biased link cites the equally biased CNN.
There were no 'video and stuffs' protests in Benghazi. The 'video and stuffs' did, however, fit into the administration's political agenda.Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew "almost immediately" that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
Former CIA director David Petraeus testified on Friday that he believes the Sept. 11 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya was an act of terrorism that did not arise out of a spontaneous demonstration, a lawmaker who heard the testimony said.
“He now clearly believes that it [the Sept. 11 attacks] did not arise out of a demonstration, that it was not spontaneous and it was clear terrorist involvement,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said.
King said that to the best of his recollection, Petraeus’s testimony differed from what he told the committee at a previous hearing on Sept. 14
'We are unsure of what happened' would have been more than a sufficient response during the very early aftermath and the 'videos and stuff' as a potential during the very early aftermath would have been a potential consideration. However, Rice peddling the political agenda of 'videos and stuff' after the fact when the 'videos and stuff' was holding no validity is not defensible.
This gets rid of the 'fog of war' claim. It doesn't absolve Petraeus of his fallacious testimony on 2012-09-14 (the why aspect of that testimony remains to be uncovered).Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in a closed-door hearing Friday morning that his agency determined immediately after the Sept. 11 Libya attack that "Al Qaeda involvement" was suspected -- but the line was taken out in the final version circulated to administration officials, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.
Inquiring minds want to know each and every hand involved in the process and why the final product so conveniently fit with the administration's narrative."No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points," he said.
"The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement. And yet the final ones just said indications of extremists," King said, adding that the final version was the product of a vague "inter-agency process."
The point is, why can't we go after Rice after she was put out there to address (or at least respond) to Benghazi questions? There's no reason she should not be criticized. What is it about her that explains why she cant be criticized? (Silence).
Second, Obama says "go after me" but then refuses to answer any questions. He's clearly deflecting any substantive questions about this huge botch.
It's pretty bad.
Rice used the unclassified talking points that had been cleared by the intelligence community -- see Kent Conrad and other intelligence community comments from yesterday.
I am consistently amazed at the extent to which the crazed-right will spit on the graves of heroic Americans just to contribute to an anti-Obama feeding frenzy.
You are an embarrassment. That's offensive. If you can't see that I'm talking about how questions re the nature of how this was handled, then you probably should stay away from discussion. what was initially believed to be a terrorist attack, and the American public was told "there is nothing indicating this was planned so far" and no indication of a terrorist act...yeah that frickin deserves a better explanation. Conrad doesn't explain why the difference, only that there was a difference in disclosure.
I'm much more open minded than you. I voted Gore, didn't vote in 04, and Obama in 08. Romney in 12. I take each issue as it comes analyze it and form my own response rather than waste my energy trying to denigrate others.
So defending women is now considered sexist. Just when you thought the desperation could not get any worse.
...we'll want to see the results of that 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—
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
SUSAN RICE: —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.
The CIA Talking Points:
"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278