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

[adaher]

The inference she made was that the movie was the root cause. Video causes mob which is hijacked by extremists with heavy weapons.

And let me just say that I don’t like how heated we get with some of these debates, given that politicians intentionally try to obscure what they really mean. Whereas SDMB values precise language in order to clarify, politicians use precise language to obfuscate.

Rice was given talking points scrubbed 12 times, in order to turn a message that was clear and unambiguous into a message that was as politically advantageous as possible to the administration while still enabling the administration to plausibly claim that they didn’t lie.

[John_Mace]

@adaher

The inference she made was that the movie was the root cause. Video causes mob which is hijacked by extremists with heavy weapons.

And let me just say that I don’t like how heated we get with some of these debates, given that politicians intentionally try to obscure what they really mean. Whereas SDMB values precise language in order to clarify, politicians use precise language to obfuscate.

Rice was given talking points scrubbed 12 times, in order to turn a message that was clear and unambiguous into a message that was as politically advantageous as possible to the administration while still enabling the administration to plausibly claim that they didn’t lie.

They may have tried to be imprecise, but if you go back and read my posts number 26 and 42 and my quote for the FactCheck article, it’s clear they did directly blame the video. No need to dance around things here.

[adaher]

I agree, I was just conceding that she did not directly say, “The video caused the attack”. It was inferred rather than said directly.

[NotfooledbyW]

@adaher

I agree, I was just conceding that she did not directly say, “The video caused the attack”. It was inferred rather than said directly.

The OP is precise language about the fallibility of the immediate right wing accusation that Susan Rice ‘blamed the movie’ or protesters for the HEAVY WEAPONS attack itself.

The precise word is ‘blamed’ as in who was legally to blame in the sense that who actually did bring the heavy weapons to what was thought to be a spontaneous crowd or mob or protest or gathering of some sort according to the CIA’s original assessment.

Susan Rice’s use of the phrase ‘extremists that brought heavy weapons’ to be the one’s to blame for killing our Ambassador could not be more accurate and in full compliance with the CIA approved talking points. (It was the CIA original draft of those talking points)

To say precisely that the movie was to blame for the flare up and the gathering of a crowd outside the building where Amb Stevens was located is definitely as accurate as a statement under those circumstances could be, given that was the CIA’s assessment, not hers or Obama’s.

But to state that the ONLY acceptable common language interpretation of what was said by Susan Rice is that she blamed the video for the attack is to stretch language way beyond its common use.

Susan Rice stated that she was informed by the intelligence community that the attack was committed by extremists that brought heavy weapons to a protest.

Anyone who says she said the attacks were committed by protesters mad about a movie is not applying common meanings of words when they do.

[NotfooledbyW]

@adaher

Why are they so adamant about standing by this absurd theory that a movie got Ambassador Stevens killed, and that a coordinated attack with mortars and RPGs was **“spontaneous”? **It seems to me like a sure way to piss away his credibility on national security issues. If it was an al Qaeda attack, does that make him look worse than claiming that a movie did all this? -Post #001 09-18-2012, 09:54 AM

I appreciate that you have now agreed that Susan Rice did not blame the movie for the attack.

We know now that Susan Rice and the Administration were stating what the intelligence agencies were telling them.

Here is the FACT that you did not know back in September.

The CIA is the ORIGINATOR of this assessment in the Talking Points that Susan Rice used to say what she said on the Sunday Talk Shows." the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired.

Do you accept that you were wrong in your criticism last year and that you are wrong today to still be claiming that the words such as “spontaneous” and ‘demonstrations’

What the e-mails say:

Page 15 (4:42 p.m.): CIA sends out a new draft for review before sending to the White House.

ORIGINAL CIA revised draft of TALKING POINTS (9/14/12 04:42 PM):

(See Link to Ibtimes for scroll of 100 originals released by the White House.)

We believe based on currently available information that the demonstrations in Benghazi were **spontaneously inspired by the protests **at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo **and **evolved into a direct assault **against **the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.

**The crowd **almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.

Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but it did not deny that some of its members were involved.

The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks.

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic] previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

We working with Libyan Authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

Page 21 (5:09 p.m.): A version of talking points is sent to the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at 5:09 p.m. This is the second draft of the talking points, when the reference to “attack” was changed to “demonstrations.”

Newly Released Benghazi Emails Reveal Talking Points Timeline [FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT] | IBTimes (see page 14 and 15 on the scroll of 100 email documents}

[John_Mace]

NFBW: Did Bush blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11? Yes or no.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

NFBW: Did Bush blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11? Yes or no.

No. Cheney tried to make a connection with Atta in Praque or some such bs but never really got away with it.
Bush lied to the American People and the Congress when he told us that the way to keep the peace was to authorize force with the reason being the inspectors would get back in for sure that way and we’d have peace.

Bush was lying because he didn’t care if the inspectors went back in. Bush was going to invade anyway as we see how it turned out.

Saddam let the inspectors in but Bush sent in the ground troops.

And now Bush is still lying that Saddam did not let the inspectors in.

You see how those lies work together.

