My take-away is that some members may have participated as independent actors, but the group was not officially in charge of or participating in the attack. Or so they want us to think.
This is not a group where you get issued a membership card anyway.
I agree. Seems hard to think of that as a premeditated attack though, if the leadership didn’t even organize it. Sounds almost… spontaneous.
John Mace needs to explain how protesters and attackers are the same. And then, had there actually been protesters at the Consulate as the CIA first determined, does that make them all attackers or does it make them all protesters.
The distinction is due to action not thought.
Protest is an act that does not produce death or injury.
Attacking with intent to kill, harm, destroy etc is an act.
Which of the two acts or actions should be blamed for the deaths?
Protesters’ actions or attackers’ actions?
Rice was explicit. She blamed the extremists that came with heavy weapons to join the protest or hijack it as Rice said.
Now if John Mace is on a plain that has been joined by hijackers we must assume that his logic takes us to where he and his hijackers become one and the same.
If I am wrong - Show me where Susan Rice blamed protesters for the heavy weapons armed attack on the Consulate at Benghazi carried out by extremists she said that joined/hijacked the gathering of protesters that the CIA gave out talking points for Rice to relay to the public.
If John Mace had his way the Boston Marathon Bomber’s joined the festivities so the ‘crowd’ and the ‘attackers’ become one tight group - both came to watch the runners.
The police called. Your Freshman Composition teacher is on a ledge, threatening to jump…
The Big ASS Deal is what Romney did on the night of the attack when he played on the long time Right Winger narrative on Obama as an appeaser, as a Muslim Sympathizer, as a Muslim himself, as a ‘blame America’ America hater, as Apologizer in Chief, went “THE MOVIE” — We saw Romney go the Muslim Sympathizer route when he said that Obama sympathized more with the ‘attackers’ those who were attacked.
I probably heard three comments today on Rightwinger radio and I only listened 45 mins tops.
That is the Big Deal… and John Mace gives credence to those narratives… and the lie that Susan Rice blamed the movie or blamed the protesters.
She did not do it.
I hate to see the truth of her statement distorted so far out of its context and the reasons she said what she said.
And this is just as important She said what she said because the CIA told her in writing that the ‘crowd had gathered’ and then EXTREMISTS came with heavy weapons to attack our Consulate. She blamed the EXTREMISTS.
If you don’t think it matters that is fine… But to put words and meaning in her mouth is downright a horrible thing to do to anybody.
I guess she deserves the right wing verbal beating she took - for doing nothing and saying nothing wrong.
What is you view on that? Did she deserve.
Have you found the elusive right winger held videotape of Rice Saying that she 'blamed the movie or the protesters for the attacks in Benghazi.
I see her blaming the ‘extremists’ on all those talking points.
What do you have?
If I have a grammar problem, it would be kind of you to point exactly where.
John Mace has been looking for a couple days now where Rice ‘blamed the movie’.
You two should hook up… google together.
No, I’ve just stopped responding to your posts. I showed you exactly where she said it-- it was quoted by you in your OP.
But keep making those Republicans look good by comparison. You’re doing an excellent job. Better every day!
Except our guys think they (or some group that falls under that umbrella) did plan the attack. Whether it was 1 day, 1 week or 1 month, I have no idea. We may never know. But it was not a spontaneous protest as what happened in Cairo. It was an attack on the consulate and the CIA annex. There was no “protest”.
Sure, and the Republican scandal-mongers have done a great job of creating a false dichotomy – it was either a spontaneous protest or a planned attack. Between those two options, planned attack is the only correct choice, but to me, spontaneous attack seems the most fitting, Leon Panetta’s choice of words notwithstanding. And spontaneous attack motivated by the video is what I think is most likely.
But you’re right, we’ll likely never know. I’m just sick of people declaring things like “We now know that the video had nothing to do with it,” when I don’t think we know that.
And I think this horse is pretty well beat.
For what it’s worth, nearest I can tell, NotFooledByW’s entire argument here is a semantic one. The Republican talking point in the hours and days after the attack is that Obama was apologizing to the Muslim community on behalf of Americans, and people in the administration were blaming the video in a victim-blaming sort of way. Our clever OP here is simply pointing out that there’s a semantic difference between blaming the video, and blaming the extremists/terrorists/militiamen who were motivated by the video. It seems a silly argument to me, since I thought the scandal moved way past this months ago, but I haven’t been following it that closely.
