I’ll repost what I posted in the old thread back in Oct about a month after the attack:
So back then it was clear to a lot of people a month after the event that there was no demonstration. Romney knew it at the debate and said so. I’m not sure why people now a year later still don’t know this. I blame polarization of the media. If you only get your news from left wing sources you probably never heard the truth.
Yes, Rice was spinning away. She mentioned the “heavily armed extremists”, which does indicate planning. But as the talking points email points out her message was definitely focused on the video and the demonstrations. Her story was basically that there was a demonstration which led to a riot which led to heavily armed people showing up and attacking. This wasn’t true. The attack was planned and wasn’t born from a demonstration.
Whether this was just the usual administration spin or crossed the threshold into lying is up to interpretation. For me, it crosses that line. They had a narrative that they needed to spin for the election and they let it get in the way of the truth.
You can’t be serious here. My question for you is, in light of on-the-ground reporting provided by the media reports cited on this page, why did Romney and Sen. Graham lie about the non-existence of a protest, and then continue to lie about it for weeks afterward??? I mean, the irony here is so deliciously savorable here I could practically skip my lunch over it. You’re sitting here accusing the administration of lying for political purposes when the only evidence we have is that it was in fact his opponents who did so.
I asked you for evidence that the attack was preplanned, and your answer is a couple mendacious quotes from politicians on the other side of the aisle. Unbelievable.
As for the State Department officials who said there was no protest–some said there was one, some said not. I’m asking what basis you have for alleging that it was a lie, a bald-faced lie, to say that there was a protest.
I don’t know if my question was poorly phrased or if you’re choosing not to answer. Let me try again. What evidence did we have on 9/16 indicating that the attack was planned (other than in whatever trivial sense is implicit in saying it was a heavily armed attack)? When Bob Schieffer askedSusan Rice point-blank, “Was this planned for months in advance?” what possible answer could she have honestly given at that time other than, “We don’t believe so based on what we know, but maybe the investigation will turn something up,” which is exactly what she said?
Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler is his usually insightful self on the lastest on Benghazi.
I think it is safe to say that you could subsititute the names of certain people here for “Republicans and journalists” and “John McCain” in the quote, and have an accurate picture of where they are coming from. They are “pretending” and “reciting”, refusing to acknowledge the evidence available at the time supported what Rice said.
Debaser, can you summarize the current state of our knowledge on the extent of planning that went into the attack? Because as far as I’ve seen, we still don’t know anything about it being planned (much less, on 9/16/12)
[/quote]
I’ll try this again. It amazes me that even now people feel so passionately about this but can’t be bothered to get awareness of the basic facts about what happened.
Wikipedia has a good page on the attack. Let’s start there.
First, the attack itself:
This doesn’t sound planned to you? They lost 100 men out of 150, yet they still were fighting? That’s dedication for a bunch of protesters. It’s also an amazing group of protesters that had anti-aircraft guns and mortars.
They blocked off the streets and cleared the area before the attack. This takes planning.
They attacked from all directions all at once. This was planned. They brought gas to burn people out of the safe room. Planned.
Here’s some more info from the wiki page:
There was no protest. There was no spontaneous riot. It was an organized attack. Do you seriously dispute this?
Do you have an example of me accusing *you *of doing so, or did you just make this up? 'Cause you see, that debating tactic don’t fly 'round these parts.
But let’s see it. Let’s see you shout from the rooftops that Bush should be investigated for years as to whether he knew there were WMDs. Because if you want further investigation of Benghazi- despite the millions that have already been spent and the approximately 50 congressional hearings, briefings, and interviews we’ve seen so far- then surely the previous President’s actions which directly led to the death of thousands would be even more pressing. Let’s see you start threads on the subject. Let’s see you argue incessantly that we simply don’t know all of the veracity of Bush’s beating of the war drums.
I’m sure, though, that you won’t. Because it’s not about the investigation, it’s about the political grandstanding. Amirite?
Neither I nor anyone on this board says the attack was carried out by protesters, nor did Susan Rice ever say it.
Can you agree to that statement? If not, perhaps you can provide a link to a post on this thread or a direct quote from Susan Rice proving otherwise. Because in the world I live in, Susan Rice said it was heavily armed extremists. If you can’t agree on this basic point then further discussion of this matter is probably futile because we might as well live in alternate realities.
Ok, so now that we’re talking about attackers and not protesters, I’m asking you a separate question about the extent of planning by the attackers, and what was known about that planning by the attackers as of 9/16.
If you’re saying that by definition, “heavily armed attack” = “planned,” then, trivially, Susan Rice effectively said it was planned. Right? But I suspect that’s not your beef with her. Your beef is that she refused to commit to the following proposition:
“Yes, Bob, it was clearly planned weeks or months in advance.”
My simple–mind-numbingly simple–question for you is,
What was the evidence available to the WH on 9/16 that the attack was planned for weeks or months in advance?
Great. You know what you just did? Now this thread is about Bush and Iraq.
Here’s my answer: We don’t need to spend millions and have dozens of hearings at this point do investigate the WMDs in Iraq. We know what happened already.
What would be the point?
Also, have you missed my repeated posts that I do agree that the Republicans should probably drop this before the elections and that I don’t think it’s that big of a deal?
My repeated posts here are more out frustration dealing with the people who still after all this time are in denial that a planned attack even occurred. That’s simply amazing to me. This board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, but that’s just wallowing in it.
Your simple question has some moving goalposts, because it started as this:
I’ve answered your question twice, so I don’t think a third time will help. Let me ask you a question:
You said “Because as far as I’ve seen, we still don’t know anything about it being planned”. Do you still stand by this? Was the attack planned or not?