But I was never convinced Bush tried to sell the war on a ‘Saddam did 9/11’ story.

He used the Weapons Inspectors to make his fake pass at letting the UN solve it.

If he pressed the link to 911 and Saddam Hussein, Bush didn’t need the UN mess that Tony Blair sort of forced him into. He could have attacked Iraq whenever he wanted to If Saddam could have been linked to 911

''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). -John Mace #071 20130521a1135

The problem with your argument is still that even if Rice ‘implied’ the demonstration had something to do with it… The intelligence at first was exactly that… Here I cite the specific parts of what the CIA told Rice to say and then Rice said on one of the Sunday Shows.

But look. Rice implied nothing that the protesters went there to fire off heavy weapons at the compound. Nothing.

She mentioned protesters ONLY because that is what the CIA briefer her on what they believed at the time. She also made those qualifiers known. "Best information we have’… that was CIA information not some myth that Obama made up.

ORIGINAL CIA revised draft of TALKING POINTS (9/14/12 04:42 PM):

We believe based on currently available information that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. …

The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.

Newly Released Benghazi Emails Reveal Talking Points Timeline [FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT] | IBTimes (see page 14 and 15 on the scroll of 100 email documents}
Page 21 (5:09 p.m.): A version of talking points is sent to the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at 5:09 p.m. This is the second draft of the talking points, when the reference to “attack” was changed to “demonstrations.”

And here is the Amb to the UN’s repetition of the CIA’s assessment of what happened.

MS. RICE: , 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.

[tomndebb]

NotfooledbyW, I have moved your redundant post from the Zombie thread you revived to this thread. We do not need multiple threads on the same topic when you can address all the same issues in one.

[ /Moderating ]

[NotfooledbyW]

Thanks… Adahar made a statement in the zombie thread that is quite relevant to the discussion we are having today in light of the new information that has been revealed by the release by the White House of the talking point memos.

[adaher]

In regards to Bush and Iraq, the Bush team sold the war as if it was any ordinary policy. What they didn’t realize, or just didn’t care about, is that when you’re dealing with national security issues, you tell the truth. Politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. But now we’re seeing the increasing politicization of national security and it has to stop.

[BigT]

Anyone saying that the quotes say that she claimed that the attacks were caused by the video: read for comprehension. What she said every time was that extremists used protests of the video as cover to perform extremist acts. It’s there in black and white.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in – in the wake of the revolution in Libya are – are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

Note that bolded word there. If the protest was “hijacked” by extremists, then, by definition, they didn’t start the violence over the video. Stop pretending she said “A small number of people came to the consulate with heavy weapons…” She specifically said that the extremists hijacked the protest.

This would be like saying that, if I made a thread about puppies and someone hijacked it with politics, I made a thread about politics. Seriously think about what words mean.

[Ibn_Warraq]

It is quite amusing seeing someone arguing that John Mace and Elucidiator are on the same page politically.

[elucidator]

Not so far, actually, he is an extreme centrist and I am on the conservative wing of the radical left.

[NotfooledbyW]

@BigT

Anyone saying that the quotes say that she claimed that the attacks were caused by the video: read for comprehension. What she said every time was that extremists used protests of the video as cover to perform extremist acts. It’s there in black and white.

Note that bolded word there. If the protest was “hijacked” by extremists, then, by definition, they didn’t start the violence over the video. Stop pretending she said “A small number of people came to the consulate with heavy weapons…” She specifically said that the extremists hijacked the protest.

This would be like saying that, if I made a thread about puppies and someone hijacked it with politics, I made a thread about politics. Seriously think about what words mean.

Thank you for a sane viewing of what Susan Rice actually said. I have already made the point that when I joined in peaceful protest against Bush’s determination to attack the people of Iraq in 2003 it did not make me rewponsible for the behavior of extremists and criminals.

If I am peacefully protesting but some jerk comes along and throws a brick at the White House, I am not responsible for throwing the brick just because I was there for a legitimate protest.

The argument I have seen here is that I would be a brick thrower too.

But in the real world and common English meanings of words, the Brick thrower is ‘blamed’ for throwing the brick and I would hope the authorities would take him down and arrest him.

This A-hole ‘joined’ the protest and ‘hijacked’ it because all the news reports will be about the violence committed by extremists.

In the case of Benghazi, Susan Rice said exactly that. She said there was a crowd, a demonstration a protest, and Extremists brought Heavy Weapons (brick) and joined, and hijacked that protest.

It turned out there was no protest because the CIA got that wrong, but the aholes killers, extremists, that brought heavy weapons are still to blame.

My interpretation of common English words such as ‘joined’ and ‘hijacked’ has been ridiculed here for posting words that have meanings different than their common English meanings.

I appreciate the back up and my faith in renewed that I know how to read and there are others out there who can do the same.

What I write about is called nonsense by some, but to me,

The NONSENSE is that the right has gotten away with this filthy lie and attack on Obama and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton and that they are not laughed off the stage by what we would like to call journalists, and a general public that had half a brain and some intellectual curiosity about such things.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Not so far, actually, he is an extreme centrist and I am on the conservative wing of the radical left.

