Susan Rice defends Benghazi interviews on 60 Minutes

Cardinal said:

Or not. People frequently use the "what difference does it make" comment, a snippet of a much larger statement from a larger inquiry, wildly out of context and hope people won't notice. Surely you weren't doing that?

Click to expand...

It's OK that you have chosen your own interpretation. Fortunately I wasn't doing what you suggest.

"...and please don't call me [Surely]."

AliHajiSheik said:

It's OK that you have chosen your own interpretation. Fortunately I wasn't doing what you suggest.

"...and please don't call me [Surely]."

Click to expand...

Your lack of willingness to clarify what you meant by that snippet by Hillary strongly suggests otherwise.

Cardinal said:

Your lack of willingness to clarify what you meant by that snippet by Hillary strongly suggests otherwise.

Click to expand...

What difference does it make (no quotes)? Feel better?

sedan said:

You know, one of the things the scandalmongers never like to talk about is how there really were worldwide protests against the video on that day.

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Click to expand...

EdwinWillers said:

Name one protest we were focused on instead of Benghazi, let alone that such efforts precluded us from doing anything in Benghazi.

Good grief. Talk about lame.

Click to expand...

washunut said:

What has that got to do with a terrorist attack on 9/11??!!

Click to expand...

annata said:

Bengazi was unique. what you mention was a deliberate attempt to conflate other protests, into a terrorist atack in Bengazi.

The US knew the next day, yet chose to go with the"video did it line"

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Hillary ?? Is that you ?

Click to expand...

mtm1963 said:

notice there's not one for benghazi.

Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:

Deadender.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

True, BUT, the attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with that. It was a planned raid that had been formulated prior to those protests.

Click to expand...

The point, of course, is that it was never unreasonable to suppose that the attacks were related to the video.

And there were people in the CIA saying that it was, which is why the talking points given to Susan Rice by the CIA included those statements.

For me, the map indicates how very unusual it would be for there not to be a protest in Libya on a day when protests against the video were so ubiquitous across the Muslim world.

Interestingly, there's an article in today's NYT still saying the video was a primary cause of the attack:

^A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

Click to expand...

the AQ moniker is favored by the Republicans (according to the NYT), the dereliction in security is manifest, hanging out in east Africa,
with Libya police providing security was just culbably stupid.

It's hard to differentiate between the militias, this is from WIKI

Ansar al-Sharia was formed during the Libyan civil war and rose to prominence after the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi.
On September 11, 2012, the United States Department of State Operations Center advised the White House Situation Room and other U.S. security units that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that had just occurred.[12] Witnesses said they saw vehicles with the group's logo at the scene of the assault and that fighters there acknowledged at the time that they belonged to Ansar al-Sharia.[

Click to expand...

Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so you have direct input into the WH Situation Room that Ansar al Sharia , led the attack, Which was never mentioned, it was "spontaneous", according to the WH, and Rice.
They had to know about the Libyan militia groups, they chose to down play it into "a spontaneous demonstration gone bad"

It was pre-planned. The WH had to know this, as the knowledge from State was sent to the Situation Room (done by Ansar al-Sharia)

One could argue over the video point, and it's pretty clear that was the talking point - nothing about the rise of militia rule after the Qaddafi assassination.
Stick to the talking points, like Rice did, even as the WH had to know it was more than that, when she went on the Sunday shows.

The real failure was the Libyan war itself, but Americans refuse responsibility for that - calling it the "liberation" of Libya.
The crime was the war, not the dissembling about the video. The piss-poor security in Bengazi..well you can make up your own mind on that.

as for Hillary: her inability to testify otherwise then "what does it matter" speaks volumes.
By the time of her testimony, she could have easily explained how theWH talking points came out.
She chose to deflect, not accept any responsibility, and cover up for the incompetence of Rice/Clinton/Obama.

At one point, Hillary Clinton exploded in barely contained fury:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked the Republican Senator. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again

Click to expand...

C'mon. just come clean, but the hawks never will, because once they did, the whole Libyan "liberation" would unravel.

sedan said:

The point, of course, is that it was never unreasonable to suppose that the attacks were related to the video.

And there were people in the CIA saying that it was, which is why the talking points given to Susan Rice by the CIA included those statements.

