New Disclosures on Benghazi

[marplots]

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

D'OH!

/this was of course the point where Greg Hicks jaw dropped open

And this is what you are spinning into an international incident? Seriously?

How exactly is, "we do not have information..." become "contradicting the Libyan President?" She's saying "we" - the US - doesn't have the information. She isn't saying anything close to "he's wrong." Ye Gads! If the President of Libya took it as some sort of insult, shame on him. No blame for Rice at all.

Come to think of it, perhaps the News outlet is to blame. After all, horror of horrors, they had a woman appear in the same segment!

For a bit, I thought this might have substance. Thank you for clearing it up. The rule should be, "If you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, at least make sure you have a molehill."

Suddenly, I'm reminded of how desperate and twisted the arguments against gay marriage were.

Please, please tell me this stuff is fringe and not something a serious conservative would argue. (Lie if you have to.)

 

[The Big Dog]

BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.

SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date....

Now I get back to my question, why Rice? Why not Nuland? Or Clinton? Is it because they knew that talking points had just been stripped of all references to Al Quaeda.

I see no evidence that Rice was engaged in the process of putting the talking points together, so was she the sacrificial lamb. She could say with a straight face that it was the "best information." The bad news was that when presented with new information that completely contradicted the talking points she was given, she was not adept enough or informed enough to pivot.

Does anyone knew who prepped her for her big day in the sun?

 

[elbe]

I see no evidence that Rice was engaged in the process of putting the talking points together, so was she the sacrificial lamb. She could say with a straight face that it was the "best information." The bad news was that when presented with new information that completely contradicted the talking points she was given, she was not adept enough or informed enough to pivot

The new information that a foreign head of state claims to know more than our own intelligence? I think I'd rather wait for confirmation from my own people before I start including what other people say into my "facts".

 

[The Big Dog]

I've already mentioned that the President of Libya went on NPR that same afternoon and lambasted the Administration's story. Hell, I'm no diplomat, but if I were him and the Administration's water carrier just went on National TV and sand bagged me, I'd be pissed too.

But we know, of course, that seasoned diplomats understood the nuance, and Rice's failure.

As I've mentioned before:

"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced." This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17-18 days. He added that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time.

"I was stunned," Hicks said. "My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed."

 

[marplots]

I see no evidence that Rice was engaged in the process of putting the talking points together, so was she the sacrificial lamb. She could say with a straight face that it was the "best information." The bad news was that when presented with new information that completely contradicted the talking points she was given, she was not adept enough or informed enough to pivot.

Does anyone knew who prepped her for her big day in the sun?

Sacrificed to what? I still haven't heard what the end game was supposed to be. Since we've laid the claim of "insulting/contradicting the Libyan President" to rest, what exactly was Rice supposed to be accomplishing?

Love to hear how this is even close to being nefarious. How deep does the rabbit hole go? What's the real agenda? What clever nuance of political art have we uncovered that tips us off to what we've always suspected about Obama? Please, do lay the cards on the table for us.

Let's quit dancing around it - where's the beef? Draw me a picture.

 

[elbe]

Do we have any actual evidence than the president of Libya was insulted by that? Maybe there video of him being visibly insulted on that show? I mean, right now we just have the opinion of someone who's been a tad bit faulty on reasoning thus far.

 

[RandFan]

Now I get back to my question, why Rice?

JAQing?

Why not Nuland? Or Clinton? Is it because they knew that talking points had just been stripped of all references to Al Quaeda.

More JAQing?

I see no evidence that Rice was engaged in the process of putting the talking points together, so was she the sacrificial lamb.

Fallacy: Begging the question.

She could say with a straight face that it was the "best information." The bad news was that when presented with new information that completely contradicted the talking points she was given, she was not adept enough or informed enough to pivot.

Dishonest. The CIA provided contradictory talking points.

Does anyone knew who prepped her for her big day in the sun?

Does anyone who is intellectually honest care?

 

[elbe]

JDoes anyone who is intellectually honest care?

And what if it was just some low level bureaucrat? Are people going to start grilling/harassing some random guy because he did his job?

 

[RandFan]

And what if it was just some low level bureaucrat? Are people going to start grilling/harassing some random guy because he did his job?

I know. As I've said over and over, at this point, knowing what we do know, the worst case scenario is CYA on the part of some bureaucrats and others who did nothing more than their job. There has been a lot of mud thrown against the wall and I've yet to see much of it stick. Then again, how many posters are here defending the nonsense? One wonders if there might be a correlation.

Wonder what JAQ is next?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the diplomatic out on Rice's part was the, "still under investigation." But I'm not sure that's a real quote or just how I remember it.

