Merged State Department admits there was no protest at Benghazi consulate

[A'isha]

Make all the excuses you want, but it's quite clear now that the State Dept. insisted all along, from Day 1, that it was a terrorist attack unrelated to the film protests.

"Insisted" was not the word used. What was said is that there was initial disagreement among members of the executive branch, with State not believing that the film was involved (as it was with the Cairo protest).

And that the White House spun it as a film protest despite this, as shown by this press release dated 10:43 AM Sept. 12:


Clearly tying the attack to the film the very next morning, days before the CIA memo you ascribe as being the basis for the White House announcement.

And, as I pointed out above, that was not a "narrative" that the administration pursued after that point. Every statement made afterward, from Clinton to Carney to the unnamed State Department official, did not draw a connection between the film and the Benghazi attack - it was either "we're still investigating", or (as Clinton did) referring to the Benghazi attack and the film-related embassy attacks separately.

The memo appears to have been what was behind Rice's comments, but there does not seem to be any consistent "line" that the administration was pushing at all, which is the accusation here.

 

[Puppycow]

Do you think that US ambassadors to the UN just go rogue and give their personal opinions instead of the official positions of their boss?

And what is it with you and tu quoque fallacies?

So the basis is only an assumption by you that she was saying what Obama told her to say.

Thus you are committing the loaded question fallacy.

 

[A'isha]

You're leaving out the President's comments on the "hateful" film.

No, I'm not.

You still haven't provided the basis for your statement about the ambassador being "dragged through the streets", aside from one cryptic reference to an unspecified photo, though.

 

[Cylinder]

The memo appears to have been what was behind Rice's comments, but there does not seem to be any consistent "line" that the administration was pushing at all, which is the accusation here.

Carney on Libya attacks:

 

[A'isha]

Carney on Libya attacks:

I'm unable to view that. Can you link to the transcript, please?

EDIT: And are you going to address the "ambassador dragged through the streets" thing, or aren't you?

 

[WildCat]

So the basis is only an assumption by you that she was saying what Obama told her to say.

Thus you are committing the loaded question fallacy.

The job of the UN ambassador is to convey the views of the administration she represents. If you think she went rogue you need to show some evidence, because the default position is that she was speaking on behalf of the Obama administration.

 

[WildCat]

I'm unable to view that. Can you link to the transcript, please?

This is a transcript from a press converence on Sept. 14:

Q Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

MR. CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The President is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But let’s be --

Q But saying you’re very vigilant and being very vigilant are different things.

MR. CARNEY: Jake, let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region --

Q At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --

MR. CARNEY: We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Q But the group around the Benghazi post was well armed. It was a well-coordinated attack. Do you think it was a spontaneous protest against a movie?

MR. CARNEY: Look, this is obviously under investigation, and I don’t have –

Q But your operating assumption is that that was in response to the video, in Benghazi? I just want to clear that up. That’s the framework? That’s the operating assumption?

MR. CARNEY: Look, it’s not an assumption --

Q Because there are administration officials who don’t -- who dispute that, who say that it looks like this was something other than a protest.

MR. CARNEY: I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.

The hilited bit is contradicted by what we know the State Dept. thought at the time, that it was a pre-planned attack.

 

[Puppycow]

You're leaving out the President's comments on the "hateful" film.

Referring to the larger context of the events of that day, which did include a protest over the film, and there were ongoing protests and riots in Egypt and other countries over it.

 

[A'isha]

This is a transcript from a press converence on Sept. 14:


The hilited bit is contradicted by what we know the State Dept. thought at the time, that it was a pre-planned attack.

Which is probably why Carney is going to great pains to avoid making a definitive statement about the film being the cause of the Libya attacks and to state that it's under investigation. Which is kind of at odds with the notion that the administration was intent on pushing a connection between the film and the attacks, but perfectly consistent with the notion that there was disagreement within the executive branch about the cause of the attacks (which the reporter even points out in his questions), and the administration itself is waiting on the investigation.