You keep saying that, and I find it puzzling. Which of my political stances is “centrist”?

• My opposition to the Iraq war from the very beginning?
• My desire to slash the Pentagon’s budget to the bone, and then slash some more?
• My opposition to all drug laws?
• My support of legalized SSM and polygamy?
• My opposition to drone strikes targeting US citizens abroad?
• My position that we should dump Social Security in lieu of private retirement accounts?
• My support for eliminating the 2nd amendment?
• My support for making the 1st amendment really and truly a “wall of separation” between Church and State (no “in God we trust”, no Congressional Chaplains, etc).
• My support for eliminating the minimum wage?
• My support for allowing private businesses to discriminate for any reason they choose?
• My support for the Citizens United decision?

One wonders where you must think the center is…

[NotfooledbyW]

If you roll a dice where “one” is one extreme and “six” is the other extreme you will still get an average of three to four on a lot of rolls.

I am getting a sense of what is going on here.

[NotfooledbyW]

This is a pretty good thread and some decent and interesting discussions.. But you can see that when someone comes along who agrees with me… the thread tends to close down. There’s a pattern to what happens here when certain people get something wrong and their points or facts begin to fail. See how John Mace signed out. Declaring himself right and getting into position to be gone.

@BigT

Anyone saying that the quotes say that she claimed that the attacks were caused by the video: read for comprehension. What she said every time was that extremists used protests of the video as cover to perform extremist acts. It’s there in black and white.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in – in the wake of the revolution in Libya are – are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

Note that bolded word there. If the protest was “hijacked” by extremists, then, by definition, they didn’t start the violence over the video. Stop pretending she said “A small number of people came to the consulate with heavy weapons…” She specifically said that the extremists hijacked the protest.

This would be like saying that, if I made a thread about puppies and someone hijacked it with politics, I made a thread about politics. Seriously think about what words mean.

@NotfooledbyW

Thank you for a sane viewing of what Susan Rice actually said. I have already made the point that when I joined in peaceful protest against Bush’s determination to attack the people of Iraq in 2003 it did not make me responsible for the behavior of extremists and criminals.

If I am peacefully protesting but some jerk comes along and throws a brick at the White House, I am not responsible for throwing the brick just because I was there for a legitimate protest.

The argument I have seen here is that I would be a brick thrower too.

But in the real world and common English meanings of words, the brick thrower is ‘blamed’ for throwing the brick and I would hope the authorities would take him down and arrest him.

This A-hole ‘joined’ the protest and ‘hijacked’ it because all the news reports will be about the violence committed by extremists.

In the case of Benghazi, Susan Rice said exactly that. She said there was a crowd, a demonstration a protest, and extremists brought heavy weapons (brick) and joined, and hijacked that protest.

It turned out there was no protest because the CIA got that wrong, but the aholes killers, extremists, that brought heavy weapons are still to blame.

My interpretation of common English words such as ‘joined’ and ‘hijacked’ has been ridiculed here for posting words that have meanings different than their common English meanings.

I appreciate the back up and my faith in renewed that I know how to read and there are others out there who can do the same.

What I write about is called nonsense by some, but to me, The NONSENSE is that the right has gotten away with this filthy lie and attack on Obama and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton and that they are not laughed off the stage by what we would like to call journalists, and a general public that had half a brain and some intellectual curiosity about such things.

[tomndebb]

@NotfooledbyW

This is a pretty good thread and some decent and interesting discussions.. But you can see that when someone comes along who agrees with me… the thread tends to close down. There’s a pattern to what happens here when certain people get something wrong and their points or facts begin to fail.

In your imagination.

@NotfooledbyW

See how John Mace signed out. Declaring himself right and getting into position to be gone.

That is not what happened.

You have now revived a zombie thread, adding nothing new to the discussion, while attempting to pick a fight with another poster.

This comes pretty close to trolling, in my view.
You might consider backing off from this sort of nonsense.

[ /Moderating ]

[dropzone]

@John_Mace

One wonders where you must think the center is…

I think he was making a joke, John. He’s a wiseass, you know.

[BigT]

@John_Mace

You keep saying that, and I find it puzzling. Which of my political stances is “centrist”?

• My opposition to the Iraq war from the very beginning?
• My desire to slash the Pentagon’s budget to the bone, and then slash some more?
• My opposition to all drug laws?
• My support of legalized SSM and polygamy?
• My opposition to drone strikes targeting US citizens abroad?
• My position that we should dump Social Security in lieu of private retirement accounts?
• My support for eliminating the 2nd amendment?
• My support for making the 1st amendment really and truly a “wall of separation” between Church and State (no “in God we trust”, no Congressional Chaplains, etc).
• My support for eliminating the minimum wage?
• My support for allowing private businesses to discriminate for any reason they choose?
• My support for the Citizens United decision?

One wonders where you must think the center is…

Sounds pretty centrist to me, honestly. You have some liberal and some conservative positions in there. At first you seemed to be leaning left, but then you pulled a switch towards the end.

The only reason I keep you in the conservative column in my mind is because the libertarians seem to have allied themselves with the Republicans for some reason. All the libertarian candidates run with them.