and they were quoting the information put out by US officials. What’s your point?
The fact that you think this is sinister shows you have no perspective at all. You need Dems to be evil, so you’re twisting everything the administration does as evil.
It’s absurd.
the fact that you think there’s a legitimate reason to knowingly feed false information to news medias and then delay releasing information to Congressional investigations is mind boggling.
As any Fox News viewer could tell you, you are spinning her quote completely out of context. What she really meant was, “Who cares if four brave American patriots died? Especially since people that brave and selfless were almost certainly Republicans?”
Can you link to some posts of yours where you were this exercised about 9-11?
I don’t mean the thousands of deaths, and I don’t mean the intelligence warnings that Bush ignored.
I mean the fact that Bush repeatedly said that al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11 because they hate our freedom, and he continued to say it, even after a very inside source (OBL) said that the main reasons were our military bases in Saudi Arabia, and our perceived support of Israel.
Why was Bush lying to the American people about the motivation for the attack? And when is Issa going to investigate his coverup?
If Rice was so intent on fooling everyone, why did the CIA talking points from the initial draft reference a protest? And why was she so careful to say “based on the information we have at the moment?” It wasn’t like she (or the CIA) ever said their information was conclusive.
And may I seriously ask, why don’t you share this level of outrage about WMD in Iraq?
If their had been a large protest, I don’t see how that makes Obama look better.
It doesn’t, of course. And the Issa/Boehner/Hannity types know it doesn’t. All they care about is throwing mud at Hillary Clinton, whom they assume will be the Democratic nominee in two years.
It’s kind of amazing that the party controlling the House of the greatest country in the world depends on the ignorance and stupidity of the voters, but that’s the strategy they seem to have adopted.
I guess. I didn’t vote for Obama this round, and there’s plenty of legitimate beef against Dems, Clinton included. This just isn’t it. “DON’T HELP” I want to shout.
Ah here we go:
People who make such poorly thought-out arguments that they do their “side” a disservice
Do we have any evidence that officials knew of a terrorist attack and did nothing? That would be the supposed issue that is being covered up. Further, what would be the motivation for such lack of action, or was it sheer incompetence?
I haven’t read through all of the posts here, because much of it seems to look for fault in another poster’s technicalities and then posit that as proof of something, but from what I’ve read there is no evidence of a cover up.
Here is another quote from that same article:
Exactly how would officials have put this out, for example? The only way I can think of is literally calling up the New York Times reporters and telling them to print false information.
Anyway. Right after the attack, with no way of knowing the full details of the attack and how easy (or difficult) it would be to determine exactly what happended, or how long for that matter, “American and European officials”* collude to obscure and hide the truth, the full truth of which they don’t yet even know. Who in the administration could know at that point how easily it would be to refute their phony stories? It all makes no sense.
As to my point, it is simply that at the time there was ample evidence of the videos being a major factor in the attacks, and therefore there was no reason for the White House to lie about anything. Yes, it makes sense that they would brief Susan Rice as extensively as possible to put the best face on things, but that is not a conspiracy.
*Sources from the article.
The trouble with this is that the additional information had already come to light, several days before she spoke. And it showed that what happened in Benghazi was not a protest at all - it was a pre-planned, military-style attack with serious weapons, that in no way replicated the Cairo demonstrations.
The detailed nature of their motives is not especially relevant. (Almost certainly, each and every one of the attackers would have been deeply angry at the internet video.)
But their actions are highly relevant. No one was engaged in “protest” (protesters don’t typically carry RPGs - there is no evidence that any Cairo protester did). They conducted a well-armed, coordinated attack, the character of which was known to the White House shortly after it began.
IOW, at the time Rice was speaking, the WH was in possession of information that showed what they later acknowledged: that her statements seriously mischaracterized event in Benghazi.
why does this matter? The motives of the attackers are “not especially relevant” but the White House is to be condemned for not precisely identifying the attackers motives? I see, but I grow weary.
It’s worth breaking down the Benghazi controversy into four related but distinct accusations that have been leveled at the administration:
- They failed to heed warnings of the risk for terrorist attacks in Benghazi and failed to detect and foil the attack on 9/11/12 in particular.
- They failed to provide adequate security to the consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack.
- They failed to produce an adequate military response while the attack was ongoing.
