Supplemental: Do we the liberals know how to resist?

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2015

The return of Benghazi parsing:
We liberals went to bed last night hearing that nothing had happened.

We had been misinformed. A couple of Secretary Clinton’s emails have produced the return of Benghazi parsing. This will revive an earlier question:

Do we the people know how to read? Do we know how to reason at all?

If you want to parse Benghazi, you have to keep a few basic points in mind. These three are quite basic:

Don’t buy that false contradiction: Let’s state a fairly obvious fact. There’s no reason why a “terrorist group” might not stage a “terrorist attack” in response to a perceived religious insult.

Right from the start, Republicans have tried to create the impression that a contradiction lurks there—that no self-respecting terrorist group would ever stage such an attack.

That claim doesn’t seem to make sense. But so what? Given the way our “press corps” works, Republicans have been very successful selling this false contradiction.

They’re out there selling it again. Our “journalists” will be strongly inclined to buy it.

Don’t purchase that bad paraphrase: What did Susan Rice actually say on those Sunday programs?

Right from the start, Republicans have been very successful selling a false paraphrase. They’re out there selling this turkey again.

So far, we the liberals haven’t come close to having sufficient skill to reject this false representation. Truthfully, we just aren’t very sharp. We prove this again and again.

What did Susan Rice actually say? She didn’t say that the killing attack was staged by a bunch of protestors. Nor did she say that the “extremists with heavy weapons” who waged the killing attack did so because of the videotape.

Here’s what she said on Face the Nation. Will we liberals ever be smart enough to insist on accurate paraphrase?
RICE (9/16/12): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with [Libyan president Magariaf], there is an investigation that the United States government will launch, led by the FBI that has begun...

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—

It 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 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 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 [Magariaf] 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?

RICE: Well, we’ll have to find 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.
Rice stressed the fact that she wasn’t offering a definitive conclusion as to what had occurred. But she didn’t even speculate about the motivation of the “extremist elements...with heavy weapons” who launched the killing attack.

She didn’t deny that they might be terrorists. They might even be “al Qaeda itself,” she specifically told Bob Schieffer. She didn't even seem to brook the idea that they might have been mere protestors.

Right from the start, dissembling pols like John McCain began pretending that Rice had said that a bunch of protestors had somehow staged the killing attack. He mocked the idea that protestors staged a demonstration armed with heavy weapons.

That simply isn’t what she said. But “journalists” bought that paraphrase whole, and they'll be buying it now.

Don’t buy that version of what Clinton said: What did Secretary Clinton actually say in her public statement on September 12?

For the full text, click here. This chunk was being winnowed down at yesterday’s eleven-hour terrier attack, in which it seemed that someone had put a bit of speed in the Alpo:
CLINTON (9/12/12): The friendship between our countries, born out of shared struggle, will not be another casualty of this attack. A free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that, nor will we rest until those responsible for these attacks are found and brought to justice. We are working closely with the Libyan authorities to move swiftly and surely. We are also working with partners around the world to safeguard other American embassies, consulates, and citizens.

There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do. There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve.

We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear—there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.
Clinton said she didn’t know the precise motivations of the attackers. When she said that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior…as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet,” she was making an accurate statement. She was also speaking of Libya and Cairo together.

A certain terrier kept simplifying this statement at yesterday’s dog show. One Democratic congressman, Smith or Schiff, was actually skillful enough to note that “some have sought” is not the same thing as “I believe.”

Most journalists won’t be that sharp.

Why did Clinton tell the Egyptian president that the attack wasn’t a response to the video? We can’t answer that. Nor do we know if that was as accurate statement.

But information was changing fast in the first days post-attack. As far as we know, neither Clinton nor Rice made any sort of definitive public statement about the motivation.

The liberal world let Susan Rice get eaten alive in 2012. This was especially true on MSNBC, where the cable stars kept their traps shut for months—except for Hayes’ initial reaction, in which he bought the GOP’s line.

The usual suspects will be dissembling this weekend. Our “journalists” will be strongly inclined to buy their familiar lines.

Will liberals be skillful enough to resist? We’ve never been that sharp in the past. Why should it be different now?

90 comments:

  1. "We liberals went to bed last night hearing that nothing had happened."

    Maybe you learned "nothing" Bob, but I can't recall hearing or reading anything that suggested "nothing had happened."

    Now granted, I didn't want the whole 11 hours. But almost the first things out of the mouths of the pundits doing the round up was how well Hillary kept her calm and composure during the long grilling.

    I also saw clips of Republicans ranting and raving, and the sharp contrast of Hillary acting like the adult in the room.

    I also saw the clipp of Schiff (yes, Bob. His name is Adam Schiff) who said the whole purpose of the entire day was to wear Hillary down to get her to slip into that "gotcha" moment.

    I did see the clip of "I have thought about this more than all of you combined. I have lost more sleep over this than all of you combined." Wow, Hillary!

    And I also caught at least part of Elijah Cummings' epic "America is better than this" speech.

    And you know where I saw all this? Right on MSNBC, the very place "we liberals" apparently gathered to be told "nothing had happened" before we went to bed.

