Courtesy Thinking Right Blog http://thinkingrightblog.com/debate-win-doesnt-matter-obama-will-pay-price-for-lies-on-libya/
For two weeks after the attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi the Obama administration created and clung to a narrative that the attacks originated from crowds spontaneously gathering to protest an American film that then turned into a violent confrontation leading to the death of the American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, and for at least two more weeks, President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney told everyone that would listen that the attacks “grew from a spontaneous protest that grew into the deadly attacks.” This video of the PRESIDENT’S Press Secretary EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE ATTACKS makes it clear what the Administration was saying to the public at the time.
Six days after the attack the Susan Rice, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations went on five different Sunday morning talk shows and in each and every appearance blamed the Libyan attacks on a “spontaneous crowd gone horribly wrong.” Nine days after the attacks, President Obama stated clearly and unequivocally that “we still don’t know if this was a terrorist attack” during an interview with Univision. (Univision Interview) A full two weeks after the attack President Obama stepped to the microphone at the United Nations and told the world six separate times that the Libyan attacks resulted from a protest about a film that turned horribly wrong. (Washington Times)
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice
Tonight, on national television in an act of Orwellian proportions, President Obama tried to rewrite current history by claiming that before flying off for a campaign stop to Las Vegas the morning after the attacks, he made a speech in the Rose Garden where he declared the attacks to be an “act of terrorism.” This was not only a lie but actually creates even more problems for the President and his botched handling of the crisis.
In his speech in the Rose Garden on the day following the attacks, President Obama first blamed the video for the attacks and virtually apologized for the First Amendment, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” The President then spoke for several minutes and then addressed his personal commemoration of the anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks:
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourn with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.
It was following this statement that President Obama said ”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” (Entire Transcript of Speech)
In the context of the Administration statements to the public for the next two weeks it makes much more sense that these statements were in reference to either the 9/11/2001 attacks or to “terror” in a more general sense than the President calling the Libyan attacks “terrorist attacks.” Let’s recap quickly 1) during the Rose Garden Speech, President Obama referenced and apologized for the video, 2) for two solid weeks Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney told everyone that would listen that the attacks grew from protests about the video that turned violent, 3) Five days after the attacks U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on every nationally syndicated morning news show and claimed that the attacks were the result of protests about the video gone wrong, 4) nine days after the attacks President Obama told Univision that he didn’t yet know “whether the attack was a terrorist attack,” 5) two weeks after the attacks the President spoke before the United Nations and made multiple references to the cause of the attacks as a video protest spontaneously turned violent.
President Obama has two choices here 1) admit that he screwed up during the debate and he did believe for two weeks that the Libyan attacks were not terrorist attacks but a “spontaneous protest over a video gone horribly wrong,” or 2) admit that he directed his Ambassador to the United Nations to lie to the American people on six different talk shows, his press secretary to continue this lie repeatedly to the press and that HE lied to the world when he blamed the video and “spontaneous” protests for the attacks during the Univision interview and during his speech to the United Nations. Neither of those options are particularly good for a campaign that has spent the past two weeks calling Governor Romney a liar.
[NOTE: I don’t want to touch Geoff’s story itself, but I will add this to the beginning of my own comment so that people will know that we had one of our crack truth-team members fact check the above and — well, you should read the devastating result. It’s at this link.]
Putting aside the overstatement in this piece (I’m hiring a backhoe for that task) and yet another round of thunderous predictions of doom for Obama, I have some sympathy for Geoff’s perspective here. I think that it helps shed light on exactly what happened in the debate. For what it’s worth, I thought that Candy Crowley’s intervention was odd (and from all appearances unsolicited by Obama.) Yes, Obama mentioned the attacks in a larger context of “acts of terror” without clearly asserting that they were themselves acts of terror. Obama’s statement reads to me to be reserving judgment on that point — while, regardless of their motive, he consistently said that the murderers would be brought to justice.
