Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She put forth a scenario that was completely untrue. The scenario she put forth was known to be untrue at the time of her story telling.
Therefore, she LIED. Lie: "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood."
The scenario Susan Rice put forth was the scenario that the CIA was saying was the CIA's best assessment at the time (5 days after) and it was CIA facilities that were attacked. There was no basis for Susan Rice to contradict the CIA assessment 5 days after the attack.
If the CIA knew it to be untrue then question should be why was the CIA providing other departments and agencies an untruthful assessment.
The scenario Susan Rice put forth was the scenario that the CIA was saying was the CIA's best assessment at the time (5 days after) and it was CIA facilities that were attacked. There was no basis for Susan Rice to contradict the CIA assessment 5 days after the attack.
If the CIA knew it to be untrue then question should be why was the CIA providing other departments and agencies an untruthful assessment.
Paetreus said he wasn't happy with the final version but approved it anyway.
Maybe, with the election so close, the need to downplay the "terrorist attack" part was a priority could be a good reason.
Paetreus said he wasn't happy with the final version but approved it anyway.
Maybe, with the election so close, the need to downplay the "terrorist attack" part was a priority could be a good reason.
Petraeus may have been unhappy about the final version of the talking points, but the original version put out by the CIA contained all the language, information and analysis that people now claim were lies: spontaneous attack, inspired by events in Cairo (ie video), and mixed crowd only some of whom were extremists or terrorists.
One of the points that Petraeus was unhappy about being deleted from the final version was the CIA's warning on the 10th to the embassy in Cairo about possible attacks related "social media", ie dropping a reference to the video.
The primary difference between the original version of the CIA talking points and the final version concerning who participated in the attack was the specificity of who were the extremists. Should they be named specifically. There are multiple valid reasons for not naming them 5 days after the attack. I believe there was little or no advantage to the campaign in not naming them 5 days after the attack.
Paetreus said he wasn't happy with the final version but approved it anyway.
Haven't you always wondered if David Petraeus wasnt being blackmailed? That whole mess sure was convenient for the Obama administration and right in line with Obama's ability to get sealed documents unsealed to embarrass political opponents.
The scenario Susan Rice put forth was the scenario that the CIA was saying was the CIA's best assessment at the time (5 days after) and it was CIA facilities that were attacked. There was no basis for Susan Rice to contradict the CIA assessment 5 days after the attack.
If the CIA knew it to be untrue then question should be why was the CIA providing other departments and agencies an untruthful assessment.
No, it really wasn't but you keep on putting up the talking points anyway okay?
Paetreus said he wasn't happy with the final version but approved it anyway.
Maybe, with the election so close, the need to downplay the "terrorist attack" part was a priority could be a good reason.
Umm, I don't believe he signed them actually.
Also there's this report:
Rice's defenders have since insisted she was merely basing her statements on the intelligence at the time.
But a source said Rice had access to both classified and unclassified information on Benghazi. Rep King said the administration has "hidden behind" the claim that Rice was only using the intelligence community's best assessment. But he said Petraeus' testimony suggests their best assessment conflicted with what Rice said on Sept. 16.
And: Petraeus rejected the final version as “useless” — and then threw the issue to the White House.
ABC: Petraeus called final Benghazi talking points “useless” the day before Rice’s full Ginsburg; Update: Transcript added
POSTED AT 11:01 AM ON MAY 12, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
No, it really wasn't but you keep on putting up the talking points anyway okay?
In what material way did Susan Rice's comments on the Sunday following the attack disagree with what the CIA was saying?
The CIA was saying spontaneous attack, mixed crowd with extremists in the crowd, and inspired by events in Cairo (video).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but you keep on putting up the talking points anyway okay?