    By the way, since I didn't get to watch the whole thing, can somebody tell me how much time was actually spent on Susan Rice as opposed to Hillary's e-mails?

    Or is this Boxcar Bob singing one of his Greatest Hits?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The usual suspects will be dissembling this weekend. Our “journalists” will be strongly inclined to buy their familiar lines."

      Troll's gotta be right. That could never happen.

      Quit worryin', you awful Somerby!

      Delete
    2. God, the trolls are going to hate this one.

      Delete
    3. Somerby attacks nobody named Ham Biscuit or Maddow. All he could muster was weak ass scorn for an unnamed dog breed and John McCain, who even Donald Trump can piss on these days.

      Your trolls get results.

      Plus they are partial to Hillary now that the authentic guy decided to mourn a few months more.

      Delete
    4. I sure am looking forward to Hillary and Rachel getting together in a few minutes.

      Since they are totally in sync on Alabama I hope they do some serious misleadi...er pandering tonight.

      Delete
    5. Rachel hyped her ijterview by explaining how odd it was that she had never interviewed Clinton before and never even spoken to her before. It sounded strange that Maddow, who has never been anything in politics, considers herself so important that a first lady or Secretary of State should have entered her orbit. Why didn't that Hillary recognize that Maddow's the Queen bee? Alththe interview hadn't aired yet, Matthews interviewed Maddow about the interview. Clinton was very controlled, she said. Hillary the calculating machine. Now there's an original meme -- ripped straight from the NY Times. Clinton rules -- any strength must be declared a weakness. Love that Rachel.

      Delete
    6. The interview was excellent. Plenty of mutual respect on both sides. I am sad Clinton and Maddow did not have time to discuss Alabama and the intitutional racism Clinton identified in the Republican closure of drivers license offices, Perhaps neither think it is as important an issue as Somerby does.

      I can't blame Clinton however. Maddow was in charge of the questions and she doesn't really care about black people. Why of all people on God's green earth she was chosen to lead liberals I will never know.

      Delete
  2. The liberal world let Susan Rice get eaten alive in 2012.

    As did President Obama and VP Biden.

    Maybe Susan Rice got her information from Fox Nooz

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: This is a "FOX News Alert." An American consulate worker murdered and at least one other wounded in the American consulate in Libya, that according to the Libyan security officials. The Associated Press is now reporting the American was shot to death when gunmen stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and clashed with security forces.

    And there is more violence against America tonight, this time in Cairo, Egypt, thousands of protesters marching on the U.S. embassy. They climbed the embassy walls, they ripped down our American flag, they burned our flag, and then they replaced our flag at our embassy with a black Islamist flag!

    According to the A.P., both attacks were triggered by a movie produced in the United States that protesters say is anti-Muslim. The AP further reports that movie was made by an anti-Muslim extremist. "On the Record" is tracking these breaking news stories and will bring you developments throughout the hour.

    BAIER: There was also protest over the video at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Report says an armed mob set fire to that building. [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 9/11/12]


    DANA PERINO: There has been a lot of talk in the last couple weeks about hard truths. But the people in the Muslim world -- can deal with hard truths as well. They need to be communicated to in a way that they could understand. The other thing is that there were other protests that were sparked today and an American person -- an American citizen died --

    DOUG SCHOEN: In Libya!

    PERINO: In Libya. So it is not just happening in Egypt. It is happening across the Middle East because of a video that was produced in the United States. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/11/12]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mm...as supportive of Democrats who once ran against Hillary Clinton as Bob Somerby is supportive of anyone who ever sat silently while poor Al Gore, Jr. was relegated to winning the popular vote but losing the election due to a court decision over electoral votes from the state run by J. E."Stuff Happens" Bush.

      Delete
    2. @mm

      Why are you shy about linking your post to your favorite go to source Media Matters? FNC repeats a false AP September 11, 2012 story and Media Matters declares vindication for HRC? If HRC had simultaneously told FNC what she told Chelsea how would Media Matters spin that?

      "A Libyan Interior Ministry official says armed men have stormed the US consulate in east Libya's Benghazi and set it ablaze after a protest against a video deemed insulting to Islam's prophet, Muhammad, which was reportedly produced in America." A.P.

      http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/23/benghazi-flashback-when-fox-news-reported-that/206391


      FNC was first to report that there was no protest on
      September 17, 2012.

      "No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says"

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-administration-libyan-president-clash-over-explanation-on-consulate/

      Delete
    3. Here is HRC's 10 PM September 11, 2012 statement on Benghazi attack. She does not say Libyan President Magariaf said the attack was the result of the YouTube video and no mention of some unidentified Libyan Interior Ministry saying the attack came after a protest against YouTube video.

      http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/09/197628.htm

      The AP story by Esam Mohamed was released at 5:17 PM. Who told the Interior Minister to push the YouTube video five hours before HRC released her statement where the infamous "some say" reference was uttered but she fails to identify who these "some" are when Mohamed already reported it was the Interior Minister who got the story wrong and HRC went along with the story for public consumption.

      Delete
    4. Some have sought to justify your behavior as an example of inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to restrict free expression by people. Our commitment to free speech tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for untruths like you spread.

