About a week later—after Ms. Rice's TV appearances—intelligence officials dropped the assertion that there had been demonstrations in Benghazi right before the attack, though they still believe the attack was inspired in part by the earlier protest in Cairo over the video.
Will Somerby back off? Of course not. When confronted with facts he doesn't like, he just runs away from the topic or ignores it.
That's why I don't take him seriously. This is just like when he painted himself into a corner in his desperate need to protect his friend Matt Cooper. (Matt Cooper had discussed Valerie Plame being a CIA agent with the Bush administration. To protect his friend, Somerby attacked Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.)
The other ridiculous thing? I saw it early today online and then was picking up dinner. As I waited for our food to be ready, they were flipping channels and MSNBC came on. Of course they would pounce on the 'story.'
Susan Rice, this little fairy tale goes, shouldn't be criticized for saying it was in response to a tape (the attack was in response to an Anti-Muslim YouTube video) because the Senate said the same thing on the morning of September 12th.
Yes, they did. What's your point?
The morning after they were going by what the White House told them. There's a world of difference between less than 24 hours later and what Susan Rice did which was six days after the attack.
Or do the MSNBC-ers not know how to count? Even the guy behind the counter was able to immediately grasp that all by himself. But not the millionaire pundits of MSNBC.
Shaun Waterman (Washington Times) reports, " House Republicans introduced a resolution Tuesday to set up a Watergate-style investigative committee to probe the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the Obama administration’s response to it." Good. Maybe we'll finally get some answers.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):