I’m not wrong. Your timeline doesn’t work. She knew, but then she didn’t, but now she knows? That’s what you’re going with?
See the link in my post above. Also, how about you retract your claim about Clinton?
ETA: Oops, I just noticed that’s a blog. I was blinded by the “Weekly Standard” url, which I thought you would be more inclined to believe. But here’s the original Reuters article it links to:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-egypt-usa-protest-idUSBRE88A11N20120912
ETAA: Also note this quote from the Reuters article. I would guess that this contributed to the early confusion:
In Libya, gunmen in Benghazi attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound on Tuesday evening, clashing with Libyan security forces, officials said.
Abdel-Monem Al-Hurr, spokesman for Libya’s Supreme Security Committee, said, “There is a connection between this attack and the protests that have been happening in Cairo.”
Good for you posting the original article. But this is a real problem around here. People cite Newsweek Op-Eds as if they were factual.
You definitely are. I have specifically shown that you are incorrect, and you are unwilling to accept that.
Initially it was thought it was about the videos.
An Al-Queada affiliate claimed responsibility.
After that, they thought the video didn’t have anything to do with it. That’s when the emails you were talking about were sent.
The Al-Queada affiliate retracted their claim of responsibility.
After that, they thought the video had something to do with it again.
Until the investigation was complete.
This is a fact. You not admitting you’re wrong is extremely bad form, IMHO.
The real problem here is people ignoring evidence to hold on to RW media misinformation.
Yeah, fine. So do you now see that the UN speech did not contain an claim that the Benghazi attack was caused by the video? Did you have a different speech in mind?
When did they know the video was unrelated to the attack?
I don’t know off hand, I’d have to look it up. I am responding to your claim that Clinton lied when she wrote an email to the PM of Egypt.
Do you agree that you were wrong about that?
Perhaps “lied” was too strong of a word. But this whole thing about “WE KNEW” on Sept 11/12, that later changed to well, we were going by the intelligence at the time, to the spin now, is way too convenient, IMO.
I guess that’s the best we’ll get from you. But since you seem to be so plugged in to the right wing mindset, let me ask you something else:
Had you ever heard of Benghazi before the Sept 11 attack?
If yes, were you following events there before the attack so closely that you would have noticed it if four or five extra contractors were assigned to its security detail?
If no, do you know anyone other than a Washington insider who was?
If no, then why do the right wingnuts say that Hillary prevented such an assignment, because to assign the extra security to Benghazi would torpedo Obama’s chances in the election?
It’s just so clear that the GOP deliberately wasted eleven hours hoping a tired Hillary would grimace. How can any American not find this crass malice to be very disgusting?
What is the record for longest time Congress has compelled a single-witness to testify in a single day?
I didn’t watch the hearing. How many bathroom breaks did Hillary take? Did the Republicans be sure to snark about them?
Just keep trying, D’Anconia. This Benghazi thing is going to stick one day, I’m sure.
I’m not sure how an attack spurred by a video is supposed to be better PR than an attack spurred by general anti-American hatred, since both imply you lack control. I guess the first one is a little better because you can blame the video maker and shrug your shoulders about those craaazy Muslims. So let’s say she did lie about it, for political gain. People died and Hillary lied! I dunno, is that exciting? Bit of a retreat from the stand down order CT.
I find the corporate crony angle more interesting. I can get on board with this. Start a new tradition of following the money on all past, present, and future wars. Full speed ahead, Republicans.
(Just trying to imagine Bush II being interrogated on national TV for 11 hours about 9/11/2001. What about the warning bulletins? What about his actions on that day? What about tying the invasion of Iraq into 9/11?
Wasn’t he interrogated by the 9/11 commission in private? With no records kept? With Cheney by his side?
Now returning to the subject.)
There’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere.
I think it would have been a wash whether a video was never mentioned by the administration-the right would still have used their deaths for political purposes.
But the NY Times extensive investigations concluded that, yes, there were those involved in the attack that were spurred into action due to the video:
So the attack was made by people with a wide variety of agendas (I’m talking about the consulate attack, not the bullshit GOP attack on Obama and Hillary). No surprise there.
