IN RE AMBASSADOR RICE: CNN keeps script alive!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2012

The disgrace of Anderson Cooper: Who the heck is Susan Rice, “this girl” we’re considering for secretary of state?

To get a rough idea, we will recommend this report by her most authoritative biographer. Meanwhile, let’s offer two more examples of the low-IQ garbage which went on the air last night.

Let’s skip the comments of John McCain, one of the dumbest, angriest people in recorded history. Speaking with the equally hapless Anderson Cooper, McCain helped us see why he famously graduated 894th out of 899 in his Annapolis class.

Let’s skip this angry old nut-bag completely. But here’s the way Cooper is still cherry-picking Rice’s statements from September 16.

Good God. This is just awful, pathetic:
COOPER (11/14/12): More to the point, [here’s] how the ambassador described it five days after the attacks.

RICE (videotape): Putting together the best information 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 the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

COOPER: Ambassador Rice, blaming the killings in Benghazi on that hateful anti-Muslim video made in the U.S. That turned out to be wrong.
Good God. That is just awful. Cooper is simply pathetic.

Why is this hapless child on the air? In that presentation, Cooper aired only one part of what Rice said on Meet the Press. And quite plainly, that was not her account of how “the killings” occurred.

Does Cooper know what “initially” means? In that excerpt, Rice was describing the scene at the consulate before the violence began—before heavily armed extremists arrived and hijacked ongoing events.

This was Rice’s fuller statement. Cooper won’t stop cherry-picking:
RICE (9/16/12): Well, let me tell you the best information we have at present. First of all, there is 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 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 that escalated into a much more violent episode.

Obviously, 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.
Cooper won’t stop doing this. Again last night, he played the first part of Rice’s chronology. He omitted the second part of what she said, where she described extremists armed with heavy weapons arriving on the scene and creating a much more violent episode.

Obviously, that is when and how “the killings” occurred. Cooper grossly misled his audience—for about the ten millionth time.

Cooper will never stop doing this. But for sheer unvarnished haplessness, Erin Burnett is always tops at CNN. One hour before Cooper aired, the pitiful halfwit “quoted” Rice in the following manner:
BURNETT (11/14/12): I want to ask you about the Benghazi hearings that are starting and General Petraeus, or Director Petraeus of the CIA in just moment.
But, first, on Susan Rice:

You know, when she made that appearance on the weekend talk shows, it became something that we were all talking about a lot, because for a long period— You know, it was sort of—it was the statement that set the tone, right? The video, using the word "spontaneous.”

Given what you know now, would you oppose her nomination as the next secretary of state?
Good God! The cherry-picking has gone so far that Burnett cherry-picked exactly one word as she "quoted" Rice.

Ambassador Rice used the word “spontaneous!” On CNN, case was closed!

As everyone has always known, Burnett is on TV because she’s extremely telegenic. She is also extremely dumb—although she does know her scripts.

CNN kept script alive all through last evening's programs.

23 comments:

  1. Give him a break. Anderson has been SO BUSY trying to get his new Oprah show off the ground, he's had no time to read transcripts. The show's been cancelled, though, so maybe he'll be able to catch up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob,
    I know you take a lot of flak from your readers, including me, but this is to say thanks for your unrelenting focus on the dishonesty of our liberal (bad word?) media.
    I am a liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who is Susan Rice? She's the apparatchik who toes the party line when it comes to Israeli war crimes by denying that there were any committed in Gaza during the last war. She's the person who condemns Palestinian terrorism and has nothing to say when Israel kills Palestinian children or shoots at Palestinian fisherman or shoots a mentally ill Palestinian man for coming too close to the border.

    Yeah, the Republicans are lying about her. Boohoo. The Republicans are scum, but people willing to lie for the sake of some disgusting policy are a dime a dozen. If they shoot her down there will just be someone else. But yes, by all means Bob, concentrate on the Really Important Fight between people in Washington and how they slander each other and don't ever get into the weeds where the Democrats and Republicans both agree to tell lies about what we do and who we support overseas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nevertheless, it's highly unlikely Alexander Cockburn will be nominated for the position.

      AC / MA

      Delete
    2. Oh, how witty. But you don't have to be Alexander Cockburn to recognize the idiocy and racism of the US position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Again, you'd only have to be a person who thinks both Palestinian terrorism and Israeli brutality are reprehensible. In other words, you have to be capable of simple human decency.

      What annoys me about Bob is that he's a little too caught up in these Washington spats between competing liars. I voted for Obama and I knew what I was getting, but there's no reason to take a stand in defense of Rice, not when Palestinian children are dying.

      Delete
    3. The 3 previous Anonymous have tied for first place in the who can get more off topic competition

      Delete
    4. But that's exactly the point. I'm ranting about Gaza because the original topic is comparatively trivial. The original topic, which is how horrible it is that Republicans are slandering Susan Rice, is only interesting if you don't realize that Susan Rice actually has told lies of very real consequence about the deaths of innocent civilians. You have to be either ignorant of Rice's record (which would be understandable) or too wrapped up in the Washington bubble to get upset about the fact that one set of Washington liars are telling lies about another Washington liar.