For me, the map indicates how very unusual it would be for there not to be a protest in Libya on a day when protests against the video were so ubiquitous across the Muslim world.

Interestingly, there's an article in today's NYT still saying the video was a primary cause of the attack:

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.​

Click to expand...

The REALITY is that the regime KNEW the attack didnt have anything to do with the video, then flat out LIED about it. Nixon resigned over a smaller lie than that.

apdst said:

The United States didn't invade Libya and the destruction was caused by local forces.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous and unlearned.

I guess all the American of bombs were just a figment of the imagination.

The U.S. Has Dropped 76% of the Bombs in Libya - The Wire

US drones bombed Libya more than Pakistan ? RT USA

US & Nato forces dropping Depleted Uranium Bombs on Libyan Population |

30,000 Bombs On Libya

Remember Libya: How US-NATO Destroyed an Entire Country Under a Humanitarian Mandate | Global Research

Not only did the US destroy Libya, we did it based on lies no differently than what we did in Iraq .. AND, we used Al Queda to do it.

BlackAsCoal said:

Ridiculous and unlearned.

I guess all the American of bombs were just a figment of the imagination.

The U.S. Has Dropped 76% of the Bombs in Libya - The Wire

US drones bombed Libya more than Pakistan ? RT USA

US & Nato forces dropping Depleted Uranium Bombs on Libyan Population |

30,000 Bombs On Libya

Remember Libya: How US-NATO Destroyed an Entire Country Under a Humanitarian Mandate | Global Research

Not only did the US destroy Libya, we did it based on lies no differently than what we did in Iraq .. AND, we used Al Queda to do it.

Click to expand...

That's air-support for local ground forces, not an invasion.

That's as rediculous as people claiming United States invaded Vietnam.

Most of the destruction in Libya was cause by the rebels and government forces.

apdst said:

That's air-support for local ground forces, not an invasion.

That's as rediculous as people claiming United States invaded Vietnam.

Most of the destruction in Libya was cause by the rebels and government forces.

Click to expand...

why not just call it:
"Kinetic Military Action", if you want to split hairs..

Libya: it's not a war if Americans can't get hurt | Jonathan Schell | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Nonetheless, the Obama administration insists it is not a war. Why?

Because, according to "United States Activities in Libya", a 32-page report that the administration released last week, "U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterised by those factors."

In other words, the balance of forces is so lopsided in favour of the United States that no Americans are dying or are threatened with dying.
War is only war, it seems, when Americans are dying, when we die. When only they, the Libyans, die, it is something else for which there is as yet apparently no name. When they attack, it is war. When we attack, it is not.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

That's air-support for local ground forces, not an invasion.

That's as rediculous as people claiming United States invaded Vietnam.

Most of the destruction in Libya was cause by the rebels and government forces.

Click to expand...

It was the destruction of a sovereign nation based on lies .. no differently than Iraq and what we had planned for Syria.

We bombed a peaceful and prosperous nation back into the Stone Age .. and we used AL QUEDA as our ground forces.

Al Queda is our enemy .. sure they are.

How do you 'humanitarianly' drop massive bombs on densely packed cities?

apdst said:

Nixon resigned over a smaller lie than that.

Click to expand...

It amazes me how people can actually think this...

Nixon resigned because he knew he would be impeached (with a real possibility of conviction) for charges related to breaking several federal laws. That's not a "smaller lie", no matter how much you want it to be.

Even if we say the attack had NOTHING to do with the video (which the New York Times article disputes) and the Obama Administration KNEW it had nothing to do with a video (which, again, can be disputed), and they told a lie which said it was because of a video, that still would not be breaking federal laws, it would simply be a lie. And the lie, as we know now, would have been made to protect American intelligence interests in the Middle East, not for political gain. After all, it makes no sense to claim the Obama Administration lied for political gain when they knew (if we assume the video had nothing to do with it) the video story would be debunked.


In other words, your little comment here is utterly absurd and you should rethink such statements before you make them.

sedan said:

You know, one of the things the scandalmongers never like to talk about is how there really were worldwide protests against the video on that day.

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Click to expand...