Adaher says it is a FACT that Rice didn’t blame the movie. If Adaher can get it right why can’t you?
It is not a thesis John Mace. It is citing the exact words that Rice spoke on the Sunday talk shows.
Now I will await for your cite of Susan Rice where she blames the video for the attack when we all know that she blames the attackers for the attack which is a no-brainer.
See post 57. That’s the only response you are going to get from me in this thread.
If you cannot reply to my posts, you should have the decency to stop declaring that I have made a false claim.
If I have made a false claim, you need to post my true claim from my OP and then post the words from Susan Rice where she blames the protest or the movie for the actual attack.
Any third grade reader or full grown Republican can read what Susan Rice said, and know that she did not ‘blame the movie’ or come close to it.
Since You can’t find anything.. Here I will help. I quoted Susan Rice using the word “join” in my OP. She did not blame the movie.
On All five shows, John Mace, it is clear Susan Rice ‘blamed’ the ‘extremists’ for the attack.
Why would you keep this ‘blame the movie’ Republican myth going John Mace?
I’d bet millions of Republicans love it when the general public takes their myths as true and real.
And I know you are not able to find Rice’s ‘blame the movie’ cite, but why do you start another bit of make-believe when you can’t find a cite for the original one.
Here it your post 57. I was hoping you could point to a cite where Susan Rice ‘blame the movie’ for the attack. Nothing here:
I can’t be the one who is “impervious to facts” when I am the one that has cited what Susan Rice said, and you cite translations, iterations, implications, and pure language butchery.
Duly noted. You can’t find a quote to back up you claims where Rice says what you say she says. And you cannot deny that the quotes/excerpts from Rice that I provided are not true.
Shit, John, somebody has to! Way things been going, they look like a life size statue of Cthulu carved out of sewer sludge.
Drop it.
You are back to the same sort of behavior that attracted Mod attention a few months ago.
You have oddly interpreted what John Mace posted in order to pick a fight with him and now you are erroneously accusing him of making false statements about you. You are also beating what had been a horse, at one time, but is now so dead that its bones have rotted away.
If anyone else wants to continue to discuss this nonsense with you, they may do so. You will, however, stop badgering a poster who has explained his position only to have you assert that the words you posted have meanings different than their common English meanings.
[ /Moderating ]
If it is nonsense, could you provide some text where Rice blamed anything but the extremist attackers on the attack.
And if you wore this out several months ago.. you did not have the benefit of the CIA talking points that Susan Rice used. I’d say that is a fair point also.
And what words have I posted and demand different than common meanings.
You have drawn a conclusion so I’d appreciate if you could point out which words those allegedly are. That is a fair question isn’t it?
I am quite pleased that you agree with my OP in that you agree that it is a FACT that Susan Rice did not blame the demonstration or the movie for the attack itself, but I think we should discuss your point that a message was intentionally sent when she blamed ‘Extremists’ and not "Protesters’.
That is because if any message was sent by Susan Rice or the Obama Administration by mentioning the FACT that there was a crowd gathered to protest the video similar to Cairo, is that
WE DO KNOW NOW THAT IT WAS THE CIA THAT ORIGINALLY WROTE THAT THEY THOUGHT A CROWD HAD GATHERED FIRST AT THE CONSOLATE.- it was not the White House or State Department who brought “DEMONSTRATIONS” and "CROWDS’ into the talking points by abusing power to win re-election by misleading the public into believing that the Obama’s policies in the Muslim world were going sweet and wonderful all along - but a sicko Coptic Christian in California ruined the whole thing.
That Republican lie is being repeated thousands of times a day right now on right wing punditry.
That is why this is relavent.. and I’d like to see your basis for your claim that Rice sent some ‘kind of INTENTIONAL message’… when she spoke.
I was not in favor of the US getting involved in Libya, but that’s a very weak argument. Your link doesn’t work for me, but from this one, which seems to be the same story:
NFBW: Just to be clear, adher “agrees with your OP” in the same way that you “agree” Bush never said Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.