      Delete
    5. But thanks for the award. I accept it with pride.

      Delete
    6. Anon -- the Award Winner, that is -- puts his finger on exactly why anger at Somerby is so commonly expressed here.

      These spats, so exhaustively reported here, are between competing liars. Consequently, the disputes tend to be of no importance, mere distractions (and often of very little interest to the public -- witness Whitewater), compared -- as Our Anonymous Award Winner points out -- to *actual* and undisputed American policy in the Middle-East, which goes unreported and on which both Repubs and Dems agree.

      Such is the power of myth-making, that while this Susan Rice idiocy proceeds, large numbers of Americans apparently believe that despite absolute and total military control by the Israelis over every aspect of Palestinian life, and unrelievedly so for the past 44 years, the Israelis are the victims of the Palestinians!

      Of course, it's easier to argue over whether Al Gore really *said* he invented the internet, and bemoan an ignorant, self-infatuated and prejudiced press corps (all true, of course) than to take a good look at what Al Gore was at least a party to, during the Clinton presidency.

      What goes on here, too often, is tantamount to dramatic criticism -- evaluating the relative truthfulness of two competing fictions. Which production do *you* like better? Democratic mythology? Or Republican?

      Still, there might well be a place for the Howler kind of discourse, if TDH took better trouble to inform itself about the large world in which these disputes take place

      But no matter. These "big picture" issues don't interest THD.

      Delete
  4. Quaker in a BasementNovember 15, 2012 at 5:03 PM

    Burnett might be extremely dumb, but she's smart enough to know she can't tell the truth about what Rice really said if she wants to keep flogging this story.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's no more dangerous place to be than between John McCain and a TV camera.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why do you send out a spokesperson who knows nothing about the issue, except for talking points?
    Because you want only the talking points to come out. Because you don't want someone with any actual knowledge to be asked a rogue question, which could happen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But,
    John McCain once told an old woman that Barack Obama wasn't a Muslim. Doesn't that atone for everything else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They gamed that question out in their debate prepararions.

      Delete
  8. Who is angrier in recorded history - John McCain or Al Gore?

    Glen Bergendahl
    Raynham, Ma.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John McCain.

      Geoff Richter
      Mechanicsville, Va.

      Delete
    2. Did anybody catch the report of McCain going completely nuts when a reporter asked him why he was making the rounds of TV shows yesterday to bitch about how he wasn't getting information, instead of attending his own committee briefing on Benghazi?

      I am truly getting concerned about the old guy

      Delete
    3. Who's angrier? After reading this article, I'd say Bob Somerby. Ranting isn't like moisturizer, and shouldn't be applied daily.

      Delete
  9. ACcording to this report,

    David Petraeus stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice's talking points were edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Media Research Center, now there's an unbiased source. I notice you left out the first part of the sentence, which began "Rep. Peter King said David Petraeus said..." which makes this hearsay, IMHO.

      Ray DeLagarto

      Delete
    2. Ray -- What difference does it make if this report came from the MRC? You can hear King sqay what he said. I'm sure you don't think the MRC doctored the tape.

      Your point about hearsay is a valid one. We don't know if King accurately reported what Petraeus said. Maybe King is lying. Or, maybe King accurately reported what Petraeus said, but Petraeus was lying.

      However, I personally believe them on this point for three reasons. First, there's no indication that either of them was lying. Second, Petraeus's testimony seems to be consistent with Rice's statements. Third, Petraeus was testifying under oath.

      BTW Rice was an interesting choice of Administration spokesperson. As UN Ambassador, she wasn't directly involved, the way Petraeus, Clinton or Obama himself were. I suspect that she had no independent knowledge to dispute the talking points that she was given.

      Recall the famous 17th century quote, “A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country.” We've made progess in a way. Today, a diplomat can be a black women making false statements for her country. Well, not exactly for her country, but for her Administration.

      Delete
    3. Well, at least you avoided saying directly that Rice lied, though your weasly use of the supposedly 17th century quote certainly inject that word into the discussion.

      And before you go further into the fevered swamp of Conspiracyland, please explain the motive. In other words, how does it serve "her Administration" to portray this attack on U.S. citizens as the result of a spontaneous demonstration gone completely whacko, or as the "act of terror" that Obama called it in his first statement, and has ever since.

      Delete
    4. It's really amazing. There was a reason this hearing was held behind closed doors. I listened to Committee Chairman Diane Feinstein interviewed immediately following the hearing yesterday and she refused to answer or characterize any Q and A that occurred. The next thing I see is Sean Hannity interviewing Peter King demanding to know everything about this Classified hearing. And there's Peter King, dutifully twisting what was said in the classified hearing. These people are scum.

      Delete