Then you still need to explain FIRST why everyont think Susan Rice ‘blame the move’ or blamed the protest. She clearly blamed the Extremists that brought heavy weapons.
And then you need to explain SECOND why the CIA clearly and unequivocally was quite certain enough to produce Talking Points for the House of Representatives and in those talking points the CIA declared there was a protest, a crowd gathered and it was spontaneous because of the events in Cairo.
Here is the first talking point draft sent to the White House on September 14 at around 5 PM.
You made a claim that it was known on day one yet you provide a link Reuters that is dated about DAY 45… what is up with that?
And you link is flawed when it mentions “an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack”
See the Talking Points - the real ones, not the Republican ones.
The CIA mentioned an email that a group claimed credit for the attack but the CIA on Day 4 had contact with that groups leadership and they denied responsibility … but said some of its members could have participated.
So that email was a fraud.
You should not rely on news reports and hearsay…
Did Susan Rice blame the Video or did she blame ‘extremists’?
Don’t feel bad I’ve been asking this question over six months.. Very few want to answer it for some reason.
Further reading of the Reuters link reveals that the report explains it all. And the Admin explanation is valid is has been verified by the release of the emails;
Why are people saying that they know somehow that the CIA was not mixed in the immediate aftermath of the attack.?
This is a full month after the attacks on 9/11/12, and you’ve got posters on the SDMB who still didn’t know that the attacks weren’t just a riot and were rather a planned and coordinated assault. This is after it had been widely reported and was known by the media and anyone paying attention.
This speaks volumes about the administrations ability to craft a narrative that people buy into without questioning.
How is it possible, that despite it being reported in every newspaper in the country that Miller and others had no idea what the attack was about?
NFBW: I’m not going to respond to your wall of text. The facts are very simple. The riot, per Rice, started because of the video. After that, it was “taken over” by extremists who had not planned to do so in advance. No video, no riot. No riot, nothing for the extremists to take over. Q.E.D.
The militia group responsible for the attack issued a statement stating that they were motivated by the video:
[QUOTE=Ansar al-Shariah]
Ansar al-Shariah Brigade didn’t participate in this popular uprising as a separate entity, but it was carrying out its duties in al-Jala’a hospital and other places where it was entrusted with some duties. The Brigade didn’t participate as a sole entity; rather, it was a spontaneous popular uprising in response to what happened by the West.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know why people can’t accept that this was motivated by the video. This was a militia group, tasked with providing regional security in the wake of the Gaddafi regime, which was anti-American and pro-sharia law. It’s true that there wasn’t a civilian protest in Benghazi like there was in other cities, but the attack itself was motivated by anger over the video and a general hatred of a continuing American presence in their city.
I think the movie was more of an excuse than a motivation-the militia group was going to attack, movie or no movie, but this gave them something to blame other than themselves.
Well I’d agree with that to an extent – it was a spark that set off a bunch of lingering hatred and gave them something to rally around.
Similarly, I’m guessing all of the Cairo protesters weren’t too keen on America prior to the video. It’s not like all of that anger came out of nowhere.
It also gives the sense that this was supported by the Libyan people, in general, as opposed to that particular militia or extremist or whatever you want to call them. However, I’m not taking any message from them at face value. The Benghazi “affair” was a botched CIA operation, and it appears that the militants knew what they were attacking and that’s why they attacked-- not because of some stupid video.
Cite? They attacked the consulate, which is a very obvious US building of little strategic value. They attacked it haphazardly and set it on fire as opposed to looting it for intelligence or equipment. They didn’t attack the CIA annex until several hours later, and they failed to breach it. If their goal was to attack the CIA operation, they sure did have a funny way of doing it.
This WSJ article is a good read on the subject. It does say that it’s unclear if the militants knew about the CIA, so perhaps I was a bit more emphatic about than I should have been. However, the “Consulate” appears to have been little more than a CIA cover, which tells me we will probably never know the real story, since we all know the first rule about CIA operations.
There’s certainly plenty of room for speculation about why the attack took place, but “the video” doesn’t pass the smell test, IMO. Perhaps that’s a debate for another thread, though, since the OP only wants to talk about whether Rice blamed the attack on the video, which she clearly did. There can be no debate about that. Why someone would want to bring that up is beyond me. Unless the OP is trying to make the Republicans look good…
Maybe its that I don’t have the proper Right wing mud tinted glasses but I’m still stuck with the question of WHO CARES?
In order for there to be spin or a cover-up there has to be something that was spun or covered up The facts are the a group of heavily armed extremists managed to kill four Americans in Libya including a high ranking member of the state department. Whether this tragedy could have been avoided is worthy of investigation. However whether the extremists were opportunists taking advantage of a spontaneous demonstration or was instead a well planned attack that happened to coincide with protests of the video in Cairo seems totally irrelevant.
Can someone please explain to me why I am supposed to view the situation in a better light if it was part of a spontaneous? I think if anything I feel better about the security of our embassies knowing that they were overcome by a planned attack rather than something that was put together on the fly.
That is faulty logic at best. Had there been no video protest in Cairo there would have been no fog of war confusion by the CIA at Benghazi. And then Romney would not have embarrassed himself by accusing the President of sympathizing with the attackers who were mad about the movie.
The attack in Benghazi would have been a straightforward attack aimed at the 9/11 anniversary.
Then Romney and the right would have had to find another way to politically exploit the deaths of four Americans serving on dangerous foreign soil.
But you do admit that you do understand that whether or not a crowd gathered prior to the attack it was extremists that committed the attack - not just a mob that was mad about the video that managed to overtake the Consolate as Rice was told by the CIA that was their assessment at the time.
So your complaints must go against the CIA and not against Obama or Hillary or Susan Rice if you you still must muddle language and claim that anybody involved actually blamed the movie.
I don’t have any complaints except about your misrepresentation of the facts in your OP. Rice said the riots were caused by reaction to the video. That is a fact. And nothing in your post here even addresses that. Bitch about the Republicans all you want, but the thesis in your OP is not only wrong, it’s WTF wrong. This isn’t an issue anyone, other than you, seems to be pushing.
As noted in the factcheck link upthread:
If you want to argue that it was a reasonable assumption to make, that is one thing. But you’re pretending it never happened. Why you want to pretend that, I can’t imagine. Unless, like I said, you are trying to make the Republicans look reasonable by comparison. On that, you’re doing a pretty good job!
All reporting I have read does not indicate general hatred against Americans. We took part in the coalition that saved a few thousand Benghazi residents from genicide by Gadhaffi’s armored units heading to exterminate the rats, as I believe Gadhaffi put it.
This attack was the work of a relatively few extremists and most likely from outsiders.
Do you recall the news immediately following the attack that Benghazi residents rose up against a nearby extremist militia complex and drove them away for good.
The people of Benghazi loved Amb Stevens and America for their liberation.
If what you said is true - I’d like to see the reports.
Well, if you think it’s worthwhile figuring out how this tragedy could have been avoided, don’t you think we need to know how it happened? Whether it was Spontaneous Protesters Gone Wild or a planned attack by Anti-Western Militants.