      I did not say you are stupid cicero. There is no mention in this comment that condemnations of you have come after some of the most empty headed drivel ever posted on the internet.

      Delete
    5. Come on Cicero good buddy, I'm feeling too good today to get mad. Let us put away our partisanship and replace it with statesmanship. Whatta' you say, pal?

      Delete
    6. @mm

      Don't know the circumstances for your exuberance, but we can always agree statesmanship would be a welcome respite from the usual D.C. posturing.

      Delete
    7. @5:39

      Would it be too much to ask for you to cite the
      "inflammatory material," unless you are referring to quoting Media Matters, and what did I post that you believe you have actual facts to refute but failed to provide?

      Delete
    8. I know I failed to call you stupid. I did it for convenience. It was a mistake. Hope the funeral wasn't too stressful.

      Delete
  3. "A certain terrier kept simplifying this statement at yesterday’s dog show. One Democratic congressman, Smith or Schiff, was actually skillful enough to note that “some have sought” is not the same thing as “I believe.” B.S.

    Too bad for Schiff and the other Dems on the committee that HRC didn't use the qualifier "some" when she spoke to the families at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012.

    "When asked in May 2013 if President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Susan Rice specifically told her the video was to blame for the attack that led to her son’s death, Sean Smith’s mother gave a crystal clear account of the statements made by these specific members of the Obama administration.

    “Oh yes, they all told me about the reason that this happened was the video,” said Pat Smith. “Every one of them told me that. Yes, they actually did, and Susan Rice also. Nose to nose. I was with – they were hugging me!”

    Not to mention, HRC still says she believes the YouTube video did instigate the attack on the Benghazi compound even after being confronted with her own emails to Chelsea and Egyptian
    prime minister Hesham Kandil.

    How does B.S. claim he doesn't know if HRC's own email declaring the attack had zero to do with the YouTube video is "an accurate statement" when HRC herself didn't deny it? And B.S. is supposedly not an HRC supporter?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We liberals". Bob you are not a liberal. Please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that you are a liberal. You're almost as bad as MEka and her fake 'I'm a liberal' act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who elected you head of the liberal credentials committee?

      Delete
    2. Thank heavens you showed up @ 8:02. Since we liberal's don't know how to resist nobody challenged him for four hours.

      Now that we know he is not in charge, who is? Has the General Assembly reached a consensus?

      Delete
    3. nametags were issued at the door

      Delete
    4. Bob is the truest of liberals: he feels smugly above all other liberals.

      Delete
    5. Greg, if you think Bob is really a liberal; I have a great bridge to sell you.

      Delete
    6. Trolls in the glen are consorting again
      The liberals say they don't exist
      But I know that they do

      Read more: Pavement - Type Slowly Lyrics | MetroLyrics

      Delete
    7. SJWs don't know what liberals are.

      Delete
    8. @Matt

      Would it be an imposition for Howler libs to actually post the identities of those they affirm are bona fide libs?

      Delete
  5. According to the Daily Caller (presumably quoting Clinton's testiimony)

    Within hours of the attack on the U.S. facility, Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister “we know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

    But two days later, while standing before the flag-draped coffins of the four Americans killed in the attack, grieving members of their families and millions of Americans watching on TV, Clinton attributed the tragedy to protests of “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”


    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/lying-is-americas-biggest-political-and-media-problem/#ixzz3pQK0kC9U

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enough David. Shame. At long last have you no sense of decency?

      Republicans are now running political ads with the four brave heroes speaking from the grave. There are no words adequate to describe how grotesque that is. The victims' families are upset and outraged that their dead family members are being used for political purposes.

      I promise you we will not forget for a long time how despicably the republican party has politicized this tragedy and the deaths of four brave Americans.

      Fuck you David. Fuck you and your treasonous political party.

      Delete
    2. David and Cicero are either not capable of setting aside their biases and they actually believe their own bullshit, or they ARE capable of doing so and are simply dishonest. Why else would you repeat a lie like the one David repeats above? This lie: During her 9/14/2012 speech, "Clinton attributed the [attack in Libya] to protests of 'an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.'"
      No, she didn't. Here is what she said: "This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We've seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with." So Clinton begins by saying it's been a difficult week. She then explains why. Firstly, because of the attack in Benghazi. Secondly, because of the "rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video." She is careful to separate out the Benghazi attack from the other events, and it is these other events that she attributes to the video. BUT . . . even if she had attributed the Benghazi attack to the video, so what? Maybe at one point she believed it had nothing to do with the video, and at another she believed it did. Conflicting accounts were coming in during the hours and days after the attack. Even now we don't know definitively whether the video was a factor. One of the terrorists who participated in the attack said it was. So it would be perfectly understandable if someone on the receiving end of all the information that was coming in at the time believed different things at different points in time.

      Delete
    3. Very well put, Mike Lautermilch. I'm waiting for D in C to acknowledge his error (forget about Cicero ever doing that)

      Delete
    4. @ Mike

      "BUT . . . even if she had attributed the Benghazi attack to the video, so what? "

      Well, it is rather a sticking point for the relatives of the 4 dead Americans and the American people who actually resent being lied to by the Obama Administration because of a looming election.