What Geoff sees as (and Romney implied was) taking a firm position that the attacks were not planned terrorist attacks is, it seems to me, instead taking a position that we could as yet neither establish nor rule out that they were terrorist attacks. Given that Obama has a responsibility to be candid with the American people (and in this case the world), his refusal to make a definitive allegation of terrorism before he knew it was true — in this case because his intelligence services were telling him (and Ambassador Rice) that, so far as they could tell up to that point it wasn’t true — is admirable. He leveled with the American people; he did not trump up charges that he did not know to be true.
And that is what bothers Willis here, and what is the basis for Romney’s attack, and what exemplifies what would be the major difference between a Romney and an Obama administration: Romney thinks that it shouldn’t have mattered if it was true. The possibility of making the charge that would give our country a reason to stoke the fires of war was right there; they fault Obama for not grabbing it.
Of course, Obama didn’t grab that opportunity because he didn’t know that it was true. He sure didn’t rule it out, though, pending investigation — which is what Romney seemes to suggest he should have done, and why Obama dared him to look at the transcript, and why Crowley responded to Romney’s statements not as if they were saying “he didn’t jump the gun!” but instead “he ruled out the possibility.” The latter was incorrect. The former was an admission that Romney thought that he should have jumped the gun and made a convenient allegation without knowing the facts. That, I imagine Crowley thought — could not be what Romney was saying — it’s madness to think, and greater madness to admit! — and so she responded to the rational version of his statement and pointed out a factual error.
Alas for poor Monica Crowley, Romney was indeed criticizing Obama for not concluding that this was an act of terrorism even when his intelligence services told him otherwise. Romney was indeed criticizing Obama for acting responsibly. And that points to the main difference between the Obama Administration and a Romney Administration that I suspect will remain forever theoretical.
Facts matter to Obama. A reputation, especially in international affairs, for speaking the truth matters to Obama. Obama thinks that the country should tell the truth because it has the positive effect of our being more likely to be believed. This has been borne out time and again over the past four years, as Obama and his diplomatic team have been able to gain the cooperation of the world, including our competitors, towards rational and productive policies.
For Romney, the truth doesn’t matter — it is, in fact, more of an inconvenience than anything. He wanted this to be an act of terrorism — so that’s what he alleged, regardless of what the people in the best position to know were informing the President (and him, he gets briefed too now) at the time. He was “lucky” in that that was ultimately determined, when the investigation was done, to be true. But if it had turned out to be a spontaneous demonstration like that next door in Egypt that was then taken advantage of by terrorists — well, he’d forgive himself easily, because what mattered was not the truth but taking advantage of the moment.
There’s your difference between a Romney and an Obama Administration in a nutshell, especially regarding foreign policy. The first George Bush famously said “I will never apologize for America. I don’t care what the facts are” when the U.S. shot down a planeful of Iranian air passengers — a tragedy that we forget, but that the Iranians don’t. Romney intentionally echoed this sentiment at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting last month: “I will never apologize for America.” He doesn’t care what the facts are.
Romney (and Bush, and Willis) conflate two ideas: one is apologizing for the country and the other is apologizing for the country’s actions on a specific occasion. In this case, of course, Obama did neither; he recognized that the anti-Muslim video was similar to pictures of Iranians burning the American flag — a painful provocation, but in our case one that didn’t represent American policy. He was not “apologizing for America” — another meaningless conservative statement, by the way, like “support the troops (until they come home.)” He is as patriotic as they come. What he isn’t, though, is a a consistent and shameless liar like Romney. He acknowledges facts when and as they appear. This is, he thinks — and I agree — good for the country in its foreign policy.
There are two ways that the world’s by-far-strongest military superpower can engage in foreign policy with the rest of the world. One is to try to dominate them, to govern the world by fear. We tried that in the eight years under the second President Bush. It doesn’t work — remember our pathetic “Coalition of the Willing?” — and it is damned expensive. A good chunk of our deficit comes from our having thought that we could call the world to heel. What came of it is that we alienated much of the world — as Romney has done even pre-election by giving a gleeful Vladimir Putin all of the justification he needs for a bellicose foreign policy.
