CNN deals the dope on what Rice "maintains!"

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2012

The least capable people on earth: Around 5:45 this morning, we heard the formulation on CNN’s Early Start.

Via Nexis, we see that Deborah Feyerick did the reporting. Sadly, remarkably, this is what Feyerick said:

FEYERICK (11/27/12): Ambassador Susan Rice heads to Capitol Hill this morning to mend fences with three Republican senators. She angered John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte with her initial comments made on several TV networks that appeared to play down the role of al Qaeda terrorists in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

That attack killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Rice maintains that she made it very clear the intelligence information she had at the time was preliminary. Senators are threatening to block her nomination if President Obama chooses her to be his next Secretary of State.

According to Feyerick, Rice maintains that she said the intelligence was preliminary!

By now, CNN has had well over two months to examine what Rice really said. They don’t have to rely on what Rice "maintains."

Transcripts and tapes are easy to find. They can see what she said.

CNN doesn’t have to rely on what Ambassador Rice maintains. They can see her making repeated disclaimers that day—on Meet the Press, for example:

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.

Ambassador Rice's entire statement involved 170 words. By our count, Rice told Gregory seven times that her account was preliminary.

Like the western world's greatest bard, let us count the ways:

Right at the start, Rice told Gregory that she was providing “the best information we have at present.”

She then told him the administration was “looking to” an FBI investigation “to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.” She then said she was providing “the best information that we have available to us today.”

In her very next breath, she restated the point, saying that her account was “our current assessment.”

Ambassador Rice tossed in a “we think” midway through her short account. As she closed, she restated her initial point, telling Gregory that her account was “our best judgment now.”

In her next breath, she restated her word of caution. “We'll await the results of the investigation,” she once again advised.

Over and over, again and again, Rice told Gregory that her account was preliminary. Ten weeks later, CNN is only able to say that Rice maintains that she did this!

We’ve asked these questions many times:

Who are these people? Where do they come from? Are they truly flesh of the earth?

Could humans really behave this way? Is it possible that we’re dealing with some alternate life-form?

Over the weekend, Ta-Nehisi Coates advised us to look at Rice’s “original statements.” He then quoted Andrea Mitchell’s cherry-picked account of Rice's statements.

This morning, Feyerick plays this non-human game with Rice’s repeated disclaimers.

Do we know why these life-forms keep doing these things? Are they flesh of the earth?

Final point: Reading Feyerick’s text, one would assume that the Benghazi attack was conducted by “al Qaeda terrorists.”

To this day, have intelligence services stated that conclusion?

As far as we know, they have not. The Washington Post seemed to report a different conclusion just about ten days ago.

But Feyerick is part of a guild which has purchased a John McCain line. In accord with Hard Pundit law, she’s working hard to advance that Official Press Line.

Feyerick is misleading you in the process, and she's making a joke of your world. This was common during the Clinton-Gore years.

The whole liberal world sat and stared.