Susan Rice, misparaphrased still!


Ways that Donald Trump got there:
Without Benghazi, would Donald J. Trump ever have reached the White House?

There is no way to tell. The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. The bogus stories about what occurred got started the following Sunday, and they continued, aimed at Hillary Clinton, over the next four years.

Initially, the bogus stories concerned Susan Rice—more specifically, what she said on the Sunday programs that following weekend. We mention this because in this morning's Washington Post, Rice was misparaphrased again, with the stress on the damage done to Rice, rather than to Clinton:
HELLER (10/8/19): Susan Rice was then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, equipped with a gold-standard Washington résumé—Stanford, Rhodes scholar, Oxford doctorate, former assistant secretary of state for African affairs. She explained that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “wiped after a brutal week.” The Obama White House asked Rice to appear “in her stead” on all five Sunday news programs.

It was days after attacks in Libya killed four Americans.

“I smell a rat,” said her mother, a lauded education policy expert. “This is not a good idea. Can’t you get out of it?”

“Mom, don’t be ridiculous,” Rice said. “I’ve done the shows. It will be fine.”

Well, no, it was not.

Benghazi became the millstone in Rice’s stellar career. It stopped her from succeeding Clinton.

Criticism of Rice was relentless after the intelligence talking points she was given proved incorrect and inadequate. She said the attacks were a spontaneous protest, but the government inquiry was still evolving, and later determined that some individuals were affiliated with terrorist groups. The scrutiny lasted through multiple congressional investigations.
"She said the attacks were a spontaneous protest?"

Actually, that isn't what Susan Rice said on the Sunday shows that day. But as soon as she finished speaking on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer and John McCain got busy misparaphrasing what she'd just said.

Needless to say, their bogus paraphrase was quickly adopted as gospel. We discussed what Rice had actually said at great length in the days and weeks which followed, but at times of Major Insider Consensus, you might as well talk to Trump's wall.

Rice was attacked all through the fall, with timorous stars like Rachel Maddow running for cover. (Four years later, she did the same thing from July 5 on with respect to Comey the God's attack on Candidate Clinton.) The Benghazi narratives were born in this way, and they were relentlessly used to attack Candidate Clinton, right on through until Emailgate was deemed more damaging still.

Rice was instantly misparaphrased; the process continues today. In real time, cable stars all ran and hid. After all, John McCain was a certified saint and straight-talker, and Schieffer was a highly respected dean of the upper-end press corps. Insider careerists simply don't challenge establishment stars of that stripe.

Beyond that, basic paraphrase is a skill our intellectual leaders have never quite mastered. Luckily, we liberals still have rural Arkansans we can mock for their pitiful lack of smarts.

According to major anthropologists, our own liberal team just isn't real sharp. That said, how did you think that Donald Trump got there? Have you spent all your time blaming Them?


  1. Puh-leeze, Bob.

    Meaningless bogus stories aside, The Three Witches: Clinton, Rice, and Power did destroy the most prosperous country in Africa, and (if indirectly) murdered the most successful African anti-colonial leader.

    And all you see there is 'misparaphrasing'? Bad. Bad karma, dear Bob.

    As for 'misparaphrasing', yes, they were doing it back in those days, but now, when the whole fucking zombie establishment is obsessed with only one thing - Orange Man Bad - these days they don't bother 'misparaphrasing'. They just make shit up. Lie. Non-stop, 24x7.

    You live in the past, dear Bob...

    1. How indirectly was he murdered? He was murdered by insurgent forces fighting a civil war within his country, by his own people.

    2. What is you question, exactly - "how indirectly"? But you answered it yourself: using what you call "insurgent forces". What else is unclear?

    3. Anyone surprised that Right-wingers support treason against the United States of America, deserves to be called a braindead zombie.

  2. "Without Benghazi, would Donald J. Trump ever have reached the White House?"

    The attacks on Clinton didn't begin or end with Benghazi.

    Somerby once again pretends that Trump was legitimately elected and not put into office by a conspiracy to manipulate the election process (involving the Russians, Trump's campaign, and Comey). Benghazi didn't help anything, but Clinton won the popular vote by a huge margin.

    Why does Somerby ignore the biggest contributors to Trump's victory in favor of things that demonstrably were not factors in Clinton's loss?

