Let's revisit the quote.
Quote:GREGORY: Well, let’s talk-- talk about-- well, you talked about this as spontaneous. Can you say definitively that the attacks on-- on our consulate in Libya that killed ambassador Stevens and others there security personnel, that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?
MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s 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-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.
Gives a slightly different slant with different parts bolded. Note that she never suggests the possibility of anything other than the video as the source. That point is clearer in the interviews she did with a couple of other networks What she does is very craftily never say point blank that it's the video, but come just as close as she possibly can to saying precisely that while still covering her tracks in case the lie gets exposed. Very crafty, got to hand them that.
The whole argument that she gets a pass because she said there was an ongoing investigation is sort of nuts when you think about it. Basically, it's that she said, we don't know what caused it, but what we know is that this is what caused it. She was sent out to sell a story. It was a story that was wrong and was known to be wrong. CIA knew it was wrong. Pannetta knew it was wrong. That doesn't mean that Obama and Hillary absolutely knew it was wrong, but it certainly leads there. Susan Rice may have been the only person in the entire foreign affairs hierarchy who didn't know it. If that's the case, that's pretty obviously why she was chosen. The UN ambassador sounds like an authoritative figure, but there would be no reason for her to know details. She can tell a lie with deniability later, because she doesn't know it's a lie.
Quote: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 it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- 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.
I was asked buy someone what I thought the bolded part meant. I think it meant that we knew that Benghazi should not have been left as lightly guarded as it was.
And no, that can't be blamed on republican budget cutting for several reasons. One, even after the cuts, there was still a sizable worldwide security budget, and it was up to State to figure out where to allocate it. Unless you're willing to argue that the budget was cut too severely to be able to support two dozen or so security people in Benghazi, and that's an absurd position, then there's no credible argument. Two, if you're worried about heavy weapons, that's a military issue, not a security issue, and republicans didn't cut that budget. I find it absolutely astounding that one can say on the one hand that the known threat was rebellious forces with access to heavy weapons, and in response we chose to have zero amphibs in the entire Med on the 9/11 anniversary. That is criminal negligence on the part of everyone who had a voice in that decision. Three, State personnel have indicated that the funding cuts weren't the problem. I think they are practicing the defining skill of bureaucrats there--covering their asses. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Benghazi actually absorbed the cuts. I'd expect bureaucrats to cut Benghazi before they cut London or Paris or Canberra or Wellington. Those other places are places where foreign service employees want to go, because those are pleasant places to live. I would think that an analysis of what actually got cut would prompt a lot of questions as to why cuts were made where they were. So you take pre-emptive action by saying it wasn't a problem.
This thread has pretty much degenerated to both sides talking past each other and each repeating the same arguments over and over. I'm thorough talking about this, unless someone wants to explore some avenue that hasn't been discussed yet.
/
Nancy Pelosi: Democrats will participate in House Benghazi hearings