      Bush 43 is raked over the coals for relying on rubbish intel about WOMDs in Iraq, yet libs are indifferent to HRC/Jay Carney/ Susan Rice/POTUS Obama continuing to lie about the YouTube video and a spontaneous protest being responsible long after evidence proved it was an actual pre planned terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound.

      "Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya"

      Hillary Rodham Clinton
      Secretary of State
      Andrews Air Force Base
      Joint Base Andrews, MD
      September 14, 2012


      http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/09/197780.htm

      The link above to HRC's speech. Why even mention the video at this ceremony? My post specifically regarded HRC lying directly to the family of the dead Americans.

      Let's see you or AC/MA refute what Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, wrote in his diary on September 14, 2012 about what HRC told him face to face who was to blame for his son's death. It sure wasn't what she told Chelsea.

      "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son," the entry says."

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/23/diary-entry-from-benghazi-victims-dad-gave-hillary-hug-blamed-filmmaker/

      Delete
    5. "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son," the entry says."


      Ah yes, classic. The secret words she whispered that no one else heard.

      How many questions did the Howdy Doody committee ask her about this? Zero.

      Delete
    6. Cicero, this is perfect example of what I was talking about when I suggested you might be incapable of setting aside your biases and looking at things objectively. You have no idea if Clinton or anyone else in the Obama administration lied about Benghazi. There is simply no way for you to know that. I'm not even sure there is a KNOWN instance where someone in the administration clearly said the Benghazi attack, specifically, was the result of the video. (There's no way to verify Charles Woods' claim, in contrast to the many public claims by the administration.) But even if there were such a known instance, that wouldn't prove anyone was lying. There were conflicting claims coming from media sources, intelligence sources, and other people "on the ground" in Benghazi during and after the attacks; it is very likely that various members of the administration believed different things at different times. To take one example, during and for at least a short while after the attack, Clinton appears to have believed with certainty initial reports that a specific terrorist group (Ansar al-Sharia) was behind the attacks. However, within a day or two, those initial reports were contradicted by new information. It would have been perfectly reasonable and not a bit dishonest if Clinton changed her own view of what happened. And contrary to your assertion, we STILL don't know whether the video played any role in motivating the attack. One of the ringleaders of the attack (Ahmed Abu Khatallah) claims it did.

      But aside from what the facts are regarding all of this, just look at the wildly disproportionate amount of time, attention, effort, debate, moral outrage (real and otherwise) you and others on your side of the aisle have devoted to this one topic. (Not to mention the money and other resources Congress has wasted on NINE investigations.) It's been over three years since it happened. And to be politically incorrect, but truthful, it was as a relatively small terrorist attack on the other side of the world in an inherently dangerous region, in which a small number of people died. How many similar acts of violence have occurred in recent American history? Here are few examples: http://www.politifact.com/embassyattacks/ Were you as outraged and stridently vocal over each one of those? Were there as many investigations into each one of those? Of course not. And if you say it wasn't just the attack and lost lives, but (what you perceive to be) the dishonesty involved, well . . . please. Just look at all of the dishonesty on both sides of the political aisle that goes on all the time. Countless websites (including Somerby's) point it out all day everyday. At this point, this whole debate about Benghazi is absolutely absurd . . . phony . . . purely political . . . bullshit. Just like most everything else the GOP feigns concern about: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/opinion/its-all-benghazi.html

      Delete
    7. @ Mike

      "I'm not even sure there is a KNOWN instance where someone in the administration clearly said the Benghazi attack, specifically, was the result of the video." Mike Lautermilch

      Do POTUS Obama and Press Secretary Jay Carney count as "someone" in the Obama Administration blaming the YouTube video SOLEY for the attack on Benghazi?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Qx7Fmn4uE

      You have made up your own trick bag dealing with this issue. Your argument is ... It didn't happen, but even if it did it doesn't change anything...

      Here is the email of White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

      "To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; •"

      " To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet·video, and not a broatler failure o(policy; •

      " To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who hann Americans to justice, and standing ' steadfast through these protests; •

      "To reinforce the President and Administration's sfrength arid steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges: . ."

      http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Rhodes-Email.pdf

      How much time will you need to regroup with some facts to support your parallel universe take on this subject?

      Delete
    8. @mm

      "Enough David. Shame. At long last have you no sense of decency? "

      Libs love to quote Boston lawyer Joseph Welch's rehearsed remark to McCarthy. Apparently libs were not the defenders of gays back in the 1950's. Welch thought it amusing to target Roy Cohen, a member of McCarthy's committee, for his homosexuality.

      Cue mm's Tourette's disorder.

