Rice acknowledges some of her Benghazi info was incorrect but has no regrets

[kaz]

Which is what the GOP was doing as well.

The overall statement qualifies that it was the best information they had at the moment

Which was a lie, it wasn't the best information they had at the moment. Everyone in the military knew that it was a coordinated attack. It was obvious that a random mob didn't do it. Had she said she didn't know, it might be a little hard to swallow but you could make the argument it wasn't a lie. She said the indication was it wasn't a military attack. No one told her that, she made it up.

 

[Jarhead]

RICE: Well, Jake, first of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired.

But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.


We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

'This Week' Transcript: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice - ABC News

and by the way....

this line...

We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present.

Proved to be an outright lie.

The best information they had at the moment she said that was that it was a premeditated attack by an extremist terrorist group with ties to al-quaeda.

Can't prove that without the entire pool of information they had. Do you have that?

Also do you think the group that carried out the attack was entitled to the every bit of information the Administration had? Because they were listening.

lol.

Sure.

We couldn't let the terrorist know who did it....that would give them an unfair advantage.

You know, as sad as it is that the administration was convinced that people would believe something like that?

It is sadder that they were correct.

 

[Sallow]

Can you be more specific what lies you're accusing Condie of making?

The big lie in Iraq was the Democrats saying they were lied to. They were aware of all intelligence and said the same things W did. They are either all liars or none of them are. I say all of them are. But your view that Democrats who knew and said the same things as Republicans are not liars while Republicans are is just Democratic party brainwashing.

The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html

So of all the Statements made by Condie, your first, go to argument is that the most damning evidence against her were people "all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity?" That's about the strongest statement you have no argument you could possibly make.

We actually know Hussein had a WMD program because he used WMDs on Iran and repeatedly on his own people. Stockpiles are irrelevant, you don't needs stockpiles to make and use them. W and the Democrats were sincere in that he had the capability and was a threat to use them.

W saw himself as Reaganesque, above the fray, and did not respond to his critics, including Democrats when they started the lie that they were lied to. He did not look Reaganesque, he looked clueless and uninformed and the lie held and is repeated endlessly by the liberal minions.

I was against the war because Iraq was not threatening the United States and policing the Middle East is not our job to police. The nice thing for me is that I don't have to be a liar and a hypocrite now like you do to justify what I did at the time.

That's just ******* amazing.

It was the Reagan/Bush administration that gave him that tech.

And somehow, no one could figure out that after a decade long war with Iran, several wars with the United States and extremely withering sanctions that killed thousands of Iraqis..that Iraq was in no shape to attack anyone.

Bush floated several huge lies.

-Iraq was involved in 9/11.
-Iraq had a vast quantity of functional chemical weapons.
-Iraq was close to completing the creation of a nuclear weapon.

None of those things were true.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Must deflect from Rice to Powell!!!!!!

When he claimed that Iraq had not been able to rebuilt it's WMD program way back in 2001? Or when he claimed that Saddam hadn't even been able to rebuild his conventional army because the Sanctions were working so well? Or when he pushed the Administrations pro war talking points(lies) at the UN?

you deflected to the Iraq war.

goddamn, how ******* dumb are liberals?

No I pointed out the more consequential untruthful talking points delivered to the public by another Rice in a similar job, and as it turns out many more people were killed, yet she did get the promotion that Susan Rice was viciously denied.

Hypocrite is another name for todays Republicans.

here let me say what you forgot.....so are todays Democrats....

 

[BlindBoo]

Stop debating like a child Boo. You are better than that.

Now....

You don't start off with "it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired."...

And then give a false theory (stated as "in fact") that was in direct contradiction with what the CIA told the President....

for if you do?

You gave that little line before hand to cover your ass if caught.

Wait, what?

You're playing word games here.

Which is what the GOP was doing as well.

The overall statement qualifies that it was the best information they had at the moment.

It's telling you folks keep on like this.

Because Romney, in a despicable move, tried to make this into an issue.

And the GOP didn't get how disgusting that was..

No Sallow...

It was NOT the best information they had at the moment.