The other method is to work with them, as an honest party and when appropriate as an honest broker, and influence them to do what is right. This is what Obama has done — and done extremely well. This approach means, among other things, that you don’t shoot off your mouth with loose and unjustified charges — even ones that may later turn out to be true. This means that you retain and capitalize on your credibility. This means that you build your power through alliances rather than abuse.
The Romney who will never apologize for American will also — even more so — never apologize for Romney. We’ve had eight years at the beginning of this century of a President who did not care about and did not feel constrained by the facts. It was a disaster; the world has snickered as we became bogged down in Iraq. Now the world largely celebrates us because, among other things, we have a leader who will, when the circumstances permit, wait for the facts to come in before indicting.
Voters will have to ask themselves: can we afford another four years of alienating our should-be allies with a George W. Bush-style foreign policy? That’s what Romney is promising us — a national policy that matters his own life as a shady salesman, one where facts simply do not matter.
Most intelligent response I have ever read from you Mr. Diamond – there is quite a bit here where we agree. Since we have already spent pages here laying out the facts (and I have provided everyone with links to all of the source materials), I see no point in regurgitating.
Where I differ is that it is now clear that Obama knew within 24 hours that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. We have real time drone footage at the time showing the attack. We have on the ground reports from the consulate that there was no crowd and that this was a coordinated attack. The administration has never even mentioned the obvious, that there is a connection between the attacks and the anniversary of 9/11. We have congressional testimony from those withiing the Obama Administration saying that we knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video or any other protest. We know as a fact that the Obama Administration had been warned that exactly this kind of attack was imminent.
Notwithstanding all of this information Jay Carney repeatedly told the press that it WAS NOT a preplanned terrorist attack (I can’t get video to work here, if you go to the original story on Thinking Right there is a video of Jay Carney saying esactly that nine days after the attack http://thinkingrightblog.com/debate-win-doesnt-matter-obama-will-pay-price-for-lies-on-libya/). Mr. Carney only makes statements at the express direction from the President. Five days after the President knew the truth, Susan Rice was directed to go on half a dozen Sunday morning talk shows and say that this was NOT a preplanned attack but rather a spontaneous protest. Nine days after he knew that it was a terrorist attack, President Obama told Univision that he didn’t know if it was a terrorist attack – a lie he repeated nine days later to the world at the United Nations.
Obama is trying to do everything he can to cling to the Presidency and history will not remember him well.
So do you think that (1) he was lying when he said that intelligence sources said that it was not yet established that it was a terrorist attack or that (2) the intelligence sources were lying when they so informed him. I think that (3) the intelligence sources were acting honestly in reserving judgment and Obama was acting responsibly in limiting his allegations based on their report to him. So were Carney and Rice. They were apparently wrong because they were apparently misinformed — but frankly that error was inconsequential (except to show that the Obama Administration, unlike either Bush Administration or the Romney Administration that will never be, respects the facts it has.)
Some of the confusion here is over what constitutes “terrorist attack.” While 9/11 was one context for the attack, the larger context was what was happening in the country next door on the same night, which we presumably agree was a spontaneous demonstration. The Benghazi attackers cleverly used that as cover for a planned attack, which may or may not, so far as I know, otherwise have coincided with 9/11. The question of whether it was “a terrorist attack” was really one over whether it was SOLELY a terrorist attack versus something that took advantage of spontaneous protest — even protest that was ginned up by the terrorists among Libyans who were upset about the movie but who had no idea what was planned and may well have recoiled from it or stopped it if they did — at the site. Both possibilities were open; I’m not even ready to concede that everyone who was there that day knew of and was motivated by the desire to stage that attack. You’re asserting that it had “nothing to do with” the video because of drone footage and crowd reports; it happened over several hours, as I recall, and that’s consistent with the notion that there may have been a legitimate protest that was later followed by an escalation.