- They mischaracterized the attack as a protest, precisely to preempt accusation #1.
(Of course, blaming protesters for the violence as opposed to well-organized terrorists would make the administration MORE vulnerable to accusations #2 and #3, since allowing your embassador to be killed by a mob signals very ineffectual security indeed. This point is lost on Benghazi conspiracy theorists.)
While all four of these accusations have been made, none so more energetically than #4. Why? Well, let’s see:
Accusation #3 has found its most forceful expression in the “stand down” order controversy. While the “Obama watched them die” theme lives on in right-wing media, it’s been debunked by the house Armed Services committee. More broadly, credible experts like Bob Gates–not shy to criticize te president–have endorsed the difficult decisions made by the military leadership that night.
Accusation #2 does not really serve Republican interests, due to the embarrassing fact that the Republican House passed significant cuts to funding for the security of diplomatic facilities in recent years.
Accusation #1 has never really gotten much traction, presumably because–and this answers your question–of a lack of evidence that the attack was in fact preplanned in all its specifics. Republicans who think Bush should get a pass for the “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US” cannot coherently criticize Obama here except in the generic sense of there not being enough security at tr consulate–ie, which reduces to accusation #2.
Indeed, the fact that accusation #1 doesn’t have a lot of potency very strongly undermines the idea that Obama had a motive to lie.
Which brings us to the one charge that has become central to the controversy, accusation #4. Despite the total lack of evidence of a cover-up, this charge has proven fertile ground for Republicans looking to keep the administration on te defensive. In order to do so, they have grossly misrepresented what Susan Rice said (“she blamed protesters” when in fact she blamed “heavily armed extremists” and explicitly called it an “attack” and not a protest) and by grossly distorting the overall context (“no evidence whatsoever of a link to other protests,” when in fact on the ground reporting at the time talked about protesters and literally the entire Muslim world was aflame on that very day over the video, and even partisans like Newt Gingrich initially assumed a connection).
In short, the “scandal” begins and ends with a gross misreading of what Susan Rice said and selective amnesia towards the broader context that day. These are both regrettably easy to foist onto anti-Obama partisans whose interpretation of events is guided by motivated reasoning rather than a dispassionate review of the facts. But that’s also why this issue, outside the right-wing bubble, is the journalistic equivalent of a brain dead patient: notionally still alive, but functionally long-since dead.
Can you please state and explain your quibble with her characterization of the events as an “attack” by “heavily armed extremists” and how that contradicts what you say the WH knew as of 9/17?
Also, you seem to be conflating “pre-planned” with “attack involving serious weapons?” As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Susan Rice explicitly said “heavily armed extremists” armed with the sort of weaponry that was floating around in the wake of the revolution her boss encouraged. So no cover up there.
What does preplanned mean in this context? If the local Al-Sharia leader hatched the idea during his morning shit that day, does that make it preplanned? If the extremists thought, “we should really attack the consulate one of these days,” is that preplanned? Of course it was planned in the trivial sense that I plan to hit “submit reply” in a minute, but what did we actually know about the extent of preplanning on 9/17 that wasn’t pure conjecture as of then? Bob Schieffer asked her if the attack was planned months in advance. She said, not to their present knowledge but they would investigate further. What evidence to you have that this was a lie, by God?
Then you might as well say you are not prepared to believe any political scandal, ever.
Nobody in a position of power is ever going to be that stupid. Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.: none were as clear-cut as your standard calls for. Hell, most drug dealers are smart enough to say things like “did you take care of that situation for me?” in the interests of plausible deniability.
I mean, be pollyanna if you want to, but you’ve just announced that this thread is pointless, because no evidence that can plausibly be found will convince you.
One thing that strikes me about all the Benghazi conspiracy theorists (for lack of a better term - not saying there isn’t anything there) is their dismay that Obama did not cooperate with congressional investigations the way he should. Like this means anything. Why the hell is this a surprise, anyway? Remember Clinton and Kenneth Starr? Hell, Bush didn’t cooperate with them either, on anything. Don’t you guys remember that? The poisonous witch hunt that was Monica gate pretty much guarantees that Presidents will not cooperate with congress for a generation. Yeesh.
Are you unable to fucking read? Try it again, with the important part helpfully bolded:
Are you now saying that the fighters involved in the assault were US gov’t officials?