Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

[BroomWagon]

So you admit Obama and Hillary politicized this event!

+1 x 1,000,000

Hey, most of us can’t tell a simple white lie about our work. This reeks of being outright fabrication.

Too, as said, if this video was not known, it was passed around as the cause of the Benghazi attack, other militants in places like Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan likewise protested, carried out attacks and people were killed as a result, it really makes one wonder.

I guess “Thou shalt not lie” does not even carry weight with some political sentiments nowadays.

And at least an attempt of planes to buzz the protest/attack/riot area could have been made and it could have scared the attackers off. That’s the thing, these people, Ambassador Stephens and others could possibly have been saved, at least an attempt could have been made. The Navy Seals went there to do their duty at the cost of their lives.

 

[ishii]

Well…time to accomplish something in the real world, where this story is way down the list of concerns for he average America.

Average partisan Democrat. Fixed it for you. Sad that partisanship would take precedent over the truth and accountability.

 

[BroomWagon]

Lies you contend they made up…if people want to continue with that line of attack in Congressional hearings, then show the American people the facts…no a “it just makes sense” answer.

I’ll add…had this occurred in a non-campaign season it would likely have been handled in precisely the same way the numerous deaths during the Bush Administration were…a quick investigation by the agencies involved…and then move on.

Well…time to accomplish something in the real world, where this story is way down the list of concerns for he average America.

Why don’t you name these incidences in the Bush administration.

To dismiss this “story” where Americans died, a US diplomat and others, as “way down the list of concerns for the average America”.

Wow, just wow!

The poor families. Unbelievable.

But maybe we should get back to the Real World, like calling a second string basketball player who declares himself to be gay!

 

[LisaA]

Attempting to rewrite the history of Watergate, as some here and elsewhere are doing does nothing but make them look silly. Nixon was involved in illegal acts from the outset and admitted that in his interviews with David Frost. Two investigative reporters broke the story, but the broader media, including their own paper, refused to print speculation and innuendo…they waited until the facts were overwhelming and the witnesses were from the highest level…now…that’s all we are hearing…if this happened…if they decided together…if…if…

The time has come to pony up on some facts…not another theory.

Why do you keep suggesting this is about theories.

Do you deny:

The consulate was attacked by well armed terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda?
That Hillary Clinton was notified that the Consulate had been attacked?
That the Libyan President claimed it was an attack by radicals with ties to AlQaeda?
That no protest was ever reported at Benghazi?
That Ambassador Stevens and others had requested more security and were denied
That aid was requested for the Consulate being attacked and was denied?
That the talking points were changed to remove references to Islamists?
That this ruse continued on the part of Rice, Obama and Clinton for weeks?

These are all facts. The hearing is about understanding who made these decisions and why. We did get new information on some of these issues such as the denied aid to the Consulate. We still do not know why the Obama Administration made up the video story or who made the decision.

Just like Watergate (although no one died then) we have a lot of lies and fabrications. That is clear.

The only theories are why Stevens was in Benghazi instead of Tripoli and why Susan Rice was trotted out with a fabricated story that was perpetuated for weeks.

Lisa

 

[colmywaykurtz]

The initial attack on Benghazi had nothing to do with the video.

But we were told it did. The press played along with that.

I’d say this was debatable, given the time line of both events and media coverage, even if the administration itself has backed away from the contention, and even if the State Dept’s own review process made a finding of premeditated terrorist activity at Benghazi. As the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons thing demonstrated seven years before, reaction to such a thing can quickly go viral on a global scale, overtaking pre-existing trends of events.

QUOTEAnd in protest to that video, there were riots days after elsewhere than Libya.

Correct, but I think it’s far from clear that Benghazi itself was not also a reaction to it. The story at bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19562688 which broke the same day as Benghazi, is proof that the video was not only already out there and on the minds of the administration and the media, but also on the minds of Muslim protesters in diverse places—Cairo, Yemen…and Benghazi. The people at Benghazi had to have known about it, too.

QUOTESo,without being led on that this obscure video was a cause, these additional protests may not have happened, if that is so, this could be additional wrongdoing.

It didn’t take Susan Rice or administration statements to fan the flames over the video, either. As the above story shows, the protests in other places were already happening the same day as Benghazi.

 

[BroomWagon]

I’d say this was debatable, given the time line of both events and media coverage, even if the administration itself has backed away from the contention, and even if the State Dept’s own review process made a finding of premeditated terrorist activity at Benghazi. As the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons thing demonstrated seven years before, reaction to such a thing can quickly go viral on a global scale, overtaking pre-existing trends of events.

<snipped, somehow formatting went awry> .

Correct, I read the BBC story you posted earlier.