What did that have to do with Benghazi and Susan Rice lying to the American People. That is something you liberals don't want to talk about, is the truth.

sedan said:

The point, of course, is that it was never unreasonable to suppose that the attacks were related to the video.

...
Interestingly, there's an article in today's NYT still saying the video was a primary cause of the attack:

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.​

Click to expand...

Yes ... I heard about that ... and I also heard both factions on the House Intelligence Committee take exception to the NYT piece.

AND ... you can't discount the possibility that ...

Born Free said:

What did that have to do with Benghazi and Susan Rice lying to the American People. That is something you liberals don't want to talk about, is the truth.

Click to expand...

I guess reading the whole thread would just be too much for you to handle?

sedan said:

The point, of course, is that it was never unreasonable to suppose that the attacks were related to the video.

And there were people in the CIA saying that it was, which is why the talking points given to Susan Rice by the CIA included those statements.

For me, the map indicates how very unusual it would be for there not to be a protest in Libya on a day when protests against the video were so ubiquitous across the Muslim world.

Interestingly, there's an article in today's NYT still saying the video was a primary cause of the attack:
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Click to expand...

But hey, good for you on criticizing an entire group of people because of your lack of effort.

bubbabgone said:

Yes ... I heard about that ... and I also heard both factions on the House Intelligence Committee take exception to the NYT piece.

AND ... you can't discount the possibility that ...

View attachment 67159072

Click to expand...

Sure can't! Could this mean she's planning another run, even though she has consistently stated she's not interested? :mrgreen:

Greetings, bubba! :2wave:

polgara said:

Sure can't! Could this mean she's planning another run, even though she has consistently stated she's not interested? :mrgreen:

Greetings, bubba! :2wave:

Click to expand...

Sure could ... those people are like mice ... if it's not the same ones coming back they're new ones reproducing too fast to keep up.

How you doin', Pol?

Slyfox696 said:

It amazes me how people can actually think this...

Nixon resigned because he knew he would be impeached (with a real possibility of conviction) for charges related to breaking several federal laws. That's not a "smaller lie", no matter how much you want it to be.

Even if we say the attack had NOTHING to do with the video (which the New York Times article disputes) and the Obama Administration KNEW it had nothing to do with a video (which, again, can be disputed), and they told a lie which said it was because of a video, that still would not be breaking federal laws, it would simply be a lie. And the lie, as we know now, would have been made to protect American intelligence interests in the Middle East, not for political gain. After all, it makes no sense to claim the Obama Administration lied for political gain when they knew (if we assume the video had nothing to do with it) the video story would be debunked.


In other words, your little comment here is utterly absurd and you should rethink such statements before you make them.

Click to expand...

A lie is a lie. This lie is bigger than any lie told by Nixon. The people lied about how Americans got murdered.

polgara said:

Sure can't! Could this mean she's planning another run, even though she has consistently stated she's not interested? :mrgreen:

Greetings, bubba! :2wave:

Click to expand...

Oh, never...nudge-nudge/wink-wink. Remember "Eight years for Bill, and eight years for Hill"? :mrgreen:

apdst said:

A lie is a lie.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Trying to reduce complex situations to simple ones shows either a lack of knowledge of how the world works or an intentional dishonesty necessary to achieve criticism you insist on leveling.

A lie is not a lie. If I lie to police in a murder investigation, intentionally trying to throw them off the trail of the suspect, that's a significantly different lie than if I told my police officer buddy at the diner a whopper about how big of a fish I caught last weekend. A lie is not a lie, and for you to try and claim so is simply false.

This lie is bigger than any lie told by Nixon.

Click to expand...

Again, ignoring the NYT article which says it's not really a lie, no it's not. As I said, Nixon didn't resign for telling lies, he was going to be impeached for breaking the law. Take your partisan blinders off for a second and just think how ridiculous your statement is right now.

The people lied about how Americans got murdered.

Click to expand...

Again, if we ignore the evidence from the NYT article, the lie very possibly could have saved the lives of many more Americans and their intelligence assets. It seems rather hypocritical to be upset about lying about the deaths of Americans, when said lies possibly protected the lives of Americans.

bubbabgone said:

Sure could ... those people are like mice ... if it's not the same ones coming back they're new ones reproducing too fast to keep up.

How you doin', Pol?

Click to expand...

