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.
How convenient of you to forget what Bush said, was the same things Clinton and the democrats said for eight years straight. Bush kept Clinton's intel people, so if anyone was lying it was them, because the talking points were the same for almost nine years.
In fact, unless you were asleep in the 1990s, you would know that Clinton and the dems made even more grandiose statements about the threat from WMDs then Bush.
That "tipping our hand" statement has to be one of the most idiotic conspiracy theories I've heard.
WRONG. Read the link I provided. Even Colin Powell says he was sent into that meeting with knowingly-false information. NOT the "same" information Clinton had. FALSE information. Information the deliverers of KNEW was FALSE. And it came from THEIR "intelligence," not Clinton's old intelligence.
Hypothetical reporter? You mean make believe. The human mind is very powerful. If you are convinced of something, your mind will twist and create all of these reasons why what it believes is true.
All I say is step back and look at things from a reality based perspective. It becomes very obvious that the underlying reasons for a cover up don't make any logical sense.
This is reflected in the real world, where people who are convinced there is a cover up focus on imaginary reporters asking imaginary questions and getting imaginary answers.
Or focusing on two words in a statement approved by the intelligence community.
The reason for the coverup, or misleading narrative to be kinder, is obvious to anyone who's not an Obama fanatic.
It was better politically weeks before an election to have Rice blame the attack on a spontaneous protest that spun out of control because of extremist elements. Why would he want words like terrorism, Al Qaeda, terrorist groups, premeditated, tossed around. Add the troubling questions about prior requests for added security, he had good reason to maximize the folks went crazy narrative.
Oh, it makes a difference all right. And it infuriates you. But you'd best learn to keep that anger in check, because the party in power in 2016 will still be the Democrats. Count on it.
The party "in power" is about 30 seats short of ruling this country. You might want to recheck your facts on elected officials and make sure you disregard your "wewantaking.gov" website.
The reason for the coverup, or misleading narrative to be kinder, is obvious to anyone who's not an Obama fanatic.
It was better politically weeks before an election to have Rice blame the attack on a spontaneous protest that spun out of control because of extremist elements. Why would he want words like terrorism, Al Qaeda, terrorist groups, premeditated, tossed around. Add the troubling questions about prior requests for added security, he had good reason to maximize the folks went crazy narrative.
Lol... this is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I've read on here in weeks. Read up on the history of the CIA and you'll be surprised at how much "sneezing" the intelligence community does on its own.
Agreed, but the knowledge that 9/11 involved terrorists was known on day one, much less day four, so it would be impossible for the CIA to try and pull a fast one on the White House concerning this.
The intelligence community - not the White House, State Department or Justice Department - was responsible for the substantive changes made to the talking points distributed for government officials who spoke publicly about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the spokesman for the director of national intelligence said Monday.
The unclassified talking points on Libya, developed several days after the the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, were not substantively changed by any agency outside of the intelligence community, according to the spokesman, Shawn Turner.
Interesting.
Right. How dumb do they think we are. It is like we are living in a totalitarian state in which lies are disseminated by the government for their convenience. Shame on anyone who voted for Obama.
The reason for the coverup, or misleading narrative to be kinder, is obvious to anyone who's not an Obama fanatic.
It was better politically weeks before an election to have Rice blame the attack on a spontaneous protest that spun out of control because of extremist elements. Why would he want words like terrorism, Al Qaeda, terrorist groups, premeditated, tossed around. Add the troubling questions about prior requests for added security, he had good reason to maximize the folks went crazy narrative.
Nothing impeachable, but won't go away.
Absolute garbage. Speculation that doesn't even comport with Obama's history of never covering up any attempt of terrorism against us or calling out actual acts of terrorism as just that.
ELEVEN Consulates and Embassies were attacked during Bush's administration, leaving 53 people dead and 90 people injured, but stunningly, 0 outraged Republicans.
The reason for the coverup, or misleading narrative to be kinder, is obvious to anyone who's not an Obama fanatic.
It was better politically weeks before an election to have Rice blame the attack on a spontaneous protest that spun out of control because of extremist elements. Why would he want words like terrorism, Al Qaeda, terrorist groups, premeditated, tossed around. Add the troubling questions about prior requests for added security, he had good reason to maximize the folks went crazy narrative.
Nothing impeachable, but won't go away.
In terms of the cover up, generally speaking a terrorist attack causes the public to rally around our nation's commander in chief. So, it is not very clear that saying it was a pre planned attack versus an attack that occurred at an opportune moment would make much difference.
What about the factcheck Bengahzi timeline? It says nothing.
In terms of the cover up, generally speaking a terrorist attack causes the public to rally around our nation's commander in chief. So, it is not very clear that saying it was a pre planned attack versus an attack that occurred at an opportune moment would make much difference.
But you keep on believing.
It says nothing? I know the reading skills of Obamaites is several lacking but what part of ignoring facts this admin. did is so hard to understand?
The party "in power" is about 30 seats short of ruling this country. You might want to recheck your facts on elected officials and make sure you disregard your "wewantaking.gov" website.
Those 30 seats hold no sway anymore. Democrats hold the White House and the upper body of Congress. The once-obstructionist House have no more cards to play and have been rendered impotent to pass a lick of their agenda.
2014 and 2016 will take care of those 30 seats.
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.
