Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Mr. Sister Elle Sade Ai Ni

What Susan Rice actually said

5 posts in this topic

This deserves its own topic.

I have seen Susan Rice all over threads but it makes for a very incoherent dialogue.

Below are excerpts from the news programs.

ABC’s “This Week”:

JAKE TAPPER: So, first of all, what is the latest you can tell us on who these attackers were at the embassy or at the consulate in Benghazi? We’re hearing that the Libyans have arrested people. They’re saying that some people involved were from outside the country, that there might have even been Al Qaida ties. What’s the latest information?

MS. 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.

Full transcript.

CBS’s “Face the Nation”

MS. RICE: So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with [the previous guest, the president of Libya’s general national congress] that al Qaeda had some part in this?

MS. RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

Full CBS transcript.

“Fox News Sunday”

CHRIS WALLACE: Let’s talk about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi this week that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The top Libyan official says that the attack on Tuesday was, quote, his words “preplanned”. Al Qaeda says the operation was revenge for our killing a top Al Qaeda leader.

What do we know?

MS. RICE: Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.

Full Fox transcript.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”

DAVID 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. 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.

Full NBC transcript.

CNN’s “State of the Union”

Ms. RICE: I have been to Libya and walked the streets of Benghazi myself. And despite what we saw in that horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists, the United States is extremely popular in Libya and the outpouring of sympathy and support for Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues from the government, from people is evidence of that.

The fact is, Candy, that this is a turbulent time. It’s a time of dramatic change. It’s a change that the United States has backed because we understand that when democracy takes root, when human rights and people’s freedom of expression can be manifested, it may lead to turbulence in the short-term, but over the long-term, that is in the interest of the United States.

The mobs we’ve seen on the outside of these embassies are small minority. They’re the ones who have largely lost in these emerging democratic processes, and just as the people of these countries are not going to allow their lives to be hijacked by a dictator, they’re not going to allow an extremist mob to hijack their future and their freedom,. And we’re going to continue to stand with the vast majority of the populations in these countries.

Full CNN transcript.

Wall Street Journal - Flashback: What Susan Rice Said About Benghazi

All the language used by Rice was in terms of "this is developing", "this is the best information we have", "we won't know definitely until the investigation goes further".

Notice what is in bold red above, a mob was hicjacked by extremists.

The day and two days after the attack this was in the news:

This was the account in The Washington Post on Sept. 12, the day after the attack:

“U.S. diplomatic compounds came under attack in two Muslim countries on Tuesday, with a State Department employee killed in the assault on a consulate in Libya…. In both Cairo and Benghazi, protesters said they were demonstrating against a U.S.-released film that insulted the prophet Muhammad.”

The next day’s story, published Sept, 13, continued the theme:

“At least an hour before the assault began, a stream of cars was seen moving toward the U.S. Consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. By late Tuesday evening, as many as 50 heavily armed militants had gathered outside its high walls. They joined protesters outside the consulate who were demonstrating against an American movie that they believed denigrated the prophet Muhammad. But according to one witness, the new arrivals neither chanted slogans nor carried banners…. Even as evidence was being assembled, the early indications were that the assault had been planned and the attackers had cannily taken advantage of the protest at the consulate.”

Washington Post - The Benghazi hearings: what’s new and what’s not

It is clear the media was reporting there were protests, and that they were later joined by militants.

A Senate report actually claims the intelligence community was not concerned on finding out if there was actually a protest or not during the initital moments of the investigation.

They clearly had more important aspects to investigate.

It was not until the 15th that FBI investigators spoke to the witnesses at Benghazi in Germany, it takes time to fly out, it takes time to gather investigators to do interviews, and it was not until the 16th that the FBI shared this information with the FBI and other intelligence community officials in Washington.

If the intelligence community did not know, then how would Rice know?

