With trepidation, Benghazi

Great Debates
101

The Republican notion that it was obvious from day one that the attack was preplanned and unrelated to what had occurred in Cairo (which certainly WAS about the video) is massively overstated.

Both Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya reported that there were protests over the video in Benghazi.

It’s worth reading what Newt Gingrich had to say about the attacks at the time:

CNN Anchor John Berman asks if Gingrich has proof of there being a connection between demonstrations and attacks in Egypt and Libya. Gingrich replies, “…. Anybody who’s ever studied terrorism will tell you, there’s almost certainly a link. This is a lot like the Danish cartoon outrage a few years ago…. We are faced with enemies who want to defeat the United States and impose their radical views…. How can the US government apologize for a film no one has seen, which is what the Embassy in Cairo did yesterday…. It’s not just about an event in Libya. It’s about a longer war, part of which we were being reminded of yesterday on 9/11.”

And Marco Rubio described the events in Cairo and Benghazi as senseless mob violence (see p 78 of the recent email dump - Rubio’s original statement has apparently been scrubbed from the internet).

102

Well we now know that someone in this thread has never helped an organization respond to a FOIA before.

103

How would it not be the central topic, 5 days after 4 people were killed in an attack?

104

There is strong evidence this was a pre-planned attack. There is virtually no evidence that the explanation advanced by the WH - demonstration against a video that got out of hand - accurately explained what happened.

So we don’t need to know exactly who was involved to understand that the WH was working to present a false narrative.

105

I’m reluctant to accept Newt G. as any sort of expert on this subject - he comes across as a random politician mouthing off. If you know of any reason this view is inaccurate, I’d be happy to listen to it.

106

:confused: dude how should I know? Presumably the promos (again, page 17 of the PDF containing the. Rhodes email) reflect what the producers of those shows wanted to talk about. Take it up with them. I’m sorry if the facts here don’t conform to your narrative.

Example:

"Fox News Sunday

Anti-US protests are spreading across the Arab world days after a deadly attack on the consulate in Libya. What should the US involvement be in the trouble region? Chris Wallace discusses the disruption with Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN."

107

[quote=“Xema, post:104, topic:687535”]

There is virtually no evidence that the explanation advanced by the WH - demonstration against a video that got out of hand - accurately explained what happened.QUOTE]

You weaken your argument by overstating this point.

From the AP:

“There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

Totally consistent with Susan Rice’s account - folks showed up to replicate the sort of challenge to America that was occurring in Cairo, which was hijacked by heavily armed extremists.

Reuters correspondent Hadeel al-Shalchi, based in Benghazi, via NPRon 9/13/12:

"In Benghazi at the consulate, the consulate is now not secure at all, like, you can walk in and out of it. And people all day yesterday were doing that. They would come, sort of take a stroll inside the grounds, you know, take pictures and little videos of the damage.

The majority of those people said two things. They said, first of all, why did the United States allow something like this movie to happen? Because at the end of the day, almost everybody here believes that it was a reaction to the movie that - and they believe that the United States had a responsibility to stop the production or…"

You also weaken your argument by continually repeating, falsely, that the talking points blamed the video. The talking points said that the attack was spontaneously inspired by the protests in Cairo. Was there evidence to that effect? I don’t know, but the CIA’s best guess at the time was that there was a connection. This was never at issue in the State/CIA wrangling over talking points that was discussed upthread. So why aren’t you going after the CIA for saying they believed the attacks were inspired by Cairo, instead of going after the administration?

108

No, he’s not an expert - that’s not the point. You have presented the issue as if no one without political skin in the game could have thought for a second that Benghazi had anything to do with Cairo. But before “Benghazi” had become a concerted Republican strategy to hammer the president, Newt Gingrich speaking off the cuff in a basically non-partisan way said, yeah, obviously the two are probably connected. Marco Rubio made a similar assessment.

109

I don’t even bother anymore. Republicans are nuts and the people on this message board who are still beating the dead Benghazi horse are nuts, too.