Within 15 minutes of the Attack, Leon Panetta and the SoD informed the President that it was a premeditated attack by an Islamic extremist group with links to al-Qaeda.

Now....why gove out the lie then?

1) The morning following a terrorist attack killing Americans, the President flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. Not very presidential and would have received a hell of a lot of flack for it

2)The integrity of the mantra "al-quaeda is on the run" would have been compromised a month before the election.

Really isn't rocket science.

The administration lied to the American people for political expediency.

No question about it.

General Ham Learned of the Attacks within 15 minutes. It was his belief that it was a terrorist attack. He then informed Panetta and the SoD. Who had a pre-scheduled meeting with the President.

The following morning before leaving on his fundraising trip the President made his Rose Garden Speech on the matter where he claimed "no act of terror......." Kinda hard to fathom an act of terror not being a terrorist attack but the GOPers try.

The election was nearly two months away.

 

[Sallow]

Which is what the GOP was doing as well.

The overall statement qualifies that it was the best information they had at the moment

Which was a lie, it wasn't the best information they had at the moment. Everyone in the military knew that it was a coordinated attack. It was obvious that a random mob didn't do it. Had she said she didn't know, it might be a little hard to swallow but you could make the argument it wasn't a lie. She said the indication was it wasn't a military attack. No one told her that, she made it up.

Well no.

It was a combination of a "coordinated" attack and random attacks. It wasn't one group that did this, it was many groups..including some of the people charged with guarding the embassy.

And it was the CIA that developed the talking points. Probably because they didn't want everyone to know they had set up shop there.

Good job GOP.

Blew their cover, essentially.

 

[BlindBoo]

you deflected to the Iraq war.

goddamn, how ******* dumb are liberals?

No I pointed out the more consequential untruthful talking points delivered to the public by another Rice in a similar job, and as it turns out many more people were killed, yet she did get the promotion that Susan Rice was viciously denied.

Hypocrite is another name for todays Republicans.

here let me say what you forgot.....so are todays Democrats....

I......can accept that. Seeing how they are both sides of the same coin.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course I can. Since I gave you the full quote, I'm not going to because if you doubt the quote, you could verify it in 10 seconds.

Seriously, that sounds good to you? I want a LINK to a quote, not the full QUOTE!!!!!

LOL, you people are something.

I posted the link for boo...

But I have to ask...

What news does Boo watch where he/she was not even aware of that quote?

I mean, Rice said it 5 times in one day.

How can Boo attempt to debate this topic without even knowing what Rice said?

He instructed me to provide a link so he didn't need to Google it even though he wasn't disputing my quote, so clearly it was my job to do as I was told.

Your quote was incomplete.

 

[Jarhead]

Wait, what?

You're playing word games here.

Which is what the GOP was doing as well.

The overall statement qualifies that it was the best information they had at the moment.

It's telling you folks keep on like this.

Because Romney, in a despicable move, tried to make this into an issue.

And the GOP didn't get how disgusting that was..

No Sallow...

It was NOT the best information they had at the moment.

Within 15 minutes of the Attack, Leon Panetta and the SoD informed the President that it was a premeditated attack by an Islamic extremist group with links to al-Qaeda.

Now....why gove out the lie then?

1) The morning following a terrorist attack killing Americans, the President flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. Not very presidential and would have received a hell of a lot of flack for it

2)The integrity of the mantra "al-quaeda is on the run" would have been compromised a month before the election.

Really isn't rocket science.

The administration lied to the American people for political expediency.

No question about it.

General Ham Learned of the Attacks within 15 minutes. It was his belief that it was a terrorist attack. He then informed Panetta and the SoD. Who had a pre-scheduled meeting with the President.

The following morning before leaving on his fundraising trip the President made his Rose Garden Speech on the matter where he claimed "no act of terror......." Kinda hard to fathom an act of terror not being a terrorist attack but the GOPers try.

The election was nearly two months away.

Whatever...

Mind you.... a man driving drunk is committing an act of terror....but he is by no means a terrorist attacking.

A few protestors storming a compound is committing an act of terror....but by no means deemed a terrorist attack.

You are exactly what the administration counts on.