      Delete
    9. Once again, proving my point. You're blind by bias. You can't even see that neither the video nor the text you copied and pasted explicitly says that the Benghazi attack was the result of the video. Obama doesn't say it -- listen closely. Does he state as fact that the people who perpetrated the attack in Benghazi did so because of the video? No. When Jay Carney is asked about Benghazi specifically, the closest he comes to saying that the attack in Benghazi was because of the video is something along the lines of, "we know that the protests in the region are over the video, and we have no definitive evidence at this time that the Benghazi attack was NOT motivated by the video, but it is under investigation." Which might have been a perfectly honest thing to say at that moment, given the conflicting reports that had come in. And what you call my "bag of tricks" is mere statement of fact: even if someone in the administration blamed it on the video at a given point in time, that doesn't prove the person was lying. LOTS of people thought it was the video in the days after the attack, including news outlets. And you keep ignoring the fact that even NOW we don't for sure what part the video might have played.

      Delete
    10. It's a truly Kafkaesque world with Cicero, and unfortunately the path taken by the GOP on this issue.

      Delete
    11. Every time Secretary Clinton mentioned the captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, one of the Benghazi attackers, and how he has said that the video was a motivation for their terrorist attack, not a single GOP committee member acted as if they even heard her. No follow up. Not a single question by these frauds on the committee about the guy who was captured.

      This is what the Howdy Doody republicans reminded me of.

      Link

      Delete
    12. @mm

      The leader of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound Ahmed Abu Khattala claim about the YouTube video being the motivation for the pre planned attack on the compound was debunked by the federal government no less in their charge against Ahmed.

      "The indictment itself claims the defendant "did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with other conspirators ... to provide material support and resources to terrorists," knowing they'd be used "in preparation for and in carrying out" the attack."

      http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ahmed-abu-khatallah-indicted-additional-charges-september-2012-attack-benghazi-libya

      Delete
    13. @Mike Loudmilk

      The Obama Administration knew before September 14, 2012 that the Benghazi attack was not a protest. That didn't stop Carney from continuing to lie to the White House Press Corp. The exchange between Jake Tapper and Carney is proof positive the Obama Administration was blaming the attack on the compound on a YouTube video that spawned a on the spot protest...complete with mortars and RPG's......

      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.

      Delete
    14. At work. Can't argue at the moment. But tune in tonight for the thrilling conclusion!

      Delete
    15. cicero,

      Not a single question by the republican frauds on the committee about the one single perpetrator captured. That's because they didn't give two shits about what happened and it had nothing to do with their primary purpose, to hurt Secretary Clinton's poll numbers.

      It's always the dog that didn't bark that gives the best clue.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. Mordant chuckles. Cicero loses the argument so he resorts to name calling. Stay classy, Cicero.

      Before getting into the weeds, I just want to point out the M.O. of people like David and Cicero. David started off by posting part of an article that was a blatant lie about what Hillary said. He thinks he can absolve himself of any wrongdoing if he precedes the lie with, "According to the Daily Caller...." And Cicero uses a very convenient paraphrase to make a particular part of a particular email say something it doesn't say. He refers to a specific email from someone in the White House and claims it "portray[s] the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being [quote] 'rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.' " But if you look at the full quote, it doesn't refer to the Benghazi consulate attack; it refers to "protests." So Cicero has taken a partial quote which, in its original context, refers to "protests," and he mixes it with his own convenient "paraphrase," to make it seem like the quote was referring to the Benghazi terrorist attack. These are just two small examples showing David's and Cicero's dishonesty and disrespect for fellow readers. Ironic isn't it? These two moral crusaders are so outraged about Hillary's and Obama's alleged dishonesty, and yet their own dishonesty is much more readily apparent.

      Cicero claims Obama, Clinton, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney all lied about Benghazi. Specifically, he says they lied "about the YouTube video and a spontaneous protest being responsible long after evidence proved it was an actual pre planned terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound." Isn't it amazing? Someone can follow Somerby's blog on what appears to be a daily basis and yet still make the claim that Susan Rice lied about this -- even after countless meticulous analyses from Somerby showing very clearly what's wrong with Cicero's claim about Rice? It boggles the mind, given the acreage of type Somerby has devoted to this. Regarding Obama, Clinton, and Carney, we have yet to be shown a clear instance where any of them unequivocally state as fact that the video was what caused the attack (or that the attack was a "spontaneous protest" gone wrong). However, as I've repeatedly said, it wouldn't matter if they had made such a statement about the video, because there were apparently conflicting accounts coming in in the hours and days following the attack. So it would be very difficult if not impossible to establish that any (supposed) misstatement was an actual lie. And the accusation that they lied is further complicated by the fact that even now, three years later, we don't know definitively whether the video played any role. The one terrorist who was captured claims he was motivated by the video. Cicero claims this has been debunked. But as with most conclusions Cicero draws from what he hears and reads, his conclusion that this has been debunked is fallacious. Read carefully the "proof" he offers above for his "this has been debunked" claim. There is nothing in there that directly contradicts the claim that the video was the motivating factor. There is no contradiction between "the video motivated the attack" and "the attack was a pre-planned terrorist attack." The terrorists might have heard about or seen the video (or seen other protests over the video) and then hatched a plan to stage an attack because of it.

      Cicero, if you're so inclined, show us how you "know" any Benghazi-related statement of the administration was a lie. First, indicate the exact sentence or phrase you "know" to be a lie, and then show a) how we definitively know that it's inaccurate and b) how we definitively know that the person who did the alleged lying knew it to be inaccurate at the time they said it.