Fairly well, considering .... :lamo: You going out to celebrate New Years?

Slyfox696 said:

No, it's not. Trying to reduce complex situations to simple ones shows either a lack of knowledge of how the world works or an intentional dishonesty necessary to achieve criticism you insist on leveling.

A lie is not a lie. If I lie to police in a murder investigation, intentionally trying to throw them off the trail of the suspect, that's a significantly different lie than if I told my police officer buddy at the diner a whopper about how big of a fish I caught last weekend. A lie is not a lie, and for you to try and claim so is simply false.

Again, ignoring the NYT article which says it's not really a lie, no it's not. As I said, Nixon didn't resign for telling lies, he was going to be impeached for breaking the law. Take your partisan blinders off for a second and just think how ridiculous your statement is right now.

Again, if we ignore the evidence from the NYT article, the lie very possibly could have saved the lives of many more Americans and their intelligence assets. It seems rather hypocritical to be upset about lying about the deaths of Americans, when said lies possibly protected the lives of Americans.

Click to expand...

The regime knew prior to the video brew-ha-ha that an attack was possible. They were derelict in taking the appropriate measures to protect American personell. Four Americans died as result. Then, they LIED about everything.

That's a big ass lie...

apdst said:

A lie is a lie. This lie is bigger than any lie told by Nixon. The people lied about how Americans got murdered.

Click to expand...

Forget it ap ... the foxy one decided long ago he's gonna believe who he wants to believe no matter how preposterous.

Now he's resorted to fantasies about the Obama team lying to protect our M.E. security apparatus and that it's silly to suspect Obama would ever lie about anything just to get past an election because it would be eventually exposed... even though he did and it has been and foxy is still marching right along.

polgara said:

Fairly well, considering .... :lamo: You going out to celebrate New Years?

Click to expand...

No chance ... you?
How's your leg?

apdst said:

The regime knew prior to the video brew-ha-ha that an attack was possible.

Click to expand...

Yes, it happened to be September 11th every where in the world and there were threats against many American interests that day.

They were derelict in taking the appropriate measures to protect American personell.

Click to expand...

Agreed, though given the fact it was a CIA location, I think we both understand now why.

Four Americans died as result.

Click to expand...

Four Americans died because of the murderous actions of others.

Then, they LIED about everything.

That's a big ass lie...

Click to expand...

So I see this is the part where we simply ignore all facts, reason and logic in order to insist on our blind criticism of the black Democrat. Get back to me if you ever feel like discussing this in a non-partisan way. Otherwise, I'm done with dealing with such foolish comments. Thanks.

bubbabgone said:

Forget it ap ... the foxy one decided long ago he's gonna believe who he wants to believe no matter how preposterous.

Click to expand...

The irony is thick within this statement.

In order to make this statement, you have to ignore the monumental amount of facts and evidence we have which supports what I'm saying in order to cling to a narrative which doesn't make sense to any rational person. The only thing preposterous in this thread is the statement that what Nixon did was less than what happened under Obama and those who defend those making such preposterous statements.

Now he's resorted to fantasies about the Obama team lying to protect our M.E. security apparatus

Click to expand...

What fantasies? We know Benghazi was a CIA hotspot. We have pretty good evidence we were running weapons into Syria from Libya. What fantasies are you accusing me of, unless you have become so politically blinded as to think facts and logic are now fantasy?

and that it's silly to suspect Obama would ever lie about anything just to get past an election because it would be eventually exposed

Click to expand...

Because that's an asinine belief. Obama has been FAR more damaged politically by the video than he would have been if he had simply said we were attacked. To believe Obama lied about this to win an election is the height of fantasy. Look how much damage Obama took over the Benghazi video thing (which the NYT is now reporting to be partly true after all)...if that damage would have come out a month earlier, Romney would be President.

Only a fool would think Obama lied to protect his presidency, when the lie he's accused of telling would have done so much more harm to his re-election chances. It never ceases to amaze me the ridiculous lengths some people will go to hold on to such asinine beliefs.

foxy is still marching right along.

Click to expand...

I march along to the beat of facts and truth, not some mindless droning regurgitated from watching/listening to conservative media. It's a shame there aren't more people in this thread like me and fewer people like...well, others.