You are doing a fantabulous job for them.

 

[Jarhead]

Oh yeah...

and if the President truly believed it was a terrorist attack when he said "no act of terror....."....

Then what the **** was he doing the very next day, hopping on a plane and going to vegas for a fund raiser?

 

[Claudette]

Seriously, if you question the quote you can't verify it? Here's what you do. Create a new tab and type in the first few words of the quote. Wow, you people are lazy.



Yes, then she said a flat out lie. Your point is?

Can't post a link to the quotes you provided? Fine.

What news do you watch that you need a link to prove it happened?
I mean, she said it nearly word for word and 5 different shows that day.....

Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”

“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

I highlighted the two most telling words that she used in all 5 interviews.....

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated - ABC News

Yup. She trotted her little ass out there and said exactly what she was told to say.

She lied her ass off for days when the administration, via Pinetta, had been advised it was a terrorist attack within 15 minutes of it happening.

Of course the election was more important than four dead men. Hell. Barry jetted off to his fundraiser the next day. We can all see where his priorities were and the Hilbat's "What difference does it make." shows you just how much those deaths meant to both of them. Not much.

Yup. Bunch of standup ***** anyone should be proud to work for. NOT

 

[Pheonixops]

Rice acknowledges some of her Benghazi info was incorrect but has no regrets | Fox News

Wow, the lies from these leftist assholes never ******* ends. And they don't even care.

they made up the story about the movie, only a complete buffoon buys that.



Rice said “No,” when Gregory asked whether she had any regrets about her statements.

Rice said the Benghazi attacks appeared to be a "spontaneous reaction” to an anti-Islamic video on the Internet.




At least that ***** got a great job and the spouse of those murdered have a nice warm tombstone to snuggle with.

What did she say that was so bad? “What I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice told NBC's “Meet the Press” moderator David Gregory on Sunday. “The information I provided … was what we had at the moment.”.

What she shared didn't lead to any loss of life, she shared what her higher ups told her to, what is there for her to be sorry about?

Her statement that what she did was share the best information that we had at the time is what she has to be sorry about. That was NOT the best information that the Obama White House had at the time. The best information was that this WAS a terror attack and had ZERO to do with some obscure video. Rice misled the American people. The only question is whether she did so knowingly or was naive enough to believe what she was being told by Obama and Clinton. Either way she has a great deal to be "sorry" for because she's either incompetent or she's a liar...pick your poison.

Why should she be sorry for putting out a message that was given to her by her superiors? I don't care that is was or wasn't the "best information" they had at the time, the fact is that it was an attack on our embassy, if it was a video, if it was political, or even if it was initiated by a small fringe of idiots, it still was a terror attack on our embassy or installation.
I think that republicans/conservatives have a better case about the procedural issues that may or may not have happened prior to and during the attack. Attacking the "middle man" for a statement and information that she received and delivered, is pretty petty in my opinion.

 

[kaz]

That's just ******* amazing.

It was the Reagan/Bush administration that gave him that tech

Link?

Bush floated several huge lies.

-Iraq was involved in 9/11

Link?

-Iraq had a vast quantity of functional chemical weapons.
-Iraq was close to completing the creation of a nuclear weapon.

None of those things were true.

And those don't contradict me, the Democrats said it too.

I believe that both parties who traded the White House and ran the Senate Intelligence committee together and said the same thing were both responsible.

You believe that one party is as pure as the driven snow and the other are filthy liars.

The evidence would point to the pathetic believer of lies to be the face you see in the mirror each morning.

 

[kaz]

Which is what the GOP was doing as well.

The overall statement qualifies that it was the best information they had at the moment

Which was a lie, it wasn't the best information they had at the moment. Everyone in the military knew that it was a coordinated attack. It was obvious that a random mob didn't do it. Had she said she didn't know, it might be a little hard to swallow but you could make the argument it wasn't a lie. She said the indication was it wasn't a military attack. No one told her that, she made it up.

Well no.

It was a combination of a "coordinated" attack and random attacks. It wasn't one group that did this, it was many groups..including some of the people charged with guarding the embassy.

