Did you by chance notice this little nugget of horror in that cited article?
The movie, produced with the sole intent of presenting Islam as a “hateful religion”, was funded by Jewish donors? What in the HELL are these people thinking? What kind of shit-for-brains moron deliberately tries to provoke religious hatred?
No. Rice blamed extremists for the attack and she blamed the movie for the protests.
Those are her exact words which I posted. You keep posting your abstract translation which requires that two separate entities become one and the same.
A protestor and a violent murderous extremist is not the same.
If I protest the war peacefully but some whacko throws a Molotov Cocktail at a police car, am I somehow to be ‘blamed’?
Rice was accused of presenting contradictions to what the CIA knew about Islamic extremists that carried out the attack. Do you agree with that one?
Seems to me you have torpedoed your own post here, bud. Is Obama in a position at the time of this interview to make such a claim about the motivations of the attackers? Of course not. He was asked a generic question about the attack and brought up the video out of the wild blue. The video had nothing to do with the attack. He had no evidence that it did. It was planned as anyone with a calendar could tell you. The attackers didn’t use it as an “excuse”. They didn’t need such an excuse. Are they excused because there happened to be protests about a video around the same time?
Of course, that was shown to be not true later.
Of course, Obama answered your Romney-esque question about using an excuse.
Obama did not say it was an excuse for violence. He said the ‘terrorists’ used it as an excuse for violence.
And when you asked “Are [The terrorists] excused because there happened to be protests about a video around the same time”, do you want to take that ridiculous question back or do you believe the President of the United States would possibly ever tell anybody that the ‘terrorist’ acts that ‘killed’ four Americans in Benghazi should be ‘excused’ because of an anti-Islam video that angered so much of the Muslim world right before the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on US Soil.
So you can finagle language all the want, twist it and turn it to suit the right wing anti-Obama agenda, bit the fact is that Obama, Rice and the CIA that authored and revised the Talking Points on September 14, 2012 four days prior to the Letterman interview, blamed the movie for the protests, but also blamed the violence and the murder and the attack on the attackers which Rice referred to as Extremists, according to the CIA talking points. Obama of course called them terrorists on the Show.
The movie was NOT an excuse for murder, therefore Obama too ‘blamed’ the attacks on the “TERRORISTST” that used the movie as an excuse (according to CIA Talking points until they revised it, to hijack a protest in Banghazi that the CIA also considered to have taken place just like in all the other areas of the inflamed Muslim World.
Obama did not ‘blame the movie’ either. He blamed terrorists.
I wonder if someone could explain why it is so important what the UN Ambassador said on the Sunday talk shows days after the attack. Did her comments alter the course of history in any way? Did they result in any deaths? Was she in charge of any relevant policy?
On a related note, after a terrorist attack, the president is expected to sprint to a microphone and utter the word “terrorism”. Why? And what is the acceptable time for such a sprint? 10 seconds? A minute? And what tangible good does uttering the word “terrorism” achieve? May the word “terrorist” be substituted?
They joined the protests, but not for the same reasons as the original protesters.
Who said they had different reasons? I already quoted, in response to your earlier post, where Rice said they “joined in that effort”.
If you were protesting anti-SSM laws, and I said I was going to come and “join in your effort”, would you not think I was coming to help you protest anti-SSM laws? If not, what would you think I was coming to do?
And, of course, there were no protestors. There were not two separate groups at all, just one group of attackers. Whatever their motivation was, they all had the same motivation.
Yep, that is certainly a tempest in a teapot. But it has nothing to do with the thesis the OP is pushing. What do you think of his thesis-- that Rice never blamed the attack on folks who were motivated to protest the video? Let’s say that is true (which it isn’t, but just for the sake of argument). That seems like a little soft breeze in a teapot.
Another glimpse into your Mirror Universe. Do you also sport a Bad-Spock beard?
Here’s a start for you. Plenty more where that came from.
Anyway: Most of the lies relating to Benghazi can be found in the “leaked” e-mails that we now know to have been fabricated by Republican functionaries trying to help Issa avoid embarrassment. That’s enough to cause this whole silly RO to fade away, after further discrediting them, which is what is now happening. The realization that they’ve only been hurting themselves is dawning on them.
It’s already been explained that that was a whoosh, but do you even read your own cites:
That’s the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph.
But just so you get the “whoosh”, the OP is claiming Rice never said something. Actually, she did say it, so there isn’t any need to rely on the idea that she strongly implied it (whcih is what your cite says of Bush).
Now, go comb your hair. That wind messed it up something awful!
I thought that part was clear enough to go without saying: The extremists’ reason was that they wanted to blow up Americans.
Why can’t “extremists” have the same motivation as non-extremists. They didn’t want to blow up Americans for the heck of it. They wanted to blow up Americans for a reason. Why couldn’t it have been the video?
And why did you not respond to the more significant part of my post? She did say they had the same motivation.
You seem not to understand the concept of whooshing. So here it is, just for you: Whoosh.
The quotes in the OP don’t lead me to the conclusion that Rice said that it was definitely a reaction to the video. She thought it to be the likely case and discounted the notion that it was a planned attack. So she was wrong. BFD. What is the big ass deal anyway?
You’ll have to ask the OP. He’s the one who started this thread.
Cite, please. I very much want to believe that. Trouble with things I want to believe, sometimes it just ain’t so.
I didn’t realize my question was “Romneyesque”. I had no idea Mitt Romney’s rhetorical skills influenced my posting such that a keen observer such as yourself would instantly recognize my aping of his style.
I didn’t say Obama said that it was an excuse for violence. I said that he said the “extremists and terrorists” used it as an excuse. Your quoting of Obama here is a non sequiter.
It was meant to be a ridiculous question, to be taken seriously only by the similarly ridiculous.
That you and your fellow Maddowites fell for and defend the subterfuge of the Obama administration says a lot about the strength of partisanship among social democrats, but nothing more. The point is when asked a direct question about the attacks, Obama and others brought the video up out of thin air. They might as well have brought up the price of tea in China. When asked about the Boston bombing should officials also include who happened to win the marathon because it was happening around the same time?
I don’t give two shits what the warmongers Rice and Obama labelled the mililtants. They brought this on by intervening in Libya in the first place.
Would the attack have taken place if there was no movie? Yes. Would a normal person watching Letterman have gotten that by listening to Obama’s gobbledy-gook? No. Is Obama capable of speaking without gobbledy-gook? Yes. Was it better for his electoral chances for him to opt to speak in gobbledy-gook at the time? Yes.
When asked about the attack the first thing that should have came out of his mouth was “Militants planned an attack for the anniversary of 9/11”. The first thing out of his mouth was about the movie, and cowardly denouncing the “filmmaker” Soviet style.
It’s “thin air” to cite the reason given by, oh, the people actually did the attacking?
Cite? There’s no evidence that the attack had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11. If there hadn’t been other uprisings in the region, I don’t think Ansar al-Sharia would have attacked the consulate. If the members of Ansar al-Sharia had been regular people (like the protesters in Cairo and elsewhere) and not an armed militia, I think there would have been a protest instead of an attack. It was just bad luck for the Americans there that the people who chose to protest that day happened to have RPGs and shit.
Were you actually a *supporter *of Khadafy and his regime? :rolleyes: Or is this what it sadly appears to be, simple adamant opposition to anything Obama says or does?