Skip to main content

View Diary: Maureen Dowd on the Susan Rice Controversy (126 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem with this is: (0+ / 0-)
    ...there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video." She then immediately added: "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 effort with heavy weapons..." When Schieffer pressed her on whether the attack had been preplanned, or whether al-Qaeda was involved, she said directly that we simply didn't know yet.
    She wes speaking right after the president of Libya’s General National Congress told Schieffer that the attack was “preplanned” on the same show.

    He was there. And he was right. Furthermore, there may not have even been a "violent" protest at the consulate/CIA compound, in the first place.

    The Arab world (and NBC viewers) were already aware of the facts.

    How does one recover from that diplomatically?


    A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

    by Pluto on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:07:14 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  These are not inconsistent assessments (7+ / 0-)

      It is true that Rice does not address whether it was "preplanned or not" but that does not make her assessment false. There is nothing contradictory or disqualifying at all here

      •  Disagreeing with the Libyan President (0+ / 0-)

        ...on a television show, especially using the bogus violent protest excuse, which the Libyans seem to confirm and the Arab world knows is a fake-out -- damages her as a diplomat in the region.

        I think that is a shame.

        But it is reality.


        A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

        by Pluto on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:37:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where's the "disagreement"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv

          Plus this from the NYT:

          To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
          Via this Media Matters article...
          •  To continue the NYT quote (0+ / 0-)
            “It was the Ansar al-Shariah people,” said Mohamed Bishari, 20, a neighbor of the compound who watched the assault and described the brigade he saw leading the attack.

            “There was no protest or anything of that sort.”

            The video protest narrative was bogus.


            A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

            by Pluto on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:51:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  And from the same article: (0+ / 0-)
              Libyan guards at the Benghazi compound and other witnesses told journalists working for The New York Times as early as Sept. 12 that the streets outside the mission were quiet in the moments before the attack had begun, without any prior protests.
              If you read my comments, they have to do with the fake video protests that Rice mentioned again and again.

              The Arab world knew those words were a lie. This has caused Rice a lot of damage in the region as a diplomat.

              As for the Republican hearings on Benghazi -- that is entirely a different matter and they are looking for something else. Ironically, what they find will hurt only them, because the CIA (and a number of other agencies) now operate independently of the Federal government and the Presidency. The have their own agenda.


              A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

              by Pluto on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:01:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, but... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pluto

                I don't see how this was a "lie". Repeating the initial CIA talking points on Sunday talk shows, at least in my mind, is pretty immaterial.

                This has caused Rice a lot of damage in the region as a diplomat.
                Do you have evidence for this? If true, this would certainly be reasonable justification for her not being SoS.
                •  Over the past six years (0+ / 0-)

                  ...the influence of the US has collapsed markedly in that region. Also in Latin America and Asia. This is not on Rice. It's a liability that any SOS will now have. Evidence? Well, there is only foreign policy opinion published in think tanks around the world -- but it shows geopolitically in many large and small ways.

                  The US is weak. It has impoverished itself waging war after war and losing all of them. It is seen as a declining global power throughout the world.

                  In that sense, I suppose that Susan Rice would be a fitting SOS -- but President Obama will be harmed, internationally, by nominating her. I don't think he will. People should prepare for that.


                  A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

                  by Pluto on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:15:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was disputing... (0+ / 0-)

                    the assertion you put forth that the Sunday morning talk show statements have "caused Rice a lot of damage in the region as a diplomat", which you have not substantiated. You have offered instead a disquisition on the U.S.'s worldwide standing.

                  •  Ridiculous (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    friedmanberg

                    You are basing your judgement on our status in the world on the opinions of right wing think tanks and ignoring the opinions of the actual people of those regions.  

                    The people in Libya love us right now, they are on our side.  And we have much more influence and respect throughout the globe than we did under Bush six years ago.  

                    •  No. The US right wing think tanks (0+ / 0-)

                      ...boast that the US is all powerful and is a great empire on the rise that will soon conquer the world.

                      I don't read US think tanks. They cannot clearly see the US in relation to the world.


                      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

                      by Pluto on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:16:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  What "fake protests"? (0+ / 0-)

                There was a protest.  The attack was a protest.

                There was no additional protest.  But she never said there was one going on well in advance, that's wht she said it was a "spontaneous" protest, to indicate that it occurred suddenly.

                The only thing that changed was that the intelligence community changed it's assessment and backed away from the assertion that it was "spontaneous", as they gathered more solid evidence that it was planned.

                •  I don't think there was a protest. (0+ / 0-)


                  A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

                  by Pluto on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 05:17:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site