Well, it is getting very tiresome to keep hearing such stupid arguments from people who should know better. As wise woman once said “what difference does it make” and no one has yet come up with an answer. This debate would be like arguing whether Obama called Sandy a “hurricane” or a “tropical storm.” Completely misses all the important questions of the event.
Amen to that. Who gives a flying fuck what the UN Ambassador said on the Sunday talk shows days after the attack? In retrospect, she shouldn’t have addressed it. But if you can ignore the multiple attacks on consulates and embassies under the Bush administration with multiple casualties and if you can ignore Republican cuts to State Department funding that contributed to the lack of security and if you ONLY focus on what the UN Ambassador said or if you think that a fighter jet could have quelled a riot or if a couple more miltary guys with handguns would have made a difference than maybe you can get your panties in a twist about it.
How do you deal with what happened in Benghazi if the Administration lies about what happened in Benghazi?
Yanno, just *let *'em keep hammering on this thing, OK? It only detracts from the ability of the GOP Sane Caucus to regain control and demonstrate it. The more you hear Benghazi mentioned over the next few years, the stronger the mandate of the upcoming Dem-controlled Congress and the next Clinton Administration will be.
Because one resulted in the death of humans in the real world and the other serves absolutely no purpose outside of scoring imaginary political point. I can tell which is more important to you, which tells me tons about your priorities.
And then you can start to work on this list, Terr. Show us your outrage.
Great.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/
Susan Rice on ABC’s “This Week”: “Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.”
Susan Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”: “So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.”
Susan Rice on “Fox News Sunday”: “Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then.”
Happy?
Was that after she lied about it being “spontaneous demonstrations” or before?
My little gotcha about the people throwing the biggest fit over this “scandal” being intimately involved in ensuring that the State department had fewer resources to protect the people who wound up dead?
By all means, talk about the lies, it’s the Republican way. Words are more important than people.
Per the link, she said, at the same time as she cautioned that they would not know for sure until the investigation was complete, that current assessment indicated it may have been spontaneous. A lie implies she knew it was untrue- I see no reason to conclude that Susan Rice knew the sum total of every piece of information known by the administration and intelligence agencies.
Here’s a scenario that’s far, far more plausible than “she lied”:
She was given a rushed brief by some White House intelligence staffer. This rushed brief probably didn’t include all the information known by every source- there just wasn’t enough time and it wasn’t really that important- what was important was the investigation, and making sure everyone still alive was safe. And especially considering that she cautioned that the investigation was ongoing, and they shouldn’t jump to conclusions, it’s just the most obvious political theater to go after what was, at worst, a premature and incorrect guess that did no harm to anyone.
So the administration is guilty of putting out incorrect information prematurely, while in the same statement qualifying that this information might be premature and no conclusions can be made. Oohhh, so bad!
So to answer this question (and ignore the “lie” part)- she made these pleas of caution at the same time that she indicated the “current assessment” of a spontaneous demonstration.
A thug says, “I’m gonna beat up Larry, Ted and Terr.” Larry and Ted are beat up several months apart. We find you beat into a coma.
Are you under the impression that you can just assume the Thug beat you up? We shouldn’t even look for evidence before saying that?
You’re not a stupid person, but your ideology makes you leap to stupid conclusions.
So, as it turns out, CBS’ source for this story had previously talked to Fox News.
They refused to deal with him because he wanted them to pay him.
adaher, don’t you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
It was either before or after Mr. Rice beat his wife.
Holy crap, Terr. Suppose you go to the doctor and he looks down your throat and he says “Gee, looks like it could be strep. We’ll have to take a culture to be sure.” Then the culture comes back negative and you just have a virus, not strep. Do you spend THE REST OF YOUR LIFE whining about it, insisting “That dirty doctor lied to me about having strep!”?
What’s the doctor’s political affiliation?
Only if the doctor is a Democrat, because that’s the important part.
I would watch Der Trihs’ version. 
To make the analogy better, the same day we found Terr beat up, there were several other people in various locations found with similar injuries, and it is known that Thug had no part in their attacks.
If they can’t follow basic logic, they’re not gonna be able to follow analogies.