I’m not going to wade into your links right now because I don’t think that it’s that important — the intelligence services reports were what Obama should have been able to rely upon. Unless you know that he knew that they were wrong, or worse, your accusing him of lying is simply a baseless political attack. I understand why you’re doing it — it’s the same reason that Romney did it: facts themselves don’t matter to you.
What happened in Libya is only clear for those ( like Geoff) who insist on making the “facts” correspond to their “beliefs”.
From the NYT’s 10/15/12;
” … To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
“It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack. “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”
United States intelligence agencies have reserved final judgment pending a full investigation, leaving open the possibility that anger at the video might have provided an opportunity for militants who already harbored anti-American feelings. But so far the intelligence assessments appear to square largely with local accounts. Whether the attackers are labeled “Al Qaeda cells” or “aligned with Al Qaeda,” as Republicans have suggested, depends on whether that label can be used as a generic term for a broad spectrum of Islamist militants, encompassing groups like Ansar al-Shariah whose goals were primarily local, as well as those who aspire to join a broader jihad against the West. …
… To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.
The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.
At a news conference the day after the ambassador and three other Americans were killed, a spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. “We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the prophet,” the spokesman said. “The response has to be firm.” Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. Those leaders, including Ahmed Abu Khattala and Mohammed Ali Zahawi, fought alongside other commanders against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Their group provides social services and guards a hospital. And they openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision.
They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula.” …
For the full article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?_r=1&ref=world&pagewanted=all
**********************************************************
These people have no shame (or memories) after ALL the LIES and bullshit the Bush administration shoved down our throats. For these same right-wingers to get up on their high horses and point fingers is disgusting. A short re-cap;
We had no warning about 9-11
Saddam was allied with Osama bin Laden
estimates on the cost of invading Iraq
the Jessica Lynch story
the “spontaneous” pulling down of Saddam’s statue
We KNOW where the weapons of mass destruction are
the Pat Tillman story
Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” moment
the “humanitarian” Blackwater contractors that were hung
Abu Ghraib was a “few bad apples”
and on and on and on… ALL LIES!!!
Anonster, your recitation of the facts is very good (only missing the fact that we have drone surveillance footage that intelligence received real time, the fact that we had prior warnings that the attacks were coming, that folks in the Administration has asked for and had rejected requests for more security for the consulate in Benghazi). Unfortunately for your argument those facts directly dispute what the President said in the two weeks following the attacks. Jay Carney and Susan Rice unequivocally both stated that it was not a terrorist attack on camera. I can’t get video to load here, but if you go to the Thinking Right site I have the film of Jay Carney direclyt disputing the facts above, at a time when he knew most of the facts above to be true. In addition, the President and his advisors consistently said that the video was THE cause (not might have been a cause) and that the attack was “spontaneous.” Those allegations are simple lies.
As to the rest of your commentary, simply retreads of the Obama refrain that everything bad is Bush’s fault.
Anonster, I don’t have time for this malarkey; would you kindly take a look at GW’s links and assess the validity of the inferences he makes from them? I’ll give you your own byline for your report, if you’d like!
Greg,
Ugh, yeah I’ll try and wade through the BS, may take some time though.
“As to the rest of your commentary, simply retreads of the Obama refrain that everything bad is Bush’s fault.”
This is one of the diseases you were afflicted with when you posted here regularly. Namely, the inclination to create straw man arguments using words like “never” and “everything.”
I don’t believe Anonster is saying that “everything” bad is Bush’s fault…but simply those things articulated in that list.
Is that really so hard to grasp?
This will be long.
Geoff has such little regard for the truth and is so lazy that he never bothers to fact-check the right-wing blather that informs his every opinion. So here goes.
GW;
“(only missing the fact that we have drone surveillance footage that intelligence received real time,…”
Not true, the Drone surveillance footage is of the last hour of the attack and the FBI only recovered the security camera footage in early Oct.
From the Daily Beast 10/12/12;
“Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.
