Rice blamed "extremists w/ heavy weapons" not protesters, crowds or movie.

The right wing propaganda machine took early control of the narrative about the attacks and response by the White House - and they certainly distorted it drastically to get the theme they wanted… BLAME THE MOVIE.

Trouble is:

Amb Susan Rice as you can see did not ‘blame the movie’ or ‘blame a crowd’ or ‘blame a protest’ for the attacks on Benghazi. On every show she went on she blamed "extremists’. She very clearly stated with the best information we have at the time we ‘BLAME’:

(a) “individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons”

(b) “extremist elements, individuals, joined in that – in that effort with heavy weapons”

(c) “opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons”

(d) “and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons”

GREGORY: Well, let’s talk – talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. 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 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. And the president has been very clear–we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice. [MSNBC, Meet the Press, 9/16/12]

WALLACE: Let’s talk about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi this week that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The top Libyan official says that the attack on Tuesday was, quote, his words “preplanned”. Al Qaeda says the operation was revenge for our killing a top Al Qaeda leader.

What do we know?

RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment. [Fox News, Fox News Sunday, 9/16/12]

Source of all four Transcripts:

Here is the fifth show:

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good spin

What facts do you have. I notice you are not being specific and not even close.

I have posted the transcripts… Do your facts come from different shows that Susan Rice appeared on?

Where did Rice blame the movie for the attack?

It is not in the transcripts yet so many keep saying it is.

Well where is it?

He’s agreeing with you, W.

And Bush never said Iraq was behind 9/11.

This isn’t hard. Rice is referring to extremists who hijacked a demonstration, which was about a movie. The fact that she didn’t blame the demonstration, or the movie doesn’t change the message that was intentionally sent here. Especially since she referred to the “hateful video” which she never saw.

That’s it? That’s all you got? In the midst of a buttload of Muslim people demonstrating all over the world about this video, they assumed that this might be the provocation? Seems to me a perfectly reasonable assumption until contradictory facts come in.

Until now, if I had demanded that you to tell me the salient distinctions between a “terror attack” or a “terrorist attack”, you most likely would blink at me and sidle away from the Crazy Guy!

And what does “she never saw” imply that it cannot say? Neither did the people demonstrating about it, damn sure betcha they never saw it, they would behead anyone who tried to show it to them! Clearly, this carries an insinuation. Which is what, perzackly? What are you trying to suggest without the slightest hope of proving?

She didn’t need to call the video hateful. By using that language, she made it seem as if that was the cause of the attack.

She also protrayed it as opportunistic extremists taking advantage of the demonstrations about the video. What was known to our government at the time was that it was a terrorist attack, and we even knew who did it.

“At the time”. Concurrent with the attack, we knew all of this stuff? Or would you like to clarify that some?

Why are we still arguing over whether it was a planned attack the administration should have known about, or whether it was spontaneous or any of that?

All the questions being asked in an attempt to scandalize this can be answered with three letters: CIA.

The entire Benghazi consulate was CIA cover for an operation moving weapons out of Lybia, and it happened to be convenient to send them to Syrian rebels, killing two birds with one stone. Ambassador Stevens may have even been involved. (Getting heavy weapons out of a country like Lybia is a good idea, so I’m not knocking him.) The article indicates he turned down previous security increases possibly to keep the operation’s profile low.

The attack was not a terror attack, but a rebel military strike that happened because the local rebels saw weak security and pounced. Why? Because they thought some of their compatriots were being held captive by the CIA. They attacked the consulate, then when the CIA “annex” operatives came to help, the rebel fighters followed them back to the CIA base.

All in all, no administration would want to deal with this kind of classified botch job. The Republicans are barking up the wrong tree, but they don’t want to bark up the right one anyway.

I remember that when the attack on Benghazi happened, within hours of the attack on the Egyptian consulate, quite a few people here thought Benghazi and the YouTube video were connected.

I didn’t think the people who thought that were idiots and the fact that they weren’t strikes me as one of the strangest coincidences of my lifetime.

I am not sure what the OP is trying to disprove/rebut.

But it was known, from minute 1, that there was no protest at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Any mention of a “demonstration” or a “gathering” or a “mob” or a “copycat . . . of Cairo” is fiction. And it was known to be fiction at the time.

Keep in mind, there were real-time audio links between Benghazi and Tripoli, and Tripoli and Washington. There was email. There surely was some fog of war, but there were no particular mysteries. Heck, the US even knew the perpetrators in real time:


Nor is there any suggestion of a counter-story, other than one put out as PR. There were seventeen security cameras at the Benghazi compound, and yet there is not one video snippet, or still shot, of anything resembling a protest. We appear to have the last communications out of Benghazi from Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. Neither mentioned a protest. There are dozens of Americans who were in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 with some knowledge of the events (albeit most of them, it seems, at the Annex and not the mission). None of them have mentioned a protest.

