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.
If they weren't fooled then why did the intelligence community claim it was spontaneous?
I'm sure you could figure it out if you tried. They fell in line with the administration talking points. Why else would they first say it was the terrorists and then change it within the week to a spontaneous attack caused by protests over a video before the bodies were even home?
It was not because of more information from the people on the ground in Benghazi. Those people said there were no protests.
What changed between when Hillary was communicating with people on Tuesday and when Hillary spoke to the families on Friday?
The answer is the Intelligence services released their flawed assessment of the spontaneous protest and attack in Benghazi inspired by the attack, over the video, on the US embassy in Cairo.
So of course the narrative changed during the week, as it would change again, within 2 weeks, when the intelligence community changed their assessment and dropped the language about a protest in Benghazi.
The author of the Gowdy report again acknowledged that the intelligence community had created flawed assessment. The author of the report seems more upset that the Obama Administration used the flawed assessment then the fact that the assessment was flawed in the first place.
You're always able to connect dots that aren't there to support Clinton/WH, and ignore dots that are there to criticize them.
The Republican report spends much more time on events leading up to Benghazi than on the misleading explanations for why they happened.
I'm sure you could figure it out if you tried. They fell in line with the administration talking points. Why else would they first say it was the terrorists and then change it within the week to a spontaneous attack caused by protests over a video before the bodies were even home?
It was not because of more information from the people on the ground in Benghazi. Those people said there were no protests.
That is a question for the CIA that prepared the reports, there was good reason to believe that it was the video based on the events in Egypt. Why do you think the CIA changed the cause for the attack.
I'm sure you could figure it out if you tried. They fell in line with the administration talking points. Why else would they first say it was the terrorists and then change it within the week to a spontaneous attack caused by protests over a video before the bodies were even home?
It was not because of more information from the people on the ground in Benghazi. Those people said there were no protests.
It wasn't a week, it was within 24 hours of the attack that Intelligence community issued a flawed assessment about the spontaneous protest and attack in Benghazi.
The administration talking points came from the intelligence community, not the other way around as is documented in multiple investigations.
That is a question for the CIA that prepared the reports, there was good reason to believe that it was the video based on the events in Egypt. Why do you think the CIA changed the cause for the attack.
You and many others are defending Clinton from something You accept she did, but she Denies doing.
She and her aides who wrote her very first public statement Deny this sentence referred to Benghazi:
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory information posted on the internet."
Any reasonable person who heard her statement knew she was connecting the video to Benghazi. That was Before any CIA assessment. The assessment on 9/12 suggested the attack was an intentional, not a peaceful protest run amuck. The analysis on 9/13 referred to extremists with ties to al-Qaida involved in the attack.
At the very least, the administration tried its best to maximize the influence of the video and brush aside the potential of a planned terrorist attack. And no, it wasn't always consistent with CIA analysis.
I have posted multiple times about the failures of the State Department to provide adequate security for their facility in Benghazi.
Yes, you have. I was responding to your comment that:
"The author of the [Republican] report seems more upset that the Obama Administration used the flawed assessment then the fact that the assessment was flawed in the first place."
That's obviously your opinion, but imo doesn't accurately reflect the report's content. imo, the Democratic report seems more upset at how Republicans criticized Clinton than about anything else. That's probably not your opinion.
You and many others are defending Clinton from something You accept she did, but she Denies doing.
She and her aides who wrote her very first public statement Deny this sentence referred to Benghazi:
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory information posted on the internet."
Any reasonable person who heard her statement knew she was connecting the video to Benghazi. That was Before any CIA assessment. The assessment on 9/12 suggested the attack was an intentional, not a peaceful protest run amuck. The analysis on 9/13 referred to extremists with ties to al-Qaida involved in the attack.
At the very least, the administration tried its best to maximize the influence of the video and brush aside the potential of a planned terrorist attack. And no, it wasn't always consistent with CIA analysis.
She took responsibility for much of occurred but I don't understand why the video was so important. How do you explain the attacks and protests in Egypt and other embassies, what was the reason?
I don't understand how would even benefit from making up their own talking points (they did not) regarding the video since the election was 2 months away. The CIA changed their report a few days later, how could they possibly benefit.
She took responsibility for much of occurred but I don't understand why the video was so important. How do you explain the attacks and protests in Egypt and other embassies, what was the reason?
I don't understand how would even benefit from making up their own talking points (they did not) regarding the video since the election was 2 months away. The CIA changed their report a few days later, how could they possibly benefit.
Really? Today the election is 4 months away, and we see what they are doing NOW in hopes of benefitting in November. Anyone who follows the political shenanigans knows that they do things not only months in advance, but years in advance of the ultimate goal.
There are different opinions because we don't have ALL the information we need, and the left seems more interested in defending than in uncovering all the truth.
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.
