Yes, and the “lie” reduces to Susan Rice having used the words “heavily armed extremists” instead of “terrorists.”
Why? Because whether or not there was a protest over the fucking video is beside the point and always has been. If the admin had come out and said,
would you still be accusing them of a cover up or somehow trying to change the narrative to benefit them in the election? How exactly would that work? And how exactly does Susan Rice’s script differ in any substantive way from the one I just contemplated?
To Republicans, yeah. How are we supposed to make the world know we’re #1 if we don’t go out and beat up on some other country that looked at us cross-eyed once? And the people the Republicans actually care about are having massive prosperity!
This is really bizarre. But here is a question that I’d like liberals to answer specifically:
Forget who is in the White House, if what transpired happened while GWB was in office—all the facts the same as you see them, would you think this statement to be more true or untrue:
Susan Rice was sent on the five Sunday Morning talk shows to intentionally craft a narrative that was untrue, but one that would be potentially less damaging to Obama’s reelection bid
So, would you think it be:
A) Definitely true
B) Likely true
C) Likely untrue
D) Definitely untrue
Again, we’re not talking about what you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, just what your gut would tell you.
But unemployment is way down, and most people who have any change to their health insurance find that it’s a change for the better Sure, you can find people still unemployed, but that’s always true. Even in the best economic times. I don’t have to try to hard to find things I don’t like about President Obama, but I still think he’s the best president we’ve had in a very long time.
It’s kind of unbelievable, but in reading the comments here and on other sites, it seems that the Benghazi truthers really don’t understand two very obvious points:
It is an undisputed fact that there were several protests around the world that were directly incited by the video, according to the protesters themselves. When Obama gave his speech to the UN, and when Rhodes wrote his memo, they were addressing people who understood this. And yet, both demagogues like Hannity, and idiots like <mumble>, insist on taking any reference to the video as assertions about Benghazi.
The fact that some people on the ground at Benghazi were certain that the attack was unrelated to a protest does not mean that the people in Washington were certain of it. The people in Washington received conflicting reports, from many people, and did their best to sort them out. If one experienced and credible person is reporting there was a protest before the attack, and another says there wasn’t, it’s more reasonable to assume that the guy who didn’t see it just wasn’t at the right place at the right time, rather than to assume that the guy who says he saw it was mistaken.
Anyone who thinks that he can immediately separate the wheat from the chaff when several conflicting reports come in, please stop posting here, and go serve your country by working for the CIA.
Definitely untrue. Her comments seem to be a genuine attempt to tell us what they knew at the time. And she stressed, several times, that it was to early to draw conclusions.
And I still don’t see how it helps Obama to admit that we couldn’t defend our ambassador against a ragtag group of protesters, rather than against the most deadly terrorist group in modern history.
For your information, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on WMDs right up until March of 2003, i.e., until Bush directly contradicted the reports of the UN inspection team that had been on the ground in Iraq for over three months.
WARNING: Harman comes off like an imbecile. First trying to pooh-pooh those trying to get to what happened to the narrative concerning 4 dead Americans with Area 51 and then not being able to answer Hume’s question
Oh, come on. In the one case it was a spontaneous crowed —completely unexpected, unforeseeable—that formed and did their violence. The other scenario is that this was a planned coordinated attack by an Al Qaeda related group. Neither explanation is good, but the latter went against his trying to brag that “Al Qaeda was on the run” that he was spouting on the campaign trail.
So, after the WMDs weren’t found, did you give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude he was mistaken? Or that he lied about them being there? Just curious.
So you’re asking, “Assuming GWB did this terrible thing x, which contrary to all evidence I’m alleging Obama did, would you hold it against GWB?”
Yeah, sure - but there isn’t agreement (in this thread anyway) on the key question of the whole controversy, namely whether Susan Rice said anything that she knew (or the admin people feeding her talking points knew) to be untrue as of 9/16/12. Can you demonstrate that she did?
That’s easy. Bush lied. He and members of his administration said that they knew Iraq had WMDs. They stated it as a fact. They offered what they called evidence to back up their assertion. Many of us knew at the time that the so-called evidence was fabricated or incorrect. Today, everyone knows that it was false and that the so-called evidence was fabricated. We know they lied.
Thus far, no one has proven anything like that with regards to the events in Benghazi.
That’s the Fox News way. They pack these panels full of right-wingers ramming home the RNC line seven ways to Sunday, and the token Democrat they pick is some inarticulate and ill-prepared retired congresswoman who doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Actually, I don’t really understand why the CIA guy says they told her that they thought there was a protest, but he was surprises when she mentioned the video. What else would the protests be about, especially when protestors in Cairo and Pakistan explicitly said it was about the video?