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.
It's not the talking points. It's the deception all the while we knew it wasn't true. How come she didn't know?
Yes, I know, I know...and you take all this for actual information, rather than an obvious attempt to stall for time as one tries to think of what to say. She was so inept that one felt sorry and embarassed for her. And the CIA held to their position for 2 weeks when we knew within days? Tell me again how you can call this anything but a propagandistic effort to deceive us about the event.
You now claim to know, yet just a few posts ago you claimed she "At no time did I hear Rice say something to the effect that ..." we don't know but at this time we believe that..."" . I guess the key part of that statement was that you didn't hear it. Rice clearly conditioned her remarks. The CIA wrote "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were..." in their initial version of the talking points.
The rest of Rice's remarks also reflected the official assessment of the CIA at the time. There were people inside the CIA and outside the CIA that disagreed with that CIA assessment. There were people elsewhere in the Obama Administration who also disagreed with the CIA assessment. However, it was the assessment that the CIA provided when they were asked.
How was Rice suppose to respond? Hey look the intelligence community is saying one thing, but I don't believe them and since I wasn't there and I don't have access to all the intelligence this is how I think it went down...
This isn't an issue of propaganda; the CIA got it wrong in the initial days after the attack.
You now claim to know, yet just a few posts ago you claimed she "At no time did I hear Rice say something to the effect that ..." we don't know but at this time we believe that..."" . I guess the key part of that statement was that you didn't hear it. Rice clearly conditioned her remarks. The CIA wrote "We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were..." in their initial version of the talking points.
The rest of Rice's remarks also reflected the official assessment of the CIA at the time. There were people inside the CIA and outside the CIA that disagreed with that CIA assessment. There were people elsewhere in the Obama Administration who also disagreed with the CIA assessment. However, it was the assessment that the CIA provided when they were asked.
How was Rice suppose to respond? Hey look the intelligence community is saying one thing, but I don't believe them and since I wasn't there and I don't have access to all the intelligence this is how I think it went down...
This isn't an issue of propaganda; the CIA got it wrong in the initial days after the attack.
I stand corrected and I do recall that now. She did qualify everything that she was saying. It is sad that she was the person placed in that position to begin with. It was way above her pay grade. But, at some point, she she must have known it wasn't so, yet she kept right on as if it was a pre-recorded message. It was all over the news that the video had nothing to do with it.
However, if I have to believe that the CIA "got it wrong" then we certainly don't have any assurance that there's anyone in D.C. who knows what they are doing and that's scary when even the CIA can't be depended on.
I stand corrected and I do recall that now. She did qualify everything that she was saying. It is sad that she was the person placed in that position to begin with. It was way above her pay grade. But, at some point, she she must have known it wasn't so, yet she kept right on as if it was a pre-recorded message. It was all over the news that the video had nothing to do with it.
However, if I have to believe that the CIA "got it wrong" then we certainly don't have any assurance that there's anyone in D.C. who knows what they are doing and that's scary when even the CIA can't be depended on.
I stand corrected and I do recall that now. She did qualify everything that she was saying. It is sad that she was the person placed in that position to begin with. It was way above her pay grade. But, at some point, she she must have known it wasn't so, yet she kept right on as if it was a pre-recorded message. It was all over the news that the video had nothing to do with it.
Good grief. She was giving out the information she had "to the best of our current knowledge." Why do you seem so unable to grasp that? How "must she have known" when she was giving the best information they had the the time? She should have called Fox News and asked their opinion and gone with that over CIA intelligence?
I find it hard to believe you truly are this obtuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
However, if I have to believe that the CIA "got it wrong" then we certainly don't have any assurance that there's anyone in D.C. who knows what they are doing and that's scary when even the CIA can't be depended on.
Whew, you must be exhausted from dragging those goalposts all over the field.
So now you're mad at the CIA and not the president and Susan Rice and Clinton? So will you pull your support for the ongoing investigations that are focused on the administration? Nah, that will never happen, because it was never about Benghazi or the four dead Americans to begin with, was it?
You don't have to respond, you as much as admitted it with this post.
Last edited by HeyJude514; 10-16-2014 at 07:35 PM..
I stand corrected and I do recall that now. She did qualify everything that she was saying. It is sad that she was the person placed in that position to begin with. It was way above her pay grade. But, at some point, she she must have known it wasn't so, yet she kept right on as if it was a pre-recorded message. It was all over the news that the video had nothing to do with it.
Exactly.
Quote:
However, if I have to believe that the CIA "got it wrong" then we certainly don't have any assurance that there's anyone in D.C. who knows what they are doing and that's scary when even the CIA can't be depended on.
What points to deliberate obfuscation is the email Ben Rhodes sent to top Obama Admin officials stating that the "goal" was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy." The attack in Benghazi wasn't a protest, it was a deliberate terrorist attack. The White House sent Rice out to change the narrative from the Benghazi attack to "the protests," and try to assert the video was to blame. Many stupid Americans fell for it. Go figure.
It would be different if the tables were turned and Democrats were doing the investigations! We all know that, and their feigned outrage is just that.
Not a Dem, but labeled a Liberal, no I would not be outraged had it happened under a Republican President, know why, at the point the attack occurred there was nothing that could have been done to save those already in the hands of the terrorists, once that happens you might as well give yourself up for dead. The government did nothing wrong at the time of the attacks the time to do something was long before then and if I recall even the Repubs have some accounting to do there. So no I would not blame a Repub for the actions of the terrorists as I do not blame Obama for it.
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.