The Obama administration has been studying the videos, taken from closed-circuit cameras throughout the Benghazi consulate’s four-building compound, for clues about who was responsible for the attack and how it played out. The two officials tell The Daily Beast that analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known jihadists.
The videos could also play into an expanding investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that is looking at whether security steps could have been taken that would have saved the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed that day. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is one of the Republicans leading the House investigation, says he hasn’t been given the footage.
In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex. …”
*****
GW;
“the fact that we had prior warnings that the attacks were coming, that folks in the Administration has asked for and had rejected requests for more security for the consulate in Benghazi)”
From the NYT’s;
By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK LANDLER
Published: October 12, 2012
WASHINGTON — In the weeks leading up to the attack last month on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, diplomats on the ground sounded increasingly urgent alarms. In a stream of diplomatic cables, embassy security officers warned their superiors at the State Department of a worsening threat from Islamic extremists, and requested that the teams of military personnel and State Department security guards who were already on duty be kept in service.
The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli — not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away.
And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards — a 16-member military security team — through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.”*
There is testimony from former Regional Security Officer for Libya, Eric Nordstrom that he requested more security agents in March and July;
From Reuters 9/10/12
“Nordstrom, a State Department regional security officer, told lawmakers that Kennedy issued a “decision memo” in December 2011 requiring that the Benghazi post be manned with five diplomatic security agents, but that it usually had only three or four.
“He (Nordstrom) stated that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional Diplomatic Security Agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses,” the memo said.”
He also testified;
“The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service, having an extra foot of wall, or an extra half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.”
There were five guards there on the day of the attack, as Ambassador Stevens had brought two with him.
As for “prior warnings”, yeah, it was and is a dangerous part of the world, lots of embassies and consulates are in volatile areas. I guess if you right wingers were so concerned about embassy safety the republican congress wouldn’t have voted to CUT embassy security funding by 330 million.
Remember, no one is denying that this was a tragedy and mistakes were most likely made and that Obama is ultimately responsible, but is it a “scandal”, probably not.
*****
GW;
” Jay Carney and Susan Rice unequivocally both stated that it was not a terrorist attack on camera …”
But why rely on Geoff’s interpretation of “unequivocal” when we have transcripts.
From Media Matters;
In Fact, Rice Repeatedly Stressed Ongoing Investigation
ABC’s THIS WEEK
Rice: “There’s An FBI Investigation That Has Begun … That Will Tell Us With Certainty What Transpired.” On the September 16 edition of ABC’s This Week, Rice told guest host Jake Tapper that an FBI investigation was under way and relayed the administration’s “current best assessment” based on information available at the time:
RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it’s important to know that there’s an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present. [ABC News, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 9/16/12]
CBS’ Face The Nation
Rice: “We’ll Want To See The Results Of That Investigation To Draw Any Definitive Conclusions.” On the September 16 edition of CBS’ Face the Nation, Rice repeatedly stressed to host Bob Schieffer that the United States was conducting an investigation and that “we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions”:
RICE: 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 —
SCHIEFFER: But they are not there.
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, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–
SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
RICE: — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that — 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.
SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
RICE: We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine. [CBS News, Face the Nation, 9/16/12]
NBC’s Meet The Press
Rice: “Investigation, Which Is Ongoing,” Will “Give Us The Definitive Word As To What Transpired.” On the September 16 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Rice reiterated that an investigation into the Benghazi attack was ongoing and that the administration would “look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired”:
GREGORY: Well, let’s talk — talk about– well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on– on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?
MS. RICE: Well, let us– let me tell you the– the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s– that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear–we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice. [MSNBC, Meet the Press, 9/16/12]
Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday
Rice: “Obviously, We Will Wait For The Results Of The Investigation And We Don’t Want To Jump To Conclusions Before Then.” On the September 16 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, Rice noted that the FBI was investigating the attacks “closely” and stated that “we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then”:
WALLACE: Let’s talk about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi this week that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The top Libyan official says that the attack on Tuesday was, quote, his words “preplanned”. Al Qaeda says the operation was revenge for our killing a top Al Qaeda leader.
