New Diary - NOW! With more Benghazi-bashing!!

Jay C's picture

President Obama held his first post-election news conference today (actually, the first in months) - note: linked NYT transcript is 11 pages, as referenced below. I'm sure Bird Dog will be pleased to learn that the President has taken his advice to heart about making sure that any (theoretical) arms which aren't supposed to be making their way to Syrian rebels, don't end up where they're not supposed to be - if they existed, that is:  (page 11/11):

 

We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition. And you know, one of the things that we have to be on guard about, particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures, is that we’re not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks who would do Americans harm or do Israelis harm or otherwise engage in — in actions that are detrimental to our national security. So we — we’re constantly probing and working on that issue. The more engaged we are, the more we’ll be in a position to make sure that — that we are encouraging the most moderate, thoughtful elements of the opposition that are committed to inclusion, observance of human rights and working cooperatively with us over the long term.

OK: still remains to be seen how workable this policy may or may turn out to be, but at least the Administration is aware of the issue:

 

But as far as Benghazi (or at least one its more prominent whipping-persons) is concerned: Mr. Obama had the following to say  (page 7/11): The question:

 

Jonathan Karl.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

The response:

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.

But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.

Pretty unambiguous, there: not that that has stopped the Usuals from sputtering right back with the expected bile:

 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement in response to President Obama’s comments about Benghazi and Ambassador Susan Rice.

“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack.

“We owe it to the American people and the victims of this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability be assigned where appropriate. Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle.”

So they're still going to be obsessively flogging this overheated nonsense if/when Amb. Rice is nominated to State? Good luck to them! At least BD will have more - if not different - material to wade through on right-wing blogs to put up a few more diaries....

 

 

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Since I've been named in the diary

(#296300)
Bird Dog's picture

Rice was told what to quack and she quacked. She's always been a good loyal foot soldier for Democratic presidents. We'll see what Petraeus has to say before Congress, as it were.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

You don't get off that easy

(#296437)
HankP's picture

you're the one who accused her of lying, and manipulated and cherry picked her quotes to make that appear to be the case.  Well, you were wrong because you followed the lead of some clownish demagogues, starting with Mitt Romney and now including most of the high profile Republican Senators.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Bulls**t and complete nonsense

(#296441)
Bird Dog's picture

Her own State Department knew there was no protest and that it was an attack, within a day of it happening. Either she lied or her own department was incompetent or dishonest in not passing that relevant information along. The end result was that Susan Rice misled the American people on those five Sunday talk shows. The real question is why a person who had no involvement or knowledge whatsoever was chosen by Obama to get read in with stovepiped information. I cherry-picked none of her quotes, so again you're attacking the commenter based on just more bigotry and ingnorant. Go find a topic that you actually know something about.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

What's misleading again?

(#296443)
brutusettu's picture

..............just skimming back through the bolded parts again, Susan Rice seems to be saying that a group decided to attack the consulate and brought RPGs as growing outrage/protest were in the region......................

 

 

Color me still confused on why the Crazy Uncles around my person still "know"this is some sort of Watergate/Iran-Contra sort of thing.    "(Obama knew, Stephens Died)"

 

Keeping in mind, from the outside, the *journalist* promulgating this story seem to damn near actually think members of Obama's staff were literally claiming, among other stuff from Imaginationland, that RPGs and mortars were just randomly strewn across Benghazi and that protestors just happened upon them while in mid-street-protest.

"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."

Major Kong

Her own State Department knew within a day...

(#296451)
Bird Dog's picture

...that there was no protest preceding the attack. They also knew that they were hit with RPGs, mortars and assault rifles, which speaks to some degree of premeditation and planning. Rice painted a picture that the event was "spontaneous", that it was a protest gone bad and that a video made 'em do it. Either wittingly or unwittingly, she misled the American people with a stovepiped crock of s**t. Petraeus denied that she was speaking from the talking points he gave her.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

No she didn't, read her own words

(#296461)
HankP's picture

she said that there were protests in Benghazi about the movie, but that the attack on the embassy was a different and separate group of people with heavy weapons. It's right in the transcript, I don't see how you can have missed it for weeks on end.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Winner, Winner

(#296486)
brutusettu's picture

Chicken Dinner

"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."

Major Kong

Chick-fil-a?

(#296489)
HankP's picture

because I prefer Ezell's.

I blame it all on the Internet

Looks good

(#296496)

but "the most life-changing fried chicken in America" ?