      Delete
  6. Well, the Daily Caller, just like Bob Somerby did to Rachel Maddow, and others did to Susan Rice, chose to leave something out, DinC.

    Here is what Clinton said:

    This has been a diffiuclt week for the State Department and our country. We've seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took th lives of those brave men. We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet vidoe that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable."

    What is unacceptable to me, DinC, is that Republicans thought it appropriate, two months before a Presidential election, to try and turn a tragedy into a partisan issue. What is amazing to me is that they think it is still their best hope three years later.

    Oh, and if you don't believe me, here is the video. Clinton begins speaking these words at 13:13 into the clip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry DinC. Let out the link:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjHzEHGzHYA

      Delete
    2. Republicans have been trying to ride the corpses of these 4 brave dead Americans to the WH for the last couple of years.


      *********************
      It is impossible to review what the Benghazi committee has done as anything other than taxpayer-funded political research of the opposing party's leading candidate for president. Comparisons from America's past are rare. Richard Nixon's attempts to use the IRS to investigate his perceived enemies come to mind. So does Senator Joseph McCarthy's red-baiting during the 1950s, with reckless accusations of treason leveled at members of the State Department, military generals and even the secretary of the Army. But the modern McCarthys of the Benghazi committee cannot perform this political theater on their own--they depend on reporters to aid in the attempts to use government for the purpose of destroying others with bogus "scoops" ladled out by members of Congress and their staffs. These journalists will almost certainly join the legions of shamed reporters of the McCarthy era as it becomes increasingly clear they are enablers of an obscene attempt to undermine the electoral process.
      ****************************http://www.newsweek.com/benghazi-biopsy-comprehensive-guide-one-americas-worst-political-outrages-385853

      Delete
    3. @mm

      But of course the liberal media isn't pro HRC......

      HRC got five proposals of marriage from the Dems on the Benghazi Committee.

      Delete
    4. Amazing she spent the whole night alone.

      Delete
  7. As I said, it was a hugely great day for the left and Bob won't be writing about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Greg

      Yesterday, POTUS Obama puts a stop order on the U.S. Military getting a raise and HRC thought Ambassador Stevens was joking when he asked the State Department 600 times for additional security. It doesn't get any better than that for libs.

      Delete
    2. about the press not left.

      Delete
    3. Somerby and the analysts are having a party. Greg not invited -- maybe due to his attitude?

      Delete
    4. Cicero, you must have been working on that retort last night. ALL NIGHT?

      Delete
    5. Joking or not, Ambassador Stevens should have known that at the time he requested more security, one of our two political parties was in the midst of making believe the richest nation in the history of mankind was flat broke just so they could tie the hands of the President and screw over the needy.

      Delete
    6. @ 2:04

      That was at the same time HRC found $20 million to support Libyan security but could not find the funds to support Ambassador Steven's request for additional security.


      Delete
    7. If you had listened to the hearings, you would have heard Clinton explain that Stevens had 5 security staff with him and that even if he had considerably more it wouldn't have been enough to repel the concentrated attack that occurred. Of the many requests for security that were presented, some were granted and others were not. But it was clear that day-to-day security was not Clinton's job -- all requests were referred to the State Department's Security staff. You can argue they messed up, but you cannot put that at Clinton's feet. Note that Clinton never said the requests were denied due to lack of funds -- although that implication clearly arises from the repeated budget cuts enacted by Congress. Why have those not been investigated? Treason can take many forms.

      Delete
    8. @11:26

      You do realize HRC was told numerous times that the Benghazi compound was an indefensible location. What good are 5 security personnel when they have no fortified posts to take a defensive stance?

      "Ambassador sought security staffing before Benghazi attack, cable shows"

      "Two months before the fatal 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, then-Ambassador Chris Stevens requested 13 security personnel to help him safely travel around Libya, according to a cable reviewed by Fox News -- but he was turned down.

      In the July 9, 2012 cable, Stevens reported that, "Overall security conditions continue to be unpredictable, with large numbers of armed groups and individuals not under control of the central government, and frequent clashes in Tripoli and other major population centers." The cable said 13 security personnel would be the "minimum" needed for "transportation security and incident response capability."

      But a congressional source said Patrick Kennedy, a deputy to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, turned down the request. "

      FNC Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne
      October 19, 2015

      The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,”

      Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

      "The cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.."

      Ambassador sought security staffing before Benghazi attack, cable shows

      Delete
    9. You don't even know that Stevens was not based at Benghazi but was visiting the area. He brought 2 security personnel of his own and was joined by 3 more from Benghazi as he attended various functions in the area. He apparently thought that was sufficient or he would have brought more with him from Tripoli. He had the misfortunate of being present when Benghazi was attacked, but he personally was not the target. I assume you also know that the CIA was conducting operations at Benghazi which made it a target. I suppose you think Clinton controls the CIA too. As she stated, there was ongoing discussion about the status of the facilities at Benghazi.

      When you grow up, you can run security at Benghazi and I know you will do a much better job, what with all your hindsight. I suppose you would fortify every location on earth that could possibly be attacked, especially the indefensible ones, because Terrorism! Compared to the money wasted on this investigation (latest of 8), it will be a bargain. But costs will be much higher than $1 million per American, unless you and your friends are willing to take a major cut in pay, as Jeb's loyal staffers just did.

