Which specific quote of Rice mislead you so badly?

It was misleading for her to revert to the spontaneity line when directly asked about terrorism. She did her job but it was misleading for her to float the talking point out there that it wasn't terrorism.

GIFSoup

How about you post the entire quote of hers that angers you so.

She didnt revert to anything. She didnt float the talking point. She also didnt say it wasnt terrorism.

Go YouTube the meet the press interview

Reminds me of the 'just look it up!' Obama-is-a-communist-lady.

Post the text here. Don't be scared.

There are "About 5,800 results" from that search, can you be more specific?

I just want to lol that when zzzed made this initial post I was like 95% sure he was a liberal mocking the conservative hysteria over this.

Pro tip: if you have to spend all your energy trying to explain why a game-changing scandal is actually a game-changing scandal - it's probably not a game-changing scandal.

Here is the same idea: Jay carney says they left out the terrorism element because they had an ongoing investigation, and didn't want to say something out of line, but yet they go ahead and put full faith and belief behind the spontenaity line, which turns out to be WRONG. So the reasoning isn't adding up, and the random uprising cause would have been politically advantageous.

I like that zzzed, when asked to identify the specific line from Rice's Sunday show appearance, went on the internet and googled up a Youtube video and embedded it in the thread...

So it's not that you're too lazy to use Google. We know you know how to Google.

What specific line of Rice is a scandal?

P.S. We can get into this later, but "random uprising cause would have been politically advantageous" makes literally no sense whatsoever. I think the right wing blogosphere reverse engineered that theory after the fact. Like at first they said they didn't know and they said something about a video(the wingnuts briefly tried to make the dude who made the video a George Zimmermanesque Honorary White Victim of the Liberal Media, but the dude seemed like a scumbag so they forgot about him), but now they aren't talking about the video so much? SCANDAL, COVER UP, they must have lied!!

But why would they lie? The video story must have been better politics for some reason! Why is the video story better? No time to think that part through all the way, Romney 2012!

Only if you live in the FOX news fantasy world that the election was close. For those of us who live in the real world and know that Obama was a massive favorite, lying about anything at that stage of the game would be political idiocy. Tons of downside, no upside.

Still waiting for the Rice quote.

Still on Benghazi? Lol fox

The idea that it was more politically advantageous for this to be a spontaneous attack than a terrorist attack is beyond stupid. The whole we don't want to let the terrorists know we know they did it makes a little more sense, but the general response in that situation is, "the investigation is ongoing".

It seems much more likely that the administration was trying to hide the fact that a CIA op got blown. Some might find that disagreeable, though most who find it disagreeable in this instance would be completely fine if it was a Republican administration (USA #1! security first, yo!) However, you have to admit it is completely standard for any government to try to hide their covert intelligence operations, even the ones that go bad.

I could believe that the CIA was trying to hide the fact a CIA op got blown, there is no evidence that the administration did anything but relay the info they were given by the federal agencies including the CIA.

And yeah, there is a good reason zzzed isnt going to link a youtube of Rice or even quote her from the transcript. She makes it very clear that the investigation is ongoing but then goes on to give the initial assessment as relayed from the intelligence community.

The carney video more devastatingly reveals the concept I was getting at so, out of respect, I switched it up. The pertinant rice quote can be found in any one of her Sunday show interviews probably, but the point isn't the words themselves, its the adherence to the talking point of spontaneity when of course terrorism should be a leading assumption, yet they reverted to the more politically advantageous, or rather--the less politically disadvantageous--explanation.

That is what is fishy.

the carney video demonstrates this bogus explanation perfectly because they obviously don't mind speculating prematurely on the cause of the bombings, they just don't mind doing it with the least politically disadvantageous of the options. That would be called spin, and in this case people died, so its more douchey.

Emphasis mine.

OK, so just to skip some steps, it's extremely obvious you didn't watch the Rice interview that Sunday, you've still never seen the Rice interview in question, and you've certainly never read the transcript or anything. You're trying to guess at what Rice must have said to make this a scandal.

So when you said:
What the **** were you talking about?

Um, obama won barely. Barely is the farthest word away from massive that possibly exists! How do you confuse them!

P.S. Just to double check something, I decided to watch that Carney video. zzzed has also never seen that, either. I know he embedded it in the thread, but he did not watch it himself.

It sure doesn't demonstrate any of that.

No I've seen the meet the press interview and the one with bob the old guy on abc or cbs. She said the same in both. She did five interviews. I did not watch the others, but assume the message was the same, hence , my use of the word: 'probably'. my lack of providing a rice quote is because its such a small point in the picture, not because I haven't seen it.

I'm on my phone and it already took 20 minutes to paste that video.

Also my point has never been that rice lied. People just assume I think that since I've been critical in general--durrrrrr

Also i haven't thought about the cia thing, but of course it would advantageous, between a terrorist event, and a random one, that it be the random and uncontrollable one. Not that the threat of terrorism can ever be controlled, but I digress.

So devastating.

You know that thing where we know it was Al Qaeda connected terrorists now and no one is raging that the attack happened?

That is why there is no advantage covering up details.

Also if you dont think Rice and the administration lied what are you even raging against?

Translation: I watched Fox when they showed the 5 way split screen of Susan Rice (without audio) and then Hannity said that she BLAMED IT ON A VIDEO, and they usually have a good track record with this kind of stuff so **** I better go regurgitate my assumptions online.