McCain’s claims about Susan Rice’s comments on the Libya attack (WaPo Fact Checker)

[struggle4progress]

Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 11/15/2012

... Much of her statement is filled with caveats, such as saying this is “the best information we have to date.” McCain knocks her for not saying this was the work of al-Qaeda, but she does not dispute that possibility; she simply says it needs to be investigated.

She never uses the phrase “flash mob,” or says this is “absolutely” the case but instead says “we believe that it looks like extremist elements” appeared to have opportunistically taken advantage of a protest.

McCain also claims “a casual observer” would know there was no demonstration. U.S. officials now say there is little evidence of a protest but it was not an outlandish thought at the time. After all, it had been heavily reported by the media — including in The Washington Post — based on witness accounts. This was the headline on the Post story just days before Rice’s appearance: “Libya consulate attack came after militants joined protesters, say witnesses, officials.”

In fact, our timeline shows that the American news media did not report until Sept. 20, four days after Rice’s appearance, that there was no anti-American protest. Not until Oct. 9 did the State Department report there was no protest outside the embassy ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccains-claims-about-susan-rices-comments-on-the-libya-attack/2012/11/15/e6590650-2eb1-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_blog.html?hpid=z3

[Democracyinkind]

1. He's got nothing.

They've got nothing. They never had.

Personally, I think Benghazi is the nail in the coffin of GOP foreign policy. Democrats should hammer it in. Show the American people how disingenuous the RW fucks really are.

[Enrique]

2. this is not how I remember it

Kessler says "In fact, our timeline shows that the American news media did not report until Sept. 20, four days after Rice’s appearance, that there was no anti-American protest."

The way I remember it, I remember being surprised by a report on Rachel Maddow that it was terror attack and that it had nothing to d with the movie. Then the next day or at least the next weekend, I was really surprised to see Rice on TV saying that it was all about the movie. Yes there were caveats, but it was still directly contradictory to what I had seen on Maddow. (Rachel didn't break the story, but that's where I saw it).

Anyone else remember it this way?


Here is DU's discussion when Rice made her appearance: Note how skeptical a lot of people are. This tells me that the information was out there that this was not just a spontaneous act. Glenn Kessler imho is twisting the timeline.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014232837

[John2]

3. Do

you only get your news from the pundits?

On September 14, CNN correspondent Arwa Damon found Ambassador Steven's diary at the unsecured site of the attack. In it Stevens expressed his concern about growing al-Qaeda presence in the area and his worry about being on an Al Qaeda hit list. The U.S. State Department later accused CNN of violating privacy and breaking its promise to Stevens family that they would not report the diary. This source was from the Washington Post on 23 September 2012.

There are problems with the above explanation. First of all, why was Stevens in Benghazi? How did this CNN correspondent obtain evidence at a crime scene, that was supposed to be closed off by the CIA? Did the Al Qaeda involvement come from this diary?

Furthermore, the Benghazi assault was not on just the consulate or mission, whatever the terminology was, but also on a CIA annex, some 1.2 miles away from the main building. All the personnel that were killed was not in the main Building also. two of the deceased were in fact killed at the CIA Annex. Two of the deceased were described also as navy seals and attached to the State Department but the CIA later corrected it and actually verified, they were two CIA agents.

Continuing on, the assault apparently took place at night fall, with attackers sealing off the streets with several gun trucks. The trucks reportedly bore the logo of Ansar al- Shariah which was an Islamist militant group working with the local government, for security of Benghazi. The question needs to be asked, if this was all CIA controlled, working along with militia groups in Benghazi?

Continuing on, One witness reportedly claimed, that he saw militants before the assault, gathering around 20 youths from nearby, chanting against the film. If this is accurate, then the film would be used as an excuse to carry off the attack. There are all kinds of decoys, when one plans an attack for disguise. Source, Paul Shenn and Maggie Michael (2012-10-27) with the A.P. The CIA also evacuated 32 Americans from the annex. So the question again has to be asked, was this a secret CIA operation that went wrong and they want to keep things classified? THe bottom line, it looks like everything was spunned by Petraeus's CIA.

The republicans are just digging a further hole for themselves, trying to attach wrong to Susan Rice and the Obama Administration. If they don't like the way the CIA operates then attack that agency.