It seems to be the common consensus that the video had nothing to do with the attack. I’m not sure anyone is standing by the assertion that the video had much effect and some people point out that hardly anyone had seen the video on youtube. So this is at least, a gray area.

Libyan president to NBC: Anti-Islam film had ‘nothing to do with’ US Consulate attack

The bbc reports this but 9/11 was in fact the same day as well.

I would tend to go with the Libyan President’s words. One of the CAF posters responded to your earlier post as well.

 

[qui_est_ce]

+1 x 1,000,000

Hey, most of us can’t tell a simple white lie about our work. This reeks of being outright fabrication.

Too, as said, if this video was not known, it was passed around as the cause of the Benghazi attack, other militants in places like Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan likewise protested, carried out attacks and people were killed as a result, it really makes one wonder.

I hold the “disengenuous” responsible for the deaths in the riots ensuing the promotion of this hitherto unknown film.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why do you keep suggesting this is about theories.

Do you deny:

The consulate was attacked by well armed terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda?
That Hillary Clinton was notified that the Consulate had been attacked?
That the Libyan President claimed it was an attack by radicals with ties to AlQaeda?
That no protest was ever reported at Benghazi?
That Ambassador Stevens and others had requested more security and were denied
That aid was requested for the Consulate being attacked and was denied?
That the talking points were changed to remove references to Islamists?
That this ruse continued on the part of Rice, Obama and Clinton for weeks?

These are all facts. The hearing is about understanding who made these decisions and why. We did get new information on some of these issues such as the denied aid to the Consulate. We still do not know why the Obama Administration made up the video story or who made the decision.

Just like Watergate (although no one died then) we have a lot of lies and fabrications. That is clear.

The only theories are why Stevens was in Benghazi instead of Tripoli and why Susan Rice was trotted out with a fabricated story that was perpetuated for weeks.

Lisa

Those who can’t admit these facts will end discussion by hurling “truther” epithets at us. This is intended to shut down legitimate and informed conversation about the matter.

 

[BroomWagon]

I hold the “disengenuous” responsible for the deaths in the riots ensuing the promotion of this hitherto unknown film.

ColmywayKurtz may have a point, the protests spread over to those other countries and it may be the “disengenuous” as these protests occurred on 9/11 as well. But if the video has nothing to do with Libya, then that is important and is accepted as not having anything to do with Libya at least.

Just on the video, people claim it was barely seen at the time. So yes, it was disengenuous most likely.

 

[qui_est_ce]

ColmywayKurtz may have a point, the protests spread over to those other countries and it may be the “disengenuous” as these protests occurred on 9/11 as well. But if the video has nothing to do with Libya, then that is important and is accepted as not having anything to do with Libya at least.

Just on the video, people claim it was barely seen at the time. So yes, it was disengenuous most likely.

I’m talking about the riots that occurred AFTER 9/11 using the video as an excuse. Why fan the flames already ignited by the date of 9/11 by releasing and promoting some obscure video mocking Islam?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Lisa…you assign a great deal more importance to the testimony of these three than I believe many will. None of them was in a position to know what was happening in the higher reaches of the military, Dept. of State, etc. The very fact that Mr. Hicks had some issues with the Department of State is enough to cause me, and others I suspect, to view some of his recollections with skepticism. I particularly like his statement to the effect of “I knew it was a terrorist attack from moment one.” Pretty good for a guy who was in Tripoli and didn’t even recognize the phone number from the Benghazi compound.
Regarding my persistence…maybe someone would like to total the posts relative to this subject by poster. I have the feeling that I would fall well down the list.

This is absolutely a shameful display of partisanship. Shame on you.

 

[BroomWagon]

Benghazi could have been a bit of an “Undercover” operation, really? Didn’t recognize the phone number? As if they were living in Peoria?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

You’ve pulled a rabbit out of a hat. Who said Rice’s appearances ginned up the protests?
That is one I’ve NEVER heard. Please source this, it’s utter baloney.

Well, post #187 suggests this.

QUOTEAs to why the stand down order, to guard the Tripoli Embassy when there was no protest or attack? Yeah right. Better to hunker down and wait than actually go where they are needed? You truly believe this because…?

Because, just maybe, the embassy would be considered more important than a consulate, with a “better safe than sorry” mindset in effect? Who knows what the embassy in Tripoli was spared by virtue of being well-protected? But tragedies averted are unquantifiable, and don’t make good news copy, nor do they make good political talking points. The Monday Morning Quarterback crowd finds them easy to shoot down.