      Delete
    10. @1:57

      You might want to change your source for news as you appear woefully uniformed about the Benghazi compound and why it was attacked. HRC is the one who wanted Stevens to be based in Benghazi permanently.

      "Gregory Hicks, who served with Stevens as the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a May 8, 2013 hearing Clinton wanted to make Benghazi a permanent U.S. diplomatic mission."

      "On Aug. 16, 2012, according to the committee, Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters describing the Emergency Action Committee that had convened in Benghazi the day before.

      Stevens said a CIA officer had "briefed the EAC on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi."

      Knowing this, why would HRC want to make the compound a permanent location?

      Delete
    11. I'm with cicero.
      Why HRC (or anyone with two brain cells) would listen to Republicans or Conservatives is beyond me.
      I mean, that is a MAJOR fuckup. Anyone who takes Conservatives seriously is not fit for the office of President of the United States. If you listen to Conservatives about anything, you should only be fit for a straightjacket.

      Delete
    12. Cicero appears to be completely ignorant of the fact that the US' African Commander General Ham had twice offered military security to Stevens because the Libyan security utilized was potentially unreliable, and Stevens twice refused. And the other clueless among us here need to face up to the one fact that HRC does not want to say...That Stevens foolishly endangered himself and paid the ultimate price. To say that would be the unforgivable "blaming the victim", but it is the actual truth.

      Delete
    13. @Unknown

      "The Defense Department had provided a Site Security Team in Tripoli, made up of 16 special operations personnel to provide security and other help. The State Department, according to the report, decided not to extend the team’s mission in August 2012, one month before the attack. In the weeks that followed, Gen. Carter Ham, the head of Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined, the report said."

      Why would General Ham go around State to ask Stevens himself when Stevens was told by State that extra security was not the profile State i.e. HRC, wanted in Benghazi?

      You must have missed HRC's testimony to the committee. Rep. Sanchez and HRC did blame the victim for his fate.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKVssCWuAGw

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Siafn2QetWw

      What did HRC take responsibility for, again?

      Delete
    14. The election is a long way off, but it has to be looking bleak to Cicero after the female reincarnation of Beelzebub had such a soaring week, and it looks so much more clearly how lightweight (putting it kindly) the GOP opposition is.

      Delete
    15. AC/MA

      Don't look now, but HRC Icarus is soaring right into the sun.

      "FBI Director: ‘I’m Following Very Closely’ Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server" October 22, 2015

      FBI Director James Comey testified on Capitol Hill Thursday in front of the House Oversight Committee, where he told members he was following the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server “very closely.”

      “The FBI is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server,” Comey said. “As you also know about the FBI, we don’t talk about our investigations while we are doing them. This is one I am following very closely and get briefed on regularly. I’m confident we have the people and resources to do it in the way I believe we do all our work, which is promptly, professionally, and independently.”

      Delete
  8. OBAMA DELEGATES TASK TO LADY PREVIOUSLY EATEN ALIVE

    "WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is locked in a sharp new debate over whether to deploy American military forces to establish no-fly zones and safe havens in Syria to protect civilians caught in its grinding civil war.


    The White House remains deeply skeptical about the idea, but the growing refugee crisis in Europe and Russia’s military intervention in Syria have increased pressure on President Obama to take more forceful action. Secretary of State John Kerry and others renewed their push at a tense White House meeting on Monday to use air power to shield Syrians from the fighting, officials said.
    -------

    Mr. Obama did not attend the meeting, which was led by his national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, and no formal decision was made. But advocates of a greater American role left discouraged."

    New York Times 10/22/15

    ReplyDelete
  9. Susan Rice is one of the neocons who have destroyed the Middle East and US stature. If she can spend several trillion dollars on US fighting in Iraq and Syria, she can defend herself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point of the previous comment was that Obama avoided making a decision by sending Rice instead and she did not have the authority to act, much less in a neocon or warlike manner. Even a troll should try to make sense.

      Delete
    2. So Obama did decide. He decided to delay, irritating and "discouraging" the "advocates of a greater American role."

      Advocates, one notes, who have swayed Obama in the past.

      Advocates, it should be added, who have been utterly wrong in every case in which they have succeeded in "advocating a greater American role" -- destabilizing borders further and increasing conflict, death and disease.

      If Obama decided to "discourage" such advocates, that was a very good thing.

      Delete
    3. I might suggest @ 11:56 that the point of the previous comment was that Susan Rice was in a pretty prominent position and functioning well for someone "eaten alive."

      Delete
    4. Obama sacrificed her on the altar of republican manufactured disgusting politicization of the Benghazi tragedy. Even though to this day, as Bob Somerby just showed, nothing she said on those sacred Sunday morning news shows was wrong or misleading. Obama didn't have her back. link


      “This was my decision,” Rice said. When asked if Obama had tried to dissuade her, she said that he “understood that this was the right decision, and that I made it for the right reasons.”

