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?
Bob, I love you, but give me a break. Susan Rice implied that the attack was caused (or at least partially caused) by a demonstration in reaction to the video. That was the Administration line. IMHO it was in furtherance of that line that the person who made the video was arrested by 6 uniformed policemen , even though he was not a threat to commit any violence.ReplyDelete
Now, it is true by posting this video, Nakoula violated the terms of his probation. However, the reaction of the law enforcement to this non-violent action was extreme.
You're like Exhibit A. Do you hear/read yourself?Delete
DAinCA, As the sainted Secretary of State at the time said, "What difference does it make?" Whether Susan rice actually implied what you and your buddies in Congress want to infer, that's one question.Delete
Now, to a second question: Is there a bottom to your ignorance? Nakoula had been arrested by the LA County Sheriff's Department for various drug offenses for which he was convicted and served part of a jail sentence. Under the authority of the LA County courts, he was given probation and had that probation revoked. Did you mean to imply that Barack Obama was one of the six cops who re-arrested Nakoula or is it your humble opinion that Obama merely engineered the arrest?
It's my humble opinion that he we arrested in the manner that he was because of the Obama Administration's portrayal of the event as having been caused by his video. The terms of his parole prohibited him from posting stuff on the web. He violated those terms. BTW, I wonder if those terms violated his freedom of speech.Delete
Anyhow, he wasn't violent. He wasn't armed. He wasn't in hiding. The normal procedure would have been for a single policeman to go get him during the day. In fact, the police could have just phoned him and told him to come in. Instead they had 6 policemen and evidently a news photographer to arrest him in the middle of the night.
Now this is just my opinion. I can't prove the motivation of the LAPD. But, deadrat, what's your guess as to why the arrested him in this dramatic fashion?
D in C she didn't say it was "caused" or "partially caused" by a protest about the film, she said it apparently "began" as such a protest which was then taken over by other elements (while making it clear that this just happened, and the facts weren't completely clear yet).Delete
Can you tell the difference? then again, as Rep. King has said, Benghazzi is equal to Watergate and Iran contra times ten, scandal-wise.
AC / MA
DAinCA, And your opinion is certainly humble because it's based on nothing but your rumination, uncontaminated with evidence. As usual. And you wonder whether the terms of Nakoula's probation violated his freedom of speech. You must spend your life in wonder. (Now there's an opinion based on evidence, namely your contributions here.) The law permits individuals to give up certain of their Constitutional rights if they believe it's in their best interests. You can give up your right to a speedy trial, if you feel a delay will help your case. In fact, you can give up your right to a trial at all, even if you want to maintain your innocence while doing so. And in exchange for early release from prison, you may agree to curtail your freedom of speech. Or in exchange for a government job requiring a security clearance. But you're still wondering, aren't you?Delete
So you'd like to know why I think the arrest was made in such a dramatic fashion. OK, I hope you're sitting down for this, because it's gonna be a shocker. I don't have an opinion on this matter because I have absolutely no information that would give me insight into the motivations of the people involved. Perhaps they were grandstanding for the cameras; perhaps they were genuinely concerned that the arrest could spark violence; perhaps they were trying to curry favor with the administration; perhaps they were acting on secret orders directly from Obama. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
I'm not saying you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for every opinion you hold. But how about informing yourself of something, anything?
I realize that commenters like CeceliaMc find your brand of ignorant politesse (or is that polite ignorance?) charming. I'm sorry, but I don't.
And She said at this point, this seems our best assumption, but it's early. Bob is correct, one hundred percent.ReplyDelete
You are correct if you assume that the uncertainty was real, and that someone on the ground in Libya actually thought there was a demonstration. In light of this week's testimony, that assumption seems questionable. I guess it's logically impossible that Republicans and Fox News have been hysterical and irresponsible AND that the administration lied about what happened.ReplyDelete
NO, No NO! This isn't correct "if..." It's just correct, period:Delete
Rice, whatever your opinion of her own motivations, has been serially, continuously misrepresented by the press.
TDH says :"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."ReplyDelete
"If that is right" ?? As has been pointed out numerous times over many months, Rice herself conceded this much in an official press release back on November 27, 2012. Is TDH unaware of this...still? Or is this just a bit of TDH gorilla dust to make even these facts seem uncertain?
By the way, I think the official line now is that it doesn't matter whether the Benghazi attacks were "caused" or "evolved" or were "hijacked," --What Difference Does It Make?
More Anonymous gorilla dust.Delete
Whatever your opinion of her own motivations, Rice has been serially, continuously misrepresented by the press, just as Somerby has shown.
Anon 752 does not respond to the question:Delete
"Is TDH unaware of this...still? Or is this just a bit of TDH gorilla dust to make even these facts seem uncertain?"
And you (and all your fellow co-conspirators) have yet to explain what difference it makes whether there was a demonstration or not preceding the violence. If you don't have an explanation but keep acting as if you do, that makes you the liar.Delete
You also have yet to acknowledge that Rice expressly said to Bob Schieffer that it could be al Qaeda connected.
Bob, You're right on track. But one point not addressed is the "why" of the ambassador being at a lesser protected facility on 9-11. No one wants to blame the deceased but I have suspected that Stephens on his own may have done something very risky. And did the attackers even know Stephens was there? Could they have found out the CIA was up to tricks in that location and been motivated by that?ReplyDelete
Stephans was there because the Secretary of State wanted him there, at least that's what was testified to earlier this week. But hey, blame the dead guy, right? Anything to deflect blame, and you can be sure he won't respond.Delete
The republican orchestrated Benghazi dog and pony show is an embarrassment to all Americans.They randomly use the prosecutor's trick of asking a question in which yes or no is the only response they'll accept. It's always a variation of "Do you still beat your wife, yes or no?" When the witness refuses to answer the ridiculous question, the inquisitor responds, "Let it be noted, for the record, that the witness was unresponsive" or "refused to answer the question."ReplyDelete
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for great information I was looking for this info for my mission.ReplyDelete
Here is my web-site: mfortune
Thanks for the information. I've been searching for security clearance jobs ever since I graduated college and I'm having a hard time finding any jobs in my area. Do you have any tips you could share to help my job search?ReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Türk PornoReplyDelete
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Sikiş
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle, Türk porno
Porno izle, Porno, Sikiş izle
Porno, Sex, Porno izle
Porno, Porno izle
Porno Sikiş, Porno, Porno izle
Porno, Porno izle, Sikiş izle
Porno, Porno Sex Sikiş, Porno izle
Porno, Sikiş izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma
Porno, Sikişme izle, Türk Porno, Kızlık Bozma
Türk Porno izle, Türk Pornosu, Türk Sex, Türk Sikiş
Porno Film izle, Türk Porno, Sikiş
Porno izle, Porno video seyret