QUOTEThere have been a lot of conspiracy theories and speculation why Stevens and the others were in Benghazi that day despite a long history of violence and attacks on this as well as other diplomatic and NGO facilities. But I think it’s a real stretch to claim that it was some renegade CIA operation done without knowledge and agreement by Obama. You have some evidence of this or are you merely speculating? Well, the confluence of this: sana.sy/eng/22/2012/09/14/441552.htm with this: nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

is quite suggestive, considering the shadowy group of intermediaries they’re dealing with—Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, among others; and considering also that Saudi Arabian money is paying for the weapons. The Saudis, you may recall, have been linked to a lot of anti-government violence in Pakistan’s FATA region, by way of their semi-official money contributions.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

This is absolutely a shameful display of partisanship. Shame on you.

That’s one mean frown-face there, IAR. oldcelt’s running for cover now, I bet.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Those who can’t admit these facts will end discussion by hurling “truther” epithets at us. This is intended to shut down legitimate and informed conversation about the matter.

It is occurring in this topic.

Posters who are being honest are met with cries of “it has been 6+ months and no hard evidence…”, “yesterday was a bomb for republicans…”, “no one cares but you guys…” are all done to stifle debate, especially since posters who deny wrongdoing recognize that the admjittedly left-leaning media has chosen NOT to cover it because IT IS a big story, and not because it ISN’T a big story.

CNN and MSNBC yesterday refused to cut in to the hearings, and had cameras poised for hours on the front yards in Cleveland. And they sat for hours…

Liberals do it all the time since debating is not the left’s strongsuit. I find it insulting, but since I know the cause, the insult becomes pity eventually.

The next time a liberal decides to complain about injustice, I’ll have to remember to tell them “stop whining - no one cares but you.” Seems to be the message, even though evidence is to the contrary.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Is there any more room in the president’s backside for defender’s of his deplorable lies to insert their heads?

 

[LisaA]

I’m talking about the riots that occurred AFTER 9/11 using the video as an excuse. Why fan the flames already ignited by the date of 9/11 by releasing and promoting some obscure video mocking Islam?

Exactly! The video was a non-event in Libya and may not have spurred further protests and flag burning had the Administration not MADE it an issue. It takes very little, even a completely false story such as Korans down the toilet (didn’t happen) to instigate riots by Islamists. It had very few views until it became Obama’s Cause Celebre and smokescreen.

Further as came out in the hearing yesterday, blaming the video delayed the investigation by the FBI.

The only reason to blame the video seemed to be political cover. Obama has made much of not fanning the flames of anti-Americanism yet he engaged in the very behavior that inspires it.

LIsa

 

[qui_est_ce]

Liberals do it all the time since debating is not the left’s strongsuit. I find it insulting, but since I know the cause, the insult becomes pity eventually.

Exactly. It’s about emotions and blaming.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been accused of being a right-wing immoral meanie who doesn’t care about the poor. When I respond with actual facts, I get the “you and I will never agree, so let’s not discuss this anymore.”

 

[_Abyssinia]

Mother of Benghazi victim: Hillary and Susan Rice told me “nose to nose” that the Mohammed video was to blame

Boehner calls for release of Benghazi emails as pressure grows on administration

7 Things We Learned from the Benghazi Whistleblower Hearing

 

[LisaA]

Well, post #187 suggests this.

As to why the stand down order, to guard the Tripoli Embassy when there was no protest or attack? Yeah right. Better to hunker down and wait than actually go where they are needed? You truly believe this because
Because, just maybe, the embassy would be considered more important than a consulate, with a “better safe than sorry” mindset in effect? Who knows what the embassy in Tripoli was spared by virtue of being well-protected? But tragedies averted are unquantifiable, and don’t make good news copy, nor do they make good political talking points. The Monday Morning Quarterback crowd finds them easy to shoot down.

There have been a lot of conspiracy theories and speculation why Stevens and the others were in Benghazi that day despite a long history of violence and attacks on this as well as other diplomatic and NGO facilities. But I think it’s a real stretch to claim that it was some renegade CIA operation done without knowledge and agreement by Obama. You have some evidence of this or are you merely speculating Well, the confluence of this: sana.sy/eng/22/2012/09/14/441552.htm with this: nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

is quite suggestive, considering the shadowy group of intermediaries they’re dealing with—Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, among others; and considering also that Saudi Arabian money is paying for the weapons. The Saudis, you may recall, have been linked to a lot of anti-government violence in Pakistan’s FATA region, by way of their semi-official money contributions.

All speculation and more obfuscation. There is plenty of intrigue and many more questions just sticking to the facts which have been laid out time after time. Instead of providing actual evidence that the testimony yesterday was false, you and other Obama apologists start pointing to conspiracies or call it partisan hackmanship or claim nobody cares (this from someone who has almost as many posts as I).

I’m waiting for the race baiters to come out and say we wouldn’t have questioned Susan Rice had she not been black…I’m sure that’s the next pathetic attempt to shut down actual dialogue.

Lisa