the intelligence had determined until later. There is no scandal here, buddy. Nobody is lying to maintain the narrative Republicans made up in the first place. Unless you think Obama drops bombs from drones twice a week because the believe they've completely vanquished extremist element in the Muslim world, it doesn't really make much sense. Sorry.
-
So tell me: who, in your version of this conspiracy, altered the intelligence? Who is stepping in between the intelligence community and Susan Rice and saying, "Look, we know this was terrorist - but say it's not for political purposes."
Who is doing that? And what evidence do you have that this is what happened? All the evidence we have points to a much simpler answer. You just don't want to hear it.
But really, walk me through who is telling Susan Rice to lie. This should be good.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login