110

Because it’s clear that the actual central topic is a partisan witch hunt against Obama.

You’ll notice that some conservative Republicans, such as Buck McKeon, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, thinks that Mr. Issa and the Benghazi Truthers are not to be listened to.

111

What do you think she means by saying they were replicating the protests in Cairo? She states the events in Cairo was a protest and the events in Benghazi replicated Cairo.

and her statement is 100% inconsistent with the reports of the people who were there under attack.

There was no reason to send Susan Rice out in front of TV cameras. She didn’t just stumble in front of a reporter and make a mis-statement. She was tasked with the job and coached with what to say. It’s in direct opposition to what occurred. It was deliberately spun for public consumption. The administration then dragged it’s heals on releasing information.

112

What do I think she means, by Zeus? She’s plainly saying that protesters had just overrun our embassy in Cairo and raised a jihadist black flag above it, and that the administration’s belief–conditional on more information coming to light, presumably within the next few days–was that this success being blared over TVs in Benghazi inspired individuals to show up to replicate “that sort of challenge,” whatever that means; and subsequently heavily armed extremists launched a large-scale attack.

By the way, don’t you think it’s odd, if the intention all along was to blame the video, that the talking points themselves don’t even contain any reference to the video itself?

As for the reports of the people who were under attack, can you explain how people taking mortar fire from over 1/4 a mile away are supposed to have detailed insight into the motives of the people firing said mortars?

113

yes… and the embassy said they were under attack. Not under protest. She didn’t just wander into a TV studio, she was fed a lie and sent out to present it to the public.

No, it’s not odd at all. They blamed the protests on the video. The implication is that is spun out of control. No such event happened at Benghazi. It was an attack from the very beginning.

Yes, the insight is that they’re under attack and it’s not a protest.

114

Let’s be honest here, Benghazi scandal-allegers. By the standard of “cover up” operative here, the only thing that would have spared the administration at the outset from being accused of a “cover up” is if Susan Rice had gone on those Sunday shows and said something along the following lines:

:confused:

Isn’t that what she would have HAD to say, in order to avoid triggering this whole controversy? Because in my book, all she said was we believe the attacks in Benghazi fit into the broader context of these protests; but we’re not really sure; it may or may not have been preplanned; it may have been al-Qaeda, or al-Sharia, or both, or a different group yet unnamed; but the investigation is ongoing. I just find it mystifying that a statement so anodyne and ultimately noncommittal can strike anyone as scandalous or even objectionable.

115

No one said they were attacked by protesters. Susan Rice said they were attacked by heavily armed extremists.

No one except the attackers themselves could have known, at the time of the attack, whether the attackers also happened to be pissed about the video. Unless the people at the consulate were cabling back home, “Mayday, mayday - under heavy attack and THEY’RE DEFINITELY NOT PISSED ABOUT THE VIDEO!!!” then I don’t see how “her statement is 100% inconsistent with the reports of the people who were there under attack,” as you put it.

116

she said it was a protest like in Cairo. Which was over the movie. It wasn’t an accident she said this.
She was prepped and sent forth to repeat it for public consumption. The WH went out of it’s way to do this. It was orchestrated.

117

It was talking points, given by the experts.

You’re flailing around and insisting that whatever you see is outrageous. It’s nonsense.

Also, please don’t bring up jet fighters. :smiley:

118

“Listen to the cadence of the shells… This is the dispassionate tempo of hired mercenaries, not the staccato rage of the Jihadi.”

119

And yet another report that refutes this: the New York Times reported on Sept. 12, 2012 exactly that kind of evidence.

How anyone can read this, take note that the story came out the very next day after the attacks, and further note that what Susan Rice said on the Sunday talks shows agrees with it very nicely, and still think there was some attempt by the White House to throw up a smokescreen to cover up what they really knew happended, is beyond me.

120

It was talking points fed to her for the sole purpose of getting out in front of cameras the next day.