We anticipate that the ongoing investigation into these attacks by the FBI will provide importantnew details about exactly which violent Islamist extremists carried out the attack, the extent towhich it was planned, and their precise motivations. But as everyone now acknowledges, there is no doubt that Benghazi was indeed a deliberate and organized terrorist attack on our nation. If the fact that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack had been made clear from the outset by all Administration and Executive Branch spokespeople, there would have been much less confusionand division in the public response to what happened there on September 11, 2012.

Much of the public discussion about the Benghazi attack has focused on whether a protest tookplace in Benghazi prior to the attack. While the IC worked feverishly in the days after the attackto identify the perpetrators of the attack, they did not place a high priority on determining withcertainty whether a protest had in fact occurred. The IC’s preliminary conclusion was that there had been a protest outside of the mission prior to the attack, making this assessment based onopen source news reports and on other information available to intelligence agencies. The IClater revised its assessment and the Accountability Review Board has since “concluded that noprotest took place before the Special Mission and Annex attacks.”

The unnecessary confusion in public statements about what happened that night with regards toan alleged protest should have ended much earlier than it did. Key evidence suggesting theabsence of a protest was not widely shared as early as it could have been, creating or contributing to confusion over whether this was a peaceful protest that evolved into something more violentor a terrorist attack by an opportunistic enemy looking for the most advantageous moments to strike.

As early as September 15th, the Annex team that had been in Benghazi during the attack reported there had been no protest. This information was apparently not shared broadly, and to the extent that it was shared, it apparently did not outweigh the evidence decribed above thatthere was a protest. The next day, the President of Libya’s General National Congress, MohamedYousef el-Magariaf, also stated on the CBS News show Face the Nation that the attack wasplanned and involved Al Qaeda elements.

On September 15th and 16th, officials from the FBI conducted face-to-face interviews in Germany of the U.S. personnel who had been on the compound in Benghazi during the attack. The U.S. personnel who were interviewed saw no indications that there had been a protest prior to the attack. Information from those interviews was shared on a secure video teleconference on the afternoon of the 16th with FBI and other IC officials in Washington; it is unclear whether thequestion of whether a protest took place was discussed during this video conference.

United States Senate Committe on Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs Report - December 31, 2012

If the intellgience community did know, well they are lying to the Senate, if so, in time it will come out when that is declassified.

Through all this Obama did state it was a terror attack, on September 13th he called it one.

Sept. 12: Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation." On Sept. 12, the day after the attack on the Benghazi compound, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden on the deaths of four U.S. diplomatic staff. He said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done." [, 9/12/12]

Sept. 13: Obama Again Referred To The Benghazi Attack As An "Act Of Terror" In Colorado. Campaigning in Golden, Colorado, on Sept. 13, Obama again classified the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror." He told the crowd, "So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished." [, 9/13/12]

Sept. 13: In Nevada, Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Act Of Terror Will Dim The Light" Of American Values. Later on Sept. 13, Obama again labeled the Benghazi violence an "act of terror." He told a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada, "As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America." [, 9/13/12]

Fox's Word Games Create Parallel Universe Of Obama Statements On Benghazi

Below is an excerpt from an unclassified report. This is just an aside, to show, that there was no previous intelligence known that an imminent attack was happing. When it happened our boys all began working on it but no one knew before that day.

5. The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threatswere known to exist.

Unclassified - State Department - Accountability Review Report

That same unclassified report linked right above actually states it was not a protest and no protest was going on. But that is a report that was made way after the fact.



In case one wants to believe Washington Post was simply lying when they reported there was a protest, or that they were helping cover up, no, they were simply reporting what they thought was true, in fact... turns out there were no protests.

And the Washington Post story linked way above mentions that, it is an updated story, no one is lying here, they were going on bad information.



If Rice knew the truth then she did not say it because the information was classified. If she did not know it was because she was simply offering what the best information they did have.

Yes, we might find out in 20 or 50 years if she did know, if she did and that information is declassified, it will tell us why she did not tell the whole truth, but the American public itself is on a need to know basis, come on where are the military folks here, where are the ones who have worked in compartmentalized areas in other functions with our government?