What do we know?
RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.
But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment. [Fox News, Fox News Sunday, 9/6/12]
Rice’s Statements Were In Line With State Department’s Consistent Message
Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy: “Any Administration Official” Would Have Said What Ambassador Rice Said. The Atlantic Wire reported that Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy defended Rice’s September 16 comments, saying that “any administration official, including any career official” would “have said what Ambassador Rice said”:
If any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, September 16th, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said. The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point. As time went on, additional information became available. Clearly, we know more today than we did on the Sunday after the attack. But as the process moves forward and more information becomes available, we will be sure to continue consulting with you. [The Atlantic Wire, 10/10/12]
State Dept. Spokesperson Victoria Nuland: Rice “Made Clear … That There Is An Ongoing FBI Investigation.” Commenting on Ambassador Rice’s comments at a State Department press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland noted that Rice was “very clear” about “what our initial assessment of what happened is” and that Rice “also made clear, as I had on Friday, that there is an ongoing FBI investigation.” [State Department, 9/17/12]
Nuland: FBI And Libyan Government “Are Going To Have A Full Investigation” Into Whether Libya Attack Was Terror Act. Nuland explained in a separate interview that the FBI and Libyan government have launched an investigation to determine whether the consulate attack was terrorism:
Four Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya, were killed during the attack on its Consulate in Benghazi.
Washington so far has said that the protest was a result of an anti-Islam video made in the US, while some US lawmakers have said that the attack has the hallmark of that of al-Qaeda.
“I don’t think we know enough. We are going to continue to assess. She (Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN) gave our preliminary assessment. We are going to have a full investigation now, and then we will be in a better position to put labels on things,” said State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland yesterday.
She said the FBI and the Libyan government, besides carrying out independent investigations, are also mutually “cooperating” over the case.
“The investigation is obviously going to lead us to the appropriate conclusions about precisely what happened and how it happened,” Nuland said, pointing out that the US was “working well” with Libya in probing the attack. [Deccan Herald, 9/18/12]
AP: “The Obama Administration … Is Investigating Whether The Assault On The U.S. Consulate In Libya Was A Planned Terrorist Strike.” The Associated Press reported on September 13 that the FBI is investigating whether the attack was a terrorist attack or not:
The Obama administration, roiled by the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in more than 30 years, is investigating whether the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a planned terrorist strike to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and not a spontaneous mob enraged over an anti-Islam YouTube video. [Associated Press, 9/13/12]
Press Secretary Carney: It Is “Self-Evident That What Happened In Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack.” Press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that as of September 20, intelligence still did not point to a “significantly preplanned attack.” From Carney’s press gaggle:
CARNEY: It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.
He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive. [White House Press Briefing, 9/20/12]
*****
GW;
“As to the rest of your commentary, simply retreads of the Obama refrain that everything bad is Bush’s fault.”
My point in bringing up those few of the many, many, many Bush scandals was for perspective, something the right-wing nuts in this country sorely lack.
Finally, this was and is an evolving story from a volatile part of the world, the latest from the NYT’s;
“Clarity Emerges About the Attack, Al Qaeda Links
The night of the assault against the Benghazi compound, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the anti-Muslim video, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.
If there is a link between Al Qaeda and the Benghazi attack, it is likely indirect. Ayman al-Zawahri, the leader of Al Qaeda, had called on Libyans to avenge the killing of a Libyan-born Qaeda leader, and American intelligence officials have said they intercepted boastful phone calls after the assault from the attackers to members Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”
WILLIS DID YOU EXPECT ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM ANOSTER
*Dr. Willis…….if you keep telling lies long enough …..some simpleton will probably write you nice comment about exposing yourself to culture. Are you truly mental? Call our pal Darrell Issa and maybe he will call you as a witness to his Congressional Committee on Government Corruption, Daydreams and Over-rated Egos!
winships have turned to the hard left of ocupoo stink
no. YOU poo poo stink stink!