I quoted her very clear and well-worded cautions earlier in the thread. She very explicitly said we won't know definitively until the investigation is concluded. What she gave on the Sunday talk shows the day after (or was it within the first 24 hrs after the attacks still?) was merely a preliminary assessment.

It's a point 16.5 refuses to acknowledge.

 

[The Big Dog]

I've been researching the selection of Rice to speak on the Morning Talk shows. Hillary Clinton said that she had nothing to do with it, and had not seen the talking points.

One might ask, why not the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs?

That was..... Elizabeth Jones, why not her??

Oh.... right:

Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.'

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So 16.5's latest CT is that the Obama administration conspired to make Susan Rice a "sacrificial lamb".

Is there any evidence of this conspiracy (other than circular argumentation that uses as a premise that Rice lied)? Also--and I'm nearly afraid to ask--to what end? Why would the Obama administration want a sacrificial lamb to knowingly tell a false story knowing the facts would come out?

And aren't you still ignoring the fact that Rice clearly said this was not a definitive assessment since that is something that would have to wait until the investigation was conducted?

 

[RandFan]

One might ask, why not the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs?

That was..... Elizabeth Jones, why not her??

JAQing? One might ask where Obama was at the time of Jimmy Hoffa's death? Just asking questions.

Mr, President, if that is your real title, last year you said you were 50. This year it's 51. Which is it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've been researching the selection of Rice to speak on the Morning Talk shows. Hillary Clinton said that she had nothing to do with it, and had not seen the talking points.

One might ask, why not the acting Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs?

That was..... Elizabeth Jones, why not her??

No matter who was selected you could ask "why not someone else?" No matter who was selected you could ask "why this person?" These questions do not constitute evidence of your latest CT.

Oh.... right:

Describing a conversation she had with then-Libyan ambassador Ali Aujali, Jones wrote in the previously undisclosed email that 'I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.'

Do you have any evidence that this alleged conversation (yes--I don't rely on anything you say as factual since you gave the 100 deaths whopper) was the reason Jones wasn't selected?

Isn't it possible that Rice was selected because she was logistically most available to do the Sunday morning show circuit?

But again, even if that's not the reason, your questions about the selection of Rice do not comprise evidence of anything at all. They're just questions.

You might think your questions are pointed and significant, but as I pointed out, no matter who did it, you could ask the exact same questions, so maybe they're not so pointed or significant as you think they are.

 

[A'isha]

Susan Rice was being groomed to be Secretary of State after Clinton (Clinton had long before stated she was only going to serve one term in the position).

That's the "why her".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

JAQing? One might ask where Obama was at the time of Jimmy Hoffa's death? Just asking questions.

Indeed. I again refer to my earlier prediction as to the nature of the discussion this thread was likely to produce.

Aside from a brief discussion of the political ramifications of the scandal-hunt, this has been pretty much purely CT talk.

 

[elbe]

Susan Rice was being groomed to be Secretary of State after Clinton (Clinton had long before stated she was only going to serve one term in the position).

That's the "why her".

Is that from a conspiracy standpoint or are we just forgetting Kerry?

 

[Mumbles]

I've already mentioned that the President of Libya went on NPR that same afternoon and lambasted the Administration's story. Hell, I'm no diplomat, but if I were him and the Administration's water carrier just went on National TV and sand bagged me, I'd be pissed too.

But we know, of course, that seasoned diplomats understood the nuance, and Rice's failure.

As I've mentioned before:

"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced." This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17-18 days. He added that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time.

"I was stunned," Hicks said. "My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed."

It seems to me that Hicks is accusing the Libyan president of holding up an international investigation because he acts like a petulant child. That's a far more damaging claim than ambassador Rice not agreeing high him on some Sunday gab show.

It always amazes me when someone thinks "well Joe hurt their fee fees, so they acted in a ridiculous and unprofessional manner" is an accusation against Joe.

 

[A'isha]

Is that from a conspiracy standpoint or are we just forgetting Kerry?

She was under consideration before he was and was considered Clinton's "likely replacement" (Kerry was being floated as Secretary of Defense). It was only when Rice withdrew her name from consideration after the nontroversy over the talking points that Kerry became the likely Secretary of State nominee.

 

[A'isha]

It seems to me that Hicks is accusing the Libyan president of holding up an international investigation because he acts like a petulant child. That's a far more damaging claim than ambassador Rice not agreeing high him on some Sunday gab show.

It always amazes me when someone thinks "well Joe hurt their fee fees, so they acted in a ridiculous and unprofessional manner" is an accusation against Joe.

And it's blatantly obvious that Magariaf was doing plenty of his own blame-shifting - note his insistence on the talk shows that the Benghazi attackers were foreigners.