Why is Rice blamed for "lying" that the Benghazi attack resulted from the video...?

When the incident first occurred, multiple sources from around the world (BBC, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, Al Manar..) credited the attack on Benghazi as the result of an escalated protest over the "Innocence of Muslims" video BEFORE any U.S. news source or public official did.

So, as I'm watching Fox News, why is it that Rice (and, by extension, the Obama administration) is solely being blamed for "misleading" the American public by saying the attack stemmed from the video when sources worldwide were saying the same thing? And I reiterate, foreign sources mentioned the "Innocence of Muslims" video as the cause BEFORE the United States did.


"Gee, maybe because SHE LIED."

...Gee, maybe you glossed over the details of the question, but MULTIPLE SOURCES from around the world reported the same thing she said....BEFORE she said it. I doubt there's a global collusion in the media to "cover up" this incident, so if you can't come up with an explanation as to how other sources reported the same story first ...just shut up.

Update 2:


Is there any chance you can link the source of the Libyan article? The first source I saw was from AP Mobile that mentioned the video instigated the attack (about 30 min after it happened). This was quickly followed by The Daily Star and Al Manar from Lebanon an hour or so after the fact.

I'll try to find the sources and post them if I can (found it all on my iphone and didn't save them to my computer at the time)

Update 3:


"Petraeus himself even said at the time their were 20 intelligence reports coming from the area that blamed the film (more then were blaming terrorists)."

Almost forgot about that. Since this is public knowledge, I'm now even more confused as to how anyone can blame solely Obama/Rice for making up the excuse of the video. Are they saying that Petraeus lied about the intel reports on the subject as well?

Update 4:


"Rice went on the Sunday Morning talkshows for 5 national news networks and said that this was about that video. That wasn't true."

And I reiterate, MULTIPLE SOURCES AROUND THE WORLD credited the video as being the cause of the protest/attack before intel determined it was a terrorist attack. Are you implying that several different media sources from multiple countries lied about the issue as well?

Additionally, was anyone quoted with saying that intel suggested immediately that it was a terrorist attack? If so, what's the source? I've only heard/read/seen that it was determined shortly after the fact, not immediately as you implied Chris.

11 Answers

  • 7 years ago
    Best Answer

    The CIA under Petraeus's leadership reluctantly admitted that the Benghazi consulate was a CIA outpost---not something the CIA wanted to have known in the wake of the attack. UN Ambassador Susan Rice, a relatively neutral third party, was given "talking points" edited by the CIA designed to keep loose the information fed to the public while the investigations into what happened on September 11, 2012 (the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks here) got underway.

    What the media appears to be leaving out for some reason is the fact that the pro-America Libyan people who had tried to help, taking the unconscious Ambassador Stevens to the local hospital once they found him still alive after the attack, later attacked the house of Moammar Khaddaffy's (Qadafi's) soldiers, believing these holdovers from the dictator's regime might have been behind the attack. If even the Libyan people did not know for sure who was behind the 9/11 attack, then how can the GOP now try to claim this was "definitely" al-Qa'eda with no proof whatsoever of an al-Qa'eda connection? Here's another fact that is getting deliberately overlooked by the Republicans who CUT FUNDING by $321 MILLION for Embassy/Consulate security: There were 22 spontaenous demonstrations throughout the Middle East during this U.S. election year---demonstrations that were deliberately sparked by the GOP's D.C-located religious-fanatic cult "The Family" (a.k.a., Youth With A Mission or YWAM) who sponsored the anti-Muslim film through its members, Steve Klein (investigated as a possible violent domestic extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center); nutjob Pastor Terry Jones of Florida; Mark Bessaley Youssef (a.k.a., Nakoula Basseley Nakoula); and attorney Morris Sedak (who translated the inflammatory film into Arabic and alerted Arab media to its presence online in time to disrupt a U.S. election and cause uprisings)---all members of The Family. One possible explanation of the violence that erupted in Benghazi on the day the film was being protested was that the leftover militants from the military of Khaddaffy took advantage of the Middle East turmoil to attack with the weaponry they'd kept after Khadaffy's overthrow. This has not yet been disproven.

    The attempt to turn a mole hill into a mountain by the GOP is a MANEUOVER to get sitting Senator John Kerry (D-MA) chosen to be Secretary of State instead of the highly qualified Susan Rice so that a special election has to be held in Massachusetts---the GOP thinks that Scott Brown (R-MA), who lost his seat this past election to the consumer-advocate Democrat Elizabeth Warren, might be the one chosen to fill what they hope will be John Kerry's abandoned seat. I hope President Obama stands up to these rightwing nutjob bullies and nominates Susan Rice to fill Hillary Clinton's shoes once Hillary steps down. A bunch of Neanderthal old white men picking on a highly educated, very intelligent and highly qualified black woman who did nothing wrong---the same men that fawned over Bush's appointee Condoleeza Rice who had ignored WRITTEN WARNINGS of the 9/11 attack---this is manna from Heaven for Democrats, especially in the wake of Todd Akins and his ilk that lost the GOP some House seats.