They had it wrong for about a week, and you want their heads. But JEB! is saying we can’t blame his brother for the mess in Iraq, when W had four months of UN inspectors on the ground, telling him that his intelligence was wrong, before he invaded.
By the way, do you have a cite for them saying “WE KNEW” to the American people, as opposed to Chelsea, or an Egyptian? Because here’s what Susan Rice said on the morning of Sept 16, less than five full days after the attack, that got her burned in effigy by McCain and Graham:
[QUOTE=Susan Rice]
Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that** there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed**. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
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.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present.
[/QUOTE]
I added the emphasis to make it easier for you to comprehend that she gave several disclaimers that we didn’t KNOW anything, because the investigation was still being done. You’re welcome.
This stuff has been out there for three years. Obama’s UN speech that you’ve been falsely claiming linked Benghazi to the video has been out there for three years. All you had to do was read it, but instead, you get your information predigested from Fox News or whatever, and they feel free to lie about it (and it is impossible that it’s not a deliberate lie) to their audience, because they know you won’t read the originals. You, who throws a shit fit when anyone else quotes an editorial, and demands the original report.
I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you watch Fox News, and when Hannity or whoever says “Here’s proof that they lied,” and then shows his little montage of Obama or Rice or Hillary talking about the video, but not including (in the case of Rice) all the disclaimers that it’s preliminary information, and not including (in the case of Obama) that he’s talking about Cairo or Pakistan or Yemen, and not Benghazi, and you lap it up and figure that you don’t need to read the original speech, because the clips are enough.
Well, they’re not enough. They are deliberately taken out of context, and then they have “experts” like Graham or Giuliani tell you what to think about them, and that’s what you think.
Doesn’t it make you angry that people are so easily manipulated by the right wing media?
That’s not the point. Hillary said we knew it was an attack on September 12, and on September 14, Jay Carney said “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”
Both of those statements cannot be true. And you’ve avoided the question. Why were they telling two different stories, in private vs. in public? Isn’t the American public owed the truth?
Are you calling me a liar?
I don’t watch Fox News. Maybe once or twice a year in a hotel room, as an alternative to CNN.
Doesn’t it make you angry that people are so easily manipulated by the left wing media?
FFS, nobody is avoiding that question. Several different people have tried to get it through your head that she said we knew the attack wasn’t incited by the video because somebody in Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for it immediately after the attack. A day or two later, somebody higher up in Ansar al-Sharia repudiated that claim, plus we had several new reports of a protest, so the best current information at that point was that there was no evidence it was preplanned. For a week or more, there were several conflicting accounts of what happened, from various sources of various credibility, and the CIA had to try to figure out which were true.
Every Obama administration report to the American people reflected the best current assessment they had at the time, but there was a lot of confusion the first several days. As Hillary testified, they didn’t get video of the incident for over a week. Why aren’t you just as outraged about all the right wing media claims that she was watching it in real time? Why are you outraged about Hillary and Obama “changing their stories” day by day as the CIA intelligence assessment changed, and yet you seem to have no problem with Fox News et al not changing their false accounts over three years after they have been refuted?
And to this day, I don’t understand what anyone thinks Obama had to gain by saying that it was some rag-tag protestors, rather than a carefully planned and heavily armed al Qaeda affiliate assault, that breached our security. Doesn’t it make him sound WEAKER to say we can’t even defend against untrained people who get overexcited?
Of course not. I think you just parrot what you hear from right-wing sources, without checking their allegations against the unedited videos or transcripts. I confess I have no explanation for your apparent immunity to rational argument, as evidenced by your repeated question about “changing her story.”
It might; I’ll let you know after you give me a left wing example comparable to you parroting the Fox News (or Llimbaugh, or wherever you got it) line about Obama repeatedly claiming in his UN speech that Benghazi was incited by the video, when the transcript shows that he didn’t.
Just like the transcripts of his campaign speechesshow that he never claimed he had eliminated terrorist threats. A typical speech had only half a dozen words about al Qaeda, along the lines of “they’re on the road to defeat,” which is hardly equivalent to “they will never attack us again.”