Again, the accusation was that the administration was pushing a specific desired narrative. And that's simply not the case - there may have been a group within the executive that did not want to accept State's conclusion, but that didn't make the administration say "We know it was the film that caused protests which resulted in the attack in Benghazi", at most it made them say "We don't know what happened and it's still under investigation."

 

[Puppycow]

The job of the UN ambassador is to convey the views of the administration she represents. If you think she went rogue you need to show some evidence, because the default position is that she was speaking on behalf of the Obama administration.

Saying that she was "speaking on behalf of the Obama administration" is different from saying that Obama specifically told her to say what she said.
I'm not saying that she "went rogue" but I am saying that you need to show evidence that she was "repeating what her boss told her to say."

 

[Ziggurat]

So the basis is only an assumption by you that she was saying what Obama told her to say.

So she wasn't stating the administration's position, only her own uninformed, ignorant opinion? Then what the hell is she even doing in that job, and why has she not been fired? And what else has she been saying at the UN that isn't the administration position?

The (unlikely) alternative isn't really an improvement.

 

[Puppycow]

This is a transcript from a press converence on Sept. 14:


The hilited bit is contradicted by what we know the State Dept. thought at the time, that it was a pre-planned attack.

He is referring to the "unrest around the region" not to the attack at Benghazi.

 

[A'isha]

So she wasn't stating the administration's position, only her own uninformed, ignorant opinion? Then what the hell is she even doing in that job, and why has she not been fired? And what else has she been saying at the UN that isn't the administration position?

The (unlikely) alternative isn't really an improvement.

What about those State Department officials from Wildcat's link? Were they stating the administration's position?

 

[Aoidoi]

I'm probably just being dense, but why does it matter if the attack was initially incorrectly linked to the protests occurring on the same date? At worst it appears to imply they weren't instantly communicating to everyone, cause I don't really see a motive for it being deliberate.

Am I missing something wherein "bad people used a protest as cover for murder" is a preferable storyline to "bad people committed pre-planned murder?"

Even if it is stipulated that they were wrong, I just don't see why it's significant. Explain please?

 

[A'isha]

I'm probably just being dense, but why does it matter if the attack was initially incorrectly linked to the protests occurring on the same date? At worst it appears to imply they weren't instantly communicating to everyone, cause I don't really see a motive for it being deliberate.

Am I missing something wherein "bad people used a protest as cover for murder" is a preferable storyline to "bad people committed pre-planned murder?"

Even if it is stipulated that they were wrong, I just don't see why it's significant. Explain please?

Partisan politics.

 

[This is The End]

I wouldn't be surprised if one office just didn't get some memo. Or didn't read a memo. Or misread a memo. Or some other mistake happened.

 

[Puppycow]

So she wasn't stating the administration's position, only her own uninformed, ignorant opinion? Then what the hell is she even doing in that job, and why has she not been fired? And what else has she been saying at the UN that isn't the administration position?

The (unlikely) alternative isn't really an improvement.

I find it unlikely that President Obama would tell Susan Rice to specifically say one thing and tell Jay Carney and other Administration officials to say something else.

As far as I can tell, Susan Rice is the only Administration official who asserted that the attack was "spontaneous, not pre-planned" and "a direct result" of the film.

I can accept that she was "speaking on behalf of the Administration" in a general sense but I don't think that Obama told her exactly what to say. That would be extreme micromanagement. He didn't even know what questions Jake Tapper would ask, so how can he tell her in advance exactly what to say in an interview that involves unknown questions from a reporter.

 

[WildCat]

He is referring to the "unrest around the region" not to the attack at Benghazi.

He was referring to the region, and the Benghazi attack also. And he said they had no evidence that any of it (that includes the Benghazi attack) was pre-planned, which directly contradicts what the State Dept. says.

 

[WildCat]

What about those State Department officials from Wildcat's link? Were they stating the administration's position?

No, which is perhaps why the officials requested anonymity. Otherwise they'd be named.

 

[WildCat]

I can accept that she was "speaking on behalf of the Administration" in a general sense but I don't think that Obama told her exactly what to say.

So the buck stops at Susan Rice?