  • Don't forget Petraeus himself even said at the time there were 20 intelligence reports coming from the area that blamed the film (more then were blaming terrorists). But it does not matter because benghazi-gaters and such screamers do not care about the truth, do not care about those that died, do not even care about America on a whole the only thing they care about is their political agenda and will use or say whatever is available to accomplish it.

    Part of this is evidenced by the fact that those were not SEALs they were all retired and there as CIA contract security personnel. They keep referring to them as SEALs as if they were there in SEAL capacity to involve the military (which is funny they want to pretend they were their as SEALs but there was no "rescue" effort without answering well then how did SEALs get there?) But the men were not there assigned as military to any military unit they would not be calling directly to the military for assistance or "broadcast" on military "channels" it was "coordinated attack". Also by the fact that it took them what 3 months to finally acknowledge two of the people killed were part of the CIA rescue mission.

    ADD: Also notice Petraeus himself when he went that Friday before Congress the first time said the video. When his last hearing he said differently they asked him why (trying to find a 'cover-up'). He stated simply intelligence changes as situations become more clear. Anyone who has ever been in a combat situation or that type of chaos will tell you that.

    Also too when did America get to think it has the "right" to know everything. The people don't have a right plain and simple just like the 1983 Beirut Bombing that killed over 240 Americans we are still waiting to hear who was behind that and why. (60 times the amount of Americans killed in Benghazi) Why do they not (or did not at the time either) care about and demand the truth on that? Oh yeah Reagan was President that is why.

  • Chris
    Lv 5
    7 years ago

    Intelligence knew the whole time that there was no protest and that this was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with some Youtube video. Rice went on the Sunday Morning talkshows for 5 national news networks and said that this was about that video. That wasn't true. She's now saying that she acted on the information that was available. That is another lie, because as I've said before, Intelligence already knew it was a terrorist attack. She had access to classified information, so it was her responsibility to tell the truth. Even the Libyan President knew right away that this was a terrorist attack.

  • Lowly
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    The Libyan government reported it as a terrorist attack by a branch of AlQuaida almost immediately afterwards. The attack itself was reported by the SEALS who called for help, as a coordinated terror attack. People do not normally come armed so well to a "spontaneous demonstration" about an offensive video. And the WH and others watched it live via spy drones. If nothing else they knew it was WAY out of hand. Maybe the orders to "stand down" in sending help were wishful thinking, but hindsight says this was a big mistake of judgement.

    The story about an "offensive video" should be about the live video feeds of the attack which were ignored, more than about the youtube movie trailer. Those who attacked and sought revenge announced their intentions ahead of time, planned and carried out a coordinated attack, and went far beyond the bounds of a "demonstration" by invading sovereign US embassy properties. The filmmaker has been since "brought to justice"...jailed for parole violations. Have any of the actual attackers been apprehended, or brought to account ? No way.

    Useful dhimmis want to use the "video" and criticism of Islam, or Mohammad as a pretext to limit free speech, in cooperation with the initiatives of the OIC and the UN. to outlaw or ban such behaviors. A movie maker did not attack and kill Ambassador Stevens and others on 9-11-2012. Those who did so were more motivated by a desire for revenge for drone attacks on their own terrorist buddies than about any ridiculous movie trailer on youtube.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • sanity
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    The whole world reported the truth of the event as it unfolded . . . Fox News, as the mouthpiece of the republican party, tried to twist facts to pin the blame on Obama. Moreover, the head of CIA, Petraeus, did not even furnish the information as "terrorist attack" when he had the chance to do so. If the intelligence department did not indicate it as such, how could Rice be blamed for what she told as was universally reported world-wide?

  • 7 years ago

    There was a demonstration about the video in Benghazi that day.

    Fox can lie all they want. It's a matter of opinion how much was due to the video, and Mullah's using it to whip their followers into an anti-western frenzy, and how much was preplanned.

    Source(s): Fox lies - it's what they do, and they have a team of lawyers to tell them exactly how far they can push it.
  • 7 years ago

    Because McGrumpy couldn't beat Bush or Obama.

  • ICH8TE
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    You're absolutely right ! The GOP would not be making a big deal over this if those U.S. Ambassadors were African American/Black. They wouldn't even care about those people. They just wouldn't! It's one big FARCE in a FUTILE effort to hurt the Obama Administration, end of story! Condi skated, yet they want THIS "Rice" lynched pfft!

  • Riley
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Fox News, never even mentioned these protests over the video were happening outside US consulates all over the world, even at the US consulate in Sydney just a block away from me..


    Just read the signs they were carrying, the global Muslim community was totally pissed off over the video. Besides Australia, there were protests in New Zealand, Britain, France, Europe, Indonesia and in all Middle Eastern country's, not just in Libya.

  • 7 years ago

    Because back in 2008 Americans voted for Obama over McCain/Palin. Benghazi is not the issue. McCain is just a bitter man whose friends and allies are sick twisted -f-wads.


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.