Yeah, hyperbole

(#296503)
HankP's picture

but it is damn good chicken. Really crispy and not oily at all.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

They've been read

(#296500)
Bird Dog's picture

That you didn't comprehend what she said is not my problem, but I do have a diary on the subject. I am further not responsible for your failing to understand the content of that diary.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Actually,

(#296525)

it's an insufficient intake of hallucinogenic drugs that's responsible for people failing to understand your last couple of diaries.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

Posting Rules -nt-

(#296526)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Seconded

(#296529)
Bird Dog's picture

I suggest that it's liberal left-wing zealotry that's at fault, not hallucinogenics.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Refers to the content of the diary,

(#296562)

not the poster's. If the mods disagree, then I'll change the post. Otherwise, your opinion is noted and given the consideration it deserves.

"I've been on food stamps and welfare.  Anybody help me out?  No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)

No the *real* question is: Why would they lie?

(#296444)

Benghazi: A Conspiracy Theory with No Discernible Motive

"Berating Rice, who had nothing to do with Benghazi aside from representing the administration on these talk shows, is nuts," Mr Drum writes. "The intelligence community was wrong about one relatively unimportant fact, and Rice passed along that mistake. That's it. There's no coverup, no conspiracy, no incompetence, no scandal."

 

This is absolutely right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. At the most fundamental level, the reason it is absurd to suspect the existence of a "cover-up" over the Benghazi attack is that such a cover-up could not have had any conceivable goal. Back to the beginning: the underlying accusation about Benghazi is that the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterised the terrorist attack there as having grown out of a spontaneous demonstration because that would be less politically damaging. Such a cover-up would have made no sense because the attack would not have been less politically damaging had it grown out of a spontaneous demonstration. The attack on the Benghazi compound would not have been any less politically difficult for the administration if it had grown out of a riot, nor would any normal voter have expected it to be less politically damaging, nor would any normal campaign strategist have expected any normal voter to have expected it to be less politically damaging. Had Susan Rice gone on the talk shows on September 15th and inaccurately stated that the attackers had been wearing green pants, when in fact their pants had been red, there would be no reason to suspect this to be part of a political "cover-up", because no American voters could conceivably have cared either way.

M Aurelius was probably right.

And playing down any deliberate attack

(#296445)

would be good for the US since it now sems it was an attack against one of a number of CIA black prisons hidden around the globe and used for disappearing people for torture and interrogation without due process. Not something that does a lot for the ol' hearts and minds thing around the globe and especially not in a precariously balanced newly free state like Lybia.

Not quite

(#296452)
Bird Dog's picture

The Economist misses the point that, for months, Obama was claiming that al Qaeda was on its heels and its defeat was within our reach. He stopped using that mantra as soon as it became all too obvious that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. By blaming it all on a video, the Obama narrative could be maintained.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

What "Obama narrative"?

(#296458)
Jay C's picture

WRT to the Benghazi attacks, the Obama Administration: far from sticking to a pre-planned "narrative", or pushing one particular story, has AFAICT, updated information as it has become available, and kept the American public as much in the loop regarding a sensitive issue as one might reasonably expect. Or, BD, do you not think that there may have been some  intelligence data and/or operations going on in Libya which it may not be (truly) in the interests of national security to divulge/publicize? Or does the political "gotcha" of embarrassing a Democratic Administration trump everything?

 

In any case, the continued harping on Amb. Rice's Sept. 16th interview (which thanks to HankP for providing in # 296436), and the increasingly shrill and desperate attempts on the Right to persist in trying to wring something - anything! - sinister out of them (and btw, BD: what part of "...the best information we have at present" seems evasive to you) is merely making those doing the harping look ever-more obsessive and, frankly, crackpottish.

 

And, just as an off-the-cuff analysis, I have a feeling that the shrill looney-tunes CT gibberish over Benghazi being churned out at high volume by irresponsible cranks like right-wing bloggers and Republican Senators, is only going to have the ultimate effect of shrouding, in a blanket of bullsh*t, what I think is the major real "failing" in Libya, i.e. why Amb. Stevens' personal security was as minimal as it was: and what could have been done (and should be done for present and future envoys) to correct the failings.

 

But when critics seem to go out of their way to make themselves appear to be "lying clowns", not much credibility is going to attach to their critiques...   

Hahaha

(#296462)
HankP's picture

chasing phantoms that don't exist. The administration went with what the intel agencies were telling them. Conspiracy theories are one of the first signs of detachment from reality.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

The Republican descent into madness continues

(#296456)

so wrapped up in their own little reality distortion field that they don't understand that a majority of the population views them as raving lunatics.

Wait, hold on. Why would they lie?

(#296558)

I know you hold the dude in high regard, I'm just asking for the 10% rule.  10% of the cynicism that you apply to his opponent is all you'd need to come up with a motive for lying.  Set aside if he or his admin lied, just ponder whether or not he had a motive to.  If it's not clear then recalibrate your cynicisometer and try again.  Restated: In the election run-up did BO benefit from a public perception that the attack was a spontaneous 'Angry muslims protest, burn sh*t and kill people'* kind of thing or a terrorist attack.