You seem to think it somehow defies the laws of logic and/or physics that there was a brewing protest, and that Muhammad al-Jihadi and his buddies–who may or may not have also been pissed about the video, but probably *were * pissed because why would they of all people have the broadness of mind to be any less irate than the rest?–said, “you know what, as Sly Stone said there’s a riot goin’ on and it’s time we go and give these Americans what for, once and for all.”
Why do you suppose it’s impossible that this is how it happened? I just don’t understand where you’re coming from on this one. I’m sorry.
I don’t mean to move goalposts. My earlier iteration of the question was obviously poorly worded. What I’ve been after all along, on this whole God forsaken thread, is to understand what basis we have for saying Susan Rice lied. Saying something that later turns out to be untrue is not lying. Saying something one knows to be untrue is lying. I want to know how Susan Rice was lying.
Your Wikipedia excerpts tell me about the nature of the attack. They don’t tell me about the extent of long-term planning. If you’re saying, an attack of this sort *by definition *requires weeks or months of planning, then I’ll grant that’s a valid argument (though I’m not sure how to assess whether that’s true). But, again, if that’s true then it was implicit in what Susan Rice said, and therefore she can’t possibly be said to be lying.
So, I only see three possibilities here. Either:
It’s trivially true that it was planned (because the attack was ipso facto evidence of planning) and hence there’s no real controversy because Susan Rice didn’t conceal the nature of the weaponry involved;
It was launched more or less without long-term planning (i.e., planned out sometime that very day); or
It was launched with long-term planning, contrary to what Susan Rice said.*
My question to you is, is (3) the case and how do we know it? Did Susan Rice know it on 9/16?
*Although, for the umpteenth time, she didn’t categorically say it wasn’t long-term planned. She said we don’t know yet.
You are being incredibly dense about this. Nobody is saying that some people came with signs to protest, and then magically changed their signs into RPGs and mortars. They are talking about two different sets of people. It is entirely possible to have different people with different goals at the same place on the same day. At the time Rice went on TV, there were conflicting reports, and the CIA assessment was that there were both protestors and attackers. Nobody alleged that they were the same people, or even associated with each other. If I were an attacker, the last thing I would want is protestors raising the alert level.
For the love of god. So you think that if the CIA analysts are saying one thing, and some 20-year old is saying another, the White House should go with the 20-year-old Libyan civilian?
What if I can find a 21-year old neighbor who says he saw a protest? He’s one year older, so he wins, right?
For the nth time, the fact that someone reports something does not mean that the White House knows it is true, especially when they are receiving conflicting reports from many different sources. All they can do is give their best assessment at the time, subject to security considerations and protection of sources, which is exactly what they did.
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! Did you seriously just ask “what would be the point?” (of investigating what was said and done in regard to starting the Iraq War) when you’ve been advocating for an investigation into Benghazi?
What do you mean “we know what happened already”? Why don’t you enlighten me, since I am unsure of both what you mean and what happened?
Maybe we should all pitch in and buy Debaser a “What difference does it make?” t-shirt because clearly he must not care about 3,000 dead Americans if he doesn’t want to get to the bottom of it.
I mean, why should Republicans have a monopoly on sophomoric demagoguery after all?
Yes, that’s exactly it. Debaser’s Wiki timeline begins with the attack. Rice, and everyone else in this thread, simply mean that something was happening before the attack, something that would better be described as a demonstration, or a protest. Or just a bunch of random pissed off people in the streets. Given the instant communications available in 2012 through things like Twitter and text messaging, everybody in the Middle East knew about pissed off people, and protesters, all over the Middle East. It’s idiotic to claim that Benghazi residents were somehow immune to the events of the day. Nor is it inconceivable that, at some point during all the general hubbub and angst, a group of heavily armed militants (who may or may not have been harboring a separate grudge and may or may not have been making specific plans and preparations for any theoretical time in advance) said, “Hey, now looks like a good time for a ruckus!” and then launched the actual attack.
Thus the attack evolved out of the background of unrest and protest. Different players were involved, but that doesn’t mean one kind of event couldn’t have led into the other.
Do you have any evidence of this? The cites I’ve posted say the streets around the compound were dead quiet when the surprise attack started. Do you have something that says otherwise?
You guys really want this thread to be about Iraq, huh?
I admit that Bush really fucked up with his claims about WMDs in Iraq. His presidency will be stained by that in the history books and he deserves much of the scorn he gets for it. He was wrong, and it was a very important thing to be wrong about.
Benghazi, as I’ve said numerous times is a relatively minor matter. The spinning which turned into lying by the administration isn’t a huge deal. But they did cross the line and I’m glad it was investigated and I’m glad they got some negative press out of it. Obama deserves to get some heat for this, even though it doesn’t rise anywhere near the level of the lack of WMDs in Iraq.
Happy, now? Or should we debate WMDs in Iraq for six pages?
That’s the difference between me and many of you. I can admit it when my guy fucks up.
It’s not impossible, but it seems very unlikely. An attack like this requires planning. It couldn’t be done in a day. Plus, there’s no evidence that I’ve seen that this was the case. They attacked out of nowhere. There was no crowd around the embassy that I’ve seen any cites for.
Tell that to Bush!
There’s not much of a smoking gun. There’s no statement that can be proven, say, in a court of law that she said something that can be proven to be a lie. If there was this would be a much bigger deal.
I’ve said it’s a judgement call whether this crosses the line from typical political spin into dishonesty. For me it does. Not everyone agrees, obviously.
Reading that memo, it seems clear that her directive was to try and link the protests and the video to the attack, regardless of how true that actually was.
Yes, that’s why I posted the details of the attack. To make that point.