And it was the CIA that developed the talking points. Probably because they didn't want everyone to know they had set up shop there.

Good job GOP.

Blew their cover, essentially.

Wow, the big bad wolf, LOL, you're a grinder monkey.

You're going to have to walk me through this. So Susan Rice says it appeared to be uncoordinated attacks. That leads how exactly to apprehending the attackers. This is a load of crap, you can't possibly back it up for anyone but the most sheep of Democrat.

And you are such a flaming hypocrite, when Obama came out after they got Bin Laden and spiked the ball and the military were aghast he'd just made their acquisition of all the intelligence they gathered at the site irrelevant, and from you we heard crickets.

Again, I'm arguing the parties are the same, same credit, same blame. That being based on they said the same thing. Wow, I'm naive, eh?

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh yeah...

and if the President truly believed it was a terrorist attack when he said "no act of terror....."....

Then what the **** was he doing the very next day, hopping on a plane and going to vegas for a fund raiser?

We found out in 1998, 2000 and 2001 what al Qaeda means by terrorist attack didn't we?

As terrible as it was, Benghazi was not one of those events.

 

[Jarhead]

Which was a lie, it wasn't the best information they had at the moment. Everyone in the military knew that it was a coordinated attack. It was obvious that a random mob didn't do it. Had she said she didn't know, it might be a little hard to swallow but you could make the argument it wasn't a lie. She said the indication was it wasn't a military attack. No one told her that, she made it up.

Well no.

It was a combination of a "coordinated" attack and random attacks. It wasn't one group that did this, it was many groups..including some of the people charged with guarding the embassy.

And it was the CIA that developed the talking points. Probably because they didn't want everyone to know they had set up shop there.

Good job GOP.

Blew their cover, essentially.

Wow, the big bad wolf, LOL, you're a grinder monkey.

You're going to have to walk me through this. So Susan Rice says it appeared to be uncoordinated attacks. That leads how exactly to apprehending the attackers. This is a load of crap, you can't possibly back it up for anyone but the most sheep of Democrat.

And you are such a flaming hypocrite, when Obama came out after they got Bin Laden and spiked the ball and the military were aghast he'd just made their acquisition of all the intelligence they gathered at the site irrelevant, and from you we heard crickets.

Again, I'm arguing the parties are the same, same credit, same blame. That being based on they said the same thing. Wow, I'm naive, eh?

as sad as it was that the President believed folks would believe his crap about Benghazi?

It is sadder that he was correct.

 

[Jarhead]

Oh yeah...

and if the President truly believed it was a terrorist attack when he said "no act of terror....."....

Then what the **** was he doing the very next day, hopping on a plane and going to vegas for a fund raiser?

We found out in 1998, 2000 and 2001 what al Qaeda means by terrorist attack didn't we?

As terrible as it was, Benghazi was not one of those events.

Really?

So you base the severity of an attack on how many people died?

You know....their goal was to kill many more, but we got them out of there. So that's it? Since they failed to kill more, it is no big deal?

Only 6 people died when the WTC was first attacked.....so that wasn't something that warranted the President showing concern, anger and resolve?

Should the president have flown to Disneyland that day?

Wow....you really are reaching for straws.

 

[francoHFW]

Here's a giant Pub lie. ''We know Bengazi was not spontaneous and was not in reaction to that video.''

BIG LIE repeated endlessly. Maybe the FBI can find the attackers to ask them, hater dupes.

 

[kaz]

Here's a giant Pub lie. ''We know Bengazi was not spontaneous and was not in reaction to that video.''

BIG LIE repeated endlessly. Maybe the FBI can find the attackers to ask them, hater dupes.

Always enlightening to hear from an MS-NBC dup. Actually, they know the attacks were planned in advance because of how they were carried out, so it could not have been a reaction to the video.

 

[francoHFW]

ACTUALLY, ''terrorists'' are defined by security groups as under orders from international ass-holes- Al-QAEDA AND JIHADISTS... SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NOT THESE ISLAMIC LIBYAN MILITIA TYPES WITH TOO MANY WEAPONS AND TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS, AND PROBABLY A SATELLITE tv tuned to that a-hole in Cairo lol.