Susan Rice and the lemonade sale: Can we talk? Our career liberal just isn’t real sharp. This afternoon at Salon, Alex Seitz-Wald offers this:
SEITZ-WALD (5/10/13): Critics have always been right that Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points were wrong; rather than the attack being caused by a spontaneous protest, as she claimed on several Sunday morning talk shows after the attack, it was a terrorist plot. But the fundamental question was whether the administration knew it was a terror attack and intentionally lied when it blamed the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens on a deadly protest instead.Our team is weak, soft, sad.
Sorry. Susan Rice never said the attack was caused by a spontaneous protest. She said a spontaneous protest was occurring when extremists armed with heavy weapons arrived and hijacked events.
Can we really not see the difference? Really? Try to imagine this:
A lemonade sale is happening in front of an embassy. Then, extremists armed with heavy weapons arrive and stage an attack.
In that case, would you say the attack was caused by a lemonade sale? That would be very dumb! But that is the kind of inaccurate dumbness to which Salon keeps signing on. In the process, the site keeps putting a claim in Rice’s mouth which is vastly dumber than what she actually said.
The intelligence community has concluded that there was no pre-existing protest. If that is right, then Rice was wrong when she said there was, repeating what the intelligence community seemed to believe at the time.
But Susan Rice never said that a spontaneous protest “caused” the attack. Did we say something earlier today about the decline of Salon?