    1. "Demonstrably not factors in Clinton's loss"? That's nuts. In an election that close, the freaking weather in Milwaukee could have been a factor. In any event, Benghazi was a sustained smear campaign for years leading up to the vote, with obvious connections to the framing of the email issue. It was a major factor in bolstering the image of HRC as an evil liar and suppressing Democratic votes and turning Independents to Trump.

    2. All evidence points to Trump voters being intractable so your assertion is likely false.

      Benghazi is unlikely to have suppressed Dem voters, the candidate was a neoliberal which no longer garners much voter enthusiasm.

  3. "But as soon as she finished speaking on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer and John McCain got busy misparaphrasing what she'd just said."

    This is what Republicans do. They do it because they have no respect for truth. Lying is part of winning and their modus is to win at any cost, by any means. That is why they are still following Trump despite his massive dishonesty.

    Somerby says: "Beyond that, basic paraphrase is a skill our intellectual leaders have never quite mastered."

    This isn't a failure to paraphrase properly. It is a deliberate distortion by Republicans to attack a Democrat.

    Our "leaders" didn't address it because it was too hard to wade into the weeds to explain the mistakes to viewers and because there were more important issues to discuss.

    But this isn't an example of anyone's stupidity. It is an example of deliberate deception by a party that has no respect for truth, in order to attack a black woman to limit her effectiveness in our party.

    If Somerby wants to criticize something, why doesn't he point out that black women don't get the same kind of defense by other Democrats as someone like Joe Biden gets.

    1. 'But this isn't an example of anyone's stupidity'

      It is, though. It's an example of Somerby's stupidity since he ignores the vast right wing media that amplified these lies. Somerby ignores that media because he is a Trumptard.

    2. Your efforts on the behalf of your Tribe have been noted and reported to the Central Committee. You’ve already been awarded the Zealousness Ribbon with silver oak leaf clusters, so give it a rest.

      TDH is about corporate and liberal media. He doesn’t discuss right-wing media because it’s a given that that’s nonsense propaganda. How come you still don’t get this? You’re like somebody who goes to hear a string quartet and complains that there was no brass section.

    3. TDH runs interference for Right-wingers, often repeating their nonsense memes.
      Anyone who doesn't realize this by now, deserves to be called a braindead, dembot zombie.

    4. Right Wing media was what distorted and spread all sorts of lies about Clinton. Ignoring that is the action of a clueless, lying, Trumptard.

  4. “We discussed what Rice had actually said at great length in the days and weeks which followed”

    This is true.

    Just wondering why he doesn’t bother to defend Biden or his son from the ongoing Trump smears.

    1. Because he's now become a Trumptard

    2. Republicans lied (natch) about what Rice actually said, and reporters went along with them. Which is exactly what draws TDH’s attention.

      Republicans are lying (natch) about Biden, but every news report I’ve read has either said that no evidence exists to support Republican claims or that counter-evidence exists.

      What’s so hard about this?

    3. Actually, right wing media has said that evidence exists. But Somerby won't bother to critique it, since he is a Trumptard.

    4. This. blog. isn't. about. right-wing. nonsense.

      What's so hard about this?

    5. this blog is about TDH repeating right wing media nonsense and defending right wingers like Johnson, Moore and Trump.

      What was so hard about that ?

    6. defending right wingers....


      But you can't seem to do either.

    7. Even deadrat can't defend against the charge that Bob repeats Right-wing nonsense memes.

    8. I don't need to "defend" a position here. The way this works is that the person making the claim has the burdens of production and proof. Centrist claims that TDH repeats right-wing memes and defends right-wingers. His claim; his burden. I've asked for evidence, i.e., PU|SU.

      That he can do neither is not my problem.

  5. "Criticism of Rice was relentless after the intelligence talking points she was given proved incorrect"

    Good grief! No one can still get this story right? In fact, an in-depth story by the NY Times much later determined that the protest *was* spontaneous.

    Of course, even if the attack were not spontaneous, the claims by the Republicans would still be bogus. But is is especially galling that Rice's claim in fact ended up being true.

  6. Remember well the Susan Rice marathon on all 5 Sunday morning shows.

    Reminded me of the title of Agatha Christie book, Why Didn't They Ask Evans?