You know this is how it works, you know everything is on a need to know basis, the public is the last to know. It did not hurt one iota if she knew or not, or told us or not, best guess is she did not and was going by the news but at all times she was speaking in terms of, "this is developing", "this is the best information we have", "we won't know definitely until the investigation goes further".



This is what sensible Americans will believe. This is run of the mill activity after any incident. We have had many. This is no different.

What possible reason would Obama, Rice, and Clinton conspire to kill our boys in Benghazi?

That is where the conspiracy theory begins to unravel, at the beginning, but you know this is not to convince CTers, they have their mind made up, they will claim everyone is involved ina conspiracy, the sensible minded will understand, the facts are there for us.

Why is not the whole country taking the CTers serious? Why are Repubs listening to CTers? Are they doing because they believe it? I don't know. Are they doing it because they don't believe it but can gain political capital with it? I don't know. All I know is most sensible Americans, most of the media except FOX and CT sites, all believe this was an attack and our guys in the government did their job, and that we will fix the gaps, we will never get it 100% secure, but we can minimize risk.

That is where the focus is on, the real people worried about it not happening again are focused on that, they have no time to come out and quibble or argue with the CTers.

So there it is.

This is what Susan RIce really said, what Obama said, what the media was reporting, what the Senate committee discovered, and what the State Department said.

No, CTers don't have to believe and most likely won't, but at least we don't have to doubt our own government, we trust our government. Even when Bush was in office and we disagreed, heck we disagree with Obama administration lots, but we know they are not just outright lying about these attacks. They might lie about the overall war, why they are doing it, we think it is about oil not freedom, or about our interests such as ecnomic or helping allies who have our interests too, but when it comes to the small attacks on us, and the deadly ones where life is lost, we know they are on the ball and are not just out to kill a group of our own, just for the fun of it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am impressed with your amazing ability to twist facts to match your narrative, but the facts are indisputable everybody knew this was terrorism within hours of it happening. If Susan Rice didnt know then she is just stupid.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a case like that recorder in the movie “Contact”. It’s not that the recorder recorded static. What was interesting was that recorded 18 hours of static. Why should Rice-a-runny hit all 5 Sunday morning shows just to say that it is under investigation by the FBI? It doesn’t take much to understand that this was a campaign all packaged for the low information voter. All the Whitehouse needed to do was release a statement on the internet stating as much. This is an act of a cover up. When it happened, no one was thinking it was spontaneous. Did you see the movie “Rules of Engagement”? I’d still like to know who it was that tried to pull the wool over our eyes saying that it was because of a really poor movie. It’s interesting that Clinton has retired in the wake of this. Usually people plan on retiring on a good note.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yea nice twist on her use of developing information. Just too bad the was never any assessment of a spontaneous protest. They just made that up. She didn't need to make a media run to tell us it's under investigation. Jay Carney could've done that from his podium. All they needed to do was shut the hell up and wait before misinforming the nation on five talk shows. But they didn't and that suggests the administration wanted misinformation and confusion. It's not like an alQueda attack overseas is a big shock to anyone so why the urgency to say it was anything but? If it's because "alQueda is on its heels" and "bin laden is dead and GM is alive" were the mantra that couldn't be stifled then that's as low as low gets. If it's because of incompetency then show some damn leadership, grow a set and own up to it like real leaders would. This whole thing is so much worse than it ever had to be. All I smell is dirty politics and snake oil. All we wanted was the truth once and for all. Not a 'truth' that has to be researched and identified over many days, weeks and months of trickled information and soundbites.

Edited by F3SS

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought once that Obama, Rice and Clinton conspired to kill Ambassador Stephens. The republicans are just trying to cause problems for the democrats, I think this is what its really all about. Could things have been handled differently, sure they could of but I don't think anything was done to purposely get the ambassador killed.

When your sitting in one country and something like the Benghazi attack is going on in another one your not going to get all the facts immediately. I think most people saw it as another terrorist attack before all the information was in. But as a private citizen and not a member of government you can afford to be wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.