The entire media is taking out of context what Susan Rice really said

[dennis4868]

The media keeps saying that Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning shows and only said that the protest at our Benghazi consulate was a spontaneous protest that began because of a video. BUT THAT'S NOT EVERYTHING SHE SAID.

SHE ALSO SAID IN EVERY SUNDAY MORNING APPEARANCE THAT DAY --->"soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent. "


WHY DOES THE FUCKING MEDIA KEEP LEAVING THIS PART OUT?

[cthulu2016]

1. Sorry, that defense is a fail

She said there was no pre-planning — that the extremist elements just showed up opportunistically.

That is what was significant about her comments.

I think she was simply saying what she believed or had been informed was the case, but there is no benefit (in practical or moral terms) in pretending that what she said was not controversial at the time, and almost surely incorrect.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

3. And what part of that is not true? The video evidence that was reviewed in the hearings

yesterday clearly showed an unorganized, seemingly spur-of-the-moment attack according to media reports and Democratic reps that were in the hearing room.

[cthulu2016]

6. Are you saying there was no pre-planning by any militants?

What is your basis for that?

[dennis4868]

4. where did she say NO PRE-PLANNING by the militant groups?

She said there was a spontaneous reaction to the video, which there was, and a militant group with heavy weapons getting involved. That was the intelligence at the time.

[cthulu2016]

7. You will think what you want to think

Nobody can stop you.

[dennis4868]

8. huh?

[cthulu2016]

9. Look, is there any point to answering your question?

If you are sincerely seeking information, rather than seeking to join in an Orwellian spin effort, you can read the transcripts.


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/

She appeared on many TV shows that day and on each show batted down the idea that it was a pre-planned attack.

I cannot stand this Orwellian BS. She said what she said. She was repeating what she had been told. It's not her fault.

But we cannot just make shit up.

I was following this story quite closely at the time, and I was, if I recall correctly, the first person to post in GD that she was merely relaying what the CIA had told her that morning.

Having been a defender of Rice based on fact, I will not now become a defender based on distortions.

1) She did not do anything wrong.
2) What she had to say appears to have been junk.

[dennis4868]

10. it was the intelligence at the time...

http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack-145946656--politics.html

[BeyondGeography]

5. Your post is a fail

She was reading from an approved script.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Uhmmm ... Well ...

because the election is over and they must maintain the crazy demographic?

[chowder66]

11. This is under investigation still but I do not see why it has to be "either/or".

I don't know if there has been further clarification or a retraction from the NY Times where others that were there said it was in response to the film from their point of view.
It seems to me that this "could have been" opportunistic. Which is somewhat implied in Rice's fuller statement above.

Maybe the extremists had a plan and were looking for the first opportunity they could find that would give them cover for a "next" opportunity. So while the film may not have spurred them on, the opportunity of the response by angry crowds was good cover to implement their attack and possibly get away.

If the crowd was used as cover for the attack and the investigators/cia thought that the film was the reason "on the surface" - I don't get why that is such a "bad" first assessment. It was a first assessment probable to revision as more details came out.

People/Media were clamoring for a response and so the first assessment was reported. If anyone thinks that the first response is an absolute then they are not paying attention and do not understand when something is still active or fluid.

I see nothing controversial about this other than Republicans creating controversy before all of the facts are in.