* In fairness, this is such a common event that I have an app on my android that reminds me to do the dishes when this phrase is in a headline. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

You really think that would make a difference?

(#296559)
HankP's picture

because I'm not seeing it. It's an argument about semantics, not a scandal. It's not even in the same universe as "we know Saddam has WMDs".

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Urban Meyer Gate!!11

(#296561)
brutusettu's picture

paraphrasing Urban's comments right after OSU's OT win over Wisconsin:

 

"We knew their student section was loud and a tuff side to play on, that's why we picked over there."

 

paraphrasing People Just Asking Questions' reaction:

 

"Why would Urban pick the Wisconsin student section if he knew it was loud?  When did he know it was loud, why was he not even aware of that before the OT let alone the game?  We want answers."

 

 

 

"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."

Major Kong

Because semantics is a really, really lame way to generate

(#296563)

a scandal. Do you remember how absurd it was in the debate when Romney got his a** handed to him by telling Obama that he hadn't used the T word when he actually had?

 

 

Angry Muslims don't burn consulates and kill Ambassadors

(#296567)

as often as you do dishes. Does that answer your question? I think for most people the fact that security & embassy protection failed so completely is more than scandal enough, and it makes no nevermind whether the attackers were street militias acting on impulse or a targeted strike that had been planned for days. Either way, the system that is supposed to keep our highest ranking diplomats safe broke down in a catastrophic way. This is what's so confusing to me. If Republicans want a scandal, they've got one. The public was certainly riveted on the coverage, and most people seemed to be demanding answers. How could this happen? What are we doing to fix what went wrong?

 

But instead of going with the plain facts, Republicans have felt the need to plaster this whole story with a frankly weird semantic argument. It's not enough that the administration had a security lapse, no, they must have lied...lied with semantics no less...in order to spin the story in their favor. It wasn't a terror attack we should have seen coming, it was spontaneous violence we should have seen coming! 

In the election run-up did BO benefit from a public perception that the attack was a spontaneous 'Angry muslims protest, burn sh*t and kill people'* kind of thing or a terrorist attack.

I'd say not even a little. Not when the cover story is every bit as embarrassing / damning / scandalous as the supposedly real story. Maybe the distinction really matters to Republicans (it appears to), but I'm pretty sure the rest of the country doesn't get it. Why would Obama go "No, sweetheart, I haven't met another woman. I've just been seeing a hooker; it's no big deal"?

 

In any case, both stories seem to be true: the attack was spontaneous & improvised as a reaction to the video, but it was carried out by extremists with terrorist connections. So all the Republicans' semantic pearl clutching is for naught at this point. The answer is that both stories are accurate.

M Aurelius was probably right.

More Benghazi inquiry hijinks

(#296407)
Jay C's picture

For all of their oh-so-Serious Concern about what went on in Benghazi on Sept. 11, when the Senate Homeland Security Committee held hearings today, several Republican Senators who have been so vocal in their criticisms of the Administration (including Sunday talk-show darling John McCain) couldn't be bothered to show up. Still carping and bitching - but apparently, not interested in finding out much more info......

Senator Feinstein and R Saxby Chambliss Gave a Pretty Good

(#296408)

 

...press interview after hours of a closed door session. It seemed obvious from both of these Senators there were lots of secrets that would never be divulged. I'm not sure McCain was supposed to be at this Hearing...but Feinstein pointedly mentioned that one member was absent.

 

Have you heard the audio of McCain saying, "Who in the Hell are you to question me?" or words to this effect, to a reporter asking him about his absence...much fun will be had.

 

Traveller

They were right not to show up

(#296449)

What's the point of a classified senate briefing?   Mainly to place the senators involved in a situation where if they reveal anything embarrassing they're releasing classified information.  

Yeah, better to remain ignorant nt

(#296463)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

You are making an assumption that

(#296467)

the info presented at the hearing was true.  If there is no way to tell if it's true or not,  there is no reduction in the ignorance level.  By making it classified, they've prevented senators from taking the info from the hearing and having their staff fact check it,  or just letting it go public and crowd sourcing the fact checking.

 

Of course there could be good reasons for classifying whatever was presented.  But they can't have their cake and eat it too.  Claiming "we have excellent reasons for what we did but they are secret" doesn't wash.  You can get the credit for having good reasons,  or keep your secrets, but not both.

 

Edit:  and BTW, the main issue here isn't who used the T word when, or even whether adequate safety precautions were taken.  The main issue is whether something was going on in Benghazi that made it a target, over and above a general opportunity to kill Americans.

Well what else is one supposed to do?