To the contrary, the notable images in the security videos are of “a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”


It certainly is possible that some attackers were motivated by the video; I have my opinions, but who am I to say what was in someone elses head? What is not possible is that Benghazi was anything at all like Cairo, or that any informed person thought that it was. Other than the the date and the presence of US State Department personel and facilities, there were no similarities at all.

For what it is worth, I expressly include the 9/14/12 4:42 iteration of the “talking points” promulgated by the CIA. To me, that is where the mystery starts.

Certainly the Cairo and Benghazi events would appear to be linked to anyone who was not actively tracking the Innocence of Muslims flashpoints in the region.

And certainly the date was one that would attact anyone who was interested in making a symbolic swipe at US interests.

But still, not necessarily a coincidence.

On September 10, the nominal head of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called for attacks on US interests in Libya to avenge the death of al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al Libi.

The Cairo protest on September 11 were led by Ayman al-Zawahiri’s brother, Muhammad al-Zawahiri.


What? That phrase, “Innocence of Muslims flashpoints”. As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I haven’t the slightest idea what you are saying here. No snark, no argument, utter confusion.

That’s the name of the youtube video.

Innocence of Muslims was the name of the “hateful video” and the “flash points” were locals where actual protests of that video happened.

Ah! Resolved.

I think it would at least as interesting to understand where it didn’t happen as it where it did. But that may be irrelevant. Nonetheless, seems to me rather odd that any group that feeds on anti-American hatred would not seize upon such an opportunity. Why? Some delicacy of feeling, some scruple about not blaming Americans in general for the actions of some goon? Seems unlikely. Possible, of course, because I have no real clear idea of what goes through these people’s “minds”.

So, where do we get knowledgeable testimony?

Looks to me like the OP is trying to distort the narrative at least as poorly, if not more, than what the Republicans are doing.

Rice didn’t “blame” the video? The why bring it up at all? Did she say that there were people intent on attacking the consulate independent of the alleged original protest?

The OP should read his own quotes:

So, the attack was not pre-planned (which it actually was), but was “sparked” by the video (which it actually wasn’t).

I say Pffft. The GOP is, indeed, barking up the wrong tree here, but the OP is simply false. Rice blamed the video on the protest, which supposedly got out of hand.

Once again we have a situation where the GOP is wrong, but not every criticism of them is, as a consequence, correct. For instance, this OP.

Rice 'brought it up because she was told in the talking points provided by the CIA which are clear now that it was the CIA that believe there was a spontaneous protest similar to the events in Cairo, however the attack in Benghazi was overtaken by Extremists who brought heavy weapons.
The point I am making and it is a very simple point - Rice DID NOT BLAME THE VIDEO - SHE CLEARLY BLAMED EXTREMISTS that came to the protest with heavy weapons.

The talking points given by the CIA did not believe it was ‘pre-planned’ or they didn’t know.

I will go with the facts as presented by the transcriipts of the Talking Points that Susan Rice repeated nearly verbatim.

The lie is that Rice, or Obama or Hillary Clinton forced the CIA to mention spontaneous Demonstrations and protest and crowd gathering talking points into the talking points. That is the right wing myth.

Let me know after reading the original CIA version sent to the White House on September 14 finally written at 04;42 PM and sent to the White House about half an hour later.

The point is that Rice did not blame the video. That is because she did not blame the video. She brought up the video because the CIA said it was relevant but the my point is not a distortion of the facts. You are distorting the facts if you cannot admit that Rice blamed ‘Extremists’ that came with heavy weapons.

She was also told that there was a FBI investigation and that she could not get much into the identity of the extremists. They did not want to compromise the investigation.

So you can let me know if it is your desire to compromise the FBI investigation because mostly Republicans and now can’t deal with the reality that Rice blamed ‘extremists’.

She Blamed extremists not the movie or the protest.

She blamed extremists.

Can you tell me that the transcripts I cited that Susan Rice did not ‘blame the extremists’.

The protest (CIA thought at the time) did not commit the attack. It was extremists who brought heavy weapons and may have planned it or may have just jumped on the opportunity… CIA did not know that when Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows.
So, straight answer. From the transcripts… Did Rice ‘blame the video’ or did she blame ‘extremists’. And if you say video… tell me why and how you make that interpretation.

I am waiting for that explanation from Xema.

Don’t know if I’ll get it.