      Delete
    5. I don’t know, mm, is it possible that she actually took into account what a bitch the confirmation hearings would be? Just askin’. haven’t looked real closely at that event.

      Delete
    6. That was the publicly stated reason. But that is precisely the point of Somerby's article. Maybe if Obama fought for Rice at that time we wouldn't have had to deal with it today. How much of a bitch was it for Secretary Clinton on Thursday. You think that was fun? And why is Obama and Holy Joe Biden so silent about it? She was his Secretary of State after all. You would have thought from watching that spectacle that she had been President at the time.

      At some point you have to stand up to these fucking bullies. Clinton did and will. Obama didn't and never will.

      Delete
    7. It is remarkable and quite telling that in the same week where the Special Committee Formed to Drive Down Clinton's Poll Numbers held their marathon kangaroo court trial attacking Clinton for 11 hours, Holy Joe Biden spoke about how much he likes Dick Cheney and lectured Clinton about how republicans aren't our enemies. I wouldn't be surprised if before this is all over he starts feeding the RNC op-research to attack her himself.

      Delete
    8. VP Biden and POTUS Obama are in on the "far right wing conspiracy." Why would five Democrats be on a committee to drive down HRC's poll numbers? In fact, outside of Rep. Tammy Duckworth, none of the Dems were interested in asking HRC any questions on how what happened before, during and after the terrorist attack on the compound.

      Delete
    9. After 8 investigations, all questions were asked and answered. Only Republicans considered it a good use of taxpayer's money to keep asking those same old questions already answered previously. Only Republicans considered it important to know who Clinton was sleeping with that night or who has her private phone number and who visits her house -- as if any of that mattered to what happened in Libya.

      Typical conservative attempt at guilt by association. Throw Obama and Biden into the same paragraph with right wing conspirators and all of a sudden they too are tainted. Isn't it obvious why Biden, contemplating a run for the presidency with Obama's support, might want to drive down Clinton's poll numbers? Why they both might fail to defend her against this Republican nonsense -- aside from Obama wanting to save his political capital to ensure his own legacy. And then there is the fact that Obama threw his own grandmother under the bus -- why not Clinton?

      Delete
    10. $4 million spent on Benghazi committee and libs are complaining about reckless spending of taxpayer money? That's $1 million for each murdered American. The committee discovered HRC's private email server stashed in her Chappaqua basement. That bit of information provoked the FBI to take possession of HRC's server and thumb drives and begin an investigation.

      POTUS Obama admits in the 60 Minutes interview that he knew it was folly to spend half a billion on training 5 Syrian anti-ISIS fighters yet he went along with the program he knew was destined to fail. Wow!!! In your estimation $4 million is a greater waste to investigate Benghazi than half a billion on training 5 Syrians. Libs are indeed amusing.

      The committee didn't ask HRC is Willie has ever spent the night at their home in Chappaqua. HRC and her minions thought the question about HRC being alone was hysterical. But then HRC usually unleashes her cackle at the most inappropriate times.

      Obama and Biden aren't tainted by the "far right wing conspiracy," rather they represent their own left wing conspiracy to take down HRC? Ok.

      Delete
    11. $1 million for each murdered American -- that says it all.

      I'll bet people like Cicero have no idea why this callous arithmetic is so offensive.

      Delete
    12. @1:51

      And libs begrudge even spending that amount on investigating why those 4 Americans died defending HRC's Libyan goals.

      Delete
    13. cicero is nailing it today.
      I agree, cicero. We ARE the richest nation in the history of mankind, and if there are people complaining about things like the cost of the food stamp program, it's because they are selfish assholes who only care about themselves.

      I'm going to write "Am I right?" here, but it's a rhetorical question.

      Delete
    14. @ 4:09

      The complaint is the Food Stamp Program fraud*. Libs do only care about themselves. They have replaced JFK's Inaugural Address request, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

      with

      Ask what government can do for you, not what you can do for the country.

      *
      Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:

      Enhanced Detection Tools and Reporting Could Improve Efforts to Combat Recipient Fraud

      GAO-14-641: Published: Aug 21, 2014. Publicly Released: Aug 21, 2014

      http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-641

      Delete
    15. Nice try cicero.
      Never heard a Tea Party (GOP) member mention fraud. Instead they just make believe the richest nation in the history of mankind is broke.
      BTW, that's why I never take them serious. It's futile to listen to those who are lying, stupid or a combination of the two.

      Delete
    16. Have you considered a hearing aid?

      "Congressman Harris: Reform Food Stamps by Eliminating Waste, Fraud, & Abuse "

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZeezPMqjI0

      Delete
  10. Nice post. this is very informative and useful thanks for sharing

    ReplyDelete
  11. As much as I have liked Bob Schieffer, when the subject of Rice's comments made on Schieffer's own program came up in subsequent weeks, he was utterly clueless, and misstated what she had said.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As much as I like Oprah, she gave Gennifer Flowers a platform in her last major appearance on television. These Obama Chicago pols never quit sliming the Clintons.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @9:04

    And Chicago's own Phil Donahue gave 911 Truthers a platform during his stint at MSNBC. Was he sliming or just promoting slime?

    ReplyDelete