Give it a rest. We already know that anyone left Michelle Bachmann you consider “far left.” Your tired, comical, reality-free labels are wearing thin.
The Winships are at least able to see that the GOP continues to lurch further right and will soon render itself in permanent minority status as the country becomes more diverse.
Enjoy that ride!
oh really you dont need to look no further than calif to find out what lefti progressive policys do , state is bk , unions tell reps what to do , schools failing , illegals have more rights the citizens , cant blame reps they have no power here . its a one party rule and you HAVE RUINED IT .. so yes lets keep thinking like diamond , windships , vern , anoster , democrap , keep going down the same path and see where we end up if where not already there HINT , IT FLUSHES
*Dr. Willis…….if you keep telling lies long enough …..some simpleton will probably write you a nice comment about exposing yourself to culture. Are you truly mental? Call our pal Darrell Issa and maybe he will call you as a witness to his Congressional Committee on Government Corruption, Daydreams and Over-rated Egos!
Option 3: Obama could say that he thought it was both an act of terror and in response to the video. The term “terrorism” is sufficiently vague that this would be a plausible explanation. All “terrorists” have motives – perhaps the proximate motive for this act was the video. Who knows? I think this is a simple explanation (not saying it’s true, btw) that would allow Obama to dodge the “liar” accusation.
He doesn’t need to dodge the “liar” accusation. He can stand there and let it bounce off of him and hit Romney, which is where it belongs.
I agree with you but I was trying to offer an impartial opinion 🙂 I’m voting for Obama (Michigan resident) and feel confident that he’s already locked up 265 electoral votes. While Romney could sweep the remaining 7 swing states (Nevada, Colorado, NC, Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa) to win the election, I sure wouldn’t bet on it.
oh yeah when bush did it it was wmd it was a lie , renmeber bush lied people die . oh when barry o does it , it was that was the info we had IT WAS MOVIE RENEMBER haaaaa what crock
OBAMA LIED PEOPLE DIED
You got that ass backward, genius.
With Libya….first, people died, now we are trying to figure out if somebody lied about why they died.
When Bush lied, that caused Americans to die.
DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE ?
oCCUPOO
Mr. Willis. This is not the King Obama show.
He has an Adminstration, a half dozen foreign and national security organizations, that work with U.N. and N.A.T.O.
Please don’t act like it was his decision to tell these others what to do. He has to take ultimate responsibility for the errors and be the professional Spin Chief at the Mic.
The video mob thing was probably on the C.I.A playbook for years. What do you think they get paid for? To follow the instructions of the President? or to come up with plans a,b,and c, and make the Imperial United States look good, feel safe and innocent..
Remember, the look on George Bush’s face win the airplanes hit the Twin Towers? He probably said “f$#k”. I was told to be ready for this, I am not ready for this”.
*The Republicans think they are doing a Bill Clinton impression: “That depends on what your definition of “Is” is!”
Probably not going to ride that horse very long…eh?
”
Terror, Terroist, Terroist Attack, Terroists Attacks, (48 folks with RPG’s, AK-47’s, Grenades and party favors) – The President Covered it pretty well…..even if it didn’t take 2 months to get the final intelligence report. According to Darrell Issa, the President should have called him the next day……or he would consider that “hiding the truth from his Committee!)
On September 13, at a campaign stop in Colorado, Obama said this:
“So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama-called-libya-an-act-of-terror-on-september
*Exactly!
after he apologized 10 ten times for how bad america is
He never apologized for America.
But hey, here’s your chance to prove that he apologized 10 times for how bad America is. Step up.
Or are you going to disappear like you always do when asked to back up your bullshit?
You don’t understand: Feo Grande thinks that Obama’s being black is itself an implicit apology for America.
NO BULLSHIT IS THE CRAP YOU PEOPLE POST ON HERE
Epic fail.
Not really all that epic. Sort of pathetic.
In my opinion, we wouldn’t have to apologize to other nations or fear being attacked by them if we kept out of their business and kept our own house in order.
F. you Obama, you are a liar