(#296470)
HankP's picture

If you really think that the intelligence agencies are routinely lying to congress, let's have another Church commission. But unless you or McCain have some evidence that's the case it would seem to make sense to at least see what they have to say - especially since McCain is throwing accusations around like the second coming of Joe McCarthy.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

John McCain and Lindsay Graham are lying clowns

(#296436)
HankP's picture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For those baffled by the bulls*&t coming from the Republicans, let's go back to what Amb. Rice actually said in that long ago interview that has now passed into the realm of myth (bolding is mine):

 

GREGORY:  The images as you well know are jarring to Americans watching all of this play out this week, and we’ll share the map of all of this turmoil with our viewers to show the scale of it across not just the Arab world, but the entire Islamic world and flashpoints as well.  In Egypt, of course, the protests outside the U.S. embassy there that Egyptian officials were slow to put down.  This weekend in Pakistan, protests as well there.  More anti-American rage.  Also protests against the drone strikes.  In Yemen, you also had arrests and some deaths outside of our U.S. embassy there.  How much longer can Americans expect to see these troubling images and these protests go forward?

 

MS. RICE:  Well, David, we can’t predict with any certainty.  But let’s remember what has transpired over the last several days.  This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.  Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that-- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a-- a spontaneous reaction to a video, and it’s not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.  Now, the United States has made very clear and the president has been very plain that our top priority is the protection of American personnel in our facilities and bringing to justice those who…

 

GREGORY:  All right.

 

MS. RICE:  …attacked our facility in Benghazi.

 

 

Did you catch that? Gregory was asking about all the protests across the Islamic world, and Rice said that was in response to the video. As far as we knew then, and still know now, that's true.

 

 

GREGORY:  Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous.  Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack?  Was there a terrorist element to it?

 

MS. RICE:  Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present.  First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing.  And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.  But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.  What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding.  They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya.  And it escalated into a much more violent episode.  Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now.  We’ll await the results of the investigation.  And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

 

GREGORY:  Was there a failure here that this administration is responsible for, whether it’s an intelligence failure, a failure to see this coming, or a failure to adequately protect U.S. embassies and installations from a spontaneous kind of reaction like this?

 

MS. RICE:  David, I don’t think so.  First of all we had no actionable intelligence to suggest that-- that any attack on our facility in Benghazi was imminent.  In Cairo, we did have indications that there was the risk that the video might spark some-- some protests and our embassy, in fact, acted accordingly, and had called upon the Egyptian authorities to-- to reinforce our facility.  What we have seen as-- with respect to the security response, obviously we had security personnel in Benghazi, a-- a significant number, and tragically, among those four that were killed were two of our security personnel.  But what happened, obviously, overwhelmed the security we had in place which is why the president ordered additional reinforcements to Tripoli and-- and why elsewhere in the world we have been working with governments to ensure they take up their obligations to protect us and we reinforce where necessary.

 

And here's the meat of the criticism, what Republicans repeatedly lie about. Rice didn't say that the attack was incited by the video. She said that there was a protest, but that other extremists showed up, heavily armed, and used the protests as cover to attack the Benghazi consulate. Which as far as we know is what happened. She also repeatedly stated that the investigation wasn't completed and what she was presenting was the preliminary assessment from the intelligence community.

 

But now we have these two impotent clowns, McCain and Graham, running around accusing Rice of lying. Huffing and puffing about how they'll never let her get appointed Secretary of State. Missing briefings about Benghazi in order to hold press conferences complaining about how he can't get any information about what happened at Benghazi. I just want to be sure everyone here knows that Rice isn't the one who's been lying, it's been the Republicans since the interview happened.

 

Republicans know nothing and learn nothing. I expect they'll need to be completely shut out of majorities in all branches of government before that changes. But until them, the simplest approach is to immediately assume they're lying. It's probably the best rule of thumb that we have in current American politics.

 

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Hey! You know who DID show up?

(#296464)
Jay C's picture

You know who DID show up at a Benghazi-attack hearing?

 

Former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus!

 

And as usual, one of the Republicans on the Committee is trying to - somehow - make political hay over it (what a surprise)!

The only problem is that Rep. King's carping (on the same Susan Rice nonsense BD has been flogging) doesn't seem to jibe with what ex-Director Petraeus actually said - either today or back in September. But I guess logical contradictions AOKIYAR - nobody expects their cavils to make sense?

Let's just see exactly what he said

(#296475)
HankP's picture

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

 

"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

I blame it all on the Internet

And what else did Gen. Petraeus say?

(#296476)
Jay C's picture

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

My emphasis added (via NYT)

 

Of course, I'm sure there's some blog out that will be quick to denigrate ex-Director Petraeus' testimony: that he's covering up the REAL, and much more credible explanation: like Amb. Chris Stevens was actually killed by Bill Ayres and Jeremiah Wright from a grassy knoll outside Benghazi using the secret Nazi death-ray whose plans Malcolm X stole from Marilyn Monroe's bedroom in 1962...